flying to Lake Tahoe area
Bob Anderson
the Bay Area to Truckee, Reno, or South Lake Tahoe. His concern covers 3
areas -- density altitude, severe (2,000 fpm or more) downdrafts, and the
potential for single engine failure over mountainous terrain.
I understand the density altitude issues, but am wondering how much to be
concerned about the others. Is it reasonable to more or less follow I-80 in
case of engine failure, and is flying at 9,500 ft high enough to avoid high
mountain winds?
My flying club requires a high altitude checkout before landing at airports
over 3,000 ft and I'm just wondering whether the checkout would be worth the
effort if I can't really go anywhere after I'm done.
Curtis Suter
I've been there in a C172S 181hp and yes a checkout and some mountain
flying training is definitely reasonable. From the sound of your instructor
you shouldn't fly anywhere there isn't a suitable emergency landing area.
That means he doesn't fly over very populated areas, water, mountains etc.
So the usefulness of his airplane is about nil, he might as well drive. In
everything we do there is a risk. We need to manage and reduce the risk
whilst still getting to accomplish the task. In the Air Force we call is
Operational Risk Management.
Yes you must be aware of the winds over the mountains in Tahoe, density
altitude, mountain waves etc. That's why we have weather reports,
performance charts, weight and balance etc.
Make the call but the more you prepare for the flight and don't let get
there itis influence you the flight to Tahoe or Truckee should be not
problem.
--
Curtis "Tailwind" Suter, MSgt, USAF (Active)
CPL-ASEL-IA
AGI and IGI
sut...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~suterc
"Bob Anderson" <new...@home.com> wrote in message
news:B5EDB4E9.3426%new...@home.com...
Thomas Borchert
sounds like your CFI is giving good advice for a low-low-time pilot
flying low-powered aircraft. Better be too cautious and all that. But
once you have some experience in the flatlands, it is absolutely no
problem going there, provided you have the knowledge (get instruction,
if you're talking Palo Alto Flying Club, do the mountain check-out -
this will include learning to deal with high wind conditions that can
lead to downdrafts that you will not be able to outclimb), the
equipment (a 172 is not a four-seater in the mountains) and the weather
conditions. I completely agree with Curtis: If a pilot thinks flying
over mountains is too risky, then water, cities and most other areas
will be too risky as well. No place left in the Bay are a for guys like
your CFI.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Andrew Sarangan
Where do you think student pilots fly x-c in CO, NM, UT or similar
states? Flying in the mountains is not a suicide attempt if you
remember a few basic things. If you have never flown in the mountains,
get a high altitude checkout. Then start with a few short trips in semi-
mountainous areas before venturing out too far in the mountains. If you
are a generally cautious and conservative pilot you should be fine.
Flying at 9500 ft does not give you immunity from mountain waves. It
really depends on the elevation of the mountain tops, but the waves can
extend as high as even 5000 ft above the tops. The trick is to know
where the waves are and use it to your advantage rather than avoid them
all together by flying high.
In article <B5EDB4E9.3426%new...@home.com>,
Bob Anderson <new...@home.com> wrote:
> My instructor has me convinced it is near suicidal to attempt to fly
from
> the Bay Area to Truckee, Reno, or South Lake Tahoe. His concern
covers 3
> areas -- density altitude, severe (2,000 fpm or more) downdrafts, and
the
> potential for single engine failure over mountainous terrain.
>
> I understand the density altitude issues, but am wondering how much
to be
> concerned about the others. Is it reasonable to more or less follow I-
80 in
> case of engine failure, and is flying at 9,500 ft high enough to
avoid high
> mountain winds?
>
> My flying club requires a high altitude checkout before landing at
airports
> over 3,000 ft and I'm just wondering whether the checkout would be
worth the
> effort if I can't really go anywhere after I'm done.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Seth Masia
to tell about it. Yes, a 152 would definitely be marginal going over Donner
Pass (7200 MSL), especially westbound into the downdrafts spilling over the
top; but a 172 with two up is no problem. CAP rule of thumb for safe
flying in the mountains is 60hp per seated butt, so the 172 becomes a
two-place airplane, the 182 a three-place and the 152 a solo act.
The runways are built for density altitude -- they're long. But keep weight
down and watch your V speeds.
Flying the I-80 corridor is fine. You'll have emergency landing opps at
Auburn and Blue Canyon. Going east, plan to clear the pass at 8500 at
least. Going west, if there's any wind, get to at least 9500 to deal with
downdrafts on the lee side.
You might want to do a mountain checkout with one of the Truckee CFIs --
they're the authorities on flying the Tahoe basin and surrounding mountains.
Laurel Lippert is a good one.
Seth
Comanche N8100R
"Bob Anderson" <new...@home.com> wrote in message
news:B5EDB4E9.3426%new...@home.com...
