Littlecub wrote:This video is a great reminder of the importance/consequences of the decisions we make as pilots. Obviously our brains need to be engaged-and not in the 'this is the way I always do it' mode that is SO EASEY to relax into....
We all know the human results could have been a lot worse. Chalk one up for the old tuff tube 'n rag airplanes.

A great video for pilots-but don' let my wife see it!!

lc

Didn't watch it. These posts were enough for me.

Stupid question: why don't we hear a stall warning horn? Is the 103 not equipped, or could the pilot have suppressed the aural warning? I read that some of the Safe Flight systems had a switch below the throttle that silences the buzzer.

It looks Iike he was on the ragged edge of the stall the whole time, which would explain why he couldn't turn. As to why he didn't give up sooner and put it down before getting to the trees, maybe he was so fixated on things happening the way they have always happened before that he couldn't convince himself that it wasn't going to work out and that he needed to cut his losses. Hoping against hope that he'd find some lift, but finally found a sinker. Who knows how many times he had gotten away with this before that day?

Sitting at my desk, it seems like he had a lot of time to figure things out, but that's not how time works inside an airplane, at least for me. I'll bet it felt like things went wrong in the blink of an eye. Of course, they had actually gone way wrong before the engine started.

I would use this video for training material, gore and all.

I'm glad everyone made It and wish them speedy and complete recovery.

CAVU

The Stinson doesn't have a stall warning. Also, the Stinson has leading edge slots in front of the ailerons that make the plane fairly controlable even in a stall.

I appreciate you guys posting this video... not because I want to poke fun at the pilot but because I will (1) always remember it and (2) better understand what a density altitude crash looks like and (3) better process how/when to cut your losses.

Glad that everyone will be okay.

Thanks, Rob.

CAVU

When I first started backcountry flying I just about ended up in the trees in a very similar fashion. This video is a strong reminder of how I felt while skimming the trees. Glad everyone survived.

Circling over the field for altitude would have been nice however I don't think he had any margin to attempt it. Any turn surely would have been stall/spin.

Like someone said, not much monday morning quarterbacking to be done. It's all right there in HD. There is something to talk about though, and that's why people continue to do this.

I'm convinced that the dangers of high DA continue to be a contributing factor to crashes because they are just one of those things that people unfortunately have to learn the hard way. Even though we're quizzed on the concept of density altitude and performance degradation gratuitously in the FAA curriculums, it seems that it doesn't make an impression on pilots until they've experienced it first hand. The way it's taught is very academic, students supply the right multiple choice answer, but the tangible risks are something that are never addressed in practical training. Poor climb performance while in cruise flight...say 9,500 climbing up to 11,500, usually just doesn't register because there isn't terrain staring you in the face. Also, many pilots don't experience the performance of their aircraft at max gross. How many stories have you heard about the low time pilot who buys a HP aircraft, and flies it alone 99% of the time...then one day loads his wife and another couple into it with full fuel and tries to takeoff from a high and hot airport? Classic.

I was chatting with ChrisG about this topic this morning, and I admitted that if not for my formative flying years spent reading this forum, with primary focus on mountain flying, I would probably not be as aware of a lot of mountain flying dangers like high DA. We take a lot of our knowledge for granted because we read it and discuss it daily here. Many pilots do not, and they find themselves in a scenario like this one, either completely ignorant of the performance limitations of their aircraft, or pressured to return 3 people to their schedules, and go for it with high hopes. Skills like thermalling and circling can't be relied upon when you don't have the lift margin to even bank 15 degrees.

If you witnessed this guy land heavy at Bruce Meadows, and he was prepping for takeoff, would you approach him with a little free advice? What do you say? We're a proud bunch, it's tough to hear criticism of our decisions, especially in front of your pax.

I'm unsure that speed management was the central issue. He passed 3/4 of a mile of runway before he broke ground. At 9000' DA (at least). In a plane with roughly the performance of a 170 or so. With 4 people on board. Off of dirt. But I didn't notice any big settling/stall at the end- and that might be why they are still talking about it.

Just waiting until the temps come down in the late evening or, better yet, planning an overnight stay or leaving behind a passenger was the only way this might have succeeded. I'm not convinced that any flying skill once in the air would have ensured a happy outcome. Bruce Meadows is a great place to be 'stuck' for a few hours or till morning.

I had a similar view out my windshield in Idaho literally months after getting my PPL for similar judgment reasons. The memory has been amazingly effective as a motivator over the years in making sure I won't need to be lucky again. This video doubles it down.

Since we are on the topic of density altitude here is a rule of thumb from Sparky Imeson I like to keep in mind for determining a ball park figure for DA.

http://www.mountainflying.com/Pages/mou ... y_alt.html

A surprisingly accurate rule of thumb (usually any error will be less than 200-300 feet) for determining the density altitude is easy to remember. For each 10-degrees Fahrenheit above standard temperature at any particular elevation, add 600 feet to the field elevation. (And, conversely for each 10-degrees F below standard temperature, subtract 600 feet from the field elevation.)

