Minnesota Father and 3 sons missing in Wyoming.

You mountain boys can have you rocks. I don't think there's anywhere around here I could put down out of sight of anybody. The rocks are really pretty, but flying over boring terrain I sleep better before and after.
 
You mountain boys can have you rocks. I don't think there's anywhere around here I could put down out of sight of anybody. The rocks are really pretty, but flying over boring terrain I sleep better before and after.

The trick is to fly high enough so that you can glide to the valley on either side :D.
 

Attachments

  • HLR_1206-2 (Medium).jpg
    HLR_1206-2 (Medium).jpg
    214.6 KB · Views: 34
My SWAG: Improper IFR procedure combined with air currents off the mountain, possibly exacerbated by hypoxia. :(

I've been trying to get my head around this incident as well, and I just don't get it.

I'd certainly add 'suspected lack of mountain/high terrain experience leading to poor route planning and decision making'. I've flown around that area of WY quite a lot and it's obvious as soon as you are there that it needs much respect, just looking at the sectional and you get a very good idea of this. I always hope that NTSB reports help prevent the same type of accident happening again, unfortunately this doesn't seem to happen when it comes to poor weather mountain accidents, which is sad.
 
14,000 will clear the rocks. But it won't give you any mercy if you get the downdraft....
 
Sigh, sigh, and more sigh... :(

NTSB Prelim report said:
According to information provided by representatives from Lockheed Martin (LM) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), on the morning of the accident, the pilot obtained his initial telephone weather briefing about 0920 MDT. About 1040, he telephoned again, obtained an abbreviated weather briefing, and filed an IFR flight plan.
...
Both weather briefings included AIRMETs (Airmen's Meteorological Information) for mountain obscuration, turbulence, and icing along the planned flight routes and altitudes.

OK, there's no-gos #1 and 2: The mountains aren't gonna be visible, there's turbulence (which in mountainous terrain is an indication of Bad Stuff near the rocks)... And, there's icing which is bad at any altitude with a laminar-flow wing like the Mooney has, but is REALLY bad at higher altitudes when performance is already limited. In addition, surface temp at takeoff time was 0ºC.

It also looks like the AIRMET was right on:

About 1341, the pilot filed a pilot report via radio, which stated that he was at 14,000 feet, and was encountering light chop, and a trace of rime icing.
...
Shortly before that [1352], the pilot radioed to ATC that he was unable to maintain altitude due to mountain wave activity.

Also, they were in an area of poor to no radar coverage:

The first radar target was recorded about 1309, and the airplane was tracked until about 1336, when it was at an altitude of 14,000 feet... The airplane was re-acquired by ground radar about 1346, still at the same altitude. About 1352, the last radar target associated with the airplane was recorded, with an indicated altitude of 13,300 feet.

Unless I'm mistaken, operation in controlled airspace in a non-radar environment is not supposed to be on a direct point-to-point routing, is it? Separation would be rather difficult otherwise...

Now we also at least know what was filed - Two different flight plans:

The flight plan included a planned departure time of 1130, and a destination of Rapid City Regional Airport, (RAP) Rapid City, South Dakota. The filed route of flight was Dunoir (DWN) very high frequency omni-range (VOR) navigation facility, Boysen Reservoir (BOY) VOR, Muddy Mountain (DDY) VOR, and then direct to RAP.

About 1237, the pilot used the internet to file another IFR flight plan, which again specified JAC as the origination airport. The filed departure time was 1247, and the filed route was DNW VOR, Riverton (RIW) VOR, DDY VOR, Newcastle (ECS) VOR, Rapid City (RAP) VOR, and Philip (PHP) VOR. The destination was Pierre Regional Airport (PIR), Pierre, South Dakota, and the filed altitude was 9,000 feet.

Then, there's the one off Flightaware. So, the three routes were:

1) DNW BOY DDY RAP (1st filed)
2) DNW RIW DDY ECS RAP PHP (2nd filed)
3) TETON3 KICNE RIW DDY ECS RAP PHP (FlightAware)

On route (1), 9000 feet isn't OK until the last 17 miles before the RAP VOR, and even the airway from DWN to BOY has an MEA of 14,000.

