Epic E1000 CFIT Steamboat 13 Feb 26

Update: I agree with @Flying Keys that, based on the ground track of ~340 deg, this looks like the RNAV Z Rwy 32 approach... even more dangerous than the VOR/DME-C in that the VOR approach at least has a terrain-clearing altitude (9200') at BQZ.

(original post) Looks like they were shooting the VOR/DME-C approach and got ~1000' below at BQZ... could be they mistook BQZ@5 for BQZ itself and started decent early to the MDA (8140') and hit the mountain (8279').
screenshot98.png

Here's a link to the interactive track.
screenshot99.png
 
Last edited:
Tough to see anything when I was downtown earlier today. Fog/Clouds in the valley between Emerald Mountain and Mt Werner.
 
RNAV-E takes them in between Emerald Mt and Werner. Why didn't they use that? Winds favored 14? (I'm not an IFR guy.)

I had not heard of an E1000 so I looked it up. That is one hot ship. Like flying a WWII fighter. You better be on your game bringing that plane into that airfield in those conditions at night. Yikes.
 
This wasn’t the VOR approach, it was the RNAV Z Rwy 32. ADS-B shows approach mode was active, but it’s an LNAV approach, annd it’s unclear whether they were following any vertical advisory guidance. Nonetheless, the MDA is 9100’ all the way out from WDCHK, which is 5nm from the MAP and just over 2 prior to the mountain. If whatever approach/ap vertical guidance selected doesn’t level off at the MDA, it would take it right into the mountain, which juts into the nominal glidepath.

From the 3D path, as seen below, it looks like it just kept descending on a fairly steady glidepath.

1771027591532.png
(I highlighted the runway for contrast)

Weather:

METAR KSBS 130715Z AUTO 00000KT 10SM SCT005 BKN016 OVC024 A3016 RMK AO1

Note also the chart notes, which specify straight-in minimums to rwy 32 and circling to runway 32 is NA at night. This was just after midnight local.

1771027977062.png
 
Flying Keys said:
If whatever approach/ap vertical guidance selected doesn’t level off at the MDA, it would take it right into the mountain, which juts into the nominal glidepath.
Click to expand...
Oof, yeah. I also wonder if they were on a +V. "Visual Segment - Obstacles" in the profile view is telling.
 
Flying Keys said:
This wasn’t the VOR approach, it was the RNAV Z Rwy 32. ADS-B shows approach mode was active, but it’s an LNAV approach, annd it’s unclear whether they were following any vertical advisory guidance. Nonetheless, the MDA is 9100’ all the way out from WDCHK, which is 5nm from the MAP and just over 2 prior to the mountain. If whatever approach/ap vertical guidance selected doesn’t level off at the MDA, it would take it right into the mountain, which juts into the nominal glidepath.

From the 3D path, as seen below, it looks like it just kept descending on a fairly steady glidepath.

View attachment 149925
(I highlighted the runway for contrast)

Weather:

METAR KSBS 130715Z AUTO 00000KT 10SM SCT005 BKN016 OVC024 A3016 RMK AO1

Note also the chart notes, which specify straight-in minimums to rwy 32 and circling to runway 32 is NA at night. This was just after midnight local.

View attachment 149926
Click to expand...
Are you sure it wasn’t the RNAV-E? That’s the only approach at SBS that’s approved at night. Either way, it appears they descended through the MDA. Time will tell as to why that happened. This stuff can kill you if not executed properly.

Sad.
 
Night, mountains, scattered/broken layer, hot little ship. I bet the panel had everything - except a terrain warning. RIP, at least it was probably over in an instant.
 
Looks like he hit the back side of Emerald mtn where Howelson ski area faces east. The Robert VOR is very close to the ski area. The FA path was supposed to be down the Yampa river valley, as noted just to the east. No idea what(if any) appr was being used, but it appears he went right at the VOR.
 
RyanB said:
Are you sure it wasn’t the RNAV-E? That’s the only approach at SBS that’s approved at night. Either way, it appears they descended through the MDA. Time will tell as to why that happened. This stuff can kill you if not executed properly.

