People love to tell me that they enjoy all my videos - "Except this one, where you got it completely wrong!" Here's the report: app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Rep... www.lehtoslaw.com
@@groofromtheup5719 Catch is those are only installed on commercial aircraft, not small general aviation planes such as the 2 seater Cessna 150. In small planes like that, weight is already highly limited, so anything which adds to the weight of the aircraft is going to mean less weight from fuel and such that can be added to avoid going over MTOW and having the center of gravity too far outside of the plane for the elevator and vertical stabilizer to be able to correct.
@@alanmcentee3035 I've just been viewing clips of bird song to help me identify something I've heard. Some of those had down votes. Must be a certain type person out there that I just don't understand.
Sometimes I downvote videos I don't like. That doesn't mean the videos aren't good. It seems to me like this causes youtube to show me less stuff that I wont like.
You're right Steve. Even if the semi got up on its hind legs and chased the plane around the sky, it's still the pilot's responsibility to avoid any obstacles in the planes path.
"A programmer is a person who solves a problem you didn't know you had, in a way you don't understand." Don't worry, odds are they don't understand it either.
I think what really happened was she yelled "TRUCK!!" and he said "That's not a truck, that's a semi!". An argument ensued as to whether it was a truck or a semi, and he hit it just to spite her.
I, too, am a pilot and I think Steve nailed this one. When I got my license, I was taught that unless there are extenuating circumstances (like a manufacturing defect or something else that the pilot could not have known about, e.g., bird strike) any incident is considered the fault of the pilot-in-command. Did an aircraft run out of fuel? The pilot should have started with more or stopped to get some? Did an aircraft get caught in weather? The pilot should have gotten a more complete weather briefing. The assumption going into an investigation always assumes pilot error until some piece of evidence points otherwise. In this particular case, the pilot knew (or should have known) the road existed, since he had checked out the airport with a fly-by already. He should have anticipated the possibility of a vehicle being on the road and been in control of his aircraft in order to prevent a collision. It sounds like he had tunnel vision on the runway and forgot to keep his eyes moving. I feel bad for the guy but, based upon what I have heard so far, I would find for the truck driver if I was on the jury. Keep up the good work, Steve.
@@orlock20 disagree. I'm not the pilot but it seems pilot wasnt paying attention tiom to surroundings. End of. Not sure what he supposed to do when he saw (in proper time not when it's too late) I assume do a circle and try again hoping there wont be a car in the way next time?
@@orlock20 Yea, but it kind of depends on the wind. If he could have turned around, that would have been best. But the winds may have been high enough that landing with the wind would have guaranteed a rollout that was too long. The other option the had was to simply NOT LAND there. Most accidents happen, at least in part, by get-there-itis. It is up to the pilot-in-command to make those decisions. That's why they make the big bucks! :)
When the passenger said truck the pilot thought he had more clearance than he did. Now, if she had said semi the pilot would have pulled up a few feet, right?
You had me laughing at the "Warning, low flying owls" sign. My wife has a painful medical condition that often causes her to be nocturnal so she's awake all night. She's also a crazy cat lady. A few years ago "we" had three cats, and she would take them for walks down the street in the wee hours - they would follow her like dogs. That ended when a great horned owl took up residence in the area. Two or three times this bugger tried to grab a cat - came out of nowhere but missed on each occasion. To be honest, I would have been okay with the two older and vet-expensive ones being taken - circle of life and all that. Old cats went to their natural reward, and "we" have two younger ones, who don't get walked at night, because owl reasons. I just want a dog.
When I was a trucking dispatcher(about a million years ago, for a company that is long gone), I got to giggle to my self as I explained to the operations manager that one of our trucks had hit a boat. It had come off a trailer on the I96 at night. The truck was fine, but it he look on manager’s face was priceless.
Stephanie Wilson I'm thinking they disagreed with the judgment, not paying attention to the fact that steve was only explaining the judgment, not arguing for it.
