Sorry for tagging onto this, but unless I'm mistaken, the impacted stack wasn't even shown on the approach plate, was it? In the lower right hand corner of the plate, it shows something a tiny bit left of the approach as 4,179 ft. That doesn't seem to be it, though, as the impacted stack was directly *on* the extended centerline, and the the final accident report states "The top of the stack was 4,256 ft msl" on page 7. I'm definitely not suggesting this caused the accident, but it looks like one more error/omission contributing to the numerous dangers of this approach.
@@400_billion_suns On the current approach plate, it seems to blend in with and be mostly hidden by both the approach path line and the last GPS fix symbol for JAMID, 4291. I think that’s it? Seems easy to miss like that.
@@blancolirio They pulled the VASI years ago because of criteria not being met. City Hall says they want to move the airport. They have an Airport Commission, not sure how effective....but despite the pilot being very familiar with the airport, my guess the constant steam blowing all over on final approach was a critical factor in the Swiss Cheese Model
Brittany was an amazing soul and one of the best student pilots I had the pleasure of working with. This tragedy stuck me to the core, along with total shock once I learned what happened. During her instrument training, I was assigned Brittany at her request after she sat in on one of my students ground lessons. From the get go, her love and passion for aviation was evident. She relentlessly worked through our lessons and immediately demonstrated top notch airmanship. I had the luxury to talking with her on our long, time building, cross countries. She was so full of life and desire to be the best pilot she could. Her attention to detail to this day is the golden standard I instilled in my instrument students. Every lesson she showed up excited and eager to learn. Taking a picture with her after she earned her instrument ticket is one of my proudest moments as an instructor! Juan, I’d like to thank you for covering her accident and helping to bring more attention to the negligence associated with the Burley airport approach and potato plant. It sickens me to know she was taken from our community due to a trap and immensely difficult situation. She and I talked about opening a flight school someday so that we could pay it forward to the new upcoming generations. I miss being able to check in on her and she’s sorely missed! I appreciate the hard work Juan! RIP Miss Brittany blue skies and tailwinds aviator!
incredible post! btw, you're living the dream. I also have a wrx, vids of it on my channel, but I am now amidst a career change to follow in your steps. Looks like you already went from CFI to 737 FO based off your last vid? incredible pathway for you! from WRX to part 121 pilot flying airliners!!
@@KuostA Life is pretty good for sure! I'm actually an FO on the E175, and about to upgrade to Captain. It has most definitely been a journey for sure. Stay humble, learn from your mistakes and just know that knowledge is power in aviation. Before you know it, you'll be living out your dreams. I appreciate the kind words. Fyi, that video isn't my own, just a CAT2 ILS approach I had shared with me ;)
-The airport was there first, since 1930. -The potato company leases the property from the city, the same entity that owns and manages the airport. -New, bigger stacks were built WITHOUT permission from the city as recently as 2016. -The FAA study on the new stacks determined significant risks and required multiple mitigations including the mentioned paint job that never got done. This airport shouldn't have been open at all let alone that runway. This particular swiss cheese smells like big time corruption.
5/1/24...thx Juan for reviewing this horror...I remember when you 1st reported it...stayed with me ever since...now this report. Great pics of runway threshold, at distance, but right in the way is this bunch of steam smoke stacks !! Hey, just where was FFA on approvals or Flight Check activity? Something is very wrong here. Hope family gets best lawyers & destroys those obstructions...moves them, re-locates the pipes. You can't have a city airport in lesser priority than some potato cooking smoke stacks...but this looks like some political ugly maneuvers for corporate convenience rather than 'little' aircraft trying to land...in the snow! Come on lawyers...sick'em!
Idk, why do you say that it is the airport that should have been closed? It has been there since the '30s from what I've read. Imo, it is that potato plant that should have not been operating there, not the airport.
Wow, that the FAA actually realized the issue is even more devastating. I know most of these incidents are “preventable” - but this is different. Very competent pilot established on final and still this happens. 🫤
I met her a few days before this at slc int. She was riding her bike around the parking lot between her flights. Very nice and beautiful lady. Such a tragedy..
As a glider pilot, I will note that whenever you have rising air (from a natural thermal or a man-made source like a steam vent), you *also* have sinking air around the outside of that patch of rising air. This sinking air will be especially pronounced on the _downwind_ side. Assuming that pilots are landing into the wind when flying the approach indicated in this video, I have to imagine that its not uncommon to hit turbulence and a patch of sudden sink. As a side-note, power pilots in the area might inadvertently attribute this loss of lift during the approach to wind shear (as non-glider pilots are more attuned to that phenomenon than thermals).
Keep in mind that the weather was cold enough for snow to be a factor. Steam could have been cooling and condensing lower than usual and then pushed around by wind along approach.
@@captaintoyota3171 yes especially when steam obviously increases density altitude and the 800 pound gorilla obscured visibility. No way is that enough clearance. Most of us have made landings over obstacles trees etc. but this was a set up. A trap as Juan called it. So unfortunately courts are filled with these kinds of cases.
Potatoes are a $1Billion dollar-a-year industry in Idaho. The potato mafia just paid off whoever needed to be paid off. Brittney's death was just the cost of doing business.
New smokestacks at the potato processing plant went up in 2016, and the lawsuit alleges Gem State Processing didn’t go through the proper channels to notify the FAA before construction. What an unfortunate outcome for this young lady!
The positioning of those stacks old or new together with that instrument approach were a disaster waiting to happen. Hopefully all contributing parties get sued into oblivion. My condolences to the pilot and her family.
@@AlpineWarrenUnfortunately as Juan pointed out her reason for “busting” might include the emissions from the stacks. You can defend the design as meeting requirements but they obviously didn’t consider the steam, colder weather, and the combined impact.
Just my 2 cents here… several years ago I flew through a steam cloud emitted from a sugar mill smokestack. The heat lifted my plane UP about 100 feet or so. I was correcting this situation when I flew through all the way through it. At that time, my correction caused a rapid drop on the opposite side. After landing to clean my underwear, I made a mental note not to ever ever ever do that again.
I used to fly gliders many decades ago. I wondered if the hot air plume affected her altimeter? It would be less dense making the altimeter read higher than she was? Might be why she descended once she entered the plume?
Thats insane how do we allow a 100ft clearance to STEAM STACKS? Seriously lined up with runway? Who approved this? Horrible idea no way she shoulda passed. Should have not been a 100ft clearance in zero visibility
Your Certified aircraft altimeter can have a 50 foot built in error That's cutting the margins to close on this IFR Approach. How about taking off IFR towards the stacks?
Would there be density altitude considerations? From my training, she flew from a cold crisp thick air into a hot thin wet air with almost no lift while slowing down. Also, the moisture from the steam may have accumulated onto her wings, which would freeze once she's clear of the steam.
@@semidhimmi3184 The issue with steam is that it makes engines like this basically misfire and struggle to keep running. Specifically, that it uses older electro-mechanical fuel injection, so it's unable to quickly adjust to rapid changes in air density.
It seems like it would be hard to apportion blame. Her altitude dropped precitously for an unknown reason. When she broke out, would the stack being painted have made a difference?
Maybe I am missing something here, she flew below the posted safe minimum during horrible weather in a heavy aircraft on an approach with a known razor thin safety margin. That's not Swiss cheese, that's suicidal. Should this approach stay open, I don't know, but its definitely possible to do it safely.
@@donmoore7785That stack should never have been there. It was built without permits. Only getting retrospective approval by the city, which violated FAA regulations. Plenty of blame to go around. Hope many see jail time.
That's why this rnav is NA at night. Did my long IFR cross country here, and used the VOR because It's safer. My DPE knew her and now uses this as a training lesson. So sad.
If the runway was there before the processing plant, who the HELL authorised the latter's construction? Those responsible bear direct responsibility for this woman's death. ETA The airport has been there since 1930...
I'm more pissed at the at the company she flew for putting her up there single pilot IFR into where again? A non precision approach airport where again? Burley? Saving a buck at her expense. imho. Running into Burley like that is BS.. imo.
Well, she's responsible for operating the aircraft. Complain all you want about this obstruction, but this information is all marked and noted on the relevant charts. She might not have anticipated the effect of the steam cloud would have on her approach, but that doesn't change the fact that it's her responsibility to remain clear of obstructions on the ground.
@@Willtellthetruth She was flying the published approach. If there was no warning on the approach plates, how is it her fault that the plane lost power due to steams?
@@Willtellthetruth Disagree. Nothing meets the usual standards. Pilots expect safety standards to be met. It's a question of trust. Here, the trust was betrayed.
Juan thanks for sharing one of your best videos to date. I've followed this accident from the beginning. The FAA/NTSB has video from the processing plant camera of the aircraft impacting the tower or moments before. The combination of no flaps on approach raised the nose at slower approach speed. Upon entering the steam cloud, this would cause loss of lift on exit, hence the application of power just 7 seconds prior to impact. The Stem Stacks can be relocated away from the approach path. The FAA migitation measures was to paint the towers which was never complied with. The City owns the land the processing plant sits. The City is also owner and manager of the airport. There are many conflicts of interests at play here. All relevant agencies are indirectly involved in this tragic accident. Your reporting of the facts for this accident is outstanding. I've stopped watching DG along time ago. I stopped drinking the kool aid and moved on.
Juan…. It’s difficult to express how much your (Fact Based First) readout of these incidents have helped me over the years. The plate clearly did not reflect the risk (
Thank you Juan for a Heartfelt memory of this enthusiastic and totally professional young lady. So Sad! She did evertthing by the book but still lost her precious life. The story of how this gigantic impediment was approved and created in the middle of the glideslope deserves further review. Happy to support you on Patreon. Thank you :)
She did not. Or has read the wrong book. Aka not AQP (ref. Dan Gryder). From her first approach and her knowledge of the airport's situation she should have figured she might lose clear view of the runway. And have prepared to go around. Or divert in the first place because of all the changing factors. It was an unsafe approach from the setup (FAA/city). And an unpredictable one from the actual conditions. So the safe way aka divert should have been taken. Good (technically experienced) pilots seem to have a bias of man vs. circumstances will favor man's abilities. But what if not? I think some way into a professional career one gets too confident because all the technology has been mastered and developed into a routine. That gives too much confidence and too little desire of being humble. Allways assume you are not perfect. And if you fail have a plan B. I feel so sorry for her and her family. But as humans we tend to fail.
Juan, I am not a pilot but just have to speak my piece. You make a good point concerning the density altitude aspect in the steam cloud causing her to loose the excessive altitude. I don't believe the NTSB even raised that as a possibility. My take was they hinted at her lower than specified air speed for possible icing conditions being a factor. But, regardless of that is the fact that: On February 2, 2017, as a condition of the "No Hazard Determination", the stacks were required to be painted with white and aviation orange paint, and lit with red obstruction lights, per FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1. The accident occurred on April 13, 2022. This was 5 years, 2 months & 11 days after the stacks were required to be painted and the site was still not in full compliance with this FAA directive, i.e. no white and aviation orange paint on the towers. This situation presented a continuing hazard to air navigation for over 5 years, VMC, IMC or VASI obscuration conditions aside. Now we are in May, 2024, another 2 years later. The FAA has the authority to fine or otherwise take legal action against tower & other site owners who fail to comply with directives. Our tax dollars at work.
@@MrCpgallagher True, nor do you see a mountainside when you conduct controller flight into terrain in IMC. My point being: I do not know for a fact, but I doubt the plant is running and generating steam 24/7/365 and IMC conditions are not always present. Even with no steam generation occurring, there can still be snow, rain, fog or a low, scattered ceiling and, of course moonless nights. There is a reason the FAA found a HAN and "directed" the tower painting and obstruction lighting. I did not go back and re-read the study, but IIRC, there was a issue with the visibility of the VASI using the published approach plate. In sum, the original construction of the towers in line [almost] exactly with the runway, the - apparent - fact no one [Engineers, etc.] saw an issue with this design ab initio, the companies failure to complete the work to come into compliance after being put on notice and finally the FAA's abandonment of follow up and enforcement are inexcusable failures and should have never occurred. A culture of laziness.
I believe there was an accident case study video on ASI about this accident called "Risk Stacking" and it is a great breakdown of the entire crash sequence and ATC comms.
I have passed through steam plumes many times at much higher altitude as a glider pilot in NE England. Around Hexham. It always induces rapid descent and increase of airspeed with nose down. No question at all. You may expect a thermol effect but in fact the opposite occurs if the surrounding atmosphere is colder and more dense. The effect is instant. Like being sucked down. This is a negative G and unless you are expecting it and at altitude it gives you little time to react. This can be of benefit without the reliance on an engine while gliding. However, I would suggest this poor lady, who was without question a fine pilot, had little chance of recovery in these conditions given the type of aircraft she was flying. Too low, too heavy, poor visibility and reduced power with nose high and a clean configuration. Those stacks should never have been anywhere near an airfield in my opinion. The light removal is shameful also. However, the conditions and steam stacks created a trap. Not the lack of light. Thoughts to her family and tutor who commented. Much respect to all. A terrible and unnecessary loss.
I have seen the airport and the processing plant from ground level when I was hauling frozen French fries out of the area. I commented to my team driver that that was a disaster waiting to happen. It is awful anyone died, but more tragic when such a hardworking individual is the victim.
These stacks belching steam being put up right in line with the runway are an almost comically absurd decision. It's the kind of random obstacle I would expect a video game dev to put in at the end of a level just to mess with your ability to finish without losing one of your lives along the way.
I would have serious questions about how and why the FAA published this procedure, knowing full well those stacks were a hazard. TERPS planning is a tricky business inside the FAA. But having said that, I've seen the FAA placed under tremendous political pressure to fix problems created by the local government (allowing incompatible land uses like this for example). To this trained eye, that plant, with those kinds of stacks, is simply in the wrong place. And the airport shouldn't be forced to move! That plant can be sited somewhere else a lot easier and sooner than can a replacement airport.
There is nothing about this IAP that violates TERPS. The MDA is 4560, the stack top is 4256. That's 304 ft of clearance, which exceeds the 250 ft ROC. The decision to descend below the MDA requires that the pilot can visually avoid any obstacles below the MDA. The advisory glideslope provides no obstacle clearance below the MDA. A clue that there is an obstacle in the visual segment is that the procedure is NA at night and requires 1SM of visibility.
@@geekmug By that logic, couldn't you have a 100ft MSL tower 100ft from the end of a runway, give it an MDA of 350ft, and say the glideslope doesn't guarantee clearance? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to understand the logic behind it if that's really how it works. Seems like you could arbitrarily give any object an MDA that clears it without any regard for whether or not the approach and glideslope are reasonable.
@@geekmug true, but this particular obstacle also generates big zero visibility clouds…. don’t know if that is a situation anywhere described in the FAR’s, I think not…
Brilliant analysis about the steam increasing density altitude. I never would have thought of that, and apparently the NTSB didn't either. Low speed and zero flaps makes that flight regime even more susceptible.
