Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

When I was young, I might have tried a trip like this, but the longer I
continue flying, and the longer I stay alive the less I like to take
chances.

You are decreasing your odds of a successful flight by 1) single engine over
mountains, 2) very low power aircraft, and 3) no instrument rating. I
might try one of these variables on a given day, but never all three at one
time.

Night flight is statistically much more dangerous than day flight. Heck,
many countries don't even allow night VFR flight. But, I don't want that
here in the US!! I want the right to make that decision, and the more night
VFR accidents that happen, the more likely night VFR will be banned here as
well.

If you are single engine over the mountains at night, you could easily fly
into a cloud or even icing conditions without knowing it, and without
sufficient instrument training and adequate additional climb capability, you
might not find a way out before hitting something hard.

"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
I departed 63S about 7:30pm calm winds and clear skies were being
reported
for the entire trip home over the mountain ranges. I can say that yes it
is
black out there at night and every little noise is amplified when flying
over dark mountainous terrain. The winds were not as expected took 2.7
hours
to fly VFR GPS direct to KYKM. From KYKM to KVUO it took another 2.4 hours
pluss the high clouds blocked out the stars and almost all the moon light.

If you are single engine over the mountains at night, you could easily fly
into a cloud or even icing conditions without knowing it, and without
sufficient instrument training and adequate additional climb capability,
you
might not find a way out before hitting something hard.

Additionally, if you lose your engine, where exactly are you going to put it
down safely?

very thought provoking thread for me. valuable stuff to consider
personal minimums. as someone who has been riding motorcycles for 40
years, i find it kinda tough to be critical of the decisions other
people make when the biggest killer of stupid old men is really big
motorcycles. news here a couple of weeks ago about some poor old fart
who was sitting on his porch when an 18-wheeler tire exploded and blew
him away. true.

i like the line someone around here uses about safety being an
impediment to progress....(sorry for the sloppy paraphrase)...

dan

motorcycles. news here a couple of weeks ago about some poor old fart
who was sitting on his porch when an 18-wheeler tire exploded and blew
him away. true.

In my opinion it's more accurate to say that "so and so was prepared to
accept a level of risk that is higher than what I would be prepared to
accept" than it is to call something "dangerous". Unfortunately, too many
pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they
keep on dying horrible deaths.

For me, safety isn't about the number of times you prepare for an event that
never happens (eg wearing a seatbelt when you didn't have an accident) -
it's all about avoiding the one time when something does go wrong - and the
pilot is totally unprepared to cope with it.

Night flying over inhospitable terrain in a single? No thanks - not for me.

"Cockpit Colin" wrote

Unfortunately, too many
pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they
keep on dying horrible deaths.

I'm with you. Saying that you accept the risks, because you are a
professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would not
accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable, and
manageable.

What's that saying about old pilots, and bold pilots?
--
Jim in NC

Saying that you accept the risks, because you are a
professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would not
accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable, and
manageable.

This statement presumes that there is an objective measure of risk, and
an independent, objective measure of acceptability (or its inverse -
"undueness") which applies to all circumstances. This new learning
amazes me. Tell me again about the theory that the earth is banana shaped.

There are circumstances which merit higher risk. There are other
circumstances where even a low level of risk is too much. If this were
not true, there would be no difference between the hundred dollar
hamburger flight, a lifeguard mission, a combat mission, an aerobatics
exhibition, and any other kind of flying.

Of course this would have to include getting drunk and then flying in
the mountains with a shotgun pointing out the window to try to ping some
mountain goats for sport too, something I'm not willing to put in the
"acceptable" category, no matter how much fun it is to fire a gun under
the influence of altitude and alcohol while diving at a hundred fifty
miles an hour towards something furry standing in front of something
very hard.

But (except for degree), what's the difference between this and flying
upside down, sober, at mach 1, fifteen feet AGL in front of three
thousand people? You wouldn't catch me doing that either, no matter how
cool it is! No matter how much you train for such an exhibition, it is
more risky than the average hundred dollar hamburger.

So, while I agree with the statement:
A true professional would not
accept missions of undue risk
it begs the question of what counts as "undue", and how to measure it,
and by and for whom. The FARs have outlined a few antics that would be
"undue risk" (and prohibited them), but this leaves a whole lot of other
things that are legal, don't come under the ruberic of "careless and
reckless", but for some are seen (by others) as "unduly risky". So, the
statement comes off as "unduly simplistic".

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Academics aside, my personal mantra is that aviation can be (for the most
part) as safe, or as dangerous as pilots choose to make it. There are so
many things that one can do to make a difference.

Call me old - call me a fool (call me an old fool) but I kinda enjoy my
life - so I do what I can to stay alive. If some idiot wants to get ahead of
me on the motorway - I pull over and let him get as far ahead as he likes
(the further the better). If I'm flying over water I WEAR a life jacket - no
ifs, buts, or maybes. If I'm night flying away from the airport I fly a
twin. If I don't like the look of the weather I turn back or go somewhere
else.

What I don't understand is why others don't do these things? I mean to say -
if they want to keep killing themselves with their "risk denial" attitudes
and actions I guess that's their right - but it seems a pity all the same.

Morgans wrote:
"Cockpit Colin" wrote


Unfortunately, too many
pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they
keep on dying horrible deaths.


I'm with you. Saying that you accept the risks, because you are a
professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would not
accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable, and
manageable.

The trouble is that there is no absolute standard for "undue" risk.


Matt

Tell you an interesting story about professional pilots ...

I was bumming a ride in the jump seat of a Saab 340A - the reason I was
there was because I wasn't prepared to fly a light twin with a single-engine
service ceiling of around 4250 at night over terrain that requires a MSA of
around 8000 feet.

Without any suggestion from me, 2 seperate crews immediately came to the
same conclusion I did - and that is "if you were going to do that flight
then you would want to track around the coast" (ie at sea level).

In my opinion these crews both have a safety oriented attitude - on the
other hand many of the pilots I know would do that flight at night in a
single - their best attempt at "risk management" being "the aeroplane
doesn't know it's night"

I know which bunch I'd send my family flying with!


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Cockpit Colin" wrote

Unfortunately, too many
pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result,
they
keep on dying horrible deaths.

I'm with you. Saying that you accept the risks, because you are a
professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would
not
accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable,
and
manageable.

What's that saying about old pilots, and bold pilots?
--
Jim in NC

Cockpit Colin wrote:
Tell you an interesting story about professional pilots ...

I was bumming a ride in the jump seat of a Saab 340A - the reason I was
there was because I wasn't prepared to fly a light twin with a single-engine
service ceiling of around 4250 at night over terrain that requires a MSA of
around 8000 feet.

Without any suggestion from me, 2 seperate crews immediately came to the
same conclusion I did - and that is "if you were going to do that flight
then you would want to track around the coast" (ie at sea level).

In my opinion these crews both have a safety oriented attitude - on the
other hand many of the pilots I know would do that flight at night in a
single - their best attempt at "risk management" being "the aeroplane
doesn't know it's night"

If safety was your ultimate goal, you would only fly the airlines and
not fly GA at all, other than bizjets whose record rivals the airlines.
The safest GA aircraft are still much more dangerous than the airlines.

People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
depends on the circumstances. The example I use is people who say they
would never take off in 0/0 conditions even though it is legal under
part 91. I wouldn't normally do this either, but if my wife needed
emergency surgery and was fairly certain to die without it, and if my
airplane was the only means to get her to a hospital, then I'd take off
0/0 to make such a flight. In that case, the relatively small risk of
killing us both outweights the very high risk of death without the surgery.

Matt