Crash at Loveland Ski Area, Colo

Jimmy cooper said:
Are we talking about a standard 170 with 145 hp? If so, why would the pilot have even attempted it? Help me understand this.
Click to expand...

According to Piper, the 235B has a service ceiling of 14.5K. Ceiling on the 235 Pathfinder/Dakota is 17.9K.

On Monday, about 9 am (estimated time of crash), the top of Loveland Pass is 11.4K, DA was probably about 13K. Take into account the age of the airplane & engine, and the reduced HP due to altitude from 235HP to about 120HP. Draw your own conclusion.
 
Last edited:
So sad. Family of 3. Senseless.

I fly these mountains all the time in a 85hp cub. They demand tremendous respect.

If you really want to fly out here the CPA course will put the requisite fear into you - then I think a glider endorsement will really teach you how to fly here.
 
As a 'flatlander' (field elevation 16') that would like to someday fly to the pacific northwest, how/where do I cross the Rockies in a PA-28-161?
 
Morgan3820 said:
As a 'flatlander' (field elevation 16') that would like to someday fly to the pacific northwest, how/where do I cross the Rockies in a PA-28-161?
Click to expand...

You have three ranges to cross. Rockies, Wassatch, and Sierras. It's a matter of risk acceptance. Your plane depending on loading will cross all of them in cool weather basically direct. But - with the east to west going against the prevailing wind, it's a recipe for disaster.

I like going over the Rockies just south of KABQ, overfly Grants, then follow I40 to Gallup. You can do that segment at 8500 and have about a 1000' of room to spare.

Once you're over the Rockies, the Wassatch is next, and in some ways, it's even worse than what you've already covered. I would skirt the Wassatch to the south and head basically for Las Vegas, or thereabouts. After a night of party in Vegas, just go a bit more west and dance around R-2505 toward Bakersfield.

There are more direct ways to go, and the far north route has some appeal as being cooler, but the rocks are bigger, and so is the risk. I've gone up the east side of the Sierra mtns before, and it's a bit more direct, but it's usually bumpy, and it's desolate. If you go down out there over N NV or UT it's gonna be a long wait for help.
 
This is an analysis a guy on another site did, I thought it was good so maybe something to stimulate more conversation:

I think a lot of good points have been made here re chosen route. GPS direct from KBJC to KCNY is 226nm. The favored route in my mind from Jeffco west is the one stated here by others and that is Corona Ps (Rollins on the map) D Kremmling D KCNY. Looks a lot longer on the map....truth is at 231nm its only 5nm further to have much less exposure for a much briefer time than over that section of I-70. From what I can dig up on mtn top winds yesterday, Berthoud pass ~9nm NE was 300 degrees at about 15-20. Copper mtn ~15nm SW was 270 at 21G24, again fairly benign for a typical mtn summer day. What I think will prove to be one of the big factors was at about 8am the Copper Mtn AWOS temp at 12,400' was 55*F....thats hot! Best of my back of the napkin calculations gives a DA of about 15K. So we have the perfect storm in action...westerly winds blowing up two long canyons on the west side meeting 30 degree divergent air moving over high peaks to the N, coupled with normally aspirated plane trying to climb enroute with 15K DA, and judging by the crash site above chair 5 at the Valley section of Loveland basin I am going to surmise that following the highway presented them with a 13,000' ridge where they planned to cross over the tunnel. (that is NOT Loveland Pass) Realizing that they couldn't clear that ridge and likely staying on what would appear to be the safe side of the valley (N) turned out to be the upwind side of the valley so that the "downwind" turn that was made instantly gave them a nice tailwind boost into the terrain on the S side
 
Alexb2000 said:
This is an analysis a guy on another site did, I thought it was good so maybe something to stimulate more conversation:

I think a lot of good points have been made here re chosen route. GPS direct from KBJC to KCNY is 226nm. The favored route in my mind from Jeffco west is the one stated here by others and that is Corona Ps (Rollins on the map) D Kremmling D KCNY. Looks a lot longer on the map....truth is at 231nm its only 5nm further to have much less exposure for a much briefer time than over that section of I-70. From what I can dig up on mtn top winds yesterday, Berthoud pass ~9nm NE was 300 degrees at about 15-20. Copper mtn ~15nm SW was 270 at 21G24, again fairly benign for a typical mtn summer day. What I think will prove to be one of the big factors was at about 8am the Copper Mtn AWOS temp at 12,400' was 55*F....thats hot! Best of my back of the napkin calculations gives a DA of about 15K. So we have the perfect storm in action...westerly winds blowing up two long canyons on the west side meeting 30 degree divergent air moving over high peaks to the N, coupled with normally aspirated plane trying to climb enroute with 15K DA, and judging by the crash site above chair 5 at the Valley section of Loveland basin I am going to surmise that following the highway presented them with a 13,000' ridge where they planned to cross over the tunnel. (that is NOT Loveland Pass) Realizing that they couldn't clear that ridge and likely staying on what would appear to be the safe side of the valley (N) turned out to be the upwind side of the valley so that the "downwind" turn that was made instantly gave them a nice tailwind boost into the terrain on the S side
Click to expand...

