Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,
NW_PILOT
KDLS to 63S "Colville Municipal Airport" 3.6 hours that drop off "cliff" at
the end of 19 is very interesting. Well went to see a relative I hadn't seen
for a long time was a fun day and ended back at my airplane about 7pm and
was wished a safe journey back home.
I departed 63S about 7:30pm calm winds and clear skies were being reported
for the entire trip home over the mountain ranges. I can say that yes it is
black out there at night and every little noise is amplified when flying
over dark mountainous terrain. The winds were not as expected took 2.7 hours
to fly VFR GPS direct to KYKM. From KYKM to KVUO it took another 2.4 hours
pluss the high clouds blocked out the stars and almost all the moon light.
What a day 8.7 hours of flying 5.1 at night got to see some relatives I
hadn't seen in years. My flight time in the last 4 weeks as of today has
been 69.2 hours total I expect to put in another 30 to 40 hours in the next
week or two if this weather holds I may even fly my 150 down to Las Vegas or
Something now that I can go 50 hours between oil changes.
My goal is to be have 500 hours Total Time by 12-31-2005 I am sitting at 234
I hope my pocket book and 150 can handle it.
--
Steven Rhine
PP-ASEL
Instrument Student
N7676U 1976 C-150M
Steve.T
As an instrument student, you should be painfully aware that night
flight, with high clouds over mountainous terrain can cause
disorientation.
I love to fly at night - easy to see other a/c, and if on IFR, the
clouds can appear as pastel apparitions. But in the dark with few
lights below and none above, you can have a real battle making yourself
believe the guages - "I am not inverted. I am not inverted."
Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument
NW_PILOT
"Steve.T" <ste...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1109004351....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Yep, it was a real Erie feeling like the feeling I got my first time in
actual IFR what was even weirder it was so calm it did not even feel like we
were moving just standing still in the black open space. I had the airplane
trimed up so it would almost fly itself. My son went to sleep on me and the
batteries died in the CD player and there was no traffic for about 2 hours
on the last leg. I called Seattle on the radio "I was on flight following"
to make sure they were still there every now and then.
Colin W Kingsbury
"NW_PILOT" <N76...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:doKdnWbcXJm...@comcast.com...
>
> Yep, it was a real Erie feeling like the feeling I got my first time in
> actual IFR what was even weirder it was so calm it did not even feel like
we
> were moving just standing still in the black open space. I had the
airplane
I'm a low-time pilot (~220 hrs), recently instrument rated. I've only truly
scared myself a few times in an airplane, one of which was my first night
flight a few months after getting my private. It was a crystal-clear night,
early fall in New England. It had been six months or so since I'd flown at
night, first time solo. I took off, and within about a minute got that
"ohmigod I don't know wtf I am" feeling. I fly near Boston so there was just
a carpet of lights everywhere below me. Very pretty actually. After a few
nervous moments I said, "ok, relax, you've got 4 hours of gas and the
plane's A-OK." I bumbled around until I hit a major highway, followed that
to another airport, then was able to orient myself to get back home, which I
did within about 30 minutes of taking off.
I'll confess that I haven't flown at night since then. I decided I would
wait until I got my instrument, and that I'd go at night on IFR flight plans
for a while until I felt more comfortable with it. Just haven't had time
since then but I should do it while it still gets dark nice and early.
Oh, and did I mention the landing light burned out? Luckily I'd gotten a
floatplane rating about a month earlier, so I just went into "glassy water
landing" mode and did a power-on approach. My field is lit up like a
christmas tree at night so it actually wasn't so stressful.
I was lucky enough to have a CFII who really liked instructing in the soup,
and near Boston it comes around pretty regularly. One of the other times I
got good and puckered up was about 25 hours into my IR, we went into the
scud and I got good and spun. He liked to keep the AI covered most of the
time, and looking at the DG and TC spinning and banking I just couldn't
figure out left from right. I could feel our airspeed and G forces building,
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.
-cwk.
Aaron Coolidge
: I'll confess that I haven't flown at night since then. I decided I would
: wait until I got my instrument, and that I'd go at night on IFR flight plans
: for a while until I felt more comfortable with it. Just haven't had time
: since then but I should do it while it still gets dark nice and early.
Hey CWK, I fly with a group of good folks out of lovely 1B9, and we go
out most Wednesday evenings. If you'd like to join us, even as a passenger,
drop me a line and we can work something out. You're at BED, no?
fasto at shell dot theworld dot com.
--
Aaron C.
RST Engineering
Night
Mountains
Pick any two.
That is, if you've ever lost an engine. If you haven't, pick all three and
hope that your engine failure will not be this time.
Jim
Jack Allison
> Single engine
> Night
> Mountains
>
>
> Pick any two.
I was kind of thinking along the same lines. Having flown across the
Sierra Nevada's only a few times in the day, I sure wouldn't want to do
so at night. Even a cloudless full moon night in a brand new high
performance single engine...nope, wouldn't want to do it. Way too much
cumulo-Granite down there. I'd much rather limit my mountain crossings
to the daytime.
--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-IA Student-Arrow Shopping Student
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci
(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)
mindenpilot
"Jack Allison" <k2_boa...@Rem0ve.Th1s.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cvdrdq$l3r$1...@news01.intel.com...
Agreed.
I fly over the Sierras all the time.
I fly at night all the time.
I never fly over the Sierras at night.
Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III
houstondan
(does holding-up convenience stores really make you a bad person??) i
keep winding up at the conclusion that a 150/2 probably makes the most
sense for me. for now. maybe. maybe that 160hp aerobat taildragger in
trade a plane?? no, there goes the budget again.
the use you are getting out of your 150 is sure encouraging. now, i
expect this is a pretty stupid question but what the heck " do you have
any kind of gps plan if the one and only motor does quit while above
the mountain in the dark? known gps glide-to spots"??
dan
NW_PILOT
"houstondan" <djone...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109041888.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
If the engine quits in the areas I was flying in I probably would never be
found no matter ware I landed and would take weeks to walk out how wooded it
is. This 150 is the best investment I have purchassed its almost paid for
its self in flight time. And the education you get when you become an owner
is worth the money spent.
mindenpilot
"houstondan" <djone...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109041888.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I hate to admit it, but I may have to retract my earlier comment about not
flying over the mountains at night.
Like I said, I fly over the Sierras all the time.
From the time I hit Tahoe, until I get to Placerville, there is literally
NOWHERE to safely put it down.
In fact, I don't think I could even walk away from the plane if I had to put
it down.
With that in mind, what difference would it make if it was light or dark
outside the plane?
I'd be dead either way, right?
I don't know if I'll be doing it anytime soon, but it's definitely food for
thought.
Thomas Borchert
> If the engine quits in the areas I was flying in I probably would never be
> found no matter ware I landed and would take weeks to walk out how wooded it
> is.
