Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5604023/

Topic: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: jalapeno
Posted 2012-11-04 17:20:55 and read 5059 times.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dento...ht-on-Tape-Roanoake-177177461.html



"Home video reveals a serious safety concern on a roadway that lets motorists drive under planes landing and taking off from Northwest Regional Airport. "
via WFAA.com

[Edited 2012-11-04 17:22:40]

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: louA340
Posted 2012-11-04 19:15:48 and read 4739 times.

Wow, I'm surprised they would have a road cross right next to the runway. Thats a very serious safety issue since it doesn't seem like making cars stop is enforced. Was the aircraft approaching too low? . Glad everyone came out alright.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: unattendedbag
Posted 2012-11-04 19:16:46 and read 4741 times.

Quoting jalapeno (Thread starter):
Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach

You phrased that correctly. The student pilot was way too low on that approach. The aircraft can be seen setting down on the displaced threshold. Sorry, but pilot error.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Flyer732
Posted 2012-11-04 19:26:13 and read 4667 times.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 2):
You phrased that correctly. The student pilot was way too low on that approach. The aircraft can be seen setting down on the displaced threshold. Sorry, but pilot error.

Perhaps setting down on the displaced threshold because its forward momentum was suddenly brought to a halt by impacting a car?

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: MeanGreen
Posted 2012-11-04 19:32:19 and read 4648 times.

I got my instrument raiting at this airport (52F) and I have flown the plane in question. This is a small uncontrolled strip and the road is the only way to get from the west side of the field to the east side. There are signs that tell drivers to give way to all aircraft. The SUV had no business being there.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: iFlyLOTs
Posted 2012-11-04 19:33:55 and read 4637 times.

I know of two airports in similar situations to this, luckily they're both relatively small unused private airports but still, it wouldn't surprise me if something like this happened at one of them.

And regarding this situation, there is a lot of fault, the pilot was low, the car pulled out in front of the plane but the biggest thing of all is that this should have never been allowed to happen because either that road should have been moved or that runway should have. I think that the airport is at the most fault in this situation.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: jetblueguy22
Posted 2012-11-04 20:08:12 and read 4514 times.

We have an airport like this in Larimore, ND 2L1. There is a road just short of the runway. If you are a little low and there is a truck on the road you're going to have a bit of a problem. Though one has to wonder why the pilot didn't anticipate the car crossing after seeing it. If I felt at any point it was going to be close I would just make a go around.
Blue

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: louA340
Posted 2012-11-04 20:35:59 and read 4439 times.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 6):
Though one has to wonder why the pilot didn't anticipate the car crossing after seeing it. If I felt at any point it was going to be close I would just make a go around.

The article said the pilot was on his first solo flight, I would have been fully concentrating on the runway and getting the plane down at that point of flight, and not tracking a vehicle along a road. To have his eyes tracking the car to see if it wasnt going to stop would take away the concentration needed to land the plane, especially on a first solo flight.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: unattendedbag
Posted 2012-11-04 20:54:37 and read 4391 times.

Quoting Flyer732 (Reply 3):
Perhaps setting down on the displaced threshold because its forward momentum was suddenly brought to a halt by impacting a car?

Based on information from airnav.com, the displaced threshold is 400ft. long and the road is 30ft. from the end of the runway. So the pilot would have had to have been approximately 6 feet off the ground at 430ft from the threshold of the runway. Is that a proper approach descent?

Quoting louA340 (Reply 7):
To have his eyes tracking the car to see if it wasnt going to stop would take away the concentration needed to land the plane, especially on a first solo flight.

If I remember correctly, during flight training they tell you, "If you're looking at it (a fixed position), odds are, you will fly to it." If the pilot was watching the car, then the pilot was going to fly into the car.

[Edited 2012-11-04 20:56:23]

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: kcrwflyer
Posted 2012-11-04 21:47:53 and read 4262 times.

Quoting Flyer732 (Reply 3):
Perhaps setting down on the displaced threshold because its forward momentum was suddenly brought to a halt by impacting a car?

Something deep inside of me tells me you're joking. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.



I know the SUV didn't stop but what the HECK is the pilot doing 6ft. off the ground 430ft. from the threshold of the runway!? That is beyond unacceptable.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 2):
The student pilot was way too low on that approach. The aircraft can be seen setting down on the displaced threshold. Sorry, but pilot error.

he was barely going to make the pavement even if he didn't hit a car.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: skywaymanaz
Posted 2012-11-05 00:31:16 and read 3673 times.

When I was doing my private pilot training at Falcon Field (FFZ) there was a road right across one of the busiest taxiways. There were stop signs, flashing red lights below the stop sign, a warning sign that aircraft do not stop and Bott's dots (raised bumps on the roadway seen in areas that don't need snow plows) warning drivers to stop. I can't tell you how many times I was taxiing in and cars drove right on thru without stopping. Sometimes I'd get honked at and given the finger. If a vehicle did stop a lot of times they treated it like a 4-way stop and took off right in front of crossing airplane traffic. I almost put the prop into more then one cars windshield that did that to me. The road is now closed across the taxiway which makes for a very long drive from one side of the airport to the other but unfortunately it had to happen before someone got killed.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: ghifty
Posted 2012-11-05 01:02:25 and read 3435 times.

Looks like an XC90.

I'm proud to drive a Volvo!

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: by188b
Posted 2012-11-05 01:28:22 and read 3125 times.

This topic reminds me of this photo.....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marlo Plate - Iberian Spotters

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: 71Zulu
Posted 2012-11-05 01:59:43 and read 2842 times.

Here's a video of a landing there at 52F,

http://youtu.be/YYlIdsFU8_U

don't see a problem if you land beyond the displaced threshold, the accident pilot obviously was low and short, so pilot error on this one. Even if you are concentrating on landing, you gotta see that you are low and are on collision course with something. Hope he had good insurance.

Quoting jalapeno (Thread starter):
"Home video reveals a serious safety concern on a roadway that lets motorists drive under planes landing and taking off from Northwest Regional Airport. "
via WFAA.com

Here's a pic from the road, looks like something painted on road, "stop"? Maybe could be a little better signage here (is that car holding on the other side?).

http://i47.tinypic.com/34g0gar.png

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: lh526
Posted 2012-11-05 02:11:19 and read 2768 times.

The Volvo didn't stop and the plane was too low on approach ... classic case of two mistakes become one mishap!

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: BE77
Posted 2012-11-05 02:13:53 and read 2754 times.

Quoting louA340 (Reply 7):
To have his eyes tracking the car to see if it wasnt going to stop would take away the concentration needed to land the plane, especially on a first solo flight.

Agree

Quoting MeanGreen (Reply 4):
Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 10):
Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 9):
I know the SUV didn't stop but what the HECK is the pilot doing 6ft. off the ground 430ft

Landing on their first solo.
A lot is happening on a first solo (mine was 30+ years ago, and I still remember how busy it was and I had 5000 feet and was the only plane in the circuit). Even for more experienced pilots a displaced threshold encourages a lower than normal approach (VFR) since the visual picture is that the runway is closer than it is. Landings on displaced threshold runways are much more frequently on the numbers than other runways and it's common to see power added in order to make it to the numbers in the fisrt place. It's not necessarily correct, but the visual is hard to overcome, and it does lessen the chance of overrun if the displacement has significantly reduce the runway length (no idea if that is applicable, but I guess that the displaced threshold was a reaction to the road traffic).

