Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

[NW_PILOT]

Hello, I had a fun trip Friday 02-18-05 during the day I went from KVUO to
KDLS to 63S "Colville Municipal Airport" 3.6 hours that drop off "cliff" at
the end of 19 is very interesting. Well went to see a relative I hadn't seen
for a long time was a fun day and ended back at my airplane about 7pm and
was wished a safe journey back home.

I departed 63S about 7:30pm calm winds and clear skies were being reported
for the entire trip home over the mountain ranges. I can say that yes it is
black out there at night and every little noise is amplified when flying
over dark mountainous terrain. The winds were not as expected took 2.7 hours
to fly VFR GPS direct to KYKM. From KYKM to KVUO it took another 2.4 hours
pluss the high clouds blocked out the stars and almost all the moon light.

What a day 8.7 hours of flying 5.1 at night got to see some relatives I
hadn't seen in years. My flight time in the last 4 weeks as of today has
been 69.2 hours total I expect to put in another 30 to 40 hours in the next
week or two if this weather holds I may even fly my 150 down to Las Vegas or
Something now that I can go 50 hours between oil changes.

My goal is to be have 500 hours Total Time by 12-31-2005 I am sitting at 234
I hope my pocket book and 150 can handle it.

--
Steven Rhine
PP-ASEL
Instrument Student
N7676U 1976 C-150M

[Steve.T]

Just a word of caution:

As an instrument student, you should be painfully aware that night
flight, with high clouds over mountainous terrain can cause
disorientation.

I love to fly at night - easy to see other a/c, and if on IFR, the
clouds can appear as pastel apparitions. But in the dark with few
lights below and none above, you can have a real battle making yourself
believe the guages - "I am not inverted. I am not inverted."

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[NW_PILOT]

"Steve.T" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Just a word of caution:
>
> As an instrument student, you should be painfully aware that night
> flight, with high clouds over mountainous terrain can cause
> disorientation.
>
> I love to fly at night - easy to see other a/c, and if on IFR, the
> clouds can appear as pastel apparitions. But in the dark with few
> lights below and none above, you can have a real battle making yourself
> believe the guages - "I am not inverted. I am not inverted."
>
> Later,
> Steve.T
> PP ASEL/Instrument
>

Yep, it was a real Erie feeling like the feeling I got my first time in
actual IFR what was even weirder it was so calm it did not even feel like we
were moving just standing still in the black open space. I had the airplane
trimed up so it would almost fly itself. My son went to sleep on me and the
batteries died in the CD player and there was no traffic for about 2 hours
on the last leg. I called Seattle on the radio "I was on flight following"
to make sure they were still there every now and then.

--
Steven Rhine
PP-ASEL
Instrument Student
N7676U 1976 C-150M

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yep, it was a real Erie feeling like the feeling I got my first time in
> actual IFR what was even weirder it was so calm it did not even feel like
we
> were moving just standing still in the black open space. I had the
airplane

I'm a low-time pilot (~220 hrs), recently instrument rated. I've only truly
scared myself a few times in an airplane, one of which was my first night
flight a few months after getting my private. It was a crystal-clear night,
early fall in New England. It had been six months or so since I'd flown at
night, first time solo. I took off, and within about a minute got that
"ohmigod I don't know wtf I am" feeling. I fly near Boston so there was just
a carpet of lights everywhere below me. Very pretty actually. After a few
nervous moments I said, "ok, relax, you've got 4 hours of gas and the
plane's A-OK." I bumbled around until I hit a major highway, followed that
to another airport, then was able to orient myself to get back home, which I
did within about 30 minutes of taking off.

I'll confess that I haven't flown at night since then. I decided I would
wait until I got my instrument, and that I'd go at night on IFR flight plans
for a while until I felt more comfortable with it. Just haven't had time
since then but I should do it while it still gets dark nice and early.

Oh, and did I mention the landing light burned out? Luckily I'd gotten a
floatplane rating about a month earlier, so I just went into "glassy water
landing" mode and did a power-on approach. My field is lit up like a
christmas tree at night so it actually wasn't so stressful.

I was lucky enough to have a CFII who really liked instructing in the soup,
and near Boston it comes around pretty regularly. One of the other times I
got good and puckered up was about 25 hours into my IR, we went into the
scud and I got good and spun. He liked to keep the AI covered most of the
time, and looking at the DG and TC spinning and banking I just couldn't
figure out left from right. I could feel our airspeed and G forces building,
and after we turned about 270 degrees, he looked over and said, "boy, you're
sure confused," and within about 15 seconds had us back on course &
altitude. ATC didn't even mention it.

-cwk.

[Aaron Coolidge]

In rec.aviation.owning Colin W Kingsbury > wrote:
: I'll confess that I haven't flown at night since then. I decided I would
: wait until I got my instrument, and that I'd go at night on IFR flight plans
: for a while until I felt more comfortable with it. Just haven't had time
: since then but I should do it while it still gets dark nice and early.

Hey CWK, I fly with a group of good folks out of lovely 1B9, and we go
out most Wednesday evenings. If you'd like to join us, even as a passenger,
drop me a line and we can work something out. You're at BED, no?
fasto at shell dot theworld dot com.
--
Aaron C.

[RST Engineering]

Single engine
Night
Mountains


Pick any two.

That is, if you've ever lost an engine. If you haven't, pick all three and
hope that your engine failure will not be this time.

Jim

[Jack Allison]

RST Engineering wrote:

> Single engine
> Night
> Mountains
>
>
> Pick any two.

I was kind of thinking along the same lines. Having flown across the
Sierra Nevada's only a few times in the day, I sure wouldn't want to do
so at night. Even a cloudless full moon night in a brand new high
performance single engine...nope, wouldn't want to do it. Way too much
cumulo-Granite down there. I'd much rather limit my mountain crossings
to the daytime.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-IA Student-Arrow Shopping Student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[mindenpilot]

"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> Single engine
>> Night
>> Mountains
>>
>>
>> Pick any two.
>
> I was kind of thinking along the same lines. Having flown across the
> Sierra Nevada's only a few times in the day, I sure wouldn't want to do so
> at night. Even a cloudless full moon night in a brand new high
> performance single engine...nope, wouldn't want to do it. Way too much
> cumulo-Granite down there. I'd much rather limit my mountain crossings to
> the daytime.
>
>
> --
> Jack Allison
> PP-ASEL-IA Student-Arrow Shopping Student
>
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
> with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
> you will always long to return"
> - Leonardo Da Vinci
>
> (Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

Agreed.
I fly over the Sierras all the time.
I fly at night all the time.
I never fly over the Sierras at night.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[houstondan]

nw...enjoy reading your stuff. keep 'em coming. as an owner wannabe
(does holding-up convenience stores really make you a bad person??) i
keep winding up at the conclusion that a 150/2 probably makes the most
sense for me. for now. maybe. maybe that 160hp aerobat taildragger in
trade a plane?? no, there goes the budget again.

the use you are getting out of your 150 is sure encouraging. now, i
expect this is a pretty stupid question but what the heck " do you have
any kind of gps plan if the one and only motor does quit while above
the mountain in the dark? known gps glide-to spots"??

dan

[NW_PILOT]

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> nw...enjoy reading your stuff. keep 'em coming. as an owner wannabe
> (does holding-up convenience stores really make you a bad person??) i
> keep winding up at the conclusion that a 150/2 probably makes the most
> sense for me. for now. maybe. maybe that 160hp aerobat taildragger in
> trade a plane?? no, there goes the budget again.
>
> the use you are getting out of your 150 is sure encouraging. now, i
> expect this is a pretty stupid question but what the heck " do you have
> any kind of gps plan if the one and only motor does quit while above
> the mountain in the dark? known gps glide-to spots"??
>
> dan
>

If the engine quits in the areas I was flying in I probably would never be
found no matter ware I landed and would take weeks to walk out how wooded it
is. This 150 is the best investment I have purchassed its almost paid for
its self in flight time. And the education you get when you become an owner
is worth the money spent.

[mindenpilot]

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> nw...enjoy reading your stuff. keep 'em coming. as an owner wannabe
> (does holding-up convenience stores really make you a bad person??) i
> keep winding up at the conclusion that a 150/2 probably makes the most
> sense for me. for now. maybe. maybe that 160hp aerobat taildragger in
> trade a plane?? no, there goes the budget again.
>
> the use you are getting out of your 150 is sure encouraging. now, i
> expect this is a pretty stupid question but what the heck " do you have
> any kind of gps plan if the one and only motor does quit while above
> the mountain in the dark? known gps glide-to spots"??
>
> dan
>

I hate to admit it, but I may have to retract my earlier comment about not
flying over the mountains at night.
Like I said, I fly over the Sierras all the time.
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?

I don't know if I'll be doing it anytime soon, but it's definitely food for
thought.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[Thomas Borchert]

Nw,

> If the engine quits in the areas I was flying in I probably would never be
> found no matter ware I landed and would take weeks to walk out how wooded it
> is.
>

Uh, a simple, modern ELT would solve that quite nicely. See www.equipped.org

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dude]

"mindenpilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> "houstondan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> nw...enjoy reading your stuff. keep 'em coming. as an owner wannabe
>> (does holding-up convenience stores really make you a bad person??) i
>> keep winding up at the conclusion that a 150/2 probably makes the most
>> sense for me. for now. maybe. maybe that 160hp aerobat taildragger in
>> trade a plane?? no, there goes the budget again.
>>
>> the use you are getting out of your 150 is sure encouraging. now, i
>> expect this is a pretty stupid question but what the heck " do you have
>> any kind of gps plan if the one and only motor does quit while above
>> the mountain in the dark? known gps glide-to spots"??
>>
>> dan
>>
>
> I hate to admit it, but I may have to retract my earlier comment about not
> flying over the mountains at night.
> Like I said, I fly over the Sierras all the time.
> 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?
>
> I don't know if I'll be doing it anytime soon, but it's definitely food
> for thought.
>
> Adam
> N7966L
> Beech Super III


Adam,

Thanks for posting that. I was thinking the same thing. If you are flying
over such inhospitable terrain, what does it matter whether or not you can
see the ground?

That being said, putting a plane like a 150 into the trees isn't impossible
at all. Simply mushing it into the foliage as slow as possible has been
accomplished many times, even if it is a crap shoot. Given the hieght of
some of those trees would make it interesting to get down afterwards though.

[Darrel Toepfer]

mindenpilot wrote:

> 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?

The advantage of doing it at night is, if you don't like what you see,
you can always turn off the landing light...

[[email protected]]

NW_PILOT wrote:
> My son went to sleep on me and the
> batteries died in the CD player....


Steven,
I think we have roughly the same experience. I have just over 400hrs
in 4 years and have owned a plane the last two years. I agree that
night flying is a great experience but we have limited ourselves to
only local airports on full moon nights. We attend Wings Safety
Seminars regularly and at least once a year, there is a review on
accident statistics. The most deadly combination is always some
various combinations of IMC (terrain), out-of-fuel, equipment
malfunctions AND night flying.
I cringed in reading the heading of your post: night flying +
mountains + single engine plane, but thought to myself that everybody
had their own flying comfort level. Some are more willing to take a
risk than others.
The batteries in the CD player died. The batteries in your GPS
may die suddenly too. In our short two years of plane ownership, we
had seen our engine need replacement with 3 cracked cylinders without
any warning signs (compressions were in the high 70's, oil analysis
were fine, engine ran great etc.). We had a complete electrical
failure in one trip due to bad crimped job of one of the alternator
wires (the logbook indicated that it was done 5 years ago). The carb
heat failed to work suddenly one day due to a crack in the box.
Everytime that we opened the hood (at least every other month in the 25
hrs oil change), we inspected everything carefully. We also do at least
15- minutes preflight check, but we always expect that someday
something in that 30-years old plane may break.
My discomfort level went sky high in knowing that your son
(presumably a youngster) was with you. I would never want to tell a
parent how to treat their children. I just want to register my feeling
as a pilot and a mother.

