Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Footage of the recent Lancair 235 OE-CEH emergency landing in Carinthia

You can survive a dead stick landing in a Lancair also – with a wide open field of snow at least…

Perfectly executed I must say.

One has to wonder what goes through the head of the passenger to suddenly get the idea to film it all.


I’m suddenly rather happy that I trashed my MTV propeller last year. It had developed cracks near the blade root which MT said were not a structural or product defect and which they refused to rectify under warranty. I’m reluctant to buy another MT.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Przemek wrote:

Gear up is best technique. Just minor fuselage damages. Perfect!

Are you talking from experience?

always learning
LO__, Austria

The initial impact is surely ‘firm’, visceral even on video and to me a good demonstration of the value of multi-point harnesses. My plane has five point harnesses and my tendency is to keep them tight. My wife is not so convinced and I’m pondering whether to show her this video. I don’t think I will, the potential negatives in terms of building fear probably outweigh the positives. She at least wears the thing, although not a tightly as she might. It’s her life

Flying around at 90 kts ‘minimum’ in lightly built little boxes (as with a little Lancair) is not for the faint of heart. It’s good to see a successful outcome.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 11 Mar 03:46

I have often thought about the flimsy seatbelts in small planes. Aside from the paperwork, is it technically challenging (support plates?) to add 5 point harnesses to a typical single engine piston?

always learning
LO__, Austria

Under FAA rules, the requirements to add a shoulder harness to older planes that came equipped with lap belts only are minimal, intentionally relaxed. I can’t see why extending that to a full harness would be any different in the sense of gaining approval. The physical installation might be more challenging in aircraft that have movable seats.

I am not impressed that aeroplanes that have 3 or 4 point harnesses in later models are allowed to have simple lap belts in earlier ones just because they were certified that way. It makes no sense that something OK in one aeroplane is not in an identical later one.

That was well done. Looks like pretty hard packed snow.

Did he lose a propeller blade?

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Did he lose a propeller blade?

Yes, apparently, this was now the second time it has happened to him.

Last Edited by Snoopy at 11 Mar 07:48
always learning
LO__, Austria

Silvaire wrote:

I can’t see why extending that to a full harness would be any different in the sense of gaining approval.

The whole question – at least in EASA and I guess it is not that different in FAA – is if the airframe is already prepared for the new belts. If you just install them in predefined locations it is simple both from a paperwork as well as from an installation point of view. If you have to drill new holes into the existing structure it’s almost impossible to get approval…

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top