Has anyone mentioned that a painted 'STOP' on the road is not taught or enforced by almost all DMVs in the conUS?

 

I haven't taken the time to look at almost all DMVs / BMVs etc... in the U.S.... and really what most do is irrelevant.

 

I took the time to look at the Texas Driver's Handbook ... I stated what I found somewhere in this thread.

 

the ONLY 3 traffic State Codes one can enforce in private property are DUI, Hit and Run and Reckless Driving.

 

Which are going to be misdemeanors and criminal (not civil) in nature...

Which are going to be misdemeanors and criminal (not civil) in nature...

 

Exactly...

Nearly every post "in denial" of the fact that the driver did not stop at the stop sign begins with or contains "what if"? The only relevant IF is that IF the driver had stopped EVEN IF he hadn't seen the aircraft, and goodness knows how he could have missed it?! .....the accident would not have happened. SAME as the car at the crossroads and the hundreds of people killed on railroad crossings every year. What's missing amongst all the critique of piloting, debate about road ownership, state and federal law and runway thresholds is common sense. To use common sense along side IF ....IF the vehicles should have unhindered passage along the road WHY is there a STOP SIGN painted on it?

 

I now await a flood of postings showing me stop signs in the road where no hazard exists :huh:

 

I would remind older readers and alert younger ones to the fact that the blame shifting and litigious nature of much of the so called logic in some of the arguments here nearly bought the US GA aircraft industry to an end in the 70's and 80's. Only when the federal government stepped in were the ridiculous claims against manufacturers halted and it again became viable for them to continue trading and developing aircraft. I doubt these cases are easy to find now but in broadest terms the courts were supporting claims against the GA manufacturers where the only connection between them and a loss was that a person or persons involved in a loss/accident/crime were actually in one of their machines at the time. About as logical as a bank suing Fords because a robber used a Ford car as a getaway vehicle ....but it happened and the courts were supporting these ludicrous claims. Defend that if you like but I have to tell you this side of the pond we all thought you'd "lost it" :fool:

 

As to those who think I don't see the bigger picture? Of course I do. There is just SO much that needs addressing because of this accident but that's closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. What happened happened. What undoubtedly needs doing as a result of that is a more interesting debate? But first I'd recommend you all read (if you haven't already) "The Naked Pilot" by David Beaty http://www.amazon.co...The Naked Pilot

 

When I got my PPL this book had just been published and soon after "Human Factors" was added to the PPL theory exams. But don't get too obsessed with the piloting aspect. ALL human beings in every activity are prone to the behaviours in this book and BTW I pulled some classic errors in my 14 years flying. Not bad enough to hurt anyone but enough for me to make sure that I never repeated the errors again. We all learn by our mistakes but some environments are less forgiving.

 

I'm sure the arguments that you've all put forward will be relentlessly pursued by those who stand to gain from this sad accident but I for one feel saddest that the pilot has been so shaken by the experience as to give up.

 

Anyone who learns to fly, and those of us who can't but live to simulate the experience on our PC's, do so because we share a common dream. A vast percentage of the human race regard flying as only for the birds and regard our dream as a sort of collective insanity at worst and an evil necessity of modern transportation at best. But if you have the dream how terrible to have it shattered so rudely?

 

Geoff

If the pilot would have gone around or flown the proper glidepath, the accident would not have happened. We can play this game all day long, Geoff. They BOTH could have done their part to avoid this mishap, but to solely blame the vehicle driver is just ridiculous.

 

This type of situation is played out EVERYDAY at TNCM and no one says anything. Vehicles aren't even instructed to make a full stop before crossing the approach path of the runway, even though that road is as close, if not closer, to the runway than this smaller airport. God forbid a jet aircraft lands short of the runway at TNCM and smashes into vehicles and tourists at the beach. Are they going to be called idiots as well?

 

BTW, I fold... I won't be commenting on this topic any longer because it's going around in circles and until the official NTSB report comes out, we are just speculating and it's getting boring. lol

 

*unsubscribed*

If the plane landed from the other direction it wouldn't have happened, and if the svu would have arrived a few seconds later it wouldn't happened and if the driver would have noticed the stop sign it wouldn' t have happened. and if the pilot would have seen the car than it wouldnt have happened alot of ifs but main point is the car failed to stop at the stop sign.

This type of situation is played out EVERYDAY at TNCM and no one says anything. Vehicles aren't even instructed to make a full stop before crossing the approach path of the runway, even though that road is as close, if not closer, to the runway than this smaller airport. God forbid a jet aircraft lands short of the runway at TNCM and smashes into vehicles and tourists at the beach. Are they going to be called idiots as well?

 

BTW, I fold... I won't be commenting on this topic any longer because it's going around in circles and until the official NTSB report comes out, we are just speculating and it's getting boring. lol

 

*unsubscribed*

If you look at the signs on the road at TNCM and read what they say ....and you don't think they'd be idiots to ignore them I have no further arguments. We're not on the same planet?