Ya know, yer right, only 10 minutes of training is required to prevent a disaster under those circumstances....:no:

Look, the DA problem was already presented here but you refused to accept it. Sorry.
 
Clark1961 said:
Ya know, yer right, only 10 minutes of training is required to prevent a disaster under those circumstances....:no:

Look, the DA problem was already presented here but you refused to accept it. Sorry.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? You don't think I believe in DA?
 
Been away for a few days fighting work fires. A local pilot calculated the DA at 0 AGL at 14K on the accident day.

Toss my agreement on the funeral pyre that the I-70 route is not a good choice in a typical normally aspirated single around here.

A friend joked but maybe it's a good idea. Start a campaign. If you can't climb to and maintain the giant blue number printed on the sectional for the sector plus at least 1000', don't go inside that section.

At least not until you've had mountain training.
 
Morgan3820 said:
As a 'flatlander' (field elevation 16') that would like to someday fly to the pacific northwest, how/where do I cross the Rockies in a PA-28-161?
Click to expand...

Morgan

I-80 has been a practical route to the NW. But stop somewhere in Colorado for a couple days and get training in high-altitude flying. We can recommend a number of excellent and experienced mountain CFIs. Clark already mentioned Jon Bowman. There's Bill Standerfer, Jer/ Eberhard, and others. Let us know when, we'll send you the list and you can set up a meeting.

You can do most of I-80 between Omaha and Boise, ID at 8500, perhaps a section of 10.5 or route around. There's a number of people here who've done the trip betweent the west coast and OSH.
 
Alexb2000 said:
What are you talking about? You don't think I believe in DA?
Click to expand...

I think you don't believe that training specific to mountain flying is necessary.
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
Morgan

I-80 has been a practical route to the NW. But stop somewhere in Colorado for a couple days and get training in high-altitude flying. We can recommend a number of excellent and experienced mountain CFIs. Clark already mentioned Jon Bowman. There's Bill Standerfer, Jer/ Eberhard, and others. Let us know when, we'll send you the list and you can set up a meeting.

You can do most of I-80 between Omaha and Boise, ID at 8500, perhaps a section of 10.5 or route around. There's a number of people here who've done the trip betweent the west coast and OSH.
Click to expand...

It'd be nice to tell folks that they don't need to worry if they take the interstate routes - I-80 or I-40. I'm to the point of saying that high density altitude ops do need training. It doesn't take that long and it can prevent some unnecessary accidents. Many of the local CFIs can provide useful training and it isn't that much of a time commitment. Give it a chance to save you and your passengers lives.
 
Clark1961 said:
It'd be nice to tell folks that they don't need to worry if they take the interstate routes - I-80 or I-40. I'm to the point of saying that high density altitude ops do need training. It doesn't take that long and it can prevent some unnecessary accidents. Many of the local CFIs can provide useful training and it isn't that much of a time commitment. Give it a chance to save you and your passengers lives.
Click to expand...


ok, let me rephrase...I-80 is much more practical than I-70, altho exclusively following the road won't work.
 
murphey said:
ok, let me rephrase...I-80 is much more practical than I-70, altho exclusively following the road won't work.
Click to expand...

I didn't intend to convey anything negative about your suggestion Murph, just pointing out that things are different at altitude and that folks have a tendency to screw-up. You suggested folks get training and that is right on point. Lots of folks would still be alive if they had a little bit more training in their corner.

On the other side, I've had plenty of screw-ups over the hills. In part the turbocharger has saved my butt. Another big part of saving my butt has been looking out the window at terrain and weather. Lots of hard choices and sometimes ya just gotta say ya can't make it. That's sorta the way flying goes...
 
Clark1961 said:
I think you don't believe that training specific to mountain flying is not necessary.
Click to expand...

