Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

wrote in message
...
It also matters what type of trees you try that mushing in.

Please read "How to Crash an Airplane and Survive" by Mick Wilson,
formerly FAA DEN FSDO Safety Program Manager.

He tells us we want to fly just above stall speed, in landing
configuration. Please do not attempt to "mush it in".

Sparky Imeson, of "The Mountain Flying Bible" tells us to "fly the
aircraft as far into the crash as possible", that is, "keep flying the
aircraft".

We cite both of these excellent writers and aviators in the Colorado
Pilots Association's Mountain Flying Course. See:
www.coloradopilots.org

Yes, I fly (any two of):
Mountains
Night
IFR

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 222 Young Eagles!

All good stuff guys. The mushing in I heard of was mostly Florida stuff.
Most places where I fly, the bases of the trees are not an option - its too
thick, and you cannot see them. You certainly cannot see them at night.
Also, mushing isn't the best term as it means different things to different
folks.

The east vs. west thing is great. The type of trees matters a lot if you
think about it. But are you really going to be able to tell?

Also, the plane type would matter. Let's face it, not all planes are of
similar crashworthiness.

One real problem is going to be aiming between the trees. If you have no
experience with skiing or biking or something similar, that may be more than
most folks can accomplish.

I am naturally not a go with the odds guy. I have to train to overcome my
desire to calculate and decide based on all the apparent evidence vs. what
is most likely to work in all cases. I often get the impression that some
flight advice is like betting on the favorite horse even if he is limping.

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.

"Cockpit Colin" wrote

Unfortunately, too many
pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they
keep on dying horrible deaths.

I'm with you. Saying that you accept the risks, because you are a
professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would not
accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable, and
manageable.

What's that saying about old pilots, and bold pilots?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Cockpit Colin" wrote


Unfortunately, too many
pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they
keep on dying horrible deaths.


I'm with you. Saying that you accept the risks, because you are a
professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would not
accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable, and
manageable.

The trouble is that there is no absolute standard for "undue" risk.


Matt

Michael,

The odds will
catch up with you eventually.


You say we're ALL going to win the lottery?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I think it was Chuck Yeager who said it was the third problem that
killed you. We can deal with two problems at once but we can't deal
with three.

So my rule is to never fly with more than one known problem because
unforeseen problems have a way of appearing when they aren't convenient.

As for flying at night over the mountains that is definitely a problem.
The plane and engine have to be in perfect condition. The weather has
to be perfect and I have to be current, rested and alert. If those
conditions are met then I wouldn't have a problem flying a Cessna 152 at
night over the mountains and I have done it a few times.

I personally think that weather in the mountains is a much more severe
problem than darkness.

LG

"houstondan" wrote in message
oups.com...
very thought provoking thread for me. valuable stuff to consider
personal minimums. as someone who has been riding motorcycles for 40
years, i find it kinda tough to be critical of the decisions other
people make when the biggest killer of stupid old men is really big
motorcycles.


I ride bike's also, Every time I stop at a light I wait for the idiot that
doesn't see me and is going to plow in to me, hearing someone's tires
skidding behind you is not a good sound or a good feeling. Being boxed in on
the highway or while at a stop light on a bike by people that think its
funny is not a good feeling also. What about being tail gated while on a
bike. I will take flying a single over the mountains at night rather then
getting creamed by some loser that's not paying attention or wanting to play
with people on motorcycles.

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
mindenpilot wrote:
From the time I hit Tahoe, until I get to Placerville, there is
literally
NOWHERE to safely put it down.
In fact, I don't think I could even walk away from the plane if I had
to put
it down.

With that in mind, what difference would it make if it was light or
dark
outside the plane?
I'd be dead either way, right?

Sounds about right. There are certain situations where VMC/IMC and
day/night make no difference (provided the pilot is prepared to control
the plane by reference to instruments) - and those situations are where
the terrain is uniformly bad (overwater) or uniformly good (nothing but
fields). Maybe the Sierras really are uniformly bad.

Thing is, while I've never flown the Sierras, I've made three crossings
over the Rockies doing the Houston-San Francisco run. Two of them were
day-VMC, and one included night and IMC flying.



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

Mike
MU-2

("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

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.