Re: Emergency landing at Meigs Sunday

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Henry Kisor" > wrote in message
news:TU7Va.164284$ye4.111218@sccrnsc01...
> From this morning's Chicago Sun-Times:
>
> Plane in trouble lands safely at Meigs
> July 28, 2003
>
> BY MAUREEN O'DONNELL AND LUCIO GUERRERO Staff Reporters
>
> It appears some folks still think Meigs Field is an airport.
>
> A small plane in trouble landed at the shuttered airstrip Sunday,
startling
> lakeside visitors and security. It's the second time this month that an
> aircraft has used the former lakefront airport for an emergency landing.
>
> The plane landed amid rubble churned up by Mayor Daley's closure of Meigs
> after coming within 20 feet of the beach house roof at 12th Street Beach,
> witnesses said.
>
> The two people inside the single-engine Piper aircraft were attempting to
> fly to an air show in Oshkosh, Wis., said Chicago police Sgt. Jerry Clancy
> of the Summer Mobile Unit.
>
> "They lost radio contact--they weren't sure what happened,'' Clancy said.
>
> The fliers suspected their alternator failed, he said.
>
> Officials with the Federal Aviation Administration said the plane is
> registered to a Maine company and the aircraft had taken off early Sunday
> from Jackson, Mich. The pilot told the FAA that he had to make the
emergency
> landing because of poor weather and electrical problems on board the
plane.
>
> Clancy said the pair hit bad weather north of Meigs and decided to turn
> around and land.
>
> He said he witnessed "a nice, smooth landing.''
>
> Witnesses said it was obvious the plane was in trouble.
>
> "We saw it wobbling,'' said Joann Caccamo, 29, a production assistant from
> Plainfield who was visiting Chicago's lakefront. "He was really shaky.''
>
> "It was scary,'' she said. "We actually expected to see flames.''
>
> Caccamo and her friends said they first noticed the plane because of the
> noises it was making.
>
> "Like sputtering, like engine problems,'' said Kitty McDonnell, 36, a
> mortgage loan officer from Aurora.
>
> The plane was flying north and then doubled back, they said. As the pilot
> flew south, he flew low over the 12th Street Beach house, witnesses said.
>
> "We thought he was going to hit the roof,'' McDonnell said.
>
> Mayor Daley closed Meigs in the middle of the night March 30, citing
> terrorism concerns. But earlier this month, a helicopter pilot brought his
> craft down at Meigs after thinking he hit a bird.
>
> As for Sunday's fliers, who are not thought to be linked to any terrorist
> groups, they are on their way back east.
>
> "They just want to go home,'' Clancy said.
>

My favorite line:

"...Sunday's fliers, who are not thought to be linked to any terrorist
groups..." Geez. It's embarassing that they even found it necessary to
include a ridiculous line like that.

And if there have already been TWO emergency landings this month so far,
then maybe someone will notice that we are actually serious when we site
saftey concerns with closing the airport. This last incident could have
turned out very different, had there not been a relatively safe and
well-known place to land.

[Michael 182]

Good point

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:21:10 GMT, "Michael 182"
> > wrote:
>
> >Not to mention that a failed alternator
> >hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation...
>
> Well, the article also said something about "bad" weather. YMMV but I
> would treat a failed alternator in a small, single-engine a/c as an
> emergency if I were in "bad" weather (e.g. less than VMC).
>
>
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Drew Hamilton]

Jeff Franks > wrote:
>Without the whole story, we don't know for sure, but does anyone else find
>it interesting that the "eye witnesses" heard the plane sputtering and it
>appeared "shaky" on final....all caused by a blown alternator?

Eye witnesses to aviation incidents always say things like that. I bet that if
you flew a perfectly good plane over a bunch of people, and then sent out a
reporter to interview people about the "accident" that the plane that they just
saw had, they'd all say that it was shaky, wobbly, and had a sputtering engine.
They just want to have something interesting to say to get in the paper,
that's all.

- awh

[Neil Gould]

Hi,

"Larry Dighera" > wrote:
>
> Perhaps this nation's airmen should take to wearing "Suspected
> Terrorist" buttons al la John Gilmore. :-)
>
We already carry the label... they're just too cheap to send us the
buttons!

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:36:35 -0500, "Neil Gould" >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Hi,
>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps this nation's airmen should take to wearing "Suspected
>> Terrorist" buttons al la John Gilmore. :-)
>>
>We already carry the label... they're just too cheap to send us the
>buttons!
>


What can we do to change that misperception? How about a button that
reads:

Terrorists hijack airliners not bug-smashers?

Or:

Suspected Terrorist by Journalists only.

Or:

If Pilots Were Journalists, Publishing Would be Treason.

Or:

...


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Snowbird]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message news:<W3cVa.166058$N7.22674@sccrnsc03>...
> Yeah, I liked that part as well. Not to mention that a failed alternator
> hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation...

Michael,

Judge it when you're there.

Cheers,
Sydney

[David Brooks]

"Drew Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> Jeff Franks > wrote:
> >Without the whole story, we don't know for sure, but does anyone else
find
> >it interesting that the "eye witnesses" heard the plane sputtering and it
> >appeared "shaky" on final....all caused by a blown alternator?
>
> Eye witnesses to aviation incidents always say things like that. I bet
that if
> you flew a perfectly good plane over a bunch of people, and then sent out
a
> reporter to interview people about the "accident" that the plane that they
just
> saw had, they'd all say that it was shaky, wobbly, and had a sputtering
engine.
> They just want to have something interesting to say to get in the paper,
> that's all.

My landing yesterday was shaky and wobbly until I got into ground effect
(then it was a greaser :-) ). Unusually hot afternoons here in the PNW.

-- David Brooks

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Michael 182 wrote:

> "Snowbird" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>"Michael 182" > wrote in message
>> news:<W3cVa.166058$N7.22674@sccrnsc03>...

>>>Yeah, I liked that part as well. Not to mention that a failed alternator
>>>hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation...

>>Judge it when you're there.

> Right, cause no one in this group ever expresses opinions...

You know what they say "opinions are like a**holes everyone has
one". But you asked for it, you got it.

I've been IMC with an electrical system we voluntarily shut down
'cuz smoke was coming out of the panel. Sure seemed like a
potential emergency to me though lucky for us it didn't play
out that way.

My point was there are a number of factors which could make
a failed alternator an emergency landing situation IMHO.

So IMO, YO that "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an
emergency landing situation" based on very limited info, is
pure bunk.

Toyota,
Sydney

[Michael 182]

You know, when I went to graduate school all the courses were case study.
You got an automatic "F" if you ever handed in a paper that concluded that
there wasn't enough information to make a decision.

There is always more to know. My comment that "a failed alternator hardly
qualifies as an emergency landing situation" is absolutely correct. But, if
you throw in IMC, a fire in the cabin, the prop falling off, the engine
spraying oil, a 747 filling the windshield, or any other number of items,
clearly it becomes an emergency.

That said, "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing
situation".

Always a pleasure to be guided by you, however.

Michael


"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
...
> Michael 182 wrote:
>
> > "Snowbird" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>"Michael 182" > wrote in message
> >> news:<W3cVa.166058$N7.22674@sccrnsc03>...
>
> >>>Yeah, I liked that part as well. Not to mention that a failed
alternator
> >>>hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation...
>
> >>Judge it when you're there.
>
> > Right, cause no one in this group ever expresses opinions...
>
> You know what they say "opinions are like a**holes everyone has
> one". But you asked for it, you got it.
> So IMO, YO that "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an
> emergency landing situation" based on very limited info, is
> pure bunk.
>
> Toyota,
> Sydney
>
>
>

[Tune2828]

"As for Sunday's fliers, who are not thought to be linked to any terrorist
groups, they are on their way back east."

let them know what you think of these comments (i.e. irrelevent and
irrational)




i plan to write them as well

[journeyman]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:04:01 GMT, Michael 182
> wrote:
>
>That said, "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing
>situation".

Might be best if you qualify that a little better: a failed alternator
in VMC conditions may not be an emergency landing situation. It's
probably safe to assume that someone making a precautionary landing
on the condition is probably worried about _something_ and there are
an awful lot of _somethings_ that can be going wrong along with a
failing alternator. Electrical fire is not the least of it.

You know, there was that SwissAir flight that terminated off the coast
of Nova Scotia a few years back. They were dumping fuel prior to
landing due to a small electrical problem they were having. If they
had landed overweight, they would've survived. While it's easy to
play Monday-morning quarterback, the point is, FFR, based on past
experience, not to let the small problems develop into big problems.

