SR22 Emergency landing KY highway

T

TRC1969

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
300
Display Name
Display name:
TRC
No injuries and apparently no damage.
 
Nice to see a success story for a change..! recent rash of accidents with the 421, the Bo, and the Mooney

Wonder what the exact nature of the "engine issue" was
 
Tantalum said:
Nice to see a success story for a change..! recent rash of accidents with the 421, the Bo, and the Mooney

Wonder what the exact nature of the "engine issue" was
Click to expand...
Yeah. The fatal ones get depressing. I'm waiting for more info before calling this one a success. But I agree that it was a successful engine out landing. So kudos to him on that.
 
We do not see or hear of most of the good ones, even with the ubiquitous cell phones.

In the days of antiquity, a Luscombe took off from CGS early one summer morning, and I took off shortly after. The sky appeared clear, with a fuzzy tinge, but as I climbed out, there was a strange silvery cast to it. I climbed through, and found that the view from above was pure white!

Throttle back, nose down, descend through, and returned to CGS.

Luscombe, on the other hand, reacted slower, felt uncomfortable descending into cloud, and continued to climb. Spotting higher terrain to the east, he flew there, and landed on the southbound lanes of US 301. He exited onto the grass median, and shut down. Traffic went by, and a MD State Trooper stopped to see if he was OK. After the explanation, the trooper ordered him to remain until the trooper had traffic stopped, and promised to return on his regular patrol every 30 minutes. When the trooper verified that the CGS was clear, he stopped traffic, and the Luscombe returned home.

Away from media, this probably can happen today.
 
No idea what happened here, glad they’re alight, 1 or more.

Most I recall that land on the road, no damage, then quickly ‘fix’ the problem, stem from a fuel issue, not enough. If one has a real problem, usually a few hours won’t be enough to fly out.
 
luvflyin said:
resolve issue and fly out. Hmm. If it's what I'm thinking, it might not be that easy. Wonder what the Avgas availibility situation is around there.
Click to expand...
There is at least one airport within 15 nm from where he landed (which is a long, relatively flat, straight.)
 
sourdough44 said:
No idea what happened here, glad they’re alight, 1 or more.

Most I recall that land on the road, no damage, then quickly ‘fix’ the problem, stem from a fuel issue, not enough. If one has a real problem, usually a few hours won’t be enough to fly out.
Click to expand...

True. On COPA though someone that knows the pilot says it was not fuel related.
 
Plane was parked here after landing.
 

Attachments

  • D990BE93-C079-407D-8453-B6050BD7583E.jpeg
    D990BE93-C079-407D-8453-B6050BD7583E.jpeg
    357.7 KB · Views: 71
luvflyin said:
So are they saying what it was?
Click to expand...

They haven't posted that yet.

N211CM was on its way home after paint, interior, avionics upgrade, annual, and N number change from 875RC. Clark had an engine failure and dead sticked it onto a divided state highway. No injury and seemingly just a few scrapes. Some preliminary thoughts on cause but not ready to speculate yet. The FAA has inspected and is seemingly satisfied. Definitely NOT fuel exhaustion. Currently in the process of seeing if the problem can be rectified on the side of the road tomorrow and fly it back off the highway.

Many more details to follow.

​
 
wayne said:
They haven't posted that yet.

N211CM was on its way home after paint, interior, avionics upgrade, annual, and N number change from 875RC. Clark had an engine failure and dead sticked it onto a divided state highway. No injury and seemingly just a few scrapes. Some preliminary thoughts on cause but not ready to speculate yet. The FAA has inspected and is seemingly satisfied. Definitely NOT fuel exhaustion. Currently in the process of seeing if the problem can be rectified on the side of the road tomorrow and fly it back off the highway.

Many more details to follow.

​
Click to expand...
Right after work was done. That’s a common denominator that comes up. Waiting to see what it was so everyone can learn about something to be beware of.
 
There are a lot of fields in the area, but tend to be relatively small. Lots of them are full of rolls of hay this week. The parkway there is straight and with relatively little traffic. That's where I would have landed.

I drove by the area this morning. The plane is still sitting on the side of the road with the cowl off.

The group that owns the airplane is "moneypit investment corp." Gotta love it...
 
Wow! A Cirrus made a successful emergency landing without pulling the red handle??? :D

(sorry, couldn't resist...)
 
PaulS said:
Apparent double mag failure.
Click to expand...
What?! They're two totally separate mechanisms. What could cause a dual mag failure?

Is it prudent after extensive maintenance work to do a very long run up and a few turns in the pattern before launching home?
 
Tantalum said:
What?! They're two totally separate mechanisms. What could cause a dual mag failure?

