Idiot pulls out in front of landing airplane

[Seanaldinho]

Plane on final has the right away. Now given it was not a perfect final, he still has the right of way.

[G0ALY]

In my opinion, (and believe me, people more informed than any of us will be deciding fault in this accident.) this was a result of 100% pilot error. (Although we are told to keep our eyes on the road, I will agree that the SUV should have noticed the aircraft.)
But... it appears to me that the pilot attempted to land at the very beginning of the displaced threshold. This airport has a paved 500 foot displaced threshold before the actual ‘usable’ part of the runway. This photo of the actual runway clearly shows that the displaced threshold is properly equipped with the required arrows and lines required to mark the beginning of the landing part of the runway. Had the pilot attempted to land on the actual runway, he would have easily cleared the SUV.

[Golfer]

Do you know this pilot and/or instructor?  I'm just curious how you know he was not properly instructed.  I guess all mistakes people make is because they were not given proper instructions. 

Fred

Nope. But I've done my share of flight instruction.  If a student pilot does something like this, which is filed a capital letter bold face text "DON'T EVER DO..." then there are two places to place blame.

First, for the pilot of the aircraft for whacking into something. Second, ad most important, the instructor not emphasizing well enough you don't "duck under" or land short of the threshold.

A displaced threshold effectively moves the start of the available landing runway down the pavement to the point it is safe to use that piece of pavement for landing. This is typically done to avoid obstacles such as trees, buildings or in this case a road. By landing significantly prior to the displaced threshold, you could imagine this pilot effectively landed in grass prior to the runway.  In aces high this isn't much of a problem, in the real world this can make you dead.

Since this pilot was presumably based at this airport he has had a fair amount of experience at this point in his training to have done a solo cross country with regards to the unique challenges it presents. His instructor(s) is/are the one(s) responsible for this.  If he hasn't been trained to not fly his airplane so it lands where it's supposed to there is only one place to look for responsibility. The individual doing their training.

I'd expect some very close scrutiny of the endorsements the student received and some very direct questions asked of the instructor up to and potentially including a checkride to reevaluate the instructors competency as such.

[Golfer]

Plane on final has the right away. Now given it was not a perfect final, he still has the right of way.

Right of way doesn't matter once you make contact.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

Blah blah blah ...  Low/high/student/power early/freaking unicorns ... I'm flying my dam plane and I have places to go... I made fishermen jump into the water, hunters jump in bushes, cars run off the road ... tower controlers swallow their mikes ... I don't have time for your feelings ... I'm not an airline pilot I'm not payed by the hour climbing is wasting my time just make sure you are not the highest object in the area, simple really.

[B4Buster]

Buster, I am fairly certain you are of driving age

Indeed I am. I'm licensed to drive vehicles as well as fly airplanes. It isn't fair to lay blame, no, but like I said - the fact that the pilot pulled this off at his home airport really does say something about the instruction he received. If the instructor was in no-way-shape-or-form to blame, then I apologize.

[bmwgs]

Nope. But I've done my share of flight instruction.  If a student pilot does something like this, which is filed a capital letter bold face text "DON'T EVER DO..." then there are two places to place blame.

First, for the pilot of the aircraft for whacking into something. Second, ad most important, the instructor not emphasizing well enough you don't "duck under" or land short of the threshold.

A displaced threshold effectively moves the start of the available landing runway down the pavement to the point it is safe to use that piece of pavement for landing. This is typically done to avoid obstacles such as trees, buildings or in this case a road. By landing significantly prior to the displaced threshold, you could imagine this pilot effectively landed in grass prior to the runway.  In aces high this isn't much of a problem, in the real world this can make you dead.

Since this pilot was presumably based at this airport he has had a fair amount of experience at this point in his training to have done a solo cross country with regards to the unique challenges it presents. His instructor(s) is/are the one(s) responsible for this.  If he hasn't been trained to not fly his airplane so it lands where it's supposed to there is only one place to look for responsibility. The individual doing their training.

I'd expect some very close scrutiny of the endorsements the student received and some very direct questions asked of the instructor up to and potentially including a checkride to reevaluate the instructors competency as such.

You are a Lawyer's best friend.

Lets not put the blame on the person who committed the infraction or who made the mistake, lets blame everyone who may have instructed this person during his/her life.  Why stop at this pilot's instructor?  I think we should find fault with the instructor who trained the instructor.   Heck lets keep on going and find fault with the instructor who trained the instructor who trained the instructor.  By your logic, they would all be at fault because they did not emphasize the do not do's well enough to where the student could not just make a mistake, or commit a reckless act on their own.

This is the thought process of our present society.  Lets blame the person and everyone that has ever had any contact with that person.  One can not be held accountable for their own actions, that is so old school.

Fred

[RTHolmes]

I must have driven past this small but busy field http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=51.82928,-1.322313 thousands of times and hardly even notice the aircraft unless its the real noobs in twins (theres a school there, and the new guys wobble very disconcertingly landing in a gusty xwind ) or the citations and other business jets because they are loud on approach, and just sweet rides

my local field looks about 500' from the road too, that always seemed a bit close when they come in slow considering its a 70mph limit along there. the really close ones feel like a midair because we're both doing about 80 and you can see the pilot gritting his teeth. I reckon its been 20' quite a few times, its quite a buzz.


as for this incident; the road is inside the fence for some reason, theres no warning signs or stop line, the road marking is pretty feint, the runway markings are pretty faded ... a bunch of small things which added up to a lucky escape ...

