High Altitude Training in Colorado

[murphey]

Since the topic of Density Altitude is being discussed (and Carl was kind enough to plug the upcoming course), here are the details:

Colorado Pilots Association is runnning its Mountain Flying - High Elevation Airport Operations Ground School Saturday, Sept 6, 2014 at Rocky Mtn Metropolitan Airport (KBJC - the airport formerly known as Jeffco). Saturday is a full-day ground course ($185-200).

Weather permitting, you can schedule the 5-6 hour practical flying the next day or at another time (additional fixed fee for the CFI). It counts as a BFR (remind the pilot to sign the logbook - I forgot last year) and WINGS credit if you like.

Every one of the CFIs have flown mountains for years, many are SAR pilots for various counties in the state. If you attended the FAA Mountain seminars at AirVenture last week, you probably saw Bill Standerfer speak. Bill's the "CPA Chief Pilot for Mountain Flying", so to speak.

Leadville is one of the stops so that you can get your "I Landed at the highest paved airport...." certificate. Grab a car and head into town for lunch if you'd like.

Altho it concentrates on Colorado geography & weather, most of it applies to any mountainous area.

This course is NOT backcountry flying - head up to McCall's in Idaho for that.

http://www.coloradopilots.org and click on Mountain Flying in the left column. Details, registration forms, CFI bios, etc.

 

[James331]

I thought you were talking high altitude, as in a high altitude endorsment for pressurized aircraft over FL250

 

[MachFly]

Sounds like a good course. I'd certainly recommend anyone who has any intention on flying around mountains to take that.

"I Landed at the highest paved airport...." certificate

I have that

 

[Scrabo]

Define "HIGH".... You are talking about Colorado after all

 

[coloradobluesky]

I went to one. He covered leaning on the ground and in the air and covered landings. Everyone was into "straight in" landings. Then I went up to Idaho and flew patterns in canyons (it can be done). Came back and now I fly patterns if at all possible.

I didn't take the CFI part with them. Had a mountain checkout by another instructor though. I learned flying ridge lift from him. By that time I was flying in the mountains on my own anyway.

It gets iffy when you have an underpowered plane. You need 180 horsepower or greater for confidence in Colorado mountains. learn how to lean for takeoffs, stay out of box canyons and watch the weather. No mtn flying at night etc.

 

[MAKG1]

I wish I understood where that 180 HP thing came from.

The power of the engine by itself is irrelevant. Put a 180 HP engine on a 747 and it will make a lot of noise and not much else.

Something closer to reality is power/weight. Which is the SAME for a 160 HP 172 as it is for a 180 HP 172 (at least the SPs). Where you can make gains is when you put a 180 HP engine in a 160 HP airframe (and these are common in 172Ns).

As max gross weight is closely related to aircraft performance, the usual suggestion to stay 10% under does make some sense. But it is a function of density altitude and winds.

And FYI, I've seen airworthy 172Ms on the ground at Lake Tahoe and Flagstaff. Both are used for flight training, and the field altitudes are comparable to or higher than most of the Colorado cities. And that's 150 screamin' horses, not 160.

 

[James331]

I wish I understood where that 180 HP thing came from.

The power of the engine by itself is irrelevant. Put a 180 HP engine on a 747 and it will make a lot of noise and not much else.

Something closer to reality is power/weight. Which is the SAME for a 160 HP 172 as it is for a 180 HP 172 (at least the SPs). Where you can make gains is when you put a 180 HP engine in a 160 HP airframe (and these are common in 172Ns).

As max gross weight is closely related to aircraft performance, the usual suggestion to stay 10% under does make some sense. But it is a function of density altitude and winds.

And FYI, I've seen airworthy 172Ms on the ground at Lake Tahoe and Flagstaff. Both are used for flight training, and the field altitudes are comparable to or higher than most of the Colorado cities. And that's 150 screamin' horses, not 160.