>
Uh, a simple, modern ELT would solve that quite nicely. See www.equipped.org
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Dude
"mindenpilot" <weissf...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:wuzSd.613$FZ5...@fe04.lga...
Adam,
Thanks for posting that. I was thinking the same thing. If you are flying
over such inhospitable terrain, what does it matter whether or not you can
see the ground?
That being said, putting a plane like a 150 into the trees isn't impossible
at all. Simply mushing it into the foliage as slow as possible has been
accomplished many times, even if it is a crap shoot. Given the hieght of
some of those trees would make it interesting to get down afterwards though.
Thomas Borchert
> I don't know if I'll be doing it anytime soon, but it's definitely food for
> thought.
>
It is. Ultimately, it all comes down to how you want to manage risk in your
life. Depends on a lot of factors which are very personal. E.g., I don't have
kids, so I figure I'm a little less risk averse than a multiple Dad might be.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Howard Nelson
"Jack Allison" <k2_boa...@Rem0ve.Th1s.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cvdrdq$l3r$1...@news01.intel.com...
>
> > Single engine
> > Night
> > Mountains
> >
> >
> > Pick any two.
>
> I was kind of thinking along the same lines. Having flown across the
> Sierra Nevada's only a few times in the day, I sure wouldn't want to do
> so at night. Even a cloudless full moon night in a brand new high
> performance single engine...nope, wouldn't want to do it. Way too much
> cumulo-Granite down there. I'd much rather limit my mountain crossings
> to the daytime.
>
>
> --
> Jack Allison
> PP-ASEL-IA Student-Arrow Shopping Student
I have flown numerous times single engine, day, over both rockies and
sierras. I don't know what the actual realities are but the sierras are much
more "scary". They rise faster, fewer valleys and more bare rock. I have
always felt that I have had an "out" when flying over the rockies not so the
sierras.
Howard
markjenn
> Night
> Mountains
I don't think single-engine is much risk compared to the other two.
As a non-professional pilot, my my rule-of-thumb is that won't do any two of
the following three:
Night
Mountains
IFR weather (basically in significant flying in clouds)
All three is a huge risk
- Mark
Russ MacDonald
continue flying, and the longer I stay alive the less I like to take
chances.
You are decreasing your odds of a successful flight by 1) single engine over
mountains, 2) very low power aircraft, and 3) no instrument rating. I
might try one of these variables on a given day, but never all three at one
time.
Night flight is statistically much more dangerous than day flight. Heck,
many countries don't even allow night VFR flight. But, I don't want that
here in the US!! I want the right to make that decision, and the more night
VFR accidents that happen, the more likely night VFR will be banned here as
well.
If you are single engine over the mountains at night, you could easily fly
into a cloud or even icing conditions without knowing it, and without
sufficient instrument training and adequate additional climb capability, you
might not find a way out before hitting something hard.
"NW_PILOT" <N76...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IOCdnVUq7Nf...@comcast.com...
Trent Moorehead
"Dude" <du...@dude.com> wrote in message
news:hsISd.30889$911....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> That being said, putting a plane like a 150 into the trees isn't
impossible
> at all. Simply mushing it into the foliage as slow as possible has been
> accomplished many times, even if it is a crap shoot. Given the hieght of
> some of those trees would make it interesting to get down afterwards
though.
I've been doing some reading lately that advises pilots to aim for the base
of the trees, not the foliage. Mushing it into the tops of the trees ensures
that you will stall as soon as the plane touches the first treetop. The nose
will drop and you will be going straight down from there. Unless the tree
branches break the fall on the way down, there is a good chance you will not
survive. The taller the trees, the farther you fall, the harder the impact.
If you aim for the base of the trees, you'll be under control as close to
the ground as possible when the stall occurs. You do have to be careful not
to hit a tree trunk head-on, but if you aim right, the wings can be used to
absorb energy, making the deceleration as gradual as possible. It's the
quick deceleration that kills you or renders you unconscious and if there is
a fire you are not getting out.
I also used to think that mushing the plane into the treetops was the way to
go, but obviously I've been rethinking that. And just reading the title of
this thread gives me willies. To be honest, I thought it was a joke or a
hypothetical question, not a recounting of an actual experience. Speaking
for myself only, outright emergencies notwithstanding, you won't find me
"Night flying in the mountains in a cessna 150".
-Trent
PP-ASEL
Cockpit Colin
> into a cloud or even icing conditions without knowing it, and without
> sufficient instrument training and adequate additional climb capability,
you
> might not find a way out before hitting something hard.
Additionally, if you lose your engine, where exactly are you going to put it
down safely?
soar2...@yahoo.com
It also matters what type of trees you try that mushing in. In the
East, limbs tend to point up. But in the West, they tend to point down
(Fir). If you expect those tree limbs to break your fall you can forget
it (those limbs are designed to shed snowfall). They will only spring
back up after you have crumpled yourself into the ground, hiding your
wreckage for (sometimes) years before a hapless hiker stumbles into it.
Tom
Morgans
"Howard Nelson" <htnel...@pacbell.net> wrote
>
> I have flown numerous times single engine, day, over both rockies and
> sierras. I don't know what the actual realities are but the sierras are
much
> more "scary". They rise faster, fewer valleys and more bare rock. I have
> always felt that I have had an "out" when flying over the rockies not so
the
> sierras.
>
> Howard
Although I have not flown above the Andes, except very high in an airliner,
driving through them gives me the following point of view. If you think the
Sierras are scary, check out the Andes. They are young, raw, and jagged.
--
Jim in NC
Morgans
"Trent Moorehead" <twmoorehe...@netzero.net> wrote
> Speaking
> for myself only, outright emergencies notwithstanding, you won't find me
> "Night flying in the mountains in a cessna 150".
>
> -Trent
The original poster has a reputation for posting (and doing) things that
make me think that he is not much of a "thinking man."
--
Jim in NC
j...@frii.com
Please read "How to Crash an Airplane and Survive" by Mick Wilson,
formerly FAA DEN FSDO Safety Program Manager.
He tells us we want to fly just above stall speed, in landing
configuration. Please do not attempt to "mush it in".
Sparky Imeson, of "The Mountain Flying Bible" tells us to "fly the
aircraft as far into the crash as possible", that is, "keep flying the
aircraft".
We cite both of these excellent writers and aviators in the Colorado
Pilots Association's Mountain Flying Course. See:
www.coloradopilots.org
Yes, I fly (any two of):
Mountains
Night
IFR
Best regards,
Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 222 Young Eagles!
Dane Spearing
As a previous poster pointed out, it really all boils down to what
level of risk you are willing to accept, as well as your comfort level
and level of experience.
I live and fly in northwestern New Mexico, and frequently fly XC across
northern Arizona and up into Colorado with my family. If I subscribed
to the rule of never flying and night in the mountains, I'd never be able
to fly at night. (Mind you, I fly a PA32-300, not a Cessna 150,
but it's still a normally aspirated single-engine).
