Chicago Barn to Wire BRIS
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


August 30, 2014, 11:29:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: WHAT'S WITH THE PLANE LANDING ON THE TRACK AT BALMORAL?  (Read 15471 times)
edwardwilliam
Annnnnnnnnd they're off!
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6252

Rebate shops are not the devil.


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2006, 01:13:38 AM »

     I disagree and think it was downright dangerous to land an aircraft within the close proximity of the grandstand.  The person I was sitting with was outraged and going to file a complaint with the FAA.   I do not care of Balmoral is private property or not, you still need FAA permission and clearance to land a plane in a place that is occupied with people like that. 

     It might have been neat and all in some of your opinions, but this could have ended up being a very tragic situation if something went wrong.  Mike Oosting might be the greatest pilot ever but a mechanical malfunction can happen at any time.  This is serious business.  I could understand the situation better if Balmoral had forewarned their patrons ahead of time but they didn't. 

     Just imagine if that plane lost control and hit the grandstand or barn area.  I'm sorry folks, but Balmoral Park should be heavily fined and possibly have to forfeit some days of racing as a form of punishment.  You can’t just land an aircraft anywhere you want to without FAA approval.  This was not only stupid, but just plain dangerous in my opinion.

Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras


As I'm told now, the plane landed on the backstretch.  Whoever you were talking to was foolish.

What if a plane at O' Hare veered a quarter mile (about what it would've taken to hit the grandstand)?  That could be dangerous too!  It was at least hundreds of feet from trouble.  I now understand.

Best,
EW
« Last Edit: August 13, 2006, 01:16:22 AM by edwardwilliam » Report to moderator   Logged

Stick to Fantasyland pal, because you'll NEVER make it in the real world - TC
John Doe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2006, 01:20:06 AM »

As I'm told now, the plane landed on the backstretch.  Whoever you were talking to was foolish.

What if a plane at O' Hare veered a quarter mile (about what it would've taken to hit the grandstand)?  That could be dangerous too!  It was at least hundreds of feet from trouble.  I now understand.

Best,
EW

EW:

    Thanks for clearing that up.  Silly me was thinking that you needed FAA approval to land a plane but I guess you're right again. 

    Maybe he could land it tomorrow on the children's playground so long as he was 100 feet away, per your approval.  I'll keep that in mind.  Thanks for the heads up regarding FAA rules, regulations, and procedures.  Have a great evening.

Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras
Report to moderator   Logged

AND NOW, HERE ARE YOUR UNLV 1990 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS:
                       GREG ANTHONY
                       ANDERSON HUNT
                       MOSES SCURRY
                       STACEY AUGMON
                       LARRY JOHNSON
THE BEST COACH EVER, JERRY "TARK" TARKANIAN
THIS IS HEAVEN
sleepless
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 862




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2006, 01:39:14 AM »

Joe,
I have to agree with you on this one.  There were many dangers present (power lines which are clearly seen on the Balmoral publicity photo of the landing, residentional houses which are within hundreds of feet where the plane landed, the horses which are stabled within less than hundreds of feet where the plane landed, the grooms and other persons that reside in a housing complex water tower dorms less than a hundred feet where the plane landed and many other dangers which i won't list .l i hope your friend or yourself contacts the FAA regarding this VERY FOOLISH and UNSAFE plane landing at Balmoral.
Report to moderator   Logged
emp
Guest

« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2006, 01:46:35 AM »

I heard them talking about it in the paddock today. I think it was a joke at first and then it got serious. They wanted to drive in as many races as they could. After driving in nearly 25 races here (spr1) i am sure they needed some hair gel to make themselves look good. I wish i coulda saw it. If anyone taped it or recorded it please send it to me.

Tannor

It goes to show that once you get the "bug" you're bit for LIFE!
Report to moderator   Logged
John Doe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2006, 01:48:47 AM »

Joe,
I have to agree with you on this one.  There were many dangers present (power lines which are clearly seen on the Balmoral publicity photo of the landing, residentional houses which are within hundreds of feet where the plane landed, the horses which are stabled within less than hundreds of feet where the plane landed, the grooms and other persons that reside in a housing complex water tower dorms less than a hundred feet where the plane landed and many other dangers which i won't list .l i hope your friend or yourself contacts the FAA regarding this VERY FOOLISH and UNSAFE plane landing at Balmoral.

