Why would you drive in front of an airplane?

[WILCO]

Video Shows Plane Landing on Roof of SUV


Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/Video-Plane-Texas-SUV-177268541.html#ixzz2BOb3FNtf

[Phat Man Mike]

I like how the driver get's all defensive about not pulling out in front of the plane.

[starmac]

I'll have to admit, I hardly ever look to see if a plane is coming my way when I am on a road. lol

This is a private road through an airport though.

[williamwaco]

That video is like a Democratic claim about a Republican candidate.
It totally misrepresents what happened by taking the impact out of context.

There was another car that passed in front of the plane literally one second before that clip starts. The pilot saw the first car and the second car following it. and did nothing to avoid them.

Oh by the way? the video was shot by the pilots wife to record his VERY First solo landing.


.

The were in my opinion both at fault.


.

[starmac]

The were in my opinion both at fault.

Yep. The pilot claims he won't fly again, do you reckon the driver will not drive again.
I will say it would have been a lot easier for the driver to stop, when it was written in big letters covering the lane they were in. The plane might could have pulled up in time (not sure) but it would have been very dangerous to try to turn at that altitude.

[waksupi]

I think they should invest in actual stop signs.

[mack1]

That video is like a Democratic claim about a Republican candidate.
It totally misrepresents what happened by taking the impact out of context.

There was another car that passed in front of the plane literally one second before that clip starts. The pilot saw the first car and the second car following it. and did nothing to avoid them.

Oh by the way? the video was shot by the pilots wife to record his VERY First solo landing.


.

The were in my opinion both at fault.

.
have you ever landed a plane before, he had plenty on his mind without the car. Both at fault this is the same logic that blames trains for hitting cars.

[starmac]

I am betting there are signs, watch for low flying aircraft, or something of the sort, to alert one to watch out.
I would think if all that is is the stop on the pavement, the airport will have a major problem.

[Artful]

I think they should invest in actual stop signs.

And WARNING sign that won't fade - and maybe a speed bump - provided that road is not also used as a taxi way.

I would have to say if I was FAA/NTSB investigator I would site the airport for NOT having better signs around the airport runway.

[starmac]

And WARNING sign that won't fade - and maybe a speed bump - provided that road is not also used as a taxi way.

I would have to say if I was FAA/NTSB investigator I would site the airport for NOT having better signs around the airport runway.

Could it be that we only saw the signs that the reporter wanted us to see, no not a chance.

[sundog]

Looks to me like the pilot was coming in a little too short/low. Not defending the driver of the car, but he was short.

[Artful]

Looks to me like the pilot was coming in a little too short/low. Not defending the driver of the car, but he was short.

I would agree - but first SOLO landing I would expect that - I would also expect that large machines with propellers would have the right of way on a run way.

[10x]

This is the same setup as the runway at Placencia, Belize. The main highway crosses the end of the runway. You never assume an airplane is NOT coming there. You stop and look down the runway and then look at the approach.

[leftiye]

I think they should invest in actual stop signs.

I guess so, they probly ain't gonna find no common sense!

[oldred]

This was clearly the drivers fault since the airplane has few options after setting up his approach on final except to do a go-around, think about where the plane was when the car arrived at that point? What could he have done? Yanked the nose up and stalled? The car had choices (like STOP maybe?) but by the time the car arrived at that point the pilot had almost no options to choose from! I can't see where the pilot was at fault at all, a bit low yes but there could be several reasons for that and the fact is the car should NEVER have been there at that time regardless!!!

[leadman]

I would not blame the pilot on this one. Check the call log for the car driver, probably on the phone.

My friend has property in northern Az. and one of the main gravel street in his remote neighborhood is a landing strip. I always stop before entering that section and drive far to the side just in case I miss a plane coming in. The road is pretty wide.

[Bad Water Bill]

This happened in Texas correct?

It has happened there BEFORE according to the video and you saw a car on the video blow the stop sign.

TEXAS HAS CATTLE ? Why not install a CATTLE GUARD at the stop sign?

Never heard the video say the road with the FADED stop sign was a landing strip or did I miss that?

[starmac]

The private road crosses the end of the landing strip.

[colt 357]

crossing gates like the railroad uses operated by the tower when planes are landing. or no roads at the beginning or ending of a runway would be a good idea????????

[oldred]

I would not blame the pilot on this one. Check the call log for the car driver, probably on the phone.



Exactly! I don't see how anyone could blame the pilot in this situation, by the time the pilot saw the car was not going to stop he would have been almost on top of him already with no time to add power and pull up, at that altitude (or lack of altitude!) flying at only a few MPH above stall speed what could he have done? A stall that close to the ground would be absolutely impossible to recover from and at that speed yanking the nose up to avoid the car would have almost certainly resulted in a stall, likewise a sharp bank to avoid hitting the car would have also most likely resulted in disaster. Obviously the sequence of events ended in an accident but I guarantee the plane hitting the ground in a steep nose down attitude from stalling would have been a LOT worse for the pilot!

[x101airborne]

From a LEO standpoint, on any private or public roadway in Texas, the aircraft has right of way. Period. I know it sounds silly, but that is the way the Texas Legislature has it written and that is the way it is. There is no exception. If that plane wanted to land on a public highway, everyone else better get the heck out of the way. Now, if it wasn't an emergency, the FAA would handle it from there. And as far as the "signs" or lack there of goes, if a plane comes in low and clips one, wouldnt that be a ***** situation? That is why they dont have signs. I will second that the driver was probably on the phone. Has anyone else tried to turn a Cessna in a stall less than 7 feet from the ground? Pucker up, ladies and gentlemen.

[hiram1]

bad water bill ...do you know how much money it would cost .i bet them cattle guards get payed at leest 12.00 per hr times 24 hr and that will add up to big money.but i do need the job

[Bad Water Bill]

Hiram you get the job.:bigsmyl2:

I bet it would have cost a LOT less to put the guard there than pay for the damages to the plane. The car was taped breaking the law so he also should pay.

[Charlie Two Tracks]

You can have a sign, lights or whatever you want but who really thinks that the majority of drivers would actually obey a sign or light if there is no police within sight? Just the way it is anymore. IMO

[williamwaco]

have you ever landed a plane before, he had plenty on his mind without the car. Both at fault this is the same logic that blames trains for hitting cars.

Actually I have. Many times. AND our little airport had exactly the same type road across the end of the runway. And YES. I checked that road visually on downwind, base, and final. Only then did I "aim" at the end of the runway.

[mack1]

Actually I have. Many times. AND our little airport had exactly the same type road across the end of the runway. And YES. I checked that road visually on downwind, base, and final. Only then did I "aim" at the end of the runway.

Sorry if my post was pointed but I do not see how you can fault an airplane for landing on a runway. Also seems in Texas the law gives the plane the right of way anyway.
I do not want to argue about planes on this sight, how about which is better for cast a 270 or 280.

[Recluse]

That video is like a Democratic claim about a Republican candidate.
It totally misrepresents what happened by taking the impact out of context.

There was another car that passed in front of the plane literally one second before that clip starts. The pilot saw the first car and the second car following it. and did nothing to avoid them.

Oh by the way? the video was shot by the pilots wife to record his VERY First solo landing.

The were in my opinion both at fault.


Actually I have. Many times. AND our little airport had exactly the same type road across the end of the runway. And YES. I checked that road visually on downwind, base, and final. Only then did I "aim" at the end of the runway.

You either did a lot of go-arounds or there wasn't ever much auto traffic. . . :rolleyes:

This is 52F--Northwest Regional Airport. I've flown in and out of here more times than I can count. If you want to be a stickler, I can start dusting off logbooks, I suppose. The road is not private--it is owned and maintained by the city of Roanoke. You do not "stumble" into NWR airport by accident--it is a destination, and what's more, a dead-end destination.

In other words, it's not a throughfare road. People who drive there know good and damn well it's an airport--there's only a jazillion signs telling you so on the entrance road, along with signs telling you about low-flying aircraft.

Texas law, as do the federal Rules of the Road, states that the least maneuverable vehicle ALWAYS has the right-of-way. A car is always more maneuverable than an airplane. After all, a car has brakes and can stop just about anytime, anywhere it wants to.

You'd also remember that on short final, you're adjusting your pitch to bleed off airspeed and as such, visibility over the cowling isn't great. You can check traffic until the cows come home, but at this airport--and hundreds like it--the road takes a sharp 90-degree dog-leg to the east where it t-bones at EOR, then turns sharp to the south.

