iceman wrote:well since there are so many interrested in JC experiences I figure I'll retell the crashes I've seen in my many years of going up there... Maybe it will help shed some light on the difficulty of flying the mountains and canyons.... First or second year back in the 90's the sprinkler system was like the farmers use... long 4 inch pipes laid out on the runway with sprinkler heads every 40 or 50 feet... Gene and Cody were caretakers and we, my flying buds and I, offered to help with the job and it was a job laying all that pipe....we were almost done having started at the north end laying pipe on the west half of the runway so that aircraft could still land closer to the east side... we were about at the southern most outhouse when we heard a plane approaching from the North...we watched as he crossed the threshold about 75 ft above the grass.. it was a newly overhaulled turbo 182 flown by a midwest pilot and his wife as passenger... both were pilots... he added power at about the first runway distance marker but not enough to climb and go around... kept coming and stayed about 75 ft above the runway to the caretakers house and we began to wonder what his intentions were... there was no decent and when he got to our location we hightailed it to the trees as it was evident there was something not right.... at about 100 ft past the outhouse he stalled and slammed it on flat and went back up about 35 ft rolled left and nosed into the runway about a hundred feet from the parking area... turns out they were arguing about what to do .. He wanted to salvage the landing she was yelling go around..so in this instance pilot distraction was probably a major factor... we got them out and both were shaken but unhurt... vacation over...next one was a couple years later... a new low time pilot in, if I remember correctly, a 125 HP grumman T cat... loaded and afternoon... wind naturally out of the south so he made the decision to take off to the south,,, several pilots advised him that was not a good idea and urged him to wait till evening when wind shifted and lessened.... he waited about an hour and launched to the south.... flew around the house at tree top level and wound up in the creek upstream... Third was a newly overhauled 210 with 5 hrs since overhaul when pilot decided to venture off to the mountains... entered down wind on the south side at well over the tops of the ridges... turned base and final about a mile from the runway same altitude... turned final and realized how high he was so he pointed the nose at the ground and dove... no shit we were looking at the top of the aircraft as if we were directly above it on the ground... well all that speed built up and he rounded out about 20 feet above the grass doing about 90... then tried to force it on whereby it bounced, and he tried it again, this time the nose wheel departed and we all once again hastily left the shade of our parked planes and ran... he wound up in the trees on the west side by the wind sock...third was a twin that couldn't get airborn in the heat of the afternoon g oing North... wound up in the tall grass down by the old mink farm....fourth was a piper 140 loaded and trying to take off to the north again after noon,... we and several others advised him to wait as he was asking advice.... advice ignored and we watched him clip a tree at the end but luckily kept going... he made it to McCall....didn't see the one during a BCP fly in years ago but there was a pilot new to mountain flying wanting to go to big creek for breakfast... turned up the wrong canyon after yellow pine and found it was a box canyon... not enough room to turn, didn't practice canyon turns i gather, not enough altitude and not knowing what to look for in the drainages....he didn't make it but his wife did....so low time not withstanding decisions were made in spite of advice from knowlegable pilots familiar with the mountains, diving to an airport... ( my old instructor told me you don't dive to an airport. if that's your choice to land you've already fucked up your approach and probably will the landing, or arrival , as he called it...taking off with a underpowered aircraft for the conditions into rising terrain, failure to see your no go abort point...flying down the middle of the canyons instead of high and to the right, I don't know I remember being tought all those things when I was a low time student... and I am sure all those CFI"s mentioned those things at least once during their training of these guys.. so what do we do about the galactically stupid... hopefully don't occupy the same airspace as them but better yet, be doubly vigilant in the mountains and if you want to do this kind of flying more than once get some dual from a local or local instructor...hope I haven't pissed anyone off again....lol

Pissed me off by not splitting your post into paragraphs to make it easier for dipwits like me to read!

Heck, I'm already pissed off there's no In N Out's here in Boise!! So I gotta drive 5 hours to SLC to get me a "Double Grilled Down"!! Errr!!!!

Have a good trip to JC next week, Butch. I'll be in Cody, WY for the 4th of July weekend.

Being one of the folks who witnessed this accident, and knowing those involved, I was compelled to read what was being said here about it. I am impressed with the respect and maturity of this discussion.

