Mountain flying knowledge required?

[Peter R.]

In late May I am planning to fly across the US, from NY to southern
California, with a return stop in Denver, CO. This will be done in a
single-engine, turbo-normalized Bonanza with on-board O2, and this is
the first time I have done this. My plan is to fly the majority of it
under IFR flight rules and at altitudes in the mid-to-upper teens (westerly
wind-depending).

When planning my flight from Palm Springs, CA, to Denver, I have decided to
avoid the high peaks in which a direct flight would result and instead
planned a flight east to Albuquerque, NM, then northeast/north to Denver
across the flat lands of Colorado, east of the mountains.

Disregarding the concept of density altitude as I am already familiar with
its affect on aircraft performance, would it still be advisable for me to
seek out some mountain flying instruction? My intention for this flight
is not to get too near the higher peaks of the Rockies, with the exception
of overflying the southern range in New Mexico.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[mindenpilot]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> In late May I am planning to fly across the US, from NY to southern
> California, with a return stop in Denver, CO. This will be done in a
> single-engine, turbo-normalized Bonanza with on-board O2, and this is
> the first time I have done this. My plan is to fly the majority of it
> under IFR flight rules and at altitudes in the mid-to-upper teens
> (westerly
> wind-depending).
>
> When planning my flight from Palm Springs, CA, to Denver, I have decided
> to
> avoid the high peaks in which a direct flight would result and instead
> planned a flight east to Albuquerque, NM, then northeast/north to Denver
> across the flat lands of Colorado, east of the mountains.
>
> Disregarding the concept of density altitude as I am already familiar with
> its affect on aircraft performance, would it still be advisable for me to
> seek out some mountain flying instruction? My intention for this flight
> is not to get too near the higher peaks of the Rockies, with the exception
> of overflying the southern range in New Mexico.
>
> --
> Peter
>

There's really no substitute for actually flying in a rotor or mountain
wave.
But, I'm sure you could do some reading online to brush up on the various
phenomena associated with mountain flying.
The two I've listed are the ones I deal with most regularly.
You can expect LARGE updrafts and downdrafts.
It is important to know where they may occur in relation to the mountain
ridge.
Like I said, if you actually fly in it a couple times, it becomes a little
more obvious.
But if you are well informed, you should be able to recognize the conditions
around you...

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[Scott D.]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:57:32 -0400, "Peter R."
> wrote:


>
>When planning my flight from Palm Springs, CA, to Denver, I have decided to
>avoid the high peaks in which a direct flight would result and instead
>planned a flight east to Albuquerque, NM, then northeast/north to Denver
>across the flat lands of Colorado, east of the mountains.
>


I am assuming that you are going to go to LVS VOR then head north, or
to ALS VOR and then through LaVeta Pass to Gosip. Both ways are
easily passable with your Bonanza. The thing that you need to really
watch out for is the afternoon thunderstorms that tend to pop up that
time of year. They can get pretty sever real fast but they are
usually gone just as fast. I have been flying in that area for over 3
years now and I find that the turbulence isn't too bad. If you do get
bumped around, just fly a little further east and it will die down.
The Wet Mountains tend to have the worst turbulence consistently so I
try to stay away from them, but time to time, I will get up around
16000 and get over them with little problems.

Just curious, but what airport are you planning on going to in Denver?


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

[Walter Kronester]

Having a well trained CFI introduce the mountains to you can be a pleasure,
you never will forget. So do not miss it if you are in a mountain aerea for
the first time!
Have much fun
Walter

[Peter R.]

Scott D. wrote:

> I am assuming that you are going to go to LVS VOR then head north,
> or to ALS VOR and then through LaVeta Pass to Gosip.

My first plan was to fly to the Albuquerque VOR (ABQ), north to Las Vegas
(LVS) VOR, then along the airway into Denver.

You all certainly have a lot of military airspace in Arizona, New Mexico,
and Colorado to consider! :)


> Both ways are
> easily passable with your Bonanza. The thing that you need to really
> watch out for is the afternoon thunderstorms that tend to pop up that
> time of year. They can get pretty sever real fast but they are
> usually gone just as fast.

That confirms what I have read. My plan was to leave early in the AM for
the four hour flight so that I could arrive before noon.

> I have been flying in that area for over 3
> years now and I find that the turbulence isn't too bad. If you do get
> bumped around, just fly a little further east and it will die down.

Good to know.

> The Wet Mountains tend to have the worst turbulence consistently so I
> try to stay away from them, but time to time, I will get up around
> 16000 and get over them with little problems.

What VOR are those mountains near?

> Just curious, but what airport are you planning on going to in Denver?

My brother lives in Firestone, CO, which is directly north of Denver by
about 25 miles. The closest airports appear to be Platte Valley (18V) and
Erie Muni (48V), both of whom have pretty good fuel prices. I prefer a
hangar option for the few nights I will be there. Have any opinion on
either airport?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Matt Barrow]

<Scott D.> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:57:32 -0400, "Peter R."
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >When planning my flight from Palm Springs, CA, to Denver, I have decided
to
> >avoid the high peaks in which a direct flight would result and instead
> >planned a flight east to Albuquerque, NM, then northeast/north to Denver
> >across the flat lands of Colorado, east of the mountains.
> >
>
>
> I am assuming that you are going to go to LVS VOR then head north, or
> to ALS VOR and then through LaVeta Pass to Gosip. Both ways are
> easily passable with your Bonanza.

Why go from LVS back westward to ALS?

How about ALB to LVS to Trinidad and straight north just east of the
foothils? Not to many more miles that way. If the winds are nor due
westerly, you should have a smooth ride and better options as well.

> Just curious, but what airport are you planning on going to in Denver?

Yes!


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Tango Whiskey]

> would it still be advisable for me to
> seek out some mountain flying instruction?

To answer your question directly, I think based on what you have described
that if you take time to flight plan rigorously, try to stay day VFR, and
read a good mountain flying book like Sparky Imerson's you'll be good to go
without specific mountain flying instruction. That said, getting some extra
instructional time in new conditions is always a good thing, but I think in
your case not strictly required if you study up.

Somebody here posted recently what I think is great advice. Night,
Mountains, Single Engine: pick any two.

[Scott D.]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:28:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
><Scott D.> wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:57:32 -0400, "Peter R."
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >When planning my flight from Palm Springs, CA, to Denver, I have decided
>to
>> >avoid the high peaks in which a direct flight would result and instead
>> >planned a flight east to Albuquerque, NM, then northeast/north to Denver
>> >across the flat lands of Colorado, east of the mountains.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I am assuming that you are going to go to LVS VOR then head north, or
>> to ALS VOR and then through LaVeta Pass to Gosip. Both ways are
>> easily passable with your Bonanza.
>
>Why go from LVS back westward to ALS?
>
Reread the comment, there was an "or" between the two possible routes.
He has two options from ABQ. Either go up the valley over Santa Fe to
Alamosa and then over to PUB via the LaVeta pass and Gosip
intersection, OR he can cross over the mountains there and go to LVS
and then up V611 through PUB (which is actually the preferred route,
and there is more scenery on the east side). There is also a third
route but it sounded like he want to stay away from the mountains as
much as possible, which is a good thing for someone who isn't familiar
with mountain travel.

>How about ALB to LVS to Trinidad and straight north just east of the
>foothils? Not to many more miles that way. If the winds are nor due
>westerly, you should have a smooth ride and better options as well.
>
>> Just curious, but what airport are you planning on going to in Denver?
>
>Yes!
>
>
>Matt
>---------------------
>Matthew W. Barrow
>Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
>Montrose, CO
>

Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

[Scott D.]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 20:15:41 -0400, "Peter R."
> wrote:

>> The Wet Mountains tend to have the worst turbulence consistently so I
>> try to stay away from them, but time to time, I will get up around
>> 16000 and get over them with little problems.
>
>What VOR are those mountains near?

