Colorado Springs

[iamtheari]

For those of us who want to get some mountain training in that part of Colorado, where should we start looking for an instructor who can help? It's sometimes hard enough to find a CFI in your own town, much less a few states away, and just like the OP we end up in Colorado for a day or three but can't necessarily coordinate our schedule with local pilot guilds to take an organized mountain flying course.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

For those of us who want to get some mountain training in that part of Colorado, where should we start looking for an instructor who can help? It's sometimes hard enough to find a CFI in your own town, much less a few states away, and just like the OP we end up in Colorado for a day or three but can't necessarily coordinate our schedule with local pilot guilds to take an organized mountain flying course.

Really any local flight school along the front range will have a "mountain flying course" all of which I'd be comfortable training with.

 

[Clark1961]

Me also. But Colorado Springs definitely isn't my favorite part of Colorado. It's one of the most whacked out places I've been to outside of the Greenville Spartanburg area. At least it was 15 years ago, can't attest to how it is today. I used to have to go out there regularly because one of our redundant IT centers was there. It could get quite interesting.

They still have the mix of druggies and holy rollers....and apparently have added yard poopers. As always YMWV. And Cutter is still the best FBO at COS. Don’t be goin’ to them jet guys.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

They still have the mix of druggies and holy rollers....and apparently have added yard poopers. As always YMWV. And Cutter is still the best FBO at COS. Don’t be goin’ to them jet guys.

I'm not so sure I'm a fan of Cutter. I called a week ahead to schedule time in their 177 simply because I've never flown one before. Guy on the phone specifically says "I'll give you a call if there's any issue." Rented a 182 and flew down there from BJC and sure enough "oh the plane is down for maintenance we'll have to reschedule you." I was pretty peeved.

It's safe to say I did not reschedule with them.

 

[Clark1961]

Really any local flight school along the front range will have a "mountain flying course" all of which I'd be comfortable training with.

Just wanted to add the Colorado Pilots Association lists instructors on their website. These are guys that are well known around here, not just some guy with a business card.

 

[Clark1961]

I'm not so sure I'm a fan of Cutter. I called a week ahead to schedule time in their 177 simply because I've never flown one before. Guy on the phone specifically says "I'll give you a call if there's any issue." Rented a 182 and flew down there from BJC and sure enough "oh the plane is down for maintenance we'll have to reschedule you." I was pretty peeved.

It's safe to say I did not reschedule with them.

See, there ya go again. Yer priorities are all messed up. First off they have some fine eye candy at the front desk. The second one is the always have had a crew car for me.

Dunno ‘bout this stuff of flyin’ somewheres to rent some Cezzna spam can anyways..sounds like some sorta misguided high winger fetish if’n ya ask me and ya didn’t.

 

[WannFly]

For those of us who want to get some mountain training in that part of Colorado, where should we start looking for an instructor who can help? It's sometimes hard enough to find a CFI in your own town, much less a few states away, and just like the OP we end up in Colorado for a day or three but can't necessarily coordinate our schedule with local pilot guilds to take an organized mountain flying course.

I was looking at some schools offering mountain training in CO, but without any training how the heck am I supposed to fly there on my own and not hit something that stands 14k feet. Guess I can fly commercial and rent, but that sucks

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[iamtheari]

I was looking at some schools offering mountain training in CO, but without any training how the heck am I supposed to fly there on my own and not hit something that stands 14k feet. Guess I can fly commercial and rent, but that sucks

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

You'd be coming from the northeast, so you don't have to cross any mountains on the way there. But you probably do have to cross the Denver class B airspace and then land at an airport at an elevation between 5,000 and 6,000 MSL, which can be an adventure in itself.

 

[tspear]

You'd be coming from the northeast, so you don't have to cross any mountains on the way there. But you probably do have to cross the Denver class B airspace and then land at an airport at an elevation between 5,000 and 6,000 MSL, which can be an adventure in itself.

Not really. Just ask locals for the best speed and power settings. My assumption is there someone local who flies the same plane, or at least someone who flies the plane around the same elevation.

Tim

 

[Clark1961]

Not really. Just ask locals for the best speed and power settings. My assumption is there someone local who flies the same plane, or at least someone who flies the plane around the same elevation.

Tim

Indicated airspeed is indicated airspeed. Don’t change it because of a change in airport elevation.

Nope, no training needed by any pilots new to the area at all. That is obvious...

 

[denverpilot]

Indicated airspeed is indicated airspeed. Don’t change it because of a change in airport elevation.

Yup. Fly the same indicated airspeeds as at home.

It’s the groundspeed that goes up and folks see stuff going by outside looking like it’s going by too fast, and they subconsciously try to slow the airplane down.

“This looks too fast.”
“What’s the airspeed indicator say?”
“Still feels wrong.”



Much more noticeable at KLXV when you chew up extra thousands of feet of runway and still aren’t quite ready to lift off... and at KGWS where you don’t have the extra thousands of feet to wait...

And then once you’re off, the climb rate feels like it’s wrong, too... since you’re already higher in DA than you usually cruise...

 

[denverpilot]

oh ffs..

Yep that’s usually the first thing out of my mouth when I hang up the phone after hearing we lost another person.

It was definitely what I said loudly in my living room the day we heard the young couple went up I-70 with two kids on board and died smacking Loveland Ski Area trying to turn around.

Has anyone you know personally died in a mountain crash? If not... wait. It’ll happen.

It changes your tune a bit and adds a few gray hairs. Especially if you knew they were really good at it. REALLY good at it.

