Plane down on Vail Pass

[Seth Masia]

Local radio reports a plane down alongside I-70 on Vail Pass, Colorado --
elevation 11,000 feet. Anyone hear something about this?

Seth
N8100R

[Blanche]

According to the Denver Post:
"The plane went down east of Vail, in between the resort town and the
10,666-foot summit of Vail Pass, said Suzanne Silverthorn,
community officer for Vail."

The question I have is why were they in that location? The
Eagle-Vail (EGE) airport is west of Vail. Following I-70 (Vail Pass) is
not exactly a good idea, due to the non-stop winding roads. No place
"straight" to land until west of Vail (which is why the airport
is west).

I can only think of 3 reasons- and remember, this is purely
conjecture. I know absolutely nothing more than what's been
reported:

1) scenic tour of the valley
2) student & CFI
3) they didn't know any better

Update from the NBC affiliate:
"EAGLE COUNTY - A Piper PA-32 crashed near I-70 at the summit of Vail Pass
Friday morning after trying to land in the westbound lanes of the highway.

The plane touched down on the highway, then hit some trees before
coming to rest on the mountainside about 25 feet up a slope,
said Jamie Wilson, a spokesperson for the town of Vail."

Assuming a 53F temp over there (I'm in Denver), at 11K, that means
13K density altitude. At ground level. At a reasonable flight
altitude of 12.5K to 14K, we're talking 15K-16.8K density altitude.

Current conditions are calm winds, 54F, vis 9 sm, clear sky. Winds have
either been calm or less than 7 mph since 8 pm last night.

[Seth Masia]

Forced landing. Here's the preliminary dope:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html
also http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_231134313.html

One report says they were en route to Leadville, the highest paved strip in
the US at 10,000 feet.

If this was a Cherokee 160, they were operating at service ceiling. If a
Cherokee 180, they had some reserve. Not speculating here, but that's the
fact.

I've crossed Vail Pass in a rented Cherokee -- but I'm more comfortable
doing it in my own plane, where I have 250 hp and can pop up to 14,000
without a second thought.

Seth
N8100R


"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> According to the Denver Post:
> "The plane went down east of Vail, in between the resort town and the
> 10,666-foot summit of Vail Pass, said Suzanne Silverthorn,
> community officer for Vail."
>
> The question I have is why were they in that location? The
> Eagle-Vail (EGE) airport is west of Vail. Following I-70 (Vail Pass) is
> not exactly a good idea, due to the non-stop winding roads. No place
> "straight" to land until west of Vail (which is why the airport
> is west).
>
> I can only think of 3 reasons- and remember, this is purely
> conjecture. I know absolutely nothing more than what's been
> reported:
>
> 1) scenic tour of the valley
> 2) student & CFI
> 3) they didn't know any better
>
> Update from the NBC affiliate:
> "EAGLE COUNTY - A Piper PA-32 crashed near I-70 at the summit of Vail Pass
> Friday morning after trying to land in the westbound lanes of the highway.
>
> The plane touched down on the highway, then hit some trees before
> coming to rest on the mountainside about 25 feet up a slope,
> said Jamie Wilson, a spokesperson for the town of Vail."
>
> Assuming a 53F temp over there (I'm in Denver), at 11K, that means
> 13K density altitude. At ground level. At a reasonable flight
> altitude of 12.5K to 14K, we're talking 15K-16.8K density altitude.
>
> Current conditions are calm winds, 54F, vis 9 sm, clear sky. Winds have
> either been calm or less than 7 mph since 8 pm last night.
>

[Bob Gardner]

A PA-32 is a Cherokee Six or variant. Could have either 260 or 300 horses.

Bob Gardner

"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
> Forced landing. Here's the preliminary dope:
>
> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html
> also http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_231134313.html
>
> One report says they were en route to Leadville, the highest paved strip
> in the US at 10,000 feet.
>
> If this was a Cherokee 160, they were operating at service ceiling. If a
> Cherokee 180, they had some reserve. Not speculating here, but that's the
> fact.
>
> I've crossed Vail Pass in a rented Cherokee -- but I'm more comfortable
> doing it in my own plane, where I have 250 hp and can pop up to 14,000
> without a second thought.
>
> Seth
> N8100R
>
>
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
> ...
>> According to the Denver Post:
>> "The plane went down east of Vail, in between the resort town and the
>> 10,666-foot summit of Vail Pass, said Suzanne Silverthorn,
>> community officer for Vail."
>>
>> The question I have is why were they in that location? The
>> Eagle-Vail (EGE) airport is west of Vail. Following I-70 (Vail Pass) is
>> not exactly a good idea, due to the non-stop winding roads. No place
>> "straight" to land until west of Vail (which is why the airport
>> is west).
>>
>> I can only think of 3 reasons- and remember, this is purely
>> conjecture. I know absolutely nothing more than what's been
>> reported:
>>
>> 1) scenic tour of the valley
>> 2) student & CFI
>> 3) they didn't know any better
>>
>> Update from the NBC affiliate:
>> "EAGLE COUNTY - A Piper PA-32 crashed near I-70 at the summit of Vail
>> Pass
>> Friday morning after trying to land in the westbound lanes of the
>> highway.
>>
>> The plane touched down on the highway, then hit some trees before
>> coming to rest on the mountainside about 25 feet up a slope,
>> said Jamie Wilson, a spokesperson for the town of Vail."
>>
>> Assuming a 53F temp over there (I'm in Denver), at 11K, that means
>> 13K density altitude. At ground level. At a reasonable flight
>> altitude of 12.5K to 14K, we're talking 15K-16.8K density altitude.
>>
>> Current conditions are calm winds, 54F, vis 9 sm, clear sky. Winds have
>> either been calm or less than 7 mph since 8 pm last night.
>>
>
>

