News


Private plane lands on I-280, strikes car

No injuries reported in incident north of Farm Hill Boulevard

The California Highway Patrol on Monday released a few more details about the emergency landing of a small aircraft on northbound Interstate 280 on Sunday.

The pilot, Scott Bohannon, 53, of San Mateo, was forced to land on the highway north of Farm Hill Boulevard after the plane suffered a mechanical failure, according to the CHP.

Bohannan had taken off from the San Carlos Airport on a test flight and was on his way back when the mechanical failure occurred, CHP Officer Art Montiel said. Bohannon radioed the airport as he was landing.

The CHP began to receive reports at 7:13 p.m. that a small aircraft had landed on the highway. As officers were responding, the airport also contacted the CHP about the incident.

The plane's landing gear struck the roof of a 2009 Mercedes coupe driven by Wendy Kwon, 47, of Sausalito, that was also traveling north directly below the landing aircraft, CHP officials said.

Kwon was alone in the car. The rear window of the car was broken, the roof was dented and the car was towed away from the scene, but there were no injuries.

The plane, a 1975 Cessna, landed safely and was able to come to a stop on the highway's shoulder. Traffic was light and was only moderately affected. The plane was towed to the airport.

Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Allen Kenitzer said the plane was conducting a photo mission when it lost engine power.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Small-Planes-Crash-Frequently
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2011 at 6:48 pm

So .. was the pilot cited by the CHP for landing on a major highway?

Was this another Palo Alto Airport-based plane? And what about a tail code? The FAA says that while it will not release the names of the pilot, or the owner, it will release the name of the tail code. At least that way residents can track the aircraft and owners of the planes that fall out of the sky.

The Weekly needs to do a better job providing the public information about these crashes. There have now been four in the last 16 months at the Palo Alto Airport. Given the crashes that occur relatively frequently of small aircraft, local papers claiming to be dedicated to "quality local journalism" really ought to be doing a better job of reporting on the people who are responsible for these crashes.


Like this comment
Posted by Wow
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 4, 2011 at 8:24 pm

SPCF,

Seriously, you expect the press to have this information less than 24 hours after a crash on a holiday weekend? Have you ever attempted to get information from the FAA or the police? You need to reexamine your expectations.


Like this comment
Posted by Bob_M
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 4, 2011 at 8:26 pm

Yet another reason why cars should be banned.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 4, 2011 at 9:07 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

"Falling out of the sky" implies uncontrolled. Obviously this plane was under control, just out of sky.


Like this comment
Posted by qqn
a resident of another community
on Jul 4, 2011 at 11:11 pm

@Small-Planes-Crash-Frequently:

611WS from San Carlos Airport. Pilot was a 53 year old man from San Mateo. In the past week I've heard about serious train, bus, car, motorcycle and boat accidents. Each one involved at least one death. Not one of the recent plane incidents had any serious injuries so let's not start with the airplane and Palo Alto airport bashing again.


Like this comment
Posted by PatrickD
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 5, 2011 at 9:48 am

I think the pilot made the right call. If you land with traffic your landing speed is roughly the same as the speed the cars are travelling in. When you lose your only engine, you don't have a lot of options. When you can land without injuring anyone and can walk away from the accident, that's not a bad outcome.

My only concern, as with the case of 222MF, the Cessna 172SP which landed short at PAO a week or so ago, is was it a fuel starvation event. It's pretty irresponsible on the part of the pilot if you don't put enough gas in the tank. One thing about aviation accidents is that they're scrutinized to death, so we'll find out at some point if that is a factor in either incident.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 5, 2011 at 11:12 am

> so let's not start with the airplane and Palo Alto airport bashing again.

Sounds like you just did.

You seem to think that a railroad accident justifies a plane accident. Or a motorcycle accident means that the pilots get a free one, or whatever ... this is muddled thinking. Different types of transportation and circumstances have no relationship to each other.

There are so many planes up there that the frequency of accidents in this local area is going up, and probably will continue to increase. This plane in question was a 1975 Cessna, that is almost 40 years old.

Just the other day a small plane crashed on takeoff at the Palo Alto airport. it certainly seems fair and valid to discuss the factors that lead to these crashes and why pilots keep insisting that it not be discussed, or that irrational comparisons to cars, trains, bicycles, horses, skateboards or whatever be considered.

There are an increasing number of planes with a lot more older planes and older pilots. When these factors increase the chances and probability of more accidents increase, and the probability of a serious accident that is going to involve people on the ground.

That just seems to be a fact that pilots and supporters of private planes seem to just want to ignore or shrug off, because, after all, for any one pilot chances that accident is not going to involved them personally .. until it does.

Close the Palo Alto airport. End the constant noise and use the land for a better purpose.


Like this comment
Posted by Enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jul 5, 2011 at 12:23 pm

A picture would be cool.


Like this comment
Posted by daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 5, 2011 at 1:05 pm

The constant comparison of small airplane crashes to car accidents is irrational and absurd. Practically all of us, even pilots, use cars and roads to travel daily to work, school, shopping, doctor appointments and other routine daily chores. If we banned cars and roads our society would cease to function, while if we banned general aviation airports located right next to residential areas no one would know the difference. The increasingly frequent small plane crashes gives a definite answer to the question whether we should allow GA airports next to residential neighborhoods.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 5, 2011 at 1:16 pm

There is NO data to support the claim of increasing frequency of small plane crashes.


Like this comment
Posted by Worn Out
a resident of another community
on Jul 5, 2011 at 1:16 pm

Used to own a plane.
After 911 things changed.
Everybody complains.
Just no fun anymore.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 5, 2011 at 1:41 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

If cars were maintained as well as aircraft were, your 40 year old Ford would run as well as your 4 year old Ford. You must pass annual inspections during which time you must demonstrate that all airworthiness directives have been complied with.


Like this comment
Posted by out-of-town
a resident of another community
on Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 pm

The hatred against small planes , pilots and local airports
is hard to understand.

SPCF - how about writing about cars-crash-frequently, trains-kill-people, large-passenger-planes-cause-global-warming - and
so on and so forth - just to round things out ?!


Like this comment
Posted by Ed
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 5, 2011 at 4:41 pm

Some people (Small Planes Crash Frequently, for example) do not seem to read the whole Weekly article. This one clearly reported that the plane was from the San Carlos airport and had nothing to do with the Palo Alto airport. The article even gave the name and age of the pilot. How much more detail do you want?


Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Jul 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm

By flying above our heads, often just for fun, small plane pilots take our lives and safety into their hands. I don't want them above me or my home, or using a freeway that is meant for cars, as an emergency landing strip. This guy clearly chose to endanger this driver in order to save himself, confirming, yet again my opinion of this kind of person.


Like this comment
Posted by Elwood Blues
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jul 5, 2011 at 5:12 pm

Elwood Blues is a registered user.

This constant aerial barrage of small planes falling out of the sky has gotten out of control! On my way to the mailbox yesterday, I had to dodge two Cessnas and a Gulfstream which plummeted to the street all around me. Won't someone think of the children!!!


Like this comment
Posted by midtown res
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 5, 2011 at 5:13 pm

This pilot did a near perfect emergency landing when the aircraft failed. The plane was not damaged. No one was hurt. The Mercedes will be repaired and back on the road in a matter of days. Do you think you can do as well the next time something happens to your car? Most of us can't claim to be any where near that competent and yet we are allowed to drive every day, taking other people's lives and safety in our hands.

I'm not a pilot but I'm fed up with all the whining about pilots and small planes. They have a right to pursue their passions just as you do yours. If you take an honest look at the number of small plane incidents that actually hurt people or property, compared to the number of passenger automobile caused injuries and deaths, you'd do better to live in a tent under the nearest airport approach than get in your car - think about that the next time you drive to Starbucks...


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm

"confirming, yet again my opinion of this kind of person."

What an enlightened way of looking at the world - "this kind of person"


Like this comment
Posted by Bohannon family?
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jul 5, 2011 at 9:13 pm

The pilot is a very well known person from a very well known family in San Mateo and Menlo Park. Funny that the story doesn't identify him more clearly. Funny or intentional.


Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen
a resident of another community
on Jul 5, 2011 at 10:25 pm

I would fly with Mr. Bohannan anytime! He did an amazing job in landing safely and no harm came to anyone.


Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 6, 2011 at 11:22 am

" This constant aerial barrage of small planes falling out of the sky has gotten out of control! On my way to the mailbox yesterday, I had to dodge two Cessnas and a Gulfstream which plummeted to the street all around me. Won't someone think of the children!!! "

Ya gotta love the sarcasm when it appears in a comment about the uptight people who comment from Paly.....

The first story was a rush job that shouldn't event be called a story...just a grabber headline....


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2011 at 11:51 am

First of all, the naysayers want to close the PA airport. Next they want to ban flying altogether. It sounds like we should go back to the first days of the automobile when cars had to be driven behind a man walking with a flag to warn of the approach of the car.

I tend to think that some readers here should realise that the world is a dangerous place and we have to take our chances. It is called life.


Like this comment
Posted by Bohannon family?
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jul 6, 2011 at 2:02 pm

Just because some rich guy wants to go to a photo op, or others who consider themselves important because they are very rich, or for sport, isn't a good enough reason to endanger other people's lives.
Yes life is dangerous. I prefer to take the consequences for my own behavior, not for the unimportant convenience of someone else. Yes, I said unimportant. No one is banning flying, keep calm, stay rational.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of University South
on Jul 6, 2011 at 3:56 pm

There are probably a million things that are more likely to kill a person than an airplane falling out of the sky and hitting them. Literally there are at least tens of thousands of things that are more likely to kill you.

A study from 2001 shows that the average persons lifetime risk of being hit by an airplane falling out of the sky are 9 out of 10 million. If you live within 2 miles of airport your risk is higher (middlefield is about the two mile mark in PA) but still in the 1 out of millions. These numbers include commercial airliners.

Where as your odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are about 1 out of 10,000. So the average person is about a hundred times more likely to get struck by lightning.

People like to talk about airplane crashes because they are exciting and scary. They seem more scary because the fear mongering commenter has little control over whether it happens to them. I hope these numbers ease someones fears.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 6, 2011 at 4:15 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Just last week a car hit a house and killed someone.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 6, 2011 at 4:24 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

That facts say that several airplanes have crashed in this local area and it was sheer luck that people were not killing.

The facts say that there is no real need for the Palo Alto airport here, that the big reason it stays here is political pull from self-important bigshots that when they get in a problem want the public to take on the risk of bailing them out, whether it be financially or by allowing a plane to land on top of your car risking your safety.

Trying the make the argument that there is no danger - is disingenuous mongering of the opposite sort from fear-mongering, but not in line with reality, except the reality of the powerful minority that just keeps imposing its self-righteous will on the residents of the city, but does not make up for it or compensate the city for their "in some small number of cases" deadly impositions.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 6, 2011 at 4:26 pm

oops, sorry wrote that way too fast while trying to do two things at once.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of University South
on Jul 6, 2011 at 5:16 pm

"Discussing my particular feelings about the airport in a rational, deliberate, non-sensational, fact-based way is not fear-mongering,"

I agree with this statement, the whole fact based argument is the reason I posted the numbers to show how extremely unlikely it is. The lightning numbers were just meant to put the amount of actual risk into context. It isn't easy to understand just how rare 9 in 10 million is, but most people have some idea about how rare lightning strikes are. It was just meant as an example for context. I don't see how it is a false argument.

"Quit attacking the people, and start dealing with the facts."

Fact= your odds of being killed by a plane falling from the sky are 9 in 10 million. I am sorry you felt you were being attacked.

"> There are probably a million things that are more likely to
> kill a person than an airplane falling out of the sky
That really means nothing. Absolutely nothing."

This actually does mean something. What it means that as we reduce the risks to our lives (which we should), it makes sense to reduce the larger risks first. Having an airport in your town is an extremely small risk, so I would expect it be very low on the list of risks to be eliminated.

"That facts say that several airplanes have crashed in this local area and it was sheer luck that people were not killing."

Since the facts show how rare it is that people are actually killed by falling airplanes. It would actually be luck if some one was struck. Very, very, very bad luck.

Lastly, I didn't mean my first post as an attack on you, and I am sorry that the fear mongering comment hurt your feelings. I only originally posted because I thought some facts might clear the air.

Judging from the emotion in your language it sounds like you may have had a relative or some one you know killed in this manner. If this is the case, I mean no disrespect.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 6, 2011 at 9:15 pm

There are some diseases that only single affect people in the single digits ... that is not a signal to the medical profession to say let's ignore them or let them die. The chances of dying in a terrorist attack are almost nothing, yet that did not keep us from upturning the world order, destroying our economy and throwing out our individual liberties. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

The risk of the airport is small, but it has the possibility of being very catastropic and it is over a long period of time a dead certainty that it will happen, happen again and eventually hurt a lot of people. The facility is a duplicate of airports in the area so the need for this risk is superfluous.

The POLITICAL decision, whether we want to acknowledge it or not is that we are trading the off the convenience of flyers for the lives and property of unknown people that flyers and the circles they move in don't believe are important.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 6, 2011 at 9:27 pm

PG&E pipelines and gas stations pose a far higher statistical risk to people on the ground than do airplanes and airports.

Frantic responses to very low probability events are simply the result of being ignorant of the data.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 6, 2011 at 9:38 pm

> Frantic responses to very low probability events are simply the result of being ignorant of the data.

There is nothing frantic in putting up phasing the airport out for a vote.

The almost comical and very predictable comparisons of risks between these different things really do not mean anything and that last comment from someone who usually makes more sense is just discouraging in that it shows that all stops will pulled out so that the elite class of people who fly airplanes will pretty much say anything to save themselves from having to drive to another airport to take off in their planes. Now ... that is more frantic in my opinion.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 6, 2011 at 9:43 pm

Frantic responses to very low probability events are simply the result of being ignorant of the data.

All figures below are for U.S. residents.
Cause of Death Lifetime Odds

Heart Disease


1-in-5

Cancer


1-in-7

Stroke


1-in-23

Accidental Injury


1-in-36

Motor Vehicle Accident*


1-in-100

Intentional Self-harm (suicide)


1-in-121

Falling Down


1-in-246

Assault by Firearm


1-in-325

Fire or Smoke


1-in-1,116

Natural Forces (heat, cold, storms, quakes, etc.)


1-in-3,357

Electrocution*


1-in-5,000

Drowning


1-in-8,942

Air Travel Accident*


1-in-20,000

Flood* (included also in Natural Forces above)


1-in-30,000

Legal Execution


1-in-58,618

Tornado* (included also in Natural Forces above)


1-in-60,000

Lightning Strike (included also in Natural Forces above)


1-in-83,930

Snake, Bee or other Venomous Bite or Sting*


1-in-100,000

Earthquake (included also in Natural Forces above)


1-in-131,890

Dog Attack


1-in-147,717

Asteroid Impact*


1-in-200,000**
Tsunami* 1-in-500,000

Fireworks Discharge


1-in-615,488


Like this comment
Posted by onemore
a resident of Southgate
on Jul 6, 2011 at 10:27 pm

discovering love affairs

100-in-100


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 6, 2011 at 11:42 pm

PC, all you are doing with all the nonsense is showing just how biased you are as a pilot. The relative probabilities of all that nonsense really does not bear on the issue of planes at takeoff and landing and the Palo Alto airport. The way we have been programmed to listen to this BS about risk is not backed up by any rational way of looking at things, except in the opinions of the people who present it based on their spreadsheets and dollar values.

For example, if we knew that in some number of years that plane that fell out of the sky would fall on you and kill you, would you volunteer to die for aviation, knowing it was a sure thing? Hardly, but you are fine sentencing some unknown person to that fate, and maybe more than one when you play your statistical game.

Your statistical games also do not take into the account the that Palo Alto airport needs to exist and be where it is. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Or the other interesting probabilistic event was the chance that asteroid would hit the Earth. This almost happened the other day. If you divide the distance between the Earth and the Moon into 30, the asteroid that swooped by came within 1/30 the distance from the Earth to the Moon. You might consider the Earth worthy of saving despite those thin odds, but you don't consider whoever is going to get crushed or burned to death from a plane important. The issue is not the specific odds but the weighing of all the factors and how much weight to you give to people's lives.

Personally, I think Palo Alto needs a landfill worse than it needs an airport. We should rip up the airport and dump garbage there for another few decades and build some nice quiet hills where birds, animals and people can enjoy our bay shoreline ... without the roar of airplanes and the danger of more, older and older machines piloted by arrogant people who think they are incapable of error.

But in any case, it should be up to the voters?


Like this comment
Posted by Watcher
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 7, 2011 at 1:14 am

Thanks Anon, and much agreed. Tired of people trying to distract from the subject with info on death by other means, etc. The subject is small planes, and many of us have good reason to be concerned - actually, numerous good reasons.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 7, 2011 at 6:11 am

Being distracted by facts that you don't want to hear often impedes understanding the problem.

For example "The relative probabilities of all that nonsense really does not bear on the issue of planes at takeoff and landing and the Palo Alto airport." proves the point as the plane in question neither took off from nor was attempting to land at the Palo Alto Airport.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 7, 2011 at 6:22 am

Great comment posted on the sister forum:

"Posted by Stu Soffer, a resident of the Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks neighborhood, 5 minutes ago

This was an emergency, without the luxury of time. Scott did a great job, and his experience shows. 280 is better for these events since there's relatively few power or utility lines crossing overhead. By some of the same logic offered here, Capt. Sullenberger should not have used the Hudson to land US Air because there are ferry boats using the waterways."


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 7, 2011 at 8:43 am

> By some of the same logic offered here, Capt. Sullenberger
> should not have used the Hudson to land US Air because
> there are ferry boats using the waterways."

Really? Is that what you think? Explain that logic ... who said
or implied anything like that? Yeah, no one.

Your argument is almost identical the the arguments of the
flying enthusiasts who put on these unnecessary air shows and
decide the risk is worth it. Particularly in Europe. Then over time
when jets crash into houses and kill people the community finally
gets upset and kicked them out.

We already know it's going to happen at some point, so talking
about removing the airport has nothing at all to do with Sully
Sullenberger and commercial flying - but you know that already.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 7, 2011 at 3:41 pm

This is absolutely nothing about stunt flying and airshows. This is also nothing about PA airport. If, perchance, PA airport were closed, there would still be small aircraft flying over Palo Alto and there would still be commercial aircraft, military aircraft, traffic helicopters, media helicopters, Stanford medic helicopters, etc. etc. all flying over Palo Alto.

Since we are near the Bay, it is just possible another Sully Sullenberg flying a commercial jet could decide to put his plane down in our SF Bay, possibly near EPA.

The airspace over Palo Alto will continue to be used so closing the PA airport, or any private airport, is not going to make Palo Alto or EPA any safer from the very unlikely event of a plane "falling from the sky".

I read what Peter Carpenter says and find his comments useful and knowledgeable. I have more fears from having an auto accident than I do from an air accident - either on the ground or as a passenger - and I still venture from my home on a daily basis either by car, bike or on foot.

For those who really are afraid of small planes then, just like those afraid of being bitten by an off leash dog, you must have very little else in life to be afraid of. In other words, live your life to the fullest, enjoy what you do for enjoyment and learn to share the world with those who have different points of view.


Like this comment
Posted by Scott
a resident of another community
on Jul 7, 2011 at 3:46 pm

The poster is quite right. Light airports should NEVER be allowed
in residential neighborhoods.

So the right solution is for Palo Alto to be moved away, all the houses
and buildings, since... errr, the airport was there first.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 7, 2011 at 3:57 pm

> The airspace over Palo Alto will continue to be used so closing
> the PA airport, or any private airport, is not going to make Palo
> Alto or EPA any safer from the very unlikely event of a plane
> "falling from the sky".

naw, not true.

yes, there are risks from commercial aviation, they are minimal and deemed necessary by society. no, the risk from the private airport is not the same. first, the duplication of private airports is unnecessary. second, most accidents, as you could very well see and probably know already but are lying about it, occur at takeoff and landing. third, this is not just about the danger from planes, it is about the functionality of the airport and what it costs in terms of risk, noise and closing options in the baylands compared with other options.

no, it is not strictly related to this incident, but someone mentioned it so I chimed in on it. every time i hear the baloney coming from private airplane supporters ( which by the way i have no problem with, it is the airport i would like to see go ) and their false comparisons of risk and their silly jokes, some of which are kind of humourous, i feel it is necessary to add some balance to the discussion.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 7, 2011 at 4:15 pm

Being distracted by facts that you don't want to hear often impedes understanding the problem.

For example "The relative probabilities of all that nonsense really does not bear on the issue of planes at takeoff and landing and the Palo Alto airport." proves the point as the plane in question neither took off from nor was attempting to land at the Palo Alto Airport. Nor did the plane land anywhere near Palo Alto.

If anon wants to start a thread on the PA Airport he/she should feel free to do so, however that issue has been exhaustively discussed in the past. Alternatively, anon can use any airplane incident anywhere in the world as her/his soap box for the PA Airport issue.


Like this comment
Posted by D
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 7, 2011 at 7:41 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 7, 2011 at 8:03 pm

"All pilots certificates and ratings require a practical test, usually called a "check ride". For each practical test, the FAA has published a Practical Test Standards document which is expected to be used by the applicant to prepare, by the flight instructor to teach and evaluate readiness for the exam, and by the examiner to conduct the exam. A practical test is administered by an FAA Inspector or an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner. The check-ride is divided into two parts: the oral exam followed by a flight test in the aircraft. Upon successful completion of the practical test, the examiner will issue a temporary airman certificate with the new license or rating.

In order to take practical tests for all pilot certificates and ratings (except Airline Transport Pilot), the applicant must have proper logbook endorsements from their flight instructor."

Excerpts from the Practical test Standards:

During simulated engine failures on multiengine practical tests the

examiner shall set zero thrust after the applicant has simulated

feathering the propeller. The examiner shall require the applicant to

demonstrate at least one landing with a simulated-feathered propeller

with the engine set to zero thrust.

X. AREA OF OPERATION: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS

A. TASK: EMERGENCY APPROACH AND LANDING (SIMULATED)

(ASEL and ASES)

REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3; POH/AFM.

Objective. To determine that the applicant:

1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to emergency

approach and landing procedures.

2. Analyzes the situation and selects an appropriate course of

action.

3. Establishes and maintains the recommended best-glide

airspeed, ±10 knots.

4. Selects a suitable landing area.

5. Plans and follows a flight pattern to the selected landing area

considering altitude, wind, terrain, and obstructions.

6. Prepares for landing, or go-around, as specified by the

examiner.

7. Follows the appropriate checklist.

1-33 FAA-S-8081-14A

B. TASK: SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTIONS

(ASEL and ASES)

REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3; POH/AFM.

Objective. To determine that the applicant:

1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to system and equipment

malfunctions appropriate to the airplane provided for the practical

test.

2. Analyzes the situation and takes appropriate action for simulated

emergencies appropriate to the airplane provided for the practical

test for at least three (3) of the following—

a. partial or complete power loss.

b. engine roughness or overheat.

c. carburetor or induction icing.

d. loss of oil pressure.

e. fuel starvation.

f. electrical malfunction.

g. vacuum/pressure, and associated flight instruments malfunction.

h. pitot/static.

i. landing gear or flap malfunction.

j. inoperative trim.

k. inadvertent door or window opening.

l. structural icing.

m. smoke/fire/engine compartment fire.

n. any other emergency appropriate to the airplane.

3. Follows the appropriate checklist or procedure.


Like this comment
Posted by punishment
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jul 7, 2011 at 8:08 pm

I know it must be one of those


Like this comment
Posted by Small-Planes-Crash-Frequently
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 7, 2011 at 8:45 pm

Well .. it didn't take long for another plane for fall out of the sky, and this time right into a local hospital--
----
Web Link

Airplane nose dives into Watsonville Community Hospital
Sentinel staff report
Posted: 07/07/2011 07:41:23 PM PDT


WATSONVILLE - A four-passenger airplane reportedly crashed into Watsonville Community Hospital about 7:30 p.m. Thursday killing two people in the plane, according to emergency dispatchers.
----

This can happen right here in Palo Alto .. most small plane crashes ae within five miles of airports .. that means all of the Stanford Campus, maybe fifty public and private K-12 schools, and hundreds of commercial buildings with hundreds of thousands of people working and living within this radius.

It's only a matter of time before another fatal accident occurs right here in Palo Alto .. caused by pilots flying out of this airport.

It is past time to close this site down!