Hai Longworth

[Thomas Borchert]

Mindenpilot,

> I don't know if I'll be doing it anytime soon, but it's definitely food for
> thought.
>

It is. Ultimately, it all comes down to how you want to manage risk in your
life. Depends on a lot of factors which are very personal. E.g., I don't have
kids, so I figure I'm a little less risk averse than a multiple Dad might be.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Howard Nelson]

"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
> > Single engine
> > Night
> > Mountains
> >
> >
> > Pick any two.
>
> I was kind of thinking along the same lines. Having flown across the
> Sierra Nevada's only a few times in the day, I sure wouldn't want to do
> so at night. Even a cloudless full moon night in a brand new high
> performance single engine...nope, wouldn't want to do it. Way too much
> cumulo-Granite down there. I'd much rather limit my mountain crossings
> to the daytime.
>
>
> --
> Jack Allison
> PP-ASEL-IA Student-Arrow Shopping Student

I have flown numerous times single engine, day, over both rockies and
sierras. I don't know what the actual realities are but the sierras are much
more "scary". They rise faster, fewer valleys and more bare rock. I have
always felt that I have had an "out" when flying over the rockies not so the
sierras.

Howard

[markjenn]

> Single engine
> Night
> Mountains

I don't think single-engine is much risk compared to the other two.

As a non-professional pilot, my my rule-of-thumb is that won't do any two of
the following three:

Night
Mountains
IFR weather (basically in significant flying in clouds)

All three is a huge risk

- Mark

[Russ MacDonald]

When I was young, I might have tried a trip like this, but the longer I
continue flying, and the longer I stay alive the less I like to take
chances.

You are decreasing your odds of a successful flight by 1) single engine over
mountains, 2) very low power aircraft, and 3) no instrument rating. I
might try one of these variables on a given day, but never all three at one
time.

Night flight is statistically much more dangerous than day flight. Heck,
many countries don't even allow night VFR flight. But, I don't want that
here in the US!! I want the right to make that decision, and the more night
VFR accidents that happen, the more likely night VFR will be banned here as
well.

If you are single engine over the mountains at night, you could easily fly
into a cloud or even icing conditions without knowing it, and without
sufficient instrument training and adequate additional climb capability, you
might not find a way out before hitting something hard.

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> I departed 63S about 7:30pm calm winds and clear skies were being
> reported
> for the entire trip home over the mountain ranges. I can say that yes it
> is
> black out there at night and every little noise is amplified when flying
> over dark mountainous terrain. The winds were not as expected took 2.7
> hours
> to fly VFR GPS direct to KYKM. From KYKM to KVUO it took another 2.4 hours
> pluss the high clouds blocked out the stars and almost all the moon light.

[Trent Moorehead]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...

> That being said, putting a plane like a 150 into the trees isn't
impossible
> at all. Simply mushing it into the foliage as slow as possible has been
> accomplished many times, even if it is a crap shoot. Given the hieght of
> some of those trees would make it interesting to get down afterwards
though.

I've been doing some reading lately that advises pilots to aim for the base
of the trees, not the foliage. Mushing it into the tops of the trees ensures
that you will stall as soon as the plane touches the first treetop. The nose
will drop and you will be going straight down from there. Unless the tree
branches break the fall on the way down, there is a good chance you will not
survive. The taller the trees, the farther you fall, the harder the impact.

If you aim for the base of the trees, you'll be under control as close to
the ground as possible when the stall occurs. You do have to be careful not
to hit a tree trunk head-on, but if you aim right, the wings can be used to
absorb energy, making the deceleration as gradual as possible. It's the
quick deceleration that kills you or renders you unconscious and if there is
a fire you are not getting out.

I also used to think that mushing the plane into the treetops was the way to
go, but obviously I've been rethinking that. And just reading the title of
this thread gives me willies. To be honest, I thought it was a joke or a
hypothetical question, not a recounting of an actual experience. Speaking
for myself only, outright emergencies notwithstanding, you won't find me
"Night flying in the mountains in a cessna 150".

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Cockpit Colin]

> If you are single engine over the mountains at night, you could easily fly
> into a cloud or even icing conditions without knowing it, and without
> sufficient instrument training and adequate additional climb capability,
you
> might not find a way out before hitting something hard.

Additionally, if you lose your engine, where exactly are you going to put it
down safely?

[[email protected]]

Trent Moorehead wrote:
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > That being said, putting a plane like a 150 into the trees isn't
> impossible
> > at all. Simply mushing it into the foliage as slow as possible has
been
> > accomplished many times, even if it is a crap shoot. Given the
hieght of
> > some of those trees would make it interesting to get down
afterwards
> though.
>
> I've been doing some reading lately that advises pilots to aim for
the base
> of the trees, not the foliage. Mushing it into the tops of the trees
ensures
> that you will stall as soon as the plane touches the first treetop.
The nose
> will drop and you will be going straight down from there. Unless the
tree
> branches break the fall on the way down, there is a good chance you
will not
> survive. The taller the trees, the farther you fall, the harder the
impact.
>
> If you aim for the base of the trees, you'll be under control as
close to
> the ground as possible when the stall occurs. You do have to be
careful not
> to hit a tree trunk head-on, but if you aim right, the wings can be
used to
> absorb energy, making the deceleration as gradual as possible. It's
the
> quick deceleration that kills you or renders you unconscious and if
there is
> a fire you are not getting out.
>
> I also used to think that mushing the plane into the treetops was the
way to
> go, but obviously I've been rethinking that. And just reading the
title of
> this thread gives me willies. To be honest, I thought it was a joke
or a
> hypothetical question, not a recounting of an actual experience.
Speaking
> for myself only, outright emergencies notwithstanding, you won't find
me
> "Night flying in the mountains in a cessna 150".
>
> -Trent
> PP-ASEL

It also matters what type of trees you try that mushing in. In the
East, limbs tend to point up. But in the West, they tend to point down
(Fir). If you expect those tree limbs to break your fall you can forget
it (those limbs are designed to shed snowfall). They will only spring
back up after you have crumpled yourself into the ground, hiding your
wreckage for (sometimes) years before a hapless hiker stumbles into it.

Tom

[Morgans]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote
>
> I have flown numerous times single engine, day, over both rockies and
> sierras. I don't know what the actual realities are but the sierras are
much
> more "scary". They rise faster, fewer valleys and more bare rock. I have
> always felt that I have had an "out" when flying over the rockies not so
the
> sierras.
>
> Howard

Although I have not flown above the Andes, except very high in an airliner,
driving through them gives me the following point of view. If you think the
Sierras are scary, check out the Andes. They are young, raw, and jagged.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote

> Speaking
> for myself only, outright emergencies notwithstanding, you won't find me
> "Night flying in the mountains in a cessna 150".
>
> -Trent

The original poster has a reputation for posting (and doing) things that
make me think that he is not much of a "thinking man."
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

> 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!

[Dane Spearing]

As a previous poster pointed out, it really all boils down to what
level of risk you are willing to accept, as well as your comfort level
and level of experience.

I live and fly in northwestern New Mexico, and frequently fly XC across
northern Arizona and up into Colorado with my family. If I subscribed
to the rule of never flying and night in the mountains, I'd never be able
to fly at night. (Mind you, I fly a PA32-300, not a Cessna 150,
but it's still a normally aspirated single-engine).

However, even as an instrument rated pilot, I will not fly at night in the
mountains in IMC. The MEA's are just too darn high around here (16,000+),
and there isn't an "out" should something go awry.

Set personal limits and minima, and stick to them.

-- Dane

In article >,
markjenn > wrote:
>As a non-professional pilot, my my rule-of-thumb is that won't do any two of
>the following three:
>
>Night
>Mountains
>IFR weather (basically in significant flying in clouds)
>
>All three is a huge risk
>
>- Mark
>
>

[Michael]

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.

The day-VMC crossings had a very low pucker factor, in spite of being
in a low power airplane. I flew my route so there was always someplace
reasonably flat to set down. Not good enough to save the plane, but
probably good enough to walk away. Maybe. But I didn't fly a straight
route. I mostly followed I-10 and flew the passes.

The crossing that included the night and IMC time (and some night IMC)
was in a much higher powered and much better equipped single (a
full-IFR A-36) but I must say the pucker factor was high. I flew the
airways because the OROCA's were too high and we had no oxygen. I knew
that if the engine decided to take a dump, our chances were not good.

I did it because I had a schedule to keep, a plane to move, and the guy
who hired me didn't hire me to sit on my ass because the engine might
quit. And the engine was in good shape, and the plane had a good
annual and several hours after the annual to shake out the bugs, and so
I judged the risk to be fairly low. In a typical rental, I might not
have done it - and I sure wouldn't do it all the time. The odds will
catch up with you eventually.

Michael

[Morgans]

"Michael" < wrote

> I did it because I had a schedule to keep, a plane to move, and the guy
> who hired me didn't hire me to sit on my ass because the engine might
> quit. And the engine was in good shape, and the plane had a good
> annual and several hours after the annual to shake out the bugs, and so
> I judged the risk to be fairly low. In a typical rental, I might not
> have done it - and I sure wouldn't do it all the time. The odds will
> catch up with you eventually.
>
> Michael

WoW. Good reasons? Hmmm. Personal standards? Hmmm. And admitting it
will catch up, signifying you realize that this will kill you? Hmmm.

[Jose]

> And admitting it
> will catch up, signifying you realize that this will kill you?

EVERY risk will catch up to you eventually. But only one will actually
get you.

Jose
--
r.a. owning and r.a.student trimmed, as I don't follow them
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michael]

Morgans wrote:
> WoW. Good reasons? Hmmm. Personal standards? Hmmm. And admitting
it
> will catch up, signifying you realize that this will kill you? Hmmm.

I'm a commercial pilot. When I am hired to move an airplane, I am
hired to do a job. That job includes risk. When I took my first job
out of school, troubleshooting distillation towers, I took a lot more
risk.

When you use the airplane as a tool (meaning a vehicle for getting you
where you want to go when you want to get there, and not just a way of
going up to see the pretty scenery, shoot some landings, and get a
hundred dollar burger or attend a fly-in) there is unavoidably going to
be some risk. If you don't, you could in theory get the risk down to
almost nothing. But only in theory.

In reality, the most dangerous segment of aviation isn't the people who
fly with a schedule to keep and a place to be. These people (the
self-flown business flyers and the commercial pilots) have a safety
record dramatically better than GA as a whole - in part, I think,
because they're not kidding themselves about the risks.

Who are the most dangerous people in GA? Well, it's not the the
personal flyers, who just go for hundred dollar burgers, attend flyins,
and look at the pretty scenery. They're number two - behind the
airshow performers, and slightly ahead of the cropdusters.

Don't believe me? Check out the Nall Report. It's on the AOPA site.

Michael

[houstondan]

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. 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.

i like the line someone around here uses about safety being an
impediment to progress....(sorry for the sloppy paraphrase)...

dan

[Dude]

> 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.

[Cockpit Colin]

> 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.

[Morgans]

"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

[Jose]

> 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.

This statement presumes that there is an objective measure of risk, and
an independent, objective measure of acceptability (or its inverse -
"undueness") which applies to all circumstances. This new learning
amazes me. Tell me again about the theory that the earth is banana shaped.

There are circumstances which merit higher risk. There are other
circumstances where even a low level of risk is too much. If this were
not true, there would be no difference between the hundred dollar
hamburger flight, a lifeguard mission, a combat mission, an aerobatics
exhibition, and any other kind of flying.

Of course this would have to include getting drunk and then flying in
the mountains with a shotgun pointing out the window to try to ping some
mountain goats for sport too, something I'm not willing to put in the
"acceptable" category, no matter how much fun it is to fire a gun under
the influence of altitude and alcohol while diving at a hundred fifty
miles an hour towards something furry standing in front of something
very hard.

