Plane hits car or car hits plane?

The car should know better while inside the airport fence.
 
I cant believe this is back in popularity. With the displaced threshold where it was that aircraft should have been well over 50 feet in the air still.
 
There is a thread about this. It was started when this happened a few years ago.

Now that a few years have gone by, I would like to know what happened here. I believe the auto was at fault and their insurance should have paid up. But how many policies cover hitting an airplane? The cost of fixing this compared to a car is enormous. Imagine telling someone you hit an airplane in your car. It sounds like some of the stories I have told. Unbelievable. But believe it for it did happen.
 
NJP_MAN said:
I cant believe this is back in popularity. With the displaced threshold where it was that aircraft should have been well over 50 feet in the air still.
Click to expand...

Not much margin for error. Here is what the FAA stated:

a standard runway glide path angle is 3 degrees; however, the glide path angle may be up to 4.5 degrees if necessary for obstacle clearance. The calculated glide path height above the roadway, considering a 165-foot distance between the displaced runway threshold and the edge of the roadway, would be 8.6 feet and 13.0 feet for a 3-degree and a 4.5 degree glide path, respectively.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/11/dramatic-footage-shows-plane-hitting.html
 
1600vw said:
There is a thread about this. It was started when this happened a few years ago.

Now that a few years have gone by, I would like to know what happened here. I believe the auto was at fault and their insurance should have paid up. But how many policies cover hitting an airplane? The cost of fixing this compared to a car is enormous. Imagine telling someone you hit an airplane in your car. It sounds like some of the stories I have told. Unbelievable. But believe it for it did happen.
Click to expand...

FAA faulted the pilot, the driver of the car, and the airport layout. Plenty of blame to go around on this one.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/11/dramatic-footage-shows-plane-hitting.html
 
Stingray Don said:
FAA faulted the pilot, the driver of the car, and the airport layout. Plenty of blame to go around on this one.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/11/dramatic-footage-shows-plane-hitting.html
Click to expand...


Thanks for the update.

In my eye's if they have this layout and they do, Its up to the auto traffic to not impede the flow of traffic in a landing pattern. It would be like approaching a 4 way intersection with a two way stop. No different. How I would have argued this. The auto ran the stop sign. Simple. In my eye's. But nothing is simple when government is involved. I still see it as the auto is at fault. Blame who you want. It was a 4 way intersection with a two way stop.
 
Because of this layout, thrush hold marker on that end of the runway should be moved down the runway some to avoid this happening again. The CFI's who train here should teach to stay high and land long when landing on that end. Training, comes down to Training. IMHO. I would tell each student, us pilots know we have right-of-way, but no driver or politician will see it that way. On every landing here act as if there is a car crossing that road at all times. Stay high land long.
 
1600vw said:
Thanks for the update.

In my eye's if they have this layout and they do, Its up to the auto traffic to not impede the flow of traffic in a landing pattern. It would be like approaching a 4 way intersection with a two way stop. No different. How I would have argued this. The auto ran the stop sign. Simple. In my eye's. But nothing is simple when government is involved. I still see it as the auto is at fault. Blame who you want. It was a 4 way intersection with a two way stop.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you. Great analogy with the two way stop. The plane should have right of way over the car. The pilot still could have landed a little long and avoided any potential conflict considering the 3500' runway length. Fortunate that no one was seriously hurt.
 
1600vw said:
Thanks for the update.

In my eye's if they have this layout and they do, Its up to the auto traffic to not impede the flow of traffic in a landing pattern. It would be like approaching a 4 way intersection with a two way stop. No different. How I would have argued this. The auto ran the stop sign. Simple. In my eye's. But nothing is simple when government is involved. I still see it as the auto is at fault. Blame who you want. It was a 4 way intersection with a two way stop.
Click to expand...
You should read the report. There was no stop sign. The NTSB said the layout and the car not stopping were contributing factors, but the student pilot was the primary cause. I do think there should be a lot more safety margin for training, and maybe that's the CFI's responsibility and not the airport. Hard to tell with a long lens, but it does look like the student was low. Maybe he was trying to land exactly on the numbers. Maybe that's what he was taught to do. If so, that's probably not a good idea there.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
Pretty much all of them. But the limits might not be enough.
Click to expand...

