C172 versus Volvo SUV @ Northwest Regional

[FlyerQ]

Are you SERIOUS?

So if I come to a PUBLIC ROADWAY that has a railroad crossing marked with just a sign, not with the lights and bars (BTW, there is just such a crossing on my way to my airport), and I roll through that crossing and get hit you are going to blame the TRAIN????? After all, me and my pickup have the RIGHT to be there, right?

How much have you had to drink before posting this? You either had too much booze or too little coffee.

There is no doubt the SUV should not have been there. There is no doubt the aircraft was ~4ft agl 20 feet before the beginning of a 400ft displaced threshold.

Only the student knows if he planned to add a bit of power and drag it to the threshold and/or the flap setting was intentional. Easy to check if the landing light works, but it could have been damaged in the incident.

If there was a way to know the outcome had the Volvo not entered the approach area I'd bet we'd be talking about a nervous student making a lousy approach after failing to properly handle landing check lists items and touching down way short of the displaced threshold.

So, I have to call it the autos fault with a poor approach contributing.

 

[wabower]

I'd be willing to bet that both CFI's will testify they had never seen that approach profile used by the student during training. And would be somewhat surprised if the student didn't echo those sentiments.

This is going to be a fun one for the lawyers to be sure. There are several different type of fault, one of which will be the legal one. Another is the operational error that caused a pilot to put himself in a situation where he could be hit by an inattentive driver. The pilot was doing a pretty lousy landing from what we can see. He should not have been that low at all. His CFI is going to also have some fault on him for most likely a training deficiency of the student. Then there is the people who let a road be built that freakin' close to an active runway where anyone could drive on it! I see lots of blame to go around for a lot of people in this situation. But the bottom line is that no one was seriously hurt. So that is the good news.

 

[Henning]

There are specific rules, signage and laws that define the right of way at railroad crossings (iirc while you are on the crossing, you are on 'private property' owned by the railroad, not a 'public roadway') There is a regular POAer whose job is to investigate on behalf of the railroads when 'trespassers' get creamed by trains, he may be able to contribute the specifics.

It actually goes further when you are on railroad property, you are on sovereign soil. A regular cop cannot arrest you from the railroad tracks without the RRs permission.

 

[Henning]

People, it was a student pilot on an early solo, not a freaking ATP with 200 pax. He got low on the approach, it happens, doesn't mean he planned on landing short.

 

[bbchien]

Deer get a pass if they can prove they can't read.

$40,000 and not a penny more!

 

[Old Geek]

Re: Dramatic footage shows plane hitting car

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.

This.

 

[wabower]

Oh yeah? I've seen lots of apprehensions in various rail yards on the ATSF, the guy with the badge and the gun always seemed to have the last word. Not sure how and when they got permission, but the guys with the brown sacks and peed-in pants seemed to lose every round.

It actually goes further when you are on railroad property, you are on sovereign soil. A regular cop cannot arrest you from the railroad tracks without the RRs permission.

 

[Henning]

Oh yeah? I've seen lots of apprehensions in various rail yards on the ATSF, the guy with the badge and the gun always seemed to have the last word. Not sure how and when they got permission, but the guys with the brown sacks and peed-in pants seemed to lose every round.

Are you sure it wasn't RR police? They have their own cops.
Non RR police, they have to attain permission either in contract or a call. When I worked for Sperry Rail I managed to keep out of a ticket for drinking a beer in public in Utah as I walked the tracks back to the Sperry car with a 12 pack. A cop pulled up alongside the tracks and said "come here", "No thanks, I'll stay here on the tracks." there was still a cop waiting for me to get off that car when we pulled out in the morning.

 

[docmirror]

It actually goes further when you are on railroad property, you are on sovereign soil. A regular cop cannot arrest you from the railroad tracks without the RRs permission.

That there is some kind of funny shyte.

me: "Nana - you can't touch me, I'm standing on RR property!"

 

[Henning]

That there is some kind of funny shyte.

me: "Nana - you can't touch me, I'm standing on RR property!"

It only works when you have RR permission to be there. A phone call is all it takes for them to either get authority or to get the RR police on site. Luckily I happened to be working and living on the tracks when I did it.

 

[Morne]

Only the student knows if he planned to add a bit of power and drag it to the threshold and/or the flap setting was intentional.

Did you watch the video with the sound on? Did you not hear the addition of power prior to the collision? He was adding juice, probably not because he saw the SUV but because he saw he was low.

As to the comments about displaced thresholds and aiming for them - yes that works. But the glide slope they use to calculate that is not regulatory for the pilot. They can't tell you that you have to fly VFR 20:1 or whatever because different airplanes have different landing configurations. ILS glide slopes are different, of course, but this airport lacks one of those.