Same deal with Big Bear, plenty of folks go up there in the summer in some basic 150hp 4 seaters.

 

[Clark1961]

I wish I understood where that 180 HP thing came from.

The power of the engine by itself is irrelevant. Put a 180 HP engine on a 747 and it will make a lot of noise and not much else.

Something closer to reality is power/weight. Which is the SAME for a 160 HP 172 as it is for a 180 HP 172 (at least the SPs). Where you can make gains is when you put a 180 HP engine in a 160 HP airframe (and these are common in 172Ns).

As max gross weight is closely related to aircraft performance, the usual suggestion to stay 10% under does make some sense. But it is a function of density altitude and winds.

And FYI, I've seen airworthy 172Ms on the ground at Lake Tahoe and Flagstaff. Both are used for flight training, and the field altitudes are comparable to or higher than most of the Colorado cities. And that's 150 screamin' horses, not 160.

Perhaps you should attend a session to seek answers to your questions and share your wisdom and observations. They are very open to discussion while presenting their material. The CPA is well aware that "little" 172s are used for flight training at Leadville and other high elevation airports.

And in response to Coloradobluesky, when I attended the "precision visual" pattern was presented rather than a straight in.

 

[James331]

So it's $200 bucks for some ground school with other students, and no flight with one of these "Mountain CFIs"

And another $250 for 3.5 hrs of CFI flight time, using my own plane and insurance?

That's $71 bucks and change a hr for dual, I also notice only 6 out of 22 CFIs are ATPs, and the site makes no mention of their qualifications to teach the course or what they do for a living, on the few that have bios not many have any direct background in operating in mountainous terrian, one was a medevac pilot but in a helo. Not like anyone there was flying 207s through passes or flying AG in hot and high places, or any other hot high low level stuff for a living.


I'd take that $450, plus what it costs to get there, lodging, fuel, etc, and go spend some time flying gliders working the ridge lift, then take the rest of the saved money and invest it in avgas/hours working your way up.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Pilots have flown 65 hp Taylor crafts out of Leadville, so it can be done. I said it's "iffy". What I mean is
It gets harder to take off and climb at Leadville when it can be 12500 density altitude or even higher.

 

[CTLSi]

High density altitude affects all aircraft in the same way. So it doesn't matter what horsepower you have, or what drag profile you have. It's the whole aircraft performance that matters.

DA is a performance issue. If you are flying a weight controlled kite and normal Vy climb speed at sea level is 400fpm, then at DA of say 5000 feet you will climb at about 100fpm. These numbers (the reduction in performance) are per-calculated for you in the pilot handbook for the aircraft you are flying.

The other factor for mountains other than the terrain, is the way wind is different. Google the subject of mountain wave and of uplift air near mountain ridges to get that picture down.

The danger of mountain flying is the combination of reduced performance due to DA, and the affect of updraft/downdraft and xwinds near rocky terrain.

 

[MachFly]

High density altitude affects all aircraft in the same way.

Well...high DA effects all naturally aspirated aircraft in the same way. Once you put a turbo on it it's a different story.

 

[coloradobluesky]

After checking the weather, our pilot takes off from say KBDU and goes west climbing at Vy. Remembering to lean for takeoff and keeping an eye on the CHT's so the engine doesn't overheat on the climb up to 13000' for the passage over Corona (aka Rollins) pass. Typically it gets bumpy on the lee (east) side of the divide and he has to decide if it's too bumpy (in which case he turns around). He decides to continue and keeping an eye on the pass, allows a little extra altitude since he is coming from the east (lee side) and may get downdrafts.

If necessary our pilot circles and goes faster in downdrafts and slower in updrafts and gains altitude that way. Getting up to 13000' (and leaning on the way up), our pilot is now ready to cross the Great Divide. Crossing the Continental Divide, he experiences some typical headwind and, if typical, the turbulence goes away (if it is turbulent he may want to turn around, its not going to be fun). Now on his way down to the closest airport at 8200', KGNB he listens to the AWOS and notes that it is higher pressure on the west side of the divide (typical) and adjusts the altimeter. He makes a mental note to remember to change the altimeter back so it doesn't read high on the east side when he returns.

