Emergency landing at Meigs Sunday

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:04:01 GMT, Michael 182
wrote:

That said, "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing
situation".

Might be best if you qualify that a little better: a failed alternator
in VMC conditions may not be an emergency landing situation. It's
probably safe to assume that someone making a precautionary landing
on the condition is probably worried about _something_ and there are
an awful lot of _somethings_ that can be going wrong along with a
failing alternator. Electrical fire is not the least of it.

You know, there was that SwissAir flight that terminated off the coast
of Nova Scotia a few years back. They were dumping fuel prior to
landing due to a small electrical problem they were having. If they
had landed overweight, they would've survived. While it's easy to
play Monday-morning quarterback, the point is, FFR, based on past
experience, not to let the small problems develop into big problems.

Morris

Good grief! It was a Piper Cub! Always knew those things would wind up
in the hands of evildoers.

Aero-News Propwash:

************************************************** ************

An aircraft in distress, a Piper PA-12 Super Cruiser, reportedly
used what was left of Meigs Field yesterday, after a lightning
strike took out its electrical system. Landing in the grass
alongside the remnants of Meigs sundered runway, the PA-12 executed
a safe emergency landing... the second aircraft to have done so in
just two weeks (and the fourth in the last few years).

The strike was reported to have occurred just a few miles form
the airport and no injuries or significant damage were
reported.

The pilot, enroute to Oshkosh, WI, apparently to attend the
upcoming EAA AirVenture convention, opening tomorrow, Tuesday.
Friends of Meigs At Oshkosh

The Friends of Meigs Field are hosting a tent at this year's
Experimental Aircraft Association AirVenture convention in Oshkosh,
WI. The group will be collecting signatures on postcards to send to
Congress and other public officials in the ongoing effort to reopen
Meigs Field.

The tent, provided gratis by the Experimental Aircraft
Association, will be "operations central" for the group, with
volunteers gathering signatures and encouraging Chicago residents
to call their aldermen and request hearings on Meigs' closure and
alternative plans to create a combination park and airport from the
famous airstrip.

If you are coming to Oshkosh, please be sure to stop by and sign
a card and offer your support to saving this valuable (and
critically needed) aviation resource.
FMI: www.friendsofmeigs.org

************************************************** **********************
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:18:31 GMT, Michael 182
wrote:

That said, "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing
situation".

Might be best if you qualify that a little better:

I did qualify it. Go back and take a look at the post you answered.

I read the post. You missed the point. Your point is, in the absence
of other information, you get an F some random case study course if you
conclude that the emergency landing was justified given the available
information (or to be fair, to conclude insufficient info to decide).

Given the number of things that can go wrong in that situation, the
very fact that the pilot elected to perform a precautionary landing
speaks for itself. Case studies courses notwithstanding, I wouldn't
conclude it was unjustified until I knew more about the situation.

Saying that, "under ideal conditions", an electrical problem *may not*
require a precautionary landing is not the same thing as saying it
"hardly qualifies".


Morris (sadly noting yet another case where academia and reality diverge)

(Yossarian) wrote in message . com...
"Henry Kisor" wrote in message news:TU7Va.164284$ye4.111218@sccrnsc01...
From this morning's Chicago Sun-Times:

Plane in trouble lands safely at Meigs
July 28, 2003

BY MAUREEN O'DONNELL AND LUCIO GUERRERO Staff Reporters

(snip)

As for Sunday's fliers, who are not thought to be linked to any terrorist
groups, they are on their way back east.


I'm sorry but that is a ****ing stupid comment to include in the article.


If any of you followed the Chicago media, you'd know that both the Sun
Times and the Tribune were EXTREMELY critical of Mayor Moron's
actions. This was a news story - not an editorial piece, so the
writers couldn't come right out and say how stupid it was for the
mayor to say Meigs could be used for terrorism. But they could drive
home the point by REPORTING that Chicago officials don't think these
two people are linked to terrorist groups, illustrating just how
stupid the idea really is.

I picked up on the irony - you can too.

Ace

On 29 Jul 2003 06:35:05 -0700, (Ace
Pilot) wrote in Message-Id:
:

If any of you followed the Chicago media, you'd know that both the Sun
Times and the Tribune were EXTREMELY critical of Mayor Moron's
actions.

