Land on roof

Ok, I don't like it where the artical says it could have been worse.. they could have landed in a house or on a roadway.

Well what could be worse about a roadway??? pleanty of people make emergancy landings on roadways.
 
Well what could be worse about a roadway??? pleanty of people make emergancy landings on roadways.

probably all the people/cars/power lines/poles/mailboxes. i generally try to avoid roads as off airport landing sites. unless there are no other reasonable alternates and everything looks very very good.

of course i live in farm country, dont have to worry about endless seas of houses and warehouses after takeoff.
 
probably all the people/cars/power lines/poles/mailboxes. i generally try to avoid roads as off airport landing sites. unless there are no other reasonable alternates and everything looks very very good.

of course i live in farm country, dont have to worry about endless seas of houses and warehouses after takeoff.

Well there are cars... but they are nice flat landing spaces and the drivers have to be fairly out of it not to see the plane comming at least durring the day. I often follow I-80 out of PA to MI, it's long and flat through the mountians and there will be people there to help too.

Missa
 
Interesting. I have wondered about making an emergency landing on big warehouse roofs. Generally roofs have stuff on top too, but as they say "any port in a storm."

BTW, I think roads are overrated as landing sites. Especially if you're a low wing, the odds of hitting something are pretty high. I guess glider pilots just think this way.
 
Interesting. I have wondered about making an emergency landing on big warehouse roofs. Generally roofs have stuff on top too, but as they say "any port in a storm."

BTW, I think roads are overrated as landing sites. Especially if you're a low wing, the odds of hitting something are pretty high. I guess glider pilots just think this way.

Ya, but if you fly over NW PA, the road sure beats the side of a mountian. You may lose a wing on the landing but they will find you. Not a lot of feilds to speak of. I'd take a feild over the road but I'd take a road over a mountinan... not sure where a wharehouse roof rates. I think there are too many variables with roofs, like how sound the structure is. At least with a road I know what to expect. That said, flying out of Troy, MI; if I lost an engine on take off, I'd be landing on the roof of a Target because there was no other choice.
 
i generally try to avoid roads as off airport landing sites. unless there are no other reasonable alternates and everything looks very very good.
Coming from anyone else that would be a strange statement. :goofy:



I was particularly fond of this line
"I thought it was going to explode," said witness Elias Hall.

But it didn't.
"

Because as everyone here knows, if it's raining airplanes melt and if you hit them just hard enough (only just a little harder than slamming the door), they blow up into massive fire balls that reach hundreds of feet into the sky, decimate city blocks, and cause the inevitable barrels of gas sitting near by to blow up.

Also...
"The Columbia Fire Department says this is the third time they've responded to a plane landing on a building near the airport."

Kinda makes you wonder if they've ever through about lengthening the runways/clearways and/or moving a building or two. Or, if neither of those are an option, just build more flat topped warehouses with extra support braces in the roof.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I have wondered about making an emergency landing on big warehouse roofs. Generally roofs have stuff on top too, but as they say "any port in a storm."

BTW, I think roads are overrated as landing sites. Especially if you're a low wing, the odds of hitting something are pretty high. I guess glider pilots just think this way.

my thoughts too Lance. even the "short" 40 foot wings on my glider will probably clip something on a road. reminds me, saturday i was trying to tell the Tri Pacer in the hangar behind me that my wings were short. kinda fell on deaf ears.

Ya, but if you fly over NW PA, the road sure beats the side of a mountian. You may lose a wing on the landing but they will find you. Not a lot of feilds to speak of. I'd take a feild over the road but I'd take a road over a mountinan... not sure where a wharehouse roof rates.

agreed. when i was flying to 6Y9, for the last 70 miles or whatever where we were flying over a carpet of trees I was definitely keeping track of where the roads were!
 
I kinda like the quote "It was a life changing experience" for that one lady. Me thinks she needs to get out more. :yes:
 
I've considered rooftops- the very large (but not enough to prevent damage) flat rooftops of some of the piers and waterfront warehouses along the Hudson River look a lot better than the water, especially on a cold day.

But I think you'd have to approach so carefully-avoiding all obstacles and making sure to put it down very, very firmly without getting killed- it might not be worth it. This guy almost ran out of roof, and it's at least two stories down from there. :eek:
But I'd go for a roof before most of the roads I've flown over. :D
 
CUB, where this happened, is where I learned to fly out of.

The runway 31 departure (which is the preferred runway) is among the most dangerous I've seen in terms of an engine out on takeoff. There is simply nowhere to land except for warehouse buildings.

As the article said, this has happened before, once with a C-152 trainer that the FBO owned while I was training there.

I live in Virginia now, but flew to CUB just two weeks ago and was reminded how much I dislike that departure.

James
 
It's especially impressive given that roofs are not designed to support a concentrated live load of hundreds of pounds (per wheel). It's usually no more than 20 pounds per square foot plus snow load for that area. I guess snow load could be substantial, but 500-800 psf? From the tiny picture, either the right main gear broke or poked through the roof.

What I want to know is, did the pilot file a flight plan?
 
It's usually no more than 20 pounds per square foot plus snow load for that area.
That sounds like bad news for the roofers, who presumably weigh considerably more than that, and have to walk on the roof to build it!

Wet snow, 1 foot deep, weighs about 20lbs per square foot.

But these loads are really about the strength of the support structures holding up the entire thing, i.e. the ability to support the weight of snow along the entire roof. A roof still has to be able to support localized loads, people walking across it, the installation of equipment up there, etc.
-harry
 
That sounds like bad news for the roofers, who presumably weigh considerably more than that, and have to walk on the roof to build it!

Wet snow, 1 foot deep, weighs about 20lbs per square foot.

But these loads are really about the strength of the support structures holding up the entire thing, i.e. the ability to support the weight of snow along the entire roof. A roof still has to be able to support localized loads, people walking across it, the installation of equipment up there, etc.
-harry
Equipment and the structure are dead loads. The 20 psf sounds light, but that's what the code says. Engineers always do CYA of course, and add more. And many roofs do deflect (bounce) when you walk on them. Don't try to walk on the metal roof of a pre-engineered steel building or you'll crush it.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top