SF Bay Area ---> Death Valley

"Jonathan Sorger" wrote in message
...
Hi Casey,

Thanks - I noticed the IYK corridor. Great to get local advice. I know
that as civilian aircraft we are 'allowed' but having F-16s and cruise
missiles in the area rightly makes one nervous. I'll be flying on a
weekday...

I'll let you know if we decide to drop in at IYK.

Jonathan

Above all, keep in mind the skies of an MOA are NOT filled with military
hardware. For example, it's been a year since the last low-level cruise
missile flight. You'll find lots more civilians tooling around in them,
especially around here.

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



"John Harper" wrote in
message news:1112887085.381549@sj-nntpcache-5...
What are you flying? Generally (to DV or Vegas) I take what is
essentially V244, climbing up to Tuolomine Meadows on the North
side of the Yosemite park, then cross the ridge either at Tioga or
a little further south - the pass is clear on the sectional.

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message news:A5f5e.81$0c2.9@trnddc08...
Above all, keep in mind the skies of an MOA are NOT filled with
military
hardware. For example, it's been a year since the last low-level cruise
missile flight.

I would hazard to guess that we've got other places to test our hardware
these days... evil-grin

RST,

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.


How? Why? There's a risk, alright - just as if you fly across the SF Bay at
sight-seeing altitudes, just as if you fly a single engine over any "difficult"
terrain, just as if you fly a twin, for that matter, according to the accident
stats. Heck, flying over the L.A. basin leaves you with WAY fewer emergency
landing possibilities than Tioga Pass.

Is the risk acceptable? In the summer, with a ton of meadows to land on in case
of engine failure? In the winter, when you spend a maximum of 20 minutes over
really high terrain? For me, it sure is. What kind of flying do you do that has
that much lower risk?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
RST,

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.


How? Why? There's a risk, alright - just as if you fly across the SF Bay
at
sight-seeing altitudes, just as if you fly a single engine over any
"difficult"
terrain, just as if you fly a twin, for that matter, according to the
accident
stats. Heck, flying over the L.A. basin leaves you with WAY fewer
emergency
landing possibilities than Tioga Pass.

Is the risk acceptable? In the summer, with a ton of meadows to land on in
case
of engine failure? In the winter, when you spend a maximum of 20 minutes
over
really high terrain? For me, it sure is. What kind of flying do you do
that has
that much lower risk?


I always wonder about these statements about how someone never flies over
water or mountains because they have a single engine plane. Just what is
the failure rate, excluding fuel exhaustion, of single engine planes while
in flight? Although I do not have any data I suspect it is so low as to be
negligible. So, if you infrequently fly over water and mountains, why
worry. Not to say that it can't happen, but you could also be hit by a
meteor while flying yet we don't worry about that.

RST,

You have either never had a single-engine aircraft engine failure


Oh, and one more thought: The vast majority of us haven't. Which kind
of disproves your point.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

"Earl Grieda" wrote

Although I do not have any data I suspect it is so low as to be
negligible. So, if you infrequently fly over water and mountains, why
worry. Not to say that it can't happen, but you could also be hit by a
meteor while flying yet we don't worry about that.

You are responding to a guy that had an engine self destruct over somewhere
in nowhere on his way home from OSH last year. It happens.
--
Jim in NC

Spoken by what I believe to be a flatland pilot who doesn't get the chance
to fly mountains much and is fascinated with the scenery.

I've scraped a few of you off of our hills with a bucket and a spoon in the
last forty years of flying search and rescue, and it ain't fun, no matter
how much you think it might be.

I was taught to fly in the Laguna and Cuyamaca mountains of Southern
California and teach mountain flying as a necessity out of my home base in
the Sierra. I fly the Sierra on a daily basis; the Wasatch and the Rockies
twice a year. I think I've got my fair share of mountain flying in the 4500
hours in my logbook. I've also had two complete engine failures due to
mechanical failure, one in the Sierra and one in the Rockies. So far the
fatalities have been a video camera and my wris****ch. Plus a very pretty
C-172.

I absolutely DETEST know-it-alls who come on here and say, "well, I don't
have any data, but I suspect..." Suspect isn't worth a bucket of warm ****.

Finally, I teach math, and sometimes I get into probability and statistics.
For a damfool to come on here and say that since somebody flies infrequently
over water and mountains that isn't anything to worry about is the height of
stupidity. The engine has exactly the same chance of failing per minute
over hostile terrain as per minute directly over a 10,000 foot runway.

Do I fly over water or mountains? On a regular basis. Do I keep something
that I can land on directly beneath me at all times? You bet. To say that
Tioga pass is safer than downtown LA is just plain stupid. In the first
place, there are concrete flood drains all over the city. In the second
place, there are very few freeways that are filled in BOTH directions at the
same time, and if they are, then there are alternative freeways that you can
use. THere are racetracks. There are football fields, there are golf
courses, there are a dozen places where you will walk away from an engine
failure.

Not so Tioga or any of the other mountain passes. Sure, the pass ITSELF has
the meadows at the top, but the route getting TO the pass is inhospitable in
the extreme. So also the downhill trip on the leeward side of the hill.

The man has a choice. Go over Tioga Pass and hope for the best or go down
south to Tehachapi pass with an interstate freeway underneath you from
Bakersfield to Mojave. Tioga is pretty. Tehachapi is survivable. Your
call.

Oh, and Earl, tell us how many mountain flying hours you have and where you
teach out of please?

Jim




"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
ink.net...

I always wonder about these statements about how someone never flies over
water or mountains because they have a single engine plane. Just what is
the failure rate, excluding fuel exhaustion, of single engine planes while
in flight? Although I do not have any data I suspect it is so low as to
be
negligible. So, if you infrequently fly over water and mountains, why
worry. Not to say that it can't happen, but you could also be hit by a
meteor while flying yet we don't worry about that.