SF Bay Area ---> Death Valley

[Jonathan Sorger]

I plan on taking my first trip from the Bay Area to Death Valley (
Furnace Creek) next week. I was wondering if I could pick the brains of
those familiar with the area.

It looks like Porterville - Kern Valley - China Lake is the safest route
to take. I have had a mountain checkout and am not thrilled about
staying below 1500' AGL to keep out of the MOAs in the Sierra Nevada
range.

I realize that you contact Joshua Approach for the MOA status - can
anyone clue me in to whether or not they typically allow civilian
aircraft through at other altitudes during their operational hours?

Thanks,

[RST Engineering]

MOAs don't "allow" anybody. They simply give you VFR advisories and vectors
for military aircraft.

Remember, if a F-117 hits you, both of you die. This is to the military
advantage to avoid. Just talk to Joshua Approach and they will do their
best to keep you from hitting military aluminum.

Jim



"Jonathan Sorger" > wrote in message
...
>I plan on taking my first trip from the Bay Area to Death Valley (
> Furnace Creek) next week. I was wondering if I could pick the brains of
> those familiar with the area.
>
> It looks like Porterville - Kern Valley - China Lake is the safest route
> to take. I have had a mountain checkout and am not thrilled about
> staying below 1500' AGL to keep out of the MOAs in the Sierra Nevada
> range.
>
> I realize that you contact Joshua Approach for the MOA status - can
> anyone clue me in to whether or not they typically allow civilian
> aircraft through at other altitudes during their operational hours?
>
> Thanks,

[Peter Duniho]

"Jonathan Sorger" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I realize that you contact Joshua Approach for the MOA status - can
> anyone clue me in to whether or not they typically allow civilian
> aircraft through at other altitudes during their operational hours?

Well, not to encourage flight through active MOAs, but...

You are permitted to fly through a MOA, whether active or not. Flying IFR,
ATC will often route you around, but VFR there are no restrictions. There
is no "do they allow civilian aircraft through". If you want to fly
through, you do.

That said, contacting the controlling facility is still a good idea. You
may get flight following, or a suggested altitude to fly that will keep you
out of the way of any users of the MOA. Or at the very least, you may be
able to provide additional information (depending on radar coverage) that
will help the users avoid you.

I have had generally good luck dealing with controlling facilities for
military special use airspace. In once case, they even suspended activities
in a restricted area long enough for me to cut through the corner, so that I
could deviate around a thunderstorm (I was VFR, contacting the military
facility using the information on my chart).

I'm not familiar with that specific route, but I think you're wise to want
to avoid low-level flight in the mountainous terrain. It's doable if you
have to, but flying higher will give you a lot more options, and will
probably result in a more comfortable flight.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 00:09:29 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote in
>::

>Remember, if a F-117 hits you, both of you die.

Actually, in the last three civil/military MOCs of which I am aware,
all the military pilots escaped unscathed. Unfortunately two of the
three civilian pilots did not.

[H.P.]

MOAs are listed on the sectional's legend area and have specific hours of
operation, usually sunrise M to sunset F. The FSS has the info. Just limit
yourself to weekends and you're fine.


"Jonathan Sorger" > wrote in message
...
>I plan on taking my first trip from the Bay Area to Death Valley (
> Furnace Creek) next week. I was wondering if I could pick the brains of
> those familiar with the area.
>
> It looks like Porterville - Kern Valley - China Lake is the safest route
> to take. I have had a mountain checkout and am not thrilled about
> staying below 1500' AGL to keep out of the MOAs in the Sierra Nevada
> range.
>
> I realize that you contact Joshua Approach for the MOA status - can
> anyone clue me in to whether or not they typically allow civilian
> aircraft through at other altitudes during their operational hours?
>
> Thanks,

[John Harper]

What are you flying? Generally (to DV or Vegas) I take what is
essentially V244, climbing up to Tuolomine Meadows on the North
side of the Yosemite park, then cross the ridge either at Tioga or
a little further south - the pass is clear on the sectional.
You need to be able to get to 13500'. At this time of the year,
assuming the weather is generally good, it should be fine - not too
bumpy. Obviously you want a day with only modest winds and no cloud
below 15000' or so.

