C172 versus Volvo SUV @ Northwest Regional

wabower said:
If a semi instead of a SUV had been involved, would you still say it was the pilot's fault?
Click to expand...

Yes. To be specific, I would say that the pilot was also at fault. Of course, if it was a semi, and not an SUV, he wouldn't have just grazed it. As low as he was, he would have embedded himself in the side of it.
 
PPC1052 said:
I agree that you never said that the displaced runway was due to the pavement not being able to support the plane, but your prior post, and this post, then goes on to argue about how it was this pilot's right to fly low to the ground approaching the runway. (Do you at least agree with that statement?) The whole point you are trying to make is entirely inconsistent with the reasoning behind the displaced threshold. My point was simply that the reason that the threshold is displaced is because it's not safe to take a low trajectory as this pilot did. As far as the point that he would have actually touched down is concerned, that is irrelevant. What we see is that he is low enough to contact a car that's on the access road, that is short of the displaced threshold. That's the only fact that matters as to the issue of whether he was too low. That he could have kept it off the ground indefinitely isn't relevant to whether it was a reasonable course of action.

I get that the driver may have made a mistake, and that he may even have been primarily at fault. But just because the driver was at fault doesn't mean that the pilot's actions were automatically reasonable. In this case, there was a vehicle driver that should have stopped that we can point to and assign blame. But at another airport, the displaced threshold could be due to a pole, or a tree, power lines, or something else that the pilot would have had difficulty seeing. If he had hit a permenant, but difficult to see object, you would have no trouble finding that the pilot was in error. If this pilot doesn't recognize that a displaced threshold signifies danger off the end of the runway for low aircraft, then it is only a matter of time before he hits something else. That someone else may also share blame in this case doesn't absolve the pilot of his responsibility in this matter.
Click to expand...

I like it when people say 'that isn't relevant'. As if the statement of relevance takes any other consideration out of discussion. It's a poor debaters method to not answering something that needs to be answered.

Having a pilot license means I do understand WHY there is a DT at this runway. I've landed there a bunch of times, and have observed the displacement. I've also flown a low approach there for reasons of my own, and still met the displacement. By the same measure, there was a roadway restriction placed on the driver in the form of a stop sight, which I mentioned may have been missing, and also a 'stop' marking on the roadway, with a white line. The driver completely ignored their restriction. The pilot completely ignored good approach management, and the two met in the same time and place. One restriction is regulatory. There is another concern however in that this sign wasn't put up by the feds/state/county/city and I don't know if it was regulatory, but surely it was there for the safe operation of aircraft which have the right of way.

Now, your comment about other things that could be in the way of an approach are interesting. They all have one thing in common. They are not moving, and are fixed to the ground. Therefore, if the pilot strikes one of these 'fixed impediments' he/she is responsible. In San Diego, at Montgomery field a few years back a private company, building a private building, on private property, far away from the runway was forced to remove two stories of a building they were putting up. It was done because it would interfere with the safe operation of planes approaching or leaving the airport. As a fixed impediment, they were told to restrict the height, they didn't do that, and were forced to back off due to interference with the approach slope.

So, I guess I will alter my position for you and say the pilot was 0.5% at fault and the SUV was 99.5% at fault. Both could have taken action to avoid the collision, but the vehicle was operated in a careless manner much more than the aircraft(which was piloted by a student no less). Had this been a 3000 hour pilot with 100s of inst approaches in his logbook, I would reassess the percentages, but the majority would still be on the car.

And I'm done here.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Nope. The pilot flew into an obstruction adjacent to the airport. Pilots fault.
Click to expand...
Oh? An obstruction? Was that obstruction on the charts? Was it detectable when the pilot flew the pattern and surveyed the uncontrolled field? Could he see it when he turned final?

What glide slope is regulatory on a VFR pilot? Does that include the canard flyers who CANNOT fly a steep approach because they lack flaps?

Obstructions don't move. They certainly don't drive. The SUV could see the plane, the pilot almost certainly could not see the SUV. The SUV can stop in place and wait, the 172 cannot hover. D-U-H
 
docmirror said:
I like it when people say 'that isn't relevant'. As if the statement of relevance takes any other consideration out of discussion. It's a poor debaters method to not answering something that needs to be answered.
Click to expand...