Your analysis of the steam made me think. In addition to the aircraft’s performance, maybe the hot, less dense steam was causing her altimeter to indicate a sudden increase in altitude and she mistakenly tried to correct.
I think the steam from the stacks got her.. witnesses said she flew into it, superheated condensing steam destroyed her lift. Density altitude absolute. No time to recover.. What I think anyways. Timing works out.
It was certainly steam and certainly hot, but superheated steam is a specific term and something else entirely. You essentially can't have superheated steam outside of a pressure vessel.
This definitely seems to be a good possibility. The next question is why did the FAA allow this? 98 feet of clearance under the glidepath is ridiculous even if these were not smokestacks, throw in the performance changes from the steam and it's even worse.
Wow, Dan's army came out in force after his video last night. I came back and watched THIS report again. It does not seem to be a "stab in the back", does not "perpetuate drama and fake outrage", or even offer personal commentary. As I've usually found the reports here to be...this was a disemenation of some details in the report from a federal agency. How many people here would have gone to any of these agencies and kept up with when reports are available vs. waiting for an on-line video (Juan Browns, Dan Gryder's, or any other)? I doubt too many which seems to be the purpose of this posting, to provide information about the final report to a larger audience.
@Tglass That video was absolutely unhinged! It went from accusations against Juan @blancolirio and Dan Millican of @TakingOff, to a weird music video, him trying to defend himself against some woman who made claims he's unstable, used an image of recently deceased Richard McSpadden of AOPA and a former fighter pilot when talking about the crash in the video above, etc. Absolutely wild...
Ryan...not to mention throwing his wife's (kids mother) images out there when she was clearly very ill and dying. I remember a woman being in his videos around 2022 or so that suddenly vanished from appearing. I'm sorry for his losses, but using them to elicit sympathy, understanding, or whatever is a bit far fetched. What a lot of people don't realize is his reputation for stirring up stuff from many years ago that forced Delta to fire him.
@@Tglass Ah, yes, I forgot that he included photos and videos of her end of life to drum up sympathy for himself. Pretty damn hard to watch a terminally ill mother's *private* video that was recorded to tell her kids that, "...if you're watching this, I'm not with you anymore" in the middle of what I thought was a RU-vid reaction to JB's educational aviation video...😳 Sickening.
I'm grateful for the excellent training and insight my former employer, PlaneMasters LLC, provided when I flew freight in Caravans. Our SOP was to fly approaches at 120 KIAS and 10 degrees flaps; this provided sufficient energy and lift to climb from a missed approach. Had the accident pilot used this configuration, she might have seen the tower over the nose and had both the control authority and energy to avoid it.
I just posted about that. No flaps, too slow climb attempt. You can see on 01:46 the airplane sank to below top of tower with the nose up. AND NO FLAPS. Why no flaps when you want to 1-Climb well, 2- Be able to have some lift to lower the nose and see over the cowling. For me, it looks that she sank under glide slope, tried to go around, but then took off ALL the flaps, which will make you sink even more. Some just hit that lever, take out all the flaps in one shot and dont think they need some flaps to see better in front and lift too for Vx Flaps. She took off all the lift when took out ALL THE FLAPS at low speed too. And dropped to the stacks. Bad Go Around Maneuver? You can get away with that mistake if no obstacles to clear. You sink when deleting all flaps when under Vglide speed. Over Vglide speed you dont need flaps at all. She Sank w all flaps up and 85 knots only.
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 Yeah, I agree. BTW, I was interrupted and never finished Juan's video; I'll have to go back to it. But I did hear him say at one point that he "assumed" she was VMC when below the MDA. I remember hearing a few details last year, when this accident was first reported, that gave me the distinct impression she'd busted the MDA. That was, however, before I'd heard anything about steam from the towers.
Hi, I met you at Oshkosh, I have flown 500 feet above multiple steam stacks by accident in the past and it threw my airplane a significant amount, so I can imagine what it felt like just being 100 to 150‘ away going through the hot steam and would not be surprised if she lost 100 feet quickly.
There's so many unhinged people in the other comments who are adament that it would do the opposite, and I'm so glad to see anecdotes from folk that actually know what it's like and have experienced this very strong exception to the old "hot air make thing go up" glider pilot logic lmao
Oakdale airport O27 had nearby power lines grow by 50% in height about a year ago and not properly lit. PGE did not notify the FAA and it is not on the plate and nobody seems to care. THIS is going to happen there too
Rest in peace Brittany, you're an absolutely remarkable and beautiful human being. The world lost somebody special. Everyone you knew you touched their hearts and thank you so much for that. You are a tremendous inspiration to so many people it's just incredible your contribution and we all thank and love you so much for your energy in your spirit. I have a lot more to say but unfortunately this is not the correct venue to say it but we love you so much and you are missed❤❤❤❤😊😊😊😊
Wow - Dan Gryder took the light to Georgia? That’s something to ponder. And putting steam stacks on final… Britney’s meticulous efforts to nail this landing are admirable. We can analyze her no flap approach, but this was not her fault. And Dan Gryder stealing evidence??? Wow…. Just wow.
