Husky Down at KLAM

flightwriter

flightwriter

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
622
Location
Corrales, NM
Display Name
Display name:
Rob Finfrock
Yesterday (12/8) morning at approximately 8:10 am local, an Aviat Husky impacted terrain in Los Alamos Canyon, approximately one mile south of Los Alamos Municipal Airport (LAM). The pilot died, and a post-crash fire appears to have consumed nearly all of the wreckage.

Witnesses told local media the aircraft was approaching to land on runway 27, when it performed an apparent go-around maneuver (some reports say from midfield) and banked left, away from the airport terminal building and hangars but into R-5101, the restricted area over the city and Los Alamos National Labs. The aircraft then disappeared over the ridge line of the canyon.

Reported winds on AWOS at the time were variable from 220-280 at 16 gusting 38. It had snowed earlier that morning, but it wasn't reported if snow was still falling at the time of the accident. One witness reported that the plane emerged over the runway from a snow squall.

Due to the severity of fire damage to the wreckage, the FAA has not yet determined (or released) the aircraft N-number or pilot's identity. Despite the challenging terrain surrounding the airport and its somewhat-rare approach and departure procedures, this was the first-ever fatal crash at KLAM.

FAA Prelim

Los Alamos Monitor Report
 
Sad to hear may the pilot rest in peace.
 
" he appeared out of a snow storm, winds 16 gusting to 36"? In a husky? What was he thinking?
 
For anyone who's flown into KLAM before, this is not a real surprise. The airport is at over 7000' and is pretty hard up against the Jemez mtn range. wind commonly tumbles out of the west and northwest. Going around on app to runway 27 is not recommended because you can easily get into the wash of air coming off the range to the west.

Normal takeoffs are to the east, and landings are to the west. The end of the runway to the east perches off the end of a mesa, and it's quite a common visual anomaly that it looks like you are coming in too steep and going to impact wrong. Add in any kind of other issues, and a go around is looking better all the time, except once executed the wind to the west can get real bad.

I like going into KLAM for skiing, but I haven't been for two years. My minimums for landing were rather strict, kind of like Angel Fire to the NE.

RIP.
 
This report in the Los Alamos newspaper would appear to contradict a lot of what was reported up to this point, including the number of victims.

http://www.lamonitor.com/content/one-victim-identified-plane-crash

EDIT - Sorry, that link may be behind a paywall. The report states that Minnesota businessman Mike Fjetland, 51, texted his fiancé before taking off from LAM Sunday morning. He and his passenger diverted there Saturday while en route to Chandler, AZ due to weather.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I've refueled there after leaving Stellar Airpark, Chandler, AZ.

It is an interesting runway, to say the least.
 
There are some special instructions for Los Alamos (KLAM). I've been there in a King Air a couple times in the past. If he diverted he probably didn't have these instructions.

http://www.lam.aero/airport-info

appmap2_1.jpg


Here's a picture from the approach end. What doesn't show in the picture very well is that the airport is on a mesa and there is a steep valley east of it so it's easy to get the sight picture wrong. There would probably also have been a lot of turbulence from the mountains to the west.

airport.jpg
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
There are some special instructions for Los Alamos (KLAM). I've been there in a King Air a couple times in the past. If he diverted he probably didn't have these instructions.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same.

FWIW, I gave a presentation earlier this year on flying to and from LAM as part of a WINGS program safety seminar on non-towered airport operations sponsored by the Aviation Association of Santa Fe.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/190726444/Operating-Into-Los-Alamos-Municipal-Airport-KLAM
 
Assuming he was getting gas this is a crazy place to stop IMO in anything but good weather (yes I have landed there). Taos or Santa Fe are waaaaaay better choices. We have seen other accidents there from people trying to save a nickel or dime on gas. Sad deal.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Assuming he was getting gas this is a crazy place to stop IMO in anything but good weather (yes I have landed there). Taos or Santa Fe are waaaaaay better choices. We have seen other accidents there from people trying to save a nickel or dime on gas. Sad deal.
Click to expand...

The newspaper said the pilot told his fiancé that he and his passenger diverted there Saturday for weather. SAF was IFR for most of the day on Saturday, with ceilings of 500-1000 overcast. LAM may have been above or outside the cloud layer.
 
Last edited:
flightwriter said:
The newspaper said the pilot told his fiancé that he and his passenger diverted there Saturday for weather. SAF was IFR for most of the day, with ceilings of 500-1000 overcast.
Click to expand...

