Angry [More Info]

Dylan wrote:
Are you sure? The pitch changes in the departure phase tend to be
greater, as well as acceleration effects.

The worst vertigo I had was taking a Duchess out of SQL. The departure goes
something like, runway heading till 400', right turn onto what is
essentially the downwind and maintain 800' (because of jets landing at SFO).

So, rotate, climb at 1000 fpm or so, gear up, flip frequencies, all the
other stuff going into the clouds, right turn at 400', in the turn get to
800', level off, reduce power and roll out the turn all pretty much at the
same time. Whoa... Took me a few seconds, to get things under control -
not the plane, my head.

Hilton

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
The equipment you're flying has much to do with it, too. I'd much rather
be in a high-performance aircraft in night IMC in the mountains than in a
C172, though.

Yeah, it would be nice to be able to fly *over* the mountains instead of
*through* them...

NOTE: "through" is different than "around"...

Dylan Smith wrote:
....
Night IFR plus mountains has to be higher workload still as there are
even more fsck ups that can lead you to be smeared over the ground - in
the flatlands, a minor navigational error is unlikely to kill you.

I agree but these these were not really mountains. There are no
airports in these "mountains" either so really these bumps are only
during the enroute phase. Big woop. Typically You are cruising
along typically at 6000 to 8000 feet all fat dumb and happy. There
is literally no reason to be lower. The killer (literally, no pun
intended) was the pilot was pushed lower and/or continued into IMC and
was forced lower into ground whether that was at 0 MSL or 3000 MSL.
It wasn't like he was flying in a valley in the mountains. There are
no real valleys that you can fly in these 'mere continous
rounded bumps.'

I've flown in this area a bunch of times. If I were VFR-only, I would
NOT have chosen this route especially at night. Following
Interstate 5 gives you nearly continuous visual contact with the
ground below. there are a million and a half airports along the -5-
too. In fact, right after getting my private, I did do this exactly
while going northbound. There was stratus and once I knew the
terrain was increasing a little and the stratus sloping downwards,
I turned around about 6 miles north of Modesto and spent the night.
A year later I did this during the day. The visibility was great below
the 5000 MSL stratus 10 miles south of MOD. I went over these mountains
and it was VERY easy to avoid the terrain. Now at night, I would have
definitely stayed higher if given the option. This guy was not.

There was just a Lear accident at Truckee. That is mountainous terrain.
what those guys did was insane. Mountainous with known severe updrafts
and downdrafts, at visibility minimums (I don't have any reports on the
ceiling), in snow or rain and probably below freezing, non-precision
approaches only with one of which only is a circle to land. Ummm,
sounds to me like they should have gone to Reno's 11000 foot runway
with an ILS.

Gerald

GS wrote:
I agree but these these were not really mountains. There are no
airports in these "mountains" either so really these bumps are only
during the enroute phase. Big woop. Typically You are cruising
along typically at 6000 to 8000 feet all fat dumb and happy. There
is literally no reason to be lower. The killer (literally, no pun
intended) was the pilot was pushed lower and/or continued into IMC and was
forced lower into ground whether that was at 0 MSL or 3000 MSL.

I disagree. I believe (and I could be wrong) that he took of into low
clouds (IMC), lost control, and spun it in. FYI: He crashed 4 miles east of
his departure airport.


I've flown in this area a bunch of times. If I were VFR-only, I would
NOT have chosen this route especially at night. Following
Interstate 5 gives you nearly continuous visual contact with the
ground below.

Sure, but to get to Hwy 5 you need to cross these hills. Anyway, if he had
actually managed to get to Hwy 5, I bet he would have headed for Fresno
(east) and not followed Hwy 5 (SE).


There was just a Lear accident at Truckee. That is mountainous terrain.
what those guys did was insane. Mountainous with known severe updrafts
and downdrafts, at visibility minimums (I don't have any reports on the
ceiling), in snow or rain and probably below freezing, non-precision
approaches only with one of which only is a circle to land. Ummm,
sounds to me like they should have gone to Reno's 11000 foot runway
with an ILS.

Where did you get all that meteorological condition information? There were
witness reports of watching the airplane on the approach, so I would
question you comment "visibility minimums".

