Would You Fly Over the Sierra with Aerovee

[johnr9q@yahoo.com]

Would you feel safe Flying the Aerovee Sonex over the California Sierra through a 9000 foot pass and spend 45 minutes in the death zone where there is no place to land that wouldn't turn out very bad?

[fastj22]

Yes, I would. But I also fly my Jabiru powered Waiex over the Rocky Mountains (two trips to KLXV). I don't think the Aerovee is any more or less reliable than the Jab.

[Fastcapy]

-----

[GordonTurner]

Everybody has to find their own comfort level with these kind of questions. Personally once I am comfortable with a plane I am willing to accept flights with a higher risk level. I take two approaches to mitigating risk. First is a matter of statistical likelihood. If you are exposed to riskier situations a very small percentage of the time, then the odds that something will go wrong while you are exposed to riskier situations is very small. If you spend most of your time flying around in the mountains then you will probably have your problem there. Second is to improve your odds during the exposure. In this case, select a route that follows a reasonably major road. Even if you can't expect to be able to land on the road, you increase the chance that your disaster will be observed and that somebody will be able to help.
Good luck out there. Gordon

[SonexN76ET]

With any airplane, experimental or standard, you have got to work up your confidence and trust in that airplane over time. Sometime that trust comes quickly, other times something happens to put you on guard. I would trust the factory Sonex Aerovee I flew in transition training to make that flight. I am a little less trusting of the engine that I built myself. My engine will have to prove itself to me over time. I have 40 some hours on it now, it has never stopped running in flight. Like many, I have had my share of challenges tuning the AeroInjector, but I think i have it figured out now. As Gordon suggested, I would try to follow a major road through the pass and fly with sufficient altitude to provide plenty of options.

Thanks,

Jake

[radfordc]

There were two questions asked...would you do it; and would you feel safe?

No matter what answer you give to number 1, I think the answer to number 2 has to be "no".

Well, maybe Arron Knight wouldn't even give it a thought.

[fastj22]

A friend and mentor of mine has an RV7A that we have flown to OSH, Telluride and from Colorado to San Fransisco. Has well over 1200 hours on the O-390 in it. Has been to all 48 lower states. I would say he is pretty confident in his plane and engine. Well, just two months ago, he left KBJC for a XC to Farmington, NM. 15 minutes into the flight and just over the front range of Colorado, he blew out the forward oil seal. He was able to turn back to KBJC and land with the fire trucks following him down the runway. Destroyed his engine. All due to a plugged oil breather. Had it happened 10 minutes later, he would have put it into trees on very mountainous terrain.

That being said, I would never take my plane over the mountains unless it was squawk free. I've taken mountain flying training and know the risks and the problems and the proper preparation. But there is a bit a pucker factor when you are approaching that ridge, saying to yourself, what do I do if the engine quits. Usually there are very few options. If you are not willing to manage those risks, stay out of the hills.

One of my favorite morning sorties is to launch out of KFLY, head over the USAFA to the west and climb to 13,000 ft as I do a couple of patterns below the summit of Pikes Peak. I'm back within the hour. But if I have a problem close to the summit, its not going to be pretty but its my choice. The view is to die for.

[kevin814]

I think my comfort level would be heavily influenced by my plane/engines history. How many hours on the engine, do you have recurring issues, how reliable has it been so far?

Personally, I do fly places that make me nervous. I still fly over metro Cincinnati (I had an engine failure over Cincinnati and had to dump it in a landfill), I fly over Kentucky where there is nothing but tree covered ridges and ravines, and I fly over lake Erie which makes me most nervous of all, because if the engine quits for any reason I will probably die. I picture a water landing going badly in a fixed gear plane with a bubble canopy.

Most of my flying is lower risk stuff over flat Ohio farmland, and in that area I can relax knowing I would probably survive a forced landing. The more dangerous locations offer their own rewards, which is why I choose to do it, but on a less frequent basis. The more hours I put on my plane, the more comfortable I am flying it.

When you are older, do you think you will be glad you undertook this adventure and flew over the mountains, or will you be glad you "played it safe"? I think the biggest factor is your personality. If the anxiety of flying over the mountains would ruin the whole trip, then it probably isn't worth the risk, since there isn't much to be gained. I would fly over the mountains, but I would be very nervous the whole time, over analyzing every little sound I "think" I hear from the engine, and obsessively looking at the engine readings.

I fly behind a relatively unreliable Jabiru, but it is light years ahead of my flaky Rotax 582 2 stroke, that almost caused me to give up flying for good. I'm so glad I got back on that horse, so to speak.

[avee8r]

As Gordon says, its about mitigating risk in whatever and wherever we fly. Two weeks ago we flew EAA's Ford Tri-Motor from Midland TX to just west of El Paso. We elected to go a mere 20 miles further overall, and stop for fuel, to be near more of everything; airports, towns, and highways. With similar risk assessment, yes, I'd take my AeroVee powered Sonex over the Sierra.
Happy Landings
John
N50NX

[johnr9q@yahoo.com]

Thanks all. This is exactly the information I was looking for. Keep it coming.