Passenger Lands Plane After Pilot Collapses and Dies At the Controls

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "NBC reports that flying instructors at Humberside Airport, near the city of Hull in northeast England, told a passenger who had never flown before how to land a four-seater Cessna 172 after the pilot collapsed and died at the controls. Passenger John Wildey explained to air traffic controllers that he had no flying experience and that the pilot could not control the plane. 'It came down with a bump, a bump, a bump, hit the front end down, I heard some crashing and it's come to a halt,' said Stuart Sykes. 'There were a few sparks and three or four crashes, that must have been the propeller hitting the floor. Then it uprighted again and it came to a stop.' Roads around the airport were closed while two incoming flights to the airport, from Scotland and the Netherlands, were delayed as a result of the incident. The passenger took four passes of the runway, and there were cheers from the control tower when it finally came to a halt on the ground. 'For somebody who is not a pilot but has been around airfields and been a passenger on several occasions to take control is nothing short of phenomenal," said Richard Tomlinson. "He made quite a good landing, actually,' added flight instructor Murray. 'He didn't know the layout of the airplane. He didn't have lights on so he was absolutely flying blind as well.'"

Comments

FAA

[Anonymous Coward]

this wouldn't have happened if Obummer hadn't shut down the government.

Re: FAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Obama has tons of influence in northeastern England.

Re:FAA

[neminem]

No, that's not the meme, get it right. The meme is, "THANKS, Obama!

Re: FAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but Obama can make non-government pilots die with the power of his mind.

Re:FAA

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's not the meme, get it right. The meme is, "THANKS, Obama!

Uhhhh, A: this was in the UK. B: Really? REALLY?

Re: FAA

[Anonymous Coward]

51st state.

Re: FAA

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Puerto Rico.

Re: FAA

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Internets for POS51

Re: FAA

[kwbauer]

but which ones are 52 through 57?

Re: FAA

[Registered Coward v2]

but which ones are 52 through 57?

BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Yukon.

Re: FAA

[shinzawai]

I disagree.....more like Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australia...(North Territory and ACT being territories and not states)

Re:FAA

[TheCarp]

Don't sully this with your.... facts.

Re:FAA

[rhalstead]

Sorry, wrong country. The article clearly states that it was in the UK

Shirley....

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunn was over Unger, and I was over Dunn.

Re:Shirley....

[bobbied]

Are you Over Done or Under Done? Cause I think that's over done...

Great movie for the puns..

Re:Shirley....

[goose-incarnated]

Came here for airplane jokes, not disappointed :)
Roger, roger...

Re:Shirley....

[ncc74656]

Roger, roger...

What's our vector, Victor?

And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical pilots don't die mid-flight. More about pilot?

Re: And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd assume said pilot died of age or something.

Re:And the pilot?

[JWSmythe]

Ya, it's nice that most of the stories don't say a word about the dead guy. He didn't actually die until after the landing, but he was unresponsive before landing.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/512649/20131009/john-wildey-humberside-plane-landing-pilot-ill.htm

The pilot, who has not been named on request of his family, later died. A spokesman for Humberside Police said: "A post mortem is to be undertaken following the sad death of the pilot of a light aircraft which landed safely at Humberside Airport yesterday evening.

Re: And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, but think - is there really much you can say about someone who
a) You're not allowed to identify
b) Their cause of death is unknown

Re:And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical pilots don't die mid-flight. More about pilot?

He must have had the fish.

Re: And the pilot?

[JWSmythe]

"possibly had a stroke"
    "had a history of cardiac problems"
    "was shot in the head"
    "was struck by a bird through the cockpit window"

    Any of those little blurbs, even if not the actual cause of death, would have been very useful.

    And yes, a bird strike on a small plane can be catastrophic.

http://download.aopa.org/images/epilot/120427bird_strike.jpg

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=3712

Re:And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, the likely reason he was unresponsive and didn't die until he reached the airport is that people don't die on airplanes (unless they crash), they die at the airport once they're pronounced dead. It's more a matter of semantics and policy rather than an indication that he was still alive when the plane landed.

Re:And the pilot?

[danceswithtrees]

Oblig joke: Grandpa died quietly in his sleep. Everyone else in plane was screaming.

Re:And the pilot?

[Kjella]

Typical pilots don't die mid-flight.

Humans tend to have a non-zero risk of sudden death, a quick Google search shows that a United Airlines pilot bound for Seattle had a heart attack and eventually died as recently as September 27th. It just becomes painfully obvious if that pilot is the only one qualified to fly the plane, but it's hardly unique. After all there are a lot of small passenger planes going places with one pilot and no crew, if the pilot has a medical emergency there aren't really any alternatives..

Re: And the pilot?

[Obfuscant]

"possibly had a stroke" "had a history of cardiac problems" "was shot in the head" "was struck by a bird through the cockpit window"

Isn't it nice when the media refrains from absolute wild-ass random speculation and waits for the facts? Wouldn't it be nice if /. posters could be trained to do the same?

Re: And the pilot?

[JWSmythe]

Well, if I read the story right, it was a friend up with him, and the family was notified. It would simply be up to the reporter to ask a few questions, like reporters are suppose to. Hell, they got the play by play of how he got the plane on the ground.

Privacy and avoiding speculation isn't an excuse for piss-poor reporting.

Re: And the pilot?

[amicusNYCL]

Any of those little blurbs, even if not the actual cause of death, would have been very useful.

You watch Fox News, don't you?

"I don't care if it's true, I just want someone to tell me something."

Re:And the pilot?

[interval1066]

I'm just going by memory here but it seems like I've been hearing about pilots dying behind the stick a lot lately. Or maybe they are dying at a constant rate but I'm more aware of it. I dunno.

Re: And the pilot?

[Obfuscant]

Privacy is a very good reason for avoiding speculation and not reporting all the details immediately. And avoiding speculation is a very good way to avoid piss-poor reporting in the first place.

The fact that the reporter didn't immediately satisfy your every burning question about what happened to other people doesn't automatically make it piss-poor reporting, either.

Re: And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's different from CNN, the network that gave us the "Something is happening" Boston bombing moments exactly how?

Re:And the pilot?

[Libertarian001]

I told the longer version of this joke (bus driver instead of pilot) to a friend who's father had passed a few days before. (yes, I asked if I could make a joke). He started laughing. Way more than appropriate. Turns out his dad actually was a bus driver. (but no, that's not how/where he died).

Re: And the pilot?

[couchslug]

Aircraft are toys of the rich, and many of them are quite old. General aviation isn't a young mans game.

Re: And the pilot?

[Idarubicin]

It would simply be up to the reporter to ask a few questions, like reporters are suppose to.

Shockingly, in many countries, it is still legal for the family of a recently-deceased private person to tell reporters to fuck off. And a few reporters still feel enough responsibility to the truth not to just print wild-ass guesses from random bystanders.

Re: And the pilot?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Isn't it nice when the media refrains from absolute wild-ass random speculation and waits for the facts? Wouldn't it be nice if /. posters could be trained to do the same?

hey, man, that's why Slashdot runs stories a week late - to avoid all that realtime misinformation.

Re: And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Inacurate comments are for uninformed, and many of them are on /.

Take another look see. You can get a decent little brand new plane for about the same price as a loaded mid sized car these days ($30K-50). Much cheaper ones can be had if you want a more "windy" experience. What you say was true about 20 years ago when the lawyers were spending all their time suing all the light aircraft companies out of existence. That is no longer the case.

General aviation is a young man's game, but only if he can find a job that will pay for the hours. Aviation is so cert heavy now you basically need to pay to work for the first year (the cost of your private/instrument/instructor/commercial ratings), before you can work for free as an instructor, and then work for poverty level wages as a regional/charter pilot. It's even worse if you want to be a rotocraft pilot. Aircraft mechanics make more than many of the pilots now. I should know I am a aircraft mechanic by trade and a pilot for fun. (Though not that young anymore).

Re: And the pilot?

[gl4ss]

but only if he can find a job that will pay for the hours

..so what you're saying is that it's not a game for young men but a profession.

that cessna isn't cheap.

Re:And the pilot?

[radarskiy]

So a man dies in the aftermath of a crash landing by an unlicensed pilot. In the US the civil suit for wrongful death would already be scheduled.

Re: And the pilot?

[tlhIngan]

Aircraft are toys of the rich, and many of them are quite old. General aviation isn't a young mans game.

FALSE Probably the worst stereotype that exists in general aviation today.

It's expensive, yes, but it's not TOO bad - a reasonable used plane can be had for the low 5 digits, and many, many pilots do split ownership. Or they rent.

All in all, you do want to have a decent income - most pilots are middle income families - not rich 1 percenters. Most pilots also don't fly too much - under 100 hours a year. So split ownership or rental is actually very beneficial - the more an airplane flies, the cheaper it is to run (they want to run - the maintenance and everything goes way down if the engine's constantly turning and burning and such). Top end prices for a fully loaded brand new Cessna is probably around a quarter million.

And that's ignoring the biggest growth segment - light sport aircraft. They're currently expensive new, but the costs are way lower.

Now, if you want to talk jets that cost $1-2M, sure, they're for the rich and famous, but the regular avgas sucking sky-hole puncher is well within reach of someone with a decent salary. In fact, most /. readers working in IT probably make much more than the existing pilot population.

Learning to fly isn't too bad - all in all, probably $10,000 or so. It's cheaper if you can save up and do it in a month, more expensive if you have to spread it out over a couple of years. Or do light sport (you can upgrade it to full private pilot's later).

The benefits are, however, immense. If you could cut down a 10 hour road trip to 3 hours, wouldn't that be fun? And instead of endless highways and dirt, you get to see sights that few ever get to see. Avoiding big commercial airports for the little ones can often put you closer to your destination than flying commercial and dealing with security, lineups, etc. Heck, if you're particularly avid, you can fly into the neighbouring state for breakfast, fly back and have lots of time before lunch (many people do - they're called fly-ins, though the crowds are usually so fun they stay a few hours and end up having lunch as well).

