Very impressive POV video coupled with 3-D animation map overlays! Not to mention the great Idaho scenery. Miss all the great folks I got to know over the years at the IDA when I was the Alabama Aeronautics Director. Y'all put on one of the best NASAO conferences I've ever attended in 2015. And the fly fishing was a dream come true for this back east flatlander.
Amazing video. Love the use of video, audio, and virtual path. Very professional and easy to understand. Johnson Creek is on my bucket list. Way to go Idaho!
The Bryant house is advertised as being “noise sensitive,” yet this film encourages flying patterns around the field (and there is always the guy/gal who shoves the prop control in and flies the pattern at a noise generating RPM) and there is no mention of a reasonable traffic pattern altitude due to the terrain. Because of this, most assume the standard FAA TPA flown is 1,000’ AGL, which is a setup for being high and fast on final (I see it all the time). If you remember that the normal profile is 300’/mile, the second ranch on final is one mile, so if you begin at 1,000’ AGL you’ll be way past this…making, essentially, a straight in and/or you will be high and fast on final. If you fly a 500’ AGL downwind, with flaps and at a commensurate speed, you will be closer to that 300’/mile profile, on speed, configured, stable and eliminate the need for a go around…further contributing to the noise and traffic confusion over the airport. Because of the terrain, trees, etc of backcountry airports a standard traffic pattern is not always possible or logical. Also, there are those backcountry strips that make go arounds on short final impossible. Planning the proper descent profile and “pattern,” on speed and on profile is the key. The problem is really exacerbated when a “flock” of aircraft flying somewhere for breakfast, mis-plan their descent and arrival, and then contribute to the mid-air possibility in the vicinity of the airport by buzzing around while trying to get down. Descent planning: 300’/mile as a general guide, to be adjusted according to local conditions. Sometimes slowing down with half flaps will steepen the profile and eliminate what I call “mid-air circling” over the airport. There is much more to the process than what is described in this film. FWIW…
The Bryant family has lived there for generations. They had an airstrip that they gifted to the state so that we could build up the facilities and invite more people to enjoy visiting the backcountry. They have pilots in the family too and love aviation. The family allows use of the trail across their property to things like the famous hot tub. They are good neighbors, and we want to be too. We illustrate the preferred takeoff, landing, and go-around paths in this video to help you enjoy your visit to Johnson Creek without endangering the people that live there.
Can you share what I think will be a *very* short list of jets that you think have that capability? If you ask YT about [ eclipse jet 500 short final little cayman ] you can watch a 3 minute video of one of the few small jets then capable of doing it landing on a 3000' (including the 500' displaced threshold at the east end) runway. That runway is also unpaved, but it's hard packed, which might make it effectively as short as Johnson Creek's physicallly longer runway, but it's also at an elevation of 4 (four) feet. More importantly it's about another 300' to the first obstacle which is perhaps 60' high, and as long as you can get a few feet higher it's 13 miles and perhaps 15º left before you'll find anything else as high as you.
@@OccamsToaster it's a 1.1km grass strip, I assume a lot of jets could land there, especially if light, even if it's not entirely with comfortable margins. The nominal take off requirement for a PC-24 is only 3000 feet and I assume that's with various margins and that's a chunky fast jet. I'm guessing mustang can do it. Visionjet. Some of them with plenty of margin. There is a big difference between coming in textbook at the markers and not being in a hurry to slow down vs coming in in a near stall right at the threshold plopping onto grass and reducing speed early. And I assume it's plenty for many for take off, again especially if light. You might be pushing some limits, most aren't rated for grass so that might be a kind of reckless, but would it actually work, I'm quite sure it could. And yes little cayman is only 900 meters and to me it looked like the Eclipse wasn't even using brakes, just running the distance to the 'apron'. In an emergency it looked like it could have landed on 1/3 that length. You can't brake as fast on grass but an Eclipse can land at 69knots, even the slightest braking means it stops using runway. Say you get down to 40knots, at that speed it takes 53 seconds to traverse the 1.1km runway. Maybe you can see that an Eclipse could land there even without using brakes at all.