Sad.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure. The flown course lines up exactly with the RNAV-Z 32. The RNAV-E actually aligns with the runway, but that course is east of where they were.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7492.jpeg
    IMG_7492.jpeg
    347.7 KB · Views: 25
  • IMG_7493.jpeg
    IMG_7493.jpeg
    422.7 KB · Views: 24
Barrett50 said:
Looks like he hit the back side of Emerald mtn where Howelson ski area faces east. The Robert VOR is very close to the ski area. The FA path was supposed to be down the Yampa river valley, as noted just to the east. No idea what(if any) appr was being used, but it appears he went right at the VOR.
Click to expand...
The BQZ VOR is about a mile west of where they impacted, on the same east-west ridge. They weren’t on a course that aligns with the VOR approach, either. I’m pretty sure they were on the RNAV-Z Rwy 32 - see my last.
 
RyanB said:
Okay, yeah, fair enough. Quite odd they’d have chosen that approach.
Click to expand...
I know the chart notes the “visual segment-obstacles,” but this seems to be an edge case. It may be absolutely legal to descend below MDA after WDCHK, given the conditions in 91.175 are met (which we don’t know in this case), however a CDFA from that waypoint will put you in the mountain. Any descent prior to the mountain will bring you awfully close to it.

I’m having a hard time understanding a use case in which this approach would be desirable. Moving the FAF or adding a stepdown beyond the mountain would make it too steep for a straight-in classification, but the only way to really be safe is to fly over the mountain at MDA, either way.

Is the intent of the design for a runway 32 straight-in to fly at MDA, then dive after the mountain? Or is it to skim the mountain with less than the 700-ish feet clearance it affords? Or is it to bracket off and line up over lower terrain to the east (which isn’t technically legal at those distances)?
 
Remember before Hayden airport was a thing Rocky Mountain Airways flew Dash 7’s in to Bob Adams airport on a private MLS approach.
 
1771088723442.png
Someone in another forum observed that the ADSB data showed that the pilot dialed in the missed approach altitude (13.6k) into the pre-select after passing MABKY.

To me, this indicates that the AP was set to fly the “advisory” glidepath starting at MABKY, which must have led directly into the mountain. Either he wasn’t visual at minimums, or he was visual but couldn’t see the mountain given the darkness.

I suppose we can take this as a warning about the “advisory” glide path.
 
Taken from Facebook. Lest we forget the human face of these accidents.

I am the Father of the pilot and Grandfather of two of the young men who perished on this flight. The fourth was a close family friend. I know some of you guys know more about aircraft and flight procedures then I will ever be aware of. I have flown with my son numerous times in his first plane (a Cirrus) and this one. Here is what I know about the plane and the pilot. He bought the Epic in 2024 after having flown the Cirrus for a couple of years. All service on the plane was done by Epic out in Oregon. He loved that plane and worked very hard to take care of it. When he got the plane he already had close to 1000 hours flying and he hired a qualified Epic pilot to fly with him for around a period of time flying 10 or 12 flights a week at least. The last time I spoke to him about it (maybe 3 months ago) he was approaching 5000 hours in the Epic. I remember telling him the first time we flew together how impressed I was with his seriousness at flying. When he was in that plane it was all business. I'm sure the NTSB will come up with an answer but we may have to wait awhile. He was a good man with a devoted wife and four children (now just three). He would fly all over the country picking up family members to help them out for funerals, weddings, etc... He owned and operated multiple businesses and employed close to 200 people. He had the attitude that God had blessed him with the money he earned and therefore he should help take care of others which he did. I know of at least three houses he built or bought for people plus multiple vehicles. If it turns out to be pilot error it will be tragic but it doesn't change who the man was. He was only 47 but he accomplished more than most people could in a 100 years. My heart is broken.
Click to expand...
 
dans2992 said:
Someone in another forum observed that the ADSB data showed that the pilot dialed in the missed approach altitude (13.6k) into the pre-select after passing MABKY.

To me, this indicates that the AP was set to fly the “advisory” glidepath starting at MABKY, which must have led directly into the mountain. Either he wasn’t visual at minimums, or he was visual but couldn’t see the mountain given the darkness.

I suppose we can take this as a warning about the “advisory” glide path.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I see it too. "Sel. Alt: 13600" and "Nav Mode: Approach", if accurate, are two clues.
1771096280123.png
 
could be 500 hours? I don't like that RNAV-Z. It's not safe as designed - you should design an approach to help folks stay alive even if they screw up. You shouldn't have the waypoint WDCHK/9100 and any obstacles between you and the runway with a stabilized standard descent rate. Better to have WDCHK over the mountain at some safe altitude.

