A plane clipped a truck trailer yesterday....

Holy crap! Glad nobody was hurt.
 
FloridaPilot said:
How does a pilot with 3500 hours do that?
Click to expand...
Dragging it in on approach, wants to hit the first stripe.

That said, I knew of a couple of airports where the road was so close to the end of the runway that it was just waiting to happen. I heard a story about one where a plane left skid marks on the roof of a car that was going by (and probably in the driver's & pilot's pants)....

Runway 9 at KSSF is that way, though it now has a displaced threshold.
 
Am I doing my math wrong? With the road being 250ft. from the threshold, a 4deg. glide scope would put you at 17.5 feet over the road. Doesn't sound right, I probably screwed it up. That is not much clearance over traffic. Also, I don't know where the vasi lights are or what their angle is.

upload_2017-5-10_10-15-7.png
 
Wow, this is from google street view on highway 53:
upload_2017-5-10_10-20-21.png
 
Yeah...they may want to displace that threshold a bit. Using one's plane belly as a "primary landing device" is not a good idea
 
If I'm not mistaken, 4 degrees is kind of on the steep side for a normal approach. I'm not instrument rated, but when I looked at the two instrument procedures it looks like both call for right at 3 degree approaches. I realize that you shouldn't be trying to land on the threshold, but 3 degrees at 250 feet back is only 13.1 feet! It seems like this may have been an accident waiting to happen.
 
Croomrider said:
If I'm not mistaken, 4 degrees is kind of on the steep side for a normal approach. I'm not instrument rated, but when I looked at the two instrument procedures it looks like both call for right at 3 degree approaches. I realize that you shouldn't be trying to land on the threshold, but 3 degrees at 250 feet back is only 13.1 feet! It seems like this may have been an accident waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
Yea, 3 deg. to the numbers is still just under 20 ft. at the white line of the traffic lane.
 
Capture.JPG

This is the Google street view of the Watts-Woodland airport. It feels like you're scraping the tops of cars when you land there. I'm surprised something like that hasn't happened here yet.
 
What's the AFD say re the road?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We lost a pilot a few years back (2011?) at 61D to the trailer of a UPS or FEDEX truck. I saw the very small burning pile next to the highway.....

61D was my home airport when I was training for my PPL. Big pucker factor there some days gave me a habit of setting up steep approaches.
 
This is a serious concern at 20N, Kingston-Ulster.
You come over the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge on the elevated portion of the road and the runway is right there.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9806111,-73.9594401,791m/data=!3m1!1e3
(Sorry, this browser won't let me post photos)

Shooting engine out approaches gets serious when an over-size load is coming at you.
 
Good to see that pic of the trooper writing that misbehaving truck driver a ticket.
 
Sac Arrow said:
View attachment 53439

This is the Google street view of the Watts-Woodland airport. It feels like you're scraping the tops of cars when you land there. I'm surprised something like that hasn't happened here yet.
Click to expand...

I always shoot high there for that same reason. Thankfully with the Maule now, it's not a big issue... but that used to be on my daily commute and I always wondered if my F-250 would get rubber marks on it some day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
chartbundle said:
Lodi, 1O3, is also nice: https://goo.gl/maps/WkHLfVijQFx I think the threshold is displaced enough, but I haven't done the math.
Click to expand...

1O3 is kind of a mindfcuk the first time... by the time you realize you crossed highway 99, you forget about it shortly thereafter while the skydiving caravan takes off on the intersecting runway... then once you recover from that you get to ride the hills to the second taxiway.

O20 is a much better choice for Lodi flying...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
exncsurfer said:
Am I doing my math wrong? With the road being 250ft. from the threshold, a 4deg. glide scope would put you at 17.5 feet over the road. Doesn't sound right, I probably screwed it up. That is not much clearance over traffic. Also, I don't know where the vasi lights are or what their angle is.

View attachment 53434
Click to expand...
Your math is correct.
 
Croomrider said:
If I'm not mistaken, 4 degrees is kind of on the steep side for a normal approach. I'm not instrument rated, but when I looked at the two instrument procedures it looks like both call for right at 3 degree approaches. I realize that you shouldn't be trying to land on the threshold, but 3 degrees at 250 feet back is only 13.1 feet! It seems like this may have been an accident waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
Four degrees isn't all that steep for a VFR arrival.
 
kkoran said:
Four degrees isn't all that steep for a VFR arrival.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't that four degrees is too steep, but that it's on the steeper side of normal. With the two published instrument procedures for that runway being right at 3 degrees, you would kind of expect that to offer better clearance than it does. I'm sure it will come down to being the pilot's fault as he could have, and should have, been higher over the road. However, the point I was trying to make is, that I can understand how a pilot could be fixating on the runway on short final, an easily not notice he is a few feet too low over the road. In my opinion, the threshold should be displaced a little farther!
 
Croomrider said:
My point wasn't that four degrees is too steep, but that it's on the steeper side of normal. With the two published instrument procedures for that runway being right at 3 degrees, you would kind of expect that to offer better clearance than it does. I'm sure it will come down to being the pilot's fault as he could have, and should have, been higher over the road. However, the point I was trying to make is, that I can understand how a pilot could be fixating on the runway on short final, an easily not notice he is a few feet too low over the road. In my opinion, the threshold should be displaced a little farther!
Click to expand...

Aren't most VASIs for instance set at 3deg?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Aren't most VASIs for instance set at 3deg?
Click to expand...

It does seem that is the preferred angle, but a quick search in my area revealed a couple of runways at 3.4 and 3.8 degrees.
 
Bobanna said:
Sure, the "standard" probably is 3 deg +/-, but remember that the vasi, papi are not located at the exact runway threshold, but further down near the touch-down zone.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, the guy obviously screwed up and was too low. I just have some sympathy for him, and am glad that no one was hurt.
 
Croomrider said:
Yes, I know, the guy obviously screwed up and was too low. I just have some sympathy for him, and am glad that no one was hurt.
Click to expand...

I thought the point was the geometry was such that he could have been on a 3deg pretty standard glideslope at that airport (i.e. not a screw up) and still hit the truck?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A good question is - for VFR runways (we know IFR ones are regulated) does the FAA or anyone have any hard rules at all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I thought the point was the geometry was such that he could have been on a 3deg pretty standard glideslope at that airport (i.e. not a screw up) and still hit the truck?
Click to expand...

I don't think he could have hit the truck if he was on the 3 deg path from the expected touchdown point down the runway, where they usually put the PAPI's. However, I don't think that would apply if you calculate it from the threshold.
 
Croomrider said:
I don't think he could have hit the truck if he was on the 3 deg path from the expected touchdown point down the runway, where they usually put the PAPI's. However, I don't think that would apply if you calculate it from the threshold.
Click to expand...

True. However this runway doesn't have any touchdown markings, just the threshold. I bet a lot of pilots on a short VFR runway aim for the threshold. Just seems like the group has pointed out a number of airports where it's a little like Russian roulette :-o

You make a good point that a vasi is set back to bring you to a touchdown zone maybe 500? feet down the runway...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Croomrider said:
The entire length of that runway is definitely not usable. It's probably really only practical for STOL planes, or daring highly skilled pilots!
Click to expand...


I went in there years ago in a 152. First and last time... I believe I've heard it's closing tho


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top