The obstacles at Burley Airport and the (mis) management of obstacle clearances are going to be a BIG part of this investigation, this is a fast moving story impacting smaller airports all around the country. Updates as they become available. Jb.
I think this rwy should be X'ed... until the issue gets fixed, and unless the business cooperates, getting the installations out of the way means lawsuits, planning, permission, construction, re-certifying...
@@cruisemissle87 which was there 1st, the runway or the buildings?? If the runway was there 1st then the planners need to retire and hand things over to some competent people. Unbelievable this is
Agree, Juan. But if arguing about technicalities for 25 years hasn't fixed the problem maybe at least they will get a little 'now someone has died' shaming time. Apparently losing federal funding due to the FAA deeming the airport unsafe was not enough. From the local TV station KMTV story about 14 months ago: The J.R. Jack Simplot Airport in Burley will close at some point in time when it can no longer be maintained, according to Burley city administrator Mark Mitton. This is a story KMVT has followed for five years, and in 2021 this municipal airport’s future is still uncertain. “They have been going to move this airport for 25 years,” said Kevin Gebhart the airport manager. Since its founding in the early 1900s, the airport has provided general aviation to local businesses and is also currently a location for Life Flight. “I think the community does not realize sometimes how much they need the airport,” Gebhart said “They should be involved.” Nearly three years ago, they lost their Federal Aviation Administration funding because it did not meet their safety standards due to short runways. The airport cannot expand because it is landlocked between the Snake River and train tracks. The best option for them is to create an entirely new airport in a different location, something they need F.A.A funding for, and to run the airport the city of Burley is seeking to establish an airport authority. “An airport is vital to all the transportation to all the business especially the larger ones who provide a lot of the jobs,” said Gebhart. Currently, state law requires three counties to join together to form an airport authority, however, Minidoka and Cassia do not have another adjoining county that does not already have an airport. Last year, the city of Burley attempted to change the legislation to allow two counties to form the airport authority, but it got stalled. now they are hoping it will be reintroduced. “I mean it is a simple change to legislation,” said Mitton. “We are still hoping it can get through it’s still early in the legislative session.” If the legislation does get passed it would then make its way to the voters who would have to decide if a temporary increase to property tax is worth a new airport.
My initial reaction upon learning about the accident was that she prob just lost the airplane due to task saturation but on review here Juan, I tend to agree that there's simply too many issues in play with this approach to ask a pilot in these conditions to maneuver safely. I'm not even sure I like an approach into this field after viewing this piece. I think her father is correct in commenting that the airfield approach structure is unsafe. Sad story, RIP to this fine young woman.
All the FAA has to do is shut down all the approaches and make it a "VFR Only" airfield or designing a new approach to the other runway. The approach into 20 is unsafe with those obstacles, but it TERPS out from a FAA standpoint.
Juan, Thanks again for covering this accident. Brittney was laid to rest yesterday and sadly I wasn’t able to attend her funeral as I’m in training right now working on my ATP/Type on the EMB175. Either way, super valuable information! I’ll be keeping a keen eye on your channel for any updates. It was a rough week following the accident and I got a lot of support from your followers! Stay safe pilots! Juan is doing a great service to our industry. Learning from others either good or not is vital. I made a mistake in the sim today, and I’m glad I did because it allowed myself and class mates to learn from it. Regardless of the final FAA report of this accident there is always something to learn from it. Stay humble, keep learning because that’s what a safe pilot will do!
@@neemtreebark ..NO ‘ILS’..as Juan has stated..it’s an “uncontrolled” field, NO lights. ZERO monitoring..no tower, no ATC. YOU’RE ON YOUR OWN essentially.
In the last month 12 food processing plants have either been destroyed by fire, mysterious explosions and plane crashes into the facilities. Something doesn’t sound right.
Thinking of this again, what is the alternate plan if approach is below minimums. What does package delivery organizations alternate? I’d fly back to origin airport, unload packages into a van and drive the stuff to destination. It’s a two hour drive.
As a casual aviation observer, I do not understand how the authorities allowed this obviously hazardous configuration of airstrip and factory structures.
Spuds are big business in Idaho. Local authorities go along with what Big Tater wants. They could have built their plant elsewhere and taken the jobs that went with it.
@@trek520rider2 The plant could be there, so long as the towers weren't right in line with the runway. The FAA (apparently local zoning bodies who failed to follow FAA regs) totally fell down on the job they are tasked with.
@@earlaagaard8175 "Bingo"? For what? Heights of structures adjacent to the airport should be in compliance with FAR 77. It is up to the local building code agency to produce a zoning map with the height restrictions.
That steam tower directly on the extended centerline makes that approach ridiculous. I am sure locals have been saying for years that it is only a matter of time. What a tragic loss.
Man-made obstacles like this sure are ridiculous. No pilot or person should be at risk for such infrastructure near a runway, especially without ILS. All airports need to be reviewed now and I agree a lawsuit may begin proceedings.
@@sw8741 My guess is both have been there a long time. Just that both were smaller at the start and it wasn't much of an issue. He said there was an alternate more capable runway "just a few miles" away. Not sure how far that is but maybe they should have been using that instead. Especially in poor conditions.
If the steam tower wasn’t there, on her trajectory, she would have hit the roof of the building. Let’s stop the eulogizing of this woman…She hit a known obstacle that is almost 500’ below the altitude that she was supposed to maintain up to that point that EVERYONE else has been missing for years now, so let’s get real.
@@marlow769 From the air it looked like a real hazard. But he also showed the view from the road by the river, from there the plant looks like a complete non-issue. And did he say 60'? If he's right about the ladder, she must have been at 50'. That's low enough she could have just as well clipped a tree.
From being a truck driver I can understand the pressures to deliver. 99% of the time you are perceived as being overly cautious and looked down upon by your superiors for saying no it's too dangerous. I can't imagine being a pilot under these same pressures.
Almost 30 yrs driving a truck...That pressure is there ALWAYS. I have it a lot less now but I still feel it sometimes. When I was new, its made me feel like a failure when you can't hit your slot.
I used to drive OTR and dedicated. Made a life change 4 years ago and now I have 1,300hrs flight time and am an instructor as well as commercial pilot. The stresses are wild. Flying in crap weather, single pilot, trying to get the job done. There is no such thing as not getting a package somewhere on time due to weather. Cargo pilots (that are still alive) are some of the best pilots out there.
My boss usedd to ring every 20 mins- "are you there yet? Where you headed next? what time will be there? Where you headed after that? what time will you get there?". Used to drive me nuts.
Great review of this issue. Sadly there are more approaches just like this all over the US. The DPE who did my instrument check ride pulled up the KUNV ILS to 24 and asked me some questions about the obstacles on that plate. There are two different airports with runways in almost the same direction with a tower between them. A pilot broke out, thought he had the right airport, didn’t, tried to correct and hit the tower between them. Instrument flying is tough, and tougher single pilot. God bless this pilots family. I can’t imagine the grief.
There's a commercial runway somewhere that has a four or five story parking garage jutting up right into the flight path less than 500 yards from the edge of the runway. Or maybe it was a hotel or office building. But it made it into a tv show about the world's most dangerous airports because the physical obstacle presents an increased risk to every passenger plane that lands on that runway. Sometimes these things are placed in such a precise and symmetrical position in relation to the runway that it almost seems like an act of passive aggression on the part of whoever put it there. Like the property owner is mad at the airport or something. Almost.
@@PhilLesh69 lol, any megatropolis airport has buildings growing up around it like weeds. At Toronto, I could get on the roof top of the hotel where we stayed and tell what brand tires the planes had on them when they went over.
@@PhilLesh69 San Diego, approach from the east TOWARDS THE BAY at the Other end of that runway, low over the slope of the big hill, on a visual approach (stabilized) at 180 to 160mph (heavy) it's about 5 sec. before the wheels are on the runway.
My question is, who authorized the placement of such obstacles, right in line with the runway? One presumes the runway was there before the processing plant, but either way, the stacks and towers of the plant are in no way compatible with that airport environment.
It doesn’t actually look that bad. Minimums would keep you well clear of the obstacles. Sorry to say, but she deviated below mins without having anything in sight. Pretty clear to this professional pilot.
I did one of my cross countries in there for my PPL, but I approached from the other direction. Man, it really had a weird sight picture to it. I put my wheels on the ground, but too far down the runway. Had to go around. Was more patient the second time and set myself up for a longer final. That worked better. I spoke about this crash with the head of the Civil Air Patrol here in Salt Lake. He hadn't heard about the crash, but when he heard me mention Burley, he immediately said, "That airport just looks wonky going in there. And there are these stacks that come up in your view."
It doesn’t matter which was there first the stack or the airport. The stack should not be there and or not allowed to stay there ! Somebody and probably many others missed the ball here or may have had other $ things on their minds .
There are other factors at play as well. The Gem building is in the city of Heyburn, while the airport is in the city of Burley. Gem is one of the very few major employers in that little town, so the city does everything it can to keep them happy. Directly across the river in Burley one of the major issues is that developers have been wanting that airport property for decades, and the aviation community has been fighting to keep it away from them, of course. So even though that approach is awful and getting worse, pilots really don't want to make a big stink about it since there's already been so much clamor to delete the airport. Everyone knows how bad it is but the aviators don't want to make waves and give anyone more ammunition. That was my home airport until I moved away forty years ago - A lot of those obstacles have been added since then and it's far more difficult than it was, especially in bad weather.
4/24/22...another great analysis...this video has pics while on glide slope (3.75°) for runway 20 at minimum altitude. Pic taken in full daylight showing smoke stack (directly in-line with runway center line) billowing steam with exhaust emphasing (this date) a strong R-2-L crosswind...as steam column is almost 90° to left. Juan you are providing very understandable analysis & explanations of the step-by-step method needed to fly & have full awareness of flight path surroundings. If visuals not clear or problematic, then pilot judgement must take the most safe action (by being judgement flexible) & go-around & go to the (planned) alternate field...or closest runway with ILS instrument approach...or abort this location & return home. Juan yur videos will surely help younger pilots become more aware of hazards & have the confidence/judgement to exercise flexibility-of-thought to avoid high risk situations...even if it means being late or landing at an unscheduled airport. Better late...than never...✈
"Gem State Processing is busy around the clock, all year long, cleaning, slicing, dicing, shredding and drying potatoes." So steam cloud isn't seasonal........"The Burley Airport was dedicated on the 4th of July 1930". I can't help but believe some one said some thing warning about a pole sticking up like that.
That same MagicValley website article dated 2018 Feb 18 ("Gem State Processing provides jobs, inclusive plant culture") said that the plant was just built in 2010. So this was a very recent, dangerous decision.
Even when you fly the arrival and approach 'perfect' a surprise might be waiting for you. Hopefully my experience can help fellow airman. Years ago, I flew a MD11 into a high elevation SA airport. Our company had frequent flights into there and it was part of the simulator recurrent training as it was a CAT C airport. We (crew on this flight) had been here multiple times. We came from BOG (north) and expected the northerly facing runway, which was the preferential runway and almost always in use. On the arrival from the north, on a very short flight and along very high terrain, we suddenly received a runway change, due to more favorable winds and because the volcano to the south started spuwing ash clouds again. This was in middle of the night with no moon. We were told to fly the non precision approach to the south facing runway, that way we would stay clear of the ash clouds to the south. Requested to enter hold just to the north at FL230 ( MEA was around FL200) so we had time to setup and brief the approach/go around proc as this was our first time flying this particular approach, which was implemented that year. Before starting the non precision appr verified with ATC latest weather and position of ash cloud. While flying the stepdown's altitudes on the final part of the approach, just before the MAP where you have to make a right turn to line up with the runway, we smelled a strong odor of smoke(ash ?) and at same time received a terrain warning, while at same time became visual with the runway environment in front of us, on this pitch-dark night, we not once saw the terrain below us. Although we saw the runway lights in the distance to our right, we immediately started the escape/go around procedure. After flying the complicated missed approach and climbing back to FL200(min safe) between the high terrain we discussed with ATC and my crew what happened and best plan, divert or fly approach to the north facing runway, as winds on ground were calm and ash cloud was much further south. Landed eventually on northerly facing runway. The smoke turned out the be a farmer below the approach burning crops in middle of the night... Report was filed with company and ATC and my company did an investigation into what happened. Turned out the crew flew the approach, terrain warning and missed by the book and was always on track and at/above safe altitudes (as published). Investigation learned that the terrain as published on the approach chart was not always accurate enough and was used in calculating the safety margins for the non-precision approach. Also, the high approach speed of a heavy MD11 at those high altitudes was not given enough consideration. Most probable cause was the turning radius of the MD11 close the the MAP, the very proximity of high terrain, the strong cross wind on the approach all resulting in the aircraft coming too close to terrain, hence the MD11 gave a valid terrain warning ('terrain terrain' followed immediately by 'pull up') It is the government who is responsible for the accuracy of the terrain data/ databases. Their mistake in accuracy meant that the safety cone of the approach was compromised. The approach procedure was immediately withdrawn via NOTAM and years later a modified np approach was published, now a RNAV 18 which follows the lower terrain much better. The terrain warning system in our airplane saved our ass that night. Lessons learned...
