"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
RST,

You have either never had a single-engine aircraft engine failure or
believe
that you are invincible...both of which are tested when you take this
route.


How? Why? There's a risk, alright - just as if you fly across the SF Bay
at
sight-seeing altitudes, just as if you fly a single engine over any
"difficult"
terrain, just as if you fly a twin, for that matter, according to the
accident
stats. Heck, flying over the L.A. basin leaves you with WAY fewer
emergency
landing possibilities than Tioga Pass.

Is the risk acceptable? In the summer, with a ton of meadows to land on in
case
of engine failure? In the winter, when you spend a maximum of 20 minutes
over
really high terrain? For me, it sure is. What kind of flying do you do
that has
that much lower risk?


I always wonder about these statements about how someone never flies over
water or mountains because they have a single engine plane. Just what is
the failure rate, excluding fuel exhaustion, of single engine planes while
in flight? Although I do not have any data I suspect it is so low as to be
negligible. So, if you infrequently fly over water and mountains, why
worry. Not to say that it can't happen, but you could also be hit by a
meteor while flying yet we don't worry about that.