Hilton

I agree Ron, it sounds like a bunch of 172 pilots. I would have had no
problem flying my Mooney under the same situation (IFR of course), in
fact I've flown that route several times. However, I know my Mooney. I
have a factory new (not factory reman, not rebuilt, not overhauled,
factory new) engine with regular oil analysis and scoping. I've also
been known to cross the Gorman pass IFR at night IMC as well (or, if
icing exists, the V25/V27 coastal route).

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
I agree Ron, it sounds like a bunch of 172 pilots. I would have had no
problem flying my Mooney under the same situation (IFR of course), in
fact I've flown that route several times. However, I know my Mooney. I
have a factory new (not factory reman, not rebuilt, not overhauled,
factory new) engine with regular oil analysis and scoping. I've also
been known to cross the Gorman pass IFR at night IMC as well (or, if
icing exists, the V25/V27 coastal route).

You like to throw the dice, and hope they come up double 6's. I hope they
do.

If ever you are slapped with some system failure that is necessary to keep
the plane in the air, you just shot craps. In the mountains, (in IFR
especially) you are not too likely to find a good enough landing place to
save your life.

It is all about risk management, and risk acceptance. You are willing to
minimize the risk, and take what ever hand is dealt, from there on out.
Some are not.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote

You like to throw the dice, and hope they come up double 6's. I hope they
do.

If ever you are slapped with some system failure that is necessary to keep
the plane in the air, you just shot craps. In the mountains, (in IFR
especially) you are not too likely to find a good enough landing place to
save your life.

It is all about risk management, and risk acceptance. You are willing to
minimize the risk, and take what ever hand is dealt, from there on out.
Some are not.

I believe that statistics would indicate that fatal crashes that are the
result of an actual mechanical or electrical failure are quite rare. I also
suspect that the number of twin engine aircraft that have suffered an engine
failure in flight in IMC and then landed without incident is also quite low.
The risk comparison between single engine vs multi engine for a flight like
this in reality is probably close, although psychologically it may seem like
there is a vast difference.

How many multi-engine pilots do you know who routinely go out and practice
engine failure procedures? How many multi-engine crashes have been
attributed to mismanagement of the aircraft after an engine failure?

In the mountains it won't matter anyway, because the single engine service
ceiling of most light twins is down around 8,000 feet or so.

"Nick Danger" wrote

I believe that statistics would indicate that fatal crashes that are the
result of an actual mechanical or electrical failure are quite rare.

No doubt. It does suck,if you are the one that the "rare" statistic bites
your butt. The point is, that you are out of options. Prolly will not
happen. It could.

I also
suspect that the number of twin engine aircraft that have suffered an
engine
failure in flight in IMC and then landed without incident is also quite
low.
The risk comparison between single engine vs multi engine for a flight
like
this in reality is probably close, although psychologically it may seem
like
there is a vast difference.

No arguement there, either. As they say, a second engine is there to take
you to the crash site, ^o))
--
Jim in NC

Nick Danger wrote:


I also suspect that the number of twin engine aircraft that have
suffered an engine failure in flight in IMC and then landed without
incident is also quite low.

Based on what? Published statistics? Personal experience? For me it's
4/4. You rarely hear about any of the majority which conclude without
further incident.


The risk comparison between single engine vs multi engine for a flight like
this in reality is probably close, although psychologically it may seem like
there is a vast difference.

Since the risk came primarily from the pilot, and not from the airplane,
you may be correct. Such a mental attitude would be fatal in any airplane.


Jack

I don't hope I have a well maintained plane, I know I do.
I don't hope I have a factory new engine, I know I do.
I don't hope I have regular scope inspections of my engine, I know I
do.
I don't hope that I complete 6 month IPCs with our local FAA Desginated
Pilot Examiner, I know I do.
I don't hope that I can fly my plane single pilot IFR, I know I do.

The "mountains" we are talking about here are baby hills. We're not
talking the Sierras here. On a typical IFR flight you maybe have 3
minutes of time you cannot glide out of the mountains to the well lit
freeway on the other side.

-Robert, CFI