Interesting video...thanks Adam...

Steve M wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 7:37pm:



What scares me is how stupid are the people in the SUV that they do not stop to look to see if a plane is about to land ON THE RUNWAY....I just lost a little more faith in mankind.

hahahaha

"We didn't pull out in front of an airplane!"

"Yes, you did."

well, there goes all hope for the human race

wahubna wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 5:53pm:


The driver is not "driving across a runway". They are driving over an uncontrolled access road which is approximately 440ft from the marked (displaced) runway threshold. There were apparently warning signs, but no active control. You'd be relying on a person, who may or may not be an aviator, seeing and possibly hearing an aircraft on final approach. In a car with a radio, aircon/fan, etc, it'd quite easily drown out the noise of a light piston on final with a low-ish power setting. On my way to and from work I drive under short final of a runway with heavy light piston use. You can't always hear them coming.

Northwest Regional Airport, Roanoke, Tx. RW "17" threshold


Quote:



I have a lot of sympathy for the pilot. Due to the direction the SUV was travelling, combined with a student pilot probably working quite hard an concentrating on the runway ahead, it would have been almost impossible to stop the collision as he'd have been unsighted of his 1-2 o'clock low viewpoint. But what he was doing at that height (440ft from the displaced threshold, about 40-50ft from the beginning of the runway surface)? That is another matter, and probably one that his flight school and the airport management will have to answer. Use the full length of the tarmac = close the road. Use the road = use a displaced threshold, or put traffic control lights on the road.

Easy to attempt to apportion blame, but it's not as clear cut as people think.

Looking at what has been reported, I suspect the majority of the fault will be held by the airport and school; those involved were potentially the victims of bad procedures, on the ground and in the air.

Mictheslik wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 2:55pm:



It will make for a good insurance claim that will end up in the courts being argued that the aircraft was undershooting the runway, mind you, that's why we have an undershoot in the first place.....

Matt

C wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 3:12pm:


Yeah I have to agree with the airport layout issue. It sounds like the airport has repeatedly tried to resolve that issue but the owner of the drive is not being cooperative. Hopefully after this incident the owner of the drive will change their tune 

expat wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 4:02pm:


Both the pilot and vehicle occupants should sue. The airport can then sue the pilot for making a mess, who can in turn sue the flying instructor. The flying instructor can then sue the airport again.

Mictheslik wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 4:13pm:


That was an example, not a comparison! Solo, as opposed to dual, brings a different perspective too, pertinent to this incident.

Quote:


To quote the great Hercule Poirot, exactement, mon ami. A student can't be criticised if he is doing what he's been taught. Most students will do exactly what their instructor teaches them.

Quote:


So was he fit to be sent on his solo cross country?   Innumerable questions that could need answering!


The complex world of aviation.

In the airport world, which I work in, runway thresholds get displaced for a reason.  However I have seen plenty of pilots that will always shoot for the end of the pavement, and the result is...

alrot wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 10:43pm:




I don't have much sympathy for the acting PIC of the airplane... regardless of where the road is, if it crosses the approach path, you have to look for vehicle traffic not just ahead, but on either side. You have to look on downwind, on base, and on final. If the road is blocked at any time by the nose, you have to know what's there, or go around.
  As for the driver not heeding a stop sign or warning sign... well, I think it's pretty reasonable for a driver to expect the pilot of an airplane, which can move vertically a lot easier than a car, to be able to maintain adequate clearance, and to be using his aerial vantage point to look for them, whereas the driver has to look mostly ahead to follow a road.

Of course, it all gets easier if you descend a little more steeply- regardless of the view straight ahead, if you know your approach path will take you over the road at, say, 50 feet, you don't have to worry about cars. That approach looked too flat to me, just enough to hit a car on that road.

the saddest part of all is that the displaced threshold is there for overruns landing the other way, or for increasing the amount of runway for the takeoff roll. Not for landing on, as this pilot was trying to do. This displacement probably had something to do with the road, as well as obstacles beyond it.
So the pilot has no excuse, really.