IFR in the Eastern Mountains

wrote:



True enough. All I was saying is that the chances of getting in trouble by
ignoring something like the MEA's vs. icing is a lot more likely than a single-engine
failure in a single... whether in low IMC over the mountains or not. Just flying over
mountains in IMC doesn't increase the chances of having an engine failure (it just
make you THINK about it more...

Not necessarily so when one is young, has accumulated a fair amount of
experience, and has a senese, "that won't happen to me."

I speak of myself flying a Beech Debonair in the Summer of 62 from
Nashville to DCA on the north side of a low (no TRWS, at least I
understood that ;-)

It was already night time and the ceilings/vis were mostly 500-2.

I still think, after the fact, about that engine crapping out. I was
fearless at the time.

We didn't have to worry about ice. It was July. ;-)

: It was already night time and the ceilings/vis were mostly 500-2.

: I still think, after the fact, about that engine crapping out. I was
: fearless at the time.

Everyone has their own personal issues, but it's about personal risk management. If one worries an inordinant
amount on everything that can possibly go wrong on a flight, they'll never fly at all. IMO, risks that have a high
chance of an ugly outcome, but are relatively unlikely to happen include things like:

Engine failu
- Over mountains
- At night
- In low-ish IMC
- Shortly after takeoff
Vacuum failure in IMC
Mechanical control failure

OTOH, risks that have a high chance of an ugly outcome AND are highly likely if you don't respect them are
things like:

Downdrafts in mountainous terrain.
Icing in IMC with MEAs above the freezing level.
IMC in embed CB without on-board weather.

Total Perceived Risk = $\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}{R_i * Pr_i * Wp_i}$

R_i - Individual risk hazzard
Pr_i - Probability of risk occuring
Wp_i - Personal weighting factor for the individual risk

(sorry about the equation... seemed the most susinct way to describe what I was saying)

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Sam Spade writes:
Everett M. Greene wrote:
Sam Spade writes:
Everett M. Greene wrote:

While you're at it, tell her that Collins exaggerates
greatly in that those overgrown hills back east aren't
mountains.

Hmmmm...I wonder why they're within the FAA's Eastern Designated
*Mountainous* Area then?

People in D.C. don't know what a mountain is?

I presume you're speaking of the FAA. Most of the technical stuff is
headquartered in OKC. And, yes, those folks know a whole lot about
mountains, terrain effect, altimeter errors, and so forth.

Okies have even less of an idea of what a mountain is.

I suspect it is you who don't have a firm grasp on what
constitutes mountainous terrain.

I spent a good portion of my life in Colorado and currently
live at the base of the Sierras. I do believe I recognize
a /real/ mountain when I see one.

You on the other hand are very gullible when it comes to
having your chain yanked.

Everett M. Greene wrote:

Sam Spade writes:

Everett M. Greene wrote:

Sam Spade writes:

Everett M. Greene wrote:


While you're at it, tell her that Collins exaggerates
greatly in that those overgrown hills back east aren't
mountains.

Hmmmm...I wonder why they're within the FAA's Eastern Designated
*Mountainous* Area then?

People in D.C. don't know what a mountain is?

I presume you're speaking of the FAA. Most of the technical stuff is
headquartered in OKC. And, yes, those folks know a whole lot about
mountains, terrain effect, altimeter errors, and so forth.


Okies have even less of an idea of what a mountain is.


I suspect it is you who don't have a firm grasp on what
constitutes mountainous terrain.


I spent a good portion of my life in Colorado and currently
live at the base of the Sierras. I do believe I recognize
a /real/ mountain when I see one.

You on the other hand are very gullible when it comes to
having your chain yanked.

I know a lot of folks who live in Bishop, California that don't know
squat about mountains and their effect on aircraft. You sound like one
of them.

Everett M. Greene wrote:
Sam Spade writes:

Everett M. Greene wrote:

Sam Spade writes:

Everett M. Greene wrote:


While you're at it, tell her that Collins exaggerates
greatly in that those overgrown hills back east aren't
mountains.

Hmmmm...I wonder why they're within the FAA's Eastern Designated
*Mountainous* Area then?

People in D.C. don't know what a mountain is?

I presume you're speaking of the FAA. Most of the technical stuff is
headquartered in OKC. And, yes, those folks know a whole lot about
mountains, terrain effect, altimeter errors, and so forth.


Okies have even less of an idea of what a mountain is.


I suspect it is you who don't have a firm grasp on what
constitutes mountainous terrain.


I spent a good portion of my life in Colorado and currently
live at the base of the Sierras. I do believe I recognize
a /real/ mountain when I see one.

I spent a year of my life in Alaska. In Alaska they have /real/
mountains, 16 peaks are higher than the highest Western US peak! Of
course, that's relative in size to Western and Eastern mountainous
areas. Other parts of the world have mountains that make US mountains
seem small in comparison. They can all create the same problems for
aviators, just in different levels of difficulty. If it's labeled a
mountain, you just have to treat it with respect!



JPH

JPH wrote:

Everett M. Greene wrote:


I presume you're speaking of the FAA. Most of the technical stuff is
headquartered in OKC. And, yes, those folks know a whole lot about
mountains, terrain effect, altimeter errors, and so forth.



Okies have even less of an idea of what a mountain is.


Not the Okies that work in the TERPs sections at the Okie Air Academy.

Sam Spade wrote:
JPH wrote:

Everett M. Greene wrote:



I presume you're speaking of the FAA. Most of the technical stuff
is headquartered in OKC. And, yes, those folks know a whole lot
about mountains, terrain effect, altimeter errors, and so forth.




Okies have even less of an idea of what a mountain is.


Not the Okies that work in the TERPs sections at the Okie Air Academy.

I didn't write any of the above lines.
This transplanted Okie knows a lot about both mountains and TERPs.

JPH

JPH wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

JPH wrote:

Everett M. Greene wrote:




I presume you're speaking of the FAA. Most of the technical stuff
is headquartered in OKC. And, yes, those folks know a whole lot
about mountains, terrain effect, altimeter errors, and so forth.





Okies have even less of an idea of what a mountain is.


Not the Okies that work in the TERPs sections at the Okie Air Academy.


I didn't write any of the above lines.
This transplanted Okie knows a lot about both mountains and TERPs.

JPH

Up to date on RNP?

The subject line made me laugh. I'm from out West. When I took my kids
to Mt Vernon, they asked me "Dad, why do they call it 'Mt'?". "See
that little hill over there?...". We often top moutains over 14,000.
-Robert

There are as many dead pilots from hitting steeply rising
terrain from Georgia to Maine as die west of Denver. There
are also a lot of flat landers who die in Arkansas. It
isn't the altitude, it is the suddenness of the mountain and
whether the pilot is really thinking about it being a hump,
ridge, hill or mountain?

If you hit a granite rock at 3,000 feet MSL or at 14,000
feet you'll still be in a lot of trouble.


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
| The subject line made me laugh. I'm from out West. When I
took my kids
| to Mt Vernon, they asked me "Dad, why do they call it
'Mt'?". "See
| that little hill over there?...". We often top moutains
over 14,000.
| -Robert
|