Plane Lands on 36 Street NE

[speedog]

From this morning, NB 36 Street NE just south of 16 Avenue - if something nutty is gonna happen, chances are it'll be in the NE...



Edit.

Plane had engine problems. Quite amazing that the pilot got that plane down safely on 36 Street considering all traffic, lights, poles and LRT overhead cabling. Kudos to the pilot.

About 300 meters between the lights at 12 Avenue and the next set of lights at 16 Avenue, to me it seems quite something the pilot got that place down safely in that short stretch in the dark - obviously they were familiar with that stretch of road or they were just very lucky. Actual distance was about 200 meters to put that plane down there as there's a set of power lines crossing 36 Street south of 16 Avenue.

[D'z Nutz]

http://www.660news.com/2018/04/25/pl...lgary-roadway/

[ExtraSlow]

Surprised he didn't hit up some of those unidriveways.

[lilmira]

Gotta pick up some bokchoy at TnT

wonder if the pilot waved

[Aleks]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

About 300 meters between the lights at 12 Avenue and the next set of lights at 16 Avenue, to me it seems quite something the pilot got that place down safely in that short stretch in the dark - obviously they were familiar with that stretch of road or they were just very lucky. Actual distance was about 200 meters to put that plane down there as there's a set of power lines crossing 36 Street south of 16 Avenue.

To get a plane of that size down in that spot in some decent wind gusts without hitting something big is amazing.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

To get a plane of that size down in that spot in some decent wind gusts without hitting something big it amazing.

Was thinking the same thing. Light posts, C-Train, power lines, and the biggest obstacle of all, NE drivers haha.

[revelations]

Good airmanship - but sounds like a zero fuel issue (highly unlikely to lose both pistons engines otherwise) - which usually means pilot = fired.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Was thinking the same thing. Light posts, C-Train, power lines, and the biggest obstacle of all, NE drivers haha.

I can picture the NE drivers just mosing along at 55km/h in the 70 zone, an airplane in their oversized rearview mirrors getting closer and closer. But since they never check them they didn't even notice and continued on to work.

[Aleks]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Was thinking the same thing. Light posts, C-Train, power lines, and the biggest obstacle of all, NE drivers haha.

Hoping this is on Mayday in the future.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hoping this is on Mayday in the future.

Not likely. It actually happens more than you would think, just not inside a city. Besides, no deaths or destruction doesn't make a very profitable episode.

[nzwasp]

According to CBC he did hit some light standards on the way down.

[Aleks]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

According to CBC he did hit some light standards on the way down.

Yeah the right wing tip is torn off in the pics.

[Thaco]

Early reports are that it landed south of marbank/12th ave... and came to rest just before 16th, pretty impressive to have that little damage given the circumstances

[rage2]

Wonder if he ran the red at 12th Ave. That light is always red for me when I drive through there.

[Gman.45]

Good airmanship - but sounds like a zero fuel issue (highly unlikely to lose both pistons engines otherwise) - which usually means pilot = fired.

I thought the same. Great airmanship whatever the cause, to get that crate in that area down with no souls lost, even damaged = great job. That said, most twins - it's been a long time since I worked on my twin engine rating (haven't flown in years, perhaps 95 and Mazda and other pilots will chime in here), but IIRC both engines have to have independant fuel pumps and other gear, sometimes back when Transport Canada ran things when I was an ATC and private pilot, again, IRRC there had to be redundancies even in place depending on multi engine aircraft class. It's very, very common for it to be a lack of fuel issue when both motors are out on a twin. There are however a few things that can occur which aren't fuel related which can cause both engines to fail. If the pilot uses inlet heat improperly on both engines, it can cause both to fail. Also, environmental causes like ice/snow/etc can simultaneously affect both motors and cause a dual engine failure. Not that likely though, it most cases it's a fuel calculation error that can easily be avoided. Gimly Glider, great example.

[Lex350]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Good airmanship - but sounds like a zero fuel issue (highly unlikely to lose both pistons engines otherwise) - which usually means pilot = fired.

Passengers wee quoted as saying a fuel pump issue...not a fuel issue.

[Mista Bob]

Do planes have horns on them? Seems insane that it managed to get through an intersection without issue, no matter what time of day it is.

[Aleks]

Looks like it was coming from Medicine Hat according to online flight tracking.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Passengers wee quoted as saying a fuel pump issue...not a fuel issue.

Well not having any fuel to pump is an issue.

There's two pumps per engine, one electric, one mechanical. For all 4 of them to die would be pretty astronomical odds.

[Gman.45]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well not having any fuel to pump is an issue.

There's two pumps per engine, one electric, one mechanical. For all 4 of them to die would be pretty astronomical odds.

Heh, that's what I posted, it's mandatory for each engine to have it's own pumps/etc, and that there were requirements for redundancy. You're absolutely correct, odds of 4 pumps failing is astronomical. I know from the MANOPS for ATC that for dual engine jets, the odds of a failure in a single engine is 1 per 1 million flight hours, for both engines to fail in airliner/jet class multiengine/twins, the odds are it'd take over 1000 years of flight ours with the world's current fleet, like 1 in trillions odds wise (fuel problems not withstanding obviously). Of course prop/smaller class aircraft this doesn't apply, but it's still got be be astronomically high for 4 units to all shit the bed simultaneously.

Looks like it was coming from Medicine Hat according to online flight tracking.

I was going to check flghtradar24/whatever but was too lazy this AM. Heh, that's not much of a distance, not for that aircraft, couple hundred miles +20 or so. If it was a fuel calculation error, that will suck for the pilot(s). Still, at least they got it on the ground and didn't kill anyone on board or on the road, props for that above anything else IMO.