Considering that the driver did not consider the signs that MeanGreen reports plus the experiences of skywaymanaz plus the experiences we all have had with on road drivers not paying attention to rules, warnings, and road conditions, it looks like the driver chose not to consider the surroundings - and would possibly have driven through even if it was a 747 with a wing on fire.

Would suck to get that far through the solo and then having it end that way. I will not second guess his reasoning (didn't happen to me, personal choices, etc., etc.), but it is unfortunate for all of us that he has had to end his training.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: skygirl1990
Posted 2012-11-05 02:22:45 and read 2660 times.

One thing I would like to potentially add... It looks to me that the windsock is indicating a slight tailwind?

Surely that wouldn't be the case for a first solo?

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: bthebest
Posted 2012-11-05 02:23:04 and read 2660 times.

My 2 cents:

Pilot was too low, but he was a student - everyone learns at somepoint.

Car shouldn't have been crossing but the STOP signs shown in the video are barely visible - airport needs better safety measures.

As in all these cases it shouldn't get to the point where an accident has to happen for something to be done. Be interesting to see how the insurers wrangle this out. From what I can tell both had right of way due to the privately-owned nature of the road and it might actually come back to inadequate measures by the airport.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-11-05 04:08:35 and read 2423 times.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 8):
Based on information from airnav.com, the displaced threshold is 400ft. long and the road is 30ft. from the end of the runway. So the pilot would have had to have been approximately 6 feet off the ground at 430ft from the threshold of the runway. Is that a proper approach descent?

If he wanted to land on the displaced threshold, yes. If the airplane is 6' above the road, that is measured at the static port for the altimeter, the landing gear is much below that level. Cars are 5'-6' tall,so there is a conflict there.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 17):
Car shouldn't have been crossing but the STOP signs shown in the video are barely visible - airport needs better safety measures.

The airport doesn't own the roadway, so they cannot control it.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: 9VSIO
Posted 2012-11-05 04:10:56 and read 2428 times.

Wait till you guys read the original reporting...

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dento...ow-hes-a-little-low-177129811.html

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: soon7x7
Posted 2012-11-05 04:11:31 and read 2423 times.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 2):
The aircraft can be seen setting down on the displaced threshold. Sorry, but pilot error.

Negative!...Not pilot error!...Even if he was the runway was hot...(aircraft right of way over vehicular airport traffic) if the vehicle driver was aware of what he was doing and where he was doing it he would have "clearly" seen and ainticipated the potential of a landing aircraft. Pilot= Lucky, vehicle driver =blind/stupid.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-05 04:17:10 and read 2425 times.

No one has said anything about the lack of extended flaps. Without them, he's going to be making a shallow approach like that.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: futureatp
Posted 2012-11-05 04:40:30 and read 2425 times.

Good catch on the flaps.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: JHCRJ700
Posted 2012-11-05 04:49:04 and read 2426 times.

Quoting louA340 (Reply 7):
The article said the pilot was on his first solo flight

I'm sure he'll never forget this solo! I wonder if he is a member here, it'd be great to hear his side of things.

I wonder if the driver of the car was on the phone at the time and if so if the owner of the plane could pursue legal action against the driver. Either way it's lucky no one got seriously hurt.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: bthebest
Posted 2012-11-05 04:59:11 and read 2426 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
The airport doesn't own the roadway, so they cannot control it.

That's probably the biggest problem - that the airport doesn't have control over the road. Maybe they should consider cutting the runway length, 3500ft could easily be cut down and still be available for most aircraft. Barring that, they do control the land right next to the road so could put plenty of signs up!

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 20):
Even if he was, the runway was hot...(aircraft right of way over vehicular airport traffic)

This wasn't airport traffic so no right of way exists.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: kalvado
Posted 2012-11-05 05:10:09 and read 3104 times.

I am not an expert, but looks like 6 feet object 400 feet from displaced threshold is within FAA runway design requirements - http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...Advisory_Circular/150_5300_13a.pdf
Actually if the plane did not clear 6' car by about a foot, 4' fence (which is just a little further) could easily be a show-stopper as well.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: airtran737
Posted 2012-11-05 05:35:10 and read 3175 times.

I am guessing that the GPWS aural alert was ignored, as well as the glideslope waring alert. What? A 172 doesn't have them?? Ok. Let's put this one on coming out of a microburst, and the downdraft pushed him into the car. Sounds like a reasonable explanation.   

Seriously, this is a student on his first solo. How many of you on here are actually pilots? How many of you have multiple pieces of green plastic from the FAA and aren't just armchair pilots who throw out their two cents and expect to be taken as if it were words from the mouth of God? There a multiple factors that contributed to this accident, and I am confident that the NTSB will determine the root cause and steps will be taken to prevent it from happening again. I remember my first solo at KRAC, I was terrified. Not because of a lack of skill, but because it all became very real when my instructor hopped out of the plane on the taxiway. Let's cut the pilot a break until we know what really happened from sources who are paid to determine this sort of thing.

[Edited 2012-11-05 05:48:02]

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: MeanGreen
Posted 2012-11-05 06:15:24 and read 3403 times.

The lack of flaps is normal for the flight school in question. When I trained there many years ago they required no flap landings. I can't remember their reason but I thought it was moronic.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Gulfstream650
Posted 2012-11-05 06:31:12 and read 3294 times.

When landing - pilots often get 'tunnel' vision (especially when on solo) as they are solely concentrating on the runway on which they are to land.

I saw the below video at a FAA Wings Runway Safety Seminar a couple of years ago. If you concentrate completely on counting how many balls are tossed you will most likely completely miss the fact that there is a man dressed as a gorilla walking across the screen. I suspect that the pilot did not even notice the car until he hit it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

Either way, those in that car should have known better.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-11-05 06:39:10 and read 3249 times.

Quoting skygirl1990 (Reply 16):
One thing I would like to potentially add... It looks to me that the windsock is indicating a slight tailwind?

Surely that wouldn't be the case for a first solo?

The airport is busy enough that it has a pattern and flying with a slight tailwind is quite common. As an uncontrolled airport, turning the airport with four or five aircraft in the pattern is difficult.

I've landed there with about 7 kts of tailwind. Since it was my third solo flight, it was a 'learning experience'. I've made a lot of flights with light tailwind takeoffs and landings. Those are very common in the DFW area, especially at the controlled airports which take their pattern directions from DFW and DAL.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 17):
Car shouldn't have been crossing but the STOP signs shown in the video are barely visible - airport needs better safety measures.

From the local TV station report

Quote:
The Laudos are aviation enthusiasts, and they visit the airport a lot.

According to the news interviews, this couple has driven across that road, has stopped for incoming aircraft many times. This time they didn't look and didn't stop.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-11-05 07:01:04 and read 3202 times.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 2):
The aircraft can be seen setting down on the displaced threshold.

A runway is more the just the paved area, it normally includes an unpaved area around the sides.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 8):
Based on information from airnav.com, the displaced threshold is 400ft. long and the road is 30ft. from the end of the runway. So the pilot would have had to have been approximately 6 feet off the ground at 430ft from the threshold of the runway. Is that a proper approach descent?

They also say there is a 10' hill 200 ft on approach.

Given the terrain slopes towards the runway, the runway is not flat, the runway marking are not standard, I think it is asking a but much to expect a student pilot to make a perfect approach. If an aircraft was taking off in the opposite direction, they could have also hit the car.

The pilot would not be able to see the car as the engine is in the way.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
If the airplane is 6' above the road, that is measured at the static port for the altimeter, the landing gear is much below that level.

The altimeter does not read the height above the ground to the cockpit, or the pilots eye height, in fact it may not read anything at all in relation to the airport elevation depending on the reference where the sub-scale was set.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-11-05 07:19:13 and read 3215 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
If an aircraft was taking off in the opposite direction, they could have also hit the car.

On Oct 11, an aircraft taking off at the airport had issues overran the runway end, crashed through one fence and flipped over after hitting another fence. http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...5vc55oe2th2551/D11052012120000.pdf

The road needs to be closed. Yes, that will cut off access to the businesses on the east side of the runway, but a solution can be found.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: crazyro
Posted 2012-11-05 08:00:27 and read 3196 times.

Did you guys watch the news report video? Amazing exchange after the crash...

---
In the aftermath of the crash, airport manager Glen Hyde can be heard on Kandy Davis' recording yelling, "Is anybody hurt?"
Hyde grabbed his first aid kit and ran to the Laudos' vehicle. He immediately asked them whether they saw the stop sign... or the approaching plane.
"Whatever that is, it fell. Whatever that it is it hit our car," they said.
"That is the landing gear," Hyde responded. "You got hit by a plane."
"I know that!" Heather Laudo said in the recording.
"Why did you pull out if front of an airplane, is what I wanna know?" Hyde asked.
"We didn't see it," Frank Laudo said.
"We didn't pull out in front of an airplane," Heather Laudo added.
"Yes, you did!" Kandy Davis said.
---

I love how the SUV occupants have the "It's not our fault! Something just fell on our vehicle." attitude. Maybe paying attention would be good. I wonder if this is an issue of also becoming too familiar, too lax and and letting their guard down.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: 777
Posted 2012-11-05 08:36:43 and read 3112 times.

This reminds me another crash occurred in 2010 in UK between a small airplane and a Volvo (again)!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...CAR-near-North-Weald-Airfield.html

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: soon7x7
Posted 2012-11-05 08:42:52 and read 3091 times.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 24):

Vehicular route had STOP signs and copy painted on the asphalt. No matter if the pilot was short, flaps , no flaps...no vehicle that in such close proximity to an active runway/aircraft should be operated in such a careless manner that the driver was "unaware" apparently of the incoming aircraft. Most normal individuals I know with two eyes, two ears while driving in a forward direction should always be aware of all around them especially being well aware I would think of their presence at an airport. Driver here just stupid. As for the pilot...his lack of experience put him in a bad position and probably had no visual on the vehicle at some point...he should have gone around but a first solo landing...tunnel vision sometimes happens. Feel sorry for the guy, either way, no one was killed...that's the good news.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: soon7x7
Posted 2012-11-05 08:45:10 and read 3057 times.

Lets hope both never hang around Maho beach!

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: kcrwflyer
Posted 2012-11-05 09:00:53 and read 3042 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 31):
The road needs to be closed. Yes, that will cut off access to the businesses on the east side of the runway, but a solution can be found.

How about a gate, much like a railroad crossing.



I understand this was the pilots first solo landing, but if flying the approach properly was such an intense and overwhelming experience... maybe he wasn't ready?

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: unattendedbag
Posted 2012-11-05 09:04:20 and read 3057 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
If the airplane is 6' above the road, that is measured at the static port for the altimeter, the landing gear is much below that level. Cars are 5'-6' tall,so there is a conflict there.

I wasn't in the cockpit, so I don't know what the altimeter read. By looking at the vehicle and the impact, the highest the pilot could have been was 6ft. off the ground. Not acceptable.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 20):
Negative!...Not pilot error!...Even if he was the runway was hot...(aircraft right of way over vehicular airport traffic) if the vehicle driver was aware of what he was doing and where he was doing it he would have "clearly" seen and ainticipated the potential of a landing aircraft. Pilot= Lucky, vehicle driver =blind/stupid.

The whole point of a displaced threshold is obstacle avoidance. If the pilot was following proper landing procedure, he would have easily cleared the vehicle, student pilot or not. It's not the fault of the airport or the vehicle driver.

If this had been St. Maarten, the pilot would have set down in the water and taken out a dozen or so beach goers. Would that have been the fault of the people on the beach?

[Edited 2012-11-05 09:11:29]

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: as739x
Posted 2012-11-05 09:12:58 and read 3067 times.

Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 23):
it'd be great to hear his side of things.

If you watch the article it has his view.

Quoting crazyro (Reply 32):

That exchange blows my mind. Agreed, how does the airport manager possibly think this is their fault. I'm very pro-pilot, being one myself, and couldn't possible blame them driving along on the road.

- Displaced threshold
- No flaps as Golden pointed out
- An awful excuse for a warning painted on the ground. (look like some 4 years old wrote it on with the ground with chalk)
- A hill the plane was landing over, making it harder to see

The only knock I have on the drivers is they are regulars to the airport and should be familiar with that excuse of a warning on the road.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: unattendedbag
Posted 2012-11-05 09:29:20 and read 3023 times.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 34):
no vehicle that in such close proximity to an active runway/aircraft should be operated in such a careless manner that the driver was "unaware" apparently of the incoming aircraft.

At BNA, we have a runway with a blast fence on each end. The blast fence can't duck, it can't move out of the way, it can't stop at a stop sign and wait for aircraft traffic to pass. Because we have a blast fence on each end of the runway, we have included a displaced threshold on each end so a pilot will not fly into the back of the blast fence trying to make the runway. The principal is the same here. The displaced threshold is there so a pilot will not fly into the 10ft. hill that is 200ft from the end of the runway or side of a vehicle on the road. Student pilots make mistakes, and this is one of them.

I chalk it up to training and the instructors decision to let him fly solo.

[Edited 2012-11-05 09:47:55]

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: steex
Posted 2012-11-05 09:31:40 and read 3011 times.

In looking at StreetView (which is certainly not guaranteed to match real conditions today), I don't even see a stop sign, just paint on the pavement. If that's the case, they may not be able to hold the driver responsible for much of anything - pavement markings are not a legal alternative to a stop sign. However, the driver seems to indicate that he's familiar with the location and knows he's supposed to stop. In that case, he may still have some liability.

It seems clear, though, that this is indeed a case of it taking some level of mistake by both parties to link the chain together for an accident to occur.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: 777222
Posted 2012-11-05 09:31:59 and read 3060 times.

I'm no aerospace engineer, so this is pure speculation on my part, but here's my question. Watching the video, the plane looks relatively stable on approach, right up until about 1 second before impacting the car when it seems to drop considerably. Is there any way that the movement of the car spoiled the airflow or caused some sort of ground effect or vacuum that caused the plane to drop more quickly than normal in that situation?

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: JHCRJ700
Posted 2012-11-05 09:48:37 and read 3033 times.

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 26):
Seriously, this is a student on his first solo. How many of you on here are actually pilots?

I am.  

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: tp1040
Posted 2012-11-05 10:05:26 and read 2993 times.

It was an accident. As stated earlier, the runway was hot and the SUV driver had no business being where he was. There are any number of aviation reasons why he shouldn't be there. Student pilots, plane in distress, pilot in distress.

Being familiar with the airport was probably what caused the driver to not even look. Accidents happen all the time, because people just are not tuned into their surroundings. Running stop lights, hitting objects, just part of the frailty of humans.

If he had been new to the area, he might have responded to the warning signs.

Casual driving, turned lunch into an experience he will not forget.

I bet next time that he stops, looks and listens.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-11-05 10:10:43 and read 3015 times.

I want to emphasize AGAIN - this driver and his wife were familiar with the airport and the danger of crossing that road when an aircraft was landing.

