C172 lands in Brooklyn

[Bill Michaelson]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/nyregion/15plane.html

[Denny]

He has overdrawn his good luck account for the next dozen years...

denny

Bill Michaelson wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/nyregion/15plane.html

[Kevin Clarke]

Certainly some great piloting to get it down safely. But like the pilot
said, we are all trained to do that. Indeed. More of the death avoidance
culture of flying, which turned out to be a good thing.

A couple of other impressions.

1)AOPA spends lots of time worrying about image and lobbying Congress on
behalf of GA. They need to spend more time with the general public. The
comment about "he should have bought $10 worth of gas" is an example of
the ignorance surrounding GA. $10 worth of AvGas will get you to the
runway but that's about it. With AvGas running at $4+ per gallon that
sure isn't a lot of fuel. Anyway, they said he had 8+ in the tanks so it
was not a fuel starvation problem in the classic sense. He might have
lost something else in the engine. That's NTSB's job.

2) People will always have a fascination with flying. Partly because
reporters report on things like this. If a car driving on the Cross
Bronx Expressway had an engine failure and pulled over, it might make a
traffic report. Maybe. In the last couple of days I've seen 3 non-injury
events on the news. This one, the Archer II in France and a Bonanza that
landed ok in a field in OK. All non-events and yet reported in the
news. I'm not blaming the press here. They do it because people are
fascinated with these danged flying machines.

We all (at least those of us that are pilots, ie: not sims) see this all
the time. Our family and friends telling us how crazy we are for our
avocation. We tell them how transcendent it is and that there is nothing
like it. In some ways we have to be the advocates for our passion.

KC

Bill Michaelson wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/nyregion/15plane.html

[Gary Drescher]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> He has overdrawn his good luck account for the next dozen years...

I think the default emergency landing site when flying low near NYC is the
Hudson River. If there happens to be a clear area on the ground, as there
was in this case, then that's even better (especially for the airplane). But
at worst, you just having to make a water landing (with a high likelihood of
prompt rescue).

--Gary

[[email protected]]

Kevin Clarke > wrote:
> 1)AOPA spends lots of time worrying about image and lobbying Congress on
> behalf of GA. They need to spend more time with the general public. The
> comment about "he should have bought $10 worth of gas" is an example of
> the ignorance surrounding GA. $10 worth of AvGas will get you to the
> runway but that's about it. With AvGas running at $4+ per gallon that
> sure isn't a lot of fuel. Anyway, they said he had 8+ in the tanks so it
> was not a fuel starvation problem in the classic sense. He might have
> lost something else in the engine. That's NTSB's job.

It doesn't matter how much AOPA tries to educate, there's a huge portion
of the general public they would never reach. I don't blame the witness
for speculating, I blame the reporter for irresponsibly including that
SPECULATION in the article (although 8 gallons in 2 tanks isn't much
fuel). That's the NTSB's job, and at least *the reporter* should know
that.

> 2) People will always have a fascination with flying. Partly because
> reporters report on things like this. If a car driving on the Cross
> Bronx Expressway had an engine failure and pulled over, it might make a
> traffic report. Maybe. In the last couple of days I've seen 3 non-injury
> events on the news. This one, the Archer II in France and a Bonanza that
> landed ok in a field in OK. All non-events and yet reported in the
> news. I'm not blaming the press here. They do it because people are
> fascinated with these danged flying machines.

As a pilot, I'm always glad to see these "pilot makes safe off-field
landing" stories reported in the news vs only seeing the many that end
tragically. It confirms that it *can* be done, and there might be some
little bit of info that you can take with you that might help, faced
with that situation yourself. A friend and I recently went through an
engine failure/emergency off-field landing, and comparing notes
afterwards about our thoughts, it's amazing in those VERY brief moments,
how many things we'd heard/learned about others' emergency landings came
to mind while doing the trained procedures and flying the plane.

[Ron Natalie]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Denny" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> He has overdrawn his good luck account for the next dozen years...
>
> I think the default emergency landing site when flying low near NYC is the
> Hudson River. If there happens to be a clear area on the ground, as there
> was in this case, then that's even better (especially for the airplane). But
> at worst, you just having to make a water landing (with a high likelihood of
> prompt rescue).
>
Only if you were over Manhattan (or perhaps parts of the Bronx).
There's a lot of real estate in the other boros that would require
you climbing over 1500 feet to get to the Hudson.