However, even as an instrument rated pilot, I will not fly at night in the
mountains in IMC. The MEA's are just too darn high around here (16,000+),
and there isn't an "out" should something go awry.
Set personal limits and minima, and stick to them.
-- Dane
In article <H9SdnYQKkYe...@comcast.com>,
Michael
> From the time I hit Tahoe, until I get to Placerville, there is
literally
> NOWHERE to safely put it down.
> In fact, I don't think I could even walk away from the plane if I had
to put
> it down.
>
> With that in mind, what difference would it make if it was light or
dark
> outside the plane?
> I'd be dead either way, right?
Sounds about right. There are certain situations where VMC/IMC and
day/night make no difference (provided the pilot is prepared to control
the plane by reference to instruments) - and those situations are where
the terrain is uniformly bad (overwater) or uniformly good (nothing but
fields). Maybe the Sierras really are uniformly bad.
Thing is, while I've never flown the Sierras, I've made three crossings
over the Rockies doing the Houston-San Francisco run. Two of them were
day-VMC, and one included night and IMC flying.
The day-VMC crossings had a very low pucker factor, in spite of being
in a low power airplane. I flew my route so there was always someplace
reasonably flat to set down. Not good enough to save the plane, but
probably good enough to walk away. Maybe. But I didn't fly a straight
route. I mostly followed I-10 and flew the passes.
The crossing that included the night and IMC time (and some night IMC)
was in a much higher powered and much better equipped single (a
full-IFR A-36) but I must say the pucker factor was high. I flew the
airways because the OROCA's were too high and we had no oxygen. I knew
that if the engine decided to take a dump, our chances were not good.
I did it because I had a schedule to keep, a plane to move, and the guy
who hired me didn't hire me to sit on my ass because the engine might
quit. And the engine was in good shape, and the plane had a good
annual and several hours after the annual to shake out the bugs, and so
I judged the risk to be fairly low. In a typical rental, I might not
have done it - and I sure wouldn't do it all the time. The odds will
catch up with you eventually.
Michael
Morgans
"Michael" < wrote
> I did it because I had a schedule to keep, a plane to move, and the guy
> who hired me didn't hire me to sit on my ass because the engine might
> quit. And the engine was in good shape, and the plane had a good
> annual and several hours after the annual to shake out the bugs, and so
> I judged the risk to be fairly low. In a typical rental, I might not
> have done it - and I sure wouldn't do it all the time. The odds will
> catch up with you eventually.
>
> Michael
WoW. Good reasons? Hmmm. Personal standards? Hmmm. And admitting it
will catch up, signifying you realize that this will kill you? Hmmm.
Jose
> will catch up, signifying you realize that this will kill you?
EVERY risk will catch up to you eventually. But only one will actually
get you.
Jose
--
r.a. owning and r.a.student trimmed, as I don't follow them
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Michael
> WoW. Good reasons? Hmmm. Personal standards? Hmmm. And admitting
it
> will catch up, signifying you realize that this will kill you? Hmmm.
I'm a commercial pilot. When I am hired to move an airplane, I am
hired to do a job. That job includes risk. When I took my first job
out of school, troubleshooting distillation towers, I took a lot more
risk.
When you use the airplane as a tool (meaning a vehicle for getting you
where you want to go when you want to get there, and not just a way of
going up to see the pretty scenery, shoot some landings, and get a
hundred dollar burger or attend a fly-in) there is unavoidably going to
be some risk. If you don't, you could in theory get the risk down to
almost nothing. But only in theory.
In reality, the most dangerous segment of aviation isn't the people who
fly with a schedule to keep and a place to be. These people (the
self-flown business flyers and the commercial pilots) have a safety
record dramatically better than GA as a whole - in part, I think,
because they're not kidding themselves about the risks.
Who are the most dangerous people in GA? Well, it's not the the
personal flyers, who just go for hundred dollar burgers, attend flyins,
and look at the pretty scenery. They're number two - behind the
airshow performers, and slightly ahead of the cropdusters.
Don't believe me? Check out the Nall Report. It's on the AOPA site.
Michael
houstondan
personal minimums. as someone who has been riding motorcycles for 40
years, i find it kinda tough to be critical of the decisions other
people make when the biggest killer of stupid old men is really big
motorcycles. news here a couple of weeks ago about some poor old fart
who was sitting on his porch when an 18-wheeler tire exploded and blew
him away. true.
i like the line someone around here uses about safety being an
impediment to progress....(sorry for the sloppy paraphrase)...
dan
Dude
<j...@frii.com> wrote in message
news:421bb3c6$0$42480$7586...@news.frii.net...
All good stuff guys. The mushing in I heard of was mostly Florida stuff.
Most places where I fly, the bases of the trees are not an option - its too
thick, and you cannot see them. You certainly cannot see them at night.
Also, mushing isn't the best term as it means different things to different
folks.
The east vs. west thing is great. The type of trees matters a lot if you
think about it. But are you really going to be able to tell?
Also, the plane type would matter. Let's face it, not all planes are of
similar crashworthiness.
One real problem is going to be aiming between the trees. If you have no
experience with skiing or biking or something similar, that may be more than
most folks can accomplish.
I am naturally not a go with the odds guy. I have to train to overcome my
desire to calculate and decide based on all the apparent evidence vs. what
is most likely to work in all cases. I often get the impression that some
flight advice is like betting on the favorite horse even if he is limping.
Cockpit Colin
> who was sitting on his porch when an 18-wheeler tire exploded and blew
> him away. true.
In my opinion it's more accurate to say that "so and so was prepared to
accept a level of risk that is higher than what I would be prepared to
accept" than it is to call something "dangerous". Unfortunately, too many
pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they
keep on dying horrible deaths.
For me, safety isn't about the number of times you prepare for an event that
never happens (eg wearing a seatbelt when you didn't have an accident) -
it's all about avoiding the one time when something does go wrong - and the
pilot is totally unprepared to cope with it.
Night flying over inhospitable terrain in a single? No thanks - not for me.
Morgans
"Cockpit Colin" <sp...@nospam.com> wrote
>Unfortunately, too many
> pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they
> keep on dying horrible deaths.
I'm with you. Saying that you accept the risks, because you are a
professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would not
accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable, and
manageable.
What's that saying about old pilots, and bold pilots?
--
Jim in NC
Jose
> professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would not
> accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable, and
> manageable.
This statement presumes that there is an objective measure of risk, and
an independent, objective measure of acceptability (or its inverse -
"undueness") which applies to all circumstances. This new learning
amazes me. Tell me again about the theory that the earth is banana shaped.
There are circumstances which merit higher risk. There are other
circumstances where even a low level of risk is too much. If this were
not true, there would be no difference between the hundred dollar
hamburger flight, a lifeguard mission, a combat mission, an aerobatics
exhibition, and any other kind of flying.
