Alaska Crashes Should Serve To Remind All Pilots That Mother Nature Is Always In Char

[William Angelley]

Three aircraft crashes earlier this week in two mountainous areas outside of Anchorage, Alaska emphasize to pilots the importance of constant situational awareness and proper weather and flight planning. The first crash occurred on August 8 about 8,500 feet up Knik Glacier, approximately forty miles northeast of Anchorage, and involved a Piper PA-32 aircraft on a sightseeing tour. The pilot reported hitting a downdraft that caused the plane to hit the side of the glacier. In one interview, the pilot reported that the incident seemed surreal because even though he had established climb power and had a nose up attitude, the plane’s altimeter indicated a significant descent. Fortunately, of the five people aboard, only two sustained minor injuries.

The second crash arose from the same incident but involved an Alaska Air National Guard HH-60 helicopter that was attempting to rescue the sightseers stranded on the glacier. At some point during the operation, the helicopter slid on the glacier and rolled for a short distance. The pilot of the downed PA-32 stated that it looked to him like the helicopter also hit a downdraft. None of the crew members aboard the helicopter were injured.

The third crash happened the next day near Dillingham, Alaska and involved a DeHavilland DHC-3T Otter aircraft. This crash has received a great deal of press coverage because it killed five people, including former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, and critically injured four others, including former NASA chief Sean O’Keefe.

The cause of this crash is currently being investigated by the NTSB and there is currently not much information available, so no one can say for certain at this point why the plane went down. There are, however, a couple of possibilities, which, even if are ultimately determined to be unrelated to the crash, are worth a few minutes of every pilots’ thoughts.

First, it seems likely that a mountain downdraft, also known as a mountain wave, caused the first plane to crash on Knik Glacier, and may have caused or contributed to the crash of the rescue helicopter. It is also very possible that a downdraft caused the crash of the plane that killed Senator Stevens. Indeed, the ground scar leading up the mountain to the plane’s wreckage could be quite consistent with that scenario.

According to the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), “mountain waves occur when air is being blown over a mountain range or even the ridge of a sharp bluff area.” The air hitting the upwind side of the mountain rises and generally causes a smooth updraft. The smooth updraft, however, often turns into a violent downdraft as the air passes the crest of the ridge. The AIM further states that “all it takes to form a mountain wave is wind blowing across the range at 15 knots or better at an intersection angle of not less than 30 degrees.”

In order to safely fly in mountainous areas, the AIM recommends that when flying on the leeward side of a mountain always expect a downdraft and always add an extra thousand feet or so of altitude above ground level because, just as the pilot of the PA-32 discovered, “downdrafts can exceed the climb capability of the aircraft.” The AIM also recommends that approaches to a mountain ridge from the downwind side should be made at about a 45 degree angle to the horizontal direction of the ridge. This allows for a safer retreat from the ridge if necessary. One should also always be prepared for significant turbulence when flying near mountains.

Another possible cause of the DHC-3T Otter crash in Alaska is an unexpected encounter with fog or clouds. According to news accounts, the aircraft was on a VFR flight plan at the time of the crash. As experienced pilots know, however, when flying in mountains fog can accumulate in valleys very quickly and clouds banks can move in just as quickly to obscure the surrounding terrain. The AIM defines the later situation as Mountain Obscuration (MTOS) and it can be quite dangerous for obvious reasons. In mountainous areas, the ground level can vary greatly over small distances and with the mountain tops being obscured, a pilot encountering sudden MTOS may well be in immediate danger of flying into the terrain.

An additional danger associated with MTOS, as with all inadvertent flight into IMC conditions, is disorientation. The sudden loss of ground references and the shift from visual cues outside the cockpit to complete reliance on instruments can have an adverse effect on even the most seasoned pilots. Thus, pilots should frequently review and practice their procedures for minimizing and responding to disorientation situations.

Avoidance of all of the dangers mentioned above involves proper flight planning, proper in-flight execution, good judgment and constant situational awareness. No amount of experience makes a pilot immune from the necessity of reviewing and practicing the basics, and perhaps the most basic thing for any pilot to remember is that Mother nature is always in charge. Ignore her at your own risk.

