Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wolfala on November 05, 2012, 09:06:54 AM
-
http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2012/11/small-plane-hits-car-as-it-lands-in-roanoke-skids-off-runway.html/ (http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2012/11/small-plane-hits-car-as-it-lands-in-roanoke-skids-off-runway.html/)
And not to completely absolve the pilot - but dragging it in has its downsides.
-
HT posted a video. Also said Airport has 500' displacement.
It's looking like both at fault. Pilot came in rather low.
:cheers: Oz
-
HT posted a video. Also said Airport has 500' displacement.
It's looking like both at fault. Pilot came in rather low.
:cheers: Oz
Thats what I thought when seeing the Video. The "Student Pilot" only wanted to use the first 20' of runway. :rolleyes:
-
Quitting flying because you bounced off a car? Really?
-
The airport is 52F for those who want to look it up...3,500' long with a good-sized displaced threshold. It looks like the pilot, as well as the drivers, ignored the runway/road markings.
No reason why the pilot should have been dragging it over the threshold like that but he is just a student and can't be expected to execute perfectly every time (nobody can).
-
Quitting flying because you bounced off a car? Really?
Read between the lines... He wants to keep his wife and kids.
-
HT posted a video. Also said Airport has 500' displacement.
It's looking like both at fault. Pilot came in rather low.
:cheers: Oz
she should've stopped. she most likely was familiar with that airport, and should've know. she was being complacent.
i would think the pilot should've seen her approaching the threshold as he was on final, and been ready for a go around. it didn't look like she was going fast enough to be a surprise to him.
to me, that runway setup, would have me flying short final a bit higher than it looked like he was flying it. he looked too low to begin with.
it's ashame he's not going to fly anymore. he should look at that as a lesson learned, and continue on.
EDIT::
just saw buster post stating 3500' long runway. definitely should be high on that approach. more than enough room to land a bit long.
i just re-edited some of my stuff above, as it looked as if i could've been criticizing the pilot, which was/is not my intention of this post. i still remember my first solo like it was yesterday, flying N46FW.
-
I think criticism of the pilot for the accident is a little unfair. For one he is a student pilot, very inexperienced. For another any pilot is entitled to expect that the end of the runway is clear. The car driver is clearly at fault. It's not as if it wasn't signposted. They were extremely lucky, inches lower and everyone dies.
The biggest issue is having a road directly at the end of the runway. It was an accident waiting to happen.
-
I think criticism of the pilot for the accident is a little unfair. For one he is a student pilot, very inexperienced. For another any pilot is entitled to expect that the end of the runway is clear. The car driver is clearly at fault. It's not as if it wasn't signposted. They were extremely lucky, inches lower and everyone dies.
The biggest issue is having a road directly at the end of the runway. It was an accident waiting to happen.
I'm trying to not be too critical of him because as you said, he is just a student. He should have been at a point in his training where if he was doing a solo cross country he should of had a basic knowledge of airport markings though.
-
Wow! Both are at fault IMO, Driver saw how low the plane was, could've stopped, could've read the warnings, etc. The pilot also came in far too low, as stated above by everyone else, but like buster said, he was a student, he made a mistake, and he's completely stopped flying because of it. As long as there were no injuries all is good IMO, Im sure insurance can pay for most of the damage. :cheers:
:salute
-
The people in the SUV claiming they did not see the plane. They must be blind and deaf. :rolleyes:
However, I am glad everyone came out of that ok. (I personally feel the SUV was more at fault in the accident but that is just my two cents.)
-
The SUV ran a stop sign > its totally at fault. Doing a rolling 'stop' and you hit another car > your fault.
-
The "STOP" were very high tech, would a thing called a fence have stopped this :old:
Where about's in South America was this?
Cars driving in the same airspace as a Plane, bit daft really.
-
Driver was definitely more at fault. Number one, you are driving next to a runway, you ought to be very careful regardless. Number two, he must have no situational awareness to see an object that big flying at him. It would have been no different if it was an 18 wheeler except for the fact that he would be dead.
Granted the approach was low, however had there not been a car there a word would have never been spoken about that landing. A tad low, yes, but more fault to the driver.
-
The SUV ran a stop sign > its totally at fault. Doing a rolling 'stop' and you hit another car > your fault.
I watched the video that Hitech posted. There is no stop "sign". The word "Stop" is painted on the ground. Partially driver's fault for poor SA near an airport...partially pilot's fault to poor approach technique...partially airport's fault for poor signage for cars on the road.
