Small plane lands on I-5, takes exit to gas station . . .

[bizjets101]

Click Here then click on video.

'A Cessna landed on Interstate 5 in Bellingham, then took an exit off the freeway to a nearby gas station Friday afternoon. No one was hurt.

The Washington State Patrol said it received a call around 1:44 p.m. that a two-seat plane traveling from Spokane to Bellingham experienced engine trouble while descending at 10,000 feet. It clipped a car as it landed in the northbound lanes of I-5 just north of Bakerview Road, and then taxied two miles down the freeway to the Slater Road Exit, after which it headed to the parking lot of a nearby AM/PM.'

[Genetk44]

ok...glad nobody got hurt...but they are refuelling...do they seriously think that they are going to be allowed to take-off from the highway so they can fly back to the airport??? And paint the plane!

[Gogona]

do they seriously think that they are going to be allowed to take-off from the highway so they can fly back to the airport???

Do they have any OTHER option to clear the highway and get back to their home airport? Seriously?

[boeingboy]

Do they have any OTHER option to clear the highway and get back to their home airport? Seriously?

Umm....YES!

Take the wings off it and stick it on a truck.

[Genetk44]

I would have thought that what Boeingboy said is the more common practice....but maybe not.

[Gogona]

Do they have any OTHER option to clear the highway and get back to their home airport? Seriously?

Umm....YES!

Take the wings off it and stick it on a truck.

Check for some other stories of succesful road landings, please. If there were no damages to the aircraft and the road is good and safe, yes, you'll get allowed to take-off.

[cgartly]

Will be interesting to see whether they allow him to take off or not.

Another note, Ethanol free fuel is very hard to find in WA state, and as far as I know all Mo-Gas STC's require Ethanol free fuel. There is now video of him putting fuel with Ethanol into his plane. Could give a bored FAA airworthiness inspector something to do.

[Gogona]

There is now video of him putting fuel with Ethanol into his plane. Could give a bored FAA airworthiness inspector something to do.

True. And that is the valid reason, when the truck should be called out to the incident place. Fuel one, I mean.

[Beefitarian]

I didn't find the video where they fill the jerrycans. Could be 100LL from the cessna factory in wichita for all we know.

[Kerberos35]

Hello, longtime lurker here, life long aviation fan. I've learned a lot about Canadian aviation from you all, and I finally have something to contribute.

I was fueling up at this Arco yesterday when I heard what could only be an airplane engine at idle but of course that made no sense, until I turned around and got a real surprise. He was refueled with avgas brought from the airport a short distance away, then was allowed to taxi under his own power all the way back to the airport 4 miles away. Apparently he clipped a road sign on the way back.

The question I have for you knowledgeable people is this. He landed pretty close the the airport, supposedly out of fuel. However he was able to taxi two miles along the freeway to the gas station. Surely if he had the fuel to taxi 2 miles, he could have flown less than four to KBLI with a nice big runway.
The pilot had indicated his carb iced up near mount baker killing the engine. Obviously his engine was running when he landed, so what decisions would he have to consider to decide on the freeway?

The pilot is an Iraq veteran, a helo pilot. He was honored for bringing down a fully loaded transport helo that hit power lines in a canyon, the PIC froze at the controls, and this guy managed to bring it down safely, cool, calm and collected.

[old_man]

do they seriously think that they are going to be allowed to take-off from the highway so they can fly back to the airport???

Just for fun and as an example.

Section 187 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Aircraft on highways
Removal of aircraft from highway after emergency landing
187. (1) Where an aircraft has made an emergency landing on a highway, the pilot in command thereof, if he or she is physically capable, shall, as soon after landing as is reasonably possible, remove or cause it to be removed from the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 187 (1).

Aircraft and movement along highway subject to Act
(2) Subject to subsection (3), no aircraft shall be driven or drawn along a highway unless the aircraft and the movement thereof comply with the provisions of this Act respecting vehicles and the movement thereof on a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 187 (2).

