Emergency landing at Meigs Sunday

"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

It appears some folks still think Meigs Field is an airport.

A small plane in trouble landed at the shuttered airstrip Sunday,
startling
lakeside visitors and security. It's the second time this month that an
aircraft has used the former lakefront airport for an emergency landing.

The plane landed amid rubble churned up by Mayor Daley's closure of Meigs
after coming within 20 feet of the beach house roof at 12th Street Beach,
witnesses said.

The two people inside the single-engine Piper aircraft were attempting to
fly to an air show in Oshkosh, Wis., said Chicago police Sgt. Jerry Clancy
of the Summer Mobile Unit.

"They lost radio contact--they weren't sure what happened,'' Clancy said.

The fliers suspected their alternator failed, he said.

Officials with the Federal Aviation Administration said the plane is
registered to a Maine company and the aircraft had taken off early Sunday
from Jackson, Mich. The pilot told the FAA that he had to make the
emergency
landing because of poor weather and electrical problems on board the
plane.

Clancy said the pair hit bad weather north of Meigs and decided to turn
around and land.

He said he witnessed "a nice, smooth landing.''

Witnesses said it was obvious the plane was in trouble.

"We saw it wobbling,'' said Joann Caccamo, 29, a production assistant from
Plainfield who was visiting Chicago's lakefront. "He was really shaky.''

"It was scary,'' she said. "We actually expected to see flames.''

Caccamo and her friends said they first noticed the plane because of the
noises it was making.

"Like sputtering, like engine problems,'' said Kitty McDonnell, 36, a
mortgage loan officer from Aurora.

The plane was flying north and then doubled back, they said. As the pilot
flew south, he flew low over the 12th Street Beach house, witnesses said.

"We thought he was going to hit the roof,'' McDonnell said.

Mayor Daley closed Meigs in the middle of the night March 30, citing
terrorism concerns. But earlier this month, a helicopter pilot brought his
craft down at Meigs after thinking he hit a bird.

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

"They just want to go home,'' Clancy said.


My favorite line:

"...Sunday's fliers, who are not thought to be linked to any terrorist
groups..." Geez. It's embarassing that they even found it necessary to
include a ridiculous line like that.

And if there have already been TWO emergency landings this month so far,
then maybe someone will notice that we are actually serious when we site
saftey concerns with closing the airport. This last incident could have
turned out very different, had there not been a relatively safe and
well-known place to land.

Good point

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:21:10 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote:

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

Well, the article also said something about "bad" weather. YMMV but I
would treat a failed alternator in a small, single-engine a/c as an
emergency if I were in "bad" weather (e.g. less than VMC).




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Jeff Franks wrote:
Without the whole story, we don't know for sure, but does anyone else find
it interesting that the "eye witnesses" heard the plane sputtering and it
appeared "shaky" on final....all caused by a blown alternator?

Eye witnesses to aviation incidents always say things like that. I bet that if
you flew a perfectly good plane over a bunch of people, and then sent out a
reporter to interview people about the "accident" that the plane that they just
saw had, they'd all say that it was shaky, wobbly, and had a sputtering engine.
They just want to have something interesting to say to get in the paper,
that's all.

- awh

Hi,

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

Perhaps this nation's airmen should take to wearing "Suspected
Terrorist" buttons al la John Gilmore. :-)

We already carry the label... they're just too cheap to send us the
buttons!

Neil

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:36:35 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote in Message-Id: :

Hi,

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

Perhaps this nation's airmen should take to wearing "Suspected
Terrorist" buttons al la John Gilmore. :-)

We already carry the label... they're just too cheap to send us the
buttons!



What can we do to change that misperception? How about a button that
reads:

Terrorists hijack airliners not bug-smashers?

Or:

Suspected Terrorist by Journalists only.

Or:

If Pilots Were Journalists, Publishing Would be Treason.

Or:

...


--

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

"Michael 182" wrote in message news:W3cVa.166058$N7.22674@sccrnsc03...
Yeah, I liked that part as well. Not to mention that a failed alternator
hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation...

Michael,

Judge it when you're there.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Drew Hamilton" wrote in message
...
Jeff Franks wrote:
Without the whole story, we don't know for sure, but does anyone else
find
it interesting that the "eye witnesses" heard the plane sputtering and it
appeared "shaky" on final....all caused by a blown alternator?

Eye witnesses to aviation incidents always say things like that. I bet
that if
you flew a perfectly good plane over a bunch of people, and then sent out
a
reporter to interview people about the "accident" that the plane that they
just
saw had, they'd all say that it was shaky, wobbly, and had a sputtering
engine.
They just want to have something interesting to say to get in the paper,
that's all.

My landing yesterday was shaky and wobbly until I got into ground effect
(then it was a greaser :-) ). Unusually hot afternoons here in the PNW.

-- David Brooks

Michael 182 wrote:

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:W3cVa.166058$N7.22674@sccrnsc03...

Yeah, I liked that part as well. Not to mention that a failed alternator
hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation...

Judge it when you're there.

Right, cause no one in this group ever expresses opinions...

You know what they say "opinions are like a**holes everyone has
one". But you asked for it, you got it.

I've been IMC with an electrical system we voluntarily shut down
'cuz smoke was coming out of the panel. Sure seemed like a
potential emergency to me though lucky for us it didn't play
out that way.

My point was there are a number of factors which could make
a failed alternator an emergency landing situation IMHO.

So IMO, YO that "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an
emergency landing situation" based on very limited info, is
pure bunk.

Toyota,
Sydney

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.

There is always more to know. My comment that "a failed alternator hardly
qualifies as an emergency landing situation" is absolutely correct. But, if
you throw in IMC, a fire in the cabin, the prop falling off, the engine
spraying oil, a 747 filling the windshield, or any other number of items,
clearly it becomes an emergency.

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

Always a pleasure to be guided by you, however.

Michael


"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message
...
Michael 182 wrote:

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:W3cVa.166058$N7.22674@sccrnsc03...

Yeah, I liked that part as well. Not to mention that a failed
alternator
hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation...

Judge it when you're there.

Right, cause no one in this group ever expresses opinions...

You know what they say "opinions are like a**holes everyone has
one". But you asked for it, you got it.
So IMO, YO that "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an
emergency landing situation" based on very limited info, is
pure bunk.

Toyota,
Sydney

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

let them know what you think of these comments (i.e. irrelevent and
irrational)




i plan to write them as well