It's a truly spectacular flight, I was thrilled the first time I
did it and the thrill doesn't get any less. As long as the weather is
good and the winds are low, it's as safe as mountain flying gets.
And the nice thing is that with some careful pilotage you can avoid
the MOAs completely.

In my experience the MOAs are generally hot on weekdays and cold on
weekends - which is what the sectional says too. I would not personally
be a huge fan of flying through a hot MOA, even though it is technically
allowed. Whilst mountain flying has its risks, at least mountains
pretty much stay put rather than whizzing about at Mach 2.

John

Jonathan Sorger wrote:

> I plan on taking my first trip from the Bay Area to Death Valley (
> Furnace Creek) next week. I was wondering if I could pick the brains of
> those familiar with the area.
>
> It looks like Porterville - Kern Valley - China Lake is the safest route
> to take. I have had a mountain checkout and am not thrilled about
> staying below 1500' AGL to keep out of the MOAs in the Sierra Nevada
> range.
>
> I realize that you contact Joshua Approach for the MOA status - can
> anyone clue me in to whether or not they typically allow civilian
> aircraft through at other altitudes during their operational hours?
>
> Thanks,

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> It's a truly spectacular flight,
>

I fully agree. But you really need benign weather for that route - and
a somewhat capable plane.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Casey Wilson]

"Jonathan Sorger" > wrote in message
...
>I plan on taking my first trip from the Bay Area to Death Valley (
> Furnace Creek) next week. I was wondering if I could pick the brains of
> those familiar with the area.
>
> It looks like Porterville - Kern Valley - China Lake is the safest route
> to take. I have had a mountain checkout and am not thrilled about
> staying below 1500' AGL to keep out of the MOAs in the Sierra Nevada
> range.
>
> I realize that you contact Joshua Approach for the MOA status - can
> anyone clue me in to whether or not they typically allow civilian
> aircraft through at other altitudes during their operational hours?

Hi Jonathan,

For starters, take a look at the north side of the Los Angeles
sectional. Just to the left of R-2505 and well inside the military complex
R-2508 and deeply imbedded in the MOA's is Inyokern airport, IYK. That's my
home patch. I just thought I'd start out with that so you'd get an idea I
"might" know what I'm talking about.
People make TOO BIG a fuss over the MOAs, and restricted areas. I've
learned to live in them.
I started flying from IYK in 1973. During the intervening 32 years we
have not had a single fatal encounter, in fact I don't even remember any
close calls between military aircraft and general aviation. That in spite of
the periodic cruise missile flights that boogey through the valley int the
vicinity of Rosamond, Mojave, and IYK at 500 ft AGL to drop their payloads
at China Lake. Only twice in that time have I had an advisory from Joshua
Approach of military aircraft in the vicinity and they were 20+ miles away,
albeit below my cruising altitude. The huge majority of military flights are
above 30,000 feet in the military complex
My route from IYK to the San Joaquin Valley is either over Tehachapi in
the 150 or Lake Isabella in the 172. If you plan on flying over on a
weekend, flex-Friday, or holiday, Joshua will clear you "at or above 5,000
feet MSL" unless there is the rare weekend exercise happening. Those occur
about twice a year.
During the week, you may have to weave through the "Trona Corridor"
after crossing R-2506 at or above 6,000 feet. On the other hand, your
chances of getting Joshua to clear you direct through R-2504 are not all
that bad. But you gotta ask!! Don't be shy.
I'm not complacent about flying through the MOAs. I know what they are
for. I used to work at China Lake. But I'm also familiar enough with the
process that I'd rather fly through an MOA any day over flying across the LA
Basin.
Gas at IYK is cheaper than Stovepipe or Furnace Creek by the way. If you
decide to drop in there, let me know. I'll meet you at the airport.

[Jonathan Sorger]

Hi John,

Thanks for the suggestion... I had looked at that route, but since I'll
be flying a 172 I wasn't sure how sustainable the 13,500 altitude would
be (although I have taken it just below 14,000).

Good point about the mountains being stationary (and I will be flying
during the week).

Jonathan

In <1112887085.381549@sj-nntpcache-5> John Harper wrote:
> What are you flying? Generally (to DV or Vegas) I take what is
> essentially V244, climbing up to Tuolomine Meadows on the North
> side of the Yosemite park, then cross the ridge either at Tioga or
> a little further south - the pass is clear on the sectional.
> You need to be able to get to 13500'. At this time of the year,
> assuming the weather is generally good, it should be fine - not too
> bumpy. Obviously you want a day with only modest winds and no cloud
> below 15000' or so.
>
> It's a truly spectacular flight, I was thrilled the first time I
> did it and the thrill doesn't get any less. As long as the weather is
> good and the winds are low, it's as safe as mountain flying gets.
> And the nice thing is that with some careful pilotage you can avoid
> the MOAs completely.
>
> In my experience the MOAs are generally hot on weekdays and cold on
> weekends - which is what the sectional says too. I would not
> personally be a huge fan of flying through a hot MOA, even though it
> is technically allowed. Whilst mountain flying has its risks, at least
> mountains pretty much stay put rather than whizzing about at Mach 2.
>
> John
>
> Jonathan Sorger wrote:
>
>> I plan on taking my first trip from the Bay Area to Death Valley (
>> Furnace Creek) next week. I was wondering if I could pick the brains
>> of those familiar with the area. It looks like Porterville - Kern
>> Valley - China Lake is the safest route to take. I have had a
>> mountain checkout and am not thrilled about staying below 1500' AGL
>> to keep out of the MOAs in the Sierra Nevada range. I realize that
>> you contact Joshua Approach for the MOA status - can anyone clue me
>> in to whether or not they typically allow civilian aircraft through
>> at other altitudes during their operational hours? Thanks,
>

[Jonathan Sorger]

Hi Casey,

Thanks - I noticed the IYK corridor. Great to get local advice. I know
that as civilian aircraft we are 'allowed' but having F-16s and cruise
missiles in the area rightly makes one nervous. I'll be flying on a
weekday...

I'll let you know if we decide to drop in at IYK.

Jonathan


> Hi Jonathan,
>
> For starters, take a look at the north side of the Los Angeles
> sectional. Just to the left of R-2505 and well inside the military
> complex R-2508 and deeply imbedded in the MOA's is Inyokern airport,
> IYK. That's my home patch. I just thought I'd start out with that
> so you'd get an idea I "might" know what I'm talking about.
> People make TOO BIG a fuss over the MOAs, and restricted areas. I've
> learned to live in them.
> I started flying from IYK in 1973. During the intervening 32 years
> we have not had a single fatal encounter, in fact I don't even
> remember any close calls between military aircraft and general
> aviation. That in spite of the periodic cruise missile flights that
> boogey through the valley int the vicinity of Rosamond, Mojave, and
> IYK at 500 ft AGL to drop their payloads at China Lake. Only twice in
> that time have I had an advisory from Joshua Approach of military
> aircraft in the vicinity and they were 20+ miles away, albeit below
> my cruising altitude. The huge majority of military flights are above
> 30,000 feet in the military complex My route from IYK to the San
> Joaquin Valley is either over Tehachapi in the 150 or Lake Isabella
> in the 172. If you plan on flying over on a weekend, flex-Friday, or
> holiday, Joshua will clear you "at or above 5,000 feet MSL" unless
> there is the rare weekend exercise happening. Those occur about twice
> a year. During the week, you may have to weave through the "Trona
> Corridor" after crossing R-2506 at or above 6,000 feet. On the other
> hand, your chances of getting Joshua to clear you direct through R-
> 2504 are not all that bad. But you gotta ask!! Don't be shy. I'm
> not complacent about flying through the MOAs. I know what they are
> for. I used to work at China Lake. But I'm also familiar enough with
> the process that I'd rather fly through an MOA any day over flying
> across the LA Basin. Gas at IYK is cheaper than Stovepipe or
> Furnace Creek by the way. If you decide to drop in there, let me know.
> I'll meet you at the airport.
>
>
>
>

[Casey Wilson]

"Jonathan Sorger" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Casey,
>
> Thanks - I noticed the IYK corridor. Great to get local advice. I know
> that as civilian aircraft we are 'allowed' but having F-16s and cruise
> missiles in the area rightly makes one nervous. I'll be flying on a
> weekday...
>
> I'll let you know if we decide to drop in at IYK.
>
> Jonathan

Above all, keep in mind the skies of an MOA are NOT filled with military
hardware. For example, it's been a year since the last low-level cruise
missile flight. You'll find lots more civilians tooling around in them,
especially around here.