Sleepless:

    But you don't understand.  Edward William said it was okay and there wasn't any present danger since the plane landed on the backstretch.  I always thought that FAA approval was needed before you could land a plane but Edward William says that is not the case.  

     Since I am not very well versed in FAA policies and requirements and Edward William is, it would be a waste of time to report the landing to the FAA.  Edward William said it was safe and that’s that.  End of story.  I share the same concerns as you but Edward William said its okay.  Have a great night.

Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras  

Report to moderator   Logged

AND NOW, HERE ARE YOUR UNLV 1990 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS:
                       GREG ANTHONY
                       ANDERSON HUNT
                       MOSES SCURRY
                       STACEY AUGMON
                       LARRY JOHNSON
THE BEST COACH EVER, JERRY "TARK" TARKANIAN
THIS IS HEAVEN
emp
Guest

« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2006, 01:50:04 AM »

     I disagree and think it was downright dangerous to land an aircraft within the close proximity of the grandstand.  The person I was sitting with was outraged and going to file a complaint with the FAA.   I do not care of Balmoral is private property or not, you still need FAA permission and clearance to land a plane in a place that is occupied with people like that. 

     It might have been neat and all in some of your opinions, but this could have ended up being a very tragic situation if something went wrong.  Mike Oosting might be the greatest pilot ever but a mechanical malfunction can happen at any time.  This is serious business.  I could understand the situation better if Balmoral had forewarned their patrons ahead of time but they didn't. 

     Just imagine if that plane lost control and hit the grandstand or barn area.  I'm sorry folks, but Balmoral Park should be heavily fined and possibly have to forfeit some days of racing as a form of punishment.  You can’t just land an aircraft anywhere you want to without FAA approval.  This was not only stupid, but just plain dangerous in my opinion.

Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras


Whoa, you may have a point Senor Lawyer.

The place is private property but is "LICENSED" by the IRB and did have patrons as well as horses and horsepeople (licensed by the state as well). The whole idea IMO to race in as many races and pull this stunt was simply AWESOME.

Just hope that the rumor I heard about 'THE STINGER' buying Main Street wasn't true..... I'd hate to see real security there if he was to clean up the place!
Report to moderator   Logged
emp
Guest

« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2006, 01:51:08 AM »

As I'm told now, the plane landed on the backstretch.  Whoever you were talking to was foolish.

What if a plane at O' Hare veered a quarter mile (about what it would've taken to hit the grandstand)?  That could be dangerous too!  It was at least hundreds of feet from trouble.  I now understand.

Best,
EW



This looks like the FINISH line not the backstretch........
Report to moderator   Logged
FreeLegged
Guest

« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2006, 01:52:34 AM »

I would agree that FAA approval would be needed due to flight patterns and stuff like that.

But here is a trick question..

Do any of us know that they did or did not get the FAA approval ?
Report to moderator   Logged
emp
Guest

« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2006, 01:53:47 AM »

Sleepless:

    But you don't understand.  Edward William said it was okay and there wasn't any present danger since the plane landed on the backstretch.  I always thought that FAA approval was needed before you could land a plane but Edward William says that is not the case. 

     Since I am not very well versed in FAA policies and requirements and Edward William is, it would be a waste of time to report the landing to the FAA.  Edward William said it was safe and that’s that.  End of story.  I share the same concerns as you but Edward William said its okay.  Have a great night.

Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras 



EWubs KNOWS!
Report to moderator   Logged
John Doe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2006, 01:56:16 AM »

I would agree that FAA approval would be needed due to flight patterns and stuff like that.

But here is a trick question..

Do any of us know that they did or did not get the FAA approval ?

Freelegged:

    I would certainly hope so but according to Edward William, I don't think it is necessary. Edward says the landing was okay because it took place on the backstretch.  I don't know if the landing was approved or not but from what Edward William says, it really is not that big of a deal.