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 7, 2011 at 8:57 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 7, 2011 at 9:18 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

The point is that in addition to other factors I have mentioned about the Palo Alto Airport, the managers of the airport show absolutely ZERO inclination to change or improve. They are behaving like doctors did in the 1800's when asked to wash their hands before operating, or delivering babies. Doctors would regularly go from birth to birth without washing transferring germs right down the line - clueless or careless as to what they were doing - not even interested.

We have come a long way in all human endeavors, but not as far as we think we have, and not as far to justify or ignore the arrogance of the remaining pockets of steadfast know-it-all-itude.

We learned lessons about society in the early 1900's and now because of the greed and power of the elite 1% we are having to relearn those lessons all over again. How many years will be wasted while the puppet government tried over and over to keep the status quo afloat on the backs of the regular people of this country.

Likewise, how long before privileged groups of elite people gain enough humility to not want to force their wills on other people or against reasonable perceptions of respect, safety and justice.

The scaling up of system changes the dynamics of those systems. The growth of the residential areas in the bay area near the airports necessitates a new clear look at how logical it is to keep these airports in place. They take up a lot of land, they make a lot of noise, they keep other businesses and recreational faciliities away much farther than just their ground footprint. The whole wonderful area of the Palo Alto Baylands is hardly useful anymore because of all the noise. And then there is the increasing danger of more airplanes, more traffic and more older pilots that get locked into the privileged dismissive mindset you have exhibited so often lately.

The part about the pilots rules is hardly even under discussion here. You keep proffering answers to arguments that are not relevant to the discussion. The fact is that in the crash of maybe a year an a half ago that started most of this ongoing argument, the pilots made decisions about taking off that although were allowed were bad decisions and ended up crashing into East Palo Alto, killing themselves and amazingly did not hurt anyone on the ground. The airport did not make any changes or even suggest seriously that planes not take off over East Palo Alto. That just says it all. There is no document you can wave in our faces that counteracts the arrogance of that action ... or inaction as the case may be. Even you asked the airport managers to change their policies to no avail.


Like this comment
Posted by Twin Cessna Pilot
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 8, 2011 at 4:45 am

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Firstly - again - this airplane that landed on the highway did not take off from Palo Alto, nor was it enroute there. So your continuing argument about the "dangers" of Palo Alto airport are moot in this case but you continue to make your silly rant anyway. Well, can't blame you for being passionate. Too bad your passion isn't in a more productive area.

Other posters quoted statistics on the probability of a person on the ground being hit by an airplane - about 1 in 10,000,000. This is smaller than practically any other cause of injury or death. In America one has a one in 5 chance of dying of heart disease (the number one killer in the United States) or a 1 in 7 chance of dying from cancer. Those odds make the airplane a non-event. In my profession and business, we deal with facts and logic not knee-jerk emotion. The facts are just that - your chances of you on the ground being struck by an airplane are so small as to be next to non-existent. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
The pilot of that 210 that was landed on the highway did an outstanding job. No injuries to anyone on the ground or to himself. The car got some damage - big deal. The car will be repaired. It would have been far more difficult to repair damage to people had the pilot chosen to land in a less hospitable place, possibly one with more obstructions. While highways are often not that desirable as emergency landing places, in this case the pilot likely observed the traffic and determined that the landing could be made safely. That is what one is trained to do when learning to fly.

Finally your hateful and glib comments about "rich" people taking joyrides in aircraft is reprehensible. When I fly my aircraft it is for business purposes the vast majority of times. Many people who fly their own aircraft do so to advance or operate businesses. Yes, some folks fly for pleasure - so what? The airspace above you is public property and is open to anyone for public use. You do not own the airspace above you nor do you control it. If you want to live somewhere where you will rarely have a plane above you, then you would do well to move to Nevada, the middle of Iowa, Wisconsin, or some other less densely populated place with a slower economy than the Palo Alto area where there is less traffic of all kinds, air, rail, and road.

You may not realize this but without light, propeller-driven, general aviation there would be no airline, military, or corporate flying either. Most airline pilots begin their flight training in small, piston-powered single engine aircraft. The Air Force now uses a Cirrus (single piston engine) airplane as their primary trainer. Most air ambulance flights - yes, light single engine aircraft. Do you ever order anything delivered on UPS or FedEx? Both companies use single-engine light aircraft (Cessna Caravan) for their local airport deliveries - places just like Palo Alto.

With respect to Palo Alto Airport, it was there before you most likely. You don't want to live near an airport? That is fine, move then. Expecting those who require the airport and use it to give it up just because you unwisely moved close by is the height of selfishness.

Regards, Michael, Ph.D., PE, SM IEEE, Consulting Engineer
Commercial Pilot, Airplane single and multiengine land
Instrument airplane
Cessna 172, 310 owner


Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 8, 2011 at 10:42 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 8, 2011 at 11:14 am

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

I realize the pilot who landed the airplane on 280 did not take off from Palo Alto ... but it does not affect my argument against the Palo Alto airport at all.

The pilot of that plane did a good job, except for crashing into a car ... but the two people yesterday in Watsonville did not do so good. Just because we have been lucky does not entitle you to close your eyes, but I guess you make up words and attribute them to other people you don't care much about having open eyes.

Finally, I am not talking about getting rid of airplanes. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Putting your name and education out there merely impeaches the credibility of experts when they are asked to reflect objectively on issues that are emotional to them. We have far too much trust in authority and pieces of paper and I think most people see where it has gotten us.


Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 8, 2011 at 12:21 pm

Once again, I'll say it: stupid to use your credentials as if it'll prevent your plane's engine from failing. It's like stating your doctorate will prevent your car accident.

Too many hobbyist pilots that are working hard to defend their pov. It doesn't matter, because we won't be convinced - especially after all the Calif small plane crashes in the past couple of years.


Like this comment
Posted by I got me a PhD too
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 8, 2011 at 5:50 pm

About statistics, there are a lot of variables unique to an airport and the surrounding population that would affect the actual fatality rate for that airport.

Someone mentioned a lifetime risk of 9 in 10,000,000. I hope you consider that same 2001 study (I presume) suggested that the number for people who live in areas very close to an airport could be as low as 1 in 10,000:

"The lifetime hypothetical risk to individuals spending most of their time near the perimeter of an airport could be on the order of 10-4 according to this analysis, assuming consistency of the model and inputs over that many years, and it may be substantially higher if variability with respect to distance to flight path were taken into account.

