Mountain flying knowledge required?

Antionio,
Sorry to throw you off, but the "Mountain Flying" book was written
35-years ago. I've learned something in that time and have observed
rotors along the Front Range between 25,000- and 30,000-feet MSL.
Usually the destructive turbulence associated with the rotor does not
extend more than a 1,000 feet or so above the ridge line.
Sparky

wrote:
Antionio,
Sorry to throw you off, but the "Mountain Flying" book was written
35-years ago. I've learned something in that time and have observed
rotors along the Front Range between 25,000- and 30,000-feet MSL.
Usually the destructive turbulence associated with the rotor does not
extend more than a 1,000 feet or so above the ridge line.
Sparky

Thanks for the update, Sparky!

What you say does not actually throw me off at all. I realize that
there can be turbulence of all sorts at high altitudes in any
direction-- including circular ( as beneath a wave or as a result of the
jet stream) . But, in your expert opinion, does the bona-fide rotor
cloud with the characteristic "sawblade" appearance ever show it's ugly
face at high altitude?

Thanks,

Antonio

Rotors do not extend much above the ridgetops. The waves themselves are
smooth until reaching the tropopause except the extreme case of breaking
waves.

Mike
MU-2


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Toño" wrote

I have always considered mountain flying to be flying *in* the mountains
and the things that concern a mountain pilot to be at or below the
peaks. Is this incorrect?

Yes. The waves extend way up past the peaks, and so do rotors.
--
Jim in NC

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...
Rotors do not extend much above the ridgetops. The waves themselves are
smooth until reaching the tropopause except the extreme case of breaking
waves.


Agreed! I find 2000 or so above the highest terrain helps, though it's not a
sure bet.

TurboNormalizing is the best thing since sliced bread. :~)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...
Rotors do not extend much above the ridgetops. The waves themselves are
smooth until reaching the tropopause except the extreme case of breaking
waves.

Before Mike, Jim in NC wrote:

The waves extend way up past the peaks, and so do rotors.

I guess it depends on your definition of "way past". As per my other quoted
post, about destructive part of the rotor going to 2 thousand over the
ridge, I think that is way over. Plus, I want to be well above where the
rotor is still destructive, like another couple thousand. That is really
way past to me. YMMV

I just want people to know that if they are thinking of going over a pass
with only a couple thousand to spare, if the wind is blowing just right,
they could be in big trouble, whether they see it or not. Right?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...
Rotors do not extend much above the ridgetops. The waves themselves are
smooth until reaching the tropopause except the extreme case of breaking
waves.

Before Mike, Jim in NC wrote:

The waves extend way up past the peaks, and so do rotors.

I guess it depends on your definition of "way past". As per my other
quoted
post, about destructive part of the rotor going to 2 thousand over the
ridge, I think that is way over. Plus, I want to be well above where the
rotor is still destructive, like another couple thousand. That is really
way past to me. YMMV

I just want people to know that if they are thinking of going over a pass
with only a couple thousand to spare, if the wind is blowing just right,
they could be in big trouble, whether they see it or not. Right?
--
Jim in NC


Rotors can't extend much past ridgetop level because they are formed from
the low pressure produced on the downwind side of the ridge. My
observations from living and flying in one of the best places to see and
observe mountain wave systems is that the rotor seldom extends above the
ridge more than a few hundred feet. There are a lot of pilots who attribute
any turbulence in the mountains to "rotors" but a rotor is a specific
condition where there is closed circulation, looking very much like the
Bonzai Pipeline in Hawaii rolling over but not moving forward. At Minden,
virtually nobody flys when there is enough wind to produce a wave system
with a rotor. Only the bravest towplane and glider pilots walk the tarmac
on those days....

When there is a *real* rotor, the towplane and the glider sometimes find
themselves facing each other head on!

Mike
MU-2

Toño wrote:
Peter R. wrote:
My plan is to fly the majority of it
under IFR flight rules and at altitudes in the mid-to-upper teens (westerly
wind-depending).

