Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
According to @Groundpounder's post, it looks as if they departed on 27 but turned around to fly up the valley.
According to @Groundpounder's post, it looks as if they departed on 27 but turned around to fly up the valley.
According to @Groundpounder's post, it looks as if they departed on 27 but turned around to fly up the valley.
Yup, I have been to TEX many times, and have probably done some things I shouldn't have done...Skiing up there, they get some HUGE winds at the ridge (have been there every year for the past 25 years).
I flew in there last November on a day that was supposed to be a calm wind weekend day. I had a 35 knot head wind that was constant from the CONES VOR all the way to down wind (head wind eastbound), that converted to a head wind west bound for landing ... that was some windshear on base leg with winds on the runway gusting to 19.
Yup, I have been to TEX many times, and have probably done some things I shouldn't have done...
..so I wasn't going to mention this, but since you bring it up; there are clear double standards in aviation that have always bothered me. Experience can't be trained, sure, but as pilots we all passed the writtens, practicals, orals, etc., and have some level of competence just based on that fact. The guy with 25,000 airline hours is not a better pilot strictly because of his hours than the person who has 2,000 hrs all in his Lance (for example). The type of flying is hugely important. I'd rather sit next to someone in a small GA plane with 500 hrs in the last two years with 75% of his time doing longer cross countries than the 5,000 hr airline pilot who just got a check out on a C172 at the local clubAlso bums me out that the guy was really well known, respected as a pilot and instructor by so many, and while it sounds maybe a bit callous, around here when we hear a really young low-timer smacks a mountain with zero mountain training — we just kinda chalk it up to “aww man, another one”. When it’s a high timer who teaches, it just feels worse.
Winds permitting, VFR (obviously), I land on 27. The massive walls and box canyon are very intimidating if you are landing on 9. Sure, it's a long runway, but if you have to go around for whatever reason you are basically doing an aggressive climbing right turn, really depending on that piston engine and the wings for every ounce of performance they can give.. no thanks. I'd much rather fly a tight, stable approach to 27 left traffic and slip if I have to. Doing a go around from 27 is a non-event. **however, I do understand why, non VFR, a standard stable approach into 27 is not feasible.Plenty of operators fly in/out of there with Ops limitations for only land on 9 and take off 27
..so I wasn't going to mention this, but since you bring it up; there are clear double standards in aviation that have always bothered me.
So if the Bonanza pilot had survived, do you think he’d say, “yeah, I screwed up,” or do you think he’d blame it on multiple, unrelated malfunctions and be upset with the people who saved him from freezing to death?This point is illustrated by the fact that we had a thread here a little while ago of a Cirrus who pulled the chute when he developed apparent instrument issues while in and out of IMC near Aspen https://www.aspendailynews.com/news...cle_624bbac8-41ec-11ea-8b83-fbb0e9c91898.html the occupants survived, literally walked away from the accident, and he was widely panned as another typical idiot Cirrus pilot who shouldn't be flying in mountainous terrain, how ridiculous it is that he wanted to go back for his luggage, and how stupid he was for not being able to fly IMC and land at the airport near mountainous terrain despite instrument issues, and how reckless it is to fly single engine pistons, period, around the mountains, and that all the other real pilots could have flown and landed the plane partial panel in IMC in an unfamiliar area in mountainous terrain. On the flip side, the reaction here to this accident is very different, and far more sympathetic.
Unfortunately, as I’m sure you’re well aware, what @sarangan did in the simulator is typical of what inexperienced mountain pilots will do.
..so I wasn't going to mention this, but since you bring it up; there are clear double standards in aviation that have always bothered me. Experience can't be trained, sure, but as pilots we all passed the writtens, practicals, orals, etc., and have some level of competence just based on that fact. The guy with 25,000 airline hours is not a better pilot strictly because of his hours than the person who has 2,000 hrs all in his Lance (for example). The type of flying is hugely important. I'd rather sit next to someone in a small GA plane with 500 hrs in the last two years with 75% of his time doing longer cross countries than the 5,000 hr airline pilot who just got a check out on a C172 at the local club
This point is illustrated by the fact that we had a thread here a little while ago of a Cirrus who pulled the chute when he developed apparent instrument issues while in and out of IMC near Aspen https://www.aspendailynews.com/news...cle_624bbac8-41ec-11ea-8b83-fbb0e9c91898.html the occupants survived, literally walked away from the accident, and he was widely panned as another typical idiot Cirrus pilot who shouldn't be flying in mountainous terrain, how ridiculous it is that he wanted to go back for his luggage, and how stupid he was for not being able to fly IMC and land at the airport near mountainous terrain despite instrument issues, and how reckless it is to fly single engine pistons, period, around the mountains, and that all the other real pilots could have flown and landed the plane partial panel in IMC in an unfamiliar area in mountainous terrain. On the flip side, the reaction here to this accident is very different, and far more sympathetic. I get the other people didn't die so it's much easier to critique, and there's a tragic nature to this (newly weds), but all that aside the double standard you often see in accidents frustrates me. It almost makes it so we can't learn from them. On the one side we excuse them as just low time pilots, and the other side they're excused as tragedies because someone had a bad day flying ("it can happen to anyone" mentality.. no it can't! not with the right training). We need to look past the pilot and the plane and objectively find takeaways that we can all become safer pilots.