"...nor is it the job of people on the ground to notify you (the pilot) that you are about to hit them...." LMAO! Steve, your videos almost always put a smile on my face and cheer in my heart. Often, though, it's usually because of how you explain things. "TRUCK!" LOL
So the height difference from the threshold to the top of the truck was a total of 15’. Any pilot who is only 15’ above ground before being over the threshold is obviously not in control. The standard is 50’ above ground when over the threshold. As an active private pilot, I would have abandoned this approach long before hitting the truck.
it was stated this is a short field approach, and a private strip. In some short strips the only option is to put your wheels ON the threshold, no such luxury to have so much runway you can fly over.
@@daklestad which would require a steeper than usual approach to clear obstacles, explaining the difficulty seeing the trailer that was now an unexpected extra obstacle. Still doesn't clear the pilot of the error of not verifying his approach path was clear of obstacles.
I disagree that 50' is a standard. All the short field takeoffs and landings are predicated on being able to clear a 50' obstacle, but if there isn't one, there's no requirement to fly as if there was an obstacle.
@@jwenting The truck may have been tough to spot. It was travelling northbound with the plane landing on Rwy 07 and likely would have been in a blind spot of a C150. Also, looking at a satellite image (albeit 17 years later) there are trees along the west side the road that would have hidden the truck. The pilot is the final authority for the operation of the flight so the pilot bears the responsibility. In hindsight he should have tried to land about 100' past the threshold. Still would have had 1200+' of usable runway assuming only using half the length -- well within the capabilities of a C150.
Steve, you got this right on all counts. Of course, I immediately thought of the Gene Wilder/Richard Pryor movie "See No Evil, Hear No Evil" where Richard Pryor portrays a blind man who ends up driving a getaway car with Gene Wilder (who portrayed a deaf man) calling out directions. "Cows! Cows!" Wilder shouts as they drive through a meat packing plant warehouse! Almost as useful as the passenger yelling "Truck!" to the pilot...
You are 100% correct. I'm a pilot as well, and I believe this one you got right. Here are the words describing the likely cause from the report: "The pilot's inadequate glidepath and his failure to maintain obstacle clearance." He attempted a short field landing on 1350 feet of serviceable runway. www.myhra.org/C-150L-1972-OwnersManual.pdf Performance Specifications Page. Look for yourself. 1075 feet is the ground roll for this aircraft over a 50 foot obstacle. The 150L has a less than 500 foot ground roll under normal circumstances. On a turf runway the ground roll would be *less*. He had no reason to execute a short field anything, because there was no short field! The pilots operating handbook has all the required numbers that he should of known about as PIC. He had more than 200 hours in this type and more than 1700 hours total. The pilot screwed up - period.
I love all your videos, except this one! 😂😂😂. You never need to apologize for being you, opinions are opinions and you’re a personable guy with a calm and reassuring voice.
I am disappointed in the judge that allowed the pilot to exploit the wording the law by agreeing the plane was not on the road and steal from the insurance company. The law was obviously intended to assign blame to a truck operator that was not operating his truck on the road. The truck was on the road, and the plane impacted an object on the road, therefore the plane was on the road. The trucker should not have been held at fault under any circumstances, and thus his insurance should not have been liable for damages to the aircraft.
@@guillermo3564 True, until it struck a vehicle on the ground. If the truck were not on the road, then I would concede the argument. However, as this was 100% the pilot's fault, the trucker should have no liability and I equate this with an insurance scam on the part of the pilot.
@@SirLyonhart 1. You think judges are supposed to make up their own interpretations instead of following the laws as written by the legislators? 2. I'm thinking that the plane hitting the truck rather than the other way around is part of the logic that says the collision wasn't on the road.
clearly the pilot was confused by his wife claiming to see a truck, given there was no truck in sight only a semi that might possibly intersect his approach and while still confused by his wifes misidentification he hit the semi wondering where the truck is
On a beautiful day, my Darling Wife and had a flight in a light plane around Denali in Alaska. As we were coming to altitude, the pilot say "please let me know if you see a plane coming close". At that moment I realized the sky looked like the air over a pond on a warm day - the sky was full of full-sized bugs buzzing around. In between takeing LOTS of photos, we did keep our heads on a swivel...
Excellent explanation of a one in a million accident. Some people simply can't find their way to their own front door so I guess you have to provide those folks a detailed map. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
@@stevelehto I like taking pictures of weird signs. I took one today that said; No Parking This is a Sidewalk I took another one a week ago that was on a jewelry store display counter; No Bystanders
The pilot is responsible for the proper operation of the aircraft, which includes landing the damn thing. The pilot was apparently not practiced or experienced enough to make proper decisions regarding the operation of the aircraft. Take this from a 5800 hour pilot. Steve, you are completely right with this.