I was complimenting triple "Z" the other day on what a great community he started here. I'm sure there is a perception - and maybe it is better for both Zane and I to reinforce it - that we are in some form of competition. The fact is we exchange thoughts on "situations" fairly regularly and except for that one pudding wrestling match largely staged for the media, we get along OK

There is a wealth of information and experience among all of you, and I apprecate the way you are sharing and discussing it in a constructive manner.

Thanks!

sj

58Skylane wrote:

iceman wrote:well since there are so many interrested in JC experiences I figure I'll retell the crashes I've seen in my many years of going up there... Maybe it will help shed some light on the difficulty of flying the mountains and canyons.... First or second year back in the 90's the sprinkler system was like the farmers use... long 4 inch pipes laid out on the runway with sprinkler heads every 40 or 50 feet... Gene and Cody were caretakers and we, my flying buds and I, offered to help with the job and it was a job laying all that pipe....we were almost done having started at the north end laying pipe on the west half of the runway so that aircraft could still land closer to the east side... we were about at the southern most outhouse when we heard a plane approaching from the North...we watched as he crossed the threshold about 75 ft above the grass.. it was a newly overhaulled turbo 182 flown by a midwest pilot and his wife as passenger... both were pilots... he added power at about the first runway distance marker but not enough to climb and go around... kept coming and stayed about 75 ft above the runway to the caretakers house and we began to wonder what his intentions were... there was no decent and when he got to our location we hightailed it to the trees as it was evident there was something not right.... at about 100 ft past the outhouse he stalled and slammed it on flat and went back up about 35 ft rolled left and nosed into the runway about a hundred feet from the parking area... turns out they were arguing about what to do .. He wanted to salvage the landing she was yelling go around..so in this instance pilot distraction was probably a major factor... we got them out and both were shaken but unhurt... vacation over...next one was a couple years later... a new low time pilot in, if I remember correctly, a 125 HP grumman T cat... loaded and afternoon... wind naturally out of the south so he made the decision to take off to the south,,, several pilots advised him that was not a good idea and urged him to wait till evening when wind shifted and lessened.... he waited about an hour and launched to the south.... flew around the house at tree top level and wound up in the creek upstream... Third was a newly overhauled 210 with 5 hrs since overhaul when pilot decided to venture off to the mountains... entered down wind on the south side at well over the tops of the ridges... turned base and final about a mile from the runway same altitude... turned final and realized how high he was so he pointed the nose at the ground and dove... no shit we were looking at the top of the aircraft as if we were directly above it on the ground... well all that speed built up and he rounded out about 20 feet above the grass doing about 90... then tried to force it on whereby it bounced, and he tried it again, this time the nose wheel departed and we all once again hastily left the shade of our parked planes and ran... he wound up in the trees on the west side by the wind sock...third was a twin that couldn't get airborn in the heat of the afternoon g oing North... wound up in the tall grass down by the old mink farm....fourth was a piper 140 loaded and trying to take off to the north again after noon,... we and several others advised him to wait as he was asking advice.... advice ignored and we watched him clip a tree at the end but luckily kept going... he made it to McCall....didn't see the one during a BCP fly in years ago but there was a pilot new to mountain flying wanting to go to big creek for breakfast... turned up the wrong canyon after yellow pine and found it was a box canyon... not enough room to turn, didn't practice canyon turns i gather, not enough altitude and not knowing what to look for in the drainages....he didn't make it but his wife did....so low time not withstanding decisions were made in spite of advice from knowlegable pilots familiar with the mountains, diving to an airport... ( my old instructor told me you don't dive to an airport. if that's your choice to land you've already fucked up your approach and probably will the landing, or arrival , as he called it...taking off with a underpowered aircraft for the conditions into rising terrain, failure to see your no go abort point...flying down the middle of the canyons instead of high and to the right, I don't know I remember being tought all those things when I was a low time student... and I am sure all those CFI"s mentioned those things at least once during their training of these guys.. so what do we do about the galactically stupid... hopefully don't occupy the same airspace as them but better yet, be doubly vigilant in the mountains and if you want to do this kind of flying more than once get some dual from a local or local instructor...hope I haven't pissed anyone off again....lol

Pissed me off by not splitting your post into paragraphs to make it easier for dipwits like me to read!

