Fatal in Hayden Feb 19, 2012

[westslopeco]

Today, around 3:30pm lcl, a twin cessna 414A made an approach into HDN that resulted in a hard landing, two deaths and the other four occupants injured and in the hospital. Weather conditions about the time of the accident: "KHDN 192235Z AUTO 29010G14KT 1/4SM OVC004 M02/M03 A2962 RMK AO1". One of the occupants is confirmed to be a child, I don't know about the others. I happened to have been at the ER for an unrelated reason at the time the victims were brought in and overheard one of the victims state the following: "The plane started dropping and then it started going back up and then it shook and we dropped again and hit the ground." Note that the quote is obviously heresay but take it for what it is worth. The flight originated in Dalhart TX, time of departure unknown. It appears that they airfiled, prior to their destination..here is the flightaware track: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4772A

I was driving into town at or about the time of the crash and it had started snowing REALLY hard. Link to the local article http://www.steamboattoday.com/news/2012/feb/19/report-plane-crashes-yampa-valley-regional-airport/

Any ideas as to possible scenarios? Icing at or close to gross weight?

 

[SCCutler]

Icing could be a factor; so could misjudging the flare because of the poor vis.

 

[Morne]

I don't see an approach into that airport that would work with the METAR.

 

[westslopeco]

I don't see an approach into that airport that would work with the METAR.

That's what I thought, but I'm not instrument rated so I wasn't sure if I was missing something.

 

[Clark1961]

The GPS approach to 28 would be close, worth a look if the aircraft has the performance to do the missed. I'm guessin' the 414 might be a little short on the performance end (it is just a guess, never seen the inside of one much less looked at performance).

Still, single pilot instrument approach in the hills is on the list of things I won't do. Other people do them all the time so can't fault the guy for that if the aircraft was equipped with all the goodies needed to do it safely.

If they caught a downdraft or encountered shear then it might have been an extremely challenging situation with little altitude to recover.

 

[AdamZ]

I had two thoughts first was when you mentioned Hayden and I thought it would be a light hearted post then I saw what it really was and was saddened and reiminded of another tragic ending to a flight to the colorado mountains that orginated in Texas in a Deb that I had the pleasure of taking a ride in. Very sad.

 

[denverpilot]

Local Denver news reported it as "Steamboat". They are clueless that there's more than one airport up there.

They had no news on aircraft type by their go-to-air times last night, so I'm glad to hear it wasn't you Tony. Also why I didn't post it.

 

[Morne]

The GPS approach to 28 would be close, worth a look if the aircraft has the performance to do the missed. I'm guessin' the 414 might be a little short on the performance end (it is just a guess, never seen the inside of one much less looked at performance).

Still, single pilot instrument approach in the hills is on the list of things I won't do. Other people do them all the time so can't fault the guy for that if the aircraft was equipped with all the goodies needed to do it safely.

If they caught a downdraft or encountered shear then it might have been an extremely challenging situation with little altitude to recover.

Flightaware.com lists that tail number as /A.

 

[Piloto]

I don't see an approach into that airport that would work with the METAR.

I agree and 1/4 mile visibility with the type of lighting for that runway is asking too much. Gusty conditions in a mountain area can change wind direction in seconds. This was definitely a no-go approach. At least the plane didn't go on fire and there were survivors.

José

 

[denverpilot]

My dad just called from Steamboat where he's enjoying a week of skiing at his timeshare.

He said there was 27" of fresh snow yesterday and today was the best ski day of his life.

Coming from a season pass holder somewhere in Colorado, since he was 18 years old, and a pass holder at Copper/Steamboat (pre-Intrawest), for so long I can't remember when he first bought one, that's pretty high praise for the snow conditions.

Just sharing for more info on just how rediculous that weather was for flying.

When I mentioned the crash, he commented... "Yeah, did you see where they were from?"

"Texas."

"Yep."

Texans make awful skiiers. That's well known in Colorado.

They also make awful mountain pilots. Also well known.

I try not to be stereotypical, but I've also seen this crash before. And searched for the wreckage when it wasn't an IFR flight.

Folks, please don't come up here and think Instrument approaches into mountain airports are to be trifled with. I'd rate them very high on my list of things I would consider "near emergency" without special training and the right equipment.

A 414 might have been decent equipment, but then factor in the weather yesterday, and it's a no brainer... you're running more risks than those of us who live here would typically take. No go.

 

[murphey]

Folks, please don't come up here and think Instrument approaches into mountain airports are to be trifled with. I'd rate them very high on my list of things I would consider "near emergency" without special training and the right equipment.

A 414 might have been decent equipment, but then factor in the weather yesterday, and it's a no brainer... you're running more risks than those of us who live here would typically take. No go.

