Video:Plane crashes into SUV on runway in Texas

[falcon20driver]

"He said, she said..." I'm glad I'm not involved in this one for sure. I find all the opinions on here very interesting and valid from many angles. Sometimes I think we forget that $&!@ happens sometimes and thats just how it is. Now I'll through my .02 cents in because I'm bored and tired of sitting in these stupid hotels. As a private jet captain and former flight instructor I can see this from many angles. First of all landing a 172 without flaps is no biggie. In fact in a stiff crosswind little to no flaps actually increases your ability to handle the crosswind. When operating without flaps a (slighlty) shallower approach is normal because you don't have the added drag to fly a steeper approach without gaining airspeed. You can fly a normal approach angle without flaps but with reduced power (pretty much idle). The issue with that is you are operating closer to the critical angle of attack therefore must be cognizant you dont have as much "reserve" energy left to stop the decent, flare and touchdown. No issue if your aware of that and are capable of adjusting your final few seconds to touchdown, but a newer student pilot is not at that point yet. As for the low approach... In the Falcon when operating into a smaller strip I intentionally fly a lower approach angle (as per the FARs when necessary for a safe landing) because you can't waste runway. If I fly a normal glide slope to "the aiming point" usually 1000' down the runway I won't touchdwon till 1500' down the runway. A 5000' strip (tight in a falcon) just became 3500'. Therefore I move MY aiming point to the threshold, resulting in a touchdown around 500' down the runway leaving much needed stopping room. Same goes if I take a 172 into a tight strip with a displaced threshold. I pick my touchdown point then set MY aiming point a few hundred feet in front of that. That leads my aiming point and subsequent flare to be over the beginning of the displaced threshold. Most planes be they jets or 172s will eat up that 500' between the aiming point and touchdown point, and that's if your on speed. I'd bet the instructor hamered into the students head "DON'T FLOAT" and the student was overly focused on that. I think the bigger issue is having a new student soloing out of a tight airstrip. No need to add to the risks of student pilots operating solo. Be that as it may, I think both sides are slightly responsible but I'm not the Fed investigating it :D .

[Rank11]

Rank, neither a 172 or the 182 I used to fly for 10 years will hold 3 degrees without power. Best glide ratio with a 172 is 9:1. 400/9= 44+ feet. Even if we don't use best glide, by your own numbers he's 15 feet too low.

Just an opinion, not law nothing to get out of shape over

I don't think this crash had anything to do with a power-off glide.

[FM-Whip]

Sorry, but i have to give my 2 cents.

Everybody is quick to blame the SUV driver, but let us deal with facts and not assumptions.

1) The road is a private one and not airport property. So claiming he has to abide to ground traffic rulles is no longer an argument.

2) There is only a badly painted sign on the road. No sign on a pole, and no context. Stop for what? If they don't know the region or the road, how would they know they have to look out for an airplane. Seriously, think about it.

3) The pilot was way to low and stalling. As someone pointed out, if there was never an SUV to hit, the video would show a very dangerous landing. You can make up excuses for the pilot, but the approach was rubbish.

#1 - FAA regulations apply even on private property, although maybe not all regulations will apply in this case. For example, all sorts of people have to put obstruction lights on tall towers, etc and many of those are private property or are on private property. The investigation and maybe a court will sort out who is responsible for what.

#2 - the guy driving the SUV was familiar with the airport - he and his wife are described as "aviation enthusiasts" who have frequently eaten at the airport restaurant, so there would be presumption there that they know the difference between an airplane and a handsaw, and to look out for airplanes when close to a runway. Signage does appear to be poor or minimal - faded white verbiage painted on the road. It's interesting that the road supposedly is privately-owned by somebody else besides the airport operator, since the road mainly feeds the airport, and is called, appropriately enough, "Airport Road". There appear to be at least four residences on Airport Road, all located within a line of trees which seems to delineate the airport property.

#3 - yep, very low approach. If he wouldn't have put it onto that SUV he might have put it on a paved area but it would have been a close one.

I STILL think that the SUV driver will bear the brunt of the blame, with the pilot a contributing factor. The airport layout versus where the road is placed will also come into consideration, and the owners/operators of both those properties are probably going to get pulled into this.