[RST Engineering]

You have either never had a single-engine aircraft engine failure or believe
that you are invincible...both of which are tested when you take this route.

Jim



"John Harper" > wrote in
message news:1112887085.381549@sj-nntpcache-5...
> What are you flying? Generally (to DV or Vegas) I take what is
> essentially V244, climbing up to Tuolomine Meadows on the North
> side of the Yosemite park, then cross the ridge either at Tioga or
> a little further south - the pass is clear on the sectional.

[Grumman-581]

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message news:A5f5e.81$0c2.9@trnddc08...
> Above all, keep in mind the skies of an MOA are NOT filled with
military
> hardware. For example, it's been a year since the last low-level cruise
> missile flight.

I would hazard to guess that we've got other places to test our hardware
these days... <evil-grin>

[Thomas Borchert]

RST,

> You have either never had a single-engine aircraft engine failure or believe
> that you are invincible...both of which are tested when you take this route.
>

How? Why? There's a risk, alright - just as if you fly across the SF Bay at
sight-seeing altitudes, just as if you fly a single engine over any "difficult"
terrain, just as if you fly a twin, for that matter, according to the accident
stats. Heck, flying over the L.A. basin leaves you with WAY fewer emergency
landing possibilities than Tioga Pass.

Is the risk acceptable? In the summer, with a ton of meadows to land on in case
of engine failure? In the winter, when you spend a maximum of 20 minutes over
really high terrain? For me, it sure is. What kind of flying do you do that has
that much lower risk?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Earl Grieda]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> RST,
>
> > You have either never had a single-engine aircraft engine failure or
believe
> > that you are invincible...both of which are tested when you take this
route.
> >
>
> How? Why? There's a risk, alright - just as if you fly across the SF Bay
at
> sight-seeing altitudes, just as if you fly a single engine over any
"difficult"
> terrain, just as if you fly a twin, for that matter, according to the
accident
> stats. Heck, flying over the L.A. basin leaves you with WAY fewer
emergency
> landing possibilities than Tioga Pass.
>
> Is the risk acceptable? In the summer, with a ton of meadows to land on in
case
> of engine failure? In the winter, when you spend a maximum of 20 minutes
over
> really high terrain? For me, it sure is. What kind of flying do you do
that has
> that much lower risk?
>

I always wonder about these statements about how someone never flies over
water or mountains because they have a single engine plane. Just what is
the failure rate, excluding fuel exhaustion, of single engine planes while
in flight? Although I do not have any data I suspect it is so low as to be
negligible. So, if you infrequently fly over water and mountains, why
worry. Not to say that it can't happen, but you could also be hit by a
meteor while flying yet we don't worry about that.

[Thomas Borchert]

RST,

> You have either never had a single-engine aircraft engine failure
>

Oh, and one more thought: The vast majority of us haven't. Which kind
of disproves your point.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[John Harper]

RST Engineering wrote:

> You have either never had a single-engine aircraft engine failure or believe
> that you are invincible...both of which are tested when you take this route.
>
> Jim
>
So thanks to Thomas for answering for me. Jim is absolutely
right. I've never had an engine failure, just like the great majority of
pilots. Of course I think about it ALL the time when I'm flying,
but it's never actually happened. I don't think I'm invincible though,
and for it's worth I don't think I'm invulnerable either, which
I suspect is what he meant.

One of the nice things about this route is that it does have quite
a few decent choices for landing. Tuolomine Meadows would make a
fine emergency landing site. You're only over really high terrain for
a short while. In fact I think you're more exposed earlier when
flying over Hetch Hetchy - although of course you could always
ditch in H H.

