I'm a pilot and I'm going to try to explain why this happened. The runway he was using has what's called a "displaced threshold." A displaced threshold applies to how much of the runway you can use for landing. You can use all of the runway for takeoff, but you're not supposed to touch down short of the displaced threshold which may be several hundred feet down the runway. This pilot was not on a high enough glide slope to reach the displaced threshold. Had he been, he would have cleared that SUV by about 100 feet. The displaced threshold is probably there on this runway to prevent exactly this type of incident.

Glad no one was seriously hurt, and it's a good lesson about when driving near a runway to always be vigilant in observing incoming aircraft traffic.

buffaloe

Your comments sound correct. However. They should have had signs on both sides of the runway. Telling drivers to watch for low flying aircraft. I have seen in some places that they have either a stop sign with that warning or a flashing warning light that can turn red if an aircraft is approaching. I have no idea if this place has any such warnings or not.

He could of been coming in for a very shallow landing though. The question is what in the hell was that SUV driver doing trying to cross right as a plane was landing. Where do you think the fault will land in this. I'm not too formiliar with plane on car crashes.

Teh_Bunneh, his wife just watched her husband crash in a plane. I'm pretty sure she had other things on her mind than staying with the shot.

This pilot's approach to that runway is entirely TOO LOW!...the video shows that the plane barely cleared the surrounding fence!

Also, the article states that the SUV was on the runway....which is it was not. However, the SUV should not have been that close to the end of the runway.

Both parties have a bit of explaining to do.

I agree with the fellow pilot's comments above. Just a little clarification - According to the Airport Facility Directory the dispaced threshold is there to avoid a hill - probably the one that can be seen right behind the fence in the video. Also that runway (again according to the AFD) has VASI lights (for the non pilots on the thread - these are lights which help guide pilots down to the runway safely - it's a light box on the side of the runway which tells you if you're high, low, or just right) Who knows if they were working though. As indicated above, looks like this pilot came in too low and landed way short as the displaced threshold required him to land 400 feet down the runway. Could have been the camera angle though. Anyway this poor guy's flying solo for the first time - hope he gets back in the saddle and doesnt quit. Also I was told and agree that for things like your first solo - it's best to not have an audience of relatives with video cameras as this can lead to distractions and extra stress on the pilot.

The question is what in the hell was that SUV driver doing trying to cross right as a plane was landing

I can imagine the conversation in the SUV just before impact:

Passenger: Is this a road? Because I don't think this is a road.

Driver: It's a short cut now will you shut up and let me drive!

This looks like a very rural landing area. Don't judge it by the areas you are familiar with. Almost looks like it's on private land.

Definitely WAY TOO LOW on his approach.

Here are the google coordinates for the landing strip:

33.056767,-97.231584

Note the SUV had to deliberatly not use the road and drive across the landing strip instead. Had they been on the road, I'm sure they would have seen the sign warning of landing aircraft. Not hard to guess who the FAA is going to pin the blame on.

Buffaloe51....as a small plane pilot myself it is pretty obvious the pilot is trying to 'hit the numbers' at the end of the runway which we all attempt at one time or another to show our piloting skills. The dumb ass in the suv was NOT watching for air traffic and is lucky to be alive.

captn curtass....dead wrong capt...he was spot on for landing on the numbers.

The videographer was the guy's wife, so cut her some slack. She didn't know if he was about to crash and burn or what. I think she did a pretty good job of capturing the moment.

Buffaloe51 - I think you're commenting on the wrong board. Intelligent, well thought out comments aren't typically allowed here. Props for going against the grain. :-)

Is it just me, or was his angle of approach also fairly steep? I would think that if he continued at that angle all the way to touchdown that he'd either bounce right up off the runway or collapse his landing gear. Then again I have no experience in such matters.

I'll put my paycheck on the fact that he was coming in way low so his wife could record his landing instead of flying past her which would most likely blur, f she even got the shot at all.