You act like he took the light before the accident. Knowing how Dan does his investigations I'm guessing he found it and he was the one that brought it to light so to speak. I'm guessing when it was made public about the light the investigators were embarrassed and made up the story about it being stolen. It makes no sense that Dan would go there during the investigation. In the past he is always waited until they were done and he usually finds evidence after they are done with their investigation. Yes he probably did trespass but it was all on film. So he had nothing to hide. The NTSB does not like Dan because he makes them look like the fools that they are. He had also mentioned that the stacks should not have been there or the runway should not have been allowed to use that approach. All this is old news.
Lol Dan always getting in trouble. That being said the configuration of this factory in relation to the airport is ridiculous. Those stacks have to go, or they need to change the orientation of the airport, or relocate altogether.
I appreciate the work of Juan & crew to illustrate the ~7 seconds of the flight prior to impact from the location of the final ADS-B data point (adding point "J" in the diagram present near the end of this video). Juan speculates about the density altitude/loss of performance effect of flying from colder/dryer/denser air into the warmer/wetter/less dense air from the vent stacks steam cloud emissions. What a trap indeed! I've been following this accident closely since Dan Gryder posted about it. I did my own geometric analysis; it was heartening for me to see that the NTSB's matched my own. The lingering question for me since working out that geometry for myself has always been: how did she manage to fly a perfect approach down to MDA, but then get so far below that approach's glidepath during the visual segment for the obstacles to be an immediate danger? A line from point "D" to point "F" is 1.6 degrees. She sank below the recommended 3.75 degree path, passing thru a 1.6 degree path before disaster. That seems like a serious blunder. From this video, I took away that there's little room for any error here, as we're so near the threshold. The change in glidepath angle may be big, but the displacement in space of an airplane to get such changes in approach angle, at this close range, is small. 7 seconds to lose 145 feet and hit the stack, rather than clear it. From point "J" to "I" represents a descent angle of 8.1 degrees, but only 7 seconds time at her airspeed. Juan's speculation seems very plausible to me. She was surprised to lose performance upon entering the steam, even while apparently initiating a go-around. There's very little time to notice you'd departed a safe flightpath and react. And even then, the steam may rob you of the performance required to keep you away from disaster. -- Now we know. The only counter to that is: she'd just successfully flown this approach some minutes earlier. I don't have my notes to-hand as I write this, so I don't recall how low she took that good approach over the airport (just to MDA? or right down 'x' feet above the runway?). I'm left to wonder if conditions were appreciably different between her successful 1st and unsuccessful 2nd approaches. Dan had previously suggested to his audience that the instrument approach was unsafe and of faulty design. In his now deleted video, he even tried to raise the alarm to the FAA and insist they remove the approach. If you consider the final, pure visual segment below the MDA to be part of the whole IFR approach, then yes, this approach has proven itself unsafe. However, if consider the IFR approach to terminate at the MDA, and the decision to continue below that to be a "new" approach, flown visually (as it must be), then the IFR approach is perfectly safe and meets TERPS standards. It's the visual short final that's hazardous; perhaps uniquely so as the hot steam from the plant stacks may act like a black hole, sucking aircraft toward them as well as obscuring visibility around them. Would it have mattered that the stack wasn't properly painted? Juan's speculation suggests "no" to me. Yet in litigation, I'll side with the plaintiffs: the airport was there first, the FAA has standards, failure to meet them in painting the stack = accepting the risk & outcome if a plane later hits. The NTSB doesn't seem to count Juan's speculation about steam-plume induced performance loss as a factor worth considering. But we're all on notice now. Obstacle analysis considers the geometry, as if the obstacles are inert otherwise. Here, these obstacles are "doing" things that affect the flight environment above them, making them larger hazards than their physical dimensions suggest. Brittney had performed this approach successfully before, and not just on the day of the accident. She knew the environment. Perhaps she didn't know just how close to disaster she was coming with each prior success there; that the steam could one day steal her ability to maintain a safe glidepath as well as execute a go-around once contact was lost. Any insights from glider pilots about this? My instinct was opposite. Juan's explanation makes perfect sense to me, but prior to hearing it, my instinct was that hot stuff below if anything ought to create a "thermal" like effect, an updraft pushing you above your intended glidepath. Is that wrong? Always, or only under certain conditions? I'd love to look at some physics insights on that point.
The issue is the margin above stall speed. If the new DA puts you into stall or incipient stall territory it's going to take a hell of a thermal to cause you to climb. With flaps up she was configured badly for running into something like this.
Glider pilots have zero intuition for how a steam and similar gas emitting stack on a freezing day does not, in fact, give you appreciable lift. The humidity and therefore density of that column of air, the differences between powered and unpowered airframes, are things these glider pilots are failing to take into account.
@@ramillerusa Dan’s has since admitted he took the light. There is a scuff mark on the light at the scene of the accident in Dan’s video when it was still attached to the stack and you can see the same scuff mark on the light when he brought it home in his 2nd video.