[Seth Masia]

You're right. It's a six-cylinder engine. They should have had plenty of
power, unless they had none. Check the prop: does it look as if it was
turning?

Seth

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>A PA-32 is a Cherokee Six or variant. Could have either 260 or 300 horses.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Seth Masia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Forced landing. Here's the preliminary dope:
>>
>> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html
>> also http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_231134313.html
>>
>> One report says they were en route to Leadville, the highest paved strip
>> in the US at 10,000 feet.
>>
>> If this was a Cherokee 160, they were operating at service ceiling. If a
>> Cherokee 180, they had some reserve. Not speculating here, but that's
>> the fact.
>>
>> I've crossed Vail Pass in a rented Cherokee -- but I'm more comfortable
>> doing it in my own plane, where I have 250 hp and can pop up to 14,000
>> without a second thought.
>>
>> Seth
>> N8100R
>>
>>
>> "Blanche" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> According to the Denver Post:
>>> "The plane went down east of Vail, in between the resort town and the
>>> 10,666-foot summit of Vail Pass, said Suzanne Silverthorn,
>>> community officer for Vail."
>>>
>>> The question I have is why were they in that location? The
>>> Eagle-Vail (EGE) airport is west of Vail. Following I-70 (Vail Pass) is
>>> not exactly a good idea, due to the non-stop winding roads. No place
>>> "straight" to land until west of Vail (which is why the airport
>>> is west).
>>>
>>> I can only think of 3 reasons- and remember, this is purely
>>> conjecture. I know absolutely nothing more than what's been
>>> reported:
>>>
>>> 1) scenic tour of the valley
>>> 2) student & CFI
>>> 3) they didn't know any better
>>>
>>> Update from the NBC affiliate:
>>> "EAGLE COUNTY - A Piper PA-32 crashed near I-70 at the summit of Vail
>>> Pass
>>> Friday morning after trying to land in the westbound lanes of the
>>> highway.
>>>
>>> The plane touched down on the highway, then hit some trees before
>>> coming to rest on the mountainside about 25 feet up a slope,
>>> said Jamie Wilson, a spokesperson for the town of Vail."
>>>
>>> Assuming a 53F temp over there (I'm in Denver), at 11K, that means
>>> 13K density altitude. At ground level. At a reasonable flight
>>> altitude of 12.5K to 14K, we're talking 15K-16.8K density altitude.
>>>
>>> Current conditions are calm winds, 54F, vis 9 sm, clear sky. Winds have
>>> either been calm or less than 7 mph since 8 pm last night.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
> You're right. It's a six-cylinder engine. They should have had plenty of
> power, unless they had none. Check the prop: does it look as if it was
> turning?
>

From the photos here
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html

all three blades are bent.

[ET]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in news:rGqNe.2120$7f5.470
@okepread01:

> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html

I dunno, looking at "photo 6" it appears only 1 blade is bent back as if it
was not moving when the planes belly hit (it was then rotated to the top in
the ensuing belly slide) that's my theory anyway. The top blade does not
have that characteristic "prop strike" bend.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Blanche]

Seth Masia > wrote:
>Forced landing. Here's the preliminary dope:
>
>http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html
>also http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_231134313.html
>
>One report says they were en route to Leadville, the highest paved strip in
>the US at 10,000 feet.
>
>If this was a Cherokee 160, they were operating at service ceiling. If a
>Cherokee 180, they had some reserve. Not speculating here, but that's the
>fact.
>
>I've crossed Vail Pass in a rented Cherokee -- but I'm more comfortable
>doing it in my own plane, where I have 250 hp and can pop up to 14,000
>without a second thought.
>
>Seth
>N8100R


If they were going to Leadville, the question is where did they start
from? If anywhere on the east side of the mountains (e.g. the Front
Range which means Ft. Collins -> Denver -> Colorado Springs -> Pueblo)
there are much safer and easier routes to get to
Leadville. Flying I-70 (which is seems they were doing) is NOT
recommended. I've got a cherokee 180 and no way would I ever
go to Leadville by way of I-70.