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> I think the default emergency landing site when flying low near NYC is
>> the Hudson River. If there happens to be a clear area on the ground, as
>> there was in this case, then that's even better (especially for the
>> airplane). But at worst, you just having to make a water landing (with a
>> high likelihood of prompt rescue).
>>
> Only if you were over Manhattan (or perhaps parts of the Bronx).
> There's a lot of real estate in the other boros that would require
> you climbing over 1500 feet to get to the Hudson.

True. Most of my flying in that vicinity has been over the water to begin
with. I don't think I'd venture beyond gliding distance of the river unless
I'd determined in advance that I'd be within range of a suitable landing
spot at all times.

--Gary

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
> wrote:
>Kevin Clarke > wrote:
[snip]
>
>It doesn't matter how much AOPA tries to educate, there's a huge portion
>of the general public they would never reach. I don't blame the witness
>for speculating, I blame the reporter for irresponsibly including that
>SPECULATION in the article (although 8 gallons in 2 tanks isn't much
>fuel). That's the NTSB's job, and at least *the reporter* should know
>that.

The article says that the NTSB won't be investigating. It was a
simple off-airport landing with no injuries or damage. Of course, I'd
expect the owner to be interested in what caused the engine to quit,
but that's a maintenance and repair issue.
>
>> 2) People will always have a fascination with flying. Partly because
>> reporters report on things like this. If a car driving on the Cross
>> Bronx Expressway had an engine failure and pulled over, it might make a
>> traffic report. Maybe. In the last couple of days I've seen 3 non-injury
>> events on the news. This one, the Archer II in France and a Bonanza that
>> landed ok in a field in OK. All non-events and yet reported in the
>> news. I'm not blaming the press here. They do it because people are
>> fascinated with these danged flying machines.
>
>As a pilot, I'm always glad to see these "pilot makes safe off-field
>landing" stories reported in the news vs only seeing the many that end
>tragically. It confirms that it *can* be done, and there might be some
>little bit of info that you can take with you that might help, faced
>with that situation yourself. A friend and I recently went through an
>engine failure/emergency off-field landing, and comparing notes
>afterwards about our thoughts, it's amazing in those VERY brief moments,
>how many things we'd heard/learned about others' emergency landings came
>to mind while doing the trained procedures and flying the plane.

Overall, the article avoided gratuitous sensationalism. Yeah, the
eyewitnesses were not a clueful about what they were seeing, but that's
not a big surprise. I'm wondering when Mulcahy is going to go off about
how dangerous the situation was, but he's a loon.

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix narrowwares
Bowie, MD, USA | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com
Proud member of the SCA Internet Whitewash Squad

[[email protected]]

Xmnushal8y:
> >It doesn't matter how much AOPA tries to educate, there's a huge portion
> >of the general public they would never reach. I don't blame the witness
> >for speculating, I blame the reporter for irresponsibly including that
> >SPECULATION in the article (although 8 gallons in 2 tanks isn't much
> >fuel). That's the NTSB's job, and at least *the reporter* should know
> >that.

(Michael Houghton) wrote:
> The article says that the NTSB won't be investigating. It was a
> simple off-airport landing with no injuries or damage. Of course, I'd
> expect the owner to be interested in what caused the engine to quit,
> but that's a maintenance and repair issue.

You're absolutely right, I forgot about it not being an "accident".
Still, the reporter should know better than to quote a witness's
speculation/implication that the pilot should have ponied up some $ for
gas.

> Overall, the article avoided gratuitous sensationalism. Yeah, the
> eyewitnesses were not a clueful about what they were seeing, but that's
> not a big surprise. I'm wondering when Mulcahy is going to go off about
> how dangerous the situation was, but he's a loon.

:-)
Eyewitnesses to small plane incidents/accidents are not always
knowledgeable, but again, the reporter should have at least *some* clue
as to which information is factual and which is speculation and edit
accordingly. Maybe life's too short, but if I were the pilot and knew it
was a MX/repair issue and not fuel exhaustion or pilot error, after
being extremely grateful that I made it back safely, I think I might be
a little annoyed that it was implied in the report that I could have
prevented it by spending $10 on gas.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> It doesn't matter how much AOPA tries to educate, there's a huge portion
> of the general public they would never reach. I don't blame the witness
> for speculating, I blame the reporter for irresponsibly including that
> SPECULATION in the article (although 8 gallons in 2 tanks isn't much
> fuel). That's the NTSB's job, and at least *the reporter* should know
> that.

Sounds like the pilot did a great job.

When the reporter included the speculation by uneducated witnesses, who
turned out to be way off base ("I thought it hit a crane..."), he did
us a favor. Since he also clearly included the truth--that the plane
had plenty of fuel to be running--the witnesses were shown to be
witless guessers.

The bad news is that most people won't realise that.

[[email protected]]

>
> Sounds like the pilot did a great job.
>

Sounds like he did a great job of the flying. He also did a good job of
trying to manage the sensationalism by dismissing the incident as not a
big deal, to introduce some balance to the report.


> I think the default emergency landing site when flying low near NYC is the
> Hudson River. If there happens to be a clear area on the ground, as there
> was in this case, then that's even better (especially for the airplane). But
> at worst, you just having to make a water landing (with a high likelihood of
> prompt rescue).

What's the story with emergency landings in water for small planes like
C172s and Warriors? What is the best technique for executing one? What
is the most common outcome? What does the outcome tend to depend on? Of
course, the availability of prompt rescue is going to be a big factor,
but I'm more asking about the landing itself.

Tom

[Guy Elden Jr]

> What's the story with emergency landings in water for small planes like
> C172s and Warriors? What is the best technique for executing one? What
> is the most common outcome? What does the outcome tend to depend on? Of
> course, the availability of prompt rescue is going to be a big factor,
> but I'm more asking about the landing itself.

My instructor told me to make sure the doors are ajar before you hit,
and to expect to be upside down in the water by the time the plane
stops moving. If I were flying down the Hudson river, I'd try to get as
close to the shore as possible without hitting anything, and then fly
it down to the water level, and slow it down as much as possible before
hitting the water. I'd certainly prefer nice terra firma to a water
landing in any case.

--
Guy

[Darkwing]

"Bill Michaelson" > wrote in message
news:htD6h.6145$dh7.2534@trnddc01...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/nyregion/15plane.html

Typical lame ass aeroplane story. "I could tell he was in trouble with his
wings tipping back and forth and to and fro and ya'll come back now".

-----------------------------------------------
DW

[nrp]

The environment you have to fly in out east! Here in Minnesota you'd
have a hard time getting anyone to go for water.............. If
nothing else you have to figure on being knocked out and then very
likely drown unless the rescue is immediate.
> Guy

[Marc Adler]

On Nov 15, 6:10 am, Bill Michaelson > wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/nyregion/15plane.html

A few questions.

1 - Will the pilot get fined (FAA, NTSB, NYPD, parks authority,
anyone)?

2 - How much does it cost to remove the wings from a Cessna and
transport it to the nearest airport?

3 - Is the pilot's overconfidence-verging-on-arrogance ("non-event,"
"walk in the park") at all off-putting to others? (He sounds like an
arrogant jerk who should be thanking his lucky stars - but that's a
non-pilot's opinion.)

4 - Will his insurance go up?

Thanks,
Marc

[EridanMan]

> 1 - Will the pilot get fined (FAA, NTSB, NYPD, parks authority,
> anyone)?

As Far as the FAA was concerned, he was simply (and successfully)
exercising his Pilot-in-Command power to bring is flight to a safe
conclusion after a minor emergency. The FAA specifically gives the
Pilot In Command final authority in all matters governing the safety of
his aircraft or people on the ground.

> 2 - How much does it cost to remove the wings from a Cessna and
> transport it to the nearest airport?

Not sure about a Cessna... there are about two-dozen bolts which hold
the wings on to my piper... The Cessna is in better shape because the
landing gear are affixed to the fuselage, unlike my Piper which are
affixed to the wing, but I don't know how 'straightforward' the bolt
removal process is in the 172s. A couple hours of labor maybe, plus
the cost of the rental truck. Not horrible in either case (rough
guestimate ~500-750 bucks)

> 3 - Is the pilot's overconfidence-verging-on-arrogance ("non-event,"
> "walk in the park") at all off-putting to others? (He sounds like an
> arrogant jerk who should be thanking his lucky stars - but that's a
> non-pilot's opinion.)

