Ron wrote:
I did mention the possibility of icing in another post. But I still have
not seen any note from Hilton as to why, as a CFII (he pointed out), *HE*
would not have made that trip in the reported weather conditions.

Sorry, Ron, been really busy here with a new software release, etc...

I thought of a long reply that included the risks of flying, how people
needed to be really good at understanding themselves, the weather, the
aircraft systems, etc etc etc, but I guess it boils down to this:

Let's assume a 172 and IFR (which the accident pilot wasn't): Night, IMC
(cloudy, rainy, not benign fog), single-engine, hills which have claimed
lives, plane full of people (more chance of distraction), etc. Each of
these reduce your safety margin, or increase your risk. It's just not very
well stacked in my favor. You say you would do it, what if you had an
engine failure? You have no out, you and your passengers would likely die
or at best be very serously injured. I don't like those odds. Others might
be OK with them, others might put more faith in their engines than I do.
Allow me to quote a couple of sentences from the latest Nall Report (2004):

"Accidents in such conditions, for example, adverse weather or at night, are
more likely to result in fatality."
"...only 14.0 percent of daytime accidents resulted in fatalities. At night,
more than one in three (36.1 percent) was fatal."

I fly at night, I fly IMC, I never fly IMC at night, and definitely not over
hills in a single engine with a 1956 172 (assuming it did not have the newer
6-pack configuration). You're welcome to say I'm too conservative, but
there you go. I know of a very experienced test pilot, Reno Race racer who
will not fly single-engine at night period, even in perfect VMC conditions.

Hilton