-
I don't think the road is owned by the airport and it has been referred to as a private road over in the parallel thread. I imagine that the 100 bucks for a couple stop signs and maybe another 100 for low flying aircraft wasn't deemed worth it by who or whatever owns the road.
-
Well,
Can guarantee the liability limit of the van driver will be exceeded.
-
Well,
Can guarantee the liability limit of the van driver will be exceeded.
:rofl
Hadn't even thought about that one yet. What a headache that will be.
-
he is just a student and can't be expected to execute perfectly every time (nobody can).
Unless he wants to die he better do some of the basics right....like landing where you're supposed to on the runway. That runway has a displaced threshold for a reason.
-
I think criticism of the pilot for the accident is a little unfair. For one he is a student pilot, very inexperienced. For another any pilot is entitled to expect that the end of the runway is clear. The car driver is clearly at fault. It's not as if it wasn't signposted. They were extremely lucky, inches lower and everyone dies.
If the pilot had flown a normal approach to the correct touchdown point the accident would not have happened. I never "expect" anything to be "good" while flying...I want to live a long life.
-
If the pilot had flown a normal approach to the correct touchdown point the accident would not have happened. I never "expect" anything to be "good" while flying...I want to live a long life.
but add on top of that if the lady had stopped where/when she was supposed to stop..........
-
When's the first time you trusted a woman in an SUV to do something right in a car?
Student Pilot made a mistake, the instructor didn't teach him correctly. The student is flying on his instructors ticket, there's no expectation for him to know what he needs to do if he's not trained correctly.
Kick the instructors bellybutton before you blame the soccer mom.
-
When's the first time you trusted a woman in an SUV to do something right in a car?
Student Pilot made a mistake, the instructor didn't teach him correctly. The student is flying on his instructors ticket, there's no expectation for him to know what he needs to do if he's not trained correctly.
Kick the instructors bellybutton before you blame the soccer mom.
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
-
Unless he wants to die he better do some of the basics right....like landing where you're supposed to on the runway. That runway has a displaced threshold for a reason.
agreed, which I mentioned in my second senctence.
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
bmw - it is impossible to tell exactly what the instructor told/taught the student, but the fact that the student pilot didn't pay attention to the runway markings at his home airport, where he undoubtedly had 100+ landings is very telling.
-
agreed, which I mentioned in my second senctence.
bmw - it is impossible to tell exactly what the instructor told/taught the student, but the fact that the student pilot didn't pay attention to the runway markings at his home airport, where he undoubtedly had 100+ landings is very telling.
Buster, I am fairly certain you are of driving age, so someone instructed you how to operate a vehicle. I am sure you were instructed that you do not run red lights, stop signs, or speed. If you are like every other driver in the world, you have committed at least one of these infractions, or like me all three. You were properly instructed not to do it, but yet you did, so is that the instructors fault.
I am not a pilot and I have never flown a plane outside of the cartoon world, but I will agree the pilot of that plane made a mistake. I just can not automatically believe that it is also the instructors fault without some shred of evidence. It may be a case where the pilot alone screwed up. I just can not agree that the instructor was a fault based solely on the mistake of the student. He was flying solo, so it is not like the instructor was sitting next to him. Even if they were in radio contact, the instructor can not fly the plane from the tower.
My position is that it is far to early to to blame the instructor or make a blanket statement that the instructor was also at fault.
<S>
Fred
-
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?
-
Im sorry.... But when driving, even if there are no markers, I look around when crossing traintracks, and would, naturally, check its clear before crossing a runway, specifically an ACTIVE runway...
The driver is the one at fault here.
-
Driver wasn't crossing a runway, he was driving on a road near the end (but outside) of a runway. Big difference, but still a total lack of SA and common sense.
-
she must have missed the class on defensive driving with air traffic.
-
Looked to me like the pilot had chopped the power a bit early looking for a brick 1 landing to show off for his family/friends. The FAA ought to look into why he thought that was a good idea, since as a student he should receive airfield specific instruction for every field he flies to or from. I wonder if the instructor's insurance is going to take a hit since the insurance company for the car is not going to want to pay for the aircraft damage and they may sue everyone who carries a policy just to try to spread the damage around.
If the student quits over this, then he's just not that interested in flying. That's fine with me, some people just aren't meant to be pilots.
