Plane hits car...caught on video

[Check Airman]

Plane Hits Car, Caught On Video (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/PlaneHitsCarCaughtOnVideo_207647-1.html)

From the above website:

Student pilot William Davis was on final approach to land at Northwest Regional Airport in Roanoke, Texas, on Saturday, when his Skyhawk collided with an SUV that was crossing the airport. Davis's wife, Kandy, was filming his descent and caught the collision on video. The collision knocked off part of the Skyhawk's landing gear, but Davis was able to land and wasn't hurt. The two people in the car, a couple on their way to the airport diner, were treated for minor injuries. The road crosses the airport perpendicular to the runway, just a few feet from the runway end, and is marked with "Stop" painted on the surface. The audio of airport manager Glen Hyde is caught on Kandy Davis's camera, asking the driver, "Why did you pull out in front of an airplane?"


The video shows the car moving steadily across the airplane's path, but it's not clear if it might have stopped before entering the frame of the camera. The driver of the car said on the audio that he didn't see the airplane. After the incident, Davis said he's decided to give up flying. "Things like that make you reconsider what's important and what could have happened," he told the local WFAA News in Dallas. "I have a young daughter and a wife." The airport manager told WFAA that he plans to meet with the FAA and look for ways to make the runway/road intersection safer.

[BN2A]

Person holding camera got from initial location to the car very quickly????

:suspect:

[Lyman]

Giving it up? The local news had it that it was Mr. Davis' first SOLO. Not having alot invested, he may want to consider giving up driving, instead. Sharing the road with idiots like the SUV driver?

Maybe a displaced threshold?

[CrazyStuntPilot]

The runway had a displaced threshold already. Looks like the aircraft was very low on the approach to this runway considering that.

[TrakBall]

The runway had a displaced threshold because of a solid fence just on the other side of the road. The fence was replaced with a plastic breakaway fence and the threshold was returned to the end of the runway.

TB

[hetfield]

Final approach seems to be a bit flat.....

[barit1]

Interesting. Ten years or so ago a similar interface happened at my home field, except that it was a visiting aircraft, and the lorry was on a public (county) road.

And a Mooney left a bit of rubber on the roof of a planespotters' auto on a public road - 45 years ago, Hamilton OH (Hogan Bros. airport).

Seems to me there's little attention paid to threshhold markings (whether standard or displaced).

[2EggOmelette]

Yes, it was a flat approach as he had his flaps retracted. Flapless = shallower approach. That is of course if my eyes served me right. Certainly didn't see any flap out on the video.

[hetfield]

Flaps?

Sorry, but a pilot should look for a propper approach path regardless of flapsetting.

[2EggOmelette]

Ah huh. As per many flight instruction manuals, "shallow approach is desired upon flapless approach and Landings". This is taught to nearly every PPl out there. So this is how they do it. An approach angle will always change as to the situation and conditions experienced. Unless its all on Microsoft flight sim of course, then its probably always the same.

[hetfield]

Sorry, IMHO it's not about aerodynamics, it's simply about the pilot's responsibility of a safe flight path.

[TCAS FAN]

Caution for all those thinking about flying into Dunsfold (EGTD), their runway 27 doesn't have a displaced threshold, an uncontrolled road which crosses immediately east (centimetres) of the marked threshold, and high sided vehicles using this road!

Understand that the aerodrome is unlicensed, and the aerodrome operator will take money from you for a landing fee. They do not appear to have ever heard of a "duty of care" for visiting aircraft?

I understand that the short lived ATC contractor did manage to get a warning put on the Pooleys chart and pushed (on safety grounds) for a displaced threshold, but all to no avail?

Its not a short runway, even with a displaced threshold a landing distance of around 1500 metres is possible.

Please let us not have a repeat in the UK, can someone prevail upon the aerodrome operator to achieve what the ATC contractor couldn't? Shame that the CAA will not get involved, until there is an accident!

[Agaricus bisporus]

Sorry, IMHO it's not about aerodynamics, it's simply about the pilot's responsibility of a safe flight path.

What? And nothing to do with vehicles on an airfield giving way to aircraft, regardless of flightpath?
The poor sod was on a first solo fer chrissakes, that why we have rules like "Vehicles give way to aircraft. Always. No exceptions."

The idiot in the chelsea tractor (is there any other kind of occupant of those things?) was 100% to blame, crossing a runway like that without looking or stopping. "I didn't see him". How many car drivers have said those criminal and self-condemnatory words over a dead motorcyclist, I wonder? (Euphemism for "I didn't look" of course). That stude was real lucky.

[2EggOmelette]

The approach angle is all aerodynamics in regard to a flapless landing. No flap = less drag which will shallow out your approach path. It is plain simple. Particularly for a PPL student. Divergence from the stated will increase risk. Fine if you are a 20,000 hour ATPL, NOT if you are a 20 hour PPL student. If he landed before the displaced threshold then I would agree with your statement in regards to responsibility as he would have failed in that respect. If he landed past it, then there was nothing wrong with his actions. Now why there was a car crossing in front of an aircraft on approach, with the right of way, that is the pertinent question.

[Lyman]

Nothing whatsoever unsafe about the flight path, use your eyeballs.

The FOD that entered it? Not so. What if the vehicle had been an aircraft entering the runway? A Pedestrian? The landing aircraft has the ROW, end of..

[DownIn3Green]

Hetfield needs to get back on the MS simulator...He's an "Airline Captain" with no types listed...Really?

[hetfield]

To put it simple, IMHO a pilot who hits a 2m (6 feet) high "obstacle" well ahead of the toch down zone is simply in error.

[Basil]

In my experience of roads and runways it's not 'IF', it's 'WHEN'.

[cptkris]

Why would you do flapless landings on your first solo??

[meekmok]

The runway had a displaced threshold because of a solid fence just on the
other side of the road. The fence was replaced with a plastic breakaway fence
and the threshold was returned to the end of the runway.


According to the FAA database, the threshold is displaced 400 feet.

[Sunamer]

I think there was no way the pilot could see SUV.
Hill obstructed him from getting the whole picture and he could not see approaching vehicle.

By the time he got to the threshold, part of the plane obstructed him from seeing what IS actually on that piece of road.
I would bet he didn't see it coming.

(why he was so low, or was he - is a different question)

The same thing about SUV - drivers don't look UP, they usually look to left or right ( apart from looking into normal for every driver direction)....and there was a hill - so nothing dangerous.

[smiling monkey]

A wheels-up landing in a fixed gear aircraft .. that's a first!! :E

[Loose rivets]

The kid obviously hadn't got things quite right. Bad mistake and one that has made him resolve to give up flying. Sad, but not as sad as his wife filming his total demise. He, and the SUV driver should be thankful.




The good old days at SEN

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/DC3atSENhoz.jpg

[clicker]

What we don't know about is how clear are the road markings to the driver. From the video they appears to be no landside or airside kind of boundary. and the road appears to be well inside any airfield boundary. IMHO the hazards should be clearly marked and perhaps a single word painted in the road is not good enough.

That said I agree with others in that the driver of the SUV should have been more alert and perhaps the occs need to test their hearing aids as they dont seem to have heard the cessna either.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Don't they teach go-arounds prior to first solo anymore?

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[SMOC]

The Laudos are aviation enthusiasts, and they visit the airport a lot. The road to get there is adjacent to the runway.
"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 saw him and he couldn't have been more than 10 feet away," Frank said. "I thought, 'Wow, he's a little low.'"

"We couldn't see anything at all, and then... all of a sudden... equipment was falling into the car," Heather said

:}:ugh:

'We've just been hit by an airplane!' | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth (http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/denton/Plane-hits-car-Wow-hes-a-little-low-177129811.html)

[Dg800]

Don't they teach go-arounds prior to first solo anymore?

Going around? 1-2 seconds before impacting an object that wasn't there a second before? Yeah, right... :mad:

[znww5]

Looks like there were quite a few factors here. The student appears to be conducting a flapless approach and, although it is difficult to tell from the photos, may have landed short of a displaced threshold if the SUV hadn't 'intervened'. The google earth photo shows displaced threshold arrows and rather indistinct threshold markings.

So the stude would have had more of a nose-up attitude on approach, reducing the chances of seeing the vehicle from the left-hand seat. The SUV driver on the other hand would have been on the 'correct' (left) side of his vehicle to see the aircraft and with the lower glide angle of a flapless approach, the aircraft should have been more obvious than usual.