Quote:
"We go out there a lot," Frank said. "We're used to the whole protocol of how to wait for the runway and everything like that."

But on Saturday, even following the rules wasn't enough. They were hit.

"I knew it was a plane immediately, because when I looked to the left, I saw him and he couldn't have been more than 10 feet away," Frank said. "I thought, 'Wow, he's a little low.'"

His statements of knowing how to wait and looking left and seeing the plane are contradictory.

Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 36):
I understand this was the pilots first solo landing, but if flying the approach properly was such an intense and overwhelming experience... maybe he wasn't ready?

NO - it was NOT the student's first solo.

Quote:
The single-engine Cessna was operated by William Davis, a student pilot returning from a solo cross-country flight to Possum Kingdom Lake.

One previous report I saw said it was his first solo cross country, and that it was his first landing at that airport. Since I can no longer find those statements - they may not be true. Since the aircraft is registered to a flight school at that airport, I'm pretty sure he has landed there before.

Source article - http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dento...ow-hes-a-little-low-177129811.html

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 26):
Seriously, this is a student on his first solo. How many of you on here are actually pilots?

My license is only for Light Sport Aircraft - daytime VFR only.

I have however landed seven times solo at the airport in question. I found that the cars cross that road / runway end without even slowing down for several of my landings. I've done 35 or so other landings/ takeoffs there, not always as PIC. A friend with a C-120 hangers his plane there.

That airport was my first 'cross-country' solo landing though only a distance of 9 nm from KDTO where my flight school was located. The first time my instructor said - "Fly down to Northwest, land full stop and fly back."

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: sprout5199
Posted 2012-11-05 10:36:39 and read 2924 times.

Looks to me like the winds were light and variable, and just before he crosses the fence, looks like a gust creating a tailwind. That made him lose lift dropping him low. Who knows if he added power at that moment, and if he hadnt hit the car, he might have climbed or stayed level till the threshold.

All fault to the people driving the car.

Dan in Jupiter

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: T prop
Posted 2012-11-05 10:56:56 and read 2918 times.

It's not the pilots fault, yes he's a little low but the driver is supposed to stop for the reason we see in the video. If conflict with approaching aircraft was not a problem, there would be no need for the stop lines.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-05 10:59:21 and read 2916 times.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 39):
The principal is the same here. The displaced threshold is there so a pilot will not fly into the 10ft. hill that is 200ft from the end of the runway or side of a vehicle on the road. Student pilots make mistakes, and this is one of them.

When was the last time that you've made a zero-flap landing in a 172/182?

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: kalvado
Posted 2012-11-05 11:00:42 and read 2904 times.

There is a 4' fence on the other side of the road, plane probably cleared that by a foot or so. . Should someone hit that fence, would it still be fence's fault?

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: kcrwflyer
Posted 2012-11-05 11:01:52 and read 2895 times.

Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 42):
Quoting airtran737 (Reply 26):
Seriously, this is a student on his first solo. How many of you on here are actually pilots?

I am.  

Me too.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: DiamondFlyer
Posted 2012-11-05 11:11:14 and read 2945 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 47):
When was the last time that you've made a zero-flap landing in a 172/182?

A zero flap landing in a 172 is a non-issue. Doesn't make a bit of difference, IMO, unless you are operating 100% of the edge of the performance, which in a 172, is basically never

-DiamondFlyer

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: bueb0g
Posted 2012-11-05 11:34:54 and read 2898 times.

Quoting louA340 (Reply 7):
The article said the pilot was on his first solo flight,

Nope. First solo cross country.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
If he wanted to land on the displaced threshold, yes. If the airplane is 6' above the road, that is measured at the static port for the altimeter, the landing gear is much below that level. Cars are 5'-6' tall,so there is a conflict there.

You've approached this logic from the wrong angle. It's irrelevant what the altimeter says. Shouldn't be looking at it this low anyway.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 47):
When was the last time that you've made a zero-flap landing in a 172/182?

Zero flap landing is really nothing special in a light aircraft, for the most part the reference speeds are even the same as with flaps in. Anyway, he should have had flaps.

There's fault on both sides here but most of it, if it can be apportioned, lies with the SUV driver. Flying a little low on approach is incidental, not checking before crossing right behind an active is not.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: unattendedbag
Posted 2012-11-05 11:46:08 and read 2761 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 44):
I found that the cars cross that road / runway end without even slowing down for several of my landings. I've done 35 or so other landings/ takeoffs there,

And you hit a car every time?? No! You knew what you were doing and you touched down PAST THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 47):
When was the last time that you've made a zero-flap landing in a 172/182?

What does that have to do with anything? Is that another error made by the pilot?

If that's a training technique, then the pilot should have selected another airport with a longer runway so he wouldn't need to touchdown at the beginning of the displaced threshold. A NO LANDING ZONE!

Some people on here don't seem to know what a displaced threshold is. It's an area of pavement at the begnning of a runway used for takeoff and rollout. It is NOT available for touchdown.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-05 11:55:14 and read 2760 times.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 50):
A zero flap landing in a 172 is a non-issue.
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 51):


Zero flap landing is really nothing special in a light aircraft, for the most part the reference speeds are even the same as with flaps in. Anyway, he should have had flaps.

I'm not unfamiliar with the performance of the 172, thanks.

My point is, he's got no flaps, a higher approach speed, and he's going to float a bit in the flare. Based on my best guesstimate on the angle and such, he may have been a tad low, BUT he was aiming to touch on the numbers---except the car got in the way.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: DiamondFlyer
Posted 2012-11-05 12:00:42 and read 2752 times.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 52):
And you hit a car every time?? No! You knew what you were doing and you touched down PAST THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD.

You have zero idea if he was going to touch down on the displaced threshold or not. The ground effect of a light airplane is profound, and its entirely likely it would have allowed him to touch down on the runway.

There are a whole bunch of variables here, which make this thing almost impossible to monday morning QB.

-DiamondFlyer

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: burnsie28
Posted 2012-11-05 12:01:41 and read 2743 times.

Looking at the sat view, the plane was way too low, that airport has a displaced threshold.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-05 12:03:45 and read 2751 times.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 52):
What does that have to do with anything? Is that another error made by the pilot?

If that's a training technique, then the pilot should have selected another airport with a longer runway so he wouldn't need to touchdown at the beginning of the displaced threshold. A NO LANDING ZONE!

Some people on here don't seem to know what a displaced threshold is. It's an area of pavement at the begnning of a runway used for takeoff and rollout. It is NOT available for touchdown.

Thanks for patronizing. And having no clue about aircraft performance.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-11-05 12:06:05 and read 2795 times.

Another collision at that airport made the news in 2008, except the other "vehicle" only had 3 wheels.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356176,00.html

Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 36):
How about a gate, much like a railroad crossing.

That would only work at an airport with a control tower as you would need someone to operate the gate. Example: the road across the runway at Gibraltar.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: unattendedbag
Posted 2012-11-05 12:11:27 and read 2764 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 56):
And having no clue about aircraft performance.

Apparently, neither did the pilot.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-05 12:13:11 and read 2755 times.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 58):

Apparently, neither did the pilot.

No, he knew what he was doing---even if he looks a tad low, real or imagined.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: unattendedbag
Posted 2012-11-05 12:21:56 and read 2751 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 59):
No, he knew what he was doing---even if he looks a tad low, real or imagined.

I'm trying to understand why this doesn't happen every time a car drives across the approach when a plane is on final. I can't imagine this is the first time the two have crossed paths.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Pygmalion
Posted 2012-11-05 12:26:11 and read 2763 times.