Is it prudent after extensive maintenance work to do a very long run up and a few turns in the pattern before launching home?
Click to expand...

Kick the tires, light the fires!

:D

Prudent? Yes. Always done? Ehh.... :oops:



According to the posting he did do a 2 hour local test flight.
 
Tantalum said:
What?! They're two totally separate mechanisms. What could cause a dual mag failure?

Is it prudent after extensive maintenance work to do a very long run up and a few turns in the pattern before launching home?
Click to expand...
Sometimes bad things happen even when we do everything correctly.
 
Tantalum said:
What?! They're two totally separate mechanisms. What could cause a dual mag failure?

Is it prudent after extensive maintenance work to do a very long run up and a few turns in the pattern before launching home?
Click to expand...

Apparently they did that, details are still sketchy.
 
Kevin Holbrook said:
There are a lot of fields in the area, but tend to be relatively small. Lots of them are full of rolls of hay this week. The parkway there is straight and with relatively little traffic. That's where I would have landed.

I drove by the area this morning. The plane is still sitting on the side of the road with the cowl off.

The group that owns the airplane is "moneypit investment corp." Gotta love it...
Click to expand...

Not there now. Apologies for the FB link.

https://www.facebook.com/1057249482/posts/10223023150141332/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
From the thread title, I thought this was about a lubricated roadway, sort of like the treadmill conundrum.
 
When does Cirrus recommend pulling chute versus forced landing? (Besides when it is too low to pull chute)?
 
GenAv said:
When does Cirrus recommend pulling chute versus forced landing? (Besides when it is too low to pull chute)?
Click to expand...
Too low depends on the variant but in mine it’s 400agl. In others it’s 500. Generally better to pull the chute unless you’re too low or have a landable surface in front of you.
Now…if I had just repainted my airplane I would probably change my minimum altitude to about 20k and consider a landable surface to be anything the size of a helipad or larger.
 
GenAv said:
When does Cirrus recommend pulling chute versus forced landing? (Besides when it is too low to pull chute)?
Click to expand...

Spin, automatic pull, mid air, airplane won't fly any more, death spiral in IMC, all pull scenarios. Engine out, 600 to 2000 agl, instant pull.


Engine out in cruise and you have a suitable spot to land? Probably safer to land if you are proficient. This guy chose to land on a highway instead of pulling, had a good outcome so it probably was a good decision.
 
I suspect the FAA is going to have something to say about flying it out.
 
Well let’s see, taking off under a bridge, minimal wingtip clearance with a engine that had failed on the prior flight and appears to have not been producing full power on the takeoff. Other than that not much!
 
Jeff767 said:
Well let’s see, taking off under a bridge, minimal wingtip clearance with a engine that had failed on the prior flight and appears to have not been producing full power on the takeoff. Other than that not much!
Click to expand...


First of all, the FAA doesn’t control the area for takeoff. If the local owners of the roadway approve, and the local LE stop traffic, and the PIC determines he has the required length and clearance, then what regulation is being violated?

Airworthiness is decided by the PIC. Did he have the aircraft looked at after the engine failure? If an A&P inspected it, was it decided the aircraft was in a condition to be flown out, and the PIC agreed?

Of course, the FAA would get involved if he didn’t plan the takeoff accordingly and hit something, or if the aircraft was not airworthy.

Planes have been flown off roads many times after emergency landings. It’s the due diligence of the owner/PIC to insure they have covered each aspect of the event.
 
Jeff767 said:
I suspect the FAA is going to have something to say about flying it out.
Click to expand...

From the thread on COPA:

The FAA has inspected and is seemingly satisfied. Definitely NOT fuel exhaustion. Currently in the process of seeing if the problem can be rectified on the side of the road tomorrow and fly it back off the highway.​
 
Doc Holliday said:
Airworthiness is decided by the PIC. Did he have the aircraft looked at after the engine failure? If an A&P inspected it, was it decided the aircraft was in a condition to be flown out, and the PIC agreed?

Of course, the FAA would get involved if he didn’t plan the takeoff accordingly and hit something, or if the aircraft was not airworthy.

Planes have been flown off roads many times after emergency landings. It’s the due diligence of the owner/PIC to insure they have covered each aspect of the event.
Click to expand...

Whenever this subject comes up, it reminds me of the New Zealand incident where a small plane went surfing while attempting a beach takeoff.

:D

 
Rokke214 said:
Rumor on the street is the FAA is coming after him now for flying under the bridge.
Click to expand...

I've watched the video and I'm certain he was taxiing under the bridge. ;)

I've taken an airplane off from a road. FAA did not care. But, because it was at the space center the night before STS-3 the FBI DID care!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top