If they were on the west side, then there's still a safer way
than direct Vail to Leadville. It's called backtracking west almost
to Glenwood Springs, and coming down the valley to Basalt then
heading east (and do not ever fly Independence Pass!)

It looks like they may have been trying to take the Vail-Minturn
route to Leadville.

[Seth Masia]

I agree. It also looks to me as if the prop is feathered.

Other issue is that the direct route Rock Springs to Leadville is via
Tennessee Pass, which is also about 400' lower. Crossing Vail Pass means
you still have to cross Fremont Pass, about 900' higher than Tennessee.

Seth

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in
> news:rGqNe.2120$7f5.470
> @okepread01:
>
>> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html
>
> I dunno, looking at "photo 6" it appears only 1 blade is bent back as if
> it
> was not moving when the planes belly hit (it was then rotated to the top
> in
> the ensuing belly slide) that's my theory anyway. The top blade does not
> have that characteristic "prop strike" bend.
>
> --
> -- ET >:-)
>
> "A common mistake people make when trying to design something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
> fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Seth Masia]

They came down 12nm east of Minturn, which is where they'd have turned south
to fly the Tennessee Pass route.

Seth

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Seth Masia > wrote:
>>Forced landing. Here's the preliminary dope:
>>
>>http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html
>>also http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_231134313.html
>>
>>One report says they were en route to Leadville, the highest paved strip
>>in
>>the US at 10,000 feet.
>>
>>If this was a Cherokee 160, they were operating at service ceiling. If a
>>Cherokee 180, they had some reserve. Not speculating here, but that's the
>>fact.
>>
>>I've crossed Vail Pass in a rented Cherokee -- but I'm more comfortable
>>doing it in my own plane, where I have 250 hp and can pop up to 14,000
>>without a second thought.
>>
>>Seth
>>N8100R
>
>
> If they were going to Leadville, the question is where did they start
> from? If anywhere on the east side of the mountains (e.g. the Front
> Range which means Ft. Collins -> Denver -> Colorado Springs -> Pueblo)
> there are much safer and easier routes to get to
> Leadville. Flying I-70 (which is seems they were doing) is NOT
> recommended. I've got a cherokee 180 and no way would I ever
> go to Leadville by way of I-70.
>
> If they were on the west side, then there's still a safer way
> than direct Vail to Leadville. It's called backtracking west almost
> to Glenwood Springs, and coming down the valley to Basalt then
> heading east (and do not ever fly Independence Pass!)
>
> It looks like they may have been trying to take the Vail-Minturn
> route to Leadville.
>

[Bob Gardner]

Kinda hard to feather the prop on a piston single.

Bob Gardner

"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
>I agree. It also looks to me as if the prop is feathered.
>
> Other issue is that the direct route Rock Springs to Leadville is via
> Tennessee Pass, which is also about 400' lower. Crossing Vail Pass means
> you still have to cross Fremont Pass, about 900' higher than Tennessee.
>
> Seth
>
> "ET" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in
>> news:rGqNe.2120$7f5.470
>> @okepread01:
>>
>>> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html
>>
>> I dunno, looking at "photo 6" it appears only 1 blade is bent back as if
>> it
>> was not moving when the planes belly hit (it was then rotated to the top
>> in
>> the ensuing belly slide) that's my theory anyway. The top blade does not
>> have that characteristic "prop strike" bend.
>>
>> --
>> -- ET >:-)
>>
>> "A common mistake people make when trying to design something
>> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
>> fools."---- Douglas Adams
>
>

[RST Engineering]

It does appear that the prop is feathered and none of the blades are bent
forward, which would be characteristic of a normal power setting prop
strike.

Jim



"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
>I agree. It also looks to me as if the prop is feathered.

[RST Engineering]

I agree with you, Bob, but look at the root of the prop blades. SOMETHING
forced those suckers into perpendicularity to the slipstream.

Not that it matters; that airframe and engine are beer cans from the looks
of it.

Jim


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Kinda hard to feather the prop on a piston single.

[john smith]

> "Seth Masia" > wrote in message
>>You're right. It's a six-cylinder engine. They should have had plenty of
>>power, unless they had none. Check the prop: does it look as if it was
>>turning?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> From the photos here
> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html
> all three blades are bent.

Bent forward, engine developing power.
Bent backward, engine not developing power.

[Seth Masia]

So during a BFR, when the instructor pulls the throttle and tells me to set
up for a practice engine-out landing, and I pull the prop knob all the way
back to reduce prop drag, I'm not feathering the prop? What am I doing?