For the record I never said “no” to the person asking. You got that from a couple other people here. I say people can do as they please, but if I have to post to PoA that they’re dead, I’m not going to be happy about it.

That area south of COS where the drainage exits to PUB? I know of two fatals in that area, too. It’s an utterly benign area, flown right. One of them was a bit of a freak thing that involved an isolated thunderstorm, but the other was just running smack into a mountain in perfect weather.

The former was just stupidity but we searched for a week. The radar data back in those days took a long time to get and to evaluate. Six days in the radar analysts said they saw the airplane centerpunch a tiny cell and come out of the bottom in multiple pieces in the raw data.

The latter, are always the ones that make me wonder WTF someone was doing. VFR straight into a mountain, no signs of an attempted turn, no apparent knowledge of where they were in relation to terrain. No significant wind, no turbulence, nothing. Just smack. It’s almost eerie and somewhat amazing, every time.

I’ve often wondered if some of them had passed out due to not bringing along O2.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Note: not just untrained people die in the mountains. Well trained ones do too.
I have about 30 hours in this Piper Arrow that no longer exists. A very well trained and highly regarded CFI from Boulder died in this crash. Probable cause is: "The pilot’s inability to maintain a climb while attempting to cross over a mountain pass in high-density altitude conditions that degraded the airplane’s climb performance." It's really not something to go into without a profound amount of respect for the mountains that can easily snuff you out.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20140810X90209&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

 

[Clark1961]

Note: not just untrained people die in the mountains. Well trained ones do too.
I have about 30 hours in this Piper Arrow that no longer exists. A very well trained and highly regarded CFI from Boulder died in this crash. Probable cause is: "The pilot’s inability to maintain a climb while attempting to cross over a mountain pass in high-density altitude conditions that degraded the airplane’s climb performance." It's really not something to go into without a profound amount of respect for the mountains that can easily snuff you out.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20140810X90209&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

I only have about 5 hours in 09Mike. Wondered what happened to it when it went off rental.

Edit: I’ve watched guys fly towards terrain without having the altitude to clear. I’ve heard the phrase “I know I have the performance to clear”...nothing you can say or do to make them follow the rules of mountain flying.

 

[WannFly]

You'd be coming from the northeast, so you don't have to cross any mountains on the way there. But you probably do have to cross the Denver class B airspace and then land at an airport at an elevation between 5,000 and 6,000 MSL, which can be an adventure in itself.

There is a YT video by one of those schools, can't find it now where he did a flight from his home field to KDTL ( which got me excited) , but it crosses a valley and a million zig zag to avoid high altitudes and fly over a suitable off field landing spot

Edit: Found it. the school is https://alpineflighttraining.com/mountain-flying-instruction
flight planning -

 

[Lachlan]

This is just dumb. It's not even close to what I'm advocating and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

I know. Really lame, ay?

 

[Fearless Tower]

This thread has gone completely stoopid. A guy asks about a flight in the winter and people are throwing out High DA summer accidents.

Are you Colorado guys getting monetary kickbacks for every person that signs up for a mountain flying course?

OP: read Sarky Imeson’s Mountain Flying bible. Respect the advice in there. Don’t push things, especially for a fun scenic flight. Don’t write checks your body can’t cash. If the weather is good (like Clark said: below 20-25 kts at altitude) give yourself 2000’ terrain clearance and you’ll be fine. If the wind is kicking: don’t go. If there are a lot of clouds: don’t go. But if it’s a nice day and the weather supports, enjoy a beautiful experience.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

This thread has gone completely stoopid. A guy asks about a flight in the winter and people are throwing out High DA summer accidents.

Are you Colorado guys getting monetary kickbacks for every person that signs up for a mountain flying course?

OP: read Sarky Imeson’s Mountain Flying bible. Respect the advice in there. Don’t push things, especially for a fun scenic flight. Don’t write checks your body can’t cash. If the weather is good (like Clark said: below 20-25 kts at altitude) give yourself 2000’ terrain clearance and you’ll be fine. If the wind is kicking: don’t go. If there are a lot of clouds: don’t go. But if it’s a nice day and the weather supports, enjoy a beautiful experience.

I think all of us know enough people that have died in the mountains summer or winter that it's reasonable for us to recommend the safest course of action. We are all aware of how quickly things can go bad and you have far more limited "outs". In addition to that... the guy that wrote the mountain flying bible died... flying in the mountains.

Will the OP be fine without training? probably. But I also don't think it's unwise for us to recommend mountain flight training.

 

[denverpilot]

I was pretty clear I mostly just think there isn’t a good way into KCOS from that valley behind Pikes and a few terrain features that make it a pretty bumpy ride most of the time.

If you’re coming from the Dakotas in a Warrior you’ll probably need fuel somewhere before taking another hour long detour, and you’ll be landing under the Bravo. To get out from under it to go into the north end of that valley is a 4000’ climb once you clear the edge of the Bravo if TRACON isn’t helpful with a clearance through it to climb; but the assumption was by describing it with the screenshot, the pilot would already know that. It’s a pretty slow climb in the 182, and then no way into KCOS from back there. Standard flight planning.

The rest was just the usual thread wandering on PoA.

 

[SkyHog]

This sort of argument starts every time there’s a non-Mountain trained pilot asking this question. Some of us take the conservative route and say, “We’d really rather see you grab a class first or at least a CFI who’s been there, done that...” and others say “Go for it!”... and everything in between.

The reality of the valley behind KCOS is that it’s relatively easy to get into and nice to look around in, but there’s no good route that isn’t an hour out of the way in a Warrior to get out of it into KCOS. You can make a big loop from Denver to almost Pueblo and then backtrack, is about it. The canyon down Highway 24 isn’t a great option.