As a career, though, being a pilot generally stinks - learning to fly and getting all your ratings, and you're barely making any rent. Finally get right seat at a region carrier and it's in the low 20s it's a joke. The big airlines aren't any better - most /. people are looking at people with 15-20 years seniority just to get the same salary.

However, if you don't want a career, with its lousy hours and routes until you build up seniority, flying for fun is actually quite affordable. And when the weather's beautiful, there's nothing like popping in the plane, flying to a nearby city and getting takeout for dinner after work.

And if you're a city dweller, night flying is so ... serene and even when you're just 2500' high (I was flying local area), you;re above the light pollution and can see the stars. (And by local, I meant flying to cities that would normally take 40 minutes by car take barely 10 by air - or just when you get up, it's time to descend).

Expensive? It's one of the more costlier hobbies, but you can find golfers and scuba divers who'll plunk down huge cash on their equipment and training as well. Ditto car enthusiasts. Maybe even stamp collectors. Or gun enthusiasts (yes, guns can be had for a few hundred dollars, or many thousands). The only "expensive" stereotype comes from the fact that there's no realy "cheap" option (though many have earned flights by working or volunteering at their local airports). It's I suppose like Apple products - they don't make low end cheap stuff.

Hell, there's always the Coast Guard, and many civilian organizations that can subsidize flight training too (usually for SAR, firefighting, etc). It is a very social thing though - you cannot just fly and leave, you'll need to interact with people.

Re: And the pilot?

[kwbauer]

Well "Fox News" is 7 letters and CNN is 3 letters. That is a difference of 4 letters.

Re: And the pilot?

[OhANameWhatName]

in many countries, it is still legal for the family of a recently-deceased private person to tell reporters to fuck off

Surely that would be reportable?

Re: And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is BS. Costs of owning and maintaining a plane are extremely high. The only people who do it are people with so much discretionary income they don't really care about losing thousands or tens of thousands annually, and that's the ones who rent it out when they're not using it.

Flying is so expensive, it's a rich man's hobby. Here in Palo Alto it's all the Googlers following Larry Page's lead.

Yeah, the people who get into piloting as a profession generally are middle class.

Re:And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Typical pilots don't die mid-flight. More about pilot?"

This one was an atypical pilot.

Re:And the pilot?

[wonkey_monkey]

Humans tend to have a non-zero risk of sudden death

100%, really. You're alive, you're alive, you're alive, you're dead.

Re: And the pilot?

[Alioth]

Rubbish. I started flying when I was 24. I'm not rich (pretty typical middle class). One of the guys in our flying club when I lived in Houston was a cable guy. He owned a modest Cessna 150 which he kept looking very nice, and made some sacrifices such as not driving a brand new car. Another owner of a Cessna 150 that I knew out there was a lineman for the power company. Both of those guys are as far from "rich" as you can get, but by not spending on conspicuous consumption they could afford it.

While you certainly can't go out and buy a jet or even many decent light twins on a normal income, there's actually a great deal of GA that's available to people on normal incomes, and quite a bit available to working class incomes. Where I live now fuel is a lot more expensive, but I can still afford to own a light aircraft on a pretty typical middle class income.

Re: And the pilot?

[delt0r]

Flying is about as expensive as skydiving. Its well within reach if you spend that beer money on flying rather than beer. When i was flying with my own money as a teenager it was costing me a few 100 per month for the 3-5 hours of flying time.

Re: And the pilot?

[murdocj]

$50k? That's greater that the total cost of all the cars I've owned in the past 35 years (and yes, I buy new, not used).

Re: And the pilot?

[Sigg3.net]

My SO's grandfather was a driver for govt officials. One day a little before retirement he was driving, told the official that he had to stop, parked the car and died.

Moral of the story is, it's rude and inconsiderate to just die mid-air.

Re:And the pilot?

[TheCarp]

So airplanes are like a bureaucrat's version of Schrodinger's cat box?

Re:And the pilot?

[TheCarp]

Excuse me, but we have a nurse on the line who has a ward full of patients who have been on respirators for several weeks who would beg to differ. Given that 50% of all healthcare spending is in the last 5 years of life, I think the numbers would disagree on the "sudden" thing.

Re: And the pilot?

[gsslay]

"He may have been shot by a passing UFO's laser death ray." *

Happy now?

* Totally unfounded speculation that's almost certainly false.

Re: And the pilot?

[Wootery]

You can get a decent little brand new plane for about the same price as a loaded mid sized car these days ($30K-50).

In this case, the plane was leased by Flying Fox Aviation, based at Bagby Airfield near Thirsk in North Yorkshire, to Sandtoft Airfield and Flying School .

Re: And the pilot?

[dcw3]

Aircraft are toys of the rich, and many of them are quite old. General aviation isn't a young mans game.

Many pilots come from the military, and most AF bases have Aero Clubs. Having received my license at one, at the age of 29 (back in 1987), I'll share my experience. Cost to rent a Cessna 152 - 10 hours of time (including fuel) = $250. Cost for an instructor = $11/hour. You can purchase a small plane for the cost of a medium priced car, though insurance, and maintenance costs can be expensive. So, you don't have to be a one-percenter to own one, but you do need to have some not insignificant disposable income. Many pilots don't own the aircraft that they fly...you can rent them. As for age, to state that it's not a young mans game is misleading. While there are certainly many older pilots, passing a flight physical is required to maintain your right to be pilot in command. It's not like blue hair drivers in Florida who should have had their licenses yanked years earlier.

Re: And the pilot?

[dcw3]

He didn't say cheap, but if a $30K-50 mid sized car = "toys of the rich" (as stated by the GP) then I guess anyone who buys a small boat or second car is rich in your opinion. Also, many pilots don't own the vehicles that they fly...it's not necessary.

Re: And the pilot?

[dcw3]

I hate replying to an AC, but this one's commentary is flat out incorrect. It doesn't cost tens of thousands. You don't need to own the plane to fly.

Re: And the pilot?

[iJed]

That just isn't true. I own a small share in a Cessna 152 (much like he plane in the story) and am currently building a two seat aerobatic kit plane. The Cessna share cost me ~$700 and I budget to fly it on average once every two weeks during the weekend. The total value of that little Cessna is about $20K and there are plenty around like it. I am nowhere near what you would classify as rich either.

Re:And the pilot?

[Barsteward]

what crash landing??

Re:And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shoot 'em in the head. That'll make it "sudden."

Re: And the pilot?

[nitehawk214]

"possibly had a stroke"
        "had a history of cardiac problems"
        "was shot in the head"
        "was struck by a bird through the cockpit window"

Isn't it nice when the media refrains from absolute wild-ass random speculation and waits for the facts? Wouldn't it be nice if /. posters could be trained to do the same?

It would be easier to train them to land airplanes.

Re: And the pilot?

[huge]

I'm not sure about the currency you got there, but it doesn't really matter: 100 currency units is cheap for 3-5 hours of flying, no matter what currency! I'd have to pay almost 3-5 times more than that for flying.

On the other hand 100 EUR will get me 3-5 skydives in Europe or 100 USD will get me 3-5 skydives in US.

Re: And the pilot?

[Idarubicin]

Surely that would be reportable?

In the interest of complete and balanced coverage, The Sun would like to acknowledge that our reporter was described by assorted bystanders and family members as "a bloodsucking parasite", "a borderline-illiterate carrion-feeder", and a "worthless asshole".

Amusing, but probably not really helpful.

Re: And the pilot?

[almitydave]

I'm not sure about the currency you got there, but it doesn't really matter: 100 currency units is cheap for 3-5 hours of flying, no matter what currency! I'd have to pay almost 3-5 times more than that for flying.

Yeah, it's almost as if he meant to say that it cost him 3-5 times 100...

When i was flying with my own money as a teenager it was costing me a few 100 per month for the 3-5 hours of flying time.

Re: And the pilot?

[chuckinator]

This whole line of conjecture is completely ignoring costs that are mandatory in general aviation that most people ignore or cheap out on with cars: regulations.

That plane doesn't run on 92 octane. You're going to be paying through the nose for jet fuel.

You're required to maintain a maintenance and operating log of the craft. You can't just "oh, I'll get the oil changed a few thousand miles more this time" because the local aviation regulatory body will ground you.

Maintenance and operations must be carried out be qualified and licensed experts. Joe Schmo at the local grease monkey can change your brake pads for cheap, but you can't take that approach with general aviation.

Insurance. Yeah, it's required. It's really expensive considering the increased risk of manned flight vs. manned ground vehicles.

Oh, you also need the time and money to prepare and submit flight plans of a sufficient level of quality to have the clearance to even taxi to the runway for takeoff.

Re: And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not really saying much, we don't even know how many cars that is.

But yes, all of my cars have been in the $10k to $15k range, and it always throws me for a loop when I hear people talking about $30k to $50k cars so casually.

Re: And the pilot?

[Reziac]

Where I used to live, the local college offered an evening class that cost something like $42 for the book and $100 for the instructor, plus so much an hour for in-the-air time, if you stayed with it that far.

Re: And the pilot?

[JWSmythe]

And then they could simply write "the family had no comment." That's the friendly translation of cursing phone calls, hangups, doors slammed in the reporters face, and even threats of violence if the reporter doesn't leave.

You've done a lot of reporting, haven't you? You should talk to your editor, it seems that you have a lot to learn.

Re:And the pilot?

[JWSmythe]

Well, according to the report, he did mess up the prop on the runway. His estate could (in theory) sue him for damages to the plane. I doubt they would though. He brought the deceased back in one piece, rather than needing to collect parts spread across the countryside.

Re: And the pilot?

[JWSmythe]

Shit, if that's what the survivor said, I'd be happy if it were in the story.

As the editor would ask, "What's your source?"

Re: And the pilot?

[Anonymous Coward]

*supposed to
*play-by-play

Re:And the pilot?

[radarskiy]

Okay, strictly speaking "crash landing" is not an actual aviation term. But this was definitely a forced emergency landing.