Of course this would have to include getting drunk and then flying in
the mountains with a shotgun pointing out the window to try to ping some
mountain goats for sport too, something I'm not willing to put in the
"acceptable" category, no matter how much fun it is to fire a gun under
the influence of altitude and alcohol while diving at a hundred fifty
miles an hour towards something furry standing in front of something
very hard.
But (except for degree), what's the difference between this and flying
upside down, sober, at mach 1, fifteen feet AGL in front of three
thousand people? You wouldn't catch me doing that either, no matter how
cool it is! No matter how much you train for such an exhibition, it is
more risky than the average hundred dollar hamburger.
So, while I agree with the statement:
> A true professional would not
> accept missions of undue risk
it begs the question of what counts as "undue", and how to measure it,
and by and for whom. The FARs have outlined a few antics that would be
"undue risk" (and prohibited them), but this leaves a whole lot of other
things that are legal, don't come under the ruberic of "careless and
reckless", but for some are seen (by others) as "unduly risky". So, the
statement comes off as "unduly simplistic".
Jose
--
Matt Whiting
> "Cockpit Colin" <sp...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>
>>Unfortunately, too many
>>pilots continue to accept too high a level of risk - and as a result, they
>>keep on dying horrible deaths.
>
>
> I'm with you. Saying that you accept the risks, because you are a
> professional pilot, is a cop-out of a reason. A true professional would not
> accept missions of undue risk, and wait for conditions more acceptable, and
> manageable.
The trouble is that there is no absolute standard for "undue" risk.
Matt
Thomas Borchert
> The odds will
> > catch up with you eventually.
>
You say we're ALL going to win the lottery?
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Legrande Harris
killed you. We can deal with two problems at once but we can't deal
with three.
So my rule is to never fly with more than one known problem because
unforeseen problems have a way of appearing when they aren't convenient.
As for flying at night over the mountains that is definitely a problem.
The plane and engine have to be in perfect condition. The weather has
to be perfect and I have to be current, rested and alert. If those
conditions are met then I wouldn't have a problem flying a Cessna 152 at
night over the mountains and I have done it a few times.
I personally think that weather in the mountains is a much more severe
problem than darkness.
LG
NW_PILOT
> very thought provoking thread for me. valuable stuff to consider
> personal minimums. as someone who has been riding motorcycles for 40
> years, i find it kinda tough to be critical of the decisions other
> people make when the biggest killer of stupid old men is really big
> motorcycles.
I ride bike's also, Every time I stop at a light I wait for the idiot that
doesn't see me and is going to plow in to me, hearing someone's tires
skidding behind you is not a good sound or a good feeling. Being boxed in on
the highway or while at a stop light on a bike by people that think its
funny is not a good feeling also. What about being tail gated while on a
bike. I will take flying a single over the mountains at night rather then
getting creamed by some loser that's not paying attention or wanting to play
with people on motorcycles.
Mike Rapoport
"Michael" <usenet...@thisoldairplane.com> wrote in message
news:1109120468....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> mindenpilot wrote:
>> From the time I hit Tahoe, until I get to Placerville, there is
> literally
>> NOWHERE to safely put it down.
>> In fact, I don't think I could even walk away from the plane if I had
> to put
>> it down.
>>
>> With that in mind, what difference would it make if it was light or
> dark
>> outside the plane?
>> I'd be dead either way, right?
>
> Sounds about right. There are certain situations where VMC/IMC and
> day/night make no difference (provided the pilot is prepared to control
> the plane by reference to instruments) - and those situations are where
> the terrain is uniformly bad (overwater) or uniformly good (nothing but
> fields). Maybe the Sierras really are uniformly bad.
>
> Thing is, while I've never flown the Sierras, I've made three crossings
> over the Rockies doing the Houston-San Francisco run. Two of them were
> day-VMC, and one included night and IMC flying.
>
Pet peeve...its Sierra not Sierras, the word is already plural.
Mike
MU-2
Montblack
> Pet peeve...its Sierra not Sierras, the word is already plural.
What's the singular? Siera?
Rocky Mountain
Rocky Mountains
Rockies
?????? Mountain
?????? Mountains
Sierras
Montblack
Alan
Rockies and have flown the "rocks" for 10 years in various singles,
the last 7 or so in my 182.
My personal limit is that I'd never attempt it at night. Too many
variables and too few options should there be an emergency. I'll take
it one further and again, it's just my own personal limiter. Call me
wimp, doesn't bother me. I won't fly a single at night, period.
I've done it and it was beautiful but I don't like the idea of looking
for an emergency landing option blindfolded.
For me, safe flying is all about exercising prudent judgement.
Granted, this can be very subjective although sometimes there are
absolutes. Such as taking off into a cell where 2000fpm downdrafts
have been reported. But, for me, mountain flying is strictly a
daylight activity.
Alan Bloom
N8565T
'60 Skylane
Dogs can fly.
http://www.flyingmutts.com
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:01:18 +1300, "Cockpit Colin" <sp...@nospam.com>
wrote:
xyzzy
Sierra is Spanish for "Mountain Range."
The word Sierra is not plural, but it does refer to all the mountains in
the range. You would use Sierras to refer to multiple mountain ranges,
not multiple mountains.
HTH
Morgans
"Legrande Harris" <lgha...@xmission.com> wrote
> The plane and engine have to be in perfect condition.
Perfect engines fail, too. Right?
--
Jim in NC
George Patterson
Morgans wrote:
>
> Perfect engines fail, too. Right?
Yep. One that quit on takeoff at Kupper was a Mattituck overhaul with only a few
hours on it. That's about as perfect as you're gonna get in this world. The CFI
did a fantastic job of returning to the airport from about 600' AGL, refused the
offer of a drink, and went home (presumably to change).
George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.
Gig 601XL Builder
"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:wWqTd.5072>
>
> Pet peeve...its Sierra not Sierras, the word is already plural.
>
But we are talking about a proper noun. If my last name meant "many good
looking people" in Italian and you invited my family and I to your house you
wouldn't say "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giacona coming over
tonight." You would say, "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giaconas
coming over tonight. We better get more wine."
George Patterson
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> But we are talking about a proper noun. If my last name meant "many good
> looking people" in Italian and you invited my family and I to your house you
> wouldn't say "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giacona coming over
> tonight." You would say, "Damn we are lucky enough to have the Giaconas
> coming over tonight. We better get more wine."
But you would never say "the Appalachian ranges." For the same reason, you
should never say "the Sierras" when you're talking about the Sierra Nevada.
Morgans
Have you ever considered home brewing a fire protectin system for your
house? A pipe on the roof with holes drilled in it to keep the shingles
wet. Directional irrigation sprinklers keeping the walls wet. A high
volume irrigation pump, I'm thinking gas, so power outages will not be a
problem. Pump out of the swimming pool. If you don't have a pool, now you
have an excuse to get one!
--
Jim in NC
Jose
> should never say "the Sierras" when you're talking about the Sierra Nevada.