“The RIsk of Groundling Fatalities from Unintentional Airplane Crashes” by Thompson, Rabouw, and Cooke, Risk Analysis, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2001*

Please note that I am not arguing that it is 1 in 10,000. My point is that if you are discussing a the safety of a particular community and a particular airport, you should make an effort to estimate numbers that would most closely fit that situation.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't fly myself. I kind of enjoy having the airport nearby and watching aircraft take off and land when I walk out by the runway. However, I do have some concerns about safety when pilots have final say about taking off in low visibility, etc.

------------

*Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 8, 2011 at 6:03 pm

Nobody who currently lives close to the Palo Alto Airport was living there when the airport was moved there from its earlier locations closer to El Camino. Everyone who lives close to the Palo Alto Airport made their decision to live where they live with the opportunity of having full knowledge about their proximity to the airport.


Like this comment
Posted by it's a hobby
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm

Most of these local private pilots are hobby fliers, correct?
Quite the luxury hobby.
-hardly comparable to ANYTHING Sully Sullenberger does...


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 8, 2011 at 8:27 pm

Golf is a hobby, tennis is a hobby, reading is a hobby, swimming is a hobby, bicycling is a hobby, etc, etc, etc.

So what???


Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 8, 2011 at 8:29 pm

Good one, it's a hobby - you nailed it.

Wasn't PAO opened to the public approx 1940? If that's the case, EPA had residents already, having been populated since the 1800. Still, Peter's argument is lousy and snotty. Or perhaps the scared EPA residents can move to the property(ies) of the rich hobbyists who use PAO.


Like this comment
Posted by I got me a PhD too
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 8, 2011 at 9:08 pm

Some Palo Alto Airport history from a 2001 PA Weekly article:*

"1923 -- The U.S. Commerce Department approves the Embarcadero site for an airport after a group of prominent Palo Altans -- whose last names were Campbell, Hoge, Lesley, Hobart, Morrell, Smith and Bixby - petition the Palo Alto City Council to move the airport from its original location at Stanford to the Embarcadero site."

"1934 -- Palo Alto residents file lawsuit to force the airport to move off Stanford land because of noise level."

"2001 -- The airport continues to operate as a general aviation field. It is now considered to be the busiest single runway airport in the country."

People were living in what is now East Palo Alto in the '20s and '30s. The community has grown, the airport has grown. Regardless of when individuals of the community arrived, it is normal and desirable for a community to be active about safety concerns, whether they are new or old.

*Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 8, 2011 at 9:27 pm

You got it, I Got Me. Thanks for the info.


Like this comment
Posted by I got me a PhD too
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 8, 2011 at 10:03 pm

Peter,

I think the point about hobbies is that most people are not willing to bear the risks of some random other person's entertainment. If I am safely ensconced in my own home, I cannot imagine how I am going to be endangered by you reading a book, unless you phone me up and bore me to death with an accounting of it afterwards. (Sorry, that sounds a bit pre-judgmental. For all I know, your book reports are engagingly witty.)

Likewise for reading, swimming, tennis, golf, basketweaving, etc.

Airplanes are obviously a different story.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 8, 2011 at 10:09 pm

Thanks for posting the historical timeline of the airport in Palo Alto.

Yes, according to some I guess the airport should still be at Stanford under the assumption that once the airport was there anything that was built around it implicitly accepted the risk? I think reality discredits that logic.

The area has changed in many ways in the last 88 years and I think discussion of the airport and the land is fair and reasonable and not some kind of class warfare or jealousy, hatred of airplanes, pilots, rich people or whatever. None of that is the case with me anyway. Presumably citizens of voting age are allowed to have their valid opinions whatever they are as well as the ability to exercise free speech.

I do feel the that the use of the word "hobby" in a pejorative way is needlessly provocative, but there is also an element of that that fits too.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 8, 2011 at 10:13 pm

> So what???

Some are starting to not read the posts here and deciding to key off a certain word and react to it without gleaning the full point. In the case of the last comment about hobby I think the point was to differentiate from Sully Sullenberger's relationship to flying and what is happening at the Palo Alto Airport. No one is saying lets get rid of SFO, or questioning the need for commercial aviation.


Like this comment
Posted by Twin Cessna Pilot
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2011 at 5:05 am

"Most of these local private pilots are hobby fliers, correct?
Quite the luxury hobby.
-hardly comparable to ANYTHING Sully Sullenberger does..."

Oh really? Capt. Sully first learned to fly in a single-engine airplane, as did virtually every airline pilot minted in the United States in the last 30 years. Without those "hobby" (read private) pilots, instructors, and airplanes, there would be no airline, military, or any other flying. He also credited the successful landing on the Hudson River, in part, to his experience piloting gliders as as "hobby".

You obviously believe private aviation is somehow less important than "commercial" aviation. Like I said, without private aviation, commercial aviation would be non-existent. One cannot get a commercial or airline transport pilot certificate before getting a private pilot certificate. You really ought to do a little research before you spout your obvious prejudice.

Oh and by the way, to Mr./Ms. Anon, you are correct, my credentials do not guarantee the safe operation of my aircraft. My 34+ years of flying experience, keeping the aircraft properly maintained and up to date with respect to manufacturer's service bulletins and instructions, and keeping my flying skills current and practiced (beyond what the FAA legally requires) does. If you ask a few pilots and aircraft owners, you will find that that is the norm. However, you are too resentful of those who fly to do so - "How dare they fly above my house?!" - as if you own that airspace above (which you don't).


Like this comment
Posted by Twin Cessna Pilot
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2011 at 7:32 am

About statistics, there are a lot of variables unique to an airport and the surrounding population that would affect the actual fatality rate for that airport.

Someone mentioned a lifetime risk of 9 in 10,000,000. I hope you consider that same 2001 study (I presume) suggested that the number for people who live in areas very close to an airport could be as low as 1 in 10,000:

"The lifetime hypothetical risk to individuals spending most of their time near the perimeter of an airport could be on the order of 10-4 according to this analysis, assuming consistency of the model and inputs over that many years, and it may be substantially higher if variability with respect to distance to flight path were taken into account.