I predict lawyers will get involved....:-)

On Google Maps if you zoom out to a lower resolution there's two MD-80/90s in trail formation just to the SE of the airport, probably sequential photos of the same a/c. Also, there appears to be a C-117 on the airport grounds.

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

Edited November 6, 2012 by FM-Whip

[TaiidanTomcat]

Well, there's your problem, "STOP" is painted in the wrong direction ...

Good eye, I missed that.

Once upon a time someone wrote an editorial about how our local cessna port was an easy mark for terrorists and drug planes and so the airport management erected a fence around the entire airport. I don't know how many terrorists or drug lords it stopped, but I do know it at least created a little barrier for when you left real world and entered airplane world. After passing through the gate and entering airplane world I drove slower and was more aware of my surroundings, usually rolling down my windows to further enhance my senses.

The SUV people in that vid got none of that and never technically entered airport property.

On another note, our little cessna port was kinda in the middle of nowhere and at the end of a road. At least twice week we got people who showed up in various states of confusion and even tears and panic as to how they had arrived there, until someone could clue them in and give them directions for whatever outlet they had missed. We even had a mayorial motorcade get lost there once. Ill tell you one thing, no one was thinking about airplanes and runways in that state of mind. now I don't know if the SUV people were regulars or what they were doing out there or passing through on the way to somewhere else. I guess they could tell you. Im giving you this Cool Story Bro to show you we had people get lost and come to our cessna port all the time with no clue that there was even an airport out there until they arrived (and they only stopped and asked directions because the road ran out or they probably would have obliviously continued for miles.

Ahh thanks FM Whip

Edited November 6, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[Jay Chladek]

I've done no flap landings in a Cessna before, no big deal. Flight technique comes with experience. If he stalled it, even if he was well trained, he was still a relatively inexperienced pilot and it is training and experience that overcomes first instincts and butt logic. It is like overcoming vertigo when doing IFR is your instruments tell you one thing but your inner ear is telling you something else (just ask JFK jr. about that one, oh that's right, we can't). It takes MAJOR EFFORT to overcome the inner ear and focus on those little dials.

So if he is on a descent to landing and all of the sudden sees the black roof of an SUV, a more experienced pilot likely would jam the throttles full forward and pull the yoke back. A less experienced one might just pull back first because while he might have book knowledge that says low and slow with a sudden stick pull back will cause you to drop like a rock, the instincts are to just pull back on the yoke since the practical experience of that was only covered in the slow flight lesson several weeks before. Instinct without thinking can sometimes result in panic. The SUV still should NOT have been there to begin with IF the driver had stopped and looked to either side, same as with a train crossing.

Another thing to factor in is when coming back from a solo cross country (if that was the case here), the cobwebs sort of have to be shaken loose from the brain towards the end. That first solo VFR cross country is a long day's worth of activity. I remember mine well as I did a total distance of about 500 miles (Omaha to Beatrice, to Topeka for lunch, back to Omaha). First I had to spend what seemed like an hour or two filling out the paperwork while checking my aeronautical chart, then filling out the flightplan before calling Flight Service to file it. Then there is the preflight, getting in the plane and flying to the first destination, landing, closing that leg of the plan, opening the next one and doing it again for the second leg. Then you do the whole thing over once again for the final leg after spending about two hours in the plane minimum.

So as you come back from that unfamiliar airspace you flew into back into the more familiar surroundings of your home airport after being away for two to four hours, your guard relaxes a little. Sometimes though, that means complacency combined with a little fatigue. Maybe your checklist isn't as visible since you still have an aeronautical chart strapped to your leg (this Cessna 172S likely had a GPS unit, but my instructor still taught me to keep a chart backup just in case so I knew where I was at all times) and the radio frequency list you wrote down before takeoff that morning. So perhaps you might forget to drop the flaps while doing a standard downwind, base leg, final approach. Anyone remember Ted Lawson and the Ruptured Duck during the Dolittle raid (30 Seconds Over Tokyo)? They launched from the Hornet without dropping the flaps before takeoff. They got up, but they did breathe a sigh of relief and three people (pilot, co-pilot, engineer) forgot about them. Chances are the pilot here was concentrating on trying to get down and running through the checklist, but forgot the flaps. It happens. He would have touched down on the runway (even if in the displaced threshhold area) just fine if not for somebody else who had a worse oversight than he did.

