Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

"mindenpilot" wrote in message
...
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



I know if I hadn't flown over the terrain a few times during the day I would
not have done it at night. Even during the day its still in the back of my
mind that if something happens to the aircraft I probably will not walk away
or be lost for days or weeks. I have come to grips with my mortality I have
been less than 1 min away from a doctor pronouncing me totally dead and
stopping CPR at one point in my life So I do tend to take more risks then
some but not as many as other's.

mindenpilot wrote:

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?

In my case, not much. I simply am more willing to take risks than many other
people are. The first time I went to Oshkosh, I took the short route over the
lake. When I bought my first aircraft, I flew it back over the Appalachians on a
moonless night. Some people in this forum refuse to consider either of those.

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
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

Well said! I fell safer in an small airplane than on the road with pill
popping crazy people behind the wheel of a 2,000 weapon.

Everytime we have these discussions on USENET we always get some who like to
"justify" the risk with a whole bunch of "sound good in theory" "verbal
gymnastics". At the end of the day I really don't care if others want to
continue doing stupid things and killing themselves in aeroplanes - I know
thay're going to anyway.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
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.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...


mindenpilot wrote:

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?

In my case, not much. I simply am more willing to take risks than many
other
people are. The first time I went to Oshkosh, I took the short route over
the
lake. When I bought my first aircraft, I flew it back over the
Appalachians on a
moonless night. Some people in this forum refuse to consider either of
those.

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


I would consider both of them, I would rather bite the big one due to my
action & decisions than someone else's.

George Patterson wrote:

mindenpilot wrote:

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?


In my case, not much. I simply am more willing to take risks than many other
people are. The first time I went to Oshkosh, I took the short route over the
lake. When I bought my first aircraft, I flew it back over the Appalachians on a
moonless night. Some people in this forum refuse to consider either of those.

Same here. I landed at Muskegon for good and fuel and then headed
straight across lake Michigan. I had flotation and survival gear aboard
and flew high such that I had only a few minutes of "out of glide range"
time, however, there was always the risk of an engine failure at the
wrong time.


Matt

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
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).

Really? I must have missed those posts. I don't recall you telling me the
name of anyone using the risk analysis you propose. But again, I am more
than happy to be corrected. Please feel free to point the posts out to
me...I will happily concede your point. Most convenient for me would be a
link to the Google Groups record of the post, but a Message-ID would be
fine.

Pete

In honor of this thread I went night flying over the mountains last
night. Prior to the moon coming up, I took off from the Spanish Fork
airport in Utah in a 172 and flew up Provo canyon towards Heber. When I
had enough altitude I swung south and flew past the backside of Provo
Peak(11,000'). Once I was away from the lights of the city, I killed
all the lights in the cabin and descended into one of the dark canyons.
Simply by starlight I could make out enough features that making an
emergency landing in a field would have been doable. The mountains were
actually a lot darker on the other side with the Wasatch front cities
lighting them up (I think the light from the cities screws up my night
vision).

When the moon came up, the West facing sides of the mountains went black
but the East facing sides lit up enough that I could clearly see
everything (small clumps of grass sticking up from the snow, in between
the trees). I flew out of the mountains and back to the valley and
realized that I actually had more problems seeing anything on the ground
in the city (except for lit up areas) because the city lights
overpowered the moon. Potential emergency landing spots were simply
black holes.

I have been camping at night in the mountains when it has been so bright
I couldn't sleep at night and I have pulled out a novel to read.

I am not convinced that flying over the Rockies at night in severe clear
and calm conditions at night is any more dangerous than flying over them
in the day. In fact, when I take into account density altitude, less
turbulance and wind it may actually be safer.

LG

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
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).

Really? I must have missed those posts.

You couldn't have missed them all because you responded to some of them.
But Google is your friend if you want to go back and review.

I don't recall you telling me the
name of anyone using the risk analysis you propose.

Another straw man. I didn't tell you their names.

But again, I am more than happy to be corrected.

Once again (because we've trod this ground before too) I doubt that very
much. I have already corrected you on half a dozen points (including
this one) and you don't seem particularly happy about it.

Please feel free to point the posts out to
me...I will happily concede your point.

I don't really care if you concede the point or not, so I'm afraid you
will have to do your own homework.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
Another straw man. I didn't tell you their names.

Then you didn't provide the information I requested, and which would support
your claims.

But again, I am more than happy to be corrected.

Once again (because we've trod this ground before too) I doubt that very
much.

Do not pretend to know what I will or will not do. You clearly have no
idea.

I have already corrected you on half a dozen points (including
this one) and you don't seem particularly happy about it.

You have not made a single supportable correction. If you had, there are a
dozen folks in this newsgroup who would be overjoyed to hop on the bandwagon
of proving me wrong. That's just how Usenet is. The utter lack of support
for your claims is evidence enough of their fallacy.

Pete