Downdraft at 12,000 feet

[James Robinson]

Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.

http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367

Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

[Peter R.]

James Robinson > wrote:

> Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.
>
> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367
>
> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

Iced up on the way up through the layer?

--
Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. ..
> Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.
>
> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367
>
> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

Wrong
Talked to a reporter.

[[email protected]]

James Robinson > wrote:
> Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.
>
> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367
>
> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

The article mentioned twice that he remembered being taught how to
recover from a death spiral from his first flight instructor ... would
have been nice if they'd printed what he did!

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> The article mentioned twice that he remembered being taught how to
> recover from a death spiral from his first flight instructor ... would
> have been nice if they'd printed what he did!

The reporter probably wouldn't have gotten it right had the pilot provided
him/her with the steps. :)

--
Peter

[Robert M. Gary]

James Robinson wrote:
> Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.
>
> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367
>
> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

That's happened to me out there too. I reported to ATC that I couldn't
maintain atltitude and got pulled down into the clouds. I picked up a
bit of ice and went below the MEA. Luckily I had a terrain GPS on board
and could stay between the mountains. Before anything got worse I got
the updraft and couldn't hold altitude again. The next time I flew that
same route I flew it at 14,000 and avoided the situation. This happens
when the winds are high in that area. I believe the winds were 25-30
knots at the same. Interestingly there was a c-172 about 10 miles away
that wasn't having any problems.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
> > The article mentioned twice that he remembered
> > being taught how to recover from a death spiral from
> > his first flight instructor ... would have been nice if
> > they'd printed what he did!

"Peter R." > wrote:
> The reporter probably wouldn't have gotten it right had
> the pilot provided him/her with the steps. :)

Yeah, good point.

[Mxsmanic]

James Robinson writes:

> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

Too little information to say.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

James Robinson > wrote in news:Xns98AC8E2C089D5wascana212com@
216.196.97.142:

> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367

Wrong: Crashed
Right: Lived

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> James Robinson writes:
>
> > Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?
>
> Too little information to say.

Your training and experience led you to that conclusion?

The ignorant, untrained and inexperienced are most often merely
masturbating their keyboard when they post: I dunno. Silence will
signify the identical idea.
-----

- gpsman

[Stefan]

James Robinson schrieb:

> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

His mistake was to go there in the first place.

I've been taught an iron rule: Never ever fly on top of a closed cloud
layer over mountains in a light single. Because if you hit downdraft
over mountains, you will *not* be able to hold altitude. With a closed
layer this means that you will find yourself between mountains in the
soup. (Which means that most probably you won't be able to tell anybody
about it afterwards).

A closed layer over mountains is a definitve no-go situation for a light
single, unless you like to gamble.

Stefan

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> Your training and experience led you to that conclusion?

No, the lack of information in the article led me to that conclusion.

> The ignorant, untrained and inexperienced are most often merely
> masturbating their keyboard when they post: I dunno.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Anyway, if you have more information on the incident, please post it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BT]

What did he do wrong? He went flying on a day forecast for heavy to severe
Santa Anna winds and tried to get through the pass from the Desert to the
Valley and then he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He was IFR in clouds and lost control, the resulting death spiral.

Glad he's ok..

BT


"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. ..
> Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.
>
> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367
>
> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> gpsman writes:
>
>> Your training and experience led you to that conclusion?
>
> No, the lack of information in the article led me to that conclusion.
>

Looking at a map makes it reasonably clear. He was downwind from and not
much higher than a mountain range.

--
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.

[pgbnh]

Not clear that 'downdraft' and 'death spiral' are necessarily related. We
have all been in downdrafts - some worse than others. Downdrafts don't cause
spirals. Loss of spatial awareness causes a death spiral.

