Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

Hmmm ...

Not the combination of words I would choose to use - but I'm sure we all got
the essence of what you're trying to say!

For me though - seriously - I do wonder just how much being "PC" does
detract from safety messages. Often I've wondered if the point would be
better illustrated by a short audio/visual presentation showing unsanitised
dismembered corpses & injured passengers screaming with pain & listening to
children breaking down at funerals when they tell everyone how much they
miss their dad.

Been there - done that. For me the fact that my kids need a dad weighs heavy
on my mind. Sure, some may argue that it's safer not to fly at all - for me
it was all about compartmentalising the risks - avoiding those I felt were
unacceptable (eg night flight in a 150 over mountainous terrain) - and
taking all appropriate steps to minimise others (eg wearing a life jacket
over water - carrying additional survival equipment on cross country flights
etc). One might think of me as a pilot who won't fly if there is so much as
a cloud in the sky, but not so - in reality I only have to cancel very few
because of unacceptable weather and other factors. I don't feel I'm at risk
on days where the weather is less then ideal - and I'm not afraid to take a
look at some of the bad stuff from a few angles - but I have a certain
switch in my head that says "to push it past this point is dangerous - it
limits my options - and I'm just not going to do it" - perhaps a good
standard might be "would you do this or that on a VFR flight test with the
testing officer along side"?

For me, I'd like to think that "thinking safety" is now instinctive to how I
conduct my flying - I see this same attitude in many professional crews of
heavy metal - and yet I NEVER see it amongst the GA pilots I have regular
personal contact with (them being the breed that keep killing themselves).
In contrast I see a large number who think they're 10 foot tall and
bullet-proof. This puzzles me - I'd love to know just what the formula is
that turns "safety unconscious" GA pilots into "safety aware" professional
crew. Any ideas gratefully accepted.

For me it's all about striving to be a superior pilot - and accomplishing
that by using superior judgement to avoid situations that require the use of
(perhaps?) superior skill.

CC





"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

jd-10 wrote:
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.

When your IQ warms above room temperature come back for a reasonable
discussion.

Matt

NW_PILOT wrote:

"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.

Yes, people like JD will make sweeping and stupid (and nasty to boot)
comments without really understanding risk management at all. I'll bet
he does several things every day that put him much more at risk than my
occasional night flights over the Appalachians. However, it was obvious
from the nature of his post that he doesn't have the intellect to engage
in a reasoned discussion as do at least most others here thus far.


Matt

Morgans wrote:

"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.

How old are you? Nice derogatory comment, but I'll match my maturity to
yours any day.


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

Tell me, what is so important that you can't take the airlines rather
than fly dangerous GA aircraft?


Matt

Ron Garret wrote:
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

Okay, I haven't been following this thread much, but reading a few of
these, I think a number of posters are having serious problems with
probability. The posts by Peter Duniho that I've read, in contrast, do
seem to understand probabilistic reasoning.

Yes, someone could decide to limit their lifetime risk of an engine
failure to P2 by flying exactly N flights. But in real life such a
decision would be insane.

First, if you were to have an engine failure during those N flights, it
would almost certainly not occur on the Nth flight. Therefore people who
have an engine failure are extremely unlikely to ever reach N flights.

Second, for any real world value of N (say N=1000), the marginal
increase in risk for flying N+1 flights would be trivial. P2 is much,
much larger than P1. So having accepted the risk of flying 1000 flights
and having successfully completed them, to decide to stop flying just so
as to avoid passing some given lifetime P2 would be bonkers. Flying that
N+1 flight has a risk of P1, a tiny risk compared to the one the person
accepted (P2) in flying N flights.

--
David Rind

Sure, some may argue that it's safer not to fly at all - for me
it was all about compartmentalising the risks - avoiding those I felt were
unacceptable...

.... but you then go on to say that if =you= find it unacceptable for
=you=, then =everyone= ought to find it unacceptable. Turn the question
around.

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

We've heard both sides of the issue. That is, we've heard from people who
will fly at night over mountains and those who won't.
I'm just curious to see if this decision has anything at all to do with
where these people live.
For example, NW_PILOT lives in the northwest, and flies over those mountains
all the time.
Someone else mentioned flying over the Appalachains frequently.

I'm wondering if (rightly or not) a pilot's comfort level is increased due
to the frequency with which he/she flies over mountainous terrain.
Is it logical to follow then, that if a pilot is extremely comfortable
making a flight at day, he/she may be comfortable at night as well?

Think of your own common flight path or $100 burger run.

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"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.

That's right, it was.

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

No, your premise is wrong. I have in fact already given you two
examples (and I have even pointed this out to you once already).

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".

I have a low tolerance for arguing with people who insist on knocking
down straw men. Good day.

rg

In article ,
David Rind wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
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

Okay, I haven't been following this thread much

That makes two of you, apparently.

rg

mindenpilot wrote:
We've heard both sides of the issue. That is, we've heard from people who
will fly at night over mountains and those who won't.
I'm just curious to see if this decision has anything at all to do with
where these people live.
For example, NW_PILOT lives in the northwest, and flies over those mountains
all the time.
Someone else mentioned flying over the Appalachains frequently.

I'm wondering if (rightly or not) a pilot's comfort level is increased due
to the frequency with which he/she flies over mountainous terrain.
Is it logical to follow then, that if a pilot is extremely comfortable
making a flight at day, he/she may be comfortable at night as well?

You make an interesting point. I fly in northcentral PA and NY (club
plane based at ELM) and learned to fly out of N38 which is surrounded by
mountainous terrain. I thus fly over mountains on almost every flight.
I certainly think often about engine failure and what I would do, but
I don't obsess over it and don't let it affect my flying in a
significant way other than flying as high as reasonably possible on long
stretches between airports.

I don't have the stats handy, but I believe that death due to engine
failure on a night flight in IMC over the mountains is a very remote
possibility compared to other things that I do all of the time such as
drive to work, ride motorcycles, etc. I know people who ski, mountain
climb, smoke, drink and drive and do other activities much more likely
to cause injury than flying, yet can't believe I "risk my life" flying
in small airplanes.

Do I think flying at night over mountains entails more risk than flying
over them during the day? Absolutely. However, to me you are comparing
a very small risk to an even smaller risk, yet both are small compared
to many other things we do every day.


Matt