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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
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 * ************************************************** *********************** |
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 |