This has to be the off-field landing of the month, at least.

Off Field Landing of the Week
User avatar
RigaRunner
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: This has to be the off-field landing of the month, at least.

Postby RigaRunner » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:18 pm

I wonder if the UCAP team could get Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger III -- the pilot -- on the podcast for a telephone interview?

It would be great to have a pilot talk to pilots -- especially about what considerations he had in his mind in choosing to go into the water instead of Teterboro (recommended by the controller) and the technique he used to avoid cartwheeling or nosing in.

Some will note that he has a glider rating.
A commercial pilot, IFR rated, who flies a Cirrus SR22 out of JYO.
Image

Dave Higdon
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:02 pm

Re: This has to be the off-field landing of the month, at least.

Postby Dave Higdon » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:54 pm

The glider rating caught my attention, too; don't know how many of you remember, but many years ago -- 20 last year, I believe it was -- an Airbus operated by Air Canada ran out of fuel due to a misprogramming of the fuel-capacity instrumentation -- kilos versus pounds, gallons versus liters, I don't exactly remember.

But the big point is that captain piloted the Airbus on a descent covering some 60 miles to an unused RCAF strip that then housed a car racing -- drags, I believe -- and he landed the plane safely; the flight came to be called The Gimley Glider after the air strip...and that captain was also an active sailplane pilot.

Makes this old hang glider pilot proud, it does, knowing that soaring and second-nature engine-out skills can be so meaningful ;)

Dave

pilot_ngb
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:19 am

Re: This has to be the off-field landing of the month, at least.

Postby pilot_ngb » Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:36 pm

RigaRunner wrote:I wonder if the UCAP team could get Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger III -- the pilot -- on the podcast for a telephone interview?

It would be great to have a pilot talk to pilots -- especially about what considerations he had in his mind in choosing to go into the water instead of Teterboro (recommended by the controller) and the technique he used to avoid cartwheeling or nosing in.

Some will note that he has a glider rating.


Airspeed online will probably get a ride in a A320 with Sully :roll:

User avatar
PilotBillFromTexas
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:10 am
Location: KGPM Grand Prairie, Texas

Re: This has to be the off-field landing of the month, at least.

Postby PilotBillFromTexas » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:04 pm

pilot_ngb wrote:Airspeed online will probably get a ride in a A320 with Sully :roll:

There might have to be an aviation podcast slapdown to see who gets the interview first.

User avatar
StevenPam
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:46 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: This has to be the off-field landing of the month, at least.

Postby StevenPam » Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:08 pm

Guess what folks? This is also a chance for y'all to save the aviation industry.

How?

Well, as we all know, unfortunately most people do rely on the mainstream media to inform their world view, instead of observing and thinking for themselves.

Of course this includes the aviation community but I digress. In this case I am of course referring specifically to aviation reporting.

To illustrate what I mean, let's see... I'll go open Google News here and see what the first headline about this story is as of this moment. Here we go: "New Pictures Show NY Plane Crash" (from the BBC, no less!).

The sidebar also has a link to a video purportedly showing "the moment plane dived into Hudson".

Crash? Dive? I didn't see it diving or crashing, I saw a textbook water landing or ditching (by the way - when I watched the video, it was prefaced by an ad for British Airways... too funny!) .

Do you think anyone would bother to ask a professional pilot, or survey a group of pilots, if the plane "dived" or whether any landing not on a runway is a "crash"? Of course not. The news told me the plane dived into the river and crashed, so that's what happened.

In fact, if you look around, you'll see that almost all the coverage of this accident refers to a "crash".

So what does this have to do with saving the industry?

Well, it's in all of our interests - in terms of keeping the airlines afloat (no pun intended), in keeping local airports open, in ensuring our future aviating freedoms - if the non-aviating public have a realistic view of aviation. Note I said "realistic", not "utpoian"... people don't need to believe that flying is 100% safe or that nothing can or does happen. But they also don't need to believe that if you land away from an airport you "crash" and that therefore you will die.