I had to chuckle at the quote from the SUV passenger "we've been hit by an aircraft"; no, your hubby decided to drive out in front of one - not quite the same thing!

Thankfully the outcome was only bent metal and hopefully the stude will get back to flying after the shock has worn off.

[Pace]

This video made me feel angry not at the pilot but at the Moron of a car driver.

Firsly there should be lights stopping cars crossing with an aircraft on approach! At minimum there should be written warnings and stop lines placed either side of the runway so that drivers can stop and check nothing is about to land before proceeding.

This driver drove blindly across totally oblivious to his surroundings!

Whether the aircraft was low flapless or whatever is irrelevant.

He could have picked up a downdraught or a multitude of other reasons for being lower than ideal!

The fact is that area is the very final bit to touchdown and belongs to the aircraft not the car!

I very much hope the authorities learn from this and place car prevention safeguards in place to stop idiots like that car driver doing that again.

Thankfully the pilot was not injured!

Pace

[gasax]

I've just viewed the viseo and very largely agree with Pace - the car driver is a complete Pi$$ock. But such is the nature of the public when they are around aircraft.

Try landing a floatplane on a recreational lake - within seconds you'll have clueless morons on jet skis trying to race across the nose etc etc.

We have a similar incident to the one filmed at our local strip - the 172's wheels took out the front and rear screens - doing almost no damage to the aircraft. But in our case at least the road was outside the fence so the issue was much more clearly the pilots fault!

[Fostex]

The runway has a displaced threshold which is the primary means of preventing confliction between road vehicles and landing aircraft, the road markings are a backup safety measure at best.

The point being, with the displaced threshold and an aircraft on a standard visual approach into that field, a car/SUV on the access road should NEVER violate the approach surface.

A quick trip to Google Earth indicates the road, Kelly Drive is 440ft from the displaced threshold of rwy 17. Even on the worse case 2%/28:1 glideslope* the clearance over the road surface should be 15ft!

Regardless of the actions of the driver the pilot of the C172 also shares the blame. He was simply too low on approach and it is interesting to note that he also had no flap deployed, again indicative of a shallow approach.

*VERY shallow for a VFR approach, the terrain at NW regional probably doesn't even allow it!

[sunday driver]

Flapless?
Wouldn't be the first student to miss a vital action.
I certainly did.:ugh:

[ShyTorque]

Seems from the video that the accident was caused simply because the car driver just failed to stop at the stop sign and got in the way.

The "pilots" here criticising a pilot on his first solo probably haven't done theirs yet, or were born with 20,000 hours as 747 captains. :rolleyes:

[Pace]

Shy torque

I believe he was returning from an early cross country so still inexperienced but not quite first solo!
Regardless there are multiple reasons why an aircraft maybe low from wind shear to engine failure to a mistake etc!
The area to touchdown must be protected and aircraft given priority!
My airport had traffic lights! Cars are not allowed to cross the runway approach with an aircraft on final!
I appreciate smaller airfields may have to rely on warnings and do not cross unless clear of approaching aircraft lines!
But aircraft like sailing boats have priority and the blame lies fairly and squarely in the idiot car drivers court

Pace

[ShyTorque]

Agreed, as no doubt the car driver found out to his cost when the insurance claims went in ;)

[Dg800]

This driver drove blindly across totally oblivious to his surroundings!

No, he didn't! In the following interview he clearly stated that he saw the plane but kept on driving anyway, evidently he thought it normal to cross the (extended) runway centerline with an aircraft on short final!

Those exclamation marks must be contagious!

:E

[Pace]

"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.'"
The single-engine Cessna was operated by William Davis, a student pilot returning from a solo cross-country flight to Possum Kingdom Lake.
"We couldn't see anything at all, and then... all of a sudden... equipment was falling into the car," Heather said


DG800

Where does it say they saw the aircraft on finals? Not from the piece I pasted above.
Had they seen the aircraft on finals more reason to stop and allow it to land before crossing the runway.