Best regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras
Report to moderator   Logged

AND NOW, HERE ARE YOUR UNLV 1990 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS:
                       GREG ANTHONY
                       ANDERSON HUNT
                       MOSES SCURRY
                       STACEY AUGMON
                       LARRY JOHNSON
THE BEST COACH EVER, JERRY "TARK" TARKANIAN
THIS IS HEAVEN
emp
Guest

« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2006, 01:57:38 AM »

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_bca_story.jsp?id=news/land0806.xml

 The FAA's New Landing Assessment Rule
By Patrick Veillette, Ph.D.
07/25/2006 02:12:04 PM

On June 7, the FAA posted an announcement in the Federal Register that all FAR Part 121, 135 and 91(K) operators will be issued a new Operations Specification (Ops Spec) or Management Specification (MSpec) requiring completion of a new en route landing distance assessment for all their turbojet aircraft. This calculation must take into consideration current runway conditions and allow a full-stop landing with at least a 15-percent safety margin beyond the actual landing distance, on the runway to be used, in the conditions existing at the time of arrival, and with the deceleration means and airplane conditions to be used. The calculation must occur as close to the time of arrival as practicable. (Currently, regulations only mandate such calculations occur prior to departure of the aircraft.)

And the feds are not waiting long for a response. The FAA wants operators to file their proposed procedures for compliance with their respective principal operation inspectors by Sept. 1.

The announcement caught a lot of operators by surprise. I conducted an informal poll of 12 turbojet operations during my last tour on the road in mid-June. They ranged in size from one to five jets on their Part 135 certificates. All 12 seemed caught off guard with several of them asking me to forward them a copy of the announcement. A couple of them were ready to throw in the towel, expressing frustration with ever-increasing federal regulation. After they actually read and discussed the directives in the announcement, I heard complaints such as "I don't have a large staff to put together this information," and "I don't know where to find some of the information I need for this."

The National Air Transportation Association is taking a dim view of the proposal, pointing out that it establishes new regulations, but does so after bypassing the required rulemaking process, and failing to "solicit comments from the affected industry and public to the notice."

What led the FAA to make such a sweeping announcement? The dramatic pictures of a Southwest Boeing 737 sitting in a roadway off the end of the runway at Chicago's Midway airport last winter spurred the FAA to evaluate the adequacy of regulations and guidance information in areas that might come under scrutiny during the investigation of the overrun accident that claimed the life of a little boy riding in a car struck by the Boeing.

The problem of aircraft running off the ends of slippery runways in the United States should have been corrected a long time ago. An FAA analysis of accident and incident data for 1978 to 1993 uncovered 769 instances of aircraft overruns and excursions where ice, snow and slush were contributing factors. These included aircraft used in scheduled airline service as well as air taxi and general aviation.

According to Transport Canada's Transportation Development Center, the risk of a jet aircraft overrunning the end of the runway on landing when the runway is slippery is approximately 13 times greater than when the runway is dry. The risk of overruns on landing for aircraft without reverse thrust are approximately four to seven times greater than for aircraft with reverse thrust.

As noted in earlier articles, overruns are particularly problematic among the business jet community, and runway contamination was often a prime contributing factor. A Flight Safety Foundation study of business jet safety from 1991 to 2003 found that roughly 70 percent of the 59 landing overrun accidents and all 176 reported landing overrun incidents involved contaminated runways. By the way, rarely were the pilots given an adequate description of the braking action to be expected in the majority of these events.

The lack of adequate information to pilots regarding runway conditions was identified in an NTSB special investigation that was initiated in 1982, just days after Air Florida Flight 90 hit the 14th Street Bridge adjacent to Washington National Airport on a snowy day in January. When a jet slams into a crowded commuter bridge within eyeshot of FAA headquarters, maximum attention from regulators and investigators is inevitable. The question of aircraft performance from a slush-covered runway was definitely on the minds of the investigators as they pulled the 737's wreckage from the ice-covered Potomac River.

Ironically, 10 days later, a World Airways DC-10 touched down in Boston on a runway hard-packed with snow and glaze ice. Despite the flight crew's best effort to slow the jet, it slid off the end of the runway going 49 knots. Two people died in the mishap. When the NTSB's special investigation was done, it confirmed the need for (1) reliable, objective means to measure runway friction during all weather conditions, (2) reliable methods of transmitting that information to pilots and (3) methods of correlating measured runway friction to airplane performance. A generation has passed since that report, yet those same deficiencies persist.