How is flawlessly performing the actions he's been trained to do
verging on arrogance? If anything, I applaud the pilot for (correctly)
playing down the situation. There is a general consensus among
non-pilots that loosing an engine = airplane falling from the sky...
its simply not true. We train for it... It happens, its a contingency
that we're expected to deal with if the situation arises.

The pilot seems to me to understand that local media would be trying to
blow this out of proportion like they do all aviation accidents... he
played it down as not a big deal because, well, it really isn't that
big a deal. Its not like he's looking to be called a hero, or basking
in the media attention, or anything like that - he did what he was
trained to do when something went wrong. Period, end of story.

That's hardly arrogance.

> 4 - Will his insurance go up?

Considering his aircraft was undamaged, and the process of removing the
wings, fixing the engine and re-assembling the aircraft are all
maintenence issues (not aircraft incidents, therefore not covered or
cared about by insurance), probably not.

[John Theune]

Marc Adler wrote:
> On Nov 15, 6:10 am, Bill Michaelson > wrote:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/nyregion/15plane.html
>
> A few questions.
>
> 1 - Will the pilot get fined (FAA, NTSB, NYPD, parks authority,
> anyone)?
>
> 2 - How much does it cost to remove the wings from a Cessna and
> transport it to the nearest airport?
>
> 3 - Is the pilot's overconfidence-verging-on-arrogance ("non-event,"
> "walk in the park") at all off-putting to others? (He sounds like an
> arrogant jerk who should be thanking his lucky stars - but that's a
> non-pilot's opinion.)
>
> 4 - Will his insurance go up?
>
> Thanks,
> Marc
>
1. Not likely, he did nothing wrong.
2. Hard to say, couple of hundred dollars but it might be more, it's NY :)
3. Not at all. Pilots are trained from day one how to deal with a
potential off airport landing. He did exactly what he was trained to
do. His biggest lucky break was finding a large open park near the
city, else he would have put it down in the water. If your car breaks
down and you pull off to the side of the road do you feel arrogant
because you did as your were taught?
4. Maybe but not likely. Depends on what happened to the plane to make
the engine stop. The article pointed out that he had fuel so it sounds
like some sort of engine failure.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Nov 15, 6:10 am, Bill Michaelson > wrote:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/nyregion/15plane.html
>
> A few questions.
>
> 1 - Will the pilot get fined (FAA, NTSB, NYPD, parks authority,
> anyone)?

I doubt it. If the brakes went out in your car and you safely steered it
into an open field and had to have it towed do you think you should be
fined?


>
> 2 - How much does it cost to remove the wings from a Cessna and
> transport it to the nearest airport?

Lot and lots.

>
> 3 - Is the pilot's overconfidence-verging-on-arrogance ("non-event,"
> "walk in the park") at all off-putting to others? (He sounds like an
> arrogant jerk who should be thanking his lucky stars - but that's a
> non-pilot's opinion.)

He deserves to sound a little arrogant. He took a bad situation in a part of
the country not known for wide open spaces and safely landed. It wasn't his
lucky stars it was skill. He should be thanking the instructors he had over
the years and his own ability.




>
> 4 - Will his insurance go up?

Probably only if insurance pays for the wing removal and move.

>
> Thanks,
> Marc
>

[Maule Driver]

Yes he did do a good job of doing the PR. Our local CFI recently put a
C150 down on a busy interstate here without incident. He did an
outstanding job managing the public, police and media. He even ended up
doing an interview on the local NPR outlet. Listening to him, you
definitely had the sense it was like a car breakdown - they happen, and
you just land by the side of the road, no big deal.

Having done a few off field landings, I know roadways are a last resort.
But I also know how difficult it can be to suppress the shock, or
anger, or whatever you feel upon landing so that you can say the right
things to the right people afterwards. It's worth the effort.

wrote:
> Sounds like he did a great job of the flying. He also did a good job of
> trying to manage the sensationalism by dismissing the incident as not a
> big deal, to introduce some balance to the report.

[Jose[_1_]]

> There is a general consensus among
> non-pilots that loosing an engine = airplane falling from the sky...

Well, loosing an enging could mean an engine falling out of the sky.
=That= has happened. Come to think of it, losing an engine could mean
the same thing. :)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:34:01 -0600, T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> However, those who control the park can have other regulations that
> might result in a fine. Glider pilots get hit occasionally when forced
> to land in some parks.

Well, since his engine wasn't running, that probably won't be able to
charge him with "operating a motor vehicle in the park"... The thing is,
there are so many bull**** laws these days, if they want to, they can find
something to charge anyone with at anytime...