Winds permitting, VFR (obviously), I land on 27. The massive walls and box canyon are very intimidating if you are landing on 9. Sure, it's a long runway, but if you have to go around for whatever reason you are basically doing an aggressive climbing right turn, really depending on that piston engine and the wings for every ounce of performance they can give.. no thanks. I'd much rather fly a tight, stable approach to 27 left traffic and slip if I have to. Doing a go around from 27 is a non-event. **however, I do understand why, non VFR, a standard stable approach into 27 is not feasible.
Very true. Which is why I also look at GA accident stats with a very heavy grain of salt. We all do different kinds of flying and what may eventually (let's hope not though) bite us can't really translate directly to someone else1000 hours of each of those will create different pilots with different abilities. It’s unavoidable.
Fair point, but the judgement that gets us to that point seems to be what's forgiven (or not) depending on hours, age, etc. Maybe that's just part of human naturewhat may to you be a double standard is a set of completely different circumstances to others
The insidious part is that he likely didn't know the severity of the hazards to consider. In many cases, you don't really know how real the threat of something is until it happens (or nearly happens) to you. I'm glad my first encounter with ice was in a FIKI plane, it made me appreciate how quickly it accumulates and how screwed you might be if you don't have any way of shedding itRegardless, he made a perilous decision without considering the hazards of the route.
I would say this is definitely true. Even if logic might tell you that your small single engine piston won't perform like your jet, you have been desensitized to certain conditions that your work plane might be able to handle easily, and your play plane might not.The lesson I take away from this is to never assume flight experience in one environment would translate into another. Flying an Airbus under part 121 is very different than flying a single engine piston under part 91. Not only does the experience not translate, it may in fact give someone a false sense of security and elevate the risk factors.
The insidious part is that he likely didn't know the severity of the hazards to consider. In many cases, you don't really know how real the threat of something is until it happens (or nearly happens) to you. I'm glad my first encounter with ice was in a FIKI plane, it made me appreciate how quickly it accumulates and how screwed you might be if you don't have any way of shedding it
..so I wasn't going to mention this, but since you bring it up; there are clear double standards in aviation that have always bothered me.
Flatlander airline pilot in a Bonanza, color me shocked they hit the cumulogranite.
Airline pilots operate into mountain airports safely on a regular basis. The more complex ones require special qualification training. That being said, it is still quite possible that the pilot in this accident had little if any mountain flying experience in light aircraft or jet aircraft. His GA and regional airline flying experience seem to have been entirely on the East Coast. His few years of UAL flying was all on the 757/767 doing mainly UK / Europe and transcon type flying. The 737 / A320 fleets see the mountain airports. Bottom line is that despite his experience level, it is possible that mountain airports are something he didn’t have much if any experience with.
Here is another western airport with limited options, Monument Valley (UT25)
View attachment 90954
Land 16 to the south (3* upslope) with a rock wall right in your grill. Did that once. There is no go around option. Here’s another view taken by a heli I believe:
View attachment 90955
Epic place to fly if you ever get the chance. No fees and a lodge and camping is available. They have a shuttle van that will deliver you to either place.
There is a disclosure form needed to fill out and send in ahead of time though.
They must not be local since they had never heard of Hayden...When the weather up there goes to crap, it really goes...
(Not related to this accident but just sharing...)
(Memories @Everskyward ? Heh...)
They must not be local since they had never heard of Hayden...
You don't think I'm distinctly aware of how airline pilots operate into mountain airports? Yes, we do have much more information available about the area, even for airports that require special training. But the problem is, any 121 jet with an engine out is going to have significantly better performance than the Bonanza with it's engine running, in this case. And if you aren't used to that, I could see how quickly you can get yourself in trouble flying GA.
I'm familiar with the pilot in this accident, I went to school with him. I won't speak ill of the dead, and I'll leave it at that. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I don’t think we should confuse flying in and out of mountainous airports with “mountain flying”.The tone of your first response left me no surprise at the tone of the second. I’ll leave it at that.
Important distinction as this was not a run of the mill piston single making a high DA takeoff in the mountains accident.I don’t think we should confuse flying in and out of mountainous airports with “mountain flying”.
We airline guys are not looking to fly in canyons and site see. We care about getting above and avoiding the terrain, especially with an engine failure. I have countless landings at Eagle, Aspen, and Telluride, yet have never “flown in the canyon to site see”.
The guy with 25,000 airline hours is not a better pilot strictly because of his hours than the person who has 2,000 hrs all in his Lance (for example).
Even if it was down drafts or whatever, unless there were any clouds up there, 99.9% of the reports from up in the rocks are just listed as CFIT. Even if the engine quit.
Just a pattern I’ve noticed.
A while back I was doing an online safety course (ASA or FAASafety, I do not recall*) that stressed the point that unless the aircraft was actually out of control due to flight control failure or some other structural anomaly that prevented the aircraft from being able to be controlled, the resulting crash is considered to be CFIT. They even went as far as to mention specifically engine failure crashes that were under control up to the moment of impact.
*EDIT: Thinking back on it now, it may have been the Sporty's eFIRC I did over the summer....