Witnesses told the NTSB they saw the Carbon Cub carrying YouTuber and TV meteorologist Roland Steadham and his passenger Dallin Laufenberg flying as low as what they estimated was 50 feet above the ground before it struck power lines and crashed nose-first into shallow ice-covered water in the Black Canyon reservoir north of Boise. Both men were killed in the Jan. 27 crash, which also took out power to a large area of southern Idaho. According to the NTSB’s preliminary report on the crash, which involved an aircraft on loan to Steadham by CubCrafters as part of a media promotion program, the power line was 150 to 200 feet above the reservoir. One of the witnesses said she saw the plane low over the river when it “nosed over into the water.” The left landing gear was torn off in the accident and landed almost directly under the power line.
Steadham and Laufenberg took off from Emmett Airport about 10:22 a.m. and flew north toward the canyon. The crash occurred at 11:05 a.m. Steadham was well known locally as the Boise CBS affiliate’s weatherman, but he also had thousands of followers on his YouTube channel. About a year ago, CubCrafters began a promotion in which prominent social media aviation personalities were given the use of a CubCrafters-owned aircraft in the hopes they’d feature it in their posts. The company suspended the program after the crash. A private funeral will be held for Steadham on Feb. 21 at 11 a.m. local time but it will be livestreamed.
“Private funeral” and “livestream”; aren’t those two terms contradictory?
There won’t be enough data to satisfy statisticians, but there may be a correlation between accidents and YouTube viewership.
I wouldn’t be surprised. A huge amount of YouTube bandwidth is taken up by schadenfreude videos of people getting hurt, usually as a result of doing something dumb.
This guy reminds me of Trevor Jacob and Mike Patey.
Cue the plentiful and never-ending lawsuits. Not only do families lose loved ones, the company is probably toast.
looks like pilot error—-not design defect. If it is error by pilot, should the pilot pay for the damage? Curious about your take on that.
As the lawyers would say, “Res ipsa loquitor” – the thing speaks for itself.
Sadly, the chart doesn’t depict the unusual 200 feet altitude of those two different power lines crossing the river.
I don’t see how the chart not indicating altitudes is an issue. Looking at the VFR chart and placing a marker on it at the coordinates given in the NTSB report, the chart is clearly marked with a power line almost precisely on that location. This is the line charted just west of the Black Canyon Reservoir’s intersection with Chief Eagle Eye Creek near the bend in Hwy 52. It’s not typical for charts to indicate the altitude of every line crossing every river or valley. ADS-B data and eyewitness reports seem to allege excessively low altitude, and as PIC we have the responsibility to maintain clearance with obstacles. In this commenter’s aeronautical opinion, hazards were readily indicated for the planning phase of the flight, and expecting to fly under the lines or even to see them while flying low is risky, flying cowboy behavior.
I almost hit an aerial tram cable 2000 feet high above the Alaska Highway at Haines Junction Canada. Was I too low? Saw it at the last second. The chart just said “caution aerial tram”, with no remarks.
Usually trams on charts are 100 feet or something. Who knows? They could be any height across a valley.
Towers are hazards and the height of towers is on the chart. So why not cables that are higher than the towers such as this case?. What good is a chart that doesn’t show invisible hazards? Yes, wires are usually invisible. Especially for helicopters and aircraft while landing. My helicopter instructor said always fly above the towers because you can’t see the wires. If the wires are stretched far apart you can’t see the towers either. Flying low for landing is not cowboy behavior.
You’re muddying the waters with an edge case anecdote but I’ll engage. Definitionally, yes. You were flying too low or at least failing to maintain clearance since you almost hit a cable. That is my position and it would be the position of the authorities had you hit it. It would have been prudent to turn around, fly higher, or fly parallel to the cable’s position on the chart to look for its supports and cross over it at the supports.
Back to the relevant crash. One can argue that a wire altitude on the chart may have prevented this. The altitude on the chart might also give some pilots a false sense of security because unlike towers the altitude of lines will vary and is a bit more complicated than a radio tower marked 426 (350) on a chart. There may be multiple lines stacked, a static wire above conductors. Depending on where you are in the catenary curve the lines will be at different altitudes. Power lines may sag from thermal expansion due to load or environment, or weight due to ice. Altimeter accuracy may degrade because of local barometric pressure variations and may be off by tens of feet. AGL measurements over a river like this one may vary because water level isn’t constant. Lee tides, flooding and seasonal variations can cause water level to vary by tens of feet on some bodies of water. If one doesn’t see the towers, one need not blindly proceed, and can change direction and look for a tower.
A hypothetical pilot is skimming down a valley, he climbs to 3150ft, roughly 150ft AGL because he knows a wire is located after the fork in the river ahead. He thinks he’ll be fine because the power line (no static line above it) crossing is marked 3100ft min. The line is cool today because it is out of service and not sagging as much as typical, 10ft higher in the middle of the span. The altimeter is off by 10ft more than usual because of local pressure variations. The altimeter was calibrated within legal limits and is off by 30ft at 3,000ft, acceptable per Part 43, appendix E, table 1. The errors stack, +10ft line altitude, +10ft because of slightly lower barometric pressure, +30ft altimeter tolerance. Our pilot thinks he’s at 3150ft, but he’s actually at 3110ft, he thinks the line is at 3100ft, but today it’s 3110ft. The pilot hits the line. The NTSB probable cause is the pilot’s failure to maintain adequate clearance from obstructions. The commenters argue about how the wire should have had markers on it this time instead of how it should have been indicated on the chart. The reality is maybe he should have climbed to 3300ft instead of 3150ft but he wanted to stay low.
As for aerial trams/cable cars, they are limited in their slope due to weight so they don’t follow the contour of the mountains they climb or valleys they span. Because of this they are usually quite high AGL at some point. Given the fact that we know the cables are hard to see and historic accidents involving them have killed riders, one shouldn’t be in a valley if one knows there are cable cars there but does not know where they are. The onus is always on the pilot in command to stay clear of hazards, because command comes with responsibility. In the accident described in this article, allegedly flying quite low and as a result running into power lines was not the fault of the chart for not saying the lines cross at a certain altitude. Cables can’t think, pilots have to do the thinking. Pilots do not have the right to do whatever we want just because it might be cool or fun, or get youtube views. We have a responsibility to operate our aircraft safely. Not every piece of information in the world can be spoon-fed to us, judgment has to be used.
The Seattle sectional has an aerial cableway near Arlington marked with a big box “CAUTION” “Canyon blocked by horizontal and vertical cable network extending to valley floor”
The Black Canyon Reservoir has no such warning.
A spot on reply with reasoned judgement and most likely many hours of experience.