For those of you who are curious of where this area is, the river is called Big Thompson River in the Big Thompson Canyon west of Loveland CO. Highway 34 runs through the canyon from Loveland to Estes Park. There was a large forest fire in the area this past summer.
I live in CO, flew with the Colorado Wing CAP and I had met two of the folks on this flight. I haven’t been active in CAP since 2010. I’ve taken the Colorado Pilots Assn’s mountain training. I owned and flew a 182 in Colorado for 7 years. Most pilots would tell you, as would I, to avoid low-level mountain flying if winds were generally above 20 kts. The mountains do strange things to air flowimg over them, including speeding it up via venturi effect or causing rotor on the lee side of sharp ridges. This to me feels like a rotor encounter from the data I’ve seen but Randy will, God willing, be ablemto clear this up. I pray for Randy’s recovery and for comfort for the families of Sue and Jay.
@@mavicminipilotwinds aloft are quite a bit different than wind on the surface. Flying with high winds aloft is a normal occurrence for pretty much all single engine aircraft. Mountain wave is a different story.
Most of my flying is in mountain flying. You have got to avoid those leeward side of the mountains when it’s wind conditions are what was described, and you absolutely have to leave yourself outs into those upwind sides when crossing ridges. I know it’s saved my bacon multiple times.
Significant rotor where the plane went down = erratic airspeed and altitude changes. Estimated wind speed over 25 knots means to expect severe turbulence up to 1500 +/- AGL. The major question I have is, "Why would an experienced CFI with a right-seat pilot onboard fly into an obviously very dangerous location, given the conditions?"
Figures someone was teaching thee hazards of mountain flying. I think the point was highly given that it is dangerous if trying to push your luck. American Airline made a study for flying in mountains after their Aouth America routes gave some very hazardous flights. It has good advice for escaping downdrafts and flying near mountains.
I think the ground track and altitudes tell a different story but I'm not here to speculate. I'm a little disappointed in ASI for speculating so early.
@@dmacnet We fly in rivers of air. They were not necessarily diving, but were in a common 3200 fpm downdraft. Attempting to maintain altitude in a significant downdraft like this will result in a stall. Energy management in the mountains demands that, in a10,000 fpm wave going down (they go up and down thus wave) or significant downdraft we must push on the yoke to fly through it as quickly as possible. In up air, energy management demands that we pitch up to slow down and stay in the free significant rate of climb longer. The river of air does not slam pilots into the ground. It can cause startle and stall in the attempt to maintain altitude. If we dive to get through quickly yet stay in all the way down, we will hit significant compression at usable AGL. We will know we are there by the jolt and updraft as significant as the downdraft. Yes, there will be turbulence and even rotors below the declination line. This is why crossing at a 45 degree angle, or any angle is dangerous. Stay on the ridge downwind of the valley for lift. Don't cross ridges, Don't go GPS direct, but use the map to ingress up ridge and egress down drainage.
@@igclapp could easily have been just the result of a downdraft, and CFIT. With the winds being what they were, with a gust on the lee side of the ridge that is not an impossible downdraft.
Before I started mountain flying i had 200 hours paragliding on the mountains- on a Paraglider you live or die by you understanding or lack thereof of micro meteorology- the things I see experienced pilots do- just like this one- astound me. The pilot flew that plane straight toward a ridge at an altitude where you would fully expect strong downdrafts followed by serious lee side rotor with almost no out. These things are in fact fairly predictable if you take some time and make the effort to understand them.
Thanks for covering this accident. I live near Loveland and remember the morning as clear and crisp. Not much wind . Until about 10:00. Then it became gusty and variable. OK if down in flat terrain, but not much fun in the mountains. They were flying along getting closer and closer to terrain. Any chance this could be carburator icing?
You asked to be on a flight and you hadn't even completed your membership application? You do know you have a lot of training you have to accomplish before you can ride along on a search and rescue training mission right?
@@skylarcaldwell7208 - Nope, they were relocating planes. I was at the meeting where this was described and they asked for volunteers, both in the plane and ground crew. AND... kinda not the point of my comment. This tragedy, became very real for me.
Personally, I do not understand why anyone would want to fly an underpowered airplane anywhere near mountains. And almost all of these light airplanes are,in fact, underpowered in this environment. Power is life. Hanging on the blades, playing updrafts and downdrafts, just isn’t smart imho. I did a lot of flying in the mountains in my Navy days. All very, very low, all very fast. All with an ejection seat. A-7E. I’ve also experienced plenty of mountain wave activity at altitude for decades in wide body jets. My advice? Fly where you have an out….with power. Light aircraft need to use the exact same procedure for flying in the mountains as is used for known or suspected windshear ……avoid, avoid, avoid.