@@DanFrederiksen @DanFrederiksen Your first post, and a lot of the reply is about landing (where a crash is hopefully at something a good bit slower than rotation speed). There are probably other jets that aren't on your list that can also land in that distance with a fair margin, but I rashly assumed you'd want to take off also. The PC-24, like the PC-12, was designed for short field performance and doesn't need a lot of runway but even from the safety of my keyboard I wouldn't "assume that's with various margins." Pilatus' marketing material says 3090' to the ubiquitous 50' obstacle at MTOW, but that's for a dry, paved runway, ISA, at sea level. As for close to ideal, Cessna says to add 7% for a grass runways. Or 15% for some models. Maybe the rest are somewhere in between or maybe it's more than 15% for some. I don't know about the PC-24, but at 10% you'd theoretically clear a 50' obstacle right at the end the nominal runway length of 3400'. If it was ISA at sea level. If you'd like to give it a go it is, as they say, your funeral. And I think there's a very good chance it would be.
All this looping strikes me as irrational. Flying high to the side is to avoid canyons rising and closing on you, right? but that makes no sense in known terrain, it is simply self inflicted complexity. Any chance that's true?
@@DrT_MD apparently staying to the right is canyon flying rules, just like traffic on the road, but still makes no sense for landing. VFR, radio calls, ADS-B should be the normal ways to avoid collision. It should be within pilot means to not blindly do head on collisions. Call me crazy. Circling like buzzards introduces complexity and opportunity for blind collisions. It's wrong.
I watched the low wing high wing accident video that happened at jc years ago and wondered why you don't make it part of the landing regs to have highwing aircraft land further down the runway, low wing land close to the end,so they stay out of the low wing blind spots and don't end up being smashed from above by them.
Very beautiful area and probably a fun time…but there is absolutely nothing in me that wants to fly into these types of areas. Not throwing any shade. There are different types of pilots. Some fly fighters, some commercial, some backcountry, some do aerobatics, and some…(you get the point). I would love to go check this spot out, but just saying there is nothing in me that wants to fly to this spot. I’ll drive in or pass.
I believe the Bryant's owned the airport and donated it to the public. I think they can have some say on this since they set the terms of the donation. I think you can just appreciate that someone donated this to the public and show your appreciation by trying to keep the noise down for the donator.
I believe the Bryant's owned the airport and donated it to the public. I think they can have some say on this since they set the terms of the donation. I think you can just appreciate that someone donated this to the public and show your appreciation by trying to keep the noise down for the donator.
I don't know that side of the family, but if anything like the side I'm from they might be watching here, tracing N numbers, and selectively activating radar guided AA artillery.... 😂. I rather envy these folks because they had the good sense to come to Idaho more than a hundred years before my family started to.
Maybe, when there are less than 40 posts, the idiots should read them before posting about something that's already been answered or explained by somebody who was here before them. Even if it wasn't 100 years before them.
@@jimclark6605 in the meantime the oppressed groups are driving Audis, BMWs, Mercedes, Escalades, Lexus, Accuras, etc while taxpayers continue to throw money at them, but that’s ok . Working folk aren’t allowed to have hobbies they pay for out of their own pockets
@@arthurbrumagem3844 I guess you don't see the irony of whining about government expenditures that mostly aren't happening in response to somebody whining about actual government expenditures that almost exclusively benefit a very small minority?
😂😂😂😂 there's something called Jeppesen and it contains lots of approach procedures with a high degree of accuracy and now is much more as procedures are no longer in paper but to be used on electronic devices.
Great production! Thanks for posting. Jb.
Very impressive POV video coupled with 3-D animation map overlays! Not to mention the great Idaho scenery. Miss all the great folks I got to know over the years at the IDA when I was the Alabama Aeronautics Director. Y'all put on one of the best NASAO conferences I've ever attended in 2015. And the fly fishing was a dream come true for this back east flatlander.
Amazing video. Love the use of video, audio, and virtual path. Very professional and easy to understand. Johnson Creek is on my bucket list. Way to go Idaho!
A great place to fly in the summer. Plan on arriving and departing in the morning, and being on your pilot game for mountain flying.
This video is another reason why I happily pay my Idaho aircraft registration fee. Worth every penny.
Great video. Please put out more of these! Thanks!
I second this motion. I'm a pilot but not an Idaho backcountry one. I always enjoy the Idaho scenery.
Great video. I love watching planes come into this place.
i loved every minute of this!
This is a very good video and very informative. Subscribed just because of this video!!