ANY single-engine flying over mountains is risky. This route imo is
less risky than flying a 172 into the LA basin from the north.
When I fly north from LA, ATC generally keep me fairly low while
crossing the mountains and there are certainly a few minutes in that
flight where an engine failure would be quite a problem.

Last night I was pottering about the south bay at 1500', since the
cloud was quite low. I'm not sure how great my choices would be
then, either, but people do it all the time.

For a risk free life, take up television-watching. Of course there's
a good chance that heart problems will get you, but at least you
won't embarass yourself by making a smoking hole in a mountain. Neither
will you see the view as you cross the Tioga pass at 13500', or
fly up to Licke Observatory from the east at 4500', or all sorts
of other beautiful things that I don't regret doing. Personally
I'd rather take my chances. Other people are big enough to make their
own judgements.

John

[Jonathan Sorger]

All of these discussions are so helpful - I'm glad that my question has
led to this.

I'm still a low-hour pilot trying to get comfortable with my personal
minimums...

Jonathan

In <1112972689.991242@sj-nntpcache-5> John Harper wrote:
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> You have either never had a single-engine aircraft engine failure or
>> believe that you are invincible...both of which are tested when you
>> take this route. Jim
> So thanks to Thomas for answering for me. Jim is absolutely
> right. I've never had an engine failure, just like the great majority
> of pilots. Of course I think about it ALL the time when I'm flying,
> but it's never actually happened. I don't think I'm invincible though,
> and for it's worth I don't think I'm invulnerable either, which
> I suspect is what he meant.
>
> One of the nice things about this route is that it does have quite
> a few decent choices for landing. Tuolomine Meadows would make a
> fine emergency landing site. You're only over really high terrain for
> a short while. In fact I think you're more exposed earlier when
> flying over Hetch Hetchy - although of course you could always
> ditch in H H.
>
> ANY single-engine flying over mountains is risky. This route imo is
> less risky than flying a 172 into the LA basin from the north.
> When I fly north from LA, ATC generally keep me fairly low while
> crossing the mountains and there are certainly a few minutes in that
> flight where an engine failure would be quite a problem.
>
> Last night I was pottering about the south bay at 1500', since the
> cloud was quite low. I'm not sure how great my choices would be
> then, either, but people do it all the time.
>
> For a risk free life, take up television-watching. Of course there's
> a good chance that heart problems will get you, but at least you
> won't embarass yourself by making a smoking hole in a mountain.
> Neither will you see the view as you cross the Tioga pass at 13500',
> or fly up to Licke Observatory from the east at 4500', or all sorts of
> other beautiful things that I don't regret doing. Personally I'd
> rather take my chances. Other people are big enough to make their own
> judgements.
>
> John
>

[Morgans]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote

Although I do not have any data I suspect it is so low as to be
> negligible. So, if you infrequently fly over water and mountains, why
> worry. Not to say that it can't happen, but you could also be hit by a
> meteor while flying yet we don't worry about that.
>
You are responding to a guy that had an engine self destruct over somewhere
in nowhere on his way home from OSH last year. It happens.
--
Jim in NC

[RST Engineering]

Spoken by what I believe to be a flatland pilot who doesn't get the chance
to fly mountains much and is fascinated with the scenery.

I've scraped a few of you off of our hills with a bucket and a spoon in the
last forty years of flying search and rescue, and it ain't fun, no matter
how much you think it might be.

I was taught to fly in the Laguna and Cuyamaca mountains of Southern
California and teach mountain flying as a necessity out of my home base in
the Sierra. I fly the Sierra on a daily basis; the Wasatch and the Rockies
twice a year. I think I've got my fair share of mountain flying in the 4500
hours in my logbook. I've also had two complete engine failures due to
mechanical failure, one in the Sierra and one in the Rockies. So far the
fatalities have been a video camera and my wris****ch. Plus a very pretty
C-172.

I absolutely DETEST know-it-alls who come on here and say, "well, I don't
have any data, but I suspect..." Suspect isn't worth a bucket of warm ****.

