AOPA Pilot Magazine - September 2020 - 24

SAFETY SPOTLIGHT

BY RICHARD MCSPADDEN
Senior Vice President
AOPA Air Safety Institute

Hidden risks
Flying the backcountry is tougher than it looks

AOPA Air Safety
Institute Senior
Vice President
RICHARD
MCSPADDEN

owns a Piper
Super Cub.

THE ACCIDENT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Elusive and tough
to confirm, but I may have seen one this summer in the
Montana backcountry. I was with Steve Maus, a friend
through the Recreational Aviation Foundation, exploring
Montana in his well-equipped turbo Cessna 182. Our first
stop out of Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport
was Ryan Field (2MT1), the RAF's flagship field for its
work acquiring and protecting backcountry airstrips.
Steve and I reviewed Ryan operations extensively the
night before, and again the morning of our departure. We
relied heavily on the RAF's field guide, which is mandatory to review before accessing 2MT1. At 3,500 feet msl
and 2,500 feet long, Ryan is not an especially demanding
backcountry strip, but it's not "easy," either. The Runway
16 pattern has a river boundary that dictates a close base
leg, followed by tall trees on the approach end of the runway. Trees and hills at the departure end require a timely
go-around decision, good execution, and an early turn out.
The combination of a close base and tall trees on final
requires pilots to be ready for a short final and to drop over
tall trees quickly to limit the unused runway behind them.
You have no business flying in the backcountry if you can't
execute short-field, soft-field, and 50-foot obstacle clearance techniques confidently and consistently well.
Three techniques work well in landing scenarios like
Ryan Field. We could probably start a religious war over
which is optimum, but I'll leave that for the bar. The first,
Steve's method that day, is to fly on speed, as low over
the trees as is comfortable, and then maintain stable, precise short-field landing speed on a steady glidepath to
touchdown; you may chew up some approach-end runway, but you'll be fine in a 182 on a 2,500-foot runway
because of the short rollout after touchdown. Steve flew
it well, and we stopped with about 700 feet remaining.
A Van's RV-7 landing behind us used a different technique. The pilot flew close over the trees, on speed, and
then chopped power and dropped toward the runway at a
substantial sink rate. Approaching the roundout, he powered up to break the dramatic sink rate, then powered to
idle for the flare and touchdown. It was exceptionally
well done. I would have applauded, but such is not the
etiquette in the understated culture of the backcountry,
so I merely nodded recognition as he taxied in.
A third technique is to carry a tad bit of extra speed
over the trees, slip aggressively once past them, and then
straighten out and power as required to manage the

24 | AOPA PILOT September 2020

touchdown. This version of option two is likely to waste
less runway once past the trees, but requires more-and
more substantial-flight control action.
Any of these techniques work. What's most important is not which you choose, but how well you execute.
Pick your favorite, for your airplane, in your situation,
and execute it well, as Steve and the RV-7 pilot did.
The accident that didn't happen was a 182 that came
in after us. It turned base inside the river but was too
high over the trees. The pilot dove for the runway, but
picked up too much speed. He kept descending toward a
landing, well down the runway, too high, too fast. We all
stopped what we were doing, each of us silently urging
go around, dude, which he did with room to spare. Good
decision. He came around for a second approach, and
then a third-each with a similar profile, only an earlier
go-around decision. Finally, after the fourth attempt, he
went around and departed the area. Excellent decision.
I wish I could have met the pilot. I would have congratulated him on each of the decisions he made and the
final decision to depart. Sure, we can quibble that four
is too many (three is my personal limit), but he made
sound go-around decisions and finally recognized it was
too much for him and his airplane that day.
I might also offer this advice: Come back and try
again, but bring along a backcountry-experienced CFI.
His fundamental problem that day was that he didn't
commit to the sink rate; the slow, behind-the-powercurve speed; or the proximity to the trees that Runway
16 at Ryan demands. He kept trying the same, more or
less standard approach with the same results. That's an
indication that he doesn't have the knowledge and the
training necessary for the situation. He didn't seem to
understand what skills to apply or what strategy to take.
It wasn't in his tool bag-something a CFI could remedy.
Backcountry flying looks easy on YouTube videos,
but there are hidden risks that it takes experience to
spot. We've had a few mishaps this summer by pilots
who underestimated the challenges and attempted
flying the backcountry without proper training.
Fortunately, the pilot at Ryan Field that day exercised
good judgment, went around, and departed. I hope he
comes back-with a backcountry instructor.
Go fly.
AOPA
EMAIL richard.mcspadden@aopa.org

AOPA Pilot Magazine - September 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - September 2020