Wyoming crash

[poadeleted21]

The folks who crashed their RV in the mountains in WY, tell their story to the local newspaper.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_44db73f2-dcf6-11e0-87e7-001cc4c03286.html

 

[Jay Honeck]

The guy "thought he had 200 feet (!) of clearance, but misjudged" and crashed into the mountain?

200 feet? Can that be a typo?

There are so many things wrong with this flight, I can't even begin to list them. It's one thing to stupidly risk your own life, shooting a 200' gap at 130 mph -- but to try and kill your wife is another thing.

Then, to have a local newspaper write you up like some sort of hero for surviving?

I've seen/heard/read some crazy things in aviation, but this one takes the cake.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The guy "thought he had 200 feet (!) of clearance, but misjudged" and crashed into the mountain?

200 feet? Can that be a typo?

There are so many things wrong with this flight, I can't even begin to list them. It's one thing to stupidly risk your own life, shooting a 200' gap at 130 mph -- but to try and kill your wife is another thing.

A nice downdraft will eat up 200' in a heartbeat.

Maybe Sportys should start marketing this thing as a 'mountain' sight:

 

[vontresc]

Were they flying an overhead break???

 

[Fearless Tower]

Were they flying an overhead break???

Well, at least one version of it.

The overhead some mountains and they broke the airplane......

 

[Everskyward]

Maybe Sportys should start marketing this thing as a 'mountain' sight:

You don't even need that. All you need is a half-full bottle of liquid.

 

[zaitcev]

You don't even need that. All you need is a half-full bottle of liquid.

I'm wondering how that is supposed to work, actually. I saw many times how a seemingly forbidding ridge seems to recede as I fly towards it while maintaining the altitude, and by the time I get to it, it turns to be good 2000 ft lower than my flight path. I'm quite certain it has something with the Earth's curvature. The bottle method is bound to give a significant error when looking even 20 nm out.

 

[denverpilot]

I see no problem with crossing ridgelines significantly above 1000' AGL?

Is the point of the flight to get from point A to point B safely, or to go zooming along the treetops?

I'd say if the "mission" calls for both, you'd better know you have a power margin and not fly low when unable to transition to maintain at least 1000 ft/min climb.

Many downdrafts in the mountains can easily exceed that. Easily.

Do your climbing somewhere away from the rocks and trees and goal #1 is assured. Goal #2 is secondary.

 

[Everskyward]

I'm wondering how that is supposed to work, actually. I saw many times how a seemingly forbidding ridge seems to recede as I fly towards it while maintaining the altitude, and by the time I get to it, it turns to be good 2000 ft lower than my flight path. I'm quite certain it has something with the Earth's curvature. The bottle method is bound to give a significant error when looking even 20 nm out.

I've never used the bottle method on rocks but I've used it many times on the tops of clouds. It seems to work even 50+ miles out. All you do is drink half your drink then hold the bottle horizontally at eye level. Make sure that you are not looking up or down at the water level but sighting right along it. If you can't see cloud above it you will clear it. The pilot who showed me this technique formerly flew CF-18s for the Canadian Forces so it became a joke about how this was a super-special device they use in the Canadian military.