Our intrepid pilot notes that it is a right hand pattern for 27 and makes the correct entry. He remembers to richen the mixture because he leaned it so much for 13000'.
He lands safely and normally, using indicated airspeed, which, of course is higher TAS than down low.

After stopping and borrowing the courtesy car for a breakfast in town (or not) our mountain pilot is ready for a return trip. Again running up and leaning (man that knob is far out for takeoff, but that's the way it is), our pilot makes a longer than normal roll but gets off smoothly, ready to abort if not making it. Climbing slower than usual at Vy (because of higher altitude), he circles around and begins the climb back over the divide, remembering to lean as he climbs. He approaches the ridge, flying parallel with the ridge, leaving a safety out to the down valley side and rides the ridge lift up, getting some free lift. He decides it's not necessary to climb all the way to 13000' for the return because he has lift and no downdrafts (and has his safety down valley escape, a 90 degree turn to the right), he crosses the ridge at 12500', marveling at the snowy, craggy cliffs and the beauty 500' below him.

Now he hits the typical east side turbulence and that's no fun especially since he has to stay below Va (his turbulence penetration airspeed) while descending. Hmmm, he asks, should I try and go BELOW the turbulence or stay ABOVE it. Truth is, there is no way to know. Maybe he will get lucky and miss most of it, but this time gets hit by a few hard ones. Damn! Heading for the flatlands and his home base he continues to descend, richening the mixture. He remembers to set his altimeter so it doesn't read higher than he actually is and lands safely at KBDU.

Of course it's not always this way, and I've probably left something out and please realize it's different every time. But you get the idea.

 

[denverpilot]

So it's $200 bucks for some ground school with other students, and no flight with one of these "Mountain CFIs"



And another $250 for 3.5 hrs of CFI flight time, using my own plane and insurance?



That's $71 bucks and change a hr for dual, I also notice only 6 out of 22 CFIs are ATPs, and the site makes no mention of their qualifications to teach the course or what they do for a living, on the few that have bios not many have any direct background in operating in mountainous terrian, one was a medevac pilot but in a helo. Not like anyone there was flying 207s through passes or flying AG in hot and high places, or any other hot high low level stuff for a living.





I'd take that $450, plus what it costs to get there, lodging, fuel, etc, and go spend some time flying gliders working the ridge lift, then take the rest of the saved money and invest it in avgas/hours working your way up.

ATP? That means very little in the mountains in a Skyhawk. Who cares?

What they do for a living? Again, who cares? Plenty of CFIs have day jobs.

As for their bonafides on mountain flying, all are happy to share their logs or experience if asked.

The course and CFI are separated for various reasons including billing simplicity. You can always ask one of the CFIs if their rate is negotiable.

The business transaction is between you and the CFI like it always is. CPA just provides a list of willing CFIs.

The website used to be pretty clear on this but maybe it's changed.

 

[Palmpilot]

Remember Nate, this is the Internet, where the glass is always half empty, at best.

 

[Jthamilton]

I give 2 thumbs up on the course. The instructors were excellent and extremely knowledgable.

Although I didn't do the flying portion I found the ground section well worth the money.

I recommend it to anyone flying in the mountains.

 

[James331]

ATP? That means very little in the mountains in a Skyhawk. Who cares?

What they do for a living? Again, who cares? Plenty of CFIs have day jobs.

As for their bonafides on mountain flying, all are happy to share their logs or experience if asked.

The course and CFI are separated for various reasons including billing simplicity. You can always ask one of the CFIs if their rate is negotiable.

The business transaction is between you and the CFI like it always is. CPA just provides a list of willing CFIs.

The website used to be pretty clear on this but maybe it's changed.