Finally, I teach math, and sometimes I get into probability and statistics.
For a damfool to come on here and say that since somebody flies infrequently
over water and mountains that isn't anything to worry about is the height of
stupidity. The engine has exactly the same chance of failing per minute
over hostile terrain as per minute directly over a 10,000 foot runway.

Do I fly over water or mountains? On a regular basis. Do I keep something
that I can land on directly beneath me at all times? You bet. To say that
Tioga pass is safer than downtown LA is just plain stupid. In the first
place, there are concrete flood drains all over the city. In the second
place, there are very few freeways that are filled in BOTH directions at the
same time, and if they are, then there are alternative freeways that you can
use. THere are racetracks. There are football fields, there are golf
courses, there are a dozen places where you will walk away from an engine
failure.

Not so Tioga or any of the other mountain passes. Sure, the pass ITSELF has
the meadows at the top, but the route getting TO the pass is inhospitable in
the extreme. So also the downhill trip on the leeward side of the hill.

The man has a choice. Go over Tioga Pass and hope for the best or go down
south to Tehachapi pass with an interstate freeway underneath you from
Bakersfield to Mojave. Tioga is pretty. Tehachapi is survivable. Your
call.

Oh, and Earl, tell us how many mountain flying hours you have and where you
teach out of please?

Jim




"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> I always wonder about these statements about how someone never flies over
> water or mountains because they have a single engine plane. Just what is
> the failure rate, excluding fuel exhaustion, of single engine planes while
> in flight? Although I do not have any data I suspect it is so low as to
> be
> negligible. So, if you infrequently fly over water and mountains, why
> worry. Not to say that it can't happen, but you could also be hit by a
> meteor while flying yet we don't worry about that.
>
>

[Earl Grieda]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Spoken by what I believe to be a flatland pilot who doesn't get the chance
> to fly mountains much and is fascinated with the scenery.
>
> I've scraped a few of you off of our hills with a bucket and a spoon in
the
> last forty years of flying search and rescue, and it ain't fun, no matter
> how much you think it might be.
>
> I was taught to fly in the Laguna and Cuyamaca mountains of Southern
> California and teach mountain flying as a necessity out of my home base in
> the Sierra. I fly the Sierra on a daily basis; the Wasatch and the
Rockies
> twice a year. I think I've got my fair share of mountain flying in the
4500
> hours in my logbook. I've also had two complete engine failures due to
> mechanical failure, one in the Sierra and one in the Rockies. So far the
> fatalities have been a video camera and my wris****ch. Plus a very pretty
> C-172.
>
> I absolutely DETEST know-it-alls who come on here and say, "well, I don't
> have any data, but I suspect..." Suspect isn't worth a bucket of warm
****.
>
> Finally, I teach math, and sometimes I get into probability and
statistics.
> For a damfool to come on here and say that since somebody flies
infrequently
> over water and mountains that isn't anything to worry about is the height
of
> stupidity. The engine has exactly the same chance of failing per minute
> over hostile terrain as per minute directly over a 10,000 foot runway.
>
> Do I fly over water or mountains? On a regular basis. Do I keep
something
> that I can land on directly beneath me at all times? You bet. To say
that
> Tioga pass is safer than downtown LA is just plain stupid. In the first
> place, there are concrete flood drains all over the city. In the second
> place, there are very few freeways that are filled in BOTH directions at
the
> same time, and if they are, then there are alternative freeways that you
can
> use. THere are racetracks. There are football fields, there are golf
> courses, there are a dozen places where you will walk away from an engine
> failure.
>
> Not so Tioga or any of the other mountain passes. Sure, the pass ITSELF
has
> the meadows at the top, but the route getting TO the pass is inhospitable
in
> the extreme. So also the downhill trip on the leeward side of the hill.
>
> The man has a choice. Go over Tioga Pass and hope for the best or go down
> south to Tehachapi pass with an interstate freeway underneath you from
> Bakersfield to Mojave. Tioga is pretty. Tehachapi is survivable. Your
> call.
>
> Oh, and Earl, tell us how many mountain flying hours you have and where
you
> teach out of please?
>
> Jim
>

I have zero hours flying over mountians and do not teach. I was asking a
question and instead of answering you go off on some rant. The question is
"Just what is the failure rate, excluding fuel exhaustion, of single engine
planes while in flight?" By this question I meant engine failure rate, not
any type of mechanical failure.