Route (2) would be better, and very close in distance to (1) except for the part from RAP to KPIR. 9000 would be OK for most of this route, starting at ROWEY (63 after DNW, 31 prior to RIW) and thereafter having only one chunk with an MEA of 9300 from ECS to ZAMBI (40nm).

I wonder if he decided to add some fuel to make the extra distance to KPIR instead of KRAP, and that affected performance?

Also, the FlightAware route (3) would have come from the FAA feed - I wonder if he was originally planning on flying the GEYSER FOUR instead, since both of his filed routes went from DNW, and ATC gave him the TETON THREE with his clearance. I'm also thinking that since he turned off the DP at KICNE, maybe ATC asked him what he was doing and he asked for direct RIW.

The ATC transcripts are sure going to be interesting.

One final thought: The timing of the call from ATC to climb will also be interesting, but one thing that I didn't notice at first (and I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet) was that radar contact was lost for 10 minutes - and looking at where that happened, radar contact was regained only about 4 minutes prior to where the plane would have been crossing the highest peaks. Even if ATC had warned him right away at that point, he'd have been dangerously low.

The only good thing is...

The wreckage exhibited significant crush and impact damage. The right wing was partially fracture-separated from the fuselage, and the propeller blades were fracture-separated from the propeller hub. All components were located within 20 feet of the main wreckage.

... They came down hard and didn't suffer.
 
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_a9987ef4-5165-5de2-ad9e-f2b17057214d.html

Straight in. :sad::sad:

Looks like 30 % ice and 70 % rotor winds finished off that flight, and 100% poor planning didn't help either. IMHO.

Really sad for everybody involved.

And how many times have we seen this?

article said:
Ginger Bucklin, Luke Bucklin's wife and stepmother to the three boys, said her husband was a very safe pilot.
"He certainly would not have taken off if weather conditions did not look appropriate for that," Ginger Bucklin said.

But he did. :frown2:

And nearly every article we see has survivors talking about what a safe pilot they were... Folks, if you take nothing else from this, the most important lesson is to always be the pilot your passengers think you are. You owe them no less.
 
That whole report reads like a collossal bad idea, one line after the other.

And the last line of the report shows he didn't even have a turbocharged plane. :(
 
I'm wondering if he inadvertently stalled because of being at max power to maintain altitude and pulling up as he started sinking., sort of like these mushy takeoff videos I've seen recently.
 
I'm wondering if he inadvertently stalled because of being at max power to maintain altitude and pulling up as he started sinking., sort of like these mushy takeoff videos I've seen recently.
Could be. I got into mountain wave once and a t-storm downdraft once. The mountain wave had me at a IAS of 70 from pulling up to maintain my assigned altitude before I got out of the rotor. The t-storm I was down to IAS of 60 and was still not holding altitude, that is when I advised ATC and made plans for an immediate diversion to land because it was evident that stall or descend were my only two choices.
 
Could be. I got into mountain wave once and a t-storm downdraft once. The mountain wave had me at a IAS of 70 from pulling up to maintain my assigned altitude before I got out of the rotor. The t-storm I was down to IAS of 60 and was still not holding altitude, that is when I advised ATC and made plans for an immediate diversion to land because it was evident that stall or descend were my only two choices.

I would think that if you know you are in a rotor, downdraft, etc..., that it would be better to be on the faster side of best climb so that you exit it sooner. Or, does just the excitement of being in one cause the mind to go numb and all one is thinking is to climb?
 
I would think that if you know you are in a rotor, downdraft, etc..., that it would be better to be on the faster side of best climb so that you exit it sooner. Or, does just the excitement of being in one cause the mind to go numb and all one is thinking is to climb?
When I was in the rotor I actually was not thinking that was happening. My first inclination was that of a flat land flyer, that being I had just left a thermal. The 40knot winds coming over the Appalachians did not compute in the grey matter for a couple of minutes. When it finally occurred to me what was happening I was able to make a better situation out what was happening and got control of my flying.
 