Easiest way to define them is to find the La Veta MOA. You can also
draw a line from Alamosa Co, to Pueblo, to 1V6 (Fremont County) back
to Alamosa and they are the mountains in that triangle.
>
>> Just curious, but what airport are you planning on going to in Denver?
>
>My brother lives in Firestone, CO, which is directly north of Denver by
>about 25 miles. The closest airports appear to be Platte Valley (18V) and
>Erie Muni (48V), both of whom have pretty good fuel prices. I prefer a
>hangar option for the few nights I will be there. Have any opinion on
>either airport?
>
Well, Jefco (BJC) is probably the nicest towered airport with more
services. I never pay for the fuel there so I don't know what their
prices are, but they will have plenty of hanger space. I have never
been to 18V and I have only been to 48V twice to pickup props from
Rocky Mountain Propellers located on the field.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

[Matt Barrow]

<Scott D.> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:28:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> ><Scott D.> wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:57:32 -0400, "Peter R."
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >When planning my flight from Palm Springs, CA, to Denver, I have
decided
> >to
> >> >avoid the high peaks in which a direct flight would result and instead
> >> >planned a flight east to Albuquerque, NM, then northeast/north to
Denver
> >> >across the flat lands of Colorado, east of the mountains.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I am assuming that you are going to go to LVS VOR then head north, or
> >> to ALS VOR and then through LaVeta Pass to Gosip. Both ways are
> >> easily passable with your Bonanza.
> >
> >Why go from LVS back westward to ALS?
> >
> Reread the comment, there was an "or" between the two possible routes.

Yup, missed the "or" at the end of the line.

Well, excuuuuuseeee me!! :~)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

<Scott D.> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 20:15:41 -0400, "Peter R."
> Well, Jefco (BJC) is probably the nicest towered airport with more
> services. I never pay for the fuel there so I don't know what their
> prices are, but they will have plenty of hanger space. I have never
> been to 18V and I have only been to 48V twice to pickup props from
> Rocky Mountain Propellers located on the field.
>
http://www.airnav.com/fuel/local.html

$2.85 at 48V
$3.48 at BJC
$2.60 (Mar. 11) at 2V2

[Scott D.]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 21:50:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>Yup, missed the "or" at the end of the line.
>
>Well, excuuuuuseeee me!! :~)


Figured that was what happened. I too will speed read through
something and miss a key word.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

[Scott D.]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 21:55:52 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
><Scott D.> wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 20:15:41 -0400, "Peter R."
>> Well, Jefco (BJC) is probably the nicest towered airport with more
>> services. I never pay for the fuel there so I don't know what their
>> prices are, but they will have plenty of hanger space. I have never
>> been to 18V and I have only been to 48V twice to pickup props from
>> Rocky Mountain Propellers located on the field.
>>
>http://www.airnav.com/fuel/local.html
>
>$2.85 at 48V
>$3.48 at BJC
>$2.60 (Mar. 11) at 2V2
>
>
>
Ouch, guess I know now why I never fuel there. Besides, it is only a
20 min flight from COS where I am based out of so there is no reason
to get fuel there. I go in there from time to time to pick up someone
but that's about it.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

[tony roberts]

I would take a couple of hours training on mountain flying.
That is all that I fly - I live in a valley!
If the left side of a narrow valley (with an out at the end) has a
downdraft, and the right side has an updraft would you fly left, right
or middle? And why?
If you can't answer that without even thinking about it, a couple of
hours of mountain training would be a good investment. Some areas have
downdrafts of up to 3000 ft per minute. Where would you expect to find
them?

you probably only need a couple of hours - it's fun and it makes you
safer. So my advice is do the training. When you are going down at 3000
ft a minute, it's too late to get the yellow pages out :)

HTH

Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> In late May I am planning to fly across the US, from NY to southern
> California, with a return stop in Denver, CO. This will be done in a
> single-engine, turbo-normalized Bonanza with on-board O2, and this is
> the first time I have done this. My plan is to fly the majority of it
> under IFR flight rules and at altitudes in the mid-to-upper teens (westerly
> wind-depending).
>
> When planning my flight from Palm Springs, CA, to Denver, I have decided to
> avoid the high peaks in which a direct flight would result and instead
> planned a flight east to Albuquerque, NM, then northeast/north to Denver
> across the flat lands of Colorado, east of the mountains.
>
> Disregarding the concept of density altitude as I am already familiar with
> its affect on aircraft performance, would it still be advisable for me to
> seek out some mountain flying instruction? My intention for this flight
> is not to get too near the higher peaks of the Rockies, with the exception
> of overflying the southern range in New Mexico.

[Toño]

Peter R. wrote:
My plan is to fly the majority of it
> under IFR flight rules and at altitudes in the mid-to-upper teens (westerly
> wind-depending).

Excuse me for asking but... If you intend to fly at those altitudes why
would you be concerned about mountain flying? I mean, are there going
to be any lee side rotors that high? Mountain waves are not really a
factor, are they? Density altitude, temp/dewpoint spread, short field
landings, soft field landings, valley winds, etc. are not really a
factor at that altitude.

About the only things that might be a factor would be icing (unlikely at
that altitude because temp is too cold) or a thunderstorm, which is of
concern for every flight.

I have always considered mountain flying to be flying *in* the mountains
and the things that concern a mountain pilot to be at or below the
peaks. Is this incorrect?

Thanks,

Antonio

[Morgans]

"Toño" > wrote

> I have always considered mountain flying to be flying *in* the mountains
> and the things that concern a mountain pilot to be at or below the
> peaks. Is this incorrect?

Yes. The waves extend way up past the peaks, and so do rotors.
--
Jim in NC

[Blanche]

Toño > wrote:
>Peter R. wrote:
> My plan is to fly the majority of it
>> under IFR flight rules and at altitudes in the mid-to-upper teens (westerly
>> wind-depending).
>
>Excuse me for asking but... If you intend to fly at those altitudes why
>would you be concerned about mountain flying? I mean, are there going
>to be any lee side rotors that high? Mountain waves are not really a
>factor, are they? Density altitude, temp/dewpoint spread, short field
>landings, soft field landings, valley winds, etc. are not really a
>factor at that altitude.

And what happens if the engine conks out? Where do you land? How do
you land?

And reading the Imeson book is NOT sufficient.

>About the only things that might be a factor would be icing (unlikely at
>that altitude because temp is too cold) or a thunderstorm, which is of
>concern for every flight.

And when that happens, all of a sudden you need to worry about
mountain waves, density altitude, valley winds, etc. Calculate
glide distance from 16K and tell me where & how you're going to
land.

>I have always considered mountain flying to be flying *in* the mountains
> and the things that concern a mountain pilot to be at or below the
>peaks. Is this incorrect?

yes.

But back to the original poster. You have the right idea. Take
the ABQ (or AEG)-TAFOY-TAD-anyplace north. Watch out for the MOAs
they're usually hot. You'll have a great view of Pikes Peak on your
left.

Then, if you have time and are interested, take a mountain flying
lesson and you'll go on the west side of PP and fly into Leadville.

And lean.

[Peter R.]

Tango Whiskey > wrote:

> Somebody here posted recently what I think is great advice. Night,
> Mountains, Single Engine: pick any two.

Well, I picked only one: Single Engine. :)

I flight planned away from the mountains (where possible) and we are going
to leave early AM.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

Scott D. wrote:

> Easiest way to define them is to find the La Veta MOA. You can also
> draw a line from Alamosa Co, to Pueblo, to 1V6 (Fremont County) back
> to Alamosa and they are the mountains in that triangle.

Got it. Thanks.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

tony roberts > wrote:

> If the left side of a narrow valley (with an out at the end) has a
> downdraft, and the right side has an updraft would you fly left, right
> or middle? And why?
> If you can't answer that without even thinking about it, a couple of
> hours of mountain training would be a good investment.

I may look up an instructor when I am there. Thanks.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[john smith]

Jer in the Denver area posts here and teaches mountain flying.
Why not stop and visit for a while.

Peter R. wrote:
> Disregarding the concept of density altitude as I am already familiar with
> its affect on aircraft performance, would it still be advisable for me to
> seek out some mountain flying instruction? My intention for this flight
> is not to get too near the higher peaks of the Rockies, with the exception
> of overflying the southern range in New Mexico.
>

[[email protected]]

john smith > wrote:
> Jer in the Denver area posts here and teaches mountain flying.
> Why not stop and visit for a while.