Morris

[Cub Driver]

Good grief! It was a Piper Cub! Always knew those things would wind up
in the hands of evildoers.

Aero-News Propwash:

************************************************** ************

An aircraft in distress, a Piper PA-12 Super Cruiser, reportedly
used what was left of Meigs Field yesterday, after a lightning
strike took out its electrical system. Landing in the grass
alongside the remnants of Meigs sundered runway, the PA-12 executed
a safe emergency landing... the second aircraft to have done so in
just two weeks (and the fourth in the last few years).

The strike was reported to have occurred just a few miles form
the airport and no injuries or significant damage were
reported.

The pilot, enroute to Oshkosh, WI, apparently to attend the
upcoming EAA AirVenture convention, opening tomorrow, Tuesday.
Friends of Meigs At Oshkosh

The Friends of Meigs Field are hosting a tent at this year's
Experimental Aircraft Association AirVenture convention in Oshkosh,
WI. The group will be collecting signatures on postcards to send to
Congress and other public officials in the ongoing effort to reopen
Meigs Field.

The tent, provided gratis by the Experimental Aircraft
Association, will be "operations central" for the group, with
volunteers gathering signatures and encouraging Chicago residents
to call their aldermen and request hearings on Meigs' closure and
alternative plans to create a combination park and airport from the
famous airstrip.

If you are coming to Oshkosh, please be sure to stop by and sign
a card and offer your support to saving this valuable (and
critically needed) aviation resource.
FMI: www.friendsofmeigs.org

************************************************** **********************
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[journeyman]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:18:31 GMT, Michael 182
> wrote:
>> >
>> >That said, "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing
>> >situation".
>>
>> Might be best if you qualify that a little better:
>
>I did qualify it. Go back and take a look at the post you answered.

I read the post. You missed the point. Your point is, in the absence
of other information, you get an F some random case study course if you
conclude that the emergency landing was justified given the available
information (or to be fair, to conclude insufficient info to decide).

Given the number of things that can go wrong in that situation, the
very fact that the pilot elected to perform a precautionary landing
speaks for itself. Case studies courses notwithstanding, I wouldn't
conclude it was unjustified until I knew more about the situation.

Saying that, "under ideal conditions", an electrical problem *may not*
require a precautionary landing is not the same thing as saying it
"hardly qualifies".


Morris (sadly noting yet another case where academia and reality diverge)

[Ace Pilot]

(Yossarian) wrote in message >...
> "Henry Kisor" > wrote in message news:<TU7Va.164284$ye4.111218@sccrnsc01>...
> > From this morning's Chicago Sun-Times:
> >
> > Plane in trouble lands safely at Meigs
> > July 28, 2003
> >
> > BY MAUREEN O'DONNELL AND LUCIO GUERRERO Staff Reporters
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > As for Sunday's fliers, who are not thought to be linked to any terrorist
> > groups, they are on their way back east.
> >
>
> I'm sorry but that is a ****ing stupid comment to include in the article.


If any of you followed the Chicago media, you'd know that both the Sun
Times and the Tribune were EXTREMELY critical of Mayor Moron's
actions. This was a news story - not an editorial piece, so the
writers couldn't come right out and say how stupid it was for the
mayor to say Meigs could be used for terrorism. But they could drive
home the point by REPORTING that Chicago officials don't think these
two people are linked to terrorist groups, illustrating just how
stupid the idea really is.

I picked up on the irony - you can too.

Ace

[Larry Dighera]

On 29 Jul 2003 06:35:05 -0700, (Ace
Pilot) wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>If any of you followed the Chicago media, you'd know that both the Sun
>Times and the Tribune were EXTREMELY critical of Mayor Moron's
>actions.

I wish they'd mentioned the fact that the Mayor was forced to change
his reason for the midnight demolition of Meigs Field after being
confronted by the DHS; his "for security reasons" alibi was not
supported by the feds.
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:26:49 GMT, "Henry Kisor" >
wrote in Message-Id: <dGfVa.687$Ho3.440@sccrnsc03>:

>I believe that terrorist group line was a bit of sneaky reportorial wit that
>really shouldn't have gotten into the story, because irony never works with
>newspaper readers, who tend to be literal-minded in reading hard news
>stories.

Wit is difficult to accomplish with a diverse audience unless it's
based on a universal subject like sex.

But labeling the remark as humor lends it an air of appropriateness.
It wasn't.

