Mountain flying knowledge required?

Toño wrote:
Blanche wrote:

And what happens if the engine conks out? Where do you land? How do
you land?

Maybe he should also take glider lessons, mountain survival,
parachuting, and aerobatics prior to the flight. I mean, those
disciplines have just as much relevance if not more should a forced
landing be immanent.

My response addressed your comment about "flying in the mountains".
And yes, if you're going to fly "in the mountains" in a single (unless,
of course, that single engine is attached to an F16) you really should
have some knowledge of mountain survival.

How does a knowledge of mountain flying help you to land with and engine
out? And how would that differ from any other no-engine landing?

OK, you're at 16K over the I-70 in Colorado west of Denver. Let's
say somewhere between Georgetown and Silverton. What are you going
to do? (And following I-70 between Denver and Glenwood Springs is
the absolute worst action you can take). If you've only read Sparky's
book it's not going to help much.

About the only thing I could think of would be to try to estimate winds
and direction based on terrain features. Read Sparky's book and you have
some theory to work off of but, really....do you think that this would
sufficiently arm you for an encounter with the winds in the mountains?
If you do then you have never flown *in* the mountains!

Please remember, I'm the one who said reading Sparky's book and
nothing else is not a good idea. Flying in the mountains...hm...
Half the time I'm in the air, I'm very close to mountains. Personally,
I prefer NOT to be "in the mountains". Above, between, sure.

As far as *where* you land...you land wherever you can; as in
non-mountainous terrain.

Again I respond -- if all you've ever done is read the book you're
not prepared.

And when that happens, all of a sudden you need to worry about
mountain waves, density altitude, valley winds, etc. Calculate
glide distance from 16K and tell me where & how you're going to
land.

Well...if you know how far you can glide at 1000 ft you can multiply by
sixteen. But that calculation would only give you the no-wind
theoretical distance. It also something every pilot should know
regardless of whether they are in the mountains or not.

And, come on! Are you really going to pull out the ole' whiz wheel and
think about "...density altitude, valley winds, etc." when you are
dead-sticking it to a suitable landing site? Generally, you *might*
have one place to land that is suitable and you can bet your gold-plated
E6B you'll take it regardless of the "density altitude".

I don't own a "whiz wheel". Well, I do. I just don't know where it
is these days. But you point out that "you *might* have one place to
land that is suitable"...better yet, you may not have *any* place
to land but you still need to get down.

But as the OP stated, his flight plan was over mostly flat land. In
fact, pretty much follows I-40 to I-25 (watch out for the MOA south of
Pueblo -- I-25 goes right thru it) which is very practical.

Blanche wrote:
Toño wrote:

Blanche wrote:


My response addressed your comment about "flying in the mountains".
And yes, if you're going to fly "in the mountains" in a single (unless,
of course, that single engine is attached to an F16) you really should
have some knowledge of mountain survival.

And here we are in agreement that *if* you are indeed *in* the
mountains, then some training would be well advised. However, if you are
10,000ft above the nearest peak with a good engine (or in a glider..;-)
) then of what possible use could mountain flying knowledge be?


How does a knowledge of mountain flying help you to land with and engine
out? And how would that differ from any other no-engine landing?


OK, you're at 16K over the I-70 in Colorado west of Denver. Let's
say somewhere between Georgetown and Silverton. What are you going
to do? (And following I-70 between Denver and Glenwood Springs is
the absolute worst action you can take). If you've only read Sparky's
book it's not going to help much.

The question of the OP had to do with being over the mountains, not in
them. He specifically stated a "turbo-normalized Bonanza with on-board
O2" ...."at altitudes in the mid-to-upper teens". He wondered if
*mountain flying training* would be of assistance to him.

However, I wondered: Where is the mountain flying? My contention was
that he did not need training specific to mountain flying because he was
not going to be in the mountains.

Admitedly, in a "what-if" scenario, he might possibly end up in a glide
toward some valley in the mountains. He might possibly be able to pick a
better landing site ( if indeed he has an option ) if had been "mountain
flying trained". But this was such a strecth and departure from all
that I know of genuine bush-pilot, down in the peaks mountain flying
necessities that I felt he might be wasting his time (on this particular
flight) in seeking that *specific* type of education.


Please remember, I'm the one who said reading Sparky's book and
nothing else is not a good idea. Flying in the mountains...hm...
Half the time I'm in the air, I'm very close to mountains. Personally,
I prefer NOT to be "in the mountains". Above, between, sure.


Noted. I overlooked that. But I lean toward loving being in the
mountains. Sure there are risks but, ahhhhh, the rewards are great!!

As far as *where* you land...you land wherever you can; as in
non-mountainous terrain.


Again I respond -- if all you've ever done is read the book you're
not prepared.

However off the OP's topic it is, I would enjoy hearing responses on:
How do you prepare to land Bonanza in the mountains? ( I ask that
sincerely wishing to know and not just to be rhetorical.)


I don't own a "whiz wheel". Well, I do. I just don't know where it
is these days.

Ha! (That made me laugh!)

I love these type discussions--the one's where people are actually civil
to each other and seek sincerely to understand more. It really makes
the experience here so very valuable.

Antonio

Toño wrote:
[snip]
I love these type discussions--the one's where people are actually civil
to each other and seek sincerely to understand more. It really makes
the experience here so very valuable.

Antonio

Personally, I consider anyone who cannot discuss another's parentage,
heritage and destination without resorting to invectives and/or
4-letters words to have a very poor command of the english language
and not worth the effort to bring out the flame-thrower...

(*chortle*)

Blanche wrote:

Personally, I consider anyone who cannot discuss another's parentage,
heritage and destination without resorting to invectives and/or
4-letters words to have a very poor command of the english language
and not worth the effort to bring out the flame-thrower...

(*chortle*)


Ha! In that case....Thank for honoring me with your earlier flame! ;-)

Antonio

Toño wrote:
Blanche wrote:

Personally, I consider anyone who cannot discuss another's parentage,
heritage and destination without resorting to invectives and/or
4-letters words to have a very poor command of the english language
and not worth the effort to bring out the flame-thrower...

(*chortle*)


Ha! In that case....Thank for honoring me with your earlier flame! ;-)

Antonio

But Antonio -- you never got any more hostile than a "bah humbug".

On 26 Apr 2005 00:57:02 GMT, Blanche wrote:



Long tiome. How the heck are you?

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"