And as we’ve said, that area is a bunch of Nothingburger for civilization. There’s a couple of ranches and a scattering of houses, and little cell coverage, and no place good to land.

I’ll fly through there but I know the risk I’m taking. And usually to go to PUB, not COS.

So my answer was pragmatic. If someone wants to wander back up in there and look around on a perfect day, nobody can stop them. There’s just not a great route to COS.

FSDO stopped putting out official pubs about how to fly up there a long time ago. Wish they still published stuff like that. Sparky Imeson wrote a great book about it, many of us met or knew him, and doing this stuff killed him in Idaho after he moved there from here.

I like people too much to recommend anyone I don’t know go wandering up there without training. I’m not fond of hearing we pulled out more people in body bags. So, I start with, “I’d rather you get some training.”

There’s nothing particularly hard about the flying, it’s about poor aircraft performance and how to approach that (stuff like “don’t fly directly at ridge lines, and never up canyons, only down...” as well as how to escape the consequences of it (max performance slow turns with flaps, usually nose down to maintain airspeed, etc).

If you respect the mountains and know how to fly them, you *should* be okay, but like Clark said, better mountain pilots are no longer with us, and we all miss them. Lots of untrained folks also manage to fly in them every year, too.

It’s like anything else that adds risk to flying. Choose wisely. None of us wants to make it seem like it’s all rosy and rainbows.

The quintessential crash and training video is the Bird Dog video. L-19 is a plenty capable airplane for this flight, day was perfect but a bit warm, and the pilot only made a couple of mistakes, but they were fatal. To the untrained eye, the flight looks normal. To the trained eye, we see him making some errors in judgement on where to place the aircraft. He gets away with it until the last few seconds of the video.

As the video captioning points out, the aircraft and deceased occupants (his grandson was the passenger he yells at to hang on) were not found for nearly three years. The video camera was shattered and the tape was strung all over the crash site, and it was painstakingly collected and restored to bring everyone the video. The family was gracious about releasing it as a training aid long before the Internet.

Perfect day, no wind, no weather, very capable aircraft, couple of easy to avoid mistakes, dual fatality.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has recommended anything of the sort.

To scare people away from flying on the east side of the mountains is just pure lunacy. I think the elevation tops out at 6000ft.

The advice anyone should give: stay out of the mountains and don’t enter any passes and you’ll be fine. That’s not “conservative” or “risky,” it’s freaking normal.

 

[tspear]

Indicated airspeed is indicated airspeed. Don’t change it because of a change in airport elevation.

Nope, no training needed by any pilots new to the area at all. That is obvious...

Well, if you want to get technical about it. Yes you could fly the same indicated airspeed. However, the amount of power required to create 100 KIAS at sea level is less than the power required to create 100 KIAS at 5K MSL, which is less then at 7K MSL.... If you are flying an naturally aspirated engine, at 5K feet you have lost about 15 to 20% of the available takeoff power. So not only do you have less total power available, you need more power just to sustain your base speed. This gives you less options.

Further, the standard sea level gust factor rules of 1/2 gust speed may or may not be solid advice. So, if you have a long runway, it can be beneficial to carry more power and more speed in the pattern to address higher wind speeds, with less power available to address critical situations.
Or you can just wing it, and crash in the down draft or cross wind gust.

Tim

 

[skiermike]

I'm back. I couldn't resist.

This thread has gone completely stoopid. A guy asks about a flight in the winter and people are throwing out High DA summer accidents.

Are you Colorado guys getting monetary kickbacks for every person that signs up for a mountain flying course?

Seriously. And not only that, compare a daytime sightseeing flight to a nighttime, VMC to IMC flight crossing the mountains accident (that Cirrus flight took off 20 minutes after sunset, for the record), or a flight into a thunderstorm, or a summertime high DA flight where the guy made obvious mistakes and then turned right into terrain!

Okay, okay. My recommendation to consider doing the flight - given weather and winds are appropriate *with* the caveats that he/she should not expect to or attempt to clear passes or fly up-canyon yadda yadda yadda - maybe *is* too risky a recommendation if you don't already know not to attempt to cross the biggest mountain range in the US at night, go VMC into IMC, or fly into an effing thunderstorm... or to fly your indicated speeds when landing at a higher elevation airport, for that matter.

 

[SkyHog]

Well, if you want to get technical about it. Yes you could fly the same indicated airspeed. However, the amount of power required to create 100 KIAS at sea level is less than the power required to create 100 KIAS at 5K MSL, which is less then at 7K MSL.... If you are flying an naturally aspirated engine, at 5K feet you have lost about 15 to 20% of the available takeoff power. So not only do you have less total power available, you need more power just to sustain your base speed. This gives you less options.

Further, the standard sea level gust factor rules of 1/2 gust speed may or may not be solid advice. So, if you have a long runway, it can be beneficial to carry more power and more speed in the pattern to address higher wind speeds, with less power available to address critical situations.
Or you can just wing it, and crash in the down draft or cross wind gust.

Tim

Umm. No

Or rather, perhaps yes, but not germane to the question of “what airspeed so I fly at higher elevation airports for landing.” The answer: the same you fly at sea level. The only difference is how you set your mixture

 

[skiermike]

To the best of my knowledge, no one has recommended anything of the sort.

To scare people away from flying on the east side of the mountains is just pure lunacy. I think the elevation tops out at 6000ft.

The advice anyone should give: stay out of the mountains and don’t enter any passes and you’ll be fine. That’s not “conservative” or “risky,” it’s freaking normal.