Standard temperature at sea level is 59-degrees Fahrenheit. For elevations above sea level, subtract 3.5 degrees per thousand feet of elevation from the sea level temperature of 59 degrees

So using Bruce Meadows field elevation and the high temperature of nearby (and slightly higher in elevation) Stanley Idaho for June 30th of 82 degrees you can figure out the ball park DA.

The field elevation of Bruce Meadows is 6,370ft. Multiply 6.37 times 3.5 for 22.295. Subtract this from 59 (59-22.295) for 36.705. The standard temperature at Bruce Meadows is 36.705 degrees. Now subtract the standard temp from 82 (82-36.705 = 45.295). Divide this difference by 10 degrees (for each 10-degrees F above standard), and multiply 4.5295 times 600 (600 feet per 10 degrees) which equals 2,718. Add 2,718 to the field elevation (6,370) for a density altitude of 9,088. And using 70 degrees you get 8368. According to the NTSB report he took off at 2:05pm so somewhere between these two figures is probably pretty close to what the actual DA was.

Bugs66 wrote:Circling over the field for altitude would have been nice however I don't think he had any margin to attempt it. Any turn surely would have been stall/spin.

He had a huge open meadow 3-5 miles wide to circle, no? Even at 50 feet agl he was making full power and could have executed a slow turn back to the field with that much real estate to work in. 2nd rule of mountain flying after you understand DA is always have an out with room to turn to lower terrain. The slower the speed the smaller the area needed for a turn. True - can't make a steep turn.

Comments on youtube blamed a microburst. Don't see how that's even remotely possible with CAVU skies. Maybe a little downdraft in the lee of impending terrain or a tailwind came from behind but too low to the ground for convection. Seems clear cut DA to me.

I always laugh at the comments on youtube, they generally have no idea what they're talking about.

Hmmm.

Timely story.... Last week I was scheduled to leave for OSH and on Sunday night I get a call at 10 PM from my friend, the Sheriff in Teton County... Seems two guys headed to OSH in a Rare plane tried to go over Togwotee Pass, which is 9300MSL and they could not get higher then 8800. What they were thinking is beyond me, but long story short... I spent a couple of days helping them out... After all, we can't let a fellow aviator have his dream left in the woods. I disassembled the plane, loaded it on flat bed trailers and am letting him store it here at my house till he figures out how to part out the totaled mess.

Here is the plane in its finer days.
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/390570.html

I will post the pics of what is left soon.

Thankfully, they were not hurt too bad..

I learned a good lesson about DA with the first (ferry) flight of my 150hp 108-1 with my instructor. Took off out of Carson City with full tanks, two 170 lb. people (he and I) and about 30 lbs. of baggage between 10-11AM. We could certainly climb, but it was nothing spectacular, to say the least. When we got north of Reno, we even had a hard time making 8500'. I'm not anticipating any real backcountry flying for a long time, if any at all, with the 150hp engine.

But this video makes me feel good about the survivability of my choice in aircraft

But this video makes me feel good about the survivability of my choice in aircraft

I might recommend better judgement than this chap had, than choice of aircraft for surviability odds.

NO airplane likes summer temperatures, high altitudes and high weights. The jet I fly is arguably one of the more powerful civilian ones out there, most of you would be amazed at how fast our numbers go to poop when it gets high/hot outside.

DBI wrote:

But this video makes me feel good about the survivability of my choice in aircraft

I might recommend better judgement than this chap had, than choice of aircraft for survivability odds.

More luck than anything

JMO, but I don't think he could turn nor dared to. From what I could see, he just wasn't going to climb. Then try to make a turn and change the variables of bank angle vs. stall speed vs. wind speed/direction and all bets are off.

soyAnarchisto wrote:

Bugs66 wrote:Circling over the field for altitude would have been nice however I don't think he had any margin to attempt it. Any turn surely would have been stall/spin.

He had a huge open meadow 3-5 miles wide to circle, no? Even at 50 feet agl he was making full power and could have executed a slow turn back to the field with that much real estate to work in. 2nd rule of mountain flying after you understand DA is always have an out with room to turn to lower terrain. The slower the speed the smaller the area needed for a turn. True - can't make a steep turn.

Comments on youtube blamed a microburst. Don't see how that's even remotely possible with CAVU skies. Maybe a little downdraft in the lee of impending terrain or a tailwind came from behind but too low to the ground for convection. Seems clear cut DA to me.

DBI wrote:

But this video makes me feel good about the survivability of my choice in aircraft

I might recommend better judgement than this chap had, than choice of aircraft for surviability odds.

Naturally! "A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations that would require the use of his superior skills." (or superior aircraft structure )

I don't think there are any pilots that take off planning to top trees, but obviously it happens

After watching it again I think they were doomed from the second they were airborne. Looks like it was all the guy could do to keep it in the air much less turn. At the 50 second mark looks like he was flying for about 10 seconds when it settled back down or the terrain came up to meet him. That's was probably his last good chance to shut it down without bending something. I like to think I would have quit a long time before that. The lack of any conversation tells me that they all knew they were screwed from the start.

What is the Useable weight of that plane, 800lbs? Four guys and fuel? Baggage? Just plain luck they are all OK.