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.

 

I'm curious if you read any of the rest of my post. I assume you didn't! You've missed quite a bit. Thanks.

Manny, I still don't think it's fair to call the SUV driver an idiot. There is absolutely no justification for that pilot to be that low. I mean, the roof of the SUV is what, 6 feet above the ground? That aircraft was about 10 feet in the air with 450 feet to go to make the runway. This pilot just blew it, it's not the SUV's fault.

 

- My name is BimmerCop and I approve this message

 

 

He is a student pilot with about 20 or so hours.. this was not an egregious mistake on his part.. this was part of his learning. Coming into land being a tad slow and bottom dropping out are normal and to be expected of student pilots. Without that SUV he would have landed with a thud short of that threshold and the Cessna would have taken that abuse too and he would have learnt his lessons with a bruised ego. Too bad he is giving up flying.. Shame,

 

The driver was stupid... thats an airport environment and he should have known it.. and now I am understanding those people in that car are not strangers to that area and road.. .the driver was willfully negligent .. its almost like he ran a red light.

I'm curious if you read any of the rest of my post. I assume you didn't! You've missed quite a bit. Thanks.

 

You are welcome. Yes, I've been out flying most of the day, however, I have gone through all three pages since getting to the hotel and I don't believe what I just said was addressed any further in any of your posts arguing about who is an idiot. You're a moderator according to the sidebar, I would have thought the behavior of moderators here are held to a higher standard than the attitude you seem to be giving off in this thread. Maybe I'm just assuming as well.

 

The aircraft makes a pretty sharp drop away from its established glidepath just prior to the crash, and if you watch the video in full screen format, you can pretty easily see that the elevator deflects sharply upwards just prior to the sudden loss of altittude. There can be several explanations for this sequence of events, but it seems most likely to me that the pilot may have seen the vehicle approaching and then tried to avoid it by snatching the stick backwards sharply, causing the plane to drop right onto the vehicle. Ironically, if he did not see the vehicle, then he may very well would not have stalled the plane and this accident would not have happened.

 

However, if there is a pilot here to incur the wrath of the FAA, it will most like be his CFI. Looking at the google map view of that airport, I agree that if the student was on a proper approach to the actual touchdown zone of that runway instead of the displaced threshold portion, the vehicle would not have been an issue. This is the CFI's fault for not impressing upon his student the significance of the runway markings. Having put himself into a situation where he needed to immediately check his descent, the student failed to take the proper actions when he realized he needed to climb away and instead stalled the plane. This is also the CFI's fault for not teaching the student proper understanding and usage of the flight controls.

He is a student pilot with about 20 or so hours.. this was not an egregious mistake on his part.. this was part of his learning. Coming into land being a tad slow and bottom dropping out are normal and to be expected of student pilots. Without that SUV he would have landed with a thud short of that threshold and the Cessna would have taken that abuse too and he would have learnt his lessons with a bruised ego. Too bad he is giving up flying.. Shame,

 

The driver was stupid... thats an airport environment and he should have known it.. and now I am understanding those people in that car are not strangers to that area and road.. .the driver was willfully negligent .. its almost like he ran a red light.

 

Manny, that road is almost 500 feet from the runway (displaced threshold is about 425 feet long). I think that's about the same distance as the road on Maho Beach at TNCM. I think it's even closer at TNCM, and yet drivers are not even required to come to a complete stop. If a plane at TNCM God forbids comes in low and clips a vehicle, will it also be the vehicle's fault? If that road was one of those that cuts right through the runway as I've seen at other airports, then yes, the driver should be held responsible. The fact is that airplanes on approach at this specific airport should be at LEAST 50 feet AGL upon reaching the road, puts all the blame on the pilot. The SUV driver is not the idiot. The pilot was.

Where did you see that road being 500 feet from the runway? its like 10 feet from the runway environment.. The threshold is further down... Planes taking off from that edge is known to throw debris from the prop wash and hit cars and people have been told to not pass when aircrafts are at that edge about to take off.

 

Again, IMO, a student pilot with 20 or so hrs bottoming out is not egregious.. it is to be expected to some extent... thats how he learns..

 

But that driver in that car....just didn't even look out the left window it looks like....

 

Interesting thing is, we are often cautioned about approaching from the other end..runway 35. Thats where we have to be extra careful since planes could be ready to take off and if you are on short final you may not see that aircraft... since there are trees right at the edge....Runway 17 was always with great view and no obstruction and that road was really not an issue unless... you were so low.

 

This is from runway 35 at the same airport. The aircraft about to take off is a high wing and the one on short final was a low wing... The trees at the end of runway 35 obscures aircrafts on short final that may be tad low when you try to pull in without checking for approaching aircraft for a quick take off.

 

The blokes on these two aircrafts are veterans of that airport they know that place very well and yet this happened.

 

You are welcome. Yes, I've been out flying most of the day, however, I have gone through all three pages since getting to the hotel and I don't believe what I just said was addressed any further in any of your posts arguing about who is an idiot. You're a moderator according to the sidebar, I would have thought the behavior of moderators here are held to a higher standard than the attitude you seem to be giving off in this thread. Maybe I'm just assuming as well.

Between Matthew, Bill, Rob, John, and myself, we had an interested back and forth going --a "debate", if you will. What you've done is dropped into the thread having read and quoted only a tidbit of a fraction of it, adding nothing but this^ to it.

 

As a moderator, I have the duty of enforcing the ToS. As I see it, I haven't violated the ToS nor have I disrespected anyone.

 

You quoted this:

Go around. Go Around. GO AROUND.

When I said this:

Go around. Go Around. GO AROUND.