As others have said it would be nice to know what the pilot actually did,
but what he SHOULD have done was fly the airplane, wings level, and fly OUT
of the downdraft. Either by reversing direction or flying 0 or 180 degrees
off the wind dirrection. I think this pilot is alive due to luck, not due to
remembering his training
"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. ..
> Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.
>
> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367
>
> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. ..
> Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.
>
> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367
>
> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

Wrong? Probably had never taken a mountain flying course. I'll bet there
were high winds involved. The strong downdraft was predictable, and
possibly avoidable.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

pgbnh wrote:
> Not clear that 'downdraft' and 'death spiral' are necessarily related. We
> have all been in downdrafts - some worse than others. Downdrafts don't cause
> spirals. Loss of spatial awareness causes a death spiral.

The news article (for what that's worth) quotes the pilot as sayng the
downdraft pulled him into the cloud. Which would produce spatial
disorientation and, probably, a spiral dive. So maybe they are
connected.

> As others have said it would be nice to know what the pilot actually did,
> but what he SHOULD have done was fly the airplane, wings level, and fly OUT
> of the downdraft. Either by reversing direction or flying 0 or 180 degrees
> off the wind dirrection. I think this pilot is alive due to luck, not due to
> remembering his training.

A friend of mine and fellow glider pilot had the reverse happen to him.
He got caught in an updraft so strong that he couldn't fly out of it,
got pulled into the cloud, tried to turn to get out, couldn't, lost
orientation, went into spiral dive, but remembered an article he had
read a long time ago, and used it to get out in one piece (him and the
plane!).

I can't say that the method he used was the same as what this guy
tried, but it worked for my friend -- better than for this pilot since
he and the plane got out of the cloud in one piece. So here is what he
did: Neutralize stick (or yoke) in pitch and apply pressure to one
side. If the G force decreases, you guessed right. If G increases, try
the other side.

As soon as the G forces feel more normal, pull back to avoid exceeding
Vne. Only problem was, without a gyro, he went 80 degrees to the
vertical, stopped flying, fell backward, and then the forward CG got
him flying again. So he went into another spiral dive, but used the
same method to recover a second time and this time came out of the
cloud.

He had deployed his spoilers, gear, etc. in an attempt to come out the
bottom. He knows a lot about what happened because he was carrying a
flight recorder which gliders use to prove how far, high, etc. they
flew. It records GPS lat/long and barometric altitude about once every
twelve seconds.

So that's a maneuver that worked for one, excellent pilot. He's been
flying since he's 14 and is one of the best. His main conclusion
however is that he screwed up by being in a place and mindset where he
could get sucked into the cloud in the first place -- too close to
cloud base, too much in a mindset of looking for that one great thermal
to get him home after a so-so day of soaring.

Hope this helps answer the question several others also asked.

Martin

[JGalban[_2_]]

Geoff wrote :

>Looking at a map makes it reasonably clear. He was downwind from and
not
>much higher than a mountain range.

Which is exactly where you'd expect to find a rotor from the wave
spilling over the mountain. Flying into a rotor is more than just your
average downdraft. If it's strong, you can expect serious pitch and
bank excursions. Simply put, the plane can easily be out of control.
Combine that with IMC and loss of control would probably not be far
behind.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)


--
JGalban
Posted at www.flight.org

[Danny Deger]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. ..
> Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.
>
> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367
>
> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

I used to own a 35 model Bonanza and it was unstable in roll and would
easily enter a "death spiral". Perhaps the 36 model is the same.

Danny Deger

[Newps]

Danny Deger wrote:

>
> I used to own a 35 model Bonanza and it was unstable in roll and would
> easily enter a "death spiral".


No certificated GA plane is unstable in roll.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"JGalban" > wrote

> Which is exactly where you'd expect to find a rotor from the wave
> spilling over the mountain. Flying into a rotor is more than just your
> average downdraft. If it's strong, you can expect serious pitch and
> bank excursions. Simply put, the plane can easily be out of control.
> Combine that with IMC and loss of control would probably not be far
> behind.

From what I have read, entering a real rotor, one would be lucky to be spat
out with the wings still attached to the plane.

Loss of control? Certainly.

Loss of plane? Perhaps.

Thoughts? Some out here can discuss rotors with authority, I'm sure.