But we say "the Appalachians".
Peter Duniho
news:421E5E84...@verizon.net...
> But you would never say "the Appalachian ranges." For the same reason, you
> should never say "the Sierras" when you're talking about the Sierra
> Nevada.
If we were speaking Spanish, and we were speaking only of some generic
"sierra", that would be correct. However, you cannot apply the original
rules to words borrowed from other languages and expect them to still make
sense in English (in this case...this isn't particular to English),
especially when the borrowed word becomes a proper noun. A borrowed word,
in the language that borrowed it, inherets brand new rules, completely
independent of the original language from whence it came.
I have about as many language pet peeves as anyone, but IMHO this is one
that the owner's of said pet peeve just need to get over already.
Pete
Jose
> in the language that borrowed it, inherets brand new rules, completely
> independent of the original language from whence it came.
"...original language whence it came". I wouldn't mention it except
that we're talking about words.
Mike Rapoport
Sierra.
Mike
MU-2
<bdlon...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:1109281446....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Mike,
> American Heritage Dictionary defines a sierra is "a rugged range of
> mountains having an irregular or jagged profile".
> I did a quick web search and found sierras being used quite often.
> Here are some old sources:
>
> Book: In the Heart of the Sierras by James M. Hutchings (1888)
> Movies: Springtime in the Sierras (1947); King of the Sierras (1938)
>
> So if there are more than one mountan ranges, it appears that the
> plural term sierras is used such as Sierras de Cazorla, Segura and Las
> Villas in Spain
>
> http://www.andalucia.com/environment/protect/cazorla.htm
>
Cockpit Colin
I was bumming a ride in the jump seat of a Saab 340A - the reason I was
there was because I wasn't prepared to fly a light twin with a single-engine
service ceiling of around 4250 at night over terrain that requires a MSA of
around 8000 feet.
Without any suggestion from me, 2 seperate crews immediately came to the
same conclusion I did - and that is "if you were going to do that flight
then you would want to track around the coast" (ie at sea level).
In my opinion these crews both have a safety oriented attitude - on the
other hand many of the pilots I know would do that flight at night in a
single - their best attempt at "risk management" being "the aeroplane
doesn't know it's night"
I know which bunch I'd send my family flying with!
"Morgans" <jsmo...@chJUarNKer.net> wrote in message
news:bPbTd.39$eg...@fe04.lga...
Cockpit Colin
part) as safe, or as dangerous as pilots choose to make it. There are so
many things that one can do to make a difference.
Call me old - call me a fool (call me an old fool) but I kinda enjoy my
life - so I do what I can to stay alive. If some idiot wants to get ahead of
me on the motorway - I pull over and let him get as far ahead as he likes
(the further the better). If I'm flying over water I WEAR a life jacket - no
ifs, buts, or maybes. If I'm night flying away from the airport I fly a
twin. If I don't like the look of the weather I turn back or go somewhere
else.
What I don't understand is why others don't do these things? I mean to say -
if they want to keep killing themselves with their "risk denial" attitudes
and actions I guess that's their right - but it seems a pity all the same.
Cockpit Colin
> For me, safe flying is all about exercising prudent judgement.
> Granted, this can be very subjective although sometimes there are
> absolutes. Such as taking off into a cell where 2000fpm downdrafts
> have been reported. But, for me, mountain flying is strictly a
> daylight activity.
Or perhaps a slightly different slant ...
"In any situation if you can choose to do something 2 ways - one being more
safe - the other being less safe - then why on earth wouldn't you choose the
safer one?
Legrande Harris
"Morgans" <jsmo...@chJUarNKer.net> wrote:
> "Legrande Harris" <lgha...@xmission.com> wrote
>
> > The plane and engine have to be in perfect condition.
>
> Perfect engines fail, too. Right?
Everything mechanical will break.
Do I want to be flying at night over the mountains when my engine dies?
The thought of spiraling down into a black hole doesn't really appeal to
me :(
I actually enjoy flying at night though. I learned to fly down in
Arizona and flying at night with a full moon across the desert was a
wonderful experience. At night I would have less turbulence, the
aircrafts performance was better and most of the time I could see the
ground well enough to probably survive an engine out landing.
So is it worth the risk? Is it worth the risk not to?
LG
Jose
> if they want to keep killing themselves with their "risk denial" attitudes
> and actions I guess that's their right - but it seems a pity all the same.
And what is your answer to the folk who don't understand why you climb
into those dangerous flying contraptions in the first place, instead of
motoring along safely on the ground, or, if you =must= fly, to do so
from the back of a jumbo jet?
George Patterson
Jose wrote:
>
> > But you would never say "the Appalachian ranges." For the same reason, you
> > should never say "the Sierras" when you're talking about the Sierra Nevada.
>
> But we say "the Appalachians".
And it would be correct to say "the Nevadas." But not "the Sierras."
Peter Duniho
news:n9uTd.12045$hU7...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> "...original language whence it came". I wouldn't mention it except that
> we're talking about words.
Yeah, thanks. I make misteaks sometimes too. :)
Part of the problem is that I unconsciously pick up other people's language
habits. I have found that I have to correct my friends EVERY time they
misuse "I" and "me" (usually by saying "I" when they mean "me"), otherwise I
find myself using those words incorrectly as well.
I do explain this to my friends, and they're very tolerant of my
corrections. :)
Pete
Jose
>
> And it would be correct to say "the Nevadas." But not "the Sierras."
But we write "the Appalachian range", though we write "the Sierra
Nevada", not "the sierra Nevada". "Sierra" is part of the proper noun;
it is not a common noun by itself in this context, the way "range" is above.
Montblack
> But we write "the Appalachian range", though we write "the Sierra Nevada",
> not "the sierra Nevada". "Sierra" is part of the proper noun; it is not a
> common noun by itself in this context, the way "range" is above.
i'm waiting for houstondan's response.
montblack
Matt Whiting
> Tell you an interesting story about professional pilots ...
>
> I was bumming a ride in the jump seat of a Saab 340A - the reason I was
> there was because I wasn't prepared to fly a light twin with a single-engine
> service ceiling of around 4250 at night over terrain that requires a MSA of
> around 8000 feet.
>
> Without any suggestion from me, 2 seperate crews immediately came to the
> same conclusion I did - and that is "if you were going to do that flight
> then you would want to track around the coast" (ie at sea level).
>
> In my opinion these crews both have a safety oriented attitude - on the
> other hand many of the pilots I know would do that flight at night in a
> single - their best attempt at "risk management" being "the aeroplane
> doesn't know it's night"
If safety was your ultimate goal, you would only fly the airlines and
not fly GA at all, other than bizjets whose record rivals the airlines.
The safest GA aircraft are still much more dangerous than the airlines.