But (except for degree), what's the difference between this and flying
upside down, sober, at mach 1, fifteen feet AGL in front of three
thousand people? You wouldn't catch me doing that either, no matter how
cool it is! No matter how much you train for such an exhibition, it is
more risky than the average hundred dollar hamburger.

So, while I agree with the statement:
> A true professional would not
> accept missions of undue risk
it begs the question of what counts as "undue", and how to measure it,
and by and for whom. The FARs have outlined a few antics that would be
"undue risk" (and prohibited them), but this leaves a whole lot of other
things that are legal, don't come under the ruberic of "careless and
reckless", but for some are seen (by others) as "unduly risky". So, the
statement comes off as "unduly simplistic".

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,

> The odds will
> > catch up with you eventually.
>

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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Legrande Harris]

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

[NW_PILOT]

"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.

[Mike Rapoport]

"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

[Montblack]

("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

[Alan]

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.
>
>

[xyzzy]

Montblack wrote:

> ("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
>
>

Sierra is Spanish for "Mountain Range."

The word Sierra is not plural, but it does refer to all the mountains in
the range. You would use Sierras to refer to multiple mountain ranges,
not multiple mountains.

HTH

[[email protected]]

Mike,
American Heritage Dictionary defines a sierra is "a rugged range of
mountains having an irregular or jagged profile".
I did a quick web search and found sierras being used quite often.
Here are some old sources:

Book: In the Heart of the Sierras by James M. Hutchings (1888)
Movies: Springtime in the Sierras (1947); King of the Sierras (1938)

So if there are more than one mountan ranges, it appears that the
plural term sierras is used such as Sierras de Cazorla, Segura and Las
Villas in Spain

http://www.andalucia.com/environment/protect/cazorla.htm

[Morgans]

"Legrande Harris" > wrote

> The plane and engine have to be in perfect condition.

Perfect engines fail, too. Right?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

Nice web site.

Have you ever considered home brewing a fire protectin system for your
house? A pipe on the roof with holes drilled in it to keep the shingles
wet. Directional irrigation sprinklers keeping the walls wet. A high
volume irrigation pump, I'm thinking gas, so power outages will not be a
problem. Pump out of the swimming pool. If you don't have a pool, now you
have an excuse to get one!
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Perfect engines fail, too. Right?

Yep. One that quit on takeoff at Kupper was a Mattituck overhaul with only a few
hours on it. That's about as perfect as you're gonna get in this world. The CFI
did a fantastic job of returning to the airport from about 600' AGL, refused the
offer of a drink, and went home (presumably to change).

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message news:wWqTd.5072>
>
> Pet peeve...its Sierra not Sierras, the word is already plural.
>

But we are talking about a proper noun. If my last name meant "many good
looking people" in Italian and you invited my family and I to your house you
wouldn't say "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giacona coming over
tonight." You would say, "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giaconas
coming over tonight. We better get more wine."

[George Patterson]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> But we are talking about a proper noun. If my last name meant "many good
> looking people" in Italian and you invited my family and I to your house you
> wouldn't say "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giacona coming over
> tonight." You would say, "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giaconas
> coming over tonight. We better get more wine."

But you would never say "the Appalachian ranges." For the same reason, you
should never say "the Sierras" when you're talking about the Sierra Nevada.

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

[Jose]

> But you would never say "the Appalachian ranges." For the same reason, you
> should never say "the Sierras" when you're talking about the Sierra Nevada.

But we say "the Appalachians".

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
> But you would never say "the Appalachian ranges." For the same reason, you
> should never say "the Sierras" when you're talking about the Sierra
> Nevada.

If we were speaking Spanish, and we were speaking only of some generic
"sierra", that would be correct. However, you cannot apply the original
rules to words borrowed from other languages and expect them to still make
sense in English (in this case...this isn't particular to English),
especially when the borrowed word becomes a proper noun. A borrowed word,
in the language that borrowed it, inherets brand new rules, completely
independent of the original language from whence it came.

I have about as many language pet peeves as anyone, but IMHO this is one
that the owner's of said pet peeve just need to get over already.

Pete

[Jose]

> A borrowed word,
> in the language that borrowed it, inherets brand new rules, completely
> independent of the original language from whence it came.

"...original language whence it came". I wouldn't mention it except
that we're talking about words.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Rapoport]

OK but when referring to the Sierra Nevada mountans the correct word is
Sierra.

Mike
MU-2


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Mike,
> American Heritage Dictionary defines a sierra is "a rugged range of
> mountains having an irregular or jagged profile".
> I did a quick web search and found sierras being used quite often.
> Here are some old sources:
>
> Book: In the Heart of the Sierras by James M. Hutchings (1888)
> Movies: Springtime in the Sierras (1947); King of the Sierras (1938)
>
> So if there are more than one mountan ranges, it appears that the
> plural term sierras is used such as Sierras de Cazorla, Segura and Las
> Villas in Spain
>
> http://www.andalucia.com/environment/protect/cazorla.htm
>

[Cockpit Colin]

Tell you an interesting story about professional pilots ...

I was bumming a ride in the jump seat of a Saab 340A - the reason I was
there was because I wasn't prepared to fly a light twin with a single-engine
service ceiling of around 4250 at night over terrain that requires a MSA of
around 8000 feet.

Without any suggestion from me, 2 seperate crews immediately came to the
same conclusion I did - and that is "if you were going to do that flight
then you would want to track around the coast" (ie at sea level).

In my opinion these crews both have a safety oriented attitude - on the
other hand many of the pilots I know would do that flight at night in a
single - their best attempt at "risk management" being "the aeroplane
doesn't know it's night"

I know which bunch I'd send my family flying with!


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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
>
>

[Cockpit Colin]

Academics aside, my personal mantra is that aviation can be (for the most
part) as safe, or as dangerous as pilots choose to make it. There are so
many things that one can do to make a difference.

Call me old - call me a fool (call me an old fool) but I kinda enjoy my
life - so I do what I can to stay alive. If some idiot wants to get ahead of
me on the motorway - I pull over and let him get as far ahead as he likes
(the further the better). If I'm flying over water I WEAR a life jacket - no
ifs, buts, or maybes. If I'm night flying away from the airport I fly a
twin. If I don't like the look of the weather I turn back or go somewhere
else.

What I don't understand is why others don't do these things? I mean to say -
if they want to keep killing themselves with their "risk denial" attitudes
and actions I guess that's their right - but it seems a pity all the same.

[Cockpit Colin]

Hi fellow wimp :)

> 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.

Or perhaps a slightly different slant ...

"In any situation if you can choose to do something 2 ways - one being more
safe - the other being less safe - then why on earth wouldn't you choose the
safer one?

[Legrande Harris]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Legrande Harris" > wrote
>
> > The plane and engine have to be in perfect condition.
>
> Perfect engines fail, too. Right?

Everything mechanical will break.

Do I want to be flying at night over the mountains when my engine dies?
The thought of spiraling down into a black hole doesn't really appeal to
me :(

I actually enjoy flying at night though. I learned to fly down in
Arizona and flying at night with a full moon across the desert was a
wonderful experience. At night I would have less turbulence, the
aircrafts performance was better and most of the time I could see the
ground well enough to probably survive an engine out landing.

So is it worth the risk? Is it worth the risk not to?

LG

[Jose]

> What I don't understand is why others don't do these things? I mean to say -
> if they want to keep killing themselves with their "risk denial" attitudes
> and actions I guess that's their right - but it seems a pity all the same.

And what is your answer to the folk who don't understand why you climb
into those dangerous flying contraptions in the first place, instead of
motoring along safely on the ground, or, if you =must= fly, to do so
from the back of a jumbo jet?

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> > But you would never say "the Appalachian ranges." For the same reason, you
> > should never say "the Sierras" when you're talking about the Sierra Nevada.
>
> But we say "the Appalachians".

And it would be correct to say "the Nevadas." But not "the Sierras."

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> "...original language whence it came". I wouldn't mention it except that
> we're talking about words.

Yeah, thanks. I make misteaks sometimes too. :)

Part of the problem is that I unconsciously pick up other people's language
habits. I have found that I have to correct my friends EVERY time they
misuse "I" and "me" (usually by saying "I" when they mean "me"), otherwise I
find myself using those words incorrectly as well.

I do explain this to my friends, and they're very tolerant of my
corrections. :)

Pete

[Jose]

>>But we say "the Appalachians".
>
> And it would be correct to say "the Nevadas." But not "the Sierras."

But we write "the Appalachian range", though we write "the Sierra
Nevada", not "the sierra Nevada". "Sierra" is part of the proper noun;
it is not a common noun by itself in this context, the way "range" is above.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Cockpit Colin]

> And what is your answer to the folk who don't understand why you climb
> into those dangerous flying contraptions in the first place, instead of
> motoring along safely on the ground, or, if you =must= fly, to do so
> from the back of a jumbo jet?

And therein lies the problem with averages when it comes to accident rates -
On one hand we have the actions of those who choose to do things as safely
as possible (who lower the rate) and on the other hand we have those who
really don't do anything to maximise their chances (just the opposite in
fact) (who raise the accident rate).

Thank goodness I'm not an "average" pilot - there are plenty of pilots who
could do a better job handling the aircraft - and again, lots who know more
about aviation that I will ever know - but thankfully all of that pales into
insignificance compared to the importance of a pilot who has good
judgement - allowing him to avoid the situation in the first place that
others need their superior skills and knowledge to extract themselves from.

To be honest, every time a pilot does something stupid and kills himself it
does make it that much harder to get a non-aviator into a GA aircraft - it's
becoming a real problem. Ironically all those that do go flying with me tell
me that they felt totally safe at all times - so it can be done.

[Montblack]

("Jose" wrote)
> But we write "the Appalachian range", though we write "the Sierra Nevada",
> not "the sierra Nevada". "Sierra" is part of the proper noun; it is not a
> common noun by itself in this context, the way "range" is above.


i'm waiting for houstondan's response.


montblack

[Matt Whiting]

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> Tell you an interesting story about professional pilots ...
>
> I was bumming a ride in the jump seat of a Saab 340A - the reason I was
> there was because I wasn't prepared to fly a light twin with a single-engine
> service ceiling of around 4250 at night over terrain that requires a MSA of
> around 8000 feet.
>
> Without any suggestion from me, 2 seperate crews immediately came to the
> same conclusion I did - and that is "if you were going to do that flight
> then you would want to track around the coast" (ie at sea level).
>
> In my opinion these crews both have a safety oriented attitude - on the
> other hand many of the pilots I know would do that flight at night in a
> single - their best attempt at "risk management" being "the aeroplane
> doesn't know it's night"

If safety was your ultimate goal, you would only fly the airlines and
not fly GA at all, other than bizjets whose record rivals the airlines.
The safest GA aircraft are still much more dangerous than the airlines.

People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
depends on the circumstances. The example I use is people who say they
would never take off in 0/0 conditions even though it is legal under
part 91. I wouldn't normally do this either, but if my wife needed
emergency surgery and was fairly certain to die without it, and if my
airplane was the only means to get her to a hospital, then I'd take off
0/0 to make such a flight. In that case, the relatively small risk of
killing us both outweights the very high risk of death without the surgery.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Cockpit Colin wrote:

> Hi fellow wimp :)
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Or perhaps a slightly different slant ...
>
> "In any situation if you can choose to do something 2 ways - one being more
> safe - the other being less safe - then why on earth wouldn't you choose the
> safer one?

Because the less safe one may be more rewarding. We do lots of
activities that aren't absolutely necessary. Mountain climbing is more
dangerous than many other ways to get to the top of a mountain, but lots
of folks do it.

I like to tour on a motorcycle. It certainly isn't the safest way to
get from point A to point B, but it is very rewarding.


