Comments on: On the Margin

By: Pete Ryan

Pete Ryan — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:47:59 +0000

off the thread? But the Air Force paid me and my home a visit this a.m. @ 3:30. I have a quicksilver, stored in my back yard. These folks were friendly enough, and professional as well. How ever, they had been looking on the ground and in the air for nearly 5 hours. about 8 souols in the van, and I never saw the plane?? I was still sleeping, as im sure, they would have loved to have be engaged in as well. It seems that my sons cat was doing cat things a couple nights agao, and in that endevour, the cat either landed on, or launched from the toggle switch on my 3.5 year old ELT. I felt like the idiot that i was for not removeing the power pack while the plane languishes in my back yard. pray for the Airforce and myself as well. thanks, and good night to you all. sun is riseing, and I still havent found a proper place to send my apology to the poweres that came in the night. PETE

By: Bruce Landsberg

Bruce Landsberg — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 01:05:45 +0000

Martin….

Fair question. We get plenty of direct media calls to AOPA to discuss these incidents and are very careful on how things are presented.

Haven’t seen any indication that the media is paying attention to this blog and relative to the paragraph in question – there is not more credence given to one hypothesis or another. Most media outlets don’t like to admit that their experts are purely guessing — we freely admit it and advise that in good time the truth will out.

Thanks for the note!

By: Martin

Martin — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:47:14 +0000

Bruce,

I just read two of your blog posts in a row. The first “A bad roll and equally bad commentary” had this admonition:

—–
•After an accident – don’t speculate on the cause or the talents of the pilot(s) involved.
•All certificated aircraft have to meet specific standards and they are all controllable when flown inside the envelope. They are not controllable outside the envelope.
•Unsubstantiated opinion, rumor and innuendo, while the staple of so-called news outlets these days is just that – DON’T feed the beast! GA will be better off even if you didn’t get a juicy soundbite on TV or in the paper.
——

This post, “On the Margin” declares:

——-
What happened last month? The possibilities are myriad but let’s speculate: hot and/or high on the approach, delayed deployment (or non-deployment) of thrust reversers and spoilers due to pilot or mechanical issues, braking problems, a tailwind – something else? We’ll soon find out.

——–

So are you for or against speculation to the media (and I suggest your blog is a source for the general media) ???

By: Bruce Landsberg

Bruce Landsberg — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 01:26:24 +0000

Charlie….

You’re right — I haven’t had an original idea in 20 years !!! Should this become a recommended practice?

By: Charles Lloyd

Charles Lloyd — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:36:13 +0000

Bruce,

Your add 900 feet for normal conditions seems to be similar to the Part 135 and 121 add 35% to the normal landing requirement to arrive at the minimum runway for landing calculations.

This is not a bad recommendation.

By: Bruce Landsberg

Bruce Landsberg — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 01:19:28 +0000

James ….

Andy has it right – it was intended as joke. You’ve probably not seen the movie ” Back to the Future” . In any case we’re tracking this mishap and have gotten a bit of inside information which is premature to release just yet. How’s that for suspense?

Will advise when the time is right.

By: Michael McGowan

Michael McGowan — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:09:18 +0000

Given the right combination of conditions the runway length is not the problem, no runway will be long enough! The worst problem in this and most overrun incidents/accidents is the often airline taught and mentality that once the wheels touch ground you are committed to landing and trying to stop. My airline had a MD-80 run off the end of the Cleveland airport and there was nothing wrong with the approach, speeds, touchdown point or equipment. No wheel spin-up due to icy runway mean no brakes, no thrust reverse and partial spoilers. In response to my input about going around, I was told the airline did not want that discussion as according to them rejected landing is a “test pilot” maneuver!

By: Andy Young

Andy Young — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:46:30 +0000

James:
I think “Disruption in the Space-Time Continuum” was meant as a joke. It’s a concept that comes up often in science-fiction, involving wormholes, time travel, etc. The space-time continuum, is, however, a real thing. It is a way of referring to the universe (and beyond, perhaps?) while including the dimension of time. This is necessary because it turns out that space and time are inseparable and influence each other. Einstein did a bit of work on this…
Ok, guess I’m WAY geeking out here, far off the subject.

Gerard,
I would submit that runways are never too short; just that people keep trying to land with equipment and/or training that is inadequate for the runway they have chosen.

By: Gerard

Gerard — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:35:24 +0000

I had always heard that Jackson Hole (JAC) was a challenging airport, I guess that it is true. If people keep going off the runway then the runway might just be too short.

I think your right about padding the margin whenever possible, but as pilots we still need to probe our limits and the limits of the machines we fly.

By: James T Lee

James T Lee — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:32:05 +0000

What is a “disruption in the space-time continuum”? Is this fancy jargon for “lost situational awareness” ??? Or what ?

James T. Lee, MD,PhD
AOPA Member