Heck, in my PPL training we were taught a glide slope MUCH steeper than any of the local VASIs (training field had no VASI and was much shorter than this). I didn't even realize it until we went to an airport with a VASI for the first time and I watched it go from all white to red/white and lastly to all red just before I hit the numbers.

The PILOT had a clear line to the runway. He was adjusting power to compensate for his shallow approach. Then some "AVIATION ENTHUSIAST" ran into him after not stopping and looking as advised by the signage.

 

[Jaybird180]

PTS standards (for short field for example) only require that the touchdown is marked where the wheels touch pavement. The pilot can legally hover 1 micron above the surface as long as there is no wheel to pavement contact.

I'd be interested in what color the roadway warning signs are. I'll guess that they're yellow with black lettering...meaning they're advisory only but become regulatory (and enforeceable) if you have an incident (just like advisory speed limits or curvy road signs).

The SUV driver broke the law. The student pilot is only guilty of a few 'best practice' piloting items (runway direction, landing light, flaps, glideslope).

However if either the driver or pilot would have changed any 1 element of the accident chain, it wouldn't have happened. Unfortunately for the SUV driver, it I were on the jury he'd be paying for an airplane.

Are you sure it wasn't RR police? They have their own cops.
Non RR police, they have to attain permission either in contract or a call. When I worked for Sperry Rail I managed to keep out of a ticket for drinking a beer in public in Utah as I walked the tracks back to the Sperry car with a 12 pack. A cop pulled up alongside the tracks and said "come here", "No thanks, I'll stay here on the tracks." there was still a cop waiting for me to get off that car when we pulled out in the morning.

....and the rest of that story???

 

[jtheune]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that since it was a early solo flight the plane handles differently without the ballast in the left seat. While the video does not show much beyond the last few seconds of the flight it's very possible that he was too high and then correctly too much and become lower then he should have. He was a student not a experienced pilot.

 

[Jaybird180]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that since it was a early solo flight the plane handles differently without the ballast in the left seat. While the video does not show much beyond the last few seconds of the flight it's very possible that he was too high and then correctly too much and become lower then he should have. He was a student not a experienced pilot.

Solo XC. This student has flown the plane sans CFI many times before. No reprieve there...he's still required to demonstrate mastery of landing the airplane. The CFI will probably be questioned about the training provided.

 

[FlyerQ]

Did you watch the video with the sound on? Did you not hear the addition of power prior to the collision? He was adding juice, probably not because he saw the SUV but because he saw he was low.

Not sure of your point? I said the approach was poor and contributory while noting we don't know what the pilot was thinking.

This approach was only contributory because someone drove in front of the low airplane - but being low was a link in the chain.

Pilots make mistakes, students make them more often, and safety is increased by widened margins. The SUV narrowed a margin the student needed at that moment.

 

[docmirror]

Well, it's been about 5 months since I drove in, but last time I was there, the sign had blown or fallen down, and the "stop" lettering on the ground with the white line was pretty faded. I'm guessing the sign and markings are being redone right now. Not sure about the regulatory aspects of having a stop sign or markings on a private road, which is used for public access. Kelly drive is private as far as I know, so that could make the owner of the road partially liable as well.

Only thing I'm sure of is that the plane has the 'right of way' on all the air above Kelly road, and that as long as the pilot was in the process of landing or taking off(he was) he can enforce that right of way to the exclusion of all other traffic, whether it's a ped, bike, car, truck. Not sure about the boat or train, but it would be an interesting question of law.

 

[wabower]

Not in Borger, Woodward, Canadian and other burgs along the high rail, at least not during the four summers I worked there as a brakeman.

Are you sure it wasn't RR police? They have their own cops.
Non RR police, they have to attain permission either in contract or a call. When I worked for Sperry Rail I managed to keep out of a ticket for drinking a beer in public in Utah as I walked the tracks back to the Sperry car with a 12 pack. A cop pulled up alongside the tracks and said "come here", "No thanks, I'll stay here on the tracks." there was still a cop waiting for me to get off that car when we pulled out in the morning.

 

[timwinters]

Only thing I'm sure of is that the plane has the 'right of way' on all the air above Kelly road, and that as long as the pilot was in the process of landing or taking off(he was) he can enforce that right of way to the exclusion of all other traffic

Why? It's not part of the airport. It's private property separate from the airport. Do I have the ROW over the farm equipment planting in the field at the approach end of RWY30 at my airport? If I hit a tractor in the middle of a farm field 400' from our threshold am I in the right?

I'm not excusing the driver of the SUV for not stopping (if he was familiar with the area and it was well marked) but I'm definitely not giving the pilot a free pass either.

