KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

NordicDave said:
Yes, thank you. Every POA thread needs a least a couple of pedantic smart alecks.
Click to expand...
But the point is that many jets that aren't 757s fly a much different pattern, even more often approach from an IFR straight in, and even fly a different pattern altitude and the post I was replying to ignores that.
 
It sucks that it was the slow/low/dirty and nonperforming plane that initiated the go-around. The 340 pilot could have just breathed on his yoke and turned that bolus of speed into 1000' of altitude in an instant.

I think I would have made the same mistake in this scenario as the C150. If someone calls 3 mile final and I am on base ready to turn, I mentally assume I have 2ish minutes to get clear, and would have made the turn too.

In my plane, I could not have configured down from 180kt @ 3 mile final and made the landing without heroics, chopped throttles, and some serious sideslip. Not sure how the 340 intended this to work out for him.
 
Here is a quick and dirty transcript of the LiveATC audio. The channel was scanning between NorCal and KWVI CTAF, so not all WVI communications may be present - only those of the WVI CTAF aircraft are detailed.

Time stamps are from the LiveATC archived recording - https://archive.liveatc.net/kwvi/KWVI2-Aug-18-2022-2130Z.mp3

Accident aircraft:
  • 0WJ - Cessna 340 N740WJ - full stop at WVI
  • 931 - Cessna 152 N49931 - closed pattern at WVI
Other aircraft on WVI CTAF during the accident sequence:
  • 22H - Mooney M-20J - full stop at WVI
  • 0FL - Cessna 172 N90FL - closed pattern at WVI
  • 9BE - Cessna 182 N419BE - practice approaches at WVI
____________

22:05 to 22:18- 0WJ - Watsonville area traffic, Twin Cessna 740WJ ten miles east. Presently we’re at forty-five hundred, uh, after the last ridge, we’ll descend for a straight in, for two-zero, Watsonville

22:19 to 22:25 - 0FL - Watsonville traffic, 90FL is turning a, uh, one and a half mile left base, runway two-zero, Watsonville

22:26 to 22:29 - 931 - Cessna 931, left crosswind two-zero, Watsonville

22:39 to 22:42 - 22H - Watsonville traffic, 22H, off the active, Watsonville

22:57 to 23:00 - 931 - Watsonville traffic, Cessna 931 turning left downwind two-zero, Watsonville

23:03 to 23:11, blocked by NORCAL

23:15 to 23:21, blocked by NORCAL

23:27 to 23:32 - 0FL - And Watsonville traffic, 90FL is approaching short final, two-zero, Watsonville

23:52 to 24:04 - 9BE - And Watsonville traffic, Skylane 9BE, we’re about a mile to the southeast on the VOR-A, we’ll be flying overhead 1,300 then making a climbing turn back toward… Watsonville

24:07 to 24:14 - 0WJ - Watsonville area traffic, twin Cessna 740WJ, three miles, straight in, two-zero, full stop, Watsonville

24:17 to 24:21 - 931 - And Watsonville traffic Cessna 931 turning left base, two-zero, Watsonville

24:22 to 24:25 - Unknown - uh, Watsonville UNICOM, is the truck on, ah, frequency?

24:37 to 24:47 - 0WJ - Watsonville area traffic, Twin Cessna 740WJ, one mile, ah, straight in, two-zero, full stop, looking for traffic on left base

24:47 to 24:49 - 931 - Yeah, I see you, you’re, uh, behind me

24:52 to 24:58, blocked by NORCAL

25:00 to 25:03 - 931 - Gonna go around then, because you’re coming at me pretty quick, man.

25:11 to 25:16 - 0FL - N0F cross, uh 90FL is in the left crosswind for runway two-zero, Watsonville

25:19 to 25:24, blocked by NORCAL

25:29 - unknown - Everybody please be advised that there is an accident toward runway 20, please be advised, Watsonville
 
schmookeeg said:
...I think I would have made the same mistake in this scenario as the C150. If someone calls 3 mile final and I am on base ready to turn, I mentally assume I have 2ish minutes to get clear, and would have made the turn too.....
Click to expand...

you sure about that? the 150 called turning base AFTER the twin stated 3 mile final. that's something you'd do in a 150 against a twin? I've extended downwind plenty of times for people coming straight in when 'maybe' I'd have enough time but for the type of flying I do, what do I care about extending and actually having to fly another minute or so? I absolutely would not have turned base in this scenario, but I'm also not saying that has anything whatsoever to do with the decision the 150 guy made. I don't think you would have done the same if u were in that exact situation.
 
