Mountain flying knowledge required?

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"

"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

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

Peter Duniho wrote:

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

I've meant 1000 to 2000 fpm.

Stefan

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

"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

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

"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

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

"Morgans" wrote in message
news


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.