Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

Colin, I agree with you completely. I live at the base of the
Rockies and have flown the "rocks" for 10 years in various singles,
the last 7 or so in my 182.

My personal limit is that I'd never attempt it at night. Too many
variables and too few options should there be an emergency. I'll take
it one further and again, it's just my own personal limiter. Call me
wimp, doesn't bother me. I won't fly a single at night, period.
I've done it and it was beautiful but I don't like the idea of looking
for an emergency landing option blindfolded.

For me, safe flying is all about exercising prudent judgement.
Granted, this can be very subjective although sometimes there are
absolutes. Such as taking off into a cell where 2000fpm downdrafts
have been reported. But, for me, mountain flying is strictly a
daylight activity.

Alan Bloom
N8565T
'60 Skylane

Dogs can fly.
http://www.flyingmutts.com


On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:01:18 +1300, "Cockpit Colin"
wrote:

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.

"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.

OK, having read through this thread for awhile, I might as well chime in
with a few observations:

1) Roll the dice often enough, and they will eventually come up snake-eyes.
The question is whether they are likely to do that before something else
gets you. Most people want to make it more likely that they will die of
cancer or heart disease than in an airplane crash. Apparently we want to die
slowly and old.

2) Here in the Pacific Northwest, flying at night in the mountains is
dangerous, no question about it. Indeed, the mountain ranges around here are
possibly some of the most dangerous in the world. The trouble is, flying
anywhere around here at night as not much better. The whole area is
mountainous, heavily forested, with large tracts of water that is barely
above freezing year 'round. Visible emergency landing areas at night are few
and far between. Low ceilings, low freezing levels, haze, mountain
obscuration, micro-climates with weather wildly different from anything
forecast -- these are the norm around here. Many students around here manage
to log over an hour of actual IFR before they get their private certificate.
On top of that, the days get real short and real dark during the winter, so
restricting yourself to daytime flight is difficult.

3) Even if you live through an emergency landing at night in this area, the
odds of surviving until you are found are vanishingly small, especially
considering that most pilots do nothing to increase their chances of
survival. They fly without jackets or coats, take no survival gear, have no
way of signaling rescuers, etc. You are going to be wet and cold and
probably injured. Not good.

OK, if you want to die slowly and old, don't fly at night in the Pacific
Northwest, especially in the mountains. If you don't want to kill your son
or anybody else, don't take them with you when you fly little single engine
airplanes at night in the mountains around here. But even if you don't give
a rip about yourself or anybody else, I would ask you not to do it anyway.
Too many good people are killed every year trying to rescue selfish,
thoughtless bozos who thought they were invulnerable to the laws of
averages.

We've heard both sides of the issue. That is, we've heard from people who
will fly at night over mountains and those who won't.
I'm just curious to see if this decision has anything at all to do with
where these people live.
For example, NW_PILOT lives in the northwest, and flies over those mountains
all the time.
Someone else mentioned flying over the Appalachains frequently.

I'm wondering if (rightly or not) a pilot's comfort level is increased due
to the frequency with which he/she flies over mountainous terrain.
Is it logical to follow then, that if a pilot is extremely comfortable
making a flight at day, he/she may be comfortable at night as well?

Think of your own common flight path or $100 burger run.

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

mindenpilot wrote:
We've heard both sides of the issue. That is, we've heard from people who
will fly at night over mountains and those who won't.
I'm just curious to see if this decision has anything at all to do with
where these people live.
For example, NW_PILOT lives in the northwest, and flies over those mountains
all the time.
Someone else mentioned flying over the Appalachains frequently.

I'm wondering if (rightly or not) a pilot's comfort level is increased due
to the frequency with which he/she flies over mountainous terrain.
Is it logical to follow then, that if a pilot is extremely comfortable
making a flight at day, he/she may be comfortable at night as well?

You make an interesting point. I fly in northcentral PA and NY (club
plane based at ELM) and learned to fly out of N38 which is surrounded by
mountainous terrain. I thus fly over mountains on almost every flight.
I certainly think often about engine failure and what I would do, but
I don't obsess over it and don't let it affect my flying in a
significant way other than flying as high as reasonably possible on long
stretches between airports.

