http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/pilot-makes-emergency-landing-near-downtown-conroe/article_f0bd29ec-368b-11e1-884c-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=story&photo=2 (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/pilot-makes-emergency-landing-near-downtown-conroe/article_f0bd29ec-368b-11e1-884c-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=story&photo=2)
Um...excuse me:
QuoteRovner brought the plane down near the intersection of Davis and Sixth Street, clipping a power line. There were no injuries related to the emergency landing and minor damage to the aircraft, although emergency response teams were called to address fuel leaking from the aircraft.
This is "minor damage to the aircraft":
(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/yourhoustonnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/03/b038ce0a-3693-11e1-ae2e-0019bb2963f4/4f03e16f0f514.preview-300.jpg)
But, as they say, any landing that you walk away from is a good one! A great landing is one where the plane will still fly, so this one counts as good, but not great!
hmmmm.....
Thought you had to wear a uniform when piloting a corporate aircraft.......
Things that make you go, hmmmm......
I just Google mapped that location. That's a hell of an emergency landing.
Having been in circumstances where it was "I'm landing in the next 60 seconds, and not in a good place," there is no greater way to focus than being pretty sure you're gonna die or be seriously injured in less than a minute. But it sure ain't fun...
(In my case, the phrase "there is no choice but victory" came to mind, and it worked. I thing that was *after* the unprintable parts)
Quote from: GoneAway on January 04, 2012, 01:55:27 PM
hmmmm.....
Thought you had to wear a uniform when piloting a corporate aircraft.......
Things that make you go, hmmmm......
Looked like she was wearing a blue polo under her jacket, and that is an acceptable uniform.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 04, 2012, 02:00:20 PM
Quote from: GoneAway on January 04, 2012, 01:55:27 PM
hmmmm.....
Thought you had to wear a uniform when piloting a corporate aircraft.......
Things that make you go, hmmmm......
Looked like she was wearing a blue polo under her jacket, and that is an acceptable uniform.
Really? A uniform thread from a plane crash thread in, what, 4 posts?
There goes that law again.....
Quote from: NIN on January 04, 2012, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 04, 2012, 02:00:20 PM
Quote from: GoneAway on January 04, 2012, 01:55:27 PM
hmmmm.....
Thought you had to wear a uniform when piloting a corporate aircraft.......
Things that make you go, hmmmm......
Looked like she was wearing a blue polo under her jacket, and that is an acceptable uniform.
Really? A uniform thread from a plane crash thread in, what, 4 posts?
Actually...it was the third post that brought unis into the mix.
I was with her at our squadron meeting prior to her departure from KIWS and can confirm she was in a corporate uniform. Can we move off of that part of the topic now? It does get chilly enough to require a jacket every once in a while even down here in SE Texas.
I will miss that 172!
Quote from: Nolan Teel on January 04, 2012, 03:05:23 PM
I will miss that 172!
But it was only "minor damage" >:D
That'll Buff Out... surely. ;-)
There it is, sitting on three wheels, nothing looks bent from the one view of the low camera angle. You can see the wires wrapped around the prop.. and usually that kind of wire contact leads to a lot of other outcomes besides a wreath. The training worked, and was obviously well heeded.
All things considered, in the middle of "the populated area" as the yellow on the chart depicts, an excellent job at handling the situation.
I had an engine quit at 11,000 ft. over SW Colorado, just after passing Spanish Peak and put it down on a ranch road between a cattle guard, a fence and power line. Had someone come out from Walsenburg and fix the thing the next day and departed after unloading everything into a pickup truck so I could fly to a real runway to depart fully loaded with the second passenger. It was not until then that I had an uncontrollable leg shaking bit when I departed said area and was back at 'pattern' attitude downwind from my 'runway' when that started because I saw what I had actually done.
Well....from the photo...one wing is a write off, wonder how much damage was transfered to the frame. The engine will have to go in for a complete teardown and check because of the "loss of power" and the dammage from the power lines.