> Peter R. wrote:
> > Disregarding the concept of density altitude as I am already familiar with
> > its affect on aircraft performance, would it still be advisable for me to
> > seek out some mountain flying instruction? My intention for this flight
> > is not to get too near the higher peaks of the Rockies, with the exception
> > of overflying the southern range in New Mexico.

Hello! I've returned from Sun-N-Fun... I'm tanned, rested and ready to fly!
Mountain flying and FUN available... 50 miles north of Denver at 3V5...
then you can save time/money by flying in the mountains instead
of around! Give me a call/email!

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, 227 Young Eagles!

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> Hello! I've returned from Sun-N-Fun... I'm tanned, rested and ready to fly!
> Mountain flying and FUN available... 50 miles north of Denver at 3V5...
> then you can save time/money by flying in the mountains instead
> of around! Give me a call/email!

How long is your mountain flying class? I expect to only be in the area
for a few days.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

> In late May I am planning to fly across the US, from NY to southern
> California, with a return stop in Denver, CO. This will be done in a
> single-engine, turbo-normalized Bonanza with on-board O2, and this is
> the first time I have done this. My plan is to fly the majority of it
> under IFR flight rules and at altitudes in the mid-to-upper teens (westerly
> wind-depending).
>
> When planning my flight from Palm Springs, CA, to Denver, I have decided to
> avoid the high peaks in which a direct flight would result and instead
> planned a flight east to Albuquerque, NM, then northeast/north to Denver
> across the flat lands of Colorado, east of the mountains.
>
> Disregarding the concept of density altitude as I am already familiar with
> its affect on aircraft performance, would it still be advisable for me to
> seek out some mountain flying instruction?

It never hurts to learn something new but what you are doing is not
mountain flying. Don't worry about it.


My intention for this flight
> is not to get too near the higher peaks of the Rockies, with the exception
> of overflying the southern range in New Mexico.
>

You're missing all the fun of the mountains.

[tony roberts]

FWIW

You don't fly down the middle, because that may not leave you enough
space to do a 180 either way - there is always the chance that you may
have to.

You don't fly on the updraft side - even though that initially seems the
safest - because if things change and you need to do a 180, you now have
to turn into the downdraft - which you may not be able to recover from.

So you fly in the downdraft side. If you can handle that you will get
through. If things get worse, at least your 180 will be into a nice safe
updraft.

Maybe not too obvious at first - but when you think about it . . .

That's why I am suggesting a couple of hours training.

Looking forward to reading about your flight

Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

In article <nospam-9D7531.23115423042005@shawnews>,
tony roberts > wrote:

> I would take a couple of hours training on mountain flying.
> That is all that I fly - I live in a valley!
> If the left side of a narrow valley (with an out at the end) has a
> downdraft, and the right side has an updraft would you fly left, right
> or middle? And why?
> If you can't answer that without even thinking about it, a couple of
> hours of mountain training would be a good investment. Some areas have
> downdrafts of up to 3000 ft per minute. Where would you expect to find
> them?
>
> you probably only need a couple of hours - it's fun and it makes you
> safer. So my advice is do the training. When you are going down at 3000
> ft a minute, it's too late to get the yellow pages out :)
>
> HTH
>
> Tony
> --
>
> Tony Roberts
> PP-ASEL
> VFR OTT
> Night
> Cessna 172H C-GICE
>
> In article >,
> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
> > In late May I am planning to fly across the US, from NY to southern
> > California, with a return stop in Denver, CO. This will be done in a
> > single-engine, turbo-normalized Bonanza with on-board O2, and this is
> > the first time I have done this. My plan is to fly the majority of it
> > under IFR flight rules and at altitudes in the mid-to-upper teens (westerly
> > wind-depending).
> >
> > When planning my flight from Palm Springs, CA, to Denver, I have decided to
> > avoid the high peaks in which a direct flight would result and instead
> > planned a flight east to Albuquerque, NM, then northeast/north to Denver
> > across the flat lands of Colorado, east of the mountains.
> >
> > Disregarding the concept of density altitude as I am already familiar with
> > its affect on aircraft performance, would it still be advisable for me to
> > seek out some mountain flying instruction? My intention for this flight
> > is not to get too near the higher peaks of the Rockies, with the exception
> > of overflying the southern range in New Mexico.

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> You're missing all the fun of the mountains.

This is more of a "proof of concept" trip. When I have more time, I plan
on sight-seeing my way across the US with family in tow.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

tony roberts > wrote:

> That's why I am suggesting a couple of hours training.

Thanks.

> Looking forward to reading about your flight

I'll be bringing along a digital camera and will post pictures with the
story up on my website when I return.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Newps]

tony roberts wrote:


>
> You don't fly down the middle, because that may not leave you enough
> space to do a 180 either way

Right.


> You don't fly on the updraft side - even though that initially seems the
> safest - because if things change and you need to do a 180, you now have
> to turn into the downdraft - which you may not be able to recover from.

Wrong. You fly on the downwind side, also known as the updraft side.
If you lose your engine and you are in a downdraft just how smart is
that? You don't knowingly fly in downdrafts, unless of course you want
to go down.


>
> So you fly in the downdraft side. If you can handle that you will get
> through. If things get worse, at least your 180 will be into a nice safe
> updraft.

If things get worse you may be plastered on the mountain before you can
turn around.

[nrp]

I'm a flatlander having only done mountain flying in a 125 hp Tripacer,
and then in 172s, but my thing was to stay light, preferably do it only
in the AM (especially with the family along), listen to the locals,
know how to lean, and keep your schedule and flight planning very
flexible.

My biggest scare was being twice afraid the bottom would fall out of my
airplane going thru Glacier and the Canadian rockies - and it wasn't
choppy......

[tony roberts]

> Wrong. You fly on the downwind side, also known as the updraft side.
> If you lose your engine and you are in a downdraft just how smart is
> that? You don't knowingly fly in downdrafts, unless of course you want
> to go down.

I guess we'll agree to differ.
I live in the mountains.
All of my flying is in the mountains.
I did my mountain flying training with some of the best.
I'll do it exactly the way I explained in my last post.

And I will admit that what you are describing is the way that most 300
hour flight instructors in the USA are taught to teach it. But I did my
mountain flying training with two Alaska bush pilots who are two of the
best. And they taught me consistently, never fly on the more favourable
side - because you have nowhere to go if you need to turn. You should
ALWAYS be able to turn into lift when flying canyons.

That's fine. This group is all about difference of opinion and debate -
that's how we learn. This time, we just happen to be on different sides
of the question :)

Tony


Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Toño]

Blanche wrote:
>
>
> And what happens if the engine conks out? Where do you land? How do
> you land?

Maybe he should also take glider lessons, mountain survival,
parachuting, and aerobatics prior to the flight. I mean, those
disciplines have just as much relevance if not more should a forced
landing be immanent.

How does a knowledge of mountain flying help you to land with and engine
out? And how would that differ from any other no-engine landing?
About the only thing I could think of would be to try to estimate winds
and direction based on terrain features. Read Sparky's book and you have
some theory to work off of but, really....do you think that this would
sufficiently arm you for an encounter with the winds in the mountains?
If you do then you have never flown *in* the mountains!

As far as *where* you land...you land wherever you can; as in
non-mountainous terrain.

> And when that happens, all of a sudden you need to worry about
> mountain waves, density altitude, valley winds, etc. Calculate
> glide distance from 16K and tell me where & how you're going to
> land.

Well...if you know how far you can glide at 1000 ft you can multiply by
sixteen. But that calculation would only give you the no-wind
theoretical distance. It also something every pilot should know
regardless of whether they are in the mountains or not.

And, come on! Are you really going to pull out the ole' whiz wheel and
think about "...density altitude, valley winds, etc." when you are
dead-sticking it to a suitable landing site? Generally, you *might*
have one place to land that is suitable and you can bet your gold-plated
E6B you'll take it regardless of the "density altitude".

>
>>I have always considered mountain flying to be flying *in* the mountains
>> and the things that concern a mountain pilot to be at or below the
>>peaks. Is this incorrect?
>
>
> yes.