I just think for that price I would want a CFI who's day job IS flying.

For the flying portion having a guy who a operator trusts with his certificate in high and hot conditions is a confidence builder, especially if I was a 150hr PPL flat lander.


To each their own.

I'd still stand by that you'll learn way more doing some glider time, getting on backcountry pilot and reading a few books, taking the rest of the money and flying the plane.

Don't mean to be stirring the pot, just an observation.

 

[Everskyward]

I also notice only 6 out of 22 CFIs are ATPs

Why does that matter? Any position which requires an ATP has very little to do with flying light airplanes around mountains.

Not like anyone there was flying 207s through passes or flying AG in hot and high places, or any other hot high low level stuff for a living.

How do you know, when in the same post you wrote that the site makes no mention of their qualifications and there are only a few bios.

 

[murphey]

I just think for that price I would want a CFI who's day job IS flying.

John Mitchell is retired USAF and retired United Airlines. Larry Camden is retired United Airlines with over 25,000 hours and teaches everything. Jer/ flys & teaches everything except helos and jets. Ask him about his glider flights at 25,000 MSL. Rob Duncan flys the CAF WWII aircraft. Bill Standerfer is the go-to guy for COPA, the Bonanza Society, Flying Farmers, the FAA and other organizations to teach this course. Vern Foster used to fly ag, may still fly it at his farm in Nebraska. I don't think any on the list have less than 5000 hours.

I don't want someone who flys airlines everyday unless they're flying GA the rest of the time. 14k msl when you're 2k agl is really different from flying at 35k.

For the flying portion having a guy who a operator trusts with his certificate in high and hot conditions is a confidence builder, especially if I was a 150hr PPL flat lander.


To each their own.

I'd still stand by that you'll learn way more doing some glider time, getting on backcountry pilot and reading a few books, taking the rest of the money and flying the plane.

Don't mean to be stirring the pot, just an observation.

You're right, you are not the audience for this course.

 

[murphey]

I wish I understood where that 180 HP thing came from.

The power of the engine by itself is irrelevant. Put a 180 HP engine on a 747 and it will make a lot of noise and not much else.

Something closer to reality is power/weight. Which is the SAME for a 160 HP 172 as it is for a 180 HP 172 (at least the SPs). Where you can make gains is when you put a 180 HP engine in a 160 HP airframe (and these are common in 172Ns).

As max gross weight is closely related to aircraft performance, the usual suggestion to stay 10% under does make some sense. But it is a function of density altitude and winds.

And FYI, I've seen airworthy 172Ms on the ground at Lake Tahoe and Flagstaff. Both are used for flight training, and the field altitudes are comparable to or higher than most of the Colorado cities. And that's 150 screamin' horses, not 160.

And I know LSAs that have flown into Leadville. But there has to be a cutoff, and the decision was 180 hp in a GA airplane.

 

[James331]

John Mitchell is retired USAF and retired United Airlines. Larry Camden is retired United Airlines with over 25,000 hours and teaches everything. Jer/ flys & teaches everything except helos and jets. Ask him about his glider flights at 25,000 MSL. Rob Duncan flys the CAF WWII aircraft. Bill Standerfer is the go-to guy for COPA, the Bonanza Society, Flying Farmers, the FAA and other organizations to teach this course. Vern Foster used to fly ag, may still fly it at his farm in Nebraska. I don't think any on the list have less than 5000 hours.

I don't want someone who flys airlines everyday unless they're flying GA the rest of the time. 14k msl when you're 2k agl is really different from flying at 35k.



You're right, you are not the audience for this course.

If you don't want a airliner why did you flaunt that some of the guys are ex airlines?

Out of your list I'd say the glider guy would be the only one who might make sense be on the list.

The only reason I mentioned the ATP is most guys who fly for a living have one, my company doesn't require one for what we do, but I have yet to meet another guy here without one.