Heck, I'm already pissed off there's no In N Out's here in Boise!! So I gotta drive 5 hours to SLC to get me a "Double Grilled Down"!! Errr!!!!

Have a good trip to JC next week, Butch. I'll be in Cody, WY for the 4th of July weekend.

hell I don't worry about you... chances are I'll always be safe from you cause you spend most of your time in hamburger joints....

Mauleguy,

I don't know the 81 year old CFI, but I think I know what he was talking about. He was flying, and probably instructing, before the PTS era began. It was less organized but many instructors concentrated on the need to know stuff even if the FAA (no DPE at that time) didn't address it on the flight test.

We are more likely to become indoctrinated in what we learn first. Today most pilots, and especially those without 81 year old instructors, are indoctrinated in some really ridiculous techniques for contact flying in small airplanes. Things like level (instrument procedure) turns and standardized 1.3 Vso approaches. Why not let the nose go down as it was designed to do in a turn and why not slow up a bit as you get closer and nearer on the approach? The first will take away the load factor problem and the second will make the touchdown softer and nearer the beginning of the touchdown zone.

Like your 81 year old CFI and MTV, it irks me when pilots assume low time pilots can't fly well. That would be if they weren't taught well. That would be if the instructor was more interested in complying with social expectations than with giving the student the best training possible. Good training should not have to be an after market add on. It is so much more difficult to reprogram than it is to train effectively the first time.

Many farmers sent their younger family members to ag school as zero timers. All my young zero time ag students used the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach to land on the numbers three times on first solo. They came in on Sunday and soloed on Wednesday after about six hours of instruction in tail wheel airplanes. They touched down slowly on the numbers simply because they hadn't learned any other way to do it yet.

Contact

contactflying wrote:

... it irks me when pilots assume low time pilots can't fly well. That would be if they weren't taught well. That would be if the instructor was more interested in complying with social expectations than with giving the student the best training possible. Good training should not have to be an after market add on. It is so much more difficult to reprogram than it is to train effectively the first time.

Well said. This advice is true for raising childeren too (and many other aspects of life). Bring them up in the way they should go and they will go to the place they should be.

CW

contactflying wrote:Mauleguy,

I don't know the 81 year old CFI, but I think I know what he was talking about. He was flying, and probably instructing, before the PTS era began. It was less organized but many instructors concentrated on the need to know stuff even if the FAA (no DPE at that time) didn't address it on the flight test.

We are more likely to become indoctrinated in what we learn first. Today most pilots, and especially those without 81 year old instructors, are indoctrinated in some really ridiculous techniques for contact flying in small airplanes. Things like level (instrument procedure) turns and standardized 1.3 Vso approaches. Why not let the nose go down as it was designed to do in a turn and why not slow up a bit as you get closer and nearer on the approach? The first will take away the load factor problem and the second will make the touchdown softer and nearer the beginning of the touchdown zone.

Like your 81 year old CFI and MTV, it irks me when pilots assume low time pilots can't fly well. That would be if they weren't taught well. That would be if the instructor was more interested in complying with social expectations than with giving the student the best training possible. Good training should not have to be an after market add on. It is so much more difficult to reprogram than it is to train effectively the first time.

Many farmers sent their younger family members to ag school as zero timers. All my young zero time ag students used the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach to land on the numbers three times on first solo. They came in on Sunday and soloed on Wednesday after about six hours of instruction in tail wheel airplanes. They touched down slowly on the numbers simply because they hadn't learned any other way to do it yet.

Contact

I would never send anyone to Idaho with 150 hours under their belt no matter how great they were trained except to take a mountain flying course. Maybe people were trained better 50 years ago, maybe I am a slow learner. I know for myself it has taken a decade to become good enough to haul people I love around safely in a high risk environment. In the off airport world I am still being schooled and there are others out doing it that have a much better handle on it now then me.

I think people saying that low time had nothing to do with it, that it was his training or lack of it are perpetuating people with low time going to places maybe they should not.

I witnessed, just in the last year a great guy cheat death in a Super Cub. It was the worst accident I have seen in person and never want to see one again. The day it happened it was suppose to be a little fun flying honing skills that snowballed into sleepless nights for me for a while because I felt a little guilty. I did not tell him not to land when I probably should have. I usually like to let other people make decisions for themselves but in some cases you really need to say to a person are you capable. I have ego like a lot of pilots do and it can really get you to do things you really should not. Until you are waiting for a life flight with a guy lying busted up you really don't know, it sinks in just how serious this is.

I would love to share all my stories from the last 15 years with an article and if the FAA would give me immunity and the people I was with I would. Until I am ready to stop flying, a lot of what I have for stories of has to be kept to myself and the others that were there.

I do have a bunch of fictional stories I could share

I know someone is going to read into what I say that you need a decade to go to Idaho. I think it is not how long or how many hours you have just like the others that are saying it has nothing to do with low time probably mean. If you are here on this site and live and breath backcountry flying and that is all you do you are going to be ready for Idaho much sooner then I was. It is all your experience and training that is going to make or break you. I agree that a guy with 500 hours of backcountry flying is going to have a much better handle on what to do then one with 500 hours of airport to airport cross country. Just be honest with yourself and passengers, if you have sweaty hands doing it you are probably not ready.

Mauleguy,

Thanks for bringing up the passenger thing. I often forget that part as most of my flying was single pilot, with trained crew, or with dedicated students. Too often I forget the recreational pilot with pax point of view. My wife quit flying with me years ago.

Contact

I think there is more then one Alaskan Bush pilots airplane that has been balled up in Idaho.

I fly at sea level most the time, the temps are usually fairly mild. You have to adjust to the area you fly in, Idaho is the complete opposite so I have to adjust.

I learned that this year again in Alaska with wind. I am sure my accident was avoidable now after I have thought about it for the last year building another airplane to fly. With a different approach I would have been much better off. I can blame it on the small ailerons but my experience will forever change how I land in wind. Sometimes until you experience something first hand you just don't get it.

Mauleguy wrote: Sometimes until you experience something first hand you just don't get it.

Amen

Double amen.
You learn a lot from your screw ups
You learn as much as you can from others not to proud to share there's.

Wish I was better with words and writing cause I has plenty to share.

I've met a significant number of pilots in the back country with under a hundred hours. I've met several 16 year old pilots with an instructor, 17-20 year old pilots doing fine with their girlfriends, and an 88 year old pilot who were all way under 500 hours doing just fine, with the respect for realities and knowledge to fly themselves and their passengers safely.

Again, it is attitude, and the ability to evaluate risk. These attributes vary so much from person to person I don't think it is particularly meaningful to throw sub-500 hour pilots under the bus. The same skills I use to keep me safe now are the same basic skills I used when I started to learn after I got my PPL.

These accidents have a whole lot more to do with misjudging local conditions and capabilities than how thick their logbook is, and are more well-distributed in terms of flight hours than is implied here. Everyone whose judgement has them arriving heavy on a hot midday with limited excess power is at risk, and better judgement is overlooked by more than just low time pilots.

As noted, everyone is a bit different. No offense, Greg, but judging from viewing some of your videos, your risk tolerance is a little bit different than most pilots. That's fine, but we're not talking about landing on very short gravel bars with obstacles at both ends here.

Granted, a significant number of "pilots" these days are being taught never to land in the first 1000 feet of runway, to cross the threshold at 1.3 Vso, etc. You're right...those folks have no business in Johnson Creek. Frankly, in my opinion, they have no business in a cockpit.

But, I've always harped on students about density altitudes, as contact noted, my students learned to land ON the numbers, not 1000 feet down the runway, every time, from the get go. When a new pilot is trained to fly like that from the beginning, while also recognizing terrain effects, wind effects, and all the other variables that come into play, they'll do fine in that environment.

I had a favorite runway at an airport where I worked with students. As soon as they got comfortable landing the Cub, I'd put them on that runway with a crosswind......that runway had a tree line upwind, then wide open, then a big building. When the prevailing wind blew, it was a sporty runway. Their first pass on that runway was without preamble. I wanted the lesson to be real and in their face, with me backing them up, but I was the only one who really knew what was coming. Every one of my students bobbled around a bit, but stuck the landing without much dancing.....and without me having to get on the controls.

During the taxi back, we'd have a little chat, which always started with me asking: "Okay, so what happened there?" And, they all knew after they'd thought about it for a moment. But, from that day forward, they were all better pilots, because now they LOOK for obstacles that'll affect the way wind moves across a runway.

