If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:04:01 GMT, Michael 182
wrote: That said, "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation". Might be best if you qualify that a little better: a failed alternator in VMC conditions may not be an emergency landing situation. It's probably safe to assume that someone making a precautionary landing on the condition is probably worried about _something_ and there are an awful lot of _somethings_ that can be going wrong along with a failing alternator. Electrical fire is not the least of it. You know, there was that SwissAir flight that terminated off the coast of Nova Scotia a few years back. They were dumping fuel prior to landing due to a small electrical problem they were having. If they had landed overweight, they would've survived. While it's easy to play Monday-morning quarterback, the point is, FFR, based on past experience, not to let the small problems develop into big problems. Morris |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Good grief! It was a Piper Cub! Always knew those things would wind up in the hands of evildoers. Aero-News Propwash: ************************************************** ************ An aircraft in distress, a Piper PA-12 Super Cruiser, reportedly used what was left of Meigs Field yesterday, after a lightning strike took out its electrical system. Landing in the grass alongside the remnants of Meigs sundered runway, the PA-12 executed a safe emergency landing... the second aircraft to have done so in just two weeks (and the fourth in the last few years). The strike was reported to have occurred just a few miles form the airport and no injuries or significant damage were reported. The pilot, enroute to Oshkosh, WI, apparently to attend the upcoming EAA AirVenture convention, opening tomorrow, Tuesday. Friends of Meigs At Oshkosh The Friends of Meigs Field are hosting a tent at this year's Experimental Aircraft Association AirVenture convention in Oshkosh, WI. The group will be collecting signatures on postcards to send to Congress and other public officials in the ongoing effort to reopen Meigs Field. The tent, provided gratis by the Experimental Aircraft Association, will be "operations central" for the group, with volunteers gathering signatures and encouraging Chicago residents to call their aldermen and request hearings on Meigs' closure and alternative plans to create a combination park and airport from the famous airstrip. If you are coming to Oshkosh, please be sure to stop by and sign a card and offer your support to saving this valuable (and critically needed) aviation resource. FMI: www.friendsofmeigs.org ************************************************** ********************** all the best -- Dan Ford email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9 see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:18:31 GMT, Michael 182
wrote: That said, "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation". Might be best if you qualify that a little better: I did qualify it. Go back and take a look at the post you answered. I read the post. You missed the point. Your point is, in the absence of other information, you get an F some random case study course if you conclude that the emergency landing was justified given the available information (or to be fair, to conclude insufficient info to decide). Given the number of things that can go wrong in that situation, the very fact that the pilot elected to perform a precautionary landing speaks for itself. Case studies courses notwithstanding, I wouldn't conclude it was unjustified until I knew more about the situation. Saying that, "under ideal conditions", an electrical problem *may not* require a precautionary landing is not the same thing as saying it "hardly qualifies". Morris (sadly noting yet another case where academia and reality diverge) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:26:49 GMT, "Henry Kisor"
wrote in Message-Id: dGfVa.687$Ho3.440@sccrnsc03: I believe that terrorist group line was a bit of sneaky reportorial wit that really shouldn't have gotten into the story, because irony never works with newspaper readers, who tend to be literal-minded in reading hard news stories. Wit is difficult to accomplish with a diverse audience unless it's based on a universal subject like sex. But labeling the remark as humor lends it an air of appropriateness. It wasn't. What I really wanted to know was where the airplane (in the news photo it looked like a Super Cub with drooped wingtips, a combination I've never seen before) landed. Could a droopy-tip Cub land on the X'd runway or did it land on the taxiway? And is it still there? I wasn't able to locate a photo he http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/...s-meigs28.html Anyone wishing to send a respectful e-mail message to the authors informing them about the inappropriateness of their "terrorist" remark in conjunction with pilots can do so he http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/feedback.html -- Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts. -- Larry Dighera, |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Michael 182 wrote:
You know, when I went to graduate school all the courses were case study. You got an automatic "F" if you ever handed in a paper that concluded that there wasn't enough information to make a decision. Good grief! What sort of graduate school was this and where? There is always more to know. Yes, there is. However, often one has access to substantial information, and can draw a reasonable conclusion based on the data presented. However, in this case, at the time you made your post, hardly anything was known about the situation in question. If your graduate education discouraged you from recognizing a situation where there's inadequate data to reach a conclusion, that's most unfortunate. My comment that "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation" is absolutely correct. As a general precept, I grant it. However, you appeared to be making it as a specific analysis of a specific situation -- the plane which landed at Meigs, reportedly after an electrical failure. As a specific assessment of a specific situation, in the absence of all but a few newspaper sentences, it's clearly flawed. If your graduate school courses encouraged you to theorize and conclude in the absence of data, I find that most regrettable and somewhat discouraging. Always a pleasure to be guided by you, however. On the evidence of these posts, how would you know? *g* Sydney |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On 29 Jul 2003 12:33:23 -0700, Jeffrey LLoyd