William Angelley is a former navy Pilot, aviation attorney and Partner in the law firm of Hightower Angelley LLP. His firm web address is www.hightangel.com.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"William Angelley" > wrote

> The third crash happened the next day near Dillingham, Alaska and
> involved a DeHavilland DHC-3T Otter aircraft. This crash has received a
> great deal of press coverage because it killed five people, including
> former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, and critically injured four others,
> including former NASA chief Sean O'Keefe.
>
> The cause of this crash is currently being investigated by the NTSB and
> there is currently not much information available, so no one can say for
> certain at this point why the plane went down. There are, however, a
> couple of possibilities, which, even if are ultimately determined to be
> unrelated to the crash, are worth a few minutes of every pilots'
> thoughts.

In this crash I wonder if there was any avionics on board that displays
terrain warnings, even a handhelt PDA type that causes terrain in conflict
to show up red on the display. I would think there would be a strong desire
for Alaska pilots to have a handheld terrain warning or better, because of
the frequency of mountaintops getting obscured with fog, and the general
ruggedness of the terrain they have to deal with on a day by day basis.

How about everyone on the group? Would you insist on terrain warning if you
flew in Alaska?

My heartfelt condolences to the familys of everyone that died in the crash.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> In this crash I wonder if there was any avionics on board that displays
> terrain warnings, even a handhelt PDA type that causes terrain in conflict
> to show up red on the display. I would think there would be a strong desire
> for Alaska pilots to have a handheld terrain warning or better, because of
> the frequency of mountaintops getting obscured with fog, and the general
> ruggedness of the terrain they have to deal with on a day by day basis.

Perhaps a good idea ... but proper terrain-warning operation requires a
completely accurate database. I'm not so sure that databases for the Alaskan
wilderness are that accurate. And relying on terrain warnings with an
inaccurate database might be worse than not having terrain warnings at all.

Another potential problem is that terrain warning systems are designed to keep
you out of harm's way, but for some pilots there might be a tendency to use
them to see how much they can get away with.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 7:49*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "William Angelley" > wrote
>
> > The third crash happened the next day near Dillingham, Alaska and
> > involved a DeHavilland DHC-3T Otter aircraft. *This crash has received a
> > great deal of press coverage because it killed five people, including
> > former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, and critically injured four others,
> > including former NASA chief Sean O'Keefe.
>
> > The cause of this crash is currently being investigated by the NTSB and
> > there is currently not much information available, so no one can say for
> > certain at this point why the plane went down. *There are, however, a
> > couple of possibilities, which, even if are ultimately determined to be
> > unrelated to the crash, are worth a few minutes of every pilots'
> > thoughts.
>
> *In this crash I wonder if there was any avionics on board that displays
> terrain warnings, even a handhelt PDA type that causes terrain in conflict
> to show up red on the display. *I would think there would be a strong desire
> for Alaska pilots to have a handheld terrain warning or better, because of
> the frequency of mountaintops getting obscured with fog, and the general
> ruggedness of the terrain they have to deal with on a day by day basis.
>
> How about everyone on the group? *Would you insist on terrain warning if you
> flew in Alaska?
>
> My heartfelt condolences to the familys of everyone that died in the crash.
> --
> Jim in NC

The best outcome to this tragic event is that there were survivors. We
will someday know exactly what went wrong. I am betting the press will
start digging into the connection between GCE and Sen, Stevens. That
will turn into a three ring circus............ IMHO

Ben.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Morgans writes:
>
>> In this crash I wonder if there was any avionics on board that displays
>> terrain warnings, even a handhelt PDA type that causes terrain in conflict
>> to show up red on the display. I would think there would be a strong desire
>> for Alaska pilots to have a handheld terrain warning or better, because of
>> the frequency of mountaintops getting obscured with fog, and the general
>> ruggedness of the terrain they have to deal with on a day by day basis.
>
> Perhaps a good idea ... but proper terrain-warning operation requires a
> completely accurate database. I'm not so sure that databases for the Alaskan
> wilderness are that accurate. And relying on terrain warnings with an
> inaccurate database might be worse than not having terrain warnings at all.

Seems like a reasonable post so far, but wait for it...

> Another potential problem is that terrain warning systems are designed to keep
> you out of harm's way, but for some pilots there might be a tendency to use
> them to see how much they can get away with.