Good visibility daylight is not when you want to crash into mountains. Maybe he was flying relatively slowly in strong head wind and entered a slow wind region where it didn't have enough lift and he didn't take decisive enough evasive action and was too close to the mountain to recover. It can't just be engine failure because there is a lot of down slope to fly. It would be good to have camera black boxes on planes. FAA could have them developed for pennies. It's basically a dashcam. Could be 99$ and flame retardant. Also good for recording icing events or other extreme weather accidents.
My condolences to the families and friends. Thank you friend for this educational video. Sir I’ve been on a twin engine plane ✈️. From San Juan Puerto Rico to Mayagüez my Mom’s town. It’s about 35 minutes flight ✈️ 🇵🇷 since 1963 I was 5 years old. Born and raised in Brooklyn N.Y. I’m 66 years old now. Four year’s ago I had a family emergency and some of those pipers are 40, 50 and even 60 years old. My friend why are so many old pipers are still in service. Blessings Amen. 🇺🇸✈️🇵🇷🙏🇵🇷. A quick recovery ❤️🩹 for the injured.
While the C-182 is a very capable mountain airplane, God is bigger. The decent book rate of climb of 500 fpm at that DA and staying 2,000 feet AGL are both meaningless. 2,000 fpm downdraft is common with 35 mph downwind of a ridge. The circling orbits show poor understanding of energy management in the mountains. First we need to pitch up in updraft to slow down and receive the possible 2,500 fpm updraft longer. We need to pitch down in downdraft to fly through quickly. Air does not plunge into the ground but rather compresses and flattens. The unfortunate pilot was not slammed into the ground, he fought the downdraft with pitch up rather than down and caused stall/fall. Second we need to use a topographic map best or sectional adequate, to plan ingress and egress using drainage systems both large and small. Every inch of rain or snow melt from that area flows continuously down drainage to the Gulf of Mexico. Every turn must take, not 45 degree across ridges, but the ability to turn down drainage into account. Ingress using all energy management will stay near the ridge downwind of the drainage up valley. Egress is a 1 g turn (regardless of bank angle) of sufficient bank angle to roll out over the middle of the drainage. Wind management in that this turn is into a headwind to reduce radius of turn. Energy management is that we release back pressure on the yoke to allow the safety feature of dynamic neural stability to prevent stall. The airplane cannot stall itself. A pilot pulling up on the yoke is required. I have made the 10,000 passes in 65 hp trainers and have been unable to make the same pass in the 182 when wind direction and speed doesn't cooperate.
Thank you for all the information. Student pilot here close to getting my ppl. The Mts. are definitely daunting. Why were u able in trainers but not the 182?
@northerndelights3113 You have to look at the wind direction and speed ini reference to the ridge you are using for orographic ridge lift, if any. Without fairly strong wind across the ridge, the low powered airplanes with say 12 gal fuel cannot grind up with just engine power and make it to the next fuel stop. The 182 is fine that day. With a straight ridge, even range, N-S and strong and direct west headwind, there is no lifting edge to the wind direction. Yes, given time and good weather, the 182 can climb over lower terrain and then probably make it up high in say 50 knots headwind. With either airplane, we may have to cruise descend into the valley beyond the pass to save fuel.
@@northerndelights3113 Also understand that while orographic or thermal lift may be over 50% of the total energy available to the J-3 Cub, Aeronca 7AC, or Taylorcraft, it is only 25% of the total energy available to powerful airplanes like the 182. In a mountain wave, however, the easily 10,000 fpm updraft or downdraft is 90% of the energy available to any single engine airplane. Those old 65 HP trainers could be classified as motor gliders.
Took one free introductory flying lesson/school. Way too complicated for a simpleton like me! Mans gots to know his limitations! Bought a motorcycle instead.
Way too much discussion of ridge lines and the data obtained, instead of delving into WHY the accident happened and lesson learned. You don't get into the meat of the matter until 8 minutes in. And then it might as well been ai. What a meaningless video
NTSB hasnt delivered their preliminary findings yet. Any "why" would only be speculation but will likely come out over time...especially with there being a survivor. As pilots we still like to know facts along the discovery path and that's all we have at this point. Just a small set of facts.
