Renting plane to go over mountains. How much plane?
 

I'd like to rent a piloted plane to take my family and I on a private tour of Puget Sound. We are moving away this summer, and wanted to do something special.

Only one kid, so its just the 3 of us. How much plane do we need to safely go over Stevens Pass? The top of ski area there is roughly 5600ft. Is a 172 sufficient? Safety is my primary concern. Other options?

I've lived my whole life in the PNW.

Crossing the mountains in a light plane in winter/spring is a bad idea.....I've done it myself on business....the family was not part of the plan. There are a lot of folks that made the choice to do that and are still there. I'm fairly sure that all of them had a different goal in mind.

That said, I'm also sure that you can easily find 1000 guys willing to take you and your loved ones on the hop.......and the vast majority would make it.

As a pilot I would suggest something on floats like a Beaver. A 172 would be fine but passenger weight limits might be an issue. Ma'am please step on the scale.

the FBO that you'll be renting (technically chartering) from will be able to advise you what they have and will be safe.. 172 is pretty anemic to go over a pass..

I would get a seaplane scenic of Seattle and the sound, several airtaxi operators at lake union.

When we stay in Seattle we stay on the Lake just to watch the seaplanes.

That's the way to see that City from the Air. 172 Or 182 would safely transition Stevens pass on calm day my pick would be a Beaver on floats.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365780562.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365780576.jpg

Dehavilland DHC-2 Beaver is what is used all over Alaska as the most powerful, reliable, and capable bush plane especially when on floats.

Isn't the beaver a 8/10 pass. plane?
Your plan sounds fun.

I believe you're thinking of an Otter (turbine example):
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365805996.jpg

Beaver (radial example):
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365806092.jpg

I own a 172. A pilot plus 3 is a very full load, and I would not do it.
182 perhaps. 210 or 206 would be much better.

I don't know what charter rates are. Real, legal Charter operators must have an Air Carrier certificate. You can also find operators who can run a "sightseeing" flight, which must remain within 25sm of the departure point.

Perhaps think about a helicopter?
Shop around. You can get into a Jetranger for as little as $750 per hour in some areas.

^^^Good advice. Give yourself a better margin of safety.

I would not do it in a 172. Advice of larger, commercial operators is good.

Also, I just moved from Columbus. PM me if you want/need info.

Safely clearing 5600' in a 172 seems like no big deal to me especially with 2 of the passengers being a kid and a wife. I do not recall exactly what the published ceiling at gross weight is for all the years of 172's, but I am fairly confident they are all good to at least 12000'.

Mountain waves and possible box canyons suck. I flew into Jackson, Wy from Logan, Ut in my youth, prior to fighter days in both 172/182. I'd never do it again in a 172.

If you can charter a turbine Beaver on floats, that would be my first choice.

Grumman Goose would also be a great experience.

Used to get 4 full-sized folks with skydiving gear into a 180 series; DZ's would run those to 8,000 AGL all day long. It'd go higher, but didn't make economic sense for experienced jumpers; take too long/burn too much fuel. But they'd do it for tandems - done a number of two-ways from a Cessna with a tandem master/customer on board. Those were 10,500 AGL minimum.

I'll always remember the one that stuck in the door and the tandem master had to peel him off the airframe limb-by-limb before he could get out. LOL. It was almost worth him running the spot so far out we dumped 1500 ft higher than usual and STILL had to land on the gold course...

contact northwest sky ferry, there 206's are perfect for this and they run all over washington. Northwest Sky Ferry | Bellingham's Only Locally-Owned Airline

G-650

The 172 can do it, but placing 4 people in a 172 is tighter than some paying customers want, plus the climb performance is reduced. Some people don't want to sit in a plane while it struggles up to 6100 to 6600ft to clear the mountains. (ground height plus minimum clearance, FAR 91.119).

For a 172M, you have a useful load of ~900 lb.
I assume an adult pilot, two adult parents, and a child.
FAA "average weights" (AC 120-27E, Table 1.1, with carry-on items): 200 male, 179 female, 82 child
Deduct 150lb for fuel = 750
Deduct pilot = 550
Deduct family = 89 pounds of useful load remaining. Assuming everything is within CG, the plane is ok with the weight in this scenario.

