Epic E1000 CFIT Steamboat 13 Feb 26

My local airport that I fly out of in NJ is at an elevation of 400 ft but has terrain approaching from one end, that is a hill with trees sticking up another couple hundred feet at least. As such during day time it requires a steep approach once you have crossed the trees. The instrument approach is NA at night, and rightfully so… it’s black hole around the airport. I’ve flown visual at night and only do out of necessity and have never felt overly comfortable having to fly over trees that I cannot see. I can’t even imagine flying over peaks of the Rockies at night to land. Sad and RIP
 
Flying Keys said:
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.
Click to expand...


Someone on YouTube flew the approach during the day, and it shows if you fall below the MDA before crossing the mountain you lose sight of the runway. He could have had it before the MDA but likely lost sight and should have initiated miss
 
Nikhiln25 said:
Someone on YouTube flew the approach during the day, and it shows if you fall below the MDA before crossing the mountain you lose sight of the runway. He could have had it before the MDA but likely lost sight and should have initiated miss
Click to expand...
Using the earlier listed weather report, indeed he could have had it in site before the MDA given the OVC layer was 300 feet above MDA. That would also be possible in spite of the broken layer that was approximately 200 feet above the crash site. That’s almost a minute of flying below MDA where the broken layer wasn’t obstructing the view of the airport.

METAR KSBS 130715Z AUTO 00000KT 10SM SCT005 BKN016 OVC024 A3016 RMK AO1
 
Last edited:
I know a lot of you think Juan Browne is a hack who just reads the same things we can read, but I thought his analysis on this one was really informational. Questionable decisionmaking right from the start, given the available NOTAMs and limited procedural options if things go wrong at that airport, especially at night, especially with some clouds, and especially with the limitations of the pilot's nav equipment. To me it sounds like the pilot almost lined up the holes in the swiss cheese on purpose.
 
MFE said:
I know a lot of you think Juan Browne is a hack who just reads the same things we can read, but I thought his analysis on this one was really informational. Questionable decisionmaking right from the start, given the available NOTAMs and limited procedural options if things go wrong at that airport, especially at night, especially with some clouds, and especially with the limitations of the pilot's nav equipment. To me it sounds like the pilot almost lined up the holes in the swiss cheese on purpose.
Click to expand...

At around 8 minutes, he gets rather emphatic stating that due to the notes (Straight in runway 32 NA at night, and Circling runway 32 NA at night), this procedure is not able to be flown at night, and it should just say "Procedure NA at night" to be clearer. But he is incorrect. Circling to runway 14 is available at night. It doesn't seem like the pilot intended to circle to runway 14, but it is still an incorrect conclusion by Juan.
 
Coming from Garmin after the $22M lawsuit payout

sarcasm on
Begin
while valid(not) Do
enter runway ID
Choose approach from list
Choose arrival time
test: approach valid? yes - load approach; no - return
end while
sarcasm off
 
RussR said:
At around 8 minutes, he gets rather emphatic stating that due to the notes (Straight in runway 32 NA at night, and Circling runway 32 NA at night), this procedure is not able to be flown at night, and it should just say "Procedure NA at night" to be clearer. But he is incorrect. Circling to runway 14 is available at night. It doesn't seem like the pilot intended to circle to runway 14, but it is still an incorrect conclusion by Juan.
Click to expand...
Perhaps incorrect, but prudent
 
From czmaar 3 days ago: "Why did they create this RNAV-Z in the first place? Some choices were made that probably cost this family their lives."

And Flying Keys 2 days ago: "The design of the approach also factors into all of this. I won’t be surprised if they cancel it."

This is essentially Juan Browne's conclusion as well:

HHH

States Landed .png
 
Barrett50 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I reckon the same mistake in a c-172 would kill you as well. Not sure the “hot little ship” had anything to do with the outcome.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I reckon the same mistake in a c-172 would kill you as well. Not sure the “hot little ship” had anything to do with the outcome.
Click to expand...
We can test your theory. Lets put a 172 trained pilot in a F-104. See how that goes.
 
Barrett50 said:
We can test your theory. Lets put a 172 trained pilot in a F-104. See how that goes.
Click to expand...
Not even the same thing. Put me, a 172 pilot, in the Epic. (But you'll find I won't fly at all in a lot of conditions.)
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Not even the same thing. Put me, a 172 pilot, in the Epic. (But you'll find I won't fly at all in a lot of conditions.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, this line of thinking seemed to go off the rails. Isn’t the point that it’s easier to get “behind” a faster airplane, one that is also tough to slow down while descending?
 