CFIT at 3200 fpm decent rate?!? I’m not a fan of these early analysis with too little info to make informed judgement. I viewed this expecting more pertinent facts with learning opportunity, but it came up way short. Blancoliro/Juan Browne’s take on this incident is better and a target for AOPA to shoot for. (I think a quick retake to get the 182 model right would have made the video more professional.)
We typically add a thousand feet for every 10kts of wind to stay above the leeward side downdrafts. RIP
For those of you who are curious of where this area is, the river is called Big Thompson River in the Big Thompson Canyon west of Loveland CO. Highway 34 runs through the canyon from Loveland to Estes Park. There was a large forest fire in the area this past summer.
I live in CO, flew with the Colorado Wing CAP and I had met two of the folks on this flight. I haven’t been active in CAP since 2010. I’ve taken the Colorado Pilots Assn’s mountain training. I owned and flew a 182 in Colorado for 7 years. Most pilots would tell you, as would I, to avoid low-level mountain flying if winds were generally above 20 kts. The mountains do strange things to air flowimg over them, including speeding it up via venturi effect or causing rotor on the lee side of sharp ridges. This to me feels like a rotor encounter from the data I’ve seen but Randy will, God willing, be ablemto clear this up. I pray for Randy’s recovery and for comfort for the families of Sue and Jay.
I am sorry for the loss of your friends….. Frosty
Thank you for these updates
Excellent analysis based on the information available at this time. Thank you for sharing.
Slide says 182T. Presenter says 172.
It's a G1000 C182T, and probably a turbo model. Not many 172s will take 3 people up the mountain.
Definitely not a 172. Colorado Wing doesn’t have any. Not enough performance.
@@Flying_Snakes no...the 182T is non-turbo IO540 Lycoming powered
In 40 years I have been too chicken to take a normally aspirated piston single or twin into mountains like those.
We don’t have those kind of terrain here in Brazil, but I can see what you are saying.
You really shouldn’t be flying a Cessna with 34 knot winds either 🤷
@@mavicminipilotwinds aloft are quite a bit different than wind on the surface. Flying with high winds aloft is a normal occurrence for pretty much all single engine aircraft. Mountain wave is a different story.
It reportedly was turbo, a Cessna 182T
Old or bold, but not both
Great video and awesome graphics! SUBSCRIBED!
Condolences to the families and friends of the departed.
Thankyou for a great analysis.
Most of my flying is in mountain flying. You have got to avoid those leeward side of the mountains when it’s wind conditions are what was described, and you absolutely have to leave yourself outs into those upwind sides when crossing ridges. I know it’s saved my bacon multiple times.
Significant rotor where the plane went down = erratic airspeed and altitude changes. Estimated wind speed over 25 knots means to expect severe turbulence up to 1500 +/- AGL. The major question I have is, "Why would an experienced CFI with a right-seat pilot onboard fly into an obviously very dangerous location, given the conditions?"
There's the question
Looks like rotor on the Lee side of a ridge. Glider pilots are wary of this.
Thanks for this video.
Figures someone was teaching thee hazards of mountain flying. I think the point was highly given that it is dangerous if trying to push your luck. American Airline made a study for flying in mountains after their Aouth America routes gave some very hazardous flights. It has good advice for escaping downdrafts and flying near mountains.
Good job. Your channel is refreshing. Just unbiased information without personal agenda. 👍
As a front range Colorado pilot owning a C172 and a Mooney M20C...C172 was for going east...M20C was for going west.
Very Sad 😢
182 T Skylane.
Most/Many CAP 182s are turbos; at least here in N. NV
I think the ground track and altitudes tell a different story but I'm not here to speculate. I'm a little disappointed in ASI for speculating so early.
Calling a 3200 fpm descent CFIT is incomprehensible to this East Coast resident. I don’t know if I could make a 172 do that under control if I tried.
Very briefly
@@dmacnet We fly in rivers of air. They were not necessarily diving, but were in a common 3200 fpm downdraft. Attempting to maintain altitude in a significant downdraft like this will result in a stall. Energy management in the mountains demands that, in a10,000 fpm wave going down (they go up and down thus wave) or significant downdraft we must push on the yoke to fly through it as quickly as possible. In up air, energy management demands that we pitch up to slow down and stay in the free significant rate of climb longer. The river of air does not slam pilots into the ground. It can cause startle and stall in the attempt to maintain altitude. If we dive to get through quickly yet stay in all the way down, we will hit significant compression at usable AGL. We will know we are there by the jolt and updraft as significant as the downdraft. Yes, there will be turbulence and even rotors below the declination line. This is why crossing at a 45 degree angle, or any angle is dangerous. Stay on the ridge downwind of the valley for lift. Don't cross ridges, Don't go GPS direct, but use the map to ingress up ridge and egress down drainage.
