Replies

Oh yes. People get all excited about children flying, without understanding that the child is never in charge. People get all freaked out about the dangers of flying while ignoring the superior safety record of aircraft. Even light aircraft (flown by amateurs) have a much lower accident rate than automobiles, in spite of the fact that it requires more skill to fly an aircraft safely.

That's why I get hopped up about stories such as this. The flying public is frightened enough about flying (mostly because of what they don't understand) without mis-information and innuendo...you'd think that the "Hudson Hydroplane" incident would lay to rest the commonly held belief that "when the engine(s) quit airplanes fall out of the sky" but even threads here discussing it had those who think that "the airplane landed on it's own with God's help"... when actually "yes Marge airplanes do glide quite nicely with no power.." should have been the final realization...

"yes Marge airplanes do glide quite nicely with no power.."

Mark my words some F-16 jock will reprimand me for saying that because an F-16 sans power glides like a greased anvil...ya just can't win!

Of course the big jets generally don't land well without power, but light aircraft can often shrug it off as a minor inconvenience.

There was an incident a number of years ago where a pressurized Mooney had an engine out near the middle of the Sierra Nevadas, and landed at Merced (almost 60 miles away). Of course, Mooneys glide well, and the pilot had plenty of altitude, but he actually passed up a couple of closer airports, because he knew he could reach one that had a bigger runway, and services. He wasn't worried, and simply landed where it was most convenient.