I don't have the stats handy, but I believe that death due to engine
failure on a night flight in IMC over the mountains is a very remote
possibility compared to other things that I do all of the time such as
drive to work, ride motorcycles, etc. I know people who ski, mountain
climb, smoke, drink and drive and do other activities much more likely
to cause injury than flying, yet can't believe I "risk my life" flying
in small airplanes.

Do I think flying at night over mountains entails more risk than flying
over them during the day? Absolutely. However, to me you are comparing
a very small risk to an even smaller risk, yet both are small compared
to many other things we do every day.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
mindenpilot wrote:
We've heard both sides of the issue. That is, we've heard from people
who
will fly at night over mountains and those who won't.
I'm just curious to see if this decision has anything at all to do with
where these people live.
For example, NW_PILOT lives in the northwest, and flies over those
mountains
all the time.
Someone else mentioned flying over the Appalachains frequently.

I'm wondering if (rightly or not) a pilot's comfort level is increased
due
to the frequency with which he/she flies over mountainous terrain.
Is it logical to follow then, that if a pilot is extremely comfortable
making a flight at day, he/she may be comfortable at night as well?

You make an interesting point. I fly in northcentral PA and NY (club
plane based at ELM) and learned to fly out of N38 which is surrounded by
mountainous terrain. I thus fly over mountains on almost every flight.
I certainly think often about engine failure and what I would do, but
I don't obsess over it and don't let it affect my flying in a
significant way other than flying as high as reasonably possible on long
stretches between airports.

I don't have the stats handy, but I believe that death due to engine
failure on a night flight in IMC over the mountains is a very remote
possibility compared to other things that I do all of the time such as
drive to work, ride motorcycles, etc. I know people who ski, mountain
climb, smoke, drink and drive and do other activities much more likely
to cause injury than flying, yet can't believe I "risk my life" flying
in small airplanes.

Do I think flying at night over mountains entails more risk than flying
over them during the day? Absolutely. However, to me you are comparing
a very small risk to an even smaller risk, yet both are small compared
to many other things we do every day.


Matt

Well said! I fell safer in an small airplane than on the road with pill
popping crazy people behind the wheel of a 2,000 weapon.

Nw,

than on the road with pill
popping crazy people behind the wheel of a 2,000 weapon.


Actually, in that case, the statistics might not bear out the perceived
(by you, apparently) danger, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"mindenpilot" wrote in message
...
We've heard both sides of the issue. That is, we've heard from people who
will fly at night over mountains and those who won't.
I'm just curious to see if this decision has anything at all to do with
where these people live.
For example, NW_PILOT lives in the northwest, and flies over those
mountains
all the time.
Someone else mentioned flying over the Appalachains frequently.

I'm wondering if (rightly or not) a pilot's comfort level is increased due
to the frequency with which he/she flies over mountainous terrain.
Is it logical to follow then, that if a pilot is extremely comfortable
making a flight at day, he/she may be comfortable at night as well?

Think of your own common flight path or $100 burger run.

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III



I know if I hadn't flown over the terrain a few times during the day I would
not have done it at night. Even during the day its still in the back of my
mind that if something happens to the aircraft I probably will not walk away
or be lost for days or weeks. I have come to grips with my mortality I have
been less than 1 min away from a doctor pronouncing me totally dead and
stopping CPR at one point in my life So I do tend to take more risks then
some but not as many as other's.

mindenpilot wrote:

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?

In my case, not much. I simply am more willing to take risks than many other
people are. The first time I went to Oshkosh, I took the short route over the
lake. When I bought my first aircraft, I flew it back over the Appalachians on a
moonless night. Some people in this forum refuse to consider either of those.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...


mindenpilot wrote:

Just how much does frequency play into comfort level?

In my case, not much. I simply am more willing to take risks than many
other
people are. The first time I went to Oshkosh, I took the short route over
the
lake. When I bought my first aircraft, I flew it back over the
Appalachians on a
moonless night. Some people in this forum refuse to consider either of
those.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.


I would consider both of them, I would rather bite the big one due to my
action & decisions than someone else's.