This November 2008 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Aircraft: Cessna 170B. Injuries: 1 Fatal, 2 Serious. Location: Hanna, Utah. Aircraft damage: Substantial.
What reportedly happened: The pilot checked the weather forecast twice prior to departing on the cross-country flight. Both reports indicated that VFR conditions would prevail. The pilot took off and climbed to an altitude of 10,500 feet MSL in order to clear mountainous terrain. As the airplane approached the mountains, the pilot encountered increasing tailwinds that reduced the performance of the airplane. The pilot reported that as the airplane approached the mountain range it encountered unusually strong downdrafts, accompanied with a loss in altitude, speed, and rate of climb. The pilot determined that the airspeed became too slow for a safe turn without further loss of control or altitude, so he elected to pick out a clearing to make a forced landing. The airplane came down in a snow-covered clearing at an elevation of 9,800 feet MSL, surrounded by mountainous terrain about 150 feet from the initial touchdown point.
Probable cause: The flight’s encounter with adverse tailwinds and downdrafts in mountainous terrain that exceeded the airplane’s climb capability.
For more information: NTSB.gov
Doc, I was hoping that somewhere in your manifesto, you’d have told us what the pilot SHOULD have done.
Dear GAN:
I have read with great interest and some trepidation, the conclusions of the NTSB as to the “probable cause” of the crash outlined in this report. I am thankful to GAN for making this information available to the flying public. I have also read the “illuminating, astute and insightful” comments of Mr. Rodrigues, as concerns his views surrounding the capability of “winged craft” to operate in mountain wave conditions. This crash did not occur because of mountain wave or the inability of the aircraft to fly in it. It happened because the pilot was not skilled in “the art of mountain flying”, nor the “associated maladies” connected to turbulence and mountain wave. More specifically how to cross mountainous terrain in such conditions. The mountainous terrain of the western U.S. presents specific challenges that are not “trained for” in the normal routine of learning to fly, nor does continuing to operate an aircraft successfully in “normal flight conditions” over flat or low terrain, prepare a pilot to handle such unusual situations associated with mountain wave/turbulence.
I have long flown in the mountainous terrain of this country and successfully in all conditions. I learned to fly in those conditions. My first “winged steed” was a Cessna 140 with an 85 horsepower Continental engine. I have crossed “the Roof of the Rockies” in this craft 100’s of times, flying around peaks that far exceeded 14,000 feet, well above the “service ceiling” of my C-140. I’ve had that aircraft as high as 18,300 feet ASL and under “adept supervision”, it flies like a kite (or sailplane). Just as sailplane pilots operate their craft. Many people thought I was a lunatic, engaging in such activity. To me it was “ordinary”, because I learned to fly in that environment and did not think it unusual. It wasn’t until I “ventured” further into the “world of aviation” and engaged in commercial aviation as a career, that I realized that the vast majority of pilots and instructors hadn’t the expertise I had gained. I had learned to “read the mountains and flight conditions” early on and that is what had positioned me to operate successfully in that environment. It should be very obvious that the pilot in this article had no such “insights, skills or training”.
I learned to fly nearly 50 years ago and have accumulated well in excess of 8000 flight hours, with over 5000 of that as a Flight Instructor, civil and military. Of that over 1000 hours being engaged in teaching mountain flying from Colorado to Alaska. Learning this “particular aspect” of aviation is “absolutely essential” if an aviator wishes to fly in such conditions and do it safely. In the case of the sailplane pilot, they are taught to “read” and use the flight conditions to their advantage in order to operate their craft. In the scenario below, the pilot “elected” to put his aircraft down, as he believed himself to be “out of options”. His “real truth” was that he just didn’t know what his options really were!
Those at NTSB, who wrote the report below, clearly didn’t have any idea about flying, more specifically mountain flying or accomplishing it in a “mountain wave conditions”. That fact limits “the useful learning/teaching knowledge” that should accompany such reports. FAA and NTSB reports should serve as “essential and useful learning/teaching tools” for instructors and pilots. That is no longer the case, because in recent years, those placed in those positions to, “investigate, analyze, reach conclusions and report”, do not posses the “necessary expertise” too properly reach the appropriate conclusions! I have read literally hundreds of NTSB reports in recent years that reached completely incorrect or outright nonsensical conclusions, as to the cause of a crash.