The Bryant house is advertised as being “noise sensitive,” yet this film encourages flying patterns around the field (and there is always the guy/gal who shoves the prop control in and flies the pattern at a noise generating RPM) and there is no mention of a reasonable traffic pattern altitude due to the terrain. Because of this, most assume the standard FAA TPA flown is 1,000’ AGL, which is a setup for being high and fast on final (I see it all the time).
If you remember that the normal profile is 300’/mile, the second ranch on final is one mile, so if you begin at 1,000’ AGL you’ll be way past this…making, essentially, a straight in and/or you will be high and fast on final. If you fly a 500’ AGL downwind, with flaps and at a commensurate speed, you will be closer to that 300’/mile profile, on speed, configured, stable and eliminate the need for a go around…further contributing to the noise and traffic confusion over the airport.
Because of the terrain, trees, etc of backcountry airports a standard traffic pattern is not always possible or logical. Also, there are those backcountry strips that make go arounds on short final impossible. Planning the proper descent profile and “pattern,” on speed and on profile is the key. The problem is really exacerbated when a “flock” of aircraft flying somewhere for breakfast, mis-plan their descent and arrival, and then contribute to the mid-air possibility in the vicinity of the airport by buzzing around while trying to get down. Descent planning: 300’/mile as a general guide, to be adjusted according to local conditions. Sometimes slowing down with half flaps will steepen the profile and eliminate what I call “mid-air circling” over the airport.
There is much more to the process than what is described in this film. FWIW…
I agree. That was always my pet peeve when checking out students who were taught by other CFIs. Full fine on final please. Minimum noise.
Nice video.
Well done!
My favorite flying
So what's the story on the bryant house??
The Bryant family has lived there for generations. They had an airstrip that they gifted to the state so that we could build up the facilities and invite more people to enjoy visiting the backcountry. They have pilots in the family too and love aviation. The family allows use of the trail across their property to things like the famous hot tub. They are good neighbors, and we want to be too. We illustrate the preferred takeoff, landing, and go-around paths in this video to help you enjoy your visit to Johnson Creek without endangering the people that live there.
Do any small jets ever land there? seems to me they should easily be able to.
Can you share what I think will be a *very* short list of jets that you think have that capability? If you ask YT about [ eclipse jet 500 short final little cayman ] you can watch a 3 minute video of one of the few small jets then capable of doing it landing on a 3000' (including the 500' displaced threshold at the east end) runway. That runway is also unpaved, but it's hard packed, which might make it effectively as short as Johnson Creek's physicallly longer runway, but it's also at an elevation of 4 (four) feet. More importantly it's about another 300' to the first obstacle which is perhaps 60' high, and as long as you can get a few feet higher it's 13 miles and perhaps 15º left before you'll find anything else as high as you.
@@OccamsToaster it's a 1.1km grass strip, I assume a lot of jets could land there, especially if light, even if it's not entirely with comfortable margins. The nominal take off requirement for a PC-24 is only 3000 feet and I assume that's with various margins and that's a chunky fast jet. I'm guessing mustang can do it. Visionjet. Some of them with plenty of margin. There is a big difference between coming in textbook at the markers and not being in a hurry to slow down vs coming in in a near stall right at the threshold plopping onto grass and reducing speed early. And I assume it's plenty for many for take off, again especially if light. You might be pushing some limits, most aren't rated for grass so that might be a kind of reckless, but would it actually work, I'm quite sure it could. And yes little cayman is only 900 meters and to me it looked like the Eclipse wasn't even using brakes, just running the distance to the 'apron'. In an emergency it looked like it could have landed on 1/3 that length. You can't brake as fast on grass but an Eclipse can land at 69knots, even the slightest braking means it stops using runway. Say you get down to 40knots, at that speed it takes 53 seconds to traverse the 1.1km runway. Maybe you can see that an Eclipse could land there even without using brakes at all.
@@DanFrederiksen @DanFrederiksen Your first post, and a lot of the reply is about landing (where a crash is hopefully at something a good bit slower than rotation speed). There are probably other jets that aren't on your list that can also land in that distance with a fair margin, but I rashly assumed you'd want to take off also. The PC-24, like the PC-12, was designed for short field performance and doesn't need a lot of runway but even from the safety of my keyboard I wouldn't "assume that's with various margins." Pilatus' marketing material says 3090' to the ubiquitous 50' obstacle at MTOW, but that's for a dry, paved runway, ISA, at sea level.
