C172 lands in Brooklyn

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...

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.

Sounds like the pilot did a great job.

When the reporter included the speculation by uneducated witnesses, who
turned out to be way off base ("I thought it hit a crane..."), he did
us a favor. Since he also clearly included the truth--that the plane
had plenty of fuel to be running--the witnesses were shown to be
witless guessers.

The bad news is that most people won't realise that.

Sounds like the pilot did a great job.


Sounds like he did a great job of the flying. He also did a good job of
trying to manage the sensationalism by dismissing the incident as not a
big deal, to introduce some balance to the report.


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).

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

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.

My instructor told me to make sure the doors are ajar before you hit,
and to expect to be upside down in the water by the time the plane
stops moving. If I were flying down the Hudson river, I'd try to get as
close to the shore as possible without hitting anything, and then fly
it down to the water level, and slow it down as much as possible before
hitting the water. I'd certainly prefer nice terra firma to a water
landing in any case.

--
Guy

Yes he did do a good job of doing the PR. Our local CFI recently put a
C150 down on a busy interstate here without incident. He did an
outstanding job managing the public, police and media. He even ended up
doing an interview on the local NPR outlet. Listening to him, you
definitely had the sense it was like a car breakdown - they happen, and
you just land by the side of the road, no big deal.

Having done a few off field landings, I know roadways are a last resort.
But I also know how difficult it can be to suppress the shock, or
anger, or whatever you feel upon landing so that you can say the right
things to the right people afterwards. It's worth the effort.

wrote:
Sounds like he did a great job of the flying. He also did a good job of
trying to manage the sensationalism by dismissing the incident as not a
big deal, to introduce some balance to the report.

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

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

"Bill Michaelson" wrote in message
news:htD6h.6145$dh7.2534@trnddc01...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/nyregion/15plane.html

Typical lame ass aeroplane story. "I could tell he was in trouble with his
wings tipping back and forth and to and fro and ya'll come back now".

-----------------------------------------------
DW

On Nov 15, 6:10 am, Bill Michaelson wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/nyregion/15plane.html

A few questions.

1 - Will the pilot get fined (FAA, NTSB, NYPD, parks authority,
anyone)?

2 - How much does it cost to remove the wings from a Cessna and
transport it to the nearest airport?

3 - Is the pilot's overconfidence-verging-on-arrogance ("non-event,"
"walk in the park") at all off-putting to others? (He sounds like an
arrogant jerk who should be thanking his lucky stars - but that's a
non-pilot's opinion.)

4 - Will his insurance go up?

Thanks,
Marc