His videos speak for themselves. If that's your style, go for it. I'm sure he can teach you all kinds of secret ways to fly.... and maybe help you determine where your gag reflex kicks in......

+1. Something about this guy doesn't sit well with me. For those who have commented on the price being low, well you always get what you pay for. If you want to experience someone who has a real way with teaching people how to polish their bush/mountain flying skills, check out Don Lee in Talkeetna, AK. There have been a few on this site including me that have taken his course. He's also been featured on Nat Geo on some flying series so you can see what the difference is between their egos on camera.

Stigmon wrote:Are there mountain/canyon instructors in the CO and UT area that offer individual instruction anyone can recommend?

Thanks

Just sent you a PM.

Cary

Stigmon wrote:Does anyone have experience with or knowledge of this guy, his course, the quality etc. besides the (expensive) book review? I recently came across an advertisement for his course which he will be doing in Montrose CO and somewhere in Arizona in October. Wondering if there is any value in it (or if it's worth the $1500.00 it costs for 5 days).

Thanks,

Stig

Here's a link http://www.bushair.co/Ad%20CO1.pdf

Hey there Stig. I took a two day course from Howard at Western Air Flight Academy. They're at BJC. One day of classroom theory, and one day flying around CO. The strips aren't near as gnarly as what you might get at the McCall class, but lots of good high DA and canyon experience around Colorado. Awesome scenery also.

Bob

PM sent Stig.

MM

Thanks for all the input guys. It's good discussion and I think there have been valid points made on all sides of the argument. This is what I am really enjoying from this forum is to hear all the perspective and then to end up in a more informed place hopefully. Thanks also for the suggestions on alternatives and instruction resources and PMs too.

Cheers!

Stig

Love him or hate him, you have to admit the guy is unique Letting it all hang out there, for better or worse. Let's just hope a producer of one of the reality TV shows don't find out about him or we'll be seeing a lot more of him Hell, I'd watch that.

I know this discussion is over but if it were me I'd probly take the course. I bet if you went in with an open mind and checked your ego at the door and let this guy beat his chest all he wanted then it could be a good experience. Call the other outfits that do these seminars and they'll tell you you'll get killed if you show up in a underpowered plane like a 172. CC might be crazy looking but it seems like he knows how to make it work with little power.

Whee,

I agree. If you have money for a big engine airplane, you don't have to go there. If you have good sense, you don't have to go there. Having neither, I spent my entire flying career there.

Jim

And sometimes you don't go there no matter what you have. I spent yesterday morning in the big rocks consistently descending at 200-300 fpm despite being in a 230hp Super Cub at full power. I turned around and came home!

RP: When I flew to Hulett the other day, I snuck over the Wind River Range (I assume those are the big rocks in question?) at their north end. Though a bit smokey, so not as good a view as it could have been, I was still having a great time (real unique area, those numerous small lakes at that altitude are super cool, the terrain looked landable in most places also) in the calm air, and ONLY needed 11,300' to squeak over with a couple hundred ft. clearance, calm air right?. About a mile downrange, still at 11+, I almost decided it was time to break out the coffee. My in flight coffee system needs smooth air, as the cup is what comes with the Stanley thermos, as a result I know if I'm drinking coffee, it's smooth air

As I reaching down for the thermos, I got the first little nibble, then a pitch excursion, then a yaw excursion, then both, you get the idea. Right about then I happened to notice my GS was now 127 mph, while the indicated was mid 70's. Wham bam, thank you mam. It was over in a few minutes, back to dead smooth, THEN I got the coffee out, good timing on my part. Thread drift I guess......

It seems like every time I'm in the lee of the Wind Rivers, it's either dead smooth or bumpier than heck, and the velocity of the wind doesn't seem to necessary correlate with the turbulence. Example: On an Angel Flight to Sheridan, it was smooth as silk all the way. We landed at Sheridan at about 1 p.m. I borrowed the "crew car" and drove into town for a sandwich, and took off again about 2:30. Shortly after take-off, I was "excursing" between 10,000' and 12,000' without a lot of input from me, other than trying to maintain a reasonable cruising speed. A discussion with Denver Center resulted in a block altitude of 10-12,000'. By the south end of the Wind Rivers, things had calmed down, and the remainder of the flight home was uneventful.