4 LIFE you write beautifully, I was just in that cockpit with you, completely on edge, in the dark smelling the smoke not knowing it's source only to erupt into a flurry of activity as the terrain warning jolted us from our states of deep concentration and awareness of our roles in and out of the cockpit (I'm not even a pilot! Armchair type rated at best 😆). Then to get the resolution re the NoTAM and change in approach?!? I was fully invested. Well written language is a beautiful thing and must be shared with the world, words mean so much and can make such a difference. Keep on writing my friend I haven't met yet, you have an ability to make a difference by your hand. Thank you for sharing your story, have a lovely day wherever you may be in the world
@@restojon1 Like myself, "are you type-rated in the LZB-300???" (Lay-Z-Boy 300 recliner) No disrespect intended to those who love aviation from the ground.
Thousand times better explanation than a fledgling channel might do. Appreciate you having your expertise together before speaking on such tragedies. You're invaluable to the aviation community.
I flew thru a 'steam cloud' at night when the temperature was just above freezing. I thought it would be neat. The water vapor hit the windscreen, wings and prop and immediately froze due to wind-chill. Forward visibility was nil. Unknown to me the previous owner had left the defrost duct off the plane. Fortunately for me, the weather was clear and it was only about 10 minutes from my home field. After landing using the side windows and taxiing to the hanger and shutting down the ice finally started melting. Probably about 1/16" of ice and the plane (H-35 Bonanza) flew fine. A real lesson about doing stupid things and learning to tell about them. The approach to the landing in this video looks pretty dangerous even in the daytime and good weather.
James, things do not freeze because of “wind chill”. They freeze because the temperature is at or below freezing. Wind Chill makes the wind “feel” colder than it actually is. Biological organisms can be effected by wind chill because the wind will enhance the loss of body heat, carrying away the heat produced by the body producing a cold effect and for other inanimate objects, water can freeze quicker because the wind can also carry away its ambient heat faster than still air BUT nothing actually freezes unless the temperature is at or less than 32ºF/0ºC (not accounting for Venturi Effect, etc)
@@marlow769 Well it was near freezing but clear skies. As soon as we flew thru the vapor from an evaporative cooler on a power plant, the windshield frosted over making forward visibility nil. After we landed and taxied to the hangar I saw ice melting off the wings and prop. That is my observation.
@@jamesbruce1183 I believe you James. There is a reason why many jet manufacturers tell you to turn on the anti-ice(wings and engine nacelles) when temps are below 10 degrees C and in visible moisture. You learned why, through experiencing it yourself
wind chill, lmao . . . structural icing forms only if the surface is below freezing and the water drops are supercooled, that is below freezing but still in a liquid state. Otherwise they'd just bounce off.
Off the subject, I just started my first weekend of flying for my private pilot at Sac Exec (executive flyers). Thanks for your videos over the years and the guidance to fly safely.
I took lessons at executive fliers too, many years ago. My instructor was Bruce, who's picture may still be on the wall. A fantastic instructor, and missed.
Mr. Dickey? My name is Tim. I was lucky to have parents who owned an FBO...( At KHHR )...that's where the majority of MY training was, in SoCal, LA area. Eventually, through what are now called "regionals" but back then were "commuter" airlines, I got to a major, and am now retired. Hang in there. It's worth it.
Insightful viewpoint, you have most likely got it solved where so many have simply said she bust minimums and paid the price. Her parents have been talking about why those obstacles were allowed there in the first place, rather looks like they have a point, thanks for the very well researched article.
See the approach view it is no surprise this building location was controversial from the start. I bet ten dollars to a donut this approach is going to be removed recinded
Great points about the possibility of the first approach being a deliberate look at the runway instead of a missed approach due to poor piloting and about the smoke cloud possibly obscuring the obstacles.
That was the point I made on the other video. And that is what I had done. Only she probably made the wrong decision based on her familiarity with the location.
@@mathieuclement8011 right. People take the visibly for a constant, flying through snow storms the visibly is often highly dynamic and changes by the second. Add in the variable of possible steam coming off the plant, and a small shift in wind could be the difference between it completely obscuring the runway and it being off center just enough to see the runway.
@@jonathangentile3447 Yes, and in addition, looking at the weather reports in the 30 min prior to this accident, visibility went from 2.5 miles to 1 mile in about 15 minutes. Conditions were rapidly changing at the time of this accident.
As a resident of Heyburn I can tell you there has been a massive debate about the Burley airport for years. They had planned to move the airport and for some reason the plans failed to materialize. They annexed some land in heyburn for an airport and then decided on a location near declo but then ive heard nothing on it for years. I am also recently on the planning and zoning for heyburn and I never even considered the implications of the runway approach in our planning and zoning decisions. The airport being just across the river in the other county.
There were threats years ago that the airport would close because it is unsafe. It seemed to be the local pilots who were most vocal about keeping the airport while many residents had the attitude of "fine just shut the airport down". I believe the FAA or whatever organization that provides funding has been threatening to remove funding for years. As I've always heard it the debate was due to the runways being too short. I didn't realize there were obstacles like this along the approach.
These stacks remind me of the lamp post at the threshold of Manchester Barton. Just before flair if you were on the centre of the run you had to raise your starboard wing to ensure that you didn't make contact.
This is an insane situation having a steam tower directly in line with the runway. It’s an accident waiting to happen and unfortunately it cost this young women her life.
I can't understand why the local planning agencies thought putting a potato processing plant with a steam generating tower right next to the runway was a good idea. It's not a densely populated area. There must have been plenty of other places around Burley where the plant could have been located and not impact the airport.
If I'm UPS, I'm thinking packages go to Twin Falls and truck them from there. This approach is unnecessarily difficult. I know everything is published and there's procedures to deal with these obstacles, but does it need to be that difficult? I hope UPS stops these flights into this airport. No fuel, no deice, no instrument approach systems? That's allot of risk. Employ ORM - is it worth it?
Moving freight is a grueling, tough job for everyone, pilots, truckers, dock workers. They dont give you breaks, they throw you under the bus in a heart beat, and most of the days are high stress. Young people, usually dont cope well, the job isolates you, work sleep work sleep. The young people are too eager, the companies take advantage if their youth and energy. Its when youre 45 50 60 years old you start telling these managers " to kiss my grits"
@@pootthatbak2578 man you are so right about the age thing , I just retired couple years ago after flying for 47 years, I flew Beech 18’s out of the south for couple years 5 nights a week in the late 70’s , being a freight dog teaches you a lot about flying and about yourself, experiences you can’t find in a book. I wouldn’t trade one hour I got in those ragged beech 18’s, but i certainly wouldn’t do it again in a beech 18 at 66 , like you said it would be a middle finger salute and F… off.
@@garyderipaska675 Hi Gary, I flew 18’s too (a loooong time ago). CLE, Cincinnati Lunken, Indianapolis, Chicago and back to CLE. Definitely had a more than a few “interesting” flights due to weather.
Spot on observation. I spoke to a young mid-20's cargo pilot at a 24 hr diner near a major hub at 0300h. He was responsible for the short hops of 100-150 miles for parcels guaranteed to arrive at 8AM. He was a bit scruffy - when he said "Trust me, there's no romance to this job."
It appears there are a lot of questions about this accident and the runway environment that need to be addressed. I question how there is even an IFR approach for that runway given the location of those obstacles. I also question why this airport is used by the carrier given the lack of services and hazards that are present. This one will be interesting to follow. A shame that the young pilot lost her life in the process.
I think the question of diverting those steam pipes is going to come up now. Maybe shorten them then put 90 degree bends on them and run them horizontally all the way to the end of that building to the left and vent them there.
@@whatilearnttoday5295 And you're a building code expert no doubt. It's up to the FAA to establish height restrictions for structures in proximity to the airport. The local building code enforcement agency should have a zoning map with height restrictions. It's not up to the business to guess what is safe or not safe when it is clearly defined in FAR 77.
@@ShaunHensley In what world? Move a runway? They might close it, but that would not be a reasonable solution. Someone may decide it's not worth the risk to allow instrument approaches there, but why remove it altogether?
It went well for thousands of others armchair quarterback... but because we have a woman pilot... you all are acting as though she should have things easier...
@@billhosko7723 Actually he is right on! Most of these remarks are superfluous to say the least 🙄🙄. Tis' better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt🤭
Twice in my architectural/engineering career I've had to deal with structures and airport clearance. I wish I still had an FAA design manual to refresh my memory relating to this situation. I do remember arguing with clients who wanted to take it to the minimum required, and always tried to make things as pilot friendly as I could get away with. Considering Idaho winters, and the likelihood of minimum landing conditions being a common occurrence, it's my opinion that the potato plant suffers from poor design decisions. A structural engineer, William Porusch, once told me "Building Codes do not represent good design, they only specify the absolute minimum requirements."
I would tend to agree, the potato plant seems to have structures that could be legal but might violate the spirit of the clearance or height regulation. I think someone made a bad decision here, if this ends up in court, we might see who is at fault through the legal process.
@@TheBeingReal I gotta disagree with that. Most of the time the airport was there first then commercial or suburbs creep in and around and want the apt shut down due to noise or someone wanting the land to profit from even more construction.
@@terryboyer1342 can be a mix. Had a local GA airport near where I grew up, airport popped up in the late 50’s when there was already commercial properties. Ford tractor (at the time) ended up moving because they could not build higher. But totally get your point. Hard to say on this airport without a lot of digging around, certainly a crappy approach coming in over the buliding.
Talking to my flight instructor tonight…on and on about flight planning…he used to freight Beechcraft all over USA…I’m on my last PPL exam…Nav…how right he is. Thanks Juan…so sorry for the Pilot…God bless her.
Thanks again Juan for an update. RIP for the young pilot and comfort for her family and friends. Hopefully we learn from such tragedy, and improvements to this airport, and surrounding obstacles.
Steam cloud and snow .. what could go wrong. That approach is crazy. It would be difficult in VFR with crosswinds....those pipes would be dancing all over the place.
Thank you for what you do Juan - God Bless that family and prayers for their loss and RIP to that aviator just trying to get the job done - Great Americans from all walks of life are "paying their dues" everyday - let us never forget them for their courage and ability and resourcefulness and tenacity for what they do everyday battling the elements for every single one of on the ground.
Hmm... so what came first? the factory with the stacks/obstacles, or the airport? - If the airport came first, it seems rather foolish that a factory was then allowed to be there... or rather, build those structures on the roof. - If the factory was there first... why would they ever put an airport there? The whole thing seemed like a disaster waiting to happen, and sadly, someone now lost their life for it. May she rest in peace.
Doesn't really matter. The obstacles were known, and flying the approach properly would clear them. Difficult? Yes. Someone else's fault? No. Sad? Certainly.
"a lot of the pressure to get the job done is self-imposed pressure" That is absolutely correct! Fly the numbers and don't be afraid to go to the alternate or wait until a better time to go. Is it worth your life?
Mostly agree with Juan but in this case, there is a lot of pressure to complete the mission that comes from the company. Nothing written down I'm sure, but the pressure is there. Find out when the last time the company congratulated a pilot for deciding to return to base without dropping off the packages, or asked the driver to go to another nearby airport due to safety concerns. If that happens, we have a safety culture. If not, then the culture can be improved. It's clear that most young pilots are like buckin' broncs, and want to complete the mission, sometimes by doing things that are on the line or slightly over the line. It's the company's responsibility to rein them in a bit so that they have a long career.