In the interview the couple did contradict each other, which in the eyes of a court, could prove guilt. The man said, "I looked to the left and saw him. He couldn't have been more than 10 feet away, and I thought, wow, he's a little low" Then the lady said, "We couldn't see anything, at all. then all of a sudden equipment was falling into the car." (This was confirmed by my lawyer who just watched it. He said that contradiction alone could cinch it.

He was on the side that the airplane was approaching from, she was on the opposite side...not necessarily a contradiction...but rather he had the "room with a view" she didn't. Playing the video in court should be all that's required to dispel the "contradiction".

 

[docmirror]

Why? It's not part of the airport. It's private property separate from the airport. Do I have the ROW over the farm equipment planting in the field at the approach end of RWY30 at my airport? If I hit a tractor in the middle of a farm field 400' from our threshold am I in the right?
.

Because. I already stated the reason. The pilot was in the process of landing. I'm sure you can find an egregious example of a plane passing so low over the land, claiming to be in the process of landing that it will become ridiculous, but for this case, with this set of circumstance it's clear to me that the plane is in the right, no matter the altitude.

 

[Henning]

PTS standards (for short field for example) only require that the touchdown is marked where the wheels touch pavement. The pilot can legally hover 1 micron above the surface as long as there is no wheel to pavement contact.

I'd be interested in what color the roadway warning signs are. I'll guess that they're yellow with black lettering...meaning they're advisory only but become regulatory (and enforeceable) if you have an incident (just like advisory speed limits or curvy road signs).

The SUV driver broke the law. The student pilot is only guilty of a few 'best practice' piloting items (runway direction, landing light, flaps, glideslope).

However if either the driver or pilot would have changed any 1 element of the accident chain, it wouldn't have happened. Unfortunately for the SUV driver, it I were on the jury he'd be paying for an airplane.


....and the rest of that story???

The road is a private road, no law to be broken. No law needs to be broken for an accident to occur and this one will never see a jury, it'll probably be a closed file by tomorrow afternoon if not today; Volvo insurance writing checks as fast as possible before someone calls a lawyer.

From an insurance perspective they lucked out and they know it, a bit of property damage and some light injuries. The property side of these claims is always the little number, the entire bill will likely be less than $100k and they want to close this file before it gets any bigger.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I'd be interested in what color the roadway warning signs are. I'll guess that they're yellow with black lettering...meaning they're advisory only but become regulatory (and enforeceable) if you have an incident (just like advisory speed limits or curvy road signs).

You can see them in the video.

If you can stomach the maroons in the video, you will see "stop" painted in white and the standard FAA stipe / dash markings to indicate the "movement" area (I think it was the single stripe / dash and not double, but I'm not going to watch again to find out). I suspect that the "road" is part of the airport property given the FAA style markings. Which makes this road no different than any other taxiway / ramp.

 

[Henning]

You can see them in the video.

If you can stomach the maroons in the video, you will see "stop" painted in white and the standard FAA stipe / dash markings to indicate the "movement" area (I think it was the single stripe / dash and not double, but I'm not going to watch again to find out). I suspect that the "road" is part of the airport property given the FAA style markings. Which makes this road no different than any other taxiway / ramp.

I think the road is an easement on the neighbors property to get to the hangars on the back side of the airport.

 

[PPC1052]

No doubt he was low on approach, no doubt his deck angle was too shallow, but he could have floated it down the displaced all the way to the threshold with a small amount of power.

The reason for the displaced threshold is not that the pavenment can't support the plane. It's because a descent that would have you land where the pavement starts isn't safe due to ground obstructions--like trees, or in this case, traffic on the access road. In this case, he descended to the point where he would have touched down at the begining of the pavement, which put him in conflict with ground vehicles. This is pilot error. Not to say that the driver of the SUV isn't at fault as well (or even mostly at fault) for not stopping. But you don't take that angle because you are at serious risk of hitting something when there is a displaced threshold.

 

[Henning]

Of course there was pilot error involved, he's a freakin student on a solo XC flight, the entire flight was was likely a string of managed errors; that's the learning process. That however does not negate the fact that the Volvo proceeded without looking.

 

[Funkeruski]

Pilot's fault. He was going to land on the displaced threshold if not in the grass. Dumbass.

I need to back off a little on my earlier statement. This guy was a student, and I know I made my fair share of mistakes when I was learning. There is enough fault to go around on this one. Glad everyone is ok.

 

[Jaybird180]

I need to back off a little on my earlier statement. This guy was a student, and I know I made my fair share of mistakes when I was learning. There is enough fault to go around on this one. Glad everyone is ok.

Why should student status change your opinion? Yes, give a student latitude, but maintain objectivity.

 

[Jaybird180]

Oh....I didn't see the dumbass part. I agree on taking that back (smile)

 

[docmirror]

The reason for the displaced threshold is not that the pavenment can't support the plane.

