View Full Version : John Wildey and the Cessna
londonman
1st Apr 2014, 21:02
Part way through watching the TV programme about John Wildey's dilemma while up in the Cessna (when his pilot died) . I've searched the forum but drawn a blank for an earlier thread.
So I have a couple of questions...
1) It made sense to try and get him to land on runway 26 as it was into wind. The only problem was that it was unlit. Could they not have illuminated the boundaries of it using the headlights on the emergency vehicles? We had a similar problem at Bidford when, due to a monumental cock-up on time and available sunlight, one of the pilots was going to land in the field in the dark. We helped by parking cars down the airfield to give him an idea of the boundaries and one right at the end to show the limit of the field. OK..he was an experienced pilot and they had perhaps more time to arrange the vehicles...but even so.
2) Having no cockpit dash lights did not help. Now the instructor (thinking John was in the P1 seat) said that the row of switches was by his right knee. Which would make it John's left knee in reality. The cockpit isn't that big that he couldn't get to the switches?
I'm clearly missing something.
piperarcher
1st Apr 2014, 21:26
2) Having no cockpit dash lights did not help. Now the instructor (thinking John was in the P1 seat) said that the row of switches was by his right knee. Which would make it John's left knee in reality. The cockpit isn't that big that he couldn't get to the switches?
I'm clearly missing something.
It's dark. You cant see much inside the plane. You have no idea what absolutely any of the switches do. And you're not a pilot. Would you go around pressing unknown switches while also dealing with keeping an aircraft straight and level and all the rest? As a pilot, even in a plane unfamiliar to me, from the right hand seat, even in daylight I don't think I'd be pressing too many switches I wasn't totally confident with. OK, we know the red ones are ones not to touch, but if I didn't know what the others did, I might well leave them alone.
I saw the program and say the guy is a hero. Not only for staying calm with a dead pilot next to him, but for maintaining that level of control over an airplane in such conditions.
Exiled Martian
1st Apr 2014, 23:01
Nothing but admiration for the 77 year old who landed that plane with ZERO hours in the logbook...no lights & as a result no instruments :eek:
Must admit, I was in awe of how calm he remained throughout the whole ordeal...the fella was cooler than the other side of the pillow, cracking jokes with ATC/SAR & all sorts... bravo:D
Saab Dastard
2nd Apr 2014, 00:23
Original thread here:
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/525231-passenger-lands-plane-humberside-airport-after-pilot-falls-ill.html
SD
slam525i
2nd Apr 2014, 02:26
I don't know what the "new" 172s have, but the old 172s have a interior-light rheostat that's on the left side of the left hand yoke, just left of the ignition/mag switch. The switches in the middle between the yokes only control external lights and pitot heat. (It's actually 2 rheostats co-axial. one for interior light, and one for instrument lights)
A right hand passenger can reach it, but I'd totally understand him not wanting to mess it up either.
londonman
2nd Apr 2014, 05:06
Thanks guys for the clarification. Please don't get me wrong. I was not having a 'pop' at John and agree that he was remarkable.
If anything I was surprised that the instructor didn't persevere in helping John get lights. After all, the instructor did say to flip up all the switches. And that they were to the right of the P1 position's knees. So suggesting to me that the risk of hitting anything unfortunate was remote.
India Four Two
2nd Apr 2014, 05:22
londonman,
Where and when was the programme?
londonman
2nd Apr 2014, 06:01
Here you go...
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/mayday-the-passenger-who-landed-a-plane
Anyone any thoughts on why no-one thought to illuminate 26 with headlights?
BabyBear
2nd Apr 2014, 07:20
How about:
It wasn't a good idea?
The positioning of vehicles would provide further hazards on landing for a non pilot. Did he in fact not run off the runway?
BB
PS
The wind reportedly changed.
londonman
2nd Apr 2014, 09:01
I don't agree. No-one is suggesting that they would be parked right alongside the runway but if sufficiently far enough away, they would at least give him some indication as to where the runway was.
Shaggy Sheep Driver
2nd Apr 2014, 09:09
He actually did run quite some distance off the runway. Any vehicles anywhere near the runway would have been an unacceptable hazard.
He did extremely well, with better RT than some PPLs. But though he had no formal training, I suspect he wasn't entirely new to controlling a light aircraft (with 'hands on' from the RH seat) as he was an experienced 'passenger'. Of course, he'd presumably never landed before which is what makes his feat so remarkable.
Saw the interview with him on television which was embarrassing as the interviewer pressed him on experience.
He stated he had been up on numerous occasions and when pushed admitted to on one occasion being given the controls.
He was then asked what his real world job had been?
He looked very embarrassed and tried to avoid answering on three occasions until further pressed stated he had been in the RAF.
I actually wonder how much money he is making out of the television interviews and programmes.
Nothing is ever as it appears and while I have no doubts he did a fantastic job getting the aircraft down I don't think he is quite as green as he makes out? Even his RT was too good for a green know nothing passenger
I flew for a guy who brought a Seneca five twin. I was single pilot flying him all over the place and over time taught him how to fly to the point that he did a very good job and even knew the Garmin 530/Avidyne better than me.
