Grand Canyon Day Trip - HIGHLY Recommended!

[mtuomi]

No need to scroll anywhere, just enter the coordinates as user waypoints, job done.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Its a 9000 ft runway at 6500 feet. If the book says you can do it, do it. This nonsensical can't load the airplane to what the book says can be done mentality makes me chuckle.

 

[Geico266]

Have you used a 430? Scroll to them? With what? the 430 doesn't have that cute little 4-way arrow button.

Google is your friend.

https://youtu.be/2TuV2SeLtkY

 

[Geico266]

No need to scroll anywhere, just enter the coordinates as user waypoints, job done.

 

[narchee]

"Blindly putting".

The coordinates come from the GC map.

Have a look at the piece of the sectional that I have attached. Notice how if you draw a straight line from the left plus sign (north fossil canyon corridor) to the right plus sign (north dragon corridor) that it cuts across the purple area? Sure, you're only cutting that no fly area by a small amount but technically you are outside the VFR corridor.

Like I said be careful about just blindly connecting straight lines.

You're welcome

 

[mtuomi]

Have a look at the piece of the sectional that I have attached. Notice how if you draw a straight line from the left plus sign (north fossil canyon corridor) to the right plus sign (north dragon corridor) that it cuts across the purple area? Sure, you're only cutting that no fly area by a small amount but technically you are outside the VFR corridor.

Like I said be careful about just blindly connecting straight lines.

You're welcome

Route via point DOZIT, thats what I did.

 

[Geico266]

Have a look at the piece of the sectional that I have attached. Notice how if you draw a straight line from the left plus sign (north fossil canyon corridor) to the right plus sign (north dragon corridor) that it cuts across the purple area? Sure, you're only cutting that no fly area by a small amount but technically you are outside the VFR corridor.

Like I said be careful about just blindly connecting straight lines.

You're welcome

Have a look at the route I took. If you follow my route from the "Start" point heading east to west I was traveling SW down "Dragon Corridor" . I didn't draw a straight line to "Fossil Canyon". See the little magenta lines between the way points? You are suppose to follow them.

Maybe you should check your facts before you claim I was flying in restricted airspace.

 

[Palmpilot]

Anyone have a good link with how to input waypoints? I'm told some math needs to be done...can't just input directly off Grand Canyon chart into 430. Can you tell I'm trying to avoid reading and trusting the 430 POH?

Experimenting with the 430W simulator, it appears that the following steps would be required:

Using the right hand knobs:

1. Rotate the large knob until you get to the WPT page.

2. Rotate the small knob all the way clockwise to get to the USR page.

3. Press the small knob to activate the cursor.

4. Rotate the small knob one click, and use the large and small knobs to create a name for a new waypoint. Press ENT when the name is complete.

5. Rotate the large knob to move the cursor to the lat/long field.

6. Rotate the small knob one click, and use the large and small knobs to enter the lat/long. Press ENT when that is complete.

7. The cursor will flash on "Create?". Press ENT to save the waypoint.

8. Press the small knob to turn off the cursor.

 

[Palmpilot]

Maybe you should check your facts before you claim I was flying in restricted airspace.

He didn't claim that.

 

[narchee]

Have a look at the route I took. If you follow my route from the "Start" point heading east to west I was traveling SW down "Dragon Corridor" . I didn't draw a straight line to "Fossil Canyon". See the little magenta lines between the way points? You are suppose to follow them.

Maybe you should check your facts before you claim I was flying in restricted airspace.

I wasn't claiming you were flying in restricted space I was making a generic comment warning against just connecting straight lines between those VFR corridor gates and gave an example. Don't be so defensive...

 

[MAKG1]

Its a 9000 ft runway at 6500 feet. If the book says you can do it, do it. This nonsensical can't load the airplane to what the book says can be done mentality makes me chuckle.

If there is no wind, you're right.

Lots of bad things that aren't in the "book" happen when wind, terrain, and unequal heating mix.

The "book" for several common trainers also tells you to take off full rich. I really wouldn't recommend that.

 

[MAKG1]

Quite possible the worst advice ever given on POA.

Quite possibly the worst comprehension ever attempted at POA.

If you can make it to 50 AGL, you're climbing.

If you can't in distance you calculated, you need to get down before the airplane does it for you.

Even at 10,000 DA in a 172, you can get to 50 AGL halfway down the runway, and have some 3-4 times what you need to land safely still ahead of you if you can't.

Abort points are very important. The earlier a poor takeoff can be identified, the better.

Nobody except you says one should climb to 50 AGL and then go back down. Only if you have a problem, and then you should get down safely however you need to from any altitude.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

If there is no wind, you're right.

Lots of bad things that aren't in the "book" happen when wind, terrain, and unequal heating mix.

The "book" for several common trainers also tells you to take off full rich. I really wouldn't recommend that.

Again, fly what's in the book. Are you saying the book doesn't have adjustments for winds? I mean, yes, be aware of the weather, but the terrain isn't that bad around there.

 

[MAKG1]

Again, fly what's in the book. Are you saying the book doesn't have adjustments for winds? I mean, yes, be aware of the weather, but the terrain isn't that bad around there.

So, it's a hot as hell day and I look in the POH tables, and they say I should be at 50 feet in, say, 3000 feet.

I mark a spot 3000 feet down the runway, line up to the threshold, push full power with brakes, fine tune the mixture for best RPM (fixed pitch), let the brakes go, and when I pass 3000 feet, I'm still on the ground.

The book says I should be in the air. What do I do in your world?

The book makes a bunch of assumptions, and the real world beats the analysis, every time. Maybe the aircraft has a mechanical problem. Maybe compression is a tad low on the 2000 hour engine. Maybe a tire is low or a brake dragging. Maybe it's hotter than AWOS says (or maybe there isn't any AWOS), or maybe the wind has come around. Lots of stuff can happen.

I use the book to determine if I should be able to make it, but a real measurement to determine if I actually can. If the book says no, I don't. If the book says yes, that's good, but it's far short of a guarantee you're going to make it.

The book will tell you you can take off from Truckee on a 90 deg day in a 172. If neither you nor the airplane screws up, you can, actually rather easily, unless the winds is blowing downhill at you. But that doesn't keep people from dying regularly trying it.

Remember, the OP is a new pilot, flying his airplane to high altitude for the first time. He doesn't know yet how his airplane should feel at that kind of altitude, what kinds of pitch angles he should expect, or even the proper technique for slow accelerations. You shouldn't tell him to die 'cause some critter made a home in his air box while he was away, just 'cause the book says he should make it.

And, FYI, no POH I've ever seen has any adjustment for descending air. Only headwinds and sometimes tailwinds.

The OP's strategy of doubling POH numbers is an excellent start, but many problems make it so you won't get out of ground effect at any distance. You have to know when to quit, not just make big tolerances and hope it's enough. The big tolerances delay reactions to problems, and can make a no-damage incident into something worse.

Here's an example of what can happen when you combine believing the book at high density altitude with a basic configuration error (see if you can spot it -- most of the comments are wrong):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDu0jYiz-v8

 

[Palmpilot]

Again, fly what's in the book...

When I took off full rich in a 182 at slightly over 3000 foot density altitude, the engine started running rough on the upwind, due to fouled plugs. The fact that the book told me to do it that way was of no comfort to me or my passenger.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Remember, the OP is a new pilot, flying his airplane to high altitude for the first time. He doesn't know yet how his airplane should feel at that kind of altitude, what kinds of pitch angles he should expect, or even the proper technique for slow accelerations. You shouldn't tell him to die 'cause some critter made a home in his air box while he was away, just 'cause the book says he should make it.

Sure, so all the more reason he just needs to go and figure it out. It ain't rocket science, it's not mountain flying. It's hot and high, not really that big of a deal. Some you on this forum are convinced that the only reason planes fly is because there are lawyers to chase them into the sky.

Everyone was a new pilot once, they learned by making mistakes. There isn't enough danger coming out of GCN to be worried about dying, IMO.

 

[Palmpilot]

Here's an example of what can happen when you combine believing the book at high density altitude with a basic configuration error (see if you can spot it -- most of the comments are wrong):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDu0jYiz-v8

 

[Palmpilot]

NTSB report attached

 

[petrolero]

Its a 9000 ft runway at 6500 feet. If the book says you can do it, do it. This nonsensical can't load the airplane to what the book says can be done mentality makes me chuckle.

