Well, what have we here? A bunch of folks acting like they know everything about everything. And the comment about so what if he was having engine trouble? Bet you have trouble keeping friends–or clients. You people should really find out more details about this case before you do the obvious knee-jerk reactions. The plane was landing on a grass airstrip. I don\’t know how the road lies as opposed to the airstrip, but I\’m sure since TWO judges ruled in favor of the pilot, that somehow the driver of the truck was indeed at fault! I don\’t care WHAT you are driving, if you are on an airstrip, you watch for airplanes! By some of your logics, if the plane was taxing, the truck could just pull in front of the plane and the truck wouldn\’t be a fault? Basically the same thing, except a plane landing has very few options for boneheads that pull out in front of them! The one obvious thing still stands–why did they spend so much money, and worry about setting a precedent, when something like this will probably NEVER happen again!
Point taken David. I guess when the article said that the truck was being driven lawfully, one would think that the plane had the duty of staying at a height that would bring it in safely over the road and an incident like this would not happen. Maybe the pilot needs to check his instruments a little better.
Ah….. David, you have hit the nail on the head. He was trying to land at, I believe North Cedar Airport. The truck driver said that he indeed saw the plane coming and thought he was a goner. The article was written slanted toward the truck driver and his boss.
Judge Servass is a no nonsense kind of guy and he surely looked at all aspects of Michigan\’s fine law.
Have you ever seen a sign that says \”Low flying aircraft\”?
And since Mr. Buckeye can\’t keep from personalizing this as the boy in California has, We in Michigan know that \”Happiness is crushed Buckeye Nuts\”. Go Blue.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Well, what have we here? A bunch of folks acting like they know everything about everything. And the comment about so what if he was having engine trouble? Bet you have trouble keeping friends–or clients. You people should really find out more details about this case before you do the obvious knee-jerk reactions. The plane was landing on a grass airstrip. I don\’t know how the road lies as opposed to the airstrip, but I\’m sure since TWO judges ruled in favor of the pilot, that somehow the driver of the truck was indeed at fault! I don\’t care WHAT you are driving, if you are on an airstrip, you watch for airplanes! By some of your logics, if the plane was taxing, the truck could just pull in front of the plane and the truck wouldn\’t be a fault? Basically the same thing, except a plane landing has very few options for boneheads that pull out in front of them! The one obvious thing still stands–why did they spend so much money, and worry about setting a precedent, when something like this will probably NEVER happen again!
Point taken David. I guess when the article said that the truck was being driven lawfully, one would think that the plane had the duty of staying at a height that would bring it in safely over the road and an incident like this would not happen. Maybe the pilot needs to check his instruments a little better.
Ah….. David, you have hit the nail on the head. He was trying to land at, I believe North Cedar Airport. The truck driver said that he indeed saw the plane coming and thought he was a goner. The article was written slanted toward the truck driver and his boss.
Judge Servass is a no nonsense kind of guy and he surely looked at all aspects of Michigan\’s fine law.
Have you ever seen a sign that says \”Low flying aircraft\”?
And since Mr. Buckeye can\’t keep from personalizing this as the boy in California has, We in Michigan know that \”Happiness is crushed Buckeye Nuts\”. Go Blue.
WEB