Mountain flying forum at osh

[Mtns2Skies]

I'd recommend you advise they go up with a local CFI before even approaching the mountains. IIRC (could be completely wrong) But I've heard more Texan pilots die in Colorado than Coloradan pilots. I understand that you are a very competent mountain pilot, but I'd definitely stress the danger present, and the respect that pilots MUST have to fly in the rockies. (With naturally aspirated piston aircraft)

[AmigoOne]

As I said before I am respectful of these mountains and I'm planning to acquire as much knowledge as possible before leaving. And no, I am not a very competent mountain flying and that begs the question whether or not I should attempt this flight. My review of a route I have tentatively planned tells me that it can be done between 10-12K feet, well within that capability of my airplane. The issue for me always has been the weather and how to interpret how it affects mountain flying. One thing for sure, we will only fly in clear weather. Not mountain IFR for us.

[WLIU]

One of my pet topics is how when flying in mountains under a ceiling that is good VFR but precludes flying over to peaks, you need to have good sectional map reading skills. The newer GPS units show terrain, but if you turn down the wrong valley you can get into serious trouble. Without local knowledge it is unwise to go further into a valley if it is getting too narrow to do a comfortable 180 turn. And don't go through a pass or notch if you do not know that you can come back.

I have a relatively fun but challenging task that I advise pilots to try on a clear and blue day in tall hills or mountains. Try and do a 50 mile hop through the rocks at 500' to 1000' AGL, where you can't see over the ridges. Look at your sectional before you get in the airplane and figure out a route through the valleys. Then go try to fly it. If you really really get lost, climb above the tops of the hills to look around and see where you got to. Then go back down and try to get back to where you want to be. It is an interesting game on a nice day with low winds aloft.

Don't know if that sort of learning exercise fits into a mountain flying lecture, but I learned about flying in the rocks the hard way like most folks I know. I grew up, aeronautically speaking, around them.

For flatlanders, I would suggest that flying in the mountains is not very hard, but they require simply thinking about what they are. I assume that any lecture covers topics like
A) At night there are no obstruction lights on the rocks,
B) The tall rocks bend the wind currents as well as cause turbulence so the wind direction at two airports 10 miles apart can be reported as being completely different.
C) Tall rocks block you comm radio as well as a VOR. So if you are in a valley and the destination airport is around the other side of a tall rock, unicom likely will not hear you.
D) The wind accelerates as it flows over a ridge just like it accelerates when flowing over your wing. It is not particularly uncommon for your ground speed to go way down, even to zero on a windy day, as you approach a ridge from the downwind side. And you might not be getting turbulence depending on the contour of the ridge, the wind speed, and the stability of the air mass. So if it feels like you will never get over the ridge in front of you, you may be right, or you may just need more fuel and patience than you planned.
E) Flying VFR in the dark around tall rocks without lots of local knowledge is not for the faint of heart. A clear sky and a full moon helps, so you can get quickly up above the ridges, but it is not uncommon to hear of a pilot taking off from a well lit airport, turning, and flying into a dark ridge a mile away. If you feel the need to launch or land at night amongst unfamiliar rocks, stay right above (and I mean RIGHT ABOVE) the airport when you are below the ridge tops.

The guys in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, etc will add comments about leaning on take-off and density altitude.

The sum total is that you have to think about where you are headed and the time of day.

Just a few thoughts.

Wes
N78PS

[Bill Greenwood]

Amigo, of course you can fly over the mountains to Seattle, with the right planning and weather caution, and do it in the M 20C.

The first point I cover in my discussion is what type of plane is enough, and by that, mostly I mean one that can climb to 15 or 16,000. There are 52 mt peaks in Colo over 14,000 feet, and if the plane you own or rent can't get there, then you are forced to fly lower, which is possible and even advisable, in some places. There are many passes between 10,000 feet and 12,000 feet high so you MAY get over at 12,000.Aspen is at 7800 feet and there is both a northern and southern way to come in from Denver, but both passes are 12,100 ft,and that is the highway. But I prefer not to be limited to only flying below the peaks. You can fly in a C 152, which has a service ceiling of about 12,000 or a C172 which goes to about 14,000, by carrying one one or two people and going in the cooler mornings. But it's like trying to play in the NBA, it"s a lot easier if you are 6' 10" rather than 5'10". It is eye opening to fly a landing and takeoff in a 172 at Leadville in the summer with the airport elevation at 9927 feet. You can lift off the runway, but it struggles to climb while the trees at the end just seem to get taller and taller.
So it is a lot better to have a little more airplane, say at least a 182 and a Mooney Ranger fits that bill just fine. I can't recall exactly, but I think the service ceiling is at least 16,500 and I flew mine not only in Colo mountains but also California and down to Florida to go to Flightsafety.

Wes has some how to points about to fly in the valleys and the most important one is to make sure to have room to turn around if you must. But I prefer not to be limited just to the valley, and especially if I was coming from somewhere else and not familiar with tht terrain, and certain of what is at the other end to that valley.

[Hal Bryan]

Amigo, of course you can fly over the mountains to Seattle, with the right planning and weather caution, and do it in the M 20C.

