Iceman here at JC Mile was here for an hour sat night and he and Amy arr close friends and he was staying at her place. All we know is that they were flying together to sulphur creek for bkfast. And at that time would have been flying into the sun so thats what we lnow here

So the other pilot was Amy's buddy and they were flying together...? Good Lord what a tragedy.
Not quite sure how you could ever come to terms with that but I hope she finds some peace eventually.
Condolences to all.

qmdv wrote:
I was up there once and a lot of I am sure local pilots were giving position reports like "this is November Whisky Tango Fox Trot over cat hair ball creek at 8500" If you are not flying a lot up there you have no idea where that is. I asked and some dildo told me to stay away unless I was familiar with the area.


Tim

That was pretty rude, but it's not a bad point. When in Rome . . . . Unlike most other areas, there are few man-made landmarks, no flight following, and the routes are down in the canyons where typical waypoints and intersections are useless. Calling out “Cessna 23A over Profile Summit at 8 thousand for Big Creek” on 122.9 is as good as it gets. This isn’t the place to follow the magenta line and expect everyone else to figure out your position based on direction and distance calls, like “23A is 7 southwest of Big Creek” happens to be somewhere near Profile Summit. I’m not suggesting that you do this, but it seems to be pretty common practice.

One of the reasons for getting some dual from a local instructor is learning local landmark names as part of the routes (and I’m NOT an instructor, btw). Then you know exactly where you are where everyone else is--if they make position reports and aren’t lost themselves. I like to study national forest maps (Payette, Boise, Nez Perce etc.) before I go in order to refresh my memory of the landmarks and what’s on the ground. It’s a special part of our country, and I take pride in flying it to the best of my ability, which includes learning about the country and local procedures. My $.02

CAVU

CAVU wrote:
This isn’t the place to follow the magenta line and expect everyone else to figure out your position based on direction and distance calls, like “23A is 7 southwest of Big Creek” happens to be somewhere near Profile Summit. I’m not suggesting that you do this, but it seems to be pretty common practice.



CAVU

I think the argument can be made this this type of report is actually better because 1) even the local reporting points don't cover every place you may want or should be reporting your location and 2) it's easy for anyone to determine if that traffic is in their general vicinity. We all should have learned to estimate distant to "close enough" accuracy when learning to fly that such a report should tell us "Hey, that's kind of where I am" and make one get their head on a swivel and out of the cockpit (which is the point). With digital information (iPad, moving maps, etc.) it should be even easier to get a good idea if the traffic is in your neighborhood and a possible factor. Local reporting points only work if everyone knows them and they are standardized. Otherwise you have one guy that knows only the major, most frequently used points and another guy that knows Billy Bob's mom's house and every other point in between. Anyone should be able to process distance and direction from a well known spot...such as a published airstrip.

Like I mentioned above, if Galen has abandoned the idea of publishing the common reporting points (which still doesn't cover all areas), maybe the Div of Aero or IAA could. Or we as a group. Seems it would be worthwhile to get the word out and increase everyone's situational awareness.

Personally, I use a combination of both because I want people to know where I am and be looking for me (and vice versa), regardless of how the information is conveyed. And I'd be willing to bet that at this point, most don't know the local reporting points...making them essentially meaningless.

Grassstrippilot wrote:Like I mentioned above, if Galen has abandoned the idea of publishing the common reporting points (which still doesn't cover all areas), maybe the Div of Aero or IAA could. Or we as a group. Seems it would be worthwhile to get the word out and increase everyone's situational awareness.

Denali National Park has a great map of exactly what is being proposed here. The original version came out in 1999, and version two came out in 2009. It's sponsored by the Alaska Region FAA Safety Team and the NPS. It is a terrific resource for the same reporting challenges that Idaho apparently presents. I'll hunt around for a link to post. Might save a lot of reinventing the wheel. By the way, DNP is roughly six million acres. I don't know how that compares to the ID backcountry, but presumably a similar order of magnitude?
-DP

*edit* Here is the PDF of the Denali map, and here is a PDF of the text in a more legible format.

It would be great if you could get this as an overlay for Foreflight, or as a standalone map for your portable device. Alternately, the Denali brochure above includes lat/ long, so it would be possible to enter reporting points in your GPS if you wanted to.

Grassstrippilot wrote: I'd be willing to bet that at this point, most don't know the local reporting points...making them essentially meaningless.

I agree. I don't really consider myself a local because I don't get back there often enough but I used to make it back there a few times a year. Most of the local pilots made reports and I didn't know where they were most of the time. Honestly I have a hard enough time keeping the names of my two kids and dog straight; remembering the name of some drainage or unimpressive peak that I might see a few times a year is never going to happen. There are enough runways back there that I can report my position based on those and feel confident that everyone knows or can figure out based on their sectional where I am and where I am going. That said, I do think it is important to know the major drainage's that are backcountry highways...Middle Fork, Big Creek, Johnson Creek, Main Salmon, etc.

Grassstrippilot wrote:

CAVU wrote:
This isn’t the place to follow the magenta line and expect everyone else to figure out your position based on direction and distance calls, like “23A is 7 southwest of Big Creek” happens to be somewhere near Profile Summit. I’m not suggesting that you do this, but it seems to be pretty common practice.



CAVU

I think the argument can be made this this type of report is actually better because 1) even the local reporting points don't cover every place you may want or should be reporting your location and 2) it's easy for anyone to determine if that traffic is in their general vicinity. We all should have learned to estimate distant to "close enough" accuracy when learning to fly that such a report should tell us "Hey, that's kind of where I am" and make one get their head on a swivel and out of the cockpit (which is the point). With digital information (iPad, moving maps, etc.) it should be even easier to get a good idea if the traffic is in your neighborhood and a possible factor. Local reporting points only work if everyone knows them and they are standardized. Otherwise you have one guy that knows only the major, most frequently used points and another guy that knows Billy Bob's mom's house and every other point in between. Anyone should be able to process distance and direction from a well known spot...such as a published airstrip.

Like I mentioned above, if Galen has abandoned the idea of publishing the common reporting points (which still doesn't cover all areas), maybe the Div of Aero or IAA could. Or we as a group. Seems it would be worthwhile to get the word out and increase everyone's situational awareness.

Personally, I use a combination of both because I want people to know where I am and be looking for me (and vice versa), regardless of how the information is conveyed. And I'd be willing to bet that at this point, most don't know the local reporting points...making them essentially meaningless.

+1
Nothing wrong with distance, direction, and altitude from airstrips. Like Cory said, every pilot can understand that. And if you are going to use other features for reporting points it helps if it's at least on the sectional. For example: "Big Baldy" just west of Indian Creek.

Wow, DP. Great map! That would be really good for central Idaho. They could be sold/distributed on line and at all of the major entry points for the backcountry.

More reporting is better, as long as it doesn't clog the frequency. My point is that distance and direction can get you the ballpark, but, unless you've got a sectional and a plotter in your lap, landmarks are more precise. But that only works if everyone knows where they are. Without an annotated chart like DP posted, that's probably a losing battle. Personally, I enjoy studying the maps, but that's not for everyone I guess.

CAVU

CAVU wrote:Wow, DP. Great map! That would be really good for central Idaho. They could be sold/distributed on line and at all of the major entry points for the backcountry.

More reporting is better, as long as it doesn't clog the frequency. My point is that distance and direction can get you the ballpark, but, unless you've got a sectional and a plotter in your lap, landmarks are more precise. But that only works if everyone knows where they are. Without an annotated chart like DP posted, that's probably a losing battle. Personally, I enjoy studying the maps, but that's not for everyone I guess.

CAVU

Like anywhere, you can get a sense of who you're dealing with over freq by how fluent they sound with the reporting points. If they rattle them off, then you figure their self-reporting is probably pretty reliable. If they stumble over them, then index of suspicion goes up. But like all of it, it only works if people are talking.

That is a great map! And it brings up another issue I thought of on our trip up last month. With frequency congestion being an issue on weekends and during big flyins, why not split the backcountry into two freqs? Pic a lat, or a long, or a non major drainage to split the backcountry and assign a different freq for those areas. Just a thought.