Math teacher here, from a pedagogical stance error analysis is one of the best forms of authentic learning. Trying to find where he thinks your wrong with no clues or details is going to be interesting....
Steve, you are correct. It is the pilot's responsibility to clear his aircraft. As a pilot, I feel he was so fixated in the landing that he failed to maintain separation. (Tunnel Vision).
Thanks for the clarification. I "SKIM" read the aviation report also stating the "airplane hit the truck" thinking the truck was in a place, such as on the runway, where is wasn't supposed to be. Weird things happen and attorneys hear alot of them when things go wrong.
Thanks for the pin and the callout Steve! Yep, he made the mistake and got too focused on his landing point and failed to continue his scans for other traffic and obstacles. As I said in my other comment, I would be interested to see back when this happened if there were warning signs on the road about the possibility of low flying airplanes and to yield for them (which would actually require the truck driver to stop), but other than that, the pilot and his wife were lucky to pretty much walk away.
Oh, I forgot to post this on the other thread because it didn't occur to me, but the reason it even came to mind was this accident - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3CXVt2OpcGY.html In this case, the road is on the airport property, and does have signs that say to yield to aircraft. The guy in the car didn't and the plane (who was low on his approach too) hit the car. The pilot had no way of seeing the car because it was in his blind spot the whole time. The driver of the car was lucky to survive (as was his family), but it was his fault because he went past the clearly marked sign that said to yield for aircraft.
This is an airfield a couple of miles from where I grew up, it's an old WW2 base that used to fly Spitfires, but it's now in the middle of a residential area. They have lights to stop the traffic: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-a8qQXMWSFMw.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wabmSmT4BVY.html Being very close to London we often got some odd aircraft in there.
I actually found the airport on Google Maps. The airport has been closed and is now a tree nursery. However, the ground level pictures are from when it was still an airport. There are NO signs on the road to warn motorists of low flying airplanes.
Google maps has a 2009 street view of the runway from the road. I didn't see any sign warning of low flying aircraft when I "drove" down the street. If you look at the image of the area from M46/131 you can see it looks much different in the 2018 image. It looks like the area has been converted to a tree farm now.
I also am a pilot. I read the NTSB reports and I don't always agree with them but they got this one right. You are also correct. The Pilot is in command and is responsible to maintain control. Pretty much what ever goes wrong is the pilots fault. I worked a crash when I was with Emergency Management. Turns out the pilot was an instructor I knew well, in fact he proctored my written exam. He had an engine failure. Instead of landing on the 4 lane highway he opted for a field. Not knowing the grass hid the fact the field had been plowed. He ground looped his plane. FAA was saying he ran out of grass. I said what about all the oil on the bottom of the plane. He said that means nothing. Angered I pulled out my Gerber multi tool and removed the engine cowling. I said I have taught mechanics for over 20 years I I have never seen an engine self destruct because it ran out of fuel. It was obvious the engine self destructed. The FAA said OH. The pilot rode to the hospitsl with his wife so he wasn't there to defend himself. If he had chosen the road he would have had a better outcome but he had no way of knowing. You got this one exactly right.
I honestly don't know how you do it. To many people just want attention. Maybe you could send them a participation trophy when they complain to make them feel better. I love watching your videos. Please keep up the great work.
Steve, A standard pre-flight briefing uses the acronym SAFTEY. S = Shoulder harness / Seat Belt, A = Access and rally point in an emergency, F = location of the fire extinguisher, T = Traffic (if you see traffic in the air or on the ground, tell the pilot), E = Environment (Watch while we taxi, people or cars on the ground, ramp, areas adjacent to the runway) Y = Yourself (turn your cell off if you are crew, sterile cockpit when taxiing, taking off, climbing, descending, landing). So in a best practices, small airplane flight, the person in the right seat has safety responsibilities. (yes, the acronym is spelled wrong). If you omit the briefing, you won't pass your check ride and you won't get your pilots license!