Excuse me for asking but... If you intend to fly at those altitudes why
would you be concerned about mountain flying? I mean, are there going
to be any lee side rotors that high? Mountain waves are not really a
factor, are they? Density altitude, temp/dewpoint spread, short field
landings, soft field landings, valley winds, etc. are not really a
factor at that altitude.

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

And reading the Imeson book is NOT sufficient.

About the only things that might be a factor would be icing (unlikely at
that altitude because temp is too cold) or a thunderstorm, which is of
concern for every flight.

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.

I have always considered mountain flying to be flying *in* the mountains
and the things that concern a mountain pilot to be at or below the
peaks. Is this incorrect?

yes.

But back to the original poster. You have the right idea. Take
the ABQ (or AEG)-TAFOY-TAD-anyplace north. Watch out for the MOAs
they're usually hot. You'll have a great view of Pikes Peak on your
left.

Then, if you have time and are interested, take a mountain flying
lesson and you'll go on the west side of PP and fly into Leadville.

And lean.

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.

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?
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!

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

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 have always considered mountain flying to be flying *in* the mountains
and the things that concern a mountain pilot to be at or below the
peaks. Is this incorrect?


yes.

Really? And minus the engine out scenario, you think the guy cruising
over the peaks at 16-19,000 ft is in need of *mountain flying* skills?
That ain't *mountain flying* in my book...neither is it in
Sparký's.(Which, I agree, is a great book!)

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

Antonio

"Toño" wrote in message
...
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.

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?
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!

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

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 have always considered mountain flying to be flying *in* the mountains
and the things that concern a mountain pilot to be at or below the peaks.
Is this incorrect?


yes.

Really? And minus the engine out scenario, you think the guy cruising
over the peaks at 16-19,000 ft is in need of *mountain flying* skills?
That ain't *mountain flying* in my book...neither is it in
Sparký's.(Which, I agree, is a great book!)

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

Antonio

Yes and well said. I have lived and flown in mountianous terrain for almost
as long as I have been flying. Like Peter R's proposed trip, I am mostly
flying "over the mountains" from one real airport to another. You don't
need "mountain flying'" instruction to do this kind of flying, you need some
common sense and weather awareness and you have to recognize your
limitations and the limitations of your equipment. If you are going to be
flying into backcountry airstrips in ID where you are actually flying "in
and amongst" the mountains you need more awareness and mountain flying
training can be benificial. If you are going to be landing on "one way"
strips or operating on skiis then training becomes a necessity.

Flying accidents in the mountains usually involve a lot of risk taking or
improper IFR procedures. It is not the mountains themselves that cause the
problem, they just provide the unforgiving terrain that makes the outcome
fatal. When pilots take off with high winds at ridge level, IMC or
thunderstorms in low performance aircraft they have no "outs". They can't
climb to smooth air, they can't control the airplane the turbulence and they
hit something. Some simply take off on a perfect day at a density altitude
beyond the airplane capibility and crash into the first trees off the end of
the runway. Many "mountain" accidents are caused by improper IFR
proceedure. There is an approach into Butte, MT that has a turn at the VOR.
A few miles away there is a mountain with several wrecked airplanes on it
that didn't make the turn. None of these things applies to Peter R's flight
from one paved airport to another in a turbocharged Bonanza flying in day
VMC unless he feels the need to operate over gross weight.

All the focus on landing in the mountains after and engine failure baffles
me. I know of exactly one meadow suitable for landing a high performance
single in the Sierra. A pilot with 2000hrs of flying time over the Sierra
flying charter at 12-14,000' (lower than I fly) says that there are, in
fact, two such meadows. Unless you are flying a Super Cub type airplane,
you can pretty much forget about walking away from an engine out "landing"
in the Sierra.

Mike
MU-2 for flying "over" the mountains
Helio Courier H295 for flying "in" the mountains.

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.