CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane?

Hi Dan

On Thu, 17 May 2007 15:23:03 -0700, Dan Youngquist wrote:

but I fly to Missoula occasionally.

What altitudes do you typically fly at?

Don't know how much mountain flying you've done, but whatever you get,
make sure you know a little about it before you make the trip,

Good point, and already on my "to-do" list. I don't have any mountain
experience. I understand there is an operation out of Calgary that offers
training.

Thank you for your response!

Steve

On Fri, 18 May 2007, scronje wrote:
but I fly to Missoula occasionally.

What altitudes do you typically fly at?

Sorry for the slow response, have been pretty busy lately.

Along that route, usually 10,500 - 11,500. It's not necessary to go that
high -- the pass is 5235 -- but that puts you above all the terrain near
the route, and way above most of it. Over that sort of terrain, I like to
go as high as practical to maximize options in case of a problem.
Actually, once you get up there, you see that there are a lot more options
for an emergency landing than one might imagine. That is, the airplane
may not go anywhere under its own power again, but you'd have a good
chance of walking out.

Good point, and already on my "to-do" list. I don't have any mountain
experience. I understand there is an operation out of Calgary that
offers training.

When you're a mile above the mountains, of course it's not really mountain
flying. But, you still have to get in/out of airports along the way, and
you need to be prepared for an emergency. I would say, don't be afraid to
make the trip without formal mountain flying training; but read up on it
first, and err on the side of caution when choosing your routes, planning
fuel stops, and making weather decisions, taking into account your skill,
knowledge, and comfort level.

AOPA has some reading material on their website:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/safety_topic...=TP12#mountain

-Dan

Dan Youngquist wrote:


Along that route, usually 10,500 - 11,500. It's not necessary to go
that high -- the pass is 5235 -- but that puts you above all the terrain
near the route, and way above most of it.


Well what fun is that? Your missing out on a lot of terriffic scenery.
Sail over the pass at 6000 or 6500 assuming the wind allows.


Over that sort of terrain, I
like to go as high as practical to maximize options in case of a
problem. Actually, once you get up there, you see that there are a lot
more options for an emergency landing than one might imagine. That is,
the airplane may not go anywhere under its own power again, but you'd
have a good chance of walking out.

There's a lot more flat areas there than the chart would have you believe.

On Wed, 23 May 2007, Newps wrote:

Well what fun is that? Your missing out on a lot of terriffic scenery.
Sail over the pass at 6000 or 6500 assuming the wind allows.

True... but over the terrain in question, at that altitude, your ONLY
emergency landing options are the highway and its immediate surroundings,
which in that area are NOT good options. Anyone who's driven that stretch
of Hwy.12 knows what I'm talking about; west of the pass it's 80 miles of
twisting & turning with hardly a straight stretch long enough to think
about passing in a car, much less landing an airplane. (East of the pass
it's much straighter & flatter.) Being up a ways over the surrounding
terrain drastically improves your choices, and hence your chance of
surviving an emergency landing. Less scenic, but safer. Besides, I see
terrific scenery every time I look out the window. As I type this, I'm
looking at mountains 70 miles away. And every time I fly, usually the
first thing I do is climb out of a narrow 2000 ft. deep valley.

There's a lot more flat areas there than the chart would have you
believe.

Well, "flat" isn't generally the first word that springs to mind when I'm
flying over it. I'd go with something closer to, some spots that are bare
enough, and close enough to level, and long enough, to have a pretty good
chance of getting an airplane on the ground without killing yourself.
But, there are lots of mountains where even that's not true.

A couple years ago a guy went down about 25 miles SE of here because of a
mechanical problem, while flying IFR from Jackson Hole to Lewiston. By
the time he broke out of the cloud layer he didn't have a whole lot of
good choices of landing spot. Destroyed the airplane and messed him up
pretty bad, so moving very far was out of the question. The plane flipped
over and broke off the ELT antenna. The weather was really nasty that
week so they couldn't get search planes up. Took them 2 days to find him,
and even then it was just pure luck -- friend of mine driving on a logging
road where the sheriff didn't think they should even be looking. Radar
coverage stops at around 9000 there, I believe, so they didn't really know
where he was. There's a lot of really remote, rugged country around here,
and the terrain & vegetation are such that without a working ELT, it would
be really easy for an airplane to disappear without a trace even if they
knew you were inside a few square mile area. Best argument I know for
having a handheld radio (with good batteries), and preferably a PLB as
well. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...16X00620&key=1

I tried to get flight following on the way home from Missoula once.
Didn't get it because, at 12,500, I was below radar most of the way.

All that to say, in mountains, it pays to be a bit cautious when making
decisions of route, altitude, weather, etc.

-Dan

On May 15, 2:52 pm, scronje wrote:
Hi Folks

I am a relatively low hour PP-ASEL(about 90 PIC, half in C-177 / 152, the
rest in Challenger AUL and gliders, total time, including dual = 160
---snip-------
Crossing those rocks would seem to exclude a C-172 and its friends. It
would seem that something of the order of a C-182 or Piper Cherokee 235
would fit the bill. Does anyone here have experience of flying this kind
of trip in, say a C-177, or PA Cherokee 180?

-----Snip-----


I would look at a 180hp/CS converted 172 or even better a converted
175...
A converted 175 has the advantage of bigger fuel tanks.
fuel burn around 8.5~9 gph, lower insurance cost, lower maintence cost
wih 2 less jugs,
The 175's still have a stigma so the prices tend to be lower then a
172, however once it's converted it's the same airframe with bigger
fuel tanks.

Hi Pat

On Sun, 20 May 2007 10:36:52 -0700, Pat wrote:

The 175's still have a stigma so the prices tend to be lower then a
172, however once it's converted it's the same airframe with bigger
fuel tanks.

When I look at Trade-A-Plane, there are "only" 12 175's available. (I
guess that's not too surprising, as 2100 odd were ever built).

Is the airframe interchangeable with the 172? The last year of production
for the 175 was 1962, so parts would probably be important from time to
time.

Seems like the 175 was really an early HawkXP that did poorly because of
the gearing issue and reduced engine life, so your suggestion makes a lot
of sense.

Steve