During my flight training, I was always taught that a highway or paved road was the last place to land in an emergency. For one, power lines tend to cross paved roads and by the time you can see them, it's too late to avoid them. Another is that it endangers others on the ground. Many pilots lose their lives trying to save the plane in an emergency. The best advice I got during my training was that when the plane quits on you, it's now your life boat. Use it to save your life, don't risk yours to save it.

During my flight training I also worked at a small GA airport. I got to know a lot of the pilots there. One owned a construction company and would often fly over his construction sites to survey them from the air. He came out that morning, I filled up his plane and he never returned. I didn't think much of it, although he rented a hangar from us, he also had a private air strip too.

A few days later, I found out that he was killed making an emergency landing. While flying over the construction site, his engine quit and he tried to land on a road. A car pulled out from a side street and he pulled up to avoid it. The landing gear snagged a power line, which caused it to nose dive into the ground and rupture the fuel tanks. It caught fire, and people tried to get to him to pull him out. They said he appeared to be alive and trying to get out, but the fire spread too fast.

The way I found out was a bit shocking. Investigators from the NTSB showed up to review our fuel and maintenance logs. We have to perform daily tests on the fuel and equipment, and I was the one that did those tests the day he was killed. It wasn't the fuel that caused the engine to quit, but that thought that maybe I screwed up the test and caused it and knowing he probably burned alive haunted me. That's something I'll never forget.

That's the worst place to try to land. Power lines typically cross highways, not to mention cars and putting others on the ground at risk. During my flight training I was taught to go fields or dirt roads. If a highway is the only place to put down in an emergency, the best place is to land between two lanes which avoids the danger of cars, but you still have power lines, signs and other things in the median to deal with.

The point in an emergency landing is to survive and not worry about the plane. Most people get killed or injured when the pilot tries to save the plane.

>> ^rychan:
I think this guy did a good job. No injuries, no damage to the aircraft. He had a view of the road when he made his decision so he could see about traffic and power lines.

Power lines are not easy to see from the air, they're not even that easy to see from the ground. Next time you're out driving around, take note of how close you actually are to a power line before you can clearly see it. Then ask yourself if you could avoid that if you were in a plane with no engine doing 60-70mph.

Worrying about damage to the aircraft should the last thing on your mind when making an emergency landing. Many pilots are killed or injured because they try to save their aircraft.

I just read about this on some news site. In the article I just read, he said they had just taken off and were at 500 ft. when the engine quit.

In the video, the passenger points to the left and asks "can you make that field," and the pilot says "I don't think I can make it." Then he restarts the engine and turns AWAY from the field and directly TOWARD a populated area. Next he continues flying toward the city rather than turning back to the airport they just took off from or a safer place to ditch the plane.

I've never been in an emergency situation like this, but that's why you practice for emergencies during flight training.

>> ^jimnms:
He was lucky indeed. I learned during my flight training that a public road is the WORST possible place to try to land in an emergency. For one thing, roads usually have these things called power lines that run across them, but most importantly you endanger the lives of people on the ground.


"WORST"? So you would rather land...
1) on a preschool picnic
2) on a munitions factory
3) on a preschool picnic on a munitions factory

I think this guy did a good job. No injuries, no damage to the aircraft. He had a view of the road when he made his decision so he could see about traffic and power lines.

He was lucky indeed. I learned during my flight training that a public road is the WORST possible place to try to land in an emergency. For one thing, roads usually have these things called power lines that run across them, but most importantly you endanger the lives of people on the ground.

I knew a guy that got himself killed when landing on a road. He was landing there on purpose, it was a country road and he was the owner of a construction business that was working on a site there. As he was landing on a section of the road he'd used several times before. A truck pulled out on the road and he had to abort the landing. When he pulled up to go around, his gear snagged a power line, which don't break, and caused his plane to nose dive into the ground and catch fire. The workers at the site tried to get to him, but they couldn't get him out of the plane, and he burned alive.

^you only hold that opinion because you grew up in a system which held your hand through your whole life. you really can't think of a way for the free market to solve drivers licenses, building codes, or airline security? you are taking all these restrictions for granted because you've never even considered the alternative of actually making decisions for yourself.

Free market alternative to drivers licenses:
Everyone is free to drive. Private companies spring up which teach drivers safety courses--all of whom are in competition with each other, and thus offer affordable prices to the consumer. Such a company may offer different "levels" of courses, each of which is progressively more rigorous and expensive. At the highest levels one could respond to adverse weather conditions on par with a world rally championship driver. There are no laws mandating drivers education--but for economical reasons--insurance agencies do not offer polices, or offer policies at extremely high premiums to drivers who haven't been certified by a private organization. People with higher levels of certification pay less in insurance--as they are the safest drivers. People with or without insurance who cause an accident are still liable in a civil and criminal court. People are free to opt out of uninsured motorists insurance or insurance altogether, but would then run the risk of facing a hit and run driver, or driver with insufficient resources to pay for damages. Accidents will occur, but they are still punishable by state laws--i.e. you can be fined and put in jail for reckless driving, as in the current environment. The result is a system where people are motivated to receive a high quality, real-world driving education--yet can choose the level of risk they are willing to accept, or their budget allows for.

The argument about a teenager getting in a car and killing someone is not a valid criticism of the free market. In a free market killing someone is still illegal...the only difference is now the teenager only gets one charge: manslaughter--instead of manslaughter and "driving without a license". Manslaughter is the charge with the brunt of the both the consequence, and the relevance--not "driving without a license". Why should you care if it was a 15 year old or a 25 year old who kills your mother due to negligence--the result is the same either way.

In addition, how would someone too young to drive obtain a car in the first place? If they can afford a car, they must have a job, and if they have a job which can pay for a car I would argue they are responsible enough to drive a car. Thus, you don't even need age-based regulation--the free market takes care of that too! Whether you are 15 or 55, if you work for a living you understand the value of the dollar, and you will have clear economic motivation to not crash your car, end up in jail, or have to pay stiff fines. If someone's rich daddy buys them a car and they crash it causing the loss of life or property--guess who's rich daddy is going to get sued in civil court!

Free market alternative to building codes:
There are no longer building safety codes--but private organizations (think IEEE for construction) pop up which come together to vote on standards for safe construction. This already happens in many private industries for reasons in addition to safety. Consumers can choose not to live, work, or conduct business in any building them deem unsafe--so businesses. in the name of profit, will be motivated to publicly display the details of construction--perhaps by puting a plague with the engineers name and his level of accreditation/adherence to publicly available safety standards on the store-front, or hiring private inspectors to valid the safety of the structure. A consumer walking into a building could then, for example, see that the building hasn't been inspected in over 3 years or that it was constructed by a firm with a poor safety record--and choose to take their business elsewhere. Thus, engineers, firms, and inspectors are held publicly responsible for the safety of the buildings they construct--and, perhaps more importantly--companies are motivated to select the most esteemed firms around to construct their building. If a business has a poor safety record or a building failure occurs-the results will most likely make it on the local news--the poor press would likely force the company out of business or pressure it to adopt higher quality construction practices. Firms would be motivated to hire engineers who are certified in safe construction, as the public will only want to live, work, or conduct business in buildings which they feel are safe. Companies who place false safety certifications can be charged with fraud and face stiff fines or jail time.

When is that last time you walked into a building and knew what engineering firm built it, what their safety practices where, or the last time it was inspected for health, fire, or safety violations? With a free market, this information could be available to you with absolutely no laws or regulation--only the sheer motivation of profit.

Free market alternative to airlines/taxis/bus drivers:
People make a choice of which airline, taxicab, or bus to use as their form of transportation. And a business which hires drunk drivers, or utilize shoddy planes which crash frequently, is not going to remain in business long. If I wish to fly with an airline which has an unknown safety record, or even some blemishes--maybe I am willing to pay less, or not pay at all. Profit is a strong motivator, and competition between business will motivate them to offer the safest flights, the most convenient bus routes, or the cheapest taxicab fares.

Which regards to flight training--do hospitals hire doctors with no medical training? Do law firms hire lawyers who haven't been to law school? What makes you think a company is going to profit by hiring untrained employees? An airline which hires people off the street to fly planes, and thus results with a bunch of 10:00 news stories about fiery plane crashes isn't going to be in the airline business for very long--just like the hospital who hires employees from the local McDonalds and subsequently botches the next 25 heart transplants in a row isn't going to be in the medical business after the story hits the local newspaper.


The sheer flexibility, elegance, adaptability, beauty, power, and simplicity of the free market is absolutely stupefying.

Deer bolted across the runway right in front of my airplane when I was in flight training. It waited at the edge until we were close, then zoom. The instructor and I both stood on the brakes in the same instant.