Last time I was that direction was for another Angel Flight, to Hardin, MT. The flight up was constant light to moderate turbulence. We landed at Hardin around 3 p.m. My solo flight home back to Casper for fuel and then on home was smooth. Go figure.

Cary

Slow in the ups, fast through the downs. It works.

CG, you said it perfectly. When you get that first little nibble, you'd better be listening! Cary, you're right about the turbulence not correlating with wind velocity. Pinedale was reporting calm winds 25 miles away, and the surface of the lake a few thousand feet below me was absolute glass while I was getting my ass kicked up above and getting shoved to the earth despite 230 ponies pulling as hard as they could.

I think all of this is directly relevant to what was being discussed above--mountain flying lessons in a stock 172. It's a great plane at sea level, and there are some days when a guy might get away with it up here (there was an instructor at Pinedale who used to teach in a stock 150--the entire lesson was conducted with the throttle WFO). However, there are a lot of other days when I wouldn't be caught dead up there in a stock 172 (and, sadly, one probably would be caught dead). Pocock might be amazing pilot for all I know, but lesson number 1 of mountain flying, IMHO, is knowing when to get the hell out of there or not venture forth in the first place. Using a stock 172, that's the option you're going to need to choose more often than not. I had my rodeo yesterday at 8:30 in the morning, at 13,500, with calm winds reported in the area. Not sure how much more perfect a scenario I could have asked for on paper, but the reality was much more sobering. I can't imagine trying that in a 172 (assuming you could even get it to 13.5K, with DA higher than that), as I'm sure my flight would have been one long downhill ride--hopefully with enough room left among the rocks to sneak out the bottom.

I don't mean to make it sound like more than it was-- I was prepared for it and I always had a way out. In fact, I ended up loitering for awhile just to add to my own experience. However, it would have been downright scary if I had been behind the curve in any respect, including the plane I was flying to get me there in the first place.

RanchPilot wrote:...in a stock 150--the entire lesson was conducted with the throttle WFO)...

You mean you can fly a 150 at something other then WFO?

Hahaha! I've flown a 150 twice, at a low DA, even. The only throttle movements started on the base leg!

I love the Cessna 150! Fly it light, fly it right, and you can fly it tight. I would bet money you could take a 100 hp straight tail Cessna 150 with 5's on the mains and 5 on the nose into the Big Four in Idaho if you took a notion, or any other public strip in the Idaho backcountry for that matter.

If a Cessna 150 is all you have access to until you can get something better than who cares if the throttle is firewalled?

How about an advanced bush and mountain flying course taught by a home schooled Cessna 150 pilot. Now that would be energy management!

richpiney wrote:I love the Cessna 150! Fly it light, fly it right, and you can fly it tight. I would bet money you could take a 100 hp straight tail Cessna 150 with 5's on the mains and 5 on the nose into the Big Four in Idaho if you took a notion, or any other public strip in the Idaho backcountry for that matter.

If a Cessna 150 is all you have access to until you can get something better than who cares if the throttle is firewalled?

I'm not knocking the 150--it's a venerable bird. Nor am I saying anyone should be sheepish about flying one, especially at lower altitudes. However, I think a pilot should care if he has to firewall the throttle just to maintain pattern altitude on a 9,000 DA day at the local airport, because that plane isn't suited to be playing around in 10k+ mountains.

Like Contact, I've spent a little time in underpowered planes in overpowering situations (though not nearly as much as him). Personally, I can't stand the feeling of being behind the power curve all the time. I'm no expert on mountain flying by any means, but I've also learned that, even when you think you're way ahead of the curve, you can find out very quickly in the big rocks that you're not nearly as far ahead as you thought. Finding that out in a 150 could be a dramatically bad experience.

Maybe Pocock's first rule is "know when not to go," although that's not exactly the impression I get from his videos. If it's not, I'd be very reluctant to try and learn anything about mountain flying from him in the mountains where I fly, especially in a stock 172.