People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It
depends on the circumstances. The example I use is people who say they
would never take off in 0/0 conditions even though it is legal under
part 91. I wouldn't normally do this either, but if my wife needed
emergency surgery and was fairly certain to die without it, and if my
airplane was the only means to get her to a hospital, then I'd take off
0/0 to make such a flight. In that case, the relatively small risk of
killing us both outweights the very high risk of death without the surgery.
Matt
Matt Whiting
Because the less safe one may be more rewarding. We do lots of
activities that aren't absolutely necessary. Mountain climbing is more
dangerous than many other ways to get to the top of a mountain, but lots
of folks do it.
I like to tour on a motorcycle. It certainly isn't the safest way to
get from point A to point B, but it is very rewarding.
Matt
Matt
Alan
wrote:
>
>"In any situation if you can choose to do something 2 ways - one being more
>safe - the other being less safe - then why on earth wouldn't you choose the
>safer one?
>
>
caring which would be the better choice. Every summer like clockwork,
here in Colorado, there are the usual incidents of pilots splattering
their machinery due to a lack of respect for that *minor* concept of
density altitude. Pilots attempt to take off at 2 pm, when the temp
is 92F and the density altitude is somewhere around 9000' with their
C172 loaded past the weight limit. Jeez, I wonder why they barely
managed to lift off and then slammed into the field at the end of the
runway - if they even managed to reach the end of the runway.
Alan
<whi...@chilitech.net> wrote:
>
>I like to tour on a motorcycle. It certainly isn't the safest way to
>get from point A to point B, but it is very rewarding.
>
But, would you make that journey to point B in a pitch black night,
with no headlight or tail light?
I'm not risk averse, I'm stupid averse.
Michael
> > The odds will
> > > catch up with you eventually.
>
> You say we're ALL going to win the lottery?
Sure, if we play long enough.
Fly long enough, and an engine WILL fail. I've flown about 1900 hours
in powered aircraft, but 800 of those were in twins so I have about
2700 hours of engine time. I've had an engine failure caused by
mechanical problems. Once.
Michael
Brooks Hagenow
So is Sierra Mountains also wrong because it would mean mountain range
mountains?
I would go with Sierras because we are not speaking spanish. It is the
name of mountains within a country that speaks primarily English. It
does not mean anything else.
One of my pet peeves is spanish versions of government forms. I thought
part of becoming a U.S. citizen was having a working understanding of
English.
Peter Duniho
news:1109356245.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> > The odds will
>> > > catch up with you eventually.
>>
>> You say we're ALL going to win the lottery?
>
> Sure, if we play long enough.
That's not true. The longer you play, the more opportunities you have to
win. But each time you play, you have the same exact chance to win (all
else being equal, which means ignore the variations in chance due to
different numbers of participants, etc), and there is NO length of time you
can play that will guarantee a win.
> Fly long enough, and an engine WILL fail.
Likewise, there is no length of time you can fly that will guarantee an
engine failure. Just as important: it doesn't matter how many hours you
have, the chance of an engine failure is exactly the same (all else being
equal) on each flight. Once you successfully complete a flight without an
engine failure, you can ignore that flight (and every single one prior) for
the purpose of assessing your risk on the next flight.
It seems that some pilots are going around thinking that the longer they
fly, the closer they get to their fated engine failure (or other problem).
That's just not true.
Mechanical problems do happen, and an engine failure can happen as a result.
An engine failure is a very real possibility, but it is also very unlikely.
But then, so is having your wing fall off. Or running into another
airplane, or a bird, or something. There are lots of risks associated with
flying, many of which the pilot has little or no control over. We accept
them because the actual likelihood is low.
IMHO, there is no clear cut "this is just plain too dangerous for anyone to
do", and that includes issues like flying over mountains, at night, IFR, in
a single engine airplane. It's entirely possible to have a flying career
comprising only IFR flights over mountains at night in single-engine
airplanes and still never have to deal with an engine failure, never mind
one over hostile terrain.
Besides, anyone arguing against doing that needs to expand the prohibited
class of aircraft to include any twin engine aircraft with a single-engine
service ceiling lower than the terrain (or MEA/MOCA/MRA) being overflown.
Pete
Mike Rapoport
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
news:111uvfm...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Michael" <usenet...@thisoldairplane.com> wrote in message
> news:1109356245.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> class of aircraft to include any twin engine aircraft with a single-engine
> service ceiling lower than the terrain (or MEA/MOCA/MRA) being overflown.
>
> Pete
Having a single engine service ceiling higher than terrain is not really
that important. The single engine service ceiling is the altitude where the
airplane is still *climbing* 50fpm. The altitude where the airplane is
*descending* 50fpm is much higher. If you were cruising along at the MEA
and lost an engine, and the MEA was 5000' above the single engine service
ceiling, it would take tens or hundreds of miles to lose 2000' of altitude
and impact terrain. Actually you might never impact since the single engine
service ceiling rises as the plane burns off fuel. Barry Scheiff talks
about this topic in one of his books using actual numbers and the bottom
line is that you could lose an engine at the MEA in virtually any twin and
reach an airport, at least in the US.
Mike
MU-2
Stefan
> If you were cruising along at the MEA
> and lost an engine, and the MEA was 5000' above the single engine service
> ceiling, it would take tens or hundreds of miles to lose 2000' of altitude
> and impact terrain.
*If* there are no downdrafts. Remember, we're talking mountains.
Stefan
Matt Whiting
No, because that would constitute riding with broken equipment. I
wouldn't fly a single at night in IMC without cockpit lights or radios
either, but I will and have with all equipment working. Sure, if the
engine quits it will be ugly, but that is a very remote possibility and
one that I accept every now and again if the trip is important enough.
Matt
Mike Rapoport
any event, if there were significant downdrafts, it wouldn't make much
difference if the plane could climb 50fpm or sink 50fpm in still air.
Mike
MU-2
"Stefan" <stefan@mus._INVALID_.ch> wrote in message
news:cvo1vf$ell$1...@news.hispeed.ch...
Stefan
> Downdrafts are always balanced by updrafts over any meaningful distance.. In
Make that "mostly". Mountains sometimes bear some surprizes, if you
don't know the region. Anyway, we were talking about night flying. Not
easy to find the right ridge ad night...
> any event, if there were significant downdrafts, it wouldn't make much
> difference if the plane could climb 50fpm or sink 50fpm in still air.
My point exactly.
Stefan
Ron Garret
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:
> Likewise, there is no length of time you can fly that will guarantee an
> engine failure. Just as important: it doesn't matter how many hours you
> have, the chance of an engine failure is exactly the same (all else being
> equal) on each flight. Once you successfully complete a flight without an
> engine failure, you can ignore that flight (and every single one prior) for
> the purpose of assessing your risk on the next flight.
That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
some time your career approaches 1.
Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
The question is how long is "long enough."
rg
Morgans
"Matt Whiting" <whi...@chilitech.net> wrote
Sure, if the
> engine quits it will be ugly, but that is a very remote possibility and
> one that I accept every now and again if the trip is important enough.
