SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,447 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here is the video, it pretty much explains itself. I blame the Airport for poor signage as well as the pilot for not knowing he is supposed to land further away from the END of the runway as that is there only for the takeoff, NOT for the landing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xU2HxqXUtk

Volvo shines either way :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,953 Posts
Bet they are glad they were driving a Volvo. I wish there were better pics of the damage to the XC90, because the 1 or 2 views didn't look all that bad. I wonder if the impact would have rolled a lighter weight vehicle. That airport/municipality needs to do something about the signage on that road. I'm not so sure that the driver didn't at least slow down for that "stop" painted on the road or that he could have seen the plane. Surely people using that road know that it is at the end of a runway. Good that everyone was relatively unscathed.



http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Plane-Hits-Car-At-Roanoke-Airport-177105211.html


just another clip
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,126 Posts
Kinda looks like a double fail to me. The driver should have used his peripheral vision to see the plane, and the pilot should have pulled up when he saw the SUV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
This is in no way the pilot's fault. The driver ran a stop sign. Maybe better signage could have helped but there was signage that the driver ignored and he caused a very dangerous and expensive accident because of it. You don't aim to land halfway down the runway, you aim to land to have as much runway available as possible in case something goes wrong; with his path coming in he would have flared just after crossing the threshold and would have landed smack dab in the touchdown zone. The pilot has the right of way there and the driver didn't give it to him.

By the time the driver ran the stop sign and had an incursion into the path of the plane there was nothing the pilot could have done. You can see that he actually banked slightly to try and avoid it but all that did was reduce his lift and cause the plane to drop onto the car. At that point in landing the plane is pretty much set on its course and is configured to be barely hanging in the sky at all so that it lands at a slower speed. He would have had to apply full throttle and waited for his descent rate to change by which time he would have pretty much been rolling down the runway if not floating along caught up in the ground effects.

I remember reading the report on this and the main issue is that the guy that owns the land on the other side of that fence absolutely refuses to allow them to run the road any further from the runway. He is the reason the setup is dangerous and the best the field can do to alleviate it is post more signs. At the end of the day it's up to the drivers of the cars who have the ability to just stop at will to actually read the signs and think abut what they're doing so they keep out of the paths of aircraft at the most delicate and locked in portion of a flight.

Also Volvos are tanks and if I had to pick one car to be hit by a plane in it would most certainly be a Volvo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
I still think the NTSB will assign primary fault for the accident to the pilot (for not performing a go around) with secondary responsibility to the vehicle being there (road design/placement) and a missing displaced landing zone on the runway.

Unless the pilot was just above stall speed at that point in his descent, he could've performed a go-around. He wasn't over the runway threshold yet so he should've had speed to spare. Ease back on the nose (pitch) to arrest the descent, full throttle (power) & apply rudder to counteract, and then flaps out as a positive rate of climb (performance) is attained. A pilot has to be prepared to go-around almost to the point the wheels stop rolling. Even during a follow-the-book descent on final, the plane still has "excess" speed (in that it could go slower and not stall).

The individual piloting the plane was still in training (did I read this was one of his first 3 solo takeoffs/landings?) and was focused on the workload of landing the plane.

But the NTSB determination can't be used in court and is really a "who had the last chance to prevent the accident" determination for learning purposes. Based on the road markings (not exactly official) it may have been perfectly legal for the Volvo to be there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Are you a pilot? I am still in training myself so if you are a CFI thats one thing, but what you described is the opposite of what my instructor has been teaching me. A 172 on short final should be at ~60 kts and slowing down. At that point in his descent he would be just starting to level out. The car would be more or less in a blindspot. You could see it, but not well from the cockpit. You need to be ready to do a go around but a go around isnt instant and you still lose some altitude from the moment you go around. You can see that he banked slightly away from the car and he dropped sharply as he did it due to the slight change in lift from a minimal bank. If you "Ease back on the nose (pitch)" at this point you will not arrest the descent but increase it and you will touch down short of the runway. On short final with full flaps you are well below best glide. Pitch primarily controlls airspeed while thrust controls lift. They are somewhat related and you can trade one for the other, but in a slow descent you don't have speed to trade for altitude. In this case the pilot would have needed to identify that the car wasn't going to stop well in advance and apply full throttle to be able to arrest the descent before he could avoid it. The car ran the stop sign, the plane had the right of way.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
63,535 Posts
Why post something TODAY that still doesn't work?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Working Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7jV-ptTdAA