The aircraft's landing approach would be with nose up attitude, pilot in left seat. If the truck is approaching from the right it might be out of vision of the PIC (Pilot in Charge). Therefore, a passenger would be the best lookout for obstacles below and to the right. A lot of mid air collisions happen between an aircraft taking off gaining altitude into one that is loosing altitude for landing. Blind spot is under the landing plane and above the taking off plane because of the wing. Also, a right base turn for landing, puts the pilot on the outside of the turn causing a blind area to the lower right of the plane. Thanks Steve for great content!
Just wanted to add my two cents on the definitions of "truck." A highway big rig (I had to start with a term that didn't have the word "truck" in it), can very correctly be called a truck even though it is comprised of a tractor and a semi-trailer, otherwise those who drive them couldn't be called "truckers," could they? Technically, they operate the tractor (whether towing something or not), but nobody calls them "tractorers." And a half-ton should probably technically always be referred to as a "pickup truck" to differentiate it from the big rigs, but shorthand slang can be used to call it a "pickup" OR a "truck" if used within context (if you say you drive a "pickup," nobody will assume you're driving an impromptu basketball game). If a news report (or FAA report) uses "truck" as shorthand, it can be assumed to refer to a big rig (not a pickup truck) because there's no functional difference between cars and pickups in most accidents or police reports, being of similar length, height, weight, etc. But a big rig should never be called a "semi truck." It's a full truck; no fraction thereof. The term "semi" refers to the trailer, as in "semi-trailer." That's because the definition of a trailer provides that it TRAILS completely behind the vehicle, as in the case of a camper attached to a ball hitch. A big rig's trailer PARTLY trails behind the tractor, but is also PARTLY carried over the rear axle(s) of the tractor, meaning that it is "semi-trailing" behind it. I would opine that it's okay to refer to a big rig as just a "semi," because a trailer (of any kind) can't roll down the road on its own, and anyone should be able to rub enough brain-cells together to deduce that a tractor is connected to it, even if they don't know exactly what to call it or why.
@Steve Lehto you are correct the PIC is responsible for making sure the plane will clear all obstacles. The airstrip is at fault due to the runway being lower than the road.
Actually, too close to the road and to trees on someone else's property. It was trees on the other side of the road that blocked the view of the road. Runway should have ended must farther from that road so the planes could clear any vehicle on the road, no matter how tall (within reason).
@@michaelamick8295 That is no doubt true, but at the time of the incident, the airport was not acting as an emergency runway. As of now, it is not an airport or an emergency runway. It is gone.
@@CaudilloSilovik That is why it is called a "displaced threshold". The runway extends, but that part is not to be used for landing. Landing must occur further down the runway, at the point indicated as the threshold, not at the end of the runway. The extension of the runway can be used in the other direction, to brake after landing or an aborted takeoff.
you really outdid yourself with this video. I thought the first video was good and informative. to add a little more information. I'm a trucker and have had the opportunity to fly a plane. I didn't take off or land but did take the controls once airborne. I have been out west Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc where it's common for farmers to use a crop dusting service with special planes. I have had planes narrowly miss my truck as they pop out of the tree line going from one field to another back and forth. normal semi trucks are 13.6 ft tall and are made of aluminum. however container trailers are typically steel and vary some in height. that's the truck view. now for the plane I can tell you from experience there's a lot going on in the driver seat especially during landing. if you come too fast or wrong angle it could flip the plane or tear off the landing gear. there is also wind shear the direction of the wind and how it effects the plane. in this instance the direction of travel of the semi is important too was it coming from the passenger side of the plane where his wife blocked his view in that angle. great video
As a former pilot myself (had to give up my First Class medical for medical reasons), the answer to your query Steve is: Yes. The pilot is required to maintain situational awareness and be aware of their surroundings and all obstacles at all times during flight. If the pilot becomes target fixated (as was clearly the case here), they develop tunnel vision and thus are unaware of what is happening around them.
I am horribly disappointed in you Steve. There are no low flying owls in this video. In all seriousness, thanks for the link to the report. Keep the vids coming. We do enjoy them.
It's so disappointing....that there are people that would have a hard time understanding this. I maintain that there are more crazy people out there then you think!