Pretty sure -3,200 fpm is the result of a stall, not a downdraft. By definition, it can't be CFIT if the plane was stalled.
@@igclapp could easily have been just the result of a downdraft, and CFIT. With the winds being what they were, with a gust on the lee side of the ridge that is not an impossible downdraft.
@@bleff3 Even if it was the result of a downdraft, how does that qualify as CFIT?
Before I started mountain flying i had 200 hours paragliding on the mountains- on a Paraglider you live or die by you understanding or lack thereof of micro meteorology- the things I see experienced pilots do- just like this one- astound me. The pilot flew that plane straight toward a ridge at an altitude where you would fully expect strong downdrafts followed by serious lee side rotor with almost no out. These things are in fact fairly predictable if you take some time and make the effort to understand them.
as a hang glider pilot of 26+ years, a sailplane pilot, and now flying 152/172/182....in colorado mountains at times....you are not wrong.....
The never-end "early analysis" crash videos and second-guessing by arm-chair experts is exhausting.
All of my experience has been over very flat terrain. This mishap seems to very much sum up the reasons behind the "Mountain Flying Tips"!
1:43 you mean 'groundspeed'
Thanks for covering this accident. I live near Loveland and remember the morning as clear and crisp. Not much wind . Until about 10:00. Then it became gusty and variable. OK if down in flat terrain, but not much fun in the mountains. They were flying along getting closer and closer to terrain. Any chance this could be carburator icing?
Fuel injected model, no carb ice.
It was a 182T and it was an aerial photography mission.
I asked to be on this plane but they declined because my membership paperwork with Civil Air Patrol was incomplete.
And because a 4th person would likely put the aircraft above its MGTOW...
You asked to be on a flight and you hadn't even completed your membership application? You do know you have a lot of training you have to accomplish before you can ride along on a search and rescue training mission right?
@ - it was a relocation flight, not a mission. Yes, I asked to help.,. Either in the plane or as ground crew because they were requesting volunteers.
@@RobinReedCoachthis was not a relo, it was a practice search mission.
@@skylarcaldwell7208 - Nope, they were relocating planes. I was at the meeting where this was described and they asked for volunteers, both in the plane and ground crew. AND... kinda not the point of my comment. This tragedy, became very real for me.
Way back in the early 80s I saw a pirep something like severe mountain wave turbulence am now flying inverted Art Scholl aircraft type Super Chipmunk
I say engine trouble and pilot decides to make for the meadows up behind palisades and couldn’t get over the ridge.
She knew all those rules. There is something missing from the swiss cheese failure model. It doesnt add up with what we have so far.
Knowing and doing are two separate issues.
She shouldn’t have turned back on the Lee side of that ridge.. mountain wave killed them
Personally, I do not understand why anyone would want to fly an underpowered airplane anywhere near mountains. And almost all of these light airplanes are,in fact, underpowered in this environment. Power is life. Hanging on the blades, playing updrafts and downdrafts, just isn’t smart imho. I did a lot of flying in the mountains in my Navy days. All very, very low, all very fast. All with an ejection seat. A-7E. I’ve also experienced plenty of mountain wave activity at altitude for decades in wide body jets. My advice? Fly where you have an out….with power. Light aircraft need to use the exact same procedure for flying in the mountains as is used for known or suspected windshear ……avoid, avoid, avoid.
I'm hearing pic picked a bad course near mountain waves across ridges .too easy to get advanced ratings . ratings
Maybe they were on an active search or training, but that's a lot of wind for mountain training.
Both pilots had 3 decades of experience.
Sue had been flying in the mountains here for decades. Not a training issue.
Good visibility daylight is not when you want to crash into mountains. Maybe he was flying relatively slowly in strong head wind and entered a slow wind region where it didn't have enough lift and he didn't take decisive enough evasive action and was too close to the mountain to recover. It can't just be engine failure because there is a lot of down slope to fly.
It would be good to have camera black boxes on planes. FAA could have them developed for pennies. It's basically a dashcam. Could be 99$ and flame retardant. Also good for recording icing events or other extreme weather accidents.
Too slow in that turn, stalled! Not CFIT!
Ground Speed. AC Turned into the 35KT+ headwind.
Looked like a stall and maybe even a secondary stall too.