Point being, gramps at my local drome, has like 4000hrs spanning half a millennia, does a few BFRs, spends a little time with a few societies, cap etc, he looks as good on paper for teaching that course as the others, but I wouldn't want him flying a pass or attempting a canyon turn unless he was just pax.

Honestly if you're teaching this stuff to inexperienced folks who probably will be trying there new tricks with a boat load of their family in a Bo or something, it would be nice if this this was taught by, say one of those 207 pilots who fly tours at the Grand Canyon every day, or a piston freight guy who works in and around some high peaks.

Also offering the theoretical without the flight is sending guys off half cocked.

I am all for this type of course, there just should be hard line (low level mountain related) qualifications for teaching it.

I'd say get people who currently WORK in those conditions, day in and day out, to teach it. Offer the ground and the flight training as a course, have a flight test and a little written quiz and give them a card to whatever if they pass.

What I don't like to see is when folks think they have skills they don't have, because when they learn how shallow their understanding is it's often too late.

And I know LSAs that have flown into Leadville. But there has to be a cutoff, and the decision was 180 hp in a GA airplane.

So a PA-18-150 wouldn't cut it, but a Cessna 172SP would be better?!

See what I mean, they really haven't even thought that stuff out, a simple power to weight ratio would be FAR clearer and better, or just a email the CFI for his discretion type of thing.

 

[Everskyward]

Out of your list I'd say the glider guy would be the only one who might make sense be on the list.

If that's how you feel, why do you care about how many have ATPs?

it would be nice if this this was taught by say one of those 207 pilots who fly tours at the Grand Canyon every day, or a piston freight guy who works in and around some high peaks.

The Grand Canyon is a long way from Colorado, and piston freight guys around here fly at least turbocharged twins, not small GA singles. In fact I don't think there are many operators here who don't fly at least a turboprop, much to the disappointment of lower-time pilots who want to build time doing 135 and find it hard to get a foot in the door.

 

[MAKG1]

And I know LSAs that have flown into Leadville. But there has to be a cutoff, and the decision was 180 hp in a GA airplane.

Why does there have to be a cutoff based on engine power?

I expect more reasoned thought from a group claiming to teach mountain techniques.

Heck, some people fly successfully and safely in those mountains with 0 HP engines. And some of the most useful techniques would be best taught that way.

 

[James331]

Why does there have to be a cutoff based on engine power?

I expect more reasoned thought from a group claiming to teach mountain techniques.

Heck, some people fly successfully and safely in those mountains with 0 HP engines. And some of the most useful techniques would be best taught that way.

+1

If that's how you feel, why do you care about how many have ATPs?

The Grand Canyon is a long way from Colorado, and piston freight guys around here fly at least turbocharged twins, not small GA singles. In fact I don't think there are many operators here who don't fly at least a turboprop, much to the disappointment of lower-time pilots who want to build time doing 135 and find it hard to get a foot in the door.

Why do you care what level of education your professor has?

Because if you're a experienced professional pilot you should have your ATP.

I wouldn't want to learn from someone who doesn't want to hold the highest license his skills and experience permit.

People who settle because they don't aspire to a higher standard are not the ones I want to come to and task with taking my skills to a higher standard.

The skills one would learn flyng in the canyon are VERY related, 2000 - 9000' with DA that gets a way up there, add to that a 207 loaded with pax, do that everyday, that's some good skills for a course like that.

Also there are plenty of Chieftains and the like running frieght around.

 

[petrolero]

I give 2 thumbs up on the course. The instructors were excellent and extremely knowledgable.

Although I didn't do the flying portion I found the ground section well worth the money.

I recommend it to anyone flying in the mountains.

Agree. I took this course in June and was very pleased with the course and the lack of OWTs. It is up to date and useful.

I just think for that price I would want a CFI who's day job IS flying.

So if the ATP is that important to you then, by all means, pick one who is an ATP.