Thanks! Looks like a good bet.

I just want to salute the many experienced pilots and their shared wisdom on PP. Gentlemen, well done!

You don't want to be these guys:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yDu0jYiz-v8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks for the video. I think this demonstrates well a small aircraft with 3 adults in it trying to climb sloping upward terrain. I believe that a car can climb better a steeper gradient road than a marginal small aircraft can climb a similar gradient. More power the better and 2 engines are better than one but not so economical.

We had a Cessna 180 in the family for 40 years but when I took my family on trips especially at altitude, I used a Cessna P210 that was at my disposal.
Safety and comfort made the extra expense well worth it.

When that plane touched down the first time in a failed takeoff attempt the video should have ended. D.A. must have been over 8500 ft. A total crash due to bad judgement.

hot air+high altitude+heavy weight= bad performance. The key is engine performance in warm, high airports/ Always check the DENSITY ALTITUDE that is what the engine operates at. you might have great performance at sea level with 4 people but next day at 5000' and high OAT, the performance of the engine might be half!!! no climb, no speed, no chance. Good pilots check this

Josh, there are float planes that fly from Lake Union to Victoria BC every day, and they have a superb safety record. I think their regular price is $250 per person round-trip, but I'm not sure. At that price, or perhaps a little more (wink), they would be happy to have a "sold out" flight that is just you and your family. :)

I've heard that it's a beautiful flight both ways - taking off from Lake Union and landing at Victoria Harbor in front of the Empress Hotel, and then doing the same in reverse after you've had "tea" or lunch at the Empress - and I'm sure the pilot can make adjustments to the flight to accommodate your wishes. On a beautiful sunny day, that would be totally awesome.

This is quite a year for you, eh. :)

Please take photos for us...

Rog

_

A 172, with 4 souls on board, ain't got enough power to pull a sick whore off a piss pot.

Seattle Plane Ride
 

I have flown Puget Sound in a single engine plane quite a bit. It is a pretty place to fly.

Two suggestions:

The float planes (Kenniwick Air) are a unique opportunity. As an car guy, you will enjoy the rumble of a radial engine.

If you are going to tour the mountains, seriously consider chartering a twin. Every single engine plane goes on "auto-rough" when flying at night, over water or over mountains. This is especially true if your family is in the plane. I never had a place I needed to be enough that I was comfortable flying single engine at night. It just creates one more risk that I do not need to add. We all have to figure out our risk tolerance. OTOH, I always felt more comfortable in a single engine plane than on a motorcycle on the road.

Wow, hard to believe he didn't abort the takeoff. And I also notice no shoulder harnesses. The pilot probably wouldn't have been as banged up if he had them. My plane didn't have them when I bought it, but was the first thing added.

It is easy to play monday morning quarterback but the long take off roll was scary. The next thing I noticed about the video was the low flying. Thinking initially that was there to impress the passengers but in reality he was climbing uphill sloping terrain.
As he climbed the density altitude(as mentioned above) became a factor as the air got thinner and he stalled into the trees.

Yes you are right the shoulder harness could have reduced the serious head injuries
in this situation.

It may have been on another forum, but I thought it was here... anyway, a couple days after the videos hit the Youtube, this crash was discussed at length.

The conclusions were:
The plane was overloaded and DA was high.
The pilot made critical errors in judgement, from not consulting W&B and performance charts, to not aborting the takeoff when he was running out of room

I searched, but cannot find the discussion.

To paraphrase Dean Wormer, "High, hot and heavy is no way to go through life, Son".

To the OP, sounds like a great, memorable trip. Go early in the day and enjoy!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bK-Dqj4fHmM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ok... I found it on one of the other forums I frequent.
The plane is a Stinson 108-3.
The airport is Bruce Meadows Airport [U63].
WPR12LA283
Stinson 108-3, N773C: Accident occurred June 30, 2012 in Stanley, Idaho - News & Events - Aviation

On the other forum, it was estimated that the plane was at max gross, and that the DA that day was 11,000 ft.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365965617.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365965650.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365965690.jpg


For fun, here is another Stinson that cannot seem to get off the runway:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/614306-scary-take-off.html