RST,

Ah, the joys of the always friendly, non-condescending posts of a true
newsgroup expert... ;-)

I've scraped a few of you off of our hills with a bucket and a spoon in the
last forty years of flying search and rescue,

Ok, how many and how many of those due to engine failure?

I've also had two complete engine failures due to
mechanical failure, one in the Sierra and one in the Rockies. So far the
fatalities have been a video camera and my wris****ch. Plus a very pretty
C-172.

More data to support the view that the risk isn't nowhere nearly as high as you
wanted to make it in your original post.


I absolutely DETEST know-it-alls who come on here and say, "well, I don't
have any data, but I suspect..."

Which nobody did. And you didn't present statistically sound "data", either, as
I'm sure you know, what with your superior math education. But - never miss a
chance for throwing around some insults, right? That's something I DETEST! To
each his own...

For a damfool to come on here and say that since somebody flies infrequently
over water and mountains that isn't anything to worry about is the height of
stupidity.

Which, again, nobody did. "Risk management" are the key words, not fear
mongering - see two quotes below.


Not so Tioga or any of the other mountain passes.

Well, I've flown both L.A. and Tioga - and I disagree. You conveniently left
out power lines, for example.

Tioga is pretty. Tehachapi is survivable. Your
call.

To say or imply that "Tioga is not survivable" is utter BS, plain and simple.
And fear mongering to the extreme (see above).


Oh, and Earl, tell us how many mountain flying hours you have and where you
teach out of please?

Ah, the "argument by authority" trick. It sucks! Every time!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)