 

BTW no "street view" at that location but plenty of stills that show the signs clearly.

 

Of course you're right the NTSB will have a say but will that Federal body override any State or County law? Will the obvious necessary improvements to signage be made, barriers or lights erected and will any of that stop the stupidity of people who jump stop signs and railroad crossings or play "chicken"?

 

In any case I bring you back to "Common Sense". Would YOU have driven across an approaching aircraft? I would not.

 

Geoff

BTW no "street view" at that location

 

I posted one!

 

plenty of stills that show the signs clearly.

 

Show me one please.

 

In any case I bring you back to "Common Sense"

 

Common sense says I don't fly at the same altitude as a car is driving when over a road.

 

BTW, I fold... I won't be commenting on this topic any longer because it's going around in circles and until the official NTSB report comes out, we are just speculating

 

Sounds like a very good idea.

Gather that the red over red VASI lights and displaced threshold didn't mean anything to the pilot

 

I don't believe that the VASI light is on during Day time. I don't ever remember using the VASI light there to maintain my glide slop in day time. I do remember using it during night time

 

Like another poster said earlier, what if instead of an SUV, it was a cow standing in the middle of the road?

 

If the cow was capable of going at 40 miles an hr, the cow would have stopped for the STOP sign too.

 

:lol:

If the cow was capable of going at 40 miles an hr, the cow would have stopped for the STOP sign too.

 

You don't really know. Cows can be reckless (and restless too - see Gary Larson).

 

And I remember some time ago, beeing overtaken on the motorway by a big fat cow driving an SUV...but that's another story.

 

Bruno

Private road beyond airport boundary:

• Airport operator would not be responsible for design, installation, operation or maintenance of traffic control devices (signs, lights, roadway markings or gates) unless there was a contract with the owner of the road. Airport operator wouldn't even be able to control traffic or install controls on the road without permission from the owner of the property the road was on.
  
• Airport operator may have responsibility to locate runway a distance from the roadway that would result in aircraft on a reasonable glide slope clearing traffic on a roadway the airport operator didn't control. Since the displaced threshold was over 400 feet from the roadway IMO this had been accomplished.
  
• Possibility an aircraft so far below a reasonable glide slope to strike a vehicle would also be so low that terrain or vegetation would obstruct a motorist's view of the approaching aircraft.
  

Traffic controls on private property:

• In some jurisdictions failure to follow directions might not be subject to citations by government law enforcement officers, thus limited to civil liability between collision participants and any respective insurance companies. Civil jury verdicts might not be very predictable.
  
• Even on public roads law enforcement officers might not be able to cite drivers for offenses the officer doesn't personally witness.
  
• I'm not familiar with the climate in that part of Texas, but pavement markings alone certainly wouldn't be effective if there was snow or ice on the road. Road markings alone might not be adequate on a rainy night either, especially if the pavement markings are old or made with non-reflective paint.
  
• Probably little if any regulations/laws establishing standards for traffic controls on private roads. Any standards would probably be either completely voluntary or a condition imposed by a liability insurer.
  

I see little reason to blame the airport operator, a minor omission on the road owners part for inadequate traffic controls (should have at least had STOP signs and "Low Flying Aircraft" signs). While I see some negligence on the part of the SUV driver IMO by far the blame for this incident lies with the student pilot (and to the extent the "student" status the flight instructor) for inadequate altitude before reaching the airport grounds (well below glide slope).

I keep seeing this " below glide slope" and am scratching my head? This was not an Ils approach and as Manny who is familiar with the field mentioned no vasi in the daytime...

 

I was based at an airfield for 4 years that had an official 2500 ft. Runway but only 1800 usable with displaced threshold due to 50' trees on either end. My WWII carrier pilot instructor told me to fly my at the time my brand new (to me) Debonair the only way was to come no more than 5" over the trees, chop the power, dive at the displaced threshold, flare and hit the numbers-doing so correctly being able to stop just at end of the runway-there was no margin for error-glide slope-forget it-if you didn't dive over the displaced threshhod and plant it in the numbers you were going off the runway end.. He was right.... I would never do it now but for 4 years did it cause the hanger rent was 50% less-now I'd pay 50% more for a 5000' ft runway with an Ils.

Glide slope was never in the equation, vasi neither. If there had been a deer, airplane, or car a go around would have happened in a heartbeat-much sooner. Deer were always a possibly as was a guy that took pot shots with a gun at noisy airplanes he didn't like flying over his house...but that is another story.

AIM:

 

"It is a pilot’s inherent responsibility to be alert at all times for and in anticipation of all circumstances, situations, and conditions affecting the safe operation of the aircraft."

===========================

 

The bottom line Geof... you know you can basically do what you want to do for many things.

 

But once you have an accident or incident... the one thing you are going to have to do - justify why you were doing what you were doing to the FAA and the NTSB (and to your own conscience).

 

So you one day happen to clip the tops of those trees, or you slide off the end into the trees because your a wee bit fast or the grass wet or you landed slightly long... whatever...

 

The FAA is not going to be impressed with either of the reasons why you thought it was ok:

• "My WWII carrier pilot instructor told me to fly this way."
  
• "I do it cause the hanger rent is 50% less."
  

I keep seeing this " below glide slope" and am scratching my head?

 

Why? You know what they mean. Glide Angle. Glide Path. And the VASI acronym itself is formed with the word "Slope" (along side the word "Visual").

 

From the time I was a student (I've said this before) my first instructor pounded into my head there was absolutely no excuse to land short of a field (from about midfield downwind) if you had an engine failure. That meant slightly high was always preferable to slightly low.

 

You want to make a low and slow USS Yorktown approach to a field just so you can save half on hangar expenses... sorry not something you would see me teach or recommend. Seems even you intimate this was not the wisest of procedures. For a Caravan or PC-12... maybe ok - depending on weight.

 

It's not about what you can do. It's about what you can do safely.

...and I don't have a copy of the regs handy but to my recollection there is no requirement to fly a 3 degree flight path-only that a displaced threshold is not to be landed on. My illustration above is that sometimes one must go " below the glide path" And start your flare over a displaced threshold to insure a safe landing. In fact at least in my experience if one wants to put the wheels in an absolute wheels down on the numbers landing you will go below the glide path/vasi-of course after obstacles safely cleared. This accident had nothing IMHO to do with the pilot being low ( he was)-it has to do with your first quote and him not going Around when seeing the car.<edit> I see Chris did quote the regs above that support this.

 

As for wise-it worked out fine for me and most of the 75 or so other aircraft thar resided there safely.just don't like to do short field/ grass fields anymore..don't need to. There are many short fields that being high though desirable in a single would be a recipe for going off the end.

...and I don't have a copy of the regs handy but to my recollection there is no requirement to fly a 3 degree flight path-only

 

I am not aware of any reg either. But that really is not the point.

 

F.E. Potts (author of Guide to Bush Flying) has written something I think applicable here: "Making new laws will not solve this problem, for judgment can not be legislated. Yet these types of reports are usually the forbearer of new laws."

 

I certainly don't want to put myself in a position, should the engine fail on final, that I end up landing short of the runway. This would violate the (Robert Buck) principle of "always have an out". If you do not believe you were doing such a thing... like I said... we all have to justify what we do.

 

My illustration above is that sometimes one must go " below the glide path" to insure a safe landing.

 

Ok I realize that Geof. But my point was... if you really have to do that to get into the airport, maybe not such a good thing to do to begin with.

 

This accident had nothing IMHO to do with the pilot being low

 

I just cannot fathom how you can say such a thing. We have a responsibility to avoid obstacles. A car on a road is an obstacle to an aircraft (I thought the video made that painfully evident). You don't place your aircraft in a position over a road where it could collide with a motor vehicle.

Ozzie-with all respect I feel you have either completely missed my point or are trying to mis represent it.

 

Yes with a single engine plane I would usually want to be high in case of an engine quiting (though statistically this is very,very low when compared with pilots coming in high-floating halfway down the runway, having indecision about going around, and either going off the end or stalling while trying to make a go around at too late a point)- but nothing is absolute in flying. Certain short fields, especially with objects on either end require a "dragged in" approach to make a safe approach, and there is certainly nothing wrong with starting a flare once safely past obstacles over a displaced threshold that will allow you to land on the numbers-actually quite satisfying. In the case of the runway I was at mentioned above, this was the only safe way to land there. It was challenging butt I never found it unsafe nor did the other pilots who made it their home airport.

 

I am sure way back when you were a student pilot you practiced all types of short field landing techniques with your instructor as I did-even at large airports where errors would not cause a problem.

 

The only fact we know here is the pilot was low. Was he low because he was a student pilot doing a lowsy approach (very possible), or was he low because he was practicing a short field landing, or did he just want to try a satifying precision landing on the numbers like his instructor had shown him by starting his flare over the displaced threshold?

 

Was he scanning the runway environment for hazards while on final (surely he must have seen the car, and if he trained at this airport he surely knew about the road), and expecting the landing only to be over when he tied the airplane down as I was trained-and mentally ready for a go around (or in the case ifr a missed) or was he so committed, distracted to landing that he did not see the car or did not consider that it could pull in front of him-and then when seeing it did not go around? I think the latter...

I also think the driver showed a lack of judgement...but the plane probably had a better view.Both guilty as charged in my book-takes two to tango.