“The RIsk of Groundling Fatalities from Unintentional Airplane Crashes” by Thompson, Rabouw, and Cooke, Risk Analysis, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2001*"

That is a good point, but consider the following:

Suppose the probability of an death in an accident in the vicinity of an airport is 1 in 10000 as that study claims, as opposed to the overall (independent of location) risk of approximately 9 in 10,000,000. Compare that to the other common risk factors previously mentioned and listed in numerical order, using a previous poster's numbers as reference:

Heart Disease: 1 in 5 (20%)
Cancer: 1 in 7 (14%)
Stroke: 1 in 23 (4.3%)
Accidental Injury: 1 in 36 (2.7%)
Motor Vehicle Accident: 1 in 100 (1%)
Intentional Self-harm (suicide): 1 in 121 (0.82%)
Falling Down: 1 in 246 (0.41%)
Assault by Firearm: 1 in 325 (0.31%)
Fire or Smoke: 1 in 1,116 (0.09%)
Airplane crash into people on the ground (In vicinity of airport): 1 in 10,000 (0.01%)
Airplane crash into people on the ground (All locations):
9 in 10,000,000 (0.00009%)

If I could trade the top two killers (heart disease and cancer) for the airplanes, I would do that in an instant given those numbers.

Heck, let's play devil's advocate and say for argument's sake that the number in close proximity to an airport is twice what the study claims - 1 in 5000 or 0.02%. I would still trade the heart disease and cancer for the airplanes any day. The overall number of 9 in 10 million or 0.00009% is a non-starter - no contest, the airplane risk wins every time. In reality, I suspect the actual risk lies somewhere between those two extremes, and varies with location and other factors but there is no question that the risk of death to a groundling from an aircraft is one of the lowest out there.

To put this another way, if one lives 75 years and dies of heart disease (probability of 20%), one would have to live 150,000 years(!) to accumulate enough exposure to die of getting hit on the ground by an aircraft, since the probability of death by collision with an aircraft is 2,000 times less than heart disease.

Keep in mind those numbers are at the high (1 in 10,000) probability. The actual probability is likely much lower.

If people refuse to believe this, then they are allowing their dislike of aviation to rise above the statistical reality.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 9, 2011 at 8:28 am

Some of the most important skills that Capt. Sullenberger used in executing his perfect no power landing on the Hudson were ones he learned in his non-commercial aviation hobby - flying gliders.

"Chesley Sullenberger enrolled at the United States Air Force Academy in 1969. He was selected as one of around a dozen other freshmen for a cadet glider program, and by the end of that year, he was an instructor pilot.[11] In the year of his graduation, 1973, he received the Outstanding Cadet in Airmanship award, as the class "top flier".


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 9, 2011 at 8:40 am

> To put this another way, if one lives 75 years and dies of heart
> disease (probability of 20%), one would have to live 150,000
> years(!) to accumulate enough exposure to die of getting hit
> on the ground by an aircraft, since the probability of death
> by collision with an aircraft is 2,000 times less than heart disease.

Or, 150,000 people would just have to live one year to accumulate enough exposure to have a near certitude that one of them to the be involved in an airplane collision.

The population of EPA for example is almost 30,000 so that interval would be raised to 5 about 5 years. And if the numbers we are looking at are average recall that someone mentioned earlier that the Palo Alto airport is the busiest small airport in the country. I don't know personally if that is true but that is what was stated - so the conclusion is probabilities are higher than stated.

What I have been saying is exactly correct. First, this is a significant risk, and second the risk from the airport has nothing to do with the risks from other things. The risk that people take from driving is their own business that we decide for our own reasons.

Adding on to that the risk of death from other reasons is a completely separate issue and decision. Or any of the other probabilities mentioned here and on up the list of comments here. It's like magical thinking, look over here and you will not see the reality of my hand doing something to fool you using what most people see as complex math.

Finally, as I also said, if you knew that person who was going to be hit by the airplane was you, would you be willing to give up your life to save the airport for others? Because that is what you are asking some unnamed person, probably from East Palo Alto to do. You are fine with implicitly talking out the side of your mouth when you think the risk is not directed at you and flying is your hobby when you think the real recipients of that risk are the people in EPA.

It is amazing how simplistic and disingenuous the logic is by the airport supporters here and desperate they seem to be to distract from the real issue. Lines and lines of statistics have been spuriously typed out to force everyone into the mode of thinking that all the airport has to do is to have a less probability of accident than other major causes of death in our world. That is irrevelevant.


Like this comment
Posted by Twin Cessna Pilot
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2011 at 9:10 am

I don't like risking my life either. Nobody flies with the intention of crashing and most take significant precautions to prevent such an outcome. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
I don't want to be at risk when I cross the street or walk on the sidewalk, therefore, I demand all driving in the vicinity stop when I am there.


Like this comment
Posted by Twin Cessna Pilot
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2011 at 9:24 am

Mr. Anon. - and, 150,000 people would have to live only for 1/2000 of a year (4.4 hours), for one of them to die of heart disease. So what is your point?

The airplane risk has nothing to do with heart disease, that is true. Life is full of risks. If one is 2,000 times more likely to die of heart disease than getting struck by an airplane, they are equally dead. I accept the risk associated with the airplane given those numbers since in any given amount of time the chances of death from the other causes is far greater. Or, by your way of thinking, heart disease is more "acceptable" than airplanes because it is something that afflicts both the "rich" and "not so rich" vs. airplanes which to you are provinces of the "rich"?

Your refutation of my (very basic) statistical analyses just underscores all I have said.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 9, 2011 at 9:25 am

> I don't like risking my life either. Nobody flies with the intention
> of crashing and most take significant precautions to prevent such
> an outcome. If you think otherwise you are totally clueless.

I wonder why you think you need to make that statement.

I also wonder why you need to call me silly over and over, or arrogant too?

Do you think it makes you sound reasonable and those who disagree with you "clueless"? You are merely setting up a straw man to knock him down hoping that it reflects badly on others. Telling me to move elsewhere is also a nice touch. Could it be that you are starting to realize that logic is against you on the subject of the Palo Alto Airport?


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 9, 2011 at 9:28 am

> Mr. Anon. - and, 150,000 people would have to live only for 1/2000 of a year (4.4 hours), for one of them to die of heart disease. So what is your point?

You are totally in error on this and it shows that you do not know how to interpret or use statistics.

Not everyone has the same risks of heart disease, say children for example, but they do have more uniform risk/exposure to airplane accidents.