You can see at :26 how at the last second he sees the car isn't going to stop and starts to bank to the left you'll notice that immediately the plane drops when he does this due to his lift component being reduced (see picture). While he should have also added power this was a split second reaction and he didn't have time to think just react. A more experienced pilot could have avoided it by identifying it much earlier, but a better driver could have avoided it by adhering to the stop sign and by noticing the plane coming right at him considering all the Volvo would have had to do was hit the brakes. You can play the blame game saying the pilot should have done this and the driver should have done that, but at the end of the day it was the driver that violated the rules and the driver that had the easier and better option after violating the rules to prevent it.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
Are you a pilot? I am still in training myself so if you are a CFI thats one thing, but what you described is the opposite of what my instructor has been teaching me. A 172 on short final should be at ~60 kts and slowing down. At that point in his descent he would be just starting to level out. The car would be more or less in a blindspot. You could see it, but not well from the cockpit. You need to be ready to do a go around but a go around isnt instant and you still lose some altitude from the moment you go around. You can see that he banked slightly away from the car and he dropped sharply as he did it due to the slight change in lift from a minimal bank. If you "Ease back on the nose (pitch)" at this point you will not arrest the descent but increase it and you will touch down short of the runway. On short final with full flaps you are well below best glide. Pitch primarily controlls airspeed while thrust controls lift. They are somewhat related and you can trade one for the other, but in a slow descent you don't have speed to trade for altitude. In this case the pilot would have needed to identify that the car wasn't going to stop well in advance and apply full throttle to be able to arrest the descent before he could avoid it. The car ran the stop sign, the plane had the right of way.
I've had my ticket for 4 years, just finished by 2nd Flight Review, am working on tailwheel endorsement.

Ease back, not pull up. The first two steps in a go around should be almost instantaneous -- at this point one hand should be on the throttle anyway. Yes, there will be some reduction in speed from the pitch change but we're talking a very short period of time. I've read some instructors who recommend practicing go arounds after wheels touch down!

I've read "Stick and Rudder" too.

There was no stop sign. There was something painted on the roadway by hand (from the video it doesn't look official at all). In Pennsylvania, and I believe in other states, a stop sign not put up by a municipality does not have the rule of law behind it (in other words, you can't be ticketed for "running a stop sign" if the shopping center put a sign up in the middle of the parking lot) -- that's because the government is not supposed to enforce private actions. In PA, that came out of a court decision where a municipality passed a law making it illegal for minors to attend an R-rated movie. It turns out the R-rating is from a private/corporate organization, not an arm of the government.

His own words (he just got his ticket: http://www.aopa.org/training/articl...s-suv-earns-ticket.html#.UU0TdcyaIPs.facebook ) he admits to being focused on the runway, not the environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,185 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
Working Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7jV-ptTdAA

You can see at :26 how at the last second he sees the car isn't going to stop and starts to bank to the left you'll notice that immediately the plane drops when he does this due to his lift component being reduced (see picture). While he should have also added power this was a split second reaction and he didn't have time to think just react. A more experienced pilot could have avoided it by identifying it much earlier, but a better driver could have avoided it by adhering to the stop sign and by noticing the plane coming right at him considering all the Volvo would have had to do was hit the brakes. You can play the blame game saying the pilot should have done this and the driver should have done that, but at the end of the day it was the driver that violated the rules and the driver that had the easier and better option after violating the rules to prevent it.

GREAT IMAGE DELETED
Looking at the google satellite view of the airport at http://www.aopa.org/airports/52F

I can see the displaced threshold for the runway, to my eye he would've touched down before the official runway start without adding power. The road appears not on airport property (note the fence) so anything the airport says or tries to do won't hold; one report said they had been trying to get the property owner to move the road or sell the land.

Was it a violation of the law for the car not to have stopped? No. Would stopping have been the "right" thing to do? Yes. Was the driver even aware of the plane? Possibly not (see the comments about the hill from the student pilot himself).

Yes, with a more experienced pilot or a nicer driver this would not have happened.

You can do something that is perfectly legal and within your rights but it not be the "right thing" to do. In other words, it may be allowed but is being a bit of an [email protected]#$-hole.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I think the NTSB will find the student pilot at fault with the airport structure/environment and the car driver secondary factors. I think inexperience will be listed as a secondary/contributing factor. I do not see the FAA taking enforcement action against the pilot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Looking at the google satellite view of the airport at http://www.aopa.org/airports/52F

I can see the displaced threshold for the runway, to my eye he would've touched down before the official runway start without adding power. The road appears not on airport property (note the fence) so anything the airport says or tries to do won't hold; one report said they had been trying to get the property owner to move the road or sell the land.

Was it a violation of the law for the car not to have stopped? No. Would stopping have been the "right" thing to do? Yes. Was the driver even aware of the plane? Possibly not (see the comments about the hill from the student pilot himself).

Yes, with a more experienced pilot or a nicer driver this would not have happened.

You can do something that is perfectly legal and within your rights but it not be the "right thing" to do. In other words, it may be allowed but is being a bit of an [email protected]#$-hole.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I think the NTSB will find the student pilot at fault with the airport structure/environment and the car driver secondary factors. I think inexperience will be listed as a secondary/contributing factor. I do not see the FAA taking enforcement action against the pilot.
That satelite photo is rather old so the signage might be more apparent now, having not been there I can't really comment but the video looks like the roads are in better condition than the photos and probably had better defined markings. The occupants of the Volvo "told WFAA [news station] they are regulars at the airport and know the protocols of stopping while the runway is active." Yet they did not stop this time.

Identifying it earlier on would have enabled the pilot to go around but when he saw for sure that the SUV didn't stop, it looks like a go around would have been a fruitless effort. If he was training out of that airport he almost certainly saw cars on that road countless times and it was never an issue leading him to a false sense of security. Sure he was also coming in a bit low but he could have easily had the flare last until the touchdown point, the landing wouldn't have been a terrible or an unsafe landing had it not been for the SUV. At the end of the day the SUV is the first one to do something wrong; drive in front of the plane. It was the SUV that had the easiest and last chance to avoid the accident and it didn't. About the only thing that could be pinned on the pilot is that since he was in a higher stakes position he should have had a greater duty to be cautious but that in no way absolves the driver of the SUV.

I would expect it to be primary fault SUV secondary fault pilot for not identifying it soon enough to go around. It looks pretty much like a runway incursion within seconds of touchdown. There is a definite case that incorrect or not there was a reasonable expectation that the vehicle was going to stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
That satelite photo is rather old so the signage might be more apparent now, having not been there I can't really comment but the video looks like the roads are in better condition than the photos and probably had better defined markings. The occupants of the Volvo "told WFAA [news station] they are regulars at the airport and know the protocols of stopping while the runway is active." Yet they did not stop this time.

Identifying it earlier on would have enabled the pilot to go around but when he saw for sure that the SUV didn't stop, it looks like a go around would have been a fruitless effort. If he was training out of that airport he almost certainly saw cars on that road countless times and it was never an issue leading him to a false sense of security. Sure he was also coming in a bit low but he could have easily had the flare last until the touchdown point, the landing wouldn't have been a terrible or an unsafe landing had it not been for the SUV. At the end of the day the SUV is the first one to do something wrong; drive in front of the plane. It was the SUV that had the easiest and last chance to avoid the accident and it didn't. About the only thing that could be pinned on the pilot is that since he was in a higher stakes position he should have had a greater duty to be cautious but that in no way absolves the driver of the SUV.

I would expect it to be primary fault SUV secondary fault pilot for not identifying it soon enough to go around. It looks pretty much like a runway encursion within seconds of touchdown. There is a definite case that incorrect or not there was a reasonable expectation that the vehicle was going to stop.
I saw images of the "stop sign" in one of the early-after-the-accident-TV-station-videos and it was hand painted single line white paint on the road. It wasn't even in the line paint.