My condolences to the families and friends. Thank you friend for this educational video. Sir I’ve been on a twin engine plane ✈️. From San Juan Puerto Rico to Mayagüez my Mom’s town. It’s about 35 minutes flight ✈️ 🇵🇷 since 1963 I was 5 years old. Born and raised in Brooklyn N.Y. I’m 66 years old now. Four year’s ago I had a family emergency and some of those pipers are 40, 50 and even 60 years old. My friend why are so many old pipers are still in service. Blessings Amen. 🇺🇸✈️🇵🇷🙏🇵🇷. A quick recovery ❤️🩹 for the injured.
While the C-182 is a very capable mountain airplane, God is bigger. The decent book rate of climb of 500 fpm at that DA and staying 2,000 feet AGL are both meaningless. 2,000 fpm downdraft is common with 35 mph downwind of a ridge. The circling orbits show poor understanding of energy management in the mountains. First we need to pitch up in updraft to slow down and receive the possible 2,500 fpm updraft longer. We need to pitch down in downdraft to fly through quickly. Air does not plunge into the ground but rather compresses and flattens. The unfortunate pilot was not slammed into the ground, he fought the downdraft with pitch up rather than down and caused stall/fall.
Second we need to use a topographic map best or sectional adequate, to plan ingress and egress using drainage systems both large and small. Every inch of rain or snow melt from that area flows continuously down drainage to the Gulf of Mexico. Every turn must take, not 45 degree across ridges, but the ability to turn down drainage into account.
Ingress using all energy management will stay near the ridge downwind of the drainage up valley. Egress is a 1 g turn (regardless of bank angle) of sufficient bank angle to roll out over the middle of the drainage. Wind management in that this turn is into a headwind to reduce radius of turn. Energy management is that we release back pressure on the yoke to allow the safety feature of dynamic neural stability to prevent stall. The airplane cannot stall itself. A pilot pulling up on the yoke is required.
I have made the 10,000 passes in 65 hp trainers and have been unable to make the same pass in the 182 when wind direction and speed doesn't cooperate.
Thank you for all the information. Student pilot here close to getting my ppl. The Mts. are definitely daunting. Why were u able in trainers but not the 182?
@northerndelights3113 You have to look at the wind direction and speed ini reference to the ridge you are using for orographic ridge lift, if any. Without fairly strong wind across the ridge, the low powered airplanes with say 12 gal fuel cannot grind up with just engine power and make it to the next fuel stop. The 182 is fine that day. With a straight ridge, even range, N-S and strong and direct west headwind, there is no lifting edge to the wind direction. Yes, given time and good weather, the 182 can climb over lower terrain and then probably make it up high in say 50 knots headwind. With either airplane, we may have to cruise descend into the valley beyond the pass to save fuel.
@@northerndelights3113 Also understand that while orographic or thermal lift may be over 50% of the total energy available to the J-3 Cub, Aeronca 7AC, or Taylorcraft, it is only 25% of the total energy available to powerful airplanes like the 182. In a mountain wave, however, the easily 10,000 fpm updraft or downdraft is 90% of the energy available to any single engine airplane. Those old 65 HP trainers could be classified as motor gliders.
Took one free introductory flying lesson/school. Way too complicated for a simpleton like me! Mans gots to know his limitations! Bought a motorcycle instead.
I've been in two motorcycle wrecks. The air might be safer than the streets!
@@Flying_SnakesStatistically they're about the same. In both cases you can mitigate risks.
Way too much discussion of ridge lines and the data obtained, instead of delving into WHY the accident happened and lesson learned. You don't get into the meat of the matter until 8 minutes in. And then it might as well been ai. What a meaningless video
NTSB hasnt delivered their preliminary findings yet. Any "why" would only be speculation but will likely come out over time...especially with there being a survivor. As pilots we still like to know facts along the discovery path and that's all we have at this point. Just a small set of facts.
CFIT at 3200 fpm decent rate?!?
I’m not a fan of these early analysis with too little info to make informed judgement. I viewed this expecting more pertinent facts with learning opportunity, but it came up way short. Blancoliro/Juan Browne’s take on this incident is better and a target for AOPA to shoot for. (I think a quick retake to get the 182 model right would have made the video more professional.)
Did hear about this, let's check it out.
Engine failure looks like. She keep it under control to the crash site.
Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video.
Nope and nope
She was making for the meadows
Dude? You need a bow tie and a pointer. You were made for it.
Or better yet, just stay off camera.
Unfortunately for me, I have a similar body type, but I DEFINITELY wouldn’t leave the house with my shirt tucked in. RIP to the victims.
CAP needs to be disbanded
I'm curious why you think that?
Why?
That is a ridiculous post.