And how many times have *some* people on this board and others (usually newbies) pooh-pooh'd us when we start explaining about mountain flying in the Rockies, even in nice weather. Afterall, they've read Sparky's book and gone thru the AOPA on-line mountain course, right?

 

[Clark1961]

A 414 might have been decent equipment, but then factor in the weather yesterday, and it's a no brainer... you're running more risks than those of us who live here would typically take. No go.

But, but, but, the aircraft doesn't know it's in the mountains! It flies the same here as it does there, right?????

(just slightly sarcastic)

Anybody know what the winds aloft over HDN were yesterday? I'm thinkin' that was one rough ride in. Maybe one heck of a case of get-there-itis...

I agree with Morne if they were /A, that approach was a non-starter. With GPS maybe they'd have a shot. The hills aren't horribly close going into HDN so there's a fair chance to get in and out on the missed. It would be best to be really light on the missed and then the question of where to go comes up. No gas and nowhere close are not a good combination. Chances are that anywhere close is going to have the same conditions.

 

[Inverted]

We don't know what the actual visibility was unless the airport reports RVR, otherwise its just prevailing. If he was part 91 which I assume he was, he was perfectly legal to attempt the approach below approach minima. He could have initiated a go around and stalled who knows. Its a real shame either way RIP.

 

[Inverted]

Folks, please don't come up here and think Instrument approaches into mountain airports are to be trifled with. I'd rate them very high on my list of things I would consider "near emergency" without special training and the right equipment.

A 414 might have been decent equipment, but then factor in the weather yesterday, and it's a no brainer... you're running more risks than those of us who live here would typically take. No go.

We don't know the first thing about the pilot to be making any assumptions about his qualifications to shoot approaches into a mountainous airport. Snow isn't the worst thing in the world to fly through not by a long shot. Hell the METAR wasn't even showing snow. That auto generated METAR shows us nothing crazy in the way of flyable weather. The 414 is more than capable to fly in the weather shown, whether or not he picked up a bunch of ice on the approach is another story.

 

[Alexb2000]

My SOP in the mountains is don't go missed. If there is any doubt you can get in, you need turbines. In the winter with turbos you can almost always stay on top, when you look down and see some ugliness, time to divert.

 

[Clark1961]

We don't know the first thing about the pilot to be making any assumptions about his qualifications to shoot approaches into a mountainous airport. Snow isn't the worst thing in the world to fly through not by a long shot. Hell the METAR wasn't even showing snow. That auto generated METAR shows us nothing crazy in the way of flyable weather. The 414 is more than capable to fly in the weather shown, whether or not he picked up a bunch of ice on the approach is another story.

We know two people are dead and another is critical. We know weather was well below minimums for anything but a GPS approach. We know this type of thing happens all to frequently in the hills...

 

[flyersfan31]

When weather is bad
You are more likely to die
Observe minima

 

[Morne]

We don't know what the actual visibility was unless the airport reports RVR, otherwise its just prevailing. If he was part 91 which I assume he was, he was perfectly legal to attempt the approach below approach minima. He could have initiated a go around and stalled who knows. Its a real shame either way RIP.

Would YOU attempt a landing at that airport with that METAR in a /A equipped piston bird?

 

[bbchien]

Well that depends. We have no idea if that particular bird was FIKI equipped, slightly dirty on the final, etc etc etc.

But I, too like this sort of "IFR" approach in a piston twin: http://youtu.be/xqpBa76rMAu (which might be a while before it's up), this was last week. We turned from the Rockies7 DBL transition for the localizer, descended from 14 to 12K and "It's a MAKE!" LOC DME-E

We could have taken it down to 10,800 but that's my climbout limit for OEI to LINDZ, at 450 undergross. Mins for this approach are 9840 (2020 AGL).

 

[Morne]

Well that depends. We have no idea if that particular bird was FIKI equipped, slightly dirty on the final, etc etc etc.

But I also like this sort of "IFR" approach: http://youtu.be/xqpBa76rMAu (which might be a while before it's up), this was last week. We turned from the Rockies7 DBL transition for the localizer, descended from 14 to 12K and "It's a MAKE!"

Forget icing for a moment. Let's suppose that no ice affected the bird at all. Would YOU attempt to land at that airport with that METAR in a /A equipped piston bird?

Not accepting minimum standards could have more than one meaning, I guess.

 

[Everskyward]

I know of a King Air which cancelled a trip to Hayden during that time period because it was below minimums.

 

[bbchien]

Morne:

I set up my mountain MAPs (NEVER as low as published) by performance in reaching the MAP at altitude and on one blower. That means I don't get down very low at all if I'm near gross. However, if I have two persons up and 3 hours' fuel when I depart the front range, by the time I'm in ski country I have 250 pounds of fuel and 400 lbs in the cabin, e.g, I am 850 undergross.

