At what point does uneven terrain become "mountain flying"? Do
rolling hills represent a problem? Is there a threshold of ruggedness
or altitude or some other distinctive characteristic of terrain (other
than variable elevation) that serves as a warning that mountain flying
skills will be necessary?

If you don't have mountain flying skills, and your departure and
destination are on opposite sides of a mountain range that is too long
to practically go around, what's the plan?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> At what point does uneven terrain become "mountain flying"?

it is a bit arbitrary; in my neck of the wood, the local
FBOs and clubs tend to set a limit at airports which elevations
are above 2000'; at or above that they require a 'mountain
check out' -- and happily recognize check outs made in other
clubs/FBOs. In my case the check out consisted in spending
a really nice day landing and taking off to/from eight airports
in the Sierra Nevada with an instructor, and it was a lot of
fun :-)

but to answer your question: you could define mountain flying
as operating from any place where the effect of high density
altitude is significant; But this is only one point (albeit a
really important one); actually you don't even need to
go high to get the effect of high density altitude: flying
in the desert in summer can be just as challenging (if not
impossible at some time; part of the check out consists in
showing the the pilot understand the performance charts and
effects of density altitude in the go/no-go decision);

then, you have additional things to take into account due to
terrain, understanding things like waves, convection, where to
expect downdraft, more advanced stuff like canyon flying, etc.

and then you have the really wild altiports as it is called in
some places (I believe that in France, some of these airports
in the Alps require specific checkouts/endorsements -- something
I'd love to do one of these days);

--Sylvain

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>If you don't have mountain flying skills, and your departure and
>destination are on opposite sides of a mountain range that is too long
>to practically go around, what's the plan?

United. Frontier. Southwest.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> At what point does uneven terrain become "mountain flying"? Do
> rolling hills represent a problem? Is there a threshold of ruggedness
> or altitude or some other distinctive characteristic of terrain (other
> than variable elevation) that serves as a warning that mountain flying
> skills will be necessary?
>
> If you don't have mountain flying skills, and your departure and
> destination are on opposite sides of a mountain range that is too long
> to practically go around, what's the plan?

In California we define Mountain Flying as anything East. Usually
anything with terrain over about 7,000 feet is Mountain Flying.

-Robert

There is a map in the AIM. Look in the index under "Mountainous Areas".


It's also on the sectionals via the "terrain clearance altitudes" (or
whatever those are called), which are increased by 1000' in mountainous
areas.

On 2006-11-13, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> At what point does uneven terrain become "mountain flying"?

THIS is mountain flying:

http://www.alioth.net/Video/BackCountry.mp4

(Need an MPEG-4 player - then the free/open source player VideoLAN is a
good one - http://www.videolan.org)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Subject: Re: Where does "mountain flying" begin?

Couple of pictures from Idaho backcountry strips.

http://www.flyidaho.org/dest_c.asp?menuID=103~103

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=5

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery/displayimage.php?album=71&pos=3

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/gallery/displayimage.php?album=39&pos=12

http://www.canyonflying.com/updown.html

http://www.flyidaho.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=fish-lake&id=fish_lk

http://www.flyidaho.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=WilsonBar&id=WilsonBar10_8_04

http://www.flyidaho.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=WilsonBar&id=Wilson_Bar_acc1

Enjoy

Howard
C182

My airport is at 6800' MSL and I never considered flying out of here
as mountain flying. The Rockies just to the west of me is mountain
flying.

Ron Lee

Howard Nelson writes:

> Enjoy

I can see why pilots are willing to take the additional risks to fly
in the mountains. The air must be very fresh and clean, too (if a bit
thin).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

At the airport? ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


Mxsmanic wrote:
> At what point does uneven terrain become "mountain flying"? Do
> rolling hills represent a problem? Is there a threshold of ruggedness
> or altitude or some other distinctive characteristic of terrain (other
> than variable elevation) that serves as a warning that mountain flying
> skills will be necessary?
>
> If you don't have mountain flying skills, and your departure and
> destination are on opposite sides of a mountain range that is too long
> to practically go around, what's the plan?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> If you don't have mountain flying skills, and your departure and
> destination are on opposite sides of a mountain range that is too long
> to practically go around, what's the plan?

Go under!

