Unless "of a commercial aircraft" is implied. Because a private plane landed on 280 (in the Bay Area) back in the 1980s. I actually met the pilot who did it; his engine threw a rod and he was not going to get back to Palo Alto Airport.
Fortunately, a freeway has plenty of room, if there aren't cars on it.
the biggest risk is still probably power lines, not cars. a small aircraft landing on a road will be going about the same speed as highway traffic, so unless it's really busy, drivers will usually notice an airplane in front of them and have time to slow down.
> Lastly, one other safety lesson which came from flight 242 may not have come about due to any recommendation or research project: among pilots, it seems that the crash permanently killed the idea of landing large airliners on highways. This Hollywood staple makes for good cinema, but in real life it usually ends in catastrophe — and while McKenzie and Keele were not the first to discover this, they were the last, as no passenger jet pilot has tried again since.
I'm sure the author is aware that small planes still occasionally land on highways.
says so right there. The author explains stuff in a way for laypersons to understand. I actually prefer some of the imprecise "color" the author ads to his write-ups of crashes.
as an aside i imagine the damage to the road surface (and probably subsurface) would be astounding.
No - "large airliners" is specifically spelled out. Unless this private pilot was in a 737 or whatever, the statement is still true.
Since you are talking about KPAO, it was definitely a small aircraft.
GA aircraft land on highways often. The only reason that doesn't happen more frequently is that pilots are generally concerned about causing ground casualties. Usually what would prompt this would be an engine failure. A silent aircraft trying to land among high speed traffic makes for a dangerous scenario.
Is it an oversight? Well, I once used a title that was different from the title of the URL, and it got Flagged. Dang upheld the flagging. Now I know better.
In the interest of assuming good faith (as the guidelines suggest) we should assume the ambiguity is an oversight.