E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSView more videos at: http://nbcdfw.com.
Updated at 12:35 p.m. ET: The wife of a pilot whose single-engine plane clipped a passing SUV while landing at a North Texas airport over the weekend caught the collision on tape.
William Davis was trying to land a 2005 Cessna Skyhawk plane at the Northwest Regional Airport in Roanoke on Saturday when he clipped an SUV that was driving adjacent to the runway.
The pilot's wife happened to be filming the landing and caught the collision on video.
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. The plane's fixed wheel hit the top of the SUV, nearly ripping off the roof in the process.
The crash sent debris flying, including the plane’s landing gear. The plane took a sharp nose-dive into the ground and skidded off the runway.
The roadway is a public road that runs perpendicular to the runway and provides access to the east side of the regional airport. See the area on Google Maps here.
The couple in the car, identified by the Texas Department of Public Safety as Frank and Heather Laudo of Flower Mound, were taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.
On Saturday, the couple talked to NBC 5 about the incident.
"I saw it about a second before it hit us. I was opening my mouth to go 'duck!'" Frank Laudo said. "The next thing you know there's shattering."
"It was kind of like a hawk with its talons coming up and scooping the car," Heather Laudo said. "And the talons breaking off."
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the collision.
Leave a Comment:
A flight instructor once told me it usually takes more than one mistake to cause a crash. Here we have two, a short approach/missed threshold by the pilot, and poor situational awarness by the driver. Alone each mistake doesn't cause an accident. Together, disaster. I guess he was right. Thank God nobody was seriously injured or killed.
#1. Go To Google Maps 33.054778,-97.23252
#2. Zoom ALL the way in.
#3. Right Click on the Green Arrow and Select Zoom In.
#4. Select Street View.
#5. You have arrived at the exact location the wife was filming from.
NOTES: Clearly seen in the video is the Wind Sock. The VASI Lights can also be seen. Also on Google Maps Satellite View of the Airport we can clearly see the Displaced Threshold Markings. (four arrows in a stright line fololwed by three arrows that point directly at the WHITE LINE that is THE END OF THE RUNWAY. And at the tail end of her "Oh @!$%#" Moment, we see the tip of the orange marker pole she was standing next to.
Conclusions: Approach too shallow. Pilot clearly ignored the threshold markings. (The ground affect on that Cessna would have made him float on that cushion of air all the way to the numbers, greasing the landing!) By ignoring the markings and bringing it in NOE (Nap of the Earth) over the road. EHHHH. Wrong. As for the "Driver" of the vehicle, although legally on the roadway, should really have looked "both ways", especially to the left, before crossing the flight path of aircrat on approach. Pilot Error.
Apologies or not spell checking previous post.
The best part of this entire thread is the wanna be pilots that have all this expert advice and commentary to offer. I guarantee that all of you internet pilots wouldn't stand a chance flying a real plane.
As a student pilot, I agree with you 100%. Being that this was his first solo, he would have been highly focused on the runway. He did look a bit low, and the SUV was probably not visible to him, but the airplane surely had the right-of-way.
This was not his first solo. He was returning from a solo cross country. Check the videos at WFAA.
IT'S A BIRD!
IT'S A PLANE!
NO--IT'S A PLANE!
Two people to blame, the pilot and the SUV driver.
Ok, I'm reading all the comments – especially from Buffaloe51 "I'm a pilot and I'm going to try to explain why this happened…"
First of all a displaced runway means that the threshold (the absolute edge of the runway - the last bit airplanes can use for take-off or landing) is moved, usually further down the runway. Meaning that airplanes cannot use that portion of the runway for take-off or landing. This will force the landing aircraft to fly further down the runway until it is past the displaced threshold, where it can commence flaring and landing.
Judging by the attitude of the aircraft, the pilot was in the flare just before flying over the road. Flaring involved pitching the nose up to allow the main wheels to touch the ground first. So he could not have been able to see the SUV over the nose cowl. Second pilot error, why didn't he turn on his landing light?
Now as for the driver – WTF was he thinking. Like, dude didn't you notice a Cessna coming right towards you?
Tisk, tisk, tisk…
This is completely wrong. On a runway with a displaced threshold, the entire runway can be used for departure, but for landings the runway is shortened to the point marked by the displaced threshold. This is one of the very first things you learn as a student.
Sure didn't look like it almost ripped the roof off. Looks like the SUV held up pretty well.
Picture of the damage to the Volvo XC90
imgur dot com/h9rn5
The car went through a stop sign they are both at fault
Info from another article states that this was his first solo flight, and that he does not intend to fly again. The road in question does not belong to the airport, which is privately owned, and the property owner and airport owner plan to meet to resolve this safety hazard. The road does have "STOP" painted on it, but no pole mounted stop sign. Here is a link to the article:
www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/raw-video-small-plane-strikes-suv-as-it-lands-at-the-northwest-regional-airport-in-roanoke-texas
I find it interesting that his approach was made without flaps, and so close to the end of the runway. Perhaps it is a good thing that this pilot-in-training plans to give up pursuit of his license?
Amanda Guerra... What a fox!
Let's keep it simple folks. The pilot made some minor misstakes. 1. Landing with no flaps. 2. Landing DOWNWIND! 3. Landing with no landing light. Landing with no flaps means you have to have a higher airspeed to maintain flight and controlled descent. This means that if the pilot was maintaining the correct landing airspeed he would be loosing more altitude than normal, therefore would be coming in low. If you notice in the video, the windsock flares out somewhat just as the plane starts an accelerated descent. This would add to his rate of descent contributing to his short and low landing. These are "usually" somewhat minor misstakes, as would have been this time except that the driver of the SUV did not stop and look for air traffic before crossing the runway. This pilot did, in fact, reach the runway (even after hitting the SUV) and would have made a successful landing, though marginal safety wise. Calling this pilot error is like calling a train engineer at fault because someone crossed in front of him at an unmarked crossing. Oh, if the landing light had been on it MIGHT have helped the driver see the plane, but that is pure speculation. Just as it is speculation that the pilot was showing off for his wife, this was staged, and all the other dumb things said on this board.
Sorry people, Google earth shows this road quite a way from the runway threshold and the white fence is actually on the property across the street. He landed in an area of the runway that is prohibited for landings. It is used for take off only. He should have been higher and needs to be retrained. The driver and the airport was not at fault.
Wouldn't mind seeing Amanda's "flower mound."
Pilot should not be landing in the displaced threshold area. A standard ILS approach is 3-degrees or 20:1 glide. The road looks to be 450 feet from the threshold. If he had been on the recommended glide path he would have been at least 22-feet above the ground when crossing the the roadway. Very few airplanes have a 20:1 engine out glide ratio and any certificated pilot knows how many time his instructor randomly puled back the power and said "Engine out, what are you going to do?" Taking that into consideration most safety conscious pilots prefer an even steeper approach with the recommended flap setting. There are a number of errors here by an inexperienced pilot. I clearly remember my first flight with an empty right seat. I don't believe any student pilot does anything to "show off" on that first solo landing, they don't posses the skill to yet. I think the FAA will consider the SUV as terrain and will post the likely cause to be controlled flight into surface terrain.
This wasn't his solo flight. It was a return from a solo cross country. Check the videos at WFAA.
Looks like a airport and road design problem, airplanes should not have to worry about cross traffic. lol
Our airport has 100 yards clearance at one end and 200 yards at the other, from any roads, Of course I still had a airplane nearly land on my truck, but that was from a fuel delivery problem on take-off. Airplane was in small bits in the road in front of our Shari's restaurant, and the pilot walked away.
He received his student license in February 2012. Either he delayed starting his flight training or he is progressing slowly. Most instructors want a minimum 2-3 hours of flight time per week. 36 weeks later he's taking his first solo cross county? First solo or first solo cross country, the low, short. no flaps approach culminated in contacting a 6-foot high object at the approach end of the runway. It's going to make me think the next time I hear "N12345, taxi into position and hold".
It looks like this was staged for 3 minutes of fame.
See where the SUV is parked, right in the flight path.
People will do anything for fame, and the insurance companies and You and I are left holding the bag.
stand corrected, not parked. Not staged. apologies.
If you do a google map of Kelly road, there is the faint sign of the word "STOP" painted on the road. (between the 3rd and 4th fence post)
Looks staged to me. The plane drops just as the SUV was in front of him. The SUV was driving super slow.
Glad nobody died! This was your "perfect storm" with plenty of blame to share. The only winners will be the lawyers. The SUV driver has no right to be alive after that cognitive failure, but the real losers haven't even been discussed yet: the student pilot's flight instructor and his/her employer. When I was instructing I would have been fired if my students flew below the VASI glideslope, landed short of the displaced threshold and I went ahead and soloed them anyway! The student was approaching with minimum flaps on a shallow glidepath at a higher speed than if he were using more flaps: a sure recipe for a long float down the runway before touchdown. The 3000 feet of available runway can look mighty short to an inexperienced pilot right then. (Remember guys, 450 ft of that 3500 ft strip is displaced threshold.) 1)He was below the glideslope. 2) He was apparently trying to land short of the displaced threshold. 3) He was not using the manufacturer's recommended flap setting (ie. full flaps) which is mandated by the FAA. Wrong, wrong, and wrong! But you know what? He was probably doing just what he'd been taught. So who's the culprit? Don't worry the NTSB and the tort lawyers will figure it out. Just don't hold your breath; the wheels of bureaucracy grind slowly. And the Laudos better start making their own luck from now on, 'cause they've used up all they were issued at birth.
Being a pilot myself, there are many issues to be addressed on this incident. (1) Did the pilot see the oncoming SUV prior to the incident, (2) did the driver of the SUV look to see if any aircraft were on final approach to the runway, (3) was the pilot practicing an emergency landing, (4) were there any warning signs to motoists to look for low flying aircraft or aircraft on final approach, (5) was this an uncontrolled airport with no control tower and only UNICOM 122.8 or123.0 for communication, (6) what are the airfield's rules and regulations governing vehicles on the access roads, (7) based on the color of the aircraft and the sky background, is it possible that the driver of the SUV didn't see the oncoming aircraft, (8) even if the pilot had seen the SUV close in time to the incident could the pilot have reacted in time to avoid the incident? That is why there is a NTSB and FAA to look into all of these issues and more. And thank God no one was injured except the SUV and the aircraft.
car was at fault period, just as being on rr tracks and getting hit by a train
hope the suv has good insurance
car was as fault period, just as crossing rr tracks and getting hit by a train
So glad no one was hurt, but this reminds me of the old Fantasy Island TV program when at the first of the program someone cried out: " De plane, de plane"!
Live in Texas -- local reporters noted that the driver of the SUV ignored a stop sign --