PPF must have been off the charts on this one........

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

90% of them are either talking on a cell phone or texting.

This is the likely cause as to why the SUV driver didn't see the airplane, IMHO.

-Z

[Joeaksa]

Guys people on this thread keep saying "there was no need to be that low" but what if the pilot was practicing short field landings? Then there IS A reason to be that low.

The issue was the chick on the phone blew through the stop-sign and got in the flight-path of the airplane. The flight-path is "protected area" for airplanes and thats the reason for the stop signs!

[Jrboulder]

****! I've landed at 52F before!

It's been a rough couple months for Northwest Regional, first that Arrow now this.

[9dreizig]

I was just going to echo Joe's statement.. In a normal approach,, that pilot was only a throttle blip away from nailing the numbers.. 100% the drivers fault..
Let's put it this way ,, if that were another car and not a plane,, the SUV blew the stop sign ,, case closed

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

I was just going to echo Joe's statement.. In a normal approach,, that pilot was only a throttle blip away from nailing the numbers.. 100% the drivers fault..
Let's put it this way ,, if that were another car and not a plane,, the SUV blew the stop sign ,, case closed

I vote for "give the plane the right-of-way". Seems like a good policy in general, or maybe I just don't like my chances against a flying Osterizer.

[304065]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

Guys people on this thread keep saying "there was no need to be that low" but what if the pilot was practicing short field landings? Then there IS A reason to be that low.

I'm with Joe on this one-- just because there is a displaced threshold (400 feet at 52F) doesn't mean you can't be below a 4.5 glidepath as long as the wheels touch at the threshold. If my math is correct (tan 4.5 deg) that is a height of 31.5 feet at runway end. Given that the road is pretty far from the end of the runway, his height above the road would be even higher on a 4.5 deg glidepath.

One could make a credible case that NONE of this applies under Part 91 VFR.

The runway is only 40 feet wide, that is narrow. (Not as bad as 45G where I used to land, at 24 feet, that is a sidewalk!) Would give the appearance of being high, even though RWY 17 has a 2-box VASI on the right.

Listed in the AFD for RWY 17-- "ROAD 30 FT FM END OF RUNWAY"

Looks like the poor guy didn't have time to go around.

None of which absolves the driver from her own negligence.

[cashflyer]

I will be the voice of dissent to the old sticks here.

With regard to short field landings, the old PTS allowed an applicant to make a long, low approach slightly above stall speed and control the glide path with power. Crossing the threshold, you close the throttle and drop the aircraft, at stall speed, onto the touchdown point with little forward momentum. Examiners still see this technique occasionally, and their reaction is an FAA Notice of Disapproval.

Flat, power-on approaches just above stall speed don't account for obstacle clearance, and if the engine fails (or an SUV cruises by), you have no options.

I believe the current standard (pts) is that all approaches must assume clearing a 50' obstacle. Dragging her in over the fence won't get a pass from an examiner these days.

[Burnin' oil]

What stop sign? Google earth street view - faded "STOP" on pavement but no sign. Rookie pilot - first solo trip, etc.

Pilot error

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Burnin' oil

What stop sign? Google earth street view - faded "STOP" on pavement but no sign. Rookie pilot - first solo trip, etc.

Pilot error

Around airports and runways, the "stop sign" is painted on the road, not stuck in the ground. You do not want a sign on a pole sticking up in the air near a runway... not recommended as airplanes tend to hit them. Airports have different rules than out on the street.

She was talking on the phone while driving on airport property. Did not yield... end of story.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

I will be the voice of dissent to the old sticks here.

With regard to short field landings, the old PTS allowed an applicant to make a long, low approach slightly above stall speed and control the glide path with power. Crossing the threshold, you close the throttle and drop the aircraft, at stall speed, onto the touchdown point with little forward momentum. Examiners still see this technique occasionally, and their reaction is an FAA Notice of Disapproval.

Flat, power-on approaches just above stall speed don't account for obstacle clearance, and if the engine fails (or an SUV cruises by), you have no options.

I believe the current standard (pts) is that all approaches must assume clearing a 50' obstacle. Dragging her in over the fence won't get a pass from an examiner these days.

Harvey,

Depends on what type of approach you are shooting. The normal approach does have the 50 foot obs to factor in, but others are the low and slow, drag the airplane in to the absolute end of the runway and land.

It does not matter what type of approach the pilot was doing, the SUV did not yield right of way on the airport property, end of discussion, the SUV is in the wrong.

[304065]

Look closely at the photos gents. How much flap do you see?

The OLD POH specified flaps 40. Later they changed it to flaps 30. I don't see anything hanging down from the trailing edge. This suggests to me that he wasn't dragging it in, he was trying a no-flap approach at idle power.

[ODDJOB UNO]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

Guys people on this thread keep saying "there was no need to be that low" but what if the pilot was practicing short field landings? Then there IS A reason to be that low.

The issue was the chick on the phone blew through the stop-sign and got in the flight-path of the airplane. The flight-path is "protected area" for airplanes and thats the reason for the stop signs!

AND KIDDIES........................whenever driving ANY VEHICLE on ANY AIRPORT or WALKING..................AIRCRAFT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY! so the next time ya wanna square off with an airplane..............well yer gonna LOOSE BIG TIME! and have yer butt 86th out of there as in EL PERMANENTE!

now on the other side of the coin:

1) aircraft may only do run ups in designated areas.

2) aircraft may NOT be operated in an UNSAFE MANNER around people/vehicles/structures. aka............. yelling-"CLEAR" and "FIRE IN DA HOLE" and "PROP CLEAR" or just simply........"HEY DUM AZZ DO YA WANNA GIT KILLED?" all of those are acceptable upon firing any aircraft engine be it fixed rotary piston or turbines.

3) aircraft are NEVER ALLOWED TO PROP WASH ANYTHING................EVAR!

4) aircraft MUST SAFE TAXI at a SPEED=TO A HUMAN WALKING or roughly 3MPH!



ask joe and I, HOW WE KNOW!



man one of the best ones here was this "drunk old beeatch" decides to cross mid-field in her car. well 99.999999999% thats OK after looking left and looking right and then looking left again like SGT SAFETY SAYS! but this time a giant azzd TWIN WAS ON SHORT SHORT SHORT FINAL FINAL FINAL.....................and damn near nailed her dum azz ! man DID THE POO HIT THE FAN OVER THAT ONE!


that dumazz in the video damn well WAS DEAD WRONG!

[widgeon13]

There is a displaced threshold on both ends of that runway 400 Ft on one end and 320 FT on the other end.

[esample]

Originally Posted by widebody911

Examples of irony would have been if he clipped an FAA official's car, or his instructor's car, or a truck full of landing gear.

That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Thanks for the levity, it made my morning!

-e.