As has been said, the pilot was rediculously low

 

Exactly my first thoughts.

Road laws or not, the pilot was attempting to land on a displaced threshold. That is to say he was landing in a yellow arrow marked zone "not intended" for landing. Had he been aiming for a correct touchdown zone beyond the displaced', this accident never would have happened. I would wager he's solely responsible for the insurance deductible on both the rental aircraft and the car for his willingness to land on the yellow arrows. I came to this unofficial conclusion with the video linked and Google Maps.

 

I don't believe the pilot was attempting to land on the displaced threshold. You have to remember he was a student and was probably nervous. I would imagine he was attempting to landing on the numbers but was coming in short. At the student's level his abilities and decision making skill are still evolving. Student's also normally make low flat approaches when landing with no flaps.

 

The pilot might be responsible for the aircraft deductible by his rental agreement but I highly doubt the auto insurance will have a fight. The SUV pulled out in front of an aircraft. Its no different than if you pulled out in front of another car. You are at fault. I would imagine the aviation insurance company will go after the SUV driver for all damages.

 

As for landing on the displaced that is not a valid argument either. Displaced thresholds are created for obstacle and noise abatement. It is there as an aid to the pilot but no 14 CFR exists that says a pilot cannot land on the displaced threshold. About all the FAA could possibly do is a 91.13 violation but that won't hold up with a NTSB appeal. All the pilot needs to say is he was aiming for the numbers doing a no flap landing then a car cut him off.

 

The driver of the SUV, who calls himself a aviation enthusiast, saw the plane and didn't stop. They had been to the airport before and knew low flying aircraft exist. I still put all blame on the driver.

 

http://www.wfaa.com/...-177129811.html

As for landing on the displaced that is not a valid argument either. Displaced thresholds are created for obstacle and noise abatement. It is there as an aid to the pilot but no 14 CFR exists that says a pilot cannot land on the displaced threshold.

Thanks for that, but notice the arrows are yellow and one could argue "non-standard". Now what does the color yellow typically mean in a displaced threshold? It means only to be used as a blast way/stop way ie Don't land on it. As for as the rest, it stands to reason that you've helped my case. A displaced threshold is there for all of your stated reasons, so why would you land in the displaced portion, effectively forfeiting said obstacle clearance/noise abatement/etc (LEGAL OR NOT)? I do believe he was landing on the displaced threshold, and I would also bet he had two red lights on the VASI. Of course we're only sharing our conjecture, here... I will say I operate around "short fields" (1,000'-3000') regularly and find folks using non-approved portions of the runway for landing very frequently (heck, I do it).

 

As for an NTSB appeal, good luck spending tens of thousands of dollars for an aviation lawyer and chancing that due deference will swing in your favor. I'd say your scenario with an appeal is mighty chancy at best. At any rate, I highly, highly doubt there will be any certificate action. The only reason I could see the FAA being highly interested in this accident is thanks to the high profile media attention it has gotten.

 

Also, don't underestimate the student pilot. Especially one who is in the solo-cross country phase (like the accident pilot). This guy wasn't nervous and had probably made plenty of approaches into this location. I'm really assuming a lot by saying that, but typically that's the case.

 

And my insurance deductible comment was said tongue in cheek.

I would imagine he was attempting to landing on the numbers but was coming in short.

 

Yeah... I'd agree with that... 400 feet short.

 

The AIM clearly spells out the displaced threshold is not for landing. Just because there's no specific air reg... that means nothing. That's why 91.13. And 91.3. PIC is responsible for safe operation and if you do something that results in a accident / incident... be prepared to justify what you did.

 

Displaced thresholds are created for obstacle and noise abatement. It is there as an aid to the pilot but no 14 CFR exists that says a pilot cannot land on the displaced threshold.

 

Seems a car traveling near a runway would qualify as an "obstacle"... and a prime example why one would not want to land there.

 

All the pilot needs to say is he was aiming for the numbers doing a no flap landing then a car cut him off.

 

That's brilliant. Just like the guy who told me (when investigating an accident) a beaver suddenly pulled a log onto the road... is why he hit it (the log). Two problems with that idea / excuse:

• Accident investigators are not idiots.
  
• There's a video of the collision.
  

IMHO both driver and pilot are the blame.

 

That's a big negative. You have to yield to aircraft just like you do with a train. Running a stop sign (painted or otherwise) places this accident 100% on Daisy Mae in the minivan of death (ask any motorcyclist). I'm so happy that the thing got recorded. The reason she was so "stern" when she said she didn't cross in front of an airplane, is because she knew right then she f'ked up. Her insurance is gonna have a cow... or she will if they wont cover it.

 

Hope it's an old top winger!

 

Now, the pilot calling it quits... that's good too. Shows right off the bat he was scared already. You have to have respect for the activity if it has some danger involved, but if your scared of it, it will kill you.

 

Edit: allot of people are sure that the dude was landing on the forbidden threshold of death... in court that would last .00001 of a second. We have no idea where he was going to actually touch down. None. Your drawing an imaginary line on his approach, and coming to that conclusion. He could draw that out well past the quick sand/tar pits area for all we know.

 

You just know we are gonna find out she was texting. :unsure:

The only reason I could see the FAA being highly interested in this accident is thanks to the high profile media attention it has gotten.

 

That is exactly what I was saying. About all the FAA could possibly do is 91.13 but do to the chances of a NTSB appeal the FAA IIC wouldn't bother. This wouldn't even get a 709 ride.

 

91.13 won't hold up.

 

Also, don't underestimate the student pilot. Especially one who is in the solo-cross country phase (like the accident pilot). This guy wasn't nervous and had probably made plenty of approaches into this location. I'm really assuming a lot by saying that, but typically that's the case.

