Fatalities at Mountain air

Tragic! That's not too far from here, about 3 counties south.
 
Demanding airport. Tragic at best. 200 plus hours in a 300 Columbia and a 400 in the hangar makes this one personal.
 
This is sad. I've flown in there once and just loved the place. If I had the money, it would be a no brainer. I suppose the runway should be considered challenging but not unreasonable. The alleged bounce that caused this accident does make me think about how landings are taught. As a CFIG I know that glider approaches and landings are taught as energy management. I don't seem to hear that so much with power instruction. Maybe it should be.
 
Tragic. My best to the families they leave behind.
 
Not a rookie...

DOI:8/28/2006Certificate:COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
 
Ron Levy said:
Not a rookie...

DOI:8/28/2006Certificate:COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
Click to expand...


From what I have heard, one pilot was a commercial pilot with SEL & MEL ratings, the other was an ATP and CFII.

Hopefully this will not be a case of too many pilots flying the airplane.
 
Sad event! Airspeed on approach and landing is critical, especially on a demanding airstrip.

I believe it was a 2006 350.
 
That's really sad. It's a pretty airport.

They have live cameras there that you can pan and move around. If you pick the "runway" view from this page, you can see where the orange cones are and the burned area on the tarmac. Of course, it's just about sunset there, so you might not be able to see it til daylight if you end up reading this late.

http://wx.mtnair.org:8009/view/view.shtml
 

Attachments

  • 2nc0.jpg
    2nc0.jpg
    9.2 KB · Views: 55
Does anybody know yet whether the other two planes involved were occupied? From the picture, it looks like the ramp lines the runway, so they may have been empty. Sad event, and it makes you realize why they want a good amount of buffer space on both sides of the runway.
 
NC Pilot said:
From what I have heard, one pilot was a commercial pilot with SEL & MEL ratings, the other was an ATP and CFII.

Hopefully this will not be a case of too many pilots flying the airplane.
Click to expand...

Bearing in mind that we don't have the facts, all the experience in the world isn't going to help if all your high-density-altitude flying has been done off long runways with none of the squirrelly air currents you can get in these types of airstrips. It's a different type of flying and requires different skills. That's why there are people who specialize in mountain-flying instruction.

On landing, it's a delicate balance between staying well ahead of the power curve, which will keep you out of trouble with the squirrelly air currents, yet still be able to touch down at a full stall at a precise location at the (near) end of the runway. This is a lot harder to do than it sounds because the transition from being ahead of the power curve to full stall has to take place in a very short time, much shorter than normal. It means you have to know your airplane very, very well. I can do it in my airplane; I do not feel confident that I could jump into another airplane, even another C182, and do it right away. I'd do a lot of practicing first. So if this was the first time these guys flew into this airstrip, their experience wouldn't necessarily help them.

Judy
 
I don't see the airport being that big of a challenge (I'm not trying to puff my feathers here, stay with me for a second):

The airport is certainly not that high in elevation. There are hundreds of airports (maybe over 1000, not positive) that are higher in elevation, many of which are shorter than this as well, and a whole bunch that are in much higher mountains, and people don't crash there often.

I think the safety record at Mountain Air says enough to show that it is a fairly safe airport. Searching the NTSB, back to 1901 (I know, that's before the database starts), I see 20 accidents. Of those 20, 8 of them were fatal. I consider that pretty dang safe.

This was likely pilot error, like most accidents are. Its a shame, but I can't see blaming the airport.

Stats on the airport:
Elevation 4432ft
Runways are 2900ft long, 50 ft wide
 
SkyHog said:
I don't see the airport being that big of a challenge (I'm not trying to puff my feathers here, stay with me for a second):

The airport is certainly not that high in elevation. There are hundreds of airports (maybe over 1000, not positive) that are higher in elevation, many of which are shorter than this as well, and a whole bunch that are in much higher mountains, and people don't crash there often.

I think the safety record at Mountain Air says enough to show that it is a fairly safe airport. Searching the NTSB, back to 1901 (I know, that's before the database starts), I see 20 accidents. Of those 20, 8 of them were fatal. I consider that pretty dang safe.

This was likely pilot error, like most accidents are. Its a shame, but I can't see blaming the airport.

Stats on the airport:
Elevation 4432ft
Runways are 2900ft long, 50 ft wide
Click to expand...
Now it's 9 fatals out of 21 accidents since 1966. That's a fatal rate of almost 50% and a lot of accidents. (including a Cessna 500???)

The airport I fly from has two fatals (both homebuilts - surprise, surprise) in twelve accidents in the same period. This at an airport that has a much higher traffic count. 5K foot runway clear appoaches.