Mike Rapoport
one who has some experience flying different places. When I was working on
my private, I flew solo cross countrys to Mammoth and Big Bear in a 172
(Both higher than either TVL or TRK) and there is no reason you can't too.
Don't overload the airplane and density altitude won't be a problem now that
the weather is starting to cool off (I live 8nm from Tahoe.). Use the
performance charts. The air over the mountains can be rough but since you
will know what the winds are before you depart, that is not a big deal
either. I would suggest that you not go if the winds at 9000' are forecast
to be over 30kts. Flying over the mountains in the early morning is often
silky smooth if the winds are light since the air is usually stable in the
fall.
The up and downdraft risk is over stated. Down drafts don't reach the
ground (there would have to be a big hole for the air to go in) and the
updrafts balance them out. If you don't go when the winds are strong then
you won't experience up and down drafts anyway.
The engine could certainly fail over the mountains but it could fail
anywhere. Whether or not you will accept that risk is for you to decide.
The Trukee airport is right next to I-80.
Most accidents at mountain airports involve really stupid mistakes like
overgross departures with 9000'+ density altitudes (and full rich mixture),
CFIT or icing. There are occasions where aircraft are simply overpowered by
nature but these tend to be extreme conditions (windstorms).
I would try to fly at 11,500 since it is easier to descend in a 172 than to
climb.
There are many people who will tell you that a low time pilot shouldn't do
this or that. I disagree. You should seek to expand your boundaries and
flying to a mountain airport is a great experience builder. You don't need
to be super-pilot, you just need to be prudent and know your limitations.
Look on the NTSB website and do a search for accidents at TVL and TRK and
you will see what kind of errors led to accidents.
Mike
MU-2
KMEV
Bob Anderson wrote in message ...
Mick Ruthven
fly there. It does require a good mountain checkout, and special
considerations each time (wind and weather, density altitude techniques,
etc.) I still get mountain dual from time to time with new instructors in
new places. Just be sure to get another instructor. And another club if they
won't let you fly into the mountains.
Mike Rapoport
Gliders routinely reach 30,000' here and the local record is 45,000'.
Mountain waves usually go up until they reach the tropopause.
Mike
MU-2
Andrew Sarangan wrote in message <8qagae$l53$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>Where do you think student pilots fly x-c in CO, NM, UT or similar
>states? Flying in the mountains is not a suicide attempt if you
>remember a few basic things. If you have never flown in the mountains,
>get a high altitude checkout. Then start with a few short trips in semi-
>mountainous areas before venturing out too far in the mountains. If you
>are a generally cautious and conservative pilot you should be fine.
>
>Flying at 9500 ft does not give you immunity from mountain waves. It
>really depends on the elevation of the mountain tops, but the waves can
>extend as high as even 5000 ft above the tops. The trick is to know
>where the waves are and use it to your advantage rather than avoid them
>all together by flying high.
>
>In article <B5EDB4E9.3426%new...@home.com>,
> Bob Anderson <new...@home.com> wrote:
>> My instructor has me convinced it is near suicidal to attempt to fly
>from
>> the Bay Area to Truckee, Reno, or South Lake Tahoe. His concern
>covers 3
>> areas -- density altitude, severe (2,000 fpm or more) downdrafts, and
>the
>> potential for single engine failure over mountainous terrain.
>>
>> I understand the density altitude issues, but am wondering how much
>to be
>> concerned about the others. Is it reasonable to more or less follow I-
>80 in
>> case of engine failure, and is flying at 9,500 ft high enough to
>avoid high
>> mountain winds?
>>
>> My flying club requires a high altitude checkout before landing at
>airports
>> over 3,000 ft and I'm just wondering whether the checkout would be
>worth the
>> effort if I can't really go anywhere after I'm done.
>>
>>
>
>
Seth Masia
from the mountain. On the windward side it's all smooth ridge lift. When
flying from Colorado to California I'm *always* amazed at how sweet it is to
cross the Sierra Crest, out of the bumpy wave and thermals of the desert
into the smooth, cool maritime air to the west. In the Tahoe Basin, you get
rotors just east of the crest and over the lake, and wave from there
eastward. It's the rotor that give you trouble crossing the passes
westbound. Going east, the rotors are simply bumpy but don't really present
terrain clearance problems. Pilots who pile into the terrain because of
downdrafts are almost always found on the east slope, headed west.
Seth
"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39c8c...@news.greatbasin.net...
Mike Rapoport
The mountain wave lift is not ridge lift. Ridge lift doesn't extend 8 miles
above the ridge. Also, the big lift in a mountain wave is downwind of the
ridge. Similarly most pilots confuse simple mechanical turbulence for real
rotors. If you fly into a real rotor (complete rotation with the wind at
the bottom going opposite the prevailing wind.) it will be more than a
little bumpy. (Rotors have produced accelerations of ~+16G to -20G.) A
really bad rotor experience will burst the capilaries in your eyes from the
negative Gs.