Matt


Matt

[Alan]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:30:18 +1300, "Cockpit Colin" >
wrote:
>
>"In any situation if you can choose to do something 2 ways - one being more
>safe - the other being less safe - then why on earth wouldn't you choose the
>safer one?
>
>
My opinion is that one reason is pure ignorance - not knowing or
caring which would be the better choice. Every summer like clockwork,
here in Colorado, there are the usual incidents of pilots splattering
their machinery due to a lack of respect for that *minor* concept of
density altitude. Pilots attempt to take off at 2 pm, when the temp
is 92F and the density altitude is somewhere around 9000' with their
C172 loaded past the weight limit. Jeez, I wonder why they barely
managed to lift off and then slammed into the field at the end of the
runway - if they even managed to reach the end of the runway.

[Alan]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:33:36 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>
>I like to tour on a motorcycle. It certainly isn't the safest way to
>get from point A to point B, but it is very rewarding.
>

But, would you make that journey to point B in a pitch black night,
with no headlight or tail light?

I'm not risk averse, I'm stupid averse.

[Michael]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> > The odds will
> > > catch up with you eventually.
>
> You say we're ALL going to win the lottery?

Sure, if we play long enough.

Fly long enough, and an engine WILL fail. I've flown about 1900 hours
in powered aircraft, but 800 of those were in twins so I have about
2700 hours of engine time. I've had an engine failure caused by
mechanical problems. Once.

Michael

[Brooks Hagenow]

xyzzy wrote:
> Montblack wrote:
>
>> ("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
>>
>
> Sierra is Spanish for "Mountain Range."
>
> The word Sierra is not plural, but it does refer to all the mountains in
> the range. You would use Sierras to refer to multiple mountain ranges,
> not multiple mountains.
>
> HTH
>

So is Sierra Mountains also wrong because it would mean mountain range
mountains?

I would go with Sierras because we are not speaking spanish. It is the
name of mountains within a country that speaks primarily English. It
does not mean anything else.

One of my pet peeves is spanish versions of government forms. I thought
part of becoming a U.S. citizen was having a working understanding of
English.

[Peter Duniho]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> > The odds will
>> > > catch up with you eventually.
>>
>> You say we're ALL going to win the lottery?
>
> Sure, if we play long enough.

That's not true. The longer you play, the more opportunities you have to
win. But each time you play, you have the same exact chance to win (all
else being equal, which means ignore the variations in chance due to
different numbers of participants, etc), and there is NO length of time you
can play that will guarantee a win.

> Fly long enough, and an engine WILL fail.

Likewise, there is no length of time you can fly that will guarantee an
engine failure. Just as important: it doesn't matter how many hours you
have, the chance of an engine failure is exactly the same (all else being
equal) on each flight. Once you successfully complete a flight without an
engine failure, you can ignore that flight (and every single one prior) for
the purpose of assessing your risk on the next flight.

It seems that some pilots are going around thinking that the longer they
fly, the closer they get to their fated engine failure (or other problem).
That's just not true.

Mechanical problems do happen, and an engine failure can happen as a result.
An engine failure is a very real possibility, but it is also very unlikely.
But then, so is having your wing fall off. Or running into another
airplane, or a bird, or something. There are lots of risks associated with
flying, many of which the pilot has little or no control over. We accept
them because the actual likelihood is low.

IMHO, there is no clear cut "this is just plain too dangerous for anyone to
do", and that includes issues like flying over mountains, at night, IFR, in
a single engine airplane. It's entirely possible to have a flying career
comprising only IFR flights over mountains at night in single-engine
airplanes and still never have to deal with an engine failure, never mind
one over hostile terrain.

Besides, anyone arguing against doing that needs to expand the prohibited
class of aircraft to include any twin engine aircraft with a single-engine
service ceiling lower than the terrain (or MEA/MOCA/MRA) being overflown.

Pete

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Besides, anyone arguing against doing that needs to expand the prohibited
> class of aircraft to include any twin engine aircraft with a single-engine
> service ceiling lower than the terrain (or MEA/MOCA/MRA) being overflown.
>
> Pete

Having a single engine service ceiling higher than terrain is not really
that important. The single engine service ceiling is the altitude where the
airplane is still *climbing* 50fpm. The altitude where the airplane is
*descending* 50fpm is much higher. If you were cruising along at the MEA
and lost an engine, and the MEA was 5000' above the single engine service
ceiling, it would take tens or hundreds of miles to lose 2000' of altitude
and impact terrain. Actually you might never impact since the single engine
service ceiling rises as the plane burns off fuel. Barry Scheiff talks
about this topic in one of his books using actual numbers and the bottom
line is that you could lose an engine at the MEA in virtually any twin and
reach an airport, at least in the US.

Mike
MU-2

[Stefan]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> If you were cruising along at the MEA
> and lost an engine, and the MEA was 5000' above the single engine service
> ceiling, it would take tens or hundreds of miles to lose 2000' of altitude
> and impact terrain.

*If* there are no downdrafts. Remember, we're talking mountains.

Stefan

[Matt Whiting]

Alan wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:33:36 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I like to tour on a motorcycle. It certainly isn't the safest way to
>>get from point A to point B, but it is very rewarding.
>>
>
>
> But, would you make that journey to point B in a pitch black night,
> with no headlight or tail light?
>
> I'm not risk averse, I'm stupid averse.

No, because that would constitute riding with broken equipment. I
wouldn't fly a single at night in IMC without cockpit lights or radios
either, but I will and have with all equipment working. Sure, if the
engine quits it will be ugly, but that is a very remote possibility and
one that I accept every now and again if the trip is important enough.


Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

Downdrafts are always balanced by updrafts over any meaningful distance.. In
any event, if there were significant downdrafts, it wouldn't make much
difference if the plane could climb 50fpm or sink 50fpm in still air.

Mike
MU-2


"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> If you were cruising along at the MEA and lost an engine, and the MEA was
>> 5000' above the single engine service ceiling, it would take tens or
>> hundreds of miles to lose 2000' of altitude and impact terrain.
>
> *If* there are no downdrafts. Remember, we're talking mountains.
>
> Stefan

[Stefan]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> Downdrafts are always balanced by updrafts over any meaningful distance.. In

Make that "mostly". Mountains sometimes bear some surprizes, if you
don't know the region. Anyway, we were talking about night flying. Not
easy to find the right ridge ad night...

> any event, if there were significant downdrafts, it wouldn't make much
> difference if the plane could climb 50fpm or sink 50fpm in still air.

My point exactly.

Stefan

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> Likewise, there is no length of time you can fly that will guarantee an
> engine failure. Just as important: it doesn't matter how many hours you
> have, the chance of an engine failure is exactly the same (all else being
> equal) on each flight. Once you successfully complete a flight without an
> engine failure, you can ignore that flight (and every single one prior) for
> the purpose of assessing your risk on the next flight.

That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
some time your career approaches 1.

Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
The question is how long is "long enough."

rg

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

Sure, if the
> engine quits it will be ugly, but that is a very remote possibility and
> one that I accept every now and again if the trip is important enough.
>
>
> Matt

Do me a favor, and settle a bet. Would you mind telling us how old you are?
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:16:35 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
> >That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
> >your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
> >some time your career approaches 1.
> >
> >Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
> >probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
> >to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
> >you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
> >The question is how long is "long enough."
> >
> >rg
>
>
> This just ain't so.
>
> Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
> played it.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
> in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.

The odds of winning any particular lottery are (approximately) the same.

The odds of winning a lottery sometime in your lifetime are much better if you
play the lottery every day of your life (assuming a nice long life) than if you
just play the lottery once.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[mindenpilot]

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:16:35 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
>>That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
>>your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
>>some time your career approaches 1.
>>
>>Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
>>probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
>>to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
>>you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
>>The question is how long is "long enough."
>>
>>rg
>
>
> This just ain't so.
>
> Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
> played it.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
> in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.

Agreed.
Take a look at a probability text book.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[Steve.T]

I love statisticians. They argue over odds and probablilities.

Seems there were these three math professors from Purdue, the one
specialized in statistics. They decided to go duck hunting. So they got
them a boat, shotguns, etc.

So here they are sitting in the boat when they see a duck flying toward
them. The one in the bow fired at the duck and the shot went above the
duck. The one in the middle shot under the duck. The stats prof in the
back of the boat yelled, "Got 'em!"

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:16:35 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
> >That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
> >your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
> >some time your career approaches 1.
> >
> >Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
> >probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
> >to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
> >you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
> >The question is how long is "long enough."
> >
> >rg
>
>
> This just ain't so.

Yes it is, you just didn't read what I wrote very carefully. Pay
particular attention to the phrase "some time in your career."

> Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
> played it.

Yes, that's true.

> It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
> in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.

That depends on what you mean by "the odds". The odds on any one play
are the same, but the cumulative odds of experiencing a win or an engine
failure *at some point in your life* goes up with every play/flight.
Specifically, if the odds of winning on a single try are P then the odds
of winning some time in your career are 1-(1-P)^N where N is the number
of times you play. As long as P is strictly greater than 0 this number
approaches 1 as N grows large. In fact, it is an elementary algebraic
exercise to solve for N given P and the desired cumulative probability
P1.

The behavior of this formula is somewhat counterintuitive. For example,
if P is 0.01 (1 chance in 100 of winning/engine failure on any
particular try) then to have a 99% chance of winning you have to
play/fly about 460 times. To have a 50% chance you only need about 70
tries.

A special case of this formula is when P is very small and N is not too
huge (N<<1/P). Then (1-P)^N is approximately 1-NP, and the cumulative
probability is approximately 1-(1-NP)=NP. In other words, if the
probability of winning is small then the probability of winning in N
plays is very nearly N times greater than the probability of winning in
1 play. This is a pretty good approximation until the cumulative
probability gets around 10-20% (at which point N is off by 5-10%), which
is to say, it's a pretty close approximation in realistic scenarios for
both lotteries and engine failures.

rg

[Morgans]

> This just ain't so.
>
> Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
> played it.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
> in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.

Those that are not up on statistics will argue that point forever. Then add
a couple years!
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> The odds of winning a lottery sometime in your lifetime are much better if
> you
> play the lottery every day of your life (assuming a nice long life) than
> if you
> just play the lottery once.

The odds are only higher at the beginning of your life.

For what you wrote to be true, you have to be calculating the odds at the
beginning of your life, and make some assumption about how often you'll play
(every day, for example), and about how long your life is (a year, for
example).

Once you make that calculation, then you go on with your life. Every day
you play the lottery. Every day that you fail to win the lottery, the
percentage chance of winning the lottery *during your life* is REDUCED (the
chance of winning on any given day, of course, is the constant chance anyone
has of winning on any given day). On the last day of your year-long life,
having not won the lottery, the chance of your winning the lottery is
exactly the same as the chance a person who has never played before and who
will only play this one day.

The only reason that it *seems* like people with high hours have a higher
chance of experience an engine failure is that the odds are being calculated
by assuming a fixed chance of the event over the entire number of hours.
But the hours already flown are irrelevant for the purpose of figuring your
chance of an engine failure for a given flight, as are the hours you expect
to fly after that flight.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> Yes it is, you just didn't read what I wrote very carefully. Pay
> particular attention to the phrase "some time in your career."

Only if you're speaking of a hypothetical career prior to its start.

> That depends on what you mean by "the odds". The odds on any one play
> are the same, but the cumulative odds of experiencing a win or an engine
> failure *at some point in your life* goes up with every play/flight.

Define "cumulative odds". The word "cumulative" implies that you're talking
about the odds as the flight hours accrue. In that respect, your claim is
false.

> Specifically, if the odds of winning on a single try are P then the odds
> of winning some time in your career are 1-(1-P)^N where N is the number
> of times you play.

That statement is true only when you are calculating the odds prior to ALL
trials (flights), and have determined the number of trials (flights) in
advance. It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion.
No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will make
in a lifetime.

Pete

[Steve.T]

Ok, I fly IMC at night, single engine on the east coast. Granted, they
aren't as high as the Rockies or Sierra Nevada mountains. But day or
night, they still don't provide a good place to land.