The runway landing threshold is about 450 feet farther down the runway. The pilot should have been about 20' feet higher if he wasnt aiming to land way short of the threshold.

There is NO stop sign at the runway on this public (not airport) road. There is no reason for traffic to stop.

The original video was taken about inline with where the landing threshold is.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: soon7x7
Posted 2012-11-05 12:33:16 and read 2737 times.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 37):
The whole point of a displaced threshold is obstacle avoidance. If the pilot was following proper landing procedure, he would have easily cleared the vehicle, student pilot or not.

Flying an airplane presents many more unseen variables than driving a vehicle that is firmly planted on the ground. I have been flying 30 years and driving 40. Since instruction is obviously given at this airfield, student pilots may perform in a less than stellar manor, therefore any ground vehicles should know enough...(especially the locals...) to steer clear of aircraft movements. A person on a bicycle should equally be as vigilant as a vehicle on the ground. This SUV could have been responsible for three deaths had the outcome been worse. It is an airport, not Daytona race track...I'll bet many pilots here thank God at some point in their flying past, a displaced threshold existed. Again...all were lucky........this time.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: flight152
Posted 2012-11-05 12:37:43 and read 2749 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
If the airplane is 6' above the road, that is measured at the static port for the altimeter, the landing gear is much below that level. Cars are 5'-6' tall,so there is a conflict there.

A standard altimeter in a 172 does not measure height above the ground, in addition one would NOT be looking at the altimeter that close to the ground; I can assure you that.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-05 12:38:56 and read 2747 times.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 60):
I'm trying to understand why this doesn't happen every time a car drives across the approach when a plane is on final. I can't imagine this is the first time the two have crossed paths.

Here is my question:

Why is it the policy of this FBO to teach no-flap landings as standard, as opposed to non-standard, like the rest of the world? Granted, every pilot has to be taught how to do no-flap landings, and practice them, but I don't see the benefit of them in this particular situation with a brand new solo student---unless the flaps on these particular aircraft are not all the reliable to begin with.

If he had been using flaps 30-40 with nominal power to maintain a 3 degree glidepath, like you normally would, his pattern and glide angle would have been such that aiming halfway down the displaced threshold in an attempt to land on the numbers would have given him more than enough clearance for even a semi-truck to pass underneath safely.

[Edited 2012-11-05 12:41:06]

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: KBJCpilot
Posted 2012-11-05 12:39:04 and read 2755 times.

I remember when I was a brand new student pilot and working on my landings and how difficult they were to figure out. Especially entering ground effect and understanding when to flare. Out of sheer frustration my instructor told me to aim for just before the numbers and let the aircraft "float" to the landing and then to ease back on the yoke just before touchdown. It worked like a charm. The only problem was that the first few times I almost set it down just before the numbers and it wasn't until I had a good feel for the landing characteristics of the 152/172 that I began to nail my landings.

As I watched this video it reminded me of my first landings. Come in low and let the wings bleed off the energy until just before touchdown. I know that this may sound foreign to some of you FS-X armchair pilots but this pilot may have been landing the same way. He just had the misfortune of having some weekend spotter fail to look both ways before he crossed.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: bthebest
Posted 2012-11-05 12:52:41 and read 2727 times.

Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 36):
How about a gate, much like a railroad crossing.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 57):
That would only work at an airport with a control tower as you would need someone to operate the gate. Example: the road across the runway at Gibraltar.

You could just have a simple gate like in a field. At least the driver would have to get out to open it, and then notice any aircraft.

Ultimately it comes down to a lack of co-operation between airfield/road owner/driver/pilot. Hopefully the NTSB will require some changes.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: MikeCT
Posted 2012-11-05 13:10:25 and read 2724 times.

If it is true that the school in question does indeed teach flapless landings as standard (why??), it's very possible this was "normal" to the pilot. A few years ago I was forced to make a flapless landing in a Cessna 177 and I was amazed how long I floated. The thing just didn't want to stop flying. Granted I had almost 12,000 feet of runway to play with so I wasn't too concerned with the approach speed and may have come in a little faster than I should've.

But combine that effect with ground effect and floating a few hundred feet isn't out of the realm of possibility.

That being said, IMO there should never be a situation where a pilot has to rely on the driver of a car to see and avoid. That road shouldn't be there.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2012-11-05 13:12:02 and read 2763 times.

Quoting lh526 (Reply 14):
The Volvo didn't stop and the plane was too low on approach ... classic case of two mistakes become one mishap!

You're getting there.

This accident is TEXTBOOK Swiss cheese scenario. You have four holes: an inexperienced student pilot, an inattentive or ignorant driver, a road that is too close to a runway, and a light tailwind on a downhill approach. Any one of those holes by themselves is not going to cause a plane to crash. In this case, the holes lined up, and the plane hit the car.

The problem is, we have non-pilots ripping the pilot for being too low and basically blaming him for the accident, while giving the driver of the car (who is much more "experienced" in driving) a free pass for either not paying attention or (more likely) being a daredevil.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 29):
According to the news interviews, this couple has driven across that road, has stopped for incoming aircraft many times. This time they didn't look and didn't stop.

I have a feeling that they did look... and kept looking. "Hey honey, ever had a Cessna buzz you at 10ft?". It looks like they slowed up a bit right before the collision to square the collision... which is actually a pretty common reaction when you're nearly-but-not-quite on a collision course, you want to make it square.

The statements they made immediately after the crash also directly conflict with the interview they gave.

After the crash: "Something fell on us! We never pulled out in front of a plane!" (in a whiny, "you have to believe me because I don't want to admit fault even though I know I did something wrong" voice)

During the interview: "We saw the airplane and commented on how low it was". Yep, they'll be footing the bill once the insurance company finds that video.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: tribird1011
Posted 2012-11-05 13:50:26 and read 2717 times.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 52):
Some people on here don't seem to know what a displaced threshold is. It's an area of pavement at the begnning of a runway used for takeoff and rollout. It is NOT available for touchdown

Actually, it is available for touchdown (at least in Canada it is, but I figure FAA would be similar), but it is the pilot's responsibility to make sure that descent path doesn't conflict with the obstacles that necessitated the displaced threshold in the first place.

That said, he did appear low, but as long as his descent path cleared all obstacles (fence, hill - NOT the car) and he would have landed on the displaced threshold, he would have been fine.

[Edited 2012-11-05 13:52:00]

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-11-05 14:14:34 and read 2707 times.

Quote:
And you hit a car every time?? No! You knew what you were doing and you touched down PAST THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD.

I had a flight instructor who used this airport as a bad example. To never trust folks are going to stop, that an aircraft lined up to take off isn't going to pull out on to the runway directly in front of me.

Several aircraft based at the airport don't even have radios (or possibly don't transmit).

I've seen two or three planes land at the beginning of the pavement, well short of the displaced threshold, on almost every trip to this airport. The markings are quite worn and not as visible as other area airports.

This is a very laid back country 'anything goes' airport despite being under the Rwy 13 R approach just a few miles from DFW.

Quote:
If he had been using flaps 30-40 with nominal power to maintain a 3 degree glidepath, like you normally would, his pattern and glide angle would have been such that aiming halfway down the displaced threshold in an attempt to land on the numbers would have given him more than enough clearance for even a semi-truck to pass underneath safely.

Most of my landings at airports in the DFW area have been a lot steeper than 3 degrees. This is one of few airports where you could do such an approach.