I said the basics that would have shown this pilot that he didn't have the performance to take this route before committing could have been communicated in 10 minutes and should be part of the private PTS. Does that replace a thorough mountain course, of course not.
 
pikespeakmtnman said:
According to 7 News, victims were a family from Ohio headed to vacation in Moab.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...mes-kerker-amy-kerker-and-young-son-from-ohio
Click to expand...

Sad, why not stay north of the big stuff then drop in after passing north of Grand Junction. Should have been able to do this with any problem. Somehow chose a unforgiving route. Hard to figure that one.

DA at Junction 1 month ago while leaving with my daughter and wife to return home was just shy of 10k. Not very friendly for those not accustomed to it. Even at that it's humbling to realize the how my toga was affected. I can't imagine trying to in a Cherokee 235 with 3 folks on board.
 
I'm still pre-solo (can't seem to get my landings down, grr!) but one thing I've picked up on from these boards and training in CO is that density altitude is no joke. It's on every ATIS when the temps rise and today while making rounds 'round the pattern my CFI and I were discussing this crash, DA, and other crashes that he's aware of due to overloading or DA issues. One of the other planes at my school is now grounded on hot days dues to DA issues (the Sky-Jeep remains a Land-Jeep, as my CFI put it).

I hope to hell that I'm never a victim of a failure to appreciate density altitude and the affect it has on aircraft performance. Beyond any normal fears or uneasiness about being a student pilot and learning to fly a plane this is one of those things that scares me. A mountain flying course is already in my plans once I get my ticket.
 
pikespeakmtnman said:
I'm still pre-solo (can't seem to get my landings down, grr!) but one thing I've picked up on from these boards and training in CO is that density altitude is no joke. It's on every ATIS when the temps rise and today while making rounds 'round the pattern my CFI and I were discussing this crash, DA, and other crashes that he's aware of due to overloading or DA issues. One of the other planes at my school is now grounded on hot days dues to DA issues (the Sky-Jeep remains a Land-Jeep, as my CFI put it).

I hope to hell that I'm never a victim of a failure to appreciate density altitude and the affect it has on aircraft performance. Beyond any normal fears or uneasiness about being a student pilot and learning to fly a plane this is one of those things that scares me. A mountain flying course is already in my plans once I get my ticket.
Click to expand...

And yet when I travel outside the area, I instinctively lean during runup. A CFI in Phoenix asked me what I was doing one day. On the other hand, taking off from OSH few years ago I discoverd my cherokee really WAS 180 HP!!! 3 adults and luggage and it took off like a bat outa h*ll!
 
murphey said:
And yet when I travel outside the area, I instinctively lean during runup. A CFI in Phoenix asked me what I was doing one day. On the other hand, taking off from OSH few years ago I discoverd my cherokee really WAS 180 HP!!! 3 adults and luggage and it took off like a bat outa h*ll!
Click to expand...


I love that when I have a reason to head downhill. Freaking airplane leaps off the ground way before I'm expecting it to, even after running TOLD numbers.
 
Having learned to fly in Colorado and took a mountain training course it's astounding that even those passing through would do something as stupid as following I-70/US-6. if you've ever DRIVEN that route, you know Loveland pass is largely impassible in winter and no bargain in many cars in the summer.
 
Jthamilton said:
Sad, why not stay north of the big stuff then drop in after passing north of Grand Junction. Should have been able to do this with any problem. Somehow chose a unforgiving route. Hard to figure that one.
Click to expand...

Unforgiving? darn near impossible in that aircraft on that day as pointed out by Murph and Mark.

flyingron said:
Having learned to fly in Colorado and took a mountain training course it's astounding that even those passing through would do something as stupid as following I-70/US-6. if you've ever DRIVEN that route, you know Loveland pass is largely impassible in winter and no bargain in many cars in the summer.
Click to expand...

A ten minute conversation with a CFI might have saved their lives. A couple hours with a CFI on a mountain training flight would have saved their lives. The question that remains is what do we do to fix it? Maybe it's just human nature and impossible to fix. :dunno: Definitely sad.
 
murphey said:
And yet when I travel outside the area, I instinctively lean during runup. A CFI in Phoenix asked me what I was doing one day. On the other hand, taking off from OSH few years ago I discoverd my cherokee really WAS 180 HP!!! 3 adults and luggage and it took off like a bat outa h*ll!
Click to expand...
180? Heck, one of the airplane I fly in my club is a Warrior. Practically leaps off the runway, even on hot days.

And, even at my new low-altitude home base (246 msl), leaning for taxi to prevent plug fouling is standard instruction.
 
Clark1961 said:
The question that remains is what do we do to fix it? Maybe it's just human nature and impossible to fix. :dunno: Definitely sad.
Click to expand...

