172 down Hope BC ???

[challenger_nami]

Yes. The ceiling got to its lowest around the time of crash.

And the reported ceiling probably did not even include the lower layer of cloud in the vicinity of the airport.
.
And that’s the dysfunctional CYHE AWOS for you.



.

[ahramin]

I told my students when approaching the Valley you must be able to maintain 5500 or 6500 ft ( dependent on direction of flight) and at least 500 ft below the cloud deck and see at least 10 miles ahead with no precipitation in the area.

I'm a little shocked at this comment BPF. Are you suggesting that you need more terrain clearance when flying Westbound? Or that the terrain rises or falls 1000' depending on which way the aircraft is pointed ?

[iflyforpie]

VFR cruising orders do not apply below 3000 AGL

I always flew even altitudes. No IFR traffic anywhere below 10,000 feet and perhaps avoid the +500 footers when I was reversing course doing survey work or scenics.

Lots of times you are constrained by terrain and cloud ceiling to an “inappropriate” altitude. Who cares? Just stay clear of both and you’ll be ok. More risk of CFIT than a mid air in that situation.. and yes.. I’ve passed by helicopters going the opposite way through a narrow pass at the same altitude.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I always try to fly Odd altitudes when going East and Even when going West even if the patch of ground directly under me may not be 3000 ft below. On one not great day I met a guy going West bound at 5500 ft right in the middle of the narrowest bit near the slide. There was room for the guy to be at 6000 and to favour the right side so personally I think that was just ignorant

[ahramin]

I always try to fly Odd altitudes when going East and Even when going West even if the patch of ground directly under me may not be 3000 ft below. On one not great day I met a guy going West bound at 5500 ft right in the middle of the narrowest bit near the slide. There was room for the guy to be at 6000 and to favour the right side so personally I think that was just ignorant

Uh ... so you stand by your statement that weather minima changes depending on which direction you are going? I'm disappointed. I'd expect that kind of training from those instructors we see in the lower mainland teaching mountain flying courses without any mountain flying experience but not from you.

When flying mountain valleys, cruising altitudes is certainly on the list of considerations but I can't think of anything lower priority. It has no bearing once weather starts to be a factor.

[Big Pistons Forever]

When flying mountain valleys, cruising altitudes is certainly on the list of considerations but I can't think of anything lower priority. It has no bearing once weather starts to be a factor.

For experienced pilots, absolutely cruising altitudes is just one of many considerations, low time pilots flying in unforgiving terrain need to give themselves every break. I have no problem with a newbie turning back because they can’t maintain 6500 West bound.

If that offends you then I guess we will just have agree to disagree.

[challenger_nami]

Would anyone here drive on the opposite side of the highway at highway speed? ... I sure hope not.

In my opinion, it’s very unwise and inconsiderate not to respect those cruise altitudes based on direction of travel just because they are not convenient. They serve a very important purpose: They reduce the risk of Mid Air Collision for 2 aircraft in cruise by more than 50%.

That’s specially important in a mountainous area when you are boxed in a canyon. You would not want to deal with another oncoming aircraft at the same altitude coming at you at 100 knots minimum. Even if you see the other aircraft, you probably can’t descend much because of the terrain below. And you probably can’t deviate left and right because of
Mountains on both sides. And you probably can’t climb fast enough due to aircraft performance limitations.

If everyone respect their cruising altitudes, the two VFR aircraft just clear each other by 1000 ft which is plenty OR 500 ft if on of them is IFR.

Skies everywhere are crowded with aircraft. SEE & AVOID is no longer adequate enough to keep separation. Also, many VFR pilots are not proficient in properly SENDING/RECEIVING position reports over the radio.

Maintaining The proper Cruising Altitude based on direction of travel is a very effective method of mitigating the risk of mid Air Collision in Cruise.

[ahramin]

Would anyone here think that highway rules are relevant to the discussion? I sure hope not but proof by analogy can be awfully tempting despite being completely useless.

Cruising altitudes do not exist at and below 3000' AGL. Easy to forget but true nonetheless. There is a reason for that, and anyone trying to get people to follow rules that do not exist should think about the reasons for that lack of existence.

In my opinion it is unwise to give advice about something without having any experience in it. Anyone who has flown in the mountains in poor weather knows that if weather is a factor:

1. You aren't going to be above 3000' AGL, and

2. You will be climbing and descending as the weather and terrain permit.

Even above 3000' AGL, there aren't any cruising altitudes when changing altitude.

