Here's one that should generate plenty of discussion about what he did right and what he did wrong. Unfortunately, only way I found to get to the story is to go through Google News, otherwise you have to register:

Google News link to story about Ted Greene's crash, survival and rescue in Alaska

One paragraph out of the article to whet your appetite;

"After his crash, Greene climbed out of the Piper's window and discovered that his hearing aid had been knocked out of his ear, possibly by a sleeping bag that shot out the window during the crash. Greene's cell phone didn't work, and the plane's emergency locator beacon had been left at home. He couldn't find matches. And his bluejeans became soaking wet from Greene's tramping around in deep snow. He never could find his hearing aid. "

Okay, I'll stick my neck out and start.

The first two major errors I spotted were that the locater beacon was left at home, and that he had no survival equipment on his person (at least none that would start a fire.) Besides that, Its not clear if a flight plan was filed. I also have to wonder if his baggage was properly stowed since his sleeping bag "shot out the window" on impact.

On the positive side, he did have a handheld radio and a cell phone. He also kept his head and was able to set up a camp with the items from the plane. He was definitely fortunate that the landing occured in the trees and not on a lake otherwise his gear might have sunk.

What did I miss?

Chris

The last paragragh surprised me. It doesn't mention he's an aicraft mechanic. Wouldn't the airline authorities demand a trained mechanic, and also some sort of air-worthiness certificate?
I'm not sure if I would trust a 73 year old pilot to fix my plane, let alone fly it. Over here you have to retake your driving test for a car at 65, I'm sure the law for flying must be stricter.

Doug is better qualified to answer this, but my pilot friends have to take a physical examination on a regular basis. The physician has to be certified by the FAA, I believe.

I don't see anything in the article to suggest that he personally planned to do a rebuild himself, or that he had done so previously, only that having it rebuilt, again, was a possibility to be considered. The rules concerning working on your own aircraft are sufficiently complicated to not be worth going into here, but it boils down to, for most factory built aircraft, that the really simple maintenance, change oil for example, can be done by the owner, anythings serious has to be done by a licensed mechanic. However, it is not unusual for an owner to do work on their aircraft while being supervised by a licensed mechanic, and in fact, if you are so inclined, it is considered by many to be advantageous, both in terms of money saved and in terms of ensuring you know what was done and that it was, indeed, done right. Plus you get to know your aircraft far better than the non-mechanic pilot.

I find nothing unusual about a person flying at his age. I know and have flown with numerous pilots who are in that age range. Some are better than others, but the same can be said of pilots at any age. Some of the finest pilots I know are in their 60s and 70s. I wouldn't say they were typical of their age in almost any respect. For that matter, one could argue that it was his considerable experience that allowed him to control the aircraft after the mechanical control failure where a less experienced younger pilot might well have ended up dead in an out of control crash.

Non-commercial pilots in the U.S. must pass an FAA physical exam performed by a designated FAA Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) every three years for pilots under age 40 and every two years for those age 40 and older.

Having no experience in such matters, I stand corrected.
I just hope I am mentally and phiscally fit to fly a plane at that age - the rate I'm going I have my doubts <img src="images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

The lack of IMMEDIATE firemaking tools may be material for criticism, but I think he did well. He was able to change out of wet jeans into warm clothing ( Alaska instructor Chris Janowski wears jeans, but always has spare woolens on hand,) erect a tent and shelter in a sleeping bag with some minimal food. Note that he was nearly exausted just snowshoing in the immediate area accomplishing this. Had he been able to make a fire, the exchange in initial physical labour for a fire may have actually been less efficient. That is just collecting materials. I'd hate to show off my bowdrill skills under his situation. I've mentioned another accident posted @ www.wiggys.com in the current newsletter. Those people actually had to extract their bags with difficulty from a flipped and partially submerged floatplane. There is no "set piece" scenario. Your gear can go down with the ship, or get scattered like so many christmastree decorations. Crucial communications gear can be forgotten or fail. Notice he had a third option. It was redundancy that compensated for any dumbdancy. As for age? Luftwaffe fighter commandant Adolf Galland was an advisor for the movie Battle of Britain. He was given an opportunity to fly one of the spanish BF 109s and was soon barrel rolling a few feet off the runway. Right behind him was RAF ace Lacy in a Spitfire matching manuever for manuever. " experience and treachery will always defeat youth and enthusiasm." <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You bring up good points. Shelter does go before fire and he was right to focus on the tent and sleeping bag. I still believe though that having survival gear on his person would have been a greater asset. If the plane had sunk he would have been up the creek without the proverbial paddle.

Chris

I don't know if you can assume that. The fact that he spent the night in relative comfort in a tent can't be used as evidence that he wasn't capable of building a snow cave or a snow trench. (Although he himself said that if it hadn't been for the survival gear in his plane, he'd have been lost, that may not have turned out to be the case; we'll never know.)

As far as the plane "sinking", the picture in the second article shows him standing by a wheeled plane, not a float plane, and the fact that the lake was frozen over makes it unlikely he was flying a float plane. There's a considerable body of evidence that making a controlled crash landing in the trees is as safe as ditching (which I believe I read on this site somewhere). And even if he'd ditched on the lake, it may be unlikely that the plane would have gone through the ice.

I found the line "the plane's emergency locator beacon had been left at home" was rather odd since a plane's ELT is typically a permanent installation. It is mounted rigidly to the airframe because it is designed to sense the G-loads in the event of a crash and automatically activate itself. I leave mine mounted in my plane and know of no one who regularly takes theirs out. And if I had taken it out, I would have been sure to reinstall it since it is a FAA required piece of equipment if you are flying more than 25 miles from your home airport. <img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Otherwise, I think he was well prepared mentally and equipment wise. The only additional piece of equipment I would suggest would be a portable GPS unit. I have a portable aviation GPS which is my main navigation device, keeping me on course but would also pinpoint my exact location if I was downed somewhere. Those coordinates could be radioed to the search team speeding up the rescue.

More Crash details: http://www.aero-news.net/