My SE climb roc at 850 undergross, even at 12-13,000 will be 500 fpm at 90 knots. So I will climb 330 feet per mile. If the MAP is at 14,000 and I have ten miles to get there, I will descend 3,300 feet below the MAP on a final approach course. If It isn't a "Make" by then, I'm outta dere.

At HDN, the distance from the VOR hold at 10,000 from the turnaround is about 4 miles of straight flying (one out in climb, a turn then back to the VOR) . There is also an obstacle at 7443 on the MAP course. So the lowest I'm willing to go down the approach course is about 1700 feet below 10,000- or 8,300, a good 1,000 feet above mins.

So, if the ATIS is calling ceiling 1,000, I'm not going. But if it's calling overcast 1700 (that's 8,300 MSL), I'll give it a go- and if I acquire the runway by 8,300 MSL it's a done deal.

I have no idea what the equation was for this 414 at the time of attempted landing. But it's not "out of the question" if you are briefed and rational. That being said, I have had the argument presented to me that I could simply climb in the hold from 7371 up to 10 K, but that's a looonng climb in a racetrack, not climbing for 30 seconds or turn, every 90 seconds, no thank you.

King Air- same analysis. The ROC is much better, though the speed is somewhat higher. But if the place is at approach minimums, no way no how for me.

 

[Morne]

So, if the ATIS is calling ceiling 1,000, I'm not going. But if it's calling overcast 1700 (that's 8,300 MSL), I'll give it a go- and if I acquire the runway by 8,300 MSL it's a done deal.

I have no idea what the equation was for this 414 at the time of attempted landing. But it's not "out of the question" if you are briefed and rational.

The METAR had a 400' ceiling. So that is a "no go", right?

 

[Inverted]

Would YOU attempt a landing at that airport with that METAR in a /A equipped piston bird?

You have obviously never flown freight lol. If I had a dollar for every single pilot IFR approach to mins or worse I have shot in a piston multi I would have some serious pocket change. Yes I would attempt the approach if I was part 91. Part 135 I wouldn't have been able to initiate the approach without having the visibility for the approach. Having said that, there is nothing wrong, or illegal about shooting the approach because prevailing visibility can be determined by us the pilot and its legal as long as there isn't RVR reported. I would have shot the approach, either determined that I could continue, or go missed, and done so. Whats the big deal?

 

[bbchien]

The METAR had a 400' ceiling. So that is a "no go", right?

Ayyyyup....if it was 400. But I agree with "Inverted".

Look at how it appeared at 3:15 PM- I think they got snookered. You get the ATIS about 40 miles out and start planning (that's about 10 minutes out) or 15:15.

2012-02-19 16:35 METAR KHDN 192335Z AUTO 31010KT 2SM SCT006 BKN010 OVC018 M03/M04 A2960 RMK AO1 =
2012-02-19 16:15 METAR KHDN 192315Z AUTO 31009KT 1SM BKN004 BKN010 OVC019 M03/M04 A2961 RMK AO1 =
2012-02-19 15:55 METAR KHDN 192255Z AUTO 31010KT 1SM OVC004 M03/M03 A2961 RMK AO1 =
2012-02-19 15:35 METAR KHDN 192235Z AUTO 29010G14KT 1/4SM OVC004 M02/M03 A2962 RMK AO1 =
2012-02-19 15:15 METAR KHDN 192215Z AUTO 31008KT 5SM FEW008 SCT017 BKN029 M01/M03 A2962 RMK AO1 =

Moral is, if you're trying to beat it in, you actually have to beat it in. Or you have to say at some altitude, say 8700, "We're outta dere".
**** *****
Now flying "mission" or flying freight (Freight dog world, or flying the Admiralty) is another deal alltogether. If it's make-ABLE, you go. There, the decision is if either engine fails I'm landing, even if below mins. You get pretty good at tracking to 100 (cat 2) but I hate it hate it hate it. But then, even if I didn't see it, I would hold heading and paste it on, adding power in the last 30 estimated feet. I would have no choice.

But, I'm talking flying my family, rationally. I set my mins so that I can get outta there even on one (and plan my weights as well). I really like options that work, and really RESIST putting myself in situations where I have none that really work. Like landing CAT 2 when i'm not legal.

 

[Inverted]

Wait, is this the "crazy mountainous" airport you guys speak of?

 

[Everskyward]

The METAR had a 400' ceiling. So that is a "no go", right?

The 1/4 mile is what definitely makes it a no-go for 135.

 

[Inverted]

The 1/4 mile is what definitely makes it a no-go for 135.

Well it depends. If its forecasted to be above approach minimums for the time of arrival, then they can depart. This isn't even the case with the accident aircraft as far as I can tell as the aircraft had an individual registration.