Flying Keys said:
Yeah, this line of thinking seemed to go off the rails. Isn’t the point that it’s easier to get “behind” a faster airplane, one that is also tough to slow down while descending?
Click to expand...

Why would it be tough to slow down while descending? It has a huge speed brake out front (prop blades going flat) with power reduction.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Why would it be tough to slow down while descending? It has a huge speed brake out front (prop blades going flat) with power reduction.
Click to expand...
I haven’t flown this type, so in trying to clarify all the passive-aggressive pedantry that followed, I’m going off someone else’s original insinuation. If it’s truly not an issue, then it’s not.
 
In case my sarcasm didnt make the point, this plane was going what, 132 knots when it crashed. So, **** - a 172 will maybe fly the same appr at 70 or 90 kts. The Epic was going FIFTY SEVEN percent faster than the 172. The 172 requires no complex or HP endorsement to fly. I guess, we should just trash those limitations cuz they are meaningless. Got a license on a 172, so go buy an Epic and get busy(ahem, more sarcasm). I stand by my statement "hot little ship". Dont care if others agree, or consider it retarded. I wear judgements like that as a badge of correctness and probity.
 
Barrett50 said:
In case my sarcasm didnt make the point, this plane was going what, 132 knots when it crashed. So, **** - a 172 will maybe fly the same appr at 70 or 90 kts. The Epic was going FIFTY SEVEN percent faster than the 172. The 172 requires no complex or HP endorsement to fly. I guess, we should just trash those limitations cuz they are meaningless. Got a license on a 172, so go buy an Epic and get busy(ahem, more sarcasm). I stand by my statement "hot little ship". Dont care if others agree, or consider it retarded. I wear judgements like that as a badge of correctness and probity.
Click to expand...
I don’t think your premise was wrong, it (and other posts) just danced around the point: if you go faster, you have to think and act faster.

When you add in all the other factors - terrain, weather, nighttime, procedure complexity, etc, the speed at which the plane is being flown might not afford the time to make good decisions (or even realize that you’re not making them).

I know most of us old-timers know that, but maybe someone who needs to hear it will pick up on it if we’re clear about it.
 
czarmar said:
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).
Click to expand...
It says you can not circle NE at anytime. It does say both straight in to 32 and circling to 32 are not available at night. And the straight in and circling minimums are the same. I can’t see why you could not be able to descend to 9100 and with the runway in sight continue straight in and land yet you could at 9100 feet circle to 14.

Circling NA northeast of Rwy 14-32. … Rwy 32 Straight-in
minimums NA at night. Circling Rwy 32 NA at night.
 
I'll add, while we don't know his IAS, groundspeed at 132 kts is likely putting him at least near the limit of a Cat B approach. The approach is NA for C and D. Assuming he was planning to circle for 14 (the only legal option), that is a circling approach at the upper limit of Cat B, at night, in the mountains. We're all left with the question, why did this seem like a good idea?
 
Jeff Oslick said:
I'll add, while we don't know his IAS, groundspeed at 132 kts is likely putting him at least near the limit of a Cat B approach. The approach is NA for C and D. Assuming he was planning to circle for 14 (the only legal option), that is a circling approach at the upper limit of Cat B, at night, in the mountains. We're all left with the question, why did this seem like a good idea?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, ignoring the effect of a head/tailwind component on groundspeed, the TAS alone is going to be 10-14% higher than IAS at the density altitudes it was flying through on the approach.
 
Flying Keys said:
I don’t think your premise was wrong, it (and other posts) just danced around the point: if you go faster, you have to think and act faster.

When you add in all the other factors - terrain, weather, nighttime, procedure complexity, etc, the speed at which the plane is being flown might not afford the time to make good decisions (or even realize that you’re not making them).

I know most of us old-timers know that, but maybe someone who needs to hear it will pick up on it if we’re clear about it.
Click to expand...
What this old timer is saying is that guy would have likely killed himself in a 172 that day. Thats a much bigger concept to wrap your head around.

It’s easy looking at an accident like this from a comfy chair and pass judgement on the pilot for being in to much airplane or some other BS that’s probably not all that relevant and miss the opportunity to learn the valuable lessons.

Edit to add:

what do you think the ground speed of that airplane was when the pilot decided to fly to that airport and shoot the approach? How much time do you think he spent enroute reassessing that decision? If he was flying a well equipped aircraft of any speed do you think those decisions would have been different? I think he would be dead regardless of the aircraft speed. That’s not what killed him. It was judgment and technical proficiency. The speed of the aircraft just meant he didn’t have to wait as long for his fate.
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
What this old timer is saying is that guy would have likely killed himself in a 172 that day. Thats a much bigger concept to wrap your head around.