When I fly at night, I have two flash lights (minimum), spare batteries
for both. If any light in/on the plane is not working, it is a no-go.
The GPS must have the most current map, the VORs must have just been
tested (e.g., in air, VOT, etc.), both radios must be functional, I
carry both VFR and IFR charts and both are marked for planned flight. I
generally file for 7,000 to 10,000 (well above the Min altitudes) and
ask for direct. My wife generally is following along on the VFR charts
to know where the closest airport is (and we use the GPS to assist in
this). Oh, did I mention I also have a hand-held GPS as well? And I
work at *NOT* getting into icing conditions (probably why the plane has
been in the hanger since November 04).

I am 49, 330+ hours, have a family that flies with me in IMC.

Regards,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[Morgans]

"Steve.T" > wrote

> Ok, I fly IMC at night, single engine on the east coast. Granted, they
> aren't as high as the Rockies or Sierra Nevada mountains. But day or
> night, they still don't provide a good place to land.

> Steve.T

I didn't ask you how old you are. I'll bite anyway.

I am not against any form of night flight, and I'll also say that East coast
mountains are different, but most of all, the amount of airports on the
right cost is vastly different.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yes it is, you just didn't read what I wrote very carefully. Pay
> > particular attention to the phrase "some time in your career."
>
> Only if you're speaking of a hypothetical career prior to its start.

Obviously. If the career is over then one need not invoke probabilities
at all. Probabilities are only useful when discussing things whose
outcomes are not yet known.

> > That depends on what you mean by "the odds". The odds on any one play
> > are the same, but the cumulative odds of experiencing a win or an engine
> > failure *at some point in your life* goes up with every play/flight.
>
> Define "cumulative odds". The word "cumulative" implies that you're talking
> about the odds as the flight hours accrue. In that respect, your claim is
> false.

The cumulative probability of an event over N trials is the probability
that the event occurs at least once in those N trials. In that respect,
my claim is true.

> > Specifically, if the odds of winning on a single try are P then the odds
> > of winning some time in your career are 1-(1-P)^N where N is the number
> > of times you play.
>
> That statement is true only when you are calculating the odds prior to ALL
> trials (flights),

Obviously we only care about the odds for the flights we have not yet
made. For the flights that we have made we already know whether the
engine failed or not.

> and have determined the number of trials (flights) in advance.

No. That statement is true regardless of whether N is known.

> It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion.

That is a matter of opinion.

> No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will make
> in a lifetime.

That is not necessarily true. My mother, for example, knows exactly how
many flights in GA aircraft she will make during her lifetime: zero.
And just in case you're too dimwitted to extrapolate from this example
I'll spell it out for you: one can *decide* on the basis of this
calculation to stop flying after some number of flight because flying
more than that results in a cumulative probability of disaster that
exceeds one's risk tolerance.

rg

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> >The odds of winning any particular lottery are (approximately) the same.
> >
> >The odds of winning a lottery sometime in your lifetime are much better if
> >you
> >play the lottery every day of your life (assuming a nice long life) than if
> >you
> >just play the lottery once.
>
> Approximately? They are exactly the same.

I said "approximately" because not all lotteries are the same.


>
> Of course your odds of having an engine failure with two engines is
> double of what it would be with one, and quadruple with four.

all other variables held constant...

>
> So the guy who buys 4 lottery tickets is4 times as likely to win
> (actually, lose) his money than a guy who buys one.
>
> After everybody loses today, however, when we stepup to the window
> tomeorrow, our odds are exactly the same. The guy who bought 4
> tickets yesterday is no better off than I am, who never played.

A source of much confusion is when people try to compare probabilities
of events with different pre-conditions.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> That's not true. The longer you play, the more opportunities you have to
> win. But each time you play, you have the same exact chance to win (all
> else being equal, which means ignore the variations in chance due to
> different numbers of participants, etc), and there is NO length of time you
> can play that will guarantee a win.
>

Or, in other words I like a lot: There is no law of small numbers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Of course your odds of having an engine failure with two engines is
> double of what it would be with one, and quadruple with four.

Only approximately. The only reason doubling (or quadrupling) the number of
engines doubles (or quadruples) the chance of an engine failure
(approximately) is that the failure rate is so low. For example, if the
failure rate were 50%, a doubling of that would cause you to expect an
engine to fail each flight (a 100% chance of failure), when in fact the
chance is actually only 75%.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>> and have determined the number of trials (flights) in advance.
>
> No. That statement is true regardless of whether N is known.

Knowing that your chances of having an engine failure are 1-(1-P)^N isn't
very useful information if you don't know what N is.

>> It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion.
>
> That is a matter of opinion.

Tell me how I'm going to use the information then. Since you think it's so
useful.

>> No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will
>> make
>> in a lifetime.
>
> That is not necessarily true. My mother, for example, knows exactly how
> many flights in GA aircraft she will make during her lifetime: zero.

For a person who will never make a flight in a GA aircraft, why in the world
would I consider at all how many engine failures she'll experience?

It's like trying to figure out how many live births I'll have in my
lifetime. Duh.

> And just in case you're too dimwitted to extrapolate from this example
> I'll spell it out for you: one can *decide* on the basis of this
> calculation to stop flying after some number of flight because flying
> more than that results in a cumulative probability of disaster that
> exceeds one's risk tolerance.

Only if they make that decision prior to flying those hours. I haven't met
a single person who has ever done such an analysis of their flying career.
I doubt one exists.

If you can find me one, I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, you are without a
point (I'll refrain from any implication that YOU are dimwitted, just 'cause
that's the kind of guy I am).

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
> Sure, if the
>
>>engine quits it will be ugly, but that is a very remote possibility and
>>one that I accept every now and again if the trip is important enough.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Do me a favor, and settle a bet. Would you mind telling us how old you are?

45. Who won the bet? :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:16:35 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
>
>>That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
>>your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
>>some time your career approaches 1.
>>
>>Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
>>probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
>>to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
>>you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
>>The question is how long is "long enough."
>>
>>rg
>
>
>
> This just ain't so.
>
> Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
> played it.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
> in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.

Yes, for every given play you are correct. However, Ron is correct that
in aggregate, someone who plays more often has a higher overall chance
of winning at some point than a person who only plays once in their
lifetime. At least I think that is the point he was making.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:27:54 -0500, Bob Noel
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:16:35 -0800, Ron Garret >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
>>>>your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
>>>>some time your career approaches 1.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
>>>>probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
>>>>to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
>>>>you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
>>>>The question is how long is "long enough."
>>>>
>>>>rg
>>>
>>>
>>>This just ain't so.
>>>
>>>Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
>>>played it.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
>>>in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.
>>
>>The odds of winning any particular lottery are (approximately) the same.
>>
>>The odds of winning a lottery sometime in your lifetime are much better if you
>>play the lottery every day of your life (assuming a nice long life) than if you
>>just play the lottery once.
>>
>>--
>>Bob Noel
>>looking for a sig the lawyers will like
>
>
> Approximately? They are exactly the same.
>
> Of course your odds of having an engine failure with two engines is
> double of what it would be with one, and quadruple with four.

No, because the engines aren't completely independent of each other.
Most have at least one common system (fuel).

Matt

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> >> and have determined the number of trials (flights) in advance.
> >
> > No. That statement is true regardless of whether N is known.
>
> Knowing that your chances of having an engine failure are 1-(1-P)^N isn't
> very useful information if you don't know what N is.

As I pointed out before (and will point out again later on -- watch for
it) it is useful because you can choose your risk tolerance and then
solve for N (assuming of course you know P).

> >> It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion.
> >
> > That is a matter of opinion.
>
> Tell me how I'm going to use the information then. Since you think it's so
> useful.

I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
flights.

> >> No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will
> >> make
> >> in a lifetime.
> >
> > That is not necessarily true. My mother, for example, knows exactly how
> > many flights in GA aircraft she will make during her lifetime: zero.
>
> For a person who will never make a flight in a GA aircraft, why in the world
> would I consider at all how many engine failures she'll experience?
>
> It's like trying to figure out how many live births I'll have in my
> lifetime. Duh.

No, because in my mother's case the number is zero because she has
*chosen* to make it zero. (Perhaps I should have made it clear that I
am a pilot, and so my mother can, if she chooses, go flying with me any
time she wants.) Your analogy is faulty because you cannot choose to
get pregnant.

> > And just in case you're too dimwitted to extrapolate from this example
> > I'll spell it out for you: one can *decide* on the basis of this
> > calculation to stop flying after some number of flight because flying
> > more than that results in a cumulative probability of disaster that
> > exceeds one's risk tolerance.
>
> Only if they make that decision prior to flying those hours. I haven't met
> a single person who has ever done such an analysis of their flying career.
> I doubt one exists.

Just because you are not personally acquainted with someone who has
chosen to avail themselves of the utility of this calculation does not
mean that such people do not exist. (And even if it were true that no
one in the world has availed themselves of this utility (which it isn't)
that would not prove that the calculation is without utility.)

> If you can find me one, I'll stand corrected.

I very much doubt that. You seem not to have noticed, but we've
actually already done that experiment, and you stubbornly cling to your
position regardless.

Not only are you wrong, but you are clearly, demonstrably, and
self-evidently wrong. If you don't believe me, you can actually *do*
this experiment. Don't play the lottery or go flying until your engine
fails. Get a die. Pretend that rolling a six means your engine has
failed. Now ask yourself: are you more likely to roll a six if you roll
it once, or if you roll it 100 times? Clearly if you roll it once your
chances are one in six, and if you roll it 100 times the chances of
rolling AT LEAST ONE SIX in those hundred trials is very close to 1.
(0.99999998792532652 to be precise).

> Otherwise, you are without a point

Whereas you seem to have one on the top of your head.

> (I'll refrain from any implication that YOU are dimwitted, just 'cause
> that's the kind of guy I am).

Hey, if the shoe fits, I'll wear it. Will you?

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > Of course your odds of having an engine failure with two engines is
> > double of what it would be with one, and quadruple with four.
>
> Only approximately. The only reason doubling (or quadrupling) the number of
> engines doubles (or quadruples) the chance of an engine failure
> (approximately) is that the failure rate is so low. For example, if the
> failure rate were 50%, a doubling of that would cause you to expect an
> engine to fail each flight (a 100% chance of failure), when in fact the
> chance is actually only 75%.

It is somewhat ironic that you should be the one to point this out in
light of the argument we are having in another branch of this thread
because this is precisely the point I was making. The condition of the
probability of failure on a single trial P being low is precisely the
condition that allows you to approximate the formula for cumulative
failure 1-(1-P)^N as P*N. If you think about it, there is absolutely no
difference in the risk calculation between making one flight with four
engines and four flights with one engine (except insofar as the
probability of failure for one engine over four flights are not quite
independent of each other if it's the same engine each time).

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:45:19 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:16:35 -0800, Ron Garret >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
> >>>your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
> >>>some time your career approaches 1.
> >>>
> >>>Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
> >>>probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
> >>>to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
> >>>you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
> >>>The question is how long is "long enough."
> >>>
> >>>rg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This just ain't so.
> >>
> >> Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
> >> played it.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
> >> in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.
> >
> >Yes, for every given play you are correct. However, Ron is correct that
> >in aggregate, someone who plays more often has a higher overall chance
> >of winning at some point than a person who only plays once in their
> >lifetime. At least I think that is the point he was making.
> >
> >
> >Matt
>
>
> no, I think his point is that you are more likely to have an engine
> failure tomorrow if you have flown 10,000 hours than if you have flown
> 10 hours.

No, that is NOT the point I was making. (And if you thought it was,
would you please point out what I wrote that made you think so? I
obviously need to hone my pedagogy.)

> This ain't so.