After listening and timing this out, my take is that the 340 was way too fast, too close for a full stop. Additionally, the pattern was very busy and there was another a/c over the field doing practice approaches.

However, it’s possible the 152 also made a mistake - it might come down to whether he was established in the base before or after the 340 made his 3 mile call. The left base call certainly came after the 340’s 3-mile announcement, but was the 152 already on it? It sounds like he had spotted the 340 and took a moment to process the closure rate and act on it. Either way, this is a sad one. It didn’t need to go down this way.
 
eman1200 said:
you sure about that? the 150 called turning base AFTER the twin stated 3 mile final. that's something you'd do in a 150 against a twin? I've extended downwind plenty of times for people coming straight in when 'maybe' I'd have enough time but for the type of flying I do, what do I care about extending and actually having to fly another minute or so? I absolutely would not have turned base in this scenario, but I'm also not saying that has anything whatsoever to do with the decision the 150 guy made. I don't think you would have done the same if u were in that exact situation.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. If he heard the 340 make the three mile call, and/or already had him in sight, prior to turning base, he should have extended.

Note that that doesn’t absolve the 340 from flying so bizarrely and unpredictably.
 
The last time the 340 was 10 miles away from WVI on the same flightpath, he traversed that distance in about 4.5 minutes. This time, going by the time stamps on the radio calls, it was about 3 minutes. If I was turning crosswind and heard a light twin call 10 miles out, I’d be extra cautious scanning for him, but I wouldn’t think that he’d be on top of me 3 mins later when I’m on final.

That said, even if he were flying a normal approach speed, I’d probably extend to be safe, not rush my landing, and not have to have him possibly go around.

I’ll bet the quicker-than-expected three mile call puckered a lot of you-know-whats.
 
Palmpilot said:
So the reg that says you can't cut in front of an aircraft on final doesn't count?
Click to expand...
Not that it doesn't count but that it's not all that simple. The FAA is also on record that, although there is nothing wrong with a long straight in, an aircraft not flying pattern is to avoid interfering with aircraft which are. This is from AC 90-66B (my emphasis). It has a long history, including several enforcement actions.

9.5 Straight-In Landings. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern when arriving or departing a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, particularly when other traffic is observed or when operating from an unfamiliar airport. However, there are occasions where a pilot can choose to execute a straight-in approach for landing when not intending to enter the traffic pattern, such as a visual approach executed as part of the termination of an instrument approach. Pilots should clearly communicate on the CTAF and coordinate maneuvering for and execution of the landing with other traffic so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft. Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in landings, particularly when flying a base leg prior to turning final.
​
Max Trescott did a segment on this accident in his most recent Aviation NewsTalk podcast. He pulled the audio from the accident and for about a half hour before. Earlier there was a similar situation. The pilots talked back and forth and worked it out. The conization here between the twin and the single was pretty standard but insufficient. We have a very similar situation at my home base - days that it gets busy with a mix of pattern and straight in ops. We try to do a good job keeping each other up on what we are doing.
 
eman1200 said:
you sure about that? the 150 called turning base AFTER the twin stated 3 mile final. that's something you'd do in a 150 against a twin? I've extended downwind plenty of times for people coming straight in when 'maybe' I'd have enough time but for the type of flying I do, what do I care about extending and actually having to fly another minute or so? I absolutely would not have turned base in this scenario, but I'm also not saying that has anything whatsoever to do with the decision the 150 guy made. I don't think you would have done the same if u were in that exact situation.
Click to expand...

Based on the helpful time series above your post, yeah no, he called "turning base" after the 3mi final call, I had him pictured ON base and prepared to turn final. You're right, I would have extended downwind in this scenario and waited for the 340 to pass me before turning base behind him.

Okay, my mind is changed and the C150 gets a piece of this IMO now. Given the typical C150 pilot is a student or low-timer, though... I have real empathy for the mistake, and am still puzzled by the twin's antics, but I may have to go 25/75 on the blame apportionment on my armchair QB scoreboard. The twin should have known better and done better.

Still a shame.
 
schmookeeg said:
Based on the helpful time series above your post, yeah no, he called "turning base" after the 3mi final call, I had him pictured ON base and prepared to turn final. You're right, I would have extended downwind in this scenario and waited for the 340 to pass me before turning base behind him.

