|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

08-18-2009, 03:25 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
|
|
Paul, if you want one of those Colorado sectional like maps send me your mailing address. I think I have a few around. It may help with understanding what people are discussing here.
|

08-18-2009, 03:44 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canby, Oregon
Posts: 1,786
|
|
Flying Co.
If one were to plan a flight from Leadville to Furnace creek, what would be the recommend way to cross Colorado?
Highest to lowest airport. You should get great mileage, as it is downhill all the way.
Kent
__________________
Kent Byerley
RV9A N94KJ - IO320, CS, tipup
AFS 3500, TT AP, FLYING....
Canby, Or
|

08-18-2009, 08:23 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 778
|
|
Land in the desert
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyMike
Here's an example of what I'm thinking using the exercise that was set forth in this post of "navigating" the high Rockies enroute from Ft. Collins to San Diego (this example only goes as far as Cortez, CO but gets you west of the real high mountains - and O2 is required). ...
To me, this could be a less risky flight than one at lower altitudes with more sustained time over unlandable terrain, be it the ocean, desert, etc., because you spend less actual time exposed to peril. ...
It should be noted that my comparison only considers the "quantity" of exposure in time, but we know that exposure also has a qualitative component as well. The survivability of a forced landing in the tall mountains is likely to be lower than over a relatively flat desert or ocean, and therefore a proper risk analysis must consider these factors as well.
|
I'm not an experienced mountain pilot by any stretch, but I have flown from Wisconsin to California about a half dozen times round trip in the RV. I've also spend a lot of time on the ground in the same places, working as a geologist.
I agree that flying over the higher country is fun to do (under the right conditions), but I'd sure rather be over the desert if the engine quits. The reason is that there are roads in the desert, lots of them actually if you count all the jeep tracks. Apart from roads, most of the desert floor is covered with sagebrush or something similar. Your plane might not survive a landing, but the occupants would at least have a chance. The higher hills are covered with big rocks and tall trees, really not much chance at all.
Airports 50 miles apart doesn't help much if you can only glide 10 miles.
__________________
Alan Carroll
RV-8 N12AC
|

08-18-2009, 09:37 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
|
|
Kent, I would use this path:
LXV south to Salida (ANK), hang a right and west over Monarch Pass towards Gunnison (GUC). Then west between Montrose (MTJ) and Telluride (TEX). You may want to land there (TEX). Neat approach. The airport is closed for runway reconstruction until November I think.
Southwest to Monument Valley (UT25). Prior to UT25/Monument Valley, you can also circle over Four Corners. West to refuel at Page AZ (PGA) then south over Marble Canyon then through one of the Grand Canyon VFR corridors. Land at Grand Canyon if you wish.
West towards Las Vegas, maybe just a bit south and over Class B to Furnace Creek.
Similar trips here:
http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=29430
http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=28308
http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=25729
As far as fuel, you may elect to depart Leadville without full tanks. In that case, I would have enough to get to the Gunnison/Montrose area where there are plenty of fueling options. Climb out of Leadville to be able to cross Monarch Pass then descend into the valley.
Last edited by Ron Lee : 08-19-2009 at 08:40 PM.
|

08-19-2009, 10:07 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canby, Oregon
Posts: 1,786
|
|
Thanks Ron.
Looks like a plan. I'll need to work this into a trip.
Kent
__________________
Kent Byerley
RV9A N94KJ - IO320, CS, tipup
AFS 3500, TT AP, FLYING....
Canby, Or
|