God bless this wonderful SkyHog

Well, if you want to get technical about it. Yes you could fly the same indicated airspeed. However, the amount of power required to create 100 KIAS at sea level is less than the power required to create 100 KIAS at 5K MSL, which is less then at 7K MSL.... If you are flying an naturally aspirated engine, at 5K feet you have lost about 15 to 20% of the available takeoff power. So not only do you have less total power available, you need more power just to sustain your base speed. This

Further, the standard sea level gust factor rules of 1/2 gust speed may or may not be solid advice. So, if you have a long runway, it can be beneficial to carry more power and more speed in the pattern to address higher wind speeds, with less power available to address critical situations.
Or you can just wing it, and crash in the down draft or cross wind gust

Oh my sides! Yer killin’ me. Stop!!

 

[denverpilot]

To the best of my knowledge, no one has recommended anything of the sort.

Were you meaning to respond to Clark or something? Nowhere in my post did I suggest that anyone had “recommended” anything.

You talking to yourself tonight Nick, or what? LOL.

I'm back. I couldn't resist.



Seriously. And not only that, compare a daytime sightseeing flight to a nighttime, VMC to IMC flight crossing the mountains accident (that Cirrus flight took off 20 minutes after sunset, for the record), or a flight into a thunderstorm, or a summertime high DA flight where the guy made obvious mistakes and then turned right into terrain!

Okay, okay. My recommendation to consider doing the flight - given weather and winds are appropriate *with* the caveats that he/she should not expect to or attempt to clear passes or fly up-canyon yadda yadda yadda - maybe *is* too risky a recommendation if you don't already know not to attempt to cross the biggest mountain range in the US at night, go VMC into IMC, or fly into an effing thunderstorm... or to fly your indicated speeds when landing at a higher elevation airport, for that matter.

Aww come on. It’s way more fun when you leave in a huff for no reason at all. LOL.

As far as the pilots go, those who can’t do a W&B or takeoff and landing distance calculations, have weak stick and rudder skills, weak weather skills, can’t hold an airspeed, whatever... they’re everywhere. Every CFI meets a few once in a while at Flight Review time. Not really just a mountain phenomenon.

A group of pilots flew up here and requested a special session of the mountain flying course, but it could have just as easily been locals for the purposes of the story.

Local instructors who participated in these people’s OWN airplanes, were privately briefed that if stick and rudder skills and/or airspeed control were weak at the first airport (long runway, clear approaches), to just change the flight plan to overfly one of the other airports, just in case. No reason to push a bad situation.

The group had a 50% fly-over rate, which surprised and saddened the CFI crew upon debrief after they left. All the flights were flown individually and the instructors didn’t know how many student/owners they had skip that airport until after the event was over.

Yes, it really is “that bad” out there. Even aircraft owners don’t maintain proficiency, too often. Those “obvious mistakes” are obvious to you. There’re not to many. Wish it weren’t so, but it is.

Sparky’s first crash was a student who turned into a mountain instead of away from it when he looked down to write notes on the student’s performance so far on his first mountain checkout. For better or worse, Sparky was so mad he hiked out and left the student with the wreck. (You have to be pretty ****ed to hike a few miles out of the back country instead of staying with the aircraft and your student... haha... like incredibly ****ed...)

Ironically or strangely, his second crash was when he detoured on a long Flight significantly out of his way, to look at the first crash site. Nobody knows why. I have my theories, but they’re so speculative that I don’t share.

Oh my sides! Yer killin’ me. Stop!!

That one was pretty bad.

I stopped reading where the physics of lifting the exact same weight with the exact same aircraft, suddenly needs different amounts of horsepower produced, and just shook my head.

It no workie ‘dat way.

 

[Clark1961]

Well, if you want to get technical about it. Yes you could fly the same indicated airspeed. However, the amount of power required to create 100 KIAS at sea level is less than the power required to create 100 KIAS at 5K MSL, which is less then at 7K MSL.... If you are flying an naturally aspirated engine, at 5K feet you have lost about 15 to 20% of the available takeoff power. So not only do you have less total power available, you need more power just to sustain your base speed. This gives you less options.

Further, the standard sea level gust factor rules of 1/2 gust speed may or may not be solid advice. So, if you have a long runway, it can be beneficial to carry more power and more speed in the pattern to address higher wind speeds, with less power available to address critical situations.
Or you can just wing it, and crash in the down draft or cross wind gust.

Tim

LOL. If ya can’t dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull. What a load of crap. The power required to produce 100 kts indicated is the same at sea level and at 5,000 feet neglecting slight differences in propellor efficiency. Wind is wind whether at sea level or 5,000 feet. The significant differences are power available from a normally aspirated engine and the true airspeed.

So you can listen to made up crap from tspear or you can deal with reality. Easy call.

 

[SkyHog]

Were you meaning to respond to Clark or something? Nowhere in my post did I suggest that anyone had “recommended” anything.

You talking to yourself tonight Nick, or what? LOL.

Come on, man - you're killing me!! The original question was essentially - "I'm flying to Colorado Springs. Is it safe for me to take a quick look-see at the mountains from the air?" There's nothing there about flying up highway 24, or entering any passes, or anything else - but somehow this thread turned into "OMG!! No, man, you have to have at least 10 hours of training with a CFI, your instrument rating, and oxygen on board. Also, make sure you have floats and an option for skis on the airplane and at least 500hp engines. Also, if you have less than 5000 hours and your airplane is red, you're going to die in a fiery inferno." Of course, none of that is true - a quick 10 minute flight from KCOS to the west will get you up against the mountains with some awesome views that remain safe. That's all the OP needs to hear - everything else is just fear mongering and does Colorado a disservice.

I love the sights around here. Even before I moved here, some of my favorite flights were the ones from Albuquerque to 3V5 before it shut down - and I have never done a mountain flying class. I have crossed La Veta without issue, but even that is more intense than what the OP was asking about.

 

[Clark1961]

Come on, man - you're killing me!! The original question was essentially - "I'm flying to Colorado Springs. Is it safe for me to take a quick look-see at the mountains from the air?" There's nothing there about flying up highway 24, or entering any passes, or anything else - but somehow this thread turned into "OMG!! No, man, you have to have at least 10 hours of training with a CFI, your instrument rating, and oxygen on board. Also, make sure you have floats and an option for skis on the airplane and at least 500hp engines. Also, if you have less than 5000 hours and your airplane is red, you're going to die in a fiery inferno." Of course, none of that is true - a quick 10 minute flight from KCOS to the west will get you up against the mountains with some awesome views that remain safe. That's all the OP needs to hear - everything else is just fear mongering and does Colorado a disservice.

I love the sights around here. Even before I moved here, some of my favorite flights were the ones from Albuquerque to 3V5 before it shut down - and I have never done a mountain flying class. I have crossed La Veta without issue, but even that is more intense than what the OP was asking about.

Where can I get a skifloat option for the ‘kota? That would really round out the capabilities of the aircraft. And can I add a VSTOL kit with the skifloats?

On a slightly more serious note. Get the mountain flying training. It’s a lot of fun and there are some good skills to have yer back pocket. Crossing a pass should not be intense in any way...unless maybe yer @Zeldman in ‘laska or me being stoopid with gethomeitis in 50 kt winds or a snowstorm.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Where can I get a skifloat option for the ‘kota? That would really round out the capabilities of the aircraft. And can I add a VSTOL kit with the skifloats?

I dunno but here's a couple upgrades you should give a go!

 

[denverpilot]

Come on, man - you're killing me!! The original question was essentially - "I'm flying to Colorado Springs. Is it safe for me to take a quick look-see at the mountains from the air?" There's nothing there about flying up highway 24, or entering any passes, or anything else - but somehow this thread turned into "OMG!! No, man, you have to have at least 10 hours of training with a CFI, your instrument rating, and oxygen on board. Also, make sure you have floats and an option for skis on the airplane and at least 500hp engines. Also, if you have less than 5000 hours and your airplane is red, you're going to die in a fiery inferno." Of course, none of that is true - a quick 10 minute flight from KCOS to the west will get you up against the mountains with some awesome views that remain safe. That's all the OP needs to hear - everything else is just fear mongering and does Colorado a disservice.

I love the sights around here. Even before I moved here, some of my favorite flights were the ones from Albuquerque to 3V5 before it shut down - and I have never done a mountain flying class. I have crossed La Veta without issue, but even that is more intense than what the OP was asking about.

Come on indeed. You replied to my post with something I didn’t even say. At least go quote the right person.

I didn’t tell the OP not to do it. I analyzed his possible route of flight with a chart and showed him where he’d likely be going to get “near the mountains” and said it’d be slog and bumpy in a Warrior, showed where the wind hits to cause that, and said it’s a crappy place for an engine out. Even told him many of his experiences in the Dakotas will cross over.

Then the conversation turned to the usual BS when someone adds “be careful” or “we don’t know you, we suggest some training” into two or three people getting all huffy (I guess it’s your turn this time?) that the conversation (which had drifted away from the OPs question, already well answered) has turned into some sort of warning to the OP not to do it.

That never happened, the topic just wandered off like every other PoA thread, well after the question was well answered. As it has been here a thousand times before.

But it’s the same old crap every time... everyone who said to be careful and shared stories of how unforgiving the mountains can be, triggers two or three people freaking out that they told the OP not to go flying and their airplane will explode, etc.

Nobody said anything of the sort, of course.

And then the departure in a huff is even predictable. Same thread, different year. LOL.

Nobody here said that the OP was going to die or anything of the sort. The closest anyone came was Clark. And even he didn’t say that.

But the usual reading comprehension problems have kicked in.

Hell, you’re even replying to my post instead of whoever’s triggered you.

“Nobody recommended...”

If you’ll note, neither did I. I didn’t say anybody recommended jack crap. Figure out who did and quote them, if they brought out your inner snowflake tonight. It wasn’t me. Haha.

As far as La Veta goes, since you brought it up... I believe it has the most wreckage of any pass in CO. There’s better options. That surprises a lot of people when they see the data.

Haven’t seen their student course book content in a while, but I think the “wrecks per pass” table is still in the CPA ground school material and updated. Interesting data. They have some pretty interesting long term trend data in the book, or did. Hopefully it’s still in there.

 

[Clark1961]

Come on indeed. You replied to my post with something I didn’t even say. At least go quote the right person.

I didn’t tell the OP not to do it. I analyzed his possible route of flight with a chart and showed him where he’d likely be going to get “near the mountains” and said it’d be slog and bumpy in a Warrior, showed where the wind hits to cause that, and said it’s a crappy place for an engine out. Even told him many of his experiences in the Dakotas will cross over.

Then the conversation turned to the usual BS when someone adds “be careful” or “we don’t know you, we suggest some training” into two or three people getting all huffy (I guess it’s your turn this time?) that the conversation (which had drifted away from the OPs question, already well answered) has turned into some sort of warning to the OP not to do it.

That never happened, the topic just wandered off like every other PoA thread, well after the question was well answered. As it has been here a thousand times before.