[TaiidanTomcat]

True, it may not be airport property. However, there are countless private roads on airport property. Most flying clubs at small airports have a private road leading to their FBO. While the road is "private", it is on airport property. If it is a "private" road on airport property meant for public use, then it is the responsibility of the roads owner to ensure it is marked properly to ensure compliance with restrictions for any aiport traffic.

Thats going to be one for courts. I wonder if it is indeed on airport property if they will probably get dinged worse for not having proper warning signs. We also know the pilot didn't have his liscense yet, and that may not help in the courts

I guess we will know how to all shakes out in about 3 years.

My congrats to Holmes who has dumped a real "Law school Scenario" in our laps, with lots of" Yes, however" and "No, but"

Edited November 6, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[DutyCat]

Pilot made some BAD rookie mistakes..He may have legally had the right of way, but he was the one to blame in this accident. If he were flying his Cessna correctly, it would not have mattered if the SUV were there or not. He is way too low, and his no flap approach is a no-no, unless for training, heavy winds, or they don't work properly. The aircraft also practically dropped out of the sky at the last second due to his no flap approach and decreasing airspeed. He may not have stalled, but he was well below his flaps up sweet spot max glide in a 172 of about 70 knots, IIRC. He is probably correct in his decision not to fly again!

[FM-Whip]

The SUV people in that vid got none of that and never technically entered airport property.

On another note, our little cessna port was kinda in the middle of nowhere and at the end of a road. At least twice week we got people who showed up in various states of confusion and even tears and panic as to how they had arrived there, until someone could clue them in and give them directions for whatever outlet they had missed. We even had a mayorial motorcade get lost there once. Ill tell you one thing, no one was thinking about airplanes and runways in that state of mind. now I don't know if the SUV people were regulars or what they were doing out there or passing through on the way to somewhere else. I guess they could tell you. Im giving you this Cool Story Bro to show you we had people get lost and come to our cessna port all the time with no clue that there was even an airport out there until they arrived (and they only stopped and asked directions because the road ran out or they probably would have obliviously continued for miles.

Ahh thanks FM Whip

We don't know that they weren't on airport property - most of this info is second-hand anyway.

As far as people showing up on airports without knowing it, yeah that happens all the time. I've spent years working on various airfields, and I've seen people driving across runways, for example. Sometimes you can't even trust people who work on airfields to behave properly on the airfield. But the couple who were in the SUV that became a mini-runway for the Cessna were repeat visitors to this same airfield, and went there for lunch. THEY WERE GOING TO THE AIRFIELD. And this is not second-hand news - they were interviewed on TV. I guess they didn't know airplanes would be there, or that they were using an access road that is only a few feet from the end of the runway, despite having been there multiple times prior. This is like driving to a marina to see the pretty boats and driving your car off a dock, never having noticed that there's an ocean there on your prior 10 visits, and also complaining that there was no sign that said, "WARNING - OCEAN NEARBY!".

I also want to point out that statistically about half the U.S. population has an IQ below 100.

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

[TaiidanTomcat]

"WARNING - OCEAN NEARBY!".

Give it time...

[majortomski]

I don't think this crash had anything to do with a power-off glide.

On the contrary I was taught to plan the approach so that if I lost power I'd make the runway. In both my example and your example IF he was at the corect altitude at the end of the displaced threashold i.e. at least 15 feet higher he'd of made the true end of the runway.

[HOLMES]

My congrats to Holmes who has dumped a real "Law school Scenario" in our laps, with lots of" Yes, however" and "No, but"

TT you are welcome .

I like to throw a spanner in every now and then.

But I have learnt a lot listening to you gentlemen.. ..

Edited November 7, 2012 by HOLMES

[streetstream]

It's interesting that the road supposedly is privately-owned by somebody else besides the airport operator, since the road mainly feeds the airport, and is called, appropriately enough, "Airport Road".

Actually, it is called "Kelly Drive". So no hints there.

[Red Dog]

scary stuff anyway ..