If the truth be known more likely they did not bother to look

Pace

[Dg800]

"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 would think it's unlikely one could see, while standing firmly on the ground, an aircraft flying no more than 10 feet away that isn't either on short final or on initial climb out. Well, unless you just ingested some stuff that is generally not very good for your health... :E Or unless there is something really wrong with your head, in which case you most likely forgot to ingest something you are really supposed to, and on a very regular basis...

[rigpiggy]

a quick look at google earth shows a stop line and "stop"painted on the ground, whether there are any posted signs is unknown to me.

[Fostex]

But aircraft like sailing boats have priority and the blame lies fairly and squarely in the idiot car drivers court

Really?! Even when the threshold is displaced like at this particular aerodrome. As I have pattered on repeatedly, the stop signs are a secondary measure, the primary means of separating landing aircraft from traffic on the road is the displaced threshold. It is the responsibility of the PIC not to violate the base of the approach surface. He was low on approach and bears a large proportion of the responsibility for this incident.

[ShyTorque]

So the car driver was surprised to encounter an aircraft because he didn't know he was at an airport? Yet he was reportedly on his way to the airport diner. Seems to be a little forgetful.

[Piltdown Man]

I'll have a go at this one. We have an airport with a reasonable length of runway 3,500' (1,066M). We have a pilot under training. There is a road crossing an undershoot of a runway (which still appears to have a 400' threshold displacement). We all saw what happened.

So, we have to ask ourselves:

1. Is is likely that there would be traffic crossing the undershoot?
2. If the road was controlled, might traffic still cross?
3. Was this the pilot's first time on this runway?
4. Where on the runway was the student taught to land and why?
5. What prevented the pilot from seeing the traffic which had previously crossed?
6. What sort of approach path was the pilot taught? To land at the start of the displaced threshold, he should had been at about 50' at the point where he hit the car.
7. Is this likely to happen again?

Personally, I think this should be a big heads-up for his instructors. There are many airports in the States and around the world with roads close to a runway. In the UK, Humberside has one by Rwy 27. Antwerp has one. So we have to learn how to deal with traffic.

PM

[Dg800]

Really?! Even when the threshold is displaced like at this particular aerodrome. As I have pattered on repeatedly, the stop signs are a secondary measure, the primary means of separating landing aircraft from traffic on the road is the displaced threshold. It is the responsibility of the PIC not to violate the base of the approach surface. He was low on approach and bears a large proportion of the responsibility for this incident. I don't see why a STOP sign at an airport should be treated differently than a STOP sign on a public road. On a public road, if you encounter a STOP sign, you have to stop and give way to oncoming traffic, no exceptions allowed. If you cross the STOP line and cause a collision, you are automatically at fault. If the other driver was driving too fast, you had the sun in your eyes and so on and so forth, you will still bear the full responsibility for the collision, anything else is just collateral and might, at most, result in one or more fines for the other driver.

The SUV driver is clearly at fault, more so as he had seen the aircraft but thought he was in his right to cross the STOP line "because aircraft are usually too high to collide with a vehicle" (because of the displaced threshold). This is not necessarily guaranteed, hence the STOP sign put there as further protection.

Ciao,

Dg800

[Fostex]

Does a stop sign painted on the road at an aerodrome carry the same legal requirement to stop completely as it does on the public highway? It would be interesting to get a clear legal definition.

A displaced threshold clearly defines the legal runway threshold for landing but strictly speaking this is only for commercial operations. Private operations should be able to land prior to the displaced threshold on agreement with the aerodrome operator. Given the presence of the road however, I would very much doubt that a low approach with a touchdown point at the very beginning of the starter extension would be common practice.

Piltdown man, I am in complete agreement with you regarding the instruction aspects of this and the approach made by the pilot. I will be interested to see the full report.

[Dg800]

Does a stop sign painted on the road at an aerodrome carry the same legal requirement to stop completely as it does on the public highway? It would be interesting to get a clear legal definition. AFAIK standard signs are legally equivalent to those on public roads, even if placed in areas with restricted access such as aerodromes or a shopping mall's private parking lot, just to name some examples. Besides that, I don't see what other meaning a STOP sign could have, in any context. It certainly can't be interpreted as "You have right of way, please drive on regardless of oncoming traffic". :E

[Fostex]

But you do feel it is okay to violate the approach surface to a displaced threshold as was this case in this incident?