 

Anytime a student is not nervous it is time to look at that student again. Remember hazardous attitudes?

 

Yeah... I'd agree with that... 400 feet short.

 

The AIM clearly spells out the displaced threshold is not for landing. Just because there's no specific air reg... that means nothing. That's why 91.13. And 91.3. PIC is responsible for safe operation and if you do something that results in a accident / incident... be prepared to justify what you did.

 

 

Landing on a hardened surface? That is what the pilot was attempting to do before a vehicle, driven by a person familiar with the airport crossed directly into his flight path.

 

At that phase of flight it would be darn near impossible for the pilot to see the SUV approaching from low right and perform corrective action.

 

Because there is no specific reg says everything. I am well aware of 91.13 and 91.3 and neither would work in this loss.

 

That's brilliant. Just like the guy who told me (when investigating an accident) a beaver suddenly pulled a log onto the road... is why he hit it (the log).

 

So you didn't see a vehicle moving suddenly in front of an aircraft entering its landing flare? Watch again...its black.

 

Watch the video and count how long it takes the SUV to enter frame and cross directly in front of the aircraft.

 

Two problems with that idea / excuse:

• Accident investigators are not idiots.
  
• There's a video of the collision.
  

 

Its not an excuse.

 

The video clearly shows a vehicle crossing in front of an aircraft about to enter the flare phase. Pretty clear the SUV is at fault.

 

FAA IIC won't recommend any action against pilot and SUV drivers insurance will end up footing the bill in subrogation. The whole accident would have been prevented had the SUV driver not had his head in his tailpipe.

 

And you are right, we are not idiots.

I feel we're going in circles here. You seem to have insinuated landing on a displaced threshold is a non-issue -- It's not an issue in most instances... until the manure hits the ventilation and you have to explain why you weren't adhering to AIM "suggestions", among other things. In the same post, you stated you don't believe the pilot was aiming for the displaced threshold. Again, if he had been on glide path for a proper touchdown point, this would have been a routine landing with a careless SUV in the video frame.

 

Either way, I can agree with some of your points, but the way they are being applied doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not going to re-hash everything already covered in my earlier post, so agree to disagree! :smile:

At Boeing Field they have a saying on the ATIS "Pilots are reminded to fly the VASI" and it has been that way for years because of the dense location the field is situated in.

This should have been plastered by the runway though:

Yeah same here Zach... we are going round in circles.

 

We'll see when the NTSB report is released... by then probably most won't care. :lol:

 

I'll tell you who should be worried about a 709 ride... is the instructor.

After analyzing the video, google map images and current planetary alignment, I have concluded that the fault of this accident lies solely on the PILOT. There is NO REASON why that aircraft should have been 8-10ft AGL upon reaching the road. If he would have not hit that SUV, he probably would have just barely made it to the asphalt and would probably have come to a complete stop while still being on the displaced threshold! That aircraft should have been at the very least 30-50 feet AGL upon crossing the road. There is a reason why the displaced threshold is there, in order to allow good clearance for the road.

We're not the NTSB, but we did stay at a holiday in last night! :lol:

 

Anyways.. I'm more surprised that the plane didn't flip. Sure did come to a quick stop however!

We'll see when the NTSB report is released... by then probably most won't care.

 

Oh I will still care. I am always still interested in following up down the road. Sometimes I do go through accident reports on my spare time. B)

Bimmorcop, you are correct.

 

That's my home airport...I fly there! If I know almost every inch of an airport...its that airport. That's also one the smallest airport with the maximum number of hangars. Its got more pvt hangars than the larger airports like Denton, Arlington etc..

 

WOW!. I never thought that road and the traffic really comes into play. I never ever thought I need to be worried about a car on that road... There is a runway threshold. Serious... I think the aircraft was too low. After rewatching that video, this was a perfect storm. The aircraft was way too low and the idiots in the car didn't even bother to slow down and check if there is an aircraft on the final.. That is a freaking airport/runway... they ought to have known at least that much. That should have told the idiot in that car to be vigilant.

 

In any case That road is really not necessary. There is only one commercial store on that side of the runway.. the Pilot shop. I never knew of the blue hangar restaurant. Other than that most people can park and walk to that side.. I see no reason for that road. But people are too lazy to walk..they want to be able to take their car all the way to their hangars.

 

I also feel bad for Mark of Marcair whose plane that must have been. He has almost 5 or 6 brand new Cessna 172 Skyhawks...he keeps his aircrafts in top shape... and many a newbie pilots have rented his planes and have damaged them so his Insurance companies have put lots of restrictions like if you need to rent planes from Marcair, you should have done atleast 3 takeoffs and landings within the last 30 days etc..which improved and prevented crashes... and then this.

 

 

About the no flaps..we were encouraged to land without flaps on that airport... primarily to avoid go around accidents ..... go around with full flaps...and student pilots not able to handle the back pressure under pressure maybe?

 

Here is the scenery if you want you can install and see for yourself.. See how low you have to be that close to an SUV. It's uploaded here in Avsim library search with "Manny Mahadevan"

 

Go around. Go Around. GO AROUND.

 

Of course, after seeing the video it's easy to assume the pilot never saw the road traffic.

 

I'm not sure that is such an easy assumption. You can see in the video that the aircraft dipped pretty sharply towards the vehicle. If it hadn't dropped sharply like it did, it may very well would have missed the car. You should look at that video a little more closely.

Yup, the aircraft just dropped... the pilot must have felt the bottom go down under him... He is a student pilot doing his solo... so ..he probably has around 20 or less hrs under his belt.