Debonair down at TEX

murphey said:
What many here may not realize is the wind. Just because ATIS/AWOS at the field was tolerable, winds aloft, even just a few hundred feet AGL may have been catastrophic. For the past week or so the jet stream has been parked over Colorado with winds on the western slope recorded at 40-60 mph with gusts to 80 above the tree line. Complicate this with airports on the side of a mountain. Last Saturday there was 1 operation at Front Range (ftg) and that's the east side of the state.
Click to expand...

Agreed... Us mountian flyers see some pretty amazing wind patterns..:yes:
 
dans2992 said:
As for the clouds at 1000 AGL, I don't think they even made it to 1000 AGL.

For the climb gradient - that is only for the first 1500 ft of climb and if they can cross the end of the (long) runway higher than 35 ft, they'll already have a head start.

Granted if there were serious downdrafts, that would be a problem.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the choice to launch into mountain obscuration is not a real good idea. I've flown over it and on the edges and have always thought that I probably shouldn't go into the murk in the mountains. Freezing temperatures have always reinforced that thought.

Whether or not they made it to the layer, dunno. The flight ending a mile from the runway would say no but who knows what happened before that.
 
dell30rb said:
A lot of folks (myself included) make it a general rule not to depart if the weather is below the approach minimums for the particular airport. You know "personal minimums" and all that.

Local exceptions may apply.

No one said it wasn't legal. (I get your point, it was legal)
Click to expand...

Personal minimums isn't "below minimums" then. 2 different people said the phrase below minimums, that would imply some violation. In 135 we do have departure minimums, and that means we can theoretically depart below mins. I don't remember there being part 91 mins.
 
Inverted said:
Personal minimums isn't "below minimums" then. 2 different people said the phrase below minimums, that would imply some violation. In 135 we do have departure minimums, and that means we can theoretically depart below mins. I don't remember there being part 91 mins.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned, I understood there was no violation. I'm sure others who were talking about minimums understood this as well.

There are printed takeoff minimums for KTEX but pt. 91 is not required to comply.

TELLURIDE RGNL (TEX)
AMDT 2 11181 (FAA)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 9, NA-obstacles.
Rwy 27, std. w/ min. climb of 463' per NM to 10500, or
5400-3 for climb in visual conditions.
Click to expand...
 
Inverted said:
Personal minimums isn't "below minimums" then. 2 different people said the phrase below minimums, that would imply some violation. In 135 we do have departure minimums, and that means we can theoretically depart below mins. I don't remember there being part 91 mins.
Click to expand...
But if you can't meet the climb gradient, which in this case was 463' per NM to 10500, the laws of physics are going to take over. There is some buffer, but not very much.
 
Everskyward said:
But if you can't meet the climb gradient, which in this case was 463' per NM to 10500, the laws of physics are going to take over. There is some buffer, but not very much.
Click to expand...


How do they arrive at that number? As long as you are on the departure (laterally) there is nothing to hit above 10,000.
 
dans2992 said:
How do they arrive at that number?
Click to expand...
TERPS. Lots of calculations. Try this link starting on page 2-12. You'll see that "normal" departures are based on a climb gradient that is 200' per NM. However, if there are obstacles that is raised, in this case to 463' per NM. As someone else pointed out earlier, note that this is feet per nautical mile, not feet per minute.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...nstrument_procedures_handbook/media/CH-02.pdf

dans2992 said:
As long as you are on the departure (laterally) there is nothing to hit above 10,000.
Click to expand...
Maybe that's why it reads 463' per NM to 10500.
 
It's a high climb gradient but they didn't smack the side of a mountain in climb out.
 
Inverted said:
It's a high climb gradient but they didn't smack the side of a mountain in climb out.
Click to expand...


We don't know what happened yet, and everyone has their own risk tolerance, but this is something I wouldn't consider doing and I've done many stupid things.
 
Engine failure, gyro failure or were they forced into the ground by a down draft or windshear? It's got to be one of those three.
 
Dead Stick said:
Engine failure, gyro failure or were they forced into the ground by a down draft or windshear? It's got to be one of those three.
Click to expand...


Although less likely, it also could have been pilot error. Everyone has the potential to make a mistake.
 
With the snow and surface temp at freezing, I'm still curious if the wings were clean when they took off.
 
Did they hit on an upslope? Hard to tell for sure, but it looks a lot like the ground scar is in front of the plane....like it hit and then slid backwards downhill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top