As I said, it will be interesting to read the accident report.

[Dg800]

But you do feel it is okay to violate the approach surface to a displaced threshold as was this case in this incident?Please stop putting words in my mouth. My point is, if YOU have to stop and give way to oncoming traffic, YOU will either comply with this requirement or YOU will automatically be held responsible for the consequences. It doesn't matter if I was too low on the approach path (in an airplane) or driving 10 km/h over the posted speed limit (in a road vehicle), if you ignore a STOP sign and pull out in front of me causing a collision, you will have to pay for any damages caused to vehicles and/or occupants. Have I spelled it out clearly enough for you?

Dg800

[Fostex]

No need to get over excited.

We'll await the accident report and continue the discussion then.

[Dg800]

Feel free to stop contributing to this thread for as long as you wish. :ok:

[119.35]

It looks like there is a marked increase in sink rate just before the collision. I think the aurcraft may have actually stalled onto the vehicle?

The pilot looks like they would have been lucky to reach the tarmac, let alone the displaced threshold!

The lack of flaps aside, the airfield must have been their home strip. So they would be well aware of the displaced threshold and inherrant dangers of traffic not giving way.

[First_Principal]

It looks like there is a marked increase in sink rate just before the collision. I think the aurcraft may have actually stalled onto the vehicle?

The pilot looks like they would have been lucky to reach the tarmac, let alone the displaced threshold!

However we've got an inexperienced pilot here, who late on the final leg sees a vehicle approaching and thinks (not so prematurely as it turns out) that it may not stop - or that if he just slows down a little it will pass across his nose ok. Bear in mind that his sense of perspective isn't as well developed yet as it should be.

Also not so well developed is his pilot motor skills (ie. the things you do without thinking about) but his vehicle skills are reasonably advanced... so he shuts the throttle 'automatically' in order to 'slow down' (and/or pulls the yoke back for similar reasons) and let the vehicle pass - and we all know (or at least most us) what happens when you do that :ouch:

So, like a lot of things it's perhaps not so clear cut, and trying to determine fault is perhaps less helpful than trying to work out how you'd prevent it happening again.

Low-hour (and, on occasions, more experienced) pilots are going to do things that they shouldn't, things that may be automatic in other areas of their lives. A lot of the time the consequences are more embarrassing than severe, and hopefully we learn from that. I myself can recall forgetting what the displaced threshold markers mean, and I've done the odd low approach too. But in this case, given the local issue at this airport, some additional training on the use of throttle for height control and instruction on the right aim-point for a displaced threshold could be useful.

Equally perhaps something (flashing lights?) that draws attention to the STOP sign for vehicular traffic, and perhaps a "LOOK FOR LOW FLYING AIRCRAFT" sign might also help. In fact, how about putting the flashing light in a place that would cause people to look in the right direction for a start?

P.

[India Four Two]

I've watched this thread with interest. Yes, the pilot made lots of mistakes and yes, the SUV should have stopped.

However, I'm amused by people getting hot under the collar about the SUV not stopping at the Stop painted on the road. Based on years of experience in the US and Canada, I should point out, that unlike the UK, drivers often have a "casual" attitude towards obeying road signs, particularly a non-standard one like this.

On the other hand, that 172 is a tough aeroplane!

[119.35]

I agree with what you say FP. There are many reasons why a student could fall into this trap. Another maybe being that they did a straight in approach? If so, it's obviously easy to drag it in and get flat and without the familiarity and discipline of the circuit, miss the triggers for flap settings etc.

Another factor could maybe have been that the student was in fact acutely aware of the dangers of passing traffic and got distracted during the last moments of the approach when they saw the white car pass in front of them? Probably not helped by being a little pre-occupied by the pressure of having to make a decent landing for the missus filming it!

But irrespective of the many reasons and factors why it happened, the fact remains that they still made an absolute mess of the approach. Passing motorists obviously have no idea whether the pilot is a student or experienced. It would seem pretty obvious that most motorists were oblivious of the potential dangers of aircraft passing directly over-head anyway.

I think the over-riding issue is that there is a displaced threshold for a reason. There could be a double decker bus passing directly under the final approach and as long as you are doing a fair job of hitting the profile for the displaced threshold, relatively speaking you won't be anywhere near passing vehicles.