Since I haven't heard it mentioned directly - and having actually worked around cooling towers in the Idaho winter, I have to wonder about hitting that cloud and having it flash freeze a coat of ice on everything - not enough to be aerodynamically significant - but certainly enough to obscure vision or perhaps coat a sensor - at just the wrong moment. Particularly considering the wind direction, I have to wonder. My sympathies go out to her friends and family.
Well, based on the details Juan just shared with us, she never made it to the steam column. It appears to have been slightly further (50-100 ft) down the glide path, and her plane hit the tower, crashed to the roof, and never made it that far.
@@NoelKerns Maybe I didn't follow him correctly then - was the steam blowing straight towards the field at the time of the accident, or straight towards her on approach? I understood it to be blowing basically blowing straight into her face if she was on the glide slope.
@@theblackbear211 I don't think we actually know that. I haven't seen any information about surface winds at the time. It would have been part of the ASOS, but I haven't seen anyone mention it. At the end of the day, if she had been at the MDA, it would have been a nonfactor anyway. To answer the original question, though, no one in aviation officially refers to clouds - it's visible moisture (in this case, steam.) So, yes, if the conditions are right and you have visible moisture, that moisture can absolutely stick to your leading edges. Still, the amount we're talking about here would have virtually no impact. In particular, this aircraft was equipped with certified de-ice equipment (which, to be fair, can mean a very wide variety of things.)
@@theblackbear211 - I thought I remember hearing Juan mention - either in this video of the previous one - that she was landing with a right crosswind. Maybe I'm imagining that though, based on that photo.
@@michaelmartinez1345 - Yes, the flightaware data confirms that she executed a missed approach, and then setup nicely for the 2nd attempt that ended tragically. Really the bottom line for me in this whole thing is how absolutely ridiculous that approach path is, with the towers, and the steam, etc. With weather added - as was very much the case here - it's a disaster waiting to happen...and happen it did, sadly.
I drove by the accident site this morning on my way to Utah to asses the approach. I was shocked by how hazardous the approach is. Those towers should have been lit up like Christmas trees given their height and proximity to the airport and alignment with the runway. After Dan’s latest video I had to check it out. I would never want to try that approach in marginal conditions. The steam cloud was on full display this morning. The tower that was impacted is gone. Only the supporting structure remains. Such a tragic and preventable accident. Thanks for the update.
I worked at a wastewater treatment plant that was at the end of a general aviation airport and we had height requirements that were so strict we had to cut 8 feet off our American flag pole to meet safety requirements. Our flagpole looked like it was the runt of the litter! We also had to contact the airport if we were going to use a crane and put a white and orange checkered flag on the crane while it was in use.
What I find disturbing reading all these replies is the fact that some seem to think that there is something wrong with the IAP, there isn’t! If you adhere to the procedures and MDA this approach might be “challenging” but legal and doable. The obstacles are clearly marked on charts and described in the Airport Facility Directory. At the designed 3.75 angle and adhering to the MDA you would clear this obstacle at 4275ft MSL or 123ft. AGL or 63ft (plus another 40ft. if you account for the TCH) above the smokestack There is a lot of ridiculous speculation on here which is not only misleading but dangerous in general to aviation!
Which gauge on your fancy aircraft shows you it’s a 3.75 angle on a non-precision LNAV approach? It could be flown safely by chance or by a pilot with very local knowledge - but I’m sure most would fail to do it right. According to law the judge will ask “what would the average pilot have done”, not the super ace with lots of experience. These type of approaches should be trained in a simulator to obtain approval. My guess is that this approach will be withdrawn and replaced with a no IMC approach approved or a ridiculously high MDA or revised to a LPV type approach. This was an accident waiting to happen and the FAA and all who approved this ridiculous approach should be held accountable- but will they???
Some Aircraft actually have an FPA selector that can be set but that is not the point at all since you simply look at the chart to see which descent rate corresponds to what angle (Jepp charts have that on the plate) and even if you don’t you do a quick calculation in your head to know your approximate rate based on your planned Groundspeed. All these things are readily available to you for use and a prepared Pilot ALWAYS knows these numbers before getting into an approach. You clearly are not a Pilot so I suggest to just keep out of adult conversations 😉
Go around, toga, flats 15, landing gear up, set missed approach altitude. We are diverting to XYZ. Terrible approach minimums need to be higher. Excellent presentation Juan.
I have a question. Which was built first?, the runway or the building.............Who okay'd a plant with a tower that obstructed the runway or conversely, who aimed the runway at a tower? At minimum the tower should have had a strobe beacon. The FAA could have prevented this.
This whole configuration looks like a frigging death trap. They had to know this would cause an accident sooner or later. Whoever allowed this to be certified was an idiot.
I'd like to know if the airport manager at Burley is a pilot. At the airport I operate out of, the airport manager is not a pilot, nor is the manager of the FBO. I explain certain unsafe situations to them but they have no frame of reference. I think being an active pilot should be a pre-requisite for both of these positions.
There is self imposed but not all of it. Operators would verbally impose pressure in a “stealthy” way. So in case of accident there is no trace. A comment like: “XXX airport is a good alternate but it is hardly even needed” would be enough to increase the “self imposed pressure”
Man, even to my untrained eye that's never flown any fixed wing aircraft of ANY type, it seems really high just before that stack. Looks like you damn near have to dive it in there. Either the runway, factory, or stack must move it seems - neither option cheap or easy for either side. Sad it takes a tragedy like this to realize it. Excellent info, as always, Juan.
Why was this allowed to happen? In the UK we have regulations preventing any tall structures or emissions of smoke or steam on the final approach path.
Poor oversight at the hands of the FAA who are supposed to fly these approaches regularly and ensure there is no danger to aircraft on their approaches. Someone flew this and thought it was Okay. Absolutely neglectful.
Juan, it will be interesting to see if the approach does meet TERPS criteria. However, as an operator I worked for 20+ years ago found out, an approach does NOT have to meet TERPS. We unfortunately lost a Lear 35 operating into ASE. One of the takeaways was that the FAA wanted to say that the crew was in violation because they descended from MDA, even though they were not within 30 degrees of the extended runway center line (in accordance with TERPS). However, on that circling approach, if you were to maintain MDA until within 30 degrees of the extended centerline, you would not be able to make a normal descent to the runway. When pointed out to the FAA, their response was that the administrator could waive certain TERPS requirements. For an example of the process, see fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v08%20tech%20functions/chapter%2001/08_001_003c.htm. I would wager that the approach to Burley probably has some sort of TERPS waiver.
With the wind that day bringing the steam plume directly into the approach path and also ascending due to the hot air it's possible that her view of the landing enviroment was obscured for longer than the brief second it would take to fly through the plume if it were in any other orientation. Combining the steam plume and heavy snowfall that had already reduced visibility, it may have been long enough that she made an evasive move that the approach didn't permit.
@@Heatherder At 1:15, Juan is describing the condition as shown in the photo, which is a crosswind condition as evident from the steam plume. At 1:40, Juan states that on the day of the accident, the wind was 8 kts coming directly down the Visual Glide Path. This means the VGP could have been directly into a 'funnel' of additionally diminished visibility at a time when visibility was already diminished by heavy snowfall. Think of driving in fog and then suddenly fog so heavy you have zero visibility. As Juan states at 6:53, technically you are suppose to call a missed approach if you loose sight of the runway. This may have been a factor in the pilot's decision to make a second approach.
Could make it into an 'Alpha' approach but that steam can be blowing in many different directions. Also when temp/dewpoint are tight as they were that fatal day the steam might not be so benign looking as it appears in these photos. It would be billowing, hanging, not dissipating, like the steam around the vent coming from your clothes dryer on a cold dank day. Another consideration is which stage of the processing produces the most moisture exhaust, what's the worst, when's the least? Summing up: Temp/dewpoint spread, the ambient temp especially if below freezing, the manufacturing stage/duration that produces the most moisture as an effluent, wind direction and velocity.
It’s been on the chopping block for over a decade now. Lost its FAA funding a few years back due to not meeting safety standards with runway length. Many in the community think it should be moved, but getting funding for these kinds of things in small Idaho towns is almost hopeless.
Excellent visual and spoken explanation of the final approach segment at Burley, Juan. Thanks for your efforts to help us all understand this tragic accident. we have a much clearer picture of the challenges young Brittany was up against that fateful morning. it looks to me now that this approach to runway 20 is a bit tricky under the best conditions, i.e. VMC day ops. I'm only personally familiar with the VNAV/LNAV approach software in the Boeing 757 and 737NG navigation suites. Hopefully you or someone familiar with the Garmin 1000 can explain the vertical and horizontal nav laws in that system that Brittany would have been using at the time of the mishap. This approach could only be legally flown as published, an LNAV nonprecision approach with stepdowns to progressively lower crossing restrictions until the final approach fix/missed approach point where a pilot's decision must be made to begin descent to the runway if sufficient visual cues are present, or execute a missed approach. my question is whether the G 1000 system is providing a glideslope on a NP approach to vertically guide the pilot to descend to the progressively lower altitude restrictions on the final approach course? And if so, where does it project the final (visual) descent path to the touchdown zone? Is it possible if the pilot/autopilot is following such a vertical glide path as an aid to crossing the final approach course altitude restrictions that the pilot might erroneously continue following the VNAV cues and be tempted to continue doing so at the missed approach point, or slightly before?
According to an article published on Feb. 26, 2021 by KMVT (the local CBS TV station), the airport dates back to the early 1900s, and had lost FAA funding due to being below minimum standards. Also, the airport's relocation has been under discussion for approximately 25 years. I'd say that there is a case to be made against UPS, the airport, and quite possibly the potato processing plant for wrongful death, because the more that one digs in to this, the more that the conditions appear to barely meet allowable approach conditions in good, clear weather.
@@carlmenger9145 I work at a different plant, our stack height had to be modified upon construction because we are “near” a pattern. So the ball was dropped somehow.
@@carlmenger9145 They emit the steam plume directly into the approach path. And, they did not have any aircraft warning light on that stack. They are not only responsible for getting their plans approved before they build, but also in how they operate their facility in a manner that is not supposed to increase the risks to aviators.
It will be interesting to see how the FAA handle the issue of pilots loosing visual on the runway for a second when flying through the steam cloud generated from the processing plant chimney.
It's already not legal to do if you're a VFR pilot. If you're IFR and you enter the cloud below MDA you are to execute a missed approach immediately. In that case, however, by the time you realize it and start to execute the missed approach you'll be out of the steam cloud and it's likely safer to just land. It's just a poor place for the stacks.
I'm guessing it has everything to do with operating costs, but as close as Twin Falls is, it's a shame Fed Ex would chose a location that is so much less safe than one that's about 15 minutes flying time away.
I’m surprised this approach is not offset ? When were these obstacle’s constructed, before or after the this approach was constructed ? No doubt the height of the obstructions has been verified ?
@@lizj5740 I’ve found an RNav(GPS) Rwy 20 plate on the internet, dated 21/04/22 plus 1 month. This gives Touchdown zone elev of 4152’ and an obstacle at 4179’ which is only 27’ high !!! The LNav mda is 4560’ . Just looking at video, the towers are much higher than 27’. I conclude there are other obstacles which are not shown on the approach plate. The question also is are they fitted with obstruction lights and say strobes ? Also the runway which has a displaced threshold ( originally constructed in 1940 ? ) does not appear to have papi’s or vasis making it particularly difficult in poor viz. I’ve also looked on google maps and I cannot see any towers on the plant in question , but I do not know how often google update their maps. All in all this looks like an accident waiting to happen.
Could ice fog be a thing here? You're on approach, snow and already near 100% humidity in the atmosphere. Add that water-laden plume into a sub-freezing environment, and you're gonna have a bad situation. I've seen this before (not on an approach, however). It's a bad recipe.
I am not a pilot. Please enlighten me. What was there first: the airport or the plant? I cannot fathom the FAA allowing a plant to be built in this location if the airport was already there. Conversely, I cannot fathom the FAA allowing an airport to be built with an approach oriented as such with a plant and smoke stack - air nav hazard - in the glide path and so near the outer marker.
The airport was there first. The processing plants were built later, and were expanded more recently. The stack that was struck was only built a few years ago.
@@earlaagaard8175 Yes they do. It is in FAR 77 and covered in subsection 77.13. It is up to the local building code enforcement agency to produce a zoning map in compliance with the FAR. It is not up to the business to guess what is safe.