[CAP1]

2 people directly at fault. both are the pilots of their respective vehicles.

[B4Buster]

Hey Buster.......Is it common to have roads that close to the end of a runway? Just curious, as i cant wrap my head around the fact that a road would be put in such a stupid spot.......or a runway built that close to an active road?  (excluding Gibralter that is)

Is it a service road for the airport?

Service roads aren't uncommon, but public roads that close to a runway sure aren't encountered everyday (in the continental US anyway)

[Golfer]

You are a Lawyer's best friend.

Lets not put the blame on the person who committed the infraction or who made the mistake, lets blame everyone who may have instructed this person during his/her life.  Why stop at this pilot's instructor?  I think we should find fault with the instructor who trained the instructor.   Heck lets keep on going and find fault with the instructor who trained the instructor who trained the instructor.  By your logic, they would all be at fault because they did not emphasize the do not do's well enough to where the student could not just make a mistake, or commit a reckless act on their own.

This is the thought process of our present society.  Lets blame the person and everyone that has ever had any contact with that person.  One can not be held accountable for their own actions, that is so old school.

Fred

That was a very good rant.

A student pilot is granted progressively more and more privileges as they progress in their training. This begins before they ever touch the airplane with how to check the weather, ensure your aircraft is airworthy in terms of paperwork all the way through familiarization with emergency situations they may encounter not just when they're soloing but potentially years later as they're using the privileges of their pilot certificate.

Not to land before the threshold is covered on the first landing.  A displaced threshold will be covered at several times during their training and being based at an airport such as this I would expect the potential hazards to earn an emphasis from those operating there.  A student pilot only knows what he's learned or taught. Deficiencies in certain areas are easy to spot when you're looking for them. I can't say how this particular student was trained but I can tell you landing that early before the threshold (the earliest point you're allowed to land in a non emergency) is a very big red flag.  There is one place to look and that's in the students logbook.

I'm not makig stuff up or supposing how things might be. I'm saying how they are as someone who has put their name on someone else's ticket attesting that they have received adequate instruction and demonstrated proficiency to do whatever it is I say they're doing.  I'm also not saying the instructor is going to lose his ticket over this but it is going to be a very real concern for them and depending on the statement of the student a 709 ride (a mandatory retest of the certificates or privileges in question) is a possibility.

This is an accident. Obviously nobody wants to smash into stuff or risk their lives just going about their business.  The car didn't stop or look, or maybe they did, I don't know.  The pilot evidently didn't see the car (and I'm not sure they could ) but a student pilot focused on landing with a car in their blind spot isn't a good thing.

Had the pilot been where they were supposed to, this wouldn't have happened.  That's pretty profound, right?

Why?   I don't think it's rocket science. Being that low and landing that short is not only violating the regulations it's exceptionally unsafe as this situation demonstrates.  Would I expect a student pilot to know better?  Yes, but that's predicated on them receiving proper training to know what they're doing is unsafe.  So again...I'm looking at the instructor.

[Golfer]

To be further long winded it's entirely plausible the student might say something like this:

"I was excited to be videoed by my family who were watching my arrival, I deviated from my training and landed short because I wanted to use as little runway as possible and make for a better show for my spectators.  I knowingly and willingly deviated from my training."

That's great for the instructor. It may even have been what happened.

They could also say:

"I didn't see the car and I didn't expect them to be there. I had no idea simply landing my airplane was unsafe as I'd used that same techniqe numerous times before as demonstrated by my instructor."

That's bad.

Regardless nothing makes you feel more sick when one of your students makes a mistake or something unexpected happens. You just hope the training you've given them to that point sees them through.  This can be they forgot to turn their radio up so they can't hear the radio calls of the controller, they busted an advanced commercial pilot because they made a private pilot mistake or something on ther airplane broke and you're listening to them handle their situation on the radio.

[bmwgs]

Golfer, your post are informative, and I am sure you are a responsible flyer and instructor.  The only point I am trying to make is making an assumption that the instructor was at fault in this incident is wrong.  Your statement from an earlier post was "Student Pilot made a mistake, the instructor didn't teach him correctly.".  You are making an assumption based on a film.  You had no information as to whether this instructor did or did not properly instruct the student.  In other words you have already assessed guilt before any investigation.

If you are a flight instructor, how would you like to be judged solely by the actions of your student before an investigation was even completed. You even are making assumptions as to what the student pilot may say.  I don't know, since I am not at pilot, but maybe he made perfect landings with his instructor but when he went solo he froze up.   I am not arguing that the student pilot didn't screwed up, hell I am not a pilot and I can see that he did.  I can also see where the vehicle operator also shares some fault, but at this moment in time, I can not say the instructor is at fault until after there is an investigation and it is found that he did not instruct as he is suppose to.

Fred

[Golfer]

What of it?

[pembquist]

The presumption that the student was not instructed properly comes out of a culture of safety that is very impressive. It might seem a bit unfair for those not familiar with it but it works to keep the accident rate among brand new pilots very low.  What is certain is that the pilot screwed up, why he screwed up something so basic is a real concern and will require some explanation.