It’s easy looking at an accident like this from a comfy chair and pass judgement on the pilot for being in to much airplane or some other BS that’s probably not all that relevant and miss the opportunity to learn the valuable lessons.

Edit to add:

what do you think the ground speed of that airplane was when the pilot decided to fly to that airport and shoot the approach? How much time do you think he spent enroute reassessing that decision? If he was flying a well equipped aircraft of any speed do you think those decisions would have been different? I think he would be dead regardless of the aircraft speed. That’s not what killed him. It was judgment and technical proficiency. The speed of the aircraft just meant he didn’t have to wait as long for his fate.
Click to expand...
It’s hard for anybody to say without more info. But take one link out of the error chain and it may have gone differently.

The difference in this hypothetical is the presumable amount of time to identify and correct the problem. Would it have made a difference in this case? Maybe, maybe not. There isn’t a lot of data to support the conversion rate of accidents turned near misses from “a-ha” moments granted by additional time. But if you do have 50% more time afforded to identify the issues posed by the approach design and the visual cues (or lack thereof) in this particular MDA environment, maybe it ends differently. Sometimes the judgment we speak of requires time.

But if all we’re doing is committing to the magenta line and hitting a few buttons without any more thought, then I guess that’s it for that notion.
 
Someone should try to fly the approach in the flight sim and send pictures.

I just want to say that I learn a lot about approaches and advisory GS on this particular thread. I really appreciate the knowledge.

Maybe someone can explain to me why the approach isn't moved more east and made more straight in. Is this because of obstacle clearance with the terrain towards the east?
 
Last edited:
His video did show what would happen - airport gets obscured by terrain.
At night the airport would just disappear.
 
AV8R_87 said:
His video did show what would happen - airport gets obscured by terrain.
At night the airport would just disappear.
Click to expand...
Wow, yeah, that’s more insidious than I thought. The intersection of the glidepath to just below the ridgeline doesn’t give a lot of time to recognize that, which would be even moreso the case at higher ground speeds.
 
AV8R_87 said:
His video did show what would happen - airport gets obscured by terrain.
At night the airport would just disappear.
Click to expand...

The visual illusions at night with scattered or broken ceiling and winter Wx would be formidable. Emerald Mt would present as a dark void obscuring the lights north of town, but it would be really hard to understand what you were seeing.

This was classic get-there-itis. After a terrible snow season, Steamboat had gotten a foot of powder and they wanted fresh tracks in the morning.

Just baffling that they didn't go into Hayden. I wonder if they had a hangar and car at SBS?
 
Ed Haywood said:
The visual illusions at night with scattered or broken ceiling and winter Wx would be formidable. Emerald Mt would present as a dark void obscuring the lights north of town, but it would be really hard to understand what you were seeing.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe a 2024 Epic 1000 wouldn't have basic terrain warnings. My 17-year old 530W would have been screaming at me and flashing red tried to follow the path he took.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
I find it hard to believe a 2024 Epic 1000 wouldn't have basic terrain warnings. My 17-year old 530W would have been screaming at me and flashing red tried to follow the path he took.
Click to expand...
Will it do that when you are flying an approach that is loaded and active in the 530W? I haven’t tested this, but I know that some terrain warnings depend on the flight plan and whether you’re close to a charted airport.
 
He perhaps saw the airport at a higher altitude and began decent. When he lost sight of the runway in the decent, he may have thought it was obscured by clouds, not a mountain. Continue decent, airport will pop out shortly. But he flew below the MDA when he shouldn't have, and that's why he crashed.

In this case, he let the autopilot fly the approach using Vertical Guidance that really wasn't there, he trusted it when he shouldn't have and/or didn't understand what it was doing.

My learning from this I can use in my own flying: The auto pilot flying an approach can be a great aid. But it doesn't think, the PIC has to. Be proficient in general at knowing how to use the autopilot, what it's actually doing. Garmin autopilot programming / approaches aren't infallible.
 
WDD said:
My learning from this I can use in my own flying: The auto pilot flying an approach can be a great aid. But it doesn't think, the PIC has to. Be proficient in general at knowing how to use the autopilot, what it's actually doing. Garmin autopilot programming / approaches aren't infallible.
Click to expand...

Night, Weather, Terrain: pick any two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top