@@ramillerusastop smoking what Dan is selling. The more I watched the guy the more obvious it was that he was full of sh!t and self aggrandizing. I finally got smart and unsubscribed.
Gryder has just been talking tonight about this light, it's current whereabouts & the NTSB's flawed final report &....he does make ALOT of sense both in his actions & he is seemingly able to prove just how wrong the NTSB have got their report on this accident.
I can confirm the flying through a steam cloud can cause a sudden loss in altitude. Once I flew into steam from a cooling tower expecting some lift from the updraft. The opposite happened.
I'm glad to see folk recounting their experiences and how that expectation of hot air go up isn't always true. There's a dozen or so wild skeptics out in the comments claiming that the steam factor is "ludicrous" with such ferocious commitment and belief that you just know they remember very little from college/highschool physics except the very clean, attractive and *unhelpful* "hot air rises" fact. I hope some of 'em are willing to see reason and not become conspiracy wielding loonies like so many others seem to have.
@@mmayes9466Apart from to blame and shame those who mock and provoke them…. They are jumped-up penpushers…. should have called out the ridiculous location and design of the plant and the smokestacks, otherwise how are they improving safety or anything ?
@@johnmoruzzi7236 pro tip: don’t descend below published minimum altitudes unless you can see well enough to provide your own terrain/obstruction clearance
Which was there first, the airport or the plant? If it was the airport, the plant should have to remove the stacks or move. It amazes me this was ever approved.
What makes me the most mad is the amount of people online who immediately went to trashing her flying abilities when the accident occured. Clearly, this was not a piloting issue; it was an approach design issue. Shame to that company for doing whatever tf they wanted without permission and shame on the FAA for allowing such a hazard on an instrument approach.
Being her instrument instructor, I can attest and will always attest to her outstanding skill and airmanship. She was the most humble person I ever had the pleasure of flying with. I have had total faith in her decision making and became sickened seeing people shame her skills following this accident. It’s insane to me that this dangerous approach wasn’t removed and ultimately took the life of a great friend of mine.
@@wrxsnowman What a terrible loss to her family, friends, and the aviation community. She will be greatly missed and and a great loss to the world from what she could have contributed. The approach should have been listed as NA when the FAA disconnected the VASI.
@@jamescollier3 Crossing runways are a necessity, especially in areas that don't have a single direction of prevailing winds. But ATC is supposed to prevent conflicts.
The ntsb seemed to ponder whether the altitude loss at the end was due to either her encountering the hot steam which resulted in the airplane experiencing a loss of performance and hence altitude or the prop torque being reduced below 500 lbs which resulted in discing drag & altitude loss. All of this happened right as she saw the runway environment once she left imc.
You nailed it Juan. It must have been the steam. I'd sure like to know if the stacks or the runway was there first. Just beyond belief. To top it off, Gryder gets involved and destroys evidence.
"First" doesn't make "right". The problem is the process wasn't properly applied. AND the steam-which is another reason to move/reorient the runways. All municipal.
Three weeks prior she came perilously close to undershooting the approach at another airport and had to make an emergency go-around. I am surprised she did not learn her lesson at the time. What was she thinking pushing the limits FAR beyond her limited skill level?
The “theory” is complete speculative bullshit on the exact same level as Dan Gryder and should be given zero respect. Absolutely shameful to continue to publish statements like this. I find it very hard to believe that this man would have such creative “theories” regarding any accident involving someone in his own life. I understand these comment sections are heavily defended by cronies but I really couldn’t care less.
9:00 Maybe she an icing condition but inspecting the fuselage 2 hours later on top of a hot flat top roof above a potato processong factory could have disguised the icing factor. Cheers 🇨🇦
Thanks Juan. Your original video was one of the first videos i ever saw from you, and i have probably thought about this crash atleast once a month since then, so its great to see the follow up!
Another cause never mentioned so far could be the combination of wind (Lee behind factory) and strong steam induced thermal activity: being a glider pilot, the hot steam is a source of lift - but also strong downwind - especially downwind from the smoke-stacks !
people are making Dan out to be some grotesque narcissist here. If you watch his channel you will find he isn't. He's perfectly able to say when he's wrong or doesn't have the knowledge. But when he does know he doesn't hold back and tells it like it is. We should stop cancelling each other and stop acting like lemmings and talk bad about someone because you heard someone else talk bad about them. Out of over 11000 general aviation accidents in the last 10 years in the US, there were only 13 recommendations bij the NTSB. I think Dan is sincere when he says he wants to bring the fatals down. It's going down, he notices it, but doesn't take credit. He hopes he contributed to it.
@@wiebe-piercnossen6419 Indeed, as if Dan Gryder is responsible for this accident. He only pointed out the NTSB obviously did not inspect the site of the accident weel enough. People being upset Dan trespassed... trespassing or not what is the relevance? Watch Dam millicans video about this,millican turns his eyes wilde and talks like an old gossip sentation sick ... So Dan took the light AFTER the NTSB justr left it on the site. All those who make a fuss of this well I call those poor souls
What is not mentioned, Juan, is that during the visual portion of the approach, when she breaks out and looking outside for the Runway, it is possible that she did “duck under” the visual and instrument Glide path. That is a well known effect on the “lookout portion of the approach “ Something that we pilots have to be aware and avoid. Thanks Juan.