The FAA's post-Midway internal review found that approximately half the operators' manuals lacked policies for assessing whether sufficient landing distance exists at the time of the arrival, even when runway or aircraft conditions were different from those planned at the time the flight was released.

Additionally, it found that not all operators who perform landing distance assessments at the time of arrival have procedures that account for various runway surface conditions or reports of reduced braking action. Many operators who do perform landing distance assessments at the time of arrival do not apply a safety margin to the expected actual (unfactored) landing distance. Some operators have developed their own contaminated runway landing data and in some cases, these data are less conservative than the airplane manufacturer's data for the same conditions.

While these findings support action, the FAA's proposal has many weak points.

One problem is that the landing distances determined under 14 CFR Part 25, section 25.125 and published in FAA-approved AFMs are considerably shorter than the landing distances achieved in normal operations since the former are determined using flight test methods and analysis criteria not representative of everyday practices. For example, test pilots often use high touchdown sink rates (as high as eight feet per second) and approach angles of -3.5 degrees to minimize the airborne portion of the landing distance. There is only enough flare to keep the touchdown sink rate structurally tolerable. How aggressive have they been? The flight crew of a DC-9/MD-80 doing landing performance tests at Edwards Air Force Base back in May 1980 came down so hard the empennage broke off.

The time taken to activate deceleration devices is markedly different between the flight test setting and out in the operational world. Test pilots initiate maximum braking as soon as possible after landing. In daily operation pilots try to be smoother and easier on the hardware. Many major air carriers prefer the use of thrust reversers during the high-speed portion of the landing rollout to reduce the wear and tear on the brakes, and allow for a "quick turn" on the ground. Such everyday practices result in significant differences with AFM data.

Further, flight tests are typically conducted in ideal atmospheric conditions, allowing the test pilot to easily establish a stabilized approach without having to compensate for the turbulence created by afternoon thermals or gusty winds, so common in line flying. Out in the real world, flight path deviations do occur, and as professional pilots we try to smoothly correct back to the flight path without giving our passengers a roller coaster ride. If a sudden wind gust or thermal balloons the aircraft 100 feet over the threshold instead of the usual 50, landing distance will be affected. According to data derived for the Flight Safety Foundation's "Approach and Landing Accident Reduction" task force report, such a gust would result in a 1,000-foot increase in landing distance.

How often have you touched down, looked at the wind sock in the touchdown zone area and realized it was indicating different winds than those reported on the ATIS? It isn't uncommon. You can bet the flight test crews had accurate touchdown zone wind reports in the computations of the landing distance. It is considered good operating practice to add half the gust factor to the final approach speeds as a safety margin. Thus a 10-knot wind gust can translate into a 20-percent increase in the landing distance. Do any of your AFMs contain an "easy to find" adjustment to your landing distance performance/requirement with an added gust factor? Probably not.

Line pilots also have to deal with crosswinds, which also have a negative impact on braking effectiveness in line operations (see "Crosswinds and Contaminated Runways," B&CA, January, page 28). I've combed through several business jet AFMs but haven't been able to easily find any landing distance performance adjustment figures for crosswind landings. Usually about the only crosswind information that is readily available in an AFM is the crosswind limitation. However, there is an additional consideration when landing in a crosswind and that is the amount of reverse thrust that can be used on airplanes with tail-mounted engines due to rudder blanking effects.

Does your AFM contain landing performance data in case you have residual ice on the wings after activating the deicing boots? Is there a speed adjustment and a landing distance adjustment? And by the way, does the AFM specify whether you were to carry that extra speed into the flare and to touchdown? This is yet another area in which the AFM landing performance numbers and guidance are frequently inadequate.

And if you regularly rely on thrust reversers for landing, be aware that the FAA has stated it "has not found thrust reversers reliable enough to allow landing distances to be based on their use. This policy provides some additional safety margin for airplanes with reversers that are operable and used in combination with (not in lieu of) maximum braking from wheel brakes and spoilers. If the FAA were to allow the use of reverse thrust as a condition for using, for example, an 85-percent factor for calculating landing distances, the result would be to assign an arbitrary performance capability to reverse thrust, which may or may not be met by different airplane/engine/reverse thrust combinations. Also, it would be inconsistent with the treatment of reverse thrust by the FAA for airplane type certification purposes, which has not allowed landing distances to be based on the use of reverse thrust."