I once rode with a pilot in a small WWII era two seater. His words when we reached cruising altitude: "Help me look out for other airplanes. We don't want a mid-air collision. Those are usually disastrous." Of course, once he has you up at 5,000 ft there is little you can do to get out of the situation. Needless to say I've never been more alert in my life.
U R right. Trucker can't see up very well! But pilot can see down, especially in a Cessna. Tunnel vision is common with both cops and pilots. I've been flying since 1966. Thumbs up.
Reminds me of watching a similar size plane trying to land at a small airport in rural Oklahoma. It had a cemetery at one end of the field. After two tries the plane went to another airport.
Just to put some perspective based on experience: I have about 200 hours in Cessna 150s. So you know, it generally takes about 10 hours to solo, about 40-50 hours for one's private license, and roughly 200 for commercial. That's me. I'm a licensed commercial pilot. So, the things I'm about to tell you about Cessna 150 flying you can take to the bank. Any approach involves a lot of attention to things like altitude, airspeed, power settings, flap settings, airport details, runway information, surroundings, etc. Any pilot will be spending almost all of his (or her) attention on balancing each of those factors against desired norms and experience. One overall point that deserves mention is visibility. The 150 is a small airplane. It's a two seater and it's not hard to be bumping shoulders with the person in the other seat. The visibility to the left is superb, as the window is right there. The visibility forward is pretty good, particularly at the pitch angle this one would be flying. Visibility out the right? Not so much, especially with a passenger. If I were making that approach, I would have done an overview about a mile out, and as I got closer, would be busy more inside the cockpit than out. Not that the outside view is unimportant, in fact, that's part of the regular scan, but for a short field approach, it's critical at some point to concentrate on the airplane. Of course airspeed is critical, too, as one is flying on the edge of a stall all the time on a short field approach. Flaps 20 at a half mile or so sounds about right, and using the throttle to manage the descent is customary. It's all visual, as there are no instruments guiding you to the landing spot--just sight picture and power settings. There is only one power control in a 150, the throttle. Also, there's not an over abundance of power--100 HP, but it's certainly adequate for the maneuver being flown. Short final, flaps 40 (or 30 depending on the vintage--I've flown a lot of both), at this point there's a fair amount of nose down attitude, but at this point, the road itself might not be visible, and in any event, the target is a spot on the runway, probably 100' beyond the threshold. No sane pilot tries to cut it closer than that. Now a bit about intercepts, which is what we're talking about here. Something that will hit you (or vice versa) on an intercepting path will appear to be stationary to you from first sighting, regardless of speed. It's unclear how much blocking from view there might have been, but on an intercept path, it's hard to pick something out that's not apparently moving. Plus, under the right wheel is not in the pilot's field of view. I don't believe he was negligent at all. I believe the truck was not visible to him. Plus, he's concentrating on the runway which is mere hundreds of feet away. There was an accident years ago involving an F4 and a DC 9 out in California in which just such a lack of visibility was a major factor. If he had seen the truck at the time his passenger called out, I suspect there wasn't any action he could have taken that wouldn't have worsened the situation. An abrupt pulllup at low altitude, low airspeed, high angle of attack is almost guaranteed to result in loss of control. I'm not saying he would have just let the airplane settle into the truck--he might have been able to try a turn, but at that point, options were pretty limited. Fault? Plenty to go around, although I agree there's not much the trucker could have done. But it's hard to fault the pilot, either. Airport design? Private field, turf runway--not a lot of standards to be met, but I would think the owner/manager would have been a little more aware of the possibilities and attempted to mitigate them. P.S. I read the report. The guy had 1700 hours. Not a lot in the airline biz, but pretty high time for a recreational pilot. I say recreational pilot because he's not instrument rated. Anyone trying to get on commercially somewhere will have an instrument rating.
Hard to fault the pilot? Maybe you'll get it after another couple of hundred hours. It may not have been negligence that kept the pilot from seeing the plane, but it was definitely negligence that resulted in passing less than 11' above a public road, especially after flying over the runway to check things out. There's absolutely no excuse for not knowing that it was entirely possible for a vehicle as much as 14' high to be on the road. And FWIW, 100' past the threshold means you'll be all of 5' above the threshold. No sane pilot would be anywhere near that low unless there's a few hundred feet of flat, empty space before the threshold and they really need as much of the runway as possible.
Steve, I'm a private pilot with many hours in Cessnas. The Cessna 150 is a high-wing aircraft making the view below mostly unrestricted. If the truck was approaching from the right as the plane was landing, there is a small possibility that the truck would be hidden from the pilot. We all try to observe situational awareness but the pilot should have seen the truck on his approach to landing.
The legal height limit for a truck is 13 feet 6 inches. Anything above the road is leagaly required to be 14 feet 6 inches above the road. It could be argued the plane was on the road because it was within 14 feet 6 inches of the road surface. The exemption for the height limit is a permanent marked low clearance structure such as an overpass permitted as such.
I just think the courts followed the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law, the truck driver shouldn't have to pay for the pilots mistake. And it sounded that it wasn't an emergency landing.
The truck driver could have sued in federal court or asked the lawsuit to be moved to federal court because "the air" is federal property. If something is attached to the ground and is high off the ground, it's state property. That plane was on federal air space when it hit the truck.
Back when I was driving a delivery truck, in Texas, there was an incident involving a semi truck and a bridge. This driver used the U turn under the bridge every day on his route. The bridge, which went over a river, was being widened at the point farthest from the driver passing through. The last beam placed that previous night changed the clearance negatively and that was not posted. The trailer hit the beam, knocking it off onto the cab. Because the truck was turning, the beam only crushed the passenger side of the cab. ( I actually saw this cab passing by that company yard.) Under the law, the company building the bridge was liable for failing to post the new clearance and had to replace the truck.
I'm surprised this didn't happen all the time @ the airport where I grew up in Erie, PA. We had the same situation where the road was right where the planes landed, and these were big commercial planes. It was always trippy when you were driving & a plane would fly right over you. Eventually, the road was changed so they could extend the roadway.
I am a Airline Transport Rated Pilot. I have been flying for over 50 years and had over 22,000 hours flight time last time I bothered to look. M y opinion, for what it's worth, is that you are 100 % correct.
I'm a pilot. I've flown onto grass runways many times. Often these airports are in the middle of no where. I was surprised that he was able to recover anything. When in pilot school they tell you that you're responsible for everything. Mechanic messes up - it's your plane, you're responsible. It's happened. It was very stupid of him to not make sure that road was clear. He could have been killed. In a situation like that he should have seen the truck and do what we call - a Go Around! Power up, pull back, abort landing. Try it again. Anytime I don't see what I like - go around. The only exception is when your engine is out or you're that guy that didn't carry enough fuel. Maybe it's because she said something that he didn't plow into the side of that truck. As a pilot you also don't want to upset people, like by flying within feet of their vehicles. 200-300' is cool on landing. I do that going into Freeway Airport - W00. Runway is off of Route 50.
Difficult situation. From the Pilots view, after looking at Google Earth images, and especially from the street view, There are a lot of trees in the area that could block the view of the roadway and prevent the pilot from seeing the truck. None-the-less it is the pilots responsibility to decide to go around, or call off the landing there entirely. Also the beyond the road, further from the runway there is 4 lane devided highway that is even higher than the road where the truck was traveling. The ground slopes up from the runway all the way to the surface of the county road then it continues to slope up to the highway. There are also 2 overpasses over that county road that could block the view of the on coming truck. All in all - That was not a good field to land at and especially in the condition as reported. I say "WAS" because as of the Google Earth images of 2018, that is not some sort of tree farm or nursery. Just several bad choices and it's a rip that the truck drivers insurance company had to pay ANYTHING for that pilots poor choices.
Even though I lived in Michigan for a short period of time and know about the no-fault insurance, I still don't understand why the truck driver should have to pay for the damage to the plane. He was on the surface of the road, it's not like he went airborne after going off a ramp. Yes, I did watch the first video.
The judges were mentally deficient ... if the truck hit a mobile home trailer or modular home on a trailer and it flew off the road ... would it be the trucks fault if the house landed on the side of the road? I think its an error in JUDGEMENT the truck was not off road and therefore not at fault
@@NotMuchHere The truck didn't hit anything. The plane, which was very definitely not on the road, hit a truck. It's weird logic, but it's still logic that says the accident wasn't on a road.