Then, he could show all his buddies and have them see how close he was to the fence trying to be cool but it looks like he got a little more "cool" than he expected.

Sayin' it how I see it....

Creek. I can see that you are describing how you see the video, but did you think of reading the article as well? It's his first time solo. Doubt he was trying to be impressive, but rather was just trying to land.

JBabbot, i checked out the map. Guess what, you can see the end of the tarmac, plus the white picket fence and everything, and the road the SUV is driving on. It appears the vehicle was driving on Kelly Drive, the regular thorough fare. The pilot, I believe, came in super low. He would have landed within 50 ft. of the end of the runway.

Ummm, yeah. Don't see anything that says first time solo though. I say impressive.

Have a nice day...

Although I would tend to agree with my fellow aviators on this thred I would still suggest we reserve the l comments of possible pilot error until we all know exactly what happenned. Camera angles do little to suggest that there was any pilot error here. Even with displaced threshold runways on private airstrips those who are driving across the pathway are still warned to be cautious and watch for low flying aircraft. What if this pilot was having engine trouble or some other in flight emergency. What if weather had a contibuting factor in a pilot not being able to maintain a decent glideslope. In viewing this video several times I personally think the stupid moron in the SUV should have been alot more attentive.

no more filbert I think you need to look at the map again. The coordinates someone else gave place you at one end of the runway. Check out the other end of the runway and you will see it matches up better with the picket fence and NO road which are depicted in the video. The driver of the SUV was not on Kelly Drive but was somehow going around the runway. From the tiremarks seen at that end you can see that they are not the only ones to drive there but I wouldn't call it a road

No doubt it was pilot error, now he has bragging rights for being one of the few air crafts to hit a SUV. he better stay on the ground! How would you rate that one ? as a single vehicle accident ? it probably was his first solo landing, so he wanted a record of it, its nice that he could share the moment with the rest of the world, its even nicer that no one got killed.

why didn't the SUV stop and look to see if it was clear to cross an active runway ?....common sense for anyone who has ever worked at or operated from an airport....and the perimeter road whether it be dirt or paved should have a "stop and look sign" for those arrogant head up the keester yuppster anal orifices that have no common sense to do so on their own accord...I give the SUV driver the "moron of the month award"....even tho the aircraft seemed low over the numbers...but thats why you stop and look...the plane can't just stop but the car can

Pilot coming in way too low, coming in low to impress his wife and get it on tape? FAIL
(He could have landed, taxied and stopped short of the actual landing threshold.)

Driver of SUV driving across end of runway, didn't even hear an airplane? FAIL

Civil engineers who designed approach, runway, crossing street, warnings? FAIL

Wife, capturing husband's proudest aviation moment... and promptly cutting away? FAIL

Reporters who had all night to prepare the story and still can't tell us whether the car was on the road, if the pilot was indeed in error, what the typical landing trajectory was, basically every single detail that everyone commenting on this story is left to figure out? MAJOR FAIL

If you look at :54 on the video you see a house sitting next to the runway, that house according to google terrain maps is on the end of the runway that has a road running just north of the runway. The driver did not cross the runway at any point; they were on Kelly/Airport road.

btw, I google mapped the airport, as someone earlier in this thread did, and there is indeed a named street at the end of the runway. Google apparently has multiple shots of the location, because at different magnifications as you zoom in, there is a black convertible traveling one way, and then a white SUV coming the other way. Yep. It's a road.

One good thing did come of this incident, though. It validates, in my mind, that question on the Ohio temporary permit driver licensing exam about the "Low Flying Aircraft" sign. I always thought that was the dumbest question next to "Slow Moving Vehicle." Guess maybe I was wrong.

The SUV was on a road "The roadway is a public road that runs perpendicular to the runway and provides access to the east side of the regional airport."

"In the video, you can see the plane descending toward the roadway as a black SUV drives along the access road and eventually directly underneath the aircraft".