Not trying to argue with anyone here, but I've been on the frequency with a very nervous pilot in an underpowered Pacer trying to get out of JC on a warm day, and I remember thinking how much I wouldn't want to be that guy.

I taught mountain flying in C-150 and most of the 65 hp airplanes as well. Most of us who instructed in the days before big engines on little training airplanes had no choice. It was a totally different concept before you could get sued for making any kind of judgement. We accepted that we would be leaned and at full throttle, but thinking that an airplane would necessarily climb was very dangerous. We accepted that there was much, much more energy in ground effect, gravity, heat, wind, thermals, and ridge lift than in our little engines.

We operated, safely I think, knowing at all times which way was downhill. The numbers in both the Practical Test Standards and the Pilots Operating Handbook can be very misleading and dangerous. Trying to maintain altitude in small airplanes in strong up and down drafts, thermals, just doesn't work and is counter productive. Attempting to maintain altitude causes us to spend much more time in down drafts than in updrafts. This just doesn't make any sense. Trying to stay away from ridges rather than near enough to get full benefit of the oregraphic lift just doesn't work.

We who fly little airplanes with little engines can avoid this great natural energy in the mountains by flying early, before the sun warms the desert and mountains and creates the great natural energy. Or we can just fly up and down the great river valleys. Or we can learn to use this great natural energy. Whee's 65 hp Luscombe used to be a fast, convenient business go to meeting airplane. They didn't just go before ten in the morning or up and down the Rio Grande. We are safer now. This is good. Little airplanes are less popular now and may somewhat disappear from the American scene. This is not good.

contactflying wrote:I taught mountain flying in C-150 and most of the 65 hp airplanes as well. Most of us who instructed in the days before big engines on little training airplanes had no choice. It was a totally different concept before you could get sued for making any kind of judgement. We accepted that we would be leaned and at full throttle, but thinking that an airplane would necessarily climb was very dangerous. We accepted that there was much, much more energy in ground effect, gravity, heat, wind, thermals, and ridge lift than in our little engines.

We operated, safely I think, knowing at all times which way was downhill. The numbers in both the Practical Test Standards and the Pilots Operating Handbook can be very misleading and dangerous. Trying to maintain altitude in small airplanes in strong up and down drafts, thermals, just doesn't work and is counter productive. Attempting to maintain altitude causes us to spend much more time in down drafts than in updrafts. This just doesn't make any sense. Trying to stay away from ridges rather than near enough to get full benefit of the oregraphic lift just doesn't work.

We who fly little airplanes with little engines can avoid this great natural energy in the mountains by flying early, before the sun warms the desert and mountains and creates the great natural energy. Or we can just fly up and down the great river valleys. Or we can learn to use this great natural energy. Whee's 65 hp Luscombe used to be a fast, convenient business go to meeting airplane. They didn't just go before ten in the morning or up and down the Rio Grande. We are safer now. This is good. Little airplanes are less popular now and may somewhat disappear from the American scene. This is not good.

Well said!

MTV

Nearly finished reading this book and I'd have to class it as Good to Excellent (depending on the readers experience with backcountry flying).

Trike drivers might find it especially interesting as takeoff and landing techniques are written with that gear configuration in mind, something I haven't found in other books. For example "Prior to taking off again in a nose wheeler from a very soft or muddy surface, it may be a good idea to first tie up the nose wheel fork with rope to prevent the oleo from extending as the nose is raised during the takeoff roll. This trick will enable you to get the nose wheel off the ground very early whilst maintaining a lower angle of attack, preventing over rotation and excessive drag."

One sentence that caught my attention is "Always ensure that your first aid kit, fire extinguisher, food and water is located close to your seat and the door, so that you can easily grab them after an incident."

Hmmm. My first aid kit is in the back along with my survival kit, food and water. Next to the seat and door I keep a couple of quarts of oil, a can of Plexis, a couple of rags, and a couple of bottles of MMO. Guess none of these are really important after I have an "incident". Believe I'll make a change.

Book comes across very different then his persona in the videos.

A worthy addition to my library.