If we are using a towered airport they usually want us to line up in the last mile to mile and a half and a steeper approach keeps us from slowing down the pattern.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: sccutler
Posted 2012-11-05 14:31:40 and read 2673 times.

Hard to grasp driving across the approach end and not looking towards the approach; it is very obvious. Nonetheless, the main message is that we're blessed no serious injuries occurred.

OBTW, this is the field at which Gerard Arpey keeps his plane.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Gatorman96
Posted 2012-11-05 14:56:07 and read 2665 times.

Lesson learned, fortunately with no loss or life or serious injury. Both parties are at fault in this situation. The pilot was clearly too low, not sure why, and it is common sense to look both ways when crossing that close to an active runway, especially if you are familiar with that road in particular. I'm pretty sure the city will be installing a few stop signs and invest in some white paint very soon...

Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 19):

Wait till you guys read the original reporting...

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dento....html

Wow, 4 incidents in a six week span, resulting in six fatalities. Time to re-evaluate the overall safety of this airfield...

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: DiamondFlyer
Posted 2012-11-05 15:07:21 and read 2671 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 64):
If he had been using flaps 30-40 with nominal power to maintain a 3 degree glidepath, like you normally would, his pattern and glide angle would have been such that aiming halfway down the displaced threshold in an attempt to land on the numbers would have given him more than enough clearance for even a semi-truck to pass underneath safely.

Which is a terrible method to teach people to fly GA aircraft. They should be flying power off approaches in such a method they can reach the runway should the engine fail. Additionally, I'd say less than 25% of flight school 172's have 40 degrees of flaps these days, as all of the newer 172's don't have that option. 40 degrees of flaps is worthless anyway.

-DiamondFlyer

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2012-11-05 15:15:28 and read 2664 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 64):
Why is it the policy of this FBO to teach no-flap landings as standard, as opposed to non-standard, like the rest of the world?

Where did you get the info that it teaches no-flap landings as standard?

Quoting MikeCT (Reply 67):
(why??)

There are all kinds of reasons to use non-flap landings: for example, if I'm landing on 32 in YOW (10,000 ft), the FBO is at the far end of the runway, so I'll ask ATC for permission to land long and save 10 min of taxi time; in a strong cross-wind, I may prefer to sideslip down and then straighten the rudder.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2012-11-05 15:20:35 and read 2662 times.

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 72):
Wow, 4 incidents in a six week span, resulting in six fatalities. Time to re-evaluate the overall safety of this airfield...

Only one (other than this) which happened at the airport itself. Hint: anytime anyone says "has ties to...", it means they're trying to imply a common cause or factor which has no evidence to back it up.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: type-rated
Posted 2012-11-05 15:20:41 and read 2665 times.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 51):
Zero flap landing is really nothing special in a light aircraft, for the most part the reference speeds are even the same as with flaps in. Anyway, he should have had flaps.

Nope, there is an 11kt difference between full flaps and no flaps in a 172 when landing. And once those barn door flaps are down you get a good sink rate going. I probably would have used flaps 2 (20 degrees) in this landing.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: KC135Hydraulics
Posted 2012-11-05 15:27:17 and read 2648 times.

I was training in a T-41A (C-172) at my base's Aero Club and my instructor had me performing a mix of 10, 20, 30° and no flap landings regularly, and to me they all seemed standard. As I recall because it was a few years ago, windy days it was typically always no flap, and for calm days it was usually 30° at a much slower speed. I never recall the no flap landings being anything special except there seemed to be a tendency to float a little more because the speed was about 20mph (our gauges were in mph) faster than 30°. It was 80mph at no flaps (and 10°), 70 mph at 20°, and 60 mph at 30°. My best landings always seemed to be with 30° of flap in.

Probably not too relavent to this conversation, but I thought I'd chime in!

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-05 15:39:50 and read 2622 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 74):
Where did you get the info that it teaches no-flap landings as standard?

See reply 27.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Gatorman96
Posted 2012-11-05 15:48:49 and read 2613 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 75):


Only one (other than this) which happened at the airport itself. Hint: anytime anyone says "has ties to...", it means they're trying to imply a common cause or factor which has no evidence to back it up.

I wasn't trying to imply a common cause, but the airport itself as the common denominator. I just don't think it's wise to ignore two accidents because they didn't occur at the field. There probably isn't a connection, but it's worth considering with this many accidents in such a short time span...

Here's a hint, try not to be condescending in your next post...

[Edited 2012-11-05 15:49:54]

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: twincessna340a
Posted 2012-11-05 15:54:00 and read 2628 times.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 69):
Actually, it is available for touchdown (at least in Canada it is, but I figure FAA would be similar)

In the US it is not available:

AIM 2-3-3-h(2): "Displacement of a threshold reduces the length of runway available for landings. The portion of runway behind a displaced threshold is available for takeoffs in either direction and landings from the opposite direction."

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 68):
This accident is TEXTBOOK Swiss cheese scenario.

  
Again, thankfully nobody was hurt. I'm surprised though nobody has mentioned the pilot's option of going around.....

Quoting bthebest (Reply 66):
Hopefully the NTSB will require some changes.

Private road, private airport...the gov't can't do anything and unfortunately the NTSB can't "require" anything. However, the airport manager did say something about wanting to ask the FAA to make recommendations to help him solve the problem with the road owner.

The FAA can however go after the pilot's instructor and/or the flight school. Instructors have a great deal of liability over student pilots.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: unattendedbag
Posted 2012-11-05 16:03:13 and read 2618 times.

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 80):
Private road, private airport...the gov't can't do anything

Correct, the only thing the government (FAA) can do is displace the threshold. Oh wait...

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-05 16:08:32 and read 2630 times.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 73):
Which is a terrible method to teach people to fly GA aircraft. They should be flying power off approaches in such a method they can reach the runway should the engine fail.

Using flaps 30/40 on final is a horrible way to teach pilots, what?? Also, at the airports that I used to fly at, by doing as you say, you're going to snarl up traffic, bust a quiet zone, or hit a rock. (I fly gliders now, so I'm always engine-out. Also, my glider has 90-degree flaps. Trust me. They work well.)

[Edited 2012-11-05 16:17:55]

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-11-05 16:15:22 and read 2612 times.

There have been several incidents, but not an usual high number for a GA airport with over 600 aircraft based there. Though this has been a bad couple months.

The 3500 x 40 ft runway may easily see 50 to 60 takeoffs or landings per hour at times on weekends.

My perception talking to pilots and plane owners at the airport is that there are a lot of once a month or every couple months plane owners/ pilots at the airport.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: type-rated
Posted 2012-11-05 16:24:54 and read 2605 times.

Back when I learned to fly we weren't taught a "standard" landing. We were trained to land the aircraft with or without flaps and with varying amounts of flaps and what decision factors to use to determine your final landing configuration. Each approach to an airport is it's own special case and you should configure accordingly. And back when I was CFI'ing that's the way I taught it too.

Yes a go around would have been the thing to do, but would the engine have had enough time to spin up enough to arrest the descent?

And yes, I am a pilot since 1971.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: DiamondFlyer
Posted 2012-11-05 16:32:37 and read 2607 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 82):
Using flaps 30/40 on final is a horrible way to teach pilots, what??

That's not the terrible part. The terrible part is flying a large pattern, with flaps and using power to drag the airplane to the runway, where otherwise it couldn't be made. There is no need to teach people to fly a jet in a light piston.