India 4 2 is obviously right - I cannot believe for one moment the student's instructor hadn't drummed into him about the displaced threshold and the obvious dangers of vehicles not stopping.

I have no idea of the intricacies of the US legal system and what the eventual outcome will be. But for the little it is worth, although I don't like to knock a student pilot, I don't place any blame on the car.

Fortunately, no one was seriously injured or worse, killed. As I for one, would not be posting. But in true pprune fashion, this video clip of an unfortunate incident, gives us all plenty to think about and comment on.

I would not be at all surprised if the last thing the student heard shortly before impact was a loud buzzing sound!!

[pistongone]

It doesn't look to me like the plane stalls? After watching the video several times it looks like the attitude all the way in remains reasonably constant and if the flare used say 100mtr or so then he would have touched down around the numbers. The "third down the runway" landing target idea is ok at long runways, but if you have flown out of smaller strips then it becomes a habit of trying to hit the numbers, except for Oostende where you then have a very long taxi! Can't remember where i heard this but it illustrates the point quite well. Instructor tells student "you must aim a third of the way down the runway", old man in the corner say's "that's not true every time". Instructor "and what is your flying experience sir"? Old man "Flying F4's onto a carrier deck" his reply caused the instructor to stall!!
Also i would say the car should give way to the plane as seems to be the common question here! As no one seems to have mentioned "Margins", when everything is perfect then yes he should have been at say 50' above the fence, but when was the last time you had a "Perfect" day?

[Fostex]

As no one seems to have mentioned "Margins", when everything is perfect then yes he should have been at say 50' above the fence, but when was the last time you had a "Perfect" day?

I was taught to never land prior to a displaced threshold and never have.

[chrisN]

I think the legal case will be interesting. I know nothing of USA law, and am not a lawyer in the Uk either so this is a layman’s opinion, but:

The road is not in the airport, it is outside it;

It is a private road;

The airport operator is said to have tried to purchase the road, to better control it, and not succeeded;

In the UK at least, I think a legal stop sign has to have a notice on a pole as well as road markings; is there a similar thing in the USA? Does the painted “stop” marking have any legal standing?

In the UK there is an overriding responsibility on a pilot to avoid an accident;

There may be a similar obligation on a driver – although right of way rules tend to make one more guilty/liable for damages than the other in many cases, AIUI.

The airport operator and the student pilot’s instructor should know all this.

As I say, it will be interesting to see what develops. At least nobody injured which is a blessing.

Chris N

[Piltdown Man]

I must say, I have never been "officially" taught to land a light aircraft anywhere other than the start of the runway. I've heard about displaced thresholds, but I can not remember anybody telling me why they exist. I worked out the "obvious" by myself - but only because I first learnt to fly gliders and hopping over cars driving across the field was considered a normal manoeuvre. But if this student pilot had never been educated about displaced thresholds there is a reasonable chance he was ignorant of some of the possible reasons behind them. As a result, maybe he did what he always did (and what he was taught) and aimed for the start of the tarmac. Possibly his inexperience and the fact that he was knew he was being filmed meant all of concentration went on flying his aircraft "perfectly" which robbed him of his situational awareness.

PM

[Fostex]

Not sure about the FAA, but in JAR/EASA land displaced thresholds and other runway marking are covered and examined by the Air Law part of the ground syllabus. Most, if not all, schools ( at least in the UK ) will require a student to have completed an Air Law exam prior to first solo. Furthermore, TORA, TODA, ASDA etc are covered in the Performance and Planning part of the syllabus and the student is examined on how the various distances relate to runway markings and obstacles on approach and climb out.

It can of course be argued that all of this can be forgotten in the heat of the moment, particularly if you are a student. But if this style of approach was the norm for this student and was never questioned then the instructors are negligent.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi, Who is to say where the plane would have touched down, he still needed to do the Flair and the Hold-Off, which could have taken 400 yards or more, which would have put him well beyond the numbers.

ChrisN says the road is not in the airport, then why does it have Yellow Hold-Short Lines after the Stop maker. Everything inside all of the Hold-Short Lines is considered to be Runway. You have not vacated a runway until your tail has passed these Hold-Short Lines.