A GOOD LANDING !!

[Anonymous Coward]

They say !!

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Yes.

The proverb among pilots is "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing".

Professional pilots obviously hold themselves to a higher standard than that, but for a first-time flyer that landing met the requirements completely.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, you're doing a good job if at all times you keep the plane between the two lights on the wingtips.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Zak3056]

Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. Any landing you can walk away from and reuse the aircraft is a great one!

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[tlhIngan]

The proverb among pilots is "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing".

Professional pilots obviously hold themselves to a higher standard than that, but for a first-time flyer that landing met the requirements completely.

The quote is extended among pilots to "and a great landing is where you can use the plane again".

That said, the aeronautical term for this is called a Pinch-Hitter (taken from baseball). Google brings up many courses (online and off), videos, articles etc of being a pinch-hitter pilot. You'll find most are for small GA aircraft where single pilot operations are common.

If you are a pilot, there are plenty of resources to which you can print out to help your passengers in the unlikely event they need to take over - these sheets include instructions on how to radio for help (basically, how to use the radio) and what to radio for help on. Your passenger briefing that you do before starting up should include instructions on how to work the radio as well.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

The proverb among pilots is "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing".

Professional pilots obviously hold themselves to a higher standard than that, but for a first-time flyer that landing met the requirements completely.

By this logic it was a good landing for everyone except the original pilot.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Anonymous Coward]

The second pilot wasn't a first-time flyer. He just had no experience with this particular type of aircraft.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Frankie70]

Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Bovius]

The summary eludes to it, but the articles I've read so far on it fail to mention that the landing happened *when it was dark out*. I haven't seen a specific time of landing yet, but it's looking like it was well after sunset, which is why the note about not having lights on is so noteworthy.

Untrained landings under pressure are heroic feats as it is. Doing so as it's getting progressively darker outside turns it up to 11.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Any passengers that have had some time messing with simulators might also have a better clue and perhaps the one to have sit up front, even if they've never flown the real deal. The Cessna 172 is pretty common in civil aviation, so most flight and layout/instrumentation models of it closer to accurate than not - or at least from people I've heard claim to be real pilots. (I'm not a real pilot, but in sims it seems to be one of the easier planes to fly once trimmed and using throttle to do most of the climbing or descending. At least in my sim experience, with right flap setting and kept fairly level at just under 500FPM descent around 68 knots, the plane practically lands itself.)

That's not to say all sim models are good or accurate though. Some of the videogame or helicopter ones might get you killed.

And noobs (if not colorblind) should keep in mind that most indicators on the instrument panel are color coded like on anything else. Green is generally good, yellow advises caution, and red tends to be bad. Aircraft controls are also like steering a car at highway speed, a little bit of input tends to be just enough.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[camperdave]

Maybe it wasn't the lights. Maybe he had peril sensitive sunglasses on.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Obfuscant]

Untrained landings under pressure are heroic feats as it is. Doing so as it's getting progressively darker outside turns it up to 11.

Actually, flying at night is much easier than in the day, if you're anywhere near civilization and the lights they bring with them. It only becomes really hazardous if you're over a large patch of unlit terrain and you lose spatial awareness.

It is SO much easier to find the airport at night when it is all lit up like a Christmas tree. You aren't looking at every empty space trying to determine if it is an airport or not. When you're lined up with the runway, you know you're lined up with the runway. It's unmistakable. If the ground controller turns on the rabbits (instrument approach lights) there is NO chance you will not find the airport. That's what those lights are there for -- to help pilots flying in the soup find the airport. In the clear at night, it's lovely and simply amazing.

Yes, there is a tendency to descend early and smack the ground before the runway starts. This guy had 1) someone on the radio telling him when to descend, he wasn't using his own judgement, and 2) he had a long runway for a small plane. It doesn't matter if he landed deliberately long.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones you run away from are sketchy. (fly 40 year old military aircraft)

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, if you're eyesight isn't perfect then all those bright lights are just a bunch of dazzling bright objects. If you know what you are looking for, no doubt a runway looks like a runway. If not, then not so much.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[bitt3n]

The proverb among pilots is "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing".

wow paraplegics must make terrible pilots

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Peristaltic]

Agreed it's easier to fly at night, but landings without some kind of aid (VASI / PAPI) can be a real pain in the ass if you're out of practice. Without the aids, unless you do it all the time, setting up a flare over a dark patch of concrete and waiting to be surprised when the wheels touch is not a comfortable feeling.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[wonkey_monkey]

The bit from Die Hard 2 is "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing".

FTFY.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[delt0r]

My instructor would strongly disagree. As does the FAA. And the people who have to pay for plane overhauls.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[dcw3]

I'll disagree. At night depth perception is lost (there are plenty of articles available on this), so queues to your AGL height are lost. I have a few hundred daytime landings under my belt, and the nighttime lands definitely raise the pucker factor.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[dcw3]

I had several instructors (got my ticket back in the '80s), and most all of them said it at one time or another. I'd be amazed if yours hasn't at least heard the phrase.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Reziac]

I want to die peacefully in my bed like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

Re:A GOOD LANDING !!

[Obfuscant]

I'll disagree. At night depth perception is lost (there are plenty of articles available on this), so queues to your AGL height are lost.

You don't have a queue of AGLs, you have just one. And your depth perception isn't lost, you just might not be able to judge absolute distances well. That's normal during the daytime, too. That's why a sensitive altimeter is a requirement for VFR flight. That's only if you really care what your altitude is and not just "somewhere above ground". The guy who was being coached into this landing didn't need to know his absolute height.

It really isn't that hard to keep a plane at night above 0 AGL. Really. I've done it. And when I want to keep it at 2000 MSL, I never do it by reference to the ground.

I have a few hundred daytime landings under my belt, and the nighttime lands definitely raise the pucker factor.

Yes, nighttime landings are more interesting, but landings are only a part of flying. Flying at night, in general, is easier, for the reasons I gave.

Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always a wrong week to stop.

Re:Well then...

[Bartles]

Have you been kicked in the head with an iron boot?

Re:Well then...

[mirix]

Bet the pilot is kicking himself for having the fish.

Re:Well then...

[bmk67]

So tell me, Timmy, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bet the pilot is kicking himself for having the fish.

I'll take that bet...

And since he's dead, he's not kicking anyone, so I'll take your money too. Thank you.

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, yes. But I didn't feel it at the time.

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome, I just watched that movie a few months ago!

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever seen a grown man naked?

Money!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick! Make a movie about it! It's such an original story!

That's just plane awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

So he basically winged it and hoped for the best?

Re:That's just plane awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

He flew the coop! He propelled the wings!

Not a pilot but...

[KPexEA]

He did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Re:Not a pilot but...

[Anonymous Coward]

STAY THIRTY MY FRIENDS!!!

Re:Not a pilot but...

[istartedi]

STAY THIRTY MY FRIENDS!!!

You want me to come in on runway 30? OK, what's the vector, Victor? Two-niner-zero? Surely you're joking...

Re:Not a pilot but...

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I am not joking... And don't call me Shirley.

Re:Not a pilot but...

[Anonymous Coward]

i bet he was sweating buckets

Mythbusters

[Anonymous Coward]

Mythbusters had an episode like this. Basically they stuck Adam and Jaime in a commercial cockpit simulator with no prior familiarization or training and tested to see if they could successfully land a passenger plane with just flight controller coaching. They both were able to do it fairly easily.

I'm sure if you find yourself in this situation in real life, you have the additional element of stress to contend with, but mythbusters did attempt to show that landing a plane isn't all that complicated with modern controls.

Re: Mythbusters

[Anonymous Coward]

No one gives a fuck. Adam and Jamie are facing the prospect of a horrible burning death if they fuck up, simply having to throw a few quarters into the machine and try again. Idk about you, but I think real life would affect performance.

Re: Mythbusters

[Anonymous Coward]

Adam and Jamie are facing the prospect of a horrible burning death

Coulda just said "I'm not a fan of that show." Jeez, man.

And this is here because..

[s.petry]

If the autopilot had landed the plane, or the ATC had used RC prowess to land the plane it would be tech news. If it was political, I could see it since that's a good topic for those of us more Philosophically and Politically charged. A feel good story? Just like I can find on a bazillion other sites? Really?

Re:And this is here because..

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you.

Re:And this is here because..

[s.petry]

This is not a troll, it is a valid statement and question regarding the health of the site. Your differing opinion is not justification for modding a comment a "troll", read your guidance.

Re:And this is here because..

[MRe_nl]

Cessna 127 doesn't have autopilot AFAIK, a Garmin (display upgrade) at best /pedantic nerd mode.

Re:And this is here because..

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm...yes. But it gets annoying when people constantly point it out.

Re:And this is here because..

[s.petry]

I pointed it out exactly 1 time. There were 6 posts when I responded to this thread and none of them mentioned the same thing.

Re:And this is here because..

[s.petry]

That was kind of the point, which is why I asked why this story was here. I expect to find it on cnn, fox, msnbc, but not here.

Re:And this is here because..

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a troll. You're trolling for a reaction, that's what the word means.
It's also not a valid question at all. In fact, I don't even understand the basis of your question. When did Slashdot ever deal exclusively with technology? I've been reading the site since 1998, and I'm sure this story would have just as likely been posted then too. In fact, probably more likely, since back then the only real criteria was that either CmdrTaco or Hemos thought it was interesting.

Re:And this is here because..

[camperdave]

It's here because it is a nerd's dream disaster scenario. Jocks dream of making a triple play to win the game. Nerds dream of being at the controls of a plane in distress and bringing it in to a safe landing.

Re:And this is here because..

[s.petry]

A nerds dream is not to try and land a plane, a nerds dream is to land a space ship (or get laid, depending on who's stereo type you prefer).

Re:And this is here because..

[s.petry]

"Slashdot News for Nerds", not "News to make you feel good". I don't see other stories here of similar nature, like the guy rescuing a cat from a tree.

