Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

"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.

"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.

George Patterson wrote:

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.

Same here. I landed at Muskegon for good and fuel and then headed
straight across lake Michigan. I had flotation and survival gear aboard
and flew high such that I had only a few minutes of "out of glide range"
time, however, there was always the risk of an engine failure at the
wrong time.


Matt

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
No, your premise is wrong. I have in fact already given you two
examples (and I have even pointed this out to you once already).

Really? I must have missed those posts. I don't recall you telling me the
name of anyone using the risk analysis you propose. But again, I am more
than happy to be corrected. Please feel free to point the posts out to
me...I will happily concede your point. Most convenient for me would be a
link to the Google Groups record of the post, but a Message-ID would be
fine.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
No, your premise is wrong. I have in fact already given you two
examples (and I have even pointed this out to you once already).

Really? I must have missed those posts.

You couldn't have missed them all because you responded to some of them.
But Google is your friend if you want to go back and review.

I don't recall you telling me the
name of anyone using the risk analysis you propose.

Another straw man. I didn't tell you their names.

But again, I am more than happy to be corrected.

Once again (because we've trod this ground before too) I doubt that very
much. I have already corrected you on half a dozen points (including
this one) and you don't seem particularly happy about it.

Please feel free to point the posts out to
me...I will happily concede your point.

I don't really care if you concede the point or not, so I'm afraid you
will have to do your own homework.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
Another straw man. I didn't tell you their names.

Then you didn't provide the information I requested, and which would support
your claims.

But again, I am more than happy to be corrected.

Once again (because we've trod this ground before too) I doubt that very
much.

Do not pretend to know what I will or will not do. You clearly have no
idea.

I have already corrected you on half a dozen points (including
this one) and you don't seem particularly happy about it.

You have not made a single supportable correction. If you had, there are a
dozen folks in this newsgroup who would be overjoyed to hop on the bandwagon
of proving me wrong. That's just how Usenet is. The utter lack of support
for your claims is evidence enough of their fallacy.

Pete

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)

Maybe you are a coward, either because you post this stuff hiding behind a
name that doesn't come up here or because you are afraid of flying over
mountains when you can't even see them.

Mike
MU-2


"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 experienced an engine failure in a single over the Sierras at night
(the sunset was beautiful). It was in a Commanche, and the engined died
about 3 seconds after turning off the electric boost pump (10,500'
after leaving Tahoe.) Happily, the engine recovered as soon as the
boost pump was turned back on. Also, happily, the owner of the
Commanchee was in the right seat and is a pretty calm guy. He turned
the pump off again (to see what the fuel pressure would do.) Sure
enough, the pressure dropped, the engine faltered and the nose dropped.
He flipped the pump back on, and I suggested leaving well enough alone
(I'm not that calm.)

I had the suspicion that, even if the electric pump failed the
mechanical one would get started somehow, as we had just flown an hour
to Tahoe with no trouble, but I didn't want to test that theory. The
next day, the engine ran fine on the mechanical pump, and it has ever
since.

Well, enough hanger flying - I gotta go.

In rec.aviation.owning bk wrote:
: I experienced an engine failure in a single over the Sierras at night
: (the sunset was beautiful). It was in a Commanche, and the engined died
: about 3 seconds after turning off the electric boost pump (10,500'
: after leaving Tahoe.) Happily, the engine recovered as soon as the
: boost pump was turned back on. Also, happily, the owner of the
: Commanchee was in the right seat and is a pretty calm guy. He turned
: the pump off again (to see what the fuel pressure would do.) Sure
: enough, the pressure dropped, the engine faltered and the nose dropped.
: He flipped the pump back on, and I suggested leaving well enough alone
: (I'm not that calm.)

That's allegedly a common problem with PA-24's. The mechanical and
electrical(s) are in parallel. When the electric is on for awhile, no fuel goes
through the mechanical pump and it gets no cooling. When the electric is turned off,
the mechanical pump is vapor locked and can't pump. It can ruin your day if you do it
just after takeoff and don't think fast.

That's just what I've heard.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************