Relative to my Post #3: No; this was 30+ years ago. The pilot who quit decided he wasn't going to subject himself and/or passengers to dangers of obeying orders to fly in truly inclement conditions. So he quit routine of Rockland - Augusta - Portland - Boston - Bar Harbor. His whole family had been raised as pilot/owners, so he wasn't a neophyte out of an academy.From post #3:
Did this happen on Tuesday?
Wow. how the hell do you not see a plane coming down the runway in a pickup truck?
Not only did the truck drivers life change. The airport authority could be held liable for allowing vehicles on the airport, crossing runways. Particularly if they did not provide training or have set policies.
Wow. how the hell do you not see a plane coming down the runway in a pickup truck?
From the last link:
"Vehicles are allowed to cross runways at the airport, he said, as long as the drivers have received training from airport officials and the vehicle is equipped with a radio. The driver of the pickup is a local pilot who had been trained and the truck had a radio, Northgraves said."
Another airplane vs auto in a single month?
You don't look.
You don't listen on the radio.
You don't make a radio call.
You don't have a radio.
You don't look.
Not only did the truck drivers life change. The airport authority could be held liable for allowing vehicles on the airport, crossing runways. Particularly if they did not provide training or have set policies.
I think we can all agree on this 172 vs land based vehicle, it was not pilot error. My guess is he was on take off roll when the truck crossed the runway, and he was too fast to stop, but not fast enough to get airborne.
The same way people don't see cars or motorcycles before they pull out of an intersection right in front of them.Wow. how the hell do you not see a plane coming down the runway in a pickup truck?
I think we can all agree on this 172 vs land based vehicle, it was not pilot error. My guess is he was on take off roll when the truck crossed the runway, and he was too fast to stop, but not fast enough to get airborne.
I think we can all agree on this 172 vs land based vehicle, it was not pilot error. My guess is he was on take off roll when the truck crossed the runway, and he was too fast to stop, but not fast enough to get airborne.
Okay, all but the FAA, though I would think this would be investigated by the NTSB. If the driver is found at fault could he be charged with vehicular homicide?After doing a crafts fair today I'm just getting to read today's posts on this thread. One of my "lookers" at my aerial photos commented, "My husband works for the FAA." When I asked his name and learned same, "Small world; when I did my SODA flight years ago, he was the official who fine-tooth examined my plane and its records before the SODA, though he was not the FAA Flight Examiner."
"He's up in Owls Head today, working on the accident. "Initial information," she recounted, "is that there'll be Pilot Error in the findings."
Further, though without present confirmation, it's believed the PIC looked both ways before the takeoff; however, there may be the judgment factor as to why the pilot didn't, after the collision, put the plane down -- straight ahead -- rather than trying to climb out of the situation.
Not related to the above text: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/11/...-were-umaine-fraternity-members-student-says/
HR
"He's up in Owls Head today, working on the accident. "Initial information," she recounted, "is that there'll be Pilot Error in the findings."
Further, though without present confirmation, it's believed the PIC looked both ways before the takeoff; however, there may be the judgment factor as to why the pilot didn't, after the collision, put the plane down -- straight ahead -- rather than trying to climb out of the situation.
HR
I've seen this 3/4s of the way down the runway mentioned a couple times now. Unless they weren't using full length, they should have been well in the air by that point. Anyone have any different info?The plane was 3/4 of the way down a 5k foot long runway...hit the truck
Before my home base became controlled 0700 to 1900 local, the airport required any vehicle that was allowed in the flying areas of the airport(ie runways and taxiways) to announce on the unicom where they were and where they were going. Furthermore, airplanes had the right a way to all land based moving vehicles 100% of the time. POV's were not allowed on the runways and taxiways, otherwise. In fact, prior to being allowed to bring your own vehicle onto the airport property(hangars) you had to take a test to show you understood these rules. THe Airport was quite serious about enforcing these rules, and violations were handled in a draconian fashion. Furthermore, anyone crossing a runway was required to stop prior to crossing and announce their intentions on the radio. This is still required when the tower is closed.I poached this comment from the BCP site... The guy who posted it lives close to the area......
"It was a club plane based in Bangor and was run by the college. 2 college kids and one grad from last year. The plane was 3/4 of the way down a 5k foot long runway...hit the truck and lost it's horizontal stab, continued flying (sorta) and dug er in. There's nothing requiring calls on a radio from either the truck or plane at an uncontrolled field (may be a state thing however) there will be lots of questions to be answered but it's a sad day up here in what has been a deadly few years in Maine and the Maine coast especially."
Do not know, but I could see the possibility of three college aged guys, with full fuel loads being overgross in a 172. I guess this could go against my first thought of unlikely to be pilot error. I still however assert the collision is the fault of the truck driver, and not the pilot. I would say if they were overgross then it would be a contributing factor but not a cause.I've seen this 3/4s of the way down the runway mentioned a couple times now. Unless they weren't using full length, they should have been well in the air by that point. Anyone have any different info?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
It turns out I know a number of guys who knew the driver well. He did his CFI training here in Augusta. Regardless of how the investigation is concluded...his life will be changed forever.
A note:
It is rumored that an eye witness (younger girl) stated she never saw lights on the aircraft. It would be very easy to not see an aircraft with no lights at that time in the evening.
It is very easy to tell whether the lights were on...switch positions and filament condition. I'd say that could be the pilot error that was mentioned. No landing light is one thing but pos/strobes off is another.
There may have been other faults, but it's his runway, every inch of it.I've seen this 3/4s of the way down the runway mentioned a couple times now. Unless they weren't using full length, they should have been well in the air by that point. Anyone have any different info?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD