Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced landing

All you say is very true, but he made a full stall landing also and there is another example of a aliner making a dead stick landing on an abanded aitport who was also a glider pilot and they also said no one else had ditched an airplane successful that I found hard to believe.

jim

---

Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced landing

 

I agree with you that getting some glider time is an excellent thing to do.  I am a commercial glider pilot myself, so obviously saw some value in it.  In fact, every bit of training we get as pilots helps us to some degree in other aspects of aviation.  I learned some new things about aerodynamics when getting a helicopter rating that apply to other types of aircraft.  Learning is always good and keeps us fresh and our minds open.

 

That said, this "Airliner in the Hudson with two dead engines..." repeatedly comes up, and although there are some lessons to be learned from that to apply to us all, I am too often hearing people make comments implying that the reason that landing was successful was because Capt. Sully had a glider rating.  That leads to the next implication that if he didn't have a glider rating, it wouldn't have been successful.  I think the reality is a little more complicated than that.  As I already said, yes, glider ratings are great and we always take away something from every learning experience.  However, I can also tell you that flying gliders and flying airliners are very different.  An airliner with no engines may be gliding, yes, but it is not a glider.  It is simply and unpowered and very heavy airplane that flies nothing like a glider.  All they have in common is that without a source of rising air to hold them aloft, they are both coming downhill.  The odds of having that much rising air makes coming downhill in an unpowered Airbus a near certainty.  (I have experienced mountain wave of sufficient force, but the odds of having that much mountain wave at 3000' over the Hudson is exceedingly small.)  In my opinion, here's what made Capt. Sully's landing successful.

 

1.  Skill.  Not just piloting stick and rudder sort of skill, but overall command skill and the ability to use his crew and resources to maximum advantage.  He made a quick decision to take control of the airplane because he had the best view out his side.  Normal training procedures would be to give the plane to the F/O in an emergency so the Capt. has more time to analyze the problem, tell the flight attendants to prepare to crash, etc.  The flying skills exhibited were actually quite basic.  Lowering the nose to maintain glide speed when the power comes off is pretty standard in any airplane and pretty much a natural reaction of any experienced pilot. 

 

2.  Luck.  What I mean by this is that it was a VFR day and they could see where they needed to point the airplane.  Imagine if it was a crappy day with 1/2 mile vis in fog and snowing.  The outcome almost certainly would have been different.  Ship traffic at the moment.  What if there had been a ferry in the way?  Any airplane has a certain amount of energy to dissipate and control.  No amount of pilot skill can make it glide over an obstacle simply by wishing it over, or make it stop shorter by wishing the energy would disappear.  They were lucky the weather was good and they had a clear flight path.

 

3.  No other options.  What if there had been another airport almost within gliding distance?  It would have been very tempting to try to make it.  Landing in a river isn't any pilots first choice if there are other choices.  But it's an obvious better choice than smacking into a building.  Having no other options allowed him to make a quick decision that they were going to land in the river and then spend his time concentrating on doing that.  Just imagine if another airport would have been close, but not quite within range, and they had tried to go there (would have been very tempting) and then they realized they couldn't quite make it and then couldn't turn back.  The results would have been horrible.  And, as we can see from this thread, everyone would have been Monday morning QBing the decision to go there when the Hudson was right there and would have been better.  Or, if he had the option but chose the Hudson.  Then he would have been criticized for not flying to a runway.  He was lucky he had no options in this case.  I see this demonstrated quite often in checkrides.  I have given people simulated engine failures directly over a perfectly good field (including the airport runway) and by the time they've decided which one is best (sometimes changing their mind multiple times during our short glide) they've managed to miss them all and finally point it at corn or trees at whatever ends up in front of us.   

 

So, although I agree that glider ratings are great to get and I highly recommend them, I do not think it was the key to Capt. Sully's success.  It was just one more thing that was in his "personal experiences pocket" with all the others that contributed to their success.  I would rate his overall experience in the airplane, and in all airplanes, and military training, etc., much higher than a glider rating, because all those other airplanes flew much more like an Airbus than any glider.

 

Jim

 

 

From: James Ferris

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:20 AM

To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced landing

 

 

Every pilot needs to get some time in a sailplane, etc. NY on the Hudson with an airliner with two dead engines.

Jim

 

---

Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced landing

 

I think the pilot screwed up because he was flying an unproven aircraft (probably back in Phase-I after an engine being re-installed) and did not do proper conservative planning taking into account that the engine install may not be 100%, which it never is the first time (or that's what you've got to assume).
In short most pilots acting as test pilots would not go far enough away from the runway (keep a tight pattern) to have any doubt or chance about not being able to make the runway back after reaching a rather cozy altitude of 1200 feet.

The worst part of having an engine out would have been during initial climbout if the runway was shorter but in this case the runway was quite long and he was past the most dangerous point of having an engine out (somewhere near mid field at initial climbout) and was at 1200 feet.