Really? And minus the engine out scenario, you think the guy cruising
over the peaks at 16-19,000 ft is in need of *mountain flying* skills?
That ain't *mountain flying* in my book...neither is it in
Sparký's.(Which, I agree, is a great book!)

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

Antonio

[Toño]

Morgans wrote:
> "Toño" > wrote
>
>
>>I have always considered mountain flying to be flying *in* the mountains
>> and the things that concern a mountain pilot to be at or below the
>>peaks. Is this incorrect?
>
>
> Yes. The waves extend way up past the peaks, and so do rotors.

Not according to Sparky Imeson....

"...the rotor cloud will be downwind from the mountain range and extend
anywhere from the earth's surface to up to mountain-top level".

--p.63 of "Mountain Flying" by Sparky Imeson

In 15 years of mountain flying I have never encountered a rotor above a
mountain peak. Turbulence, yes...but *rotors*, no. I have encountered
waves and even flown in them. Sometimes the waves extend hundreds of
miles downwind of a range!

Waves are not at all dangerous to fly in! In fact, gliders often take
advantage of their superior lift and laminar air. I have often
paralleled a mountain range to take advantage of them.


Antonio

[Chris W]

mindenpilot wrote:

>You can expect LARGE updrafts and downdrafts.
>It is important to know where they may occur in relation to the mountain
>ridge.
>Like I said, if you actually fly in it a couple times, it becomes a little
>more obvious.
>
Is there an altitude above the ridge line at which the "mountain wave"
effect isn't significant?


--
Chris W

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
http://thewishzone.com

[Morgans]

"Toño" > wrote

> Not according to Sparky Imeson....
>
> "...the rotor cloud will be downwind from the mountain range and extend
> anywhere from the earth's surface to up to mountain-top level".
>
> --p.63 of "Mountain Flying" by Sparky Imeson
> Antonio

There is some disagreement with this, and here is a clip:
Normally the rotor clouds is centered beneath the lenticular cloud. Most
often it extends anywhere from ground level to mountaintop level, but is
frequently observed up to 35,000 feet. Destructive turbulence from the rotor
rarely exists more than 2,000-3,000 feet above mountaintop level.

http://www.mountainflying.com/mountain_wave2.htm

My point is, just because you clear the ridge, there are still dangers that
can ruin your day, if the winds are right. Further down in the article,
this author talks about rotors that do not have a visible cloud.

If the wind is blowing strong, close to perpendicular to the ridge, best
wait until early the next day, and see if the winds are calmed down.

Hey, I just read, and remember. I have no idea if what everyone says is
true. I would rather be safe, than sorry. YMMV
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Chris W" > wrote in message
news:gj%ae.640$zv1.481@lakeread07...
> Is there an altitude above the ridge line at which the "mountain wave"
> effect isn't significant?

Probably would be pretty negligible at 23,000 miles. For example. :)

Seriously though, yes...you can sometimes fly high enough to avoid the wave.
But that depends on the height of the terrain, the strength of the wind, and
of course the type of aircraft. There is no reliable way to know ahead of
time how high you need to fly to avoid it.

That said, there's being high enough to get all the way out of any
noticeable effects of the wave, and then there's being high enough to avoid
the wave forcing you too close to the terrain. The former may be
impossible, depending on the situation. The latter is usually possible. I
have rarely experienced altitude excursions of greater than 2000-3000 feet
as a result of mountain wave, so that's a pretty reliable margin for
crossing ridges.

Of course, there is the question of whether mountain wave can actually push
you into the ground. I've never actually heard of that happening, and for
it to do so, the part of the air mass you're flying in would have to hit the
ground as well. That happens in microbursts, or under virga, for example,
but you'd have to be pretty darn close to the ground in the first place for
a mountain wave to push you into it.

From a practical perspective, a couple of things to consider: higher up may
provide less turbulence (though, don't try to fly through a rotor cloud).
Also, if you want to most efficiently use the mountain wave to your
advantage, pitch up and slow down while it's making you go up, and pitch
down and speed up while it's making you go down. This will increase the
magnitude of your altitude changes, but you'll be spending less time during
the "bad" down areas and more time during the "good" up areas. Fighting the
mountain wave is just that: fighting. And no one wins a fight with Mother
Nature.

Of course, in practice you may have upper and lower limits to acceptable
altitudes, and those need to be taken into account. But inasmuch as you can
allow your altitude to vary with the wave, let it.

Pete

[Stefan]

tony roberts wrote:

> So you fly in the downdraft side. If you can handle that you will get
> through.

Depending on the wind situation, you can expect downdrafts of 10 fpm or
even more. No light single will outclimb this, even less at altitude.
It's a key point to fly on the updraft side.

> If things get worse, at least your 180 will be into a nice safe
> updraft.

There's nothing wrong with turning into a downdraft. Just keep your
speed up and make sure you have always enough air below you.

And before you ask: I've been flying mostly in mountains, too. Mostly in
gliders, the rest in vastly underpowered planes (80 to 100 hp). Learn to
use the weather instead of fighting it.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>> Is there an altitude above the ridge line at which the "mountain wave"
>> effect isn't significant?

There's no reason to be afraid of wave. Wave isn't turbulent at all,
just think of it as a region with strong up or down draft. Stron means
just that: strong. You'll see 20 fpm and more.

No way to fight a downdraft of 20 fpm. So don't fight it, rather fly
perpendicularly to the ridge until you leave that region. Chances are,
you'll find a region with the same amount of updraft there. Throttle
back and enjoy.

Rotors are a completely different story, but you won't encounter them
above the peaks. Of course you may hit some other turbulence, so stay
below the yellow arc.

Stefan

[Newps]

Chris W wrote:
> mindenpilot wrote:
>
>> You can expect LARGE updrafts and downdrafts.
>> It is important to know where they may occur in relation to the
>> mountain ridge.
>> Like I said, if you actually fly in it a couple times, it becomes a
>> little more obvious.
>>
> Is there an altitude above the ridge line at which the "mountain wave"
> effect isn't significant?

Not for your plane. Airlines will reroute around these areas to avoid
mountain wave.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Tango Whiskey > wrote:
>
>> Somebody here posted recently what I think is great advice. Night,
>> Mountains, Single Engine: pick any two.
>
> Well, I picked only one: Single Engine. :)
>
> I flight planned away from the mountains (where possible) and we are going
> to leave early AM.
>
> --
> Peter
>


You don't need specific instruction and will have a great time on your trip.
If you have an interest in mountains and mountain flying read Exploring the
Monster which is availible at any glider FBO.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

Rotors do not extend much above the ridgetops. The waves themselves are
smooth until reaching the tropopause except the extreme case of breaking
waves.

Mike
MU-2


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Toño" > wrote
>
>> I have always considered mountain flying to be flying *in* the mountains
>> and the things that concern a mountain pilot to be at or below the
>> peaks. Is this incorrect?
>
> Yes. The waves extend way up past the peaks, and so do rotors.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Matt Barrow]

<Scott D.> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 21:50:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> >Yup, missed the "or" at the end of the line.
> >
> >Well, excuuuuuseeee me!! :~)
>
>
> Figured that was what happened. I too will speed read through
> something and miss a key word.
>

I read slowly and still miss a lot. I use the excuse that my eyes aren't as
good as they used to be.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net...
> Rotors do not extend much above the ridgetops. The waves themselves are
> smooth until reaching the tropopause except the extreme case of breaking
> waves.
>

Agreed! I find 2000 or so above the highest terrain helps, though it's not a
sure bet.