-DiamondFlyer

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: kcrwflyer
Posted 2012-11-05 17:16:43 and read 2593 times.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 84):
Back when I learned to fly we weren't taught a "standard" landing. We were trained to land the aircraft with or without flaps and with varying amounts of flaps and what decision factors to use to determine your final landing configuration. Each approach to an airport is it's own special case and you should configure accordingly. And back when I was CFI'ing that's the way I taught it too.

Same here. I've landed clean, 10, 20, 30. Every situations different. Our 6,300 might as well be a lake bed for a Cessna, so I'm never uncomfortable landing with flaps 0. Amazing how that CRJ that was miles behind you when you were on short final is on short final when you're clearing the runway.

I'm probably not coming in clean on a 3500 runway, but that's just my preference. If that guy flew an approach that low into most of our smaller GA fields, he'd CFIT.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 85):
That's not the terrible part. The terrible part is flying a large pattern, with flaps and using power to drag the airplane to the runway, where otherwise it couldn't be made. There is no need to teach people to fly a jet in a light piston.

I agree with all of that. This isn't an area with many suitable places to put the plane down if you can't make the runway. Perhaps they're a little more relaxed about that in flatter places.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-05 17:30:12 and read 2599 times.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 85):
That's not the terrible part. The terrible part is flying a large pattern, with flaps and using power to drag the airplane to the runway, where otherwise it couldn't be made. There is no need to teach people to fly a jet in a light piston.

Okay, I see where you're going, and I agree.

Pardon me while I do a 35 mile final glide.  

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2012-11-05 17:50:57 and read 2594 times.

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 79):
I wasn't trying to imply a common cause

Eh?

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 72):
Wow, 4 incidents in a six week span, resulting in six fatalities. Time to re-evaluate the overall safety of this airfield...

You cited 4 accidents and 6 deaths as a reason to re-evaluate the safety of the airfield, when the airport wasn't a factor or cause of 2 of them (or of the associated fatalities). If there's no common cause, why investigate the airport?

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 79):
I just don't think it's wise to ignore two accidents because they didn't occur at the field.

Put it this way: would you have reevaluated the overall safety of FLL because DL 191 happened to originate there?

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 79):

Here's a hint, try not to be condescending in your next post...

I was referring to the words "with ties to", which appear in the article you cited, and explained the media's method of trying to form a connection or common cause where none exists, and you bought into it. By explaining how it works, next time you hopefully will recognize it.

Don't accuse someone of being condescending when they try to help you out.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: type-rated
Posted 2012-11-05 19:16:45 and read 2579 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 87):
There is no need to teach people to fly a jet in a light piston.

Oh yes there is. Because you need to learn basic airmanship before you can fly a jet. And there is no better way to do this than in a SEL plane. Yes, I know people get their private licenses in twins, but those are the exceptions rather then the rules. What I would like to know is how does a student pilot solo in a twin if they don't yet have their multi-license when that requires a private of commercial license?

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-05 19:31:50 and read 2566 times.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 89):

That's not my quote... despite my agreeing with it.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: DiamondFlyer
Posted 2012-11-05 19:37:04 and read 2569 times.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 89):
Because you need to learn basic airmanship before you can fly a jet.

Yes, basic airmanship, I'd agree with. There is no reason to teach techniques for flying a jet while flying a piston plane. In a basic piston airplane, the way to be teaching to fly is pitch for airspeed, power for altitude. I've seen too many "harvard of the skies" flight schools teaching the exact opposite, which, while might be how to fly a jet, isn't how one should be taught to fly a 172.

-DiamondFlyer

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Eightball
Posted 2012-11-05 21:43:41 and read 2582 times.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 91):
In a basic piston airplane, the way to be teaching to fly is pitch for airspeed, power for altitude. I've seen too many "harvard of the skies" flight schools teaching the exact opposite, which, while might be how to fly a jet, isn't how one should be taught to fly a 172.

Exactly. The only real similarity between a 172 and a 777 is that they're both fixed-wing aircraft.... That's it.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Md88Captain
Posted 2012-11-06 06:30:38 and read 2552 times.

Displaced threshold, road to close, woman driver doesn't stop, plane too low, no flaps... 92 posts of yada, yada, yada.
Nobody has yet stated the most obvious fact... that video is hilarious. It's always a shame to crash an airplane but what a great video, story, lesson, ______ (fill in the blank).

Does the flight count towards his solo cross country? Or does he have to do it again?

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Flyer732
Posted 2012-11-06 06:45:19 and read 2540 times.

Quoting Md88Captain (Reply 93):
Does the flight count towards his solo cross country? Or does he have to do it again?

Well...he did land to a complete stop...just minus the landing gear.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: airtran737
Posted 2012-11-06 06:50:20 and read 2546 times.

Quoting Flyer732 (Reply 94):
Well...he did land to a complete stop...just minus the landing gear.

Why the hell don't we have a ''like'' button on here?

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: iFlyLOTs
Posted 2012-11-06 06:57:51 and read 2547 times.

Quoting Flyer732 (Reply 94):
Well...he did land to a complete stop...just minus the landing gear.

I wonder what the CFI wrote in the remarks section...

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: airtran737
Posted 2012-11-06 07:18:33 and read 2547 times.

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 96):
I wonder what the CFI wrote in the remarks section...

Solo X-Country w/short field landing

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: type-rated
Posted 2012-11-06 09:44:23 and read 2529 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 90):
That's not my quote... despite my agreeing with it.

Sometimes the a.net quote thing doesn't work right. It attributes quotes to other than the original persons quote. I've seen this on varying threads. Sorry about that.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: type-rated
Posted 2012-11-06 09:54:48 and read 2529 times.

Quoting Md88Captain (Reply 93):
Does the flight count towards his solo cross country? Or does he have to do it again?

If the pilot made it to the cross country destination and was returning he won't have to do the x-country again. BUT, I can tell you that the FAA will be interviewing the CFI and reviewing why he felt confident that this student could perform the task. The CFI is required to "sign off" on a students x-country trips after reviewing the students planning and forecast weather conditions. At our school you were required to take a short "pre xc ride" with a different instructor before actually being signed off for the x-c. This was to assure the student could actually safely make the trip.

But this incident wasn't really related to a xc trip. It was just a basic airmanship error, too low and slow on final.

And as far as displaced thresholds go, some of them are in poor condition and not maintained to the same standard as the usable part of the runway. I have seen this in smaller airports.

And I think the reason there weren't any stop signs on the road is that perhaps the place where the stop sign was supposed to be was too close to the runway. There are standards as to how close vertical things can be to the runway so as not to become obstacles.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: steex
Posted 2012-11-06 11:11:45 and read 2507 times.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 99):
And I think the reason there weren't any stop signs on the road is that perhaps the place where the stop sign was supposed to be was too close to the runway. There are standards as to how close vertical things can be to the runway so as not to become obstacles.

They could pretty easily provide adequate horizontal clearance and use a frangible coupling. Pavement markings can't be a legal replacement for a stop sign (they only serve as a supplement to increase visibility), so a sign needs to be provided somehow if they actually expect people to stop.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2012-11-06 11:23:40 and read 2511 times.

Quoting steex (Reply 100):
They could pretty easily provide adequate horizontal clearance and use a frangible coupling. Pavement markings can't be a legal replacement for a stop sign (they only serve as a supplement to increase visibility), so a sign needs to be provided somehow if they actually expect people to stop.

You know, A 2 foot yellow on black sign on both sides of the road, like they already have at GA airports to idenity the runway safety, accompanied by a "Caution: Low Flying Aircraft" sign, both of which would be located 40 feet off runway centerline, isn't going to hinder the safety of an arriving aircraft, or endanger any vehicles from being hit in intersection if they have to stop .

