C172 lands in Brooklyn

I think the 'Verrizano Narrows Crew Saved a pilots life" bit was a bit
of 'dramatic license' added by the media- it appears (based on google
earth, so I could be mistaken) that there are a number of fields in the
area suitable to land a light plane. He just happen to choose one that
was sitting on landfill from the bridge construction.

He lost an engine within range of a suitable put-down spot, and
successfully executed a power off, short field landing- textbook
example of what pilot's are trained to do if we're not within gliding
distance of an airport.

Pilot's are trained to keep 'back doors' in case of an emergency
situation- one of the first things you do during cross country
training is learn to be aware of the terrain below you, and to make
sure you always have a suitable landing field within gliding distance.
(this is one of the things that makes mountain flying more treacherous,
fwiw)...

He had his back door, he needed it, he used it... Its not arrogance,
its training.

-Scott


On Nov 16, 9:31 am, "Marc Adler" wrote:
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

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.

Very true. However, how often do you see a report on TV news about a
fire, a killing, etc. in which some nameless character's face is
suddenly thrust upon you so you can hear this moke's deathless opinion?
It's as if the newscasters are saying, "See? This nameless nobody
thinks it's terrible and possibly the work of (terrorists/gangs/the IRS
-- you choose) -- therefore YOU should think so too!"

The rule in tabloid "reporting" is "go for the quote," not "go for the
intelligent quote."

AJ

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

Ron Natalie wrote:


might get a 709 ride out of it


Good point. If they thought it was mechanical, probably
not, but if they thought it was fuel management, or pilot
error contributed to it, they might well give him a ride.

You don't get a 709 ride for running out of gas. What are they going to
do, sit there and watch you pump gas into your plane? A 709 ride
retests you on what you obviously failed to do properly that caused your
wreck.

Newps wrote:


T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

Ron Natalie wrote:


might get a 709 ride out of it


Good point. If they thought it was mechanical, probably
not, but if they thought it was fuel management, or pilot
error contributed to it, they might well give him a ride.

You don't get a 709 ride for running out of gas. What are they going to
do, sit there and watch you pump gas into your plane? A 709 ride
retests you on what you obviously failed to do properly that caused your
wreck.
Which would be flight planning in the case of a fuel issue. And yes you
can get a 709.

Okay, I see. Thanks.

On Nov 16, 12:09 pm, "EridanMan" wrote:
I think the 'Verrizano Narrows Crew Saved a pilots life" bit was a bit
of 'dramatic license' added by the media- it appears (based on google
earth, so I could be mistaken) that there are a number of fields in the
area suitable to land a light plane. He just happen to choose one that
was sitting on landfill from the bridge construction.

He lost an engine within range of a suitable put-down spot, and
successfully executed a power off, short field landing- textbook
example of what pilot's are trained to do if we're not within gliding
distance of an airport.

Pilot's are trained to keep 'back doors' in case of an emergency
situation- one of the first things you do during cross country
training is learn to be aware of the terrain below you, and to make
sure you always have a suitable landing field within gliding distance.
(this is one of the things that makes mountain flying more treacherous,
fwiw)...

He had his back door, he needed it, he used it... Its not arrogance,
its training.

-Scott

On Nov 16, 9:31 am, "Marc Adler" wrote:

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

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...
You betcha. They 709 ride people who gear up planes due to mechanical
failure who do perfect landings as well.

Newps wrote:



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.

There's a member of this group (he can speak up if he wishes) that
ran out of fuel (undetermined reason) who got a 709 ride but no other
action...so your observation is not universally true.

Fuel is a red herring here... Assuming the report of 8 gallons is semi
correct, it is likely the fire/rescue looked at the gauges not
realizing that a Skyhawk is a double fuel system... Either way, he had
an hour and possibly two hours of fuel on board... SInce the report
indicates he commutes by air for some 20 years over this route and he
was mere minutes away from the destination airport we need to find
something else to beat to death on here...

denny

Gary Drescher wrote:
"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


His water alternative would have been the Atlantic Ocean at that location.

Marc Adler wrote:
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

How much humbler could he have been? He said he did what he was trained
to do - explicitly dispelling the notion that he had accomplished
anything special. His alternative was to ditch in the ocean or lower
bay. Yeah - he had some luck, but where is the arrogance? I don't see it.