Harrison Ford makes Forced Landing in his PT-22

[marine air]

I liked flying the PT-22. It jumps airborne on takeoff almost like a Supercub. I remember thinking at that time it would be nice to own one and keep it at KMQY, the old Seward AFB. Thousands of acres of concrete and grass where one would always have a suitable choice for a forced landing. Or at a rural airport somewhere.
I was told there were two basic engines, the R-55 and the R-66. The R-55 needs the rocker arms or something oiled every 15 hours or they can seize. The R-56 had sealed bearings, which still need attention paid to them. Overall I heard many good things about Kinner engines and Al & Bradley Ball who rebuild Kinners.
The PT-22 I flew had an oil on/off valve that is turned off after flight. This prevents oil from leaking out or flooding the lower cylinders. Of course it must be turned on before flight. More than a few PT-22 accidents have occurred just after takeoff due to oil starvation.

[astixjr]

Need a little help here. So one of producers from Inside Edition just called, kind of a friend of a friend of a friend sort of thing, and asked if we would be willing to fly our PT-22 for a segment of the show. My father's PT-22 is highly modified and has a Ranger 200 HP engine so it's not a very good representation of the authentic PT-22 that Mr. Ford was flying. The show is produced in the LA area so surely, there's a much closer PT-22 that they can use as an example for filming, right? Do any of you WIXers know of a PT-22 owner in California who would be willing to talk to this person? If you are one of those open minded types or know of one, please email me at astixjr@earthlink.net or call me at 314-324-1066 and I'll get the right people in touch for the story.

Now before everyone jumps on me about helping the TV show folks, it sounds like they are really trying to do an accurate piece here and not just "make it up as they go" and I applaud that kind of journalism. We really need somebody who can be ready to defend the type and the engine in particular. It would be nice to explain that the PT-22 is not some scary dangerous old airplane that is always looking to crash on the nearest elementary school, right?

I'll be hiding over here in the Midwest while you all talk it over.

[DH82EH]

Albert, no doubt, you would be a great ambassador for vintage aviation.
I'm all for helping the media get true, accurate information. It serves us all well.

There must be another Kinner powered PT-22 in the neighborhood.

I'd be real interested to see your dads' Ranger powered PT as well.

Andy

[astixjr]

Thanks for comment Andy, appreciate the thoughts. It does concern me that these kinds of high profile accidents involving vintage aircraft could serve as a catalyst for much stricter controls and restrictions. We all complain about inaccurate reporting of aviation accidents in the media but when given the chance to help them get better information, most of us run away and hide. It's an understandable reaction but in the long run, I think we will all regret it.

I'm sure the issues surrounding that airport are not helping matters. There are not many spots to set one down nearby but look at what happened in this case. A well trained and obviously very capable pilot managed to dead stick a PT-22 down onto a golf course in a congested area without hurting anyone on the ground or severely injuring himself. This is a plane with a pretty lousy glide profile vs other PT planes from WWII but seriously, the pilot was Han freaking Solo, of course he can fly!

[Mark Allen M]

I strongly disagree with the "run and hide" thing. The problem is that the folks who know the proper and accurate information are rarely given the chance to help the media report accurate information. Media outlets are more concerned with timing (first to break the story) and ratings than accuracy in such details that most people wouldn't know, care or understand anyway. Fortunately this isn't always the case, but usually the case.

Whomever the outlet that is asking for assistance on accurate data on a PT-22? I say good for them and a very commendable effort. Nice to see being done. I hope someone with a vintage PT-22 steps up.

M

[BigGrey]

I cringed when I heard the PT-22 being described as an old WWII airplane on the national news. Albert is correct that reports of this nature will come to no good. The general public has no idea about how these planes are lovingly maintained. Accurate information needs to get out in a timely manner before the public's attention is focused on other matters. I cannot help with contacts but wish I could.

Les

[K5DH]

described as an old WWII airplane

The evening newscaster on our local CBS affiliate, Doug Dunbar, himself an accomplished pilot, described Ford's aircraft as a "vintage WW2 aircraft", which is certainly more respectful and less sensationalist than "old". The entire segment was very upbeat and clearly commended Ford on doing a great job of handling a really bad situation.

[DB2]

"Noted aviation expert" Mary Schiavo gave perhaps the worst comments I've seen in a long time about our hobby/profession:

Expert: Dangerous plane
The crash probably has less to do with the pilot and more with the plane, said CNN aviation analyst Mary Schiavo.

The older the plane, the more likely it is to crash, she said. "As the years go on, they get a lot more dangerous."

"They need very special care," and aviation laws proscribe their flying parameters. "You have to follow a special aging aircraft protocol," Schiavo said.

But she complimented Ford's move. He set the unpowered plane up for a good glide, she said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/entertain ... ane-crash/

[p51]

The older the plane, the more likely it is to crash, she said. "As the years go on, they get a lot more dangerous."

I assume that was meant to mean one that had never been restored?
Anyone into hot rods or old cars would know what a dumb comment this is.
Dangerous? Heck, I'd feel much safer on the Collings B-17 or B-24 than in most newer airliners, for how it's looked after and flown.

[Matt Gunsch]

Scary Mary strikes again, she has never seen a accident she can't exploit. For someone who has never spent a day turning a wrench, she sure seems to be a expert.

[daviemax]

"Noted aviation expert" Mary Schiavo gave perhaps the worst comments I've seen in a long time about our hobby/profession:

Expert: Dangerous plane
The crash probably has less to do with the pilot and more with the plane, said CNN aviation analyst Mary Schiavo.

The older the plane, the more likely it is to crash, she said. "As the years go on, they get a lot more dangerous."

"They need very special care," and aviation laws proscribe their flying parameters. "You have to follow a special aging aircraft protocol," Schiavo said.

But she complimented Ford's move. He set the unpowered plane up for a good glide, she said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/entertain ... ane-crash/

Schiavo is either terribly ignorant or deliberately disingenuous. Either way she doesn't belong in the community of "aviation experts."

[Pogo]

...but seriously, the pilot was Han freaking Solo, of course he can fly!

This comes scary close to being my favorite WIX quote of all time!

[JohnB]

"Noted aviation expert" Mary Schiavo gave perhaps the worst comments I've seen in a long time about our hobby/profession:

[i]Expert: Dangerous plane
The crash probably has less to do with the pilot and more with the plane, said CNN aviation analyst Mary Schiavo.

She makes her living scaring people.
She assumes a PT-22 is like a corrosion filled 737 with a zillion flight hours.

I'm not sure being an attorney and former IG for the DOT makes her an aeronautical engineer.
In light of her light experience as an engineer and pilot, I'd say she's a hack.

Oh oh...don't tell her it's not pressurized, doesn't have a co-pilot or a "black box". She'll talk D.C. into banning them completely.

[WIXerGreg]

They talked about the accident a bit the next morning on Bob and Tom when I was on my way to work and I was disappointed at the comments made about "WWII planes" being dangerous, you'd never catch me in one, etc. The public just doesn't understand how tough these things were built or how meticulously they are maintained. As mentioned above, I've flown commercial dozens of times and I've never felt safer on an airplane than when I flew in the B-17 and 24.

Prelim is out but doesn't really give any information than already known.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviat ... pgsize=100

[Kyleb]

They talked about the accident a bit the next morning on Bob and Tom when I was on my way to work and I was disappointed at the comments made about "WWII planes" being dangerous, you'd never catch me in one, etc. The public just doesn't understand how tough these things were built or how meticulously they are maintained. As mentioned above, I've flown commercial dozens of times and I've never felt safer on an airplane than when I flew in the B-17 and 24.

Prelim is out but doesn't really give any information than already known.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviat ... pgsize=100

Danger is relative. A PT-22 is a piston single with an ancient engine and somewhat unforgiving flight characteristics. I'd rate flying one as more dangerous than most any other piston single out there, even if it is well maintained.

That said, Scary Mary is about the most clueless talking head I've ever seen.