Jer ? ? ?
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Lee]

"Morgans" > wrote:
>From what I have read, entering a real rotor, one would be lucky to be spat
>out with the wings still attached to the plane.
>
>Loss of control? Certainly.
>
>Loss of plane? Perhaps.
>
>Thoughts? Some out here can discuss rotors with authority, I'm sure.

Can't say with authority but no way will I go anywhere near a rotor.
High winds over the Rockies and I don't fly over the mountains.

I have experienced downdrafts and updrafts but nowhere near a rotor.

Ron Lee

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> No certificated GA plane is unstable in roll.

This conflicts with other claims I've read in this group from time to
time, to the effect that all GA planes are unstable, IIRC.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Stefan]

Morgans schrieb:

> From what I have read, entering a real rotor, one would be lucky to be spat
> out with the wings still attached to the plane.

> Thoughts? Some out here can discuss rotors with authority, I'm sure.

Glider pilots use rotors routinely as an elevator to the wave. At some
places, the tow plane tows them right into the rotor. (Formation flight
into the rotor.) So far, all wings still in place and everybody still
alive. Just make sure you stay well below vB.

Stefan

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Newps writes:
>
>> No certificated GA plane is unstable in roll.
>
> This conflicts with other claims I've read in this group from time to
> time, to the effect that all GA planes are unstable, IIRC.
>
Two different issues, I suspect. No planes are stable indefinitely, while
others are quite sensitive and will behave as described.

Neil

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> No certificated GA plane is unstable in roll.
>

Define unstable.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Danny Deger]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Danny Deger wrote:
>
>>
>> I used to own a 35 model Bonanza and it was unstable in roll and would
>> easily enter a "death spiral".
>
>
> No certificated GA plane is unstable in roll.

I simply disagree. A GA plane, if put it a small roll can have the roll
increase if the pilot does nothing. The 35 model Bonanza is unstable in
roll. Go rent one and see for yourself. If you put it in a 30 degree bank
and let go of the stick, the roll will increase until you are in a death
spiral. That is why so many Bonanzas end up in one compared with other
airplanes. As far as I know, all Cessnas are stable in roll, i.e. without
pilot intervention they roll back to wings level.

I have a Masters in Aerospace engineering and my thesis was how to certify
light aircraft. The regs clearly state unstable in roll is acceptable.
They must be stable in pitch, but not in roll.

Danny Deger

[Danny Deger]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Newps,
>
>> No certificated GA plane is unstable in roll.
>>
>
> Define unstable.
>

If the pilot does nothing, the disturbance (e.g. pitch or roll) will
increase.

Danny Deger

[[email protected]]

Morgans > wrote:

> "JGalban" > wrote

> > Which is exactly where you'd expect to find a rotor from the wave
> > spilling over the mountain. Flying into a rotor is more than just your
> > average downdraft. If it's strong, you can expect serious pitch and
> > bank excursions. Simply put, the plane can easily be out of control.
> > Combine that with IMC and loss of control would probably not be far
> > behind.

> From what I have read, entering a real rotor, one would be lucky to be spat
> out with the wings still attached to the plane.

> Loss of control? Certainly.

> Loss of plane? Perhaps.

> Thoughts? Some out here can discuss rotors with authority, I'm sure.

> Jer ? ? ?

There are rotors, then there are ROTORS!

When the winds aloft, at mountain top altitude (~12,000), are
over 25 KN, the local winds are often over 50 KN because of
the effect of the wind flowing down the (constricted) valleys.

So, over 25 KN winds aloft, I choose to stay FAR away from the
rotors... and WATCH where the waves set-up, as the rotors
are under where the waves peak. Now, just because there is not
enough water in the air to see the wave does not mean that they
don't exist... just that you can not see them.

Winds aloft under 20 KN create a little wave, and some benign (read
FUN) rotors. I am often there in an airplane or glider, touching
the edge of the rotor (no visible moisture), to get lift or sink as
needed. A rotor may be relatively smooth, or VERY rough. It just
depends on the nature of the wind on that day and in that location.

I think it is fun to "go play in the wave" near Leadville, Colorado
and the Ten Mile Range. It is ideally set-up as relatively
north-south, and with a < 20 KN wind from the west, it gives an
excellent training situation so that a pilot (with a qualified
mountain instructor on board) can experience the wave. We fly in
the lift, then over to the sink, then go touch the rotor and then
fly back to the lift. DO NOT TRY THIS ON YOUR OWN! I have enough
experience to know where the wave and the rotor are, and always have
several "outs" pre-planned in case I made an incorrect choice.


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer at frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 247 Young Eagles!

[Danny Deger]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>>From what I have read, entering a real rotor, one would be lucky to be
>>spat
>>out with the wings still attached to the plane.
>
> Rotors can be strong or relatively mild. It's fairly common
> to use rotors to climb into the mountain wave in a glider.
> They can be extremely violent, but the stronger they are the
> more likely that you can see them, or wave phenomenon near
> them, and stay out of the worst part. A strong rotor is
> associated with a strong wave which will have strong up and
> down drafts that open a wave gap (the "Foehn gap") in solid
> overcast near the rotor. It's not uncommon to climb through
> that gap and see solid overcast everywhere except in the
> gap. Moisture in the air will produce lenticular clouds
> marking the position of the wave, and that gives another
> clue to the wave/rotor position. Often, the rotor will be
> marked by a rotating cloud in the core.
>
>>Loss of control? Certainly.
>
> I've been rolled 90 degrees on tow, even though I was
> expecting wave activity.
>
>>Loss of plane? Perhaps.
>
> I think "perhaps" is correct, it has happened, but it's
> extremely rare. Experienced glider pilots regularly seek
> out strong wave activity, and experienced tow pilots
> regularly tow gliders to the front (rising) edge of the
> rotor. Commercial glider operations in Colorado have made a
> business of drawing glider pilots from around the world to
> fly in the waves of the Rockies. The trick is knowing where
> the wave and rotor are.
>
>>Thoughts? Some out here can discuss rotors with authority, I'm sure.
>

All of this talk about rotors makes me glad I fly in Houston Texas with the
closest mountain hundreds of miles away.

Danny Deger

[Danny Deger]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
> James Robinson schrieb:
>
>> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?
>
> His mistake was to go there in the first place.
>
> I've been taught an iron rule: Never ever fly on top of a closed cloud
> layer over mountains in a light single. Because if you hit downdraft over
> mountains, you will *not* be able to hold altitude. With a closed layer
> this means that you will find yourself between mountains in the soup.
> (Which means that most probably you won't be able to tell anybody about it
> afterwards).
>
> A closed layer over mountains is a definitve no-go situation for a light
> single, unless you like to gamble.
>

For the same reason, I would think the same would apply for a light twin.

Danny Deger

[Jose[_1_]]

>
> No certificated GA plane is unstable in roll.

Uh, even an Archer is unstable in roll. I went out and tried it myself.

Are you using a different definition of "unstable"? Here's what I did:
I went up on a calm night, trimmed for straight and level flight, and
let go of the controls. The plane flew nicely for about a minute or
three, by which time the aircraft had gotten itself into about a half
standard rate turn, which kept tightening. It took a good few minutes
to get to that point, but it did so every time (and not always in the
same direction). So, on the larger scale, it is unstable in roll,
albeit not =very= unstable in roll. Small excursions lead to larger
excursions. It does require active attention to fly it.

Do you mean something else?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Now, just because there is not
> enough water in the air to see the wave does not mean that they
> don't exist... just that you can not see them.

Does the presence of water intensify the wave, inasmuch as the
evaporation and condensation of water is also an energy pump?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Danny Deger wrote:


>>No certificated GA plane is unstable in roll.
>
Go rent one and see for yourself.

I own one.


If you put it in a 30 degree bank
> and let go of the stick, the roll will increase until you are in a death
> spiral.


Yours was rigged wrong. When put in a coordinated bank it will stay in
that bank.



That is why so many Bonanzas end up in one compared with other
> airplanes. As far as I know, all Cessnas are stable in roll, i.e. without
> pilot intervention they roll back to wings level.

I had a 182 for seven years and they will act the same as my Bonanza.
Put them in a coordinated bank and it will stay there.

[Danny Deger]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>>
>> No certificated GA plane is unstable in roll.
>
> Uh, even an Archer is unstable in roll. I went out and tried it myself.
>
> Are you using a different definition of "unstable"? Here's what I did: I
> went up on a calm night, trimmed for straight and level flight, and let go
> of the controls. The plane flew nicely for about a minute or three, by
> which time the aircraft had gotten itself into about a half standard rate
> turn, which kept tightening. It took a good few minutes to get to that
> point, but it did so every time (and not always in the same direction).
> So, on the larger scale, it is unstable in roll, albeit not =very=
> unstable in roll. Small excursions lead to larger excursions. It does
> require active attention to fly it.

I agree 100% with what you are saying about instability. In my C35 Bonanza,
the roll off would happen fairly fast.

Danny Deger

[Danny Deger]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. ..
> Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.
>
> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367
>
> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

Are there any more details on how he "crashed" an airplane that was
apparently out of control, but didn't die? He must have had control of the
airplane when it hit the ground, but if he had control he wouldn't have hit
the ground.

Danny Deger

[JGalban[_3_]]

Jer wrote :
>So, over 25 KN winds aloft, I choose to stay FAR away from the
>rotors... and WATCH where the waves set-up, as the rotors
>are under where the waves peak. Now, just because there is not
>enough water in the air to see the wave does not mean that they
>don't exist... just that you can not see them.

That's the trouble with rotors. Even when there is enough moisture
to show standing lenticular clouds over the peaks, you may have no
indication of where the rotor is on the downwind side of the range.

The only rotor I ever flew into was just after coming out of a pass
in the Alaska range. There were lenticulars over the peaks, so I knew
there would be rotors downwind. I underestimated how far from the
mountains the rotor would be. After flying about 10 miles out of the
pass, I felt it would be safe to make a right turn, parallel to the
mountain range. I was wrong and flew right into the rotor. I spent a
good 5 min. with very little control over my plane. It was a very
upleasant feeling. If that happened in IMC, I wouldn't give big odds
on getting out in one piece.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)


--
JGalban
Posted at www.flight.org

[Stefan]

JGalban schrieb:

> I spent a good 5 min. with very little control over my plane.

You stayed 5 minutes in the rotor and didn't even think of doing a 90
degrees turn and leave it?

> If that happened in IMC,

Rotors, except at their very top, are always VMC.

Stefan

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> > Now, just because there is not
> > enough water in the air to see the wave does not mean that they
> > don't exist... just that you can not see them.

> Does the presence of water intensify the wave, inasmuch as the
> evaporation and condensation of water is also an energy pump?

An excellent thought, but no, the wind is the driving force and the
prime energy factor.

When evaporation and condensation is the driving force, you get
towering cumulo-nimbus and vertical wind sheer (severe downdrafts).

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer at frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 247 Young Eagles!

[N2310D]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans schrieb:
>
>> From what I have read, entering a real rotor, one would be lucky to be
>> spat out with the wings still attached to the plane.
>
>> Thoughts? Some out here can discuss rotors with authority, I'm sure.
>
> Glider pilots use rotors routinely as an elevator to the wave. At some
> places, the tow plane tows them right into the rotor. (Formation flight
> into the rotor.) So far, all wings still in place and everybody still
> alive. Just make sure you stay well below vB.

No, gliders may transit the rotor but they sure as hell don't like
to fly in it. The best way is to catch the bottom of the wave near the lee
side of whatever terrain is creating it. Some even work on towing or
thermaling into the secondary or tertiary wave and avoid the primary rotor
all together.

[Stefan]

N2310D schrieb:

>> Glider pilots use rotors routinely as an elevator to the wave. At some

> No, gliders may transit the rotor but they sure as hell don't like

You're talking to a glider pilot. And the question was not whether we
like it, but wheter the wings stay attached.