Right. By that rationale no one would fly at gross in Denver.

And yet we take off and land without bent metal (mostly) at gross every day with DAs well over 10,000 ft at times.

What's the difference, performance-wise, between taking off at Centennial Airport (KAPA, 5885') in Denver and Glenwood Springs Airport (KGWS, 5916') up in Glenwood Canyon? For the airplane, all other conditions equal, there is no difference. But the surrounding terrain is vastly different up at GWS and that's why people start applying those rules of thumb in the mountains to make darn sure they have a climb gradient that is at least as good as the book says.


The mountain rules of thumb apply particularly well when you are landing or taking off or flying in the mountains. Flying over mountains (as opposed to through them) in a 300 hp airplane does not require the 10% load penalty any more than you'd apply that penalty flying high over Kansas. Its purpose is for takeoffs and landings (or otherwise climbing to a pass) at high mountain airports that have significant rising terrain around. The idea is that your Cessna's 172's or 182's climb gradient might not be good enough to clear terrain.

If your takeoff and climb performance is stellar even at high DA and there's plenty of runway (as would probably be the case in a turbo or 300+ hp airplane) then there's really no need for the weight reduction.

GCN is high but not in the mountains. Just make sure your aircraft can perform adequately and takeoff in the distance available.

 

[Geico266]

He didn't claim that.

I wasn't claiming you were flying in restricted space I was making a generic comment warning against just connecting straight lines between those VFR corridor gates and gave an example. Don't be so defensive...

You specifically said I put way points on the map "blindly".

I'm being defensive because you accused me of flying in the restricted area.

 

[Henning]

Get a canyon camouflage vinyl wrap and fly down at the river level.

 

[Geico266]

Get a canyon camouflage vinyl wrap and fly down at the river level.

I'm in!

How about 400+ MPH?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqe6tzrOHoU

Density altitude my ass.

Double check the W&B!!!!!! I don't think so.

How about 600 MPH?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z1Inn0Ro0A


I wonder if these guys were clipping the restricted space by drawing a straight line?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6yG-HO-8hQ


Seriously, after re-reading the pantie wastes posts in this thread worrying about this & that we should rename this forum ******* Of America.

 

[narchee]

You specifically said I put way points on the map "blindly".

I'm being defensive because you accused me of flying in the restricted area.

Nope. I did no such thing I warned against blindly putting in the points without checking the sectional. I'm starting to think maybe you did clip the airspace... I mean why else would you be so defensive and paranoid about this? It's okay... You're are surrounded by friends. Nobody will say anything. They'll say "oh just another elderly VFR only pilot a little confused and bumbling into areas he shouldn't be".

Seriously though I was just pointing out that you have to be careful connecting those end points. There was no accusation. Peace.

 

[Geico266]

Nope. I did no such thing I warned against blindly putting in the points without checking the sectional. I'm starting to think maybe you did clip the airspace... I mean why else would you be so defensive and paranoid about this? It's okay... You're are surrounded by friends. Nobody will say anything. They'll say "oh just another elderly VFR only pilot a little confused and bumbling into areas he shouldn't be".

Seriously though I was just pointing out that you have to be careful connecting those end points. There was no accusation. Peace.

No problem. I thought you were accusing me of doing something stupid that I didn't know that I did. Believe me, it would not be the first time. Most of the time I knowingly do it.

 

[Skywalker]

Well, we were lucky enough to survive the flight over the GC twice , to share those pictures:

These pictures were taken in December 2010 - West corridor:

These pictures were taken in January 2011, after take off at KCGN East corridor / Marble Canyon:

Yes, you have to plan your flights according to DA, winds aloft, etc. but you will certainly not die, just because you plan a flight over the mountain ridges as Geico and many others pointed out already... We are definitely very careful pilots but if we had always followed advice from other pilots we would have stopped flying years ago - our would be only flying traffic pattern at our home airport. Everything else is far to unsafe...

I am glad you had a great time during your trip and I am really looking forward to some pictures.

 

[Henning]

I'm in!

How about 400+ MPH?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqe6tzrOHoU

Density altitude my ass.

Double check the W&B!!!!!! I don't think so.