08-19-2009, 01:00 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 590
|
|
Ask the locals...
Paul, I fly out of BDU and BJC and learned to fly at BJC and I can attest to the winds being tricky around here at times. I am a new pilot and have not finished my mt. checkout yet (and yes, around here, we have specific mt. flying checkouts). Flying with an instructor while you're here is a great idea...although most of them arent 'bush' pilots they do have a lot of good knowledge about the challenges of flying the Rockies and which routes to take. I can recommend one if you dont have one in mind, just send me a PM.
As someone already mentioned, go early in the day, the winds pick up almost every afternoon and t-storms move in. And if you do fly 'over' the mts, most instructors will tell you to keep at least 1000' above the highest terrain when crossing ridges and dont go if the winds aloft are 30+ kts. Enjoy your visit to our great state!! 
__________________
Ron Duren
Mechanical Engineer
"SportAir PhD"-RV Assembly/Composites/Electrical
Denver, CO (KBJC)
RV-7 'Tip Up'
Flying!! as of 3/16/14
IO-375/ WW 200G-CS/ SkyView/ Dual P-mags
N531R "Wablosa" Wings of Red
http://www.ronsrv7project.blogspot.com
|

08-19-2009, 05:43 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WA State
Posts: 192
|
|
Thanks for your feedback Alan, and for your good suggestions.
Because human beings are naturally risk averse, it should not surprise that given the choice between exposure to a substantial-but-probably-survivable risk for a longer duration of time OR a substantial-and-probably-unsurvivable risk for a shorter duration of time that most folks will choose the former.
But on the other hand, reducing the exposure (duration) to any given risk (regardless of the severity of that risk) results in a reduction in overall risk. So both the severity and duration of competing risks should be considered. This may be challenging in the real world when our physical safety is on the line, but can be achieved through education, practice and experience.
Anyway, I'm always interested in learning how others who participate in high risk activities think and process. Thanks again!
__________________
Will McClain
N954WM (Reserved)
|

08-19-2009, 09:31 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 778
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyMike
Thanks for your feedback Alan, and for your good suggestions.
Because human beings are naturally risk averse, it should not surprise that given the choice between exposure to a substantial-but-probably-survivable risk for a longer duration of time OR a substantial-and-probably-unsurvivable risk for a shorter duration of time that most folks will choose the former.
But on the other hand, reducing the exposure (duration) to any given risk (regardless of the severity of that risk) results in a reduction in overall risk. So both the severity and duration of competing risks should be considered. This may be challenging in the real world when our physical safety is on the line, but can be achieved through education, practice and experience.
Anyway, I'm always interested in learning how others who participate in high risk activities think and process. Thanks again!
|
Bill,
These are good points. The problem I can see with the comparing survivability vs. duration though is that its hard to actually quantify the risks (unless something goes wrong). Its easy to fall into the "I've done this 99 times before, so it must be safe" trap.
__________________
Alan Carroll
RV-8 N12AC
|

08-19-2009, 11:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WA State
Posts: 192
|
|
Alan,
I think that every pilot has to quantify and weigh those risks based on their objectives, experience and (hopefully well reasoned) judgement. My only point was that duration of risk should be part of the mix when seeking an overall risk assessment.
As pilots we regularly weigh multiple (and often competing) risk factors each time we leave the surly bonds. Our own risk tolerence, training, experience, equipment and available information are the tools we use to perform this calculus. And I for one would not elimiate these risks (even if it were somehow possible) because without them flying would not be the inspiring and fulfilling adventure that it is (think bowling or golf; no offense intended, and with all due respect to bowlers and duffers!  ). As PIC we are responsible for making these judgments each time we fly...the stakes are indeed high, but man, so is the reward!
It has been written by others more eloquent than I that flying is an excellent metaphore for life...me thinks they are correct  .
__________________
Will McClain
N954WM (Reserved)
|

08-22-2009, 09:09 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 102
|
|
Intimidating
I have plotted many of the suggested routes and find them intimidating due to the terrain and distance between airports. Since the bulk of my flying is in the East I am accustom to hills (some call them mountains) and airports everywhere. I think my best move would be to get some mountain flying instruction near Boulder and then plot a course based on my new found comfort level with the assistance of an additional hour of ground school and an accomplished instructor. I want to experience the beauty and excitement of Rocky Mountain flying so I don't want to dumb it down too far.
Thanks to everyone who suggested routes or other advice. Also thanks Ron for the offer of the map. I have had the CO map for two years but still had to ask for advice.
Paul Eckenroth
N509RV
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:27 AM.
|