No, I'm not trying to get reaction. I posted my opinion in answer to my own question. I never ever post for reaction. You can review my post history if you like, and should have done that prior to making a false accusation. I post my opinion and statements of fact.

Posting for reaction would be critiquing the guys landing and claiming if they were of a particular race they would have done better or worse. Or claiming it's "obama's fault" like some other poster did.

It's not difficult to see that you and the mod are wrong. If the story was accepted for publishing and someone's ass hurts because it's questioned too bad.

Re:And this is here because..

[Obfuscant]

Yes, C172s can have autopilots. It depends on how much money you want to spend. The "display upgrade" you refer to might be called the G1000, a glass cockpit flight system that replaces a large number of other instruments on the panel. Combined with an autopilot, this turns flying the airplane into a full-scale video game.

Re:And this is here because..

[flimflammer]

They've taken the "News for nerds" lines out everywhere except for one place that is only seen for a fraction of a second anymore because of pedants like you who feel the need to criticize every article that deviates from your perceived expectations of the site.

You don't need to be the person doing it in every article, but there is always someone. You just happened to draw the card today. We're sorry Slashdot doesn't base all its article decisions on what your personal beliefs are regarding the nature of this website. You're welcome to go to the firehose section and condemn any articles you disagree with appearing on the site. Otherwise you're just going to have to get over it or find a new website that caters to your specific needs.

Re:And this is here because..

[s.petry]

People are also free to express an alternative opinion instead of using Mod points to squelch and censor opinions that they do not agree with. Mod points are not supposed to be used for censorship purposes. When you take a valid opinion and mod them down/troll/flamebait, that is censoring. Read the Mod guidelines.

Re:And this is here because..

[flimflammer]

I don't speak to the Troll moderation done on your post, but angry/annoyed/upset people will do things they're not supposed to when they have the power to do them. The correct moderation, should any have been applied at all, should have probably been -1, Offtopic. The article comments section is not the place to discuss Slashdot politics. I don't think you could reasonably convince anyone that "this article doesn't belong here" is in the spirit of discussion the comments section is supposed to promote.

But I digress, continuing this will get neither of us anywhere. We all get moderation we don't deserve because some egghead thinks his opinion is more valid than ours. It's just a fact of life here that is never going to change as long as users have the power to moderate.

Re:And this is here because..

[Anonymous Coward]

so your argument is that you should instead have been modded off-topic or redundant?

Re:And this is here because..

[serviscope_minor]

Your differing opinion is not justification for modding a comment a "troll", read your guidance.

Yeah it's getting trollish these days. Half of the threads seem to have someone who failed to read the last half of the website tagline ("stuff that matters"). Basically it's crap.

The website was always (originally) Rob Malda's blog. He posted stuff that was interesting. Mostly tech, but not always. It's still essentially the same site.

Anyway, some guy operates complex and unfamiliar piece of machinery with only remote assistance is an interesting subject and suitable for nerds. Turns out there are quite a lot of aeroplane nerds on slashdot and they've come out of the woodwork to provide interesting and insightful comments.

Especially the comments about flaring. Having flown gliders, I never even though about that aspect of it. Landing them is quite different in that you by default come in too shallow, and you modulate the air brake to descend faster. Taking care of course not to drop like a stone through the wind shear.

Oh and all the comments on the relative merits and usefulness of flight simulators.

So yeah, I'd say that a post half way down on an already healthy and technically insightful thread whining about the off topicness is at best off topic and at worst a troll.

And now I'm flaming you, so successful troll was successful.

Re:And this is here because..

[Lithdren]

Oh I agree, you shouldn't be modded troll. You should be modded off-topic because nobody cares if you feel this belongs on the site or not.

Get over yourself.

Re:And this is here because..

[dcw3]

A nerds dream is not to try and land a plane, a nerds dream is to land a space ship (or get laid, depending on who's stereo type you prefer).

YMMV. Knowing that I'd never have the opportunity to land a space ship, the next best thing was landing an airplane. Don't like the article, don't read it. And at a minimum, don't rage about it...it tends to get you modded down.

Slashdot blocking ivpn ?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Disclaimer: this post is offtopic - though good job on the passenger, incidentally, and so on)

I'm using iVPN for all my browsing - and trying to reach Slashdot through their Swiss gateway is yielding a timeout (the NL gateway is working fine - for now).

What the fuck, slashdot ? first Tor, now VPN services ? If you're afraid of abuse, simply set the comment section as read-only when going through Tor/a VPN, except for logged-in users.

This is the last place where I would expect this kind of nonsense.

Re:Slashdot blocking ivpn ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're afraid of abuse, simply set the comment section as read-only when going through Tor/a VPN, except for logged-in users.

Nooooo, don't do that. Using a VPN is the only way I can avoid getting those idiotic "Slow down cowboy! It's been 3 hours, 12 minutes since you last posted a comment" errors.

Re:Slashdot blocking ivpn ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been IP banned before for "excessive bad posting" because essentially all my posts on a political topic get modded to -1 by moderators who feel the need to censor anyone that has a different political opinion from themselves. I don't feel like I violated the Slashdot submission guidelines in anyway. Switching to a different proxy is the only way I can post anymore after that.

Re:Slashdot blocking ivpn ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's weird. I've been banned with the horrible pinkpage (cannot view anything, only the damn ban page) and I have Excellent karma on three accounts.

Re:Slashdot blocking ivpn ?

[Roachie]

Wait, there is a pink page?

Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[Latent Heat]

I mean, is the landing "flare" really that hard?

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[NatasRevol]

No it's not.

But if you've never even had that discussion before, much less training, yeah it might be.
Probably why he had to make 4 passes before landing. Trying to pull back too much, too early.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[X0563511]

Don't forget he had no lights (and this was some tiny plane, so no ILS, glidescope etc).

Damn fine job considering.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[spmkk]

Actually, a lot of C172s are ILS-equipped. Most pilots do their IFR training in this or a similar plane.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[LifesABeach]

Cut that Sky Hawk right seater's shirt off his back! That fully qualifies as a "First Solo Flight!"

My condolences to the family of the Aviator that passed away.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[NatasRevol]

He's probably better off not having ILS/glidescope/etc. Too much to try to figure out & you'll hit the ground too hard.

Lights don't really help. As long as the runway was lit up, the visibility should have been fine.

It's not like 1 or 2 small lights on the wings make a real difference until you're taxiing.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[slimjim8094]

He almost certainly did have ILS, actually, but you'd have to be crazy to try and explain shooting an approach to someone who's never flown before. Much better to say "fly at the runway, once you're over it cut the engine and try not to land".

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[slimjim8094]

Actually, it is. It's the hardest part of learning to land, which is the hardest part of learning to fly. It doesn't take much to screw up the flare, and it doesn't take much of a screwed-up flare to royally screw up a landing.

Example: If you're going too fast and you flare, you'll "balloon" off the runway. Now you'll be 15 feet off and bleeding airspeed - fast. Unless you are pretty comfortable with flying, you'll stall up there and drop like a stone onto the runway.

If I were the instructor, I wouldn't even risk it. I'd tell him to come in fast (~75 knots "dirty") to keep him well away from stall speed and just fly it onto the runway. He had plenty of runway (~7200 feet, C172 needs ~2000 to be comfortable) and nobody was worried about damaging the plane so a nice graceful flare is wholly unnecessary. It sounds like this is pretty much what they did, because he had a prop strike.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely right -- the C-172 may very well be the most common civilian instrument training platform of any aircraft out there.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut that Sky Hawk right seater's shirt off his back! That fully qualifies as a "First Solo Flight!"
My condolences to the family of the Aviator that passed away.

Not a good solo when you lose your only passenger! ;-)

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[Registered Coward v2]

I mean, is the landing "flare" really that hard?

Considering the 172 is a high wing plane it is a bit more challenging to flare than say a Cherokee; as a novice getting in down with no loss of life and no serious damage is pretty amazing. As the saying goes, any damn fool can takeoff; it takes skill to land afterward.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[wonkey_monkey]

"fly at the runway, once you're over it cut the engine and try not to land".

Iiiii don't want you talking me down.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[LifesABeach]

"Solo" means, "alone." :]

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[dcw3]

Depends. I did my first solo with 11 hours. When there's no crosswind (so you don't have to slip or crab), and you know not to flare too soon, or too late, then it's simple. Knowing when to flare...approach speed, and height, can be learned quickly. But for someone who's never experienced it, like this passenger, I'd say they were very lucky.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but landings the easiest think your allways going to land eventually.

Now landing Safely ah that's another story

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[RavenLrD20k]

Actually, that's about the best way to describe it. Keep the nose dead on the center-line of the runway, get your airspeed low and kill the engine once your wheels are over the blacktop. You should now be very near touching the blacktop. At this point, you're on glide-path and forcing the plane to descend... by trying NOT to land under these conditions, the instinct is to pull up which gives the requisite flare to keep from nosing in. Hopefully, you don't pull too hard and force the tail into the ground, but otherwise a very accurate description for a newb.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[X0563511]

The landing light can certainly help you judge your height at the critical moment.

Re:Geez, crumped the nose wheel and the prop!

[NatasRevol]

If you've practiced and know when/where that critical moment is.

First time ever flying a plane? Not so much.

Mythbusters . . . hah!

[Latent Heat]

Gee, Adam and Jaime are essentially geeks who are used to following technical directions -- what is so hard in that?

Re:Mythbusters . . . hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? Unless you know what the "passenger" was, you have no real frame of reference. Was he/she a doctor, programmer, architect, work-shy bum? Furthermore, a simulator doesn't bother you, you fuck up, doesn't matter. A shitty little Cessna with zero auto controls and instant death on a a mistake is a hell of a lot more stressful and panic inducing than sitting in a large computer/gaming rig.

Re:Mythbusters . . . hah!

[vux984]

A shitty little Cessna with zero auto controls and instant death on a a mistake is a hell of a lot more stressful and panic inducing than sitting in a large computer/gaming rig.

