Landing on Freeway

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:08:13 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

My question is what do most people think about landing on a freeway?

Depends on what else is in the area.

At night I'd land on I-80 or I-380 (our two "local" interstate highways)
without a second thought. During the day, I'd aim for a field, presuming
there was one nearby.

As an FYI, I did a quick search on interstate width requirements and
found the following document...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interst...hway_standards

So a two-lane interstate like I-80 in rural areas would be:
12 ft (lane #1)
12 ft (lane #2)
10 ft (shoulder #1)
4 ft (shoulder #2)
--------------------------------
38ft

So it would be possible to put a light single down on in the center
and not even hit a mile marker or reflector post on the sides...

-Nathan

Except the center between the roadways is where the drainage stuff
lives.

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:08:13 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

My question is what do most people think about landing on a freeway?

Depends on what else is in the area.

At night I'd land on I-80 or I-380 (our two "local" interstate
highways)
without a second thought. During the day, I'd aim for a field,
presuming
there was one nearby.

As an FYI, I did a quick search on interstate width requirements and
found the following document...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interst...hway_standards

So a two-lane interstate like I-80 in rural areas would be:
12 ft (lane #1)
12 ft (lane #2)
10 ft (shoulder #1)
4 ft (shoulder #2)
--------------------------------
38ft

So it would be possible to put a light single down on in the center
and not even hit a mile marker or reflector post on the sides...

-Nathan

sfb wrote:
Except the center between the roadways is where the drainage stuff
lives.

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:08:13 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


My question is what do most people think about landing on a freeway?

Depends on what else is in the area.

At night I'd land on I-80 or I-380 (our two "local" interstate
highways)
without a second thought. During the day, I'd aim for a field,
presuming
there was one nearby.

As an FYI, I did a quick search on interstate width requirements and
found the following document...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interst...hway_standards

So a two-lane interstate like I-80 in rural areas would be:
12 ft (lane #1)
12 ft (lane #2)
10 ft (shoulder #1)
4 ft (shoulder #2)
--------------------------------
38ft

So it would be possible to put a light single down on in the center
and not even hit a mile marker or reflector post on the sides...

-Nathan






Except what the standard said was "At least two Lanes in each direction"
to be a interstate. So the median where the drainage ditch runs would
be to the left of Shoulder # 1 or Right of Shoulder #2 depending on your
orientation. I would guess when Nathan said landing on the center he
meant between the 2 lanes not in the median.

John

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:56:14 GMT, John Theune
wrote:

sfb wrote:
Except the center between the roadways is where the drainage stuff
lives.

Except what the standard said was "At least two Lanes in each direction"
to be a interstate. So the median where the drainage ditch runs would
be to the left of Shoulder # 1 or Right of Shoulder #2 depending on your
orientation. I would guess when Nathan said landing on the center he
meant between the 2 lanes not in the median.

Exactly.

One caveat to all of this: Since most interstates exhibit asymetric
shoulder widths - it would be tough to judge the actual center of the
pavement. You can't just land in the center of the two traffic lanes.

-Nathan

Nathan Young wrote:

So it would be possible to put a light single down on in the center
and not even hit a mile marker or reflector post on the sides...

It would be possible, but the wind kicked up by even an SUV would make things
very difficult.

"Cessna 60288, you're cleared to land. Beware wake turbulence departing semi."

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.

As an FYI, I did a quick search on interstate width requirements and
found the following document...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interst...hway_standards
So a two-lane interstate like I-80 in rural areas would be:
12 ft (lane #1)
12 ft (lane #2)
10 ft (shoulder #1)
4 ft (shoulder #2)
--------------------------------
38ft
So it would be possible to put a light single down on in the center
and not even hit a mile marker or reflector post on the sides...

And if you fly a high wing airplane, you don't even need that much
width! ;_)

wrote in message
oups.com...
Here is a link to story about landing on the freeway
http://www.ecmpostreview.com/2005/October/26cessna.html
My question is what do most people think about landing on a freeway?

It's a reasonable option if traffic is sparse and if you can veer to an
adjoining unpopulated area if obstacles become apparent when you get close
to the road.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message

It's a reasonable option if traffic is sparse and if you can veer to an
adjoining unpopulated area if obstacles become apparent when you get close
to the road.

Watch out for highway patrol. BillyBubba's Redneck Flight School exam
question #65:

Q: "What's a reason to hold the aircraft in ground effect as long as
possible in off-runway landings?"

A: "To avoid a speeding ticket."

-c

In article .com,
says...

My question is what do most people think about landing on a freeway?


One more abuse of Federal funding by General Aviation!

It's a question of alternatives, as always. Daytime, busy freeway,
open field, use the field. Night, can't see anything on the ground,
use the freeway unless you know exactly where you are and that there is
a safer alternative.

My takeoff area is surrounded by petroleum tank farms. I'd take even a
busy freeway over that.