I wish they'd mentioned the fact that the Mayor was forced to change
his reason for the midnight demolition of Meigs Field after being
confronted by the DHS; his "for security reasons" alibi was not
supported by the feds.
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:26:49 GMT, "Henry Kisor"
wrote in Message-Id: dGfVa.687$Ho3.440@sccrnsc03:

I believe that terrorist group line was a bit of sneaky reportorial wit that
really shouldn't have gotten into the story, because irony never works with
newspaper readers, who tend to be literal-minded in reading hard news
stories.

Wit is difficult to accomplish with a diverse audience unless it's
based on a universal subject like sex.

But labeling the remark as humor lends it an air of appropriateness.
It wasn't.

What I really wanted to know was where the airplane (in the news photo it
looked like a Super Cub with drooped wingtips, a combination I've never seen
before) landed. Could a droopy-tip Cub land on the X'd runway or did it land
on the taxiway? And is it still there?

I wasn't able to locate a photo he
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/...s-meigs28.html


Anyone wishing to send a respectful e-mail message to the authors
informing them about the inappropriateness of their "terrorist" remark
in conjunction with pilots can do so he




http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/feedback.html
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

(journeyman) wrote in message ru.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:18:31 GMT, Michael 182
wrote:

That said, "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing
situation".

Might be best if you qualify that a little better:

I did qualify it. Go back and take a look at the post you answered.

I read the post. You missed the point. Your point is, in the absence
of other information, you get an F some random case study course if you
conclude that the emergency landing was justified given the available
information (or to be fair, to conclude insufficient info to decide).

Given the number of things that can go wrong in that situation, the
very fact that the pilot elected to perform a precautionary landing
speaks for itself. Case studies courses notwithstanding, I wouldn't
conclude it was unjustified until I knew more about the situation.

Saying that, "under ideal conditions", an electrical problem *may not*
require a precautionary landing is not the same thing as saying it
"hardly qualifies".


Morris (sadly noting yet another case where academia and reality diverge)


Given what we know, it's perfectly reasonable to state as a general
rule that a failed alternator hardly qualifies as a condition
warranting an emergency landing. There may very well be more to the
story. There may not be. We had a guy at a local airport declare an
emergency because his GPS went on the fritz in CAVU conditions. He
wasn't lost, he was within sight of at least 2 airports, and
apparently his Nav was working fine. But he freaked out, and declared.
And that airport scrambled the firetrucks because this chucklehead
thought losing a GPS in severe VFR qualified as an emergency. Could it
in certain circumstances? Absolutely. As a general case? Very
definitely not. Losing an alternator? In certain cases, sure. In
general? Nope.

I took what Michael said to mean exactly what he *did* say. What he
said is

"Not to mention that a failed alternator
hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation..."

Which as a general rule is absolutely correct. There certainly may
have been more to the story, but what was reported was an alternator
failure, and given that specific information, it is perfectly
reasonable to state that a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an
emergency landing situation. More than just experienced pilots read
these groups. Students read these groups. Should we simply let them go
on believing that if an alternator calls it a day, it's time to
declare?

As a general rule, what Michael said is absolutely correct. Specific
situations often trump general rules, and I didn't see him or anyone
stating that isn't the case.

Mr. Chicken
CP-ASEL

Michael 182 wrote:
You know, when I went to graduate school all the courses were case study.
You got an automatic "F" if you ever handed in a paper that concluded that
there wasn't enough information to make a decision.

Good grief! What sort of graduate school was this and where?

There is always more to know.

Yes, there is. However, often one has access to substantial
information, and can draw a reasonable conclusion based on the
data presented.

However, in this case, at the time you made your post, hardly
anything was known about the situation in question.

If your graduate education discouraged you from recognizing a
situation where there's inadequate data to reach a conclusion,
that's most unfortunate.

My comment that "a failed alternator hardly
qualifies as an emergency landing situation" is absolutely correct.

As a general precept, I grant it.

However, you appeared to be making it as a specific analysis of
a specific situation -- the plane which landed at Meigs, reportedly
after an electrical failure.

As a specific assessment of a specific situation, in the absence
of all but a few newspaper sentences, it's clearly flawed.

If your graduate school courses encouraged you to theorize and
conclude in the absence of data, I find that most regrettable
and somewhat discouraging.

Always a pleasure to be guided by you, however.

On the evidence of these posts, how would you know? *g*

Sydney

On 29 Jul 2003 12:33:23 -0700, Jeffrey LLoyd
wrote:

I think we're at the point of bisecting rabbits.

Given what we know, it's perfectly reasonable to state as a general
rule that a failed alternator hardly qualifies as a condition
warranting an emergency landing.

I disagree. Sure, there are still aircraft out there with no electrical
system in the first place, but A) they are not flown in conditions where
the electrical system is essential to safe flight, and B) there are
known failure modes that are intrinsically unsafe (say, involving smoke
or bits of metal flying around inside the engine compartment).

In the absence of other information, and the knowledge that someone
considered a particular situation severe enough to warrant a
precautionary landing, I'd be inclined to take it at face value.
Later, we can armchair quarterback the decision-making.

The Kings who publish all those training materials crashed an airplane
some time back. They were on top, had an alternator failure, had a
case of getthereitis and decided to press on, couldn't find a hole,
ran out of fuel, options, and ideas at the same time. They tell the
story themselves to point out the importance of decision making. If
they can screw up that way, pretty much anyone can.

Furthermore, if a plane I was flying was hit by lightning and blew out
my electrical system, I'd be definitely considering an immediate
off-field precautionary landing to inspect for other damage before
continuing. Yeah, I realize that wasn't in the original reports, but
it does demonstrate yet another hazardous failure mode.

OTOH, I'm aware of several cases that a failed alternator was handled
with nothing more than contacting ATC before the battery ran down, and
getting vectors to VMC and/or a NORDO clearance into the home airport.
It helps to keep the ammeter in the instrument scan.

In fact not only was my last flight was in a plane with no electrical
system, but I lost thrust at 2000' AGL. Okay, I pulled the tow rope
release at the normal altitude, but still...

We had a guy at a local airport declare an
emergency because his GPS went on the fritz in CAVU conditions. He
wasn't lost, he was within sight of at least 2 airports, and
apparently his Nav was working fine. But he freaked out, and declared.
And that airport scrambled the firetrucks because this chucklehead
thought losing a GPS in severe VFR qualified as an emergency. Could it
in certain circumstances? Absolutely. As a general case? Very

Okay, that's a bit over the top. Okay, that's more than a bit over the
top. Panic is insidious. Still better to declare and deal with it on
the ground. Probably feels sheepish, and a 609 ride (or whatever they
call it this week) might be in order, but if you haven't done something
really dumb in the airplane yet, take comfort: you will eventually. As
poor judgement goes, at least it's erring on the right side.

definitely not. Losing an alternator? In certain cases, sure. In
general? Nope.

Semantics perhaps, but I take the position, right or wrong, that the
general case is to treat it as an emergency, and routine in the
particular case.

Look at the difference between losing a GPS, even a panel-mount GPS,
and losing the entire electrical system: a GPS is a single point of
failure. You have reasonable backups available.

When you lose the electrical system, you lose everything: all nav, all
comm. In IMC, that can be bad, very bad. Plus, you may have a
systemic problem that might cause a fire.

these groups. Students read these groups. Should we simply let them go
on believing that if an alternator calls it a day, it's time to
declare?

I'd rather they declared unnecessarily than die of embarassment by not
declaring when they should, but that's beside the point.

As a general rule, what Michael said is absolutely correct. Specific
situations often trump general rules, and I didn't see him or anyone
stating that isn't the case.

Okay, we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO, the general case is that
it's an emergency, and if other conditions are favorable, then it's not.
It doesn't really matter what the default is because you have to judge
the particular situation when it happens.


Morris

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:27:55 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote:
You know, when I went to graduate school all the courses were case study.
You got an automatic "F" if you ever handed in a paper that concluded that
there wasn't enough information to make a decision.
[snip]

If your graduate education discouraged you from recognizing a
situation where there's inadequate data to reach a conclusion,
that's most unfortunate.

On first reading, I assumed it was one of those cases of disconnect
between academia and the so-called real world ("consider a spherical
cow").

OTOH, it does make some sense. You have to draw some conclusion with
the information available. So, you have to rely on preconcieved data
to prejudge the situation. Waitaminute, isn't that...


My comment that "a failed alternator hardly
qualifies as an emergency landing situation" is absolutely correct.

As a general precept, I grant it.

Hairsplitting, perhaps, but you're relying on some default assumptions:
VMC, no smoke in the cockpit, no loose bits of metal flying around
inside the cowling, maybe a working battery with lots of charge, a not
too busy airspace, proficient pilot not relying on electronic
navigation... (you know, conditions where someone might fly an airplane
that doesn't have an electrical system in the first place...)

Given the situation of someone electing to make an off-field
precautonary landing, I'd default to assume it was a reasonable
decision until knowing the particulars.

But in the end, all that matter are the particulars.

As a specific assessment of a specific situation, in the absence
of all but a few newspaper sentences, it's clearly flawed.

Agreed.


Morris