Personally, I like the wild ride of a rotor. But I agree that I may be
somewhat untypical.

Stefan

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:27:52 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Danny Deger wrote:
>
>
>>>No certificated GA plane is unstable in roll.
>>
> Go rent one and see for yourself.
>
>I own one.
>
>
> If you put it in a 30 degree bank
>> and let go of the stick, the roll will increase until you are in a death
>> spiral.
>
>
>Yours was rigged wrong. When put in a coordinated bank it will stay in
>that bank.

One of you is talking about a *stabilized* turn, the other it talking
about rolling into a 30 degree bank They are two different animals.
The Deb and Bo will keep right on going if you just roll into a 30
degree bank and let go. They will both happily fly a stabilized 30 or
45 degree banked turn hands off.

Roll mine into a 45 degree bank and dowwwwwnnnn we go. Roll into a 45
degree stabilized turn and trim and I know it'll do a 720 with so
little altitude variation you can barely see it.

>
>
>
> That is why so many Bonanzas end up in one compared with other
>> airplanes. As far as I know, all Cessnas are stable in roll, i.e. without
>> pilot intervention they roll back to wings level.
>
>I had a 182 for seven years and they will act the same as my Bonanza.
>Put them in a coordinated bank and it will stay there.
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[JGalban[_4_]]

Stefan wrote :
>> I spent a good 5 min. with very little control over my plane.

>You stayed 5 minutes in the rotor and didn't even think of doing a 90
>degrees turn and leave it?

I wasn't kidding when I said I had very little control over the
plane. The first few minutes I concentrated on keeping the shiny side
of the plane pointed up. I was eventually able to generally point the
plane 90 degrees to the left and fly out, but even that took awhile.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)


--
JGalban
Posted at www.flight.org

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:09:26 -0800, Robert M. Gary wrote
(in article m>):

>
> James Robinson wrote:
>> Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.
>>
>> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367
>>
>> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?
>
> That's happened to me out there too. I reported to ATC that I couldn't
> maintain atltitude and got pulled down into the clouds. I picked up a
> bit of ice and went below the MEA. Luckily I had a terrain GPS on board
> and could stay between the mountains.

Yeah, I have had that happen to me out there, too, but no ice. It can get
especially bad at night. I remember one night hearing a pilot in a Bonanza
that was very frightened by it.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:58:30 -0800, James Robinson wrote
(in article >):

> Pilot reported heavy downdraft over Lancaster, CA, resulting in crash.
>
> http://www.orovillemr.com/news/chico/ci_4917367
>
> Can somebody explain what he did right/wrong?

I doubt very much that he was in a death spiral. Stiff downdrafts are very
common in the area. You can't climb out of them. You either turn away from
the mountain or you start picking up speed and get out of there (you get to
ride the elevator up on the other side of the mountain, so a little descent
to pick up speed doesn't cost you nearly as much as the amount you will
descend if you stay there).

I remember one night another Bonanza got into trouble with a downdraft near
there. The pilot was pretty panicky on the radio. He got below minimum
terrain clearance and was trying to circle (!) to climb up again. Fortunately
he somehow flew out of it, probably learning the wrong lesson in the process.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 09:20:32 -0800, wrote
(in article >):

> Morgans > wrote:
>
>> "JGalban" > wrote
>
>>> Which is exactly where you'd expect to find a rotor from the wave
>>> spilling over the mountain. Flying into a rotor is more than just your
>>> average downdraft. If it's strong, you can expect serious pitch and
>>> bank excursions. Simply put, the plane can easily be out of control.
>>> Combine that with IMC and loss of control would probably not be far
>>> behind.
>
>> From what I have read, entering a real rotor, one would be lucky to be spat
>> out with the wings still attached to the plane.
>
>> Loss of control? Certainly.
>
>> Loss of plane? Perhaps.
>
>> Thoughts? Some out here can discuss rotors with authority, I'm sure.
>
>> Jer ? ? ?
>
> There are rotors, then there are ROTORS!