The airfield authority should either have used Traffic Lights or an Automatic Barrier on the road, or better still move the road beyond the runway landing area.

[Steve6443]

Here in Germany you can fly circuits solo without having sat any of your practical exams, they expect you however to have completed ALL of them before you can do your QXC.....

Having said that, I recall my instructor saying you should be aiming to start your flare at the the start of the runway / displaced threshold and touch down within the first quarter of the runway - he said he would rather I touched down there than aim at the start of the runway and be too low over obstacles on approach.....

As a side, at the club they used to collect "fees" from club members touching down before the displaced threshold until someone claimed that a particular pilot had touched down before the threshold whereas the pilot himself claimed he had not - they nearly came to blows over this..... My proposal of borrowing Hawk-eye from Wimbledon didn't help either..... :E

[Steve6443]

Last Friday a similar accident happened at Knox County Regional Airport, Maine albeit the Cessna 172 was taking off at the time it hit a truck crossing the runway, killing the 3 people on the plane.... Here (http://www.penbaypilot.com/article/truck-runway-causes-owls-head-plane-crash-three-killed/5860) are some brief details, what's really worrying is that it was another pilot driving the truck across the field, the truck was apparently equipped with a radio.......

[ZuluPapa]

The Pilot was on his Solo QXC, he was nearly at the end of his course. the biggest shame is that he decided to quit.

I think that, realistically, both parties shoulder an element of blame. The couple in the car (apparently) have never used the road before so were unaware of the risk with incoming aircraft, the pilot could have come in steeper and landed further down the runway....

Could have, would have, should have...

The most important thing is that he walked away. Instead of trying to speculate on exactly who did what, why don't we ALL take that as a lesson. Ultimately, a 4x4 driver with little or no interest in aircraft doesn't give a monkeys about the rules and safety procedures surrounding the aircraft. That falls on the shoulders of the PIC. If I had studied those plates I would have noted the road and adjusted my approach accordingly not to mention th efact that I would be scanning it consistantly on my way in.

At Shoreham, on runway 02, we have a train standing about 20ft high moving across the runway. I come in especially steep on that one... Also, I have not heard of any accidents with the Southern Service but I stand corrected.

Just my two cents.

ZuluPapa

[India Four Two]

I've heard about displaced thresholds

PM, me too. I knew all about the markings, but the first time I was confronted with one after many years of flying, while taxying for takeoff at Bembridge, I had to confirm with the instructor that I could use it for take-off.

Instructor tells student "you must aim a third of the way down the runway", old man in the corner say's "that's not true every time". Instructor "and what is your flying experience sir"? Old man "Flying F4's onto a carrier deck" his reply caused the instructor to stall!!

That makes sense, I thought, as I read it. However, on second thought, it doesn't. I found a reasonable aerial view of the Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) and the No. 1 wire is about 25% and the No. 4 wire about 40% down the "runway"!

[ZuluPapa]

Exactly. The use of flap is governed by the approach path required. We all know this, the flap is used to position the aircraft in relation the the approach. It isn't a prerequisite for the flaps be used in every landing or even take off for that matter.

[taxistaxing]

Last Friday a similar accident happened at Knox County Regional Airport, Maine albeit the Cessna 172 was taking off at the time it hit a truck crossing the runway, killing the 3 people on the plane.... Here (http://www.penbaypilot.com/article/truck-runway-causes-owls-head-plane-crash-three-killed/5860) are some brief details, what's really worrying is that it was another pilot driving the truck across the field, the truck was apparently equipped with a radio.......


That's terrible. It also goes to show the need for pilots to keep an active look out for objects/vehicles either side of the runway that might impede landing, right the way down the approach.

At my field we recently had a case where a mother was bringing her son in for a helicopter experience flight and drove straight across the active runway as it was the "quickest way there", and she missed the signs :eek:. Thank God there was no-one on short final or taking off at the time.

[ShyTorque]

Some people just seem to lack a sense of self preservation. A few years ago I was at Denham waiting for some passengers. They had arrived apart from one other individual who was late. The other passengers rang him and he said he needed some directions as he couldn't find the airfield. This was done but he had difficulty understanding them. Suddenly he said he could now see the airfield and was about drive into the car park. He was told to go straight to the hangars, which he said he could now see. We went round the main road side to look for him.