I just hired a pilot this week to deliver an aircraft across the coastal and rocky mountains and after looking at the weather last night he asked if he could delay the flight to Sunday since it would be better. Conditions are ok today but in the upslope areas around Hope and Castlegar it's likely to be widespread cloud and possibly impassable, while Sunday looks a little drier so the flight will be faster and cheaper. The new owner is not in a hurry so we agreed and everyone is happy that everyone knows what they are doing. If someone told me that they couldn't fly on a given day because the clouds are too low for the direction of flight, they'd be fired instantly.

By all means fly within your limits but if your decision making is that poor, your limits should be no cloud below 13 000'. I know this sounds harsh but this is a sport / hobby / profession that can have serious consequences. It doesn't always end up with some unimportant metal bent and a few scrapes and bruises. Sometimes it ends up with 3 or more dead passengers. Pilots should take that responsibility seriously and judge their decision making skills accordingly.

[challenger_nami]

Would anyone here think that highway rules are relevant to the discussion? I sure hope not but proof by analogy can be awfully tempting despite being completely useless.

Cruising altitudes do not exist at and below 3000' AGL. Easy to forget but true nonetheless. There is a reason for that, and anyone trying to get people to follow rules that do not exist should think about the reasons for that lack of existence.

In my opinion it is unwise to give advice about something without having any experience in it. Anyone who has flown in the mountains in poor weather knows that if weather is a factor:

1. You aren't going to be above 3000' AGL, and

2. You will be climbing and descending as the weather and terrain permit.

Even above 3000' AGL, there aren't any cruising altitudes when changing altitude.

I just hired a pilot this week to deliver an aircraft across the coastal and rocky mountains and after looking at the weather last night he asked if he could delay the flight to Sunday since it would be better. Conditions are ok today but in the upslope areas around Hope and Castlegar it's likely to be widespread cloud and possibly impassable, while Sunday looks a little drier so the flight will be faster and cheaper. The new owner is not in a hurry so we agreed and everyone is happy that everyone knows what they are doing. If someone told me that they couldn't fly on a given day because the clouds are too low for the direction of flight, they'd be fired instantly.

By all means fly within your limits but if your decision making is that poor, your limits should be no cloud below 13 000'. I know this sounds harsh but this is a sport / hobby / profession that can have serious consequences. It doesn't always end up with some unimportant metal bent and a few scrapes and bruises. Sometimes it ends up with 3 or more dead passengers. Pilots should take that responsibility seriously and judge their decision making skills accordingly.

I don’t know where to start responding to your post. So I ll go at it one point at a time.
So here we go.

Would anyone here think that highway rules are relevant to the discussion? I sure hope not but proof by analogy can be awfully tempting despite being completely useless.

I think you are deflecting.
But Why would highway rules not be a valid analogy?

Cruising altitudes do not exist at and below 3000' AGL. Easy to forget but true nonetheless. There is a reason for that, and anyone trying to get people to follow rules that do not exist should think about the reasons for that lack of existence.

No one is trying to force people to maintain the mentioned directional cruise altitudes below 3000’ AGL.

In my opinion it is unwise to give advice about something without having any experience in it. Anyone who has flown in the mountains in poor weather knows that if weather is a factor:

1. You aren't going to be above 3000' AGL, and

2. You will be climbing and descending as the weather and terrain permit.

If you are in the mountains, SPECIALLY around Hope (CYHE),in poor weather and you are forced to be below 3000’ AGL, you put yourself in a very bad situation probably just short of an emergency.

and YES, You should do anything you can to ensure you can get out of that situation. And as you mentioned, when safety is at risk and below 3000’ AGL, Directional Cruising Altitudes do not apply,

Even above 3000' AGL, there aren't any cruising altitudes when changing altitude.

I don’t understand what you meant by that. Of course, when you are changing altitudes, there are no cruise altitudes.... well you are not cruising, you are changing altitude.

I just hired a pilot this week to deliver an aircraft across the coastal and rocky mountains and after looking at the weather last night he asked if he could delay the flight to Sunday since it would be better. Conditions are ok today but in the upslope areas around Hope and Castlegar it's likely to be widespread cloud and possibly impassable, while Sunday looks a little drier so the flight will be faster and cheaper. The new owner is not in a hurry so we agreed and everyone is happy that everyone knows what they are doing. If someone told me that they couldn't fly on a given day because the clouds are too low for the direction of flight, they'd be fired instantly.

conditions are ok today

CONDITIONS ARE OK TODAY???
Please have a look below at the ATTACHED SCREEN CAPTURES of CYHE (Hope) Airport Camera, taken 26 Sep 2020 at around 2100 ZULU.
Please tell every one you call that visibility and those clouds OK for flying VFR around those mountains toward Castlegar.

• It seems like you believe you did a huge favour to your pilot by not firing him for not flying today.

