Mountain Flying Course?

Nicholas Kliewer wrote:

I live in Dallas, TX and don't get out of the flat lands much.
This Fall, I am planning a trip to Oregon in a C172 and figure
that I could use some mountain flying training.

A mountain flying school like those recommended here are invaluable.
Having said that, a 172 has its limits, far more so than a 182. But,
you can safely fly a 172 from Dallas to Oregon in the summer provided
you select airports that are not too high and have fairly long runways.

You also want to avoid terrain that requires flying much above 8,500
west bound and 9,500 east bound. With a little planning, that's easy
too. Since you're going to COS, you best stay on the east side of the
Rockies until you can go through the lower, less mountainous parts of
Wyoming.

Also, takeoffs in the early morning at any airport above 3,000 feet,
MSL, is like money in the bank.

wrote:

Nicholas Kliewer wrote:

I live in Dallas, TX and don't get out of the flat lands much.
This Fall, I am planning a trip to Oregon in a C172 and figure
that I could use some mountain flying training.

A mountain flying school like those recommended here are invaluable.
Having said that, a 172 has its limits, far more so than a 182. But,
you can safely fly a 172 from Dallas to Oregon in the summer provided
you select airports that are not too high and have fairly long runways.

You also want to avoid terrain that requires flying much above 8,500
west bound and 9,500 east bound. With a little planning, that's easy
too. Since you're going to COS, you best stay on the east side of the
Rockies until you can go through the lower, less mountainous parts of
Wyoming.

Also, takeoffs in the early morning at any airport above 3,000 feet,
MSL, is like money in the bank.

Hi Frank, thanks for the tips. Yes, I am planning on the
Phoenix - Bakersfield route going West and then the
Boise - Rock Springs - Cheyenne route going East.

Would you suggest that I take the mountain flying course
somewhere else? I was wondering about doing it at Salt Lake
City or Logan, UT since that's a little closer to the area
that I'll be concerned about.

My plan is to fly over the 9,000 terrain at 11,500. That
should give me a pretty good margin.

I plan on taking the trip in September (late enough to be
cooler but early enough not to have to worry about winter WX).
Does anyone recommend a different time of year?

I'd be interested in corresponding with you. Can you shoot
me an email?

Does anyone know of any other pilots that have done this type
of trip in a C172?

Thanks!
-Nick

"Nicholas Kliewer" wrote...

I live in Dallas, TX and don't get out of the flat lands much.
This Fall, I am planning a trip to Oregon in a C172 and figure
that I could use some mountain flying training.

Take a look at the WA State DOT Aviation Division at
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Aviation/. They coordinate the Search & Rescue
training courses, and I believe mountain flying is part of it. E-mail them
if a current course is not listed.

You might have to register as a "WA Pilot" to get their services, but the
$15 should be worth it...

"Nicholas Kliewer" wrote in message =
...
=20
=20
Does anyone know of any other pilots that have done this type=20
of trip in a C172? =20
=20
Thanks! =20
-Nick

I once took a 172 with one passenger from Las Vegas to John Wayne,
and we picked up enough ice in climb that we were unable to reach 12000.
So ATC let us go WAFDOF at 11000, which was still above MEA.
The mountain waves were very interesting that day!

If your 172 will be loaded heavily, you will see very poor climb rates
at those high altitudes.
Be experienced in leaning for maximum engine power in climb,
or else you may not make it.
---JRC---

Rule of thumb for mountain flying is to be *at least* 10% under
the max weight. For my cherokee (that tops out at 2400) that
means absolutely no more than 2160. As a rule, during the summer
I try to keep it under 2100 (thank you, density altitude)

(Blanche Cohen) wrote in message ...
Rule of thumb for mountain flying is to be *at least* 10% under
the max weight. For my cherokee (that tops out at 2400) that
means absolutely no more than 2160. As a rule, during the summer
I try to keep it under 2100 (thank you, density altitude)

No one will fault you for keeping 10% under gross, but I don't think
that is really necessary. Most runways in the mountains are plenty
long for a 172 or cherokee. If you look up the performance data and
add 20% for pilot and aircraft performance, there will not be many
runways that are shorter. After all, if a runway is too small for a
172, how many other aircraft can really use that runway?