When I was in the rotor I actually was not thinking that was happening. My first inclination was that of a flat land flyer, that being I had just left a thermal. The 40knot winds coming over the Appalachians did not compute in the grey matter for a couple of minutes. When it finally occurred to me what was happening I was able to make a better situation out what was happening and got control of my flying.
Were you actually in a rotor or just the descending side of a wave? A rotor would typically mean severe to extreme turbulence (occasionally dropping to mere moderate levels) while waves are normally fairly smooth because they require fairly stable air to form. IOW unless your head was banging against the cabin roof you probably weren't in a rotor.
 
I would think that if you know you are in a rotor, downdraft, etc..., that it would be better to be on the faster side of best climb so that you exit it sooner. Or, does just the excitement of being in one cause the mind to go numb and all one is thinking is to climb?
In a wave you would likely lose less altitude by maintaining airspeed slightly above best rate (Vy) but that only works if there's room below and your altitude excursions aren't limited by ATC. But going slower than Vy without a tailwind will only increase the altitude loss.

In a rotor I think you'd want to be a few to several knots below Va (corrected for weight) because that provides the most control without overstressing things.
 
When I was in the rotor I actually was not thinking that was happening. My first inclination was that of a flat land flyer, that being I had just left a thermal. The 40knot winds coming over the Appalachians did not compute in the grey matter for a couple of minutes. When it finally occurred to me what was happening I was able to make a better situation out what was happening and got control of my flying.

I would suggest that you weren't in a rotor, if you were you would be thinking that you were in a washing machine. :hairraise: Been there a couple of times, done that, don't want to do it again!
 
ATC tapes are released and it paints a troubling picture of the last few minutes of the families life...
Please....... Don't fly in the mountains when the weather is poor and the winds are strong..
http://www.twincities.com/minneapolis/ci_17034969?nclick_check=1
Audio is in the boxes that say part 1.2.3.4.
Tailwinds fellow aviator.
Ben.
 
Last edited:
That is what I used to think but got schooled otherwise. The newest generation digital DF from Becker will hone on the little 406mHz bursts just fine. Thank the cold war for that. The portable ground equipment used by the posse on foot for the most part doesn't yet have that capability.

Which model Becker are you using that tunes up to 406? Unless I'm mistaken, the original models stopped somewhere around 300 MHz.

I'm going to check the manual here as soon as I can find it. Hmmm. Where'd that go?
 
ATC tapes are released and it paints a troubling picture of the last few minutes of the families life...
Please....... Don't fly in the mountains when the weather is poor and the winds are strong..
http://www.twincities.com/minneapolis/ci_17034969?nclick_check=1
Audio is in the boxes that say part 1.2.3.4.
Tailwinds fellow aviator.
+1

Now that I hear the tapes I can see why ATC let him continue even though they were below the minimum IFR altitude. They ask, "Can you maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance for the next 10 minutes?" and he replies, "That's affirmative, we can do that". It almost seems like you can hear someone in the background say, "good". Or maybe it's my imagination.
 
+1

Now that I hear the tapes I can see why ATC let him continue even though they were below the minimum IFR altitude. They ask, "Can you maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance for the next 10 minutes?" and he replies, "That's affirmative, we can do that". It almost seems like you can hear someone in the background say, "good". Or maybe it's my imagination.

To me the guy sounded out of his depth from the start, we can only imagine what he was actually feeling at the time. It's a shame that this sort of thing happens.
 
Those tapes are chilling. He still had the ability to break the link in the chain, but did not.

This is the third, I believe, essentially identical accident this year.
 
Now that I hear the tapes I can see why ATC let him continue even though they were below the minimum IFR altitude. They ask, "Can you maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance for the next 10 minutes?" and he replies, "That's affirmative, we can do that".

I wonder what caused him to answer affirmative - Did he have a GPS with terrain on board and think that was enough? Hmm.

That last piece where the United flight says "We were wondering what he was doing out flying in this stuff" is telling, too.

I'm still curious what his initial clearance was, and why he only followed the first half of the departure procedure.
 