Okay, my mind is changed and the C150 gets a piece of this IMO now. Given the typical C150 pilot is a student or low-timer, though... I have real empathy for the mistake, and am still puzzled by the twin's antics, but I may have to go 25/75 on the blame apportionment on my armchair QB scoreboard. The twin should have known better and done better.

Still a shame.
Click to expand...

Thats where I am too. I think the 152 pilot made a mistake turning base when he did, but it doesn't excuse the twin driver from barreling straight-in into a busy traffic pattern at 180+ kts with no regard for traffic. Like others have said, how did he intend to land being that fast on short final?
 
midwestpa24 said:
Thats where I am too. I think the 152 pilot made a mistake turning base when he did, but it doesn't excuse the twin driver from barreling straight-in into a busy traffic pattern at 180+ kts with no regard for traffic. Like others have said, how did he intend to land being that fast on short final?
Click to expand...

someone earlier mentioned about looking at the 340's previous flights so for shts and giggles I did the same. he seems to keep it pretty fast until a coupl'a miles out, then slows it down pretty quick.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Thats where I am too. I think the 152 pilot made a mistake turning base when he did, but it doesn't excuse the twin driver from barreling straight-in into a busy traffic pattern at 180+ kts with no regard for traffic. Like others have said, how did he intend to land being that fast on short final?
Click to expand...


Not only barreling into the traffic pattern but literally barreling into the back of the 152. Regardless of the regs that do not disallow a straight in it was a deadly failure of see and avoid by the twin knowing the 152 called Base who was also technically legal. I 100% blame the twin driver…and I say driver cuz I question his competence as a pilot based on the facts presented.

This accident is a perfect reminder of being correct does not always mean you are right.
 
eman1200 said:
hhmm, I tried quoting you but looks like you edited out the portion I wanted to quote......when the slow plane was on downwind and the extra stupidly fast plane was on final, the slow plane did not have right of way.
Click to expand...
Yes, my apologies. I initially was going point out that the slower aircraft had the right-of-way (in an overtaking situation only) then found you'd made that same point several postings down.

Ron Wanttaja
 
RyanShort1 said:
That's what I teach my students - they need to know what kind of aircraft is on final and be able to make a judgment on whether or not they would cut that aircraft off, or cause them an issue continuing their approach. If that's likely, you've got to extend. If they can continue at normal speeds and you can land and get off the runway, that's not cutting.!
Click to expand...

This is an example of why we need yet more rules. With just a guidance on the pattern different instructors teach different things. Some may tell their students its ok to straight in. You have priority if youre on final. My PPL and Instrument instructors said never ever go straight in where there are planes in the pattern…or continue an IFR approach in that scenario. Its dangerous and disrupts flow of traffic as well as cause confusion. My CFII said dont count on Pattern Burners to know much or even listen. Most just knee jerk call their position. Making any straight in just unnecessary risk.
 
eman1200 said:
you sure about that? the 150 called turning base AFTER the twin stated 3 mile final. that's something you'd do in a 150 against a twin? I've extended downwind plenty of times for people coming straight in when 'maybe' I'd have enough time but for the type of flying I do, what do I care about extending and actually having to fly another minute or so? I absolutely would not have turned base in this scenario, but I'm also not saying that has anything whatsoever to do with the decision the 150 guy made. I don't think you would have done the same if u were in that exact situation.
Click to expand...

This. I wonder about the experience level of the 150 pilot. He seemed to be aware that the twin might be an issue for him, but didn't do the things to keep himself away from the twin missile aimed at him. It seems he just didn't know.

I've been burned before by planes going much faster than I anticipated while in the pattern. But my burn has only been to have to adjust my plan and stay out of the way. I will never turn base with an airplane on final, unless it is a control tower telling me to do it and advising the plane is far enough away for me to get on the ground and clear before he lands.
 
PaulS said:
I've been burned before by planes going much faster than I anticipated while in the pattern.
Click to expand...

I've also been burned by planes that didn't know where they were either. East instead of west. 2 miles instead of 5. The list goes on. That's why eyes outside of the cockpit are always so important.
 
Shawn said:
Not only barreling into the traffic pattern but literally barreling into the back of the 152. Regardless of the regs that do not disallow a straight in it was a deadly failure of see and avoid by the twin knowing the 152 called Base who was also technically legal. I 100% blame the twin driver…and I say driver cuz I question his competence as a pilot based on the facts presented.