...In this case, he descended to the point where he would have touched down at the begining of the pavement, which put him in conflict with ground vehicles.

Um, please show me where I said the displaced threshold was due to the pavement not supporting a plane. Let me save you time, you can't find it.

Next, approach slope is not regulatory.

Finally, he was arresting his descent at the time of impact. You can no more predict where he would have touched down than you can predict who will win the election tomorrow. He was in conflict with ground vehicles, because the driver of the vehicle moved it in front of a PLANE LANDING.

I don't know how many other ways I can say this. The plane is on an approach to landing, and has right of way over all other movements in the environment. I will qualify that to say that it may not have exclusive right of way over trains, or possibly a ship, but we're not dealing with that case here.

 

[Jaybird180]

I have to add this point:

If I'd only read the threads on this topic and then read the news report, my opinion would be pilot at fault. The video evidence reversed my opinion.

 

[Henning]

I have to add this point:

If I'd only read the threads on this topic and then read the news report, my opinion would be pilot at fault. The video evidence reversed my opinion.

From the first article I read the fault was clearly on the car.

 

[weilke]

I don't know how many other ways I can say this. The plane is on an approach to landing, and has right of way over all other movements in the environment. I will qualify that to say that it may not have exclusive right of way over trains, or possibly a ship, but we're not dealing with that case here.

And I don't know in how many other ways I can tell you that you are wrong.

How far out does your 'universal right of way' for aircraft extend out ? 440ft, 1 mile ? Would it extend to the adjacent property owner mowing his pasture ?

The airliners landing at Logan in Boston have to give way to oceangoing vessels. I can't dig it up on my blackberry, but I am pretty sure that somewhere in part 91 is something about operating your aircraft in a manner that doesn't create undue hazard to folks on the ground.

 

[Katamarino]

The displaced threshold is there for a reason, this is it.

I think this bears repeating. To the people saying "Oh, I always float along the runway before the displaced threshold at two feet", why the heck do you think there is a displaced threshold there in the first place? Where is the limit; can an idiot student pilot fly at four feet for a mile before the runway because "He's landing and has right of way"?

 

[ClimbnSink]

From the first article I read the fault was clearly on the car.

Nope. The pilot flew into an obstruction adjacent to the airport. Pilots fault.

 

[PPC1052]

Um, please show me where I said the displaced threshold was due to the pavement not supporting a plane. Let me save you time, you can't find it.

Next, approach slope is not regulatory.

Finally, he was arresting his descent at the time of impact. You can no more predict where he would have touched down than you can predict who will win the election tomorrow. He was in conflict with ground vehicles, because the driver of the vehicle moved it in front of a PLANE LANDING.

I don't know how many other ways I can say this. The plane is on an approach to landing, and has right of way over all other movements in the environment. I will qualify that to say that it may not have exclusive right of way over trains, or possibly a ship, but we're not dealing with that case here.

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.

 

[Henning]

I think this bears repeating. To the people saying "Oh, I always float along the runway before the displaced threshold at two feet", why the heck do you think there is a displaced threshold there in the first place? Where is the limit; can an idiot student pilot fly at four feet for a mile before the runway because "He's landing and has right of way"?

I fly half the day at 2' off the ground. It's completely irrelevant to this, the car did not follow the restrictions and put itself right in front of an airplane. She'll be lucky if the pilot doesn't seek liability limits or higher suing her for the trauma.

 

[bluee]

My jaw dropped! Someone that stupid should not be allowed to drive.

 

[FlyerQ]

I fly half the day at 2' off the ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landspeeder ?

 

[HighFlyingA380]

My jaw dropped! Someone that stupid should not be allowed to drive.

This is why we need to get rid of stupid warning labels. Natural selection is needed.

 

[PPC1052]

It's funny how so many people on this site who are pretty educated about these issues reach vastly different conclusions from the same set of facts. This is why jury trials are both good and bad. Good in that it is the fairest way to resolve these disputes. Bad in that there is often little predictability. I disagree with some of the posters here, but certainly, they understand the issues, and place different weight on differing facts. It's hard to say anyone here is simply wrong. They just have differing opinions.

 

[wabower]

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?

If a semi instead of a SUV had been involved, would you still say it was the pilot's fault?

And I don't know in how many other ways I can tell you that you are wrong.

How far out does your 'universal right of way' for aircraft extend out ? 440ft, 1 mile ? Would it extend to the adjacent property owner mowing his pasture ?

The airliners landing at Logan in Boston have to give way to oceangoing vessels. I can't dig it up on my blackberry, but I am pretty sure that somewhere in part 91 is something about operating your aircraft in a manner that doesn't create undue hazard to folks on the ground.