• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
General Aviation News

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

  • Pictures of the Day
    • Submit Picture of the Day
  • Stories
    • News
    • Features
    • Opinion
    • Products
    • NTSB Accidents
    • ASRS Reports
  • Comments
  • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
  • Events
  • Digital Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Runway incursion kills three

By NTSB · November 18, 2014 ·

Aircraft: Cessna 172. Injuries: 3 Fatal. Location: Owls Head, Maine. Aircraft damage: Destroyed.

What reportedly happened: The pilot was attempting to takeoff at night and collided with a private ground vehicle that was crossing the runway.

The impact tore off the airplane’s right elevator. The pilot continued with the takeoff, then turned to the left. Witnesses said the airplane climbed slowly, then spun into the ground.

The driver of the ground vehicle stated he didn’t see the airplane on the runway until after they collided.

Examination of the vehicle revealed impact marks on the left front fender consistent in size and shape with the airplane’s right elevator. One light bulb from the vehicle’s headlights was located, and examination of the light bulb revealed that the filament was stretched, which is consistent with the light being on at the time of the collision.

The driver stated that he did not, nor was ever required to, have a yellow beacon on his vehicle.

After the accident, the airport required beacons to be placed on the top-most portion of the vehicle and to be operational both day and night while that vehicle operates on the ramp, taxiway, runway, or any other areas that an aircraft may operate.

Examination of the airplane’s wingtip light bulbs revealed that the lights were on at the time of the accident.

It could not be determined if the driver or pilot announced their intentions over the airport common traffic advisory frequency.

A handheld radio was located on the vehicle’s dashboard, however, it was found in the “off” position. When the radio was placed in the “on” position and the correct frequency was set, the radio transmitted normally.

Although the airplane was close to or perhaps past liftoff speed, the pilot likely could have stopped the airplane on the remaining 3,600 feet of paved runway following the impact with the vehicle. However, the pilot did not discontinue the takeoff.

Probable cause: The vehicle driver’s failure to verify that the runway was not occupied by an airplane before crossing the runway, which resulted in the vehicle being struck by a departing airplane, and the pilot’s continued takeoff with flight control damage, which subsequently resulted in an aerodynamic stall and spin at low altitude.

NTSB Identification: ERA13FA059

This November 2012 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

About NTSB

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant events in the other modes of transportation, including railroad, transit, highway, marine, pipeline, and commercial space. It determines the probable causes of accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future occurrences.

Reader Interactions

Share this story

  • Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
  • Share via Email Share via Email

Become better informed pilot.

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments

  1. KW says

    November 20, 2014 at 10:12 am

    Why would someone be driving across a runway — in the dark — without 1), looking to see if an airplane might be on the runway or on approach, and 2), with a functional radio which was SWITCHED OFF?

    It doesn’t matter if the pilot called his takeoff or not, this obliviot couldn’t have heard him anyway, and his ignorance killed three people.

  2. Doug Rodrigues says

    November 20, 2014 at 12:32 am

    Why would the pilot continue taking off after colliding with ANYTHING ?

    • kw says

      November 20, 2014 at 10:22 am

      It’s probable that he didn’t have enough pitch control left after the impact. The plane was clearly at rotation, and the belcrank may have been jammed by the elevator being torn off. This would force the plane into the air, in an incipient stall attitude.

      The turn to the left is consistent with adverse yaw produced by the drag of the left elevator, as well as likely damage to the rudder (go look at a 172’s tail feathers, and imagine what would happen if the elevator were torn off by an impact at the outer end).

      Depending on the condition of the wreckage, it might not be possible to determine the condition of the control system and surfaces between impact with the car and impact with the ground, at least not to the point where an official statement could be made.

  3. John Barsness says

    November 19, 2014 at 6:34 am

    Wow… two wrongs DON’T make a right, do they?

    Hard to fathom both of these guys making such…. how do you say… preventable? mistakes. Very sad.

    • Dennis Reiley says

      November 19, 2014 at 6:53 am

      So now we need a “federal” law requiring that ground vehicles operate warning lights for “all” airports when on runways and taxi areas. All because of these really stupid people. How many laws do we have simply to prevent idiots from doing really stupid acts.

      • Scott Sedam says

        November 19, 2014 at 7:12 am

        Well, maybe so. I just entered “Magnetic portable rooftop beacon” on amazon.com and you can get several for around 30 bucks. I say “just do it.” Cheap insurance.

        • Tom says

          November 19, 2014 at 9:56 am

          Yes, put the lights on the vehicles but don’t make it another enforceable “law” or “regulation”.

          • John says

            November 19, 2014 at 11:08 pm

            Why NOT make it ‘enforceable’, As much as I detest “rules”, the likelihood anyone would follow through drops to zero as time passes in the absence of individual and organizational accountability for NOT using lights (and radios too!).

            I’m sure the lawsuits will bring some changes, as always, after the fact.

© 2025 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Comment Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writer’s Guidelines
  • Photographer’s Guidelines