Speaking of landing on the freeway

[Louis L. Perley III]

Except the landing went ok, but the takeoff did not.

After safe emergency landing, pilot crashes on takeoff

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/bizarre/3421136

[Louis L. Perley III]

Link to another take on the story with video:

http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4038264

[N93332]

"Louis L. Perley III" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Link to another take on the story with video:
>
> http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4038264

What is the squealing sound towards the end of the video?

[Louis L. Perley III]

I'm pretty sure that wasn't added after the fact, you can lock the
wheels up on a Cessna pretty easily. I assume the PIC (passenger in
command at that point?) knew it was going to end badly and locked 'em
up to try and slow down before hitting the trees. Sounded similar to
what I've done in my 152 if I ride the brakes too hard just after
touchdown.

[N93332]

"Louis L. Perley III" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm pretty sure that wasn't added after the fact, you can lock the
> wheels up on a Cessna pretty easily. I assume the PIC (passenger in
> command at that point?) knew it was going to end badly and locked 'em
> up to try and slow down before hitting the trees. Sounded similar to
> what I've done in my 152 if I ride the brakes too hard just after
> touchdown.

I agree that it sounds like locked up brakes, but it's not heard until the
aircraft has stopped. I guess it could be the sound delay from the distance
the taping was done from...

[kontiki]

What is it with these fuel starvation incidents? Never ceases
to amaze me that such a preventable thing continues to occur.
I mean, its not rocket science...

1) know how much useable fuel you have in the tanks.

2) know what your fuel burn is per hour.
(be conservative and add extra for take-off and climb)

3) divide 1) by 2) ... that's how long the engine will run.

4) subtract a half an hour (just make it an hour for IFR or night)

5) add result to your departure time: that is when you
need to be on short final SOMEWHERE.

Louis L. Perley III wrote:

> Except the landing went ok, but the takeoff did not.
>
> After safe emergency landing, pilot crashes on takeoff
>
> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/bizarre/3421136
>

[john smith]

> What is it with these fuel starvation incidents? Never ceases
> to amaze me that such a preventable thing continues to occur.
> I mean, its not rocket science...

Improper or lack of leaning.

[[email protected]]

>>>>What is it with these fuel starvation incidents? Never ceases
to amaze me that such a preventable thing continues to occur.
I mean, its not rocket science... <<<<<

No doubt. I'm AMAZED at how often perfectly good airplanes get bent up
by running outa gas... While that wasn't the cause of the accident
here, it was a contributing factor. There are so many things that can
go wrong (that you don't have control of) you'd think every pilot would
concentrate on things they CAN control like fuel on board. Oy.

That incident is not going to help the cause of other 210 owners come
policy renewal time. I've been told by insurance people the 210 is
expensive to insure, although I can't figure out why it'd cost more
than a 182/177/172RG...

[Bob Moore]

" wrote
> That incident is not going to help the cause of other 210 owners come
> policy renewal time. I've been told by insurance people the 210 is
> expensive to insure, although I can't figure out why it'd cost more
> than a 182/177/172RG...

Because, just as the Bonanza, they tend to be "Doctor/Lawyer" airplanes.

Bob Moore

[Darrel Toepfer]

Bob Moore wrote:
> " wrote
>
>>That incident is not going to help the cause of other 210 owners come
>>policy renewal time. I've been told by insurance people the 210 is
>>expensive to insure, although I can't figure out why it'd cost more
>>than a 182/177/172RG...
>
> Because, just as the Bonanza, they tend to be "Doctor/Lawyer" airplanes.

Used to share hanger space with him (Mike Simon) he's a landlord to many
here in town, wife's a retired nurse...

[[email protected]]

>>>>Because, just as the Bonanza, they tend to be "Doctor/Lawyer" airplanes<<<<

A C-210? Didn't think they had the same allure as Bonanzas & Barons for
the MD/JD set...

This insurance agent told me the 210 was a special case, I assume due
to loss rate. There are some companies that won't write policies for
210s at all. I just can't figure what it is about that plane that would
make getting insured such a hassle.

[Jim Burns]

Newer 210's are 6 place
Older 210's have a complicated gear & gear/door system that has caused some
gear up situations.
Large engine.
Fast airplane.
Some are pressurized.
Some are turbo charged.
Some are both.

Combine any of the above and the insurance rates skyrocket.

I talked to a 1988 C210 owner recently and he said that he was very willing
to pay the extra premium for a turbo 210 over a non turbo 210, but when he
asked about a pressurized T-210 the rate was absolutely astronomical.