My statement is in fact a “serious condemnation” of the “selection process” used by “politicians” to staff the necessary “safety organizations” charged with the proper investigation and analysis of crashes, in order to possibly preclude a repeat of such occurrences in the future. Thus making the “value” of such investigation and analysis dubious at best! However, since the NTSB public hearing, regarding the crash of ColganAir 3407 at Buffalo, I can no longer restrain my ire and contempt for such “shoddy and inept” analysis and conclusions. Many of those impaneled to investigate and make a determination as to the “actual factors” of this crash, didn’t have a clue and most if not all were without the necessary expertise to “pass judgement” as to those “actual factors” that caused the crash! The “value” to the citizens of this nation and to the heads of agencies, who would be required to “act” upon the recommendations emanating therefrom, is less than dubious! The same is true of the conclusions as to the “causative factors” of this crash.
I have read many thousands of NTSB reports since that agency was founded and it is abundantly clear that those investigating and writing those reports, in the distant past, were “well versed” in their craft of investigating aviation related crashes and providing appropriate conclusions. As highlighted in the report below…that is no longer the case! The situation this pilot found himself in was “conquerable”, he just didn’t have the training and experience “tools” to realize it.
I am eminently familiar with the area where this aircraft crash occurred and the conditions that exist to bring about such an event. Had the pilot been “properly trained and knowledgeable” in mountain flying, he would have known as soon as he arrived at the airport of departure, what to expect and how to deal with it, before he ever left the ground!
In essence, we’re back to “square one”, lack of or inappropriate flight training and examination in this country! This report is symptomatic of a far greater calamity that has befallen our nation. A country, I will remind everyone that was “preeminent” in the venue of aviation, flying and flight training in the world! No longer, because politicians who direct and now control our nation have “their own agenda” and it has nothing to do with the safety, security or eminence of anything, particularly aviation, on the world stage!
This is made most obvious by the rapid demise of aviation, flight instruction and aircraft manufacturing in the United States! I would also remind all the readers that this all “began to snowball” with the inception of one Presidential administration and will, because of actions taken by that President and the attendant Congress, conclude in the complete demise of the aviation industry in America. I speak specifically of the ban on aviation fuels, as being the “last nail in the coffin”, of “many assaults” made upon the aviation industry by one particular political party. I’m not certain if it can even be “turned around”, at this late date.
Hey Doug:
Very good response!! I used to live in Idaho and there is a glider service in Hailey,ID that has been in business for a very long time and you see them flying over the Sun Valley area terrain during the summer time. I have not ever been in a glider aircraft, however, I do fly and my dad flies for a backcountry air taxi service. I have flown our his C182 in the Idaho backcountry a lot and you would not believe the number of “flat landers” that fly into the mountain areas without checking weather condions or knowing exactly the terrain vs power performance of their aircraft. One of my dad’s best friends who had thousands of backcountry flight hours died several years ago due to a mountain curl occurence. It only takes one time not looking at wind conditions in the backcountry valleys and canyons to kill yourself sadly. Flying into the backcountry is a humbling experience and everyone that has never done so and wants to should absolutely take a course from a qualified instructor.
Let’s see he tries to cross the ridge at 10,500 MSL and hits the ground at 9,800 MSL. Wonder if maybe he didn’t have enough terrain clearance to start with? DUH! How low do we go before we make the turn, even 500 feet would be enough, but he only had 200 to make the decision, by then the trees were getting bigger real fast.
Interesting that sailplane pilots are able to use mountain waves to their advantage for maximum altitude gain. Power plane pilots only know to add throttle to fly through such areas. Perhaps pilots who have little mountain flying experience should get some glider instruction and learn how to fly in and around mountain waves. From my experince as an airplane and sailplane pilot, most airplane pilots only have a vague idea of what conditions are created by high winds over the mountains.