Emergency landing on Highway East of Montreal . . video . .

[skat0r]

Really nice job! Kept it cool, thats the solution of control.

[Bushav8er]

I'm beginning to regret asking my original question, I didn't realise I was opening such a can of worms.

Don't feel bad, it was a fair question. It was just in a post on a different subject. Maybe next time just make a note then post your question(s) in an appropriate board.


That was a nice job of control and judgment, letting it roll so that it could clear the road. Only thought I have is that he didn't look that high above the road to start with and also seemed to be 'following' it.

I'm interested in the cause of the failure.

[shitdisturber]

Yeah I was curious as to why he didn't come to a stop earlier, I can understand his waiting until he was past the bridge but it seems to go on forever. I didn't think a cessna would even roll that far!

It's impossible to tell from the video but I'm guessing he was landing on a downhill slope. Otherwise there's no way a 172 could have rolled that far. Especially since I noted whenever the camera pointed that way that he had the A/S pretty much pinned to 65 throughout the approach.

[KK7]

He probably didn't want to slow down for fear of getting rear ended by other drivers... around there drivers don't stop for anything!

[burhead1]

I also like the kid at the end of the vid, French or English we all know what he said. LOL

[High Flyin]

Only reason he took that long to stop was so he could clear the guardrail on the right hand side and pull off the highway. As soon as he clears the guardrail, you'll notice he pulls over. Had nothing to do with the traffic behind him...

[Redneck_pilot86]

I think the question is how he rolled that far, not why.

[MikeGolfEcho]

I'll qualify my question before I ask it by saying I am a very inexperienced student pilot, but...

wouldn't it have been less risky to land on one of the lovely flat fields to the right of the highway? Just curious, because I reckon the potential for a massive road accident from distracted motorists is huge in my mind. Apart from the fact that the pilot would have to avoid any traffic directly in his path (which he did... good job!)

I don't know, like I said I'm inexperienced and never been in that situation... but if I were I would hope to put myself OUT of harms way, not into it and risk fewer accidents, not potentially more by landing somewhere flat where there's fewer people.

MGE

[FlyGy]

I can't tell from the video how long the grass is in the fields, but if it's anywhere near as long as the grass between the highways, I'll take the highway. I've been told that landing in tall grass is asking for trouble.

[Genetk44]

@Bushav8er...to answer your question about the cause....

as per the Cadors..."On the ground, an examination revealed that the seal on the cylinder No. 3 intake valve was broken."

[CpnCrunch]

I can't tell from the video how long the grass is in the fields, but if it's anywhere near as long as the grass between the highways, I'll take the highway. I've been told that landing in tall grass is asking for trouble.

Who told you that? I've landed in 3-foot tall grass in a 172, and it was fine.

The problem with landing in fields is things like fences, ditches, etc. I'm guessing the road was empty and the pilot made the decision that that would be the safest option.

[FlyGy]

My flight instructor. She was concerned for the grass hiding large rocks and other obstacles when there is a nice smooth road right there.

[trampbike]

MGE, I fly regularly in the same region this landing took place, and I think I'd almost always take the highway before the fields.
Most of the time there isn't a lot of traffic on this portion of highway 10, while there are plenty of wires and powerlines in the fields on each sides. Also, you glide a 172 at a speed not too far from the speed of cars on a highway and you touch down a bit slower, so I'm guessing that when there isn't too much traffic, it's not too hard to adjust your glide and landing so you don't land right on a car or rear end one.

Just curious, because I reckon the potential for a massive road accident from distracted motorists is huge in my mind

I didn't think of this, and I don't think it would even cross my mind if I had an engine failure over a straight highway without too much traffic.

[CpnCrunch]

My flight instructor. She was concerned for the grass hiding large rocks and other obstacles when there is a nice smooth road right there.

Yes, you're right. In my case it was a grass runway I landed on, and someone else had just landed before me so I was pretty sure it was fine.

A nice big 4-lane highway is probably ideal for a forced landing if there isn't much traffic. You would just need to be careful with narrow roads, as there may be roadsigns or wires that you can't see until it's too late.

[lilflyboy262]

Its always a hard one and I have plenty of examples to go for and against. Both with landings where everyone walked away, and others where they all died. Including the people in the car they hit.

Land in a field, there is going to be more chance of you overturning due to obstacles you didn't see.
Land on the road, there is more chance you are going to take someone else out in the accident if you get it wrong.

Personally I would take the road landing with the traffic.

[burhead1]

so I'm guessing that when there isn't too much traffic, it's not too hard to adjust your glide and landing so you don't land right on a car or rear end one.
.

Merge gently!

[MikeGolfEcho]

MGE, I fly regularly in the same region this landing took place, and I think I'd almost always take the highway before the fields.
Most of the time there isn't a lot of traffic on this portion of highway 10, while there are plenty of wires and powerlines in the fields on each sides. Also, you glide a 172 at a speed not too far from the speed of cars on a highway and you touch down a bit slower, so I'm guessing that when there isn't too much traffic, it's not too hard to adjust your glide and landing so you don't land right on a car or rear end one.

Just curious, because I reckon the potential for a massive road accident from distracted motorists is huge in my mind

I didn't think of this, and I don't think it would even cross my mind if I had an engine failure over a straight highway without too much traffic.

In the UK (where I'm originally from), there were tonnes of accidents caused by people 'rubber-necking'. Everyone slows right down to have a good look at the carnage while motorists behind are going too fast or not paying attention and slam into the back of them. After an accident on a motorway, it's usually 2-5 minutes before there's another one on the other side caused by people looking.

I'm still not sure... I keep thinking risk three peoples' lives, or potentially a WHOLE lot more...

Where I fly now is mountainous and there are very few places to make a forced landing. Options are: Mountains, the ocean, a very busy golf course or a school playing field. I've been taught to choose the mountains and associated trees over the other three any time as there's less risk of injury to others outside the plane. A nice straight section of quiet road just doesn't really exist near me...

[MrWings]

If the highway is non-congested, I'd take the highway. The accidents that rubber-neckers might cause after the fact wouldn't play into my decision at all. I can't be responsible for other people's stupidity.

Good job by the pilot in this case.