SF Bay Area ---> Death Valley

"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.

"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.

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

"Jonathan Sorger" wrote in message
...
I plan on taking my first trip from the Bay Area to Death Valley (
Furnace Creek) next week. I was wondering if I could pick the brains of
those familiar with the area.

It looks like Porterville - Kern Valley - China Lake is the safest route
to take. I have had a mountain checkout and am not thrilled about
staying below 1500' AGL to keep out of the MOAs in the Sierra Nevada
range.

I realize that you contact Joshua Approach for the MOA status - can
anyone clue me in to whether or not they typically allow civilian
aircraft through at other altitudes during their operational hours?

Hi Jonathan,

For starters, take a look at the north side of the Los Angeles
sectional. Just to the left of R-2505 and well inside the military complex
R-2508 and deeply imbedded in the MOA's is Inyokern airport, IYK. That's my
home patch. I just thought I'd start out with that so you'd get an idea I
"might" know what I'm talking about.
People make TOO BIG a fuss over the MOAs, and restricted areas. I've
learned to live in them.
I started flying from IYK in 1973. During the intervening 32 years we
have not had a single fatal encounter, in fact I don't even remember any
close calls between military aircraft and general aviation. That in spite of
the periodic cruise missile flights that boogey through the valley int the
vicinity of Rosamond, Mojave, and IYK at 500 ft AGL to drop their payloads
at China Lake. Only twice in that time have I had an advisory from Joshua
Approach of military aircraft in the vicinity and they were 20+ miles away,
albeit below my cruising altitude. The huge majority of military flights are
above 30,000 feet in the military complex
My route from IYK to the San Joaquin Valley is either over Tehachapi in
the 150 or Lake Isabella in the 172. If you plan on flying over on a
weekend, flex-Friday, or holiday, Joshua will clear you "at or above 5,000
feet MSL" unless there is the rare weekend exercise happening. Those occur
about twice a year.
During the week, you may have to weave through the "Trona Corridor"
after crossing R-2506 at or above 6,000 feet. On the other hand, your
chances of getting Joshua to clear you direct through R-2504 are not all
that bad. But you gotta ask!! Don't be shy.
I'm not complacent about flying through the MOAs. I know what they are
for. I used to work at China Lake. But I'm also familiar enough with the
process that I'd rather fly through an MOA any day over flying across the LA
Basin.
Gas at IYK is cheaper than Stovepipe or Furnace Creek by the way. If you
decide to drop in there, let me know. I'll meet you at the airport.

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


Hi Jonathan,

For starters, take a look at the north side of the Los Angeles
sectional. Just to the left of R-2505 and well inside the military
complex R-2508 and deeply imbedded in the MOA's is Inyokern airport,
IYK. That's my home patch. I just thought I'd start out with that
so you'd get an idea I "might" know what I'm talking about.
People make TOO BIG a fuss over the MOAs, and restricted areas. I've
learned to live in them.
I started flying from IYK in 1973. During the intervening 32 years
we have not had a single fatal encounter, in fact I don't even
remember any close calls between military aircraft and general
aviation. That in spite of the periodic cruise missile flights that
boogey through the valley int the vicinity of Rosamond, Mojave, and
IYK at 500 ft AGL to drop their payloads at China Lake. Only twice in
that time have I had an advisory from Joshua Approach of military
aircraft in the vicinity and they were 20+ miles away, albeit below
my cruising altitude. The huge majority of military flights are above
30,000 feet in the military complex My route from IYK to the San
Joaquin Valley is either over Tehachapi in the 150 or Lake Isabella
in the 172. If you plan on flying over on a weekend, flex-Friday, or
holiday, Joshua will clear you "at or above 5,000 feet MSL" unless
there is the rare weekend exercise happening. Those occur about twice
a year. During the week, you may have to weave through the "Trona
Corridor" after crossing R-2506 at or above 6,000 feet. On the other
hand, your chances of getting Joshua to clear you direct through R-
2504 are not all that bad. But you gotta ask!! Don't be shy. I'm
not complacent about flying through the MOAs. I know what they are
for. I used to work at China Lake. But I'm also familiar enough with
the process that I'd rather fly through an MOA any day over flying
across the LA Basin. Gas at IYK is cheaper than Stovepipe or
Furnace Creek by the way. If you decide to drop in there, let me know.
I'll meet you at the airport.

"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.

"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