kjwalker01
Pre-takeoff checklist
No question. I don't think the pilot saw the car, but the pilot put him/herself in the position of not being able to see the car.
Plane hits car or car hits plane?
- Thread starter brien23
- Start date
No question. I don't think the pilot saw the car, but the pilot put him/herself in the position of not being able to see the car.
NJP_MAN
Pattern Altitude
Agree. Even if the nose was lower I bet a first solo pilot was so fixated on the mission that he would have missed the incoming vehicle. I know I wasn't looking for cars on my first solo, I was too nervous.
SixPapaCharlie
May the force be with you
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,095
- Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
I don't know...
I have been driving for 20 some odd years and I make sure the train isn't coming before I cross the tracks. I don't have a conductor's license or know much about trains but I know I don't want to get hit by when when I am on their turf. I use my common sense to ensure that doesn't happen.
Whomever was pinned as being at fault is one thing.
The driver pulled out in front of a plane AT AN AIRPORT.
The driver knew he was at an airport.
This is my own conjecture but I watched an interview with the driver afterward.
I totally got the feeling this could easily have been a "Watch this, this guy is going to go right over the top of us!" situation.
I have been driving for 20 some odd years and I make sure the train isn't coming before I cross the tracks. I don't have a conductor's license or know much about trains but I know I don't want to get hit by when when I am on their turf. I use my common sense to ensure that doesn't happen.
Whomever was pinned as being at fault is one thing.
The driver pulled out in front of a plane AT AN AIRPORT.
The driver knew he was at an airport.
This is my own conjecture but I watched an interview with the driver afterward.
I totally got the feeling this could easily have been a "Watch this, this guy is going to go right over the top of us!" situation.
iflyvfr
Pattern Altitude
I am not convinced he would have seen the vehicle unless he was much, much higher - he was low however. Check this vid I took of a buddy's landing. On seeing the replay, it sure looked like they were going to collide, and the pax said he recoiled instinctively when he saw the truck, but the pilot never saw it and he was clearly quite a bit higher than this student when crossing the road.
Warning vid is 57 Mb, shaky and has my narrative, you've been warned!
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxRCx-rLC62NbG1XUnpfc21Lc1E
Warning vid is 57 Mb, shaky and has my narrative, you've been warned!
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxRCx-rLC62NbG1XUnpfc21Lc1E
S Joslin
Pre-takeoff checklist
I'm pretty sure that picture shows the displaced threshold as it exists today, not when the accident happen...There pretty much WASN'T a displaced threshold before the accident happen.
NJP_MAN
Pattern Altitude
I recall looking immediately after the thing happened and I saw a displaced threshold. Furthermore. Current pictures show now that they did away with the displaced threshold. I looked the day it went viral and I did see a DT
Last edited:
Lindberg
Final Approach
I've never been to 52F. But according to the NTSB report, the threshold was displaced 140' at the time of the accident, and had previously been displaced 400'. But the report also points out the private airport is not required to comply with FAA design requirements.
Even Public airports that don't serve air carriers (or otherwise are determined by the administrator need to do so) don't have to comply with FAA design requirements.
rachelk.tailwinds
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 345
- Display Name
Display name:
Rachel
Turning radius ≠ maneuverability. If a blimp and a P51 are headed straight on, there is absolutely no way the blimp will get out the way in time; hence, it is less maneuverable.
I'd be happy to pick this back up in PM when you learn how to understand rhetoric and have decided to quit quoting out of context, bud.
I have no interest in dealing with people who have to resort to ad hominem accounts to try to cover their incorrect understanding of the regulations.
You can try to spin it all the way you want but maneuverability is NEITHER in the regulations explicitly nor is it implied. A helicopter is easier to get out of the way than a P51, but airplanes have no preference over airplanes. A weightshift lsa has crappy maneuverability compared to just about anything but a free balloon and it is lumped in with airplanes and rotorcraft. There's no rhetoric, you're just wrong under both the letter of the regulation and practice.
