Cessna hits SUV on student's first solo landing

ChasenSFO said:
Meh, I noticed it too. A student pilot is probably unlikely to judge a situation warrants a no flap landing, but who are we to judge.
Click to expand...

On airliners.net, someone familiar with the school stated that they require no flap landings most of the time. :confused:

There is certainly blame to go around...even with no flaps, unless he was carrying a lot of speed he would have gone well short of the actual beginning of the runway (400 foot displacement).... and homeboy and homegirl blew through the stop sign.
tumblr_llx1tdwvRi1qilmuho1_500.gif
 
Krieger said:
Did anyone notice he didn't have his flaps down? I can't read all those posts.
Click to expand...
Well there's always the post above which is the only post on this last page.:p

I don't believe anyone that says they regularly do no flap landings in 172s because "conditions warrant". It's A.net, they're probably just pretending they fly the mighty rodeo horse of the skies known as the Cessna 172.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
There is certainly blame to go around...even with no flaps, unless he was carrying a lot of speed he would have gone well short of the actual beginning of the runway (400 foot displacement).... and homeboy and homegirl blew threw the stop sign.
tumblr_llx1tdwvRi1qilmuho1_500.gif
Click to expand...

Oldschool Simpson's reference FTW!!!
 
There's an airport near me (Suburban Airport/Airpark), and it is right next to a road. The planes come in really low. I've usually seen them graze the trees on the way in. It also scares everyone in the dog park which is parallel with the centerline, so the planes fly right over. There's a road right at the end of the threshold. You can really see the road from the plane (I presume) and this airport is certainly not for the faint of heart.
 
If anyone has ever been on any airport, airplanes have the right of way over ALL other vehicles, period. Read the signs. I didn't watch the video, and don't need to to understand that.
 
A report from a local pilot: the threshold was move back to 30 ft awhile ago. The AFD and Airnav are incorrect. Soooooo...he was doing as he was trained.
 
I forgot to mention. The area where this happened is supposed to be protected from crap like this. Like "STOP" written on the ground. You still must obey the signage written on the ground. Not seeingnit (ignorance) is no excuse.
 
I worked on my PPL at 52F. 985GE was the first airplane I took up solo. The owner of the school required instructors to teach no-flap landings first. I I remember correctly it was because he felt students were more likely to wheelbarrow in on their early landings using flaps.

This is a pretty small airfield, and the driver's SA aside, they need more than S-T-O-P in kiddie chalk on the ground.

Sadly, several accidents out there in recent months. My flight instructor and another student were killed on takeoff a few weeks ago. I am sure that factored into this gentleman's decision to retire the kneeboard.
 
They should implement stop sticks on that road, and i'd bring along a red turtle shell as PIC
 
Watching the video more closely, the left main rolls right across where the hood meets the windshield. That's just about the same height as the fence. He couldn't have cleared the fence by more than a foot.

Entirely too low, regardless of where the threshold is, and/or performing a no flap landing.
 
The airport use to be Aero Valley and even then there was a sign saying watch out for low flying aircraft before crossing.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Watching the video more closely, the left main rolls right across where the hood meets the windshield. That's just about the same height as the fence. He couldn't have cleared the fence by more than a foot.

Entirely too low, regardless of where the threshold is, and/or performing a no flap landing.
Click to expand...


Makes no difference in this situation. That fence should have been his to hit, unobstructed by a vehicle.
 
Dipping below glideslope, you open yourself up for whatever you hit. Be it a tree, a fence, a pole, or an SUV. IF it was the fence he hit (and the SUV wasn't even in the picture), every single person in this thread would be saying "yep...pilot was too low"

No different than JetBlue in St Maarten. Are people dumb for standing there? Absolutely. Is it their fault the pilot decided to backtrack onto the chevrons and impart an additional risk? Nope...it's 100% on the pilot.
 
I thought the FARs required a pilot to remain on/above glideslope, or is that only when electronic guidance systems (VASI, PAPI, etc.) are present? They appear NOT to be at this airport. Which brings to mind another question:

How does a student develop proficiency flying a proper glide path if he doesn't have access to an airport with VASIs or PAPIs?
 
tomokc said:
I thought the FARs required a pilot to remain on/above glideslope, or is that only when electronic guidance systems (VASI, PAPI, etc.) are present? They appear NOT to be at this airport. Which brings to mind another question:
Click to expand...

Airnav 52F
..
Runway 17
..
Visual slope indicator: 2-box VASI on right (4.50 degrees glide path)
 
jafra98 said:
Don't blame the pilot if he was high or low, the car shouldn't be there at that time.............
Click to expand...


True story. The car was absolutely in violation of the signage (Been to 52F multiple times and it's pretty clear... "watch for departing/approaching aircraft," or some variation thereof.) Had they run a stop sign and collided with another car the driver would have been liable. In addition, the car was on an airport and operating in the airport environment. Not only was he subject to traffic laws (driving through the stop sign.) but also the airport rules, (landing aircraft have the right of way.)

Whether he was too low, might have landed in the displaced threshold, etc... I think is irrelevant. The pilot never had the opportunity to correct their possible mistake because, well, there was a friggen car in the way.
 
I was looking at AOPA's airport directory information in kneeboard format (forgive me, I know), which says only...

Runways:
17/35:

3500X40; asphalt, no surface treatment, in fair condition; Hill,
Both-Sides, 10 ft high, 200 ft from end, ; Trees, Both-Sides, 40 ft high, 543 ft
from end, 8:1 clearance slope;
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top