[EridanMan]

Yeah, I suppose actually _loosing_ the engine might screw up your W/B
just a tad;)



On Nov 15, 12:40 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > There is a general consensus among
> > non-pilots that loosing an engine = airplane falling from the sky...Well, loosing an enging could mean an engine falling out of the sky.
> =That= has happened. Come to think of it, losing an engine could mean
> the same thing. :)
>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Thomas Borchert]

Marc,

> (He sounds like an
> arrogant jerk who should be thanking his lucky stars - but that's a
> non-pilot's opinion.)
>

Help me out here please. I assume you're not happy when GA aircraft
flying over NY end up crashing into buildings when something goes
wrong. Now you tell us you're not happy when they land without any
incident in a park. So what exactly would be ok from your non-pilot's
point of view?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Natalie]

Marc Adler wrote:

> 1 - Will the pilot get fined (FAA, NTSB, NYPD, parks authority,
> anyone)?

FAA - not likely, might get a 709 ride out of it.
NTSB - NO
NY Gov't - Possibly.

>
> 2 - How much does it cost to remove the wings from a Cessna and
> transport it to the nearest airport?

Not too bad. Will be covered by insurance most likely. It's only
a few man-hours of labor the rental of a truck or trailer.
>
> 4 - Will his insurance go up?
>
>
Depends what the reason for the failure was.

[[email protected]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> He deserves to sound a little arrogant. He took a bad situation in a part of
> the country not known for wide open spaces and safely landed. It wasn't his
> lucky stars it was skill. He should be thanking the instructors he had over
> the years and his own ability.

It was definitely part luck and part skill; either one without the other
doesn't often end up like it did. And he sure as heck *does* have reason
to be thanking his lucky stars in addition to thanking his instructors
.... he could just as easily have had the problem over a bunch of houses
or trees instead of over a park. As for arrogance, if it's frowned upon
in the cockpit, why is it acceptable on the ground? Even if he landed it
skillfully, he's still damn lucky.

[Judah]

Ron Natalie > wrote in news:455b8968$0$26912
:

>> 1 - Will the pilot get fined (FAA, NTSB, NYPD, parks authority,
>> anyone)?
>
> FAA - not likely, might get a 709 ride out of it.

You think the FAA would want to checkride him after he glided the plane to
safety with no damage? I can't image that. What will they test him on, his
emergency landing skills? He already proved that he can do it safely...

[Newps]

Judah wrote:

> Ron Natalie > wrote in news:455b8968$0$26912
> :
>
>
>>>1 - Will the pilot get fined (FAA, NTSB, NYPD, parks authority,
>>>anyone)?
>>
>>FAA - not likely, might get a 709 ride out of it.
>
>
> You think the FAA would want to checkride him after he glided the plane to
> safety with no damage? I can't image that. What will they test him on, his
> emergency landing skills? He already proved that he can do it safely...

There won't be a 709 ride. Either the engine really did puke and there
would never be a ride for that, or he ran out of gas. If that happened
there's still no ride, just a suspension.

[Kyle Boatright]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
<<<snip>>>
>
> What's the story with emergency landings in water for small planes like
> C172s and Warriors? What is the best technique for executing one? What
> is the most common outcome? What does the outcome tend to depend on? Of
> course, the availability of prompt rescue is going to be a big factor,
> but I'm more asking about the landing itself.
>
> Tom

I have a friend who ditched a Warrior off the Florida coast last year. He
cinched the belts down and had the door open when he splashed down at
minimum airspeed. The airplane pitched over well beyond vertical on impact,
then returned close to vertical as it began to sink. He said the event was
not particularly violent. The airplane floated for several minutes before
sinking.

KB

[Rich Ahrens]

Michael Houghton wrote:
> Overall, the article avoided gratuitous sensationalism. Yeah, the
> eyewitnesses were not a clueful about what they were seeing, but that's
> not a big surprise. I'm wondering when Mulcahy is going to go off about
> how dangerous the situation was, but he's a loon.

On the other hand, it was a real quiet event, so maybe Mulcahy will keep
his mouth shut.

Nah, never mind...

[Marc Adler]

On Nov 15, 2:14 pm, "EridanMan" > wrote:

> How is flawlessly performing the actions he's been trained to do
> verging on arrogance? If anything, I applaud the pilot for (correctly)
> playing down the situation. There is a general consensus among
> non-pilots that loosing an engine = airplane falling from the sky...
> its simply not true. We train for it... It happens, its a contingency
> that we're expected to deal with if the situation arises.

I understand all that, and if he's secretly thanking his lucky stars
but putting on a face of equanimity for the press, then I applaud him,
too. But if I understand the situation correctly, if that park hadn't
been there, he would've been in a lot more trouble, right? Somewhere
else in the thread someone said the pilot has overdrawn his good luck
account for a while. In the face of such luck, I'd expect people to be
a bit humbler.

Marc

[EridanMan]

I think the 'Verrizano Narrows Crew Saved a pilots life" bit was a bit
of 'dramatic license' added by the media- it appears (based on google
earth, so I could be mistaken) that there are a number of fields in the
area suitable to land a light plane. He just happen to choose one that
was sitting on landfill from the bridge construction.

He lost an engine within range of a suitable put-down spot, and
successfully executed a power off, short field landing- textbook
example of what pilot's are trained to do if we're not within gliding
distance of an airport.

Pilot's are trained to keep 'back doors' in case of an emergency
situation- one of the first things you do during cross country
training is learn to be aware of the terrain below you, and to make
sure you always have a suitable landing field within gliding distance.
(this is one of the things that makes mountain flying more treacherous,
fwiw)...

He had his back door, he needed it, he used it... Its not arrogance,
its training.

-Scott


On Nov 16, 9:31 am, "Marc Adler" > wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2:14 pm, "EridanMan" > wrote:
>
> > How is flawlessly performing the actions he's been trained to do
> > verging on arrogance? If anything, I applaud the pilot for (correctly)
> > playing down the situation. There is a general consensus among
> > non-pilots that loosing an engine = airplane falling from the sky...
> > its simply not true. We train for it... It happens, its a contingency
> > that we're expected to deal with if the situation arises.I understand all that, and if he's secretly thanking his lucky stars
> but putting on a face of equanimity for the press, then I applaud him,
> too. But if I understand the situation correctly, if that park hadn't
> been there, he would've been in a lot more trouble, right? Somewhere
> else in the thread someone said the pilot has overdrawn his good luck
> account for a while. In the face of such luck, I'd expect people to be
> a bit humbler.
>
> Marc

[AJ]

wrote:
> It doesn't matter how much AOPA tries to educate, there's a huge portion
> of the general public they would never reach. I don't blame the witness
> for speculating, I blame the reporter for irresponsibly including that
> SPECULATION in the article (although 8 gallons in 2 tanks isn't much
> fuel). That's the NTSB's job, and at least *the reporter* should know
> that.

Very true. However, how often do you see a report on TV news about a
fire, a killing, etc. in which some nameless character's face is
suddenly thrust upon you so you can hear this moke's deathless opinion?
It's as if the newscasters are saying, "See? This nameless nobody
thinks it's terrible and possibly the work of (terrorists/gangs/the IRS
-- you choose) -- therefore YOU should think so too!"

The rule in tabloid "reporting" is "go for the quote," not "go for the
intelligent quote."

AJ

[Newps]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
>
>>might get a 709 ride out of it
>
>
> Good point. If they thought it was mechanical, probably
> not, but if they thought it was fuel management, or pilot
> error contributed to it, they might well give him a ride.

You don't get a 709 ride for running out of gas. What are they going to
do, sit there and watch you pump gas into your plane? A 709 ride
retests you on what you obviously failed to do properly that caused your
wreck.

[John Theune]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
>> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> might get a 709 ride out of it
>>
>>
>> Good point. If they thought it was mechanical, probably
>> not, but if they thought it was fuel management, or pilot
>> error contributed to it, they might well give him a ride.
>
> You don't get a 709 ride for running out of gas. What are they going to
> do, sit there and watch you pump gas into your plane? A 709 ride
> retests you on what you obviously failed to do properly that caused your
> wreck.
Which would be flight planning in the case of a fuel issue. And yes you
can get a 709.

[Marc Adler]

Okay, I see. Thanks.