Strange. If weather related how about espanola?
 
flightwriter said:
The newspaper said the pilot told his fiancé that he and his passenger diverted there Saturday for weather. SAF was IFR for most of the day, with ceilings of 500-1000 overcast.
Click to expand...
500-1000 should be nothing for a Husky driver, bet they fly treetop a lot in Idaho and Montana. But even if not, I would've gone to Moriarty. 2 runways now and way lower. Maybe he thought he was critical on gas. Moriarty is about 35..40 minutes away at Husky speeds, I imagine.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Strange. If weather related how about espanola?
Click to expand...

zaitcev said:
500-1000 should be nothing for a Husky driver, bet they fly treetop a lot in Idaho and Montana. But even if not, I would've gone to Moriarty. 2 runways now and way lower. Maybe he thought he was critical on gas. Moriarty is about 35..40 minutes away at Husky speeds, I imagine.
Click to expand...

If it was a shallow cloud layer hanging over the Rio Grande Valley, it's possible that LAM was above the cloud deck while SAF and E14 (and 0E0) were below it.
 
flightwriter said:
The newspaper said the pilot told his fiancé that he and his passenger diverted there Saturday for weather. SAF was IFR for most of the day, with ceilings of 500-1000 overcast.
Click to expand...

Guess that means his landing was OK but something happened on the takeoff. I wonder if he tried to take off on 27. That would make sense if he ended up south of the airport in the restricted area. Otherwise it's just basically straight out.
 
There are alot of strange factors that make LAM a challenging airport and it's not an airport I suggest going to without an understanding of local procedures and terrain . With winds like that, there were probably some very strong downdrafts and turbulence on final since the approach end of 27 is no more than 500 feet from the edge of a 600 foot or so Mesa. One has to wonder why he chose LAM over SAF or even E14. NRST button on the GPS maybe?
 
flightwriter said:
The newspaper said the pilot told his fiancé that he and his passenger diverted there Saturday for weather. SAF was IFR for most of the day on Saturday, with ceilings of 500-1000 overcast. LAM may have been above or outside the cloud layer.
Click to expand...

Oops missed the part about the fact that he diverted Saturday. Not sure if LAM was VFR or not that day, but that would be an easy explanation for why he went there instead of the alternatives.
 
Everskyward said:
Guess that means his landing was OK but something happened on the takeoff. I wonder if he tried to take off on 27. That would make sense if he ended up south of the airport in the restricted area. Otherwise it's just basically straight out.
Click to expand...

With the reported winds, I'm guessing he tried to takeoff 27. Pacific Wings (the 135 commuter that does the LAM-ABQ runs in Caravan's) actually has special authorization to takeoff 27 when the winds warrant it necessary and they had a departure at 7:30 am on sun according to flightaware.
 
KLAM takeoffs RWY 27 are prohibited. It's in the A/FD and on the AWOS recording.
 
The Husky involved in Sunday's crash in Los Alamos appears to be N80MF. A VFR flight plan was filed Saturday from Pueblo, CO to Chandler, AZ, the reported destination of the accident aircraft, which appears to have terminated near LAM. This aircraft is also registered to a holding company in the same Minnesota town as the reported owner and pilot, Mike Fjetland, lived.
 
RV10flyer said:
It was a go around on 27 not a takeoff. Go around procedure is right turn, not left.
Click to expand...

It looks like he was taking off; the plane had diverted to LAM the day before for weather. Why he turned into R-5101 may be a mystery that never gets solved.
 
Last edited:
flightwriter said:
It looks like he was taking off; the plane had diverted to LAM the day before for weather. Why he turned into R-5101 may be a mystery that never gets solved.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that Apelsin, I was remembering the first post about the go around. Thanks flightwriter.
 
RV10flyer said:
Sorry about that Apelsin, I was remembering the first post about the go around. Thanks flightwriter.
Click to expand...

No worries - as the thread demonstrates, much of the information that's emerged over the past few days is quite different from initial reports.
 
No worries, Wayne. Even NTSB is not yet sure what the pilot was doing.

Something about this accident does not add up. We may never know what really happened, but crashing into Los Alamos National Lab restricted airspace takes some effort. Disregarding airport procedures, ignoring R-5101, what else?
 
They may have mistakenly turned left then were shot down with a death ray. My guess is wind and/or snow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top