TurboNormalizing is the best thing since sliced bread. :~)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Mike Rapoport]

"Toño" > wrote in message
...
> Blanche wrote:
>>
>>
>> And what happens if the engine conks out? Where do you land? How do you
>> land?
>
> Maybe he should also take glider lessons, mountain survival, parachuting,
> and aerobatics prior to the flight. I mean, those disciplines have just
> as much relevance if not more should a forced landing be immanent.
>
> How does a knowledge of mountain flying help you to land with and engine
> out? And how would that differ from any other no-engine landing?
> About the only thing I could think of would be to try to estimate winds
> and direction based on terrain features. Read Sparky's book and you have
> some theory to work off of but, really....do you think that this would
> sufficiently arm you for an encounter with the winds in the mountains? If
> you do then you have never flown *in* the mountains!
>
> As far as *where* you land...you land wherever you can; as in
> non-mountainous terrain.
>
>> And when that happens, all of a sudden you need to worry about
>> mountain waves, density altitude, valley winds, etc. Calculate
>> glide distance from 16K and tell me where & how you're going to
>> land.
>
> Well...if you know how far you can glide at 1000 ft you can multiply by
> sixteen. But that calculation would only give you the no-wind theoretical
> distance. It also something every pilot should know regardless of whether
> they are in the mountains or not.
>
> And, come on! Are you really going to pull out the ole' whiz wheel and
> think about "...density altitude, valley winds, etc." when you are
> dead-sticking it to a suitable landing site? Generally, you *might* have
> one place to land that is suitable and you can bet your gold-plated E6B
> you'll take it regardless of the "density altitude".
>
>>
>>>I have always considered mountain flying to be flying *in* the mountains
>>>and the things that concern a mountain pilot to be at or below the peaks.
>>>Is this incorrect?
>>
>>
>> yes.
>
> Really? And minus the engine out scenario, you think the guy cruising
> over the peaks at 16-19,000 ft is in need of *mountain flying* skills?
> That ain't *mountain flying* in my book...neither is it in
> Sparký's.(Which, I agree, is a great book!)
>
> Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.
>
> Antonio

Yes and well said. I have lived and flown in mountianous terrain for almost
as long as I have been flying. Like Peter R's proposed trip, I am mostly
flying "over the mountains" from one real airport to another. You don't
need "mountain flying'" instruction to do this kind of flying, you need some
common sense and weather awareness and you have to recognize your
limitations and the limitations of your equipment. If you are going to be
flying into backcountry airstrips in ID where you are actually flying "in
and amongst" the mountains you need more awareness and mountain flying
training can be benificial. If you are going to be landing on "one way"
strips or operating on skiis then training becomes a necessity.

Flying accidents in the mountains usually involve a lot of risk taking or
improper IFR procedures. It is not the mountains themselves that cause the
problem, they just provide the unforgiving terrain that makes the outcome
fatal. When pilots take off with high winds at ridge level, IMC or
thunderstorms in low performance aircraft they have no "outs". They can't
climb to smooth air, they can't control the airplane the turbulence and they
hit something. Some simply take off on a perfect day at a density altitude
beyond the airplane capibility and crash into the first trees off the end of
the runway. Many "mountain" accidents are caused by improper IFR
proceedure. There is an approach into Butte, MT that has a turn at the VOR.
A few miles away there is a mountain with several wrecked airplanes on it
that didn't make the turn. None of these things applies to Peter R's flight
from one paved airport to another in a turbocharged Bonanza flying in day
VMC unless he feels the need to operate over gross weight.

All the focus on landing in the mountains after and engine failure baffles
me. I know of exactly one meadow suitable for landing a high performance
single in the Sierra. A pilot with 2000hrs of flying time over the Sierra
flying charter at 12-14,000' (lower than I fly) says that there are, in
fact, two such meadows. Unless you are flying a Super Cub type airplane,
you can pretty much forget about walking away from an engine out "landing"
in the Sierra.

Mike
MU-2 for flying "over" the mountains
Helio Courier H295 for flying "in" the mountains.

[Mike Rapoport]

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-77BFC6.20093724042005@shawnews...
>> Wrong. You fly on the downwind side, also known as the updraft side.
>> If you lose your engine and you are in a downdraft just how smart is
>> that? You don't knowingly fly in downdrafts, unless of course you want
>> to go down.
>
> I guess we'll agree to differ.
> I live in the mountains.
> All of my flying is in the mountains.
> I did my mountain flying training with some of the best.
> I'll do it exactly the way I explained in my last post.
>
> And I will admit that what you are describing is the way that most 300
> hour flight instructors in the USA are taught to teach it. But I did my
> mountain flying training with two Alaska bush pilots who are two of the
> best. And they taught me consistently, never fly on the more favourable
> side - because you have nowhere to go if you need to turn. You should
> ALWAYS be able to turn into lift when flying canyons.
>
> That's fine. This group is all about difference of opinion and debate -
> that's how we learn. This time, we just happen to be on different sides
> of the question :)
>
> Tony
>
>
> Tony Roberts
> PP-ASEL
> VFR OTT
> Night
> Cessna 172H C-GICE

How did you determine that these two pilots are "two of the best"? There
are hundreds if not thousands of bush pilots in AK all of whom think that
they are among the best. The only ones who don't think this are certain
that they are "the" very best.

In the case you are describing, flying on the upwind side, you are vastly
more likely to fly into the other side of the canyon because you will be
turning downwind, increasing the turn radius dramatically. Sure, there are
situations where starting on the upwind side might be better but saying that
the upwind side is *always* better is nuts. In fact, nearly every bush
pilot and mountain flying instructor flys on the downwind side.

Mike
MU-2, ATP
Helio Courier, Student Pilot

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:
> Of course, there is the question of whether mountain wave can actually push
> you into the ground.

Wave won't push you into the ground, however, if you're approaching a
ridge from the downwind side and the wind's up, the 'curlover' on the
downwind side may well cause you to impact the ridge. This is why it's
advisable to approach ridges at a 45 deg. angle and with altitude to
spare so you can turn away if there's trouble.

Wave can be a factor way up above FL350 - gliders from Minden regularly
get up in the FL300+ range. Even our little 2000' mountain, Snaefell,
generates wave which reaches over 10,000 ft.

--
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"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Tango Whiskey wrote:
> read a good mountain flying book like Sparky Imerson's you'll be good to go

Sparky Imeson has a mountain flying website with lots of good stuff:

http://www.mountainflying.com/

--
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"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Stefan wrote:
> And before you ask: I've been flying mostly in mountains, too. Mostly in
> gliders, the rest in vastly underpowered planes (80 to 100 hp). Learn to
> use the weather instead of fighting it.

Agreed. When I was flying my woefully underpowered C140 in the
mountains, I made extensive use of ridge lift. But I'm also a glider
pilot.

--
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"

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>>> Is there an altitude above the ridge line at which the "mountain wave"
>>> effect isn't significant?

Can you please not screw up the quote attributions? You left my name on an
attribution from which you trimmed everything I wrote.

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Depending on the wind situation, you can expect downdrafts of 10 fpm or
> even more. No light single will outclimb this, even less at altitude.

You need to recalibrate your vertical speed reference. 10 fpm (or 20 fpm,
as you wrote elsewhere) is 10 feet per minute. That's nothing, and quite a
bit less than any actual up or down that one might find due to mountain wave
or similar effects.

I have no idea what you meant to write, but it's absolutely false that "no
light single will outclimb" 10 fpm downdraft.

Pete

[Mike Rapoport]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Chris W wrote:
>> mindenpilot wrote:
>>
>>> You can expect LARGE updrafts and downdrafts.
>>> It is important to know where they may occur in relation to the mountain
>>> ridge.
>>> Like I said, if you actually fly in it a couple times, it becomes a
>>> little more obvious.
>>>
>> Is there an altitude above the ridge line at which the "mountain wave"
>> effect isn't significant?
>
> Not for your plane. Airlines will reroute around these areas to avoid
> mountain wave.

