Carrying Skis in a Single...

I have been following this thread and the best suggestion made so far is for
the pilot to take a serious mountain flying course. Hopefully one that would
include 4 place aircraft in the 180-300hp range. Both Truckee and South Lake
Tahoe can be pretty unforgiving both in summer and winter (albeit for
different reasons). I have experienced -500fpm rate of climb in a C182 with
1/2 fuel and two on board 65Knot IAS in May departing Truckee due to
mountain wave activity. From the bay area to Tahoe door to door is about the
same amount of time whether you drive or fly. If the roads are closed due to
a storm I don't think you want to be in a C172, arrow or Navion above those
roads.
Howard
C182P

On 2006-05-06, Peter Duniho wrote:
"soxinbox" wrote in message
...
I know this used to be critically important, but is this still necessary in
today's environment with hand held GPS and cell phones with built in
tracking. If I call 911 with exact coordinates, will I really have to wait
the night.

It depends. Having GPS and a cell phone certainly improves your odds.
But...

How about a handheld aviation radio? It's likely you are going to be in
reasonably frequent line-of-sight from an airliner.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-05-08, Howard Nelson wrote:
different reasons). I have experienced -500fpm rate of climb in a C182 with
1/2 fuel and two on board 65Knot IAS in May departing Truckee due to

From someone who flies gliders - do NOT fly slowly in sink. It will just
prolong the amount of time you spend in the sink (resulting in a greater
altitude loss). You will of course have to work out the speed to fly for
your particular aircraft -vs- the observed sink rate to determine the
best speed to fly.

For example, imagine a plane that climbs at 1000 fpm in still air at
60kts, and 700 fpm at 120kts.

You're at full power and in sink at 60kts, and you're showing 500fpm
down. Imagine the sink lasts for 4 miles. It'll take you 4 minutes (1
mile per minute) to get through, and you will lose 2000 feet. The air is
sinking at 1500fpm.

If you instead fly this particular plane at 120 knots through the same
sink, you'll only spend 2 minutes to get through it, and your rate of
descent will be 800 fpm - and you'll come out of the sink having lost
1600 feet (and therefore be 400 feet higher than if you'd flown through
the sink slowly).

The example here is obviously contrived (for easy calculation) - but you
can work out some scenarios based on the performance of your plane to
figure out the best speed to fly in sink.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-05-08, Howard Nelson wrote:
different reasons). I have experienced -500fpm rate of climb in a C182
with
1/2 fuel and two on board 65Knot IAS in May departing Truckee due to

From someone who flies gliders - do NOT fly slowly in sink. It will just
prolong the amount of time you spend in the sink (resulting in a greater
altitude loss). You will of course have to work out the speed to fly for
your particular aircraft -vs- the observed sink rate to determine the
best speed to fly.

For example, imagine a plane that climbs at 1000 fpm in still air at
60kts, and 700 fpm at 120kts.

You're at full power and in sink at 60kts, and you're showing 500fpm
down. Imagine the sink lasts for 4 miles. It'll take you 4 minutes (1
mile per minute) to get through, and you will lose 2000 feet. The air is
sinking at 1500fpm.

If you instead fly this particular plane at 120 knots through the same
sink, you'll only spend 2 minutes to get through it, and your rate of
descent will be 800 fpm - and you'll come out of the sink having lost
1600 feet (and therefore be 400 feet higher than if you'd flown through
the sink slowly).

The example here is obviously contrived (for easy calculation) - but you
can work out some scenarios based on the performance of your plane to
figure out the best speed to fly in sink.

Understand what you are saying but this was on departure at about 1000ft
AGL. Perhaps something could have been done differently but at the time we
were trying to balance rate of climb (which was negative) with stall speed.
Luckily (which is not anything to depend on) after about 30-60 secs the -500
fpm turned into +1500fpm. This was not an especially hot day (maybe 60f).
The point I was making is that any non turbo single in the Tahoe basin may
rapidly reach the limits of it's performance envelope. We were enroute home
from Idaho to the bay area and did not follow a mountain flying rule that
had been taught to me by my mountain flying instructor. That was "in the
summer in the mountains be on the ground between 1000 and 1600hrs".

Howard

I have helped build a Murphy Moose, and you better know what you are
doing. That is no easy chore!

Ross
KSWI

Drew Dalgleish wrote:

On 5 May 2006 19:07:01 -0700, "EridanMan"
wrote:


Hey Guys,

I'm in plane-search mode after recently passing my check flight.

One of the number one uses I want for the aircraft is to be able to
make VFR flights up to Tahoe in the winter for ski trips (hopefully
regularly, as the weather permits).

Anything else I should consider?


Find a storage locker in Tahoe to keep all your ski equipment at for
the winter or just carry your boots and rent skis when you get there
or build a murphy moose and take all your stuff

On 2006-05-08, Howard Nelson wrote:
Understand what you are saying but this was on departure at about 1000ft
AGL. Perhaps something could have been done differently but at the time we
were trying to balance rate of climb (which was negative) with stall speed.

Even so (of course this is hindsight - don't take this for being
critical, you only know what you know at the time!) under most
circumstances [0], speed up in sink. Especailly don't fly on the ragged edge
of stall speed - you're not only flying slowly, but slower than best
rate of climb speed and the added dangers of stall). As I was saying -
the speed to fly will of course depend on the L/D of your particular
aircraft.