This accident is a perfect reminder of being correct does not always mean you are right.
Click to expand...
The same could be said about the 152 pilots SA.

That dumb airplane driver won’t paying attention and turned right in front of a faster aircraft already established on final and caused a fatal accident. And I say fatal CUZ there’s a bunch of dead people because he won’t paying attention.

see. Everything I said is correct. And I’m a douche for saying it.
 
PaulS said:
I also think planes doing loops in the pattern should actively make room for incoming aircraft.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree. I think instructors should teach that. Ive come into non towered airports, one nasty busy one was in Louisville KJVY where the pattern was super crowded with students. It was wild west. Some where entering downwind via midfield some on the 45 and one came in straight another did a LANHS on a crossing runway. I was trying to fit in and it was almost impossible then was cut off by a student doing a touch and go who decided to just climb and turn between everyone in pattern. These airports need towers WTF
 
The 152 attempted to resolve the conflict, but was in a bad position to do so. The twin did nothing to resolve the conflict, and was flying irresponsibly. If you're willing to indulge a speculation, the call to the truck came from the twin - he assumed everyone else would get out of his way and was doing everything except for what he was supposed to be doing.
 
Salty said:
The 152 attempted to resolve the conflict, but was in a bad position to do so. The twin did nothing to resolve the conflict, and was flying irresponsibly. If you're willing to indulge a speculation, the call to the truck came from the twin - he assumed everyone else would get out of his way and was doing everything except for what he was supposed to be doing.
Click to expand...

The call for the truck was not from 0WJ unless it was from someone in the other seat, as it was a completely different, accented voice.
 
Flying Doc said:
This is an example of why we need yet more rules. With just a guidance on the pattern different instructors teach different things. Some may tell their students its ok to straight in. You have priority if youre on final. My PPL and Instrument instructors said never ever go straight in where there are planes in the pattern…or continue an IFR approach in that scenario. Its dangerous and disrupts flow of traffic as well as cause confusion. My CFII said dont count on Pattern Burners to know much or even listen. Most just knee jerk call their position. Making any straight in just unnecessary risk.
Click to expand...

Our untowered airfield is home to a busy flight school and a quite a few "fast" planes. Many of us usually or always fly the instrument approaches because we practice flying in the system. There is rarely a conflict. Slow planes on downwind extend a little if necessary. We went around once to help a student feel less pressured. Sometimes the pattern is congested enough that we just fly a little longer til it sorts itself. No big deal. I find that straight-in it's easier to maintain situational awareness and the 'big picture' as of course we can see every plane in the pattern and any others approaching on our 'gear'. "Sequencing" onto short final requires no directional changes. More rules probably will not diminish the requirement to practice common courtesy and use our brains if we all want to fly safely. Both seem to have been in short supply in this sad case. RIP
 
What is the FAA definition of "final"? Can a guy call a 10 mile final at excessive speed and still be deemed to have the right of way with a full pattern?

Can the same guy also carrying excessive speed for a landing approach, call a 3 mile straight in "final" with a full pattern?

The FAA interpretations don't seem to prohibit this. Yet it seems wrong and unsafe for all.

Maybe this accident will result in clearer guidance on this issue because the current is unclear and unsafe.

Take the same scenario, but the 150 pilot is flying a cub with no radio. He is the lower aircraft and established in the pattern.

In this scenario, the blame would have to fall on the other pilot.

So, do the rules change depending on whether you have an electrical system? It makes no sense to me.
 
Salty said:
The 152 attempted to resolve the conflict, but was in a bad position to do so. The twin did nothing to resolve the conflict, and was flying irresponsibly. If you're willing to indulge a speculation, the call to the truck came from the twin - he assumed everyone else would get out of his way and was doing everything except for what he was supposed to be doing.
Click to expand...
@Salty they both screwed the pooch. No way to put all the blame on one side. If either PIC had managed not to be in formation with the prostate we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
 
Flying Doc said:
This is an example of why we need yet more rules. With just a guidance on the pattern different instructors teach different things. Some may tell their students its ok to straight in. You have priority if youre on final. My PPL and Instrument instructors said never ever go straight in where there are planes in the pattern…or continue an IFR approach in that scenario. Its dangerous and disrupts flow of traffic as well as cause confusion. My CFII said dont count on Pattern Burners to know much or even listen. Most just knee jerk call their position. Making any straight in just unnecessary risk.
Click to expand...
I think if asked the FAA would say that the rule that the airplane on final has the right of way mean on final in a standard traffic pattern - 1-1.5- maybe 2 mile final.
 