Indeed. Matt's restatement of my position is correct.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:15:41 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
> >Not only are you wrong, but you are clearly, demonstrably, and
> >self-evidently wrong. If you don't believe me, you can actually *do*
> >this experiment. Don't play the lottery or go flying until your engine
> >fails. Get a die. Pretend that rolling a six means your engine has
> >failed. Now ask yourself: are you more likely to roll a six if you roll
> >it once, or if you roll it 100 times? Clearly if you roll it once your
> >chances are one in six, and if you roll it 100 times the chances of
> >rolling AT LEAST ONE SIX in those hundred trials is very close to 1.
> >(0.99999998792532652 to be precise).
>
>
> Let's look at this another way.
>
> Let's say the probability of an engine failure is 1 every 10,000
> hours.
>
> Let's assume that I declare that I intend to fly 10,000 hours in my
> lifetime. We would probably agree that my chances of an engine
> failure in my lifetime approximates 1. A serious betting man would
> not bet against my chances of having a failure.
>
> Now let's say my life is half over, and I've flown 5000 hours without
> having had my failure. (a perfectly acceptable supposition).
>
> Now I am looking at the rest of my life, wherein I will fly the
> additional 5000, hours. The probability of a failure is still 1 every
> 10,000 hours (nothing has changed with the equipment, etc., to change
> the probability)
>
> Therefore, now the chances of having an engine failure during the rest
> of my life has DECREASED.

That's right. Just as if you get half-way through your hundred rolls of
the dice without rolling a six, your chances of rolling a six in your
remaining rolls are now less than they were when you started. In the
extreme, if you get through 99 rolls without rolling a six, your chances
of rolling a six on your last roll are just one in six. And if you get
through all 100 rolls without rolling a six your chances of rolling a
six from then on are zero, just as they would have been if you'd never
started rolling/flying to begin with.

> Simply put, it's how much flying time you got in front of you, not
> behind you, that determines your likelihood of experienceng a failure.

Obviously.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:25:40 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
> >> no, I think his point is that you are more likely to have an engine
> >> failure tomorrow if you have flown 10,000 hours than if you have flown
> >> 10 hours.
> >
> >No, that is NOT the point I was making. (And if you thought it was,
> >would you please point out what I wrote that made you think so? I
> >obviously need to hone my pedagogy.)
> >
>
> >
> >rg
>
> This is what made me think so:
>
>
> "That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
> your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
> some time your career approaches 1.
>
> Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before
> that
> probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
> to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough
> and
> you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
> The question is how long is "long enough."
>
> rg"

Well, gee, you and Peter are both making it challenging to frame
respectful responses here. You wrote:

"I think his point is that you are more likely to have an engine failure
tomorrow..."

but that is clearly not what I said. What I said was that you are more
likely to have an engine failure "SOME TIME IN YOUR CAREER". Not
"tomorrow". Big difference.

It's as if I said, "The sky is blue" and you responded "I think the
point he was trying to make is that the sky is green." Well, you're
right, the sky isn't green. But I never said that it was.

Let me try this again:

1. The probability of experiencing an engine failure (or any other
improbable event for that matter) AT SOME POINT IN YOUR FLYING CAREER
goes up the more you fly. It goes up monotonically but nonlinearly
according to the formula 1-(1-P)^N, which asymptotically approaches 1 as
N gets large.

2. The probability of experiencing an engine failure (or any other
improbable event) on any one particular flight does NOT depend on how
often you fly. (This is the point that I think you and Peter have been
trying to make, and with which I have never disagreed.)

3. The sky is BLUE (except lately in southern California).

rg

[Thomas Borchert]

> Running out of fuel is not my idea of "engine failure".
>

Well, statistically, it is THE reason for engine failure.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell]

OK, having read through this thread for awhile, I might as well chime in
with a few observations:

1) Roll the dice often enough, and they will eventually come up snake-eyes.
The question is whether they are likely to do that before something else
gets you. Most people want to make it more likely that they will die of
cancer or heart disease than in an airplane crash. Apparently we want to die
slowly and old.

2) Here in the Pacific Northwest, flying at night in the mountains is
dangerous, no question about it. Indeed, the mountain ranges around here are
possibly some of the most dangerous in the world. The trouble is, flying
anywhere around here at night as not much better. The whole area is
mountainous, heavily forested, with large tracts of water that is barely
above freezing year 'round. Visible emergency landing areas at night are few
and far between. Low ceilings, low freezing levels, haze, mountain
obscuration, micro-climates with weather wildly different from anything
forecast -- these are the norm around here. Many students around here manage
to log over an hour of actual IFR before they get their private certificate.
On top of that, the days get real short and real dark during the winter, so
restricting yourself to daytime flight is difficult.

3) Even if you live through an emergency landing at night in this area, the
odds of surviving until you are found are vanishingly small, especially
considering that most pilots do nothing to increase their chances of
survival. They fly without jackets or coats, take no survival gear, have no
way of signaling rescuers, etc. You are going to be wet and cold and
probably injured. Not good.

OK, if you want to die slowly and old, don't fly at night in the Pacific
Northwest, especially in the mountains. If you don't want to kill your son
or anybody else, don't take them with you when you fly little single engine
airplanes at night in the mountains around here. But even if you don't give
a rip about yourself or anybody else, I would ask you not to do it anyway.
Too many good people are killed every year trying to rescue selfish,
thoughtless bozos who thought they were invulnerable to the laws of
averages.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
wrote:

> I think the implication, with all due respect, in the way you worded
> your post, is that the probability is increasing as you flying time is
> increasing.

It depends on what you mean by "the probability". There are two
different probabilities being discussed: there is the probability of a
failure on any particular flight, which doesn't change, and there is the
cumulative probability of experiencing a failure on some flight, which
does change (it increases with each flight).

> This is clearly not the case, as I think we all now agree.

Your statement is ambiguous because you don't say which probability
you're referring to.

> Every day is a new day, and N gets reset to zero.

Not quite. Every day is indeed a new day, but with every flight N is
incremented by one.

rg

[Jose]

> 1. The probability of experiencing an engine failure (or any other
> improbable event for that matter) AT SOME POINT IN YOUR FLYING CAREER
> goes up the more you fly. It goes up monotonically but nonlinearly
> according to the formula 1-(1-P)^N, which asymptotically approaches 1 as
> N gets large.

I have a feeling everyone in this discussion is talking past each other.
However, I'll still pick a nit (since after all, this is usenet).
Probability deals =only= with events whose outcome is not known or not
taken into account. If I take any random 10,000 hours, the probability
of some occurance (like an engine failure) is the same. Let's say the
probability over 10,000 hours is 70%. If I have =already= flown 9,999
hours without a failure, it is =not= true that my chance of failure on
the last hour is 70%. Likewise, if I have already flown those 9,999
hours and already had three engine failures, the chance of having
another in that last hour is =not= zero nor is it negative ("to make up
for the extra failures"). It is the same as the probability of a
failure on the =first= hour.

HOWEVER... the chance that, OVER THOSE 9,999 HOURS flown =plus= the one
not flown, I would =either have an engine failure shortly, =or= look
over my logbook and find that I already had one, would be the original
70%. The key here is including those flown hours without regard to
whether or not there was a failure there - iow as if we did not know the
result.

If you eliminate the hours flown because their outcome is known, then
you can only (correctly) apply probability to the unflown hours.

This is (of course) a different question from the one that says "Here's
my logbook. It has 10,000 one-hour flights in it. I had one engine
failure." and then, as one thumbs through the book saying "not this
one... not this one..." the chance of coming across a flight with an
engine failure =does= increase - because in this case an engine failure
is =guaranteed=. (it already happened).

> Running out of fuel is not my idea of "engine failure".

If the fuel pump breaks and thus all four engines quit, did you have an
engine failure?

Jose
r.a.owning and r.a.student trimmed. I don't follow them.
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:45:19 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:16:35 -0800, Ron Garret >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
>>>>your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
>>>>some time your career approaches 1.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
>>>>probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
>>>>to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
>>>>you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
>>>>The question is how long is "long enough."
>>>>
>>>>rg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This just ain't so.
>>>
>>>Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
>>>played it.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
>>>in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.
>>
>>Yes, for every given play you are correct. However, Ron is correct that
>>in aggregate, someone who plays more often has a higher overall chance
>>of winning at some point than a person who only plays once in their
>>lifetime. At least I think that is the point he was making.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
> no, I think his point is that you are more likely to have an engine
> failure tomorrow if you have flown 10,000 hours than if you have flown
> 10 hours.

I just re-read what he wrote above, and while it could have been
clearer, I still think he meant the probably in aggregate, not the
specific probability on the next flight. However, I'll let him weigh in
with what he meant. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:51:34 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Approximately? They are exactly the same.
>>>
>>>Of course your odds of having an engine failure with two engines is
>>>double of what it would be with one, and quadruple with four.
>>
>>No, because the engines aren't completely independent of each other.
>>Most have at least one common system (fuel).
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
> Running out of fuel is not my idea of "engine failure".

It is in the context of flying over the mountains at night. The reason
that the prop stopped spinning is irrelevant to the outcome.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:50:05 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Running out of fuel is not my idea of "engine failure".
>>>
>>
>>Well, statistically, it is THE reason for engine failure.
>
>
>
> The engine didn't fail.
>
> The pilot did.

Not necessarily. Fuel systems do fail. Vents get plugged, lines can
chafe and leak, fuel pumps can fail, etc.


Matt

[Ron McKinnon]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> I think the implication, with all due respect, in the way you worded
>> your post, is that the probability is increasing as you flying time is
>> increasing.
>
> It depends on what you mean by "the probability". There
>are two different probabilities being discussed: there is the
> probability of a failure on any particular flight, which doesn't
> change, and there is the cumulative probability of experiencing
> failure on some flight, which does change (it increases with
> each flight). This is clearly not the case, as I think we all
> now agree.

There is also the probability (that Peter (I think) proposed)
stated as a cumulative probability in terms of an arbitrary
large number of trials (flights, or hours, or whatever).

If you convert this to a probability of occcurence with
a lower number of trials (flights, or hours, or whatever)
that probability will be lower. Looked at it this way,
if the probability of an 'occurrence sometime in (the
remainder of )one's career is known, then as the career
progresses, the probability of 'an occurrence sometime
(in the remainder of) one's career diminishes from
that value.

This is a direct consequence of

1) the premises (accepted by all here,
apparently) that

- the probability for any given trial (hour, flight, or
whatever) is assumed to be independent of any other
given trial (hour, flight or whatever) and
- the probability is assumed to be the same for each
such trial, and

2) the assertion that the probability of an occurrence
over n trials is (1-(1-p)^n, where p is the probability
of occurence in a single such trial.

Its the same problem worked back to front (or
front to back, depending on your point of view):

i.e.: Let p2 be the probability of an occurence in
n2 trials, and let p1 be the probability of an occurence
in n1 trials, if n1 < n2, then p1 < p2.

If you *start* with p1, as you consider an increased number
of trials the probability will increase, if you *start* with p2
and consider a decreased number of trials, the probability
will decrease.

> Your statement is ambiguous because you don't say
> which probability you're referring to.

Yes. The logical conclusion is determined from
the premises used. You only get out of it what you
put in.

>> Every day is a new day, and N gets reset to zero.
>
> Not quite. Every day is indeed a new day, but with
> every flight N is incremented by one.

It depends on upon from which premise you started.
If you're considering your probability in terms of
occurences per N trials, you might change N if you
start out with it being 'the number of trials in my
entire career', but the probability of an occurence
'in the next N trials' otherwise doesn't need any
change in N from day to day.

But 'the number of trials in my career' is moot
in the first place, and I'd argue that arbitrarily
specifiying the number of trials that are 'going to
occur' in your career is equally problematic, as
is coming up with such a probability in the first
place. The best you can get out this argument, I
think, starting out with a guess for the cumulative
probability of the 'entire carreer', is a qualitative
'probability is decreasing' as the career progresses,
and you can't really ever quantitatively say how
much.

[Ron Garret]

In article <P68Ud.515993$8l.368458@pd7tw1no>,
"Ron McKinnon" > wrote:

> as the career
> progresses, the probability of 'an occurrence sometime
> (in the remainder of) one's career diminishes from
> that value.