The notes do not say 'Procedure NA at night'. They say the straight in minimums, and circling to the northeast are NA at night (which is confusing; what if he planned to circle to 14 from the west - then it's a legal approach at night as written). And he would have communicated with ATC which approach he planned to use, he's got the missed approach altitude preselected. It's probably not on ATC to determine whether an approach is NA, but ATC perhaps could have told him that the RNAV-Z was NA at the time of arrival.

The 2nd thing is if the ceilings are 2500 AGL, he could have broken out at WDCHK, seen the runway, and continued his descent legally below the MDA, not seeing the mountain sneaking up from underneath. Once you've got the runway environment in sight, you've met 91.175(c). Basically the position of WDCHK is awful - it should be over the obstacle, not 2 miles before it, and assure that if you don't descend from the MDA before WDCHK you've got obstacle clearance. Although published (and flown in this case) as a slope, this could have easily been flown as step downs, i.e. dive & drive, where he could have gone down to 9100 anytime after MABKY. From the MDA anytime after WDCHK, if he gets the runway environment in sight, he's visual.

Why did they create this RNAV-Z in the first place? Some choices were made that probably cost this family their lives.
 
Wonder if they accidentally took out a few altitude constraints in the box, maybe a vertical direct too not thinking about what came prior
 
dans2992 said:
To me, this indicates that the AP was set to fly the “advisory” glidepath starting at MABKY, which must have led directly into the mountain. Either he wasn’t visual at minimums, or he was visual but couldn’t see the mountain given the darkness.

I suppose we can take this as a warning about the “advisory” glide path.
Click to expand...

I’m not familiar with the avionics in the Epic. What makes you believe the AP was set to fly that advisory path? Is that some sort of default?

Could he have also selected VS or PITCH or some other vertical mode and been “diving and driving”? Or, is there a default 3.0 degree glide path that can inadvertently get into the mix during the visual portion of the approach?
 
TrueCourse said:
I’m not familiar with the avionics in the Epic. What makes you believe the AP was set to fly that advisory path? Is that some sort of default?

Could he have also selected VS or PITCH or some other vertical mode and been “diving and driving”? Or, is there a default 3.0 degree glide path that can inadvertently get into the mix during the visual portion of the approach?
Click to expand...
Garmin avionics (as the Epic has) will give you a “+V” advisory glide path on LNAV or other approaches that lack vertical guidance. It warns you to not rely on the +V without visual contact, presumably for things like mountain peaks that intrude upon said glide path.
 
Regs and general knowledge aside, I’m surprised there isn’t a hard lockout for +V guidance in certain circumstances. I also know this is only one potential slice of the Swiss cheese.
 
So my instructor keeps checking if I am using the advisory “glide slope”. And I have it do the altitude check on written on the table right on the plate.

The plates I have seen online don’t have the altitude table for the glide slope. How does someone check if they are below the slope?
 
SebIp said:
So my instructor keeps checking if I am using the advisory “glide slope”. And I have it do the altitude check on written on the table right on the plate.

The plates I have seen online don’t have the altitude table for the glide slope. How does someone check if they are below the slope?
Click to expand...
It is advisory, meaning nice to have. You just don't follow it below any fix altitude and you are good.
 
I don’t get it, artifical glide path or not he descended below MDA without airport environment in sight
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
Jamie Kirk said:
I don’t get it, artifical glide path or not he descended below MDA without airport environment in sight
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s the “regs and knowledge” part of my last comment.

That aside, why do we need to make it easier to fall into a trap? Not only that, but it’s absolutely possible he had the runway environment in sight before descending below MDA. But what you wouldn’t see at night is the ridge line in front ascending relative to the runway during the final descent, meaning your path is not going to clear it. And the collision course wouldn’t become apparent until the last few moments, anyway. That’s how insidious this is.

The design of the approach also factors into all of this. I won’t be surprised if they cancel it.
 
Flyxaos said:
It is advisory, meaning nice to have. You just don't follow it below any fix altitude and you are good.
Click to expand...
Yes I know don’t follow the advisory.

What I mean is my plates looks like this below and I have to look at the table and verify I am at the right height. I don’t see a similar table in the plate so have seen. So how is it done without said table?

View attachment 1500261771300454161.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top