But they do it because the wave system often gets turbulent up by the
tropopause where they are flying. In the mid altitudes the wave is smooth.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Chris W" > wrote in message
> news:gj%ae.640$zv1.481@lakeread07...
>> Is there an altitude above the ridge line at which the "mountain wave"
>> effect isn't significant?
>
> Probably would be pretty negligible at 23,000 miles. For example. :)
>
> Seriously though, yes...you can sometimes fly high enough to avoid the
> wave. But that depends on the height of the terrain, the strength of the
> wind, and of course the type of aircraft. There is no reliable way to
> know ahead of time how high you need to fly to avoid it.
>
> That said, there's being high enough to get all the way out of any
> noticeable effects of the wave, and then there's being high enough to
> avoid the wave forcing you too close to the terrain. The former may be
> impossible, depending on the situation. The latter is usually possible.
> I have rarely experienced altitude excursions of greater than 2000-3000
> feet as a result of mountain wave, so that's a pretty reliable margin for
> crossing ridges.
>
> Of course, there is the question of whether mountain wave can actually
> push you into the ground. I've never actually heard of that happening,
> and for it to do so, the part of the air mass you're flying in would have
> to hit the ground as well. That happens in microbursts, or under virga,
> for example, but you'd have to be pretty darn close to the ground in the
> first place for a mountain wave to push you into it.
>
> From a practical perspective, a couple of things to consider: higher up
> may provide less turbulence (though, don't try to fly through a rotor
> cloud). Also, if you want to most efficiently use the mountain wave to
> your advantage, pitch up and slow down while it's making you go up, and
> pitch down and speed up while it's making you go down. This will increase
> the magnitude of your altitude changes, but you'll be spending less time
> during the "bad" down areas and more time during the "good" up areas.
> Fighting the mountain wave is just that: fighting. And no one wins a
> fight with Mother Nature.
>
> Of course, in practice you may have upper and lower limits to acceptable
> altitudes, and those need to be taken into account. But inasmuch as you
> can allow your altitude to vary with the wave, let it.
>
> Pete
>

Mountain wave systems extend to and often into the stratosphere so it is
unlikely that you can fly above them unless you have a new airplane that we
haven't been told about :-).

Mike
MU-2

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Depending on the wind situation, you can expect downdrafts of 10 fpm or
>>even more. No light single will outclimb this, even less at altitude.
>
>
> You need to recalibrate your vertical speed reference. 10 fpm (or 20 fpm,
> as you wrote elsewhere) is 10 feet per minute. That's nothing, and quite a
> bit less than any actual up or down that one might find due to mountain wave
> or similar effects.
>
> I have no idea what you meant to write, but it's absolutely false that "no
> light single will outclimb" 10 fpm downdraft.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> 10 feet per minute.
....
> I have no idea what you meant to write,

I've meant 1000 to 2000 fpm.

Stefan

[Toño]

Morgans wrote:
> "Toño" > wrote
>
>
>>Not according to Sparky Imeson....
>>
>>"...the rotor cloud will be downwind from the mountain range and extend
>>anywhere from the earth's surface to up to mountain-top level".
>>
>>--p.63 of "Mountain Flying" by Sparky Imeson
>>Antonio
>
>
> There is some disagreement with this, and here is a clip:
> Normally the rotor clouds is centered beneath the lenticular cloud. Most
> often it extends anywhere from ground level to mountaintop level, but is
> frequently observed up to 35,000 feet. Destructive turbulence from the rotor
> rarely exists more than 2,000-3,000 feet above mountaintop level.

Well? Your last sentence says it..."Destructive turbulence from the
rotor rarely exists more than 2,000-3,000 feet above mountaintop level."
I see no "disagreement" about it.


> My point is, just because you clear the ridge, there are still dangers that
> can ruin your day,<snip>

I agree and never stated otherwise.

However, the OP was wondering whether he should take a "mountain flying"
course in order to make a cross-country trip at altitudes of 16-19,000
ft. My contention was that this was not *mountain flying* per se and
that he was wasting his time thinking that a mountain flying course
would in any way prepare him for the trip.

The topic is not "are there dangers at high altitudes" as some here seem
to be trying to make it; it is: "would one benefit by a mountain flying
course if one were flying at high altitudes?" At least, that's how I
read it.

Thanks for the great link!

Antonio

[Toño]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> In article >, Tango Whiskey wrote:
>
>>read a good mountain flying book like Sparky Imerson's you'll be good to go
>
>
> Sparky Imeson has a mountain flying website with lots of good stuff:
>
> http://www.mountainflying.com/
>

Yes! and here is the link to his free download on cross-country planning....

http://www.mountainflying.com/xcguide.htm

[Casey Wilson]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>

> There is some disagreement with this, and here is a clip:
> Normally the rotor clouds is centered beneath the lenticular cloud. Most
> often it extends anywhere from ground level to mountaintop level, but is
> frequently observed up to 35,000 feet. Destructive turbulence from the
> rotor
> rarely exists more than 2,000-3,000 feet above mountaintop level.
>
> http://www.mountainflying.com/mountain_wave2.htm
>
> My point is, just because you clear the ridge, there are still dangers
> that
> can ruin your day, if the winds are right. Further down in the article,
> this author talks about rotors that do not have a visible cloud.
>
> If the wind is blowing strong, close to perpendicular to the ridge, best
> wait until early the next day, and see if the winds are calmed down.
>
> Hey, I just read, and remember. I have no idea if what everyone says is
> true. I would rather be safe, than sorry. YMMV
> --
> Jim in NC

Hmmmm, I've been through the rotor a few times -- while yanking and
banking on the end of a 200' length of towrope behind a tow-plane. The first
time is the worst. After that you remember to breathe and you don't suck
quite as hard on the seat cushion.
When you're headed for the primary wave developed on the east slope of
the Sierra, the rotor is unavoidable. Some folks, with more skill than I
possess, ride thermals up into the secondary wave and, when high enough
slide over to the primary.
I guess I never thought of the rotor as destructive. Maybe I shouldn't
do that again.

[Newps]

Stefan wrote:

> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> 10 feet per minute.
>
> ...
>
>> I have no idea what you meant to write,
>
>
> I've meant 1000 to 2000 fpm.

Still isn't fatal.

[Stefan]

Newps wrote:

>> I've meant 1000 to 2000 fpm.

> Still isn't fatal.

Nobody talked about fatal. You just can't outclimb this at altitude with
a light, non turbo charged single. So it may indeed become fatal, and
has so on a regular basis, for those who don't know how to behave in the
mountains.

Stefan

[Morgans]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net...
> Rotors do not extend much above the ridgetops. The waves themselves are
> smooth until reaching the tropopause except the extreme case of breaking
> waves.

Before Mike, Jim in NC wrote:

The waves extend way up past the peaks, and so do rotors.

I guess it depends on your definition of "way past". As per my other quoted
post, about destructive part of the rotor going to 2 thousand over the
ridge, I think that is way over. Plus, I want to be well above where the
rotor is still destructive, like another couple thousand. That is really
way past to me. YMMV

I just want people to know that if they are thinking of going over a pass
with only a couple thousand to spare, if the wind is blowing just right,
they could be in big trouble, whether they see it or not. Right?
--
Jim in NC

[Blanche]

Toño > wrote:
>Blanche wrote:
>>
>> And what happens if the engine conks out? Where do you land? How do
>> you land?
>
>Maybe he should also take glider lessons, mountain survival,
>parachuting, and aerobatics prior to the flight. I mean, those
>disciplines have just as much relevance if not more should a forced
>landing be immanent.

My response addressed your comment about "flying in the mountains".
And yes, if you're going to fly "in the mountains" in a single (unless,
of course, that single engine is attached to an F16) you really should
have some knowledge of mountain survival.

>How does a knowledge of mountain flying help you to land with and engine
>out? And how would that differ from any other no-engine landing?

OK, you're at 16K over the I-70 in Colorado west of Denver. Let's
say somewhere between Georgetown and Silverton. What are you going
to do? (And following I-70 between Denver and Glenwood Springs is
the absolute worst action you can take). If you've only read Sparky's
book it's not going to help much.

>About the only thing I could think of would be to try to estimate winds
>and direction based on terrain features. Read Sparky's book and you have
>some theory to work off of but, really....do you think that this would
>sufficiently arm you for an encounter with the winds in the mountains?
>If you do then you have never flown *in* the mountains!

Please remember, I'm the one who said reading Sparky's book and
nothing else is not a good idea. Flying in the mountains...hm...
Half the time I'm in the air, I'm very close to mountains. Personally,
I prefer NOT to be "in the mountains". Above, between, sure.

>As far as *where* you land...you land wherever you can; as in
>non-mountainous terrain.

Again I respond -- if all you've ever done is read the book you're
not prepared.

