Geof...

 

I understand your point... not trying to misrepresent it.

 

I know the approach you are talking about (that you were taught) could be referred to as "dragging it in". Dragging it in is fine in FSX... is how we can use ridiculously short runways for planes like the PMDG 747.

 

But dragging in an approach as "short field technique" in RW operations is a very poor idea for a number of reasons (exception might be Alaska bush flying). I would direct you to this article: Short Field Approaches and Landing by Dave Wilkerson (DPE).

 

A couple statements in the article I found very interesting:

 

"The old PTS allowed an applicant to make a long, low approach slightly above stall speed and control the glide path with power. Crossing the threshold, you close the throttle and drop the aircraft, at stall speed, onto the touchdown point with little forward momentum. Examiners still see this technique occasionally, and their reaction is an FAA Notice of Disapproval."

 

"Flat, power-on approaches just above stall speed don't account for obstacle clearance, and if the engine fails, you have no options."

 

Go look at the AIM in 7-5 (e.g. Accident Cause Factors 7-5-1) and see what it has to say.

 

Some of you don't believe me... and fine ok... but I am telling you... this is going to fall on the Student Pilot and his Instructor.

 

-Rob

Rob-there is no way you can get into an airport like 3da without dragging it in-especially in a Bonanza-pure and simple-it isn't just for Alaska bush flying.

 

Interesting that the ntsb accident collection for 3da has not one report of anyone losing an engine on final but several of airplanes over running the runway (most likely due to trying to fly a standard flightpath), and of course poor takeoff planning not taking density altitude/runway length into account. The only engine failure was on takeoff.

http://www.ntsb.gov/...index.aspx��and 3da. Of course there were many non reported incidents that did not require ntsb but were almost always over runs. ...and yep-the local Faa examiner if he had a cocky applicant would take them over there-because they invariably fail..

 

But yes-my point was the pilot in this case was responsible-as is in my opinion the car driver.

A similar, but fatal, accident occured in the UK. An aircraft on final approach hit an agricultural vehicle some 200 ft from the end of the runway. The photograph on Page 38 is informative.

 

http://www.aaib.gov....-EGUL 09-09.pdf

 

The conclusion of the official investigationin this case was:

 

The investigation concluded that the aircraft’s final approach was flown such that its occupants were unable to ensure that the flight path ahead was clear of obstacles. As a result, they were unaware of the vehicle’s proximity to the runway.

Interesting quote from that report:

 

As a private flight, the aircraft was not required to use the marked threshold

 

Hook

Just saw the video, Im sorry, this is 100% pilot error, cannot find any excuse. The road is not an issue at all, its far enough from threshold.

The full quote is actually:

 

As a private flight, the aircraft was not required to use the marked threshold, but any attempt to land at the start of the paved surface would have lost the measure of obstacle protection afforded by the displaced threshold.

 

And the consequence was obvious - two fatalities. Had the farm worker died and the pilot survived he'd probably been charged with manslaughter.

And the consequence was obvious

 

What everyone SHOULD have done was obvious. There's no disagreement on that here. The only thing I was pointing out was what was permitted.

 

The most interesting thing was that report only described what happened and how; there was no witch-hunt to assign blame. Quite refreshing after reading this thread.

 

Hook

The most interesting thing was that report only described what happened and how

 

That's the purpose of accident reports but it's conclusion is damning.

That's the purpose of accident reports but it's conclusion is damning.

 

Precisely.

Again, I feel like this is going in circles, and I have thought of not posting... but I want to address a few issues. And sorry for the length... they are a collection of items from the past couple days. Hopefully worth your time reading.

 

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

 

You have not provided any "stills that show the signs clearly". A worn out sign slopped on a road does not a valid stop sign make.

 

The sign will (imo) have to comply with (in this case Texas) state law.

 

Nearly every post "in denial" of the fact that the driver did not stop at the stop sign

 

Fact? I don't know how you can determine this as a "fact". Looking at the SUV... I bet not traveling very fast (less than 30mph)... and watch how quickly it stops after impact.