Yes, but only because N is lower. Whatever N is, after every flight N
is 1 less than it was before.

> But 'the number of trials in my career' is moot
> in the first place,

That is arguable. As a precise number you're probably right. But in
broad brushstrokes you can decide, e.g. never to try something, to try
something once and then never again, to try something a dozen times in
your lifetime, to do something once a month, once a week, once a day, or
multiple times a day. Each of these choices entails a monotonically
increasing risk of encountering certain kinds of disasters over your
lifetime.

My personal risk tolerance works out something like this:

Things I'm not willing to try even once: heroin, motorcycle racing
Things I'm willing to try once in my lifetime and never again: going
into space (assuming I ever have the opportunity)
Things I'll do a dozen times: aerobatics
Once a month (on average): skiing
Once a week: Flying GA aircraft
Once a day: getting out of bed in the morning :-)
Multiple times a day: driving on the freeway, eating sushi :-)

rg

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
>> [...] the chance is actually only 75%.
>
> How so?
>
> The probability of both engines failing is .25, I agree, but I'm
> talking a failure of either engine.

I am too. What chance do YOU think you have of having a failure of either
engine, if not 75% (in this example)?

If the chance of an engine failure is 50% (0.5), then the chance of either
engine failing when you have two engines is 1-(0.5)*(0.5). 75%.

The probability of both engines failing is indeed only 25%. The probability
of EITHER engine failure is 75%.

You need to do the subtraction because the chance of an engine failure is
actually the opposite of the chance of completing a flight without an engine
failure. To make the flight successfully without either engine failing
requires BOTH engines to not fail, and the way to calculate that is to
multiply the chances of each engine failing (which in this case is just two
engines, with identical chances).

The chance of you completing the flight without a failure is 25% (50% *
50%), so the chance of an engine failure on the flight is 75%.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> [...] If you think about it, there is absolutely no
> difference in the risk calculation between making one flight with four
> engines and four flights with one engine

The difference is that when you make a flight with four engines, you know up
front that you're carrying four engines. The calculation based on making
four flights with one engine is only useful when you know in advance you're
making four flights.

I certainly hope to make at least four more flights during my flying career,
but it's not certain that I will.

Sorry you can't see the difference. It's a crucial element to the question
of whether it makes sense to worry about the cumulative odds of an engine
failure.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
> engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
> accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
> P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
> probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
> flights.

But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.

As I said, no one ever does that. It's absurd to base any discussion on the
idea that anyone does, and certainly on the idea that it's a common analysis
generally useful to pilots.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"jd-10" > wrote in message
...
> I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
> it, I will: [ill-conceived, irrational, rude diatribe deleted]

Probably more like everyone else has too much common sense to say what you
said.

There's a lot of people out there who would say exactly what you said, only
they say it about flying in general. What makes your statements any more
accurate than theirs?

Pete

[mindenpilot]

"jd-10" > wrote in message
...
> I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
> it, I will:
>
> You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine
> in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six
> loaded.
>

Wow! That's not what I was thinking at all.
I don't think I'll be flying at night over the Sierra(s) anytime soon, but
I'm not making any personal assumptions about anyone in this newsgroup who
does.

On another note, I mentioned that I fly over the Sierra(s) frequently in my
single.
I still think that if the engine died, I would too, even in CAVU VFR. There
is just nowhere to land.
I don't perceive myself as one of those people of whom you speak.

(waiting for assinine comment that I *am* one of those people)

Say what you will.
This is an acceptable risk for me.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[Casey Wilson]

"jd-10" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
>> depends on the circumstances
>
> I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
> it, I will:
>
> You are a *

>>>>PLONK!<<<<

Regardless of whether or not I agree with the gist of the post....

[NW_PILOT]

"jd-10" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
> > depends on the circumstances
>
> I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
> it, I will:
>
> You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine
> in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six
> loaded.
>
> You are a corpse waiting to happen. If you fly with your wife, she is as
> well. It's death-wish assholes like you that give all the reasonable and
> prudent GA pilots a bad name.
>
> You're no different than a guy I used to see in Montana, at the annual
> Schafer fly-in. I saw him drink two beers and then jump in his 185 and
> go fly.
>
> At the time, I told a friend "that guy is a corpse waiting to happen.
> He's one of those guys who thinks **** won't happen to him, and one of
> these days he's going to paint himself into a corner he can't get out
> of."
>
> Less than a year later, the guy was dead, killed in a collision with a
> cumulo-granite not far from Schafer, scud running. He took two others
> with him, the son of a bitch.
>
> You remind me of that guy. No regard for your own safety, much less the
> safety of others. I hope you wise up before you kill your wife.
> --
> JD-10

I would rather fly over the mountains at night in a single engine than drive
on today's highways theres way to many people out there that are on some
kind of mind altering substance "pansy pills" and some people think calling
some one you dont know a "*****ing* fool" may not be the safest thing to do
in this day and age also.

If I seen someone down 2 beers and junp in to an airplane I would do what
ever was in my power to try and stop the person from taking off. But from
what you said you could also be a fool for just sitting and talking about it
doing nothing.

Ohh!!! There is a big diffreance in flying over mountians at night in a
single engine airplane. Than drinking and flying!

Some of us weigh risk in different ways, in this part of the country even if
it were during the day we may only have a 3 to 5% better chance of surviving
if it was daytime. The terrain we fly over sometimes it can take 4 to 6
hours to walk a mile in it and most the time no wreckage can be found.

People in Seattle Area did they ever find that L39 that disappeared in the
cascades this fall?

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote

> If the fuel pump breaks and thus all four engines quit, did you have an
> engine failure?
>
> Jose

First of all, the fuel pump in your example would have to be an auxiliary
fuel pump, not the engine mechanical fuel pump, and all the engines are
crossfeeding off of the one tank and pump, if it is going to fail all the
engines, right? If that all is true....(unlikely, but for the sake of
argument), then....

Nope. Log it as loss of power. It still sucks if you are over the
mountains in the night, but the mechanic will not have to fix the engine(s),
but will have to fix the fuel pump.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote > 45. Who won the bet? :-)
>
>
> Matt

I lost.

I saw something lately, saying that people's brains do not develop the part
that has to do with risk assessment, until after 25.

I guess you are immature for your age.

Tell me, what was so important, that the flight could not wait until
morning?
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

>>and there is the
>>cumulative probability of experiencing a failure on some flight, which
>>does change (it increases with each flight).
>
> Balogna.
>
> There is no "increasing probability".
>
> If there were, insurance companies would increase your premiums the
> more hours you accumulate.
>
> It's ridiculous to assert such a thing.

Actually, they do increase your premiums the more hours you accumulate.
The way it works is... you fly more hours as you fly more years. The
more years you fly, the more =total= premiums you pay, because you pay
for all those years. (They don't refund your money for the first year
just because you didn't have a crash).

Apples to apples. Cumulative to cumulative. Dust to dust.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
> > engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
> > accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
> > P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
> > probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
> > flights.
>
> But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
> information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.
>
> As I said, no one ever does that.

Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.

rg

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.

You claim that someone does. In order to truthfully make that claim, you
would have to know of such a person. If you knew of such a person, it would
be trivial for you to say who that person is.

The only logical conclusion from your refusal to say who that person is, is
that you are untruthful when you claim that someone does.

As far as "arguing", well...if you're not willing to support your statements
with any factual evidence, I can see why you have such a low tolerance for
"arguing".

Pete

[Cockpit Colin]

Hmmm ...

Not the combination of words I would choose to use - but I'm sure we all got
the essence of what you're trying to say!

For me though - seriously - I do wonder just how much being "PC" does
detract from safety messages. Often I've wondered if the point would be
better illustrated by a short audio/visual presentation showing unsanitised
dismembered corpses & injured passengers screaming with pain & listening to
children breaking down at funerals when they tell everyone how much they
miss their dad.

Been there - done that. For me the fact that my kids need a dad weighs heavy
on my mind. 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 (eg night flight in a 150 over mountainous terrain) - and
taking all appropriate steps to minimise others (eg wearing a life jacket
over water - carrying additional survival equipment on cross country flights
etc). One might think of me as a pilot who won't fly if there is so much as
a cloud in the sky, but not so - in reality I only have to cancel very few
because of unacceptable weather and other factors. I don't feel I'm at risk
on days where the weather is less then ideal - and I'm not afraid to take a
look at some of the bad stuff from a few angles - but I have a certain
switch in my head that says "to push it past this point is dangerous - it
limits my options - and I'm just not going to do it" - perhaps a good
standard might be "would you do this or that on a VFR flight test with the
testing officer along side"?

For me, I'd like to think that "thinking safety" is now instinctive to how I
conduct my flying - I see this same attitude in many professional crews of
heavy metal - and yet I NEVER see it amongst the GA pilots I have regular
personal contact with (them being the breed that keep killing themselves).
In contrast I see a large number who think they're 10 foot tall and
bullet-proof. This puzzles me - I'd love to know just what the formula is
that turns "safety unconscious" GA pilots into "safety aware" professional
crew. Any ideas gratefully accepted.

For me it's all about striving to be a superior pilot - and accomplishing
that by using superior judgement to avoid situations that require the use of
(perhaps?) superior skill.

CC





"jd-10" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
> > depends on the circumstances
>
> I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
> it, I will:
>
> You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine
> in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six
> loaded.
>
> You are a corpse waiting to happen. If you fly with your wife, she is as
> well. It's death-wish assholes like you that give all the reasonable and
> prudent GA pilots a bad name.
>
> You're no different than a guy I used to see in Montana, at the annual
> Schafer fly-in. I saw him drink two beers and then jump in his 185 and
> go fly.
>
> At the time, I told a friend "that guy is a corpse waiting to happen.
> He's one of those guys who thinks **** won't happen to him, and one of
> these days he's going to paint himself into a corner he can't get out
> of."
>
> Less than a year later, the guy was dead, killed in a collision with a
> cumulo-granite not far from Schafer, scud running. He took two others
> with him, the son of a bitch.
>
> You remind me of that guy. No regard for your own safety, much less the
> safety of others. I hope you wise up before you kill your wife.
> --
> JD-10

[Matt Whiting]

jd-10 wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
>>depends on the circumstances
>
>
> I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
> it, I will:
>
> You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine
> in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six
> loaded.
>
> You are a corpse waiting to happen. If you fly with your wife, she is as
> well. It's death-wish assholes like you that give all the reasonable and
> prudent GA pilots a bad name.
>
> You're no different than a guy I used to see in Montana, at the annual
> Schafer fly-in. I saw him drink two beers and then jump in his 185 and
> go fly.
>
> At the time, I told a friend "that guy is a corpse waiting to happen.
> He's one of those guys who thinks **** won't happen to him, and one of
> these days he's going to paint himself into a corner he can't get out
> of."
>
> Less than a year later, the guy was dead, killed in a collision with a
> cumulo-granite not far from Schafer, scud running. He took two others
> with him, the son of a bitch.
>
> You remind me of that guy. No regard for your own safety, much less the
> safety of others. I hope you wise up before you kill your wife.

When your IQ warms above room temperature come back for a reasonable
discussion.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

NW_PILOT wrote:

> "jd-10" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
>>>depends on the circumstances
>>
>>I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
>>it, I will:
>>
>>You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine
>>in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six
>>loaded.
>>
>>You are a corpse waiting to happen. If you fly with your wife, she is as
>>well. It's death-wish assholes like you that give all the reasonable and
>>prudent GA pilots a bad name.
>>
>>You're no different than a guy I used to see in Montana, at the annual
>>Schafer fly-in. I saw him drink two beers and then jump in his 185 and
>>go fly.
>>
>>At the time, I told a friend "that guy is a corpse waiting to happen.
>>He's one of those guys who thinks **** won't happen to him, and one of
>>these days he's going to paint himself into a corner he can't get out
>>of."
>>
>>Less than a year later, the guy was dead, killed in a collision with a
>>cumulo-granite not far from Schafer, scud running. He took two others
>>with him, the son of a bitch.
>>
>>You remind me of that guy. No regard for your own safety, much less the
>>safety of others. I hope you wise up before you kill your wife.
>>--
>>JD-10
>
>
> I would rather fly over the mountains at night in a single engine than drive
> on today's highways theres way to many people out there that are on some
> kind of mind altering substance "pansy pills" and some people think calling
> some one you dont know a "*****ing* fool" may not be the safest thing to do
> in this day and age also.