(Appropriate answer for the cementhead)

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> If you don't have mountain flying skills, and your departure and
>> destination are on opposite sides of a mountain range that is too long
>> to practically go around, what's the plan?
>
> Go under!

Hey - that worked for Buckaroo Bonzai! ;-)

>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>If you don't have mountain flying skills, and your departure and
>>destination are on opposite sides of a mountain range that is too long
>>to practically go around, what's the plan?


Flying over a mountain range is not mountain flying. Mountain flying is
flying in the mountains, below the peaks, relatively close to the ground
in the valleys and passes.

"Newps" > wrote

> Flying over a mountain range is not mountain flying. Mountain flying is
> flying in the mountains, below the peaks, relatively close to the ground in
> the valleys and passes.

Are you sure you want to subscribe to that strict definition?

It seems to me that dealing with mountain waves, rotors, updrafts and
downdrafts, precipitation formed from air rising over the mountains, and some
other thing (no doubt) would still fall under the classification of mountain
flying.

No?
--
Jim in NC

Newps writes:

> Flying over a mountain range is not mountain flying. Mountain flying is
> flying in the mountains, below the peaks, relatively close to the ground
> in the valleys and passes.

So is it relatively safe to fly over mountains if you clear them by
some reasonable altitude (1000 feet? 5000 feet?)?

Granted, that might be difficult in the Rockies with a small aircraft.

What about flying through relatively large valleys between mountains,
in order to avoid the mountains themselves? I mean, you have to get
from California to Colorado somehow.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic schrieb:

> I mean, you have to get
> from California to Colorado somehow.

You can always take the train.

Stefan

There really is no way to avoid mountains flying from Colorado to
California. There is a route that has the lowest altitude possible, but
still, you are going to have mountains.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Flying over a mountain range is not mountain flying. Mountain flying is
>>flying in the mountains, below the peaks, relatively close to the ground
>>in the valleys and passes.
>
>
> So is it relatively safe to fly over mountains if you clear them by
> some reasonable altitude (1000 feet? 5000 feet?)?

As long as you clear them it doesn't matter how high. Safety depends on
the weather. I have skimmed over and thru the mountains at 50-100 agl
on nice calm days.


>
> Granted, that might be difficult in the Rockies with a small aircraft.

Not difficult at all, that's where I fly.



>
> What about flying through relatively large valleys between mountains,
> in order to avoid the mountains themselves? I mean, you have to get
> from California to Colorado somehow.


You have lots of options. Fly right over the tops direct if you have
the performance, fly over the lower passes if you don't or the
wind/weather precludes it or if you simply prefer it.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:38:00 -0800, Doug wrote:
> There really is no way to avoid mountains flying from Colorado to
> California. There is a route that has the lowest altitude possible, but
> still, you are going to have mountains.

Fly south to the Panama canal and follow it? Not sure about the terrain
that they had to blast through to make it, but it's probably not *that*
bad... <grin>

The further south you go, the better the route gets... When I flew from
Houston to SoCal a few years ago, I noticed that the southern route
through El Paso that I took on the way back was quite a bit better than
the route past the Grand Canyon that I had taken on the way over there...

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:13:14 -0700, Newps wrote:
> As long as you clear them it doesn't matter how high. Safety depends on
> the weather. I have skimmed over and thru the mountains at 50-100 agl
> on nice calm days.

I prefer a bit more air underneath me than that considering the anemic
climb rate of my aircraft at altitude... When I flew to the Grand Canyon a
few years back, I encountered 2000 fpm updrafts... That was *great*... I
talked with some of the charter pilots around there about it and soon
learned that you can also encounter 2000 fpm downdrafts... That would
*not* be great...

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"

"Grumman-581" > wrote

> Fly south to the Panama canal and follow it? Not sure about the terrain
> that they had to blast through to make it, but it's probably not *that*
> bad... <grin>

Not that tough, except for stopping mid air, while they fill and empty the locks
for you.

<bad grin>
--
Jim in NC

On 2006-11-16 17:24:33 -0700, "Morgans" > said:

>
> "Newps" > wrote
>
>> Flying over a mountain range is not mountain flying. Mountain flying
>> is flying in the mountains, below the peaks, relatively close to the
>> ground in the valleys and passes.
>
> Are you sure you want to subscribe to that strict definition?
>
> It seems to me that dealing with mountain waves, rotors, updrafts and
> downdrafts, precipitation formed from air rising over the mountains,
> and some other thing (no doubt) would still fall under the
> classification of mountain flying.
>
> No?