I am sure you probably have "scraped a few of you off of our hills", but how
many were from engine failures versus some other cause (weather, pilot
error, etc.)? If you teach math then maybe you could just answer the
question. The reason why I suspect the failure rate over mountains and
water is low is because the failure rate over anywhere else appears to be
low. Sure engines can fail and it can happen to anyone, but what is the
failure rate?


>
>
>
> "Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> > I always wonder about these statements about how someone never flies
over
> > water or mountains because they have a single engine plane. Just what
is
> > the failure rate, excluding fuel exhaustion, of single engine planes
while
> > in flight? Although I do not have any data I suspect it is so low as to
> > be
> > negligible. So, if you infrequently fly over water and mountains, why
> > worry. Not to say that it can't happen, but you could also be hit by a
> > meteor while flying yet we don't worry about that.
> >
> >
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

RST,

Ah, the joys of the always friendly, non-condescending posts of a true
newsgroup expert... ;-)

> I've scraped a few of you off of our hills with a bucket and a spoon in the
> last forty years of flying search and rescue,

Ok, how many and how many of those due to engine failure?

> I've also had two complete engine failures due to
> mechanical failure, one in the Sierra and one in the Rockies. So far the
> fatalities have been a video camera and my wris****ch. Plus a very pretty
> C-172.

More data to support the view that the risk isn't nowhere nearly as high as you
wanted to make it in your original post.

>
> I absolutely DETEST know-it-alls who come on here and say, "well, I don't
> have any data, but I suspect..."

Which nobody did. And you didn't present statistically sound "data", either, as
I'm sure you know, what with your superior math education. But - never miss a
chance for throwing around some insults, right? That's something I DETEST! To
each his own...

> For a damfool to come on here and say that since somebody flies infrequently
> over water and mountains that isn't anything to worry about is the height of
> stupidity.

Which, again, nobody did. "Risk management" are the key words, not fear
mongering - see two quotes below.

>
> Not so Tioga or any of the other mountain passes.

Well, I've flown both L.A. and Tioga - and I disagree. You conveniently left
out power lines, for example.

> Tioga is pretty. Tehachapi is survivable. Your
> call.

To say or imply that "Tioga is not survivable" is utter BS, plain and simple.
And fear mongering to the extreme (see above).

>
> Oh, and Earl, tell us how many mountain flying hours you have and where you
> teach out of please?

Ah, the "argument by authority" trick. It sucks! Every time!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Casey Wilson]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...


<<<SNIP >>>

> Do I fly over water or mountains? On a regular basis. Do I keep
> something that I can land on directly beneath me at all times? You bet.
> To say that Tioga pass is safer than downtown LA is just plain stupid. In
> the first place, there are concrete flood drains all over the city. In
> the second place, there are very few freeways that are filled in BOTH
> directions at the same time, and if they are, then there are alternative
> freeways that you can use. THere are racetracks. There are football
> fields, there are golf courses, there are a dozen places where you will
> walk away from an engine failure.

The original post had two topics: mountains and MOAs. When I
referred to the hazards of flying in the LA Basin, that was related to the
MOAs and the opportunity to encounter another flying machine, not the
Sierra.

> The man has a choice. Go over Tioga Pass and hope for the best or go down
> south to Tehachapi pass with an interstate freeway underneath you from
> Bakersfield to Mojave. Tioga is pretty. Tehachapi is survivable. Your
> call.

I heartily agree with flying the Tehachapi route or the Kern Valley
over Lake Isabella, versus Tioga. But my reasons are different. In either
direction, over the two southern routes, the countour lines are packed
tightly together for only a short time on either side with a relatively flat
area in between. And I wouldn't count on the four-lane freeway for a
landing. Next time you cross over there, count the 55,000-pound, 18-wheelers
and gauge the space in between them. <Grin>

We're on the same side of the argument, Jim, just a hair apart.

Casey Wilson
Freelance Writer and Photographer