The June 7 announcement said the FAA considers a 15-percent margin between the expected actual (unfactored) landing distance and the landing distance available at the time of arrival as the minimum acceptable safety margin for normal operations. The agency defines "actual landing distance" as "the landing distance for the reported meteorological and runway surface conditions, airplane weight, airplane configuration and ground deceleration devices to be used for the landing. It represents the best performance the airplane is capable of for the conditions."

It's interesting that the FAA is using 15 percent as the minimum acceptable safety margin in this proposed change. It had a very different value in mind as a safety margin when it adopted the rules governing fractional aircraft operations.

In its preamble to Subpart K of Part 91 operations, the FAA said that the landing safety margins required of Parts 121 and 135 -- the so-called "60-percent rule" -- provided "realistic landing distances for use in the operating environment" and should be applied to the fractionals as well.

The precedent and logic of the 60-percent rule are solid, so it's a mystery why the FAA would abandon it now for something less.

Furthermore, Sections 121.195(d), 135.385(d) and 91.1037(e) require an additional 15 percent be added to the required landing distance when the runway is wet or slippery, unless a shorter distance can be shown using operational landing techniques on wet runways.

Under the current regulations, can an aircraft be released to an airport that doesn't meet the safety margin requirement? Savvy readers of this section of the FARs know the answer is yes. Sections 121.195(e) and 135.385(e) allow an airplane to depart even when it is unable to comply with the safety margin if an alternate airport is specified that does meet the safety margin. Herein the FAA provision implies that a landing distance assessment is accomplished before landing to determine if it is safe to land. These are the current legal requirements for dispatch; however, they alone do not assure that the airplane can land safely within the distance available for the conditions that exist at the time of arrival, particularly if the runway or meteorological conditions, airplane configuration, airplane weight or use of airplane ground deceleration devices are different than those used in the preflight calculation.

I asked Charles Lloyd for his perspective on this. With a master's degree in mechanical engineering, 20 years of flight and sales experience with two major business aircraft manufacturers, and now a Cessna 560XL fractional captain, and having probably flown with hundreds, possibly thousands of pilots, he has unique insight. First, he is adamant that "pilots fly the aircraft by the certification numbers [and] adding 15 percent will not fix the problem." He points out that while some pilots recognize the importance of being precisely on speed (Vref), on glidepath (50 feet over the threshold) and aiming for the touchdown zone, in order to achieve the Part 25 landing performance numbers, they often don't realize they must go to flight idle over the threshold as well, because that's what's done in the Part 25 testing. Illustrating the point, he recalled a fellow pilot landing a King Air at 4,400-foot-long Hilton Head Airport "not coming to idle until touchdown when we were passing the 3,000-foot marker still five feet in the air. This person got religion fast and finally understood why a turbine needs to be at flight idle over the threshold."

Lloyd's experience points to the need for a well-developed training program to dispel commonly held pilot myths and misconceptions. The FAA agrees and has directed operators to use flight training programs that include procedures for ensuring optimal stopping performance on contaminated runways. According to the FAA's recent announcement, "All flight crewmembers must be made aware of these procedures for the make/model/series of airplanes." The procedures are to be incorporated into training curriculum, and all flight crewmembers must have hands-on training and demonstrate proficiency in the procedures during their next flight training event.

So, if there's a jet on your air carrier certificate, you have a lot to do in a relatively short timeline if the schedule in the notice holds. That's a problem, obviously.

The greater concern, however, is making flight operations safer. And to accomplish that in calculating landing distances pilots must have accurate timely runway condition information, and it must be in a form that can be easily used. Currently, when I receive a Mu-Meter friction reading, I have no ability to translate that directly into the amount of landing distance I actually need. None of the charts available for my use have any correlation between the Mu-Meter and runway needed. Braking action reports? I make no apology for skepticism since that vital part of the landing distance assessment/equation is woefully lacking with no improvements likely in the near future.

Pilots must have readily accessible and easy-to-use charts in the cockpit that will enable them to take the present runway surface conditions, environmental conditions and the aircraft's braking configuration, and determine if the runway is long enough for a safe landing.

At this time, there are few, if any, charts or methods that make this easy to do. I've watched countless colleagues struggle with chart interpolation or sweat out doing weight-and-balance calculations during recurrent training. Let's be realistic, there are a lot of pilots who are uncomfortable making relatively simple math calculations in a benign classroom environment. Trying to load them up with additional mental workload in the terminal area environment is asking for more human error. As one colleague put it, "Keep It Simple Stupid!" It's hard to disagree with that admonition.

OpSpec/MSpec C082, "Landing Performance Assessments After Departure" for all turbojet operators should have been available from the FAA July 20. It's sure to be a closely read document. Procedures must be in place by Sept. 1 and operators must be in compliance by Oct.1, 2006. B&CA

DEADLINES . . . MARK YOUR CALENDAR

The FAA issues mandatory OpSpec/MSpec C082, "Landing Performance Assessments After Departure."

Sept. 1, 2006: Operators will be required to submit their proposed procedures for compliance with this notice and OpSpec/MSpec C082 to their principal operations inspectors no later than this date.

Oct. 1, 2006: If not currently in compliance, a turbojet operator shall be brought into compliance with this notice and the requirements of OpSpec/MSpec C082 no later than this date.

Reprinted from the August 2006 issue of Business & Commercial Aviation magazine.
Report to moderator   Logged
emp
Guest

« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2006, 01:57:57 AM »

LIBRARY IS CALLING BOYZ..........

Title: FAA Regulation of 9-seat and Under Passenger Aircraft
Publisher: U.S. G.P.O.
Author(s): United States. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
Publication Date: 1985
Pages: 195
Report to moderator   Logged
FreeLegged
Guest

« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2006, 01:58:28 AM »

Freelegged:

    I would certainly hope so but according to Edward William, I don't think it is necessary. Edward says the landing was okay because it took place on the backstretch.  I don't know if the landing was approved or not but from what Edward William says, it really is not that big of a deal.

Best regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras


here would be my 2 guesses (and these are strictly guesses)

1. FAA approval was needed
2. FAA approval was granted.
Report to moderator   Logged
John Doe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2006, 02:06:56 AM »

here would be my 2 guesses (and these are strictly guesses)

1. FAA approval was needed
2. FAA approval was granted.

Freelegged:

     Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you but since Edward William has knowledge of FAA polices and procedures, I would guess the following.

1. FAA approval was not needed because Edward William said so.
2. FAA approval was not granted because Edward William explained that so long as the plane was landing on the backside, FAA approval was not necessary.

Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras
Report to moderator   Logged

AND NOW, HERE ARE YOUR UNLV 1990 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS:
                       GREG ANTHONY
                       ANDERSON HUNT
                       MOSES SCURRY
                       STACEY AUGMON
                       LARRY JOHNSON
THE BEST COACH EVER, JERRY "TARK" TARKANIAN
THIS IS HEAVEN
emp
Guest

« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2006, 02:08:36 AM »

Freelegged:

     Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you but since Edward William has knowledge of FAA polices and procedures, I would guess the following.

1. FAA approval was not needed because Edward William said so.
2. FAA approval was not granted because Edward William explained that so long as the plane was landing on the backside, FAA approval was not necessary.

Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras


You've got a point there and I concur. End of discussion from here.
Report to moderator   Logged
TC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4183




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2006, 02:11:46 AM »

THe bottom line is that an official complaint was registered with the FAA in Reston, VA concerning this unsafe stunt.  An investigator will be contacting Balmoral about this unsafe incident and the matter is in the proper hands.   trotter  TC
Report to moderator   Logged
Fillmore Bear
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1293




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2006, 02:29:11 AM »

     It looked a lot safer to me than Midway Airport.Wide margins for error,not very close to buldings,a very small plane coming in quite slowly.
     He touched down in the chute and was
at a slow taxi speed early on the backstetch.Came all the way round because the widest area to turn around is at the conjunction of chute and backstretch.He parked in the chute.Made much less noise than the track maintenance vehicles.
Report to moderator   Logged
supernaut
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: August 13, 2006, 02:43:22 AM »