>> And when that happens, all of a sudden you need to worry about
>> mountain waves, density altitude, valley winds, etc. Calculate
>> glide distance from 16K and tell me where & how you're going to
>> land.
>
>Well...if you know how far you can glide at 1000 ft you can multiply by
>sixteen. But that calculation would only give you the no-wind
>theoretical distance. It also something every pilot should know
>regardless of whether they are in the mountains or not.
>
>And, come on! Are you really going to pull out the ole' whiz wheel and
>think about "...density altitude, valley winds, etc." when you are
>dead-sticking it to a suitable landing site? Generally, you *might*
>have one place to land that is suitable and you can bet your gold-plated
>E6B you'll take it regardless of the "density altitude".

I don't own a "whiz wheel". Well, I do. I just don't know where it
is these days. But you point out that "you *might* have one place to
land that is suitable"...better yet, you may not have *any* place
to land but you still need to get down.

But as the OP stated, his flight plan was over mostly flat land. In
fact, pretty much follows I-40 to I-25 (watch out for the MOA south of
Pueblo -- I-25 goes right thru it) which is very practical.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iqbbe.6406$Nc.4745@trnddc08...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>> There is some disagreement with this, and here is a clip:
>> Normally the rotor clouds is centered beneath the lenticular cloud. Most
>> often it extends anywhere from ground level to mountaintop level, but is
>> frequently observed up to 35,000 feet. Destructive turbulence from the
>> rotor
>> rarely exists more than 2,000-3,000 feet above mountaintop level.
>>
>> http://www.mountainflying.com/mountain_wave2.htm
>>
>> My point is, just because you clear the ridge, there are still dangers
>> that
>> can ruin your day, if the winds are right. Further down in the article,
>> this author talks about rotors that do not have a visible cloud.
>>
>> If the wind is blowing strong, close to perpendicular to the ridge, best
>> wait until early the next day, and see if the winds are calmed down.
>>
>> Hey, I just read, and remember. I have no idea if what everyone says is
>> true. I would rather be safe, than sorry. YMMV
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Hmmmm, I've been through the rotor a few times -- while yanking and
> banking on the end of a 200' length of towrope behind a tow-plane. The
> first time is the worst. After that you remember to breathe and you don't
> suck quite as hard on the seat cushion.
> When you're headed for the primary wave developed on the east slope of
> the Sierra, the rotor is unavoidable. Some folks, with more skill than I
> possess, ride thermals up into the secondary wave and, when high enough
> slide over to the primary.
> I guess I never thought of the rotor as destructive. Maybe I shouldn't
> do that again.

It can be fatal but that is an extreme case with winds at ridgetop level
over 100kts. There is a chapter in Exploring the Monster describing a
flight into a rotor by Mt. Tom which is slightly north of Bishop where the
glider broke up and the pilots were subject to +16G and -20G. I have
actually "heard" rotors hissing and roaring near Genoa, NV with winds over
100kts at ridge level but calm in the valley because of a strong inversion
so it happens but only in extreme weather. It was a textbook day for a
record attempt but nobody flew out of Minden that day. In any case, gliders
are much better suited to thiese conditions than GA airplanes.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net...
>> Rotors do not extend much above the ridgetops. The waves themselves are
>> smooth until reaching the tropopause except the extreme case of breaking
>> waves.
>
> Before Mike, Jim in NC wrote:
>
> The waves extend way up past the peaks, and so do rotors.
>
> I guess it depends on your definition of "way past". As per my other
> quoted
> post, about destructive part of the rotor going to 2 thousand over the
> ridge, I think that is way over. Plus, I want to be well above where the
> rotor is still destructive, like another couple thousand. That is really
> way past to me. YMMV
>
> I just want people to know that if they are thinking of going over a pass
> with only a couple thousand to spare, if the wind is blowing just right,
> they could be in big trouble, whether they see it or not. Right?
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
Rotors can't extend much past ridgetop level because they are formed from
the low pressure produced on the downwind side of the ridge. My
observations from living and flying in one of the best places to see and
observe mountain wave systems is that the rotor seldom extends above the
ridge more than a few hundred feet. There are a lot of pilots who attribute
any turbulence in the mountains to "rotors" but a rotor is a specific
condition where there is closed circulation, looking very much like the
Bonzai Pipeline in Hawaii rolling over but not moving forward. At Minden,
virtually nobody flys when there is enough wind to produce a wave system
with a rotor. Only the bravest towplane and glider pilots walk the tarmac
on those days....

When there is a *real* rotor, the towplane and the glider sometimes find
themselves facing each other head on!

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iqbbe.6406$Nc.4745@trnddc08...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>> There is some disagreement with this, and here is a clip:
>> Normally the rotor clouds is centered beneath the lenticular cloud. Most
>> often it extends anywhere from ground level to mountaintop level, but is
>> frequently observed up to 35,000 feet. Destructive turbulence from the
>> rotor
>> rarely exists more than 2,000-3,000 feet above mountaintop level.
>>
>> http://www.mountainflying.com/mountain_wave2.htm
>>
>> My point is, just because you clear the ridge, there are still dangers
>> that
>> can ruin your day, if the winds are right. Further down in the article,
>> this author talks about rotors that do not have a visible cloud.
>>
>> If the wind is blowing strong, close to perpendicular to the ridge, best
>> wait until early the next day, and see if the winds are calmed down.
>>
>> Hey, I just read, and remember. I have no idea if what everyone says is
>> true. I would rather be safe, than sorry. YMMV
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Hmmmm, I've been through the rotor a few times -- while yanking and
> banking on the end of a 200' length of towrope behind a tow-plane. The
> first time is the worst. After that you remember to breathe and you don't
> suck quite as hard on the seat cushion.
> When you're headed for the primary wave developed on the east slope of
> the Sierra, the rotor is unavoidable. Some folks, with more skill than I
> possess, ride thermals up into the secondary wave and, when high enough
> slide over to the primary.
> I guess I never thought of the rotor as destructive. Maybe I shouldn't
> do that again.


If you are talking about flying at Minden, you can often get into the
primary wave without going throught the rotor by flying west. You will be
in low level turbulence but it won't be too bad. When you are so close to
the mountains that you say: "no way I'm going any closer" and start to turn
away (about a mile) you will often start to pick up lift at 5500-6000' stay
close to the mountains and you can get over the rotor by keeping west of it.
This only works when the wind is really screaming, (80kts+ at the ridges)
and the rotor cloud is almost over the airport. I once climbed to FL290 in
the MU-2 in perhaps four minutes. The IVSI goes to 6000fpm and it was
pegged the whole time. It is also worth knowing that both instrument
approaches and the instrument departure proceedure go through the rotor when
wave conditions are strong.

Mike
MU-2

[Toño]

Blanche wrote:
> Toño > wrote:
>
>>Blanche wrote:

>
> My response addressed your comment about "flying in the mountains".
> And yes, if you're going to fly "in the mountains" in a single (unless,
> of course, that single engine is attached to an F16) you really should
> have some knowledge of mountain survival.

And here we are in agreement that *if* you are indeed *in* the
mountains, then some training would be well advised. However, if you are
10,000ft above the nearest peak with a good engine (or in a glider..;-)
) then of what possible use could mountain flying knowledge be?


>>How does a knowledge of mountain flying help you to land with and engine
>>out? And how would that differ from any other no-engine landing?
>
>
> OK, you're at 16K over the I-70 in Colorado west of Denver. Let's
> say somewhere between Georgetown and Silverton. What are you going
> to do? (And following I-70 between Denver and Glenwood Springs is
> the absolute worst action you can take). If you've only read Sparky's
> book it's not going to help much.

The question of the OP had to do with being over the mountains, not in
them. He specifically stated a "turbo-normalized Bonanza with on-board
O2" ...."at altitudes in the mid-to-upper teens". He wondered if
*mountain flying training* would be of assistance to him.

However, I wondered: Where is the mountain flying? My contention was
that he did not need training specific to mountain flying because he was
not going to be in the mountains.