Yes, people like JD will make sweeping and stupid (and nasty to boot)
comments without really understanding risk management at all. I'll bet
he does several things every day that put him much more at risk than my
occasional night flights over the Appalachians. However, it was obvious
from the nature of his post that he doesn't have the intellect to engage
in a reasoned discussion as do at least most others here thus far.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote > 45. Who won the bet? :-)
>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> I lost.
>
> I saw something lately, saying that people's brains do not develop the part
> that has to do with risk assessment, until after 25.
>
> I guess you are immature for your age.

How old are you? Nice derogatory comment, but I'll match my maturity to
yours any day.


> Tell me, what was so important, that the flight could not wait until
> morning?

Tell me, what is so important that you can't take the airlines rather
than fly dangerous GA aircraft?


Matt

[David Rind]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>[...]
>>>I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
>>>engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
>>>accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
>>>P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
>>>probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
>>>flights.
>>
>>But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
>>information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.
>>
>>As I said, no one ever does that.
>
>
> Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.
>
> rg

Okay, I haven't been following this thread much, but reading a few of
these, I think a number of posters are having serious problems with
probability. The posts by Peter Duniho that I've read, in contrast, do
seem to understand probabilistic reasoning.

Yes, someone could decide to limit their lifetime risk of an engine
failure to P2 by flying exactly N flights. But in real life such a
decision would be insane.

First, if you were to have an engine failure during those N flights, it
would almost certainly not occur on the Nth flight. Therefore people who
have an engine failure are extremely unlikely to ever reach N flights.

Second, for any real world value of N (say N=1000), the marginal
increase in risk for flying N+1 flights would be trivial. P2 is much,
much larger than P1. So having accepted the risk of flying 1000 flights
and having successfully completed them, to decide to stop flying just so
as to avoid passing some given lifetime P2 would be bonkers. Flying that
N+1 flight has a risk of P1, a tiny risk compared to the one the person
accepted (P2) in flying N flights.

--
David Rind

[Jose]

> 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.

[mindenpilot]

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.
>
> You claim that someone does. In order to truthfully make that claim, you
> would have to know of such a person. If you knew of such a person, it would
> be trivial for you to say who that person is.

That's right, it was.

> The only logical conclusion from your refusal to say who that person is, is
> that you are untruthful when you claim that someone does.

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).

> As far as "arguing", well...if you're not willing to support your statements
> with any factual evidence, I can see why you have such a low tolerance for
> "arguing".

I have a low tolerance for arguing with people who insist on knocking
down straw men. Good day.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
David Rind > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>[...]
> >>>I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
> >>>engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
> >>>accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
> >>>P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
> >>>probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
> >>>flights.
> >>
> >>But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
> >>information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.
> >>
> >>As I said, no one ever does that.
> >
> >
> > Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.
> >
> > rg
>
> Okay, I haven't been following this thread much

That makes two of you, apparently.

rg

[Matt Whiting]

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

[NW_PILOT]

"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.

[George Patterson]

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.

[NW_PILOT]

"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.

[Cockpit Colin]

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.

[NW_PILOT]

"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.

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Legrande Harris]

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

[Ron Garret]

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

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Thomas Borchert]

Nw,

> than on the road with pill
> popping crazy people behind the wheel of a 2,000 weapon.
>

Actually, in that case, the statistics might not bear out the perceived
(by you, apparently) danger, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mike Rapoport]

Maybe you are a coward, either because you post this stuff hiding behind a
name that doesn't come up here or because you are afraid of flying over
mountains when you can't even see them.

Mike
MU-2


"jd-10" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
>> depends on the circumstances
>
> I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
> it, I will:
>
> You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine
> in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six
> loaded.
>
> You are a corpse waiting to happen. If you fly with your wife, she is as
> well. It's death-wish assholes like you that give all the reasonable and
> prudent GA pilots a bad name.
>
> You're no different than a guy I used to see in Montana, at the annual
> Schafer fly-in. I saw him drink two beers and then jump in his 185 and
> go fly.
>
> At the time, I told a friend "that guy is a corpse waiting to happen.
> He's one of those guys who thinks **** won't happen to him, and one of
> these days he's going to paint himself into a corner he can't get out
> of."
>
> Less than a year later, the guy was dead, killed in a collision with a
> cumulo-granite not far from Schafer, scud running. He took two others
> with him, the son of a bitch.
>
> You remind me of that guy. No regard for your own safety, much less the
> safety of others. I hope you wise up before you kill your wife.
> --
> JD-10

[bk]

I experienced an engine failure in a single over the Sierras at night
(the sunset was beautiful). It was in a Commanche, and the engined died
about 3 seconds after turning off the electric boost pump (10,500'
after leaving Tahoe.) Happily, the engine recovered as soon as the
boost pump was turned back on. Also, happily, the owner of the
Commanchee was in the right seat and is a pretty calm guy. He turned
the pump off again (to see what the fuel pressure would do.) Sure
enough, the pressure dropped, the engine faltered and the nose dropped.
He flipped the pump back on, and I suggested leaving well enough alone
(I'm not that calm.)

I had the suspicion that, even if the electric pump failed the
mechanical one would get started somehow, as we had just flown an hour
to Tahoe with no trouble, but I didn't want to test that theory. The
next day, the engine ran fine on the mechanical pump, and it has ever
since.

Well, enough hanger flying - I gotta go.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning bk > wrote:
: I experienced an engine failure in a single over the Sierras at night
: (the sunset was beautiful). It was in a Commanche, and the engined died
: about 3 seconds after turning off the electric boost pump (10,500'
: after leaving Tahoe.) Happily, the engine recovered as soon as the
: boost pump was turned back on. Also, happily, the owner of the
: Commanchee was in the right seat and is a pretty calm guy. He turned
: the pump off again (to see what the fuel pressure would do.) Sure
: enough, the pressure dropped, the engine faltered and the nose dropped.
: He flipped the pump back on, and I suggested leaving well enough alone
: (I'm not that calm.)

That's allegedly a common problem with PA-24's. The mechanical and
electrical(s) are in parallel. When the electric is on for awhile, no fuel goes
through the mechanical pump and it gets no cooling. When the electric is turned off,
the mechanical pump is vapor locked and can't pump. It can ruin your day if you do it
just after takeoff and don't think fast.

That's just what I've heard.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Have you ever considered home brewing a fire protectin system for your
> house? A pipe on the roof with holes drilled in it to keep the shingles
> wet. Directional irrigation sprinklers keeping the walls wet.

Real sprinkler heads will do a much better job and are not all that expensive.
For this type of system, you could use open heads. IIRC, each head typically
covers 150'sq.

> A high
> volume irrigation pump, I'm thinking gas, so power outages will not be a
> problem. Pump out of the swimming pool. If you don't have a pool, now you
> have an excuse to get one!

Two basic types of pumps are usually used for this sort of thing. A diaphram
pump (such as a "mud puppy") will maintain constant pressure. A piston pump
maintains constant volume. A properly sized piston pump would be best in an open
system.

I no longer remember the flow figures, but a swimming pool wouldn't last long
enough to handle a situation such as the brush fires California suffers.

I spent a year designing systems for Grinnell Fire Protection once.

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

[Ric]

"MJC" > wrote in message
...
> A few years ago, good friend of mine, riding his Harley, was stopped
> and
> waiting at a red light on a Friday evening on his way home from work. I
> imagine that while he was waiting for the light to change, he was probably
> wondering what his wife might have cooked for dinner.
> Seconds later, he was dead, hit by a drunk who never saw him or the red
> light.
> I've always ridden bikes (yup, a Harley), and I know the risks. And
> it's
> because I know the risks of both motorcycles and airplanes that I would
> also
> prefer the "risk" of flying over a mountain at night rather than sitting
> still on a Harley at a red light on a weekend evening.

Your statement makes no sense, if you ride bikes and fly you risk both.

Ric

>
> MJC
>
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "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.
>>
>>
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Ric" > wrote in message
u...
>> [...]
>> I've always ridden bikes (yup, a Harley), and I know the risks. And
>> it's
>> because I know the risks of both motorcycles and airplanes that I would
>> also
>> prefer the "risk" of flying over a mountain at night rather than sitting
>> still on a Harley at a red light on a weekend evening.
>
> Your statement makes no sense, if you ride bikes and fly you risk both.

Presumably not at the same time though.

I'm a pilot, as well as a homeowner. That means I fly an airplane, and I
have to mow the lawn. I "risk" both, but I prefer flying.

So, why doesn't his statement make sense? Can't he prefer engaging in one
risky activity over another?

Pete

[Henry A. Spellman]

Actually, this is a well known phenomenon for 250 hp Comanches with
carburetors, and is one reason that the International Comanche Society
strongly suggests that anyone new to flying Comanches get a check out
from a CFI who really knows Comanches.

The pertinent parts of a proper checkout start with the engine start
procedure: (1) Before start, electric fuel pump ON and listen to the
sound of the two electric fuel pumps. They should sound like a Latin
rhythm as the two pumps go into and out of phase. If the sound is a
regular beat, one of the pumps is not working. Naturally, you can only
hear the pumps when the engine is not running. (2) Then electric fuel
pump OFF for start, taxi, and runup. This tests the engine driven fuel
pump. (3) Electric fuel pump on just before power up for takeoff. (4)
Electric fuel pump OFF when a safe altitude is reached. Watch the
fuel pressure. If it falls below minimum, electric fuel pump back ON
for ten seconds, then OFF again. Repeat ON and OFF until fuel pressure
does not fall below minimum.

What the procedure does is push a little fuel into the engine driven
fuel pump with each on cycle, eventually breaking the vapor lock. I
have never needed more than three on's. There is no reason to scare the
passengers with a dead engine. The carb bowl has enough fuel in it to
give plenty of time to get the electric pump back on if you watch the
fuel pressure.

Keeping the electric fuel pump off until the last minute before
departure generally alleviates the problem entirely.

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning bk > wrote:
> : I experienced an engine failure in a single over the Sierras at night
> : (the sunset was beautiful). It was in a Commanche, and the engined died
> : about 3 seconds after turning off the electric boost pump (10,500'
> : after leaving Tahoe.) Happily, the engine recovered as soon as the
> : boost pump was turned back on. Also, happily, the owner of the
> : Commanchee was in the right seat and is a pretty calm guy. He turned
> : the pump off again (to see what the fuel pressure would do.) Sure
> : enough, the pressure dropped, the engine faltered and the nose dropped.
> : He flipped the pump back on, and I suggested leaving well enough alone
> : (I'm not that calm.)
>
> That's allegedly a common problem with PA-24's. The mechanical and
> electrical(s) are in parallel. When the electric is on for awhile, no fuel goes
> through the mechanical pump and it gets no cooling. When the electric is turned off,
> the mechanical pump is vapor locked and can't pump. It can ruin your day if you do it
> just after takeoff and don't think fast.
>
> That's just what I've heard.
>
> -Cory
>
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * Cory Papenfuss *
> * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
> ************************************************** ***********************
>

[vk6ad]

How did "he and his two passengers" fit in a Cessna 150?

vk6ad
Perth Australia

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Morgans wrote:
> I saw something lately, saying that people's brains do not develop the part
> that has to do with risk assessment, until after 25.

Perhaps I'm atypical. I'm *much* less risk averse now than when I was
18.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"