Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
[...]
I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
flights.

But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.

As I said, no one ever does that. It's absurd to base any discussion on the
idea that anyone does, and certainly on the idea that it's a common analysis
generally useful to pilots.

Pete

"jd-10" wrote in message
...
I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
it, I will: [ill-conceived, irrational, rude diatribe deleted]

Probably more like everyone else has too much common sense to say what you
said.

There's a lot of people out there who would say exactly what you said, only
they say it about flying in general. What makes your statements any more
accurate than theirs?

Pete

"jd-10" wrote in message
...
I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
it, I will:

You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine
in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six
loaded.


Wow! That's not what I was thinking at all.
I don't think I'll be flying at night over the Sierra(s) anytime soon, but
I'm not making any personal assumptions about anyone in this newsgroup who
does.

On another note, I mentioned that I fly over the Sierra(s) frequently in my
single.
I still think that if the engine died, I would too, even in CAVU VFR. There
is just nowhere to land.
I don't perceive myself as one of those people of whom you speak.

(waiting for assinine comment that I *am* one of those people)

Say what you will.
This is an acceptable risk for me.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

"jd-10" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
depends on the circumstances

I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
it, I will:

You are a *

PLONK!

Regardless of whether or not I agree with the gist of the post....

"jd-10" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
depends on the circumstances

I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
it, I will:

You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine
in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six
loaded.

You are a corpse waiting to happen. If you fly with your wife, she is as
well. It's death-wish assholes like you that give all the reasonable and
prudent GA pilots a bad name.

You're no different than a guy I used to see in Montana, at the annual
Schafer fly-in. I saw him drink two beers and then jump in his 185 and
go fly.

At the time, I told a friend "that guy is a corpse waiting to happen.
He's one of those guys who thinks **** won't happen to him, and one of
these days he's going to paint himself into a corner he can't get out
of."

Less than a year later, the guy was dead, killed in a collision with a
cumulo-granite not far from Schafer, scud running. He took two others
with him, the son of a bitch.

You remind me of that guy. No regard for your own safety, much less the
safety of others. I hope you wise up before you kill your wife.
--
JD-10

I would rather fly over the mountains at night in a single engine than drive
on today's highways theres way to many people out there that are on some
kind of mind altering substance "pansy pills" and some people think calling
some one you dont know a "*****ing* fool" may not be the safest thing to do
in this day and age also.

If I seen someone down 2 beers and junp in to an airplane I would do what
ever was in my power to try and stop the person from taking off. But from
what you said you could also be a fool for just sitting and talking about it
doing nothing.

Ohh!!! There is a big diffreance in flying over mountians at night in a
single engine airplane. Than drinking and flying!

Some of us weigh risk in different ways, in this part of the country even if
it were during the day we may only have a 3 to 5% better chance of surviving
if it was daytime. The terrain we fly over sometimes it can take 4 to 6
hours to walk a mile in it and most the time no wreckage can be found.

People in Seattle Area did they ever find that L39 that disappeared in the
cascades this fall?

"Jose" wrote

If the fuel pump breaks and thus all four engines quit, did you have an
engine failure?

Jose

First of all, the fuel pump in your example would have to be an auxiliary
fuel pump, not the engine mechanical fuel pump, and all the engines are
crossfeeding off of the one tank and pump, if it is going to fail all the
engines, right? If that all is true....(unlikely, but for the sake of
argument), then....

Nope. Log it as loss of power. It still sucks if you are over the
mountains in the night, but the mechanic will not have to fix the engine(s),
but will have to fix the fuel pump.
--
Jim in NC

"Matt Whiting" wrote 45. Who won the bet? :-)


Matt

I lost.

I saw something lately, saying that people's brains do not develop the part
that has to do with risk assessment, until after 25.

I guess you are immature for your age.

Tell me, what was so important, that the flight could not wait until
morning?
--
Jim in NC

and there is the
cumulative probability of experiencing a failure on some flight, which
does change (it increases with each flight).

Balogna.

There is no "increasing probability".

If there were, insurance companies would increase your premiums the
more hours you accumulate.

It's ridiculous to assert such a thing.

Actually, they do increase your premiums the more hours you accumulate.
The way it works is... you fly more hours as you fly more years. The
more years you fly, the more =total= premiums you pay, because you pay
for all those years. (They don't refund your money for the first year
just because you didn't have a crash).

Apples to apples. Cumulative to cumulative. Dust to dust.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
[...]
I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
flights.

But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.

As I said, no one ever does that.

Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.

You claim that someone does. In order to truthfully make that claim, you
would have to know of such a person. If you knew of such a person, it would
be trivial for you to say who that person is.

The only logical conclusion from your refusal to say who that person is, is
that you are untruthful when you claim that someone does.

As far as "arguing", well...if you're not willing to support your statements
with any factual evidence, I can see why you have such a low tolerance for
"arguing".

Pete