And there it is; the dispargement of real pilots by the MSFS dork.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And there it is; the dispargement of real pilots by the MSFS dork.

I'm sorry that you seem unwilling to face reality, but there are lots of real
pilots who are (were) not very good pilots, as the accident statistics prove.
It's just an observation, and it's an accurate one.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 14, 7:03*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> It's just an observation, and it's an accurate one.

BACK UP YOUR BULL**** OBSERVATIONS WITH REAL FACTS BESIDES SAYING
"NTSB WEBSITE"?????????

LET ME GUESS YOU WON"T BECAUSE YOU SPEAK FROM YOUR ASS.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> BACK UP YOUR BULL**** OBSERVATIONS WITH REAL FACTS BESIDES SAYING
> "NTSB WEBSITE"?????????

Why do you reject NTSB statistics?

The NTSB is dedicated to compiling accurate information on the causes of
aviation accidents. Its data show indisputably that pilot error is the main
cause of accidents--which could not possibly be the case if obtaining a
pilot's license made an aviator perfect. Therefore there exists a significant
number of bad pilots.

No amount of uppercase text or question and exclamation marks can change this.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And there it is; the dispargement of real pilots by the MSFS dork.
>
> I'm sorry that you seem unwilling to face reality, but there are lots of real
> pilots who are (were) not very good pilots, as the accident statistics prove.
> It's just an observation, and it's an accurate one.

Your comment is nothing more than something you pulled out of your ass and
you have zero data to back it up no matter how much your back pedal now.

The only reason you made is was to disparge real pilots, which you can
never be by your own admission.

If you had left it with just the first paragraph you wouldn't have reinforced
the consensus you are little more than a flaming asshole.

"Angry young males", bull****, it looks like penis envey to me.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> BACK UP YOUR BULL**** OBSERVATIONS WITH REAL FACTS BESIDES SAYING
>> "NTSB WEBSITE"?????????
>
> Why do you reject NTSB statistics?

Where is the NTSB data that terrain information leads pilots to push things,
which was your contention?

You are just diverting the origninal subject to attempt to prove you are
"correct", while in reality your original post was pulled out of your ass.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 14, 8:51*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > BACK UP YOUR BULL**** OBSERVATIONS WITH REAL FACTS BESIDES SAYING
> > "NTSB WEBSITE"?????????
>
> No amount of uppercase text or question and exclamation marks can change this.

IT POINTS OUT THAT YOU TALK OUT OF YOUR ASS.

I ASKED A VERY DIRECT QUESTION. BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS. SHOW US REAL
ACCIDENTS THAT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

YOU CLAIMED YOU WROTE PUBLISHED AVIATION ARTICLES.

OR IS THIS ANOTHER LIE YOU LIVE DAY TO DAY???????? IF SO CLAIMED TO
WRITE PUBLISHED, THEN SURELY YOU CAN ACCEDE TO MY REQUEST AND SHOW US
THE DATA POINTS YOU USED TO SAY.

OR IS THIS ANOTHER LIE YOU LIVE DAY TO DAY???????? LET ME GUESS YOU
WON'T ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTIONS.

>I'm sorry that you seem unwilling to face reality, but there are
>lots of real
>pilots who are (were) not very good pilots, as the accident
>statistics prove.
>It's just an observation, and it's an accurate one.

PROVE YOUR ACCURATE OBSERVATION. WITHOUT DATA POINTS PROVING YOUR
POSITION YOU TALK OUT OF YOUR ASS.

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

Am 15.08.2010 04:39, schrieb :
> You are just diverting the origninal subject to attempt to prove you are
> "correct", while in reality your original post was pulled out of your ass.
>

Yeah! Come on! You and all the others: go on feeding the dork.

*bah* Will you never learn to NOT feed a troll? Ignore this idiot, you
are pulled down to his level.

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)

[FlyCherokee]

On Aug 14, 11:35*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> Another potential problem is that terrain warning systems are designed to keep
> you out of harm's way, but for some pilots there might be a tendency to use
> them to see how much they can get away with.

I wonder about the same thing with XM in-plane weather (apparently)
showing thunderstorm location in great detail. I could see some
pilots being drawn in too close, based on the data shown on their
screens, and then finding out too late that they are in the bad stuff.