But it’s the same old crap every time... everyone who said to be careful and shared stories of how unforgiving the mountains can be, triggers two or three people freaking out that they told the OP not to go flying and their airplane will explode, etc.

Nobody said anything of the sort, of course.

And then the departure in a huff is even predictable. Same thread, different year. LOL.

Nobody here said that the OP was going to die or anything of the sort. The closest anyone came was Clark. And even he didn’t say that.

But the usual reading comprehension problems have kicked in.

Hell, you’re even replying to my post instead of whoever’s triggered you.

“Nobody recommended...”

If you’ll note, neither did I. I didn’t say anybody recommended jack crap. Figure out who did and quote them, if they brought out your inner snowflake tonight. It wasn’t me. Haha.

As far as La Veta goes, since you brought it up... I believe it has the most wreckage of any pass in CO. There’s better options. That surprises a lot of people when they see the data.

Haven’t seen their student course book content in a while, but I think the “wrecks per pass” table is still in the CPA ground school material and updated. Interesting data. They have some pretty interesting long term trend data in the book, or did. Hopefully it’s still in there.

The thing that gets me is the number of trained and experienced pilots who manage to kill themselves in the hills. It’s worth teaching respect for the high elevation in our spam cans.

A simple example is someones comment that a few clouds are okay...well those few clouds might just be rotors. I have seen that and experimented with getting close to them while solo. A flatlander who thinks they are nothing could have a really bad day. Ya gotta be careful what ya say in a forum like this when we try to share knowledge and experience.

I could go all Nate like on a post and describe the crashes from poor choices while flying in the Denver area and mountains. I won’t do that. I’ll just share my perspective as I have already done and then fill in background as things progress.

There are challenges anywhere ya fly. We all have different levels of risk tolerance. We all have different levels of commitment to mitigating risk. I got tired of hauling people to the hospital long ago. It just isn’t any fun at all.

 

[murphey]

Well....Colorado Pilots Assoc has a similar map, sorely out of date (I haven't been keeping it updated) but check it out here:

http://coloradopilots.org/maps.asp?Show_Mt_AWOS=true&Show_Accident=true&UpdateMap=Refresh+Map

And select the little red airplane at the bottom.

Come on indeed. You replied to my post with something I didn’t even say. At least go quote the right person.

I didn’t tell the OP not to do it. I analyzed his possible route of flight with a chart and showed him where he’d likely be going to get “near the mountains” and said it’d be slog and bumpy in a Warrior, showed where the wind hits to cause that, and said it’s a crappy place for an engine out. Even told him many of his experiences in the Dakotas will cross over.

Then the conversation turned to the usual BS when someone adds “be careful” or “we don’t know you, we suggest some training” into two or three people getting all huffy (I guess it’s your turn this time?) that the conversation (which had drifted away from the OPs question, already well answered) has turned into some sort of warning to the OP not to do it.

That never happened, the topic just wandered off like every other PoA thread, well after the question was well answered. As it has been here a thousand times before.

But it’s the same old crap every time... everyone who said to be careful and shared stories of how unforgiving the mountains can be, triggers two or three people freaking out that they told the OP not to go flying and their airplane will explode, etc.

Nobody said anything of the sort, of course.

And then the departure in a huff is even predictable. Same thread, different year. LOL.

Nobody here said that the OP was going to die or anything of the sort. The closest anyone came was Clark. And even he didn’t say that.

But the usual reading comprehension problems have kicked in.

Hell, you’re even replying to my post instead of whoever’s triggered you.

“Nobody recommended...”

If you’ll note, neither did I. I didn’t say anybody recommended jack crap. Figure out who did and quote them, if they brought out your inner snowflake tonight. It wasn’t me. Haha.

As far as La Veta goes, since you brought it up... I believe it has the most wreckage of any pass in CO. There’s better options. That surprises a lot of people when they see the data.

Haven’t seen their student course book content in a while, but I think the “wrecks per pass” table is still in the CPA ground school material and updated. Interesting data. They have some pretty interesting long term trend data in the book, or did. Hopefully it’s still in there.

Yup, still is. Gets updated every year, too. Just got off an email thread, the CPA accident map will be dated in the next week or two.

 

[skiermike]

Come on indeed. You replied to my post with something I didn’t even say. At least go quote the right person.

I didn’t tell the OP not to do it. I analyzed his possible route of flight with a chart and showed him where he’d likely be going to get “near the mountains” and said it’d be slog and bumpy in a Warrior, showed where the wind hits to cause that, and said it’s a crappy place for an engine out. Even told him many of his experiences in the Dakotas will cross over.

Then the conversation turned to the usual BS when someone adds “be careful” or “we don’t know you, we suggest some training” into two or three people getting all huffy (I guess it’s your turn this time?) that the conversation (which had drifted away from the OPs question, already well answered) has turned into some sort of warning to the OP not to do it.

That never happened, the topic just wandered off like every other PoA thread, well after the question was well answered. As it has been here a thousand times before.

But it’s the same old crap every time... everyone who said to be careful and shared stories of how unforgiving the mountains can be, triggers two or three people freaking out that they told the OP not to go flying and their airplane will explode, etc.

Nobody said anything of the sort, of course.

And then the departure in a huff is even predictable. Same thread, different year. LOL.

Nobody here said that the OP was going to die or anything of the sort. The closest anyone came was Clark. And even he didn’t say that.

But the usual reading comprehension problems have kicked in.

Hell, you’re even replying to my post instead of whoever’s triggered you.

“Nobody recommended...”

If you’ll note, neither did I. I didn’t say anybody recommended jack crap. Figure out who did and quote them, if they brought out your inner snowflake tonight. It wasn’t me. Haha.