Another possible option is to put reflectors on the road to indicate the clearway.

Heck, why not do both?

Still, that leaves it up to the drivers to pay attention.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2012-11-06 11:36:22 and read 2530 times.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 99):
And as far as displaced thresholds go, some of them are in poor condition and not maintained to the same standard as the usable part of the runway.

Remember, this displaced threshold is a usable part of the runway.... it's just not suitable for landings in that direction because of obstacle clearance limitations.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 101):

Still, that leaves it up to the drivers to pay attention.

  

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: steex
Posted 2012-11-06 13:32:41 and read 2509 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 101):
You know, A 2 foot yellow on black sign on both sides of the road, like they already have at GA airports to idenity the runway safety, accompanied by a "Caution: Low Flying Aircraft" sign, both of which would be located 40 feet off runway centerline, isn't going to hinder the safety of an arriving aircraft, or endanger any vehicles from being hit in intersection if they have to stop .

Another possible option is to put reflectors on the road to indicate the clearway.

Heck, why not do both?

I don't disagree with your suggestions, but given that we're dealing with a roadway that isn't actually part of the airfield, best practice would definitely be to install roadway signage that is compliant with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). From a traffic standpoint, a sign like "Caution: Low Flying Aircraft" only provides an advisory/warning to the driver that low flying aircraft are in the area. It does not indicate that the driver actually needs to stop to make sure their driving path doesn't interfere with an aircraft's flight path, so that wouldn't help with an incident similar to this one. Heck, that sign is often present on highways that pass near major airports (I see it frequently on Interstate 70 beside STL).

Only a regulatory sign (either a stop or yield, in this case) provides positive guidance that a driver must act rather than just be aware. In a case such as this, either a stop or yield sign accompanied by a custom plaque explaining that the driver must yield right-of-way to aircraft would probably be necessary.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 101):
Still, that leaves it up to the drivers to pay attention.

And you just explained why sometimes it won't work no matter what you do!  

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: type-rated
Posted 2012-11-06 15:49:12 and read 2497 times.

At DWH, the taxiways are shared with autos & trucks. The only traditional stop signs mounted on poles are on the exits from the airport adjacent to the passing highway. All the stop signs on the taxiways/roadways are printed on the pavement. There must be a reason for this.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 102):
Remember, this displaced threshold is a usable part of the runway.... it's just not suitable for landings in that direction because of obstacle clearance limitations.

That's just one reason. A displaced threshold can also be installed because of poor runway surface conditions on the displaced parts. That's why sometimes in small cities you may see a 5,000ft runway with only 3500ft usable. The city doesn't need to maintain the part that isn't being used. This is especially true if the airport was a WWII flight training facility.

Since when did it become OK to use displaced thresholds for flight operations? I was always instructed to stay off of them except in case of emergency.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: YXD172
Posted 2012-11-06 16:09:12 and read 2499 times.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 104):

Since when did it become OK to use displaced thresholds for flight operations? I was always instructed to stay off of them except in case of emergency.

I've always been taught to treat them as suitable for take-off or landing roll-out, but not for touchdown. This is because it is usually displaced due to obstacles in the approach path - the displaced portion is not closed! If it were closed, as opposed to displaced, it would be marked as such (with Xs, in Canada at least). I'm fairly certain that an airport that wanted to stop maintaining a portion of the runway would have to close it, for these reasons.

At my airport there is almost no choice but to use the displaced threshold for take-off, unless you want to backtrack a good 1500' for takeoff! And, as mentioned earlier, it is legal to land on the displaced threshold up here (I've yet to see any FAA regs stating one way or the other)

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: peterinlisbon
Posted 2012-11-07 08:12:20 and read 2479 times.

I wonder if the pilot only saw the car at the last moment, as it came from the side at a pretty high speed and he would have been looking ahead towards the runway so it would only have come into his field of view just before the impact. And I wonder if he increased power when he saw it and whether that made any difference. If he had hit just a bit lower the prop would have hit the car or maybe even the engine, which would have certainly been a lot worse. As it is it looks like they both excaped relatively lightly - the car is not even very badly damaged and perhaps the plane is repairable.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-11-07 14:10:37 and read 2464 times.

Quoting MeanGreen (Reply 27):

The lack of flaps is normal for the flight school in question. When I trained there many years ago they required no flap landings. I can't remember their reason but I thought it was moronic.

You should learn and be comfortable with landings in all configurations. It would be bizarre if they did not allow usage of flaps.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 85):
with flaps and using power to drag the airplane to the runway,

Yep - I was taught to strive to be within glide distance of the runway with power off while in the pattern. Obviously, that is not always possible, I remember a jaunt to DEN (Stapleton) in a 206 where we had an 'interaction' with a 737 while on final (he was fast, we were going as fast as we could - no flaps, driving to the ground), but ended up on about a 10 mile pattern to the east.... .... but if it is....

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 91):
the way to be teaching to fly is pitch for airspeed, power for altitude.

Exactly. Being a non-jet rated pilot - are jet's different? It sure seems that power=altitude is consistent - you always hear power up/down at altitude change (of any significance).

This is an honest question - I've never been behind the controls of a Jet (and only a turboprop once) and I always assumed the relationship was basically the same. It is not? Is that due to swept wings or the power plant or altitude - or what?

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: 71Zulu
Posted 2012-11-07 14:36:17 and read 2475 times.

New development in this case, apparently the displaced threshold was removed and the pilot may have been on the correct glidepath.


http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dento...safer-for-motorists-177370681.html

A Google Maps aerial photograph of the runway taken several years ago shows an arrow designating where planes can land moved away from the north end of the runway.

Today, the arrow is at the edge of the landing strip.

The airport's owner said the marker was first moved because of a dangerous fence made of railroad ties located just beyond the end of the runway. When the airport installed a breakaway plastic fence, the landing marker was moved back.


So guess the road will now have to be marked in accordance with the regulations to ensure cars stop and look (don't think a faded painted "stop" on the road will suffice).

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: type-rated
Posted 2012-11-07 15:55:14 and read 2456 times.

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 108):
So guess the road will now have to be marked in accordance with the regulations to ensure cars stop and look (don't think a faded painted "stop" on the road will suffice).

Why don't they just relocate the road on the other side of the fence? It shouldn't be too hard to do.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-11-07 16:40:12 and read 2455 times.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 109):
Why don't they just relocate the road on the other side of the fence? It shouldn't be too hard to do.

Ownership

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-11-08 06:39:29 and read 2452 times.

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 108):
So guess the road will now have to be marked in accordance with the regulations to ensure cars stop and look (don't think a faded painted "stop" on the road will suffice).
Quoting type-rated (Reply 109):
Why don't they just relocate the road on the other side of the fence? It shouldn't be too hard to do.
Quoting rcair1 (Reply 110):
Ownership


  

I'll repeat this again.

The road is NOT part of the airport. The road is NOT a public street.

It is a privately built road on private property which adjoins the airport. The location of the road has been a point of disagreement between the privately owned airport operators and the land owner for many years.

I've been told the land owner added the road to allow him to develop some of his property into hangers and aviation related businesses. The road avoids the previous airport layout where vehicles had to cross the runway at mid-field.

Topic: RE: Small Plane Collides W/ Car On Approach
Username: unattendedbag
Posted 2012-11-20 09:01:20 and read 2430 times.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...ef.aspx?ev_id=20121103X14112&key=1

no finding of fault yet.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/