Another comparison - A mountain airport I frequently fly in and out of has had one, count 'em one, fatal in the same time period. In the mountains, longer runway, but still can be challanging. Only one fatal. 4200 foot runway sloping uphill with trees on one side. Again, more traffic here than Mountainaire.

Another comparison, Boone (ask Tom Sisk about this one). Same time period five fatals out of 26 accidents. 2100 foot long X 40 foot wide bowling alley.

The airport had something to do with this. Don't know the mountain flying experience of the pilots (both from Florida) or their experience level with the plane, but a short, high density altitude airport can be a challange although the winds should not have been a factor in this one.

Nine fatal accidents since 1966 (not 1901) sounds like a lot to me, especially when you consider the low traffic count here. I do know you (the global you) cannot land at Mountainaire unless you have viewed a video on how to make your approach.

It will still probably come down to pilot error again however.
 
Troy Whistman said:
That's really sad. It's a pretty airport.

They have live cameras there that you can pan and move around. If you pick the "runway" view from this page, you can see where the orange cones are and the burned area on the tarmac. Of course, it's just about sunset there, so you might not be able to see it til daylight if you end up reading this late.

http://wx.mtnair.org:8009/view/view.shtml
Click to expand...

Troy, your link requires a U/N and P/W :dunno:
 
I chatted with the folks out there once when I was thinking about stopping in. I believe there is a good slope to the runway also. Airnav doesn't show it. They were pretty nonchalant about it. Told them the runway seemed a bit short for me. Oh, no problem: Barons come in here all the time. Are you a pilot? No, but we know a lot of them, come on in here. Are they P-barons? I don't know; they're Barons.

Of course, the runway length is fine if nothing goes wrong <g>

The up slope, winds and DA at that altitude could be an issue. If there is a steep slope, an unexperienced pilot could drop down a little fast, bounce and well....you know. Your ground speed could be a little faster landing here.

One of those places where just a few small miscalculations could cause a large issue. Landing on a sloped runway causes the need for a different focal point for the landing pilot. Focusing on the far end of the runway could cause a problem.

Best,

Dave
 
Moutain Aire Fatalities

Seems two Docs from Flordia and one wife were killed in a crash invloving 6 other aircraft on the ground at Mountain Aire Country Club in NC.
 
I'd be interested to see what mountainhopper has to say about this. He usually just posts his *almost* spam here, so I doubt he'll actually respond, but I wonder if he might know something more...
 
NC Pilot said:
The airport had something to do with this. Don't know the mountain flying experience of the pilots (both from Florida) or their experience level with the plane, but a short, high density altitude airport can be a challange although the winds should not have been a factor in this one.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know their experience with mountain strips either. I AM from Florida and can tell you my one and only mountain experience was an eye-opener. I was thinking of planning a weekend there with the missus. Now I won't do it without either many more mountain hours, a mountain capable CFI, or a local familiar with the strip. For a life long flatlander a table-top mountain strip it is a disconcerting sight picture.

I've landed on short and narrow strip many times (the old, pre-expansion Orlando Country) and once you realize that the middle is where you always land anyway, it becomes just another asphalt strip.

My only mountain landing was Sedona. It was a greaser - thanks to following my CFI's instructions. To ME it looked like I was waaaay high, way fast, and headed for a touchdown at the far end. I was puckered tight and very pleased to have a local CFI next to me walking me down. In the end it was a very normal approach, Jean was at the FBO and say it was a beauty.

Could I have done it myself??? Probably, but...

NC Pilot said:
It will still probably come down to pilot error again however.
Click to expand...
The odds are with you on that guess. :(

In June I get to fly over mountains in a float-equipped Otter (or Beaver,now I can't remember). I'm a tour-passenger over the glaciers but, it's GA and ALASKA!!! Woo-Hoo!
 
From what I understand, reported that they touched down WAY long, tried to save it. You have to remember, you can keep trying 'til you get it right, and neither the airplane nor the runway know they are surrounded by interesting terrain.

Nail your speeds and only land if everything is normal... or go around and try again.
 
As Lance, Judy, Ron and others have alluded to, it is about power managment, airspeed, and the ability to recognize a bad situation early enough to do something about it. As we know, most accidents are not the result of just one mistake or screw up, but a cascade of events which is allowed to degrade to an eventual and tragic end.
NC Pilot writes about Boone NC (which is where I'm based) is aprox. 2000 ft and as wide as an alley. We also have a fairly high accident rate here because of power mismanagement either on landing or takeoff. The runway's narrow which makes you think you are too high so you take a dive towards it and then your airspeed is too high to ever land safely. Hot summer days the DA is 7-8000 ft which is a bad situation for overloaded or underpowered planes.
IIRC, there is a fatal accident here about every 2-3yrs and they could have all been avoided with proper power and airspeed management. Heck, there are times I don't like my own approaches here and decide to go around even though I've landed here a thousand times.
 
Dart said:
My only mountain landing was Sedona. It was a greaser - thanks to following my CFI's instructions. To ME it looked like I was waaaay high, way fast, and headed for a touchdown at the far end. I was puckered tight and very pleased to have a local CFI next to me walking me down. In the end it was a very normal approach, Jean was at the FBO and say it was a beauty.
Click to expand...

Sedona is a whole different ball of wax. That airport looks weird to everyone. Most mountain airports aren't like that.
 
SCCutler said:
Nail your speeds and only land if everything is normal... or go around and try again.
Click to expand...
Bill M. said:
Heck, there are times I don't like my own approaches here and decide to go around even though I've landed here a thousand times.
Click to expand...
This brings to light a question my IR instructor asked of me during one approach. I'll leave the answer for folks to think about.

"What's the purpose of a landing?"

Of course, I responded with a "Doh, to get on the ground, of course!" If that's you, keep trying. It seemed pretty trivial at first. But the more I learned from post-accident reports, the more it made sense.

Edit: I'll give the answer to this sometime on Wednesday. It may seem trivial but I learned it's a dang worthwhile discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KennyFlys said:
This brings to light a question my IR instructor asked of me during one approach. I'll leave the answer for folks to think about.

"What's the purpose of a landing?"

Of course, I responded with a "Doh, to get on the ground, of course!" If that's you, keep trying. It seemed pretty trivial at first. But the more I learned from post-accident reports, the more it made sense.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna take a wild guess, and say that in wome weird twisted way, the point of a landing is to practice goarounds?
 
KennyFlys said:
This brings to light a question my IR instructor asked of me during one approach. I'll leave the answer for folks to think about.

"What's the purpose of a landing?"

Of course, I responded with a "Doh, to get on the ground, of course!" If that's you, keep trying. It seemed pretty trivial at first. But the more I learned from post-accident reports, the more it made sense.
Click to expand...


To practice, demonstrate, and put to use everything you've learned thus far.
 
Barks and Mark, I still say, Boone ain't an airport . . . it's a driveway. An alley. Whatever. Just not an airport!!! :eek:

:D

Mark got that 182 down nicely, though! :)
 
KennyFlys said:
"What's the purpose of a landing?"

Edit: I'll give the answer to this sometime on Wednesday. It may seem trivial but I learned it's a dang worthwhile discussion.
Click to expand...

SkyHog said:
I'm gonna take a wild guess, and say that in wome weird twisted way, the point of a landing is to practice goarounds?
Click to expand...

Bill M. said:
To practice, demonstrate, and put to use everything you've learned thus far.
Click to expand...

Aight Kenny, it's way past Wednesday. I'm curious what the "answer" is. Whatever it is, I bet it's a good teaching tool. :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Aight Kenny, it's way past Wednesday. I'm curious what the "answer" is. Whatever it is, I bet it's a good teaching tool. :dunno:
Click to expand...
Oops! Am I slacking or what? :D

Okay, what's the purpose of a landing?

To go around. Sounds stupid, huh? Yeah, I thought so when my CFII threw that at me during approaches.

Any time you're making and approach to land regardless of what's going on; be it VFR or IFR... the first option every time should be to go around.

Have you broke out at the cloud base? Is your approach stable? Is the runway environment in sight? Is the runway clear? Is landing assured? Yep, it very well may be. But, no matter where you are on that approach, regardless of conditions (unless you're dead stick and touching the ground is inevitable)... the first option should always be to go around.

If there's any doubt, push full power, pull flaps, retract gear, pull more flaps and climb out to go around for another approach. Or, in the event of an IAP, fly to the missed hold or as instructed. Landing is not mandatory until you're bingo fuel. If you are, then there are other issues.

This makes me think about what may be an interesting poll. How often do we push that landing? How many times are we unstable but we know we can save it and do so regardless... we just guaranteed using most or all of the runway but we'll make it? How often do we push the minimum on that IAP by an extra ten, twenty or maybe even fifty feet.... just because we have that attitude of "I know this approach really well and I know what's below me."?

I'm sure there are numerous NTSB reports on that last one but we'll never know for certain what the pilot was thinking nor his intentions.

And, if you think my idea is corny... all I ask if you tell me before I ever fly with you. :yes:
 
Yeah, that should be first and foremost. I've caught myself a one or two times, forcing a landing that would have been better off with a go-around, but for my mental process. I include it in my "gumps" check now on final. No gear to worry about, so I say "go around" just to get the ol' brain thinkin'.

Mountains in the east can be killers just as swift and as certain as those in the west. This little strip can be a real trick in any kind of winds. Don't forget the crash near KLEB in NH where the wreckage of a Lear wasn't found for years. Terrrain may be lower in the east, but it'll still get you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top