People like this likely aren't reading web boards, they're likely not attending local WINGS programs, etc.

As Ron White said about fixing stuff...

And as Captain said about baby turtles...

But it's indeed sad when they take innocents with them.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I said the basics that would have shown this pilot that he didn't have the performance to take this route before committing could have been communicated in 10 minutes and should be part of the private PTS. Does that replace a thorough mountain course, of course not.
Click to expand...
Right. Here's the problem with the 10 minutes and PTS.

First, density altitude is covered in most instructional courses and the FAA knowledge test. It's part of doing the interpolated performance calculations we all know and love and, if I recall correctly, there are D-Alt specific questions as well.

Don't really remember getting that? Maybe that's point #2. If you don't use it, you lose it. 10 minutes of instruction plus a knowledge test question and even an oral question during the checkride is soon lost if you have no reason to use it where you normally fly.

Assuming our speculation is correct and this was a D-Alt accident, the pilot likely was given all the knowledge needed to know "he didn't have the performance to take this route" at some point. But he didn't use it for the exact same reason all of us have knowledge we never use or even think about.
 
Update..father was a former USAF pilot, mom was nurse preactitioner. Son had neuro disease, unlikely to live past 18. Family traveled extensively to provide the most enriching short life possible for the son. Last date on FAA database for dad was jan 2012, private pilot only. Didn't someone here say he was low time and recently bought the 235?
 
To me, that adds an extra level of sadness. Dad should have known better. One can only assume he had the head knowledge.
 
gkainz said:
To me, that adds an extra level of sadness. Dad should have known better. One can only assume he had the head knowledge.
Click to expand...

As you know Greg, flying USAF equipment, and underpwoered GA aircraft in high DA situations are very different scenarios. You have to think he knew this, but knowing is one thing, and executing is another.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
As you know Greg, flying USAF equipment, and underpwoered GA aircraft in high DA situations are very different scenarios. You have to think he knew, this, but knowing is one thing, and executing is another.
Click to expand...

exactly what I was thinking ... knowing you have enough thrust to overcome almost anything in your day job and not making the mental switch?
 
midlifeflyer said:
180? Heck, one of the airplane I fly in my club is a Warrior. Practically leaps off the runway, even on hot days.

And, even at my new low-altitude home base (246 msl), leaning for taxi to prevent plug fouling is standard instruction.
Click to expand...


I am training in a Warrior. The POH states standard operating procedure is to lean for ground operations, then full rich at takeoff (at least for us lowlanders).
 
Anthony said:
As you know Greg, flying USAF equipment, and underpwoered GA aircraft in high DA situations are very different scenarios. You have to think he knew, this, but knowing is one thing, and executing is another.
Click to expand...


As tragic as it turned out, it seems like a mistake a USAF pilot could make. They are so used to having excess thrust that DA really is not an issue for them, you could easily get spoiled.
 
Is planning a flight through passes more or less safe than just climbing to 17.5k and topping everything? (Assuming winds are the same in both scenarios)

I have a normally aspirated Comanche 260 and have (once) taken it to FL210. It was a complete dog up there, but cruising at FL180 is not unreasonable at moderate weights.
 
drotto said:
I am training in a Warrior. The POH states standard operating procedure is to lean for ground operations, then full rich at takeoff (at least for us lowlanders).
Click to expand...
Wow! What year POH is that? Must be really new model or POH revision. I have a 1982 PIM and the closest it comes to talking about leaning on the ground is in the expanded takeoff section: "The mixture should be set FULL RICH, but a minimum amount of leaning is permitted for smooth engine operation when taking off at high elevation."
 
drotto said:
I am training in a Warrior. The POH states standard operating procedure is to lean for ground operations, then full rich at takeoff (at least for us lowlanders).
Click to expand...

Does it really say that, or is that what you think it says? Read it again, and you may be surprised at what you find.
 
drotto said:
I am training in a Warrior. The POH states standard operating procedure is to lean for ground operations, then full rich at takeoff (at least for us lowlanders).
Click to expand...

At least some of the Cessna 172 POHs do say that, but the PA28 ones don't seem to. The 172R POH goes so far as to tell you to throttle up to 1200 RPM and then lean for best RPM. I don't know anyone who is THAT precise about it.

Full rich at takeoff above 5000 DA is a bad idea. 3000 in a 172 (and Phoenix can easily be higher than that in summer!).
 
dans2992 said:
Is planning a flight through passes more or less safe than just climbing to 17.5k and topping everything? (Assuming winds are the same in both scenarios)

I have a normally aspirated Comanche 260 and have (once) taken it to FL210. It was a complete dog up there, but cruising at FL180 is not unreasonable at moderate weights.
Click to expand...