Even when low to the ground (especially when low to the ground) speeding
up in sink is important. Even if it only nets you 10 feet - that can be
the difference between being in the treetops and merely collecting some
foliage in your landing gear.

Had I not sped up in sink in my glider this weekend when I was at around
1000' AGL, I'd have been landing in a field not at the airport!

[0] Obstructions may be a circumstance where you would NOT want to speed
up!

had been taught to me by my mountain flying instructor. That was "in the
summer in the mountains be on the ground between 1000 and 1600hrs".

Having flown in the mountains in the summer in an underpowered aircraft,
I can entirely agree. Doubly so if it's windy.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-05-08, Howard Nelson wrote:
Understand what you are saying but this was on departure at about 1000ft
AGL. Perhaps something could have been done differently but at the time
we
were trying to balance rate of climb (which was negative) with stall
speed.

Even so (of course this is hindsight - don't take this for being
critical, you only know what you know at the time!) under most
circumstances [0], speed up in sink. Especailly don't fly on the ragged
edge
of stall speed - you're not only flying slowly, but slower than best
rate of climb speed and the added dangers of stall). As I was saying -
the speed to fly will of course depend on the L/D of your particular
aircraft.

Even when low to the ground (especially when low to the ground) speeding
up in sink is important. Even if it only nets you 10 feet - that can be
the difference between being in the treetops and merely collecting some
foliage in your landing gear.

Had I not sped up in sink in my glider this weekend when I was at around
1000' AGL, I'd have been landing in a field not at the airport!

[0] Obstructions may be a circumstance where you would NOT want to speed
up!

Excellent advice. Everything you say makes perfect sense. I will try to heed
it if I find myself in a similar situation again.
Thanks
Howard

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
How about a handheld aviation radio? It's likely you are going to be in
reasonably frequent line-of-sight from an airliner.

As a substitute for carrying survival gear? I don't think that's a
reasonable exchange.

First, you'll have to define "likely". A friend of mine was rescued via
helicopter when he landed in a remote lake with his seaplane, but couldn't
get it started again later (starter had failed). Using the airplane's
radio, he was eventually able to reach an airplane passing overhead (I don't
recall if it was an airliner or not).

But it took awhile, and in the end it was a bit of luck involved. The lake
where he landed is a small mountain lake, with steep slopes all around.
Line-of-sight is only about a 60-80 degree cone straight up. The lake is
not far laterally from one of the airways leading to Sea-Tac airport (the
nearest commercial airport), and even then it took awhile before an airplane
came close enough to being overhead to be contacted by radio. Even once the
airplane overhead was contacted, getting an accurate message relayed to
someone who could come pick them up was non-trivial.

He probably also benefited from the additional power of the airplane's
radio. A handheld would probably have reduced the volume of airspace in
which a potential contact could be found. Had he been in a more remote
location, there may not have been any airline traffic going overhead, ever.

So...could you take advantage of a handheld aviation radio? Perhaps. But
I'd say it's more akin to being stranded on a deserted island and relying on
a bonfire to alert a passing ship.

IMHO, one of the best things a person can do, beyond having a good, reliable
ELT with them is to have filed an accurate flight plan with someone who will
come looking for you if you don't arrive on time. There are few forms of
communications that are highly reliable when you're in a remote location.
Expecting to be able to contact someone after the crash seems optimistic to
me.

And of course, while you're waiting for the person who knows you've crashed
to actually find and rescue you, you'll probably want the appropriate
survival gear to keep yourself alive until you're rescued.

Pete

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Any advantage to having a satellite phone and a handheld GPS versus a 406
MHz ELT (the ones capable of being detected by satellites)?

Any advantage? Sure...the 406 Mhz ELTs don't let you speak to anyone.
That's an advantage.

That said, I'd agree that having a 406 Mhz ELT is a pretty good solution, at
least with respect to being found. As you note, it's probably built
sturdier than a phone and/or handheld GPS would be. Even if the ELT doesn't
have GPS input, triangulating a 406 Mhz ELT is supposed to be relatively
rapid.

Even so, I don't see a 406 Mhz ELT as being a substitute for survival gear.
As already noted, even if someone knows exactly where you are, they may not
be able to get to you right away. And survival gear would include first-aid
equipment, which would be important whether or not you need to stay the
night.

Pete

Thank you everyone - a lot of great responses-

I'm already scheduled to spend two weekends at the end of the month
with a very experienced mountain instructor. I'm also obsessive about
safety (and a rather avid outdoorsman), so I would not dream of flying
outside of the bay area (if not above a major interstate) without an
'unexpected camping trip' pack that I'm currently putting together
(half dozen MRE's, tent, blankets, GPS, ELT, handheld radios, butane
stove+pot, etc, all in a single bag secured with heavy-duty velcro.)

As for planes... The Cardinal is still tempting, as is the Navion (with
the Cherokee-6 being my dream)... unfortunately, my current budget
doesn't allow for examples of either of those that I would be willing
to fly. Fortunately I'm patient, I'll wait until I have the money and
spring for a ship that will suit my needs.

Thanks again

-Scott