@@NYpaddler The accident occurred within the three-dimensional space above the road which a vehicle would be expected to occupy while on the road. By the judge's logic, the only way a collision could occur "on the road" would be if it occurred at the point where each object met the road's surface.
Steve you are correct. I've had a commercial pilot license (with multi engine endorsement) for 50 years ... and I've had (IFR) Instrument training. And, I have an FAA Part 107 Commercial UAS (Drone) cercificate. The PIC (Pilot In Command) is responsible for the flight (and all that means), even it the passenger were a 50,000 hour pilot who holds ever air craft rating possible ... in spite of this pilot's 'attempts' to be safe to land/on this landing ... but ... his not seeing the oncoming truck is on him. It's unfortunate, of course, that this happened and this was pilot error .The truck driver is in no way at fault--not matter how tall or how short the the truck's top was about the ground. Cheers, Chuck ... : +)
A Semi-Tractor Trailer is absolutely a TRUCK!!! A (brand) pickup truck is still a TRUCK!!! Are some people that clueless? I am also a long time pilot, Private Pilot to Airline Pilot with over 20,000 hours of Flight Time. YOU are absolutely 100% correct, this IS the responsibility of the Pilot-In-Command, nobody else. The only exception is when circumstances are well beyond the capability of a highly skilled pilot, such as a catastrophic engine failure. However, it is STILL the PIC's responsibility to make the most successful outcome from that situation as possible. As I always told my students learning to fly: YOU never stop flying, YOU fly the airplane until your heart stops. That is always the responsibility of the PIC. Every Pilot-In-Command has the 100% responsibility for the safe operation of the aircraft. IF a PIC makes a mistake, it is the total and 100% responsibility of that PIC for making the mistake. IF a Pilot hits a tree on the landing approach, whose fault is it? The Pilot or the Tree's fault? Similar situation: IF a driver is driving down the road playing with their cell phone and hits a tree ~ whose fault is it? Obviously the TREE! That is at least in some peoples twisted prejudice, theory and understanding. I did see your original video. Great Videos!!!
I grew up flying on a private strip exactly like this, including a roadway directly crossing the middle of the runway. We had explicit practices we always followed, basically we always looked for the traffic on all the roads prior to approach, including anticipation of where traffic would be when we came back around for an approach. The drivers in the area (especially the crossing road) would always (supposed to) look first before crossing. Additionally the first pass over the area was a warning to those in the vicinity that an aircraft was approaching. The state also posted on the main road a warning ":Low Flying Aircraft" sign (very prominent - large yellow sign). We never had any issues with several decades of use ..... this really is the pilots fault, though they took advantage of a legal loop-hole. I suspect the pilot did not regularly use this and simply didn't cover all their bases on what was necessary for a safe approach. There are also runways with road crossings or adjacent, e.g. crossing before the end, which actually have crossing gates like a railroad crossing, but some only have signs. One I know of is a jet runway e.g. 727/737's, large trucks when they get too close can disrupt the instrument approach equipment, so they are held back even further so at to not disrupt the radio guidance signals during low visibility instrument approaches.The tower operator works like a draw bridge operator, to close the road gates when an aircraft approaches, like lifting the bridge when a tall ship approaches. Basically when everyone does what they should, there are not problems!!
In pilot speak. PIC stands for Pilot In Command, You are absolutely correct. The pilot is solely responsible for that aircraft, his action and aware of traffic in the air, obstacles on the ground moving or not. He must also be aware of all factors regarding that flight. I am a Former FAA Pilot Examiner DPE, Certified flight instructor CFI, CFII, and Aviation Safety Counselor 14 CFR § 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. CFR § 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
One of the main airports into Madison, WI used to have a similar sign( watch for low flying planes) on U.S. Hwy 51 north and south approach to the airport. (Dane Co. Regional). As far as I know, (I now live in WA state) the signs were removed when the hwy went from 2 lanes to 4 lanes.
Correct Steve, at least mostly. It is the Pilot's job to "see and avoid" under 14 CFR 91.113, and while the specific regulation says specifically "other aircraft" I am sure good sense extends that to more than just aircraft.
Under U.S. FAA FAR 91.3, "Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command", the FAA declares: The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
