Water Ditch near JFK

steingar said:
The devil's argument:

It is the pilot's responsibility to bring the aircraft to a safe landing. The pilot did so. No one was hurt.

One way or the other, the pilot will not return to the sky without very careful scrutiny.
Click to expand...
It was a landing of heightened risk which turned out well. From the tapes it sure sounds as though there was no real reason for the landing to happen the way it did. Even if the engine was running rough, he was very close to a much better runway situation. This was not an emergent condition at all. The fan was still turning, the pilot's own words stated that it was a tiny roughness, he could have easily continued to JFK. But I have to also say that purely from the lack of professionalism in his transmission that I have an exceedingly hard time believing that there was any mechanical problem at all.
 
wow. I think Jesse summed up my thoughts pretty well.

What a f*cking moron. How did that idiot get his ticket? I seriously hope he gets more than just his ticket revoked. This guy needs some serious fine and (probably not his bird) restitution to the owner. Finally 30 days, minimum, in the pokey would probably be warranted for endangering people on the beach. Assuming there were people on the beach, of course.
Click to expand...

Just read about this on Avweb. I hope they tell us what happens to him as a result....
 
Counter point:

Pilot has a sick passenger. He's not sure how sick. He asks ATC about landing at JFK, to which he is told to call Port Authority. He disappears off frequency, comes back and asks about landing on the beach, then does.

What was he told when he called Port Authority? If its anything like "You can't land here," or "It will cost you a few thousand dollars to land here," and his passenger was, in fact, getting sicker by the moment, maybe he thought that was the best way to go.

Additionally, he was kept below 500ft. If he was, in fact, having engine trouble, I'm not sure that he could have made it to KJFK from where he was, if that's true.

Of course, in reality, he's probably a giant douche that thought he was being cute.
 
SkyHog said:
Counter point:

Pilot has a sick passenger. He's not sure how sick. He asks ATC about landing at JFK, to which he is told to call Port Authority. He disappears off frequency, comes back and asks about landing on the beach, then does.

What was he told when he called Port Authority? If its anything like "You can't land here," or "It will cost you a few thousand dollars to land here," and his passenger was, in fact, getting sicker by the moment, maybe he thought that was the best way to go.

Additionally, he was kept below 500ft. If he was, in fact, having engine trouble, I'm not sure that he could have made it to KJFK from where he was, if that's true.
Click to expand...
Why would he not want to declare an emergancy then? In fact he states pretty clearly that he does not wish to declare.
SkyHog said:
Of course, in reality, he's probably a giant douche that thought he was being cute.
Click to expand...
IMHO a more accurate scenario.
 
ScottM said:
Why would he not want to declare an emergancy then? In fact he states pretty clearly that he does not wish to declare.
Click to expand...

He was clearly afraid of the paperwork he'd have to fill out if he declared.:confused:
Perhaps he believed he could land, attend to the "sick" passenger, then take off before anyone came.
 
Pi1otguy said:
He was clearly afraid of the paperwork he'd have to fill out if he declared.:confused:
Perhaps he believed he could land, attend to the "sick" passenger, then take off before anyone came.
Click to expand...
So in order to avoid paperwork by declaring an emergency and avoiding JFK to save a few bucks he makes a riskier landing. That also shows poor judgment would you agree?
 
Pi1otguy said:
He was clearly afraid of the paperwork he'd have to fill out if he declared.:confused:
Perhaps he believed he could land, attend to the "sick" passenger, then take off before anyone came.
Click to expand...

What happens if a pilot declares an emergency? What paperwork is involved?
 
If a pilot declares an emergency, they get priority handling by ATC.

They may have some questions to answer about how they got into the situation afterwards, and depending on the emergency and how he got there, he may have some consequences. Typically, I'm told declaring an emergency doesnt result in paperwork besides noting it happened.
 
ajstoner21 said:
If a pilot declares an emergency, they get priority handling by ATC.

They may have some questions to answer about how they got into the situation afterwards, and depending on the emergency and how he got there, he may have some consequences. Typically, I'm told declaring an emergency doesnt result in paperwork besides noting it happened.
Click to expand...