I didn't just claim something was irrelevant without explaining why it was irrelevant. Did anything you say change the fact that this plane was at less than SUV clearance hight at the point it crossed the road? Did anything you say change the fact that this displaced threshold was implemented in order to prevent that very hazard?

I am, however, unclear as to what it is that you contend needs to be answered that was not addressed.
 
docmirror said:
Having a pilot license means I do understand WHY there is a DT at this runway. I've landed there a bunch of times, and have observed the displacement. I've also flown a low approach there for reasons of my own, and still met the displacement.
Click to expand...

You speak as though "meeting" the threshold is the goal. It's not. The goal is to miss the hazard. That is accomplished not by flying in low, and holding it off the ground as long as possible, and then touching down after the line. That is accomplished by flying a normal descent aimed at a point after the line such that the plane doesn't get close to the hazard.
 
What's the allowable margin for error by a student pilot? Does anybody think he wasn't aiming at the correct spot?

PPC1052 said:
You speak as though "meeting" the threshold is the goal. It's not. The goal is to miss the hazard. That is accomplished not by flying in low, and holding it off the ground as long as possible, and then touching down after the line. That is accomplished by flying a normal descent aimed at a point after the line such that the plane doesn't get close to the hazard.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
What's the allowable margin for error by a student pilot? Does anybody think he wasn't aiming at the correct spot?
Click to expand...

I think he zoned out on the displaced threshold and was aiming at the runway threshold. Too bad the Volvo destroyed his opportunity to make this error without incident.
 
cirrusmx said:
go around
Click to expand...

Nah, no way. Tell johnny batmobile to stop being such an offensive clueless driver. Did you see how he was booking it on the video? No attempt whatsoever at ceding way to the aircraft.

Classic offensive driver " Im merging into traffic, don't hit me, here i come in my tank clueless, I got somewhere to go, get out of my way im not slowing my life for you, don't hit me". The contradictory interview they gave seals the deal for me in light of the crash video. Standard offensive driver antics. No different than when he cuts you off into highway speed traffic on his way out of the Applebees on Friday night.

The student hits the fence on final approach? That's his fault. Did he hit the fence? Nope. The student hits a moving vehicle inside of the runway corridor on final approach? Yeah, that's johnny batmobile's fault; I don't care if the student was holding it in ground effect for giggles. Otherwise remove the restriction for vehicles to stop and clear. I'm with the pilot on this one.
 
Steve Foley said:
He was less than ten feet off the ground several hundred feet short of the threshold.
Click to expand...
You should probably go back and read all of the previous posts talking about how it's often common to float along to the threshold. (Not saying it's what should be done here, I'm just saying that's what he could have been attempting.) In my training, they have often had me float thousands of feet along the runway to know how the pane feels in that situation, and how knowing that can help should you end up short. Like I said, commonplace.

(PS, nice last name. Really speaks to me :wink2:)
 
Re: Dramatic footage shows plane hitting car

Geico266 said:
Land long, no problem. Pilot error.
Click to expand...

Yes, the pilot was low and flat, but that doesn't mean that hitting a car is his error.

In this particular airport, cars are required to give way to airplanes. That road was added as a shortcut to neighbors who are required to stop and look for airplanes. The SUV blew through the stop sign and never looked for traffic.

So we can agree that the pilot was low and should have gone around, but I can't fault him for hitting something that isn't supposed to be there and that he probably couldn't see.
 
This happens all the time at 52F. I should go up there one weekend and make a compilation. Here's another example that was ALMOST identical:

 
Re: Dramatic footage shows plane hitting car

Cars are not the only thing you can hit. I almost hit a cow when coming in at night at TJMZ (uncontrolled field). Even hitting smaller animals can cause serious damage to your plane. Always be on the look out. Since then I do a low altitude run with lights on checking for runway obstacles before committing to land.

José
 
I don't see anyone posting A/FD info or looking at the Airnav site except one very accomplished jet pilot. Please note, there's a lot of non-standard stuff here:


Runway edge markings: RY NRS SHORTER & NARROWER THAN STD. NSTD DSPLCD THLD ONLY 1 FT BAR NO ARROWS. DSPLCD THLD MKGS YELLOW.