 

[Everskyward]

Well it depends. If its forecasted to be above approach minimums for the time of arrival, then they can depart. This isn't even the case with the accident aircraft as far as I can tell as the aircraft had an individual registration.

I'm not suggesting this airplane was 135, but there's a reason those regs are more conservative. If it was 135 you couldn't start the approach at 1/4 mile no matter what the forecast was.

 

[Clark1961]

Wait, is this the "crazy mountainous" airport you guys speak of?]

No one called it "crazy mountainous." You're obviously over reacting. Try to deal with it on a rational level. Better yet actually fly in there and get back to us. Try to be honest even though that may be difficult for you.

 

[Inverted]

I'm not suggesting this airplane was 135, but there's a reason those regs are more conservative. If it was 135 you couldn't start the approach at 1/4 mile no matter what the forecast was.

Correct. No argument there.

 

[Inverted]

Still, single pilot instrument approach in the hills is on the list of things I won't do.

This is why anything you say regarding this matter should not even be taken into consideration. In the hills lol, what hills? Go shoot an approach into Butte then we can talk about hills, oh wait you wouldn't...

 

[Morne]

You have obviously never flown freight lol. If I had a dollar for every single pilot IFR approach to mins or worse I have shot in a piston multi I would have some serious pocket change. Yes I would attempt the approach if I was part 91. Part 135 I wouldn't have been able to initiate the approach without having the visibility for the approach. Having said that, there is nothing wrong, or illegal about shooting the approach because prevailing visibility can be determined by us the pilot and its legal as long as there isn't RVR reported. I would have shot the approach, either determined that I could continue, or go missed, and done so. Whats the big deal?

I have never flown freight and never will. Nor am I implying anything about the legality. Just asking questions. Judgment is about much more than legalities.

 

[Everskyward]

This is why anything you say regarding this matter should not even be taken into consideration. In the hills lol, what hills? Go shoot an approach into Butte then we can talk about hills, oh wait you wouldn't...

I've shot the approach into Butte, in a King Air. But I wouldn't want to do it Clark's airplane... which I have flown in by the way.

 

[bbchien]

Bozeman, April 06. Lots Ice at 10,000 fro the Q400 in the hold, so we held at 12K and declined down until we could have the whole thing. Lost 4000 feet in one turn intentionally, and popped out the bottom, ceilings about 1200 at the time. A "make".

 

[gismo]

I agree and 1/4 mile visibility with the type of lighting for that runway is asking too much. Gusty conditions in a mountain area can change wind direction in seconds. This was definitely a no-go approach. At least the plane didn't go on fire and there were survivors.

José

It's a big runway and the terrain is pretty benign for CO but 1/4 mile vis is way, way below the min of 1.5 miles and without approach lights I don't think I'd want to try it with a reported visibility of one mile. With snow covering everything and obscuring forward visibility it would be hard to see the runway from 500 AGL, even with 1.5 miles vis. Sounds like either the weather was a lot better than the METAR or the pilot was landing well below mins.

 

[murphey]

Well that depends. We have no idea if that particular bird was FIKI equipped, slightly dirty on the final, etc etc etc.

But I, too like this sort of "IFR" approach in a piston twin: http://youtu.be/xqpBa76rMAu (which might be a while before it's up), this was last week. We turned from the Rockies7 DBL transition for the localizer, descended from 14 to 12K and "It's a MAKE!" LOC DME-E

We could have taken it down to 10,800 but that's my climbout limit for OEI to LINDZ, at 450 undergross. Mins for this approach are 9840 (2020 AGL).

Are you saying you were in the neighborhood and didn't let anyone know? I would have driven over to Vail - only a little over 2 hours on I-70.

tsk tsk tsk

 

[murphey]

You have obviously never flown freight lol. If I had a dollar for every single pilot IFR approach to mins or worse I have shot in a piston multi I would have some serious pocket change. Yes I would attempt the approach if I was part 91. Part 135 I wouldn't have been able to initiate the approach without having the visibility for the approach. Having said that, there is nothing wrong, or illegal about shooting the approach because prevailing visibility can be determined by us the pilot and its legal as long as there isn't RVR reported. I would have shot the approach, either determined that I could continue, or go missed, and done so. Whats the big deal?

There's a difference between legal and common sense.
There's a difference between someone who've been flying Part 135 and a flatlander who rarely ventures into the hills.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Wait, is this the "crazy mountainous" airport you guys speak of?

HDN is pretty benign compared to the actual Steamboat airport (SBS). Still, even Kansas will kill you if you bust mins on an approach....

 

[Fearless Tower]

Local Denver news reported it as "Steamboat". They are clueless that there's more than one airport up there.

True, but remember, for the non-aviation types who watch the news, HDN is the Steamboat airport..when folks book and airline ticket to go to Steamboat, HDN is where they go.