Aircraft take-off from highway
(3) Where an aircraft has landed on a highway because of an emergency related to the operation of the aircraft, the aircraft may take off from the highway provided,
(a) a licensed commercial pilot, not being the owner of the aircraft, who is qualified to fly that class and category of aircraft, and the pilot in command of the aircraft are both satisfied that the aircraft is airworthy and that there are no physical obstructions on or over the highway which would make such take-off unsafe;
(b) the pilot in command of the aircraft is satisfied that weather conditions are satisfactory for the purpose and that the minimum requirements are met under the visual flight rules established by the regulations made under the Aeronautics Act (Canada) or, if the flight is to be continued under instrument flight rules, that adequate arrangements can be made for obtaining a clearance from an air traffic control unit prior to entering instrument flight weather conditions;
(c) traffic control is provided by the appropriate police force; and
(d) the police force consents to the take-off. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 187 (3).

So you can see that there are provisions for such things.

[Colonel Sanders]

[Shiny Side Up]

More proof of how awesome you can be if you have a tigershark mouth on your airplane!

"Who said war nerves?"

[Doc]

Kudos to anybody with enough common sense to land with a wee bit of gas, rather than wait to become a glider.

[iflyforpie]

do they seriously think that they are going to be allowed to take-off from the highway so they can fly back to the airport???

Just for fun and as an example.

Section 187 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Aircraft on highways
Removal of aircraft from highway after emergency landing
187. (1) Where an aircraft has made an emergency landing on a highway, the pilot in command thereof, if he or she is physically capable, shall, as soon after landing as is reasonably possible, remove or cause it to be removed from the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 187 (1).

Aircraft and movement along highway subject to Act
(2) Subject to subsection (3), no aircraft shall be driven or drawn along a highway unless the aircraft and the movement thereof comply with the provisions of this Act respecting vehicles and the movement thereof on a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 187 (2).

Aircraft take-off from highway
(3) Where an aircraft has landed on a highway because of an emergency related to the operation of the aircraft, the aircraft may take off from the highway provided,
(a) a licensed commercial pilot, not being the owner of the aircraft, who is qualified to fly that class and category of aircraft, and the pilot in command of the aircraft are both satisfied that the aircraft is airworthy and that there are no physical obstructions on or over the highway which would make such take-off unsafe;
(b) the pilot in command of the aircraft is satisfied that weather conditions are satisfactory for the purpose and that the minimum requirements are met under the visual flight rules established by the regulations made under the Aeronautics Act (Canada) or, if the flight is to be continued under instrument flight rules, that adequate arrangements can be made for obtaining a clearance from an air traffic control unit prior to entering instrument flight weather conditions;
(c) traffic control is provided by the appropriate police force; and
(d) the police force consents to the take-off. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 187 (3).

So you can see that there are provisions for such things.

That is probably just a bunch of bureaucratic BS to make it seem like the Provincial Government has jurisdiction in such matters. Other than having to surrender your license to Peace Officers, Provincial and Municipal regulations have no authority over Federally regulated aircraft.

2.1 General

An aerodrome is defined by the Aeronautics Act as:

Any area of land, water (including the frozen surface thereof) or other supporting surface used, designed, prepared, equipped or set apart for use either in whole or in part for the arrival, departure, movement or servicing of aircraft and includes any buildings, installations and equipment situated thereon or associated therewith.

This has a very broad application for Canada where there are no general restrictions preventing landings or takeoffs. There are defined exceptions [Built up areas, Class F restricted airspace--IFFP], but, for the most part, all of Canada can be an aerodrome.

CAR 602.01 applies though, so a range road with no traffic where you've safely assessed the obstacles is alright, but a freeway pulling into a rest stop would be a no-no for all but emergencies.

[old_man]

That is probably just a bunch of bureaucratic BS to make it seem like the Provincial Government has jurisdiction in such matters. Other than having to surrender your license to Peace Officers, Provincial and Municipal regulations have no authority over Federally regulated aircraft.

