I have no problem with flying in mountains, nor ditching in Scottish winter water. But I have turned back because there was no way to avoid flying over fog. And lochs with the possibility of snow over thin ice are also avoided.
PS I’m a 77 year old male.
“For instance, the MTBF of a 70 year old male is what? a couple of weeks? I mean seriously .”
Thank you LeSving. 
172driver wrote:
Having lived in Milan for a year or so, I can assure you that the fog in the ‘pianura padana’ can linger for weeks and cover huge areas.
And in Spain, you’ve flown here, we have two big plateau where fog can be present also for several days in a row.
AeroPlus wrote:
Some omit risks, others take calculated risks (many pilots) and others have not a big problem with taking risks
Excatly. I can, probably, put myself in the second category. The question that makes the difference for me in this topic is that there is no plan B. I was taught from the very beginning to have always a plan B, and flying half an hour or more with no escape in case of failure is what makes me unconfortable. Even in mountains you can try to save your day when the engine quits, but over fog…
It should also depend a lot on what you are flying
How we deal with risk is for a large part based on our personality. Some omit risks, others take calculated risks (many pilots) and others have not a big problem with taking risks. In the end, you can decide to stay home or fly and run some form of risk. How much you feel comfortable with depends for a large part on your personality.
Peter wrote:
But not (what I thought was) fog.
Having lived in Milan for a year or so, I can assure you that the fog in the ‘pianura padana’ can linger for weeks and cover huge areas. Not pleasant at all. North of the Alps it tends not be as persistent but can also hang around for a couple of days.
I wonder whether there is any evidence to support this?
There have been lots of anecdotal reports that a change of power immediately preceeded an engine mechanical failure. It does kind of make sense that the probability would increase. Similarly changing tanks could expose an obstruction. Or it could mask it until you change back to that tank, which is the same result.
It is generally true for mechanical things that they keep running if left alone. Hard disks can run for 10+ years, 24/7 (I have some) but if you turn them on and off daily, no way. Same for electronics (my specialisation); thermal cycling is the #1 killer there, even in “well done” designs. Software is the opposite; needs regular reboots
Try the plains of northern Italy in winter or the Austrian lowlands north of the Alps
I have flown for 5hrs over low cloud, never seeing anything (excruciatingly boring). But not (what I thought was) fog.
Peter wrote:
Fog regions are rarely that big, in terms of a large unbroken coverage with no ground visible anywhere.
Not quite. Try the plains of northern Italy in winter or the Austrian lowlands north of the Alps. You might be surprised….
I am the same – but I wonder whether there is any evidence to support this?
In an aircraft without the luxury of a fuel totaliser, and if any where near lower fuel levels, I do make sure there is a fuller tank and switch to the fuller tank before commencing the approach.
Indeed; I change tanks at the last possible moment before crossing the area in question, so an engine stoppage due to the tank change would still enable a 180 and a glide somewhere. Even on Shoreham – Le Touquet I do this. The Alps for example are at most 45 mins to cross and in reality less if you are say 5000ft above the terrain so you get 5 mins extra to play with. Fog regions are rarely that big, in terms of a large unbroken coverage with no ground visible anywhere.
It isn’t just fuel. An engine stoppage can happen in IMC at the right temperature and I reckon I could replicate this 100%. You can also do it 100% in a DA42, as one former poster here found out. You just need IMC and -15C. What prevents it is alternate air OR (apparently – hard to prove) prop TKS.