Admitedly, in a "what-if" scenario, he might possibly end up in a glide
toward some valley in the mountains. He might possibly be able to pick a
better landing site ( if indeed he has an option ) if had been "mountain
flying trained". But this was such a strecth and departure from all
that I know of genuine bush-pilot, down in the peaks mountain flying
necessities that I felt he might be wasting his time (on this particular
flight) in seeking that *specific* type of education.


> Please remember, I'm the one who said reading Sparky's book and
> nothing else is not a good idea. Flying in the mountains...hm...
> Half the time I'm in the air, I'm very close to mountains. Personally,
> I prefer NOT to be "in the mountains". Above, between, sure.
>

Noted. I overlooked that. But I lean toward loving being in the
mountains. Sure there are risks but, ahhhhh, the rewards are great!!

>>As far as *where* you land...you land wherever you can; as in
>>non-mountainous terrain.
>
>
> Again I respond -- if all you've ever done is read the book you're
> not prepared.

However off the OP's topic it is, I would enjoy hearing responses on:
How do you prepare to land Bonanza in the mountains? ( I ask that
sincerely wishing to know and not just to be rhetorical.)

>
> I don't own a "whiz wheel". Well, I do. I just don't know where it
> is these days.

Ha! (That made me laugh!)

I love these type discussions--the one's where people are actually civil
to each other and seek sincerely to understand more. It really makes
the experience here so very valuable.

Antonio

[[email protected]]

Tango Whiskey wrote:
> > would it still be advisable for me to
> > seek out some mountain flying instruction?
>
> To answer your question directly, I think based on what you have
described
> that if you take time to flight plan rigorously, try to stay day VFR,
and
> read a good mountain flying book like Sparky Imerson's you'll be good
to go
> without specific mountain flying instruction. That said, getting
some extra
> instructional time in new conditions is always a good thing, but I
think in
> your case not strictly required if you study up.
>
Hi Peter,
You can save some money by going to my web site for information on
mountain flying instead of buying the book. By the way, there is a new
Mountain Flying Bible Revised (with 16 pages of color photos operating
at backcountry strips) coming out in 3 days. Try
http://www.mountainflying.com
Blue skies and tail winds,
Sparky

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:
> tony roberts wrote:
>
>
> >
> > You don't fly down the middle, because that may not leave you
enough
> > space to do a 180 either way
>
> Right.
>
>
> > You don't fly on the updraft side - even though that initially
seems the
> > safest - because if things change and you need to do a 180, you now
have
> > to turn into the downdraft - which you may not be able to recover
from.
>
> Wrong. You fly on the downwind side, also known as the updraft side.

> If you lose your engine and you are in a downdraft just how smart is
> that? You don't knowingly fly in downdrafts, unless of course you
want
> to go down.
>
>
> >
> > So you fly in the downdraft side. If you can handle that you will
get
> > through. If things get worse, at least your 180 will be into a nice
safe
> > updraft.
>
> If things get worse you may be plastered on the mountain before you
can
> turn around.

I guess I would prefer to fly the updraft side of a canyon, unless it
is a narrow canyon (a narrow canyon is one where the radius of turn
exceeds half the canyon width). Take advantage of the lift.

The radius of turn varies as the square of the true airspeed. Even at
80 knots TAS and limiting yourself to a 35-degree bank, you only
require 811.7 feet for the radius of turn.

[Blanche]

Toño > wrote:
[snip]
>I love these type discussions--the one's where people are actually civil
>to each other and seek sincerely to understand more. It really makes
>the experience here so very valuable.
>
>Antonio

Personally, I consider anyone who cannot discuss another's parentage,
heritage and destination without resorting to invectives and/or
4-letters words to have a very poor command of the english language
and not worth the effort to bring out the flame-thrower...

(*chortle*)

[Toño]

Blanche wrote:

> Personally, I consider anyone who cannot discuss another's parentage,
> heritage and destination without resorting to invectives and/or
> 4-letters words to have a very poor command of the english language
> and not worth the effort to bring out the flame-thrower...
>
> (*chortle*)


Ha! In that case....Thank for honoring me with your earlier flame! ;-)

Antonio

[Blanche]

Toño > wrote:
>Blanche wrote:
>
>> Personally, I consider anyone who cannot discuss another's parentage,
>> heritage and destination without resorting to invectives and/or
>> 4-letters words to have a very poor command of the english language
>> and not worth the effort to bring out the flame-thrower...
>>
>> (*chortle*)
>
>
>Ha! In that case....Thank for honoring me with your earlier flame! ;-)
>
>Antonio

But Antonio -- you never got any more hostile than a "bah humbug".

[[email protected]]

Peter R. > wrote:
> > wrote:

> > Hello! I've returned from Sun-N-Fun... I'm tanned, rested and ready to fly!
> > Mountain flying and FUN available... 50 miles north of Denver at 3V5...
> > then you can save time/money by flying in the mountains instead
> > of around! Give me a call/email!

> How long is your mountain flying class? I expect to only be in the area
> for a few days.

I can do a one-day one-on-one, with 7 hours of mountain flying, ridge
crossing, mountain wave surfing, lift and sink identification and
FUN... in one day. :-) It does not make one a "mountain pilot", but
will give you a good feel about how to navigate, routes to take, which
side of the canyon to fly on and how to select altitudes and emergency
landing sites.


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, 227 Young Eagles!

[Mark Kolber]

On 26 Apr 2005 07:55:04 -0700, wrote:

>You can save some money by going to my web site

Sparky! You in a usenet forum! Can you handle it?

Best regards,

Mark

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

[Mark Kolber]

On 26 Apr 2005 00:57:02 GMT, Blanche > wrote:



Long tiome. How the heck are you?

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> I can do a one-day one-on-one, with 7 hours of mountain flying, ridge
> crossing, mountain wave surfing, lift and sink identification and
> FUN... in one day. :-) It does not make one a "mountain pilot", but
> will give you a good feel about how to navigate, routes to take, which
> side of the canyon to fly on and how to select altitudes and emergency
> landing sites.

Wow, this sounds very valuable and certainly would be much more knowledge
than I currently have about the subject. I will definitely look at my
schedule for my time in Denver to see if I can fit it in. Thanks.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> You can save some money by going to my web site for information on
> mountain flying instead of buying the book. By the way, there is a new
> Mountain Flying Bible Revised (with 16 pages of color photos operating
> at backcountry strips) coming out in 3 days. Try
> http://www.mountainflying.com

Excellent. I have bookmarked the site and will be doing a lot of reading
this weekend. Thanks!

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

Antionio,
Sorry to throw you off, but the "Mountain Flying" book was written
35-years ago. I've learned something in that time and have observed
rotors along the Front Range between 25,000- and 30,000-feet MSL.
Usually the destructive turbulence associated with the rotor does not
extend more than a 1,000 feet or so above the ridge line.
Sparky

[Toño]

wrote:
> Antionio,
> Sorry to throw you off, but the "Mountain Flying" book was written
> 35-years ago. I've learned something in that time and have observed
> rotors along the Front Range between 25,000- and 30,000-feet MSL.
> Usually the destructive turbulence associated with the rotor does not
> extend more than a 1,000 feet or so above the ridge line.
> Sparky
>
Thanks for the update, Sparky!

What you say does not actually throw me off at all. I realize that
there can be turbulence of all sorts at high altitudes in any
direction-- including circular ( as beneath a wave or as a result of the
jet stream) . But, in your expert opinion, does the bona-fide rotor
cloud with the characteristic "sawblade" appearance ever show it's ugly
face at high altitude?

Thanks,

Antonio

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> You can save some money by going to my web site for information on
> mountain flying instead of buying the book. By the way, there is a new
> Mountain Flying Bible Revised (with 16 pages of color photos operating
> at backcountry strips) coming out in 3 days. Try
> http://www.mountainflying.com
> Blue skies and tail winds,

As coincidence would have it, the aviation safety seminar in Ithaca, NY
(central NY State) I attended this past Saturday titled "Mountain Flying"
featured none other than this mountain flying expert, Sparky Imeson.

A very education and enjoyable seminar with lots of scenic aviation photos
and this is one incredibly experienced pilot. He just needs a more
reliable laptop to run his MS Powerpoint slideshow. :-)

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----