As for close to ideal, Cessna says to add 7% for a grass runways. Or 15% for some models. Maybe the rest are somewhere in between or maybe it's more than 15% for some. I don't know about the PC-24, but at 10% you'd theoretically clear a 50' obstacle right at the end the nominal runway length of 3400'. If it was ISA at sea level.
If you'd like to give it a go it is, as they say, your funeral. And I think there's a very good chance it would be.
@@OccamsToaster dramatic one, which parameter did you forget?
@@DanFrederiksen Feel free to tell me, but I wont take it seriously if it's just another assumption.
Thanks!
All this looping strikes me as irrational. Flying high to the side is to avoid canyons rising and closing on you, right? but that makes no sense in known terrain, it is simply self inflicted complexity. Any chance that's true?
Seems designed to allow you to see and be seen by landing/departing traffic. It’s not really that complex.
@@DrT_MD apparently staying to the right is canyon flying rules, just like traffic on the road, but still makes no sense for landing. VFR, radio calls, ADS-B should be the normal ways to avoid collision. It should be within pilot means to not blindly do head on collisions. Call me crazy. Circling like buzzards introduces complexity and opportunity for blind collisions. It's wrong.
I watched the low wing high wing accident video that happened at jc years ago and wondered why you don't make it part of the landing regs to have highwing aircraft land further down the runway, low wing land close to the end,so they stay out of the low wing blind spots and don't end up being smashed from above by them.
Very beautiful area and probably a fun time…but there is absolutely nothing in me that wants to fly into these types of areas. Not throwing any shade. There are different types of pilots. Some fly fighters, some commercial, some backcountry, some do aerobatics, and some…(you get the point). I would love to go check this spot out, but just saying there is nothing in me that wants to fly to this spot. I’ll drive in or pass.
The 206
😮👏👏👏👏
Can some aviator with "that extra cash" not just buy out the Bryants and eliminate that unnecessary restriction?
What business plan would do you have to persuade someone to do that ? ROI?
@@jonasbaine3538 what do you think?
I have to assume the Bryants like living there.
Yeah Don't touch those trees at the end of the runway.....
Maybe the Bryant's need to suck it up or move..
I believe the Bryant's owned the airport and donated it to the public. I think they can have some say on this since they set the terms of the donation.
I think you can just appreciate that someone donated this to the public and show your appreciation by trying to keep the noise down for the donator.
I believe the Bryant's owned the airport and donated it to the public. I think they can have some say on this since they set the terms of the donation.
I think you can just appreciate that someone donated this to the public and show your appreciation by trying to keep the noise down for the donator.
I don't know that side of the family, but if anything like the side I'm from they might be watching here, tracing N numbers, and selectively activating radar guided AA artillery.... 😂. I rather envy these folks because they had the good sense to come to Idaho more than a hundred years before my family started to.
Maybe, when there are less than 40 posts, the idiots should read them before posting about something that's already been answered or explained by somebody who was here before them. Even if it wasn't 100 years before them.
Wiley , Parker and Morgan fins up , Fruitcakes
Get rid of the music please.
Personally, I just come straight on in and tell everyone that doesn't want to get hit by my plane to get the hell out of my way.
I love that Idaho maintain airports for the minority who can afford a plane.
Pay your taxes.
Pilots pay fuel taxes and fees to states and the feds to support these airports. Better than paying taxes to support illegals
You're not from here are you? Lol
You can buy a used aircraft for about the price of a new car. You'd find that most pilots are not "rich folks".
@@jimclark6605 in the meantime the oppressed groups are driving Audis, BMWs, Mercedes, Escalades, Lexus, Accuras, etc while taxpayers continue to throw money at them, but that’s ok . Working folk aren’t allowed to have hobbies they pay for out of their own pockets
@@arthurbrumagem3844 I guess you don't see the irony of whining about government expenditures that mostly aren't happening in response to somebody whining about actual government expenditures that almost exclusively benefit a very small minority?
😂😂😂😂 there's something called Jeppesen and it contains lots of approach procedures with a high degree of accuracy and now is much more as procedures are no longer in paper but to be used on electronic devices.