Mountain flying is not about the stuff that ATPs do. It is about flying *in* the mountains, which one must do in order to land, not over them. Mountain wisdom does not come from an ATP, it comes from experience flying in the mountains - on whatever ticket you happen to have. There are ATP CFIs that seldom fly in the mountains and guys with straight CFI tickets with thousands of mountain hours. I'd pick the latter. That's just me.
______________

As far as flying aircraft with lower HP the class organizers know better than anyone that it can be done. Most of the instructors have probably done it in smaller aircraft.

You can make it if your aircraft performance under actual conditions is up to it. But their point is that the mountains around here are littered with the wreckage of aircraft large and small who thought they could make it. I searched for some of them with the CO CAP. Those pilots certainly didn't intend to die in the mountains.

So It is not a bad idea to take the class, learn all the considerations, and then get with any instructor you can find and run the numbers to see what your plane can manage. Under the right loading and OAT conditions most aircraft can fly in the mountains one way or another. The general techniques they discuss apply to any type.

 

[Everskyward]

Why do you care what level of education your professor has?



Because if you're a experienced professional pilot you should have your ATP.



I wouldn't want to learn from someone who doesn't want to hold the highest license his skills and experience permit.



People who settle because they don't aspire to a higher standard are not the ones I want to come to and task with taking my skills to a higher standard.

Having an ATP is irrelevant to flying in the mountains in small singles.

How do I know this? Because I've spent a lot of time flying 206s in the Colorado mountains and I was far more current before I moved on and got that ATP. There are people I work with now, all of whom have ATPs, who would never fly a small piston single in the mountains even though they fly turboprops and jets in the same mountains.

Is there even one question or task on the ATP test about flying small singles in the mountains? No.

And when I mentioned that the Grand Canyon is a long way from Colorado it was because I doubt the pilots who fly there would want to travel here to teach a mountain course.

 

[Alexb2000]

ATP's to fly cubs in the mountains?

College professors to teach real world skills?

Anonymous Internet experts who disparage a well established program they haven't attended or really know much about?

Sad direction for an important topic.

 

[James331]

It appears some folks are getting hung up on the ATP comment and not really understanding my post as a whole.

There is no such thing as "the stuff ATPs do" we don't sign a document when we get our ATP that says we are only allowed to fly jets in the flight levels, it's just a higher degree of certification, one that is expected of a career pilot.

I'm sure for their cut of those course fees you could get some of those dudes from the canyon to book a ticket for a week.

I'd still say you'd be better off spending some time in a glider and reading some books.

 

[Clark1961]

ATP's to fly cubs in the mountains?

College professors to teach real world skills?

Anonymous Internet experts who disparage a well established program they haven't attended or really know much about?

Sad direction for an important topic.

Welcome to POA, 2014 ed.

 

[Everskyward]

There is no such thing as "the stuff ATPs do" we don't sign a document when we get our ATP that says we are only allowed to fly jets in the flight levels, it's just a higher degree of certification, one that is expected of a career pilot.

Maybe you expect it, but it's irrelevant. It only means that someone passed a test on a certain day, on subjects which have nothing to do with small airplanes or the mountains.

 

[1600vw]

I always thought if I flew an airplane in those area's it would be turbo charged or a turbine. No natural aspirated engines at those altitudes.

Tony

 

[Alexb2000]

I'm sure for their cut of those course fees you could get some of those dudes from the canyon to book a ticket for a week.

Maybe it's just me, but anytime someone lists experience with DA as a qualification to teach mountain flying I just shake my head because it seems so ignorant. Sure DA is a factor, but one that is quantifiable, predictable, and manageable. In Northern NM we see crashes every year, the worst of which often do not involve DA, but a combination of weather and big rocks. The worst examples of mis-judgment often come from people who fly around on a perfectly benign calm wind morning and pronounce all of this mountain flying a piece of cake. That said I don't have an ATP, so I couldn't possibly know anything about it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So it's $200 bucks for some ground school with other students, and no flight with one of these "Mountain CFIs"

And another $250 for 3.5 hrs of CFI flight time, using my own plane and insurance?