-
Plane on final has the right away. Now given it was not a perfect final, he still has the right of way.
-
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.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img28/8535/crash2a.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :furious
-
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.
-
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
-
I must have driven past this small but busy field http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=51.82928,-1.322313 (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 :uhoh) or the citations and other business jets because they are loud on approach, and just sweet rides :D
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 ...
-
2 people directly at fault. both are the pilots of their respective vehicles.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
What of it?
-
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.
-
not to be argumentative, but this was not an accident. it wasn't done deliberately, but it wasn't an accident. it was a collision that occurred due to several factors. the suv not stopping where she should have. the plane being too low. the suv driver not seeing the plane. the pilot not seeing the suv.
the questions are why didn't the driver see the plane, or the pilot see the suv? why didn't she stop? why was the plane too low? those are the questions that need to be asked. but it is not an accident.
-
not to be argumentative, but this was not an accident. it wasn't done deliberately, but it wasn't an accident. it was a collision that occurred due to several factors. the suv not stopping where she should have. the plane being too low. the suv driver not seeing the plane. the pilot not seeing the suv.
the questions are why didn't the driver see the plane, or the pilot see the suv? why didn't she stop? why was the plane too low? those are the questions that need to be asked. but it is not an accident.
Look at the pitch angle the pilot was holding and try to imagine yourself in the cockpit and what the sight picture would look like...This really helped me visualize the whole event. Assuming the pilot was focused on a point further down the runway as he should have been, and not on the threshold, it is easy to see how the pilot could not see the SUV.
Now take into consideration a student pilot returning from a solo-XC (a big deal for a new pilot, knowing he is about to complete a huge part of his training), and knowing his landing is being filmed. You can imagine he was thinking about a bunch of different things at the time, maybe some he shouldn't have been so focused on. The brain can only process so much information before it starts to "ignore" things.
Had the pilot flown a proper approach to land at the proper point on the runway, an 18-wheeler could have been sitting there and he would not have hit it.
-
not to be argumentative, but this was not an accident. it wasn't done deliberately, but it wasn't an accident. it was a collision that occurred due to several factors. the suv not stopping where she should have. the plane being too low. the suv driver not seeing the plane. the pilot not seeing the suv.
the questions are why didn't the driver see the plane, or the pilot see the suv? why didn't she stop? why was the plane too low? those are the questions that need to be asked. but it is not an accident.
You just defined what an accident is quite well.
An accident occurred. There's a chain of events leading up to it and you're discussing that chain. The accident chain...
It sure wasn't a "purpose"
-
Look at the pitch angle the pilot was holding and try to imagine yourself in the cockpit and what the sight picture would look like...This really helped me visualize the whole event. Assuming the pilot was focused on a point further down the runway as he should have been, and not on the threshold, it is easy to see how the pilot could not see the SUV.
Now take into consideration a student pilot returning from a solo-XC (a big deal for a new pilot, knowing he is about to complete a huge part of his training), and knowing his landing is being filmed. You can imagine he was thinking about a bunch of different things at the time, maybe some he shouldn't have been so focused on. The brain can only process so much information before it starts to "ignore" things.
Had the pilot flown a proper approach to land at the proper point on the runway, an 18-wheeler could have been sitting there and he would not have hit it.
re-watching the clip, something doesn't look right about his pitch at that point. it almost looks like he's flaring too high and over that fence, although i could be wrong. with his nose up like that, i can see how he didn't see the suv now. when i watched it at work, i didn't use full screen.
i may be being overly harsh, but i remember my first solo, as i mentioned previously. the only thing on my mind was flying my airplane, and doing it well. i had the same thoughts when i did my first cross country solo. i wanted to do everything right, and was concentrating on flying. not impressing someone, or being filmed, or anything other than not bending that airplane. You just defined what an accident is quite well.
An accident occurred. There's a chain of events leading up to it and you're discussing that chain. The accident chain...
It sure wasn't a "purpose"
believe it or not, from reading ntsb reports, and following those "accident" chains, is part of what's convinced me that they're not accidents. the pilot was too low. for whatever reason, he was. whatever that reason is/was, is part of the cause, even if it was simply inattention.
the lady in the suv didn't stop. carelessness on her part(if she was familiar with that road). this is part of the cause.
if it were a true accident, something unforeseeable, like a wing falling off of the plane, or a sudden, unforseen brake failure on the part of the suv......those would make it an accident.
but i understand why they call them accidents though.