Also....if there was any voltage passing through the airfream when the power lines cut...that always causes some eletrical problems so that will have to checked out really well.
Anyone know if this was a mixed panel retrofit?
Quote from: lordmonar on January 04, 2012, 05:25:39 PM
Well....from the photo...one wing is a write off, wonder how much damage was transfered to the frame. The engine will have to go in for a complete teardown and check because of the "loss of power" and the dammage from the power lines.
Also....if there was any voltage passing through the airfream when the power lines cut...that always causes some eletrical problems so that will have to checked out really well.
Anyone know if this was a mixed panel retrofit?
The engine teardown will depend if the prop was still turning or not. If the prop had stopped windmilling, then may not need a teardown inspection.
How much money is anyone going to invest in a non-special 33 year old airplane?
Quote from: JeffDG on January 04, 2012, 05:51:26 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 04, 2012, 05:25:39 PM
Well....from the photo...one wing is a write off, wonder how much damage was transfered to the frame. The engine will have to go in for a complete teardown and check because of the "loss of power" and the dammage from the power lines.
Also....if there was any voltage passing through the airfream when the power lines cut...that always causes some eletrical problems so that will have to checked out really well.
Anyone know if this was a mixed panel retrofit?
The engine teardown will depend if the prop was still turning or not. If the prop had stopped windmilling, then may not need a teardown inspection.
The cable looks like it is wrapped around the cowling...but you are right...if there was no sudden stoppage then the shaft would not have to be inspected.
Not that I am an expert, but wouldn't replacing the plane be better than rebuilding it?
The plane is getting old, and looking at the damage it is going to be a pretty penny to fix it.
Spending 5-10k more for a safer, brand new plane seems like a good idea.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 04, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
Spending 5-10k more for a safer, brand new plane seems like a good idea.
Well, it's won't be "5-10k more" a new 172, which we really don't buy anymore, goes about $300k before CAP radios and
other required modifications.
New 182's are $350K+
Looks like a used wing goes for about $5-6k
Assuming the fuselage is not wracked (ie. in need of major re-tweaking in a manufacturer jig), then its actually not difficult to get a wing and install it.
Yes, it looks awful (certainly more than "minor") but in the aviation scheme of things, unless the airframe resembles a crushed beer can, its probably not "major damage."
When you do things like start destroying formers, firewalls, etc, then you're into the MAJOR money for a fuselage rebuild. (Former cadet from my old unit WIWAC went to "solo encampment" and bent the firewall of a plane during his "solo".. Major repair. Major)
But even if the wing attach points are damaged (not clear from the photo), hanging a new wing on a plane is not nearly as difficult as you'd think. If the attach points are true to their original locations, then locating the wing and getting it delivered might actually be more difficult than installing it.
What's the going hourly rate for an A&P theses days?
How many hours for an engine rebuild and hanging a new wing?
But yes......assuming no major airframe damage and no major electronics damage....replacing the wing and engine would be cheaper then a new plane.
A new CAP C182 costs about $500k. We no longer buy 172s. From what I've heard, the aircraft will be fixed unless the cost of repair exceeds the value of the aircraft. If so, it will be scrapped.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 04, 2012, 03:09:29 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on January 04, 2012, 03:05:23 PM
I will miss that 172!
But it was only "minor damage" >:D
They can replace the wing...it doesn't appear to be any other damage to the aircraft. Nice job really. Landing on a street at night with no runway lights. this deserves a BZ and a SH for a job well done.
Quote from: SARDOC on January 04, 2012, 08:47:08 PM
They can replace the wing...it doesn't appear to be any other damage to the aircraft. Nice job really. Landing on a street at night with no runway lights. this deserves a BZ and a SH for a job well done.
This. +1 :clap: for the PIC.
I am sure you picked up on it from the story, but as a follow up as of this afternoon the PIC is doing just fine. We are pretty proud of her for keeping it all under control. I'm a ground guy so can't comment deeper on whether or not the airframe is salvagable but I do know that they cut off at least one wing in order to haul it away on a flatbed wrecker. Not sure if that makes a major difference on the overhaul or not. The initial speculation (emphasis mine) is that the engine threw a rod, thus leading to the power failure. Might just be totalled.
As an example, the tail of the center F-4 on the deck edge had its tail violently torn off in a collision with a Panamanian freighter (night, fog, inattentive navigation by the freighter's crew). The plane was in the air less than 6 months later. They removed the remainder of the tail at the disassembly point, installed another tail, rerigged the flight controls, and off to do battle once more.
(http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway1980/cactus-007b.jpg)
Possible, yes, but the ROI on repairing a $2.4M combat aircraft that is 6 months old is somewhat different than on a 33 30 year old 172
that was probably worth about $75K when it took off.
Looks like up until 2007 it was an ARWG bird.
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N54872.html (http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N54872.html)
(http://e0.photos.flightcdn.com/photos/retriever/d29eb93c7041ad5fe2a06c8c5e4a66a4076c3f0e)
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8489437&rss=rss-ktrk-article-8489437 (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8489437&rss=rss-ktrk-article-8489437)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 04, 2012, 11:11:45 PM
Possible, yes, but the ROI on repairing a $2.4M combat aircraft that is 6 months old is somewhat different than on a 33 year old 172
that was probably worth about $75K when it took off.
Heck, the ROI is different when all your mechanics, machinists, avionics techs, and the whole nine yards are already on your payroll anyway.
Good point - and the parts are "free", too.
Quote from: Pylon on January 04, 2012, 11:25:00 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 04, 2012, 11:11:45 PM
Possible, yes, but the ROI on repairing a $2.4M combat aircraft that is 6 months old is somewhat different than on a 33 year old 172
that was probably worth about $75K when it took off.
Heck, the ROI is different when all your mechanics, machinists, avionics techs, and the whole nine yards are already on your payroll anyway.
Nope....the calucalte parts and labor in all the NRTS 9 calcuations. Of course it is a lot cheaper than a comercial rate...but you do figure it into whether you are going to condemn it or not.
Bob, where did you get "combat aircraft that is 6 months old"?
The BuNo on it was issued around 1971.
Quote from: SARDOC on January 04, 2012, 08:47:08 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 04, 2012, 03:09:29 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on January 04, 2012, 03:05:23 PM
I will miss that 172!
But it was only "minor damage" >:D
They can replace the wing...it doesn't appear to be any other damage to the aircraft. Nice job really. Landing on a street at night with no runway lights. this deserves a BZ and a SH for a job well done.
^This!
Quote from: SarDragon on January 05, 2012, 01:17:46 AM
Bob, where did you get "combat aircraft that is 6 months old"?
Read this wrong...
Quote from: SarDragon on January 04, 2012, 10:56:04 PMThe plane was in the air less than 6 months later.
Watching that video it looks like there are a bunch of dents... which means body work and a new paint job.
What was the plane doing? AFAM? Can't be proficiency at 9:50 at night....
If it was an AFAM shouldn't she have had another person with her, observer, copilot, or whatever.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 04, 2012, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 04, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
Spending 5-10k more for a safer, brand new plane seems like a good idea.
Well, it's won't be "5-10k more" a new 172, which we really don't buy anymore, goes about $300k before CAP radios and
other required modifications.
New 182's are $350K+
Looks like a used wing goes for about $5-6k
Oh... I was thinking a new 172 cost about 100k.... I dunno why.
I was making up numbers [guestimating], too. For paint, new parts, tear down, etc.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 05, 2012, 02:04:29 AM
What was the plane doing? AFAM? Can't be proficiency at 9:50 at night....
Sure. Night flying is something you need to be proficient at.