>What I really wanted to know was where the airplane (in the news photo it
>looked like a Super Cub with drooped wingtips, a combination I've never seen
>before) landed. Could a droopy-tip Cub land on the X'd runway or did it land
>on the taxiway? And is it still there?

I wasn't able to locate a photo here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-meigs28.html


Anyone wishing to send a respectful e-mail message to the authors
informing them about the inappropriateness of their "terrorist" remark
in conjunction with pilots can do so here:




http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/feedback.html
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Jeffrey LLoyd]

(journeyman) wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:18:31 GMT, Michael 182
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >That said, "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing
> >> >situation".
> >>
> >> Might be best if you qualify that a little better:
> >
> >I did qualify it. Go back and take a look at the post you answered.
>
> I read the post. You missed the point. Your point is, in the absence
> of other information, you get an F some random case study course if you
> conclude that the emergency landing was justified given the available
> information (or to be fair, to conclude insufficient info to decide).
>
> Given the number of things that can go wrong in that situation, the
> very fact that the pilot elected to perform a precautionary landing
> speaks for itself. Case studies courses notwithstanding, I wouldn't
> conclude it was unjustified until I knew more about the situation.
>
> Saying that, "under ideal conditions", an electrical problem *may not*
> require a precautionary landing is not the same thing as saying it
> "hardly qualifies".
>
>
> Morris (sadly noting yet another case where academia and reality diverge)


Given what we know, it's perfectly reasonable to state as a general
rule that a failed alternator hardly qualifies as a condition
warranting an emergency landing. There may very well be more to the
story. There may not be. We had a guy at a local airport declare an
emergency because his GPS went on the fritz in CAVU conditions. He
wasn't lost, he was within sight of at least 2 airports, and
apparently his Nav was working fine. But he freaked out, and declared.
And that airport scrambled the firetrucks because this chucklehead
thought losing a GPS in severe VFR qualified as an emergency. Could it
in certain circumstances? Absolutely. As a general case? Very
definitely not. Losing an alternator? In certain cases, sure. In
general? Nope.

I took what Michael said to mean exactly what he *did* say. What he
said is

"Not to mention that a failed alternator
hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation..."

Which as a general rule is absolutely correct. There certainly may
have been more to the story, but what was reported was an alternator
failure, and given that specific information, it is perfectly
reasonable to state that a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an
emergency landing situation. More than just experienced pilots read
these groups. Students read these groups. Should we simply let them go
on believing that if an alternator calls it a day, it's time to
declare?

As a general rule, what Michael said is absolutely correct. Specific
situations often trump general rules, and I didn't see him or anyone
stating that isn't the case.

Mr. Chicken
CP-ASEL

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Michael 182 wrote:
> You know, when I went to graduate school all the courses were case study.
> You got an automatic "F" if you ever handed in a paper that concluded that
> there wasn't enough information to make a decision.

Good grief! What sort of graduate school was this and where?

> There is always more to know.

Yes, there is. However, often one has access to substantial
information, and can draw a reasonable conclusion based on the
data presented.

However, in this case, at the time you made your post, hardly
anything was known about the situation in question.

If your graduate education discouraged you from recognizing a
situation where there's inadequate data to reach a conclusion,
that's most unfortunate.

> My comment that "a failed alternator hardly
> qualifies as an emergency landing situation" is absolutely correct.

As a general precept, I grant it.

However, you appeared to be making it as a specific analysis of
a specific situation -- the plane which landed at Meigs, reportedly
after an electrical failure.

As a specific assessment of a specific situation, in the absence
of all but a few newspaper sentences, it's clearly flawed.

If your graduate school courses encouraged you to theorize and
conclude in the absence of data, I find that most regrettable
and somewhat discouraging.

> Always a pleasure to be guided by you, however.

On the evidence of these posts, how would you know? *g*

Sydney

[journeyman]

On 29 Jul 2003 12:33:23 -0700, Jeffrey LLoyd
> wrote:

I think we're at the point of bisecting rabbits.

>Given what we know, it's perfectly reasonable to state as a general
>rule that a failed alternator hardly qualifies as a condition
>warranting an emergency landing.

I disagree. Sure, there are still aircraft out there with no electrical
system in the first place, but A) they are not flown in conditions where
the electrical system is essential to safe flight, and B) there are
known failure modes that are intrinsically unsafe (say, involving smoke
or bits of metal flying around inside the engine compartment).