 

Manny made the claim (in effect) saying the SUV just rammed thru the C172. Look the video again Manny... you can see the front end of the SUV "go down" prior to impact... indicating the brakes were applied. And given reaction time... he obviously saw the plane before impact.

 

Maybe if the SUV had rammed thru (punched it) it would have cleared the plane.

 

There is a certain point in an accident timeline where seeing and reacting is irrelevant... the accident is going to happen. Stupidity may have nothing to do with it in this case... the person may have looked but for whatever reason completely missed seeing the (eventual) crossing traffic.

 

This is why you hear instructors preach over and over and over "keep your head on a swivel". I do the same thing driving when in certain circumstances (like turning left). What you miss the first time (for whatever reason) you may be fortunate enough to "see and avoid" with the next sweep of the head. Of course, just seconds from the accident, the pilot would have been very tied up with the landing.

 

Of course you're right the NTSB will have a say but will that Federal body override any State or County law?

 

The NTSB investigates accidents and makes (sometimes) recommendations to improve safety. It is not a legislative authority. It can only recommend... not enact changes. That is up to the FAA.

 

Even if you meant the FAA (which does have power to create Federal Air Regs)... not sure your point. The FAA does not have jurisdiction wrt State or County roads / highways etc. Three basic FAA responsibilities (I am quoting):

• Regulation of air commerce to best promote its development and safety and to fulfill national defense requirements.
  
• Promotion, encouragement, and development of civil aeronautics.
  
• Control of the use of navigable United States airspace and the regulation of both civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency.
  

(Some say the first two in conflict)

 

State / County does not have jurisdiction (unless by agreement) on private property wrt civil traffic law. That is why... if I am driving an ol' pickup on a dirt road on my uncle's farm (am on private property) I have no need to stop for a cross road.

 

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

 

Interesting that the ntsb accident collection for 3da has not one report of anyone losing an engine on final

 

No it's not very interesting.

 

Why not just say "No Fuel Management accident reports"? Let me answer that... because it would also be a dishonest statement based on the significant number of these type accidents that occur every year in the U.S.

 

several of airplanes over running the runway (most likely due to trying to fly a standard flightpath)

 

Most likely? You're kidding me right? No I forgot... you're pulling out the stops in an attempt to justify your landing technique as described above (at 3DA).

 

Instead of "most likely"... best to look at what the NTSB determined as probable cause(s):

• "The pilot's failure to maintain adequate descent rate and airspeed on final resulting in a hard landing."
  
• "The pilot's failure to maintain airspeed while on final approach, resulting in an inadvertent stall at a low altitude."
  

Ok... two accidents with "failure to maintain airspeed"... sounds like (most likely :-P) related to an unstabilized approach.

 

And the other:

 

"was a delayed go-around maneuver by the pilot. Factors associated with this accident were the pilot misjudging his final approach altitude and glide path, having inadequate altitude to clear the trees at the end of the runway, and inadequate training on how to fly a final approach and make a landing on the first quarter of the runway. "

 

Now that sounds like a botched 'dragging it in' approach. Apparently, your WWII Naval CFI was not there as:

 

"Interviews with 2 of the pilots flight instructors revealed they were unable to explain how to to fly a final approach then land the airplane on the first quarter of the runway."

 

That is what I call, "Interesting". Ok back to your Debonair.

 

Rob-there is no way you can get into an airport like 3da without dragging it in-especially in a Bonanza-pure and simple

 

Again Geof... I know what you were trying to say. It was obvious. So my reaction is:

 

Why the bloody hell were you trying to do some maneuver like this? And why try to justify it now?

 

After looking at a Debonair POH (T/O & Lndg Dist. data for a 225hp model) - all the more reason to wonder "why???". Just because "you can" does not mean "you should".

 

The POH gives numbers for a GW of 3050 (which, ok... you must not have been near gross... still...) and no wind condition. Airframe & Engine in good condition & average pilot technique. Using 1000' PA & 75°F.

 

Landing distance over a 50' obstacle would be just under 2000'. Takeoff interesting too. The roll & climb to 50' is almost 2400'. That means about a 100' (or one second or about 10' of climb) before passing over the trees at the south end of the runway.

 

Oh but wait... a nearly 800' displaced threshold for trees for both Rwy 18 & 36. That gives you 1700'... whether landing over the trees from the south or the Flushing Animal Hospital coming in from the north. :rolleyes:

 

You do a disservice to anyone learning to fly (and reading your post) that somehow dragging in an approach is a normal procedure. It is not. It certainly is not for a student pilot.

 

And you have never heard of building in (safety) margins (like using a runway which length exceeds takeoff roll + landing roll)? Any of these accidents at 3DA qualify for precisely what I am talking about.

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/...212X21177&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/...211X12860&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/...213X25902&key=1

 

Btw... I find interesting that the NTSB accident collection for 3DA has four (4) reports of "losing an engine" on takeoff. One of those was a fatal. One other the 2 occupants uninjured... they were able to use W. Pierson as an "overrun area" before hitting the curb at the animal hospital.

 

Your plane... you're PIC... like a said above, you can do essentially what you want. Again (and this is for anyone) just be prepared to justify to the NTSB, the FAA, your passengers and to your own conscience your actions as PIC.

 

----------------------------

 

A thread I found interesting: http://sportpilottal....php?f=4&t=1901

 

Let me wrap this up by quoting F.E. Potts on the "the approach path". I have mentioned him before, but so that you an idea of his 'credentials', Potts wrote Guide to Bush Flying: Concepts and Techniques for the Pro. He had 22 years of bush flying in Alaska accumulating 17,000hrs without an accident. He was called a "By the Numbers" pilot (as he put it, to fly "scientifically to obtain maximum performance"):

 

"Control of airspeed is arguably the single most important factor involved in an approach. A couple knots too fast or too slow at the threshold will guarantee a less than satisfactory landing. Make a point of being precise in this area."

 

"The best bush landings come from a rather steep final approach , terrain permitting. Trying to make a too-flat approach--dragging it in--usually results in one of the following:

• Undershooting the landing area.
  
• Overshooting the landing area.
  
• A longer ground run."
  

"The main point to remember is that the shortness of the landing, as well as its success, will be determined more by the accuracy of the approach than by anything else."

Manny made the claim (in effect) saying the SUV just rammed thru the C172. Look the video again Manny... you can see the front end of the SUV "go down" prior to impact... indicating the brakes were applied. And given reaction time... he obviously saw the plane before impact.

 

Again which brings to the main point if he would have stopped at the stop sign and looked he would have seen it.

THE THREAD THAT WOULDN'T DIE!!!!!!!

 

The pilot and driver of the SUV didn't know any better. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

1) Volvo is at fault for making their SUV so tall.

2) Cessna is at fault for making a plane that you can't see over the instrument panel for possible obstructions when landing... like passing SUVs.

3) The airport owner is at fault for not making such a collision impossible. So is the owner of the private road.

4) The county is at fault for not -- oh, never mind, blame the legislature instead for not passing the proper laws.

5) The CFI is at fault for not impressing on the low hour student pilot that he needed to come in "high, dammit!"

6) The company that made the video recording device used by the wife is at fault for not recording the crash in such a way that there could be no debate. Maybe a bunch of other reasons, too. They've probably got the deepest pockets, too, so sue them.

 

You just gotta think like a lawyer. Lawyers don't care who is actually at fault, just who can be successfully sued. Treble damages! The plaintiff will get a total of $14.98. The lawyers will get all the rest.

 

Hook

Again which brings to the main point if he would have stopped at the stop sign and looked he would have seen it.

 

Nearly every post "in denial" of the fact that the driver did not stop at the stop sign

Fact? I don't know how you can determine this as a "fact".

 

he would have seen it.

 

the person may have looked but for whatever reason completely missed seeing the (eventual) crossing traffic.

 

Contrary to your omniscience concerning this matter (whether or not he stopped etc.) It is entirely possible they stopped but just plain did not see the plane.

 

Even human nature... being right beside a runway... I would say it is typical for people look for planes. Isn't that part of the allure of the restaurant? To watch landing and departing aircraft?

 

he would have seen it.

 

Hmmm... kind of like the Ag Sprayer should have stopped (somewhere, who knows where)... should have seen the Pitts and avoided it. :rolleyes:

 

Not the conclusion of the AAIB as mgh posted:

 

The investigation concluded that the aircraft’s final approach was flown such that its occupants were unable to ensure that the flight path ahead was clear of obstacles.

 

 

THE THREAD THAT WOULDN'T DIE!!!!!!!

 

Glad to oblige you Larry... so you may continue your enjoyment of it.

Again which brings to the main point if he would have stopped at the stop sign and looked he would have seen it.

Why some folk here just cannot see this is beyond me Pete.

 

The pilots approach is poor, his visibility of the road from the left hand side of the aircraft being so low must have been hindered BUT the driver of the SUV was on the side of the vehicle facing the aircraft. From the time the SUV enters the frame to the collision is about 4 seconds. The number of fence posts between the centre line of the runway and the faded stop sign is 13. By the speed the SUV is moving at the time it enters the frame and the number of fence posts it passes before the collision it seems improbable/impossible? that it had come to a full stop and in any case it's hard to see how the SUV driver could have missed the aircraft. The only relevant law here in my book is that of common sense? I ask again how many of you would have driven on in that situation? By the drivers own admission they were aviation fans and visited regularly. Even if he was totally ignorant of any technicalities of flying, just by observation he must have been able to judge a low approach from a high one? or not? Every day I see examples of total lack of spacial awareness by drivers on the roads with other road users.

 

BTW I flew from Denham in the UK. If you look at Google Earth you'll see that 24 is within 10 meters of a public road outside of the airfield. The Airfield itself is surrounded by a fence and a hedge. Look further back down the approach and you'll see first trees and then lakes. In the field at the end of the runway were horses. Kids would come to watch the aircraft and/or feed the horses. Guess Where? Yep! Dead on the centre line. So for me the approach over air affected by the radiation from water and then trees, mixed with a bit of crosswind, turbulance and occasionally windsheer was always steeper rather than shallower. In fact when I visited other fields I flew a "Denham approach" through habit.

 

This was a student pilot and there's been much criticism of him and his CFI in this debate and yet two of the worst (and arguably most unecessary) accidents at Denham during my time flying from there involved airline pilots and one of them I understood to have been a training captain for his airline. I also saw an instructor crash at Wycombe Air Park after a mid air collison whom I was told had survived hundred of Deck Landings in Phantoms with the fleet air arm. I still maintain that flying is far safer than driving to the airfield.

 

Geoff

I ask again how many of you would have driven on in that situation?

 

Everyone here, including you. Once you've stopped, looked, determined the way is clear and proceeded, you usually don't look again. The driver didn't see the aircraft. Maybe he didn't look carefully enough, maybe he couldn't have seen it behind the hill, maybe he saw it but thought it was farther away, like the driver of the white vehicle that passed previously.

 

People will stop at a stop sign where the cross traffic is not obliged to stop. If they determine the way is clear, they'll proceed. You've done it yourself; we all have. How often do you double check to make sure there's not an oncoming cement truck you didn't see before? Or maybe a motorcycle, which is probably closer to this case. This is how accidents happen. On a private road, which probably isn't all that "improved", the driver will be concentrating on avoiding bumps in the road, not fixated on watching for the unlikely event of a low flying aircraft.

 

That doesn't mean he's not at fault. A landing aircraft, having to be much faster and unable to easily maneuver to avoid such a collision, has the undisputed right of way. That doesn't mean the pilot isn't at fault too. But what happened is understandable, and there's no way to point a finger and say, "It's all HIS fault."

 

Hook