As an aside, I used to fly back and forth across the Cascades fairly regularly in a Cherokee, 172, and most often a Cardinal RG. If it was CAVU or nearly so*, following I-90 through Snoqualmie Pass is a short and easy route, with a few airports and a number of other passable emergency landing spots on the way. I've flown it as low as 5,500, but was happier (and the view was better) at 8,500 or 9,500, depending on the direction.

Anyway, I'm the furthest thing in the world from an expert on mountain flying, but I always enjoyed this route. I never needed it, but there was always the backup plan of heading south and going through the Columbia gorge if I was worried about getting stuck on one side or the other.

*-And if it wasn't, I just didn't go.

[WLIU]

I will suggest that Cessna's have service ceilings in the low teens of DENSITY ALTITUDE, which on most summer days means they top out around 10,000' to 11,000' MSL. I recall one day just west of SLC when I was looking at just clearing the peaks of the Wasatch, or maybe having to dodge through a canyon, to get into Wyoming. I was talking to SLC center, and I think that the bottom of the controller's sector was at 10,000. I was at 10,300 and when he told me to "maintain at or above 10,000 feet", my reply was "Sir, I'm trying!".

I will suggest that if you are talking about mountain flying for guys who can easily cruise at 15,000 or higher, your audience size goes way down. I have peers who will suggest that at those altitudes you are no longer talking about mountain flying, just shooting approaches to places where you do not want to look out the windows at what is around you once you cross the final approach fix.

There is a large target audience of folks who fly normally aspirated airplanes, not equipped with oxy, that can get great benefit from an experienced voice. I know as I used to be based at an airport at the south end of the Green Mountains of Vermont and for some reason after a number of pilots had frightened themselves silly, or tried to land up north and broke part of their airplane off trying to land but didn't quite crash, they came to our place to stop or crash where there were services and staff that would take care of their situation.

That said, the pressurized airplane and kerosene burning people go to OSH also, so the presentation attendees will likely walk away a little smarter.

I will note that Hal's explanation of having a plan and a back up plan is a great example of how to approach a flight across a patch of tall rocks.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[AmigoOne]

Thanks to all for the useful information and the encouragement. So far from Rapid City after visiting Mt Rushmore, I am planning Billings BIL, Bozeman, BZN, Helena HLN, Missoula MSO, Spokane (airport not decided), Bowers ELN, and Seattle PLU. Tried to pick a route following highways or rivers which may change because if we have great weather we will try to cut across between airports when possible. Comments and Pireps on these airports and/or suggestions on others en route will be appreciated.

[WLIU]

Going that route I suggest that trying to follow I-90 is wise. If you run into problems and have no where else to go, you can land on or next to the highway. That means that help will come by. If you fly a route out away from heavily traveled roads and you have a problem, you might have to hike a ways from where you park the airplane.

Watch your fuel. You can get out to where if the weather or terrain is not kind to you, you might not have enough fuel on board to retreat to the airport that you launched from.

The good news is that the nice folks who build airports out there made the runways plenty long. 6000' x 100 is not uncommon for the municipal airports. The air is thinner and the airport builders accounted for that.

Most of the airports on that route are at 4000' MSL but you might run into one or two at 6000'MSL. Remember to lean before takeoff.

That kind of trip should be great fun. The scenery is great.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Bill Greenwood]

Hal's idea of following a major intererstate highway through a big valley at as low as 5500 feet may be fine for Washington or other places, but there are a few problems doing that in Colorado. First, while there is a big highway 70 that goes west from Denver up in the mountains past Vail, on near Aspen and even out the west side of Colorado, but if you are going to follow it in an airplane it would be best to have the plane on a trailer with the wings folded, since the road goes through several tunnels,and up to 12,000 feet.

If you intend to fly over the tunnels, then you are once again surrounded by mountains peaks mostly above 14,000 feet, and few flat places to land in the middle of them unless perhaps you are flying a Super Cub and are very good/lucky.
As for as the 5500 foot cruise, well Denver is the Mile High City, so that means 5280 feet at takeoff so it will be hard to clear many buildings at 220 feet AGL.

The big north/'south ridge of mountains that lie just west of the major towns/cities of the front range are called the Collegiate Range, and there are a bunch of them over 14,000 feet. One is Mt. Harvard, but it really should not take an Ivy League degree to think that being able to fly to 15,000 , IF AND WHEN NEEDED, is a good thing.
When needed may include problems of turbulence if the winds aloft are over 35 knots and/or visibility problems some days or as Flight Service says, "VFR flight not advised in areas of mt. obscurment." But they can be such spoil sports and what do they know anyway?

[Hal Bryan]

Hal's idea of following a major intererstate highway through a big valley at as low as 5500 feet may be fine for Washington or other places...

For clarity's sake, in the specific route I was talking about - Snoqualmie Pass - the max roadway elevation is just over 3000 feet, and the Cascade range is very narrow at that point (which is why they put a pass there) so your time actually "in the mountains" is maybe 15 minutes at a "normal" GA cruise.