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Rule of thumb for mountain flying is to be *at least* 10% under
the max weight. For my cherokee (that tops out at 2400) that
means absolutely no more than 2160. As a rule, during the summer
I try to keep it under 2100 (thank you, density altitude)

No one will fault you for keeping 10% under gross, but I don't think
that is really necessary. Most runways in the mountains are plenty
long for a 172 or cherokee. If you look up the performance data and
add 20% for pilot and aircraft performance, there will not be many
runways that are shorter. After all, if a runway is too small for a
172, how many other aircraft can really use that runway?

I'm guessing that it's not the runway that's Blanche's limiting factor. I
do not fly in the mountains, but I often do fly my Warrior II up around
10,000 ft to get above the weather and the turbulence, not to mention some
of the bozos flying pretty-much randomly down at the lower altitudes.

Once I get above 6,000 ft or so and am loaded close to my maximum gross
weight, especially on a warm afternoon with lots of thermal activity, my
Warrior's climb becomes unpredictable. On *average*, I still get the climb
rate published in the POH, but sometimes a downdraft will overwhelm me for a
few seconds or even a few minutes, and I am unable to climb or even to
maintain altitude; other times, I'll shoot up like a rocket when I hit an
updraft.

That kind of unpredictability does me no harm when the closest obstacle is
many thousands of feet below me, but I can see how it would be lot scarier
crossing mountain ridges, especially with the stronger downdrafts from
mountain waves, etc. Flying a bit under gross, at least in a
normally-aspirated 160 hp or 180 hp plane, should give you much more of a
fighting chance in a downdraft at high altitude.


All the best,


David

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
om...
(Blanche Cohen) wrote in message
...
Rule of thumb for mountain flying is to be *at least* 10% under
the max weight. For my cherokee (that tops out at 2400) that
means absolutely no more than 2160. As a rule, during the summer
I try to keep it under 2100 (thank you, density altitude)

No one will fault you for keeping 10% under gross, but I don't think
that is really necessary. Most runways in the mountains are plenty
long for a 172 or cherokee. If you look up the performance data and
add 20% for pilot and aircraft performance, there will not be many
runways that are shorter. After all, if a runway is too small for a
172, how many other aircraft can really use that runway?

We're not talking about unobstructed runways but those that are carved out
of the trees. If you only have a 172 or cherokee you need to be at least 10%
under gross. You may get it off the ground but if you can't be guaranteed
500 fpm climb you have no business trying a takeoff until it gets cooler or
you get lighter.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
(Blanche Cohen) wrote in message ...
Rule of thumb for mountain flying is to be *at least* 10% under
the max weight. For my cherokee (that tops out at 2400) that
means absolutely no more than 2160. As a rule, during the summer
I try to keep it under 2100 (thank you, density altitude)

No one will fault you for keeping 10% under gross, but I don't think
that is really necessary. Most runways in the mountains are plenty
long for a 172 or cherokee. If you look up the performance data and
add 20% for pilot and aircraft performance, there will not be many
runways that are shorter. After all, if a runway is too small for a
172, how many other aircraft can really use that runway?

I stand with Blanche on this one... it is NOT a runway length issue.
As you state, the mountain runways are long enough. The reason for
operating 10% under max gross weight is performance. In the mountains
the critical issue is climb performance. The difference between 50 FPM
and 200 FPM will allow a great reduction in pucker factor. :-)

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, 197 Young Eagles!

In article , wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
[snip]
No one will fault you for keeping 10% under gross, but I don't think
that is really necessary. Most runways in the mountains are plenty
long for a 172 or cherokee. If you look up the performance data and
add 20% for pilot and aircraft performance, there will not be many
runways that are shorter. After all, if a runway is too small for a
172, how many other aircraft can really use that runway?

I stand with Blanche on this one... it is NOT a runway length issue.
As you state, the mountain runways are long enough. The reason for
operating 10% under max gross weight is performance. In the mountains
the critical issue is climb performance. The difference between 50 FPM
and 200 FPM will allow a great reduction in pucker factor. :-)

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

Of course what Jer/ doesn't mention is that I learned it from
him during the mountain flying course!

See? I *was* paying attention!