If you have to land on the interstate.....

gsengle said:
They have one second to react, if they see you they are behind you, and their reaction won't be to accelerate into you. I touchdown at something like 75-80mph.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Not sure of your point here, but it doesn't seem like we are that far apart. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting.

75-80 mph is roughly hiway speeds.
 
Kritchlow said:
Not sure of your point here, but it doesn't seem like we are that far apart. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting.

75-80 mph is roughly hiway speeds.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why the cars behind you as you sink down won't be an issue, as their instinct will be to slow/stop, and why the folks ahead of you won't be an issue as they won't see you until you're already hopefully braking....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Exactly. Which is why the cars behind you as you sink down won't be an issue, as their instinct will be to slow/stop, and why the folks ahead of you won't be an issue as they won't see you until you're already hopefully braking....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Well not everyone is doing your exact speed.
Further more the potential to literally clips roofs with your gear does exist.

I will say this...
Regardless of the correct answer (landing with traffic), if it's rush hour coming out of the city and the other direction is pretty open.....
 
Kritchlow said:
Well not everyone is doing your exact speed.
Further more the potential to literally clips roofs with your gear does exist.

I will say this...
Regardless of the correct answer (landing with traffic), if it's rush hour coming out of the city and the other direction is pretty open.....
Click to expand...

Having lived and commuted in a few big cities, the reverse commute road is never that open that id consider going against traffic. At closing speeds of 150mph, you'd need prob over a mile of open road, whereas in the other direction you could pull it off with a 200ft gap...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Having lived and commuted in a few big cities, the reverse commute road is never that open that id consider going against traffic. At closing speeds of 150mph, you'd need prob over a mile of open road, whereas in the other direction you could pull it off with a 200ft gap...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I see it often. One direction clogged. The other reasonably open.

But we are straying here....
 
Kritchlow said:
I see it often. One direction clogged. The other reasonably open.

But we are straying here....
Click to expand...

Reasonably open isn't the same of a mile stretch with no cars... but near a city I'm looking for other options anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Reasonably open isn't the same of a mile stretch with no cars... but near a city I'm looking for other options anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I give up. Good judgment always rules.

You know, arguing your point is a commendable trait.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is not. The airlines specifically look for that trait when hiring. A crew member needs to be able to coexist with their partner for as many as eight days.

Not sure what you are looking for in the future, but just sayin'.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Are you allowed to land in the high occupancy lane if you are flying solo?
Click to expand...
If that's the only option, I don't care about what I am allowed or not allowed, i just want to land

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Kritchlow said:
I give up. Good judgment always rules.

You know, arguing your point is a commendable trait.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is not. The airlines specifically look for that trait when hiring. A crew member needs to be able to coexist with their partner for as many as eight days.

Not sure what you are looking for in the future, but just sayin'.
Click to expand...

You ignored the point that light traffic isn't light enough at closing speeds of 150mph at touchdown. So I pointed it out. Putting down a crew member who is pointing out what you are ignoring isn't good CRM. Getting annoyed when someone disagrees with you isn't good CRM. I believe I was respectful. Good luck to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
You ignored the point that light traffic isn't light enough at closing speeds of 150mph at touchdown. So I pointed it out. Putting down a crew member who is pointing out what you are ignoring isn't good CRM. Getting annoyed when someone disagrees with you isn't good CRM. I believe I was respectful. Good luck to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Whatever. Have it your way. The recruiters will see right through it. I am one.
 
Kritchlow said:
Whatever. Have it your way. The recruiters will see right through it. I am one.
Click to expand...

Even better, threatening people having respectful conversations online. Not cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Even better, threatening people having respectful conversations online. Not cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Threatening?
Bwahahahaha. Man, you have a lot to learn before becoming a pro. Get along is probably the #1 factor that goes into hiring. After all, most guys are trainable.
 
Kritchlow said:
Threatening?
Bwahahahaha. Man, you have a lot to learn before becoming a pro. Get along is probably the #1 factor that goes into hiring. After all, most guys are trainable.
Click to expand...

You don't know me. But now you're attacking me. Well done. Again good luck to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
You don't know me. But now you're attacking me. Well done. Again good luck to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Never an attack, just trying to help you out. I told you a while back via PM I would try to do that. You didn't take my advice.

Good luck to you. Lord knows you'll need it.
 
Kritchlow said:
Never an attack, just trying to help you out. I told you a while back via PM I would try to do that. You didn't take my advice.

Good luck to you. Lord knows you'll need it.
Click to expand...

I'm not some kid. I was having a conversation with ya. Not sure why you got bent out of shape. I'm doing fine thanks. We don't need to continue and annoy all the fine folks on the forum. Good night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Where in the world do you expect someone to go to avoid you? Crash into the ditch? Hitting the brakes won't help them. All they could do is accelerate.

It makes no sense to me at all.
 
Salty said:
Where in the world do you expect someone to go to avoid you? Crash into the ditch? Hitting the brakes won't help them. All they could do is accelerate.

It makes no sense to me at all.
Click to expand...
And same could be said going the other direction.

In all honesty, with enough advance notice I'm sure the cars can get over.

Note: I still agree the correct answer is "with the traffic."
 
Jeff Oslick said:
As Rod Machado explained in a talk I was at about 12 years ago, the most expensive plane you've likely flown is worth about $100.

That is the insurance deductible (if any), on your policy.
Click to expand...

I never saw a deductible that low, even 12 years ago.
 
Hell, land against traffic. Look for a heavy truck and aim for the bumper. At least you'll be certain of the outcome, no surprises...
Now, any intelligent threads lately?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Thinking you can have a valid opinion regarding his employability from a few comments on the Internet is just a tiny little bit arrogant.

Ease up a little.
Click to expand...
That's what a recruiter does. We only have very limited time with a candidate to determine if they're a fit.
 
I would drop to 50', with traffic, hopefully with enough speed that you can choose to dive for an opening in the flow instead being at the mercy of gravity. Even if you are still faster than traffic, the collision should be minimized because of the small speed difference.
 
I would probably make a facebook post at first sign of trouble.
By the time I got down to the interstate, everyone would have checked it on their phone and would know I was coming :)
 
denverpilot said:
I never saw a deductible that low, even 12 years ago.
Click to expand...

The current policy on our 182 has a $0 deductible, both in-motion and not-in-motion, so there's that.
Our hull physical damage coverage is just over half-a-percent of stated coverage amount, so we're not paying for a low deductible on the front side either.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
The current policy on our 182 has a $0 deductible, both in-motion and not-in-motion, so there's that.
Our hull physical damage coverage is just over half-a-percent of stated coverage amount, so we're not paying for a low deductible on the front side either.
Click to expand...

Is that the real insurance deductible, or paid out of an account of cash on hand from the club/rental place. Sounds like you're saying you got an insurer to do zero, which we haven't seen anyone offer, but we haven't asked.
 
denverpilot said:
Is that the real insurance deductible, or paid out of an account of cash on hand from the club/rental place. Sounds like you're saying you got an insurer to do zero, which we haven't seen anyone offer, but we haven't asked.
Click to expand...
Mine is $0 also.
 
denverpilot said:
Is that the real insurance deductible, or paid out of an account of cash on hand from the club/rental place. Sounds like you're saying you got an insurer to do zero, which we haven't seen anyone offer, but we haven't asked.
Click to expand...

This is a standard policy from Old Republic, that we purchased via Travers Aviation. The airplane is owned by an LLC with 3 members as named insured.
 
Good grief - with the traffic, on the median or shoulder if possible, but if not, off the road ASAP; then call the insurance company, tell them where their airplane is.
 
Many interstates I have seen have large clear spaces beside & between the paved areas ie the central median and the shoulders.
They also are often associated with service roads and ramps - and these often have much less traffic.

If you are looking at an interstate to land that means to me there is no adjacent flat clear areas nearby ie it is locked in by hills or urban development. (otherwise I'd be using the flat clear areas -ie fields- beside the interstate, before I ever would choose to land in busy traffic). Even flying over a causeway, I'd ditch beside it unless it was devoid of vehicles.

One of my biggest concerns is flying over cities which are absolutely packed with buildings and busy roads and no greenspace. As I progress over these, I am eyeballing golf courses, right of way space beside high tension lines, railways, large empty parking areas.

Edit;
Oh, it would be idiotic to expect traffic to part for you. They are never going to see you or react appropriately. Cars are basically unpredictable, 3000lb, rolling blocks of dumb.
 
I'm surprised the YouTube videos aren't attached. Recent one lands heavy traffic, no ussues and recorded by dash cam. One a few years ago, not as smooth prop strikes a car's roof but no injuries
 
eman1200 said:
With traffic and land on the back of a flatbed then crack open a cold beer whilst you get a free tow. That's how imma do it.
Click to expand...

Like this?

5711703309_fd4a0c6059.jpg
DSC_01220001[2]-1000.jpg


http://www.gkairshows.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top