C172 lands in Brooklyn

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

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

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

"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

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.

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.

"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

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

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.

unicate 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.