Davis, the young student pilot, would not have been able to see the SUV anyhow. Left downwind for Rwy 17 at this airport puts terrain between the portion of the road the SUV turned off of and the end of the runway. Pattern altitude for this airport is 1800 and at the 45 before turning left base, both roads are completely obscured by terrain.

I will fault the flight school, Marcair, and their instruction techniques--one of which is that they prohibit the use of flaps. Their students have a difficult time finding a DPE who will give them a checkride because knowledge and use of flaps is a requirement in the PPTS. As you can see in the video, Davis had zero flaps deployed. This resulted in an even greater nose-high attitude in order to bleed off airspeed.

I will question Davis' judgement in making a no-flaps DOWNWIND landing as well, although the runway is app 4000' and the winds that day were variable to calm. Even so, if you're going to forego flaps, it's a much better idea to land into the wind. Oh, and he also landed on the downhill slope. Downhill, tailwind, no flaps. . .

Typical of what so many of us see from this particular flight school.

So many rookie pilots are enamored and fixated on "planting it on the numbers" and granted, that is the normal aiming point for a VFR normal field landing. While it appeared he was coming in low, bear in mind he had no flaps so his airspeed was going to be higher, resulting in a longer glide. In addition, the tarmac at 52F is dark and thus, more ground effect to deal with which will chew up yet some more feet of runway in the flare.

Bottom line is that the yuppies in the SUV had their head up their arses and were not paying attention.

It is one-hundred percent their fault.

:coffee:

[SMCCORD]

The airport(if you can call it that) across the street from my house runs parallel to a major highway. There is a county road that crosses very close to the end of the runway. I have seen many vehicles stop in the middle of the road to watch planes land right over top of their vehicles. DANGEROUS.

[Bad Water Bill]

[QUOTE=SMCCORD;1909818]The airport(if you can call it that) across the street from my house runs parallel to a major highway. There is a county road that crosses very close to the end of the runway. I have seen many vehicles stop in the middle of the road to watch planes land right over top of their vehicles. DANGEROUS.[/QUOT

Come and watch the pretty birdies land at Chicago's MIDWAY AIRPORT.

[snuffy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mack1 View Post
have you ever landed a plane before, he had plenty on his mind without the car. Both at fault this is the same logic that blames trains for hitting cars.
-----------------------------

Actually I have. Many times. AND our little airport had exactly the same type road across the end of the runway. And YES. I checked that road visually on downwind, base, and final. Only then did I "aim" at the end of the runway.

Me too. The airport that I learned from/at has a county road at the south end of the north/south runway. The beginning of the strip is about 30 yards from the road. The utility wires had to be lowered so you could land there. The strip is only 2600 feet, so full flaps are almost a must for any plane so equipped.

There were/are signs warning of low flying airplanes on that road, but no requirement about stopping. SO you had to be on the lookout for cars, but seldom were you in danger of hitting one. The problem was real if a semi happened to be on the road.

[starmac]

To heck with the laws, I don't care what they say, or who they favor. Whatever happened to common sense.
1 They knew they were driving on or in an airport.
2 Why would you not at least look to see if an airplane is coming.
3 What is the chances of coming out alive, much less ok when you are involved in a plane/car wreck. All parties here were extremely lucky.
4 How can anyone throw common sense out the window and side with the driver of the car?

[oldred]

Again the pilot had maybe only a few seconds at best by the time he realized the car was going to be in the way so at an altitude of a few feet, the engine throttled back and only a few MPH above stall speed what kind of evasive action could he have reasonably been expected to take? The car driver could stop (which is what was EXPECTED of him), swerve or possibly even accelerate out of the way but a plane only a few seconds from it's landing flare is going to have few options indeed! Obviously it's a pilot's responsibility to ascertain the landing zone to be clear of hazards but a car that shows up at the point of touchdown, or very close anyway, mere seconds before the landing flare hardly gives the pilot much chance to maneuver. Most likely the car could have been detected early by the pilot on final approach but it's supposed to stop, so does the pilot do a go-around every time a vehicle is seen anywhere on the road?

[williamwaco]

I am not sure I got my point across.

I think they were BOTH EQUALLY at fault.

[Bad Water Bill]

I am not sure I got my point across.

I think they were BOTH EQUALLY at fault.