On Nov 16, 12:09 pm, "EridanMan" > wrote:
> I think the 'Verrizano Narrows Crew Saved a pilots life" bit was a bit
> of 'dramatic license' added by the media- it appears (based on google
> earth, so I could be mistaken) that there are a number of fields in the
> area suitable to land a light plane. He just happen to choose one that
> was sitting on landfill from the bridge construction.
>
> He lost an engine within range of a suitable put-down spot, and
> successfully executed a power off, short field landing- textbook
> example of what pilot's are trained to do if we're not within gliding
> distance of an airport.
>
> Pilot's are trained to keep 'back doors' in case of an emergency
> situation- one of the first things you do during cross country
> training is learn to be aware of the terrain below you, and to make
> sure you always have a suitable landing field within gliding distance.
> (this is one of the things that makes mountain flying more treacherous,
> fwiw)...
>
> He had his back door, he needed it, he used it... Its not arrogance,
> its training.
>
> -Scott
>
> On Nov 16, 9:31 am, "Marc Adler" > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 2:14 pm, "EridanMan" > wrote:
>
> > > How is flawlessly performing the actions he's been trained to do
> > > verging on arrogance? If anything, I applaud the pilot for (correctly)
> > > playing down the situation. There is a general consensus among
> > > non-pilots that loosing an engine = airplane falling from the sky...
> > > its simply not true. We train for it... It happens, its a contingency
> > > that we're expected to deal with if the situation arises.I understand all that, and if he's secretly thanking his lucky stars
> > but putting on a face of equanimity for the press, then I applaud him,
> > too. But if I understand the situation correctly, if that park hadn't
> > been there, he would've been in a lot more trouble, right? Somewhere
> > else in the thread someone said the pilot has overdrawn his good luck
> > account for a while. In the face of such luck, I'd expect people to be
> > a bit humbler.
>
> > Marc

[Ron Natalie]

Judah wrote:
> Ron Natalie > wrote in news:455b8968$0$26912
> :
>
>>> 1 - Will the pilot get fined (FAA, NTSB, NYPD, parks authority,
>>> anyone)?
>> FAA - not likely, might get a 709 ride out of it.
>
> You think the FAA would want to checkride him after he glided the plane to
> safety with no damage? I can't image that. What will they test him on, his
> emergency landing skills? He already proved that he can do it safely...
You betcha. They 709 ride people who gear up planes due to mechanical
failure who do perfect landings as well.

[Ron Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>

>
> There won't be a 709 ride. Either the engine really did puke and there
> would never be a ride for that, or he ran out of gas. If that happened
> there's still no ride, just a suspension.

There's a member of this group (he can speak up if he wishes) that
ran out of fuel (undetermined reason) who got a 709 ride but no other
action...so your observation is not universally true.

[Denny]

Fuel is a red herring here... Assuming the report of 8 gallons is semi
correct, it is likely the fire/rescue looked at the gauges not
realizing that a Skyhawk is a double fuel system... Either way, he had
an hour and possibly two hours of fuel on board... SInce the report
indicates he commutes by air for some 20 years over this route and he
was mere minutes away from the destination airport we need to find
something else to beat to death on here...

denny

[Bill Michaelson]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Gary Drescher wrote:
>>> I think the default emergency landing site when flying low near NYC is
>>> the Hudson River. If there happens to be a clear area on the ground, as
>>> there was in this case, then that's even better (especially for the
>>> airplane). But at worst, you just having to make a water landing (with a
>>> high likelihood of prompt rescue).
>>>
>> Only if you were over Manhattan (or perhaps parts of the Bronx).
>> There's a lot of real estate in the other boros that would require
>> you climbing over 1500 feet to get to the Hudson.
>
> True. Most of my flying in that vicinity has been over the water to begin
> with. I don't think I'd venture beyond gliding distance of the river unless
> I'd determined in advance that I'd be within range of a suitable landing
> spot at all times.
>
> --Gary
>
>
His water alternative would have been the Atlantic Ocean at that location.

[Bill Michaelson]

Marc Adler wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2:14 pm, "EridanMan" > wrote:
>
>> How is flawlessly performing the actions he's been trained to do
>> verging on arrogance? If anything, I applaud the pilot for (correctly)
>> playing down the situation. There is a general consensus among
>> non-pilots that loosing an engine = airplane falling from the sky...
>> its simply not true. We train for it... It happens, its a contingency
>> that we're expected to deal with if the situation arises.
>
> I understand all that, and if he's secretly thanking his lucky stars
> but putting on a face of equanimity for the press, then I applaud him,
> too. But if I understand the situation correctly, if that park hadn't
> been there, he would've been in a lot more trouble, right? Somewhere
> else in the thread someone said the pilot has overdrawn his good luck
> account for a while. In the face of such luck, I'd expect people to be
> a bit humbler.
>
> Marc
>
How much humbler could he have been? He said he did what he was trained
to do - explicitly dispelling the notion that he had accomplished
anything special. His alternative was to ditch in the ocean or lower
bay. Yeah - he had some luck, but where is the arrogance? I don't see it.