I think the FAA is going to buy this one! Either there was a TERPS evaluation error, or the criteria will be changed. Either way a horrible accident, this pilot was put in a very difficult situation.
Yes, it was a difficult situation, but that's what pro pilots deal with all the time. The criteria don't guarantee that every pilot will be safe in every situation. There's always room for a mistake to bust someone's ass. But it's their mistake, not that of the people who created or evaluated the TERPS criteria. People have to learn that we all must take responsibility for our own failures. This was one of those. If the charted data was incorrect, or there was a failure in the airplane's equipment, then that can contribute to the accident. But assuming the charted data is right, and the airplane did what it's supposed to do, this will be determined to be a pilot error accident. There may be some "contributing causes" as mentioned here, but it is still up to the pilot to deal with them, one way or another. It's what pilots, especially professional pilots, do.
Normally for this type of operation arrangements have been made to put the airplane inside a hangar either for the day or at least long enough to de-ice before the evening return flight. I flew UPS feeder in the north country and the company always had this planned out. At the company home base they even hangared the FedEx flight that went to that city. There is also possibility this wasn’t the only stop for this plane.
I believe you said these stacks aren't even lighted in your last video. Insane that there's an obstacle that high on short final directly in line with the runway and its not even lighted.
@@garymiller5624 G,day Gary from Sydney Australia. Is there any notations, symbols or warning on the approach plates in any section issued by the FAA. That's makes one sit up straight and take notice!!! 🌏🇦🇺
I’ve landed at Burley before. VFR. Departed the opposite runway and it definitely felt sketchy trying to climb over that factory despite executing a short field take off it still felt too close for comfort
Why even land at Burley? Twin Falls is only a couple of miles away, has an ILS, lower minimums, and no obstacles. Burley is a bad choice, as was demonstrated here.
Craziness, I would not be surprised in the end the steam exhaust is moved, this was an accident waiting to happen, thx Juan,.. your factual and impartial approach is second to none. Unfortunately Aviation lessons are always hard.
So sad to see young life with so much potential cut short ! Of course we hold onto hope, that forensically explaining it will not land on invincible young ears ! Huge condolences to loved ones trying to make sense of their loss ! 🙏😥🇨🇦
The personal pressure especially for younger pilots is real and can definitely factor decision making. Your points on the smoke stacks and towers are good, but looking again at the approach plate, the aircraft was well below profile, with or without any obstacles.
Damn I feel for the family. BUT she went 2x below MDA. She knew the obstacles were present; get there pressure is a real major factor. And was here. Been there done that, got the soiled shorts to prove it. A Bad Accident, but just another accident never the less.
great update....the assumption by many channels was that she had a missed approach and go around... but very possible she was just checking the runway for snow, excellent insight, and the steam stack and wind direction...wow. . Heck for all we know, she may have been setting up to take a second lower look at the runway, when she clipped the tower.
That was an accident waiting to happen. That plant should of had a height restriction for all of their equipment. Didn’t anyone see a problem with this set up? Thanks for sharing your professional view point. You always give accurate news. Be safe my friend. When are we going to see another news flash from Petey? Lol!
The approach allows 3.4 miles to lose 1200' from HIKLO-JAMID. At a 90kts ground speed, that would require a 545 ft/min decent over 2.2 mins. I think the key to this investigation will be her airspeed throughout the approach.
This is right in my backyard, we get Gem Air flights in and out of Logan all the time. Sad to hear about this, these uncontrolled airports can be frustrating to get updated conditions on.
Interesting development to this story. The photo at 0:40 really shows that this approach is sketchy as frig even on a sunny day. Hopefully her death is not in vain and they fix this.
I'm sorry for the loss of the pilot, condolences to her family. But, she flew to this airport before and many other pilots completed approaches at minimum to this airport. What made this approach fatal in this accident?
Dan over at Probable Cause posted a video the other day APOLOGIZING and saying he believes he was in error when he, along with you, stated that this was a BELOW MINIMUM pilot error. Apparently, there is more info coming and he is going to make another video with specifics. He stated he talked with the pilot's father and received additional information. finally, he stated that this is probably NOT a pilot error even though she was below minimums, which he acknowledged is confusing, and stated there was NOTHING different she could have done to avoid the fatal accident, and challenged everyone to think about that and he will explain in the upcoming video. Obviously, we all agree that these TOWERS should NOT be anywhere near this airport, an absolute clusterf**k of zoning laws in that region. My thinking is she made one go-around attempt or preview attempt and was able to get a good assessment of the conditions. She has flown into the airport with the same plane many times, so is well aware of the towers. Weather conditions were less than ideal, visibility less than perfect. As you stated, "making the mission work", and "pushing ourselves" seemed to lead to a PILOT LACK OF JUDGMENT situation. She could have easily abandoned the landing at that airport and landed at an IFR equipped with ATC nearby and no one would have questioned her decision and she would still be alive today. Or she could have returned to the airport of origin and returned later when conditions improved.
Or maybe the FAA should have nixed the tower construction SO CLOSE and so in line with the already existing runway. I guess they could have closed the airport, too. WHERE WERE THEY?
Pretty amazing that an obstruction like that could be built right on a runway axis, but if you spend some time in google maps you will see that this factory is not in Burley, but in Heyburn. I'm guessing that there is a logical ($$$) reason it's there, and not elsewhere in the area. Fully get that it should not matter, approach plates correct, MDAs, etc. but we have to accept the reality that we as pilots are not always perfect - and if we mess up, is there any kind of a buffer? I think we should find a way to "protect" our runway axis with either a flat park, golf course, grazing, farming, or some other undeveloped space for exactly this reason. I fully realize that politically ($$$) it's hard.
Unbelievable that they have an active runway like that. Maybe ok for ultralights but sketchy for a airplanes, especially flying in weather. Should have been closed anytime weather visibility drops.
I dogged freight when I was but a young tyke many years ago. I'm here to tell you you can often find yourself under pressure to "get in" when you should have gone someplace else. Sometimes that pressure takes the form of your own overconfidence and sometimes it's external. I'm not saying that's what happened here. That's still a tough call. Blowing snow and a steam cloud at night? Might as well be trying to land in a snow globe.
This accident happened in daylight, per the report. While far from an ideal approach configuration, barring unforeseen circumstances that we may not know about, staying at or above MDA and executing a missed approach at the MAP if the runway is not in sight is a safe way to conduct operations at this field. The ce-208 is a pretty docile airplane to fly and can safely fly an approach at fairly low speeds which gives the pilot more time to evaluate the conditions. Of course if ice was involved, that might complicate the scenario. If the Grand Caravan hasn’t changed in the last 30 years, it will have pneumatic boots on the wing leading edges and the front of the pod. In addition, it has a hot plate on the windshield to keep a clear view. In heavy ice, that might restrict vision out the front if the windshield is iced except for the hot plate. But that all comes from memory 30 years ago across 3500 hours in the caravan. All that to say while it may have been a busy approach, it should have been very manageable imo.
@@speedlever I had not given the report a thorough look. I admit, that since all of my freight time was on the backside of the clock, I just assumed. Be that as it may handling a low vis approach in blowing snow and low hanging obscurations is challenging. At the moment this incident leaves us more questions than answers. Why was there even an approach to a runway with that many obstacles in the final segment? Did she have the landing environment in sight and then loose it? Did she assume that it was just the steam cloud and she’d be through it in a second? Why was she attempting an approach and landing to a place she couldn’t potentially leave? ( no deicing available). I don’t know and it’s understandable that her family and friends may not like the answers to these questions but my gut feel here says she either left the MDA without having the runway in sight or she had the runway and then lost it and failed to execute a missed ( I’m not condemning here. We’ve all done stupid stuff in an airplane. Most of us were lucky enough to learn from it.). In any event it’s all just conjecture. I’d like to see what shakes out of the investigation.
@@gerrycarmichael1391 Agreed on all counts. Was that destination airport her home base or an intermediate stop? In my experience, those freight runs tend to be daily repeats based at some outstation, flying the freight into a hub late at night, then reversing course in the morning returning to the outstation(s). Assuming that, this is even more puzzling since it would imply familiarity with the airports and approaches in the area, unless she was a floater pilot on tdy for one reason or another.
I used to fly the Caravan as a freight dog.. not out west though, but up in the North east and in eastern Canada. I have landed in snow and dealt with snow on a regular basis. I don’t know any Caravan pilots who purposely do a missed approach to assess a paved, snowy runway,, the big tires can handle it without testing the surface like in the back country. Also as for snowing conditions, you won’t have snow sticking to a cold soaked plane, so even if you landed and snow accumulates on the wing, you could broom it off and go. No need to de-ice like at the airlines. If it’s not adhering, you are good to go!
The obstacles at Burley Airport and the (mis) management of obstacle clearances are going to be a BIG part of this investigation, this is a fast moving story impacting smaller airports all around the country. Updates as they become available. Jb.
I think this rwy should be X'ed... until the issue gets fixed, and unless the business cooperates, getting the installations out of the way means lawsuits, planning, permission, construction, re-certifying...
🤍👍🏼
@@cruisemissle87 which was there 1st, the runway or the buildings??
If the runway was there 1st then the planners need to retire and hand things over to some competent people.
Unbelievable this is
@@julesviolin Good question, I guess there is an interesting story to it. I don't believe the airport was ever happy with those structures.
Agree, Juan. But if arguing about technicalities for 25 years hasn't fixed the problem maybe at least they will get a little 'now someone has died' shaming time. Apparently losing federal funding due to the FAA deeming the airport unsafe was not enough.
From the local TV station KMTV story about 14 months ago:
The J.R. Jack Simplot Airport in Burley will close at some point in time when it can no longer be maintained, according to Burley city administrator Mark Mitton. This is a story KMVT has followed for five years, and in 2021 this municipal airport’s future is still uncertain.
“They have been going to move this airport for 25 years,” said Kevin Gebhart the airport manager.
Since its founding in the early 1900s, the airport has provided general aviation to local businesses and is also currently a location for Life Flight.
“I think the community does not realize sometimes how much they need the airport,” Gebhart said “They should be involved.”
Nearly three years ago, they lost their Federal Aviation Administration funding because it did not meet their safety standards due to short runways. The airport cannot expand because it is landlocked between the Snake River and train tracks. The best option for them is to create an entirely new airport in a different location, something they need F.A.A funding for, and to run the airport the city of Burley is seeking to establish an airport authority.
“An airport is vital to all the transportation to all the business especially the larger ones who provide a lot of the jobs,” said Gebhart.
Currently, state law requires three counties to join together to form an airport authority, however, Minidoka and Cassia do not have another adjoining county that does not already have an airport. Last year, the city of Burley attempted to change the legislation to allow two counties to form the airport authority, but it got stalled. now they are hoping it will be reintroduced.
“I mean it is a simple change to legislation,” said Mitton. “We are still hoping it can get through it’s still early in the legislative session.”
If the legislation does get passed it would then make its way to the voters who would have to decide if a temporary increase to property tax is worth a new airport.
My initial reaction upon learning about the accident was that she prob just lost the airplane due to task saturation but on review here Juan, I tend to agree that there's simply too many issues in play with this approach to ask a pilot in these conditions to maneuver safely. I'm not even sure I like an approach into this field after viewing this piece. I think her father is correct in commenting that the airfield approach structure is unsafe. Sad story, RIP to this fine young woman.
remove the plant entirely and it looks like you still have a river right in front of runway reducing the margin for error a bit by that alone
@@whatilearnttoday5295 The carrier made the decision to fly into it
All the FAA has to do is shut down all the approaches and make it a "VFR Only" airfield or designing a new approach to the other runway. The approach into 20 is unsafe with those obstacles, but it TERPS out from a FAA standpoint.
@@ShaunHensley But you never land right at the end of the runway, so that's not a problem. Unless you come in really low.
@@darkiee69 I said margin for error for a reason
Juan,
Thanks again for covering this accident. Brittney was laid to rest yesterday and sadly I wasn’t able to attend her funeral as I’m in training right now working on my ATP/Type on the EMB175.
Either way, super valuable information! I’ll be keeping a keen eye on your channel for any updates. It was a rough week following the accident and I got a lot of support from your followers!
Stay safe pilots! Juan is doing a great service to our industry. Learning from others either good or not is vital. I made a mistake in the sim today, and I’m glad I did because it allowed myself and class mates to learn from it. Regardless of the final FAA report of this accident there is always something to learn from it.