The lesson is to have a conservative plan of possible scenarios if you are going to act as a test pilot. This particular pilot who may be quite capable otherwise probably does not have too much experience being a test pilot is my educated -guess-. Thankfully he will be ok. Plane can always be fixed.
Abid

--- In mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com, b d <gpabruce@...> wrote:
>
> One may have to forget the rules and fly the plane. Problem is in a large
> airport people tend to stick to the rules until it's too late. Maybe they
> are too fucused on making that 8000 ft runway because that's what's always
> done there, no deviation, even though they have the ability to put it down
> in an empty parking lot. They may not want to see themselves on the nightly
> news . . oops they got on the news anyway. Their mistake!
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM, pwrsport@... <
> pwrsport@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I felt the outcome could have been different given the pilots experience
> > and my experience being the first to fly many kit aircraft I have built and
> > for others, a number of those the Rans S-6es. The S-6es is a very capable
> > and maneuverable airplane with a glide ratio over 9 to 1 and needs minium of
> > about 350 ft of runway to land. At close to 1200 ft agl where reported the
> > engine gave out the plane could glide about two miles to touch down. All
> > flights start with the preflight, weather, fuel all the stuff we know
> > about. However given that particular flight, re-built unproven engine test,
> > the pilot needed to know a bit more. Yes Helen he should have known the
> > hight of trees, power lines and the distance from the runway; he should have
> > done the mathematical calculations of the energy remaining after a power
> > loss taking into consideration the glide ratio. He should have know the
> > winds aloft, and if he did he should have had a flight plan taking it
> > all into consideration plus other items and then followed that plan. Would
> > you and your staff not have done this. Had he followed a proper plan the
> > outcome could have been different, and so my original statement. There may
> > have been other considerations unknown to us to preclude a safe landing and
> > in the heat of attempting to start a dead engine, which generally never
> > restart and run, distracted from some plan?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Hobson
> > Sent: Dec 28, 2010 3:40 PM
> > To: mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced landing
> >
> >
> >
> > Or, perhaps put another way.....There, but for the grace of God, go you
> > or I.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Helen Woods <Helen_Woods@...>
> > *To:* mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 28, 2010 12:54 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced
> > landing
> >
> >
> >
> > While I agree that it is a fair assumption that ultralight pilots are
> > used to small fields, we have no idea from the NTSB report whether
> > anyone could have made it back to the field without hitting the power
> > lines. Have you been out to that field to check the height and distance
> > of the lines from the runway and done mathematical calculations of the
> > energy of the aircraft remaining after partial engine failure taking
> > into account glide ratio and recorded winds aloft at that time? I'm
> > guessing not. In which case it is not fair to criticize this pilot who
> > may have done everything right. We simply don't know.
> >
> > All that we know for sure is that this is a fellow pilot who had a very,
> > very bad day. I don't think that it worth criticizing.
> >
> > Helen
> >
> > On 12/28/2010 12:30 PM, barnabywalker wrote:
> > > --- In mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Helen Woods<Helen_Woods@> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I take it that you personally know this person and that she/he is not
> > >> used to flying at small fields? Characterizing anyone who holds an ATP
> > >> rating as inexperienced and incapable of flying at small airports is no
> > >> different than characterizing all ultralight pilots as a bunch of
> > >> untrained red-neck hill-billies who have no real aeronautical knowledge.
> > >> I supposed when I get my ATP next year you'll say the same of me? Or
> > >> the many ATPs I have on my staff who now fly and teach in LSAs for a
> > >> living?
> > >>
> > >> Helen
> > >>
> > >
> > > I certainly have never met an Ultralight Pilot who would consider a mile
> > and a half runway, a "small airport". ;-)
> > >
> > > And yes, just because someone has a few fancy Letters behind their name,
> > doesn't mean they are a Good Pilot. That ATP would have most likely
> > successfully landed engine-out, if he were an Ultralight Pilot.
> > >
> > > A RANS S-6 is a pussycat of an ultralight to fly.
> > >
> > > Barnaby
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 12/28/2010 11:38 AM, barnabywalker wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Yes, and we shouldn't overlook how Terrified that certificated ATP
> > likely was to have to glide into a "tiny" 8,000 foot, 150 foot wide runway,
> > which had 45 foot trees 2000 feet from the end of the runway. A certificated
> > ATP likely felt crippled having to hit a tiny 150 foot runway North of a
> > highway running parallel to Runway 31, especially without his Go-Around
> > option. Captain Sully was proof that all ATPs shouldn't be deemed qualified
> > unless they know how to control a plane in a glide instead of just driving a
> > motor.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://img.airnav.com/aptdiag/w240/03884.gif
> > >>> http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSGJ
> > >>>
> > >>> Ed and Mike were correct in their observation of this Certificated
> > ATP's "skills".
> > >>>
> > >>> HAFTA AFTA
> > >>> Barnaby
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___