[Al G[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> He deserves to sound a little arrogant. He took a bad situation in a part
>> of
>> the country not known for wide open spaces and safely landed. It wasn't
>> his
>> lucky stars it was skill. He should be thanking the instructors he had
>> over
>> the years and his own ability.
>
> It was definitely part luck and part skill; either one without the other
> doesn't often end up like it did. And he sure as heck *does* have reason
> to be thanking his lucky stars in addition to thanking his instructors
> ... he could just as easily have had the problem over a bunch of houses
> or trees instead of over a park. As for arrogance, if it's frowned upon
> in the cockpit, why is it acceptable on the ground? Even if he landed it
> skillfully, he's still damn lucky.

Luck is where Opportunity meets preparation.

Al G, a VERY lucky fellow.

[Judah]

Ron Natalie > wrote in
m:

> Judah wrote:
>> Ron Natalie > wrote in news:455b8968$0$26912
>> :
>>
>>>> 1 - Will the pilot get fined (FAA, NTSB, NYPD, parks authority,
>>>> anyone)?
>>> FAA - not likely, might get a 709 ride out of it.
>>
>> You think the FAA would want to checkride him after he glided the plane
>> to safety with no damage? I can't image that. What will they test him
>> on, his emergency landing skills? He already proved that he can do it
>> safely...
> You betcha. They 709 ride people who gear up planes due to mechanical
> failure who do perfect landings as well.

Gear up is an incident. Landing in a park isn't...

[Jessica Taylor]

nrp wrote:

>
> The environment you have to fly in out east! Here in Minnesota you'd
> have a hard time getting anyone to go for water.............. If
> nothing else you have to figure on being knocked out and then very
> likely drown unless the rescue is immediate.

It depends more on the local terrain than being "out east." There are
lots of places in the eastern states with big long fields that are very
suitable for safe emergency landings. Unfortunately New York City
doesn't have many of these...fortunately this pilot did find one.

[Jessica Taylor]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Denny" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>He has overdrawn his good luck account for the next dozen years...
>
>
> I think the default emergency landing site when flying low near NYC is the
> Hudson River. If there happens to be a clear area on the ground, as there
> was in this case, then that's even better (especially for the airplane). But
> at worst, you just having to make a water landing (with a high likelihood of
> prompt rescue).

It doesn't sound like this plane was close enough to the Hudson River to
think about landing there. Given the choice between that park and the
New York Bay/Raritan Bay, I would take the park too.

Of course if you're going to land in Brooklyn, Floyd Bennett Field
certainly might not be a bad choice, if the runways aren't full of model
airplane drivers, that is.

[Marc Adler]

On Nov 17, 10:16 am, Bill Michaelson
> Yeah - he had some luck, but where is the arrogance? I don't see it.

Calling it a "non-event" seems arrogant to me.

I would've expected something like, "I was just doing what I was
trained to do, but I was lucky to find that spot, that's for sure."

Marc

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article om>,
Marc Adler > wrote:
>On Nov 17, 10:16 am, Bill Michaelson
>> Yeah - he had some luck, but where is the arrogance? I don't see it.
>
>Calling it a "non-event" seems arrogant to me.
>
>I would've expected something like, "I was just doing what I was
>trained to do, but I was lucky to find that spot, that's for sure."
>
A statement like that could just as easily be false modesty.

If he was being aware of his surroundings, being mindful that he might
have to make an unscheduled landing, he might well have noticed the
clear area. Having done that, it would have been a routine matter to
quickly assess its suitability as a landing field when the fan quit.

It's not "luck" so much as it is "prepared, aware, and alert", as
trained.

One thing that I don't recall being discussed: just how visible is
that park from the altitude he was flying at. Was it easy to spot
or did it require a really sharp eye to spot?

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix narrowwares
Bowie, MD, USA | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com
Proud member of the SCA Internet Whitewash Squad