Stay humble, keep learning because that’s what a safe pilot will do!
@@neemtreebark ..NO ‘ILS’..as Juan has stated..it’s an “uncontrolled” field, NO lights. ZERO monitoring..no tower, no ATC. YOU’RE ON YOUR OWN essentially.
@@neemtreebark There is no ILS.
In the last month 12 food processing plants have either been destroyed by fire, mysterious explosions and plane crashes into the facilities. Something doesn’t sound right.
@@neemtreebark There isn’t an ILS there.
Thinking of this again, what is the alternate plan if approach is below minimums. What does package delivery organizations alternate? I’d fly back to origin airport, unload packages into a van and drive the stuff to destination. It’s a two hour drive.
As a casual aviation observer, I do not understand how the authorities allowed this obviously hazardous configuration of airstrip and factory structures.
BINGO!!
Spuds are big business in Idaho. Local authorities go along with what Big Tater wants. They could have built their plant elsewhere and taken the jobs that went with it.
@@trek520rider2 Big Tater only has its eyes out for itself!
@@trek520rider2 The plant could be there, so long as the towers weren't right in line with the runway. The FAA (apparently local zoning bodies who failed to follow FAA regs) totally fell down on the job they are tasked with.
@@earlaagaard8175 "Bingo"? For what? Heights of structures adjacent to the airport should be in compliance with FAR 77. It is up to the local building code agency to produce a zoning map with the height restrictions.
That steam tower directly on the extended centerline makes that approach ridiculous. I am sure locals have been saying for years that it is only a matter of time. What a tragic loss.
Man-made obstacles like this sure are ridiculous. No pilot or person should be at risk for such infrastructure near a runway, especially without ILS. All airports need to be reviewed now and I agree a lawsuit may begin proceedings.
The question should be, what was there first? Potato plant or airport? If potato plant, what numb skull approved that runway?
@@sw8741 My guess is both have been there a long time. Just that both were smaller at the start and it wasn't much of an issue. He said there was an alternate more capable runway "just a few miles" away. Not sure how far that is but maybe they should have been using that instead. Especially in poor conditions.
If the steam tower wasn’t there, on her trajectory, she would have hit the roof of the building.
Let’s stop the eulogizing of this woman…She hit a known obstacle that is almost 500’ below the altitude that she was supposed to maintain up to that point that EVERYONE else has been missing for years now, so let’s get real.
@@marlow769 From the air it looked like a real hazard. But he also showed the view from the road by the river, from there the plant looks like a complete non-issue. And did he say 60'? If he's right about the ladder, she must have been at 50'. That's low enough she could have just as well clipped a tree.
From being a truck driver I can understand the pressures to deliver. 99% of the time you are perceived as being overly cautious and looked down upon by your superiors for saying no it's too dangerous. I can't imagine being a pilot under these same pressures.
Amen to that! Been there on the 18-wheeled side of things.
Almost 30 yrs driving a truck...That pressure is there ALWAYS. I have it a lot less now but I still feel it sometimes. When I was new, its made me feel like a failure when you can't hit your slot.
I used to drive OTR and dedicated. Made a life change 4 years ago and now I have 1,300hrs flight time and am an instructor as well as commercial pilot. The stresses are wild. Flying in crap weather, single pilot, trying to get the job done. There is no such thing as not getting a package somewhere on time due to weather. Cargo pilots (that are still alive) are some of the best pilots out there.
Yep. People see the cool shirt and the fancy airplane and think: "What a life!" If they only knew......
My boss usedd to ring every 20 mins- "are you there yet? Where you headed next? what time will be there? Where you headed after that? what time will you get there?". Used to drive me nuts.
Great review of this issue. Sadly there are more approaches just like this all over the US. The DPE who did my instrument check ride pulled up the KUNV ILS to 24 and asked me some questions about the obstacles on that plate. There are two different airports with runways in almost the same direction with a tower between them. A pilot broke out, thought he had the right airport, didn’t, tried to correct and hit the tower between them. Instrument flying is tough, and tougher single pilot. God bless this pilots family. I can’t imagine the grief.
There's a commercial runway somewhere that has a four or five story parking garage jutting up right into the flight path less than 500 yards from the edge of the runway. Or maybe it was a hotel or office building. But it made it into a tv show about the world's most dangerous airports because the physical obstacle presents an increased risk to every passenger plane that lands on that runway.
Sometimes these things are placed in such a precise and symmetrical position in relation to the runway that it almost seems like an act of passive aggression on the part of whoever put it there. Like the property owner is mad at the airport or something. Almost.
Been into UNV plenty of time in crappy weather at night - before it had a control tower. One of those places where you bring your "A" game to work.
@@PhilLesh69 lol, any megatropolis airport has buildings growing up around it like weeds. At Toronto, I could get on the roof top of the hotel where we stayed and tell what brand tires the planes had on them when they went over.
@@PhilLesh69 San Diego, approach from the east TOWARDS THE BAY at the Other end of that runway, low over the slope of the big hill, on a visual approach (stabilized) at 180 to 160mph (heavy) it's about 5 sec. before the wheels are on the runway.
That approach is nutty. Poor girl.
My question is, who authorized the placement of such obstacles, right in line with the
runway? One presumes the runway was there before the processing plant, but either way, the stacks and towers of the plant are in no way compatible with that airport environment.
Whichever FAA bureaucrat who had responsibility for this should suffer harsh penalties!!
My question exactly, who signed off on that, or how much did the potato plant pay to get a variance.
I'm guessing in Idaho, no one messes with Big Potato. They get approved whatever they want approved.
@@slartybarfastb3648 Damn, that’s probably not even a joke.
It doesn’t actually look that bad. Minimums would keep you well clear of the obstacles. Sorry to say, but she deviated below mins without having anything in sight. Pretty clear to this professional pilot.
I did one of my cross countries in there for my PPL, but I approached from the other direction. Man, it really had a weird sight picture to it. I put my wheels on the ground, but too far down the runway. Had to go around. Was more patient the second time and set myself up for a longer final. That worked better.
I spoke about this crash with the head of the Civil Air Patrol here in Salt Lake. He hadn't heard about the crash, but when he heard me mention Burley, he immediately said, "That airport just looks wonky going in there. And there are these stacks that come up in your view."
It doesn’t matter which was there first the stack or the airport. The stack should not be there and or not allowed to stay there ! Somebody and probably many others missed the ball here or may have had other $ things on their minds .
@@williamgrimberg2510 Others will say the airport should not be there.
There are other factors at play as well. The Gem building is in the city of Heyburn, while the airport is in the city of Burley. Gem is one of the very few major employers in that little town, so the city does everything it can to keep them happy. Directly across the river in Burley one of the major issues is that developers have been wanting that airport property for decades, and the aviation community has been fighting to keep it away from them, of course. So even though that approach is awful and getting worse, pilots really don't want to make a big stink about it since there's already been so much clamor to delete the airport. Everyone knows how bad it is but the aviators don't want to make waves and give anyone more ammunition. That was my home airport until I moved away forty years ago - A lot of those obstacles have been added since then and it's far more difficult than it was, especially in bad weather.
4/24/22...another great analysis...this video has pics while on glide slope (3.75°) for runway 20 at minimum altitude. Pic taken in full daylight showing smoke stack (directly in-line with runway center line) billowing steam with exhaust emphasing (this date) a strong R-2-L crosswind...as steam column is almost 90° to left.
Juan you are providing very understandable analysis & explanations of the step-by-step method needed to fly & have full awareness of flight path surroundings. If visuals not clear or problematic, then pilot judgement must take the most safe action (by being judgement flexible) & go-around & go to the (planned) alternate field...or closest runway with ILS instrument approach...or abort this location & return home.
Juan yur videos will surely help younger pilots become more aware of hazards & have the confidence/judgement to exercise flexibility-of-thought to avoid high risk situations...even if it means being late or landing at an unscheduled airport. Better late...than never...✈
"Gem State Processing is busy around the clock, all year long, cleaning, slicing, dicing, shredding and drying potatoes." So steam cloud isn't seasonal........"The Burley Airport was dedicated on the 4th of July 1930". I can't help but believe some one said some thing warning about a pole sticking up like that.
That same MagicValley website article dated 2018 Feb 18 ("Gem State Processing provides jobs, inclusive plant culture") said that the plant was just built in 2010. So this was a very recent, dangerous decision.
Even when you fly the arrival and approach 'perfect' a surprise might be waiting for you. Hopefully my experience can help fellow airman.
Years ago, I flew a MD11 into a high elevation SA airport. Our company had frequent flights into there and it was part of the simulator recurrent training as it was a CAT C airport. We (crew on this flight) had been here multiple times.
We came from BOG (north) and expected the northerly facing runway, which was the preferential runway and almost always in use. On the arrival from the north, on a very short flight and along very high terrain, we suddenly received a runway change, due to more favorable winds and because the volcano to the south started spuwing ash clouds again.
This was in middle of the night with no moon.
We were told to fly the non precision approach to the south facing runway, that way we would stay clear of the ash clouds to the south. Requested to enter hold just to the north at FL230 ( MEA was around FL200) so we had time to setup and brief the approach/go around proc as this was our first time flying this particular approach, which was implemented that year.
Before starting the non precision appr verified with ATC latest weather and position of ash cloud.
While flying the stepdown's altitudes on the final part of the approach, just before the MAP where you have to make a right turn to line up with the runway, we smelled a strong odor of smoke(ash ?) and at same time received a terrain warning, while at same time became visual with the runway environment in front of us, on this pitch-dark night, we not once saw the terrain below us.
Although we saw the runway lights in the distance to our right, we immediately started the escape/go around procedure. After flying the complicated missed approach and climbing back to FL200(min safe) between the high terrain we discussed with ATC and my crew what happened and best plan, divert or fly approach to the north facing runway, as winds on ground were calm and ash cloud was much further south. Landed eventually on northerly facing runway. The smoke turned out the be a farmer below the approach burning crops in middle of the night...
Report was filed with company and ATC and my company did an investigation into what happened. Turned out the crew flew the approach, terrain warning and missed by the book and was always on track and at/above safe altitudes (as published).
Investigation learned that the terrain as published on the approach chart was not always accurate enough and was used in calculating the safety margins for the non-precision approach. Also, the high approach speed of a heavy MD11 at those high altitudes was not given enough consideration. Most probable cause was the turning radius of the MD11 close the the MAP, the very proximity of high terrain, the strong cross wind on the approach all resulting in the aircraft coming too close to terrain, hence the MD11 gave a valid terrain warning ('terrain terrain' followed immediately by 'pull up')
It is the government who is responsible for the accuracy of the terrain data/ databases. Their mistake in accuracy meant that the safety cone of the approach was compromised.
The approach procedure was immediately withdrawn via NOTAM and years later a modified np approach was published, now a RNAV 18 which follows the lower terrain much better.
The terrain warning system in our airplane saved our ass that night. Lessons learned...
4 LIFE you write beautifully, I was just in that cockpit with you, completely on edge, in the dark smelling the smoke not knowing it's source only to erupt into a flurry of activity as the terrain warning jolted us from our states of deep concentration and awareness of our roles in and out of the cockpit (I'm not even a pilot! Armchair type rated at best 😆).
Then to get the resolution re the NoTAM and change in approach?!? I was fully invested.
Well written language is a beautiful thing and must be shared with the world, words mean so much and can make such a difference. Keep on writing my friend I haven't met yet, you have an ability to make a difference by your hand. Thank you for sharing your story, have a lovely day wherever you may be in the world
@@restojon1 Like myself, "are you type-rated in the LZB-300???" (Lay-Z-Boy 300 recliner) No disrespect intended to those who love aviation from the ground.
Great insight!
Well written! Thank you for sharing.
Thousand times better explanation than a fledgling channel might do. Appreciate you having your expertise together before speaking on such tragedies. You're invaluable to the aviation community.
You realize Dan and Juan swap notes and talk all the time right lol
Lol... why I said it.
I flew thru a 'steam cloud' at night when the temperature was just above freezing. I thought it would be neat. The water vapor hit the windscreen, wings and prop and immediately froze due to wind-chill. Forward visibility was nil. Unknown to me the previous owner had left the defrost duct off the plane. Fortunately for me, the weather was clear and it was only about 10 minutes from my home field. After landing using the side windows and taxiing to the hanger and shutting down the ice finally started melting. Probably about 1/16" of ice and the plane (H-35 Bonanza) flew fine. A real lesson about doing stupid things and learning to tell about them.