Same goes for density altitude. Put them in a 90 hp Champ on a 90 degree day with a lard butt in the back seat, and they suddenly have an appreciation for DA. That flight included more than one last second go around, as well, just to reinforce the performance in those conditions.

The point is, a PROPERLY TRAINED low time pilot should have no problems at all with Johnson Creek. I'm sorry, but Johnson Creek is a very nice, easy airport as back country airports go. Like ANY airport, however, it has its foibles and ignoring those can and will hurt you.

I've seen pilots who simply have no place in a cockpit in my opinion.....you wonder how they ever passed a flight test. Those folks have no place at Johnson Creek, I'd agree.

But, any instructor who's not teaching the basics should have their CFI pulled in my opinion.

MTV

I think proficiency is more important then total time. I've read somewhere that 40-50% of GA pilots fly less then 25 hours a year. In my opinion this is just not enough flying to be proficient in backcountry operations, especially when a pilot is a low time pilot with no experience to fall back to when things get dicey.

When I was a flight instructor a long time ago, I also found that most private pilot students wanted to fly only, but didn't want to spend much time on studying in ground school and usually did the bare minimum to pass the written exam, mostly by memorizing study guides. That might all that is needed to fly from airport A to B, however flying in the backcountry where knowledge of terrain, weather, wind, load factors, density altitude, aircraft performance calculations and much more come into play, theoretical knowledge is equally important then the ability to control an airplane.

This is a really good discussion. Really appreciate all the viewpoints.

The more experience you have, the better of a judge you become as to your abilities and the risk factors involved in a given activity. In other words, the very foundation for your judgement improves as you gain experience.

To exercise good judgement with low experience then comes down to having a large enough margin between what you think you might be able to pull off and what you actually attempt.

Everyone has a different margin that they apply, which explains why some people with little experience attempt things that many more experienced people wouldn't. I think what MTV referred to as attitude boils down to essentially this personal margin.

This is a long-winded way of saying that while commandments like "don't fly after 11am" or "get at least x hours under your belt before attempting mountain/canyon flying" might not apply to every beginner, they came about for a reason. That reason is to keep those who are gung-ho but low in experience from getting themselves into too much trouble.

Personally, I think everyone should just get some instruction before going into these places the first time. There are lots of great people who can show you the ropes and let you gain that basic experience with much lower risk at pretty minimal cost compared to how much we spend on gas and mods. To paraphrase the adage about doctors, the pilot who teaches himself has a fool for a student. If you have a very experienced friend who can fly right seat and teach you, that works too.

And please: At the very least, don't let your first mountain/canyon flying experience be going into a fly-in with 100+ airplanes, regardless of your other experience or aircraft capabilities.

mtv wrote:As noted, everyone is a bit different. No offense, Greg, but judging from viewing some of your videos, your risk tolerance is a little bit different than most pilots. That's fine, but we're not talking about landing on very short gravel bars with obstacles at both ends here.

Granted, a significant number of "pilots" these days are being taught never to land in the first 1000 feet of runway, to cross the threshold at 1.3 Vso, etc. You're right...those folks have no business in Johnson Creek. Frankly, in my opinion, they have no business in a cockpit.

But, I've always harped on students about density altitudes, as contact noted, my students learned to land ON the numbers, not 1000 feet down the runway, every time, from the get go. When a new pilot is trained to fly like that from the beginning, while also recognizing terrain effects, wind effects, and all the other variables that come into play, they'll do fine in that environment.

MTV

I agree, with most of what you write. In a perfect world we would all get the kind of instruction that you talk about. I never felt I got that, maybe my own mistake for not seeking out different instructors. I started flying Idaho alone "bagging strips" and talking to everyone I ran into about different places I wanted to land. Back then I thought Mile High was the pinnacle of what could be done, that was before I ran into people like Byron Root. He told me he would land Mile High in the Sherpa with 4 other guys in the airplane eating a sandwich. I am sure he was joking about the sandwich but at the time I was not real comfortable getting down low in a tight canyon. I landed Mile High a few years after my first trip over to Idaho, I had received some verbal instruction from a Husky pilot. It turned out to be good advice and by then I new my airplane and what it would do at higher elevations.