Let's see- delay the races for an hour for four drivers,clear the track for 20 minutes, let the four drivers land on the racetrack, does anybody see any SPECIAL privileges allowed.And does anybody think that the racetrack would allow, say Gary Rath or Art Gregory(for example only) the same courtesy??? What a JOKE!!  What about lasix times?? Doesn't the IRB care about THAT?? What are the Three Stooges(stewards) thinking?? It's ok to make a spectacle of Illinois racing?? I'm embarrassed for Chicago. What if it HAD crashed??? That would have been tremendous publicity, wouldn't it?? How many times has Oosting practiced landing on a racetrack??? And what about the winds?? Couldn't that have sent a small plane off course?? Who was checking that??  Extremely poor judgement applied by unbelievably stupid people. And I still don't see what gives the stewards the right to delay the races an hour for 4 drivers. They didn't make the driver changes correctly either. Or they weren't announced correctly.
Report to moderator   Logged
sleepless
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 862




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: August 13, 2006, 02:47:36 AM »

At least any trainers that come up with positive tests from tonights races have another excuse.  Hiigh octane airplane fuel that seeped onto the racing surface when Oostings plane landed.
Report to moderator   Logged
supernaut
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: August 13, 2006, 02:51:29 AM »

 Smiley Environmental Contamination
Report to moderator   Logged
BOBBY ORR
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 646




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: August 13, 2006, 02:54:51 AM »



 Well now we know where the Petone airport runways will be.






 Bobby
Report to moderator   Logged
edwardwilliam
Annnnnnnnnd they're off!
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6252

Rebate shops are not the devil.


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #46 on: August 13, 2006, 03:36:30 AM »

Where one of these filed?  http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/forms/media/airspace_f7480-1.pdf

?

Best,
EW
Report to moderator   Logged

Stick to Fantasyland pal, because you'll NEVER make it in the real world - TC
edwardwilliam
Annnnnnnnnd they're off!
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6252

Rebate shops are not the devil.


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #47 on: August 13, 2006, 03:37:17 AM »

Please notice that I never said it was legally okay.  I simply said it was much better than landing by the grandstand.

Best,
EW
Report to moderator   Logged

Stick to Fantasyland pal, because you'll NEVER make it in the real world - TC
Buffaloboy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5091




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: August 13, 2006, 07:40:58 AM »

Please notice that I never said it was legally okay.  I simply said it was much better than landing by the grandstand.

Best,
EW

I admit I got a chuckle out of it but now that the laughter has died down a bit, lets look at the reality of this. Yes, he proved you could land a private plane on the track but at what risk and reward?

I would have to believe this was unplanned and they probably were running late cause the posts here about it were after the fact.

The Balmoral homestretch is 1360 feet so for the sake of the discussion, say the backstretch with the chute is 1700 feet. The width of the track is just 80 feet. At the very least, the lighting is set up fo racing. not landing planes.

I am just curious to know what we would all be talking about this morning if he missed the landing and crashed? A bunch of dead drivers and a fire at the track is just what harness racing needs.
Report to moderator   Logged

When will Barn To Wire finally do the right thing and ban Clockerterry & Edwarren for their continued lies, anti-American & anti-semetic statements and their general disrutpive stupidity? 

The answer to a government thats too big is to stop feeding its growth. - President Ronald W. Reagan
sleepless
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 862




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2006, 08:13:09 AM »

This landing was unnecessary in that there were drivers AT BALMORAL that were ready to drive the horses that Oosting, Miller, Tetrick, and Hiteman were scheduled on.  Some drivers ,in an effort to help out, took it upon themselves to show up at Balmoral even though they were not scheduled to drive.  There was NO reason that the races should have had to be held up. The delay in the drivers returning to Balmoral  from Springfield races was foreseeable in that the last Springfield race did not go off until approx. 6:05 pm Chicago time.  The stewards and Balmoral management show have recognized this and started having driver changes for at least the first 2 or 3 races.  Unfortunately, a delay was allowed and safety of horses and persons were  unnecessarily jeopardized.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.122 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy