Plane hits car on approach

[KevinAu 441]

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.

 

Hook

 

That is why it is important for flight instructors to teach their students to do the right thing instinctively. If a student was taught properly, he would have been able to do the proper thing given only a half a second. I didn't train my students for the hours of everyday flying during my first couple of lessons with them. I trained them for the half a second that may happen once or twice in a flying career.

[LHookins 3,103]

To my eye, it's pretty clear seeing the elevator trailing edge deflection appear above the edge viewed stabilator and the horn beneath.

 

Kevin, I'll take your word for it. That certainly looks like a stall to me, and sudden up elevator when you're already flying close to the edge would do that.

 

Hook

[Great Ozzie 101]

That is why it is important for flight instructors to teach their students to do the right thing instinctively.

 

Yeah... like aiming past the threshold... instead of the dirt in front of the displaced threshold (poor guy looks like he was trying to trap the "first wire").

 

 

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7RAIwznHek

[KevinAu 441]

The aircraft wasn't on a glidepath towards the vehicle or the fence in the inset you posted. It stalled onto it, as in what most lay people watching that video would describe as the bottom falling out at the last second. The 400' displaced threshold doesn't put it up much higher. Only about a 20 feet difference at that spot between an aircraft aiming for the proper point and the edge of the runway pavement. Doing the math, I actually think that the pilot was actually aiming for the displaced threshold and not the runway edge, albeit at an angle somewhere between 2-3 degrees. It was the stall that caused him to descend into the vehicle. If that CFI had done a better job with that student, his split second reaction would have been to push the power forward instead of pulling back on the stick when he saw the vehicle. Pulling back on the stick made the difference between a close call on video and a crash on video. And yes, the student had to have seen it. The vehicle may have been blocked in the student's view by the time it drove into the field of view of the camera, but it would have been easily visible in his peripheral vision while it was approaching off camera.

[Great Ozzie 101]

The 400' displaced threshold doesn't put it up much higher. Only about a 20 feet difference at that spot between an aircraft aiming for the proper point and the edge of the runway pavement.

 

Just read on another forum where a guy who flies out of that airport says he's typically 60 to 75 feet agl at the road (http://www.pilotsofa...ead.php?t=54118 post #19)

 

If that CFI had done a better job with that student, his split second reaction would have been to push the power forward instead of pulling back on the stick when he saw the vehicle.

 

:rolleyes:

 

I looked at that video a half dozen times or so when first posted (and several times since) and I (like Hook) see no "up elevator" (looks more like "mirage" and you can't see the bellcrank imo). The sink is obvious... but from stall? From the (Student) pilot's position... I bet he had no clue the car was even there. First solo X-C... focused on landing... had to have seen the car when his eyes glazed over like a jacklighted deer looking at the runway? :rolleyes:

 

And his idea of " if the CFI had taught to use throttle" vs whatever is pure speculation that could be tossed in with the red herrings. This won't be the question the FAA will be asking.

 

The plane wasn't where it was "supposed" to be... really that simple... how the insurance works it out another matter.

[LHookins 3,103]

A little math:

 

Glide slope = altitude (of wheels) at 430 feet from touchdown

 

1.0 degrees = 7.5 feet <-- this appears to be about where the pilot was.

2.0 degrees = 15 feet

3.0 degrees = 22.5 feet

4.5 degrees = 33.8 feet <-- this is where the pilot should have been.

 

Formula for those with calculators with trig functions but no knowledge of trig:

 

Glide slope in degrees [press TAN key] times distance from touchdown gives altitude.

 

Edit: for Excel users:

 

=tan(radians(4.5))*430

 

Suggest you use cell references for 4.5 and 430 so you can play with the numbers.

 

Hook

 

PS. Can the driver of the SUV be cited for "failure to yield right of way"?

 

First solo X-C... focused on landing... had to have seen the car when his eyes glazed over like a jacklighted deer looking at the runway?

 

All of the above plus the fact that the pilot was fatigued after his first solo cross country.

 

Hook

[Great Ozzie 101]

PS. Can the driver of the SUV be cited for "failure to yield right of way"?

 

I have gone over that and over that in my mind... there is failure to yield for aircraft (landing)... as a former accident investigator for vehicular traffic... I cannot see faulting the driver of the SUV. It goes back to the airplane not being where it was "supposed" to be.

 

All of the above plus the fact that the pilot was fatigued after his first solo cross country.

 

Exactly... part of the "eyes glazed over" look. I feel bad for both... I always said (since birth) no winners in accidents... everybody's day is ruined.

 

Edit:

 

I read somewhere... the SUVers fortunate "not to have a face-full of prop"... you watch that thing and absolutely amazing the timing... incredible everyone walked away.

 

If a student was taught properly, he would have been able to do the proper thing given only a half a second.

 

Absolute minimum of 3/4 of sec. from observing something to reacting... (Bimmer how good are you on your draw?) then you have engine spool up etc.

 

No... this problem began long before crossing the fence.

[n4gix 4,947]

I'm astonished that some television moron, excuse me I mean Newscaster, hasn't asked why they hadn't made that a "four-way stop" intersection... :LMAO:

[KevinAu 441]

Just read on another forum where a guy who flies out of that airport says he's typically 60 to 75 feet agl at the road (http://www.pilotsofa...ead.php?t=54118 post #19)

 

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

I looked at that video a half dozen times or so when first posted (and several times since) and I (like Hook) see no "up elevator" (looks more like "mirage" and you can't see the bellcrank imo). The sink is obvious... but from stall? From the (Student) pilot's position... I bet he had no clue the car was even there. First solo X-C... focused on landing... had to have seen the car when his eyes glazed over like a jacklighted deer looking at the runway? :rolleyes:

 

And his idea of " if the CFI had taught to use throttle" vs whatever is pure speculation that could be tossed in with the red herrings. This won't be the question the FAA will be asking.

 

The plane wasn't where it was "supposed" to be... really that simple... how the insurance works it out another matter.

 

I wouldn't put much weight with the guy who said he'd be 70 feet over that spot. If you do the math for what a 3 degree glideslope would be for that spot, the aircraft should be at 22.5' above the ground. If some guy on another board says he like to come in with a steep power off glide, that's his perogative. But it really doesn't show you how potentially low an aircraft could be there while still being on a normal glideslope. Can anybody measure out how high that aircraft was, just prior to the big swoop into the car?

 

That's fine that you don't see the elevator deflection. Yes, it might be difficult to distinguish and I am not there to lean over your shoulder to point it out to you, so I won't argue any further with you on this one. Suffice to say that some guy says he sees the elevator being yanked back but others sure can't see nothing.

 

Yes, that sink is obvious, isn't it? Maybe not a full stall, but potentially an increased sink from the pilot pulling back on the stick while at minimum controllable airspeed? Could that be plausible? What could possibly cause that pilot to suddenly want to pull back on that stick at that point? What could he have seen out the corner of his eyes to make him want to get away from the ground by pulling back on the stick? Hmmm. I don't know.

 

I'll just enumerate the points that I see in this video, and wait for the NTSB to say where I've hit or missed.

 

1. Pilot was aiming for proper touchdown point, but was on a low, maybe 2.5 degree slope no-flap approach.

2. Pilot sees vehicle approaching and reacts by pulling sharply on stick, causing aircraft to sink into the vehicle.

3. Vehicle driver will be faulted for not giving way to aircraft.

4. Pilot will be faulted for not using correct control inputs to climb the airplane.

5. Instructor will be faulted for inadequate instruction because his student failed to use the controls properly, as the student caused the plane to descend more rapidly when he wanted to make it climb, resulting in a crash.

[Great Ozzie 101]

I wouldn't put much weight with the guy who said he'd be 70 feet over that spot. If you do the math for what a 3 degree glideslope would be for that spot, the aircraft should be at 22.5' above the ground. If some guy on another board says he like to come in with a steep power off glide, that's his perogative.

 

Kevin...

 

I posted the the link to the AF/D for Roanoke for a reason... the VASI glide angle is 4.5° for Rwy 17...

 

What could possibly cause that pilot to suddenly want to pull back on that stick at that point?

 

Imminent contact with the ground? Although as I alluded to before... looked like he was going to drive it straight down to the deck.

[Cessnaflyer 56]

I posted the the link to the AF/D for Roanoke for a reason... the VASI glide angle is 4.5° for Rwy 17...

 

That would give a height of 34 feet using the proper glideslope from the AFD.

[LHookins 3,103]

Can anybody measure out how high that aircraft was, just prior to the big swoop into the car?

 

Compare how high the plane was to the height of the SUV. A big SUV is 6 feet high. The Volvo was probably smaller, but certainly no less than 5 feet; someone can research it if they wish.

 

Now... if the pilot had pulled back on the yoke, wouldn't that cause the plane's nose to raise, even a little? I didn't see any of that that either. Maybe someone else's eyes are better for this than mine. But I'll take Kevin's word that the elevators rose.

 

I'd estimate the height of the plane just prior to dropping the nose at no more than about 10-12 feet at some distance beyond 430 feet. That puts him on a 1 degree glide slope (check my post above for the math). No way that's 2.5 degrees. And since the VASI for that runway is 4.5 degrees, the pilot had 2 red in any case.

 

Even without an elevator change, without seeing the SUV and intending to land on the end of the pavement (far short of the normal touchdown point), he may have simply cut the throttle too early for his flare. As this pilot was taking lessons at this airport, he would have made a few landings there already and should have known how to do it.

 

Hook

[BimmerCop 332]

We found the culprit... The SUV was too big. The driver should have purchased a Mini Cooper and this disaster could have been averted. Shame on that driver.

[Great Ozzie 101]

That would give a height of 34 feet using the proper glideslope from the AFD.

 

And Chris... if you were right seat... you would have been all over that guy had he drug it in like that with you there... especially knowing vehicular traffic is "common" there. I know I would have been.

 

 

 

As this pilot was taking lessons at this airport, he would have made a few landings there already and should have known how to do it.

 

See... this is why I would have some pucker factor if I was his instructor.

 

 

if the pilot had pulled back on the yoke, wouldn't that cause the plane's nose to raise, even a little?

 

Yep... this is what I was also looking for... and it even appeared to dip a little.

 

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

 

AIM 2-1-2. Visual Glideslope Indicators

 

2. "Although normal glide path angles are three degrees, angles at some locations may be as high as 4.5 degrees to give proper obstacle clearance."

[LHookins 3,103]

According to Google Earth, the VASI and threshold are 629 feet elevation. The road where the SUV was is 642 feet. So subtract 13 feet of elevation to any glide slope measurements.

 

1.0 degrees = -5.5 feet <-- Underground.

2.0 degrees = 2 feet

3.0 degrees = 9.5 feet <-- this was probably where the pilot was just prior to the nose dropping.

4.5 degrees = 20.8 feet <-- this is where the pilot should have been.

 

Sorry Kevin, your 2.5 degrees was closer than my 1.0 degrees from before. The pilot still had all red.

 

Hook