Mountain CFI I have talked to seem to stick to the definition of
encountering any terrain 7500 ft or higher. Or course, with 14,000
peaks a couple miles from here that is easy to agree with.

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:13:14 -0700, Newps wrote:
>> As long as you clear them it doesn't matter how high. Safety depends on
>> the weather. I have skimmed over and thru the mountains at 50-100 agl
>> on nice calm days.
>
> I prefer a bit more air underneath me than that considering the anemic
> climb rate of my aircraft at altitude... When I flew to the Grand Canyon a
> few years back, I encountered 2000 fpm updrafts... That was *great*... I
> talked with some of the charter pilots around there about it and soon
> learned that you can also encounter 2000 fpm downdrafts... That would
> *not* be great...
>
>

I have indeed encountered both updrafts and downdrafts at rates greater than
2000 fpm and at altitudes over 10,000 feet msl. Most GA piston aircraft do
not have a great deal of reserve at those altitudes. As a result you can
not "brute force" your way through the mountains, particularly in Colorado.
I remember many years ago now, a Convair with a football team aboard flew
into a canyon west of Denver. As soon as my buddy saw them fly into the
canyon he called out the rescue squad and we started up the canyon to pick
them up. At the altitude they entered the canyon there was no way they
could continue to outclimb the canyon floor and it was not wide enough for
that airplane to execute a 180 degree turn. Sure enough, the canyon climbed
up and caught them.

Flying in the mountains requires a lot of knowledge about terrain, weather,
winds, and your airplane. It is a skill similiar to flying cross country in
a sailplane. I had an engine quit on me one time west of Denver in a
Taylorcraft L2. I caught a wave and flew for almost an hour with the prop
stopped! With no electrical system and a wooden prop on a fresh overhaul I
dove at Vne and couldn't get it to windmill! No restart likely. Landed
finally at Columbine Airport in Englewood.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:45:26 -0600, "Highflyer" > wrote:

>
>"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:13:14 -0700, Newps wrote:
>>> As long as you clear them it doesn't matter how high. Safety depends on
>>> the weather. I have skimmed over and thru the mountains at 50-100 agl
>>> on nice calm days.
>>
>> I prefer a bit more air underneath me than that considering the anemic
>> climb rate of my aircraft at altitude... When I flew to the Grand Canyon a
>> few years back, I encountered 2000 fpm updrafts... That was *great*... I
>> talked with some of the charter pilots around there about it and soon
>> learned that you can also encounter 2000 fpm downdrafts... That would
>> *not* be great...
>>
>>
>
>I have indeed encountered both updrafts and downdrafts at rates greater than
>2000 fpm and at altitudes over 10,000 feet msl. Most GA piston aircraft do
>not have a great deal of reserve at those altitudes. As a result you can

What do you mean at those altitudes? *MOST* piston engined singles
and twins dont have that kind of reserve at seal level!
<snip>
Colorado: The only state where I flew more vertical distance crossing
the state than horizontal. Kanasas: The only state I've flown across
where my ground speed was about 50% greater than Vne while the
airspeed was below Va.
>
>Highflyer
>Highflight Aviation Services
>Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Mxsmanic wrote: <brevity snip>
> At what point does uneven terrain become "mountain flying"?

Somewhere... near here: http://i15.tinypic.com/47lbrya.jpg
-----

- gpsman

On 21 Nov 2006 22:30:10 -0800, "gpsman" >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote: <brevity snip>
>> At what point does uneven terrain become "mountain flying"?
>
>Somewhere... near here: http://i15.tinypic.com/47lbrya.jpg
> -----
>

Those are just big hills. When the passes are at 17,500 you are in
the mountains.

OTOH if you are from Michigan anything over 500 feet is a mountain.

>- gpsman
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> OTOH if you are from Michigan anything over 500 feet is a mountain.

Which State holds the record for flatness? Iowa seems to be a
contender but I don't know if it's the flattest.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In rec.aviation.student gpsman > wrote:
> > At what point does uneven terrain become "mountain flying"?

> Somewhere... near here: http://i15.tinypic.com/47lbrya.jpg

And the airplane looks like a Cessna 172. Yes, we fly those
in the mountains safely!

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 247 Young Eagles!