Johnson Creek should seem easy but if it does not you probably should not be there. Stack the odds in your favor when you show, make more then one trip if you have a lot of gear, be done flying early, you could be landing at 6:00 am not noon. This requires commitment to spend maybe a night in McCall for an early flight out instead of fueling at 11:00 am and after flying from where ever. I think a low time pilot can fly safely in the backcountry but it does require more then what I was taught. I think the mountain flying courses given over in Idaho are a great addition to a persons skill set. My hat goes off to the instructors that get in airplanes and head off to teach these courses. I would guess that anyone that has taken them took away some good information that they did not have when they got there PPL otherwise why would they have the courses.

Greg

every circumstance is different. There's to many variables to say do this then you can do that.
Absolutely some instruction to start with is wise. It's to individualized to say what is good enough for what individual for what type of flying. It really comes down to self recognition, common sense and good judgement. But that's pretty well been said in different ways.
I had quite a few hours the first time I headed towards the mountains. Had zero mountain flying experience tho. Was before this site and before I even realized what was out there. Backcountry wise.
I was fortunate enough to buy my first 180 from a fellow named sparky.
Before I went to look at in Jackson hole I asked him that if I bought it would he mind me staying there for a week or so and he could teach me a few things. He said of course. Didn't know at the time who he was. That was one of my most memerable experiences of flying.
Didn't know him as well as many but ended up with a good friendship till he was gone. What a laid back guy.
It's been a few years since then and I've got a few more hours but I'd still consider myself a "low time" pilot when I hit the mountains. I'd not venture much from Johnson creek type strips for a while without a little refresher of some sort. Whether visiting thoroughly with friends I trust to lay it out or just easing through slowly getting comfortable back in the saddle per say. Following someone I know that knows is always a huge plus for me to in a situation like that.
I miss getting to do a lot of that due to my work schedule. Hopefully that'll change one day.
Everyone just use your head. Don't get caught up in the glamour and excitement of it and forget your limitations.
Don't let the fact there's lots of people watching make you do something you wouldn't normally do.
Don't quit flying the plane.
Know your personal limits!

A small group of us were at Meadow Creek last Saturday. It was mid afternoon, the work was done and we were sitting in the shade. A group of 7 guys showed up, traveling around the back country. When they left the first two guys taxied down to the south end like you should. A northbound takeoff is downhill plus there are no obstacles at the end of the runway. Also on Saturday that meant it was into the wind. The next 5 guys took off downhill, downwind and into approx 80 foot trees at the end of the runway. A couple did OK, the rest clearly struggled.
After I got home on Sunday my neighbor told me they were here in Seeley Lake. Our runway here is downhill from north to south, an 82 foot difference plus 80 foot trees at both ends. All seven aircraft departed from the south end of the parking area leaving approx 1700 feet of useable runway behind them. My friend says all or most of the 7 did a touch and go on takeoff after horsing it off too soon. We have a big sign in the parking area recommending take offs to the south for this very reason. You can lead a horse to water...

Mauleguy wrote:....One of the problems for me was I had this airplane that the power had never let me down.

To expand a little on Greg's comment- so certainly the 300hp engine hanging on the front of my 185 will have absolutely no problem in the Idaho backcountry. I mean we are talking a bird that down here in Texas, when lightly loaded, is off the ground in less then 300 feet.

The affects of Density Altitude have a bigger impact on aircraft performance then one might expect. The higher the elevation or the hotter the day, the less dense air becomes, so for a given volume of air there are fewer oxygen molecules then at low altitude or when its cold. We all know how we feel on a hot day, or high up in the mountains, we tire easily and it can be hard to catch our breath. That's our bodies response to taking in less oxygen even though we are breathing in the same volume of air. The same thing happens to a normally aspirated engine, it produces less horsepower. Combine the higher elevation with the higher temperature and the power loss becomes substantial.

Of course you could take this normally aspirated engine and give it a shot of nitrous oxide. That would make up for the missing oxygen molecules and get the horsepower back. Better yet you could turbocharge or supercharge the engine, both could ensure the same horsepower at high DA that the normally aspirated engine produces at sea level.

