I agree that's for sure the best practice, just as that document says.From FAA publication.
Long established FAA guidance. From a legal standpoint, vehicle operations on public airports below the Part 139 threshold are defined by state or local rules. Most local/state rules require the use of the same established guidance on airport vehicle movements as the Part 139 airports use. And that guidance gives the right-away to aircraft and the fault of any vehicle incident on the operator especially in an AOA or defined critical area.Says who?
The NTSB did not mention that in either the Ryan vs. Mower accident linked above or the 172 vs. Minivan accident at 52F a few years ago.Long established FAA guidance. From a legal standpoint, vehicle operations on public airports below the Part 139 threshold are defined by state or local rules. Most local/state rules require the use of the same established guidance on airport vehicle movements as the Part 139 airports use. And that guidance gives the right-away to aircraft and the fault of any vehicle incident on the operator especially in an AOA or defined critical area.
I think it was mentioned in the context of the NTSB report/findings summary of this accident. Now in this current accident whether the driver will be a contributing factor like the Ryan one or the actual probable cause will be interesting to read.The NTSB did not mention that in either the Ryan vs. Mower accident linked above
Sorry to respond to my own post for emphasis, but apparently this Bonanza flew straight-in from over seven miles from the field. You can't see much from there, especially if you're busy configuring for landing.One disadvantage of "standard" approaches to the pattern (including straight-ins) is that you don't have the same opportunity to observe the runway environment that you do by entering the upwind or crosswind. I’ll often go out of my way to enter an upwind leg to get a good look at things before even turning crosswind. So many more options with much more information.
….In this case, I'd bet lunch money that that woman had no idea what the risks were, and that's tragic. Nobody should be put into a work environment where they don't understand and accept the risks they face.
91.113 (g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
Doesn't address ground vehicles specifically, but gets mostly there.
I doubt either of those would have solved the conflict as she probably knows nothing of airplane radio traffic and a NOTAM isn't going to make him see someone. The rest of the facts need to come out. As has already been mentioned, given the runway and airplane there is no way the two should have crossed paths unless the plane was off the edge or the mower was on the runway. At least in NC, vehicles like Mowers operating near roads have to have strobes/caution lighting installed so they can be visible from any angle. Not everybody can afford an enclosed cab mower but the ideal situation would be one of those lit up like a parade float with a radio tuned to the CTAF.An updated story. The woman worked for the parks department.
Oklahoma mom killed after being hit by the wing of a small plane while on a lawn mower at airport
Samantha Hayes, 27, who worked for the Broken Bow Parks Department, was described on social media as a single mother of three who worked hard and cherished her children.www.nbcnews.com
City manager unsurprisingly clearly knows nothing about airport ops.
"the city will place preventative measures in place if they're deemed necessary"
Like a NOTAM? How bout give the employee's headphones tuned to ctaf
It's important that we all follow the same, suggested set of rules, not those we make up.I don't believe there is a specific FAR, but ground vehicles always have to yield to aircraft...period.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to observe the runway environment while operating in the traffic pattern and his subsequent failure to maintain clearance from a lawnmower on the runway during the landing roll. Contributing to the accident was the lawnmower operator's decision to remain on the runway while troubleshooting the mowing equipment without monitoring the airport's common traffic advisory frequency.
The guidance airports have is Advisory Circular 150/5210-20, which is incorporated by reference for Part 139 Airports and is industry best practice for the rest.It's important that we all follow the same, suggested set of rules, not those we make up.
Specific FARs are what create the right-of-way rules. You should definitely tell everyone operating on the ground at your airport to yield to aircraft. But telling pilots that there's such a rule, when one doesn't exist, can be dangerous.
A legion of things that are true at tower-controlled airports are not true as a general rule. There is no "non-movement" or "movement" area at the airports I commonly fly into and out of (nor at the vast majority of US airports).The guidance airports have is Advisory Circular 150/5210-20, which is incorporated by reference for Part 139 Airports and is industry best practice for the rest.
"It should be stressed that aircraft ALWAYS have the right-of-way over vehicles when maneuvering on non-movement areas. Aircraft also have the right-of-way on the movement areas, except when the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) has specifically instructed an aircraft to hold or give way to vehicle(s) on a runway or taxiway."
Not from what I've seen. There are a multitude of guidance and rules that do not apply to pilots. In general, accidents happen because one or both parties do not follow their specific guidance. Telling a pilot that ground traffic is required to yield to aircraft does not relieve the pilot of his guidance or regulatory responsibilities. The Ryan post above is a good example of that. And there are many more.But telling pilots that there's such a rule, when one doesn't exist, can be dangerous.
True. But you’ll find that for those public airports that do not fall under Part 139, the state will have a statute or guidance that requires public airports to follow. And most use the same Part 139 guidance as a foundation. Below is one example.A legion of things that are true at tower-controlled airports are not true as a general rule. There is no "non-movement" or "movement" area at the airports I commonly fly into and out of (nor at the vast majority of US airports).
