A&P heroics

[Jim]

A&P heroics in landing gear save:

http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1109870.html

-Jim

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jim" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> A&P heroics in landing gear save:
>
> http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1109870.html
>
> -Jim

Happy to see that these guys succeeded, but this kind of thing shows poor
judgement.

You're taking a real chance of a plane vs pickup truck accident, and that's
likely to result in fatalities. Belly the aircraft in with the prop turning
and let the insurance company deal with it. Better for them to buy you a
new engine, prop, or airplane than for them to buy someone all that stuff,
plus a pickup truck and a few coffins.

Why not deadstick the airplane to a belly landing, and "save" the
powertrain? Because you have not practiced that maneuver, and doing it dead
stick prevents you from a go-around if you don't like the setup. Again,
sacrifice the airplane, it can be repaired or replaced.

KB

[Skywise]

"Jim" > wrote in news:1121470690.030107.157140
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> A&P heroics in landing gear save:
>
> http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1109870.html
>
> -Jim
>

A few questions.

Why so fast, "90 mph"? What are the v speeds of this plane? I couldn't
find them readily online. Looking at the photo it didn't appear the flaps
were down at all. I'm thinking with flaps they could have gone slower down
the runway and the pickup would have been able to keep up easier and
they'd have more time on each attempt.

But I'm glad they succeeded so well.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Montblack]

("Skywise" wrote)
>> http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1109870.html

> Why so fast, "90 mph"? What are the v speeds of this plane? I couldn't
> find them readily online. Looking at the photo it didn't appear the flaps
> were down at all. I'm thinking with flaps they could have gone slower down
> the runway and the pickup would have been able to keep up easier and
> they'd have more time on each attempt.


A motorcycle helmet on the guy with the pole is the first thing I looked
for.

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane205.shtml
Cessna Centurion - Stall Speed


Montblack

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Skywise wrote:
> Why so fast, "90 mph"? What are the v speeds of this plane? I couldn't
> find them readily online. Looking at the photo it didn't appear the flaps
> were down at all. I'm thinking with flaps they could have gone slower down
> the runway and the pickup would have been able to keep up easier and
> they'd have more time on each attempt.


I always used 80 knots (or about 90 mph) on final in the C-210. You could slow
it down a little more but you're messing around with "coffin corner" if you have
to climb out again.

These guys did an excellent job.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[George Patterson]

Skywise wrote:
>
> Why so fast, "90 mph"? What are the v speeds of this plane? I couldn't
> find them readily online. Looking at the photo it didn't appear the flaps
> were down at all. I'm thinking with flaps they could have gone slower down
> the runway and the pickup would have been able to keep up easier and
> they'd have more time on each attempt.

Stall with full flaps is 60 mph.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Skywise]

George Patterson > wrote in news:%4_Be.1884$YD3.1605
@trndny03:

> Skywise wrote:
>>
>> Why so fast, "90 mph"? What are the v speeds of this plane? I couldn't
>> find them readily online. Looking at the photo it didn't appear the flaps
>> were down at all. I'm thinking with flaps they could have gone slower down
>> the runway and the pickup would have been able to keep up easier and
>> they'd have more time on each attempt.
>
> Stall with full flaps is 60 mph.

Thanks all for the info, although my other question still stands.

Is there any reason to NOT make this effort at a slower speed using
flaps? The picture clearly shows the flaps up. Is the aircraft more
controllable?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Mike Rapoport]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. ..
> Skywise wrote:
>> Why so fast, "90 mph"? What are the v speeds of this plane? I couldn't
>> find them readily online. Looking at the photo it didn't appear the flaps
>> were down at all. I'm thinking with flaps they could have gone slower
>> down
>> the runway and the pickup would have been able to keep up easier and
>> they'd have more time on each attempt.
>
>
> I always used 80 knots (or about 90 mph) on final in the C-210. You could
> slow it down a little more but you're messing around with "coffin corner"
> if you have to climb out again.
>
> These guys did an excellent job.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>

The coffin corner is where the Mach limit and the stall speed come together
at extremely high altitudes.

Mike
MU-2

[Jay Honeck]

> These guys did an excellent job.

Sorry, but I agree with Kyle. I'm glad it came out okay, but...

....those guys are dumber than a box o' rocks. A plane is nothing but a
tool, and it sure ain't worth risking lives to save -- and they put several
lives at risk with their silly stunt.

Belly the plane in, jack it up, fix it, and everyone walks away.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[W P Dixon]

Of course that is taking it for granted the pilot had the skill to belly it
in without killing everyone on board. Dang leave it to you guys! An A&P
saves a pilots butt and the poor A&P still can't get a break! ;) When
someone knows the outcome could very well be their own death,...hmmmm does
hero come to mind? ;) Ya'll are sure a hard crowd to please......

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
and you can bet your sweet bippy , you would have crashed if you were
waiting on me to pull your gear down riding in a truck! ;)


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:K00Ce.157526$_o.60441@attbi_s71...
>> These guys did an excellent job.
>
> Sorry, but I agree with Kyle. I'm glad it came out okay, but...
>
> ...those guys are dumber than a box o' rocks. A plane is nothing but a
> tool, and it sure ain't worth risking lives to save -- and they put
> several lives at risk with their silly stunt.
>
> Belly the plane in, jack it up, fix it, and everyone walks away.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Skywise]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in
:

> Of course that is taking it for granted the pilot had the skill to belly
> it in without killing everyone on board. Dang leave it to you guys! An
> A&P saves a pilots butt and the poor A&P still can't get a break! ;)
> When someone knows the outcome could very well be their own
> death,...hmmmm does hero come to mind? ;) Ya'll are sure a hard crowd to
> please......
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
> and you can bet your sweet bippy , you would have crashed if you were
> waiting on me to pull your gear down riding in a truck! ;)
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:K00Ce.157526$_o.60441@attbi_s71...
>>> These guys did an excellent job.
>>
>> Sorry, but I agree with Kyle. I'm glad it came out okay, but...
>>
>> ...those guys are dumber than a box o' rocks. A plane is nothing but
>> a tool, and it sure ain't worth risking lives to save -- and they put
>> several lives at risk with their silly stunt.
>>
>> Belly the plane in, jack it up, fix it, and everyone walks away.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"


Perhaps the problem prevented them from bringing the gear back up?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> The coffin corner is where the Mach limit and the stall speed come together
> at extremely high altitudes.


Well, then... a poor choice of words. Is "behind the power curve" better? My
point is you'd be flying close to the ground with no altitude to trade for
airspeed. I can't imagine trying to fly right off the ground like that without
carrying power... and maybe you won't have enough excess to climb out if you get
to wallowing too much. Remember, it took these guys 10 tries to get both gear
down. There was no reason to expect it not to take another few tries to get
them both down.

I think they flew an appropriate airspeed. I'm not sure why they didn't carry
any flap unless they were afraid they'd sink when the flaps were retracted on
the go-around.

I had one other thought on the matter: lucky for them they weren't flying an
older C-210. Those had the huge clamshell gear doors that had to cycle after
the gear came down and locked. Dropping the gear on those resulted in a huge
increase in drag that would push you against the shoulder harness for a few
moments.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Belly the plane in, jack it up, fix it, and everyone walks away.


Maybe yes, maybe no. I've mentioned before I've crashed twice. The first one
was a C-210 with a main gear that collapsed. It started with a dead stick
landing and me holding off dropping the gear until I cleared the trees at the
approach end of St. Lucie County (FL). As it was I brushed them slightly, then
put the gear down. Those giant damned gear doors opened, the plane fell out of
the sky, the gear came down and the left one didn't lock. I touched down with
the gear doors still hanging out and immediately started an uncontrollable turn
to the left. When we came to a stop, we were facing 180° the other way. No
prop strike, but I dragged the left wing, the left gear door got trashed and the
empennage got canted about 15-20°... some major structural damage.