What can we do? Rant to all our friends and family about the terrible reporting?

Well, we could. It may help a little, depending on how much they respect our opinion.

But what might help a bit more is to write to every media outlet (or for each of us to write to one or two) - in particular the more "respectable" ones who do have some kind of reputation of journalistic integrity which they care about - and point out to them that a water landing or ditching is not a "crash" and that the plane "descended" (as a plane must do in order to land!) and didn't "dive"; and to urge them to exercise balance and do some research before publishing this mush... even with a fast breaking story when time is of the essence.

What say you?

Cheers,
Steven
** I like aeroplanes **

User avatar
StevenPam
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:46 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: This has to be the off-field landing of the month, at least.

Postby StevenPam » Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:32 pm

Post script...

I'm not naive enough to seriously believe that the media will change their wicked ways because of a few cranky e-mails from aviators. But even if you write a "letter to the editor" and it gets published - and some people read it, and put their brains into gear - isn't that doing aviation a service, however small?

Cheers,
Steven
** I like aeroplanes **

User avatar
PilotBillFromTexas
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:10 am
Location: KGPM Grand Prairie, Texas

Re: This has to be the off-field landing of the month, at least.

Postby PilotBillFromTexas » Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:59 pm

StevenPam wrote:Note I said "realistic", not "utpoian"... people don't need to believe that flying is 100% safe or that nothing can or does happen. But they also don't need to believe that if you land away from an airport you "crash" and that therefore you will die.


We should just look at the Harley riding crowd. The Harley culture has to do with freedom. In Texas and a lot of US states there is no requirement that motorcycle riders wear helmets. Its not really a smart thing to do but, people who refuse to wear them often feel like they are making a political statement that they will do what the heck they want and that it shouldn't matter what they do as long as they are not hurting anyone else. This is even more so the case in those states where they successfully repealed the state helmet law.

If the alphabet groups were smart then they would spin the issue to be about freedom. Let the defense of GA rights be another symbol of wider personal freedom. Let the image of a pilot be the image of freedom in action.

I used to live in Connecticut near a popular motorcycle rider weekend hang-out a few miles from the New York border. NY has a helmet law and CT doesn't. People would ride all the way to the border with their helmets on and the second they got over the line they would take the helmets off instead of just riding the last 5 minutes with it on.

The Marcus Dairy, by the way is adjacent to the Danbury, CT municipal airport right by the departure end of 26. If you're in the neighborhood, you can fly into KDXR then walk over to the dairy diner and get some food and check out some motorcycles on Sunday mornings.

I just googled to see if they still gather there. They do.

http://www.molaver.org/md1.htm

http://www.molaver.org/marcus_dairy/index.html

Tootyscooty2
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:58 am

Re: This has to be the off-field landing of the month, at least.

Postby Tootyscooty2 » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:51 pm

Thank god for shear bolts!! If those engines would of sunk that bad boy!! Hats off (awful pun I know) to the captain!! ;)
Alex Lloyd
Flight Simmer,
Aviation nut,
When there ain't no UCAP podcast to listen to,
I get in a rut!

User avatar
ChrisF16
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:11 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: This has to be the off-field landing of the month, at least.

Postby ChrisF16 » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:17 pm

Jack, you have GOT to figure out if you can get the rights to play this song on the podcast about the crew of this flight. The NPR radio show "A Prairie Home Companion" starring Garrison Keillor has a free podcast I receive and he added an additional feature today. This song. Besides being very humorous, it's actually quite accurate aviation-wise.

Here is the link to the player version:
http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/popup.php?name=phc/2009/01/17/phc_20090117_64&starttime=00:15:13.0&endtime=00:18:15.0

and here is the MP3 file:
http://download.publicradio.org/podcast/nflw/2009/01/19/phc_pilot_20090117_128.mp3
Chris Watson

States I've logged PIC T/O & Ldg:

Image



Return to “OFLotW”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest