SF Bay Area ---> Death Valley

RST Engineering wrote:

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.

Jim

So thanks to Thomas for answering for me. Jim is absolutely
right. I've never had an engine failure, just like the great majority of
pilots. Of course I think about it ALL the time when I'm flying,
but it's never actually happened. I don't think I'm invincible though,
and for it's worth I don't think I'm invulnerable either, which
I suspect is what he meant.

One of the nice things about this route is that it does have quite
a few decent choices for landing. Tuolomine Meadows would make a
fine emergency landing site. You're only over really high terrain for
a short while. In fact I think you're more exposed earlier when
flying over Hetch Hetchy - although of course you could always
ditch in H H.

ANY single-engine flying over mountains is risky. This route imo is
less risky than flying a 172 into the LA basin from the north.
When I fly north from LA, ATC generally keep me fairly low while
crossing the mountains and there are certainly a few minutes in that
flight where an engine failure would be quite a problem.

Last night I was pottering about the south bay at 1500', since the
cloud was quite low. I'm not sure how great my choices would be
then, either, but people do it all the time.

For a risk free life, take up television-watching. Of course there's
a good chance that heart problems will get you, but at least you
won't embarass yourself by making a smoking hole in a mountain. Neither
will you see the view as you cross the Tioga pass at 13500', or
fly up to Licke Observatory from the east at 4500', or all sorts
of other beautiful things that I don't regret doing. Personally
I'd rather take my chances. Other people are big enough to make their
own judgements.

John

All of these discussions are so helpful - I'm glad that my question has
led to this.

I'm still a low-hour pilot trying to get comfortable with my personal
minimums...

Jonathan

In 1112972689.991242@sj-nntpcache-5 John Harper wrote:
RST Engineering wrote:

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. Jim
So thanks to Thomas for answering for me. Jim is absolutely
right. I've never had an engine failure, just like the great majority
of pilots. Of course I think about it ALL the time when I'm flying,
but it's never actually happened. I don't think I'm invincible though,
and for it's worth I don't think I'm invulnerable either, which
I suspect is what he meant.

One of the nice things about this route is that it does have quite
a few decent choices for landing. Tuolomine Meadows would make a
fine emergency landing site. You're only over really high terrain for
a short while. In fact I think you're more exposed earlier when
flying over Hetch Hetchy - although of course you could always
ditch in H H.

ANY single-engine flying over mountains is risky. This route imo is
less risky than flying a 172 into the LA basin from the north.
When I fly north from LA, ATC generally keep me fairly low while
crossing the mountains and there are certainly a few minutes in that
flight where an engine failure would be quite a problem.

Last night I was pottering about the south bay at 1500', since the
cloud was quite low. I'm not sure how great my choices would be
then, either, but people do it all the time.

For a risk free life, take up television-watching. Of course there's
a good chance that heart problems will get you, but at least you
won't embarass yourself by making a smoking hole in a mountain.
Neither will you see the view as you cross the Tioga pass at 13500',
or fly up to Licke Observatory from the east at 4500', or all sorts of
other beautiful things that I don't regret doing. Personally I'd
rather take my chances. Other people are big enough to make their own
judgements.

John