Quote from: NIN on January 05, 2012, 02:06:23 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 05, 2012, 02:04:29 AM
What was the plane doing? AFAM? Can't be proficiency at 9:50 at night....
Sure. Night flying is something you need to be proficient at.
Yeah, that was my thought too! I've done C17s at night lots of times.
yeah you need to be proficient at it, but night flying is more dangerous. Does CAP allow people to do proficiency flying at night?
Quote from: JeffDG on January 05, 2012, 02:07:21 AM
Quote from: NIN on January 05, 2012, 02:06:23 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 05, 2012, 02:04:29 AM
What was the plane doing? AFAM? Can't be proficiency at 9:50 at night....
Sure. Night flying is something you need to be proficient at.
Yeah, that was my thought too! I've done C17s at night lots of times.
Ditto - or a transport flight to a unit meeting. I did a couple of those as a Group CC, no biggie.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 05, 2012, 02:08:58 AM
yeah you need to be proficient at it, but night flying is more dangerous. Does CAP allow people to do proficiency flying at night?
No regulation prohibiting, or even discouraging, it.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 05, 2012, 02:08:58 AM
yeah you need to be proficient at it, but night flying is more dangerous. Does CAP allow people to do proficiency flying at night?
Pilots are required by the FAA to maintain a certain number of night takeoffs and landings in a period of time (90 days?) in order to be able to carry passengers at night. She could very well have been maintaining her FAA currency so that she can remain useful to CAP when the 2am ELT sounds.
Nothing to see here, move along :).
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 05, 2012, 02:18:40 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 05, 2012, 02:08:58 AM
yeah you need to be proficient at it, but night flying is more dangerous. Does CAP allow people to do proficiency flying at night?
Pilots are required by the FAA to maintain a certain number of night takeoffs and landings in a period of time (90 days?) in order to be able to carry passengers at night. She could very well have been maintaining her FAA currency so that she can remain useful to CAP when the 2am ELT sounds.
Nothing to see here, move along :).
3 takeoffs and 3 landings to a full stop during the period between 1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before sunrise within the previous 90 days is required to carry passengers during that same SS+1 - SR-1 period.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 05, 2012, 02:08:58 AM
yeah you need to be proficient at it, but night flying is more dangerous. Does CAP allow people to do proficiency flying at night?
A) Night flying is really no more "dangerous" than, say, instrument flying. And people do instrument flying all the time and nobody goes "whoa, thats dangerous. why would you do that?"
B) Night VFR flying in the right weather is quite fun and fairly safe. Obviously, if the fan up front stops working over the inky blankness, it won't be so easy to pick out the "best field" in the dark.
C) The only instrument approach I've ever flown was at night.
D) I have more time in a CAP plane at night than I do during the day, I think....
If I didn't fly at night for CAP, about 1/3rd of the couple hundred hours I racked up would not be in my logbook.
Open mouth. Insert propeller.
It was a transport flight by the way.
I figured nearly as much, and things like transport flights are efficient at night because that puts the asset on site for use at first light. :)
...in a mission scenario, or efficient scheduling of downtime due to getting it to centralized MX and back quickly, etc.
A reportedly brand new pilot, the 22 year old from TX made an emergency landing after losing power in a CAP Cessna.
Video: Good Morning America
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/young-pilot-makes-emergency-landing-in-street-27790133.html (http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/young-pilot-makes-emergency-landing-in-street-27790133.html)
Merged.
excellent job of keeping control of the situation and maintaining control of the aircraft.
perhaps she can be asked to come here to cap talk and give us a first hand description of the experience?
thanks,
bill
Quote from: MIKE on January 05, 2012, 06:32:24 PM
Merged.
Thanks for the merge, I didn't see the other thread until after posting.
Quote from: starshippe on January 05, 2012, 06:57:06 PM
excellent job of keeping control of the situation and maintaining control of the aircraft.
perhaps she can be asked to come here to cap talk and give us a first hand description of the experience?