It's amazing on MSNBC blogs when someone doesn't like the truth (or the truth hits too close to home) they'll always resort to censorship... so much for First Amendment Rights. I guess you'll delete this too because you hate hearing the truth. And I'll say it again... ANYONE WHO CROSSES A RUNWAY WITHOUT LOOKING OUT FOR AIRPLANES IS DUMB, and a menace to anyone near them... it's the same as crossing a RR track without looking for trains that may be coming.

Hey NJK85---The fault was the pilot's...clear and simple. I'm quite sure there are signs posted all around that access road alerting drivers to low flying aircraft. That said, no one really expects to be hit and it's quite possible that the driver of the SUV wasn't even aware of the plane until he was about to cross under it. As the wife of a pilot and one who has flown in these types of planes many times, even experienced pilots make mistakes. However, this one looks like a rookie mistake.

I went on google earth and the runway is 3,500 feet long which tells me he was just trying to get a good vid of him landing and the pilot did not have to land that close to the end of the runway.

The SUV was on Kelley Drive which turns into Airport Road right after Boeing Drive.

I also went to street view and do not see any warning signs of low flying aircraft's. This tells me that if you're on Kelley Drive, then you must have something to do with the airport in one way or another so you would know to look for low flying aircraft's since the road is not a thoroughfare road.

Yes, what a non-professional fool she is. She watches her husband's plane hit a car and nose-dive onto the runway, and is scatterbrained enough to run toward him to see how he is, rather than to continue filming. Go figure.

I'm a pilot, and can tell you that if this was his solo flight, he will have many, many, many more chances for someone to record his landings. You usually don't know when you are going to solo, so not sure why his wife was recording this particular landing, unless she does it at all his training flights. He was going to bust an FAA rule by landing on the runway threshold, so not sure why his instructor would think he was ready to solo. Most runways are at least 4,000 feet long, so he should have touched down at least one hundred feet beyond it.

OK… after looking at the above ground pictures of the \road\airport I decided to Google the following phrase… “FAA rule governing public roads that cross runway threshold”, opened the first document and this is what I found… I’m pretty sure anyone else can find something different, but here is what I see. But maybe it's the airport that is to blame for this "accident"...

1. 1. APPLICABILITY. The overall responsibility for the operation of vehicles on an airport rests with the airport operator. The airport operator is also responsible for compliance with the requirements of part 139 at airports holding an airport operating certificate and with the provisions of any applicable Federal grant agreements. Adherence to the provisions contained in this AC may materially assist the airport operator in complying with these requirements.

1. a. Airport operators should establish procedures and policies concerning vehicle access and vehicle operation on the airside of the airport. These procedures and policies should address such matters as access, vehicle operator requirements, vehicle requirements, operations, and enforcement and should be incorporated into tenant leases and agreements.
2. b. Each bidding document (construction plans and/or specifications) for development work on an airport or for installation of an air navigation facility (NAVAID) should incorporate a section on ground vehicle operations on airports during construction activity. The airport operator should provide a copy of this plan to the local FAA Airways Facilities office for review. The construction plans and/or specifications should contain the appropriate provisions, as specified in Appendix 1 of AC 150/5370-2, Operational Safety on Airports During Construction.
3. c. VEHICLE OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS. Vehicle operators on airports face conditions that are not normally encountered during highway driving. Therefore, those persons who have vehicular access to the airside and a need to be there must have an appropriate level of knowledge of airport rules and regulations. Airport operators should require vehicle operators to maintain a current driver's license and should establish a means of identification that would permit the operation of a vehicle on the airside of an airport. Any person expected to operate on the movement area should demonstrate a functional knowledge of the English language.
4. d. VEHICLES ON AIRPORTS. Airport operators should keep vehicular and pedestrian activity on the airside of the airport to a minimum. Vehicles on the airside of the airport should be limited to those vehicles necessary to support the operation of aircraft services, cargo and passenger services, emergency services, and maintenance of the airport. Vehicles on the movement area should be limited to those necessary for the inspection and maintenance of the movement areas and emergency vehicles responding to an aircraft emergency on the movement area. Vehicles should use service roads or public roads in lieu of crossing movement areas whenever possible. Where vehicular traffic on airport operation areas cannot be avoided, it should be carefully controlled.

VEHICULAR ACCESS CONTROL. The control of vehicular activity on the airside of an airport is of the highest importance. The airport operator is responsible for developing procedures, procuring equipment, … Airports may erect a fence or provide for other natural or physical barriers around the entire airport in addition to providing control measures at each access gate, such as guards, magnetic card activated locks, or remotely controlled locks. Gates may either be opened/closed electronically or secured by lock and chain. Physical barriers might include natural objects, such as earthen berms, large boulders, tree trunks, and manmade culverts that could help control remote vehicle access points.

https://www.google.com/search?q=FAA+rule+governing+public+roads+that+cross+runway+threshold&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Glad no one was hurt. Here's hoping the auto driver "likes" his (her) new convertible.

I can't believe the SUV driver didn't see that plane coming in kinda low, if it had been me I would have jammed on the brakes so that hopefully I'd stop before the plane got to the same spot I would be. I did notice they are sort of a young couple (compared to my age), so maybe common sense hadn't been fully developed yet.

Great....just great. A pilot with tunnel vision hits "Mr. Magoo" looking for for his optometrist!

Can't avoid the political analogy.... was either Joe or Barry piloting that plane and were the driver/passenger of the SUV uninformed liberals?

They've already ripped off us... why not the top of a SUV which they hate! (except when said SUV drives them around...)

Everybody knows it's the pilots fault, he forgot to stop and get out to look both way to see if a SUV was coming, before proceeding to land. Go to any airport and watch em, they all stop and check both ways before landing! Darned rookie!

InfoBabe Amanda Guerra... I wanna be your SugarDaddie. That's all I got to say about this news article.

Oh YEAH... ONE MORE THING ABOUT AIRPLANES... I always thot there was something vital missing in the design of those airplanes... where the feet area is, that area should also be a window ! And where the window is, it should have the instrument cluster. And the window, should be about where your belly is, and all the way down to your feet. For, when you are flying, you can never see ANYTHING where the window presently is, ANYWAY. The pilot could not see the SUV on the road below, but if the window was located where it SHOULD be located, the pilot woulda seen the SUV. BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD...

Oh yeah... one MORE thing... be sure to re-elect Oogah-Boogah For President TOMORROW !! YAYY !! The Second Term is IN THE BAG, BAY-BEE !! And, replace MadDog Biden with someone less aggressively crazy.

I have always been shocked by people taping a horrific event rather than putting the camera down AND HELPING.

@Miked

Actually, it was a Republican fundraiser in the SUV exercising his right to flaunt prudent driving and the laws of physics.

The guy in the plane obviously has a job and is doing well enough to afford flying at over $90 an hour. He's probably a member of the 5% who think that having money is a substitute for skill.

Just sayin...

I'm also ASEL-Instrument.

<dupe deleted>

I know nothing about flying, I am however certain the driver of the SUV was as big an ìdìòt as someone who would play chicken with a train.

The driver of the SUV was NOT playing chiggen with the pilot.

The driver of the SUV did not notice the airplane because the driver was distracted by the snake slithering around about the driver's feet.

Hope the person driving the SUV wasn't texting....... hmmmm, maybe he was.

maddog,

Probably texting his girlfriend. " On my way to airport,got to catch a plane!" :)

Good 1!

@ fred the janitor... yeah, and I'd also like to see his driving record, what other accidents has he had... I'm sorry, but you do not just drive across the threshold of a runway and "not see it"... or the plane that is about to "clock" you.

I really think the road is way to close to the runway to begin with, and that is the still a major problem that needs to be fixed.