+1

Now that I hear the tapes I can see why ATC let him continue even though they were below the minimum IFR altitude. They ask, "Can you maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance for the next 10 minutes?" and he replies, "That's affirmative, we can do that". It almost seems like you can hear someone in the background say, "good". Or maybe it's my imagination.
I wish I had a clue what he was thinking and seeing when he answered that with affirmative. He couldn't have been further from the tall rocks than 10-15 miles at that point, if he had that much forward visibility I'd think it was pretty obvious he needed more altitude than he had to clear the terrain by 2000 ft. Perhaps he figured as long as he was a little higher than the ground ahead he was OK?
 
I wish I had a clue what he was thinking and seeing when he answered that with affirmative. He couldn't have been further from the tall rocks than 10-15 miles at that point, if he had that much forward visibility I'd think it was pretty obvious he needed more altitude than he had to clear the terrain by 2000 ft. Perhaps he figured as long as he was a little higher than the ground ahead he was OK?
My guess is that he didn't know what to say and didn't want to get in trouble so he simply said yes and crossed his fingers. It wasn't his luck day.
 
My guess is that he didn't know what to say and didn't want to get in trouble so he simply said yes and crossed his fingers. It wasn't his luck day.
Didn't want to get in trouble? Hopefully no one thinks that they will get in trouble if they admit to being unable to maintain their own terrain and obstruction clearance. Like Bruce mentioned he could probably have saved himself until he crossed the ridge and got into the downdraft. There was big valley behind him with two airports, Pinedale KPNA and Big Piney KBPI. He could have also gone around the mountains to the south. If he could actually see those mountains I'm sure that was a pretty imposing sight. They are beautiful but not in a small airplane in a snowstorm.
 
Didn't want to get in trouble? Hopefully no one thinks that they will get in trouble if they admit to being unable to maintain their own terrain and obstruction clearance. Like Bruce mentioned he could probably have saved himself until he crossed the ridge and got into the downdraft. There was big valley behind him with two airports, Pinedale KPNA and Big Piney KBPI. He could have also gone around the mountains to the south. If he could actually see those mountains I'm sure that was a pretty imposing sight. They are beautiful but not in a small airplane in a snowstorm.
Hopefully no one thinks that way but I've seen plenty of pilots not say something to ATC when they should for fear of the authority.
 
Didn't want to get in trouble? Hopefully no one thinks that they will get in trouble if they admit to being unable to maintain their own terrain and obstruction clearance.

This reminds me of something really amazing that Rick Durden said on a Pilotcast #21 a few years ago...

"A 709 ride is painless... You have to be alive to have a violation. The scary thing is, we've all gotten into trouble during our lives, from the time we were little kids and got yelled at for doing something wrong. So we can imagine getting in trouble - We can't imagine getting dead."

We know we don't like getting in trouble - It can be embarrassing, humiliating, it can remove privileges, we know it's no fun. But we've never gotten dead, so I think we tend to not consider that possibility sometimes, and we avoid getting into trouble rather than avoiding death - Not consciously, of course, but by avoiding trouble and not considering what the other consequences might be.
 
I just did a search on the airman database and think these are the pilot's details.

DOI: 6/8/2009
Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
Rating(s):
PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE

If he did only get his certificate in 2009 inexperience must have been a factor. He only owned the Mooney from the beginning of 2010.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully no one thinks that way but I've seen plenty of pilots not say something to ATC when they should for fear of the authority.

Agreed. ATC is actually there to help. If I actually need help from them, I ask it. I've never been told "no." Of course, if I was told no, I'd do it anyway (91.3).

If he did only get his certificate in 2009 inexperience must have been a factor. He only owned the Mooney from the beginning of 2010.

Probably so. Realizing limitations is frequently something that comes with experience.
 
... Folks, if you take nothing else from this, the most important lesson is to always be the pilot your passengers think you are. You owe them no less.
I have let that thought circulate in my head over the past 4 years a number of times...This is truly one of the first responsibilities we have as pilots.
 
It is far to easy for the inexperienced pilot to get in way over their head and not know it. Our avocation is unforgiving of such mistakes, as we all know. Tailwinds to the departed. I just hope it was sudden and not too scary at the end.
 
This reminds me of something really amazing that Rick Durden said on a Pilotcast #21 a few years ago...