That's $71 bucks and change a hr for dual, I also notice only 6 out of 22 CFIs are ATPs, and the site makes no mention of their qualifications to teach the course or what they do for a living, on the few that have bios not many have any direct background in operating in mountainous terrian, one was a medevac pilot but in a helo. Not like anyone there was flying 207s through passes or flying AG in hot and high places, or any other hot high low level stuff for a living.


I'd take that $450, plus what it costs to get there, lodging, fuel, etc, and go spend some time flying gliders working the ridge lift, then take the rest of the saved money and invest it in avgas/hours working your way up.

A program with a proven track record decades old begun by folks (many of whom have since gone west) who invented the concept of "mountain training" and has a reputation to uphold reflected in its approval of instructors means nothing to some people and a lot to others.

YMMV

 

[Palmpilot]

Why do you care what level of education your professor has?

I think the point is that the education and experience that the instructor has needs to be relevant to the type of training being offered.

 

[Clark1961]

Why do you care what level of education your professor has?

If you look into the history of the "Professor" title/position you will find that the title & position do not require a Doctor of Philosophy degree. The first universities had no one to grant degrees so they were burdened with selecting qualified individuals who had no formal education at the "professor" level. To this day, many European Universities do not require the full professor to have a PhD.

This has a direct parallel in mountain flight training....

 

[Clark1961]

I always thought if I flew an airplane in those area's it would be turbo charged or a turbine. No natural aspirated engines at those altitudes.

A turbo is nice...but bulk horsepower is probably better in a single where loss of the turbo will put you in the trees on departure. Even though the turbo on the 'kota showed no problems I had it replaced when doing the top overhaul. Replacement of the oil lines to/from the turbo were one of the first preventative maintenance items when I bought the plane. Losing the turbo on a hot/high departure would be a very bad thing.

 

[murphey]

Why does there have to be a cutoff based on engine power?

Feel free to contact one of the listed instructors and ask for the reason. Or a mountain flying expert in your area. All I do is post the announcement.

I look at it this way - when I bought downhill skis (many decades ago) I made sure they were at least 10 cm longer than the minimum requirement posted on a very large sign at the top of Mary Jane. I discovered many years later the reason - little skis made little bumps, and the ski area wanted big bumps on the more difficult slopes.

I expect more reasoned thought from a group claiming to teach mountain techniques.

Heck, some people fly successfully and safely in those mountains with 0 HP engines. And some of the most useful techniques would be best taught that way.

 

[denverpilot]

John Mitchell is retired USAF and retired United Airlines. Larry Camden is retired United Airlines with over 25,000 hours and teaches everything. Jer/ flys & teaches everything except helos and jets. Ask him about his glider flights at 25,000 MSL. Rob Duncan flys the CAF WWII aircraft. Bill Standerfer is the go-to guy for COPA, the Bonanza Society, Flying Farmers, the FAA and other organizations to teach this course. Vern Foster used to fly ag, may still fly it at his farm in Nebraska. I don't think any on the list have less than 5000 hours.

Wow. I hadn't looked at the list in a while but I can add stuff on those names...

John is by far one of the most professional pilots I've ever shared a cockpit with. I don't know how else to say it. If you get bored he can talk about getting shot at flying tankers over some bad stuff.

Larry is so busy I can't even book him. There's almost never been a day at APA I don't hear or see his Seneca out teaching new multi pilots. I've had references to him from lifelong airline pilots. He "retired" on the DC-10 and his wife wants him to slow down.

Jer/ stopped by our camp at Scholler this year and was concerned that I was mad at him for some personality conflicts in my airplane two years ago. I assured him that it's simply personality stuff and I'd fly with him any day of the week especially for mountain work. Then I fed him a margarita. Ha. His presentation of some things can be odd but what he's actually teaching is dead-on. We chatted in email about his co-owner deciding Jer/ was flying their Cessna 140 home from OSH and whether or not I would beat him in the pickup truck pulling the 5th wheel. Ha.