I will ask her next week when I see her at our meeting. She just might.
Quote from: a2capt on January 05, 2012, 05:08:27 PM
I figured nearly as much, and things like transport flights are efficient at night because that puts the asset on site for use at first light. :)
...in a mission scenario, or efficient scheduling of downtime due to getting it to centralized MX and back quickly, etc.
Wanna bet it was an A9 flight and she got the honors because she's a low hour pilot and needs the time?
Awsome pilot. Unless it was her fault, then she just bought a broken aircraft.
Quote from: Sky_Can on January 10, 2012, 01:31:19 AM
Awsome pilot. Unless it was her fault, then she just bought a broken aircraft.
That makes no sense.
Everything I've heard says engine failure. The only speculation I've heard was on the specific cause of the engine failure but in the event of loss of power that's not her fault and she has no liability.
^ +1. from what I heard, NTSB preliminary report was a blown engine rod. Stuff happens. She performed admirably. Time to move on.
This video has some more recent daylight photos of the damage: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=8490515 (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=8490515)
Quote from: davidsinn on January 10, 2012, 03:10:44 AM
Quote from: Sky_Can on January 10, 2012, 01:31:19 AM
Awsome pilot. Unless it was her fault, then she just bought a broken aircraft.
That makes no sense.
Everything I've heard says engine failure. The only speculation I've heard was on the specific cause of the engine failure but in the event of loss of power that's not her fault and she has no liability.
And if someone is dumb enough to hang some kind of assessment on her, post it here, I'm sure I'd contribute to covering it for her...
Quote from: JeffDG on January 10, 2012, 06:10:15 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on January 10, 2012, 03:10:44 AM
Quote from: Sky_Can on January 10, 2012, 01:31:19 AM
Awsome pilot. Unless it was her fault, then she just bought a broken aircraft.
That makes no sense.
Everything I've heard says engine failure. The only speculation I've heard was on the specific cause of the engine failure but in the event of loss of power that's not her fault and she has no liability.
And if someone is dumb enough to hang some kind of assessment on her, post it here, I'm sure I'd contribute to covering it for her...
If the engine threw a rod there's absolutely nothing she could have done except put the plane on the ground, which she apparently did very well. Nothing to assess there IMHO.
That said, the engine is likely toast - I wonder if they'll pay the $30k+ (? I'm not a pilot but I'm guessing a new Lycoming is $20-30k?) to replace it or if they'll scrap it out.
Here is a link to the NTSB report as it stands:
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/n5vpm43f53vwlg55fiwegr551/W01102012120000.pdf (http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/n5vpm43f53vwlg55fiwegr551/W01102012120000.pdf)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 10, 2012, 06:08:17 PM
This video has some more recent daylight photos of the damage: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=8490515 (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=8490515)
Thanks for the vid! Although every time they said "Civilian Air Patrol" I wanted to bang my head against the desk. Not bringing up volunteer vs civilian vs military or anything like that....just get the name right.
QuoteNight flying is really no more "dangerous" than, say, instrument flying.
Er, well, I'd add that night flying under VMC
can be more dangerous than under IFR amongst terrain or at close to the ground (Think antennas). Those two highly experienced CAP pilots who drilled the CAP plane into a mountain a couple of years ago in California would agree.
Perhaps a better question on your point is "Would you rather lose an engine at night or in IMC?" Both would be awful, but if you break out a thousand feet AGL during the day, I'd probably take that over a night engine failure. Who knows. Either way it would be a gut wrenching experience. The recently plated pilot did a great job.
Met her by chance at one of the CAP displays at Oshkosh.
She was looking to see if she could get a copy of Volunteer because hers hadn't arrived before she left for Wisconsin. She wanted to see her article in print.
She was about to go give a safety seminar on her experience in the FAA forum building. Unfortunately I couldn't attend.
(http://img.tapatalk.com/4b94241c-3b4b-f740.jpg)