I'm a student pilot myself and no later than yesterday we learned that the first reflex of student pilot when landing and a problem occurs is to pull the stick to climb. Since close to stall speed, it's the wrong thing to do, I'm not blaming the pilot at all - he should probably have added power first if he saw the SUV. If he pulled the stick, he might have stalled the airplane into the SUV. Easy for me to say. I'm honest enough to realize that if I were in his shoes and seeing the SUV at the last possible moment, I probably would have pulled the stick first and adding power just after. Serves me right!

As for the flat approach, the pilot has no flaps. So it's clear that his approach is flatter. The question is why no flaps? We don't get the flaps out when we got crosswinds and we land flatter too. Sometimes, the Ip just want us to make a no flap landing... There might be a reason why the guy didn't use the flaps.

That SUV shouldn't be there in the first place, but the driver isn't the sole responsible - although that was clearly a lack of situation awareness :). The authorities around the airport are responsible as well for accepting such a faint signals on that road? At least here we have traffic lights turning red when an aircraft is on final. :)

Edited November 7, 2012 by Red Dog

[FM-Whip]

Sorry, I have to be a smart a**. By the very definition of IQ, exactly 50% of the U.S. population minus one has an IQ below 100. With some 300 million in population, I think we can push sampling error to the side.

Actually I knew when I posted it and used the word "about" that I would get a response....:-)

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

[Hawkeye's Hobbies]

As a pilot who has landed at many airstrips similar to one in this incident I know too well about operating at such fields. There are two near where I live.

This one is along a heavily traveled county road...signage warns drivers to beware of low flying aircraft. You actually skim just about the roadway on your approach. Power lines that parallel the road are buried the width of the field to give aircraft a clear approach.

This one is along side a major US highway. The strip is being elevated due to the recent improvements which raised the level of the highway in this section. I always enjoyed landing here...looking at the expression of drivers faces as you passed just feet above them. Semi's were a different issue. You had to time your approach to them...turbulence from them was tough on your approach. Again signage is posted to advise drivers of low flying aircraft.

Even at Scott AFB,IL where I learned to fly you had to watch for passing cars and trains when landing on Runway 31. If an aircraft was making an exceptionally low approach even with its displaced runway, the tower would activate the warning lights on the roadway to stop vehicle traffic.

The pilot was in the right regardless of what position his flaps were in, his angle of descent, student pilot or experienced one.

In aviation common sense IS applied. An aircraft does not have the same reaction speed/time as a vehicle on the ground, so roadways which encroach on airfield operations are marked to tell vehicles on the ground they are to look for, yield to and otherwise be aware of aircraft operations. Its no different than a railroad crossing that doesn't have automated crossing barriers...you are REQUIRED to look in both directions BEFORE crossing the intersection! Yet cars tangle with trains all the time and the train usually gets the blame for hitting the vehicle. Just the other day a tank truck crossed in front of an approaching train and got struck. The driver never looked before crossing over the tracks. Both in the truck lived. Some people just ignore signage and have zero situational awareness!

If you listen to the complete audio of this plane/SUV incident, the driver admits to not looking, neither at the signage on the roadway nor for landing aircraft approaching the runway. Blames the plane's pilot for striking their vehicle as they would had it been a train if they lived. Just another person who is out driving around oblivious to their surroundings. Its these types that pull in front of trains, planes and other automobiles!

Yes, the pilot probably was watching for potential ground incursions, but he probably never saw the vehicle as it was below his field of view. It was approaching from his right, which in itself is a greater sized blindspot. If a small child is crawling next to the passenger side of your car will you see it? Probably not..even in your mirror.

This accident could have been a fatal one. Personally, I hope they cite the driver for failure to stop. In the end the insurance companies will fight it out...that is if the vehicle owner had any. If not, especially if the driver was cited, they can expect to be sued for the loss of the plane and the revenue it would have earned.

[Wayfarer 30]

I am glad nobody died. The nose gear looked like it impacted just behind the driver's head! The driver had a full field of view even with the fence there. He should have been able to see the aircraft. I also agree that the aircraft was low on approach.

I bet they couldn't do it again if they tried though becuase That was some crazy timing.

[HOLMES]

I am glad nobody died. The nose gear looked like it impacted just behind the driver's head! The driver had a full field of view even with the fence there. He should have been able to see the aircraft. I also agree that the aircraft was low on approach.

I bet they couldn't do it again if they tried though becuase That was some crazy timing.

....Yeah but some car drivers never look anywhere else except straight ahead

Edited November 7, 2012 by HOLMES

[streetstream]

I'm sorry, but to me it seems like some people here lost common sence. There is only a stopsign badly painted on the road. Even if he saw it, what does he have too stop and look out for? the plane is descending rapidly at the end, so if you put yourself in the SUV drivers place, you would have to look up, not just to the left. If there is no sign to warn for low flying aircraft, how would you know what to look out for. At a rail crossing, it is clearly marked as a railcrossing. You can see the tracks. If you are driving on a road and there is a badly painted sign on the road that just states 'stop', how do you know what to look out for. Don't tell me it is impossible or even dangerous to place a sign, 4 feet tall, 30 feet of either side of the runway that warns of low flying aircraft.

Now, a stop sign states simply to stop and look both ways. It is not a universal sign warning of low flying aircraft. In a 10 mile radius from where i live there are 2 regional airports with roads running just past the runway. Both have signs warning about low flying aircraft and those are roads where traffic is not expected to stop and give way. It is just to warn drivers so they don't get spooked by a plane. Now here you have a situation that is 100 times more dangerous and all they place is some badly painted sign on the road?

Now we all like planes and the pilots who fly them, but blaming the SUV driver just to clear a pilot who made a terrible approuch and even stalled his plane is just not right.

Sorry to rant on here, but i jst can't grasp the fact that hardly anyone can see that the pilot made a bad approach and that even if there was no car there, he would have made a hard landing and one that was way to premature (in front of the treshold).

Edited November 7, 2012 by streetstream

[niart17]

I may have to agree with street on this one, not the SUV's fault. Except I think that the city and or county is to blame. If you go on google maps and look at that road, the "stop sign" is really really poorly painted, faded and very small AND right at the corner, far away from the actual runway. I'd imagine that thing is run all the time by people who never even see it. I don't think you could even tell it was a runway if you aren't familiar with the area. There should be at the very least a sign on a post if not flashing caution lights with signs saying approaching aircraft. It would be like having a 4-way intersection with only one direction having a horribly faded painted indication that might say stop on it IF the lighting is just right. I say whoever is in charge of keeping up that road is to blame.

Bill

[famvburg]

As a pilot and small airport manager, with several hundred hours in C172s among others, I'll add my 2 cents. If I repeat something that someone else covered, sorry, I haven't read all the posts in great detail. Regardless, the airplane was too low. So they have a 400' displaced threshold, at the point airplane was, he should have been way higher. It's clear the Cessna was aiming for the END of the runway. Why he didn't have flaps, who knows and the student didn't say. Some instructors teach not to use flaps until the student has more experience. Then again, the student may have had enough sense to know he was too far out and too low to need flaps. I'm not clear from the narrative, was it his actual first solo or his first solo cross-country? I read or heard it was a return from his first solo x/c. If it was his solo x/c, he had more time than if it were his first solo. Anyway, t here's a reason for the displaced thershold and if he learned to fly at that airport, he knew better. My airport has a displaced threshold of 300', but that's for trees. There's a public road about 500' from the runway's end. About 20 years ago we had a plane crash into a 100' tree 3/10 of a mile from the END of the runway, too low, too far out at night. At that approach angle, he wasn't going to make the runway anyway. There are various runway zones that are 'protected', which I won't try to get in to, but one of them is an approach angle of 'x' degrees. ANYTHING below that angle is fair game. I know years ago, on 2 several-acre farm fields off one end of our runway, there were 2 trees about 40' tall on a creek bank, right in line with the runway, so technically an airplane could drop over the 200' hill a half mile from the end of the runway and fly 6' off the field to touchdown, except for the 2 trees that would smack them down, there was nothing. Because the trees were not on airport property, AND below the APPROVED glide path, NOTHING was required to be done. Out of courtesy, the FBO, not the City, got permission from the landowner to cut the trees, which the FBO dod at their expense. If the road at the airport featured is an issue, the airport authority can get an easement or other access to that road, but for some reason they have a displaced threshold. I just checked the airport info at Airnav.co and it seems they have 2 obstructions listed. A 10' hill 200' from the end of the runway and a road 30' from the runway. http://www.airnav.com/airport/52F. So, say what you will, blame it on the SUV, but my guess is that the FAA is going to fault the pilot (and his CFI since he is a student) with the road and SUV being contributing factors. Lastly, at the grass strip my dad used to fly his cropduster off of, one end was at a gravel road, they had a sign made that said 'airplane crossing'. From what I see, all that there is on the road here is a poorly painted 'stop', with no explanation.