Seth

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Kinda hard to feather the prop on a piston single.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Seth Masia" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I agree. It also looks to me as if the prop is feathered.
>>
>> Other issue is that the direct route Rock Springs to Leadville is via
>> Tennessee Pass, which is also about 400' lower. Crossing Vail Pass means
>> you still have to cross Fremont Pass, about 900' higher than Tennessee.
>>
>> Seth
>>
>> "ET" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in
>>> news:rGqNe.2120$7f5.470
>>> @okepread01:
>>>
>>>> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html
>>>
>>> I dunno, looking at "photo 6" it appears only 1 blade is bent back as if
>>> it
>>> was not moving when the planes belly hit (it was then rotated to the top
>>> in
>>> the ensuing belly slide) that's my theory anyway. The top blade does
>>> not
>>> have that characteristic "prop strike" bend.
>>>
>>> --
>>> -- ET >:-)
>>>
>>> "A common mistake people make when trying to design something
>>> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
>>> fools."---- Douglas Adams
>>
>>
>
>

[Seth Masia]

In this case, no power. Feathered prop, or at least high pitch. Power-off
forced landing on the interstate at high density altitude. Ground speed at
touchdown could have been 80mph, merging with traffic that often bogs to
50mph on the steep uphill at 10,000 feet.

Pretty dicey but the passenger walked away and the pilot survived with a
back injury. Good work.

Seth


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> "Seth Masia" > wrote in message
>>>You're right. It's a six-cylinder engine. They should have had plenty
>>>of power, unless they had none. Check the prop: does it look as if it
>>>was turning?
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> From the photos here
>> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html
>> all three blades are bent.
>
> Bent forward, engine developing power.
> Bent backward, engine not developing power.

[Bob Moore]

"Seth Masia" > wrote

> So during a BFR, when the instructor pulls the throttle and tells me
> to set up for a practice engine-out landing, and I pull the prop knob
> all the way back to reduce prop drag, I'm not feathering the prop?
> What am I doing?

Setting it to a high pitch but not feather. Does the prop stop
turning? If not, it's not feathered, even if it does stop, in
a single engine airplane it is probably not feathered.

Bob Moore

[Newps]

Seth Masia wrote:
> So during a BFR, when the instructor pulls the throttle and tells me to set
> up for a practice engine-out landing, and I pull the prop knob all the way
> back to reduce prop drag, I'm not feathering the prop? What am I doing?

A feathered prop has the blades go parallel with the forward motion of
the plane. A single engine such as yours will not let the blades turn
that much. You can reduce drag but not nearly as much as a full
feathering prop.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

>
>
> Bent forward, engine developing power.


Ah, no. I have a prop on a stand in my hot tub room that I was able to
make the blades bend back, one at almost 90 degrees. The engine was
wide open at ground contact.

[Seth Masia]

Okay, but look at the Picture 6 in the sequence at
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html

Look carefully at the prop blades, then tell me whether this engine was
making power at touchdown.

Also, no fire. Fuel status? Selector closed?

Seth

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> john smith wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bent forward, engine developing power.
>
>
> Ah, no. I have a prop on a stand in my hot tub room that I was able to
> make the blades bend back, one at almost 90 degrees. The engine was wide
> open at ground contact.

[Newps]

Seth Masia wrote:
> Okay, but look at the Picture 6 in the sequence at
> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4873357/detail.html
>
> Look carefully at the prop blades, then tell me whether this engine was
> making power at touchdown.

I have no idea. What I do know is you can't look at a prop that hit the
ground, see the blades are bent back and conclude it wasn't making
power. I have proof to the contrary. Quite a conversation piece.


>
> Also, no fire. Fuel status? Selector closed?

Mine didn't burn either, but then I didn't rip a wing off.

[Ron Lee]

Plane reportedly from Green River WY area.

Ron Lee

[Blanche]

Interview with the passenger on the local TV stations (pilot still
in serious condition at the Vail hospital). They were flying
from WY to Leadville, plans were to fly over Copper Mtn (about
20-30 miles east of Vail) to check out a motorcycle rally. Pax
said that they realized they were too low and the valley too
narrow to get out. Aircraft landed in a clearing on the
side of the hills (not a flat area, but less steep than most
of the stuff other than the golf course and the road).

I return to my original comment -- why over the mountains
in a single engine aircraft with no easy out?

[Denny]

The vast majority of back country airplanes are single engine...
>From my seat in the cockpit I say he did good in a tough situation...
I'll fly with him any day...

denny

[Ron Lee]

>I return to my original comment -- why over the mountains
>in a single engine aircraft with no easy out?
>

I do it with no problem but I have taken the mountain flying course
and I usually have beaucoup distance between me and terra firma.

Unless some mechanical problem caused this incident odds are it was
pilot error.

Ron Lee

[Blanche]

Denny > wrote:
>The vast majority of back country airplanes are single engine...
>>From my seat in the cockpit I say he did good in a tough situation...
>I'll fly with him any day...

I'm not denying the pilot did an incredible job landing the plane
in light of the geography in the area.

However....

ceiling on a non-turbo PA32 is 14-16K. At the time of the accident,
the ground temps at Vail put the density altitude at 13-15K on the
ground. I still don't know if the aircraft was turbo or not. If
turbo, ceiling goes up to 20K.