-
Not trying to be a pissant but look at 2a:
Definition of ACCIDENT
1
a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2
a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident>
c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought
d —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation
3
: a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>
-
Two idiots don't make a right, or is it three; Who put that road there? From that google earth photo. How did the driver or passenger not see the plane when turning onto the road? Talk about timing was this a stunt gone wrong i wonder hmm?
-
That's why we use the term "mishap" instead of "accident". It covers the incident quite thoroughly without pre-judging anyone involved before the chain of events leading to the mishap is determined and examined.
That's why those with aviation instruction experience are focusing on why the student pilot chose to attempt a landing well prior to the beginning of the landable surface, including asking the question about the instruction given/received. It may have been no accident at all that the plane was flown on that flightpath, which would make the pilot's actions (and possibly the instructor's instruction) a causal factor in the mishap.
-
Some bad juju at Northwest Regional over the past few months. 3 crashes at the airport and one from there that crashed a few counties away. 6 deaths if I'm not mistaken.
(http://cbsdallas.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/plane-crash-thurs5.jpg?w=300&h=225)
I responded out to this one. Guy walked away luckily.
-
I think we can cut to the chase here...
Stupid2
-
People will incur a RWY with working stop bars, guard lights, MAGS, and markings on a controlled airport - it is entirely feasible someone would drive their car on a service road that doesn't even run onto the paved strip. I doubt very much infringing the OLS is a primary concern for someone who doesn't know any better - And anyone who thinks someone could hear it before crossing the RWY end has never been in a modern SUV in front of a landing a/c - you wouldn't hear a 744 on short final until it was almost on top of you
However the road should have had at least proper warning signs before you enter near the RWY ends - the airside roads at work have observation warning signs about height restrictions and movement even on the ones that are more than 90m from the RWY end
Tronsky
-
To question the actions of the pilot and his training is acceptable at this stage. To cast guilt on the instructor at this stage is wrong.
I have no doubt that safety is an extremely high priority in pilot training. Because this pilot was a student, even I can understand that his instructor will be interviewed. I do not understand how anyone could place blame on an instructor before any investigation and/or interviews.
I have stated earlier that I am not a pilot or a flight instructor, but I do have experience in training where if my student was not properly trained I could be liable. I accepted this because I knew that I provided the proper training and I followed all the training procedures while instructing. If a flight instructor is liable for the actions of his student based solely on the student actions, then I don't see how anyone would put themselves or their family in such financial liability. I still can not believe in flight training, guilt can be accessed on an instructor without any investigation.
Fred
-
Get over it. This is an off topic section of a virtual airplane message board not an NTSB hearing.
-
Get over it. This is an off topic section of a virtual airplane message board not an NTSB hearing.
Get over what???? Guess you missed the section title. Let me help you out "The O' Club, Open forum for off-topic and less serious discussions."
I was just enjoying a good debate.
Fred
-
One thing I think a lot of people are overlooking is that is a private road, essentially a long driveway that is not part of the airport nor is it on airport property. There were no Stop signs or Low Aircraft signs or any type of barrier to stop traffic because the owners did not erect any. That is the biggest contributing factors I see. Very poor planning that led up to this.
It actually reminds me of the airport in Placencia, Belize where the main road winds around the runway. But there they have signs, speed bumps, flashing lights and traffic control arms to stop traffic during flight ops.
(http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/37889607.jpg)
Even in a 3rd World country they were smart enough to take preventative measures.
-
I look at this the same way I do an accidental shooting, you're not supposed to shoot things accidentally, if you do its your fault, don't run into things when you're flying a plane.
In the beginning I had a tendency to drag in the final, my instructor (a grizzled old B-17 pilot) used to yell at me about it all the time, then one day without a word he reached over and cut the throttle and sat there looking at me, that was the cure.
shamus
-
I look at this the same way I do an accidental shooting, you're not supposed to shoot things accidentally, if you do its your fault, don't run into things when you're flying a plane.
In the beginning I had a tendency to drag in the final, my instructor (a grizzled old B-17 pilot) used to yell at me about it all the time, then one day without a word he reached over and cut the throttle and sat there looking at me, that was the cure.
shamus
my instructor cured me of flying the patter too fat and sloppy by doing that.
-
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
BM,
Golfer and I are both high time instructors. I teach primarily in the Cirrus aircraft which has more or less taken over as the doctor killer reputation for the 21st century from the Bonanza. The simple fact is this: when you teach, you have the liability with you for your life. Its not fair - but it is what it is. Doesn't matter if the guy augurs in 5 or 10 years from now - you'll get dinged and your assets will be at risk without appropriate planning. Tort reform aside - student landing technique and clueless car drivers meeting is a toejam happens event. And everyones insurance will be suing each other - but majority of it is going to go on the Car - which is unfortunate because their assets will be directly at risk. Look both ways at a crossing folks.
-
BM,
Golfer and I are both high time instructors. I teach primarily in the Cirrus aircraft which has more or less taken over as the doctor killer reputation for the 21st century from the Bonanza. The simple fact is this: when you teach, you have the liability with you for your life. Its not fair - but it is what it is. Doesn't matter if the guy augurs in 5 or 10 years from now - you'll get dinged and your assets will be at risk without appropriate planning. Tort reform aside - student landing technique and clueless car drivers meeting is a toejam happens event. And everyones insurance will be suing each other - but majority of it is going to go on the Car - which is unfortunate because their assets will be directly at risk. Look both ways at a crossing folks.
I am not questioning your or Golfer experience, I am sure it is vast and the both of you are experienced pilots and instructors. The thing I do have in common with the both of y'all is that I was also an instructor (not in flight training) where if improper or lack of instruction was made during training, I could be held liable.
The point I am debating is, you can not place blame on an instructor without one bit of evidence. Some in this thread were placing blame on the students instructor based on the film without knowing if the student was properly instructed or not. No consideration that the student may have been properly trained and instructed. The assumption being made is he must have screwed up because he wasn't properly instructed. I have not seen or been shown anything that supports this assumption.
I have no knowledge concerning flight training, but I do know this. If the liability of a flight instructor is such that you can be blamed for the screwing up of any student they have ever properly instructed, then I would turn my license in. There is no way I would risk that liability or understand why anyone else would.
Fred
-
I have no knowledge concerning flight training, but I do know this. If the liability of a flight instructor is such that you can be blamed for the screwing up of any student they have ever properly instructed, then I would turn my license in. There is no way I would risk that liability or understand why anyone else would.
Fred
Rest assured, many high net worth former CFI's exist for precisely that reason
-
Rest assured, many high net worth former CFI's exist for precisely that reason
Since I had no idea why "CFI" stood for, I decided to do a little checking. Being retired, I tend to have some time on my hands. :D
I ran across this website http://www.thecfi.com/CFI%20Marketing.htm (http://www.thecfi.com/CFI%20Marketing.htm) when tying to figure out what "CFI" stood for.
I read the Flight Instructor Liability "Tiger by the Tail" article.
There was no surprise about a flight instructors responsibilities, but in each documented case, neglect was found, but not assumed. At the end of the article a question as to whether a license pilot not under training can hold his flight school responsible for neglect which would include the flight instructor. If I read correctly, it stated there have been no cases upheld in our court system where a flight school can be held responsible for the action of a licensed pilot that was not in training.
It was an interesting read.
Fred
-
Since I don't have the time or give a hoot to read a 25 page paper I won't comment on its contents.
I also don't care what has or hasn't been held up in civil court. I care about being in front of an administrative law judge and having an FAA inspector give me a recheck of whatever certificates or privileges deemed fit on a 709 checkride.
Those are two very real and not terribly uncommon things. I can say with absolute certainty that they occur for a wide variety of reasons. Airspace busts, dinging an airplane and even student pilots doing monumentally stupid things that reflect poorly on you and your business as the case may be. There have also been mass rechecks required of aviators pretty far removed from checkrides forced to retest for certain certificates and privileges because of things as small as clerical paperwork mistakes to moral or ethical problems with those issuing them.
I can give an example of a gear collapse (it was down and on the landing rollout one main folded) where the CFI and the pilot both were made to retest for their ratings. There's a little more to the story but an instructor, giving instruction in a guys personal airplane which had a problem. Presumably this has nothing to do with the instructor, right? Wrong. Some pieces of paper weren't where they needed to be and it was seen fit to retest. Gee, fun.
I don't care to "debate" anything with you because you're making an argument just for the sake of it. I can say whatever I want regarding this and completely disregard how you feel or what you think is fair treatment. I assure you, if you're on the receiving end of something like this it will feel anything other than fair.