In the absence of other information, and the knowledge that someone
considered a particular situation severe enough to warrant a
precautionary landing, I'd be inclined to take it at face value.
Later, we can armchair quarterback the decision-making.

The Kings who publish all those training materials crashed an airplane
some time back. They were on top, had an alternator failure, had a
case of getthereitis and decided to press on, couldn't find a hole,
ran out of fuel, options, and ideas at the same time. They tell the
story themselves to point out the importance of decision making. If
they can screw up that way, pretty much anyone can.

Furthermore, if a plane I was flying was hit by lightning and blew out
my electrical system, I'd be definitely considering an immediate
off-field precautionary landing to inspect for other damage before
continuing. Yeah, I realize that wasn't in the original reports, but
it does demonstrate yet another hazardous failure mode.

OTOH, I'm aware of several cases that a failed alternator was handled
with nothing more than contacting ATC before the battery ran down, and
getting vectors to VMC and/or a NORDO clearance into the home airport.
It helps to keep the ammeter in the instrument scan.

In fact not only was my last flight was in a plane with no electrical
system, but I lost thrust at 2000' AGL. Okay, I pulled the tow rope
release at the normal altitude, but still...

>We had a guy at a local airport declare an
>emergency because his GPS went on the fritz in CAVU conditions. He
>wasn't lost, he was within sight of at least 2 airports, and
>apparently his Nav was working fine. But he freaked out, and declared.
>And that airport scrambled the firetrucks because this chucklehead
>thought losing a GPS in severe VFR qualified as an emergency. Could it
>in certain circumstances? Absolutely. As a general case? Very

Okay, that's a bit over the top. Okay, that's more than a bit over the
top. Panic is insidious. Still better to declare and deal with it on
the ground. Probably feels sheepish, and a 609 ride (or whatever they
call it this week) might be in order, but if you haven't done something
really dumb in the airplane yet, take comfort: you will eventually. As
poor judgement goes, at least it's erring on the right side.

>definitely not. Losing an alternator? In certain cases, sure. In
>general? Nope.

Semantics perhaps, but I take the position, right or wrong, that the
general case is to treat it as an emergency, and routine in the
particular case.

Look at the difference between losing a GPS, even a panel-mount GPS,
and losing the entire electrical system: a GPS is a single point of
failure. You have reasonable backups available.

When you lose the electrical system, you lose everything: all nav, all
comm. In IMC, that can be bad, very bad. Plus, you may have a
systemic problem that might cause a fire.

>these groups. Students read these groups. Should we simply let them go
>on believing that if an alternator calls it a day, it's time to
>declare?

I'd rather they declared unnecessarily than die of embarassment by not
declaring when they should, but that's beside the point.

>As a general rule, what Michael said is absolutely correct. Specific
>situations often trump general rules, and I didn't see him or anyone
>stating that isn't the case.

Okay, we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO, the general case is that
it's an emergency, and if other conditions are favorable, then it's not.
It doesn't really matter what the default is because you have to judge
the particular situation when it happens.


Morris

[journeyman]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:27:55 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
> wrote:
>> You know, when I went to graduate school all the courses were case study.
>> You got an automatic "F" if you ever handed in a paper that concluded that
>> there wasn't enough information to make a decision.
[snip]
>
>If your graduate education discouraged you from recognizing a
>situation where there's inadequate data to reach a conclusion,
>that's most unfortunate.

On first reading, I assumed it was one of those cases of disconnect
between academia and the so-called real world ("consider a spherical
cow").

OTOH, it does make some sense. You have to draw some conclusion with
the information available. So, you have to rely on preconcieved data
to prejudge the situation. Waitaminute, isn't that...


> > My comment that "a failed alternator hardly
>> qualifies as an emergency landing situation" is absolutely correct.
>
>As a general precept, I grant it.

Hairsplitting, perhaps, but you're relying on some default assumptions:
VMC, no smoke in the cockpit, no loose bits of metal flying around
inside the cowling, maybe a working battery with lots of charge, a not
too busy airspace, proficient pilot not relying on electronic
navigation... (you know, conditions where someone might fly an airplane
that doesn't have an electrical system in the first place...)

Given the situation of someone electing to make an off-field
precautonary landing, I'd default to assume it was a reasonable
decision until knowing the particulars.

But in the end, all that matter are the particulars.

>As a specific assessment of a specific situation, in the absence
>of all but a few newspaper sentences, it's clearly flawed.

Agreed.


Morris

[Cub Driver]

>Furthermore, if a plane I was flying was hit by lightning and blew out
>my electrical system, I'd be definitely considering an immediate
>off-field precautionary landing to inspect for other damage before
>continuing.

Given that one of the things that happens when a boat is struck by
lightning is a scrambling of the magnetic compass, I would likely do
the same. (Plus I might want to check to make sure my backside was
still attached to the rest of me. A ligntning strike! Sheez. That's
scary.)

The compass (again, speaking from experience in a boat) might be as
much as 10 degrees off.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Travis Marlatte]

Of course it was an emergency landing. This poor guy had a total electrical
failure (lost radio contact) due to an alternator failure (probably happened
somewhere over Michigan and went unnoticed for at least an hour of flying),
bumped into bad weather which caused him to turn around, and then had engine
trouble and flight control problems getting into Meigs.

Lord, what a pilot. All of that stress and he still makes a nice, smooth
landing among rubble next to a closed runway.


"Henry Kisor" > wrote in message
news:TU7Va.164284$ye4.111218@sccrnsc01...
> From this morning's Chicago Sun-Times:
>
> Plane in trouble lands safely at Meigs
> July 28, 2003
>
> BY MAUREEN O'DONNELL AND LUCIO GUERRERO Staff Reporters
>
> It appears some folks still think Meigs Field is an airport.
>
> A small plane in trouble landed at the shuttered airstrip Sunday,
startling
> lakeside visitors and security. It's the second time this month that an
> aircraft has used the former lakefront airport for an emergency landing.
>
> The plane landed amid rubble churned up by Mayor Daley's closure of Meigs
> after coming within 20 feet of the beach house roof at 12th Street Beach,
> witnesses said.
>
> The two people inside the single-engine Piper aircraft were attempting to
> fly to an air show in Oshkosh, Wis., said Chicago police Sgt. Jerry Clancy
> of the Summer Mobile Unit.
>
> "They lost radio contact--they weren't sure what happened,'' Clancy said.
>
> The fliers suspected their alternator failed, he said.
>
> Officials with the Federal Aviation Administration said the plane is
> registered to a Maine company and the aircraft had taken off early Sunday
> from Jackson, Mich. The pilot told the FAA that he had to make the
emergency
> landing because of poor weather and electrical problems on board the
plane.
>
> Clancy said the pair hit bad weather north of Meigs and decided to turn
> around and land.
>
> He said he witnessed "a nice, smooth landing.''
>
> Witnesses said it was obvious the plane was in trouble.
>
> "We saw it wobbling,'' said Joann Caccamo, 29, a production assistant from
> Plainfield who was visiting Chicago's lakefront. "He was really shaky.''
>
> "It was scary,'' she said. "We actually expected to see flames.''
>
> Caccamo and her friends said they first noticed the plane because of the
> noises it was making.
>
> "Like sputtering, like engine problems,'' said Kitty McDonnell, 36, a
> mortgage loan officer from Aurora.
>
> The plane was flying north and then doubled back, they said. As the pilot
> flew south, he flew low over the 12th Street Beach house, witnesses said.
>
> "We thought he was going to hit the roof,'' McDonnell said.
>
> Mayor Daley closed Meigs in the middle of the night March 30, citing
> terrorism concerns. But earlier this month, a helicopter pilot brought his
> craft down at Meigs after thinking he hit a bird.
>
> As for Sunday's fliers, who are not thought to be linked to any terrorist
> groups, they are on their way back east.
>
> "They just want to go home,'' Clancy said.
>
>
>
>
>

[Chuck Gerlach]

Just to let everyone know what the Chicago Tribune is reporting: The mayor
was unmoved and places the blame for the recent landings at the now defunct
Meigs squarely on the pilots' shoulders. The Tribune quotes the mayor as
saying something on the order of Oshkosh is up there to the north several
hours. If the pilot was going to Oshkosh, he is going in the wrong
direction.

The article isn't very long. If you want more or the exact quote, visit the
Chicago Tribune site.

Not surprising, the mayor continues to be an embarrassment. I for one have
voted with my feet and my pocketbook. My interaction with that city 50
miles to the east is limited to visiting my older son. I know it's not
much, but it's a personal statement.

Chuck Gerlach