Tough to say. Not everybody makes a living planting a helo on active volcanoes. So we're talking about a pilot with a lot of local knowledge and experience.

In mountains, nasty weather comes in rapidly, but it can also go out in short order. The aircraft was intact and, given half a break in weather (icing) conditions, could possibly have self-extracted safely.

I would suspect (claiming no expertise in this area) that the dividing line comes when the pilot is certain that the aircraft cannot lift off safely (in this case, blades and fuselage are encrusted with heavy ice and weather is not improving).

My 2c.

It sounds like they thought for awhile that the weather would improve and they could get themselves off. Here is another article with a bit more info.



The article also says that Egli has 31 years experience flying in Alaska, and before that flew in the Rocky Mountains. He has 22,000 total flying hours. Nobody survives that long doing bush flying in Alaska unless they make good decisions!

I'm not suggesting their evaluation of their situation might have been off.

I'm wondering if the overall regional situation as seen at SAR HQ might have looked different. Maybe there are other missions going on and resources are stretched. Maybe detailed weather data not available on the helicopter makes it clear "now or never".

It's not hare to imagine a SAR commander who has an aircraft passing over the area anyway to at least do a short search even if a rescue isn't immediately needed, with an eye towards knowing where to go the next day if a rescue *is* needed.

As I indicated above, the beginning of this problem is a common one for scientists working in remote areas, particularly in coastal Alaska. Bad weather often delays the helicopter and an overnight (in the chopper or without it if it cannot return to pick you up) is part of the the program. Since this is expected and you usually can leave the next day, it is not considered a life or death emergency. They were rescued "at the last moment" because no one could have gotten to them earlier. The weather came in on them and only opened up for a few minutes to let them out. They probably could have flown out on their own if the clear weather had been long enough to deice the aircraft themselves but it was only a few minute window. The rescue aircraft had to be on site to get in in the only opening that became available.

If everyone who got caught out for the weather called in for rescue the SAR resources would be strained to the breaking point trying to decide which one was actually going to need rescue and which ones were going to come home on their own.

I would say the choices were excellent.

Respectfully,

Jerry

Very well put, Jerry. You apparently have spent some time up here?

Bush flying in Alaska is always highly dependent on weather. And the weather in Alaska (especially coastal Alaska) is very difficult to predict with any certainty, and can change with amazing speed (more about Alaska weather below). Because of this, you simply do not go on a bush flying trip (or boating trip either) without allowing for the possibility of being delayed by weather. You always take enough with you (food, fuel, clothing, etc) to spend an extra day or two waiting on weather. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three trips when I've had to wait at least one extra day for a bush plane to pick me up. Once, on Kodiak Island, we were perplexed because the weather where we were was beautiful ("severe clear"). What we didn't know was that back in town where our pick up flight was originating, it was totally fogged in. Several other times, doing helicopter field work, we had to stop what we were doing and get out fast because the weather was closing in. Most of the time it is not a big deal, and there is no need to call for rescue. You just keep a close eye on the weather, wait if you need to, and travel when you get a break in the weather. But every now and then, the situation can very quickly get more serious than you expect.

Weather in Coastal Alaska is more problematic than most places for several reasons. For one thing, the "Aleutian Low" where most storms which effect western North America originate, is just to the west of Alaska. Storms hit us very soon after they form. By contrast, down in the lower 48, you have had the opportunity to observe storm systems for quite some time before they reach you. Another issue is simply the lack of weather data. Because Alaska is so thinly populated, there are fewer weather stations to provide data for making predictions. Finally, a look at the map will show that our overall topography is very complex. Unlike the western US, where the ocean is west and for the most part the mountains run north-south, up here we have big mountains and water trending every which way.

The bottom line is that bad weather, rapidly changing weather, and poorly predicted weather is just part of the deal when you live, work, and play in Alaska.

Actually there are a lot of similarities to working with helos and planes in the lower 48. My experience in the Channel Islands suggests that 1) you always prepare for at least one unexpected night out; 2) Weather can change drastically in a very short time,especially fog; 3) Weather at one end can be dramatically different from the other.

My first trip to Santa Rosa was delayed a day because the plane could not take off due to high Santa Ana winds. Meanwhile out on the island, conditions were perfect - calm and blissfully clear -due to those very same Santa Anas were were counteracting the normal northwesterlies.

I am going out to Santa Rosa tomorrow - by boat, which has challenges of its own...the things we do for science!

Yes, that is certainly true. I was not intending to suggest that weather is not a significant issue for flying in the lower 48 or anywhere else. One can certainly get into trouble by flying in severe weather anyplace.

However, for the reasons I indicated, weather tends to be an even more serious issue for Alaska aviation than for most other places. Other factors include a larger percentage of flights to and from remote locations without proper landing facilities, and severe terrain. I believe the aircraft accident statistics support that. While great strides have been made in improving Alaska aviation safety, this is still a very dangerous place to fly. From the CDC document "COMMERCIAL AVIATION IN ALASKA":

Lots of time, but never enough. I have been working in AK since the late '60's. Had a chance to see most of the state. Spent more than a few nights out because of aircraft. One in the western arctic, east of Point Lay, was the most unusual. Severe clear. Pilot set down next to a stream to fish while I took samples. He slipped and injured his knee. I was not current on the JetRanger and thought it best to give him a night to see if he could fly it home. It was a nice fresh fish dinner :-). Next morning the swelling in his knee was down enough to make it back. Did find out that a ziplock baggie with cold stream water makes a decent ice pack.

Respectfully,

Jerry

Awesome story - Alaska is one place on my list of places I am going to see in my life. Going to the top of a volcano there, probably not so much... but if I ever DID have to go, I think Egli would be my choice of pilots.

Reading that article reminds me I need to work on my knot tying skills more....