"Why did you pull out in front of an airplane ?"

[headspace]

Not to mention how most people would not think to look for death from above. I try to keep my eyes on the road when I'm driving.

 

[wfarrell1]

Not to mention how most people would not think to look for death from above. I try to keep my eyes on the road when I'm driving.

Yep, either way though, if this incident goes to court over who is responsible, I bet it will be an interesting one to watch them play the blame game.

 

[MilOperator]

Actually, since the van was on a private road (not airport property) and a driver is not trained to watch for "air traffic" BUT a pilot is trained (and responsible) for watching both air and ground traffic the blame is clearly the pilots. Plus, he (the pilot) was below the glideslope on approach meaning his aircraft was to low in relation to the runway so again, the pilot was at fault.

I don't know the airport that the accident happened at but I will take a look at the Jeppesen sectional charts and see just what altitude the aircraft should have been at when he crossed over the road. Unless the road was built after the airport and was illegally placed too close to the runway in which case the fault would be on the land owner. In most cases though the pilot is the one that has the responsibility for safely landing the aircraft and avoiding ground traffic.

That's why it takes many hours of flight time, thousands of dollars in lessons, fees, fuel etc. and all sorts of other red tape to get ones pilots license. As they say: "with much privilege comes responsibility."

I can tell you though in my years of flying that you can see 10 times more from the air than you can from the ground. The pilot was flying a high-wing plane so he had loads of visibility below and should have seen that van LONG before the van would have seen or heard him. From above you have a view of EVERYTHING below. The fact is that one major mistake was that he was way to low on approach.

 

[wfarrell1]

Actually, since the van was on a private road (not airport property) and a driver is not trained to watch for "air traffic" BUT a pilot is trained (and responsible) for watching both air and ground traffic the blame is clearly the pilots. Plus, he (the pilot) was below the glideslope on approach meaning his aircraft was to low in relation to the runway so again, the pilot was at fault. I don't know the airport that the accident happened at but I will take a look at the Jeppesen sectional charts and see just what altitude the aircraft should have been at when he crossed over the road. Unless the road was built after the airport and was illegally placed too close to the runway in which case the fault would be on the land owner. In most cases though the pilot is the one that has the responsibility for safely landing the aircraft and avoiding ground traffic. That's why it takes many hours of flight time, thousands of dollars in lessons, fees, fuel etc. and all sorts of other red tape to get ones pilots license. As they say: "with much privilege comes responsibility."

Im guess that road must of been there before..... I just can't see someone thinking it was a good idea to put a road there.....

 

[MilOperator]

OK, the airport is Northwest Regional Airport Dallas TX. The airport id is 52F. The accident happened on runway 17. That runway has a 3,500 foot runway with a 400 ft displacement. The approach ratio is 18:1. That means that the "touchdown" area of the runway was 400 feet beyond the part of the runway that you can see in the video. The plane was not even supposed to touch down within 400 feet of the runway's end. The plane should have been at an altitude of about 50-60 feet AGL (above ground level) when he passed over the fence. That pretty much says it all. The plane hit the car, NOT the other way around. That's just the plain facts. Flying is a real art because nothing is solid or set in stone. Airspeed is broken up into things like indicated airspeed, true airspeed and ground speed. Altitude is based on barometric pressure and based on sea level or ground level and so many other strange factors. Nothing is constant and everything is changing all the time. Having a road that close to a runway is a bad idea if it is gonna be used for students that (by the nature of being a student) make many mistakes. That's how you learn... from mistakes... but this one nearly killed a few people, so having a road that close to the runway in this case was a bad idea.

You can see some airport data here: http://skyvector.com/airport/52F/Northwest-Regional-Airport

 

[Mojo Rider]

OK..enough arguing about the accident...go full screen, crank up the speakers and enjoy these low flying planes.

 

[Teej]

This is the exact reason I don't want to flight instruct. Not only does this fall on the pilot that's flying but it'll blow back on the instructor as well. 100% pilot error, especially if there was any type of visual aid for landing( sometimes there's lights on the side of a runway to indicate if you are high or low on approach).

 

[MilOperator]

This is the exact reason I don't want to flight instruct. Not only does this fall on the pilot that's flying but it'll blow back on the instructor as well. 100% pilot error, especially if there was any type of visual aid for landing( sometimes there's lights on the side of a runway to indicate if you are high or low on approach).

I hear ya. That is the VASI lights (visual approach slope indicator) but they don't have them at that airport.

 

[LACamper]

I still say #3 was faked in the video.

I'd love to hear the tape of the driver calling his insurance agent!

 

[I_FLY_LOW]

Actually, since the van was on a private road (not airport property) and a driver is not trained to watch for "air traffic" BUT a pilot is trained (and responsible) for watching both air and ground traffic the blame is clearly the pilots. Plus, he (the pilot) was below the glideslope on approach meaning his aircraft was to low in relation to the runway so again, the pilot was at fault.

I don't know the airport that the accident happened at but I will take a look at the Jeppesen sectional charts and see just what altitude the aircraft should have been at when he crossed over the road. Unless the road was built after the airport and was illegally placed too close to the runway in which case the fault would be on the land owner. In most cases though the pilot is the one that has the responsibility for safely landing the aircraft and avoiding ground traffic.

That's why it takes many hours of flight time, thousands of dollars in lessons, fees, fuel etc. and all sorts of other red tape to get ones pilots license. As they say: "with much privilege comes responsibility."

I can tell you though in my years of flying that you can see 10 times more from the air than you can from the ground. The pilot was flying a high-wing plane so he had loads of visibility below and should have seen that van LONG before the van would have seen or heard him. From above you have a view of EVERYTHING below. The fact is that one major mistake was that he was way to low on approach.

It's not as easy to see out in certain areas of the plane, as you might think.
The SUV was in his blind spot, when he was on final approach.
He's sitting in the left seat of the aircraft, the SUV was coming in from his right, and beneath him.
He never saw it there, otheerwise he would have pulled up.
He never did.
Add to that, when your new, as he was, and his first solo, you have a bit of tunnel vision trying to make sure you get the plane to the runway, completing checklist, or whatever.
Like I mentioned before, he appeared to be too low.

 

[killdee]

I thought everything was big in Texas, except apparently airports. Amazing how biased people can be, where the aviation guy is instantly convinced the car puiled out in front of the airplane. I guess if the plane had been a couple feet lower, he could ask someone "Why did you build a fence in front of an airplane?"

 

[I_FLY_LOW]

 

[MilOperator]

It's not as easy to see out in certain areas of the plane, as you might think.
The SUV was in his blind spot, when he was on final approach.
He's sitting in the left seat of the aircraft, the SUV was coming in from his right, and beneath him.
He never saw it there, otheerwise he would have pulled up.
He never did.
Add to that, when your new, as he was, and his first solo, you have a bit of tunnel vision trying to make sure you get the plane to the runway, completing checklist, or whatever.
Like I mentioned before, he appeared to be too low.

You know, when I first saw the video the very first thought I had was "why didn't he ever pull up?" And honestly, you can see him wag the wings to his left at 0:27 (video time) and then he hits the van at 0:28. What that tells me is that he was thinking like a "driver" not a pilot because he turned the yoke to the left like one would do with a steering wheel. The rudder NEVER moved (from what I could see) so he was not using his feet just the yoke. The typical "oh ****" reaction of a driver when they are trying to avoid another car. Turning the yoke left is only going to bank the plane not turn the plane. You need the correct amount of rudder along with the yoke to turn. The reaction was to turn when it should have been to climb.

I can only think that what you said about "tunnel vision" is correct, but more like mental tunnel vision because he was most likely focusing on the airspeed indicator and other instruments and not giving equal time to visual cues.

Either way, I am glad everyone is ok and nobody got hurt or killed. I knew a guy that was killed a few years back when he came in to low at Lakefront New Orleans in a Cessna 310 and hit the seawall. He was a little below glideslope (to low but not by much) until the wind changed directions and he lost lift and fell like a rock. He was an experienced pilot with over 1,000 hours at the time. That's why I never act like a hot-shot when flying. I have a little over 2,600 hours logged now and I still double (and sometimes triple) check everything I do. It's not like a car when you can walk or a boat where you can swim to shore... so I try to take it very seriously every time. I have a rule of no talking (meaning small talk) in during landing and takeoff.

There is one thing worse then being a "new pilot" and that's being a cocky veteran pilot. Like the old saying by E. Hamilton Lee goes: "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots."

 

[I_FLY_LOW]

MilOp, what do you fly?
Private or commercial?

 

[MilOperator]

MilOp, what do you fly?
Private or commercial?

I fly private these days. Used to have a CPL but gave it up a few years back. PPL with instrument, multi-engine and some type ratings. How about you?