>
>
> Matt
Do me a favor, and settle a bet. Would you mind telling us how old you are?
--
Jim in NC
Bob Noel
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:16:35 -0800, Ron Garret <rNOS...@flownet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
> >your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
> >some time your career approaches 1.
> >
> >Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
> >probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
> >to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
> >you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
> >The question is how long is "long enough."
> >
> >rg
>
>
> This just ain't so.
>
> Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
> played it.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
> in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.
The odds of winning any particular lottery are (approximately) the same.
The odds of winning a lottery sometime in your lifetime are much better if you
play the lottery every day of your life (assuming a nice long life) than if you
just play the lottery once.
--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like
mindenpilot
<cfey...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:c3mv111ui2678cm0o...@4ax.com...
>>your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
>>some time your career approaches 1.
>>
>>Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
>>probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
>>to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
>>you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
>>The question is how long is "long enough."
>>
>>rg
>
>
>
> Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
> played it.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
> in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.
Agreed.
Take a look at a probability text book.
Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III
Steve.T
Seems there were these three math professors from Purdue, the one
specialized in statistics. They decided to go duck hunting. So they got
them a boat, shotguns, etc.
So here they are sitting in the boat when they see a duck flying toward
them. The one in the bow fired at the duck and the shot went above the
duck. The one in the middle shot under the duck. The stats prof in the
back of the boat yelled, "Got 'em!"
Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument
Ron Garret
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:16:35 -0800, Ron Garret <rNOS...@flownet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
> >your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
> >some time your career approaches 1.
> >
> >Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
> >probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
> >to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
> >you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
> >The question is how long is "long enough."
> >
> >rg
>
>
> This just ain't so.
Yes it is, you just didn't read what I wrote very carefully. Pay
particular attention to the phrase "some time in your career."
> Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
> played it.
Yes, that's true.
> It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
> in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.
That depends on what you mean by "the odds". The odds on any one play
are the same, but the cumulative odds of experiencing a win or an engine
failure *at some point in your life* goes up with every play/flight.
Specifically, if the odds of winning on a single try are P then the odds
of winning some time in your career are 1-(1-P)^N where N is the number
of times you play. As long as P is strictly greater than 0 this number
approaches 1 as N grows large. In fact, it is an elementary algebraic
exercise to solve for N given P and the desired cumulative probability
P1.
The behavior of this formula is somewhat counterintuitive. For example,
if P is 0.01 (1 chance in 100 of winning/engine failure on any
particular try) then to have a 99% chance of winning you have to
play/fly about 460 times. To have a 50% chance you only need about 70
tries.
A special case of this formula is when P is very small and N is not too
huge (N<<1/P). Then (1-P)^N is approximately 1-NP, and the cumulative
probability is approximately 1-(1-NP)=NP. In other words, if the
probability of winning is small then the probability of winning in N
plays is very nearly N times greater than the probability of winning in
1 play. This is a pretty good approximation until the cumulative
probability gets around 10-20% (at which point N is off by 5-10%), which
is to say, it's a pretty close approximation in realistic scenarios for
both lotteries and engine failures.
rg
Morgans
> This just ain't so.
>
> played it.
>
> in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.
Those that are not up on statistics will argue that point forever. Then add
a couple years!
--
Jim in NC
Peter Duniho
news:ihatessppaamm-2AF...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> The odds of winning a lottery sometime in your lifetime are much better if
> you
> play the lottery every day of your life (assuming a nice long life) than
> if you
> just play the lottery once.
The odds are only higher at the beginning of your life.
For what you wrote to be true, you have to be calculating the odds at the
beginning of your life, and make some assumption about how often you'll play
(every day, for example), and about how long your life is (a year, for
example).
Once you make that calculation, then you go on with your life. Every day
you play the lottery. Every day that you fail to win the lottery, the
percentage chance of winning the lottery *during your life* is REDUCED (the
chance of winning on any given day, of course, is the constant chance anyone
has of winning on any given day). On the last day of your year-long life,
having not won the lottery, the chance of your winning the lottery is
exactly the same as the chance a person who has never played before and who
will only play this one day.
The only reason that it *seems* like people with high hours have a higher
chance of experience an engine failure is that the odds are being calculated
by assuming a fixed chance of the event over the entire number of hours.
But the hours already flown are irrelevant for the purpose of figuring your
chance of an engine failure for a given flight, as are the hours you expect
to fly after that flight.
Pete
Peter Duniho
news:rNOSPAMon-70C48...@news.gha.chartermi.net...
> Yes it is, you just didn't read what I wrote very carefully. Pay
> particular attention to the phrase "some time in your career."
Only if you're speaking of a hypothetical career prior to its start.
> That depends on what you mean by "the odds". The odds on any one play
> are the same, but the cumulative odds of experiencing a win or an engine
> failure *at some point in your life* goes up with every play/flight.
Define "cumulative odds". The word "cumulative" implies that you're talking
about the odds as the flight hours accrue. In that respect, your claim is
false.
> Specifically, if the odds of winning on a single try are P then the odds
> of winning some time in your career are 1-(1-P)^N where N is the number
> of times you play.
That statement is true only when you are calculating the odds prior to ALL
trials (flights), and have determined the number of trials (flights) in
advance. It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion.
No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will make
in a lifetime.
Pete
Steve.T
aren't as high as the Rockies or Sierra Nevada mountains. But day or
night, they still don't provide a good place to land.
When I fly at night, I have two flash lights (minimum), spare batteries
for both. If any light in/on the plane is not working, it is a no-go.
The GPS must have the most current map, the VORs must have just been
tested (e.g., in air, VOT, etc.), both radios must be functional, I
carry both VFR and IFR charts and both are marked for planned flight. I
generally file for 7,000 to 10,000 (well above the Min altitudes) and
ask for direct. My wife generally is following along on the VFR charts
to know where the closest airport is (and we use the GPS to assist in
this). Oh, did I mention I also have a hand-held GPS as well? And I
work at *NOT* getting into icing conditions (probably why the plane has
been in the hanger since November 04).
I am 49, 330+ hours, have a family that flies with me in IMC.
Regards,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument
Morgans
"Steve.T" <ste...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> Ok, I fly IMC at night, single engine on the east coast. Granted, they
> aren't as high as the Rockies or Sierra Nevada mountains. But day or
> night, they still don't provide a good place to land.
> Steve.T
I didn't ask you how old you are. I'll bite anyway.
I am not against any form of night flight, and I'll also say that East coast
mountains are different, but most of all, the amount of airports on the
right cost is vastly different.
--
Jim in NC
Ron Garret
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:
> "Ron Garret" <rNOS...@flownet.com> wrote in message
> news:rNOSPAMon-70C48...@news.gha.chartermi.net...
> > Yes it is, you just didn't read what I wrote very carefully. Pay
> > particular attention to the phrase "some time in your career."