The approach to the landing in this video looks pretty dangerous even in the daytime and good weather.
Ya it’s an accident just waiting to happen
James, things do not freeze because of “wind chill”. They freeze because the temperature is at or below freezing.
Wind Chill makes the wind “feel” colder than it actually is. Biological organisms can be effected by wind chill because the wind will enhance the loss of body heat, carrying away the heat produced by the body producing a cold effect and for other inanimate objects, water can freeze quicker because the wind can also carry away its ambient heat faster than still air BUT nothing actually freezes unless the temperature is at or less than 32ºF/0ºC (not accounting for Venturi Effect, etc)
@@marlow769 Well it was near freezing but clear skies. As soon as we flew thru the vapor from an evaporative cooler on a power plant, the windshield frosted over making forward visibility nil. After we landed and taxied to the hangar I saw ice melting off the wings and prop.
That is my observation.
@@jamesbruce1183 I believe you James. There is a reason why many jet manufacturers tell you to turn on the anti-ice(wings and engine nacelles) when temps are below 10 degrees C and in visible moisture. You learned why, through experiencing it yourself
wind chill, lmao . . . structural icing forms only if the surface is below freezing and the water drops are supercooled, that is below freezing but still in a liquid state. Otherwise they'd just bounce off.
Off the subject, I just started my first weekend of flying for my private pilot at Sac Exec (executive flyers). Thanks for your videos over the years and the guidance to fly safely.
I took lessons at executive fliers too, many years ago. My instructor was Bruce, who's picture may still be on the wall. A fantastic instructor, and missed.
Great airport to learn at! I got my PPL at exec also!
@@DTowns19 Yes..and the guys in the tower are real professionals.
Mr. Dickey? My name is Tim. I was lucky to have parents who owned an FBO...( At KHHR )...that's where the majority of MY training was, in SoCal, LA area. Eventually, through what are now called "regionals" but back then were "commuter" airlines, I got to a major, and am now retired. Hang in there. It's worth it.
Freeport and florin?
This actually looks even more challanging than I had imagined from your previous discription.
Very challenging indeed.I can't even believe this is an actual airport.So dangerous if anything goes wrong.
Thank you for the follow-up. Good explanations as usual. Love your style. 👍
Thomas, my father was a Patron. Former USAF B52 man. Passed away 05 April. We'll keep supporting.
Insightful viewpoint, you have most likely got it solved where so many have simply said she bust minimums and paid the price. Her parents have been talking about why those obstacles were allowed there in the first place, rather looks like they have a point, thanks for the very well researched article.
I wonder which was there first, the stacks or the airport?
The airport was per other articles
Looking at those stacks you wonder how a disaster didn't happen earlier.
See the approach view it is no surprise this building location was controversial from the start.
I bet ten dollars to a donut this approach is going to be removed recinded
@@jimgrazulis3542 The Burley airport was opened on 4 July 1930. The Gem plant in Heyburn (across the river from Burley) opened in 2010.
Great points about the possibility of the first approach being a deliberate look at the runway instead of a missed approach due to poor piloting and about the smoke cloud possibly obscuring the obstacles.
That was the point I made on the other video. And that is what I had done. Only she probably made the wrong decision based on her familiarity with the location.
Many reasons for a missed approach, and not likely "poor piloting", but probably degrading visibility
I believe she knew the airport, the company flies in and out of there almost daily.
@@mathieuclement8011 right. People take the visibly for a constant, flying through snow storms the visibly is often highly dynamic and changes by the second. Add in the variable of possible steam coming off the plant, and a small shift in wind could be the difference between it completely obscuring the runway and it being off center just enough to see the runway.
@@jonathangentile3447 Yes, and in addition, looking at the weather reports in the 30 min prior to this accident, visibility went from 2.5 miles to 1 mile in about 15 minutes. Conditions were rapidly changing at the time of this accident.
As a resident of Heyburn I can tell you there has been a massive debate about the Burley airport for years. They had planned to move the airport and for some reason the plans failed to materialize. They annexed some land in heyburn for an airport and then decided on a location near declo but then ive heard nothing on it for years. I am also recently on the planning and zoning for heyburn and I never even considered the implications of the runway approach in our planning and zoning decisions. The airport being just across the river in the other county.
There were threats years ago that the airport would close because it is unsafe. It seemed to be the local pilots who were most vocal about keeping the airport while many residents had the attitude of "fine just shut the airport down". I believe the FAA or whatever organization that provides funding has been threatening to remove funding for years. As I've always heard it the debate was due to the runways being too short. I didn't realize there were obstacles like this along the approach.
These stacks remind me of the lamp post at the threshold of Manchester Barton. Just before flair if you were on the centre of the run you had to raise your starboard wing to ensure that you didn't make contact.
I hate that a promising young pilot who was embarking upon a long career in aviation is lost.
I’m glad she didn’t take 50…or 150 people with her.
Pilot error 100%.
Most women I know in airline world spent 1/2 their careers on maternity leave.
This is an insane situation having a steam tower directly in line with the runway. It’s an accident waiting to happen and unfortunately it cost this young women her life.
Makes me wonder, which came first, the runway or the processing plant. Someone got the obstacle alignment wrong...
Boycott Idaho potatoes because we cant can the FAA
Wow. That’s tricky under the best of conditions….
It is not. Good grief.
I can't understand why the local planning agencies thought putting a potato processing plant with a steam generating tower right next to the runway was a good idea. It's not a densely populated area. There must have been plenty of other places around Burley where the plant could have been located and not impact the airport.
The plant is actually in Heywood, ID, across the river from the Burley airport.
If I'm UPS, I'm thinking packages go to Twin Falls and truck them from there. This approach is unnecessarily difficult. I know everything is published and there's procedures to deal with these obstacles, but does it need to be that difficult? I hope UPS stops these flights into this airport. No fuel, no deice, no instrument approach systems? That's allot of risk. Employ ORM - is it worth it?
Moving freight is a grueling, tough job for everyone, pilots, truckers, dock workers. They dont give you breaks, they throw you under the bus in a heart beat, and most of the days are high stress. Young people, usually dont cope well, the job isolates you, work sleep work sleep. The young people are too eager, the companies take advantage if their youth and energy. Its when youre 45 50 60 years old you start telling these managers " to kiss my grits"
@@pootthatbak2578 man you are so right about the age thing , I just retired couple years ago after flying for 47 years, I flew Beech 18’s out of the south for couple years 5 nights a week in the late 70’s , being a freight dog teaches you a lot about flying and about yourself, experiences you can’t find in a book. I wouldn’t trade one hour I got in those ragged beech 18’s, but i certainly wouldn’t do it again in a beech 18 at 66 , like you said it would be a middle finger salute and F… off.
@@garyderipaska675 Hi Gary, I flew 18’s too (a loooong time ago). CLE, Cincinnati Lunken, Indianapolis, Chicago and back to CLE. Definitely had a more than a few “interesting” flights due to weather.
Spot on observation. I spoke to a young mid-20's cargo pilot at a 24 hr diner near a major hub at 0300h. He was responsible for the short hops of 100-150 miles for parcels guaranteed to arrive at 8AM. He was a bit scruffy - when he said "Trust me, there's no romance to this job."
@@gryhze That young fella was certainly telling the truth!
It appears there are a lot of questions about this accident and the runway environment that need to be addressed. I question how there is even an IFR approach for that runway given the location of those obstacles. I also question why this airport is used by the carrier given the lack of services and hazards that are present. This one will be interesting to follow. A shame that the young pilot lost her life in the process.
Something something TERPS magic. Seems sketchy having an IAP here
Bruh it's literally fine. No one would talk about this if it wasn't a woman.
Exactly on all your points.
@@pyromcr Wrong. Blancolirio and others debrief every air accident
@@pyromcr tell us more...
Glad to see this view.I can see now that it's a very dangerous low vis approach.
Makes you wonder who is planning these structures relative to runway construction.
I think the question of diverting those steam pipes is going to come up now. Maybe shorten them then put 90 degree bends on them and run them horizontally all the way to the end of that building to the left and vent them there.
@@ronhaworth5808 That won't happen. Far cheaper to move the runway
@@whatilearnttoday5295 And you're a building code expert no doubt. It's up to the FAA to establish height restrictions for structures in proximity to the airport. The local building code enforcement agency should have a zoning map with height restrictions. It's not up to the business to guess what is safe or not safe when it is clearly defined in FAR 77.
@@ronhaworth5808 From the looks of the approach photos, even without the pipes, she'd have hit something well short of the runway.
@@ShaunHensley In what world? Move a runway? They might close it, but that would not be a reasonable solution. Someone may decide it's not worth the risk to allow instrument approaches there, but why remove it altogether?
Having such obstructions at short final, putting a dot and an obstacle height on a chart and expecting everything to go well, is just ri-di-cu-lous
It went well for thousands of others armchair quarterback... but because we have a woman pilot... you all are acting as though she should have things easier...
@@billhosko7723 Get over yourself. Nobody’s impressed.
@@billhosko7723 Actually he is right on! Most of these remarks are superfluous to say the least 🙄🙄. Tis' better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt🤭
Twice in my architectural/engineering career I've had to deal with structures and airport clearance. I wish I still had an FAA design manual to refresh my memory relating to this situation. I do remember arguing with clients who wanted to take it to the minimum required, and always tried to make things as pilot friendly as I could get away with.
Considering Idaho winters, and the likelihood of minimum landing conditions being a common occurrence, it's my opinion that the potato plant suffers from poor design decisions. A structural engineer, William Porusch, once told me "Building Codes do not represent good design, they only specify the absolute minimum requirements."
I would tend to agree, the potato plant seems to have structures that could be legal but might violate the spirit of the clearance or height regulation. I think someone made a bad decision here, if this ends up in court, we might see who is at fault through the legal process.
If its snowing. Do a go around. Clouds move, visibility changes minute to minute during most snow storms
What’s the approval process for stacks like that vs commercial property? Kinda shocked it’s even allowed to be built on a flight path
Often the bulidings were there first.
Agree it looks crazy to me
@@TheBeingReal even if it is how’s the planning process approve an airport with that in the line of site
@@TheBeingReal I gotta disagree with that. Most of the time the airport was there first then commercial or suburbs creep in and around and want the apt shut down due to noise or someone wanting the land to profit from even more construction.
@@terryboyer1342 can be a mix. Had a local GA airport near where I grew up, airport popped up in the late 50’s when there was already commercial properties. Ford tractor (at the time) ended up moving because they could not build higher. But totally get your point.
Hard to say on this airport without a lot of digging around, certainly a crappy approach coming in over the buliding.
Talking to my flight instructor tonight…on and on about flight planning…he used to freight Beechcraft all over USA…I’m on my last PPL exam…Nav…how right he is. Thanks Juan…so sorry for the Pilot…God bless her.
Thanks again Juan for an update. RIP for the young pilot and comfort for her family and friends. Hopefully we learn from such tragedy, and improvements to this airport, and surrounding obstacles.
Steam cloud and snow .. what could go wrong. That approach is crazy. It would be difficult in VFR with crosswinds....those pipes would be dancing all over the place.
Thanks for the update and photos of the approach. The perfect alignment of the steam cloud is truly unfortunate.
Thank you for what you do Juan - God Bless that family and prayers for their loss and RIP to that aviator just trying to get the job done - Great Americans from all walks of life are "paying their dues" everyday - let us never forget them for their courage and ability and resourcefulness and tenacity for what they do everyday battling the elements for every single one of on the ground.
Thanks for the update, RB, NS.
Hmm... so what came first? the factory with the stacks/obstacles, or the airport?
- If the airport came first, it seems rather foolish that a factory was then allowed to be there... or rather, build those structures on the roof.
- If the factory was there first... why would they ever put an airport there?
The whole thing seemed like a disaster waiting to happen, and sadly, someone now lost their life for it. May she rest in peace.
Doesn't really matter. The obstacles were known, and flying the approach properly would clear them. Difficult? Yes. Someone else's fault? No.
Sad? Certainly.
RIP it’s a sad loss, and very difficult conditions.
"a lot of the pressure to get the job done is self-imposed pressure" That is absolutely correct! Fly the numbers and don't be afraid to go to the alternate or wait until a better time to go. Is it worth your life?