You can try to spin it all the way you want but maneuverability is NEITHER in the regulations explicitly nor is it implied. A helicopter is easier to get out of the way than a P51, but airplanes have no preference over airplanes. A weightshift lsa has crappy maneuverability compared to just about anything but a free balloon and it is lumped in with airplanes and rotorcraft. There's no rhetoric, you're just wrong under both the letter of the regulation and practice.
1600vw
Pattern Altitude
At the private strip I live at. About one month ago the owner of the airpark told me he had a visit from an FAA inspector. They drove the runway and he was hit on many area's. He said the airpark owner will be getting a copy from the FAA or an official copy. There are a few tree's we must remove. But the big issue. They have the airpark classified wrong or something. This inspector wants hundreds of feet of tree's removed in a few different area's. I have not heard if the official papers from this man boss supports this. But my point. We have a private strip and the FAA seems to believe we need to follow some sort of guide lines or comply with some regulations.
tecprotb
Pre-takeoff checklist
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
@H.A.S.
I think Ron's right on this one. The FAA can suggest all they want. Your airpark is free to ignore those suggestions.
That was true of the little publicly owned grass strip I managed for a few years. The inspectors would come and tell us what was out of compliance. We were NOT bound to correct any of it. Now, if we ever wanted to be considered for an improvement grant then we had to be in compliance but as long as we didn't need fed money, we were free to take care of only those items we deemed necessary for safety.
One example: They wanted the crops backed off 100' from the edge of the runway. I only had the farmer backed off 40'...he was farming to within 10' when I began managing.
40' was ample for a strip that never saw anything but single engine aircraft and choppers. And the farm income helped to keep the airport open so I wanted as much as I could safely get!
I think Ron's right on this one. The FAA can suggest all they want. Your airpark is free to ignore those suggestions.
That was true of the little publicly owned grass strip I managed for a few years. The inspectors would come and tell us what was out of compliance. We were NOT bound to correct any of it. Now, if we ever wanted to be considered for an improvement grant then we had to be in compliance but as long as we didn't need fed money, we were free to take care of only those items we deemed necessary for safety.
One example: They wanted the crops backed off 100' from the edge of the runway. I only had the farmer backed off 40'...he was farming to within 10' when I began managing.
40' was ample for a strip that never saw anything but single engine aircraft and choppers. And the farm income helped to keep the airport open so I wanted as much as I could safely get!
Last edited:
1600vw
Pattern Altitude
When I spoke with the owner I asked him if this man thought we landed 747 here. Until we see the offical paper from the FAA we are not worrying about any of it. But this man had the field classified different then what this field was registered under to begin with. Does that surprise anyone. The Government got it wrong. But believe they are right. No they know they are right.
He's largely full of crap. The FAA is free to make "determinations" (and does when you send in the notice of construction). But unless they have designated your airport to have to meet the requirements of part 139 (unlikely for a private strip because compliance there goes way beyond cutting down a few trees), they have no authority to compel anything. The worst they can do is designate your field as "OBJECTIONABLE" and remove it (or mark it as such) from charts and other official publications.
1600vw
Pattern Altitude
My question would be, why did this inspection take place anyway. The only other time Dave told me this happened was when the place was built. That's a very interesting story, how this place came to be without him speaking one penny. But that is another story.
In almost 40 years this has never happened an inspection such as this. I wonder what caused this? As to fixed wing aircraft this place sat idle for 30 years. Only in the past 5 years has there been fixed wing traffic here or since I came along. Now we have a very small few who use this field. I say someone complained about something, but that is only an assumption.
Tony
Stingray Don
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
- Location
- Indianapolis, Indiana
- Display Name
Display name:
Stingray Don
In answer to the original question: They came together before they came from together.
1600vw
Pattern Altitude
I am amazed someone would put a road at the end of a runway. Or was it they put the runway at the end of the road? Either way...What were they thinking?
With an exception of a few ATC folks who came over for drinks I don't think our field has ever seen an FAA employee.
bluerooster
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,083
- Display Name
Display name:
shorty
Based upon that, the airplane was below glidepath. The SUV is less than 8.6 feet tall.
Know the guy. He knew the place well, lived right down the road.
They were thinking that they did not own the land on the other side of the fence.