Lndwarrior said:
What is the FAA definition of "final"? Can a guy call a 10 mile final at excessive speed and still be deemed to have the right of way with a full pattern?

Can the same guy also carrying excessive speed for a landing approach, call a 3 mile straight in "final" with a full pattern?

The FAA interpretations don't seem to prohibit this. Yet it seems wrong and unsafe for all.

Maybe this accident will result in clearer guidance on this issue because the current is unclear and unsafe.

Take the same scenario, but the 150 pilot is flying a cub with no radio. He is the lower aircraft and established in the pattern.

In this scenario, the blame would have to fall on the other pilot.

So, do the rules change depending on whether you have an electrical system? It makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
I think you raise a good point. But I think radio comms is irrelevant. The 152 felt he had reasonable separation when he made the turn, and it seems reasonable to me as well. As soon as he figured out that wasn't the case he attempted to resolve the problem. Just because there was an accident doesn't mean either of them broke a reg. You'd have a hard time convincing me that 180 at 3 miles when you know others are in the pattern is within 91.13

Those that think the 152 is at equal fault: One attempted to change things to create separation, the other continued to do what they said they were going to do 10 miles away.
 
This will be a very interesting NTSB final report. Unfortunately it will be a year or two before we can benefit from it. I do straight ins in my C414 twin, but am very careful doing so. My standard CTAF call is something like "Twin Cessna 2BC on 5 mile final for 28, straight in to full stop, traffic permitting." Hopefully that wakes up the guy in the pattern who hasn't been talking because he's been doing pattern work for an hour without seeing or hearing another plane. I am ready and configured to break off and join a standard pattern if there's any chance of a conflict. This is on top of monitoring ADSB-in traffic and my TCAS. I also teach in my C172 at an uncontrolled airport that has plenty of jet traffic and instrument students doing long straight ins on practice approaches. If a student and I are on downwind and hear such a call, I would expect the student to plan an extended downwind and make a statement of such on the CTAF. No turn onto base until the inbound traffic is in sight.
Believe me we do not want a world where every airport has a tower. That would basically mean that most airports would close. As pilots we must, must, must be prepared to give way to the other guy regardless of how much fuel you're burning doing so, or how fast you fly (or how slowly), or how much your plane costs, or whether the boss is in the back, or whether or not you're late for a meeting, or whatever.
This accident was tragic and did not have to happen. Be careful out there and share the skies.
 
Lndwarrior said:
What is the FAA definition of "final"? Can a guy call a 10 mile final at excessive speed and still be deemed to have the right of way with a full pattern?
Click to expand...

I would have to look it up, but I believe there was an airline pilot violated for doing less than a 5 mile straight in. I don't recall the circumstances, but I seem to remember the FAA's argument in the case was that it was not a straight in approach since it started less than 5 miles out.
 
I think straight in approaches can improve safety in many circumstances, which is why the FAA doesn't want to discourage them, but not if you're letting the autopilot fly and hope everyone just gets out of your way.
 
Salty said:
I think straight in approaches can improve safety in many circumstances, which is why the FAA doesn't want to discourage them, but not if you're letting the autopilot fly and hope everyone just gets out of your way.
Click to expand...

Like a lot of things, there is a time and place for it. If it makes sense, especially at the end of an IFR flight plan or as part of a practice approach, and it doesn't create a conflict with other traffic, I don't see any reason not to do a straight in. That is why they are not explicitly banned by the FARs.
 
schmookeeg said:
It sucks that it was the slow/low/dirty and nonperforming plane that initiated the go-around. The 340 pilot could have just breathed on his yoke and turned that bolus of speed into 1000' of altitude in an instant.

I think I would have made the same mistake in this scenario as the C150. If someone calls 3 mile final and I am on base ready to turn, I mentally assume I have 2ish minutes to get clear, and would have made the turn too.

In my plane, I could not have configured down from 180kt @ 3 mile final and made the landing without heroics, chopped throttles, and some serious sideslip. Not sure how the 340 intended this to work out for him.
Click to expand...

I also have a Baron 55 and I agree no way 180kt @ 3 miles am I anywhere near stabilized to do a full stop landing… Even at 140 I’d still have my hands full. It seems like most of his flights were out of Turlock which is a shorter runway you would think that the pilot would be akin to flying at slower speeds.
 