I like to fly the Rockies about 18. I still go over the passes just to give me as much clearance above terrain as possible. If nothing else the turbulence is often less. So I guess I would say I prefer to do both.
 
dans2992 said:
Is planning a flight through passes more or less safe than just climbing to 17.5k and topping everything? (Assuming winds are the same in both scenarios)
.
Click to expand...
In both cases it requires some additional skill, knowledge and thought. 17,500 isn't all that high when it's only 3-4000 above some of the terrain and mountains tend to create their own kinds of localized weather. Ever hear the term "drainage winds?" Or the degree to which mountain wave action or thermal turbulence (both up and down) can extend above the terrain? Certainly not to the same degree as the Rockies but there have been a good number of small plane crashes in the Blue Ridge mountains despite they being well below the service ceiling of a 152.

A number of us have talked about how basic this stuff is - but only once you think about it. My WAG (since there are not a lot of survivors to tell us), if there's a fault common to a lot of these accidents involving unfamiliar pilots, it's that, when we head somewhere we have not been before, we just don't ask ourselves the simple question, "Is there something different about this trip than what I am used to?" And if the answer is "Yes," to make some inquiries.

That's a universal question. Doesn't matter if it's a flatland low altitude pilot heading into the Rockies or a pilot who spends all of his time in a rural area making his first Class B trip (although it's interesting that the Class B trip where the worst that can happen is a certificate suspension seems to generate more questions than something that can kill you).
 
midlifeflyer said:
In both cases it requires some additional skill, knowledge and thought. 17,500 isn't all that high when it's only 3-4000 above some of the terrain and mountains tend to create their own kinds of localized weather. Ever hear the term "drainage winds?" Or the degree to which mountain wave action or thermal turbulence (both up and down) can extend above the terrain? Certainly not to the same degree as the Rockies but there have been a good number of small plane crashes in the Blue Ridge mountains despite they being well below the service ceiling of a 152.
Click to expand...

My experience is that the individual tall peaks should be avoided even at 17,500'. As another poster mentioned, stay over the lower elevations and passes. A tall ridge usually isn't too bad (usually) but that one tall peak or a group of summits is usually bad news if the wind is much above 20 knots. A lot of times it's just wave when you're up high but that is bad enough. I've been at idle with the nose pointed down to stay below 18,000 and I've been at max continuous with the nose pointed up trying to hold altitude. Neither is much fun once the novelty wears off.
 
MAKG1 said:
At least some of the Cessna 172 POHs do say that, but the PA28 ones don't seem to. The 172R POH goes so far as to tell you to throttle up to 1200 RPM and then lean for best RPM. I don't know anyone who is THAT precise about it.
Click to expand...

Around here, 7,100' field elevation it is common practice to throttle up, lean for best RPM then a couple of turns richer. After that measure how far back the mixture is ( usually 2 fingers for me ) and that is the setting for an approach / landing at the same field. In case you need to go around.
 
CharlieTango said:
Around here, 7,100' field elevation it is common practice to throttle up, lean for best RPM then a couple of turns richer. After that measure how far back the mixture is ( usually 2 fingers for me ) and that is the setting for an approach / landing at the same field. In case you need to go around.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's a whole lot more common to do that at run-up RPM than at 1200.

When I fly up there, I like to go to full throttle on pavement and then lean as in cruise. But, that's because I fly different aircraft each time and I don't do it every day. The full throttle removes all of the guesswork, at the cost of noise.

For engine start, I'll half-lean as a guess, and find the lean roll off for taxi (basically, lean 'til RPM drops, then enrich until it goes back).
 
Clark1961 said:
My experience is that the individual tall peaks should be avoided even at 17,500'. As another poster mentioned, stay over the lower elevations and passes.
Click to expand...
Speaking of passes, one needs to be aware of what the )( pass symbol means on the Sectionals. It does not mean "low point; good place to cross." Instead it just points out the place and direction a road crosses the pass.

There was an excellent traveling seminar some years ago on reading charts. Complete with photos of what a pilot might see after crossing some of these marked passes. Beautiful from the standpoint of view. Not so much from the standpoint of options in a light plane.

My favorite pass line when doing mountain training:
Pilot: But the chart says the pass is over there.
Me: Well, would you rather cross the pass in the narrow spot between those two peaks or the wide flat area over there?​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top