• And It sounds like if your customer ( the new owner ) was in a rush to have his airplane sooner, you would actually force your pilot to fly through the mountains today, or risk being fired instantly. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

My suggestion to your pilot would be to quit working for you.
And I ask you to hire me, so you can INSTANTLY fire me when I refuse to go on a flight due to the weather and cruising altitude, as you promised above.

Then I would respectfully take your business to the court and Transport Canada and see if we can make aviation safer by having your operation shut down for disregarding the rules which are meant to keep everyone safe.

It doesn't always end up with some unimportant metal bent and a few scrapes and bruises. Sometimes it ends up with 3 or more dead passengers. Pilots should take that responsibility seriously and judge their decision making skills accordingly.

And Yes. I fully agree with you.
All of us, pilots and aviation company owners and operators, should respect the rules and not try to push the envelope and bend the rules. We also shall not force our employees to push the envelope or risk being fired, instantly.

If we don’t respect safety rules, that’s when airplanes end up in the trees, as the airplane in the original post did. Luckily there was no loss of life in this case. However, now General Aviation insurance premiums will rise because of this accident and the many others similar to this one. These types of accidents can be prevented.


Also, as one of the moderators of this forum you have the added personal responsibility of promoting safety, and sadly you are doing the opposite.

I respectfully hope you reconsider.


.

[ahramin]

Lets get our discussion straight Challenger_nami since you seem to be drifting away from the point under discussion.

I was responding to this comment:

I told my students when approaching the Valley you must be able to maintain 5500 or 6500 ft ( dependent on direction of flight

When flying mountain valleys, cruising altitudes is certainly on the list of considerations but I can't think of anything lower priority. It has no bearing once weather starts to be a factor.

to which you said

In my opinion, it’s very unwise and inconsiderate not to respect those cruise altitudes based on direction of travel just because they are not convenient. They serve a very important purpose: They reduce the risk of Mid Air Collision for 2 aircraft in cruise by more than 50%.

That’s specially important in a mountainous area when you are boxed in a canyon.

But now you are saying

when safety is at risk and below 3000’ AGL, Directional Cruising Altitudes do not apply

So I'm glad we agree. It's possible that you came into this discussion without realizing that the comment I was responding to was about weather minima for going through a certain route, obviously that's going to be below 3000' AGL at the highest terrain.

As for the weather today, the pilot in question said today might be ok based on the forecast yesterday. The flight was already scrubbed so I haven't checked the weather today. I can see how my comment could be construed to mean that I have checked the weather today and concluded that it's ok. I haven't, my apologies.

The highest terrain along his proposed route of flight is 4350'. I wouldn't go through there at less than 5400' ASL. If someone told me a 6000' ceiling is fine to go through that route Eastbound but not Westbound then yeah, they'd be fired. If you want to charge $500 a day to move a Cessna for me you need better decision making abilities than that.

Lastly analogies are useful for helping someone understand something they are having trouble with. An analogy doesn't explain what is going on and it certainly doesn't prove a point. It's obvious that no one here is suggesting driving at highway speeds down the left side of the highway, just as it should be obvious that this does not apply to a one way street, or an aircraft.

[patter]

It was really ugly on the Coq today and at Hope today. I was so low and slow....
In around 2100

[challenger_nami]

I Personally absolutely believe in what Big Pistons is saying here:

I told my students when approaching the Valley you must be able to maintain 5500 or 6500 ft ( dependent on direction of flight

I was completely in the loop of the conversation. I read what you wrote here and I slightly disagreed with the low priority angle of it, but I was not really responding to you.

When flying mountain valleys, cruising altitudes is certainly on the list of considerations but I can't think of anything lower priority. It has no bearing once weather starts to be a factor.

I indirectly made the following comments to the gentleman who was saying he always flies even numbers, regardless of the direction.

In my opinion, it’s very unwise and inconsiderate not to respect those cruise altitudes based on direction of travel just because they are not convenient. They serve a very important purpose: They reduce the risk of Mid Air Collision for 2 aircraft in cruise by more than 50%.

That’s specially important in a mountainous area when you are boxed in a canyon.

I stick with to my comments above. Cruising Altitudes are important.

Many aviation restrictions get eased OR go out the window when the safety of flight is in question. However it’s important not to Flight plan based on that ease of restrictions when you are on the ground. Those shall only be used in the cockpit when dealing with an unforeseen potentially dangerous situation.

The Direction Based Cruise Altitudes are based on the one way streets and Highways, so I still stick to the analogy.

I am glad we straightened this up Ahramin.

[challenger_nami]

Here are my suggestions for someone who is planning to fly through the BC Mountains around CYHE for the first time. Due your due diligence and consult with an approved flight instructor.

