If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... It also matters what type of trees you try that mushing in. Please read "How to Crash an Airplane and Survive" by Mick Wilson, formerly FAA DEN FSDO Safety Program Manager. He tells us we want to fly just above stall speed, in landing configuration. Please do not attempt to "mush it in". Sparky Imeson, of "The Mountain Flying Bible" tells us to "fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible", that is, "keep flying the aircraft". We cite both of these excellent writers and aviators in the Colorado Pilots Association's Mountain Flying Course. See: www.coloradopilots.org Yes, I fly (any two of): Mountains Night IFR Best regards, Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard -- Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/ C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 222 Young Eagles! All good stuff guys. The mushing in I heard of was mostly Florida stuff. Most places where I fly, the bases of the trees are not an option - its too thick, and you cannot see them. You certainly cannot see them at night. Also, mushing isn't the best term as it means different things to different folks. The east vs. west thing is great. The type of trees matters a lot if you think about it. But are you really going to be able to tell? Also, the plane type would matter. Let's face it, not all planes are of similar crashworthiness. One real problem is going to be aiming between the trees. If you have no experience with skiing or biking or something similar, that may be more than most folks can accomplish. I am naturally not a go with the odds guy. I have to train to overcome my desire to calculate and decide based on all the apparent evidence vs. what is most likely to work in all cases. I often get the impression that some flight advice is like betting on the favorite horse even if he is limping. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
motorcycles. news here a couple of weeks ago about some poor old fart
who was sitting on his porch when an 18-wheeler tire exploded and blew him away. true. In my opinion it's more accurate to say that "so and so was prepared to accept a level of risk that is higher than what I would be prepared to accept" than it is to call something "dangerous". Unfortunately, too many pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they keep on dying horrible deaths. For me, safety isn't about the number of times you prepare for an event that never happens (eg wearing a seatbelt when you didn't have an accident) - it's all about avoiding the one time when something does go wrong - and the pilot is totally unprepared to cope with it. Night flying over inhospitable terrain in a single? No thanks - not for me. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Cockpit Colin" wrote Unfortunately, too many pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they keep on dying horrible deaths. I'm with you. Saying that you accept the risks, because you are a professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would not accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable, and manageable. What's that saying about old pilots, and bold pilots? -- Jim in NC |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Saying that you accept the risks, because you are a
professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would not accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable, and manageable. This statement presumes that there is an objective measure of risk, and an independent, objective measure of acceptability (or its inverse - "undueness") which applies to all circumstances. This new learning amazes me. Tell me again about the theory that the earth is banana shaped. There are circumstances which merit higher risk. There are other circumstances where even a low level of risk is too much. If this were not true, there would be no difference between the hundred dollar hamburger flight, a lifeguard mission, a combat mission, an aerobatics exhibition, and any other kind of flying. Of course this would have to include getting drunk and then flying in the mountains with a shotgun pointing out the window to try to ping some mountain goats for sport too, something I'm not willing to put in the "acceptable" category, no matter how much fun it is to fire a gun under the influence of altitude and alcohol while diving at a hundred fifty miles an hour towards something furry standing in front of something very hard. But (except for degree), what's the difference between this and flying upside down, sober, at mach 1, fifteen feet AGL in front of three thousand people? You wouldn't catch me doing that either, no matter how cool it is! No matter how much you train for such an exhibition, it is more risky than the average hundred dollar hamburger. So, while I agree with the statement: A true professional would not accept missions of undue risk it begs the question of what counts as "undue", and how to measure it, and by and for whom. The FARs have outlined a few antics that would be "undue risk" (and prohibited them), but this leaves a whole lot of other things that are legal, don't come under the ruberic of "careless and reckless", but for some are seen (by others) as "unduly risky". So, the statement comes off as "unduly simplistic". Jose -- Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Morgans wrote:
"Cockpit Colin" wrote Unfortunately, too many pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they keep on dying horrible deaths. I'm with you. Saying that you accept the risks, because you are a professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would not accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable, and manageable. The trouble is that there is no absolute standard for "undue" risk. Matt |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Michael,
The odds will catch up with you eventually. You say we're ALL going to win the lottery? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
I think it was Chuck Yeager who said it was the third problem that
killed you. We can deal with two problems at once but we can't deal with three. So my rule is to never fly with more than one known problem because unforeseen problems have a way of appearing when they aren't convenient. As for flying at night over the mountains that is definitely a problem. The plane and engine have to be in perfect condition. The weather has to be perfect and I have to be current, rested and alert. If those conditions are met then I wouldn't have a problem flying a Cessna 152 at night over the mountains and I have done it a few times. I personally think that weather in the mountains is a much more severe problem than darkness. LG |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"houstondan" wrote in message oups.com... very thought provoking thread for me. valuable stuff to consider personal minimums. as someone who has been riding motorcycles for 40 years, i find it kinda tough to be critical of the decisions other people make when the biggest killer of stupid old men is really big motorcycles. I ride bike's also, Every time I stop at a light I wait for the idiot that doesn't see me and is going to plow in to me, hearing someone's tires skidding behind you is not a good sound or a good feeling. Being boxed in on the highway or while at a stop light on a bike by people that think its funny is not a good feeling also. What about being tail gated while on a bike. I will take flying a single over the mountains at night rather then getting creamed by some loser that's not paying attention or wanting to play with people on motorcycles. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message ups.com... mindenpilot wrote: From the time I hit Tahoe, until I get to Placerville, there is literally NOWHERE to safely put it down. In fact, I don't think I could even walk away from the plane if I had to put it down. With that in mind, what difference would it make if it was light or dark outside the plane? I'd be dead either way, right? Sounds about right. There are certain situations where VMC/IMC and day/night make no difference (provided the pilot is prepared to control the plane by reference to instruments) - and those situations are where the terrain is uniformly bad (overwater) or uniformly good (nothing but fields). Maybe the Sierras really are uniformly bad. Thing is, while I've never flown the Sierras, I've made three crossings over the Rockies doing the Houston-San Francisco run. Two of them were day-VMC, and one included night and IMC flying. Pet peeve...its Sierra not Sierras, the word is already plural. Mike MU-2 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
("Mike Rapoport" wrote)
Pet peeve...its Sierra not Sierras, the word is already plural. What's the singular? Siera? Rocky Mountain Rocky Mountains Rockies ?????? Mountain ?????? Mountains Sierras Montblack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Routine Aviation Career | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 0 | September 26th 04 12:33 AM |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Night Flying Tips | BoDEAN | Piloting | 7 | May 4th 04 03:22 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Headlight for night flying | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 22 | September 27th 03 09:32 AM |