Found on CNN…a good outcome considering the circumstances:
Better version on Youtube and it’s interesting to see the comments from some of our members.
Publicity stunt to boost the guys production video?
Otherwise, sweet video.
I sincerely doubt it. If the authorities, both state and federal, got even a hint of this being a “stunt” the ramifications would far outweigh any possible advertising benefit.
Folks who know Kyle (the pilot) say there’s no way this was a stunt for Joe’s (the photographer) benefit.
I agree. My previous comment was mostly in jest, but it did work out well to have so many cameras running during the event.
Stunt or not- Pretty lucky not to hit power lines.
One thing I noticed right away was the amount of time that elapsed before the first engine restart attempt was made after failure…22 seconds. I realize they were in a very stressful situation and scanning for a suitable emergency landing area. And I’m sure being in that situation 22 seconds realtime probably seems more like 2 or 3 seconds.
Why waste that altitude trying to restart when you can get pointed where you want to land? Then you can try the restart. If the engine lights at that point, it’s no loss. If it doesn’t you’re headed where you want to go and you haven’t wasted that time or altitude on a restart that didn’t work.
It was a predetermined event…note: There is absolutely no traffic on his side of the street…
If this were an actual emergency there would be cars present somewhere
Why waste that altitude trying to restart when you can get pointed where you want to land? Then you can try the restart. If the engine lights at that point, it’s no loss. If it doesn’t you’re headed where you want to go and you haven’t wasted that time or altitude on a restart that didn’t work.
Good point. Makes sense to me.
From the first page of comments from the YouTube video:
The plane appeared to be maintaining the same altitude from beginning of video up to 40 seconds into it when the engine quit. I dunno ‘bout you guys, but I tend to continue climbing until I get to 1,000’ AGL (or appropriate pattern altitude).
Does anyone know what kind of powerplant was in this aircraft?
Thanks. I had a gut feeling it was a rotax. I personally would never climb into/onto anything with a rotax. Just a personal opinion. I have no experience with an aviation rotax, but the others were not good. Anyone else feel this way?
My only extensive experience with the Rotax is when it’s driving a snowmobile. I know many folks who swear by them in their LSAs, Ultralights, etc., but I know just as many folks who share your opinion of their being unreliable. All I can say is that Rotax has built more than 6 million engines of all types over the years and I wouldn’t say no if someone wanted to give me a Rotax powered aircraft.
The reason the engine quit has been judged to be the result of a clogged fuel filter, something that could happen to any engine.
what a landing!!! 
saw it on cnn at work
I do agree with you, that it could happen to ANY engine. And like I said before, it was just a gut feeling. But I’m not suprised by any means. They just seem to be highly tempermental engines that make great, awesome power when they are running. Reliabilty means more to me than power output or weight. Read this…
lakeaviation.ca/rotax503tlc. … egoryID=97
Doubt this is the engine in question, but it does raise some key questions.
The engine didn’t quit it was staged …you don’t get that for some reason!!
Early Sunday AM in a small, sleepy FL town? No cars is not remarkable.
If this had happened on a Saturday morning, then I fear the outcome would have been far different.
Well, if there are two insane people on that plane, then I will eat crow. But
I just can’t imagine it being set-up. Why would someone take the risk knowing full well the ramifications of there actions? There was a reason the cameras were on the plane, and the truth about it will come out, set-up or not.