High Altitude Training in Colorado

[coloradobluesky]

There are mountain airports, and there are MOUNTAIN AIRPORTS. Sometimes you have to make some decisions. Take the case when the field is short (shorter than say 1500') and it has trees on the approach and has no windsock.

First thing you do is use a E6B to figure your true airspeed at the airport's altitude +1000'. You will use this in conjunction with your GPS ground speed to determine the wind. TAS is just ground speed +- the wind (so windspeed is the difference between TAS and GS). (Don't try and do this calculation on final, do it beforehand duh). Compare your speed on approach to your groundspeed and establish your wind. The direction of the wind is your slowest Ground speed. Now you know the wind. (Do this at altitude or even before you take off) On final check to see that your GS is equal or slower than your TAS. If not, you gotta tailwind bro in which case you gotta goround.

Now fly the pattern and do a low approach, examining the field for ruts and condition. Learn your go around. Figure out your descent profile. Follow the terrain and don't be wedded to a square standard pattern. A lot of times, final follows a valley.

There may be a decision to make, trading off staying within gliding distance of the field and coming in low and landing at the very end of the approach end of the field. You may have to take coming in low and using power to make the field, so as to GUARANTEE that you will NOT land long (a guaranteed disaster). So you have to be willing to accept an engine out in the trees because you're flying right above them. The safest route may well be tree height plus 100'. (It helps to have FAITH). Decisions like that make things a bit unnerving.

Some of these mountain airports the runway disappears behind a hill on downwind, which tends to make the pilot stop coming down, leaving you high. If in doubt, GO AROUND. If the turbulence gets too bad, or it's not working out for some other reason go around and somewhere else (like back to the long runway).

After you land, check the bottom of your airplane and horizontal stab for rocks coming up from the mains and hitting your airplane. Duct tape any holes

You learn things like that....

 

[SportPilotCO]

I guess as one of those crazy guys who has flown a LSA into Leadville, I will comment I have flown three different Gobosh's into Leadville. We go early in the morning, get out early, don't go if the winds aloft over the mountains are over say 12-14 kts in any direction. I tend to think the power to weight ratio is more important than the pure HP in the equation. At their pancake breakfast last year, we were out-climbing a lot of other planes taking off from there that had a lot more power than us. I am not a LSA zealot and not saying they can do anything. I am saying however that at least in my Gobosh, we see very good performance up there given you get in and out early and pay close attention of winds aloft.

I have taken the mountain flying ground school and found it very informative and valuable. It was also fun to relive many of the topics I learned in Air Force survival school in Spokane many years ago.

Carl

 

[CTLSi]

Would you take aerobatic instruction from Sean Tucker?

He only holds a Commercial ASEL, AMEL, Instrument-Airplane, Rotorcraft-Helicopter, and Glider. According to the FAA database as of right this moment, no CFI.

I wouldn't take spin training, let alone acrobatic training, from anyone not certified for acrobatic training.

 

[CTLSi]

There are mountain airports, and there are MOUNTAIN AIRPORTS. Sometimes you have to make some decisions. Take the case when the field is short (shorter than say 1500') and it has trees on the approach and has no windsock.

First thing you do is use a E6B to figure your true airspeed at the airport's altitude +1000'. You will use this in conjunction with your GPS ground speed to determine the wind. TAS is just ground speed +- the wind (so windspeed is the difference between TAS and GS). (Don't try and do this calculation on final, do it beforehand duh). Compare your speed on approach to your groundspeed and establish your wind. The direction of the wind is your slowest Ground speed. Now you know the wind. (Do this at altitude or even before you take off) On final check to see that your GS is equal or slower than your TAS. If not, you gotta tailwind bro in which case you gotta goround.

Now fly the pattern and do a low approach, examining the field for ruts and condition. Learn your go around. Figure out your descent profile. Follow the terrain and don't be wedded to a square standard pattern. A lot of times, final follows a valley.

There may be a decision to make, trading off staying within gliding distance of the field and coming in low and landing at the very end of the approach end of the field. You may have to take coming in low and using power to make the field, so as to GUARANTEE that you will NOT land long (a guaranteed disaster). So you have to be willing to accept an engine out in the trees because you're flying right above them. The safest route may well be tree height plus 100'. (It helps to have FAITH). Decisions like that make things a bit unnerving.