Student pilot and driver that didn't appear to stop. No stop sign. Just stop paint. This was a known condition.
I've stopped at that stop paint several times and had trouble seeing the approach path. One had to really focus and move while looking. Easy to just glance and go as happens all the time. Many other issues here.

Plenty of blame to go around. One should know what a displaced threshold is and why it's there. It's not to drop low over and cruse low until touchdown. As with anything, one can get away with substandard procedures when nothing goes wrong. But when they are there for a reason and ignored, stuff like this can happen.

Best,

Dave
 
Re: Dramatic footage shows plane hitting car

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
OK. I had to shut it off when the "pilot" started talking about "life is short and you have to realize what is important..."

Effing morons in the car, effing moron in the cockpit. You can't fix stupid.

The video shows the standard hold short markings across the taxiway in addition to the word "Stop" painted on the pavement.
Click to expand...

Yep, planes arnt dangerous, STUPID, however is deadly.


Those stop signs were a little weak though IMHO
 
TangoWhiskey said:
This happens all the time at 52F. I should go up there one weekend and make a compilation. Here's another example that was ALMOST identical:

Click to expand...

That wasn't really close, the driver was on the brakes slowing until you passed, the Volvo driver (pretty sure it was her driving, not positive) wasn't even looking in that direction.
 
wabower said:
If the pilot had been looking, could he have seen the car? If the driver had been looking, could she have seen the plane? Do either or both have a duty to see and avoid?
Click to expand...

I think they both made a mistake, the pilot by dragging it in, the driver by not stopping and scanning (as he admittedly knew he was supposed to). Don't know how the insurance companies will haggle it out but I dont see groundbreaking new law being written here.

If a semi instead of a SUV had been involved, would you still say it was the pilot's fault?
Click to expand...
Or a cherry-picker with the basket extended ? Oh the possibilities !

The part 77 standard is:

10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road,

So, if Semis routinely drive on this road that serves a couple of hangars and private residences, the airport will indeed have to move the threshold back even further.

Just working off the numbers on their airnav entry and google maps, the threshold is displaced just enough to give a 20:1 slope for a 9ft object on the road to the edge of the runway safety area.

They have a 4.5deg VASI, that's what, 1:12 ? So 440ft from the runway he should have been at 36ft over the road, 1 degree low on the VASI would put him 27ft over over the road.

I can't get Martha Kings voice out of my head: red over red, you are dead :)
 
Last edited:
TangoWhiskey said:
This happens all the time at 52F. I should go up there one weekend and make a compilation.
Click to expand...

Not a half bad idea. It would be interesting to watch the results.

Let me know if you ever want to do this and I'll go with and keep you company. (we can also bring score cards :lol: )
 
weilke said:
They have a 4.5deg VASI, that's what, 1:12 ? So 440ft from the runway he should have been at 36ft over the road, 1 degree low on the VASI would put him 27ft over over the road.

I can't get Martha Kings voice out of my head: red over red, you are dead :)
Click to expand...

Night landings are pretty trippy at NW Regional...

Older two light VASI; slightly steeper slope, and the edge lighting is not exactly on the edge of the pavement (there's 8-10 feet of grass between).

Not allowed to get sloppy and drift toward the edge lighting.
 
SCCutler said:
Here you go. Road crosses just north of runway. Lots of signs and stuff warning to look for aircraft.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=52f+...457,52.646484&t=h&ui=maps&hq=52f+airport&z=17
Click to expand...

I was about to comment that 'the airport needs a displaced threshold', but that shows it already has one.

In the video it looks like the pilot is trying to land on brick one, so it's almost certainly a pilot error accident.

Still, if you are driving a car that close to a runway, and you 'know the protocol', then you ought to know enough to watch the plane land, and then drive across final.
 
He's a student pilot on an early solo, he's just trying to get to the damned runway, he does not yet have the said skills to land on brick one, he's still developing that skill. On top of that he just finished his first Solo XC. Did the pilot screw up? Hell yeah, but the driver did worse. That's a private access road for the airport, it just happens to be on the neighbors property that he doesn't want to sell. The people in the car are regulars there, there was even a post in the beginning of the thread where there are people here who have knowledge of the SUV people from the airport, so it's not like they don't know the protocol to always look up final before crossing an active runway even if at the perimeter.