Edited November 8, 2012 by famvburg

[Big Nick]

I'm coming at this from a UK drivers point of view and looking at the airfield via Google Streetview. I have driven on several airfields where you have to cross the runway at some point and all of the active ones have warning signs before you enter the runway area. They range from full size gates to traffic lights to simple 'Low Aircraft' roadsigns.

Now, the Streetview images are poor quality but I see nothing to say 'You are entering an Airport' or 'Low Flying Aircraft'. At that left turn there really should be something to warn you there's a runway nearby. You know, just a basic eye-level 'Low Aircraft' sign would be appropriate here or even a hand painted sign saying Look Out! The roadmarkings also need repainting.

That said, the SUV driver must have known where they were going and assumed it would be safe to drive along there. So used to it that they didn't look.

[Bigasshammm]

Shocking video: Plane crashes into SUV coming into land on runway

What was the SUV doing landing on that runway anyway?

[DutyCat]

Some instructors teach not to use flaps until the student has more experience.

I don't know of any instructors that teach that. A no flap landing is almost always a more challenging scenario than with flaps, aside from remembering to put the flaps down in increments at the right time.

If he was too low to use flaps, as you suggest, then he is not set up for a proper, stabilized approach and should have executed a go around to proper traffic pattern altitude. Not using flaps on a long straight in because you realize you are too low and want to stretch a glide to a marginal landing is poor technique...not to mention that the pilot was clearly clueless about his aircraft's max C/L airspeed in a no flap configuration, as evidenced by his plane developing a high sink rate close in when he gets slow.

Yes, the SUV driver was not paying attention, but this accident would have been avoided with proper piloting technique. Insofar as the FAA blaming the pilot and his CFI...you can count on it.

Edited November 10, 2012 by DutyCat

[Winnie]

You guys STILL don't get it...

NO MATTER WHAT... According to part 91.113, para (g) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the PILOT of an AIRCRAFT on FINAL APPROACH has the right of way REGARDLESS. Only one way to get ahead, and that is being in an emergency...

NO MATTER WHAT...

So even if the pilot was coming in upside down backwards with no seatbelts on, he STILL HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY...

It is in the regulatins...

So the argument is really moot. The guy, landed on the wrong portion of the runway, ok, he did a mistake, but he STILL had the right of way. end of discussion really.

[Barneydhc82]

Duty Cat: I know of a number of flight training units that will not teach the use of flaps until after solo..the excuse..it is too dangerous! As someone who instructed in a great many types of aircraft over a 40 year period, I taught the use of flaps (if available) right from the start. As for flapless approaches being more challenging..in a C172 or any other light aircraft, that is nonsense. Maybe in a CF-104 with an approach speed of 230 knots by all means it is a challenge but not in a GA aircraft.

Folks on this thread have talked of the "high sink rate", "stalling on short final", "approved glideslopes" and all I can say is BS..if you were in the aircraft, you could comment on what happened but/....!

The displaced threshold is predicated on a formula of 1 in 50..that is for ever 50 feet from the end of the runway you cannot have anything higher than 1 foot. There is absolutely nothing that says that you are prohibited from lamding short of the displaced threshold provided it is done safely.

As for that SUV..there is a large sign on both sides of the approach path road instructing drivers to give way to aircraft. I watched a video taken by a motorcyclist with a helmet cm do a ride after this accident took place and the signs are clearly visible. The SUV driver is clearly at fault!

Barney..with over 60 years of flying

Retired ATC

Retired flight instructor