Jim

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> >>>>Because, just as the Bonanza, they tend to be "Doctor/Lawyer"
airplanes<<<<
>
> A C-210? Didn't think they had the same allure as Bonanzas & Barons for
> the MD/JD set...
>
> This insurance agent told me the 210 was a special case, I assume due
> to loss rate. There are some companies that won't write policies for
> 210s at all. I just can't figure what it is about that plane that would
> make getting insured such a hassle.
>

[Montblack]

wrote)
> This insurance agent told me the 210 was a special case, I assume due
> to loss rate. There are some companies that won't write policies for
> 210s at all. I just can't figure what it is about that plane that would
> make getting insured such a hassle.


Was the one in the video a fixed gear? I didn't see any 'holes' for the rear
gear when it was being hauled away on the trailer. I thought 210's were all
retracts. Maybe not.

1973 C-210L.


Montblack

[Darrel Toepfer]

Montblack wrote:

> Was the one in the video a fixed gear? I didn't see any 'holes' for the
> rear gear when it was being hauled away on the trailer. I thought 210's
> were all retracts. Maybe not.
>
> 1973 C-210L.

Its a retract... Nonturbo'd... The gear tucks into the "doors" which
close when its extended or retracted for better aerodynamics. Easiest
way to tell is the way they look phunnie in the front when the gear is
down... As I stated previously we shared hanger space with him in the
jet hanger, my dad was kindly towards him and sublet space. He's on the
airport commission (only active pilot) and was instrumental in trying to
have several planes evicted over the manditory insurance rule instituted
nearly a year ago now. His plane was stored outside at the time and he
dearly wanted one of their T-Hanger slots. He recently got one a month
ago, guess I need to see if its available...

[Newps]

Jim Burns wrote:
> Newer 210's are 6 place
> Older 210's have a complicated gear & gear/door system that has caused some
> gear up situations.
> Large engine.
> Fast airplane.
> Some are pressurized.
> Some are turbo charged.
> Some are both.
>
> Combine any of the above and the insurance rates skyrocket.


Bull****. It costs me less to insure my Bonanza for 6 seats than it
would to insure a 206 with 4 seats. Exact same hull value.

[Newps]

Jim Burns wrote:
> What kind of numbers, just for comparison? We used to pay $2400 for an 80k
> R-182, 1M/1K.


$88K hull on my Bonanza. 1M/1K. $1500. I called the insurance company
last spring about a P206(non turbo) I was considering. If I only insured
4 seats it would have been $1800. My 182 was $1000 a year and had been
for the last 5 years, $70K hull.

[Jim Burns]

What kind of numbers, just for comparison? We used to pay $2400 for an 80k
R-182, 1M/1K.
Jim

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim Burns wrote:
> > Newer 210's are 6 place
> > Older 210's have a complicated gear & gear/door system that has caused
some
> > gear up situations.
> > Large engine.
> > Fast airplane.
> > Some are pressurized.
> > Some are turbo charged.
> > Some are both.
> >
> > Combine any of the above and the insurance rates skyrocket.
>
>
> Bull****. It costs me less to insure my Bonanza for 6 seats than it
> would to insure a 206 with 4 seats. Exact same hull value.

[Newps]

My Bo is with Avemco. The quote for the 206 was when I was using
Travers as my broker for my 182.



Jim Burns wrote:
> Wow, not bad at all! Which broker/company?
> Thanks
> Jim
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>Jim Burns wrote:
>>
>>>What kind of numbers, just for comparison? We used to pay $2400 for an
>
> 80k
>
>>>R-182, 1M/1K.
>>
>>
>>$88K hull on my Bonanza. 1M/1K. $1500. I called the insurance company
>>last spring about a P206(non turbo) I was considering. If I only insured
>>4 seats it would have been $1800. My 182 was $1000 a year and had been
>>for the last 5 years, $70K hull.
>
>
>

[Jim Burns]

Wow, not bad at all! Which broker/company?
Thanks
Jim

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jim Burns wrote:
> > What kind of numbers, just for comparison? We used to pay $2400 for an
80k
> > R-182, 1M/1K.
>
>
> $88K hull on my Bonanza. 1M/1K. $1500. I called the insurance company
> last spring about a P206(non turbo) I was considering. If I only insured
> 4 seats it would have been $1800. My 182 was $1000 a year and had been
> for the last 5 years, $70K hull.

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> Bull****. It costs me less to insure my Bonanza for 6 seats than it
> would to insure a 206 with 4 seats. Exact same hull value.

I have the fifth and sixth seat for my Bonanza but I haven't yet installed
them because of fear of a large insurance increase (a rumor perpetuated by
the previous owner). Also, there wasn't really a need until this year, now
that the surprise third child is eight months old and ready to fly.

--
Peter
Not a doctor or a lawyer























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

Darrel Toepfer > wrote:

> He's on the
> airport commission (only active pilot) and was instrumental in trying to
> have several planes evicted over the manditory insurance rule instituted
> nearly a year ago now.