I agree, Fred. It's not like it was a squirrel that darted out in the road, it was a frickin PLANE. They apparently edited the article because everyone is quoting them as saying it was his first solo, but it's not anywhere in the article as I'm reading it. Rookie landing or not, perhaps he WAS having some trouble and was trying to get down before losing control completely. The article doesn't say anything about THAT either. Just based on this video, I personally would be blaming the driver of the SUV. Perhaps new evidence will come to light.

I find it harder to believe that from "a birdseye view" the pilot did'nt see the SUV and pull up only about 3ft.

I do not blame the driver of the SUV so much as I blame the designers of the airplane.

The front window is too high, does no good. Window should be from your belly level all the way to below your feet. That way , the pilot can see 99% of what is really important to be able to see.

Coots will be coots.

UDunnoBro makes a statement without any facts, then you pile on with another baseless, crude statement. I think you need to change your login.

Udonno, there is a golf course in Florida called Spruce Creek which is a fly in community. One hole has a "watch for airplanes sign" before teeing off. I could not believe they were coming in 50 feet or less over a main fairway right in line with a driven golf ball. I would expect many of the resident planes to have "Titilist dings".

This Texas case is just plane stupidity on both involved.......

Seven2Seven....wrong again Oh clueless one....the pilot was on a perfect approach to land on the numbers at the end of the strip and dumbass in the suv got in the way....period.

That "Dumbass in the suv" was driving on Kelly Drive. Check this out, 33.056767,-97.231584 in google earth, and go to the north end of the runway. He was expecting to land at the very first point of the runway. He most likely would have landed before the numbers, unless he was just gonna coast at 5 feet of the ground for 100 feet or so.

Allen, another armchair viner. Maybe you could testify at the court hearings? I would expect they would throw the delusional mightymouse in the street. Period?? abeba, abeba And that's all folks...........

The pilot was short. Way short. The 'numbers' on this runway are several hundred feet from the end. If you look at the video closely, you can see the runway end lights on stands between the start of the black top and the camera position. That is the end of the runway. The pilot was attempting to land on the runup area, not legal.

Yeah really.

GT,

I wasn't going to say what I was thinking, but I believe you nailed it. If this wasn't staged, all parties need to buy lotto tickets. I don't believe the stunt turned out as planned however. Oops. Fines for everyone please!

Signs that read "Watch for low flying aircraft" and "Aircraft have the right of way"? Really? I've never heard of a situation where cars and aircraft have to interact. Sounds like a horrible design and apparently it was a disaster just waiting to happen.

I have seen that sort of sign lots of palces. It is common when a road passed right off the end of a runway as it does here. Airplanes have the right of way because unlike a car, they can't just stop.

Cars and aircraft interact all the time at smaller airports. If you're going to get your airplane from its hanger you drive through taxiing traffic all the time. You put your head on a swivel and stop well short of any moving aircraft.

shift

Signs that read "Watch for low flying aircraft" and "Aircraft have the right of way"? Really? I've never heard of a situation where cars and aircraft have to interact.

YES! I have seen it many times. Example is at Patrick AFB, FL they have a sign that warns of low flying aircraft with a flashing yellow light. The tower can change that light to red on certain conditions to stop traffic.

That road is not part of the taxi way under any scenario, it is a perimeter airport road. Signs are required to be posted to look for low flying aircraft, I am assuming there are signs there. The news report indicates the SUV was on the runway, that is not correct; you can see it is on the perimeter road. I cannot tell if that is a displaced threshold, if it is, then the Cessna was landing very short. The SUV has a duty to keep clear.

Driving on Kelley Drive.

I went on Google Earth and can see Kelly Dr which turns into Airport Rd right after Boeing Dr. I can also see other features that are in the video which in fact shows the SUV on Kelley Drive.

There are Taxiways but the SUV could not have been on the Taxiway because there wouldn't be enough room for the direction and the speed they were driving according to the layout. I dropped to street view and cannot see any low flying craft warning signs either.

I also measured the runway and it's 3,500 feet long so this guy in a Cessna didn't have to drop in that fast. He just wanted his wife to get a good shot with the Vid.

no more filbert,

I still don't see where it says in the story that this was his first solo flight.