Its REALLY not that hard.

I remember playing MS Flight simulator on my grandfathers IBM XT with hercules monochrome graphics, and we were, after some practice able to land a cessna.

Now before you rightfully mock me... in practice years later we got to actually fly a cessna, and in reality its much easier to land. (at least in half decent conditions). There's lots more feedback to what you are doing and its far easier to line up the runway in the real life than it was in the game.

In other words, its not as hard as you'd think it is, and its actually easier in hte real world than in the simulators IMO.

At least in good weather / good visibility.

Re:Mythbusters . . . hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, its not as hard as you'd think it is, and its actually easier in hte real world than in the simulators IMO.

Better graphics and frame rate too...

Re:Mythbusters . . . hah!

[bobbied]

Totally agree. Landing Micro$oft simulator is much harder than the real thing. And yes, I've done both many times.

The simulator is great for procedure training (how to shoot approaches, do procedure turns, holding patterns, navigation etc.) but it sucks when you get close to the ground. In a real airplane, you get all sorts of feedback, motion, sounds, visual and control feel that make it easier to handle the plane. Doing procedure training during flight is harder than necessary and a really expensive way to learn about the process, it's quicker (and cheaper) to become proficient in a simulator before you go fly them.

Re:Mythbusters . . . hah!

[MrDoh!]

"after some practice able to land a cessna." Aye! And good weather/good visitibility, this guy did it as it was mostly dark, and Humberside Airport is notorious for having nasty bumpy air around it. It's very hilly around there, with just the runway the flat bit. For a long time the only reason the airport remained open was to support the North Sea Rigs, and it mostly handled helicopters. Occasional flying sheds from HUY to Amsterdam to get to somewhere useful, wasn't much going on. When it did expand and get the larger planes/holiday makers, it got well known as being bumpy on the last minute of descent, and winds coming in from the NW appeared to catch a few new pilots out, never saw so many aborted landings for the first few weeks of the bigger planes landing. That's commercial pilots being caught off-guard with the winds. No doubt about it, guy was lucky, kept his head on, did a good job not to make a mess of it.

Re:Mythbusters . . . hah!

[camperdave]

A shitty little Cessna with zero auto controls and instant death on a a mistake is a hell of a lot more stressful and panic inducing than sitting in a large computer/gaming rig.

Its REALLY not that hard.

I remember playing MS Flight simulator on my grandfathers IBM XT with hercules monochrome graphics, and we were, after some practice able to land a cessna.

And I was able to bullseye womp-rats in my T-16 back home.

Re:Mythbusters . . . hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

"...after some practice able to land a cessna." Presumably with an instructor in the other seat. This guy had a dying pilot in the other seat; a somewhat different scenario.

Re:Mythbusters . . . hah!

[aaaaaaargh!]

Another difference to the real world is that they were not afraid to die. If you remain calm it's easy, but outside the simulator in reality you might panik.

Re:Mythbusters . . . hah!

[Thrill Science]

"....and after some practice"
HA!
This guy didn't get to practice.

John Wildey?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I sort of expected that his name would be John Berry.

Ground point five

[Latent Heat]

I guess the one thing you need to know about the radio is the international distress channel of 121.5? I am told that this channel is monitored, even by pilots in the air in case someone is in trouble and they need to relay instructions?

For a more complex aircraft, maybe the next thing is a pencil and paper to copy some checklists? For all but the simplest GA aircraft, you are probably going to need to have a bunch of switches in the right positions?

Re:Ground point five

[_merlin]

IMHO small jetliners are easier to land than piston-engined GA aircraft. Throttle response on turbines is more intuitive, even with the lag. Also, a jetliner will have a full blind landing system, including the all-important glide scope, and a bunch of pilot-assist warning systems to remind you of things you need to do. I'd much rather be at the controls of an unfamiliar 100-seat jet than a 10-seat piston engined GA aircraft.

Re:Ground point five

[X0563511]

Yes, 121.5mhz AM is International Air Distress (GUARD channel). It's also used by distress beacons etc. Not just aircraft monitor. Hell, I monitor in my car when I'm driving in the middle of nowhere. You never know - your hearing that personal locator beacon just might save someone's life.

If you can figure out how to work it, it's also useful to know how to set the transponder to squawk 7700 (emergency) or 7600 (radio failure). That last one might not help you land it, but at least ATC knows something is wrong and that they won't be able to communicate.

Re:Ground point five

[Anonymous Coward]

You never know - your hearing that personal locator beacon just might save someone's life.

You're not going to be hearing anyone's PLB on 121.5 MHz. PLBs only transmit on 406MHz. The "legacy" ELTs still transmit on 121.5 and 243MHz.

Re:Ground point five

[bobbied]

IMHO small jetliners are easier to land than piston-engined GA aircraft. Throttle response on turbines is more intuitive, even with the lag. Also, a jetliner will have a full blind landing system, including the all-important glide scope, and a bunch of pilot-assist warning systems to remind you of things you need to do. I'd much rather be at the controls of an unfamiliar 100-seat jet than a 10-seat piston engined GA aircraft.

Not on your life... I want to be landing the aircraft that comes over the fence the SLOWEST as possible. Jets are usually NOT slow on final. The problem is that during landing a lot of things happen between short final and full stop, you want to have as much time to think and react as possible and the faster you are going when you cross the fence the shorter time you have. So I want a slow aircraft and a LONG runway that's preferably wide.

Re:Ground point five

[Obfuscant]

I guess the one thing you need to know about the radio is the international distress channel of 121.5?

In an emergency, the best frequency to use to report that is the frequency you are already talking to ATC on. You don't need to change anything, you have zero chance of screwing up the radio settings, and the guy you're talking to already knows who and where you are (most likely). This guy will know what airports are near you and which way you need to turn to get there. He can pick up a dedicated phone line to neighboring controllers to arrange your clear passage and brief them on your situation if he needs to hand you off.

If you're going to need to land right away, you'll probably be able to stay with the same person all the way to the ground. If not, then at least you started by letting someone who is within the system know you are in trouble and don't have to be so frantic in switching to the right frequency to find someone. You'll also have someone on the other end who can probably instruct you on how to change to another frequency if necessary.

Yes, if you've been flying without any contact with ATC and don't have any clue what frequency to call your closest controller on, by all mean, 121.5 MHz is where to go.

For a more complex aircraft, maybe the next thing is a pencil and paper to copy some checklists?

For a non-pilot, a checklist is worthless. Having to write down instructions is a waste of time and distracts from the task at hand. "When you get to X, push this and then this..." Much better for the guy who is probably watching you on radar, or taking to someone who is watching you, to say "ok, NOW push this..."

Re:Ground point five

[bill_mcgonigle]

If you're going to need to land right away, you'll probably be able to stay with the same person all the way to the ground.

Are all ATC's certified on small plane operations?

Re:Ground point five

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd much rather be at the controls of an unfamiliar 100-seat jet than a 10-seat piston engined GA aircraft.

And you will die a horrible death in the resulting crash and fire because you understand nothing of what you're talking about. "Throttle response more intuitive, even with lag"? No, it's not. "Full blind landing system"? There is no such thing by that name. If you're talking about "auto-land" systems, you're NOT talking about a "small jetliner". Most of them don't even have auto-throttles,which are an essential element of an autopilot-based landing. "Glide scope"? Seriously? "Pilot-assist warning systems that remind you of things you need to do"? Really? Do you imagine a computer voice saying "gosh, Bob, you seem a little slow on this approach. How about you advance the throttle to about 45% N1 and then monitor your sink rate" -- because, you know, it's not like that at all. At. All.

You'd know more than this by watching any of 6 kajillion YT aviation videos out there. Sheesh.

With hundreds of hours of real-life flying time and a lot of fun hours in a Citation simulator, I'd be scared shitless to have to land a CRJ or the like, and would probably give myself a 30% chance of living through the experience.

Re:Ground point five

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are not.

Re:Ground point five

[_merlin]

Have you actually flown an Embraer E190 or a Boeing 737-700? Both of them have localiser/glide scope instruments (blind landing is a bit of an archaic term I guess, how's ILS for you). Both of them give visual warnings about approaching stall condition (either by low airspeed or high angle of attack). Both of them give a visual alert if your approach speed is dangerously high. The E190 definitely has auto-throttle. Correctly flaring either of them is difficult, and if there's even a small chance of overshooting you should definitely go around. But seriously, if you're on an ILS approach, for the most part you can do it by just keeping the crosshairs centred and feeling for attitude.

Re:Ground point five

[Anonymous Coward]

So most Slashdotters can fly a plane, know unix, can code a language or two, and have girlfriends!?
Riiiight.

Re:Ground point five

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yes. If I (non-pilot) have to fly the thing, the dude on the radio damn well better keep track of the checklist for me! hahaha

Re:Ground point five

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree. Getting back in a light aircraft after flying a jet feels like jumping into a go kart after driving a Ferrari. Unless you have someone coaching you from the opposite seat I'd say it would be impossible for someone with no flying experience to land a commercial airliner based on raw data. Having said that, I could probably talk someone through an autoland from the ground.

Re:Ground point five

[AndrewJames]

So most Slashdotters can fly a plane, know unix, can code a language or two, and have girlfriends!? Riiiight.

I can fly a plane, my day job is a Windows/Linux sysadmin, my degree is in web development and I am married. Does that count?

Re:Ground point five

[X0563511]

Yes. They still exist, and it's even more important to listen now that the satellites don't.

Re:Ground point five

[Obfuscant]

Are all ATC's certified on small plane operations?

ATC certifications are by type of position and not aircraft size. Tower, enroute, etc. Not like pilots who get type ratings to cover the larger aircraft. About the only issue a controller has with size of airplane is when they need to sequence them for approach and he needs to remember that your C172 is going 100 knots or so and the big iron behind you is going 180 or so. At the top end, he has to know a heavy so he can issue wake turbulence warnings to everyone else. Fortunately, heavies are supposed to identify as heavy ("United seven forty-six heavy ...") so we can all remember to look out for ourselves.