A good case for the belief in karma.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Private]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Darrel Toepfer > wrote:
>
>> He's on the
>> airport commission (only active pilot) and was instrumental in trying to
>> have several planes evicted over the manditory insurance rule instituted
>> nearly a year ago now.
>
> A good case for the belief in karma.
>
> --
> Peter

I agree. What goes around, comes around.

Since we can now assume that this pilot had insurance, it will be
interesting to see how his insurance company feels about willful negligence.

While an EMERGENCY landing on a public road is not illegal, I have always
thought that the practical consequence would be that the police would impose
a non- judicial penalty by requiring removal of the wings and trucking to an
airport. "There is no such thing as an emergency takeoff." This raises the
question whether this pilot had received a "clearance to takeoff".

Happy landings,

[Stubby]

> While an EMERGENCY landing on a public road is not illegal,
That's what the FAA would say. Local authorities may have a different
idea. I believe it is CT that doesn't permit aircraft to land on public
property. Even in a balloon, we have to worry about tresspassing and
always get the land owner's permission ASAP. Applying the traditional
bottle of champagne minimizes gripes, also.

Once we found ourselves in a 20 kt wind, which is really moving. We
were low on fuel and had to get it down. The very experienced PIC
decided to use the drop line to catch a tree limb to stop the forward
motion so we could let it down in the only yard big enough. We had to
fight the wind and the dropline was jammed in the trees. Neighbors were
panicking and calling police and fire even though all we needed is a
little time to free the balloon. About 10' AGL the line slipped through
my hands -- no knot in the end as a line on a sailboat! So a quick rip
landing got us down. This left us dealing with the police. "Are you
guys legal? This can't be right. You must be breaking some law!" By
then the crew had taken a pix of the owner in the basket with the wine.

So it was an "Emergency" (actually several of them). The FAA would not
have complained, but the local police were all set for action.

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>Bull****. It costs me less to insure my Bonanza for 6 seats than it
>>would to insure a 206 with 4 seats. Exact same hull value.
>
>
> I have the fifth and sixth seat for my Bonanza but I haven't yet installed
> them because of fear of a large insurance increase (a rumor perpetuated by
> the previous owner). Also, there wasn't really a need until this year, now
> that the surprise third child is eight months old and ready to fly.

I have no intention of using my fifth and sixth seats either. However
Avemco never asked about seats and I simply forgot to ask if it was
cheaper to just insure for four. So unless you already have a policy
that only insures four seats then go ahead and install your back seats.

[Newps]

Private wrote:


> Since we can now assume that this pilot had insurance, it will be
> interesting to see how his insurance company feels about willful negligence.

Insurance companies cover stupidity, that's their main reason for being
there.

>
> While an EMERGENCY landing on a public road is not illegal, I have always
> thought that the practical consequence would be that the police would impose
> a non- judicial penalty by requiring removal of the wings and trucking to an
> airport. "There is no such thing as an emergency takeoff." This raises the
> question whether this pilot had received a "clearance to takeoff".

What are you talking about? There was no emergency takeoff. There is
no requirement that the airplane be operated only from airports. As for
impounding a plane, why would the police do that? In many states it's
quite legal to use the road to land. It's a state issue on non federal
roads. The pilot needs no clearance for takeoff from a public road.

[Private]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
snip
> What are you talking about? There was no emergency takeoff. There is no
> requirement that the airplane be operated only from airports. As for
> impounding a plane, why would the police do that? In many states it's
> quite legal to use the road to land. It's a state issue on non federal
> roads. The pilot needs no clearance for takeoff from a public road.

I stand corrected that my information does not apply universally.

AFAIK permission to takeoff is required in most if not all of Canada as the
aircraft is not properly licensed, or insured?, or approved (as required by
motor vehicle/highway traffic act) for use on public roads. AFAIK operation
would require a temporary license/permit as would an ATV or snowmobile or
other off road or construction equipment.. This permission can be granted
or withheld at the discretion of the police who are usually required to
close the road and control traffic. Lately the police are requiring that
traffic control be performed by trained and approved safety contractors as
used by construction, accident recovery and towing companies.

You are also correct that the police would not order that the aircraft be
trucked to an airport but would rather order that the aircraft be removed to
private property, (where a takeoff could be made if desired). I am not
suggesting that the police would impound the aircraft unless it was
abandoned and impeding traffic.

Happy landings,

[George Patterson]

Private wrote:

> While an EMERGENCY landing on a public road is not illegal, I have always
> thought that the practical consequence would be that the police would impose
> a non- judicial penalty by requiring removal of the wings and trucking to an
> airport.

The laws vary wildly from State to State, but the police can't "impose a
non-judicial penalty" in any of them.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.