wrote: I think we're at the point of bisecting rabbits. Given what we know, it's perfectly reasonable to state as a general rule that a failed alternator hardly qualifies as a condition warranting an emergency landing. I disagree. Sure, there are still aircraft out there with no electrical system in the first place, but A) they are not flown in conditions where the electrical system is essential to safe flight, and B) there are known failure modes that are intrinsically unsafe (say, involving smoke or bits of metal flying around inside the engine compartment). In the absence of other information, and the knowledge that someone considered a particular situation severe enough to warrant a precautionary landing, I'd be inclined to take it at face value. Later, we can armchair quarterback the decision-making. The Kings who publish all those training materials crashed an airplane some time back. They were on top, had an alternator failure, had a case of getthereitis and decided to press on, couldn't find a hole, ran out of fuel, options, and ideas at the same time. They tell the story themselves to point out the importance of decision making. If they can screw up that way, pretty much anyone can. Furthermore, if a plane I was flying was hit by lightning and blew out my electrical system, I'd be definitely considering an immediate off-field precautionary landing to inspect for other damage before continuing. Yeah, I realize that wasn't in the original reports, but it does demonstrate yet another hazardous failure mode. OTOH, I'm aware of several cases that a failed alternator was handled with nothing more than contacting ATC before the battery ran down, and getting vectors to VMC and/or a NORDO clearance into the home airport. It helps to keep the ammeter in the instrument scan. In fact not only was my last flight was in a plane with no electrical system, but I lost thrust at 2000' AGL. Okay, I pulled the tow rope release at the normal altitude, but still... We had a guy at a local airport declare an emergency because his GPS went on the fritz in CAVU conditions. He wasn't lost, he was within sight of at least 2 airports, and apparently his Nav was working fine. But he freaked out, and declared. And that airport scrambled the firetrucks because this chucklehead thought losing a GPS in severe VFR qualified as an emergency. Could it in certain circumstances? Absolutely. As a general case? Very Okay, that's a bit over the top. Okay, that's more than a bit over the top. Panic is insidious. Still better to declare and deal with it on the ground. Probably feels sheepish, and a 609 ride (or whatever they call it this week) might be in order, but if you haven't done something really dumb in the airplane yet, take comfort: you will eventually. As poor judgement goes, at least it's erring on the right side. definitely not. Losing an alternator? In certain cases, sure. In general? Nope. Semantics perhaps, but I take the position, right or wrong, that the general case is to treat it as an emergency, and routine in the particular case. Look at the difference between losing a GPS, even a panel-mount GPS, and losing the entire electrical system: a GPS is a single point of failure. You have reasonable backups available. When you lose the electrical system, you lose everything: all nav, all comm. In IMC, that can be bad, very bad. Plus, you may have a systemic problem that might cause a fire. these groups. Students read these groups. Should we simply let them go on believing that if an alternator calls it a day, it's time to declare? I'd rather they declared unnecessarily than die of embarassment by not declaring when they should, but that's beside the point. As a general rule, what Michael said is absolutely correct. Specific situations often trump general rules, and I didn't see him or anyone stating that isn't the case. Okay, we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO, the general case is that it's an emergency, and if other conditions are favorable, then it's not. It doesn't really matter what the default is because you have to judge the particular situation when it happens. Morris |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:27:55 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote: You know, when I went to graduate school all the courses were case study. You got an automatic "F" if you ever handed in a paper that concluded that there wasn't enough information to make a decision. [snip] If your graduate education discouraged you from recognizing a situation where there's inadequate data to reach a conclusion, that's most unfortunate. On first reading, I assumed it was one of those cases of disconnect between academia and the so-called real world ("consider a spherical cow"). OTOH, it does make some sense. You have to draw some conclusion with the information available. So, you have to rely on preconcieved data to prejudge the situation. Waitaminute, isn't that... My comment that "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation" is absolutely correct. As a general precept, I grant it. Hairsplitting, perhaps, but you're relying on some default assumptions: VMC, no smoke in the cockpit, no loose bits of metal flying around inside the cowling, maybe a working battery with lots of charge, a not too busy airspace, proficient pilot not relying on electronic navigation... (you know, conditions where someone might fly an airplane that doesn't have an electrical system in the first place...) Given the situation of someone electing to make an off-field precautonary landing, I'd default to assume it was a reasonable decision until knowing the particulars. But in the end, all that matter are the particulars. As a specific assessment of a specific situation, in the absence of all but a few newspaper sentences, it's clearly flawed. Agreed. Morris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
single-engine turboprop emergency landing in Indiana | Kyler Laird | General Aviation | 4 | December 29th 04 06:42 AM |
C-141 emergency landing Christchurch | Miche | Military Aviation | 11 | February 6th 04 04:04 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
C-17 Emergency Landing in Baghdad--CNN Report | Kevin Brooks | Military Aviation | 0 | December 10th 03 02:35 PM |
Military jet makes emergency landing at MidAmerica | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 1st 03 02:28 AM |