First solo Cross country, takes out an SUV on landing..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,910 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
First solo Cross country, takes out an SUV on landing..
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about blind drivers...
Furthermore, there is a significantly displaced threshold that should keep pilots, even on a 3 degree slope, well clear of any vehicle on the road.
I'm not saying that it's an acceptable situation, but I think we should not blame the driver, but rather the airport operator and road owner to let this situation persist (*), and the (first solo) pilot for being very, very low on the approach.
(*) As I understand it's a private road and there are "issues" between the road owner and the airfield operator over signage and such.
I once landed at an airport with a similar situation. They solved it by putting a clearly visible (from the air) barrier between the road and the field, to the height of a truck. So as a pilot you knew how high you had to be to clear any traffic.
I was applying power to take-off from an airstrip that was within a horse racing track. I saw the sihlouette of a horse and rider at the other end as we started to roll. The instructor didn't seem too concerned so off I went!
Indeed as Backpacker states, the pilot in question was very low on approach and touched down well before the displaced threshold. Although the stop signs are there to add additional safety, the displaced threshold is the primary means of preventing confliction between road traffic on the ground and aircraft on final.
If it was a student on his first solo xc nav then one would have thought his instructor would have been monitoring his approach and should have suggested more power or a go around. Students often do poor landings at the end of the initial solo navs as they are tired and think the hard work...i.e. the navigation part is over, but it is never over until one is parked up and shut down.
On a final note, this has given me more confidence than ever in the strength of the C172. They can take a lot of abuse and maintain integrity, a useful trait in any light aircraft!
If it was a student on his first solo xc nav then one would have thought his instructor would have been monitoring his approach and should have suggested more power or a go around. Students often do poor landings at the end of the initial solo navs as they are tired and think the hard work...i.e. the navigation part is over, but it is never over until one is parked up and shut down.
On a final note, this has given me more confidence than ever in the strength of the C172. They can take a lot of abuse and maintain integrity, a useful trait in any light aircraft!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not convinced that the pilot was even going to make the tarmac, let alone the displaced threshold. Just before the collision, the aircraft seemed to drop quite significantly. This could have been due to the vehicle disturbing the air / ground effect lift as the 172 was so low? But I can't see that the pilot has got any flap in!? He definitely hasn't got landing flap in and I can't see any? The shadow under the wing might be the first stage but I don't think he has got any flap in?
I'm no expert but it looks to me like a slow / flat approach and he actually stalled onto the car. Either way, it was a very low approach which was never going to make the displaced threshold. It must be his home airfield, so he would be more than aware of the displaced threshold and dangers of the road.
I will be very interested to see what the legal outcome is but ironically, I think the video and now YouTube sensation, will only serve to condem him!
I'm no expert but it looks to me like a slow / flat approach and he actually stalled onto the car. Either way, it was a very low approach which was never going to make the displaced threshold. It must be his home airfield, so he would be more than aware of the displaced threshold and dangers of the road.
I will be very interested to see what the legal outcome is but ironically, I think the video and now YouTube sensation, will only serve to condem him!
Very true regarding the flap setting. the pilot doesn't even appear to have takeoff flap set, additionally the flaps are shown retracted in the footage of the aircraft after it came to rest.
Like you also say there is significant sink as he passes over the road and collided with the car. Furthermore just before the aircraft strikes the car there is a noticeable shift in attitude to nose down although this may have been the result of the 172 dropping it's nose in a stall or from pilot input to recover from a stall or otherwise.
Will be interesting to see the accident report, I'm sure both parties with be claiming millions for emotional trauma or other such nonsense.
Like you also say there is significant sink as he passes over the road and collided with the car. Furthermore just before the aircraft strikes the car there is a noticeable shift in attitude to nose down although this may have been the result of the 172 dropping it's nose in a stall or from pilot input to recover from a stall or otherwise.
Will be interesting to see the accident report, I'm sure both parties with be claiming millions for emotional trauma or other such nonsense.
Agree about lack of signage for road users - an accident waiting to happen.
A better title to the thread might be "SUV takes out landing aircraft on...etc"
When road vehicles come into collision with trains the headlines usually read something like "Train hits car on level crossing..etc" implying that the train is at fault - similar applies here methinks although in this case the SUV has all my sympathies - even the odd uncontrolled crossing on the railway system has flashing lights and lots of signs to warn drivers etc.
Am not surprised an early student didn't spot the SUV but the very low approach didn't help - as experienced pilots we can forget the amount of concentration that is involved for students and the lack of peripheral awareness.
A better title to the thread might be "SUV takes out landing aircraft on...etc"
When road vehicles come into collision with trains the headlines usually read something like "Train hits car on level crossing..etc" implying that the train is at fault - similar applies here methinks although in this case the SUV has all my sympathies - even the odd uncontrolled crossing on the railway system has flashing lights and lots of signs to warn drivers etc.
Am not surprised an early student didn't spot the SUV but the very low approach didn't help - as experienced pilots we can forget the amount of concentration that is involved for students and the lack of peripheral awareness.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hole somewhere
Age: 46
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First solo Cross country, takes out an SUV on landing..
How can a driver miss a plane in HIS peripheral vision?
I think both are to blame as both should have seen each other and took evasive action.
If peripheral vision is difficult for some people then they should probably walk not drive or fly
I think both are to blame as both should have seen each other and took evasive action.
If peripheral vision is difficult for some people then they should probably walk not drive or fly
Last edited by Pilot.Lyons; 7th Nov 2012 at 07:08.
Again 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.
*VERY shallow for a VFR approach, the terrain at NW regional probably doesn't even allow it!
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.
*VERY shallow for a VFR approach, the terrain at NW regional probably doesn't even allow it!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the very start of the clip, at the very left of the picture, the SUV emerges from behind a tree.
Perhaps there was a line of trees (they would be out of shot).
The C172 clearly was very low, so perhaps neither could see the other until inside the reaction and vehicle response times, or until the view was obscured by C172 nose and SUV roof.
Perhaps there was a line of trees (they would be out of shot).
The C172 clearly was very low, so perhaps neither could see the other until inside the reaction and vehicle response times, or until the view was obscured by C172 nose and SUV roof.
Last edited by 24Carrot; 6th Nov 2012 at 18:46.
A similar thing happened some years ago at Insch just west of Aberdeen. Farm track, fence, airstrip, car and 172. From memory it wasn't as spectacular as this one but you'd think people using that private road would be aware of what went on at an airfield and would have some sense of self preservation
Although the CAA took no action, the Procurator Fiscal did, and the pilot was convicted. The farmer's wife, returning home with her kids, was unharmed, but the C172 wheels bounced off both front and rear glass on the Mercedes, causing both to pop out. I think the pilot was later killed (with passenger) in an IFR CFIT in Perthshire.
A scheduled passenger flight in an amphibian hit a truck in Alaska - 2008.
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...2012120000.pdf
Last edited by Maoraigh1; 6th Nov 2012 at 21:03. Reason: Add NTSB link and alter
