Harrison Ford lands on a taxiway @ SNA

Ryanb said:
I find it hard to believe anyone who is in their correct state of mind would mistake that small piece of pavement for a runway, especially somebody who frequents the area like him. :no:
Click to expand...

My crappy Google Maps measuring skills put the width ratio of Charlie (37') to 20L (75'), at the exact same 50% ratio of 20L (75') to 20R (150').

The Husky Aviat wingspan is 35'.

But I hear you.
 
There is no touchdown markings, maybe we need special higher visible markings, like taxi written at various places.
 
Only thing I can think is one could mistake the "L" in "20 L" as a "C", as in "20 C", leaving taxiway Charlie to be the presumed "20 L". Not saying that makes sense, or excuses him, but fixation causes unusual responses at [unfamiliar] airports.
 
PaulS said:
Hmmm, 74 years old, some act and think like they are 34, some unfortunately begin to have cognitive issues. Sticky subject, but I hope Harrison gets thoroughly checked out before he flies again, that could have been a huge disaster.
Click to expand...

Having just recently worked with him...this was my first thought as well. I don't need to go into details as I like and respect the guy, but age is showing mentally.

Been to SNA a few times... that is a tough mistake to make if he either landed on Charlie or landed on Bravo with a 20L clearance.
 
A busy class charlie airport like Orange County CA, especially with parallel runways, just isn't the best place for some of us to fly.

Compare to a typical sleepy untowered local airport -- it would be harder to mistake a taxiway for a runway, and if you did probably nobody would notice or care.
 
I don't understand what the big deal is. Those Aviat Husky's can land just about anywhere from what I hear. He was doing everyone a favor by not using the runway.
 
teejayevans said:
There is no touchdown markings, maybe we need special higher visible markings, like taxi written at various places.
Click to expand...

Sticking with the theme, someone's already thought of that.

IODLHQL.gif


jg7985.png
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
This is why no matter what situation I ever get in, I always have my fallback. key the mic and say there's a bee in the cockpit. I think anybody will forgive you for anything if there's a bee in your cockpit.
Click to expand...
 
Jim_R said:
True story: At the start of my IFR check ride, just as we're crossing the departure threshold on climbout, a bumblebee pops out from under the glareshield and starts buzzing around my DPE. He COMPLETELY FREAKS. Starts screaming and swinging away at the bee with his paperwork. Yells at me to declare an emergency because he's allergic, and to get back down on the ground NOW! NOW! NOW!! I concentrate on flying the plane and start making the pattern to land (I'm not going to declare; it's an untowered field and ATC's not going to be able to do anything for me), all the while with the DPE flailing and yelling next to me.

He finally gets a good enough whack on the bee to knock it onto the floor, where he proceeds to Fred Flintstone it to death. I swear I thought the dude was going to bang a hole through the floorboard with his foot!

The rest of the check ride was pretty uneventful, after that....
Click to expand...
Could we say that he, uh, "freaked out"?
 
ChemGuy said:
Han Solo gets a 709 ride. Where was Chewie when he needed him?
Click to expand...
One can only hope that the 709 examiner wears a Wookiee costume.
 
Pretty simple....he's used to flying into OSH every year for EAA and thought taxiways and runways are interchangeable.
 
I figured out the problem:

Harrison Ford should of used his autopilot...but instead, he was flying by Han(d), Solo.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
Am I the only one who doesn't give a **** about this? A pilot landed his plane on a taxiway, no one injured, no one dead, no damage to property. Just because he is on the tv sometimes doesn't make this a story.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that's not a reason to blow it off. What if he hadn't seen that airliner and clipped the airliner's tail? What if he didn't see another plane on that taxiway doing that taxi thing and plowed into it? Sure, IF IF IF, but the fact remains he operated an aeroplane in a careless and reckless manner IMO, and landed on a taxiway when he was cleared by the tower to land on a runway.
 
mscard88 said:
Maybe, but that's not a reason to blow it off. What if he hadn't seen that airliner and clipped the airliner's tail? What if he didn't see another plane on that taxiway doing that taxi thing and plowed into it? Sure, IF IF IF, but the fact remains he operated an aeroplane in a careless and reckless manner IMO, and landed on a taxiway when he was cleared by the tower to land on a runway.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with the earlier comment. We all make mistakes. In this case, no one was injured so it's an opportunity for the powers that be to take a closer look.
 