So, assuming flying at 1-2K AGL (and ground is 10-11K) then the
aircraft was at the published ceiling. Not surprised they couldn't
get out of the valley.

[Blanche]

Ron Lee > wrote:
>>I return to my original comment -- why over the mountains
>>in a single engine aircraft with no easy out?
>>
>
>I do it with no problem but I have taken the mountain flying course
>and I usually have beaucoup distance between me and terra firma.
>
>Unless some mechanical problem caused this incident odds are it was
>pilot error.

Ron -- we agree that yes, it can be done. And I've taken the
mountain flying course (more than once - never hurts) but as you
pointed out, big air between you and ground. Based on the density
altitude, doesn't seem that there was that much space between
the aircraft and the ground.

Fortunately, no fatalities, the pax is in very good humor (according
to the interviews yesterday) and the pilot is improving.

[Newps]

Ron Lee wrote:

>
>
> and I usually have beaucoup distance between me and terra firma.


Then you're not mountain flying.

[SeeAndAvoid]

It appears to be a 1969 PA32-300 with a TIO-540.
RisingUp.com says its ceiling would be 16,250'.
Pretty large half page color picture of it in todays
local paper.
Chris

[Ron Lee]

Newps > wrote:

>>Ron Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>> and I usually have beaucoup distance between me and terra firma.
>>
>Then you're not mountain flying.
>

OK, you fly over the mountains your way....I will fly mine :)

Why fly through passes when you can fly several thousand feet over
them?

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

Newps > wrote:
>Ron Lee wrote:
>>>
>> and I usually have beaucoup distance between me and terra firma.
>>
>Then you're not mountain flying.

Take a look at these pics and tell me that I am not mountain flying:

http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/LaVetaNorth1.jpg

http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/5T6Thanksgiving2004/RuidosoSkiArea1.jpg

http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/MesaAZMarch2004/SangreDeCristoMtnsSmall.jpg

http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/MesaAZMarch2004/MoscaPassSmall.jpg

http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/MesaAZMarch2004/MoscaPassSandDunesSmall.jpg

http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/Granby2003/ApproachingPassSmall.jpg

http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/SilverWestAugust2003/MountainsSmall.jpg

Of course if you only consider it mountain flying if you can count
pine cones that is your choice.

Ron Lee

[Morgans]

"Blanche" > wrote

>
> If they were going to Leadville, the question is where did they start
> from? If anywhere on the east side of the mountains (e.g. the Front
> Range which means Ft. Collins -> Denver -> Colorado Springs -> Pueblo)
> there are much safer and easier routes to get to
> Leadville. Flying I-70 (which is seems they were doing) is NOT
> recommended. I've got a cherokee 180 and no way would I ever
> go to Leadville by way of I-70.

Not enough info, as to where the bike rally was that they were on the way to
fly over - before they went to leadville.
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Rapoport]

Those are pictures of flying well over the terrain and quite a distance from
the mountains, they do not really depict "mountain flying"

Mike
MU-2


"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Newps > wrote:
>>Ron Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>> and I usually have beaucoup distance between me and terra firma.
>>>
>>Then you're not mountain flying.
>
> Take a look at these pics and tell me that I am not mountain flying:
>
> http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/LaVetaNorth1.jpg
>
> http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/5T6Thanksgiving2004/RuidosoSkiArea1.jpg
>
> http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/MesaAZMarch2004/SangreDeCristoMtnsSmall.jpg
>
> http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/MesaAZMarch2004/MoscaPassSmall.jpg
>
> http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/MesaAZMarch2004/MoscaPassSandDunesSmall.jpg
>
> http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/Granby2003/ApproachingPassSmall.jpg
>
> http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/SilverWestAugust2003/MountainsSmall.jpg
>
> Of course if you only consider it mountain flying if you can count
> pine cones that is your choice.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>

[Blanche]

Mike Rapoport > wrote:
>Those are pictures of flying well over the terrain and quite a distance from
>the mountains, they do not really depict "mountain flying"

So -- can we agree on a definition of "mountain flying" before we
start getting snotty?

[Ron Lee]

"Morgans" > wrote:
>
>Not enough info, as to where the bike rally was that they were on the way to
>fly over - before they went to leadville.

It probably was not at the highest elevation in that area!

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

Blanche > wrote:

>Mike Rapoport > wrote:
>>Those are pictures of flying well over the terrain and quite a distance from
>>the mountains, they do not really depict "mountain flying"
>
>So -- can we agree on a definition of "mountain flying" before we
>start getting snotty?

Perhaps mountain flying is where you have minimal terrain separation.
Not my idea of smart if you encounter a downdraft due to mountain wave
action...which I have.

Would you say that the pilot who impacted mountainous terrain in the
Vail Pass area was mountain flying?