As far as La Veta goes, since you brought it up... I believe it has the most wreckage of any pass in CO. There’s better options. That surprises a lot of people when they see the data.

Haven’t seen their student course book content in a while, but I think the “wrecks per pass” table is still in the CPA ground school material and updated. Interesting data. They have some pretty interesting long term trend data in the book, or did. Hopefully it’s still in there.

Oh man, I think I just threw up in my mouth. Denverpilot your self-righteous game is solid!

 

[denverpilot]

Oh man, I think I just threw up in my mouth. Denverpilot your self-righteous game is solid!

This coming from the guy who had to announce he was leaving a thread on a public message board to make sure everyone knew he was indignant? LOL. That’s funny, man. Really funny, actually.

I’m just trying to figure out who Nick is arguing with that he says jumped someone for their recommendations, because it wasn’t me. No biggie, he can argue with himself if he likes that sort of thing.

 

[tspear]

For the doubters, here is a link to the math:
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/altitude/part1/altitude_part1_wide_screen.pdf

Look at the final two paragraphs on page 2.

Now, from a practical perspective flying out of 5K long runways at only 5K MSL, will it matter. Probably not. But if you ever want to learn to fly and get the majority of the use out of your plane, you really should understand this stuff. It is helpful to know how this affects not only stopping distance, but takeoff, climb performance, reaction performance...
I have run the numbers when flying an SR20 out of 2K runways needing to clear trees in summer; at sea level and at airports a paltry 3K MSL. And I could see a difference.

Tim

 

[Clark1961]

For the doubters, here is a link to the math:
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/altitude/part1/altitude_part1_wide_screen.pdf

Look at the final two paragraphs on page 2.

Now, from a practical perspective flying out of 5K long runways at only 5K MSL, will it matter. Probably not. But if you ever want to learn to fly and get the majority of the use out of your plane, you really should understand this stuff. It is helpful to know how this affects not only stopping distance, but takeoff, climb performance, reaction performance...
I have run the numbers when flying an SR20 out of 2K runways needing to clear trees in summer; at sea level and at airports a paltry 3K MSL. And I could see a difference.

Tim

Drop the BS and attempt to state your position clearly. The very brief paper does not support your claims that airspeeds and power settings change with density altitudes. Power available does change with normally aspirated engines. Perhaps you are confusing power available with power required? That’s my guess based on your posts to date. You confusion is understandable when it comes from a non-technical individual but that does not excuse continued embrace of an untenable position.

 

[tspear]

Drop the BS and attempt to state your position clearly. The very brief paper does not support your claims that airspeeds and power settings change with density altitudes. Power available does change with normally aspirated engines. Perhaps you are confusing power available with power required? That’s my guess based on your posts to date. You confusion is understandable when it comes from a non-technical individual but that does not excuse continued embrace of an untenable position.

Nope. Not BS. Read the whole paper and maybe you can learn something. In a naturally aspirated plane, as you increase in altitude stall speed increases, max velocity decreases. Minimum power required to maintain level flight increases, max available power decreases.

As for non-technical, most of my friends and family would laugh; I am very technical, however, I am not an engineer. I am in the IT space.

Tim

 

[Clark1961]

Nope. Not BS. Read the whole paper and maybe you can learn something. In a naturally aspirated plane, as you increase in altitude stall speed increases, max velocity decreases. Minimum power required to maintain level flight increases, max available power decreases.

As for non-technical, most of my friends and family would laugh; I am very technical, however, I am not an engineer. I am in the IT space.

Tim

We agree that power available decreases from a normally aspirated engine as altitude increases. As for the rest, nope it’s not true. True airspeed increases with altitude but indicated speeds remain the same. I understand that you are confused by this and that is too bad. I fly at high density altitudes and understand the difference between indicated and true airspeed so your confusion is apparent. Good luck with your “technical” comprehension.

 

[denverpilot]

@tspear look carefully at that paper and the ranges of power in the big swoopy impressive looking graph in the top half of the paper.

He’s talking about, at typical GA altitudes, a 20 horsepower difference.

If you can read a 20 horsepower difference on your tach or manifold pressure gauge between landing at sea level and landing up here, more power to you. Pun intended.

The bottom half of his paper talks about pressure change and that PLUS temperature change (which he doesn’t talk about at all, and remember temperature falls with altitude unless an inversion exists) is already “calculated” for you in INDICATED airspeed.

And then there’s this, which I’ll borrow from the Wikipedia page on “Coffin Corner” just because it was handy and convenient...

“The indicated airspeed at which a fixed-wing aircraft stalls varies with the weight of the aircraft but does not vary significantly with altitude.”

All that to say...

If you land an airplane at sea level at 65 knots INDICATED, you also land it at Leadville at 65 knots INDICATED. Period. Full stop.

Because the effects on the pitot tube also happen to the engine, your manifold pressure gauge for GA altitudes is also auto correcting or close enough you won’t be able to tell the difference. If it takes 13” MP to fly level at 90 knots at sea level, it’s going to take 13” MP up here, too.

That paper tackles the problem from the wrong direction and looks like it has confused the hell out of you. Ask a good local CFI what indicated airspeed you fly to land your SR20 at sea level and what indicated airspeed to fly to land it at Leadville. They’re going to say the exact same number for both.

Power will be “as needed” and maybe at the highest public use airport in the country it’ll be a smidge higher in MP, but almost not enough to be able to read on the gauge available to you. At 6000’ here in Denver, unless it’s 100F out you also won’t be able to see it.

