• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
General Aviation News

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

  • Pictures of the Day
    • Submit Picture of the Day
  • Stories
    • News
    • Features
    • Opinion
    • Products
    • NTSB Accidents
    • ASRS Reports
  • Comments
  • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
  • Events
  • Digital Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Piper crashes in mountains

By NTSB · November 26, 2014 ·

Aircraft: Piper Cherokee. Injuries: 3 Fatal. Location: Aurora, Utah. Aircraft damage: Destroyed.

What reportedly happened: Family members notified the FAA that the airplane was overdue on the cross-country flight. One week after the initial notification, the wreckage was located in the upper end of a canyon about 11 nautical miles west of the departure airport at an elevation of 8,992 feet MSL.

The airplane crashed in a grove of trees just below a ridge line. Evidence at the accident site indicated that the airplane initially hit the trees on a southeasterly heading in a level attitude. The impact sheared off the left wing and the airplane caught fire and burned. There was snow in the area at the time of the crash.

The airplane was found relatively intact except for the separation of the left wing.

Although no hazardous weather conditions were reported in the area at the time of the accident, unexpected turbulent conditions can occur in mountain canyons.

Further, the density altitude was calculated to be 9,663 feet, which would have adversely affected the airplane’s performance.

A family member, who was a pilot, reported that, before the pilot departed on the first leg of the three-leg flight, he assisted him in calculating the airplane’s weight and balance for each leg. He reported that, for each calculation, he used the estimated weight of each passenger, the baggage, the two dogs, a rifle, and full fuel and that, although the airplane was right at its maximum gross takeoff weight for each leg, it was within its weight and balance limits.

He stated that the pilot had made this same cross-country flight three or four times previously but that he did not know the extent of the pilot’s mountain-flying experience.

Investigators determined the pilot’s decision to fly in a canyon in high-density altitude conditions near the airplane’s maximum gross weight likely contributed to the accident.

The airplane was equipped with a 121.5/243-MHz emergency locator transmitter (ELT). Due to fire damage, it could not be determined whether the ELT switch was in the armed position or whether the ELT activated immediately after impact.

Regardless, the 121.5-MHz signal would only have been detected by other aircraft flying in the remote area because satellite monitoring for 121.5-MHz ELT signals ceased in February 2009.

Search and Rescue (SAR) operations, which commenced the day following the accident, took seven days. During this time period, the Civil Air Patrol from three states flew a total of 86 missions, and local law enforcement agencies conducted additional SAR missions. SAR operations were protracted due to the lack of flight following services, ELT signal and radar data, and a digital emergency signal from a 406-MHz ELT or other satellite emergency notification device and the fact that the white airplane crashed and fragmented in a snowy, forested area, which made visual detection difficult.

Investigators determined that two passengers initially survived the accident. They were found at the accident site wearing t-shirts and jeans.

It could not be determined whether any survival equipment was on board the airplane, but none was observed at the accident site. There was no evidence that the survivors attempted to make an overnight shelter. The temperatures at the accident site, were reportedly in the high teens to low 20s the night of the accident. The autopsy for both passengers indicated that the cause of death included hypothermia.

Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain clearance with terrain while maneuvering in a remote mountainous region. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s improper decision to traverse the remote mountainous area in high-density altitude conditions with the airplane near its maximum gross weight. Contributing to the delay in the search and rescue (SAR) was the lack of a 406-MHz ELT signal, which would have allowed SAR responders to initiate a more timely search and find the accident site more quickly.

NTSB Identification: WPR13FA061

This November 2012 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.

About NTSB

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant events in the other modes of transportation, including railroad, transit, highway, marine, pipeline, and commercial space. It determines the probable causes of accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future occurrences.

Reader Interactions

Share this story

  • Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
  • Share via Email Share via Email

Become better informed pilot.

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments

  1. John C says

    November 27, 2014 at 10:47 am

    Three adults,two dogs and baggage with full fuel sure sounds over gross weight to me! I doubt the useful load was much over600lbs. 3@180=540 add @40 two small dogs plus who knows how much luggage and a riffle! You do the math! At @10,000ft only about 60% power,very sad.thats the reason insurance is about 15% higher here in Utah.

  2. Dennis Reiley says

    November 27, 2014 at 5:52 am

    Why do some pilots refuse to circle until they gain enough altitude to clear obstructions? Would it have delayed the arrival time by that much?

  3. Wnard says

    November 26, 2014 at 7:34 am

    A personal 406 beacon with GPS can be purchased in the low two hundred dollar range. Better than socks, underwear, or tie for Christmas. No yearly fees. Not just useful in a plane. Provides peace of mind even for car drives, hikes, etc. in remote areas.
    Wayne

    • Greg W says

      November 27, 2014 at 7:22 am

      Fully agree, a PLB is much more affordable than a new 406 ELT. Being portable it can be used in any activity which may require rescue in a remote area. I fly a stock champ most of the time so weight is very important, “space blankets”,energy bars and a PLB weigh little and can certainly make the difference.

      • John says

        November 27, 2014 at 8:44 am

        A PLB is a great BACKUP for an onboard 406 ELT, but does not serve the same function: automatic activation in a crash. As is often the case, we get what we pay for when we go for the cheap on what may be the most important tool for post crash location of our plane… And any survivors.

        The two passengers were reported as surviving the crash. The aircraft owner’s decision to stick with the minamalist and cheapest way to comply with the FARs cost the surivors their small chance of timely rescue. That the were dressed in T-shirts and therefore unprepared for post crash survival was another nail in their coffins.

© 2025 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Comment Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writer’s Guidelines
  • Photographer’s Guidelines