How about 600 MPH?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z1Inn0Ro0A


I wonder if these guys were clipping the restricted space by drawing a straight line?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6yG-HO-8hQ


Seriously, after re-reading the pantie wastes posts in this thread worrying about this & that we should rename this forum ******* Of America.

You can legally fly down inside Cataract Canyon, and it's a lot more fun than the Grand Canyon would be. Look downriver from Moab UT, great deep canyon flying to be had.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

A post mortem from the OP. On second thought, let's call it a follow-up.

Loved this trip so much that I did it again the next weekend and stayed overnight at the Cachina Lodge. Nothing like sunset and sunrise at GC!

At the risk of generating controversy, I decided that the corridors are too risky for me. Why?

Mainly because there's no "out" if you lose an engine there. After studying the terrain, I realized that unless you really get lucky, you're going down into the Canyon with an engine out. Even a Cirrus parachute is unlikely to help; if you don't roll down cliffs on the way, you could end up in the river.

The views from the El Tovar were priceless, including a 3 mile walk along the edge. For me, there's so need to assume the additional risk.

And regarding comments about calculations on runway roll...came out to 2,300 feet on a 9,000 foot runway. And reality matched that. Not dangerous at all, but interesting to feel (as I had done before in Big Bear) the amazing impact of DA.

 

[narchee]

At the risk of generating controversy, I decided that the corridors are too risky for me. Why?

Mainly because there's no "out" if you lose an engine there. After studying the terrain, I realized that unless you really get lucky, you're going down into the Canyon with an engine out. Even a Cirrus parachute is unlikely to help; if you don't roll down cliffs on the way, you could end up in the river.

But just think of the spectacular view as you go down. I'd enjoy the once in a lifetime flight down the canyon below the rim, take lots of pictures then end it off with a valiant try for the river.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

LOL...if cell works, you can post those final moments on Instragram, or Facebook, or even better...here!

 

[Pilawt]

I've flown over the Canyon twice in the last couple of months enroute between Phoenix and the Pacific Northwest -- southbound (Tuckup Corridor 12,500') in February and northbound (Dragon Corridor 13,500') just a couple of weeks ago. Both trips were clear, calm and smooth, but a little more haze than ideal for photography.

Being able to "rubber-band" the route line directly on the SFRA chart in Foreflight makes navigation through the corridors and around the corners of the Flight Free Zones a snap.

Yeah, there are spots where power loss would be inconvenient. But my engine had been running well all day, so I rolled the dice on another ten good minutes from it.

I was on Flight Following on both trips, and in each instance as I approached the Canyon, Center asked if I were "familiar with the Flight Free Zones."

Southbound Tuckup Corridor:

Northbound Dragon Corridor:

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

A post mortem from the OP. On second thought, let's call it a follow-up.

Loved this trip so much that I did it again the next weekend and stayed overnight at the Cachina Lodge. Nothing like sunset and sunrise at GC!

At the risk of generating controversy, I decided that the corridors are too risky for me. Why?

Mainly because there's no "out" if you lose an engine there. After studying the terrain, I realized that unless you really get lucky, you're going down into the Canyon with an engine out. Even a Cirrus parachute is unlikely to help; if you don't roll down cliffs on the way, you could end up in the river.

The views from the El Tovar were priceless, including a 3 mile walk along the edge. For me, there's so need to assume the additional risk.

And regarding comments about calculations on runway roll...came out to 2,300 feet on a 9,000 foot runway. And reality matched that. Not dangerous at all, but interesting to feel (as I had done before in Big Bear) the amazing impact of DA.

I'm not going to criticize the decision to not fly over the canyon, but I don't really understand it. Any engine failure between SoCal to the Canyon isn't likely to end much better. It's not as smooth as it looks down there, then assuming you do make a landing, there is a decent chance you'll be hurt (assuming you survive). How much survival gear do you carry? How many gallons of water?

 

[Pilawt]

These photos were taken in 1983, before the SFRA. Such would be frowned upon today.

 

[NJP_MAN]

Thats how it looks when flying the commercial tour routes ^^

 

[Palmpilot]

Judging by those pictures, I find the view from the higher altitudes to actually be MORE impressive.

When I flew the corridors, I did not feel in any way deprived by the altitude requirement. That canyon is REALLY BIG!