So back to the maps. Attention Zane and Chris! Is there a way we could make a map where, in Wikipedia fashion, we (the users) could add the common reporting points that are used and known? It could then be a stand alone page on Shortfielder or here. Seems like it shouldn't be that hard...but I'm not the computer wizard and wouldn't know. As a group, I think we could produce something without too much effort. At the very least, a list of names and lat/longs to plug into your app or GPS.

I'm going to reach out to a couple people I know and see what I info I can gather.

Grassstrippilot wrote:That is a great map! And it brings up another issue I thought of on our trip up last month. With frequency congestion being an issue on weekends and during big flyins, why not split the backcountry into two freqs? Pic a lat, or a long, or a non major drainage to split the backcountry and assign a different freq for those areas. Just a thought.

So back to the maps. Attention Zane and Chris! Is there a way we could make a map where, in Wikipedia fashion, we (the users) could add the common reporting points that are used and known? It could then be a stand alone page on Shortfielder or here. Seems like it shouldn't be that hard...but I'm not the computer wizard and wouldn't know. As a group, I think we could produce something without too much effort. At the very least, a list of names and lat/longs to plug into your app or GPS.

I'm going to reach out to a couple people I know and see what I info I can gather.

+1. Thanks!

Jesus, don't over think this!
Shit happens. Airplanes are dangerous!
There is a reason they put windows and radios in airplanes! Use them.
The way you guys are talking, we'll have special use airspace over the entire BackCountry.
Didn't somebody say they were a flight of two on their way to breakfast?
Perhaps a photo opportunity turned out bad.
Excuse me while I go update my Facebook page…. yeah right!

237

Yea , what he said.

I would have to agree with skytruck flying involves some risk don't like the risk's involved with flying don't fly. Scares the shit out of me flying over the rough terrain in a single engine airplane but that's a risk I accept to enjoy the places Idaho offers.

bcdpilot wrote:I would have to agree with skytruck flying involves some risk don't like the risk's involved with flying don't fly. Scares the shit out of me flying over the rough terrain in a single engine airplane but that's a risk I accept to enjoy the places Idaho offers.

I am scared much worse than that when on short final for Whitman Airport in so call. Better than a house all tangled in power lines.

Tim

Galen produced a map with "Fire Lookout Reporting Points" on the Idaho Aeronautical Chart. He has them at QED and can be had from Idaho Aeronautics. I think they're ~$10. The last one I believe says that its the 2009 Edition. Its hardly cost effective to reproduce this map every time the nav data is revised, but the airstrips and lookout towers won't move. It also has many strips that are not on a sectional or WAC chart.

Delete

SkyTruck wrote:Jesus, don't over think this!
Shit happens. Airplanes are dangerous!
There is a reason they put windows and radios in airplanes! Use them.
The way you guys are talking, we'll have special use airspace over the entire BackCountry.
Didn't somebody say they were a flight of two on their way to breakfast?
Perhaps a photo opportunity turned out bad.
Excuse me while I go update my Facebook page…. yeah right!

237

Who said anything about special use airspace? What's the matter with having a map that has landmarks named on it? The whole idea is to make position reporting easier and more precise. Facebook? Sheesh.

CAVU

The problem is while looking at a chart, you wouldn't be looking outside the airplane.
It would also be foolish to think that everybody flying in the Backcountry would know where the reportable landmarks are.
Fire lookouts are on top of mountains and most backcountry aviators fly around the mountains not over them.
Personally, I would prefer to have everybody looking out the window instead of inside at all the gadgets and gismos.
After all, isn't that why we became pilots… or have we succumbed to the Magenta Line?

237

I think by now everyone realizes that this discussion of reporting points is a tangent discussion on a valid topic and not about the accident. As often happens on this site, good ideas and productive conversations come up. I don't see how bashing them contributes to helping everyone become a better pilot. Of course we all are supposed to see and avoid...and reporting your position helps others know where to look.

Zane, maybe it would be good to split this thread away from the accident thread. Maybe something like "Position Reporting" or something.