Yea, with "Private Property", it get's all kinds of complicated. I have no clue about FAA jurisdiction, but my assumption is that, as a PRIVATE field (not a public one), that is why they don't. The next thing would be to look into what is involved in getting your own field on your own property.. maybe that would explain allot about that process and FAA responsibilities.

 

As Oz said, there's going to be allot of suing here. The field owner, the pilot will sue... the car driver will sue, and all the insurance companies will sue each other. If one of the previous posters is correct, and the Cessna is a newer plane, then we are talking about some serious money.

 

I'm very glad that all are O.k... but in the end... someone is gonna wish they were dead... and because 52F has allot of accidents associated with it the last couple years, it most likely will be the field owner... The argument being that not enough was done for the safety of that area of the runway.

This quote from that latest article is very misleading...

A Google Maps aerial photograph of the runway taken several years ago shows an arrow designating where planes can land moved away from the north end of the runway.

Today, the arrow is at the edge of the landing strip.

 

Um, that arrow does NOT indicate "where planes can land!" :rolleyes:

 

I await explanations as to why this isn't the fault of the driver in the blue car.........

The Pilot did not land his plane before the threshold. All the argument that he landed short of the threshold is conjecture. He probably wanted to mush his way all the way to the line of the threshold thinking correctly that he had right of way.

 

In that case it is the fault of the blue car but the cases aren't comparable.

What if the road was a pvt road? would that have made any difference?

The Pilot did not land his plane before the threshold. All the argument that he landed short of the threshold is conjecture.

 

Yep... you're exactly right Manny. Obvious from the video he landed on top of an SUV driving on a road north of the runway.

 

 

In that case it is the fault of the blue car but the cases aren't comparable.

 

No no mgh... it is comparable because the red one actually an airplane... you just can't see the wings. And the fact he was hovering just above the street to land 400' on the other side.

I await explanations as to why this isn't the fault of the driver in the blue car.........

 

It's not the blue car driver's fault, as they had not received their government sponsored "glare blockers". Thus the third-party sun is at-fault for beating down upon a poor, defenseless automobile driver and their exposed retinas. Expect that a suit will be filed against The Weather Channel any day now for contributory negligence.

And don't forget with train tracks,

that trains passing on them, with or without barriers is just something that happens to other people.

Who would ever think of a train going past bcause there isnt a sign?

Who would ever think of a train going past bcause there isnt a sign?

 

Well... this is my point with car traffic.

 

With a road in front of a runway with a long displaced threshold... so the the road is there and you (as a pilot) do not expect vehicular traffic to use it? We can do what Manny suggests... just clear the fence and plan to float to where the landing portion of the runway begins... and play chicken with cars that may happen along the roadway.

 

Say the restaurant closed and there was a line of cars on Kelly Drive exiting onto Co. Rd 338... still going to blame the car?

 

Or lets say a cow happened in the same spot... blame the cow?

 

I agree would be better to leave a space in front of the runway... just like I don't sit on train tracks nor do I sit in the middle of an intersection waiting to turn (left).

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.

 

If this were the case than the rwy is way too short for the aircraft to take off from, or the car decided to take a short cut accross an an active rwy so in this case its the drivers fault, since the planes taking off not landing

I once had a lawn tractor mowing the grass pull right onto the runway in front of me while transitioning to a flare in Winnemuca, NV, making a go around necessary. Training in Michigan where one sees a deer on the runway often, I'd say the poor fellow needed to be better prepared for a go around,and things not always to go as expected, just like a good ifr pilot always expects a miss. Same for the car driver..

Here's a clue..... what should a driver do at a stop sign?

 

Lets make it easy for the Air Commodores, CFI's, Arm Chair Aces, bar room lawyers .....oh and btw this is INTERNATIONALLY recognised as the case

 

What should ANY driver of ANY VEHICLE do at a stop sign?

 

It's a toughie I know so I'll give you some more help ...the answer only has 4 letters......

 

Nah I'm being ridiculously unfair here aren't I ...OK four letters beginning with S?

 

Oh and whislt your thinking about that one what's the difference between a fatal RTA involving a dog and a fatal RTA involving a lawyer? There are skid marks before the dog B)

 

BTW Sara seems like we're expecting a bit too much? Just read the stats on here http://oli.org/

Ah didnt see that there was a stop sign, than no doubt its the drivers fault for not stopping wonder if he getting a ticket for failing to stop a a stop sign

Ah didnt see that there was a stop sign

 

There isn't one.