Dam employee lands his airplane at the dam. All kept pretty hush, hush.

http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2012 ... near-rock/

I thought it was......interesting.
lc

I love the comments.

The people who wrote some of the comments must be related to the folks who attacked Charles' balloon with pitchforks in a farm field back in 1783.

Unfortunately, I don't have any faith they are any different from a lot of the "Serious People" in charge of figuring out what is a real security threat is and what is not. That line of work seems to attract that kind of personality, and gets rapidly promoted to boot.

So, I have to ask what is the real issue with landing an aircraft on an access road in a desolate area that is free from traffic? Or near a dam? It’s not like a small aircraft could damage a dam, or that he was flying recklessly. The landing speeds are exaggerated in an exempt to make the landing sound more dangerous than it really was or is, I fly a 1967 172H, VSO (stall speed, landing speed with 30-40 deg of flaps is less than 50 mph and short final should be around 60 mph) It sounds like their grasping at straws to find something wrong with what he did. Unless the rules have changed its 500 foot over sparsely populated areas and 1000 ft over highest obstacle in populated areas (except when landing). He was landing, wasn’t he? Was he buzzing any one? Was he flying in a reckless manner or taking undue risks? There is no mention of it if he was. Let’s face it the shear mention of a story involving an aircraft gets undue hype and publicity. For instance if he had ridden his unregistered dirt bike down the same road at 100 mph would any one care or would it make a news story? In closing, shame on those that have blown the facts out of proportion in an attempt to sensationalize this story, or in an attempt to hang the pilot.

I don't know the pilot, but I know people who know the pilot and was told (again 3rd hand here) that is "punishment" was along the lines of a supervisor shaking his finger and saying something along the lines of "don't get in the news paper again"
One of the biggest problems with the publicity here is that a P.U.D employee makes enough to afford an airplane. Some people don't get that the reason they couldn't get a job at one of our dams is that they didn't finish high school, let alone college or any sort of tech school. I think those guys start out at about 38K to 42K a year. Not a lot by most of our standards, but considered a fortune by many around here. Most will never understand or accept that a 172 costs less than a mid level pickup truck, or two year supply of meth.

I have only driven past that dam, but the two closer to my house have unfenced banks below them where one could easily haul a ton of......

172heavy wrote:So, I have to ask what is the real issue with landing an aircraft on an access road in a desolate area that is free from traffic?

Most people are more prone to fear things they don't have a clue about, and tend to be favor authoritarianism as easier to think about than the (slightly) harder work of thinking rationally. People don't need to think, just flap their arms at something strange, raise the alarm, and get the other chickens in the coop flustered up.

It's hard to stop the trend when it starts- it's just too easy for a group to give up thinking about something, and too much work to switch gears to think about it after that, no matter how silly the premise of danger seems.

Please see my previous response. Thank you.

From: "172Heavy To: "Christine Pratt" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:50:08 PM
Subject: Re: PUD confirms employee landed plane near Rock Island Dam

Not for your lack of trying.



From: Christine Pratt <[email protected]>
To: 172Heavy>
Date: 04/11/2012 03:31 PM
Subject: Re: PUD confirms employee landed plane near Rock Island Dam



This was not a sensational report. Have a nice day.

From: 172Heavy To: "Christine Pratt" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:04:20 PM
Subject: Re: PUD confirms employee landed plane near Rock Island Dam

Who decided to make an issue of the speed limit being 40 mph and the aircraft speed being 70-80 mph, that was really about 50 mph. ? It sure looks to me like you were making an effort to point out any thing that he could have done wrong, Landing speeds and safe flight levels? I know, if you actually reported facts, it wouldn't be near as sensational, would it?
News Flash...PUD employee lands his aircraft on access road in remote area to retrieve computer from his office, FAA says it's OK. That just won't sell papers will it? As a pilot my self I get quite tired of aircraft and pilots getting the short end of the stick. If I had to guess, you did not like the answer you got from the FAA or PUD and needed to find something to point a finger at. Have a nice day.



From: Christine Pratt <[email protected]>
To: 172Heavy
Date: 04/11/2012 02:09 PM
Subject: Re: PUD confirms employee landed plane near Rock Island Dam

This incident is newsworthy because it's unorthodox. That's why we reported on it. Our report makes no judgements about whether the landing was safe or unsafe, a good idea or not. That's between the pilot and the PUD.
Christine Pratt

From: 172Heavy
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:44:26 AM
Subject: PUD confirms employee landed plane near Rock Island Dam

So, I have to ask what is the real issue with landing an aircraft on an access road in a desolate area that is free from traffic? Or near a dam? It’s not like a small aircraft could damage a dam, or that he was flying recklessly. The landing speeds are exaggerated in an exempt to make the landing sound more dangerous than it really was or is, I also fly a 1967 172H, VSO (stall speed, landing speed with 30-40 deg of flaps is less than 50 mph and short final should be around 60 mph) It sounds like their grasping at straws to find something wrong with what he did. Unless the rules have changed its 500 foot over sparsely populated areas and 1000 ft over highest obstacle in populated areas (except when landing). He was landing, wasn’t he? Was he buzzing any one? Was he flying in a reckless manner or taking undue risks? There is no mention of it if he was. Let’s face it the shear mention of a story involving an aircraft gets undue hype and publicity. For instance if he had ridden his unregistered dirt bike down the same road at 100 mph would any one care or would it make a news story? In closing, shame on those that have blown the facts out of proportion in an attempt to sensationalize this story, or in an attempt to hang the pilot.