[Mxsmanic]

FlyCherokee writes:

> I wonder about the same thing with XM in-plane weather (apparently)
> showing thunderstorm location in great detail. I could see some
> pilots being drawn in too close, based on the data shown on their
> screens, and then finding out too late that they are in the bad stuff.

I've read a number of articles that are critical of XM weather for this
reason. I don't know much about XM weather, but from what I understand of it,
I certainly wouldn't rely on it if I were a pilot. It sounds like a
convenience rather than a reliable safety-of-life system.

Then again, there are a lot of things that I wouldn't rely on as a pilot that
other pilots seem to take as gospel. Some of the behaviors I see described by
pilots or even illustrated by them on YouTube worry me, assuming that these
people really are licensed pilots.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> In this crash I wonder if there was any avionics on board that displays
> terrain warnings, even a handhelt PDA type that causes terrain in
> conflict to show up red on the display. I would think there would be a
> strong desire for Alaska pilots to have a handheld terrain warning or
> better, because of the frequency of mountaintops getting obscured with
> fog, and the general ruggedness of the terrain they have to deal with on
> a day by day basis.
>
> How about everyone on the group? Would you insist on terrain warning if
> you flew in Alaska?

No. I didn't have any when I flew there. And, it wouldn't have been of any
significant value - in a Cessna 120 you fly through the passes, not over
the peaks...

Plus, I generally consider what I can see out the window to likely be more
representitive of reality than something that comes out of a computer data
base.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> FlyCherokee writes:
>
>> I wonder about the same thing with XM in-plane weather (apparently)
>> showing thunderstorm location in great detail. I could see some
>> pilots being drawn in too close, based on the data shown on their
>> screens, and then finding out too late that they are in the bad stuff.
>
> I've read a number of articles that are critical of XM weather for this
> reason. I don't know much about XM weather, but from what I understand of it,
> I certainly wouldn't rely on it if I were a pilot. It sounds like a
> convenience rather than a reliable safety-of-life system.

It is well known that XM weather is not real time.

No one with any sense uses XM for anything other than general information as
in there is heavy weather to the north.

If you need real time, detailed weather you need real weather radar on board.

If you were a pilot you would know that.

> Then again, there are a lot of things that I wouldn't rely on as a pilot that
> other pilots seem to take as gospel. Some of the behaviors I see described by
> pilots or even illustrated by them on YouTube worry me, assuming that these
> people really are licensed pilots.

This is nothing more than your usual gratuitous shot at real pilots.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If you need real time, detailed weather you need real weather radar on board.
>
> If you were a pilot you would know that.

A lot of pilots don't know that.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> If you need real time, detailed weather you need real weather radar on board.
>>
>> If you were a pilot you would know that.
>
> A lot of pilots don't know that.

And you know this how?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> If you need real time, detailed weather you need real weather radar
>>> on board.
>>>
>>> If you were a pilot you would know that.
>>
>> A lot of pilots don't know that.
>
> And you know this how?

It's a deliberately vague ("a lot") and provocative ("pilots don't know
that" on a piloting newsgroup) statement.

[george]

On Aug 18, 2:09*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> If you need real time, detailed weather you need real weather radar on board.
>
> >> If you were a pilot you would know that.
>
> > A lot of pilots don't know that.
>
> And you know this how?

He used his inventafact machine.
Imagine weather radar in a C152

[Some Other Guy]

FlyCherokee wrote:
> I wonder about the same thing with XM in-plane weather (apparently)
> showing thunderstorm location in great detail. I could see some
> pilots being drawn in too close, based on the data shown on their
> screens, and then finding out too late that they are in the bad stuff.

Sirius/XM weather data is okay, but you have to remember that it is
always some 20 to 60 minutes behind reality.

Once you come to grips with that, everything about Sirius/XM weather
is just fine. It's a useful service. You can see general weather systems
across all of North America.

Now, if you have all that *AND* the privilege of being at 8000' and you
still can't see a weather system is about to smack you in the face then
I'm sorry, you deserve to have it kill you.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

I did not read the original post but the pilot is always in
charge...or he should quit flying.

Ron Lee