My take on this is that both pilots made poor decisions. It's interesting because they were both communicating exactly where they were, but basically not reacting to the situation they were seeing develop. I think the twin could have made a comment as simple as "I'm doing 180kts" and the 152 probably would have decided to tuck in behind. Both pilots actively chose to put themselves in the way of the other.

The twin was doing a stupid speed and called in a long final, straight in. In my opinion, this is a poor choice when you're entering a busy field you know to have students. The 152 turned base after the twin called a 3-mile final, which was a poor choice. When I'm in the pattern and somebody quick is on final, appropriately done or not, I will basically always go in behind them and I will tell them I'm doing so. It's sad because something as simple from the twin as "Hey I'm going fast you mind coming in behind me?" would have saved three lives. Because even if I have enough room in front, I'm going to be slow to get down and they are probably going around behind me. The 152 I think sort of "rightly" thought that he had the right-of-way because he was 100% "in the pattern" while the twin was basically cutting the line, and I'm sure that's why he turned, but he put himself in harms way by doing so - right or not. Some of you will disagree and say that he made his calls and was on final and was in the pattern...and because many of us disagree on what's right and legal or just appropriate is exactly why I treat a plane on final as ahead of me unless they are well, well, clear. Anyway, the twin further screwed up by not recognizing an issue when he hears the 152 turn base right in front of him. If that's me and I'm coming into an uncontrolled field straight in, the second I see the pattern is screwy, somebody making dumb turns, or if it just seems busy I'm going to bug out and enter the pattern by the book.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think if asked the FAA would say that the rule that the airplane on final has the right of way mean on final in a standard traffic pattern - 1-1.5- maybe 2 mile final.
Click to expand...

1) great sentence (looks like you got an early start on happy hour!) and 2) you think that would hold up in a court of law? "mmmm, oh, about 1, 1.5, maybe 2ish, somewhere around there".
 
Everyone arguing about right of way rules and how long of a final is still considered a “final” are missing the larger issues here. Both pilots seemed to have exhibited poor situational awareness and poor airmanship. Either of these pilots could have at any point recognized the potential conflict and taken corrective action. The NTSB report will take a while to be posted but will undoubtedly have numerous lessons for students and certificated pilots operating at busy untowered fields.
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
Setting aside the fact that the twin does look to have been moving way too fast, this does seem like a reminder that it's generally a bad idea to do a straight in to a busy airport.
Click to expand...

sadly I’ve been to many airports where twins do straight in approaches to busy non tower airports.
 
Hi everyone.
No additional rules required, NO straight ins at non-towered airport, unless you were / are told you can can do it, given priority, by other acft in the pattern and or you can insure that you are completely alone.
 
PaulS said:
Apparently the 152 pilot was a solo student. He just didn't put it together in time. This would be a good accident for instructors to review with students to talk about this scenario and faster airplanes.
Click to expand...
this is exactly why i said what i said above that if i'm coming straight in to an uncontrolled field and there are people in the pattern i'm most likely going to abandon the straight in enter by the book. yes we should expect the 152 to make a reasonable choice and know that a twin cessna is much faster than a 152 and that a 3 mile final isn't much and he shouldn't turn base. but what if it's a student (as it apparently was)? they expect pilots to fly the pattern and to act predictably. when they don't, they don't know how to recognize it. inexperienced pilots are also very likely to see a dangerous situation and simply not react. unfortunately that happened with the worst possible consequences

i believe that we have a responsibility to each other in the air. in most of these crashes simply one pilot exercising cautiousness may have stopped the incident altogether.
 
Makes me wonder who on earth approaches in a twin at 180kts. Yes cabin class but not some big turbine. Why??? Doesn’t really ever do that right?? No way he gets that in the ground in time. Cranking along like that. Wonder if anyone in ground was waiting for a high speed flyby. Makes more sense
 
PaulS said:
The twin called 3 miles, landing, full stop. Whether that would have happened, who knows.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There are expectations. The 152 pilot expected the twin to be at 100 knots and paying attention, not 180 knots and blind. To me 99% of the blame falls on the twin. As I posted elsewhere, I don't mind straight in's, but the rule (IMO) should be that straight in traffic needs to yield to traffic established in the pattern. Too often I see someone bully their way into a busy pattern on a straight in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top