Who would you rather fly with....him or me?

Ron Lee

[Seth Masia]

Bike rally was at Copper Mountain, on the east side of Vail Pass at 9000
feet. From Copper, to get to Leadville, they'd then have had to fly south
over another 11,000' pass.

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>>
>>Not enough info, as to where the bike rally was that they were on the way
>>to
>>fly over - before they went to leadville.
>
> It probably was not at the highest elevation in that area!
>
> Ron Lee

[Newps]

Ron Lee wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>>Ron Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>and I usually have beaucoup distance between me and terra firma.
>>>
>>
>>Then you're not mountain flying.
>>
>
>
> OK, you fly over the mountains your way....I will fly mine :)
>
> Why fly through passes when you can fly several thousand feet over
> them?

That's up to you but when people talk about mountain flying they are in
or very near the mountains. Flying a couple thousand feet over the
mountains is just a cross country, you can do that in Iowa.

[Newps]

Ron Lee wrote:

> Newps > wrote:
>
>>Ron Lee wrote:
>>
>>>and I usually have beaucoup distance between me and terra firma.
>>>
>>
>>Then you're not mountain flying.
>
>
> Take a look at these pics and tell me that I am not mountain flying:

You're not.



> Of course if you only consider it mountain flying if you can count
> pine cones that is your choice.

That's the definition of mountain flying.

[Newps]

Ron Lee wrote:


>
> Perhaps mountain flying is where you have minimal terrain separation.

Yes. You are flying in the valleys, below the tops of the ridges.


> Not my idea of smart if you encounter a downdraft due to mountain wave
> action...which I have.

Well that's the skill level you need to attain. It's not safe to fly in
the mountains all the time. On clear sunny days after about 11 am it
gets too turbulent to fly in the mountains, you run into those
downdrafts you talk about. Get up early and you can fly over the
mounatin passes at a few hundred feet agl as easily as you fly over
anywhere else.


>
> Would you say that the pilot who impacted mountainous terrain in the
> Vail Pass area was mountain flying?

I don't know what his altitude was when he had whatever problem he had.
He ended up in the mountains, I don't know where he started.


>
> Who would you rather fly with....him or me?

Neither. He crashed and you avoid the mountains like they will reach up
and grab you.

[Seth Masia]

Safe mountain flying involves a constellation of skills. Around here
(Colorado) clouds often build up in the late afternoons with bases at13,000
to 15,000; summits are 13,000 to 14,000, so to get home we fly the passes,
typically 10,000 to 12,000. This means flying (typically) at 12,500. It
can be done safely if you understand the terrain and the wind --
specifically how the wind rises and falls along the valley walls, where
spillover turbulence is, and where you'll find lift as opposed to downdraft
if you have to make a short 180. When you fly here a lot you learn each of
the passes and what the wind does depending on speed and direction. You
need to know how to do a chandelle. Pointless to even try lightplane flight
upwind if the wind is 25 knots at the summit: some downdrafts will be 2000
fpm. Downwind (eastbound) flight is safer but there's lots of turbulence on
the lee side. Etc.

Given clear weather and adequate power, I keep at least 1500 terrain
clearance just to avoid the spillover rotor. Anyway, over wilderness
areas -- which includes most of the Continenal Divide terrain -- the Forest
Service wants 2000 feet of terrain clearance to avoid spooking wildlife.
This is not a trivial issue when animals are stressed in winter or during
drought.

On calm days it is fun to scoot lower. CAP and pipeline missions routinely
fly this terrain, safely, at 500 agl. Before doing it, it's instructive to
figure out your best climb angle at the appropriate density altitude,
compare it to the angle of the rising terrain -- and consider what you'd do
if you lost power or ran into unexpected wind.

I can't figure out why the Vail Pass Cherokee couldn't climb out of trouble.
The road is a 3% grade, and with that engine he should have been able to
climb at 500fpm -- a 5% grade at 90 knots. Something else was going on
there -- overloaded airplane, weak engine, bad leaning, wrong prop setting,
downdraft side of the valley, fuel starvation ???? If they were below
10,000 feet over the town of Vail, it's because they were sightseeing -- the
ridgelines on the north and south sides of the valley are about 11,500 in
town, rising as you go eastward.

Sorry to obsess about this one, but it's my back yard and I want to know how
to avoid whatever it was that ruined this flight.

Seth

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> Newps > wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>and I usually have beaucoup distance between me and terra firma.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then you're not mountain flying.
>>
>>
>> Take a look at these pics and tell me that I am not mountain flying:
>
> You're not.
>
>
>
>> Of course if you only consider it mountain flying if you can count
>> pine cones that is your choice.
>
> That's the definition of mountain flying.
>

[RST Engineering]

>
> I can't figure out why the Vail Pass Cherokee couldn't climb out of
> trouble. The road is a 3% grade, and with that engine he should have been
> able to climb at 500fpm -- a 5% grade at 90 knots.