 

Of course, after seeing the video it's easy to assume the pilot never saw the road traffic. Never flying again, though? I've had engine failures, near misses, etc. I can't say quitting has ever crossed my mind! :wub: I'm glad all parties emerged relatively unscathed -- the car passengers are especially lucky.

 

So I simply pointed out that maybe you missed the rest of the posts. I'm sorry if you take offense to that, but if you want to push the issue, we can take it to PM. Otherwise, I suggest we leave it at that. Thanks, we're back on topic now.

Between Matthew, Bill, Rob, John, and myself, we had an interested back and forth going --a "debate", if you will. What you've done is dropped into the thread having read and quoted only a tidbit of a fraction of it, adding nothing but this^ to it.

 

As a moderator, I have the duty of enforcing the ToS. As I see it, I haven't violated the ToS nor have I disrespected anyone.

 

You quoted this:

 

When I said this:

 

 

So I simply pointed out that maybe you missed the rest of the posts. I'm sorry if you take offense to that, but if you want to push the issue, we can take it to PM. Otherwise, I suggest we leave it at that. Thanks, we're back on topic now.

 

I quoted where you said he missed seeing the car. Because the point I wanted to make was that he most likely did see the car, which resulted in him stalling the plane and causing him to actually crash into the car.

Where did you see that road being 500 feet from the runway? its like 10 feet from the runway environment.. The threshold is further down...

 

Again, IMO, a student pilot with 20 or so hrs bottoming out is not egregious.. it is to be expected to some extent... thats how he learns..

 

But that driver in that car....just didn't even look out the left window it looks like....

 

Interesting thing is, we are often cautioned about approaching from the other end..runway 35. Thats where we have to be extra careful since planes could be ready to take off and if you are on short final you may not see that aircraft... since there are trees right at the edge....Runway 17 was always with great view and no obstruction and that road was really not an issue unless... you were so low.

 

This is from runway 35 at the same airport. The aircraft about to take off is a high wing and the one on short final was a low wing... The trees at the end of runway 35 obscures aircrafts on short final that may be tad low when you try to pull in without checking for a quick take off.

 

The blokes on these two aircrafts are veterans of that airport they know that place very well and yet this happened.

 

 

Road is 25 feet from the edge of the displaced threshold and 435 feet from the edge of the runway. Aircraft 8 feet AGL, 435 feet from the runway, is not egregious... It's a blasphemy.

 

What if instead of landing, the plane had just taken off and struck the SUV while climbing out? Is the SUV driver also an idiot? In either scenario, no driver expects to see an airplane above the road at 8 feet AGL, being that the road is 435 feet away from where an airplane should be landing/taking off.

 

EDIT: I just checked and the road on Maho Beach is 272 feet from the runway and only 12 feet from the edge of the displaced threshold and yet, traffic flows freely with no stop signs. Why? Because airplanes are expected to follow procedures and patterns. If a plane comes in too low and strikes a vehicle, it's on the pilot, not the vehicle's driver.

Manny, I still don't think it's fair to call the SUV driver an idiot. There is absolutely no justification for that pilot to be that low. I mean, the roof of the SUV is what, 6 feet above the ground? That aircraft was about 10 feet in the air with 450 feet to go to make the runway. This pilot just blew it, it's not the SUV's fault.

 

- My name is BimmerCop and I approve this message

 

:good:

Thanks for that, but notice the arrows are yellow and one could argue "non-standard".

 

There's no need for anyone to "argue 'non-standard'" since they are clearly listed as NON-STD on the airport plates... ^_^

 

 

There's no need for anyone to "argue 'non-standard'" since they are clearly listed as NON-STD on the airport plates... ^_^

 

I'm sure we could round up a handful that would be more than happy to argue. Just for arguments sake!

I just watched the slow motion part of the raw video a few times. I don't see any evidence of elevator coming up just before what appears to be the plane stalling. It looks to me like the pilot couldn't see the SUV over the instrument panel.

 

My thought when I watched the video for the first time was that the young student pilot, with the yoke in his left hand and the throttle in his right, noticed the SUV late and had about a half second to make a decision on what to do, then pulled back on the wrong control. It probably wouldn't happen in the simulator to us old guys with hundreds or thousands of hours flight time, but it's easy to imagine a low hour pilot doing it.

 

Most of us have been in some kind of sudden emergency situation. For me, a few years ago I found myself on an exit at freeway speeds (the exit wasn't clearly marked). The exit road curved hard right, there was no guard rail (or any other obstacles like markers). That half second was enough for me to consider what would happen if I tried turning to stay on the road, both with and without braking. I let the car go straight, held the brakes a moment, then let off them. I got in about a full second of flight time, make a good (if a bit rough) 4 point landing, slowed to 5 MPH without brakes, then drove the car back to a road. No damage to vehicle or pilot. This was with many decades of driving experience. If I'd done the more instinctive hard braking and hard turn, as I would have done with only 20+ hours driving experience, the car almost certainly would have rolled... even without braking when I went off the pavement. My only consolation is that there were plenty of skid marks on that part of the exit road, so I wasn't the only person ever to have that problem at that exit.

 

An actual stop sign, closer to the runway, with a warning sign to watch for approaching aircraft on the same pole, might have avoided this accident, but that's not certain.

 

Hook

He was just going in for the ground effect.

 

91.119 says he can go that low for landing :smile:

I just watched the slow motion part of the raw video a few times. I don't see any evidence of elevator coming up just before what appears to be the plane stalling.

 

Hook

 

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait for the NTSB report then. To my eye, it's pretty clear seeing the elevator trailing edge deflection appear above the edge viewed stabilator and the horn beneath. Once he hits the vehicle, a sharp forward movement of the stick is also visible as the horn appears above the stabilator. Unless you know what to look for or I get a chance to point it out on the video to you in person, I guess we'll just have to leave it like this.