There, we've just made taking off and climbing in the mountains identical to sea level. Not true of course but perhaps that's what the pilot of the Turbocharged 210 was counting on. Actually we only improved one part out of three. The propellor is still spinning through the less dense air - we haven't compensated for that - so it is producing less lift (thrust). Also the wings have to travel through this less dense air at a faster speed to produce the same amount of lift as they would at sea level. This means a much higher ground speed is required to reach the airplane's takeoff airspeed, which equates to a much longer takeoff roll.

A density altitude of 9,000 feet is very common at a lot of Idaho backcountry strips. For a lot of aircraft 9,000 feet is not a real long ways from their service ceiling.

We’ve managed to get our airplane off the ground and now we need to climb. Of course this means gaining altitude, but not just the altitude gain we see on the altimeter, we are gaining density altitude. Say we are sitting on a grass strip down by the river in the Idaho backcountry. Strip elevation is 4,500 feet. The tops of the mountains above us are 9,500 feet. We’ll need to climb 5,000 feet after takeoff to get even with the tops.

But the density altitude is not 4,500 feet, but rather 9,000 feet which means if we want to get to the tops of the mountains we need to add our 5,000 foot climb to 9,000, so as far as our airplane is concerned we have to take off at 9,000 feet and climb to 14,000 feet.

But wait just a minute. Down on the runway next to the river the air is cooler (because of the river). A thousand feet up the air temperature could easily be higher then at the river, if so that raises our density altitude even more.

Back to our normally aspirated engine, our Colorado boys can tell us how many airplanes they’ve seen land at their high mountain airports (paved runways) whose engines have died before they could get onto the taxiway. Most of us were taught “prop in, mixture in” on landing in preparation for a full power go around. Over rich to the point combustion can no longer occur and the engine dies once the plane is on the ground and the airspeed is no longer helping turn the propellor which was keeping the engine alive.

Easy to see this same pilot a few days later getting ready to depart. Mixture in, prop in, full throttle. The engine is so over rich there is a huge loss of power. Unsure what to do he hesitates, trying to think things through, while the end of the runway approaches quickly.

Density Altitude is a bitch. That’s why you’ll see me fly-fishing in the middle of the day, not flying.

There is a lot to know and consider when mountain flying. Here is something to ponder. Last year I flew my 185 to the Ozark Mountains with a bunch of Carbon Cub friends. We went into a lot of backcountry strips. Hypothetically speaking, if both the 180hp Carbon Cubs and the 300hp 185 have the same rate of climb, say 1,500 feet per minute, when they reach the end of the runway (or for that matter a ridge not to far off that they need to clear) will they both be at the same altitude when reaching that point?

Only if the airspeed that achieves that rate of climb is identical. If the 185 needs a faster airspeed it will cover more ground to get to the same altitude, or put another way the Carbon Cub will cover less ground so will be higher then the 185 by the end of the runway or at the ridge. Something to consider when flying with friends with dissimilar planes.

Like Greg said, “think ahead of the airplane” and like 55wagon said “know your personal limits” and like I said "go fly-fishing".

Pusher wrote:I think proficiency is more important then total time. I've read somewhere that 40-50% of GA pilots fly less then 25 hours a year. In my opinion this is just not enough flying to be proficient in backcountry operations, especially when a pilot is a low time pilot with no experience to fall back to when things get dicey.

I totally agree with this - being current before trying the hard stuff is so important.
Even if it's just doing a few hours of low-level circuits with precision landings each month to keep your eye in.

Oregon180 wrote:Everyone has a different margin that they apply, which explains why some people with little experience attempt things that many more experienced people wouldn't. I think what MTV referred to as attitude boils down to essentially this personal margin.

I also think this is a pertinent comment.
I would add, that also experience gives you a better perception of the risks involved, which has been said before. Without experience first-hand, it can be hard to fully comprehend the consequences of failure... having never crashed an aircraft myself, I am concious of my naivety and possibly increased risk-appetite through lack of first-hand bad experiences. I hope to keep it that way.
I've seen several pilots with more hours, more capable aircraft, and more skills than I have, draw their line a lot more conservatively in terms of off-airport landings. Maybe that's their margin being different, maybe because they've never tried it before, or maybe they learned the hard way.... it always gives me pause for thought.
But then again, I know other guys who land places I wouldn't dare. So there's a spectrum of people and an equal range of 'margins'. I hope I am somewhere in the middle.