As for those “numbers” you ran for takeoff from a 3000’ runway, the POH has that data already both tested empirically by a flight test department and also corrected for delta from an ISA atmosphere. That paper makes a COUPLE of those corrections more amplified but left out huge ones that make a much larger and more practical difference, specifically temperature.

That guy who wrote that paper is doing a multipart series and each paper is just a tiny little piece of the big picture. Your ASI and your MP gauge already have those corrections built in, since they’re flying IN that non-ISA airmass.

The upper limit at KLXV for most light aircraft is around 75F. That’s WAY above ISA temperature for the airport elevation. That’s the temperature limits where the air molecules are so far apart that there’s not enough of them flowing over the surface of the wing and pressing on the underside (the Newtonian vs Bernoullian effects debate on airfoils and how they create lift) to provide enough lift to have a safe climb rate, once the decreased performance of the engine and need for much increased groundspeed are both factored in.

Simply put. No.

You fly the same indicated airspeeds and you’ll never see the horsepower difference needed between sea level and 15,000’ MSL in total power needed to maintain level Flight on any instrument you can find in a GA cockpit.

Come on up sometime. We can land my 182 at about 42 indicated all day long on an 90F day, if you’d like proof, and if we don’t pass out from heatstroke.

Or just do your own test if you’d like. Climb to 6000 in your Cirrus. Fly 90 knots. Note power setting. Now climb to 12000. Note power setting. Report back how much of a difference it is. It won’t be much.

DON’T add airspeed on final up here if you come to visit. You’re just increasing groundspeed to excessive numbers and doing so quite unnecessarily. You’ll just float down the runway like you do at home when you’re fast but your groundspeed will be much higher and if you lose directional control you’ll place much higher forces on your body when the aircraft collides with something, than if you just flew the proper airspeed and landed at the proper airspeed.

 

[Clark1961]

@tspear look carefully at that paper and the ranges of power in the big swoopy impressive looking graph in the top half of the paper.

He’s talking about, at typical GA altitudes, a 20 horsepower difference.

If you can read a 20 horsepower difference on your tach or manifold pressure gauge between landing at sea level and landing up here, more power to you. Pun intended.

The bottom half of his paper talks about pressure change and that PLUS temperature change (which he doesn’t talk about at all, and remember temperature falls with altitude unless an inversion exists) is already “calculated” for you in INDICATED airspeed.

And then there’s this, which I’ll borrow from the Wikipedia page on “Coffin Corner” just because it was handy and convenient...

“The indicated airspeed at which a fixed-wing aircraft stalls varies with the weight of the aircraft but does not vary significantly with altitude.”

All that to say...

If you land an airplane at sea level at 65 knots INDICATED, you also land it at Leadville at 65 knots INDICATED. Period. Full stop.

Because the effects on the pitot tube also happen to the engine, your manifold pressure gauge for GA altitudes is also auto correcting or close enough you won’t be able to tell the difference. If it takes 13” MP to fly level at 90 knots at sea level, it’s going to take 13” MP up here, too.

That paper tackles the problem from the wrong direction and looks like it has confused the hell out of you. Ask a good local CFI what indicated airspeed you fly to land your SR20 at sea level and what indicated airspeed to fly to land it at Leadville. They’re going to say the exact same number for both.

Power will be “as needed” and maybe at the highest public use airport in the country it’ll be a smidge higher in MP, but almost not enough to be able to read on the gauge available to you. At 6000’ here in Denver, unless it’s 100F out you also won’t be able to see it.

As for those “numbers” you ran for takeoff from a 3000’ runway, the POH has that data already both tested empirically by a flight test department and also corrected for delta from an ISA atmosphere. That paper makes a COUPLE of those corrections more amplified but left out huge ones that make a much larger and more practical difference, specifically temperature.

That guy who wrote that paper is doing a multipart series and each paper is just a tiny little piece of the big picture. Your ASI and your MP gauge already have those corrections built in, since they’re flying IN that non-ISA airmass.

The upper limit at KLXV for most light aircraft is around 75F. That’s WAY above ISA temperature for the airport elevation. That’s the temperature limits where the air molecules are so far apart that there’s not enough of them flowing over the surface of the wing and pressing on the underside (the Newtonian vs Bernoullian effects debate on airfoils and how they create lift) to provide enough lift to have a safe climb rate, once the decreased performance of the engine and need for much increased groundspeed are both factored in.

Simply put. No.

You fly the same indicated airspeeds and you’ll never see the horsepower difference needed between sea level and 15,000’ MSL in total power needed to maintain level Flight on any instrument you can find in a GA cockpit.

Come on up sometime. We can land my 182 at about 42 indicated all day long on an 90F day, if you’d like proof, and if we don’t pass out from heatstroke.

Or just do your own test if you’d like. Climb to 6000 in your Cirrus. Fly 90 knots. Note power setting. Now climb to 12000. Note power setting. Report back how much of a difference it is. It won’t be much.

DON’T add airspeed on final up here if you come to visit. You’re just increasing groundspeed to excessive numbers and doing so quite unnecessarily. You’ll just float down the runway like you do at home when you’re fast but your groundspeed will be much higher and if you lose directional control you’ll place much higher forces on your body when the aircraft collides with something, than if you just flew the proper airspeed and landed at the proper airspeed.

@tspear fails to recognize the paper he is referencing refers to true airspeed and is basing his argument on that. It's pointless. He made a stupid statement about needing to call someone to learn what airspeeds to fly at higher elevations and instead of admitting the error he is posting BS in order to obfuscate. Some people are unable to admit their errors and move on. Its unfortunate to say the least.