Perhaps it is bureaucratic BS or maybe it is just a very old reg that no one ever really bothered to change. I don't know. I just posted it because I thought that it was funny that such a thing was written. As for jurisdiction I am really not an expert but it could be that although the aircraft is federally regulated what goes on on a highway is the domain of the province. I'd actually be surprised to if a cop actually knew that such a thing was written. I would be even more surprised if it has ever been enforced (i.e. a ticket written)

CAR 602.01 applies though, so a range road with no traffic where you've safely assessed the obstacles is alright, but a freeway pulling into a rest stop would be a no-no for all but emergencies.

Ya, I am pretty sure if you start doing T&Gs on the 401 you're going to get a phone call or two.

[grimey]

That is probably just a bunch of bureaucratic BS to make it seem like the Provincial Government has jurisdiction in such matters. Other than having to surrender your license to Peace Officers, Provincial and Municipal regulations have no authority over Federally regulated aircraft.

Perhaps it is bureaucratic BS or maybe it is just a very old reg that no one ever really bothered to change. I don't know. I just posted it because I thought that it was funny that such a thing was written. As for jurisdiction I am really not an expert but it could be that although the aircraft is federally regulated what goes on on a highway is the domain of the province. I'd actually be surprised to if a cop actually knew that such a thing was written. I would be even more surprised if it has ever been enforced (i.e. a ticket written)

Did a quick check on Canlii, there are no cases in Canlii's database directly related to the section. I wouldn't advise getting smart arguing jurisdiction with a cop who told you not to depart, though. Maybe keep a copy of the section on you if you think it might ever be relevant, just to make the cops aware of procedure, but that's it. No doubt transport would be on your ass in a second if they got a complaint from the OPP regarding your actions. I'm sure that tribunal would be fun.

[Meatservo]

Maybe the local fuzz don't have authority over you or your aeroplane, but I'm pretty sure they have authority over the highway, so it would be a fun argument to watch.

As for the fellow who landed the C150 on the freeway, if he was having trouble with carburetor ice it's possible the engine was still developing power at a low setting but he was unable to make the airport. Of course on the ground in the summer it would have quickly melted, and maybe he wanted to be sure he had enough gas after that to taxi several miles. I can imagine it would have been quite embarrassing to run out of gas on the way back to the airport.

I'm imagining a military helicopter pilot has fairly good decision-making skills. There's probably a really good explanation for the whole thing.

[Taiser]

Maybe the local fuzz don't have authority over you or your aeroplane, but I'm pretty sure they have authority over the highway, so it would be a fun argument to watch.

Interesting subject...

The "Fuzz" has more authority than you think...

From the HTA...

“motor vehicle” includes an automobile, a motorcycle, a motor-assisted bicycle unless otherwise indicated in this Act, and any other vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power, but does not include a street car or other motor vehicle running only upon rails, a power-assisted bicycle, a motorized snow vehicle, a traction engine, a farm tractor, a self-propelled implement of husbandry or a road-building machine; (“véhicule automobile”)

Notice "aeroplane" is not part of the exempted vehicles so a plane on a highway is now a motor vehicle and falls under the HTA!

[grimey]

IANAL.

I think some people are reading way too much into the COPA v. Quebec decision, and the precedent it set. If you actually read the decision, it's fairly clear that the court didn't say that the province can't, under any circumstances, make laws where the Federal government has constitutional authority. There's a test.

http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/201 ... scc39.html

[43] After a period of inconsistency, it is now settled that the test is whether the provincial law impairs the federal exercise of the core competence: Canadian Western Bank, per Binnie and LeBel JJ. This decision resolved a debate about whether the provincial law must “sterilize” the essential content of a federal power (the language used in Dick v. The Queen, 1985 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309, at pp. 323‑24), or whether it is sufficient that the provincial law “affect” a vital part of the management and operation of the undertaking (Commission du Salaire minimum v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, 1966 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1966] S.C.R. 767, at p. 774; Bell Canada, at pp. 859-60). See also Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, at p. 955, per Dickson C.J., Lamer J. (as he then was) and Wilson J.