Shiftlock: If you do a search, you can find there is an airport in Gibraltar that actually has traffic lights and crossing gates (just like at a railroad) to stop cars when an aircraft is approaching because the runway goes right across the actual street, not just near it. How's THAT for interactive traffic??? Just because YOU'VE never heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. A little research will go a long way.

Creek, I did not look on google maps, I lived a few miles from there. Look on the maps again, the road is used as a taxiway. Half, if not more, of the hangars on the west side of the runway are also residences. People take their planes down Kelly to get to the end of the runway all the time. The signs may not be there anymore, but I can assure you that the road against that fence is used for taxiing.

Okay, but it's still a horrible design and was apparently an accident waiting to happen. I don't know the details of that area, but I'm sure there's an engineering solution that would have prevented this accident. It's not enough to put up a sign warning motorists to watch out for aircraft. How about simply making the airport perimeter fence taller than vehicles at that spot?

I don't know about you, but my first reaction when I see a potential crash is to slam on the brakes. And unless the brakes are in pristine condition it's going to take a little bit to get the car stopped. Hitting the brakes was probably the worst thing the driver could have done, hitting the gas hard could have avoided this, but that's not what instinct tells us to do.

Probably an "automatic" response because he saw the plane only a second before impact. No real response time.

Don't knock the writer of this story. Because, guess what, THEY WEREN'T. They were on Kelley Drive. Maybe it was a stunt?

It was pilots 1st solo landing. But I'm sure your 1st was a perfect 3 point.

Anyone who drops it in on the threshold, wasn't ready to solo. I'm a pilot, and I would never attempt to land within inches of the threshold, especially if there was a fence at the very edge of the runway. I would never consider it as a student pilot, or as a pilot with 20 years experience. This guy must be one of those terrible drivers you see on the road if this is how he flies. He obviously is one of those terrible pilots I've come across. The kind of guy who swoops in under you to get the right-of-way at uncontrolled runways.

If it is a 3500 foot runway he could have landed a thousand feet down and still had plenty of room to stop. The pilot was so low he should have aborted the landing and gone around.

Yeah D, I thought her name was Flower Mound too and thought she was using her hot stripper name to be a news reporter. Too bad but she is a solid TX girl.........

Wow, I would agree with what you said. This seems rather odd for both the driver of the car and the pilot of the plane! Big WHAT? to both!

Yes, you are correct!!

He should have had at least 30 degrees of flaps extended. You can also see he would have touched down in the grass well short of the runway if the vehicle wasn't there, which would put him on the runway threshold, which is forbidden to be used for landing.

No-flaps meant he had a shallow approach angle. Luck he didn't hit the fence. Unlucky he hit the SUV.

You have over 25 years of flying, yet manage to construct sentences and spell like a 2nd grader. I fear for your passengers.

Really? Didn't look like either won to me! The only win was that no one was killed!

Sorry, you make a lot of incorrect assumptions in your argument. First, Northwest Regional is a public airport. Two, landing without flaps is done all the time and results in a shallower, not steeper glide path. Faster approach too! Third, PIC stands for Pilot in Command, not Pilot in Charge, but you"re forgiven on that one since they mean essentially the same thing. The displaced threshold issue will come up in the NTSB investigation as the pilot was attempting to land on a portion of the runway not authorized for landing. He also probably never saw the SUV since he would have been focused on a point much further down the runway. I wholly agree with you on the SUV driver. What idiot drives on a road near the approach end of a runway and doesn't look out for planes on final? Glad no-one was seriously hurt.

No pilot would ever touchdown on the runway threshold, so an aircraft would normally be at least 100 feet above that portion of road.

Amanda Guerra also needs a lesson in elementary English. I'm quite sure the woman who was telling her about the accident didn't say, "...like a hawk with IT IS talons coming up...." -- You morons outsource your editing to illiterates, don't you?