Hmmm. I suppose it was a ROTOR (as opposed to a mere rotor) that tore the
tail off a B-52 near the Sangre de Cristo mountains in Colorado in 1964. IIRC
the crew managed to land the plane anyway.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
C J Campbell > wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 09:20:32 -0800, wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > Morgans > wrote:
> >
> >> "JGalban" > wrote
> >
> >>> Which is exactly where you'd expect to find a rotor from the wave
> >>> spilling over the mountain. Flying into a rotor is more than just your
> >>> average downdraft. If it's strong, you can expect serious pitch and
> >>> bank excursions. Simply put, the plane can easily be out of control.
> >>> Combine that with IMC and loss of control would probably not be far
> >>> behind.
> >
> >> From what I have read, entering a real rotor, one would be lucky to be
> >> spat
> >> out with the wings still attached to the plane.
> >
> >> Loss of control? Certainly.
> >
> >> Loss of plane? Perhaps.
> >
> >> Thoughts? Some out here can discuss rotors with authority, I'm sure.

Mountain waves can generate tremendous lift (on the smooth side) and
catastrophic turbulence on the rotor side.

Back in the 1950s, Paul Bickle, director of NASA flight research at
Edwards AFB, had some Pratt-Reed sailplanes instrumented to research the
Sierra Wave. These were WW-II military training gliders, good for +9g,
-4g. They lost one when it came apart in the rotor; fortunately, the
crew bailed out and survived.

Legend has it that Tony LeVier soared the F-104 in the Sierra Wave. He
shut down the engine and returned to base 2 hours after expected fuel
depletion.

[James Robinson]

wrote:

> Morgans > wrote:
>
>> "JGalban" > wrote
>
>> > Which is exactly where you'd expect to find a rotor from the wave
>> > spilling over the mountain. Flying into a rotor is more than just
>> > your average downdraft. If it's strong, you can expect serious
>> > pitch and bank excursions. Simply put, the plane can easily be
>> > out of control. Combine that with IMC and loss of control would
>> > probably not be far behind.
>
>> From what I have read, entering a real rotor, one would be lucky to
>> be spat out with the wings still attached to the plane.
>
>> Loss of control? Certainly.
>
>> Loss of plane? Perhaps.
>
>> Thoughts? Some out here can discuss rotors with authority, I'm sure.
>
>> Jer ? ? ?
>
> There are rotors, then there are ROTORS!

The power of rotors was demonstrated by the loss of a BOAC 707 in Japan
in 1966. It was making a sightseeing detour because of exceptionally
clear weather close to Mt Fuji, and broke apart in flight.

The aircraft appears to have flown into a rotor downwind of Mt. Fuji, and
first lost the vertical stabilizer, followed by the horizontal
stabilizers, the engines, and the extreme end of the right wing. What
was left descended in a flat spin.

The amazing part is that Mt.Fuji is about 12,400 feet, and the aircraft
started breaking apart at about 16,500 feet altitude, almost 10 nmiles
downwind of the summit. Who would generally expect a rotor that high
above the mountain?

Winds were measured at 60 to 70 kts by the weather station on the summit
of the mountain. There were apparently no lenticular or rotor clouds in
the vicinity of the mountain to give a visual clue of the winds power.
Other aircraft reported severe turbulence up to 27 nm from the mountain.

The pilot of a Navy A4 sent to look for the aircraft reported that when
he was downwind from the mountain, he encountered turbulance that tore
off his oxygen mask, caused his head to bang back and forth in the
canopy, his instruments to be unreadable, and the controls almost
useless. He managed to climb out, and when the G meter was downloaded,
it read +9 and -4 Gs.

It certainly makes one respect the potential power of a mountain wave.

[Dave[_5_]]

Once I flew past Mt Shasta in Northern CA on my way to Oregon - with a
healthy tailwind. I had to cross over the lee side of the mountain to
get where I was going - and delayed doing so for probably 20 miles to
avoid possible turbulence. I got a good bounce anyway. There was no
visual cue to indicate what was happening.

David Johnson