My point. My coverage will cover hitting a Lambo but my limits may not be enough. Why I said the cost to repair an airplane would be the factor. Not that the plan did not cover this. Just not enough of a plan for hitting a airplane.

As to the stop sign. I would say again, Yield right of way. The auto should have looked both ways before crossing. How I was taught to drive. But then again I was taught when you back up you turn your head by putting your arm over the seat and turning your head. Not sitting looking straight ahead as you back up looking out the mirrors. Training or lack of today. We need technology to do the looking for us. But this is another story.

My point, people live their life looking straight forward, then when something happens, they blame others. What happened to defensive driving and not driving with blinders on.

I asked on my FB page what the two second rule was. Not many knew. Training...
 
Last edited:
1600vw said:
My point. My coverage will cover hitting a Lambo but my limits may not be enough. Why I said the cost to repair an airplane would be the factor. Not that the plan did not cover this. Just not enough of a plan for hitting a airplane.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we are in agreement. In my line of work though, when someone asks if something is "covered," the question is whether the policy will pay for that loss at all. We would frame the issue you were apparently asking as whether the loss would be in excess of the policy. So, that's why I misunderstood your question.
 
I've seen several airports that have signs on nearby roads "watch for low flying planes". Maybe they should have had one here.
 
PPC1052 said:
Sounds like we are in agreement. In my line of work though, when someone asks if something is "covered," the question is whether the policy will pay for that loss at all. We would frame the issue you were apparently asking as whether the loss would be in excess of the policy. So, that's why I misunderstood your question.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
I dont think there is a rule in the driving laws that states yeid to flying aircraft. If that stop sign is on private roadway then it doesn't really mean anything. Like a stop sign in a parking lot.
 
Badger said:
I've seen several airports that have signs on nearby roads "watch for low flying planes". Maybe they should have had one here.
Click to expand...

The problem is that planes can be at any angle above the horizon, and any angle left to right, and any size. Drivers aren't generally familiar with plane spotting. Cars are always going to be at ground level, and almost always on the road, and people still will miss them.
 
Badger said:
I've seen several airports that have signs on nearby roads "watch for low flying planes". Maybe they should have had one here.
Click to expand...

These signs don't inform people to yield though. They are just warning drivers that it's possible to see low aircraft and it's perfectly normal for them to be this low near the posted sign.
 
When I was based at APG we had roads that crossed the approach path of the runways that had flashing lights and horns that warned you of approaching traffic. Oddly, I never saw them work. I think the control tower was responsible for activating them but I never saw them do so.
 
Stingray Don said:
I tend to agree with you. Great analogy with the two way stop. The plane should have right of way over the car. The pilot still could have landed a little long and avoided any potential conflict considering the 3500' runway length. Fortunate that no one was seriously hurt.
Click to expand...

The plane has the right of way in aviation, of course, because it is the less maneuverable vehicle. However, the person driving is likely not familiar with such rules. The pilot should have been looking for obstacles on the runway; deer/cows/birds meandering onto the runway are often reasons for balked landings, this should be no different.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
The plane has the right of way in aviation, of course, because it is the less maneuverable vehicle.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you come up with that. There's no such principle in air regulations. The category preference for right of way only enters into certain converging situations. While the rules have their history in the nautical law (as with much of aviation), they are SUBSTANTIALLY different.

Further, nothing in the rules says anything about airplanes vs. ground vehicles.
The NTSB squarely put the blame on the pilot.

I don't buy your argument anyhow. The aircraft is way more maneuverable than a car in my opinion. It's not constrained to a roadway or even the ground.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
The plane has the right of way in aviation, of course, because it is the less maneuverable vehicle. However, the person driving is likely not familiar with such rules. The pilot should have been looking for obstacles on the runway; deer/cows/birds meandering onto the runway are often reasons for balked landings, this should be no different.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, the pilot was a student, barely in control of the landing. The truck driver should have known better than to run a "STOP" sign at an airport with student pilots. Had there been no road traffic , he would have done well.

Cheers
 
See and avoid is the pilot's responsibility. When approaching an airport that is adjacent to a road, the pilot has the responsibility to watch for auto traffic as well as any obstruction on the runway. It is unreasonable to expect auto drivers to watch overhead or across an open field for oncoming traffic even when there is a sign.

I live on an airfield where the runway approach is crossed by a road. Everyone around knows that they must cross the road high enough to avoid a semi that may be crossing on the road. And, of course, as a pilot, we watch the road for traffic, too.
 
The Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices defines a STOP sign, what they look like, and where they should be used. It's pretty much what you'd expect, and it looks like this:

248815_340.jpg


The TMUTCD also says that "except at the ends of aisles in parking lots, the word STOP shall not be used on the pavement unless accompanied by a stop line (see Section 3B.16) and STOP sign (see Section 2B.05)." The Texas Transportation Code specifies what vehicles must do when approaching a STOP sign. The Transportation Code also defines who has the right of way and how vehicles must behave when approaching an unsigned intersection. But there is no intersection there.

There was no STOP sign. The car wasn't "crossing" anything. The road does not cross the runway, it passes beyond it. According to the NTSB, it's 165' beyond the threshold. The car was not obligated to stop. The NTSB said as much in finding that the accident was primarily the students fault:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: The student pilot's failure to maintain clearance from obstacles on the runway approach path. . . .

. . .

The roadway was marked with a faded "Stop" indication painted on the pavement at each side of the runway. However, there were no signs requiring drivers to stop or advising them of low flying aircraft.

. . .

The displaced threshold for the landing runway was located about 140 feet from the approach end of the runway. The roadway that crossed the extended runway centerline was located about 25 feet from the approach end of the runway pavement, about 165 feet from the displaced threshold.
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
I don't know where you come up with that. There's no such principle in air regulations. The category preference for right of way only enters into certain converging situations. While the rules have their history in the nautical law (as with much of aviation), they are SUBSTANTIALLY different.

Further, nothing in the rules says anything about airplanes vs. ground vehicles.
The NTSB squarely put the blame on the pilot.

I don't buy your argument anyhow. The aircraft is way more maneuverable than a car in my opinion. It's not constrained to a roadway or even the ground.
Click to expand...

14 CFR 91.113:
If the converging aircraft are of different categories, the least maneuverable aircraft has right-of-way (e.g., balloon has right-of-way over any other category).
Click to expand...
Would you like to retract your statement?

And you are right, it doesn't say anything about automobiles. But perhaps the pilot said to himself if/when he saw the car in a converging path, I am the landing aircraft, I have the right of way over all other aircraft, so this vehicle should give way also.

In this particular scenario, the plane was less maneuverable than the car. The car could easily have stopped, swerved, or sped up. At such a low speed and low altitude, the aircraft would not have been able to take many evasive actions. It could have increased speed but the result would likely not have been immediate enough. It could have increased altitude but you run the risk of stalling at an uncomfortably low altitude. And maybe you don't know this but I'll let you in on a little secret: Cessnas can't stop mid-air.

From what I can see, I agree with the NTSB, the pilot was at fault.
 
Flying my tail wheel low wing, I never would have seen that SUV, car, van, whatever it was.

I say land long and be safe in condition such as these and what this pilot should have been taught. Do not drag it in here. Bad idea.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
Would you like to retract your statement?
Click to expand...
No I do not. Your included snippet is INCORRECT. It is not nor has it ever been in 91.113. 91.113 doesn't say SQUAT about maneuverability. It mentions certain category preferences in certain situation.

It would behoove you to actually read the regulations rather than expounding on what you THINK they say.

Here's what 91.113 ACTUALLY says.

Sec. 91.113

Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.


(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories--
(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;
[(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.]
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.
(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to
make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft.​

Only in the case of aircraft converging at the same altitude other than head-on or nearly so does the category preference apply.

Note there's specific differences in the rules for aviation compared to nautical. For instance, the meeting head on is different. Further, the concept of a privileged (or stand on) vessel doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
No I do not. First off, your snippet doesn't contradict what I said. The category preference only appears in a certain case of convergence as your alleged quote says.

Furthermore, your included snippet is INCORRECT. It is not nor has it ever been in 91.113. 91.113 doesn't say SQUAT about maneuverability. It mentions certain category preferences in certain situation.
Click to expand...

https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=25&sID=103&preview=true Half way down the page, under "Rules of the Road."

It's paraphrased. Are you going to say the FAA is incorrect about paraphrasing their own regulations?

And were these two vehicles not converging?
 
NJP_MAN said:
I dont think there is a rule in the driving laws that states yeid to flying aircraft. If that stop sign is on private roadway then it doesn't really mean anything. Like a stop sign in a parking lot.
Click to expand...

I think that's a little presumptuous... STOP or any other warning sign is there for a reason... Someone for some reason posted a warning, in good faith, for either pedestrian or traffic safety... whether on private property or not, a prudent "intelligent" person would take advantage of the warning!
 
FlySince9 said:
I think that's a little presumptuous... STOP or any other warning sign is there for a reason... Someone for some reason posted a warning, in good faith, for either pedestrian or traffic safety... whether on private property or not, a prudent "intelligent" person would take advantage of the warning!
Click to expand...

The driver could have easily looked for traffic on the glidpath and saw no traffic existed. Not expecting the airplane be flying well below glide path. I would have never seen the plane. The displaced threshold was where it was for a reason. That reason being the hill and the road prior to the runway. The pilot botched the approach and in no way should have been 6 feet agl a thousand fee prior to the displaced threshold.
 
Here is a view of that end of the runway, which shows that fence, the road, and the threshold. The airport is 52F in Roanoke, TX. I don't know about a thousand feet from the threshold, but the pilot should have been a lot higher nonetheless. View attachment 43691
 
I was exaggerating with 1000 feet. But you get the idea. Additionally, a student pilot probably isn't practicing short field procedures and shouldn't even touch down near the threshold. That would make for the possibility of coming up short....
 
Last edited:
I don't know, I can't imagine how either the driver or the pilot didn't see the other one.
 
Sorry, Njp, that picture wasn't to refute anything you said, I was just showing a different view. I knew you were exaggerating.

I think it's entirely possible the pilot didn't see the van until it was too late to do anything, given how low he/she was. It looks like the plane is slightly nose-up over the fence, so I don't know if they could have seen the car from the left seat. I think I remember hearing it was the first solo, so who knows what his/her CFI said to focus on (end of runway, mid-point of runway, etc.).
 
Keith I know what you were getting at. I just agree with the FAA and I fault the pilot.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
It's paraphrased. Are you going to say the FAA is incorrect about paraphrasing their own regulations?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. They're clearly wrong. The regs don't say that and only talks about preference for gliders, balloons, and airships. One an argue maneuverability but I can tell you that an airship is in fact MORE maneuverable than many things it is given preference over. An airship can spin around on a dime. I can't do that with my airplane.

And were these two vehicles not converging?
Click to expand...

I never said they weren't. I was countering your incorrect statement, "The plane has the right of way in aviation, of course, because it is the less maneuverable vehicle." This is of course still wrong which you've already admitted:

1. The regulations don't say anything about airplanes having the right of way over ground vehicles.

and again

There is nothing in the regs or anything OFFICIAL from the FAA that says maneuverability enters into any of this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top