>
> Only if you're speaking of a hypothetical career prior to its start.
Obviously. If the career is over then one need not invoke probabilities
at all. Probabilities are only useful when discussing things whose
outcomes are not yet known.
> > That depends on what you mean by "the odds". The odds on any one play
> > are the same, but the cumulative odds of experiencing a win or an engine
> > failure *at some point in your life* goes up with every play/flight.
>
> Define "cumulative odds". The word "cumulative" implies that you're talking
> about the odds as the flight hours accrue. In that respect, your claim is
> false.
The cumulative probability of an event over N trials is the probability
that the event occurs at least once in those N trials. In that respect,
my claim is true.
> > Specifically, if the odds of winning on a single try are P then the odds
> > of winning some time in your career are 1-(1-P)^N where N is the number
> > of times you play.
>
> That statement is true only when you are calculating the odds prior to ALL
> trials (flights),
Obviously we only care about the odds for the flights we have not yet
made. For the flights that we have made we already know whether the
engine failed or not.
> and have determined the number of trials (flights) in advance.
No. That statement is true regardless of whether N is known.
> It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion.
That is a matter of opinion.
> No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will make
> in a lifetime.
That is not necessarily true. My mother, for example, knows exactly how
many flights in GA aircraft she will make during her lifetime: zero.
And just in case you're too dimwitted to extrapolate from this example
I'll spell it out for you: one can *decide* on the basis of this
calculation to stop flying after some number of flight because flying
more than that results in a cumulative probability of disaster that
exceeds one's risk tolerance.
rg
NW_PILOT
"Nomen Nescio" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:11252aafd82ae43e...@dizum.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
over
> the mountains at night?"
> Using Ron Garret's example of 1 in 100 chance of having an engine failure,
> and assuming that an engine failure at night over the mountains has a
> 100% chance of being fatal (I know it's not 100%, but I'd bet it's awfully
> close). And that you have a "99% chance" of having an engine failure if
> you fly back and forth over the mountains "460 times". I agree with you
> that on the 461st you have no more chance of having an engine failure
> than the first time you make the flight. BUT....there IS a 99% chance that
> you don't live long enough to make that 461st flight. While your assertion
> is quite correct that the closer you get to the end of your flying career,
the
> lower the odds of having an engine failure (and consequently, crash and
> burn on a mountainside), the higher the odds are that you're already dead.
> In other words, when you make that 461st flight.....chances are that
you're
> in a box that's been loaded in the back of the plane.
>
> This brings to mind the old saying:
> "It's easy to beat death, but death's advantage is that it only has to win
once"
Yes it is a very old saying, especially since someone like me has already
been clinically dead once. I Guess I won that round.
Bob Noel
wrote:
> >The odds of winning any particular lottery are (approximately) the same.
> >
> >The odds of winning a lottery sometime in your lifetime are much better if
> >you
> >play the lottery every day of your life (assuming a nice long life) than if
> >you
> >just play the lottery once.
>
> Approximately? They are exactly the same.
I said "approximately" because not all lotteries are the same.
>
> Of course your odds of having an engine failure with two engines is
> double of what it would be with one, and quadruple with four.
all other variables held constant...
>
> So the guy who buys 4 lottery tickets is4 times as likely to win
> (actually, lose) his money than a guy who buys one.
>
> After everybody loses today, however, when we stepup to the window
> tomeorrow, our odds are exactly the same. The guy who bought 4
> tickets yesterday is no better off than I am, who never played.
A source of much confusion is when people try to compare probabilities
of events with different pre-conditions.
Thomas Borchert
> That's not true. The longer you play, the more opportunities you have to
> win. But each time you play, you have the same exact chance to win (all
> else being equal, which means ignore the variations in chance due to
> different numbers of participants, etc), and there is NO length of time you
> can play that will guarantee a win.
>
Or, in other words I like a lot: There is no law of small numbers.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Peter Duniho
news:sgq021tgtjepcoubn...@4ax.com...
> [...]
> Of course your odds of having an engine failure with two engines is
> double of what it would be with one, and quadruple with four.
Only approximately. The only reason doubling (or quadrupling) the number of
engines doubles (or quadruples) the chance of an engine failure
(approximately) is that the failure rate is so low. For example, if the
failure rate were 50%, a doubling of that would cause you to expect an
engine to fail each flight (a 100% chance of failure), when in fact the
chance is actually only 75%.
Pete
Peter Duniho
> [...]
>> and have determined the number of trials (flights) in advance.
>
> No. That statement is true regardless of whether N is known.
Knowing that your chances of having an engine failure are 1-(1-P)^N isn't
very useful information if you don't know what N is.
>> It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion.
>
> That is a matter of opinion.
Tell me how I'm going to use the information then. Since you think it's so
useful.
>> No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will
>> make
>> in a lifetime.
>
> That is not necessarily true. My mother, for example, knows exactly how
> many flights in GA aircraft she will make during her lifetime: zero.
For a person who will never make a flight in a GA aircraft, why in the world
would I consider at all how many engine failures she'll experience?
It's like trying to figure out how many live births I'll have in my
lifetime. Duh.
> And just in case you're too dimwitted to extrapolate from this example
> I'll spell it out for you: one can *decide* on the basis of this
> calculation to stop flying after some number of flight because flying
> more than that results in a cumulative probability of disaster that
> exceeds one's risk tolerance.
Only if they make that decision prior to flying those hours. I haven't met
a single person who has ever done such an analysis of their flying career.
I doubt one exists.
If you can find me one, I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, you are without a
point (I'll refrain from any implication that YOU are dimwitted, just 'cause
that's the kind of guy I am).
Pete
Matt Whiting
45. Who won the bet? :-)
Matt
Matt Whiting
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:16:35 -0800, Ron Garret <rNOS...@flownet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>That's true, but the longer you fly (or play the lottery) the closer
>>your probability of experiencing an engine failure (or a lottery win)
>>some time your career approaches 1.
>>
>>Of course, you might have to fly/play for a *very* long time before that
>>probability actually gets close to 1, but sooner or later it will be 1
>>to any desired degree of accuracy. So the statement "fly long enough and
>>you will experience an engine failure" is pretty close to being true.
>>The question is how long is "long enough."
>>
>>rg
>
>
>
> This just ain't so.
>
> Every time you play the lottery, it's like the first time you ever
> played it.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you won a jillion yesterday, or haven't won
> in 50 years, or never played. The odds are exactly the same.
Yes, for every given play you are correct. However, Ron is correct that
in aggregate, someone who plays more often has a higher overall chance
of winning at some point than a person who only plays once in their
lifetime. At least I think that is the point he was making.
Matt
Matt Whiting
> Approximately? They are exactly the same.
>
> Of course your odds of having an engine failure with two engines is
> double of what it would be with one, and quadruple with four.
No, because the engines aren't completely independent of each other.
Most have at least one common system (fuel).
Matt