Like this comment
Posted by I got me a PhD too
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 9, 2011 at 10:30 am

Twin Cessna Pilot,

First, although I won't be surprised if you ignore my advice, I would suggest you learn to make your point without ad hominem attacks. They seriously undermine any show at logic that you are making.

Second, I agree that there are things more risky than living next to an airport. However, we cannot trade cancer risks for airport risks. Any attempt to minimize either is pretty much independent of the other.

Maybe your point is that we should spend most of our energy on minimizing the larger risks. I agree. I exercise, eat healthily, etc. to try to minimize heart disease. However, when I do eat a bowl of ice cream, which I assume increases my risk of heart disease to some extant, 1. I choose to undertake that risk and 2. I get a benefit (the enjoyment).

Furthermore, even though the risk of death by fire is 200 times smaller than that due to heart disease (using your numbers for example), I still take what steps I can to also reduce the likelihood of fire. The odds of getting struck by lightning are yet even smaller, but I still get out of the swimming pool when there is a thunder storm.

It is completely reasonable for residents of the community bearing the brunt of the risk from the airport to seek ways to minimize that risk even though it is smaller than other risks we all face every day.

And I am not planning to move anytime soon.


Like this comment
Posted by Twin Cessna Pilot
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2011 at 10:36 am

The irrefutable point is that even if the airplane risk were to be totally eliminated (which it won't be) it will not decrease your chances of injury or death by any discernable amount. Putting your energies into reducing your risk of heart disease or cancer for example would go thousands of times further in reducing your probability of death or injury, correct?


Like this comment
Posted by I got me a PhD too
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 9, 2011 at 10:38 am

p.s. Sorry, this is too ironic to pass up:

1. "I am through trying to convince someone so ignorant and unaccepting of basic factual reality because of your obvious hate of flying."

2. "The air traffic will still be there, and you will still be at your perceived risk, regardless of whether or not the airport is there."

The fact is that risk increases dramatically with proximity to an airport. Obviously if the airport was not there, risk would be greatly reduced. Talk about not accepting of 'basic factual reality'...


Like this comment
Posted by Twin Cessna Pilot
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2011 at 10:39 am

I know how to use statistics and do so, in part, for a living. I also do not agree your "logic" makes sense, except that you simply do not like people flying airplanes near you. Suffice to say it will continue whether uou like it or not.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 9, 2011 at 11:30 am

> The irrefutable point is that even if the airplane risk were to be totally eliminated (which it won't be) it will not decrease your chances of injury or death by any discernable amount.

Another demonstrably false statement from the pro-airport propaganda team.

Pro-airport folks are simply repeating the same erroneous reasoning over and over just to have the last word and keep that last post position appearing as if it is the last word.

Since most airplane crashes occur during take-off or landing removing the Palo Alto airport would remove that increased source of risk over residential areas. Simple and irrefutable, yet another post will soon follow telling me and others to move out of the country if we don't like it or calling people who disagree with them names.

I don't think anyone anymore hates flying or pilots than people who drive hate driving when they try to rationally discuss safety and risks involved in driving. The whole tangle of illogic aimed at trying to dismiss the risk from the airport is simply irrelevant to the issue and discussion.


Like this comment
Posted by Twin Cessna Pilot
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2011 at 11:48 am

"> The irrefutable point is that even if the airplane risk were to be totally eliminated (which it won't be) it will not decrease your chances of injury or death by any discernable amount.

Another demonstrably false statement from the pro-airport propaganda team."

So you consider the removal of the 0.00009 to 0.01% of risk of death from the equation to actually be a discernable amount?

I suppose it must be my thinking as an engineer (i.e., logical and fact-based) as opposed to your subjective, emotional, qualitative thinking that I would consider those numbers to be indiscernable. They are, when compared to numbers 100 to 100,000 times higher (e.g., cancer, heart disease, getting hit by a car, etc.).


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 9, 2011 at 12:04 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 9, 2011 at 12:08 pm

"Since most airplane crashes occur during take-off or landing removing the Palo Alto airport would remove that increased source of risk over residential areas."

The vast majority of airplane takeoffs and landings at PAO already occur over non-residential areas.

The flight which is the subject of this topic neither was taking off from nor attempting to land at Palo Alto and it landed well outside Palo Alto and, thanks to the good judgement of the pilot, it landed well away from residential areas.

As suggested above if anon wants to start a thread on the PA Airport he/she should feel free to do so, however that issue has been exhaustively discussed in the past.


Like this comment
Posted by Twin Cessna Pilot
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2011 at 12:28 pm

"You are talking about per person risk, meaning that you are conveniently for your own selfish purposes forgetting that there are lots of people in this area which multiplies that risk and anonymizes it as well.

Not at all, it's more your spinning as a propagandist for your pet hobby that is what is going on with you."

You are wrong once again. Yes, that is a per-person risk (the only correct thing you said in your last post). All of the risks I mentioned before, heart disease, cancer, auto, airplane, and all the others are also per-person risks, therefore, the ratios of airplane to cancer, heart disease, etc. risks I quoted are true as stated. You can scale these numbers by any number of people you want in a population, but since both the numerator and denominator of the ratio are per-person risks, the ratios remain the same. How much more simply can I explain this? Taking away the airplane risk - given those numbers - does not increase your safety by any significant amount. If you argue otherwise, you are simply wrong.

The risk to me in flying is actually greater than the risk to you on the ground. Private flying in light aircraft is certainly not as safe as flying in a multiengine jet airliner - no pilot will argue otherwise. It is the job of the pilot to reduce the risk as much as practicable by, as I said before, maintaining his or her machine properly, maintaining his or her flying skills to be proficient, and not exceeding the capability of the aircraft and/or personal flying ability.

Finally, flying is not a "pet hobby" for me. It is an essential adjunct to conducting my professional practice. I cannot effectively service my clients all over the state and much of the United States without it. Not that that really matters to you, nor do I care. You just want to see all private (in your speak "hobby") flying in your area to stop just because you live there.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 9, 2011 at 2:34 pm

"you are OK with pushing loss of life onto some unknown number of people you do not know"

Since anon acknowledges that he/she does not drive the safest car available then anon is "pushing loss of life onto some unknown number of people" that anon does not know.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 9, 2011 at 3:19 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 24 comments | 2,616 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 1,226 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 992 views

Salt & Straw Palo Alto to open Nov. 23
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 668 views