C172 lands in Brooklyn

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...

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.

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)

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.

"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.

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...

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.

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

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...

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