Re:Ground point five

[bobbied]

I am a private pilot and have been for over 20 years now. Before that I flew RC aircraft and worked at a Naval Aviation Depot. Before that, I grew up the child of an aircraft mechanic who worked for a major airline. One of his jobs was to maintain the flight training simulators and I got to play with them some as a child. I've been around airplanes for most of my life.

On the girlfriends front, I have a wife & kids so I'm not interested. A girlfriend would be WAY too much trouble and not nearly as much fun as being with my wife and kids.

Re:Ground point five

[laie_techie]

So most Slashdotters can fly a plane, know unix, can code a language or two, and have girlfriends!? Riiiight.

I had controls of a Piper for 10 minutes over the desert (my boss has a pilot's license and was taking us to lunch). I've used *nix since 1995. My CV lists C, C++, Perl, PHP, and Java. AND I am happily married (as is my wife). Yeah, I know, steering the Piper doesn't count as being a certified pilot, plus I would never attempt take off or landing without proper training.

Good stuff

[slimjim8094]

(I am a student pilot, and I fly a Cessna 172)

This guy is clearly a badass, but his best trait is keeping his head on straight, knowing something about how airplanes work, and figuring out how to talk to someone. Landing is also a lot simpler if you don't care about damaging the plane (he had a prop strike) or landing on a runway that's not 4x longer than you'd usually use. Once you can talk to someone who's flown planes, you're pretty much OK as long as you don't melt down - do what they tell you, which will probably consist of a crash course in flying (what the instruments are, what's important about them, how to control the plane, etc) followed by directions to fly the plane onto the runway and hold on tight. Normally there's more finesse involved in touching down smoothly, in a short distance, at a proper approach speed - but that goes out the window in an emergency.

I don't want to sound like I'm diminishing Mr. Wildey's accomplishment - keeping cool in that situation is very hard, and avoiding being a smoking hole in the ground is even harder with no experience. This guy should take some flying lessons, if this whole thing hasn't soured him on the idea of small planes. Maybe he can even log this in his logbook (not entirely kidding!).

For anybody regularly flies with somebody in a small plane, there are classes out there that will prepare you for exactly such an emergency - a few hours of basic flying, radios, and landings. Don't assume your flight sim experience will do you any good, except for maybe knowing what the instruments are. The most important part is keeping a cool head - you're eventually going to land, and it'll turn out a lot better if you keep calm and think it through.

Re:Good stuff

[Trogre]

Kudos to the controller on the other end of the radio too, who I'm sure would have been sweating, talking to someone whose life depended on him keeping his cool and telling him exactly what he needed to do.

Re:Good stuff

[capt_mulch]

Any light aircraft, when trimmed correctly, will continue to fly quite well if you leave it alone. Line it up on the runway (yes, it sort of steers like a car), and gently pull the power back (eyes to the end of the runway :-). With plenty of runway, it will land itself. Example - Lady Be Good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Be_Good_(aircraft)

Re:Good stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

... do what they tell you, which will probably consist of a crash course in flying...

The LAST thing you want is a crash course.

Re:Good stuff

[bobbied]

This is the very reason I do some basic flight training with anybody in the right seat when I have time. I explain the radio, even let them make radio calls when possible. I let them take the controls and run them though level flight, basic turns, power and trim adjustments to an airspeed. It takes about 5-10 min or so of flight time to get them to master concepts and knowledge needed to land the aircraft. (At least for what I I fly..) I also try to explain what I'm doing when I'm not too rushed, like calling out target airspeeds, altitudes, power settings and check list items. I'm not saying I can teach you how to land in 10 min, only that I can introduce you to all the controls and how to use them. It usually takes a few hours of training to get good enough skills to be good at landing but armed with some basic knowledge, somebody could talk you through it fairly easy.

My goal is three fold. First, I hope to remove any fear they may have and help them feel comfortable. Second, I'm hopefully imparting a love for flying by teaching them as much as I can. Third, something I say or some skill they develop may save their life. Not to mention, I like teaching.

Re:Good stuff

[wisnoskij]

If explaining, over a radio, how to land a plane to someone who has never flown before is anywhere near as hard as explaining to your grandparents how to use a computer, over a phone, than that actually might be the more miraculous endeavor that night.

Re:Good stuff

[CRC'99]

(I am a student pilot, and I fly a Cessna 172)

I'm a commercial pilot (who is currently unemployed) - however operating the radio is part of my pre-flight briefing with anyone in the right seat in any G/A aircraft. In this briefing, I also go through what I'll do if we have a radio failure or comms problems - as part of this includes them using the radio (if required). Most people are very attentive - and its with this exact reason in mind - if anything incapacitates me, the least I can do for passenger safety is to get them to talk to someone who can help.

If the person in the right seat is a bit of a fan about flying, I'll teach them a bit about basic flight controls during the flight as well. Most people see if as a bit of fun and enjoy it - but there is a serious reason behind the scenes... The best way to be prepared in aviation is to think ahead.

For less experienced pilots, this is why we always aim to trim an aircraft for the correct attitude and performance as early as possible. The last thing you want to do is to leave the aircraft incorrectly trimmed and have something happen to you. When you step up to jet aircraft, the most important control in the aircraft is the trim. Use it well and often.

Re:Good stuff

[slimjim8094]

Thanks for the tip about trimming up ASAP for passenger's benefit. Yeah, the further I get, the more I appreciate trim - and I thought I appreciated it plenty! My instructor (I think deliberately) let me struggle through a few landings without trimming every attitude change. I certainly learned my lesson - if you don't touch the trim after midfield downwind, by short final you need so much back pressure you have a hard time rounding out and flaring. This gives you heavy hands, which makes you more likely to over-control, etc. But it creeps up on you, so you don't even realize how much you're fighting the plane until you get trimmed up and it just goes where you want it, no hands. My problem was I was thinking of trimming as an extra thing I had to do - really, it means you have less to do.

I made a comment somewhere else on this page to the effect of "don't think time in your home computer sim prepares you for flying". Trim is (IMO) the single biggest reason why - or perhaps the reason you need trim is. It's an afterthought at best if you're actually trying to fly a consumer sim, and certainly not emphasized. Plus, it's an extremely tactile thing (in a cables and bellcranks plane) - both to set up trim (just relieve the pressure) and the feedback of "man, I wish I didn't have to push/pull so hard to keep altitude/airpseed", because there's usually no force feedback. FBW and hydraulics usually are free of feedback too, but by the time you get to those planes you've spent enough time in a cables and pushrods plane to know what you're doing regardless.

Re:Good stuff

[drussell]

This guy should take some flying lessons, if this whole thing hasn't soured him on the idea of small planes.

Actually, in one of the linked videos he says he already had a free lesson offered from a friend but hadn't been able to go up a few weeks ago when originally planned and was waiting to reschedule, essentially... :-)

Re:Good stuff

[pongo000]

My flight instructor (F-86 combat pilot in Korea) taught me very well: My training led to a successful dead-stick landing after my C172 sucked up a rivet from the carb heat door and wedged itself in a valve. Among the many things I learned from that crusty ex-USAF jet jockey was this one:

When the shit hits the fan, FLY THE AIRPLANE. You FLY THE AIRPLANE until it's no longer moving. Never stop FLYING THE AIRPLANE or you'll surely die.

Panic has no place in the cockpit when the shit is hitting the fan. He drilled this into me with endless engine-out drills, stalls, windows opening in flight, simulated flap jams, and even a spin recovery. He assured me that if I FLY THE AIRPLANE when things start to go downhill, there's a very good chance I'll survive.

Indeed he was right. I was his last student before he passed away from cancer. RIP, Red...

Re:Good stuff

[Neil Boekend]

Doesn't that depend on conditions? I assume that it's far more difficult when there is sidewind or something like that. I'd really like to have someone talking me through it when I would need to do that.

Re:Good stuff

[CRC'99]

My problem was I was thinking of trimming as an extra thing I had to do - really, it means you have less to do.

The best advice I have ever been given in flying is this: Unload yourself.

What does this mean? Ok, power on, take off roll, reach takeoff safety speed (usually 1.5x stall), rotate, airborne, set your climb attitude. Next thing, trim. With a bit of practice, about 20 seconds after liftoff, you will be trimmed for the climb - this means you can take your hands off the controls and you'll continue to climb at your (usually) 500ft/min. Your speed will be stable, your climb rate will be stable, and you'll keep climbing until you either get disturbed by a gust of wind etc or you change the controls.

Take this time now that you can fly with hands off to glance at your engine instruments - that the RPM is what you expect it to be, oil temps and pressure is ok, airspeed is what you expect, then check your performance again (attitude, power etc). This can all be done within 45 seconds after liftoff. Now you do what any VFR pilot does best - look outside. As you're not struggling to keep the aircraft under control, you can observe what is going on outside. Looking for traffic, obstacles, making sure what you see outside matches the instruments (ie you're climbing, going fast enough etc).

Coming up to your assigned / desired altitude, use the yolk to bring the nose down, power to cruise, trim, trim, trim. Usually up to about 1/2 - 3/4 of a turn on the trim wheel and you're almost able to fly hands off again in seconds.

A good exercise here - trim for the climb, then don't touch the yolk again until you're on final to land. Use the trim for your attitude and rudder for turning. Do the entire circuit using only trim, rudder and throttle. As you would have been taught, the secondary action of yaw is roll - so you'll find you actually start to bank while only using the rudder. It gets tricky - and you'll be all over the place while first trying this - but it is great for learning the relationship as to what you're doing affecting the aircraft.

Anyhow - this isn't flight training 101 on slashdot, but learning to fly has been a highlight of my life - and I'm always happy to share things with people. Feel free to email me if you want to discuss more random things ;)

Re:Good stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

modded funny?
i thought this was 'insightful' as hell...

Re:Good stuff

[nitehawk214]

Heavy aircraft as well. Though it is unclear if this plane was using autopilot.