[44] The impairment test established in Canadian Western Bank marks a midpoint between sterilization and mere effects. The move away from the “affects” test of Bell Canada reflects growing resistance to the broad application of interjurisdictional immunity based on modern conceptions of cooperative federalism and a perceived need to promote efficacy over formalism. As Binnie and LeBel JJ. put it in Canadian Western Bank, “[t]he Constitution, though a legal document, serves as a framework for life and for political action within a federal state, in which the courts have rightly observed the importance of co‑operation among government actors to ensure that federalism operates flexibly” (para. 42). (See also Dickson C.J. in OPSEU, at p. 18.) To quote Binnie and LeBel JJ. in Canadian Western Bank:


A broad application [of interjurisdictional immunity] . . . appears inconsistent, as stated, with the flexible federalism that the constitutional doctrines of pith and substance, double aspect and federal paramountcy are designed to promote. . . . It is these doctrines that have proved to be most consistent with contemporary views of Canadian federalism, which recognize that overlapping powers are unavoidable. [para. 42]

[45] “Impairment” is a higher standard than “affects”. It suggests an impact that not only affects the core federal power, but does so in a way that seriously or significantly trammels the federal power. In an era of cooperative, flexible federalism, application of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity requires a significant or serious intrusion on the exercise of the federal power. It need not paralyze it, but it must be serious.



[46] The question is whether applying s. 26 of the ARPALAA to prohibit aerodromes would impair the exercise of the core of a federal power, in this case Parliament’s ability to decide when and where aerodromes should be built.


[47] I conclude that the s. 26 prohibition does impair the federal power to decide when and where aerodromes should be built. It prohibits the building of aerodromes in designated agricultural regions unless prior authorization has been obtained from the Commission. As the facts of this case illustrate, the effect may be to prevent the establishment of a new aerodrome or require the demolition of an existing one. This is not a minor effect on the federal power to determine where aerodromes are built.



[48] Section 26 of the ARPALAA significantly restricts, or impairs, Parliament’s power to determine where aerodromes may be constructed. Section 26 of the ARPALAA does not sterilize Parliament’s power to legislate on aeronautics; the doctrine of paramountcy would permit Parliament to legislatively override provincial zoning legislation for the purpose of establishing aerodromes. But the ARPALAA would nevertheless seriously affect the manner in which the power can be exercised. Instead of the current permissive regime, Parliament would be obliged to legislate for the specific location of particular aerodromes. Such a substantial restriction of Parliament’s legislative freedom constitutes an impairment of the federal power. Though the focus of the inquiry must be on the power itself, it is worth noting that the practical effect of the ARPALAA is hardly trivial. It effectively removes 63,000 km2, the total area of the designated agricultural regions, from the territory that Parliament has designated for aeronautical uses. This is not an insignificant amount of land, and much of it is strategically located.

I think you'd have a hard time convincing any judge that the province defining procedures, in the interest of public safety, for the use of a highway as an aerodrome impairs the federal government's power. Especially when the procedure is essentially make sure your plane is ok, make sure it's possible to make a safe departure, and get a cop to provide traffic control.

[AEROBAT]

My neighbor used the county road for a runway for 8 years, never had any problems.

[Dyda]

In 2009 I made a precautionary landing on the Trans-Canada Hwy just north of North Bay. We landed into the wind on a southbound stretch of passing lanes which enabled us to avoid northbound traffic. The OPP arrived in force with sirens screaming. They were understandably uncertain of the rules, as were we, but I was flying with a commercially-rated, retired CF-18 pilot who contacted Transport Canada to verify the rules surrounding this situation. Once the rules were established the OPP closed the highway for about four miles and permitted us to depart. I'd say their largest concern was that we'd fly into the trees if the aircraft wasn't as serviceable as we argued; presumably they felt they'd have some sort of liability in such an event. I'd say the cops were decent guys who were simply as uncertain of the rules as we were.
As a side note, I flew right over three transports on my way to touching down and landed immediately behind a guy in a dark blue pickup; he had no idea what had happened 50' behind him. The transports all honked as they went by, but not one of the passing vehicles ever called the OPP; it was only our prior communication with the North Bay tower that alerted them.
I've since learned that guys land at truck stops throughout the west on a regular basis for mogas, and in remote areas often use highways as landing strips. I'd probably not recommend that in southern Ontario.