C172 lands in Brooklyn

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.

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...