Since the road was not on airport property and there was not an official FAA letter of agreement on it, that it is not an official runway incursion.

Check out some of the NTSB reports. I've read ones where there is a major mechanical issue (engine threw a rod, was properly maintained) and the pilot stalled or clipped wires or hit a ditch during the emergency landing. The Primary is usually blamed on the pilot for not maintaining airspeed or selection of landing field with Secondary being engine malfunction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
I didn't say it was an incursion but would be a similar to one which it more or less is in theory. As far as the engine malfunction as a secondary that is interesting. I remember the last time I did engine out practices my instructor flat out said "When picking an emergency landing area care about what's good for you, not the plane. To hell with the damn plane the stupid thing failed you."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
I didn't say it was an incursion but would be a similar to one which it more or less is in theory. As far as the engine malfunction as a secondary that is interesting. I remember the last time I did engine out practices my instructor flat out said "When picking an emergency landing area care about what's good for you, not the plane. To hell with the damn plane the stupid thing failed you."
Did I misunderstand your earlier comment that used the "incursion" word (emphasized below)?

By the time the driver ran the stop sign and had an incursion into the path of the plane there was nothing the pilot could have done. You can see that he actually banked slightly to try and avoid it but all that did was reduce his lift and cause the plane to drop onto the car. At that point in landing the plane is pretty much set on its course and is configured to be barely hanging in the sky at all so that it lands at a slower speed. He would have had to apply full throttle and waited for his descent rate to change by which time he would have pretty much been rolling down the runway if not floating along caught up in the ground effects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Did I misunderstand your earlier comment that used the "incursion" word (emphasized below)?

I would expect it to be primary fault SUV secondary fault pilot for not identifying it soon enough to go around. It looks pretty much like a runway incursion within seconds of touchdown. There is a definite case that incorrect or not there was a reasonable expectation that the vehicle was going to stop.
The SUV driver had an incursion into the path of the plane. Officialy identified by the NTSB or not, the car drove into its path, this is the definition of incursion and why I said "in the path." Later on when discussing it more in depth I called it "pretty much like a runway incursion" when talking about it and comparing it to the context of an actual runway incursion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
The SUV driver had an incursion into the path of the plane. Officialy identified by the NTSB or not, the car drove into its path, this is the definition of incursion and why I said "in the path." Later on when discussing it more in depth I called it "pretty much like a runway incursion" when talking about it and comparing it to the context of an actual runway incursion.
I understand now. When I see "incursion" and "airplane" (or "airport") together, I immediately think "official" runway incursion as opposed to casual use of the word.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out in the NTSB investigation and civil courts (most likely the insurance companies battling it out). It appears that the Volvo driver broke no road laws and probably none of the FAR.

I say "no road laws" because the stop sign does not appear to be a legal one. If the sign isn't legal, you don't have to stop for it. And no FAR because the road was not part of the airport.

I do agree that the driver should have stopped and should have looked out for the plane -- just like a plane needs to look out for someone on downwind/base/final before taking the runway. Legally, so long as I am not on the runway when the next plane touches down, I'm legal. But it isn't very nice to pull out onto the runway as they're turning final.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Re-watch the video, some cuts are longer than others. She zooms out in th beginning and again right before the crash. The Volvo didn't even turn onto that road until short final. Then keep in mind that if this is the guy's home field he has seen countless cars on that road before, none of which (presumably) crashed into a plane before. I'm not saying that the pilot shouldn't have identified it or that there was nothing he could do, I imagine a more experienced pilot would have avoided it and I would hope that in the same situation I would have the presence of mind to do the same. If it wasn't a legal stop then it's on the planners and the maintainer of that road. Either way at the end of the day the car turned onto the road during short final and drove into it's path. The real kicker is the interview with the driver who stated he drives on that road all the time and is aware of the situation with the runway and the policy of stopping for aircraft.

We will have to see what the NTSB says.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top