You have a student pilot in one craft and a long time driver in the other, one is in a vehicle that can't go slower than 60 and one that can come to a stop. The pilot was a poor pilot, but that's to be expected from a student. The driver was a poor self centered driver who failed to look for traffic on final, a known and established procedure on that road.
 
Last edited:
hi wing meets SUV

Really?? Whos fault is this?? My persoal opinion its the pilots fault. The SUV obviously has the right of way:nono:
 
Re: hi wing meets SUV

the video shows the 172 coming way to low, imo he was barely making it to the threshold, use the fence as reference, and the volvo suv is not more than 6 ft tall, way way to low, going around was not on his lesson that day. I hope the 172 was close TBO :goofy:
 
Re: hi wing meets SUV

Boy that's a pretty bad design, however looking at the displaced threshold I don't think he was high enough to reach it properly. But mostly this is just a bad design. Planes flying slow for an approach have limited visibility over the nose.
 
OK, let's all go back in time. Assuming everybody here learned to drive and learned to fly, which was harder the first time you did it by yourself? If the driver and the pilot had both been on their first solo, who had the toughest assignment that day? Would you have wanted the job of stopping the car and looking for airplanes or landing one for the first time without the CFI carping at you from the right seat?

Let's say that neither was trying to show off or do anything other than get where they wanted to go (to the other side of the runway or to land on its centerline) which of them had more on their plate and more chance for error? I struggle with the notion that the pilot was doing anything other than his very best to get that sumbitch back on the airport in anything that would pass for a decent landing, and don't think anybody at that level has the foggiest notion of how to show off or drag it in or float for a few hundred feet even if they wanted to.

Not suggesting that he was overwhelmed or undertrained or had bad breath, just that he was a busy guy who had stole dang near all the chain he could swim with.

weilke said:
I think they both made a mistake, the pilot by dragging it in, the driver by not stopping and scanning (as he admittedly knew he was supposed to). Don't know how the insurance companies will haggle it out but I dont see groundbreaking new law being written here.

Or a cherry-picker with the basket extended ? Oh the possibilities !

The part 77 standard is:

10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road,

So, if Semis routinely drive on this road that serves a couple of hangars and private residences, the airport will indeed have to move the threshold back even further.

Just working off the numbers on their airnav entry and google maps, the threshold is displaced just enough to give a 20:1 slope for a 9ft object on the road to the edge of the runway safety area.

They have a 4.5deg VASI, that's what, 1:12 ? So 440ft from the runway he should have been at 36ft over the road, 1 degree low on the VASI would put him 27ft over over the road.

I can't get Martha Kings voice out of my head: red over red, you are dead :)
Click to expand...
 
Fwiw, on another forum, it was just mentioned by one of the locals that the airport has recently moved the threshold back right to the road and that the google earth image and the AFD/airnav record that show the 400ft displaced threshold are out of date.

If that is correct, well.....the student was where he was supposed to be.....maybe it's the airport operators head that is not in the right place.
 
When I discussed this accident at lunch today with a veteran professional pilot who has flown there frequently but not recently, he commented that the runway was a bit tight from the north due to proximity of terrain and "stuff on the ground."

Maybe that's why they moved the threshold back towards the road.

weilke said:
Fwiw, on another forum, it was just mentioned by one of the locals that the airport has recently moved the threshold back right to the road and that the google earth image and the AFD/airnav record that show the 400ft displaced threshold are out of date.

If that is correct, well.....the student was where he was supposed to be.....maybe it's the airport operators head that is not in the right place.
Click to expand...
 
I blame the driver of the car. The stop/yield signs are there because there is a chance of conflict between cars and airplanes, regardless of the threshold. Maybe someone was coming in deadstick, maybe they were coming in to fly the runway at 3 feet, for ground-effect practice, or runway alignment practice. It isn't the car driver's job to decide if the signage applies to them. The sign says stop/yield. That means you stop, look for traffic, and yield - no matter what. It doesn't mean, kinda stop, maybe yield, if you think the displaced threshold means the aircraft will be high enough to avoid you.
'just saying...
 
Last edited:
the video shows the 172 coming way to low, imo he was barely making it to the threshold, use the fence as reference, and the volvo suv is not more than 6 ft tall, way way to low, going around was not on his lesson that day. I hope the 172 was close TBO
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top