Some of these mountain airports the runway disappears behind a hill on downwind, which tends to make the pilot stop coming down, leaving you high. If in doubt, GO AROUND. If the turbulence gets too bad, or it's not working out for some other reason go around and somewhere else (like back to the long runway).

After you land, check the bottom of your airplane and horizontal stab for rocks coming up from the mains and hitting your airplane. Duct tape any holes

You learn things like that....

TAS is always a higher number than IAS/CAS. It is the actual speed you fly and the basis of determining performance at altitude.

Ground Speed is TAS +- Wind. DA is Pressure Alt adjusted for air temperature.

Before taking off at high DA consult the charts in your Pilot Handbook for the aircraft and apply your calculated DA to takeoff/landing/climb tables. Then take the weather into account for winds and mountain specials like the presence of lenticulars which tell you mountain wave winds and possibly ridge uplift are present.

 

[SportPilotCO]

KFLY late yesterday afternoon.. 8900 ft DA, 100 HP Rotax in my Gobosh, 900 FPM without really pushing it. I'll take it.

Carl

 

[Alexb2000]

I wouldn't take spin training, let alone acrobatic training, from anyone not certified for acrobatic training.

Ron is that you? Seriously, fess up.

 

[murphey]

Mountain flying is not about the stuff that ATPs do. It is about flying *in* the mountains, which one must do in order to land, not over them. Mountain wisdom does not come from an ATP, it comes from experience flying in the mountains - on whatever ticket you happen to have. There are ATP CFIs that seldom fly in the mountains and guys with straight CFI tickets with thousands of mountain hours. I'd pick the latter. That's just me.
______________

As far as flying aircraft with lower HP the class organizers know better than anyone that it can be done. Most of the instructors have probably done it in smaller aircraft.

You can make it if your aircraft performance under actual conditions is up to it. But their point is that the mountains around here are littered with the wreckage of aircraft large and small who thought they could make it. I searched for some of them with the CO CAP. Those pilots certainly didn't intend to die in the mountains.

So It is not a bad idea to take the class, learn all the considerations, and then get with any instructor you can find and run the numbers to see what your plane can manage. Under the right loading and OAT conditions most aircraft can fly in the mountains one way or another. The general techniques they discuss apply to any type.

Since I know most of the CFIs listed for the class (and have flown with many of them) I posed the question to two of them.
First CFI:

"I see this as a discussion point. Yes, I often fly with less than 180hp, but I want to start a detailed discussion if they want to fly something with less than 180hp.

I also fly light sport, and my Cessna 140 with 85hp has gone to Leadville and Steamboat many times... I believe I am trained and experienced to a higher standard than the CPA mountain flying 101 course that we teach.

I agree that the best training happens if we keep it to 180hp minimum. Advanced training is available later. "


Second CFI:
"Because most mountain instructors in Colorado believe that 180 hp is the minimum safe power for flying in the high density altitudes we have. It's a little arbitrary, but based on lots of experience. You can certainly do it with less, but you really have to know what you're doing and pick your day carefully."

 

[James331]

Since I know most of the CFIs listed for the class (and have flown with many of them) I posed the question to two of them.
First CFI:

"I see this as a discussion point. Yes, I often fly with less than 180hp, but I want to start a detailed discussion if they want to fly something with less than 180hp.

I also fly light sport, and my Cessna 140 with 85hp has gone to Leadville and Steamboat many times... I believe I am trained and experienced to a higher standard than the CPA mountain flying 101 course that we teach.

I agree that the best training happens if we keep it to 180hp minimum. Advanced training is available later. "


Second CFI:
"Because most mountain instructors in Colorado believe that 180 hp is the minimum safe power for flying in the high density altitudes we have. It's a little arbitrary, but based on lots of experience. You can certainly do it with less, but you really have to know what you're doing and pick your day carefully."

So these CFIs believe you'll be safer in a 180hp 172 compared to a 150hr Supercub?


As for my comments on gliders and DA ops relevance to Mt. flying, I you don't get it I really can't connect the dots for ya bud

 

[murphey]

So these CFIs believe you'll be safer in a 180hp 172 compared to a 150hr Supercub?


As for my comments on gliders and DA ops relevance to Mt. flying, I you don't get it I really can't connect the dots for ya bud

You asked why the 180 hp minimum. Since you were uninterested in contacting the instructors, I did.

It's your opinion about gliders. It's not a topic of discussion in the course so I see no reason to discuss it here. As I pointed out earlier, you have repeatedly stated you are not the audience for the course.

But since you believe that glider training is the answer to most issues of mountain flying, please explain what you will do in a glider when you take Independence Pass in the summer traveling from Leadville to Aspen?

 

[Everskyward]

As for my comments on gliders and DA ops relevance to Mt. flying, I you don't get it I really can't connect the dots for ya bud

Nothing wrong with getting some glider instruction but it won't help you with learning some things, like takeoff performance, unless you are using a motor glider.

Also make sure your glider instructor has an ATP...

 

[txflyer]

Didn't read the whole thread, and would love to take the mountain coarse if I'm ever up there.

What's the consensus on LRI's for high density altitude work and mountain flying?

I like ours and the backup it provides to the ASI. If I'm heavy and high, the AOA puts me on the optimum alpha angle for the wing under those conditions.

 

[Zeldman]

If you don't want a airliner why did you flaunt that some of the guys are ex airlines?

Out of your list I'd say the glider guy would be the only one who might make sense be on the list.

The only reason I mentioned the ATP is most guys who fly for a living have one, my company doesn't require one for what we do, but I have yet to meet another guy here without one.

Point being, gramps at my local drome, has like 4000hrs spanning half a millennia, does a few BFRs, spends a little time with a few societies, cap etc, he looks as good on paper for teaching that course as the others, but I wouldn't want him flying a pass or attempting a canyon turn unless he was just pax.

Honestly if you're teaching this stuff to inexperienced folks who probably will be trying there new tricks with a boat load of their family in a Bo or something, it would be nice if this this was taught by, say one of those 207 pilots who fly tours at the Grand Canyon every day, or a piston freight guy who works in and around some high peaks.

Also offering the theoretical without the flight is sending guys off half cocked.

I am all for this type of course, there just should be hard line (low level mountain related) qualifications for teaching it.

I'd say get people who currently WORK in those conditions, day in and day out, to teach it. Offer the ground and the flight training as a course, have a flight test and a little written quiz and give them a card to whatever if they pass.

What I don't like to see is when folks think they have skills they don't have, because when they learn how shallow their understanding is it's often too late.



So a PA-18-150 wouldn't cut it, but a Cessna 172SP would be better?!

See what I mean, they really haven't even thought that stuff out, a simple power to weight ratio would be FAR clearer and better, or just a email the CFI for his discretion type of thing.

I have almost 10,000 hours flying mountains and mountain passes in Alaska and mountains and high density altitude in New Mexico and the southwest area. I have an ATP, CFI and CFII. I guess I don't qualify to teach high density altitude flying and mountain flying because I don't fly heavies at flight level 330.

At my company all the pilots have the ATP rating. A couple guys came from the airlines looking for quality of life, one thinks he wants to go to some airline. The rest are happy at their job. All have at least a CFI. All are professionals and have an ATP because it is the highest level of certificate. It is not required for the job.

 

[CharlieTango]

And I know LSAs that have flown into Leadville. But there has to be a cutoff, and the decision was 180 hp in a GA airplane.

I used to fly a skyhawk with a 180hp stc and now I fly a 100hp Flight Design CTSW. The 100hp plane outperforms the 180hp Cessna by a huge margin.

For Cherokees or Skyhawks 180hp is a good minimum for high altitude ops.

Light sport can work at high altitude with 100hp Rotax, I've been doing it for 8 years.

 

[denverpilot]

I'd like to see a book or glider that'll explain and demonstrate why you might want to calculate a different missed approach point in a light twin headed to Aspen.

 

[CTLSi]

I used to fly a skyhawk with a 180hp stc and now I fly a 100hp Flight Design CTSW. The 100hp plane outperforms the 180hp Cessna by a huge margin.

For Cherokees or Skyhawks 180hp is a good minimum for high altitude ops.

Light sport can work at high altitude with 100hp Rotax, I've been doing it for 8 years.

For the record, CharlieTango lives and flys at altitude and in the mountains. And is one of the experts out there on the practical use of Flight Design CTs.

 

[Alexb2000]

For the record, CharlieTango lives and flys at altitude and in the mountains. And is one of the experts out there on the practical use of Flight Design CTs.

How do you guys get around the 15K service ceiling in the mountains, or does that differ by model?

 

[Clark1961]

How do you guys get around the 15K service ceiling in the mountains, or does that differ by model?

No real need to go near 15,000 in the Colorado mountains. Now with that said, it is nice to have the "out" of climbing above everything near by...and I imagine the LSAs are good for thermaling - heck I even thermal in the 'kota

 

[Alexb2000]

No real need to go near 15,000 in the Colorado mountains. Now with that said, it is nice to have the "out" of climbing above everything near by...and I imagine the LSAs are good for thermaling - heck I even thermal in the 'kota

This is probably not a good tangent for me anyway, but I would much rather drive than get the crap kicked out of me in low level mountain turbulence and/or be at the edge of an aircrafts performance in the mountains. If those are the options I'd either become an early morning VFR sightseer or more likely quit flying.

Different strokes.

 

[coloradobluesky]

You can usually fly at 13000' and go just about anywhere in the Colorado mountains. You don't have to fly over the highest peaks you see.

 

[Clark1961]

This is probably not a good tangent for me anyway, but I would much rather drive than get the crap kicked out of me in low level mountain turbulence and/or be at the edge of an aircrafts performance in the mountains. If those are the options I'd either become an early morning VFR sightseer or more likely quit flying.

Different strokes.

I think many folks agree with you. Murphey is one of them. I like the early morning flights and those times are about the only time I'll drop down into a canyon in Colorado. Every get once in a while we'll get a calm day but it's usually best to plan for wind.

 

[Alexb2000]

You can usually fly at 13000' and go just about anywhere in the Colorado mountains. You don't have to fly over the highest peaks you see.

Do you fly these altitudes in the afternoon?

 

[Everskyward]

Do you fly these altitudes in the afternoon?

I did, but I was more interested in not wearing O2 when it wasn't necessary than avoiding the turbulence.

Besides, one of the things I find to be entertaining about flying is seeing things from a lower altitude. That doesn't happen much any more.

 

[Alexb2000]

I did, but I was more interested in not wearing O2 when it wasn't necessary than avoiding the turbulence.

Besides, one of the things I find to be entertaining about flying is seeing things from a lower altitude. That doesn't happen much any more.

Flying low level in the Rockies is so visually powerful, nothing else compares. I really like the evenings when the sky has some color.

 

[James331]

I have almost 10,000 hours flying mountains and mountain passes in Alaska and mountains and high density altitude in New Mexico and the southwest area. I have an ATP, CFI and CFII. I guess I don't qualify to teach high density altitude flying and mountain flying because I don't fly heavies at flight level 330.
...

Uhh, that's actually the oppisite of what I have been saying on this thread, I hope your flying skills are far superior to your reading comprehension skills.

 

[coloradobluesky]

One other thing, pilots flying high Colorado mtns can manage without oxygen and meet the FAA rules. You get 1/2 hour between 12500 and 14000. Dip down below 12500 and you can go up again for another 1/2 hour. The ski areas top out at 12500 and that is rigorous activity, so it's doable without a bottle by many.

Whether YOU can do it without oxygen or not depends on YOU, your physical shape, age climatization etc. If in doubt bring oxygen. Even a couple of disposable $10 bottles will give you what you need to descend if you get light headed. If in doubt bring a bottle. 1 liter per minute is the typical flow. I just stick the tube in my mouth, but all of the devices work. You can feel the lightheadedness come on. If you are getting light headed you MUST descend or go on oxygen.

 

[Zeldman]

Uhh, that's actually the oppisite of what I have been saying on this thread, I hope your flying skills are far superior to your reading comprehension skills.

ummm... actually I was agreeing with you there, ace. I would not take a mountain course from someone that flaunts their airline career.

My company does not require an ATP, yet all the pilots here have just that.

Maybe I should use one syllable words?

 

[murphey]

Bump up - registration open for the Sept 6, 2014 ground school.

 

[denverpilot]

Bump up - registration open for the Sept 6, 2014 ground school.

If anyone is interested in coming out but doesn't want to pay for lodging, our home is always open to pilots going to training stuff. We have extra beater cars too. But we're a long way away from town.

Neither the house nor the guest bed are anything fancy but it is comfortable and the 75 lb dog may decide to join you on it. LOL. He thinks it's his daytime nap bed.

Caveat: If you hit a deer you gotta fix the car. Ha.

Anyway just tossing it out there.