Scouts have bumpy landing

Seconds before the plane came down, Riegel said, the pilot told his
passengers he would land on the grass next to the runway.

Shouldn't have gone for the grass if there was pavement available.

You may well be right, and that is my prejudice as well, since current
recommendations do seem to favor the pavement--except for seaplanes.
However, this topic has been a favorite subject hangar flying sessions since
before I was born; and will most probably continue as long as there are
aircraft with retractable wheels.

The part that botheres me is that I can recall nothing in this thread, or
any link given, which actually stated the aircraft type or the position of
the undercarriage as known to the pilot. So there is reason to suppose that
this entire debate occurred without most of the contributors having any idea
what they were talking about. (Rant omitted)

BTW, a brief search, based on the pilot's name, determined that the aircraft
was N-1068B, a Mooney M20A. The preliminary report stated that damage was
minor, there were no injuries, and the description was: "ACFT LANDED GEAR
UP, HONDO, TX."

The pilot landed successfully without doing a lot of damage to the
airplane or hurting anyone. Saying he should have landed on the
pavement rather than the grass is rather ridiculous considering the
fine outcome of this emergency. Kudos to the pilot.

The pilot landed successfully without doing a lot of damage to the
airplane or hurting anyone. Saying he should have landed on the
pavement rather than the grass is rather ridiculous considering the
fine outcome of this emergency. Kudos to the pilot.

That sums it up. It really doesn't matter whether any of us might have done
it differently, since his choice worked successfully.

The pilot landed successfully without doing a lot of damage to the
airplane or hurting anyone. Saying he should have landed on the
pavement rather than the grass is rather ridiculous considering the
fine outcome of this emergency. Kudos to the pilot.

That sums it up. It really doesn't matter whether any of us might have done
it differently, since his choice worked successfully.

No it's not.

mike

"150flivver" wrote in message
oups.com...
The pilot landed successfully without doing a lot of damage to the
airplane or hurting anyone. Saying he should have landed on the
pavement rather than the grass is rather ridiculous considering the
fine outcome of this emergency. Kudos to the pilot.

Low wing-definitely on the pavement, no matter what the gear situation.

High wing-grass or pavement with all gear up, if possible. Pavement with one
or more down.

That's my answer and I'm sticking with it.

mike

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
news:%SBMh.14667$B7.8555@bigfe9...

The part that botheres me is that I can recall nothing in this thread, or
any link given, which actually stated the aircraft type or the position of
the undercarriage as known to the pilot. So there is reason to suppose
that
this entire debate occurred without most of the contributors having any
idea
what they were talking about. (Rant omitted)

BTW, a brief search, based on the pilot's name, determined that the
aircraft
was N-1068B, a Mooney M20A. The preliminary report stated that damage was
minor, there were no injuries, and the description was: "ACFT LANDED GEAR
UP, HONDO, TX."

On 2007-03-21 13:40:24 -0700, "mike regish" said:

Shouldn't have gone for the grass if there was pavement available.

mike

"Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote in message
s.com...

Seconds before the plane came down, Riegel said, the pilot told his
passengers he would land on the grass next to the runway.

I would agree with that. There is nothing wrong with the pavement. You
could flip over on the grass.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor