Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

Colin, I agree with you completely. I live at the base of the
Rockies and have flown the "rocks" for 10 years in various singles,
the last 7 or so in my 182.

My personal limit is that I'd never attempt it at night. Too many
variables and too few options should there be an emergency. I'll take
it one further and again, it's just my own personal limiter. Call me
wimp, doesn't bother me. I won't fly a single at night, period.
I've done it and it was beautiful but I don't like the idea of looking
for an emergency landing option blindfolded.

For me, safe flying is all about exercising prudent judgement.
Granted, this can be very subjective although sometimes there are
absolutes. Such as taking off into a cell where 2000fpm downdrafts
have been reported. But, for me, mountain flying is strictly a
daylight activity.

Alan Bloom
N8565T
'60 Skylane

Dogs can fly.
http://www.flyingmutts.com


On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:01:18 +1300, "Cockpit Colin"
wrote:

motorcycles. news here a couple of weeks ago about some poor old fart
who was sitting on his porch when an 18-wheeler tire exploded and blew
him away. true.

In my opinion it's more accurate to say that "so and so was prepared to
accept a level of risk that is higher than what I would be prepared to
accept" than it is to call something "dangerous". Unfortunately, too many
pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they
keep on dying horrible deaths.

For me, safety isn't about the number of times you prepare for an event that
never happens (eg wearing a seatbelt when you didn't have an accident) -
it's all about avoiding the one time when something does go wrong - and the
pilot is totally unprepared to cope with it.

Night flying over inhospitable terrain in a single? No thanks - not for me.

Montblack wrote:

("Mike Rapoport" wrote)

Pet peeve...its Sierra not Sierras, the word is already plural.



What's the singular? Siera?

Rocky Mountain
Rocky Mountains
Rockies

?????? Mountain
?????? Mountains
Sierras


Montblack



Sierra is Spanish for "Mountain Range."

The word Sierra is not plural, but it does refer to all the mountains in
the range. You would use Sierras to refer to multiple mountain ranges,
not multiple mountains.

HTH

Mike,
American Heritage Dictionary defines a sierra is "a rugged range of
mountains having an irregular or jagged profile".
I did a quick web search and found sierras being used quite often.
Here are some old sources:

Book: In the Heart of the Sierras by James M. Hutchings (1888)
Movies: Springtime in the Sierras (1947); King of the Sierras (1938)

So if there are more than one mountan ranges, it appears that the
plural term sierras is used such as Sierras de Cazorla, Segura and Las
Villas in Spain

http://www.andalucia.com/environment...ct/cazorla.htm

"Legrande Harris" wrote

The plane and engine have to be in perfect condition.

Perfect engines fail, too. Right?
--
Jim in NC

Nice web site.

Have you ever considered home brewing a fire protectin system for your
house? A pipe on the roof with holes drilled in it to keep the shingles
wet. Directional irrigation sprinklers keeping the walls wet. A high
volume irrigation pump, I'm thinking gas, so power outages will not be a
problem. Pump out of the swimming pool. If you don't have a pool, now you
have an excuse to get one!
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

Perfect engines fail, too. Right?

Yep. One that quit on takeoff at Kupper was a Mattituck overhaul with only a few
hours on it. That's about as perfect as you're gonna get in this world. The CFI
did a fantastic job of returning to the airport from about 600' AGL, refused the
offer of a drink, and went home (presumably to change).

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message news:wWqTd.5072

Pet peeve...its Sierra not Sierras, the word is already plural.


But we are talking about a proper noun. If my last name meant "many good
looking people" in Italian and you invited my family and I to your house you
wouldn't say "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giacona coming over
tonight." You would say, "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giaconas
coming over tonight. We better get more wine."

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

But we are talking about a proper noun. If my last name meant "many good
looking people" in Italian and you invited my family and I to your house you
wouldn't say "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giacona coming over
tonight." You would say, "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giaconas
coming over tonight. We better get more wine."

But you would never say "the Appalachian ranges." For the same reason, you
should never say "the Sierras" when you're talking about the Sierra Nevada.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

But you would never say "the Appalachian ranges." For the same reason, you
should never say "the Sierras" when you're talking about the Sierra Nevada.

But we say "the Appalachians".

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

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...
But you would never say "the Appalachian ranges." For the same reason, you
should never say "the Sierras" when you're talking about the Sierra
Nevada.

If we were speaking Spanish, and we were speaking only of some generic
"sierra", that would be correct. However, you cannot apply the original
rules to words borrowed from other languages and expect them to still make
sense in English (in this case...this isn't particular to English),
especially when the borrowed word becomes a proper noun. A borrowed word,
in the language that borrowed it, inherets brand new rules, completely
independent of the original language from whence it came.

I have about as many language pet peeves as anyone, but IMHO this is one
that the owner's of said pet peeve just need to get over already.

Pete