Nobody got hurt but if I'd hit a drainage ditch along the way it would have
turned out much worse.

It's real easy to second guess these guys. I'm just not sure it's appropriate.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Dave Anderer]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 04:27:22 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

> ...those guys are dumber than a box o' rocks. A plane is nothing but a
> tool, and it sure ain't worth risking lives to save -- and they put several
> lives at risk with their silly stunt.
>
> Belly the plane in, jack it up, fix it, and everyone walks away.

You've got it completely correct.

A gear-up landing is no big deal. Shoot for the concrete rather than
grass. Land slow. Slide a bit, and climb out. Call the insurance
company - that is what you pay premiums for.

Despite what you see on TV or what breathless reporters suggest, landing
gear-up does not automatically cause the plane to flip over and explode in
a fireball. It is a real shame that we all, as pilots or CFIs, don't seem
to be able to convey this piece of information to our peers or students.

This has been discussed since the dawn of avilation, and for at least the
last 15 years on Usenet (see http://makeashorterlink.com/?B36F2507B ).

The classic example of this was the flight that killed about 6 people,
including the senator from Pennsylvania. Rather that simply landing with
a gear-unsafe indication, the result was a midair. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Jay Honeck]

> It's real easy to second guess these guys. I'm just not sure it's
> appropriate.

You're probably right. All's well that ends well, and those guys
accomplished a very difficult thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>These guys did an excellent job.
>
>
> Sorry, but I agree with Kyle. I'm glad it came out okay, but...
>
> ...those guys are dumber than a box o' rocks. A plane is nothing but a
> tool, and it sure ain't worth risking lives to save -- and they put several
> lives at risk with their silly stunt.
>
> Belly the plane in, jack it up, fix it, and everyone walks away.

Nah, some things are worth doing just to see if you can do it. Your
statement could easily be said about sky diving, rock climbing or any of
myriad other activities. I'd give something like this a try in a heart
beat. If all of the participants are volunteers, then I add nothing
wrong with giving this a try. Sure, things may go awry, but that is life.

I wouldn't do this with kids in the airplane or anyone who didn't
understand and accept the risks, but if I wasn't risking the life of
anyone other than myself and other volunteers, then I see no issue.


Matt

[Toks Desalu]

Maybe you got a point here. As long as those people knew the risks, I don't
see any reason to call them stupid. I wouldn't do that myself. It is not the
first time I heard about that kind of attempt. I have seen it before on
clip.

Look at this way: a fireman walk into a burning house in order to save the
house from burning down. Is it stupid? Let the house burn down?

Toks Desalu
PP-ASEL
Dyin' to Soar!



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>These guys did an excellent job.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I agree with Kyle. I'm glad it came out okay, but...
>>
>> ...those guys are dumber than a box o' rocks. A plane is nothing but a
>> tool, and it sure ain't worth risking lives to save -- and they put
>> several lives at risk with their silly stunt.
>>
>> Belly the plane in, jack it up, fix it, and everyone walks away.
>
> Nah, some things are worth doing just to see if you can do it. Your
> statement could easily be said about sky diving, rock climbing or any of
> myriad other activities. I'd give something like this a try in a heart
> beat. If all of the participants are volunteers, then I add nothing wrong
> with giving this a try. Sure, things may go awry, but that is life.
>
> I wouldn't do this with kids in the airplane or anyone who didn't
> understand and accept the risks, but if I wasn't risking the life of
> anyone other than myself and other volunteers, then I see no issue.
>
>
> Matt

[Kyle Boatright]