Read what RECLOSE who has landed there many times posted.

[Mud Eagle]

I will question Davis' judgement in making a no-flaps DOWNWIND landing as well, although the runway is app 4000' and the winds that day were variable to calm.

How, exactly, do you make a "downwind" landing when the winds are variable-to-calm?

[Recluse]

How, exactly, do you make a "downwind" landing when the winds are variable-to-calm?

Did you watch the video? Do you even FLY? (video games and computer flight sims don't count) Is "Mud Eagle" supposed to be a reference to a -15E? :rolleyes:

The windsock was favoring rwy 35 when Davis was flying. AWOS for KAFW at the time was "winds--variable." Most uncontrolled fields have a designated "calm winds" runway, but most smart pilots land/takeoff using the wind to their advantage.

Again, Davis was using no flaps. 52F also has a tetrahedron and it was indicating Rwy 35, as was the windsock at the threshold of Rwy 17. Makes sense to at least use what wind you had. . .

On another note, I looked over some of your troll-like replies in another sub-forum here.

You're pretty new here and seem to offer little to nothing substantive other than troll-like responses.

Suggest you find another forum to troll. We're friendly here, but not to intentional rabble-rousers.

In the meantime, as I told you in another sub-forum, say hello to Frank.

:coffee:

[Mud Eagle]

Did you watch the video? Do you even FLY? (video games and computer flight sims don't count) Is "Mud Eagle" supposed to be a reference to a -15E? :rolleyes:

Yes, I am a 17-year USAF officer and former F-15E pilot with 3,500 military hours. The name is a reference to the Strike Eagle. I am ATP single and multi engine rated and have been flying GA aircraft since the late 1980s. I have a CFII and MEI. I will be happy to provide my name via PM if you wish so you can bounce that information against the FAA Airman database. I can provide my .mil email address if you also wish to verify that.

I watched the video.

I was commenting on your statement, and it was supposed to just be a funny observation based on how you phrased your statement.

Again, if winds are calm/variable, how exactly do you land downwind?

That being said, I did not see the tetrahedron or look at the sock in the video.

[Mud Eagle]

In the meantime, as I told you in another sub-forum, say hello to Frank.

:coffee:

Okay, so someone clue me in here: what's 'say hello to Frank' about?

[waksupi]

Okay, so someone clue me in here: what's 'say hello to Frank' about?

Frank was a troll, who wore out his welcome. Things had been pretty peaceful here since I banned him.

[Mud Eagle]

Frank was a troll, who wore out his welcome. Things had been pretty peaceful here since I banned him.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks.

That was Recluse's call to ban me, apparently. Thanks to the mods for not rushing to such quick judgment.

[Gliden07]

I think they should invest in actual stop signs.

Or a stop signal that is operated by the tower. So it could be activated when a plane is approching either by the tower or remotely?

[Mud Eagle]

Or a stop signal that is operated by the tower. So it could be activated when a plane is approching either by the tower or remotely?

It is a non-towered airport.

[Gliden07]

It is a non-towered airport.

The plot thickens. LOL!!

Were I live they have a small airport (there in the middle of making it larger) they have a Beacon to help planes land at night. A friend of mine was taking flying lessons and to get the lights on what you did is Key your Mic 3 times, that turns on the Beacon. Sure it could work for a Stop Light system? I'm sure its more money then Stop signs though!!

[starmac]

Well reading post #27 from Recluse,who has been there several times it is clearly and plainly marked. We get to see what some news reporter wants us to see.

You could have crossarms come down blocking the road and some folks would drive around them.

[rockrat]

How about add a flashing light to the low-flying aircraft signs. Have it solar powered. Possibly a sensor in the road to turn on the flashing light when a vehicle approaches. Or, possibly, a unit tuned into the CTAF so when aircraft are in the vicinity and transmitting, the light turns on.

[Bad Water Bill]

Well reading post #27 from Recluse,who has been there several times it is clearly and plainly marked. We get to see what some news reporter wants us to see.

You could have crossarms come down blocking the road and some folks would drive around them.

Ask any RR engineer about gates.

That is why I thought about cattle guards. Most folks have to almost STOP to cross good ones.

No matter what is done to TRY to warn drivers about approaching aircraft (short of an actual barricade rising out of the ground) a stupid driver will try to beat the system.