Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
[...]
I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
flights.

But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.

As I said, no one ever does that. It's absurd to base any discussion on the
idea that anyone does, and certainly on the idea that it's a common analysis
generally useful to pilots.

Pete

"jd-10" wrote in message
...
I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
it, I will: [ill-conceived, irrational, rude diatribe deleted]

Probably more like everyone else has too much common sense to say what you
said.

There's a lot of people out there who would say exactly what you said, only
they say it about flying in general. What makes your statements any more
accurate than theirs?

Pete

"jd-10" wrote in message
...
I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
it, I will:

You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine
in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six
loaded.


Wow! That's not what I was thinking at all.
I don't think I'll be flying at night over the Sierra(s) anytime soon, but
I'm not making any personal assumptions about anyone in this newsgroup who
does.

On another note, I mentioned that I fly over the Sierra(s) frequently in my
single.
I still think that if the engine died, I would too, even in CAVU VFR. There
is just nowhere to land.
I don't perceive myself as one of those people of whom you speak.

(waiting for assinine comment that I *am* one of those people)

Say what you will.
This is an acceptable risk for me.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

"jd-10" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
depends on the circumstances

I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
it, I will:

You are a *

PLONK!

Regardless of whether or not I agree with the gist of the post....

"jd-10" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
depends on the circumstances

I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
it, I will:

You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine
in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six
loaded.

You are a corpse waiting to happen. If you fly with your wife, she is as
well. It's death-wish assholes like you that give all the reasonable and
prudent GA pilots a bad name.

You're no different than a guy I used to see in Montana, at the annual
Schafer fly-in. I saw him drink two beers and then jump in his 185 and
go fly.

At the time, I told a friend "that guy is a corpse waiting to happen.
He's one of those guys who thinks **** won't happen to him, and one of
these days he's going to paint himself into a corner he can't get out
of."

Less than a year later, the guy was dead, killed in a collision with a
cumulo-granite not far from Schafer, scud running. He took two others
with him, the son of a bitch.

You remind me of that guy. No regard for your own safety, much less the
safety of others. I hope you wise up before you kill your wife.
--
JD-10

I would rather fly over the mountains at night in a single engine than drive
on today's highways theres way to many people out there that are on some
kind of mind altering substance "pansy pills" and some people think calling
some one you dont know a "*****ing* fool" may not be the safest thing to do
in this day and age also.

If I seen someone down 2 beers and junp in to an airplane I would do what
ever was in my power to try and stop the person from taking off. But from
what you said you could also be a fool for just sitting and talking about it
doing nothing.

Ohh!!! There is a big diffreance in flying over mountians at night in a
single engine airplane. Than drinking and flying!

Some of us weigh risk in different ways, in this part of the country even if
it were during the day we may only have a 3 to 5% better chance of surviving
if it was daytime. The terrain we fly over sometimes it can take 4 to 6
hours to walk a mile in it and most the time no wreckage can be found.

People in Seattle Area did they ever find that L39 that disappeared in the
cascades this fall?

"Matt Whiting" wrote 45. Who won the bet? :-)


Matt

I lost.

I saw something lately, saying that people's brains do not develop the part
that has to do with risk assessment, until after 25.

I guess you are immature for your age.

Tell me, what was so important, that the flight could not wait until
morning?
--
Jim in NC

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
[...]
I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
flights.

But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.

As I said, no one ever does that.

Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.

You claim that someone does. In order to truthfully make that claim, you
would have to know of such a person. If you knew of such a person, it would
be trivial for you to say who that person is.

The only logical conclusion from your refusal to say who that person is, is
that you are untruthful when you claim that someone does.

As far as "arguing", well...if you're not willing to support your statements
with any factual evidence, I can see why you have such a low tolerance for
"arguing".

Pete

Hmmm ...

Not the combination of words I would choose to use - but I'm sure we all got
the essence of what you're trying to say!

For me though - seriously - I do wonder just how much being "PC" does
detract from safety messages. Often I've wondered if the point would be
better illustrated by a short audio/visual presentation showing unsanitised
dismembered corpses & injured passengers screaming with pain & listening to
children breaking down at funerals when they tell everyone how much they
miss their dad.

Been there - done that. For me the fact that my kids need a dad weighs heavy
on my mind. Sure, some may argue that it's safer not to fly at all - for me
it was all about compartmentalising the risks - avoiding those I felt were
unacceptable (eg night flight in a 150 over mountainous terrain) - and
taking all appropriate steps to minimise others (eg wearing a life jacket
over water - carrying additional survival equipment on cross country flights
etc). One might think of me as a pilot who won't fly if there is so much as
a cloud in the sky, but not so - in reality I only have to cancel very few
because of unacceptable weather and other factors. I don't feel I'm at risk
on days where the weather is less then ideal - and I'm not afraid to take a
look at some of the bad stuff from a few angles - but I have a certain
switch in my head that says "to push it past this point is dangerous - it
limits my options - and I'm just not going to do it" - perhaps a good
standard might be "would you do this or that on a VFR flight test with the
testing officer along side"?

For me, I'd like to think that "thinking safety" is now instinctive to how I
conduct my flying - I see this same attitude in many professional crews of
heavy metal - and yet I NEVER see it amongst the GA pilots I have regular
personal contact with (them being the breed that keep killing themselves).
In contrast I see a large number who think they're 10 foot tall and
bullet-proof. This puzzles me - I'd love to know just what the formula is
that turns "safety unconscious" GA pilots into "safety aware" professional
crew. Any ideas gratefully accepted.

For me it's all about striving to be a superior pilot - and accomplishing
that by using superior judgement to avoid situations that require the use of
(perhaps?) superior skill.

CC





"jd-10" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
depends on the circumstances

I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say
it, I will:

You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine
in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six
loaded.

You are a corpse waiting to happen. If you fly with your wife, she is as
well. It's death-wish assholes like you that give all the reasonable and
prudent GA pilots a bad name.

You're no different than a guy I used to see in Montana, at the annual
Schafer fly-in. I saw him drink two beers and then jump in his 185 and
go fly.

At the time, I told a friend "that guy is a corpse waiting to happen.
He's one of those guys who thinks **** won't happen to him, and one of
these days he's going to paint himself into a corner he can't get out
of."

Less than a year later, the guy was dead, killed in a collision with a
cumulo-granite not far from Schafer, scud running. He took two others
with him, the son of a bitch.

You remind me of that guy. No regard for your own safety, much less the
safety of others. I hope you wise up before you kill your wife.
--
JD-10

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:

and after we turned about 270 degrees, he looked over and said, "boy, you're
sure confused," and within about 15 seconds had us back on course &
altitude. ATC didn't even mention it.


ATC didn't see it.

In a slow airplane, you fly in one place a long time, and ATC only sees
a blip, not your airplane changing attitudes or heading.

They're doing something else anyway; not much to hold their interest in
a blip on the screen that never seems to move.