"Toks Desalu" > wrote in message
news:Qo9Ce.1295$ij3.636@trndny06...
> Maybe you got a point here. As long as those people knew the risks, I
> don't see any reason to call them stupid. I wouldn't do that myself. It is
> not the first time I heard about that kind of attempt. I have seen it
> before on clip.
>
> Look at this way: a fireman walk into a burning house in order to save the
> house from burning down. Is it stupid? Let the house burn down?
>
> Toks Desalu
> PP-ASEL
> Dyin' to Soar!
>
>
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>>These guys did an excellent job.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I agree with Kyle. I'm glad it came out okay, but...
>>>
>>> ...those guys are dumber than a box o' rocks. A plane is nothing but a
>>> tool, and it sure ain't worth risking lives to save -- and they put
>>> several lives at risk with their silly stunt.
>>>
>>> Belly the plane in, jack it up, fix it, and everyone walks away.
>>
>> Nah, some things are worth doing just to see if you can do it. Your
>> statement could easily be said about sky diving, rock climbing or any of
>> myriad other activities. I'd give something like this a try in a heart
>> beat. If all of the participants are volunteers, then I add nothing
>> wrong with giving this a try. Sure, things may go awry, but that is
>> life.
>>
>> I wouldn't do this with kids in the airplane or anyone who didn't
>> understand and accept the risks, but if I wasn't risking the life of
>> anyone other than myself and other volunteers, then I see no issue.
>>
>>
>> Matt

The issue is that the pilot is making a decision that has an immediate and
consequential impact on the probablility of several people getting hurt or
killed. I think it is fine if you skydive, do aerobatics that your airplane
isn't designed for, do nighttime acro inside the clouds in icing conditions,
etc. as long as you are certain that you're not going to take anyone else
with your if your number comes up.

In this case, how many lives were put at serious risk? - maybe a 1 in 10
chance of up to 5 people getting hurt or killed - 2 in the plane and 3 in
the truck. A gear up landing has a very, very high probability of having no
injuries whatsoever, and in this case, a belly landing would have only put
two people at risk.

KB

[George Patterson]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> You're taking a real chance of a plane vs pickup truck accident, and that's
> likely to result in fatalities. Belly the aircraft in with the prop turning
> and let the insurance company deal with it.

With that ridiculous Cessna gear half down, a belly landing is a real good way
to kill everybody.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Skywise wrote:
>
> The picture clearly shows the flaps up. Is the aircraft more
> controllable?

Both of my aircraft were more controllable with flaps up, especially in ground
effect. You also need more power with flaps down; that and the effect of the
flaps would make it a bit turbulent for the guys in the truck.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> A gear up landing has a very, very high probability of having no
> injuries whatsoever, and in this case, a belly landing would have only put
> two people at risk.

But they couldn't do a gear up landing.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Jose]

> The issue is that the pilot is making a decision that has an immediate and
> consequential impact on the probablility of several people getting hurt or
> killed.

No, actually I think the decision was a joint one. The pilot had no
command or situational authority over the people on the ground. He had
situational authority over the one (mechanic) passenger, but I'll bet he
discussed it with the passenger.

> In this case, how many lives were put at serious risk? - maybe a 1 in 10
> chance of up to 5 people getting hurt or killed

I think you just made those numbers up. Maybe a 1 in 1000 chance of
minor injury. I just made those numbers up too. Do you have any
statistics to back up your claim? The only statisitic I have is ten
tries, no injuries, success, plus another incident that was similar I
remember reading about some time ago. I have never heard of a case of
an injury from doing this.

So, maybe it's a one in a million chance of injury.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Kyle Boatright]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:rM9Ce.1298$ij3.888@trndny06...
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>
>> You're taking a real chance of a plane vs pickup truck accident, and
>> that's likely to result in fatalities. Belly the aircraft in with the
>> prop turning and let the insurance company deal with it.
>
> With that ridiculous Cessna gear half down, a belly landing is a real good
> way to kill everybody.
>
> George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.