Proper weather and flight planning is the key to having a safe flight in that route.
. Review all the GFAs available at the time of your flight planning and flight itself, and understand them.
. Get a proper Weather briefing from Kamloops Flight Information.
. Know the wind direction and intensity, and how that affects your flight ie: turbulence
. Look at CYHE (hope) airport weather Camera, and have a clear understanding of what you are looking at.
. Don’t rely on CYHE (HOPE) METAR. it’s an AWOS and like other AWOS systems, it’s only reporting what it sees above a small cross section of its sensor ... it’s really really inaccurate, in my opinion.

My suggestion to Nav Canada: deactivate the AWOS as it can be very misleading. Instead, invest in a better airport weather camera system.

. Have LOTS of extra fuel.

. If you are planning to get fuel at an airport along the route of flight, be sure to check the notams for Airport Being Open and Fuel being available when you get there.
. Shed as much as payload weight as you can



Flying East Through the mountains from HOPE eastbound:

5500’ should be tried by an experienced pilot who is familiar with the area in a more powerful aircraft which is loaded at less than 50% of the max payload ... in case the aircraft gets caught in the downdrafts associated with the mountains.

For someone who is not familiar with the area,or in a less powerful engine or heavily loaded airplane, or with less overall flying experience 7500’ is more favorable as that puts the aircraft above the height of the mountain ranges and their associated turbulence and downdrafts.

The above are my suggestions. Due your due diligence and consult with an approved flight instructor.
With proper planning, it can be a safe and enjoyable flight.

[pelmet]

Just found this TSB brief in my In Box

Occurrence No.: A57P0001 Occurrence Type: ACCIDENT
Class: CLASS 5 Reportable Type:
Date: 1957-04-24 Time: 00:00:00 UTC
Region of
Responsibility:
PACIFIC
Location: 27.00 Nautical miles NNW From CYHE - HOPE
Country: CANADA Province: BRITISH COLUMBIA
Ground Injuries: Fatal: 0 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 Unknown: 0
---------- Aircraft 1 ----------
Registration: C-FIDP Operator:
Manufacturer: RYAN
AERONAUTICAL
Operator Type: PRIVATE
Model: NAVION CARS Sub Part: RECREATIONAL AVIATION
Injuries: Fatal: 2 Minor: 0
Serious: 0 None: 0
Unknown: 0
Occurrence Summary:
CF-IDP, a privately operated Ryan Aeronautical Navion aircraft was conducting a local flight from
Vancouver International Airport (CYVR), BC with one pilot and one passenger on board. The
aircraft collided with terrain 600' below the summit of Mount Breakenridge. Both occupants on
board were fatally injured and the aircraft was destroyed. There was no fire.


Fly safely.

[7ECA]

And what does an accident that occurred in 1957 - that is 63 years ago, have to do with the rather markedly questionable decision making displayed by this 172 pilot?

[pelmet]

And what does an accident that occurred in 1957 - that is 63 years ago, have to do with the rather markedly questionable decision making displayed by this 172 pilot?

I’m sorry about causing such concern for you. I shouldn’t have assumed how obvious it would be in a thread discussing the hazards of CFIT near Hope that you would not realize that this was another CFIT near Hope as was highlighted in bold.

Therefore, I will also add it to a thread I started recently that is even more appropriate.

Apologies once again for the confusion.

[karmutzen]

Two different accidents, connected by the weather theme. Hitting terrain 600’ below a peak suggests inadvertent IMC and an attempted climb, CFIT. Brushing trees on an attempted 180 is delayed recognition of turn radius in rising terrain. You could relate both to mountain training and experience. I recently went through there with the AWOS calling 600/2 (in a helicopter, wouldn’t have wasted my time with an airplane). That’s a ceiling of 600’ looking straight up with possibly/probably lower stratus, and ground viz of 2 miles. You won’t have 2 miles at 600, might not even have one mile.

Both incidents are worth discussing for their respective insights into dynamic mountain decision making.

[challenger_nami]

HOPE (CYHE) AWOS is so dysfunctional. Let me paraphrase it: CYHE AWOS, is like any other AWOS and is limited to the small cross section of sky above its sensor, which is not representative of the conditions in the other quadrants.

AWOS works well In the rest of Canada where there are not much mountains, but not in CYHE. due to the CYHEs location in close proximity to deadly terrain, the inherent inaccuracy of the AWOS gets magnified tenfold. Often, the CYHE AWOS gives better than actual weather information and a false sense of security to the pilots who are unfamiliar with the area.

It might be a good idea for NavCanada to remove the AWOS system at CYHE and install more accurate Weather Cameras there.

[rookiepilot]

It might be a good idea for NavCanada to remove the AWOS system and install more Weather Cameras.

Cameras are a very good idea.

[cncpc]

Yep. Great idea.

AWOS? You might as well ask a cow.