His car didn't appear, which was a bit of a mystery until... after five minutes he appeared huffing and puffing and wet through, from the live side, having climbed the boundary fence and walked across the entire airfield, including crossing the middle of the runway! The car park he'd parked in was nothing to do with the airfield. :ugh:

As to his background, it wasn't aviation and he liked eating potatoes.

[mary meagher]

The Knox County crash differed in many ways from the first incident we were talking about in this thread. It was at night. On takeoff. The driver of the vehicle was familiar with the airport, worked there and was a pilot, age 63. And the outcome was 3 dead in a burnt out plane.

Going back to the original incident, Piltdown Man commented that at his field for gliders to hop over cars is considered normal.

Any aircraft on approach into an uncontrolled airfield must assume the idiots on the ground, whether driving or walking the dog, are totally unaware of rights of way or the danger involved in crossing a runway.

In fact, in flying floatplanes, in Florida at least, the AIRCRAFT MUST GIVE WAY! because you must assume that any water traffic is unaware of rights or requirements, and that includes alligators, boats, jetskies, ducks or swimmers.

I also feel it is bad luck to film your loved one's approach, and in general we discourage cameras, as they have been known to jam controls, put pressure on pilots executing first solo landings, and interfere with the enjoyment of the experience.

[BigEndBob]

If the road had been outside the airfield boundary i would blame pilot.
If the roads inside then aircraft should have right of way and road should be signposted as such, in which case blame driver.

[Desert185]

There's an airport community that I know of with the runway threshold very close to a public road. There is no signage that I recall. Cars don't stop and look and pilots stay on profile. Been that way for years without issues and common sense on the part of pilots has prevailed.

As a pilot, one can see the car approaching the threshold environment, but lets face it, drivers are not necessarily going to be looking for airplanes, and this driver may have been meeting someone for lunch at the airport restaurant for the first time while faithfully following GPS instructions. :ugh: Who knows?

This video has been floating around the net for awhile, so there should be an accident report by now. Right of ways and rules are nice, but it is still incumbent on the pilot to see and avoid regardless of what the rules state. Its always better to be safe than legal. Safe is always my priority if legal conflicts.

Have at it, folks.

[Fostex]

In the original post the pilot landed before the displaced threshold, the pilot was at fault, simple as. The displaced threshold is there because there is a risk of obstacles violating the approach surface. Whilst a private flight is under no obligation to obey the displaced threshold the original post shows the perils of doing so.

A moving car near an airfield with a displaced threshold is no different that trees or other obstacles on the approach path. The displaced threshold is there to prevent the aircraft and obstacles on the ground conflicting, as the previous poster stated, it is the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid.

[barit1]

Another one (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20011227X02443&ntsbno=CHI02LA055&akey=1)

[Pace]

moving car near an airfield with a displaced threshold is no different that trees or other obstacles on the approach path. The displaced threshold is there to prevent the aircraft and obstacles on the ground conflicting, as the previous poster stated, it is the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid.

Fostex

I cannot agree with this! the approach and landing area belongs to the pilot displaced threshold or not.

The displaced threshhold is not there to allow two flows of traffic one aircraft the other cars at the same time and as far as I am aware trees are static not moving like cars?

In a perfect world aircraft will fly perfect approaches and perfect glideslopes and touch down perfectly on the numbers.
We know that is not the case. Aircraft unlike cars operate in a fluid airmass and move up down left and right and cannot stop!

Student pilots, wind shear before the touchdown, misjudgement etc etc etc.

A landing aircraft must have right of way over a car crossing the threshold.
The car should stop short of the runway allow the aircraft to land, check the approach is clear and then cross with caution.

This is not the fault of the pilot but of the car driver or the airport for not having enough safeguards like red green lights stopping cars crossing while an aircraft is on approach which is the case at many airports.

displaced thresholds are not there to give equal movement of traffic car and aircraft but to add an extra safety buffer against stupid car drivers!

Pace

[Croqueteer]

:ok:I was close to such an incident a few years ago, and all the driver (a farmers wife) could see after the event was £ note signs!