Now that said. When a student pilot does something with such blatant disregard for safety there is one place to look. The instructor. That's not to say hang him at high noon but that's where responsibility (never said legal liability. Doesn't mean jack if your ticket gets pulled) lies. Student pilots are stupid, they're trying to kill you and they're trying to kill themselves all the time isn't an unhealthy mentality for an instructor. Preventing them from doing so is the job. Until they've moved on in their career when it's my signature on their initial solo, recurring 90 day solo, each solo cross country and every dual flight in their logbook...I'm responsible. Period.
-
Since I don't have the time or give a hoot to read a 25 page paper I won't comment on its contents.
I also don't care what has or hasn't been held up in civil court. I care about being in front of an administrative law judge and having an FAA inspector give me a recheck of whatever certificates or privileges deemed fit on a 709 checkride.
Those are two very real and not terribly uncommon things. I can say with absolute certainty that they occur for a wide variety of reasons. Airspace busts, dinging an airplane and even student pilots doing monumentally stupid things that reflect poorly on you and your business as the case may be. There have also been mass rechecks required of aviators pretty far removed from checkrides forced to retest for certain certificates and privileges because of things as small as clerical paperwork mistakes to moral or ethical problems with those issuing them.
I can give an example of a gear collapse (it was down and on the landing rollout one main folded) where the CFI and the pilot both were made to retest for their ratings. There's a little more to the story but an instructor, giving instruction in a guys personal airplane which had a problem. Presumably this has nothing to do with the instructor, right? Wrong. Some pieces of paper weren't where they needed to be and it was seen fit to retest. Gee, fun.
I don't care to "debate" anything with you because you're making an argument just for the sake of it. I can say whatever I want regarding this and completely disregard how you feel or what you think is fair treatment. I assure you, if you're on the receiving end of something like this it will feel anything other than fair.
Now that said. When a student pilot does something with such blatant disregard for safety there is one place to look. The instructor. That's not to say hang him at high noon but that's where responsibility (never said legal liability. Doesn't mean jack if your ticket gets pulled) lies. Student pilots are stupid, they're trying to kill you and they're trying to kill themselves all the time isn't an unhealthy mentality for an instructor. Preventing them from doing so is the job. Until they've moved on in their career when it's my signature on their initial solo, recurring 90 day solo, each solo cross country and every dual flight in their logbook...I'm responsible. Period.
You are correct, I am enjoying debating this subject because you have danced around the one point that I have been trying to make. ONE simple point, yet you have informed me about how a person should land a plane or messed up paperwork, or the reputation of a company based on its instructors. All of this has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.
All I have been saying, and I felt I have been very clear is, you can not find fault with this student's instructor without even conducting the most basic investigation. Period that is it, nothing else. Earlier you made a blanket statement that the instructor was automatically at fault. The instructor may be guilty as hell, but you can not tell me by watching a simple film you can tell me that the instructor is automatically at fault because a student screwed up.
So dance around the subject all you want, but if what you say is true, there would not be one flight school in this country because no insurance company would ever insure them.
As for being on the receiving end. I have, more than once, and it did involve training (not flight training), so now maybe you can see why I take such an interest in this subject.
As for you not willing to debate, why post your opinion in an open forum? I guess you just want your side heard.
Fred
One afterthought. You are not willing to take the time to read 25 pages concerning the liability of flight instructors?
-
Actually it's pretty simple: if he is a student he is flying on the instructors ticket - period.
-
Actually it's pretty simple: if he is a student he is flying on the instructors ticket - period.
i knew this during my training. i don't think you guys get paid enough(not that i want to pay more, but you know what i mean), and i don't know how you guys do it. but i sure as hell appreciate what you guys do, and especially the CFI that i flew with, and as far as i'm concerned, he saved my bacon at least once, through his training.
-
Quitting flying because you bounced off a car? Really?
That's what I thought... what a puss :rolleyes:
-
, you can not find fault with this student's instructor without even conducting the most basic
Yes I can. Watch this:
It's the instructors fault.
-
Yes I can. Watch this:
It's the instructors fault.
Then watch this.. You are wrong until an investigation proves otherwise.
Fred
-
Now you're catching on.
-
Now you're catching on.
Has been my point all along. Don't know how you have missed it.
Fred
-
(http://www.hummer4x4offroad.com/forum/images/smilies/icon%20slapfight.gif)
-
Has been my point all along. Don't know how you have missed it.
Fred
Yah huh.
-
Yah huh.
Expected response...
Fred