Landed on a Golf Course. Not an emergency.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-golf-course-landing-storymar04,0,5960746.story

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 5, 11:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-golf-course-landing-stor...

"A Lake Villa man hopped in his Piper Clipper airplane Saturday,
breezed above the congested roads and landed at a golf course across a
highway from the tennis club..."

Oh, the horror!!!!

[Bob F.]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 5, 11:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-golf-course-landing-stor...
>
> "A Lake Villa man hopped in his Piper Clipper airplane Saturday,
> breezed above the congested roads and landed at a golf course across a
> highway from the tennis club..."
>
> Oh, the horror!!!!


This is what gives general aviation and bad name. IMO anyone who pulls a
stunt like this should have their ticket revoked, permanently.

--
BobF.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 5, 11:37 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Mar 5, 11:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > wrote:
> >>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-golf-course-landing-stor...
>
> > "A Lake Villa man hopped in his Piper Clipper airplane Saturday,
> > breezed above the congested roads and landed at a golf course across a
> > highway from the tennis club..."
>
> > Oh, the horror!!!!
>
> This is what gives general aviation and bad name. IMO anyone who pulls a
> stunt like this should have their ticket revoked, permanently.
>
> --
> BobF.

Yeah, the Pilot evidenced bad judgment, but flying above congested
roadways???

OH my!

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 5, 8:17*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-golf-course-landing-stor...

Sounds like he was on skis so there shouldn't be any divits.

-Robert

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 5, 12:15 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 8:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-golf-course-landing-stor...
>
> Sounds like he was on skis so there shouldn't be any divits.
>
> -Robert

Roger that.


Too many golf courses anyway....


Dan

[TheSmokingGnu]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Sounds like he was on skis so there shouldn't be any divits.

When you absolutely, positively have to play through...

TheSmokingGnu

[Blueskies]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message ...
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-golf-course-landing-storymar04,0,5960746.story

Was he squawkin and talkin'? Looks like this place is fairly close to Chicago Exec...

Ironically it looks like it is called Crane's Landing Golf Club...

[[email protected]]

On Mar 5, 11:37*am, "Bob F." > wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Mar 5, 11:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > wrote:
> >>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-golf-course-landing-stor...
>
> > "A Lake Villa man hopped in his Piper Clipper airplane Saturday,
> > breezed above the congested roads and landed at a golf course across a
> > highway from the tennis club..."
>
> > Oh, the horror!!!!
>
> This is what gives general aviation and bad name. *IMO anyone who pulls a
> stunt like this should have their ticket revoked, permanently.

Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations (except
for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)? Obviously
the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't apply,
since he was landing.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 5, 11:37 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Mar 5, 11:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > > wrote:
> > >>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-golf-course-landing-stor...
>
> > > "A Lake Villa man hopped in his Piper Clipper airplane Saturday,
> > > breezed above the congested roads and landed at a golf course across a
> > > highway from the tennis club..."
>
> > > Oh, the horror!!!!
>
> > This is what gives general aviation and bad name. IMO anyone who pulls a
> > stunt like this should have their ticket revoked, permanently.
>
> Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations (except
> for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)? Obviously
> the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't apply,
> since he was landing.

hmmm..

So if he were quick witted enough, he would have said, "Gee, that
engine was running rough so I had to put it down..."

While his son runs off to his appointment.

Nice.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 5, 6:44*pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 11:37 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
> > >
> > > This is what gives general aviation and bad name. *IMO anyone who pulls a
> > > stunt like this should have their ticket revoked, permanently.
>
> > Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations (except
> > for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)? Obviously
> > the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't apply,
> > since he was landing.
>
> So if he were quick witted enough, he would have said, "Gee, that
> engine was running rough so I had to put it down..."

Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
the actual, non-emergency circumstances.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 5, 6:55 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:44 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:
> > > On Mar 5, 11:37 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>
> > > > This is what gives general aviation and bad name. IMO anyone who pulls a
> > > > stunt like this should have their ticket revoked, permanently.
>
> > > Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations (except
> > > for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)? Obviously
> > > the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't apply,
> > > since he was landing.
>
> > So if he were quick witted enough, he would have said, "Gee, that
> > engine was running rough so I had to put it down..."
>
> Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
> was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
> the actual, non-emergency circumstances.

You know the FAA is gonna slap him with 91.13: " (a) Aircraft
operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an
aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life
or property of another."

That one covers a multitude of sins....


Dan

[[email protected]]

On Mar 5, 7:02*pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:55 pm, wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 6:44 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:
> > > > Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations (except
> > > > for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)? Obviously
> > > > the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't apply,
> > > > since he was landing.
>
> > > So if he were quick witted enough, he would have said, "Gee, that
> > > engine was running rough so I had to put it down..."
>
> > Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
> > was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
> > the actual, non-emergency circumstances.
>
> You know the FAA is gonna slap him with 91.13:

Yup, I alluded to that one just above. Without knowing more detail,
though, I'm not sure if it was unsafe for him to land on an empty,
snow-covered fairway. If he'd phoned in advance and been given
permission by the owner, there might be no problem at all. He didn't,
but that's a tresspassing issue, not a FAR issue (unless I'm missing
something).

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 5, 7:14 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 5, 7:02 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 6:55 pm, wrote:
> > > On Mar 5, 6:44 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:
> > > > > Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations (except
> > > > > for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)? Obviously
> > > > > the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't apply,
> > > > > since he was landing.
>
> > > > So if he were quick witted enough, he would have said, "Gee, that
> > > > engine was running rough so I had to put it down..."
>
> > > Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
> > > was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
> > > the actual, non-emergency circumstances.
>
> > You know the FAA is gonna slap him with 91.13:
>
> Yup, I alluded to that one just above. Without knowing more detail,
> though, I'm not sure if it was unsafe for him to land on an empty,
> snow-covered fairway. If he'd phoned in advance and been given
> permission by the owner, there might be no problem at all. He didn't,
> but that's a tresspassing issue, not a FAR issue (unless I'm missing
> something).

Right.

Otherwise every bush plane should be scrapped.

[Bob F.]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 5, 7:14 pm, wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 7:02 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 5, 6:55 pm, wrote:
>> > > On Mar 5, 6:44 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:
>> > > > > Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations
>> > > > > (except
>> > > > > for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)?
>> > > > > Obviously
>> > > > > the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't
>> > > > > apply,
>> > > > > since he was landing.
>>
>> > > > So if he were quick witted enough, he would have said, "Gee, that
>> > > > engine was running rough so I had to put it down..."
>>
>> > > Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
>> > > was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
>> > > the actual, non-emergency circumstances.
>>
>> > You know the FAA is gonna slap him with 91.13:
>>
>> Yup, I alluded to that one just above. Without knowing more detail,
>> though, I'm not sure if it was unsafe for him to land on an empty,
>> snow-covered fairway. If he'd phoned in advance and been given
>> permission by the owner, there might be no problem at all. He didn't,
>> but that's a tresspassing issue, not a FAR issue (unless I'm missing
>> something).
>
> Right.
>
> Otherwise every bush plane should be scrapped.


I would think the even the owner is not the final authority. He may say ok,
but the city, township or county may also have some laws on the books about
operations within its boundaries.

--
BobF.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
> was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
> the actual, non-emergency circumstances.
>

As the story was reported no FAR was violated.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
>
> You know the FAA is gonna slap him with 91.13: " (a) Aircraft
> operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an
> aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life
> or property of another."
>

What other life or property was endangered?

[Blueskies]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
>> was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
>> the actual, non-emergency circumstances.
>>
>
> As the story was reported no FAR was violated.
>
>

Except, was he inside class D? Was he squawking 1200 mode C?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> Except, was he inside class D? Was he squawking 1200 mode C?
>

The story didn't report those things.