mscard88 said:
Maybe, but that's not a reason to blow it off. What if he hadn't seen that airliner and clipped the airliner's tail? What if he didn't see another plane on that taxiway doing that taxi thing and plowed into it? Sure, IF IF IF, but the fact remains he operated an aeroplane in a careless and reckless manner IMO, and landed on a taxiway when he was cleared by the tower to land on a runway.
Click to expand...
what if an alien spacecraft crashed into the airliner? what if he hit a light pole and then people couldn't see? what if there was a parade on the runway and he didn't see them? blah blah blah

all this what if crap get s us nowhere.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
what if an alien spacecraft crashed into the airliner? what if he hit a light pole and then people couldn't see? what if there was a parade on the runway and he didn't see them? blah blah blah

all this what if crap get s us nowhere.
Click to expand...
but....what if you didn't say dat? :confused:
 
This happens at LNK more often than one can imagine. There are two runways 18/36 and 17/35 with a fair amount of space between them. 18/36 is twice the length or more.

People know there are two runways and for some reason never spot 18/36. So they think 17/35 is 18/36 and proceed to land on taxiway alpha.

Airport authority painted all kinds of non standard markings on it to try to prevent it from occurring again. They then had to remove all those non standard markings...as they were confusing the hell out of people.

Anyhow...has happenend so much...the controllers explain the arrangement on the ATIS and to all the arriving pilots now.

Interesting thing is that it's always a multi thousand hour pilot that makes the mistake. Pilots that have made countless landings at the airport. They already know about the problem and still they somehow manage to land on the taxiway.

The brain does funny things.
 
My problem with Harrison is that he saw an airliner in his path as he was landing, if we disregard the taxiway issue. He should have gone around, something is wrong, hopefully the FAA will check ride him and make sure he is safe, landing over the top of an airliner is very poor situational awareness and just generally poor decision making. I hope he is ok, but were I one of his loved ones I would be very concerned. That conversation to take the key away is a tough one, especially if the lights have dimmed and they don't realize it.
 
kayoh190 said:
Interesting. He's been in and out of SNA many many times, so it's not like he's unfamiliar.
Click to expand...
That is one thing I was wondering. In that case, I don't think he can use the "unfamiliar" excuse. I wonder what the FAA will do with him. He is a celebrity and all but ... you know ... the FAA is ... um ... "the gummint".
 
BigBadLou said:
That is one thing I was wondering. In that case, I don't think he can use the "unfamiliar" excuse. I wonder what the FAA will do with him. He is a celebrity and all but ... you know ... the FAA is ... um ... "the gummint".
Click to expand...
No worries wit dat....I bet Mr. Ford and the gummint at the FSDO are on a first name basis.....:D
 
AggieMike88 said:
Talk about a distraction.... That story makes dropped pencils and sectionals tossed into the back seat pretty tame.
Click to expand...
I sure thought that it would turn out to be a "reasonable distraction during critical phase of flight" too. I know those dropped pencils well. :)
But this one takes the cake for sure. :)
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
No worries wit dat....I bet Mr. Ford and the gummint at the FSDO are on a first name basis.....:D
Click to expand...
You mean like:
Inspector: "C'mere Harrison, wacha do this time??"
H.F.: [hangs head low, quietly] "I landed on a taxiway, sir"
Inspector: "Well now now, what did we talk about last time? No landing on ..."
H.F.: "... taxiways, sir".
Inspector: "Thas raht, now go and sin no moh!"
H.F.: [upbeat] "Yessir!"
:D
 
He's been a great ambassador for GA, but the last plane he flew without incident was the Millennium Falcon.
 
mscard88 said:
but the fact remains he operated an aeroplane in a careless and reckless manner IMO,
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say reckless. Careless, sure. But unless he intentionally landed on the taxiway, this doesn't rise to the level of recklessness.
 
PPC1052 said:
I wouldn't say reckless. Careless, sure. But unless he intentionally landed on the taxiway, this doesn't rise to the level of recklessness.
Click to expand...

The Part 91.13 FAR uses both terms that's why I wrote it as such.


Sec. 91.13

Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
 
mscard88 said:
The Part 91.13 FAR uses both terms that's why I wrote it as such.


Sec. 91.13

Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Click to expand...

Granted, either one will meet the threshold of 91.13. But they are typically distinct terms with different meanings. (Note the word "or" between "carless" and "reckless.") Reckless is worse than careless. It implies a knowing or conscious disregard of substantial and/or unjustifiable potential consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top