The gear *may* have been unable to lock up or down, but the article only
says they couldn't get it to lock down. It doesn't specify if they tried to
retract it...

KB

[Doug Semler]

In oups.com,
Jim > slavered, and posted this:
> A&P heroics in landing gear save:
>
> http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1109870.html
>
> -Jim


Not for nothing (and not that I am not glad that all are OK), but after
reading the article, I seriously question the pilot's decision to fly the
airplane (and the mechanic's competence on the 210) with "an oil leak from
the flaps and the gear." I can see the NTSB incident report:

Probable Cause: Improper preflight and pilot's decision to fly with known
hydraulic deficiencies in the landing gear system.
Contributing Factor: Failure of the landing gear hydraulic system.

By the way, I found this on AvWeb regarding landing gear on the C210
(http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182907-1.html):

<quote>
The Centurion landing gear system has a lousy reputation. Actually, the gear
system can be extremely reliable if you and your maintenance shop
understands the system thoroughly. CPA's three-day Cessna 210 Systems and
Procedures Course devotes several hours to this subject, but I will mention
a few of the highlights here.
UH OH! NO GREEN LIGHT. If you don't get a green light after extending the
gear, the first thing to do is to visually check the landing gear position.
When down and locked, the main gear tires can be seen from the cabin.
However, the nosewheel is not visible to the pilot unless you install a
convex landing gear mirror. A mirror is also necessary to observe the
position of the main gear doors (if your plane has them). CPA sells an STC'd
mirror that simply replaces one of the underwing inspection plates.

If the landing gear appears completely down but there is no green light, a
normal landing should be made. If the main gear is down but not quite
locked, the weight of the aircraft will push the main gear legs toward the
locked position. However, the nose gear retracts forward, so weight on an
unlocked nose gear will tend to make it retract. Therefore, take care to
hold the nose wheel off the ground as long as possible.

If the gear does not appear to be fully extended, try to determine the
cause. On 1971 and earlier 210s which use an engine-driven hydraulic pump,
recycle the landing gear handle to the neutral position and then back to the
down position. On 1972 and later 210s with an electrically-driven hydraulic
pump, make sure that the landing gear switch is in the down position and
that neither the landing gear motor circuit breaker or landing gear control
circuit breaker have tripped.

If the gear still is not fully extended, then it is time to use the
emergency extension system. With the landing gear handle or switch in the
down position, pull out the emergency extension pump handle and start
pumping. Continue until the handle feels like it is set in cement. Visually
determine that the gear is extended and that you have a green light, then
make a normal landing.

If the emergency extension handle won't budge, the most likely cause is a
stuck door solenoid valve (assuming you have doors). The door solenoid valve
is electrically activated to the door-closed position and spring- loaded to
the door-open position. Try turning off the master switch (VFR conditions
only!) to allow the electrical circuits in the landing gear system to cool
down. This may allow the solenoid valve to drop into place. You can also try
pulling the plastic center console cover off to expose the landing gear
power pack, and rap on the door solenoid valve to encourage it to release.
The door solenoid valve is the small silver canister assembly on the left
side of the power pack.

If the emergency extension handle moves freely but the gear does not extend,
the most likely cause is insufficent hydraulic fluid. On pre-1972 aircraft,
there's not much you can do other than verifying that this is the situation
by observing if any fluid is visible through the sight glass. On 1972 and
later models, there's a dipstick and filler port behind a removable panel on
the center console. If the dipstick shows no fluid in the power pack, you
can try pouring any available liquid into the power pack reservoir.

IF NOTHING WORKS, KEEP YOUR COOL. If a gear-up landing can't be avoided, the
important thing is not to panic. A landing with the gear up or partially
extended is not a life-threatening situation and only through panic can a
pilot turn it into one. Simply make a normal approach, touching down at as
low an airspeed as you are comfortable with while maintaining control of the
aircraft.

If you are faced with making a wheels-up landing, here are some items you
might want to keep in mind:

a.. Pavement is better than grass. Contrary to intuition, less damage will
be done touch down on smooth pavement than on grass.

b.. Pick a runway the airlines don't need. If you disturb airline
schedules, the airport management will want toclear the runway quickly,
which could result in greater damage to your aircraft. The FAA may get
upset, too. If the wind is manageable, consider using a crosswind runway at
an airport you think you might have repairs done.

c.. Don't worry about prop or engine damage. The hangar flyers will tell
you should shut down the engine and stop the prop on final to minimize
damage. Most of those guys have never done it. I have, and let me tell you
it is no easy task. Once you pull the mixture out to shut down the engine,
you will have to reduce airspeed almost to stall to get the prop stopped,
and then remain at very low airspeed to prevent the prop from windmilling
again. What's the point? At best, you'll only be saving money for your
insurance company. And that's a pretty poor reason for increasing the risk
factor during a wheels up landing

</quote>

The news article doesn't say anything about whether these procedures were
attempted...

--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
Displaced Bolts fan in Detroit :(
42
DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, uneqyl nalbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Dan Luke]

"George Patterson" wrote:
> With that ridiculous Cessna gear half down, a belly landing is a real
good way
> to kill everybody.

Oh, baloney, George. At least a couple of high wing Cessnas land with
the gear dangling every year without harming the occupants.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> "Toks Desalu" > wrote in message
> news:Qo9Ce.1295$ij3.636@trndny06...
>
>>Maybe you got a point here. As long as those people knew the risks, I
>>don't see any reason to call them stupid. I wouldn't do that myself. It is
>>not the first time I heard about that kind of attempt. I have seen it
>>before on clip.
>>
>>Look at this way: a fireman walk into a burning house in order to save the
>>house from burning down. Is it stupid? Let the house burn down?
>>
>>Toks Desalu
>>PP-ASEL
>>Dyin' to Soar!
>>
>>
>>
>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>These guys did an excellent job.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but I agree with Kyle. I'm glad it came out okay, but...
>>>>
>>>>...those guys are dumber than a box o' rocks. A plane is nothing but a
>>>>tool, and it sure ain't worth risking lives to save -- and they put
>>>>several lives at risk with their silly stunt.
>>>>
>>>>Belly the plane in, jack it up, fix it, and everyone walks away.
>>>
>>>Nah, some things are worth doing just to see if you can do it. Your
>>>statement could easily be said about sky diving, rock climbing or any of
>>>myriad other activities. I'd give something like this a try in a heart
>>>beat. If all of the participants are volunteers, then I add nothing
>>>wrong with giving this a try. Sure, things may go awry, but that is
>>>life.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't do this with kids in the airplane or anyone who didn't
>>>understand and accept the risks, but if I wasn't risking the life of
>>>anyone other than myself and other volunteers, then I see no issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>Matt
>
>
> The issue is that the pilot is making a decision that has an immediate and
> consequential impact on the probablility of several people getting hurt or
> killed. I think it is fine if you skydive, do aerobatics that your airplane
> isn't designed for, do nighttime acro inside the clouds in icing conditions,
> etc. as long as you are certain that you're not going to take anyone else
> with your if your number comes up.
>
> In this case, how many lives were put at serious risk? - maybe a 1 in 10
> chance of up to 5 people getting hurt or killed - 2 in the plane and 3 in
> the truck. A gear up landing has a very, very high probability of having no
> injuries whatsoever, and in this case, a belly landing would have only put
> two people at risk.

Did the pilot force the folks on the ground to pull down his gear? Was
he holding their families hostage? Was he a banker threatening to
foreclose on their homes? If not, then he didn't put them at risk at
all. They put themselves are risk, probably well understanding the
risk. This is what adults do. I realize that the nanny-state advocates
don't understand this, but this is what made Americal great. Do you
think Lewis and Clark should have stayed home? After all, their journey
was rather risky and included a lot of other people...


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> The issue is that the pilot is making a decision that has an immediate
>> and consequential impact on the probablility of several people getting
>> hurt or killed.
>
>
> No, actually I think the decision was a joint one. The pilot had no
> command or situational authority over the people on the ground. He had
> situational authority over the one (mechanic) passenger, but I'll bet he
> discussed it with the passenger.
>
>> In this case, how many lives were put at serious risk? - maybe a 1 in
>> 10 chance of up to 5 people getting hurt or killed
>
>
> I think you just made those numbers up. Maybe a 1 in 1000 chance of
> minor injury. I just made those numbers up too. Do you have any
> statistics to back up your claim? The only statisitic I have is ten
> tries, no injuries, success, plus another incident that was similar I
> remember reading about some time ago. I have never heard of a case of
> an injury from doing this.

Likewise, I've seen at least a few of these attempts succeed and I've
yet to read of a fatality involving such attempts so I'd say the safety
record is 100%! Few things in life have proven to be 100% safe, so I'd
say this is something worth attempting to save the aircraft and the crew
and since the risk is proven to be zero, why not? :-)


Matt

[private]

53.8% of statistics are made up.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
snip
> > I think you just made those numbers up. Maybe a 1 in 1000 chance of
> > minor injury. I just made those numbers up too. Do you have any
> > statistics to back up your claim? The only statisitic I have is ten
> > tries, no injuries, success, plus another incident that was similar I
> > remember reading about some time ago. I have never heard of a case of
> > an injury from doing this.
snip

[Skywise]

George Patterson > wrote in
news:WP9Ce.1399$xe3.213@trndny09:

> Skywise wrote:
>>
>> The picture clearly shows the flaps up. Is the aircraft more
>> controllable?
>
> Both of my aircraft were more controllable with flaps up, especially in
> ground effect. You also need more power with flaps down; that and the
> effect of the flaps would make it a bit turbulent for the guys in the
> truck.

Thank you, George.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Matt Whiting]

private wrote:

> 53.8% of statistics are made up.
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> snip
>
>>>I think you just made those numbers up. Maybe a 1 in 1000 chance of
>>>minor injury. I just made those numbers up too. Do you have any
>>>statistics to back up your claim? The only statisitic I have is ten
>>>tries, no injuries, success, plus another incident that was similar I
>>>remember reading about some time ago. I have never heard of a case of
>>>an injury from doing this.
>
> snip
>
>

Except I didn't write the above. You need more practice using your
newsreader...

Matt

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:51:28 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>Happy to see that these guys succeeded, but this kind of thing shows poor
>judgement.

Maybe, maybe not. They managed to get the gear locked down, albeit
after 10 tries. They probably did a couple of passes while just
checking to see how things would work. The picture shows that it was
not necessary for the pickup to be below the airplane, it was on the
right so the pilot could see it. This made it much easier to maintain
formation with the truck, and visa versa.

I've seen pictures of a low wing retract having it's gear pulled down
and that was REALLY hairy because the truck driver was directly
beneath the airplane which would greatly reduce the pilot's ability to
see where it was.

In this case, the airplane and truck were beside each other so even if
something bad happened, there was some room to maneuver. The truck
driver was an experienced race car driver.

Seems like they tried to shave the odds in their favor as best they
could. The way some of you guys are talking it's as if this was
horrifyingly dangerous loonesy. But despite having to try the attempt
10 times, they apparently did not scare each other badly enough to
stop trying, and managed to do what they had to do. Looks like the
pilot and ground personnel made the best of a bad situation.

Corky Scott

[nrp]

Maybe 25 years ago there were pictures of a Queen or King Air that had
to have some one hanging on the elevator to keep a stuck nose gear off
the ground. It was done with two guys on a fast motorcycle with number
two dressed in full leathers and having a lot of nerve. As I recall it
was successful.