Rob I haven't flown with but he's entrusted with flying some stuff that's utterly irreplaceable so that speaks volumes. He's also hosting something like 80% of the Colorado aviation related websites for one of his many "day jobs" and has since modem and dial up days. Persistent isn't just a buzzword with him. As far as I can tell, he's on top of things.

Bill Standerfer gave the FAA safety seminar(s) on Mountain Flying at the FAA pavilion at OSH this year using CPA's slide deck, many of which contain his photos and videos of mountain weather phenomena - he's a weather geek. His time lapse videos of mountain wave, lenticulars, rotors, etc... Are some of the best I've seen. We got to talking after one of the presentations and found that our wives know each other through barbershop singing. Karen will probably see both of them at Sweet Adeline's Rocky Mountain Roundup this weekend.

Vern wrote most of the Denver FSDOs Mountain Flying material in the 70s and 80s and pioneered a number of backcountry techniques still taught by most of the better mountain courses today. He's also in some of the FAA films of the era, back when FSDOs did such useful things. He's also published a couple of common sense books on real world flying.

There ya go. Mountain flying for those guys isn't just a side biz, it's a passion. There is no lack of qualifications in that list of names from Murph.

 

[denverpilot]

I'd still say you'd be better off spending some time in a glider and reading some books.

And you'd be wrong.

I'm a big proponent of sailplanes as a great way to build all sorts of skills, but sailplane flying will not give you experience in powered aircraft escape techniques and planning for risks associated with flying in canyons or navigating to the correct canyon. It'll teach you a lot about energy management and landing exactly where you intended, etc. But there's some stuff in the rocks you can only experience in a powered ship.

The big one is easily just the surprise level and how you react to a powered ship simply not responding to the addition of power. Anyone who's spent enough time in the rocks knows in their HEAD about always maintaining an "out", but it's a whole different thing to actually push the throttle up and watch the VSI pegged DOWN and having to execute that escape maneuver NOW. There's an emotional aspect to it, especially if you know the aircraft well. These instructors don't go looking for it, but all have seen/done it and can show it to you in a controlled environment in such a way as you won't feel like it's controlled until you mentally connect the dots and realize your "out" planning really DID just save your ass.

For those of us flying here for life, they can also point out things you wouldn't think to notice. An example from a trip to LXV with one of them is when departing northbound and struggling to climb 200 FPM in a Skylane with half tanks and two guys, was the casual matter-of-fact point-out over the intercom, "See that break in the tree line to the left? If you are in real trouble here you can angle into that and then a shallow level turn south and fly to Salida and land. I've been through that gap and needed it. Something for you to remember in case you ever do."

You can't underestimate real experience like that. I've never seen that tree line gap mentioned in any books.

Even the book writers get bit sometimes. We all still miss Sparky.

The navigation problems in the mountains compound on themselves also. Especially if you turn off the GPS. Northbound out of LXV there's four identical looking canyons. One will safely get you to a drainage you can hop another pass thru and fly safely back to Denver. The other three are box canyons and there's plenty of wrecks in two of them. You can read about that in a book all day long, it won't prepare you for the emotional question in the back of your head, "Is this the right canyon?" (Side note: I wholeheartedly recommend a south departure out of LXV for anyone unfamiliar with the airport and terrain. But there is ONE way out northbound.)

A book simply can't simulate this. A glider gains you some excellent skills but isn't quite the same.

 

[denverpilot]

I wouldn't want to learn from someone who doesn't want to hold the highest license his skills and experience permit.

Would you take aerobatic instruction from Sean Tucker?

He only holds a Commercial ASEL, AMEL, Instrument-Airplane, Rotorcraft-Helicopter, and Glider. According to the FAA database as of right this moment, no CFI.