Plane hits car...caught on video

[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".

[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.

[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

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.....