Re:Good stuff

[nitehawk214]

Also I failed to read the first sentence of the article. Thats what I get for reading one article and linking to another.

Re:Good stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

explaining to your grandparents how to use a computer, over a phone,

This cultural artifact might disappear one day. Somebody please write a novel about it so that the precisions piece of childhood memories of a whole generation won't be forgotten. A dramedia would likely encapsulate best the emotionally thrilling and challenging content of the said artifact.

Re:Good stuff

[Reziac]

I took "Aviation Science" in high school, over 40 years ago. We did everything up to the actual flying part (theory, handling, controls, atmospheric conditions, navigation, etc, etc.) Essentially got us to where if the pilot croaked, we'd have a fighting chance to land the plane, even without a coach. One fundamental concept was: Take it easy. The plane isn't going to do anything weird all by itself. You've got plenty of time (unless you're headed straight for a mountain), so think before you act.

Re:Good stuff

[mcgrew]

Line it up on the runway (yes, it sort of steers like a car),

No it doesn't, it steers NOTHING like a car. In a car, you turn the wheel left to go left. In a plane, you turn the "wheel" (called a "stick" in an airplane) to the left to make the left wing dip and the right wing raise. You turn the plane right and left with your feet; the stick is like when you ride a bicycle you lean into a turn.

When you're actually on a runway you let go of the stick completely; all steering on the ground is done with your feet.

What you're experiencing is having muscle memory take over. Driving a motorcycle is like driving a car -- only it's completely different. Seems the same when you drive, because you're used to both.

Mythbusters.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm reminded of an episode of Mythbusters that showed Adam and Jamie trying to land a plane in a sim and failing horribly.
They tried ONCE with an air traffic controller helping talk them through it and landed successfully.
While it's wonderful that Mr.Wildey stepped up, the unnamed air traffic controller(s) also were key to this not being a bigger accident.

Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually yes, it IS difficult unless you've practiced it. And most of us who practiced it had an instructor who recovered the plane when we fucked it up. And every pilot fucked this up in training.

Flare too little / late: you smack into the runway. If you're descending too fast you're basically crashing right now. If you're nose down you could snap the front gear. Hit with all gear and you can still snap the front or wheelbarrow if you're too heavy on the front. Good chance you'll bounce too. If you're going too fast that bounce could be high and far, and you may bounce oddly if you didn't hit evenly - throwing you off to the side or what have you. Porpoising is particularly nasty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5ZzktAFJK4

Flare too soon: you balloon upwards and eat up runway fast. If you don't correct or abort you'll run out of runway fast.

Flare too much: you balloon upwards meaning you're getting high and approaching a stall. Stall and you'll slap down rather hard on the runway, potentially from enough height to kill yourself.

A good flare is a continual thing as well. It's not like you just pull back a bit and you're done... you need to keep pulling back to increase the flare as air speed and altitude decrease. Through that entire process you can go too much or too little, causing the issues above.

Oh, and keep in mind that since the plane is in a nose up attitude you can't really see ahead of you very well. You're judging your altitude over the runway largely via peripheral vision. And you height cues vary depending how wide the runway is!

Now try throwing some cross wind into that just to add to your day.

Screw it up and need to go around? There's more than just throwing in the throttle. You need to reduce your flaps, in stages, as you pull out. Slap those suckers full up and you may lose too much lift to soon and plane meets ground rather harshly.

Personally if the idea of landing a plane with zero training doesn't scare the piss out you, you probably don't have a good enough understanding of what you're about to attempt.

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[slimjim8094]

Mod parent up, and up, and up. Clearly a lot of people around here have spent a lot of time in flight simulators.

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[Cornwallis]

and throw in the fact it was a night landing so you're depth perception is whacked as well. Good job.

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[JaredOfEuropa]

Don't knock flight simulators, after all that's what airliner pilots train on. Sure, those are different setups than the PC + joystick we have at home, but even so. If anything they taught me that flaring is indeed tricky; I've gone through all of the variations described in the GP post.

Then again they've also taught me that flying knife edge along the deck of the Golden Gate Bridge is easy...

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[slimjim8094]

The real thing is you need a very sophisticated setup to get something at all useful for training. If you just have a joystick, it's really hard to make precise movements, if you only have one screen it's hard to get the FOV you have while actually in a plane, see the instruments at the same time as outside, etc. My concern about (consumer) sims is that they give people a false idea of what sort of control inputs they'll actually need - especially when it comes to landing.

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[CRC'99]

Actually yes, it IS difficult unless you've practiced it. And most of us who practiced it had an instructor who recovered the plane when we fucked it up. And every pilot fucked this up in training.

Only in training? I'd say about 1 in 20 landings is still a fuckup compared to what we aim for... Once you get a few thousand hours experience, you'll probably still fuck up 1 in 50... True, the degree of fuckup is greatly reduced - but professional pilots with thousands of hours still bounce 737's etc.

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[ColdWetDog]

Goddmannitt. Where's the arrow keys on this thing?

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[Anonymous Coward]

Student pilot here, about 20 hours in a 172 and currently practicing the circuit and yes, you're 100% spot on. The flare is definitely a continual thing, couldn't agree with you more. Too much or too little elevator can be a harrowing experience! What this guy did definitely took balls, good on him!

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[Barsteward]

based on the fact that most people here haven't seen daylight for years unless they have a window in their basement.

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[Jason Levine]

Don't worry I've got this landing taken care of: Up ,Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A.

What? That didn't work? Impossible! Video games would never lie to me!!!!

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[Demonantis]

Car analogy time. It like clutching, but everyone in the car could die. Its a lot of just feeling like you are doing it the right way.

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[dcw3]

This exactly. Nighttime is a completely different world than landing in daylight. There's a reason why the FAA requires instructors to sign off your logbook for it. It's very much like doing an precision instrument landing because you really don't have the same visual cues, only lights and instruments.

Re:Actually, Flaring is really the hardest part

[GuB-42]

To learn flaring on small aircraft, you need to practice with an instructor in a real plane. There is a lot of feeling involved that most simulators can't replicate.
Filght simulators are good when it doesn't involve sensations, such as learning how to operate the instruments, or when things are too dangerous to do for real.

Think about it

[Tablizer]

His name is Otto.

So let us fire the pilots

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

John Boehner just released a statement: "This incident clearly proves pilots are not essential and we can get by without them. Let us furlough them, profit destroying, union joining, commie socialistic, moochers."

Re:So let us fire the pilots

[WiiVault]

I never trusted pilots! I just wasn't sure why, but everybody who told me I was a loony can go suck a bag of dicks. I mean think about it who else flies planes? Terrorists on 9/11 thats who! Why is nobody in the liberal media is reporting this connection? I mean think about it, they say they lock the cabin door for their own safety but what are they hiding? A mosque? WMD's? I think we have a right to know who these so called "Captains" really are. I know this is a lot to take in, but somebody has to speak the truth. Sometimes you just have to have faith that if an idea doesn't seem to make any sense or be based in anything rational then it must have been put in your head by God. Where else could it come from? And if God is putting super smart ideas in my head then everybody better just pay attention to every word I have to say or risk eternal damnation. I mean I prefer Coke to Pepsi, is that because God told me to? Why risk it, best to stock up on Coke. I mean you could chance it, but that's a pretty big gamble to take. If any of this doesn't make sense to you it just proves how liberals and their heathen worldly "education" can poison the pure childlike mind required to accept The Truth without question. Now I command you all to buy my forthcoming book where I reveal even more of His Word exclusively for the special introductory price of $29.99. End times are right around the corner so better buy now.

Re:So let us fire the pilots

[Anonymous Coward]

heh

his last name is boner

heh

My Sig

[camperdave]

Yes.

The proverb among pilots is "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing".

Professional pilots obviously hold themselves to a higher standard than that, but for a first-time flyer that landing met the requirements completely.

My sig for a while was "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing. - Flight sim pilot"

What??

[sharknado]

"He didn't have lights on so he was absolutely flying blind as well." You know, just for dramatic effect, and stuff.

Re:What??

[Obfuscant]

That is one of the most asinine statements in that article. It appears from a picture in the article that he landed at night. So, not having "lights on" means he's ... flying without lights on. That's about it.

While he's in the air, he's still able to see other planes (they have their lights on) and there really isn't a lot of anything else he might need to see in the air. Blind? Hardly.

And the airport, well, they have these modern spiffy things called ... lights. They mark the runway. That's how you can see the runway at night.

One of the things that private pilots get trained in when they want to go night flying is how to land at night without "lights". That would be the landing light, of course. Having one isn't mandatory. I've done it, both with an instructor as part of training and when I wound up getting home later than I planned in a plane where the light had burned out. Yes, I know, this guy isn't a pilot (although the article says he is believed to have flight experience), I'm just pointing out that landing at night without a landing light is far far from being "blind".

The other fascinating statement is that the propeller "hit the floor". And then it "uprighted again". It takes a lot for a small airplane to get in a position where it needs to be uprighted, and most airports don't have floors outside.

Re:What??

[hawguy]

That is one of the most asinine statements in that article. It appears from a picture in the article that he landed at night. So, not having "lights on" means he's ... flying without lights on. That's about it.

While he's in the air, he's still able to see other planes (they have their lights on) and there really isn't a lot of anything else he might need to see in the air. Blind? Hardly.

And the airport, well, they have these modern spiffy things called ... lights. They mark the runway. That's how you can see the runway at night.

One of the things that private pilots get trained in when they want to go night flying is how to land at night without "lights". That would be the landing light, of course. Having one isn't mandatory. I've done it, both with an instructor as part of training and when I wound up getting home later than I planned in a plane where the light had burned out. Yes, I know, this guy isn't a pilot (although the article says he is believed to have flight experience), I'm just pointing out that landing at night without a landing light is far far from being "blind".

The other fascinating statement is that the propeller "hit the floor". And then it "uprighted again". It takes a lot for a small airplane to get in a position where it needs to be uprighted, and most airports don't have floors outside.

I thought the whole point of those big bright landing landing lights was to illuminate the ground when you're near touch down (and for taxi/takeoff). Runway markers may may it easy to see the runway from afar, but aren't going to be as useful for an untrained pilot to see how fast the plane is approaching the ground since a few fast moving dots of light streaming by aren't the same as a broadly lit surface).

Re:What??

[Obfuscant]

I thought the whole point of those big bright landing landing lights was to illuminate the ground when you're near touch down (and for taxi/takeoff).

In a C172, those "bright" landing lights aren't that bright. They may give you a hint where the ground is, but it is better to refer to the runway lights for that reference.

Taxiing at night, perhaps. But take-off? The main function of landing lights during take off is to make you very visible to anyone in the vicinity of the airport, especially at an uncontrolled airport with a potential for someone to be landing the opposite direction on your runway.

Re:What??

[CRC'99]

I thought the whole point of those big bright landing landing lights was to illuminate the ground when you're near touch down (and for taxi/takeoff). Runway markers may may it easy to see the runway from afar, but aren't going to be as useful for an untrained pilot to see how fast the plane is approaching the ground since a few fast moving dots of light streaming by aren't the same as a broadly lit surface).

Heh - the 'bright light' called a landing light in a C172 is almost as bright as a single car headlight (if you're lucky, like the high beam). It does sweet fuck all to illuminate the runway. If you're waiting to see the runway via the landing light before you flare, you're going to have a bad time - and probably crater. Larger aircraft have much brighter lights, but the effect is still the same.

Night landings are hard. There are no floodlit runways that I know of in existence. The only form of reference you have is the shape of the lights. There are very few clues of your height or speed by looking outside at night. Night flying kills many - as it is VERY easy to fly straight into the ground because you can't see it - this danger is magnified even more when you are on approach to an airfield - especially if it is one with a 'black hole effect'.

During my night flying assessment, I was required to land at an airport 'void of artificial lighting' - ie only runway lights. As you fly towards the airport, imagine a completely black area with two rows of lights. That is all you have. If you're lucky and there is a full moon, you may be able to make out the ground. I'd say it is one of the hardest things I have ever had to do.

Re:What??

[u38cg]

He did not have instrument lights.

Why this story is here?

[Anonymous Coward]

To make "Airplane" jokes. Shirley you've seen the movie?
(But I do disagree with your "troll"mod).

No such thing as a landing

[Anonymous Coward]

To be clear the first thing i leaned as a pilot is there is not such thing a a landing just a controlled crash.

Any crash you control is a good one.........

This isn't as difficult as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying a Cessna 172 is not hard. I landed one my first time out with coaching from a flying instructor.

Re:This isn't as difficult as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying a Cessna 172 is not hard. I landed one my first time out with coaching from a flying instructor.

No, you didn't. No, you fucking didn't, and every pilot reading this knows it. No instructor would let you try.

At best, if you've shown exceptional ability, and if your instructor was a bit crazy (I don't know of any crazy enough to do this on a student's first flight myself), you held on to the yoke during the entire landing procedure, while your instructor was handling flaps, throttle corrections, and keeping his hands on his yoke as well. The he guided you by saying when to flare, told you to do it very slowly, while he himself flared. He told you to stop after he had already stopped it, because you were moving the yoke gently enough that your pressure could be resisted by the instructor's control.

Also, the entire time you were doing the pattern, the instructor was correcting for your piss poor turn coordination by doing most of the work with the rudders. During your first flight, he probably helped a lot when you were high up in the air too, and you wouldn't even notice it. No student is ever naturally good at that, it takes practice because there's no analog to the feel of it on the ground. What you claim you did is a little bit like a kid claiming he was told how to ride a bike, then hopped on one the first time, and immediately rode it. It's not possible. You haven't developed the motor coordination skills for the activity. You need to do the activity a bunch of times in order to do so.

I had something similar happen

[PopeRatzo]

Passenger Lands Plane After Pilot Collapses and Dies At the Controls

I had a similar experience back in 2000. My dad died during the second quarter of Super Bowl XXXIV. I had the Rams, giving 6 points, and my dad had the remote control in his hand. I had no other choice, but to wrest the remote from his stiffening fingers and take over in the Lazy-Boy. Let me tell you, the half-time show, narrated by actor Edward James Olmos, with it's Walt Disney World's millennium celebration theme, lost a lot of its luster for me, sitting in the lap of my recently deceased father (he was too heavy to move from the chair). It featured a full symphony orchestra; a multi-generational, 80-person choir; and singers Phil Collins, Christina Aguilera, Enrique Iglesias, and Toni Braxton. However, the fact that my dad had voided his bowels as he went to be with Jesus did somewhat lessen my enjoyment of the festivities, not to mention the large pot of turkey chili that was sitting on the coffee table.

But, six points is six points, so I bravely continued despite my discomfort and the smell, and cheered on the Rams, who overcame the 15 yard penalty committed by defensive back 'Dre Bly in the 4th quarter, and went on to dispatch the Titans by 7 points, covering my point spread and putting a cool $1900 in my pocket. And of course, I took a tenner right off the top to buy a floral arrangement at the Wal-Mart in memory of my dad (though later that night I brought said floral arrangment to the gentleman's club to give to a certain dancer, who was my dad's favorite and who would later become my wife).

Let me tell you, it was a harrowing experience. Just before Rams linebacker Mike Jones tackled Titans wide receiver Kevin Dyson at the one-yard line in the final play of the game, I thought I might have a similar experience of the lower-GI tract as my sainted father, since I had bet a grand but only had about thirty dollars to my name. Touch and go for a bit, let me tell you. But the good Lord was with me on this particular Sunday, or maybe it was my dad, watching the second half on the big screen in heaven, who put a word in with the Big Guy.

When it was all over, it seemed like a lot to clean up, so I just turned the gas oven on and closed the window. I heard the sound of the explosion as I was getting on I-80 on my way to my bookie's house to collect. Let me tell you, it was one memorable day.

Slashdot modding is ok but needs improving

[mynamestolen]

By my reckoning there were two, maximum three comments that should have been modded 5 in this discussion. Can't we have a system that ranks these up and saves me reading dross? I also have a strong feeling in this case that most readers and moderators would agree on the two or three that should be at the top.

Re:Slashdot modding is ok but needs improving

[ColdWetDog]

It's so good to see fresh ideas trotted out by the new kids.

Now, kid, get off our lawn.

What is the cockpit visibility from that plane?

[damn_registrars]

I've been in 2-4 passenger planes before, but it has been quite some time. If someone knows this plane, I'd be interested to hear what the front visibility is from the pilot's seat. Could he see the runway in front of him while coming in, or did he have a wall of instruments blocking his sight? Some people might think that wouldn't make a big difference, but if you're not sure what you're doing, and you can't see straight ahead (aircraft lights on or not) the situation is a little more terrifying.

Re:What is the cockpit visibility from that plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

Visibility over the Cessna 172 front panel is pretty good unless you're really short. A normal approach is flown with the nose tilted down towards the ground (until it's time to flare) which also helps with visibility to the front.

Re:What is the cockpit visibility from that plane?

[MrEdofCourse]

I used to fly a Cessna 172. From the front seats, there's good visibility over the dash when flying. When taxiing, your view is a little obscured, especially if you're short, but it's definitely manageable. Of course, he didn't have to deal with that.

I'm not sure why the tower didn't work with him to turn on his landing lights...although the story seems to be a bit odd... his first attempt was aborted because of being blinded by the setting sun, and then his 4th attempt was "in the pitch dark". That's a really long time.

Anyway, even without the landing lights, visibility at night is still good enough with giving ambient light.

Still, pretty cool dude to be able to do this... more so that he didn't crash from stalling. He mentioned he did stall, but recovered. It sounds like he had at least *some* knowledge of what it took to fly.

Roger...

[Registered Coward v2]

Huh?

Re:Roger...

[wonkey_monkey]

(it's from Airplane!)

youtube video

[GodWasAnAlien]

Looking at the youtube video, that was probably the lousiest landing in the history of the airport. But there are some, particularly me, who would like to buy him a drink.

The pilot was reported to have died in hospital

[bartjsmit3203]

BBC national news picked this up and reported that the pilot died after the landing. I am however mindful of the adage that almost nobody dies in an ambulance, because the paramedics are not qualified to pronounce death. My first aid course of yore stated that 'death may be pronounced by a layman if the head is permanently severed from the body'. I've always wondered about the 'permanent' clause. A bit like Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington?

Seen that, been there.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an old novel called Talkdown, written by the british aerobatics champion Brian Lecomber, which deals with such a situation. A bloke takes off for a joyride with his blonde nurse girlfriend in his GA plane and suffers a brain stroke mid-flight. An instructor pilots takes off in a similar plane to fly in formation with the girl and must teach her how to fly, over the radio, before fuel runs out. Except the flight instructor brutally knocked off an elderly flight school owner, who objected to summarily taking the chase plane and he dies, so the police is going after the pilot...

Parachute

[Anonymous Coward]

Do small planes like this not carry parachutes for passengers? If so, would it not be safer to point the plane towards the sea and jump out? Or did the passenger in this case risk his own life to try to save the pilot?

Zero Hour

[trout007]

If you are an Airplane! Fan you must watch Zero Hour. Airplane! is completely based in this movie scene for scene. It's supposed to be a drama but once you know all of Airplane jokes it basically acts like the straight man where you can supply they punch lines.

Hi Joey. Have you ever been in a cockpit?

Johnny, how about some coffee?

Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop smoking.

A hospital what is it?

It's like Airplane!

[Thrill Science]

Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue!

Surely your joking

[Registered Coward v2]

and please don't call me Shirley.

Re:Surely your joking

[dcw3]

Being pedantic...
"I am serious. And don't call me Shirley."

"Look for a BIG W!"

[grumling]

It's the only way to fly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i415QwSj0Og

MS Simultaro

[jdc18]

Bring back Microsoft flight simulator