-- I can see this going to the hot air file

Sometimes a clever title is all it takes to get more views & traffic

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9808

whatsa pud foreman

Glidergeek wrote:whatsa pud foreman

I don't know.. but I bet it is illegal in Utah and will cost 200 bucks in Vegas.

To bad he got in trouble, a dam shame

L-19 wrote:Sometimes a clever title is all it takes to get more views & traffic

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9808

And I thought it was just because no one likes me.

D.

Sorry, David. I didn't remember seeing yours before I 'ran over you'......
And the dam story was just too interesting to ignore-at least here in Cent WA.
Our dams and the Mid-Columbia River are prominent local features that make this area unique. ( FYI-For the out of area folks.)

The local press 'stirring it up' is an attempt at a 'tempest in a tea pot'....
lc

I am still confused on a few rules about flying, and the dams. I know it is probably not a good idea to fly around in circles at 300 feet above the trailing to see if the fish are hanging out. My CFII does, and get reported for doing so, even though he is working for fish and game when he does it. Some say not to circle or loiter in any way at any altitiude over any of the dams. I can't find anywhere where that is a rule, and I circle a couple times over Wells dam sometimes while doing pattern work at S10 (like to get out of the way of tourists in their Pilatuses and King Airs doing 10 mile straight in's)
I don't think I am doing anything wrong.

What if I were to land the Lake Amphibian down stream of one of the dams and taxi up to where the boats are fishing? Would that be ok? don't think I am going to do that for other reasons besides legality, but for argument sake, is it legal? Capt. Bill, my friend with the Lake says when its on the water, it is a boat and follows boat rules. Seems resonable to me.

Little Cub, how many circles around Grand Coulee are you willing to do? There is no restricted airspace or published warnings specific to it that I see. Am I missing something?

D.

Little Cub, how many circles around Grand Coulee are you willing to do? There is no restricted airspace or published warnings specific to it that I see. Am I missing something?

I don't make it a practice to knowingly poke sticks into bear's dens......

I have had to pass over dams just high enough to clear the 'nest of power cables' plus a slight safety margin- when it was over a hundred degrees ambient and the only cool air was low over the river (I'z on floats). That day if I got more than 100 ft above the river the 'cool' disappeared (cold water river) and my oil temp headed into the red. I stopped and let my engine cool for a couple of hours before I attempted climbing over Rocky Reach Dam. The last thing I wanted was engine failure above that nest of high tension power cables. The power cables are higher at that dam since they head up the steep west hills. That trip was an adventure!

Anyhow, over and gone around any dams-I do prefer much higher.
lc

You have to take into consideration where these issues came from about aircraft flying near a dam, landing on an access road, minimum flight level, dam security and road speed limit came from. These are questions that the reporter asked the FAA and PUD, the FAA said that there was no problem and PUD said that they were not aware of any rules that were broken and did not feel that it was necessary to inform the FAA of his landing, the FAA agreed. She did not like these answers she got so she embellished a nonevent into a story that put reader’s panties in a knot. I have little doubt that the reporter was needle dicking the PUD supervisor on safety issues and security trying to find a way to hang the pilot as if he were involved in a 9/11 attack on the dam or that somehow this could be a precursor to an attack. A hydroelectric dam is made out of concrete many feet thick, the most damage that any aircraft could do would be little more than a noticeable mark on the dam, it would be like trying to damage a bunker with a beer can. There are no TFR or restricted areas around dams, switching stations, power plants, steam, hydro, including nuclear. I would imagine that some where there is an exception to this, but I have not seen it.

I think it goes back to the period of time right after 9/11 when dams were thought to be potential terrorist targets, and (at least around here), Homeland Security paid the local sheriff's office to post officers at all of the dams to enforce the "no stopping or parking on the dam or within 100 yards" signs. That silliness was finally lifted after awhile, but sometimes people's memories are longer than necessary.

And let's face it, GA is not all that well understood by a lot of non-flyers. After all, it was "airplanes" that brought down the twin towers and damaged the Pentagon. That they weighed literally a thousand times more than a 172 and carried a thousand times the amount of fuel makes no difference to the average reporter attempting to sell media. It's a variance of the old rule, "don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is already made up."

Cary

In 1958 I took a tour of grand Coulee dam. The tour guide told us that an explosive packed inside a base ball and bat could blow up that dam and the flood would knock out the rest of the dams down river. Back then you could walk out on the dam unsupervised, but not while carrying a base ball and bat.

What self-respecting terrorist would land, taxi up to the guard shack and get permission to enter the facility? When he could drive up to the same guard shack with a semi. The whole issue is ridicules.

tcj wrote:In 1958 I took a tour of grand Coulee dam. The tour guide told us that an explosive packed inside a base ball and bat could blow up that dam and the flood would knock out the rest of the dams down river. Back then you could walk out on the dam unsupervised, but not while carrying a base ball and bat.

I think thats funny, and probably not true. But, all the dam flood gates down stream are packed with explosives and controlled by Grand Coulee. If Grand Coulee was going to fail, they would preemptivly clear the way by blowing the lower dams before the water hit them. I am not sure why, maybe so they would be salvagable rather than knocked out completly, or to avoid a huge surge behind them.