Mostly agree with Juan but in this case, there is a lot of pressure to complete the mission that comes from the company. Nothing written down I'm sure, but the pressure is there. Find out when the last time the company congratulated a pilot for deciding to return to base without dropping off the packages, or asked the driver to go to another nearby airport due to safety concerns. If that happens, we have a safety culture. If not, then the culture can be improved. It's clear that most young pilots are like buckin' broncs, and want to complete the mission, sometimes by doing things that are on the line or slightly over the line. It's the company's responsibility to rein them in a bit so that they have a long career.
You, and many others just like you are Geniuses, and among the bravest people in the world. Your reports are very well done Juan. Thank You
Since I haven't heard it mentioned directly -
and having actually worked around cooling towers in the Idaho winter,
I have to wonder about hitting that cloud and having it flash freeze a coat of ice on everything -
not enough to be aerodynamically significant -
but certainly enough to obscure vision or perhaps coat a sensor - at just the wrong moment.
Particularly considering the wind direction, I have to wonder.
My sympathies go out to her friends and family.
Well, based on the details Juan just shared with us, she never made it to the steam column. It appears to have been slightly further (50-100 ft) down the glide path, and her plane hit the tower, crashed to the roof, and never made it that far.
@@NoelKerns Maybe I didn't follow him correctly then - was the steam blowing straight towards the field at the time of the accident, or straight towards her on approach? I understood it to be blowing basically blowing straight into her face if she was on the glide slope.
@@theblackbear211 I don't think we actually know that. I haven't seen any information about surface winds at the time. It would have been part of the ASOS, but I haven't seen anyone mention it. At the end of the day, if she had been at the MDA, it would have been a nonfactor anyway. To answer the original question, though, no one in aviation officially refers to clouds - it's visible moisture (in this case, steam.) So, yes, if the conditions are right and you have visible moisture, that moisture can absolutely stick to your leading edges. Still, the amount we're talking about here would have virtually no impact. In particular, this aircraft was equipped with certified de-ice equipment (which, to be fair, can mean a very wide variety of things.)
@@theblackbear211 - I thought I remember hearing Juan mention - either in this video of the previous one - that she was landing with a right crosswind. Maybe I'm imagining that though, based on that photo.
@@michaelmartinez1345 - Yes, the flightaware data confirms that she executed a missed approach, and then setup nicely for the 2nd attempt that ended tragically.
Really the bottom line for me in this whole thing is how absolutely ridiculous that approach path is, with the towers, and the steam, etc. With weather added - as was very much the case here - it's a disaster waiting to happen...and happen it did, sadly.
I drove by the accident site this morning on my way to Utah to asses the approach. I was shocked by how hazardous the approach is. Those towers should have been lit up like Christmas trees given their height and proximity to the airport and alignment with the runway. After Dan’s latest video I had to check it out. I would never want to try that approach in marginal conditions. The steam cloud was on full display this morning. The tower that was impacted is gone. Only the supporting structure remains. Such a tragic and preventable accident. Thanks for the update.
I worked at a wastewater treatment plant that was at the end of a general aviation airport and we had height requirements that were so strict we had to cut 8 feet off our American flag pole to meet safety requirements. Our flagpole looked like it was the runt of the litter! We also had to contact the airport if we were going to use a crane and put a white and orange checkered flag on the crane while it was in use.
Sounds like you worked for a facility that was responsibly managed, at least this aspect. This is good to hear, but is not, unfortunately, universal.
What I find disturbing reading all these replies is the fact that some seem to think that there is something wrong with the IAP, there isn’t! If you adhere to the procedures and MDA this approach might be “challenging” but legal and doable. The obstacles are clearly marked on charts and described in the Airport Facility Directory. At the designed 3.75 angle and adhering to the MDA you would clear this obstacle at 4275ft MSL or 123ft. AGL or 63ft (plus another 40ft. if you account for the TCH) above the smokestack
There is a lot of ridiculous speculation on here which is not only misleading but dangerous in general to aviation!
Which gauge on your fancy aircraft shows you it’s a 3.75 angle on a non-precision LNAV approach? It could be flown safely by chance or by a pilot with very local knowledge - but I’m sure most would fail to do it right. According to law the judge will ask “what would the average pilot have done”, not the super ace with lots of experience. These type of approaches should be trained in a simulator to obtain approval. My guess is that this approach will be withdrawn and replaced with a no IMC approach approved or a ridiculously high MDA or revised to a LPV type approach. This was an accident waiting to happen and the FAA and all who approved this ridiculous approach should be held accountable- but will they???
Some Aircraft actually have an FPA selector that can be set but that is not the point at all since you simply look at the chart to see which descent rate corresponds to what angle (Jepp charts have that on the plate) and even if you don’t you do a quick calculation in your head to know your approximate rate based on your planned Groundspeed. All these things are readily available to you for use and a prepared Pilot ALWAYS knows these numbers before getting into an approach. You clearly are not a Pilot so I suggest to just keep out of adult conversations 😉
This one was very difficult for me~tragic loss. Thank you Juan 🙏🏽🛩
Go around, toga, flats 15, landing gear up, set missed approach altitude. We are diverting to XYZ. Terrible approach minimums need to be higher. Excellent presentation Juan.
I have a question. Which was built first?, the runway or the building.............Who okay'd a plant with a tower that obstructed the runway or conversely, who aimed the runway at a tower?
At minimum the tower should have had a strobe beacon. The FAA could have prevented this.
I cannot agree more! I'd like to know the answers to those exact questions
The problem is they're so deep into a** covering that mistakes are things that come from other people.
The Burley airport was opened on 4 July 1930. The Gem processing plant across the river in Heyburn was completed in 2011.
Seriously who the hell thought this set up was a good idea. A plant with stacks at the end of the runway.
JFC LOOK at a map... it is FAR from the runway. You bunch of armchair quarterbacks are absurd.
Or putting a runway in front of the stacks... plant may of been there 1st...
This whole configuration looks like a frigging death trap. They had to know this would cause an accident sooner or later. Whoever allowed this to be certified was an idiot.
Who certified the approaches?
I'd like to know if the airport manager at Burley is a pilot. At the airport I operate out of, the airport manager is not a pilot, nor is the manager of the FBO. I explain certain unsafe situations to them but they have no frame of reference. I think being an active pilot should be a pre-requisite for both of these positions.
"a lot of the pressure to get the job done is largely self imposed" I couldn't agree more.
There is self imposed but not all of it. Operators would verbally impose pressure in a “stealthy” way. So in case of accident there is no trace. A comment like: “XXX airport is a good alternate but it is hardly even needed” would be enough to increase the “self imposed pressure”
Man, even to my untrained eye that's never flown any fixed wing aircraft of ANY type, it seems really high just before that stack. Looks like you damn near have to dive it in there. Either the runway, factory, or stack must move it seems - neither option cheap or easy for either side. Sad it takes a tragedy like this to realize it. Excellent info, as always, Juan.
Its a 3.75” glide slope.
Why was this allowed to happen? In the UK we have regulations preventing any tall structures or emissions of smoke or steam on the final approach path.
money talks
Some incredibly insane odds/chances how that exahust pipe ended up in such near perfect alignment with the runway :'(
Poor oversight at the hands of the FAA who are supposed to fly these approaches regularly and ensure there is no danger to aircraft on their approaches. Someone flew this and thought it was Okay. Absolutely neglectful.
@@Keys879 So wrong on your assessment, obstacle noted on plate and the step-down and MDA are predicated on that.
@@garymiller5624 Doesnt matter if its noted on the plate, clearly it was a danger. Who do you think you're fooling???
One doesn’t have to be a pilot to realize this is a dangerous situation at anytime. Period. Very sad.
Juan, it will be interesting to see if the approach does meet TERPS criteria. However, as an operator I worked for 20+ years ago found out, an approach does NOT have to meet TERPS. We unfortunately lost a Lear 35 operating into ASE. One of the takeaways was that the FAA wanted to say that the crew was in violation because they descended from MDA, even though they were not within 30 degrees of the extended runway center line (in accordance with TERPS). However, on that circling approach, if you were to maintain MDA until within 30 degrees of the extended centerline, you would not be able to make a normal descent to the runway. When pointed out to the FAA, their response was that the administrator could waive certain TERPS requirements. For an example of the process, see fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v08%20tech%20functions/chapter%2001/08_001_003c.htm. I would wager that the approach to Burley probably has some sort of TERPS waiver.
With the wind that day bringing the steam plume directly into the approach path and also ascending due to the hot air it's possible that her view of the landing enviroment was obscured for longer than the brief second it would take to fly through the plume if it were in any other orientation. Combining the steam plume and heavy snowfall that had already reduced visibility, it may have been long enough that she made an evasive move that the approach didn't permit.
How could it be a crosswind and also have steam blowing upwind?
@@Heatherder The wind does what it wants, that's how.
@@Heatherder At 1:15, Juan is describing the condition as shown in the photo, which is a crosswind condition as evident from the steam plume. At 1:40, Juan states that on the day of the accident, the wind was 8 kts coming directly down the Visual Glide Path. This means the VGP could have been directly into a 'funnel' of additionally diminished visibility at a time when visibility was already diminished by heavy snowfall. Think of driving in fog and then suddenly fog so heavy you have zero visibility. As Juan states at 6:53, technically you are suppose to call a missed approach if you loose sight of the runway. This may have been a factor in the pilot's decision to make a second approach.
Almost a carrier landing ... without the "meatball", the landing officer, and an arresting hook. And that is in good conditions.
Could make it into an 'Alpha' approach but that steam can be blowing in many different directions. Also when temp/dewpoint are tight as they were that fatal day the steam might not be so benign looking as it appears in these photos. It would be billowing, hanging, not dissipating, like the steam around the vent coming from your clothes dryer on a cold dank day. Another consideration is which stage of the processing produces the most moisture exhaust, what's the worst, when's the least?
Summing up:
Temp/dewpoint spread, the ambient temp especially if below freezing, the manufacturing stage/duration that produces the most moisture as an effluent, wind direction and velocity.
Darn. I am astounded that airport is even there.
It’s been on the chopping block for over a decade now. Lost its FAA funding a few years back due to not meeting safety standards with runway length. Many in the community think it should be moved, but getting funding for these kinds of things in small Idaho towns is almost hopeless.
Excellent visual and spoken explanation of the final approach segment at Burley, Juan. Thanks for your efforts to help us all understand this tragic accident. we have a much clearer picture of the challenges young Brittany was up against that fateful morning.
it looks to me now that this approach to runway 20 is a bit tricky under the best conditions, i.e. VMC day ops.
I'm only personally familiar with the VNAV/LNAV approach software in the Boeing 757 and 737NG navigation suites. Hopefully you or someone familiar with the Garmin 1000 can explain the vertical and horizontal nav laws in that system that Brittany would have been using at the time of the mishap. This approach could only be legally flown as published, an LNAV nonprecision approach with stepdowns to progressively lower crossing restrictions until the final approach fix/missed approach point where a pilot's decision must be made to begin descent to the runway if sufficient visual cues are present, or execute a missed approach. my question is whether the G 1000 system is providing a glideslope on a NP approach to vertically guide the pilot to descend to the progressively lower altitude restrictions on the final approach course? And if so, where does it project the final (visual) descent path to the touchdown zone? Is it possible if the pilot/autopilot is following such a vertical glide path as an aid to crossing the final approach course altitude restrictions that the pilot might erroneously continue following the VNAV cues and be tempted to continue doing so at the missed approach point, or slightly before?
According to an article published on Feb. 26, 2021 by KMVT (the local CBS TV station), the airport dates back to the early 1900s, and had lost FAA funding due to being below minimum standards.
Also, the airport's relocation has been under discussion for approximately 25 years.
I'd say that there is a case to be made against UPS, the airport, and quite possibly the potato processing plant for wrongful death, because the more that one digs in to this, the more that the conditions appear to barely meet allowable approach conditions in good, clear weather.
WHERE WAS THE FAA while that tower was being put up? Have they NO responsibility?
If not, what good ARE they?
Why would the plant have any responsibility? It's not their job to determine proper airsafety.
@@carlmenger9145 I work at a different plant, our stack height had to be modified upon construction because we are “near” a pattern. So the ball was dropped somehow.
@@carlmenger9145 They emit the steam plume directly into the approach path.