"A 709 ride is painless... You have to be alive to have a violation. The scary thing is, we've all gotten into trouble during our lives, from the time we were little kids and got yelled at for doing something wrong. So we can imagine getting in trouble - We can't imagine getting dead."

We know we don't like getting in trouble - It can be embarrassing, humiliating, it can remove privileges, we know it's no fun. But we've never gotten dead, so I think we tend to not consider that possibility sometimes, and we avoid getting into trouble rather than avoiding death - Not consciously, of course, but by avoiding trouble and not considering what the other consequences might be.
True. That said, the question, "Can you maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance?" is not that uncommon out here and not generally a precursor to getting into any kind of trouble if someone answers, "negative". If he had, I'm sure ATC would have given him a vectors back towards lower terrain and an area of lower minimum IFR altitudes. He would probably have then been asked, "What are your intentions?" If you answer, "affirmative" you are taking responsibility for not hitting anything on the ground while ATC only retains the responsibility to separate you from other IFR traffic. Of course ATC can only vector you if you are in radar contact which this airplane was.
 
It is far to easy for the inexperienced pilot to get in way over their head and not know it. Our avocation is unforgiving of such mistakes, as we all know. Tailwinds to the departed. I just hope it was sudden and not too scary at the end.
During my primary training, I re-phrased one of my instructors mantras to this: You don't know and you don't know you don't know...

As I have gained experience, I truly have come to realize how utterly accurate this really is.

The pictures of those boys brings tears to my eyes.
 
True. That said, the question, "Can you maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance?" is not that uncommon out here and not generally a precursor to getting into any kind of trouble if someone answers, "negative". If he had, I'm sure ATC would have given him a vectors back towards lower terrain and an area of lower minimum IFR altitudes. He would probably have then been asked, "What are your intentions?" If you answer, "affirmative" you are taking responsibility for not hitting anything on the ground while ATC only retains the responsibility to separate you from other IFR traffic. Of course ATC can only vector you if you are in radar contact which this airplane was.

True, but we don't hear that out here very much, and it's generally no problem to do so if you do. Aside from the "uh oh" factor, it could have also been that he answered the same way he's always answered out here in the lower terrain (law of exercise), or maybe he knew if he answered "negative" he'd have to go the long way and it was a severe case of get-there-itis/get-home-itis.

Sadly, if he'd have just had his sons take the airlines home, he'd have probably made it home too.
 
True, but we don't hear that out here very much, and it's generally no problem to do so if you do. Aside from the "uh oh" factor, it could have also been that he answered the same way he's always answered out here in the lower terrain (law of exercise), or maybe he knew if he answered "negative" he'd have to go the long way and it was a severe case of get-there-itis/get-home-itis.
"Out here" meaning in southern WI? Really? We don't hear it if we get our clearance on the ground (obviously), but it was the first thing I was asked by Detroit Approach the one and only time my instructor and I picked up our clearance in the air (he is against picking up in the air as a matter of principle, but didn't have his cellphone adapter that night). It was good VMC all over lower MI that night, so no problem.

It seems like a reasonable question to ask no matter where you're flying, not just around the big rocks. Then again, I guess it could be because of the antenna farm a few miles south of where we were. But there are 1000-1200 AGL towers scattered throughout lower Michigan.

So, just curious as to when ATC asks it...
 
In the Northern Fringes of NY State you only talk to Boston center above 5000. Ground level is 400 or so.

You can get a clearance but you -- and only you -- are responsible for obstacle clearance on the way up to 5k.

There are some rocks that head up to 4-5k just south of KMSS and KPTD, and a fairly active MOA just west (Ft Drum) and departing IFR I'm very careful.
 
So, just curious as to when ATC asks it...
I am not ATC but I have heard it asked:

1. When picking up the clearance in the air as you mentioned.

2. When entering an area of higher minimum IFR altitudes and you are not at that altitude yet, which is what was happening in this case.
 
I just did a search on the airman database and think these are the pilot's details.



If he did only get his certificate in 2009 inexperience must have been a factor. He only owned the Mooney from the beginning of 2010.

I believe the date on the airman's record is that of the latest update e.g. latest rating, or latest privilege, not that of the original certification.
 
Back
Top