300 horsies with only two on board (plus lord knows how much baggage) oughta
be more than 500 fpm. Unless it was violently turbulent, and the passenger
didn't indicate this was the case.


Something else was going on
> there -- overloaded airplane,

2 souls on board and I didn't see any indication of baggage piled up over
the rear windows or strewn about the countryside.


> weak engine,

Possibly, but even at compression limits you'd be getting 90%+ of rated
power. With the engine as bunged up as it is, all you can do is rely on the
readings at the last annual (if they were even recorded in the log).


> bad leaning,

Only if he REALLY screwed up. When you come from Green River/Rock Springs
the first thing you learn in an aircraft is leaning.


>wrong prop setting,

Not enough of the prop left to do a decent analysis.



> downdraft side of the valley,

Possibly. Didn't your instructor teach you a chandelle as the fastest way
to get the hell out of there in a minimum of room?



fuel starvation ????

As I remember the Cherokee has a single "on-off" fuel lever to prevent that
sort of thing. I doubt fuel exhaustion either or somebody would have
mentioned that there was no fuel on the ground.



>
> Sorry to obsess about this one, but it's my back yard and I want to know
> how to avoid whatever it was that ruined this flight.

I feel the same way when we lose one in the Sierra. Worse when I know the
folks.



Jim

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote

> On clear sunny days after about 11 am it
> gets too turbulent to fly in the mountains, you run into those
> downdrafts you talk about. Get up early and you can fly over the
> mounatin passes at a few hundred feet agl as easily as you fly over
> anywhere else.

What was that noise I just heard?

Oh, never mind. It was just my BS detector going off.

Mountain waves can be present at any time of the day, when the wind
conditions are right. Remind me not to take any mountain flying lessons
from you.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Seth Masia" > wrote

> Something else was going on
> there -- overloaded airplane, weak engine, bad leaning, wrong prop
setting,
> downdraft side of the valley, fuel starvation ????

The report I read had the passenger saying that they were losing power.
--
Jim in NC

[Blanche]

I'm still thinking the density altitude issue. Lots of horsepower
does not automatically mean higher service ceiling.

[Matt Barrow]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" > wrote
>
> > On clear sunny days after about 11 am it
> > gets too turbulent to fly in the mountains, you run into those
> > downdrafts you talk about. Get up early and you can fly over the
> > mounatin passes at a few hundred feet agl as easily as you fly over
> > anywhere else.
>
> What was that noise I just heard?
>
> Oh, never mind. It was just my BS detector going off.

Yeah...you do BS consistently. Full of it as always.

>
> Mountain waves can be present at any time of the day, when the wind
> conditions are right. Remind me not to take any mountain flying lessons
> from you.

And maybe if you can't comprehend written context, lessons would be
worthless taken from anyone.

[Ron Lee]

Newps > wrote:
>
>Well that's the skill level you need to attain. It's not safe to fly in
>the mountains all the time. On clear sunny days after about 11 am it
>gets too turbulent to fly in the mountains, you run into those
>downdrafts you talk about. Get up early and you can fly over the
>mounatin passes at a few hundred feet agl as easily as you fly over
>anywhere else.

I guess the mountain wave downdraft I encountered around 830 AM was my
imagination.

Ron Lee

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Newps > wrote:
> >
> >Well that's the skill level you need to attain. It's not safe to fly in
> >the mountains all the time. On clear sunny days after about 11 am it
> >gets too turbulent to fly in the mountains, you run into those
> >downdrafts you talk about. Get up early and you can fly over the
> >mounatin passes at a few hundred feet agl as easily as you fly over
> >anywhere else.
>
> I guess the mountain wave downdraft I encountered around 830 AM was my
> imagination.

It must have been since he said it ALWAYS happens the way he inferred.

[Mike Rapoport]

I would define "Mountain Flying" the same as Newps, where the airplane is
below ridge level (in and amongst the mountains) to perhaps a thousand feet
above the ridges.. Is an airliner flying seven miles above the highest
peaks "mountain flying?

Mike
MU-2


"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport > wrote:
>>Those are pictures of flying well over the terrain and quite a distance
>>from
>>the mountains, they do not really depict "mountain flying"
>
> So -- can we agree on a definition of "mountain flying" before we
> start getting snotty?
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" > wrote
>
>> On clear sunny days after about 11 am it
>> gets too turbulent to fly in the mountains, you run into those
>> downdrafts you talk about. Get up early and you can fly over the
>> mounatin passes at a few hundred feet agl as easily as you fly over
>> anywhere else.
>
> What was that noise I just heard?
>
> Oh, never mind. It was just my BS detector going off.
>
> Mountain waves can be present at any time of the day, when the wind
> conditions are right. Remind me not to take any mountain flying lessons
> from you.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Since you totally missed his point, perhaps you do need to take some
instruction.