The guy just wanted to "land on the beach".

I declared emergency a few years ago when my number 2 com radio shorted and started a small electrical fire. even tho I diverted into DCA (in a 182), the only paperwork I needed to do was a written report of the ermergency submitted to the Washington FSDO.
 
If you don't declare an emergency, and ATC does it for you (as happened here), are you still on the hook for writing a report?
 
SkyHog said:
...
Of course, in reality, he's probably a giant douche that thought he was being cute.
Click to expand...

Deleted the speculation that doesn't jibe with telling the cops "Because I saw it on 'Flying Wild Alaska'."
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
If you don't declare an emergency, and ATC does it for you (as happened here), are you still on the hook for writing a report?
Click to expand...

What is and isn't reportable is pretty clear in the AIM. An in flight fire is reportable even if the "e" word isn't used.
 
This guy is a jackazz, 1st class.
 
SkyHog said:
Additionally, he was kept below 500ft. If he was, in fact, having engine trouble, I'm not sure that he could have made it to KJFK from where he was, if that's true.
Click to expand...
That what bothered my on type. Is it legal and smart to keep aircraft "at or below 500ft? He wasn't taking off (let's leave alone landing part for a second:wink2:)

§135.203 - VFR: Minimum altitudes.

Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate under VFR—

(a) An airplane—

(1) During the day, below 500 feet above the surface or less than 500 feet horizontally from any obstacle; or
 
Artiom said:
That what bothered my on type. Is it legal and smart to keep aircraft "at or below 500ft? He wasn't taking off (let's leave alone landing part for a second:wink2:)

§135.203 - VFR: Minimum altitudes.

Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate under VFR—

(a) An airplane—

(1) During the day, below 500 feet above the surface or less than 500 feet horizontally from any obstacle; or
Click to expand...

I don't think Part 135 rules applied to this flight. Part 91 allows flight below 500 feet.
 
Artiom said:
That what bothered my on type. Is it legal and smart to keep aircraft "at or below 500ft? He wasn't taking off (let's leave alone landing part for a second:wink2:)

§135.203 - VFR: Minimum altitudes.

Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate under VFR—

(a) An airplane—

(1) During the day, below 500 feet above the surface or less than 500 feet horizontally from any obstacle; or
Click to expand...

If there were a lot of people on the beach, then he shouldn't be flying right over the beach - flying over the water just off the beach would have been fine. ATC giving him an at or below 500' limit wasn't that unusual - They needed to keep him low to not interfere with the jet traffic at JFK. If the pilot ins't comfortable with that, they don't HAVE to fly there. It is really done as more of a courtesy. You can do the same thing here in San Diego in the Class B surface area - Lindbergh tower will clear you to fly just off the shore line northbound along Pt Loma at or below 500.
 
Trapper John said:
I don't think Part 135 rules applied to this flight. Part 91 allows flight below 500 feet.
Click to expand...
So long as there are no people or buildings, one can fly as low as he wishes in class G. You can go to Nebraska and skim the tops of the corn all day long. It's not wise, but it is legal. It's even more unwise over water, where sometimes pilots lose their point of reference regarding height above surface.
 
Miami cleared me to fly under 500' adjacent to the beaches of Southern Florida. I recall saying "twist my arm".
 
steingar said:
Miami cleared me to fly under 500' adjacent to the beaches of Southern Florida. I recall saying "twist my arm".
Click to expand...
"Uhhh, Miami Approach... Could you please refer to me as 'Iceman' for the next fifteen or so minutes?"
 
steingar said:
Miami cleared me to fly under 500' adjacent to the beaches of Southern Florida. I recall saying "twist my arm".
Click to expand...


I don't like doing that either. In fact, I never have. Limits your options as you very well know.
 
ScottM said:
So in order to avoid paperwork by declaring an emergency and avoiding JFK to save a few bucks he makes a riskier landing. That also shows poor judgment would you agree?
Click to expand...

Yes. Infact he probably generated even more paperwork for himself. :D
Similar to the police chase logic of "I'm not going to stop cause then I'll be arrested".

bluee said:
What happens if a pilot declares an emergency? What paperwork is involved?
Click to expand...

That's the great unknown. I haven't seen the forms, but imagined a thick stack to be filled out in triplicate, signed, & notarized followed by dozens of letters & a set of forms from the FAA, NTSB, insurance companies, & local gov.

In life there are 3 big related things we try to avoid. Paperwork, getting billed/fined, & getting sued. The more paperwork you fill out the great risk of making errors, omissions, or inadvertently admitting to violations that lead to fines & possibly a day in court.
 
Pi1otguy said:
That's the great unknown. I haven't seen the forms, but imagined a thick stack to be filled out in triplicate, signed, & notarized followed by dozens of letters & a set of forms from the FAA, NTSB, insurance companies, & local gov.
Click to expand...

I'll let you in on a secret: There is no form.

If your emergency required ATC to do something like re-routing traffic, you may get a call from the FSDO and at that point you are obliged to give a statement. If they don't call, no report, no form (still a good idea to file an ASRS to preserve those limited rights).
 
Anthony said:
I don't like doing that either. In fact, I never have. Limits your options as you very well know.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't do it under normal circumstances either, all things being equal. But the pucker factor wasn't that bad. If the mill quit I could have easily landed in the shallows. Sure the aircraft is totaled from the salt water, but that's why I have insurance. I've flown lots of places where the pucker factor was considerably higher.
 
Ron Levy said:
BTW, when you name the LLC that will own your plane, think about how it will sound in the press if something happens. "Plane Nonsense, Inc."? Oy.
Click to expand...

"News Media Inaccuracy Litigators, LLC." - that'd slow 'em down! Haha!
 
Artiom said:
That what bothered my on type. Is it legal and smart to keep aircraft "at or below 500ft? He wasn't taking off (let's leave alone landing part for a second:wink2:)
Click to expand...

Class B down to the surface follows the shore line. So to fly under the B, you are out over open water. So it is legal as long as you also stay 500 feet away from people / boats.

Given that, your options are to fly just off the beach at or below 500 feet, fly a few miles offshore below 1500, or bust the class B

I would take the beach below 500.
 
Register it to Film University of Covington Kentucky.
 
Okay, as someone who has legally taken off from a beach, after his spouse had legally landed on the beach, I have to say that the fact that he landed on a beach is not evidence of stupidity or delusion. If you check the tide tables, roll your wheels along the sand, etc., it can be a safe operation. However, where we did it (in New Zealand), it was a clearly legal maneuver. In NY State, it apparently isn't, and trying to trump up circumstances that would allow you to do it is ridiculous, and that's what it appears he was trying to do!
 
gprellwitz said:
Okay, as someone who has legally taken off from a beach, after his spouse had legally landed on the beach, I have to say that the fact that he landed on a beach is not evidence of stupidity or delusion. If you check the tide tables, roll your wheels along the sand, etc., it can be a safe operation. However, where we did it (in New Zealand), it was a clearly legal maneuver. In NY State, it apparently isn't, and trying to trump up circumstances that would allow you to do it is ridiculous, and that's what it appears he was trying to do!
Click to expand...


True enough, but most beaches on the island are built-up from sand dredged elsewhere. I'm sure you know that no two beaches are the same, due to sand depth, water content, sand size, etc.

Expecting Alaska conditions on Long Island is about as dumb as one can get. Drop in the Roooo-jahs, the fishing for emergencies, and the "grill" comment, and the evidence for terminal stupidity is overwhelming.
 
Landing on that beach, without declaring an emergency, and screwing it up, is the least of his sins, IMHO... from word #1 he is glib, condescending, uncooperative, and overly chatty for such a busy frequency. Not to mention that he sounds a little deranged... way too impressed with himself.

I can't help but picture Patrick Bateman (from American Psycho) when I hear this guy... "that's a very amusing chardonnay you're ignoring..." :loco:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top