After nearly two decades of working as a safety manager of some sort, I find myself firmly in the camp that believes all warning labels should be removed and let nature take its course. I might be in the minority here, however.are you saying she didn’t know planes land on runways at airports?
Strobes, rotating beacons...I'd light that thing up like a Christmas tree. Cheap insurance.I'm always a bit paranoid when mowing my grass strip, even though only myself and two hangar mates use it. We are charted as private but the strip has been here since well before we bough it, so there are some old timers around that knew the previous owner and sometimes drop in for a few touch and goes. On the tractor I can't hear much and nobody uses the radio for a private grass strip with no CTAF. Maybe I need to put a strobe on top of my tractor roll bar? Sad situation all around...
"Warning labels defeat the effectiveness of natural selection." That's my wisdom-driven tag line for life.After nearly two decades of working as a safety manager of some sort, I find myself firmly in the camp that believes all warning labels should be removed and let nature take its course. I might be in the minority here, however.
A legion of things that are true at tower-controlled airports are not true as a general rule. There is no "non-movement" or "movement" area at the airports I commonly fly into and out of (nor at the vast majority of US airports).
are you saying she didn’t know planes land on runways at airports?
Nope. I'm saying she likely had no idea that she had any chance of being hit by an aircraft while mowing the grass beside the runway. Why would anyone, that isn't a pilot?
If this were a private contractor mowing the grass, I'd agree. It's their responsibility to assess the hazards of their environment.Huh? If I’m mowing the front lawn, I know there’s a chance I’ll be hit by somebody driving down the street in my quiet little neighborhood.
Same concept applies. Commercial/industrial mowing is chock full of all kinds of hazards. Whether a person wants to honor those threats is whole different question.
Why? If he was too low for a go-around high-enough to miss, perhaps his judgment was that slowing down would more likely put the vehicle in front of the prop as opposed to the fuselage or empennage. You don't always have time to say everything that might cross your mind as an instructor, sometimes you just need to say something, fast.Quote: "interterminal shuttle is bearing down on me. I start to slow to let it pass in front of me when the instructor says "keep your speed up, aircraft have the right of way."
OK, I'm aghast that a CFI would think that way when there is a dangerous situation coming. It's not the time to think that everyone is reading the same book you are or sees the same thing. The quality of ADM among some CFIs. . . When in doubt, chicken out is the rule.
My only nit is that employees have the innate ability to not comprehend what you're saying. I go through it everyday. I'll go over a job and be very clear what we need to watch out for and what precautions we need to take. 15 minutes later I'll catch them doing exactly what I warned them not to do. Sometimes things don't resonate with people until they have a close call, despite your best efforts to prevent it beforehand.If this were a private contractor mowing the grass, I'd agree. It's their responsibility to assess the hazards of their environment.
But this wasn't a contractor, this was a county or city employee, so I disagree. Standard practice for any employer is to assess risks for their employees and make sure they understand those risks and the controls around them. At least around here, if mowing crews are working on highway right of ways, they're going to have lights on the vehicles, and depending on the road signs up to warn motorists, and even sometimes extra police protection. And this is for risks that are understood by the general public, more or less. I'm willing to bet that the employee had safety training for mowing, and was familiar with operation around vehicle traffic...and had absolutely no training at all about airport operations. So they made an assumption that there was no elevated risk. Given that, and that they aren't a pilot, I think it would be reasonable for the mower to believe that the airplanes were going to stay on the runway, and that they had no additional risk, again because they hadn't been advised of any.
Any pilot know should know that being on or close to a runway is dangerous, and that your primary protection for that isn't a radio but having your head on a swivel. Non-pilots just don't know that. I've seen the assumption in many people that if you're not actually standing on the runway you're fine, and that's clearly not true.
This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, because over the years I've seen people hurt because a manager asked them to do something that they didn't have the training or equipment to do safely and it's led to disaster. If you have people working for you, it's your job to take reasonable precautions to keep them safe. I don't mean safety n*tzi, but I do mean exercising some common sense...and yeah, I hold managers to a higher standard than the employee. Here, I don't know if the pilot made a mistake, but I'm pretty sure the manager did, and if they didn't, that this wouldn't have happened.
The above is 3 times longer than it should be, maybe 6...too lazy to edit it down, apologies.
Here's the original post. I think they were taxiing.Why? If he was too low for a go-around high-enough to miss, perhaps his judgment was that slowing down would more likely put the vehicle in front of the prop as opposed to the fuselage or empennage. You don't always have time to say everything that might cross your mind as an instructor, sometimes you just need to say something, fast.
Was operating a Cessna 170 at night at IAD. I'm crossing midfield and one of the mobile lounges used for interterminal shuttle is bearing down on me. I start to slow to let it pass in front of me when the instructor says "keep your speed up, aircraft have the rigth of way." The owner of the 170 happened to be in the back seat and reached forward and clicked on the strobes. The lounge locks up the brakes and I can see the standees tipping over.
Ah, that makes more sense and isn’t great…Yes, we were taxiing probably on what now is called C (formerly Tango 3).