Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

We've heard both sides of the issue. That is, we've heard from people who
will fly at night over mountains and those who won't.
I'm just curious to see if this decision has anything at all to do with
where these people live.
For example, NW_PILOT lives in the northwest, and flies over those mountains
all the time.
Someone else mentioned flying over the Appalachains frequently.

I'm wondering if (rightly or not) a pilot's comfort level is increased due
to the frequency with which he/she flies over mountainous terrain.
Is it logical to follow then, that if a pilot is extremely comfortable
making a flight at day, he/she may be comfortable at night as well?

Think of your own common flight path or $100 burger run.

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

mindenpilot wrote:
We've heard both sides of the issue. That is, we've heard from people who
will fly at night over mountains and those who won't.
I'm just curious to see if this decision has anything at all to do with
where these people live.
For example, NW_PILOT lives in the northwest, and flies over those mountains
all the time.
Someone else mentioned flying over the Appalachains frequently.

I'm wondering if (rightly or not) a pilot's comfort level is increased due
to the frequency with which he/she flies over mountainous terrain.
Is it logical to follow then, that if a pilot is extremely comfortable
making a flight at day, he/she may be comfortable at night as well?

You make an interesting point. I fly in northcentral PA and NY (club
plane based at ELM) and learned to fly out of N38 which is surrounded by
mountainous terrain. I thus fly over mountains on almost every flight.
I certainly think often about engine failure and what I would do, but
I don't obsess over it and don't let it affect my flying in a
significant way other than flying as high as reasonably possible on long
stretches between airports.

I don't have the stats handy, but I believe that death due to engine
failure on a night flight in IMC over the mountains is a very remote
possibility compared to other things that I do all of the time such as
drive to work, ride motorcycles, etc. I know people who ski, mountain
climb, smoke, drink and drive and do other activities much more likely
to cause injury than flying, yet can't believe I "risk my life" flying
in small airplanes.

Do I think flying at night over mountains entails more risk than flying
over them during the day? Absolutely. However, to me you are comparing
a very small risk to an even smaller risk, yet both are small compared
to many other things we do every day.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
mindenpilot wrote:
We've heard both sides of the issue. That is, we've heard from people
who
will fly at night over mountains and those who won't.
I'm just curious to see if this decision has anything at all to do with
where these people live.
For example, NW_PILOT lives in the northwest, and flies over those
mountains
all the time.
Someone else mentioned flying over the Appalachains frequently.

I'm wondering if (rightly or not) a pilot's comfort level is increased
due
to the frequency with which he/she flies over mountainous terrain.
Is it logical to follow then, that if a pilot is extremely comfortable
making a flight at day, he/she may be comfortable at night as well?

You make an interesting point. I fly in northcentral PA and NY (club
plane based at ELM) and learned to fly out of N38 which is surrounded by
mountainous terrain. I thus fly over mountains on almost every flight.
I certainly think often about engine failure and what I would do, but
I don't obsess over it and don't let it affect my flying in a
significant way other than flying as high as reasonably possible on long
stretches between airports.

I don't have the stats handy, but I believe that death due to engine
failure on a night flight in IMC over the mountains is a very remote
possibility compared to other things that I do all of the time such as
drive to work, ride motorcycles, etc. I know people who ski, mountain
climb, smoke, drink and drive and do other activities much more likely
to cause injury than flying, yet can't believe I "risk my life" flying
in small airplanes.

Do I think flying at night over mountains entails more risk than flying
over them during the day? Absolutely. However, to me you are comparing
a very small risk to an even smaller risk, yet both are small compared
to many other things we do every day.


Matt

Well said! I fell safer in an small airplane than on the road with pill
popping crazy people behind the wheel of a 2,000 weapon.

Nw,

than on the road with pill
popping crazy people behind the wheel of a 2,000 weapon.


Actually, in that case, the statistics might not bear out the perceived
(by you, apparently) danger, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"mindenpilot" wrote in message
...
We've heard both sides of the issue. That is, we've heard from people who
will fly at night over mountains and those who won't.
I'm just curious to see if this decision has anything at all to do with
where these people live.
For example, NW_PILOT lives in the northwest, and flies over those
mountains
all the time.
Someone else mentioned flying over the Appalachains frequently.

I'm wondering if (rightly or not) a pilot's comfort level is increased due
to the frequency with which he/she flies over mountainous terrain.
Is it logical to follow then, that if a pilot is extremely comfortable
making a flight at day, he/she may be comfortable at night as well?

Think of your own common flight path or $100 burger run.

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III



I know if I hadn't flown over the terrain a few times during the day I would
not have done it at night. Even during the day its still in the back of my
mind that if something happens to the aircraft I probably will not walk away
or be lost for days or weeks. I have come to grips with my mortality I have
been less than 1 min away from a doctor pronouncing me totally dead and
stopping CPR at one point in my life So I do tend to take more risks then
some but not as many as other's.

mindenpilot wrote:

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?

In my case, not much. I simply am more willing to take risks than many other
people are. The first time I went to Oshkosh, I took the short route over the
lake. When I bought my first aircraft, I flew it back over the Appalachians on a
moonless night. Some people in this forum refuse to consider either of those.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...


mindenpilot wrote:

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?

In my case, not much. I simply am more willing to take risks than many
other
people are. The first time I went to Oshkosh, I took the short route over
the
lake. When I bought my first aircraft, I flew it back over the
Appalachians on a
moonless night. Some people in this forum refuse to consider either of
those.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.


I would consider both of them, I would rather bite the big one due to my
action & decisions than someone else's.

George Patterson wrote:

mindenpilot wrote:

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?


In my case, not much. I simply am more willing to take risks than many other
people are. The first time I went to Oshkosh, I took the short route over the
lake. When I bought my first aircraft, I flew it back over the Appalachians on a
moonless night. Some people in this forum refuse to consider either of those.

Same here. I landed at Muskegon for good and fuel and then headed
straight across lake Michigan. I had flotation and survival gear aboard
and flew high such that I had only a few minutes of "out of glide range"
time, however, there was always the risk of an engine failure at the
wrong time.


Matt