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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
If you are single engine over the mountains at night, you could easily fly
into a cloud or even icing conditions without knowing it, and without sufficient instrument training and adequate additional climb capability, you might not find a way out before hitting something hard. Additionally, if you lose your engine, where exactly are you going to put it down safely? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Trent Moorehead wrote: "Dude" wrote in message ... That being said, putting a plane like a 150 into the trees isn't impossible at all. Simply mushing it into the foliage as slow as possible has been accomplished many times, even if it is a crap shoot. Given the hieght of some of those trees would make it interesting to get down afterwards though. I've been doing some reading lately that advises pilots to aim for the base of the trees, not the foliage. Mushing it into the tops of the trees ensures that you will stall as soon as the plane touches the first treetop. The nose will drop and you will be going straight down from there. Unless the tree branches break the fall on the way down, there is a good chance you will not survive. The taller the trees, the farther you fall, the harder the impact. If you aim for the base of the trees, you'll be under control as close to the ground as possible when the stall occurs. You do have to be careful not to hit a tree trunk head-on, but if you aim right, the wings can be used to absorb energy, making the deceleration as gradual as possible. It's the quick deceleration that kills you or renders you unconscious and if there is a fire you are not getting out. I also used to think that mushing the plane into the treetops was the way to go, but obviously I've been rethinking that. And just reading the title of this thread gives me willies. To be honest, I thought it was a joke or a hypothetical question, not a recounting of an actual experience. Speaking for myself only, outright emergencies notwithstanding, you won't find me "Night flying in the mountains in a cessna 150". -Trent PP-ASEL It also matters what type of trees you try that mushing in. In the East, limbs tend to point up. But in the West, they tend to point down (Fir). If you expect those tree limbs to break your fall you can forget it (those limbs are designed to shed snowfall). They will only spring back up after you have crumpled yourself into the ground, hiding your wreckage for (sometimes) years before a hapless hiker stumbles into it. Tom |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Nelson" wrote I have flown numerous times single engine, day, over both rockies and sierras. I don't know what the actual realities are but the sierras are much more "scary". They rise faster, fewer valleys and more bare rock. I have always felt that I have had an "out" when flying over the rockies not so the sierras. Howard Although I have not flown above the Andes, except very high in an airliner, driving through them gives me the following point of view. If you think the Sierras are scary, check out the Andes. They are young, raw, and jagged. -- Jim in NC |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Trent Moorehead" wrote Speaking for myself only, outright emergencies notwithstanding, you won't find me "Night flying in the mountains in a cessna 150". -Trent The original poster has a reputation for posting (and doing) things that make me think that he is not much of a "thinking man." -- Jim in NC |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
As a previous poster pointed out, it really all boils down to what level of risk you are willing to accept, as well as your comfort level and level of experience. I live and fly in northwestern New Mexico, and frequently fly XC across northern Arizona and up into Colorado with my family. If I subscribed to the rule of never flying and night in the mountains, I'd never be able to fly at night. (Mind you, I fly a PA32-300, not a Cessna 150, but it's still a normally aspirated single-engine). However, even as an instrument rated pilot, I will not fly at night in the mountains in IMC. The MEA's are just too darn high around here (16,000+), and there isn't an "out" should something go awry. Set personal limits and minima, and stick to them. -- Dane In article , markjenn wrote: As a non-professional pilot, my my rule-of-thumb is that won't do any two of the following three: Night Mountains IFR weather (basically in significant flying in clouds) All three is a huge risk - Mark |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. The day-VMC crossings had a very low pucker factor, in spite of being in a low power airplane. I flew my route so there was always someplace reasonably flat to set down. Not good enough to save the plane, but probably good enough to walk away. Maybe. But I didn't fly a straight route. I mostly followed I-10 and flew the passes. The crossing that included the night and IMC time (and some night IMC) was in a much higher powered and much better equipped single (a full-IFR A-36) but I must say the pucker factor was high. I flew the airways because the OROCA's were too high and we had no oxygen. I knew that if the engine decided to take a dump, our chances were not good. I did it because I had a schedule to keep, a plane to move, and the guy who hired me didn't hire me to sit on my ass because the engine might quit. And the engine was in good shape, and the plane had a good annual and several hours after the annual to shake out the bugs, and so I judged the risk to be fairly low. In a typical rental, I might not have done it - and I sure wouldn't do it all the time. The odds will catch up with you eventually. Michael |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote I did it because I had a schedule to keep, a plane to move, and the guy who hired me didn't hire me to sit on my ass because the engine might quit. And the engine was in good shape, and the plane had a good annual and several hours after the annual to shake out the bugs, and so I judged the risk to be fairly low. In a typical rental, I might not have done it - and I sure wouldn't do it all the time. The odds will catch up with you eventually. Michael WoW. Good reasons? Hmmm. Personal standards? Hmmm. And admitting it will catch up, signifying you realize that this will kill you? Hmmm. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Morgans wrote:
WoW. Good reasons? Hmmm. Personal standards? Hmmm. And admitting it will catch up, signifying you realize that this will kill you? Hmmm. I'm a commercial pilot. When I am hired to move an airplane, I am hired to do a job. That job includes risk. When I took my first job out of school, troubleshooting distillation towers, I took a lot more risk. When you use the airplane as a tool (meaning a vehicle for getting you where you want to go when you want to get there, and not just a way of going up to see the pretty scenery, shoot some landings, and get a hundred dollar burger or attend a fly-in) there is unavoidably going to be some risk. If you don't, you could in theory get the risk down to almost nothing. But only in theory. In reality, the most dangerous segment of aviation isn't the people who fly with a schedule to keep and a place to be. These people (the self-flown business flyers and the commercial pilots) have a safety record dramatically better than GA as a whole - in part, I think, because they're not kidding themselves about the risks. Who are the most dangerous people in GA? Well, it's not the the personal flyers, who just go for hundred dollar burgers, attend flyins, and look at the pretty scenery. They're number two - behind the airshow performers, and slightly ahead of the cropdusters. Don't believe me? Check out the Nall Report. It's on the AOPA site. Michael |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. i like the line someone around here uses about safety being an impediment to progress....(sorry for the sloppy paraphrase)... dan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
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 |
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! | Enea Grande | Products | 1 | November 4th 03 12:57 AM |
Headlight for night flying | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 22 | September 27th 03 09:32 AM |