Mike
MU-2

[Morgans]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>
> Since you totally missed his point, perhaps you do need to take some
> instruction.

What point was it that I missed? Are you telling me that mountain wave
activity is not present early in the morning?
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Rapoport]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>>
>> Since you totally missed his point, perhaps you do need to take some
>> instruction.
>
> What point was it that I missed? Are you telling me that mountain wave
> activity is not present early in the morning?
> --
> Jim in NC
>


No, it can be present anytime. However the time-of-day issues that Newps
brought up are more relevent 99% of the time. While it is possible for an
airplane to crash into a ridge while flying upwind because of a wave, I
don't think that I have ever heard of it happening. By the time mountain
waves are a real issue the wind is usually screaming. Perhaps we could add
"don't fly if the ridgetop winds are over XXkts to Newps' advice to fly in
the mountains. What Newps said is what 99% of mountain flying instructore
would have said.

Mike
MU-2

[Morgans]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote

> While it is possible for an
> airplane to crash into a ridge while flying upwind because of a wave, I
> don't think that I have ever heard of it happening.

I never saw anyone say anything about upwind or downwind in this thread, did
you?

While downdrafts due to thermals are a possibility, I can't imagine anyone
flying close enough to a ridge to not be able to get away from it's
"clutches", and flying into a ridge because of them. Flying early is
important for comfort, but beyond that, I don't see the relevance. All that
is left is wave activity, it seemed to me.

Or I could be wrong, then "nevermind."
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

>
> While downdrafts due to thermals are a possibility, I can't imagine anyone
> flying close enough to a ridge to not be able to get away from it's
> "clutches", and flying into a ridge because of them.

That's entirely possible. Most flatlanders, when presented a valley to
fly in, fly right down the middle. You're supposed to fly on the
downwind side of a valley. The wind goes into the valley and rides up
the downwind side. If you fly near the rocks then you can get that lift
too.


Flying early is
> important for comfort,

But mostly for safety.

[Ron Lee]

Newps > wrote:
> Flying early is important for comfort,
>
>But mostly for safety.

As does flying ABOVE the tree line/ridge instead of level with it :)

Ron Lee

[Mike Rapoport]

There are many more foces at work in the mountains than just wave. The most
common is up and downslope winds. The upslope wind starts when the ground
begins to heat up and reaches a maximium around 5pm. Downslope winds start
as the air cools and flows down hill. First thing in the morning the
termperatures have pretty much equalized and the air tends to be calm.
These diurnal effects can be dramatic. Consider Hood River OR, possibly the
wind surfing capital of the world. Every morning it is calm and every
afternoon it is blowing around 25kts. This wind is predictable at Hood
River with one major drainage going from the low, moist coast to the high,
dry interior, but when you have numerous drainages interacting with each
other and complex differential heating the velocity and direction of the
wind becomes unpredicable and often varies 180deg from one end of a 1000'
runway to the other as well as having large up and down components.

It is not just a matter of comfort, it doesn't take much wind to produce
significant up and downdrafts in very rugged terrain as well as horizontal
shear. The problem is that the direction of these small-scale winds cannot
be predicted. When taking off or landing it is easy to be forced into the
ground by a tailwind or downdraft. Another problem is that many mountain
airports are one way and you can't take off or land unless the wind is
either calm or favorable.

Once you get above ridgetop level the wind starts to flow in a predicable
manner, thus the difference flying "over the mountains" and "mountain
flying" that Newps was making.

The best rule is to fly in the morning when none of this stuff is going on.

Mike
MU-2


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>
>> While it is possible for an
>> airplane to crash into a ridge while flying upwind because of a wave, I
>> don't think that I have ever heard of it happening.
>
> I never saw anyone say anything about upwind or downwind in this thread,
> did
> you?
>
> While downdrafts due to thermals are a possibility, I can't imagine anyone
> flying close enough to a ridge to not be able to get away from it's
> "clutches", and flying into a ridge because of them. Flying early is
> important for comfort, but beyond that, I don't see the relevance. All
> that
> is left is wave activity, it seemed to me.
>
> Or I could be wrong, then "nevermind."
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Newps > wrote:
>> Flying early is important for comfort,
>>
>>But mostly for safety.
>
> As does flying ABOVE the tree line/ridge instead of level with it :)
>
> Ron Lee
>

The winds above the ridgeline are predicable.

Mike
MU-2

[Arketip]

Newps wrote:
> That's entirely possible. Most flatlanders, when presented a valley to
> fly in, fly right down the middle. You're supposed to fly on the
> downwind side of a valley. The wind goes into the valley and rides up
> the downwind side. If you fly near the rocks then you can get that lift
> too.
>
>
> Flying early is
>
>> important for comfort,
>
>
> But mostly for safety.

I the Alps we usually fly on the right side of the valley, to avoid
conflict with other traffic, unless there is strong downdraft of course.

And we cross the ridge at 45 degrees, for a quick turn around if needed.