For fascinating and entertaining information on waves read Exploring the
Monster which will probably be for sale at the local glider outfit.
Mike
MU-2
Seth Masia wrote in message ...
Pete Zaitcev
> My instructor has me convinced it is near suicidal to attempt to fly from
> the Bay Area to Truckee, Reno, or South Lake Tahoe. His concern covers 3
> areas -- density altitude, severe (2,000 fpm or more) downdrafts, and the
> potential for single engine failure over mountainous terrain.
A year or two ago an interesting thread about flying 152 over
the Donner pass to Reno developed in rec.aviation.misc
(of all places :). Try to find it on Dejanews.
Other concern was the climbout from Reno.
--Pete
Pete Zaitcev
>[...]
> For fascinating and entertaining information on waves read Exploring the
> Monster which will probably be for sale at the local glider outfit.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
This is an interesting idea... Do you think I can find
"See How It Flies" at a "local powered airplane outfit"?
Book stores are of no use.
--Pete
Mike Rapoport
as a powered plane FBO is to have approach plates. I was unable to find it
at bookstores but the glider FBOs all seem to have it.
Mike
MU-2
Pete Zaitcev wrote in message ...
MACKLIN
than just a take-off or two at reduced power to simulated high altitude.
Actually flying in the mountains is the best teacher, particularly if you
have an experienced pilot/instructor with you. Some schools offer such
training but you can learn on your own with some preflight planning.
Don't over load the airplane, carry enough fuel but not too much. Carry
survival gear but not too much. Take your friends but not too many at one
time. Don't be in a hurry, fly in the morning when it is cooler and calmer.
Study the weather and the airport. Study the terrain on a sectional. VFR
needs more visibility than it does on the plains. You can be in great
weather on one side of a ridge and the other side can have a blizzard, even
in the summer. What you see is the weather, fly what you see not the
forecast.
Call the airport and get some advice from the locals. There is a webpage
that offers useful information.
http://www.laketahoeairport.com/ There is operational data.
A lot of airplanes do have controlled crashes because they are too heavy to
climb out after take-off. You control that with limiting gross weight,
flying in cool times and flying the exact speed.
--
Jim Macklin
ATP, CFI-ASMEI, A&P
"Curtis Suter" <sut...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:930y5.11827$ks.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Bob,
>
> I've been there in a C172S 181hp and yes a checkout and some mountain
> flying training is definitely reasonable. From the sound of your
instructor
> you shouldn't fly anywhere there isn't a suitable emergency landing area.
> That means he doesn't fly over very populated areas, water, mountains etc.
> So the usefulness of his airplane is about nil, he might as well drive.
In
> everything we do there is a risk. We need to manage and reduce the risk
> whilst still getting to accomplish the task. In the Air Force we call is
> Operational Risk Management.
>
> Yes you must be aware of the winds over the mountains in Tahoe, density
> altitude, mountain waves etc. That's why we have weather reports,
> performance charts, weight and balance etc.
>
> Make the call but the more you prepare for the flight and don't let get
> there itis influence you the flight to Tahoe or Truckee should be not
> problem.
>
> --
> Curtis "Tailwind" Suter, MSgt, USAF (Active)
> CPL-ASEL-IA
> AGI and IGI
> sut...@earthlink.net
> http://home.earthlink.net/~suterc
>
>
>
> "Bob Anderson" <new...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:B5EDB4E9.3426%new...@home.com...
> > My instructor has me convinced it is near suicidal to attempt to fly
from
> > the Bay Area to Truckee, Reno, or South Lake Tahoe. His concern covers 3
> > areas -- density altitude, severe (2,000 fpm or more) downdrafts, and
the
> > potential for single engine failure over mountainous terrain.
> >
Seth Masia
Seth
"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39c8f423$1...@news.greatbasin.net...
Mark Mallory
Bob Anderson wrote:
>
> My instructor has me convinced it is near suicidal to attempt to fly from
> the Bay Area to Truckee, Reno, or South Lake Tahoe. His concern covers 3
> areas -- density altitude, severe (2,000 fpm or more) downdrafts, and the
> potential for single engine failure over mountainous terrain.
Ya gotta love those 300 hr CFI's. The guy probably has fewer landings
above 1000 msl than he's got pimples...
Dump the kid, and find a *real* instructor.
Tim Shea
http://www.nw.faa.gov/ats/zdvartcc/high_mountain/
http://www.mountaincanyonflying.com/
http://www.airbase1.com/cpa/mtntrain.htm