Juan great report, I think you've nailed it. My only question is about lack of flaps? Use of flaps with a bit higher airspeed would've certainly aided her visually. I have no doubt she was trying to perform by the book here and used all of her resources to perform the approach. I can only assume that the steam cloud might've even been startling if unexpected. Either way, I think this approach is a bit concerning for the uninitiated. If I were doing this approach, I would add speed with flaps. Agreed, this is an awful approach and I dare say she may not be at fault given the obvious impact of sinking air. I'm sure she tried her best and I feel sad for her family. RIP aviator.
They mentioned the lack of flaps was due to potential icing conditions, which could make flaps more dangerous, as it can accelerate ice buildup or cause a horizontal stabilizer stall.
@@brianorcayea saw that. Definitely a consideration, but I think I would deploy flaps at the final approach fix in this case because the deck angle significantly improves and my hunch is Juan is right that her nose up condition may have played a role in visibility issues. Easy for me to sit here on my couch and armchair it though. I can see her/the logic in no flaps, it’s a legit and respectable decision.
Regarding the Gryder aspect, Juan merely presented the information from the report, as it is a significant aspect of the investigation. That's all. He's got nothing to apologize for. If the NTSB is "lying" as Dan says, then he should sue them for defamation. Interesting that he's not doing that. Hmm.
@@michaelmartinez1345 maybe step back a bit and see what is really going on with Gryder. Regardless of his motivation, entering an accident scene and removing evidence of any kind is a crime. Going on line and bragging about it is evidence of high order narcissism.
DG makes it sound like the light was just laying on the ground. It was still on the stack which was on the ground. He removed it from the stack which is a lot different than just picking it up off the ground. Idk why he couldn’t just photograph the light instead of stealing it?
The NTSB didn't mention Dan Gryder in their report, Juan posted a clip from Dan's video. Maybe he wanted the NTSB to go after Dan. Hate to see Juan and Milligan teaming up to hurt a RU-vidr that has good intentions and trying to help pilots.
Dan continues to dig his own grave. He still has a few followers who think he can do no wrong. Juan didn't say his name but let the video speak for itself.
Let's be honest. The problem is not DanG .. admittedly quite a character. The problem IS the corrupt governance that allowed the build out of the very hazardous smokestacks .
Dan Gryder! So on-brand. Juan, your density altitude hypothesis make perfect sense. NTSB always places at least partial blame on the pilot. I haven't read the report, but wouldn't be surprised to see something like, "...pilot's failure to anticipate density altitude increase in steam cloud," or some such rationalization.
This accident should have never happened. FAA appears negligent here, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Brilliant explanation of what happened Juan. Great job 👍.
tbh the FAA are kinda toothless in a way. They made reasonable demands that were ignored by the owners of the plant, i doubt the plant owners woulda bothered moving the stacks given they never even painted them and only raised them in height because a much toothier agency, the epa (it used to have teeth at least) forced them to. That doesn't absolve the FAA at all, just means the blame deserves to be spread around a little.
I'm surpirised that the factory was allowed to have been build that high on the approach to the runway. Where I learned to fly there were height restrictions on buildings within a set distance from the airport.
Excellent video as usual. I especially like your explanation of the effect steam had on density altitude and its contribution to the accident. It was accent waiting to happen, and she was the unlucky pilot to fall into the trap.
I hate to say it but that approach is nuts can’t they move the stacks? Yeah I know … 😢sad to lose someone to obvious financial allowances for the factory.
The image in Figure 9 says it all. Who on earth thought that was an acceptable place to put up those towers? And why had the FAA not done anything about it? The view in that photo is just unbelievable.
While I agree with you Juan on the density altitude variation flying through the steam stacks, it’s my understanding that standard IFR procedures regarding obstacle clearance were deviated to accommodate the potato processing plant. A tragic consequence for Brittney, an aspiring young pilot gaining hours flying freight. Lawsuits will ensue but will never bring back her life, my condolences to her family
Dan actually has some good messages that I have agreed with here and there the few times I've watched him, but you Gryder fanboys that think he can do no wrong are a joke.
Its insane 98 ft over CLOUD MAKING steam stacks someone said "oh thats ok no big deal 0 visibility 98ft" i mean whoever signed off on plant being built is DIRECTLY responsible. I work in const THE FAA /GOVT WAS CONSULTED they just didnt care cause of $$plant brings to city
The air density in the warm wet air and steam cloud would also give a falsely high pressure altitude reading and sudden drop in indicated air speed with the pitot static indicator. This in addition to ice, surprise of no visibility, changes in lift, propeller and engine performance. Too many things happening at once could overload any pilot with little margin for error with this final approach.
@@mmayes9466 maybe but VFR flight approaches are not as accurate as IFR the fact that they had something at the very end of the runway which could regularly cause Drafts / turbulence landing/climb out risk and caused visibility issues is a bit odd to accept and why they probably move the airport altogether.
Good insight Juan, on explaining how the high density altitude from the hot steam cloud could cause a high rate of decent in the last few seconds. Those who knew Brittney know she did things by the book, she was a great pilot, and did things right. The hot gas emissions from that plant and its proximity to the airport caused this tragedy. Some may ask why did she decide to go for it and do the second approach? She obviously had some indications that she could confidently do it. The NOAA weather data at Burley sheds some light on this. We all know weather is dynamic and is always changing, but we do have a few data points to look at. On the first approach It looks like the wind was out of the south at 9 mph with 1 mile of visibility (clouds broken at 2300ft and overcast at 2800ft). If this is accurate that's a 20 degree crosswind from the left, which was more advantageous because it would blow any steam cloud to the right side of the approach course (left to right) reducing the impact of a steam cloud. She probably made the decision to try another approach because of this observation, or maybe the plant wasn't emitting the quantity of hot gas/steam cloud that it was on her final approach. While established on the second approach the wind data shows the wind changing to South South West, so nearly head on (coming right at her nose) at 8 mph with 1.75 miles of visability (clouds broken at 2100 and overcast at 2800ft), this surface wind change is something she couldn't see during the approach because she was IFR flying instruments in the clouds. She wouldn't know the man-made steam cloud was emitting and moving right at her until she broke out of the natural ceiling/cloud layer she had been flying in. Once she broke out of the clouds, she reacted to what was in front of her (super hot saturated cloud) and tried to climb out of it. Eye witness said her aircraft "engine sound increased and saw the nose lift." A downdraft and high density altitude from the hot saturated air would limit performance and prevent her from climbing out of it. She did everything she could, but the conditions rapidly deteriated beyond her control.
Juan, I believe your analysis of this mishap is excellent. My deepest sympathies to the family, friends, and colleagues of Brittany. Regarding the theft of the mishap scene evidence: As a retired DAL Captain, I am embarrassed.
Great job covering this tragic accident Juan. Who would have thought there would be an issue with air density. That processing plant should have never been there. Condolences to her family
It really looks like her path from point "J" to point "I" followed hot plume from tower coming directly towards her. It would be interesting to test how much that hot and humid air tricked altimeter and her to thinking that she's higher than she actually was (combined with lower performance of the engine). Remember, when flying visual and you suddenly lose sight, first thing is to look at instruments. My guess is that she actually did that when she lost visual of the runway and didn't go around.
Often these crashes are notable for what the pilot did wrong. This one is notable for how little she appears to have done wrong, but still died. Truly very sad that she lost her life this way. 😔
Note that the airport is in Burley, the potato plant is in Heyburn. The plant was sited next to the railroad for shipping. Thus 2 different cities that should have coordinated on permits.
That was a criminal act by Gryder, and will interfere with legal challenges regarding the safety or lack thereof of the stacks. He thinks he is advancing safety. He is really simply distracting the world from it. For his own self-importance. Malignant narcissistic tendencies. Juan does it ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, in a respectful, productive and useful manner.
Hey Juan, Been watching first with motorcycles then the Oroville dam, and I am interested in aviation. Too bad about these deaths that occur from accidents. I do know that Dan has a strong conviction to lessen the amounts of deaths due to inexperience and the lack of proper education. I follow Mike Patey , you , Dan and a few other pilots. Everyone has a different but good approach to life’s lessons in aviation. You seem to be covering a lot more accidents , like Dan has been doing for quite awhile now. It’s good to hear what could have happened and what could have prevented the outcome. Life is precious.
Juan - thank you for reporting on the final report of this terrible tragedy. My apologies if others may have already commented on this - I think you're right on about density altitude but there may be another contributor related to density altitude while passing through the warm steam cloud aside from aircraft performance - namely instruments responding to the change in density altitude, affecting both altimeter and vertical speed indicator ... barometric altitude would be higher and vertical speed climbing more than actual (or descending slower) as density altitude changed compared to actual altitude/vertical speed. Not only would this cause misleading instrument readings but the altitude encouder would show higher altitude while in/near the steam cloud. This would have left Britney with no idea her plane was off glide path and sinking lower than planned. It would have fooled autopilot if engaged and ADSB altitude reporting, too. The last few ADSB altitudes (including J-Juliet) might even have shown altitude higher than actual because of a density change. All cue's would have said she was on track until she broke out visually and found she was trapped with her plane not where it needed it to be. Also shortly after the accident I watched Dan Gryder's video reporting on this terrible tragedy and his site visit. Disappointed DTSB disturbed the accident site and denied he had the missing light - strongly suspect he did take the light. Wish he'd been a little more candid and cooperated w/law enforcement and the NTSB. I'm sure the agencies goal was simply to locate the light for examination, but that piece of evidence is now lost. He may indeed have shown another light "for dramatic effect" in his video, but it is more plausible he did take the light. This denial and subsequent actions in this incident unfortunately cast doubt on Dan's integrity and credibility. If the light was duplicate for "dramatic effect" then his assertion in the video that this was the light from the accident site this hurts his credibility too. Terribly disappointing.