And, they did not have any aircraft warning light on that stack.
They are not only responsible for getting their plans approved before they build, but also in how they operate their facility in a manner that is not supposed to increase the risks to aviators.
Gettafnggrip... THOUSNADS have landed their safely. Thousands. Pilot error.
It will be interesting to see how the FAA handle the issue of pilots loosing visual on the runway for a second when flying through the steam cloud generated from the processing plant chimney.
It's already not legal to do if you're a VFR pilot. If you're IFR and you enter the cloud below MDA you are to execute a missed approach immediately. In that case, however, by the time you realize it and start to execute the missed approach you'll be out of the steam cloud and it's likely safer to just land. It's just a poor place for the stacks.
I'm guessing it has everything to do with operating costs, but as close as Twin Falls is, it's a shame Fed Ex would chose a location that is so much less safe than one that's about 15 minutes flying time away.
right. I see it's about 45 miles driving by I-84.
UPS, not Fed Ex.
Great review. I had not considered that smoke and that obstruction so close to the runway. Sad all around.
I’m surprised this approach is not offset ? When were these obstacle’s constructed, before or after the this approach was constructed ? No doubt the height of the obstructions has been verified ?
1930 for the airport; 2010 for the plant.
@@lizj5740 I’ve found an RNav(GPS) Rwy 20 plate on the internet, dated 21/04/22 plus 1 month.
This gives Touchdown zone elev of 4152’ and an obstacle at 4179’ which is only 27’ high !!! The LNav mda is 4560’ .
Just looking at video, the towers are much higher than 27’.
I conclude there are other obstacles which are not shown on the approach plate. The question also is are they fitted with obstruction lights and say strobes ? Also the runway which has a displaced threshold ( originally constructed in 1940 ? ) does not appear to have papi’s or vasis making it particularly difficult in poor viz.
I’ve also looked on google maps and I cannot see any towers on the plant in question , but I do not know how often google update their maps.
All in all this looks like an accident waiting to happen.
Could ice fog be a thing here? You're on approach, snow and already near 100% humidity in the atmosphere. Add that water-laden plume into a sub-freezing environment, and you're gonna have a bad situation. I've seen this before (not on an approach, however). It's a bad recipe.
I am not a pilot. Please enlighten me. What was there first: the airport or the plant? I cannot fathom the FAA allowing a plant to be built in this location if the airport was already there. Conversely, I cannot fathom the FAA allowing an airport to be built with an approach oriented as such with a plant and smoke stack - air nav hazard - in the glide path and so near the outer marker.
The airport was built first according to other articles.
The airport was there first. The processing plants were built later, and were expanded more recently. The stack that was struck was only built a few years ago.
@@edp2260 Does the FAA have NOTHING to say about obstacles in the approach corridor?!?
@@earlaagaard8175 no. They have no say
@@earlaagaard8175 Yes they do. It is in FAR 77 and covered in subsection 77.13. It is up to the local building code enforcement agency to produce a zoning map in compliance with the FAR. It is not up to the business to guess what is safe.
I think the FAA is going to buy this one! Either there was a TERPS evaluation error, or the criteria will be changed. Either way a horrible accident, this pilot was put in a very difficult situation.
Yes, it was a difficult situation, but that's what pro pilots deal with all the time. The criteria don't guarantee that every pilot will be safe in every situation. There's always room for a mistake to bust someone's ass. But it's their mistake, not that of the people who created or evaluated the TERPS criteria.
People have to learn that we all must take responsibility for our own failures. This was one of those.
If the charted data was incorrect, or there was a failure in the airplane's equipment, then that can contribute to the accident. But assuming the charted data is right, and the airplane did what it's supposed to do, this will be determined to be a pilot error accident. There may be some "contributing causes" as mentioned here, but it is still up to the pilot to deal with them, one way or another.
It's what pilots, especially professional pilots, do.
Normally for this type of operation arrangements have been made to put the airplane inside a hangar either for the day or at least long enough to de-ice before the evening return flight. I flew UPS feeder in the north country and the company always had this planned out. At the company home base they even hangared the FedEx flight that went to that city. There is also possibility this wasn’t the only stop for this plane.
My company flys cargo in winter and this is exactly our procedure the smaller feeder airports.
I believe you said these stacks aren't even lighted in your last video. Insane that there's an obstacle that high on short final directly in line with the runway and its not even lighted.
My first thought was, should there be an obstacle beacon/warning light?
🙄
John if you follow the approach procedure the lights are superfluous.
@@garymiller5624 G,day Gary from Sydney Australia.
Is there any notations, symbols or warning on the approach plates in any section issued by the FAA.
That's makes one sit up straight and take notice!!!
🌏🇦🇺
I’ve landed at Burley before. VFR. Departed the opposite runway and it definitely felt sketchy trying to climb over that factory despite executing a short field take off it still felt too close for comfort
Why even land at Burley? Twin Falls is only a couple of miles away, has an ILS, lower minimums, and no obstacles. Burley is a bad choice, as was demonstrated here.
Craziness, I would not be surprised in the end the steam exhaust is moved, this was an accident waiting to happen, thx Juan,.. your factual and impartial approach is second to none. Unfortunately Aviation lessons are always hard.
This is outrageous. Poor Brittany was set up.
Ideat... Brittany WAS flying TOOO LOW for a safe approach.
May God comfort the family of this pilot. My condolences. Tragic. Thank you for these updates Juan.
So sad to see young life with so much potential cut short ! Of course we hold onto hope, that forensically explaining it will not land on invincible young ears ! Huge condolences to loved ones trying to make sense of their loss ! 🙏😥🇨🇦
The personal pressure especially for younger pilots is real and can definitely factor decision making. Your points on the smoke stacks and towers are good, but looking again at the approach plate, the aircraft was well below profile, with or without any obstacles.
Damn I feel for the family. BUT she went 2x below MDA. She knew the obstacles were present; get there pressure is a real major factor. And was here. Been there done that, got the soiled shorts to prove it.
A Bad Accident, but just another accident never the less.
great update....the assumption by many channels was that she had a missed approach and go around... but very possible she was just checking the runway for snow, excellent insight, and the steam stack and wind direction...wow. . Heck for all we know, she may have been setting up to take a second lower look at the runway, when she clipped the tower.
That was an accident waiting to happen.
That plant should of had a height restriction for all of their equipment.
Didn’t anyone see a problem with this set up?
Thanks for sharing your professional view point. You always give accurate news.
Be safe my friend.
When are we going to see another news flash from Petey? Lol!
Outstanding video and presentation.
The approach allows 3.4 miles to lose 1200' from HIKLO-JAMID. At a 90kts ground speed, that would require a 545 ft/min decent over 2.2 mins. I think the key to this investigation will be her airspeed throughout the approach.
This is right in my backyard, we get Gem Air flights in and out of Logan all the time. Sad to hear about this, these uncontrolled airports can be frustrating to get updated conditions on.
Interesting development to this story. The photo at 0:40 really shows that this approach is sketchy as frig even on a sunny day. Hopefully her death is not in vain and they fix this.
Its not sketchy lmao.
@@Heatherder OK big man
I'm sorry for the loss of the pilot, condolences to her family. But, she flew to this airport before and many other pilots completed approaches at minimum to this airport. What made this approach fatal in this accident?
Dan over at Probable Cause posted a video the other day APOLOGIZING and saying he believes he was in error when he, along with you, stated that this was a BELOW MINIMUM pilot error. Apparently, there is more info coming and he is going to make another video with specifics. He stated he talked with the pilot's father and received additional information. finally, he stated that this is probably NOT a pilot error even though she was below minimums, which he acknowledged is confusing, and stated there was NOTHING different she could have done to avoid the fatal accident, and challenged everyone to think about that and he will explain in the upcoming video. Obviously, we all agree that these TOWERS should NOT be anywhere near this airport, an absolute clusterf**k of zoning laws in that region.
My thinking is she made one go-around attempt or preview attempt and was able to get a good assessment of the conditions. She has flown into the airport with the same plane many times, so is well aware of the towers. Weather conditions were less than ideal, visibility less than perfect. As you stated, "making the mission work", and "pushing ourselves" seemed to lead to a PILOT LACK OF JUDGMENT situation. She could have easily abandoned the landing at that airport and landed at an IFR equipped with ATC nearby and no one would have questioned her decision and she would still be alive today. Or she could have returned to the airport of origin and returned later when conditions improved.
Or maybe the FAA should have nixed the tower construction SO CLOSE and so in line with the already existing runway. I guess they could have closed the airport, too. WHERE WERE THEY?
Pretty amazing that an obstruction like that could be built right on a runway axis, but if you spend some time in google maps you will see that this factory is not in Burley, but in Heyburn. I'm guessing that there is a logical ($$$) reason it's there, and not elsewhere in the area.
Fully get that it should not matter, approach plates correct, MDAs, etc. but we have to accept the reality that we as pilots are not always perfect - and if we mess up, is there any kind of a buffer? I think we should find a way to "protect" our runway axis with either a flat park, golf course, grazing, farming, or some other undeveloped space for exactly this reason. I fully realize that politically ($$$) it's hard.
Unbelievable that they have an active runway like that. Maybe ok for ultralights but sketchy for a airplanes, especially flying in weather. Should have been closed anytime weather visibility drops.
Disagree, the aircraft was below the 3.75 degree glideslope. Closing the airport for the sake of a bad pilot is the ridiculous thing.
Thank you so much!
I dogged freight when I was but a young tyke many years ago. I'm here to tell you you can often find yourself under pressure to "get in" when you should have gone someplace else. Sometimes that pressure takes the form of your own overconfidence and sometimes it's external. I'm not saying that's what happened here. That's still a tough call. Blowing snow and a steam cloud at night? Might as well be trying to land in a snow globe.
This accident happened in daylight, per the report.
While far from an ideal approach configuration, barring unforeseen circumstances that we may not know about, staying at or above MDA and executing a missed approach at the MAP if the runway is not in sight is a safe way to conduct operations at this field. The ce-208 is a pretty docile airplane to fly and can safely fly an approach at fairly low speeds which gives the pilot more time to evaluate the conditions. Of course if ice was involved, that might complicate the scenario.
If the Grand Caravan hasn’t changed in the last 30 years, it will have pneumatic boots on the wing leading edges and the front of the pod. In addition, it has a hot plate on the windshield to keep a clear view. In heavy ice, that might restrict vision out the front if the windshield is iced except for the hot plate. But that all comes from memory 30 years ago across 3500 hours in the caravan.
All that to say while it may have been a busy approach, it should have been very manageable imo.
@@speedlever I had not given the report a thorough look. I admit, that since all of my freight time was on the backside of the clock, I just assumed. Be that as it may handling a low vis approach in blowing snow and low hanging obscurations is challenging. At the moment this incident leaves us more questions than answers. Why was there even an approach to a runway with that many obstacles in the final segment? Did she have the landing environment in sight and then loose it? Did she assume that it was just the steam cloud and she’d be through it in a second? Why was she attempting an approach and landing to a place she couldn’t potentially leave? ( no deicing available). I don’t know and it’s understandable that her family and friends may not like the answers to these questions but my gut feel here says she either left the MDA without having the runway in sight or she had the runway and then lost it and failed to execute a missed ( I’m not condemning here. We’ve all done stupid stuff in an airplane. Most of us were lucky enough to learn from it.). In any event it’s all just conjecture. I’d like to see what shakes out of the investigation.
@@gerrycarmichael1391
Agreed on all counts. Was that destination airport her home base or an intermediate stop? In my experience, those freight runs tend to be daily repeats based at some outstation, flying the freight into a hub late at night, then reversing course in the morning returning to the outstation(s). Assuming that, this is even more puzzling since it would imply familiarity with the airports and approaches in the area, unless she was a floater pilot on tdy for one reason or another.
I used to fly the Caravan as a freight dog.. not out west though, but up in the North east and in eastern Canada. I have landed in snow and dealt with snow on a regular basis. I don’t know any Caravan pilots who purposely do a missed approach to assess a paved, snowy runway,, the big tires can handle it without testing the surface like in the back country. Also as for snowing conditions, you won’t have snow sticking to a cold soaked plane, so even if you landed and snow accumulates on the wing, you could broom it off and go. No need to de-ice like at the airlines. If it’s not adhering, you are good to go!
Sounds like this "airport " needs to be closed down.
Sensible analysis Sir... 👌👌