He never held a licence but had I dropped dead at the controls I am sure in good weather he would have landed safely.
The press would have reported that the passenger landed the aircraft after the pilot died
Pace
BabyBear
2nd Apr 2014, 11:09
I don't agree. No-one is suggesting that they would be parked right alongside the runway but if sufficiently far enough away, they would at least give him some indication as to where the runway was.
Feel free to disagree and deny the evidence, but that reason alone was sufficient, vehicles far enough out not to be a hazard would have been useless for lighting the runway. The number of vehicles required would also be prohibitive. There are numerous other reasons too.
I think he did a tremendous job and take my hat off to him. It's not a crime to have had some hands on, that's good and I think saved his life on this occasion. He was an unlicensed passenger, he doesn't have to defend that.
The give away for me was the self initiated go around in the dark.
BB
has nobody watched Die hard?
Surely the answer is to lay a trail of avtur and set light to it! :ok:
I think he did a tremendous job and take my hat off to him. It's not a crime to have had some hands on,
BB
Agreed but then do not try and make out you are a totally green never flown passenger for the story line and financial gain.
He avoided 3 questions on his previous job almost to a state of embarrassment and finally admitted a career in the RAF.
What as is another question but just being in the RAF would indicate a long interest in all things aviation.
stating you have been up on numerous occasions with the pilot and then saying that on all those numerous occasions he only handled the controls once?
Maybe True:E
But this is selling a story and interviews which in my mind puts a question mark over the sincerity?
I commend him for what he did with the experience he had but think if the truth be known his experience is more than he is letting on or is being portrayed by the media for the sake of a story.
I would love to know what he was paid for the television interview?
Pace
Torque Tonight
2nd Apr 2014, 12:18
Not everyone in the RAF is a pilot! Wasn't this chap a scribbly or similar? We don't teach our admin clerks to land aeroplanes.
wb9999
2nd Apr 2014, 14:55
What as is another question but just being in the RAF would indicate a long interest in all things aviation.
That's a wildly presumptuous statement.
After leaving school I had a interview to join the RAF police - and had zero interest in aviation until 10 years later.
There are many clerical and administrative staff in the RAF who wouldn't know a thing about aircraft, then there are the cleaners, catering staff, motor mechanics, facilities staff (caretakers, building maintenance etc). There are likely more non-aviation jobs in the RAF than aviation-related.
It was just how he avoided the question of what he did in his career. The interviewer had to really push to get an answer. I am sure if it had been toilet cleaner or military police or office worker totally away from aircraft he would have been the first to expand on the detail as it was obvious what the interviewer was after and what he was trying to avoid.
I was in the RAF military police would have been a clean way out as would have been I was an accountant /clerical administrator in the RAF.
I am not saying by any means that he was a pilot just that I do not reckon he was quite as green as made out.Maybe an aircraft engineer who has never held a licence but who has a keen interest in aircraft.
whatever he did a fantastic job especially dealing with all the go arounds with a dead friend on board which would challenge a low PPL never mind a member of then public with no experience so all credit to him
Pace
Phli4fun
2nd Apr 2014, 16:44
As a bloke that sits and drinks coffee with John most Tuesdays I'd like to put to bed a couple of the suggestions made in this thread.
Firstly, right from the day after the incident, reporters (some using very dirty tactics to obtain Johns address) have been pestering to get the details of what, let's face it, is a great human interest story. John has freely given his time to give what details he could. Apart from taxi fares he hasn't had any remuneration for giving interviews for Radio or TV news programmes, or for the Channel 4 documentary. The suggestion that the story was cobbled together for Johns monetary gain I find distasteful.
As an avid enthusiast his car is equipped with an airband radio which I've never known to be switched off. I believe this is where his apparent ease on the radio stemmed from.
His time in the RAF was spent as a Desk Clerk but his interest in aviation meant he was always up for a flight wherever possible, in aircraft of whatever Squadron he was serving with at the time. As a retired chap, he regularly haunts his local airfields and has been successful in 'blagging' passenger flights with friendly pilots.
So, not a 'green know nothing passenger', but there's nothing in his history would prepare him for the job thrust upon him that Tuesday evening last October. Nothing can be said that takes away the fact that John did extremely well in the circumstances he found himself.
John is a mild mannered, good humoured gentleman who is now, slightly embarrassed about the whole affair and still wishes he could have done more to give his friend a better chance of survival.
OK it was a bad television interview which gave the wrong impression so I apologise sincerely at jumping to conclusions or making assumptions on monetary gain.
To be honest if he hasn't made anything from this but allowed the media to do so then he is a truly nice guy APOLOGIES :ok:
Pace
What a shame that modern media / society leads any of us to consider that someone is only in something for the financial gain.
Just managed to catch up with the programme tonight, a very interesting watch! Great sense of spirit and humour from John. Impressed with his ability to stay calm..more surprised at him apologising for a missed landing!