KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

[eman1200]

How about taking an anger management class someday?

lol classic response when someone points out facts you don't like boohoo sads face

exactly what part of my reply showed any anger whatsoever? oh that's right, none of it.

sorry to easily point out how there are clearly other correct opinions than your own. I know, it's a tough world out there.

 

[NordicDave]

Could he have not flown the overhead? I've gotten instructions for that, with a plane landing under me.

Question: Were you referring to the C152 pilot to flay overhead or the C340 pilot? The C340 pilot was defending down to TPA from the mountain ridge.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Question: Were you referring to the C152 pilot to flay overhead or the C340 pilot? The C340 pilot was defending down to TPA from the mountain ridge.

I meant the C152, but on second thought, he would have had to have known he was to be overtaken, which couldn't have been the case.

 

[Grum.Man]

As others have stated, the guidance is about as clear as mud as to right of way. Ultimately it comes down to see and avoid. Wasn't clear to me if the single pilot saw the twin or just observed it on ADS-B. The reality of the situation is both aircraft should have altered course.

Based on my personal opinion, trying to fly a straight in approach with multiple aircraft in the pattern is inconsiderate at best. The rules on right of way state the lower aircraft, or aircraft to the left has right of way. It goes on to state except for cutting off an aircraft on final. But at what point does being on Final apply? If I call up and say I'm on a 5 mile final does that mean everyone has to give way to me? What about 10 miles? What would I have done... well if I was the twin pilot I would have entered the traffic pattern on down wind like a responsible and courteous pilot. If for some reason I felt the need to demonstrate my dominance that day, as soon as I heard an aircraft call base while still 3 miles out I would have bailed on the approach. If I was the single engine pilot: I would have probably made some snarky radio calls about the twin pilot, extended my down wind, did a right 360, or left the pattern if there were no other options.

 

[TommyG]

Discussions about these type of accidents are always entertaining. People always wanna pick a side. They wanna say pilot should have done this or that, Regis say this or that. But unfortunately the only ones that can say what was going on were in the planes. So there’s always a lot of speculation, which leads to arguing.

My take on it, there are rules, there is also common sense and courtesy. Which some some pilots don’t have those thoughts. I always teach have a plan anticipate a change. I teach from the books as a foundation, and then make adjustments for real life. I haven’t flown a standard pattern in years just due to how busy the airports I fly into are. My home field I can end up on a 8 mile extended downwind. Do you think I am gonna adjust power and add flaps abeam the numbers?

 

[Grum.Man]

If you are 8 miles out, you are no longer in the traffic pattern. I would hope you aren't teaching students to do that. If the airport is that saturated people need to either park it or go to another one.

Edit: I assume we are talking un controlled. If controlled I take that statement back.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Some have commented the C152 pilot shares some blame for not leaving the pattern when the C340 sped onto the direct approach. This is my local airport.

The C152 pilot was a practicing solo pattern work, and has very few options to deviate the pattern. Let's remember the C152 was not the only plane in the pattern and the airport has mountains higher than TPA on 2 sides.

• Why didn't 152 extend his downwind as a courtesy to the C340?
  Look at a map, the standard downwind to base turn is the airport side of Pinto lake. Beyond Pinto Lake are the Santa Cruz mountains with elevation of under 3000'. He would have needed to abandon the pattern to the right where the Mooney was departing. Raising terrain happens quickly.
  
  
• Why Didn't the 152 extend his base leg?
  Continuing on base past runway 20, and you're now on downwind for RWY 09 which shortly intersects with rwy 20. Remain even longer on down wind for 09 and you're in the mountains with fog starting to develop on the other side this ridge line. Turn Base for 09 and you're in the active para Jump area.
  
  
• Why in a few people's minds is it the right of way for a twin to declare direct to active runway, and everyone else had just better darn evacuate the area?
  When the twin declared he was coming in direct, he could not see the field as he was on the opposite the mountain range. At 3 miles he's still 1500' above TPA for single engine piston aircraft. and not visible to high wing aircraft.

For people who actually fly this airport, all the options for safe operations options belonged to the C340 pilot. The 152 was very limited in his options, which all involved risk.

If there was blame for the 152 pilot, it's thinking the C340 would follow right-of-way rules common for a pattern entry. Easy to armchair the 152's decisions. He had few choices and his level of training perhaps less. We have a duty to watch for students and rusty pilots practicing; and work with them & not bully away around them.

Max Trescott's podcast discussion of the accident includes audio from 10 minutes before the accident, when a Golden Eagle extends downwind for a 172 coming straight in. I suspect a Golden Eagle has a little less room and time to maneuver than a 152.

Casting blame. One problem is, there are almost always things each pilot (for that matter each driver in an road accident) coulda done to avoid the accident, regardless of any right of way rules. I don't think that discussing those options necessarily equates to casting blame. Watsonville is not the only nontowered airport in the world with a busy mix of traffic. The numbers in the case of nontowered airports are always a bit suspect but according to the FAA Airport Data and Information Portal, Watsonville reported 60,000 operations for the 12 month period ending in July 2019. My home base in North Carolina reported 63,000 for the same period. We also have a mix of slow and fast, training ops (two flying clubs and two flight schools) and corporate jets, and lots of instrument training with straight in approaches to both runways. I am far more interested in an analysis of what went wrong as a way of people learning what can happen and thinking about what they would do in that situation than blaming anyone.

 

[eman1200]

Max Trescott's podcast discussion of the accident includes audio from 10 minutes before the accident, when a Golden Eagle extends downwind for a 172 coming straight in. I suspect a Golden Eagle has a little less room and time to maneuver than a 152.

…….

NO! SAY IT ISN’T SO!! But Nordicdave said it’s absolutely impossible to extend downwind! Now I’m all confused.

 

[sourdough44]

Here’s a related scenario. I was flying into South Valley Airport, just South of SLC this Spring. The airport is only a few miles south of SLC Class B, that goes to the surface. I came directly from the south, the pattern had 3-4 aircraft in it, training mostly. With the tight airspace I wanted to do a straight-in, but wasn’t gonna be a butinski doing it.

I made my calls, watching for a gap to land straight in, that gap wasn’t there. I went to the right side of the runway, approach speed, sequencing off T&G traffic. I had to turn crosswind tight behind with airspace ahead. I followed downwind, then got spacing for my full stop.

With my scenario, no one had their dander up, safety was never compromised. The other idea would be to go off to the west & maneuver for the 45 to the downwind entry.

 

[FORANE]

I've been chastised for trying to coordinate a straight in with existing traffic in the pattern.
I've been chastised for passing outside and above of downwind traffic (in order to rejoin downwind again) when they were too slow for me to stay behind them.
There's a reason Oshkosh has a warbird arrival as opposed to making all traffic use the same pattern.
Not commenting on the planes which are the subject of this thread.
It's seems some believe that straight in approaches are wrong or inconsiderate for some reason. I don't understand why.

 

[ateamer]

Extending downwind for 20 at WVI isn’t a big deal, especially at 152 speeds. The terrain doesn’t really start rising for 3-1/2 miles from the runway, and it’s another mile before it’s significant. You could continue downwind at pattern altitude from midfield for a good three minutes or more before terrain becomes a hazard.

 

[Grum.Man]

I've been chastised for trying to coordinate a straight in with existing traffic in the pattern.
I've been chastised for passing outside and above of downwind traffic (in order to rejoin downwind again) when they were too slow for me to stay behind them.
There's a reason Oshkosh has a warbird arrival as opposed to making all traffic use the same pattern.
Not commenting on the planes which are the subject of this thread.
It's seems some believe that straight in approaches are wrong or inconsiderate for some reason. I don't understand why.

I've passed people on downwind to the outside as well. Shouldn't be a big deal as long as you tell them and not cut in front of them.
Oshkosh also has controllers to sequence traffic and multiple active runways with multiple touchdown zones.

Yes I believe it's inconsiderate to cut people off in the pattern because you don't want to find your place in line. It's fine if you can do so without disrupting the spacing, it's the equivalent of saying "my time is more valuable than yours" to do so when there is already a full pattern.

Joining downwind on a full pattern is less of a disturbance to traffic flow than joining on final. There is more room and more options to get the spacing sorted versus sending the whole pattern out for miles just to let you do a straight in.

 

[eman1200]

Extending downwind for 20 at WVI isn’t a big deal, especially at 152 speeds. The terrain doesn’t really start rising for 3-1/2 miles from the runway, and it’s another mile before it’s significant. You could continue downwind at pattern altitude from midfield for a good three minutes or more before terrain becomes a hazard.

It absolutely can’t be!!!!!! Nordicdave is the only one who knows what can and can’t be done at that airport!!! It’s INSANE to think a 152 could extend downwind for what, 12 seconds?!?? NOOOOOooooo!!!


(OK, eman will stop being a diick now





(or will he?!??)

 

[sarangan]

Who was right and who was wrong is moot when everyone dies. I teach my students to take a defensive flying approach. When there is a potential for conflict, always assume the worst case scenario. If you see or hear someone announcing a final, don't turn final in front of him and assume that other guy will do what he is supposed to do. If someone announces a 10 mile final, and you don't see him, ignore what he said about his distance. He could be midjudging his distance, or he might be doing a high speed pass making it look like a 3 mile final. Even if both of you are talking to each other, there is still a possibility that the airplane you are looking at is not be the one you are talking to.
No, I am not blaming the 150 pilot. The twin pilot was clearly reckless. But that makes no difference to the 150 pilot or his family.

 

[midwestpa24]

Who was right and who was wrong is moot when everyone dies.

Exactly this. I'm sure the last thoughts of the 340 pilot before he hit the hangar were, "At least I had the right of way".

 

[sarangan]

I've been chastised for trying to coordinate a straight in with existing traffic in the pattern.
I've been chastised for passing outside and above of downwind traffic (in order to rejoin downwind again) when they were too slow for me to stay behind them.
There's a reason Oshkosh has a warbird arrival as opposed to making all traffic use the same pattern.
Not commenting on the planes which are the subject of this thread.
It's seems some believe that straight in approaches are wrong or inconsiderate for some reason. I don't understand why.

I would agree with this. A straight-in is not inherently unsafe. Reckless flying can make any leg of the traffic pattern unsafe. FWIW, I've never had a close call during a straight-in, but I have had many close calls trying to join the downwind on a 45. This was before the FAA started recognizing the overhead crosswind as a valid entry (which in my opinion is safer than the 45).

 

[Palmpilot]

Look at a terrain map with the eye of a student pilot. His only option was departing the pattern to the right circling over city of Watsonville and reenter on the 45 for rwy 20. Which is exactly what the twin pilot should have done. Interesting how people want to find fault with the C152 pilot.

After Pinto Lake, you're into raising terrain. Of course you can extend some, but not enough to accommodate another plane 3 miles out, assuming standard pattern speeds.

You previously described the airport side of Pinto Lake as the normal place to turn base, which looks like about a mile from the threshold. Since this was shortly after the twin announced that he was three miles out, that would leave less than two miles between aircraft. Even if the twin had been flying at the same speed as the 152, they would have been abeam each other within two miles from the threshold. (Since the twin was flying so fast, they would have been abeam each other even sooner.) The sectional chart shows the terrain not rising to pattern altitude until at least three miles from the threshold. If the traffic were not spotted in time, then a climbing right turn to avoid the terrain could be made.

The point of this is not to assign blame, but to consider "If I am ever in this situation, what can I do to stay safe?"

 

[Mrtibs]

“Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.” – Commonly attributed to Captain Alfred Gilmer Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group.

 

[Mrtibs]

"Whenever we talk about a pilot who has been killed in a flying accident, we should all keep one thing in mind. He called upon the sum of all his knowledge and made a judgment. He believed it so strongly that he knowingly bet his life on it. That his judgment was faulty was a tragedy, not stupidity. Every inspector, supervisor, and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment, so a little of all of us goes with every pilot we lose."

Anonymous

 

[Fearless Tower]

Who was right and who was wrong is moot when everyone dies.

Very true.

Reminds me of an old sea captain who taught the nautical rules of the road at the maritime academy. He used to emphasize that ‘nothing in the rules gives you the right of way THROUGH another vessel’.

The adage has saved me from bent metal at sea, in the air and on the road.

 

[dbahn]

There were lots of ways that this accident was "avoidable" - by both aircraft, but IMHO the surest way is for every pilot who is about to turn final to look carefully along the final approach course and accept that the aircraft on final has the ROW whether you have an argument against that or not. If there is any potential conflict turn to stay on the pattern side of the airport and do something else. Compared to what might happen if you turn final right in front of the landing aircraft you'll have plenty of time to figure out what to do next.

 

[Ed Haywood]

It goes on to state except for cutting off an aircraft on final. But at what point does being on Final apply? If I call up and say I'm on a 5 mile final does that mean everyone has to give way to me? What about 10 miles?

For IFR flights, the FAA defines "final approach" as the segment of flight inbound from Final Approach Fix (FAF) or published glide slope intercept altitude. I'm not IFR rated so will leave more detailed discussion to those with greater knowledge.

Since IFR approaches are supposedly the primary justification for straight in vs pattern entry, that definition could be a useful starting point for defining a VFR final approach. So how far is the FAF from the airfield at Watsonville?

Alternatively, you could define it the same way most VFR pilots would. The point where you are aligned with the runway and below traffic pattern altitude. That would have the merit of being congruent with the right of way rules.

 

[Lance F]

When I'm in the pattern at an uncontrolled airport I assume that the other pilot
might do something wrong - I guess I call it defensive flying - a little similar to
defensive driving.

This, this and only this. Doesn’t matter who was “right”; they’re all dead.
I’ve got plenty of recent 340A time. Can’t imagine flying any part of the pattern at 180. First notch of flaps is 160; Vlo and Vfe are 140. While descending there’s no way to slow to 160 that close and land. BUT don’t matter; they’re all dead. Play nice and give way if there’s any doubt.

 

[schmookeeg]

For IFR flights, the FAA defines "final approach" as the segment of flight inbound from Final Approach Fix (FAF) or published glide slope intercept altitude. I'm not IFR rated so will leave more detailed discussion to those with greater knowledge.

Since IFR approaches are supposedly the primary justification for straight in vs pattern entry, that definition could be a useful starting point for defining a VFR final approach. So how far is the FAF from the airfield at Watsonville?

Alternatively, you could define it the same way most VFR pilots would. The point where you are aligned with the runway and below traffic pattern altitude. That would have the merit of being congruent with the right of way rules.

I went looking for a formal definition also and only found that.

There is no approach into WVI that follows the 340's course. He would be on the other side of the field if he were shooting his.. what, speed category E approach -- him and the SR-71

 

[Grum.Man]

Alternatively, you could define it the same way most VFR pilots would. The point where you are aligned with the runway and below traffic pattern altitude. That would have the merit of being congruent with the right of way rules.

And that’s how I kind of interpreted the right of way rules. Not that an aircraft 3 miles out descending to TPA has right of way over an aircraft on the base leg. Again, doesn’t matter now and you certainly can’t depend on the rules of the sky to stay safe. This is certainly a situation where both pilots should have done something different.

 

[Mxfarm]

Take the 150 out of the pattern, there’s still several concerns w/the 340. Take the 340 out of it - it’s a completely different out come. Just my take.

 

[eman1200]

.....This is certainly a situation where both pilots should have done something different.

and we can all LEARN from all of those other options. pointing out the other options in the hopes of learning from them is a far cry from BLAMING anyone. but some people just have blinders on, pick one side to blame and refuse to listen to anything else. that's unfortunate.

 

[PaulS]

This isn't about right of way. If you depend on those rules to survive, you will die. It's about understanding what is happening around you and reacting accordingly. It's also about acting properly in a pattern. We've had two accidents recently where the main causation was fast planes flying inappropriately fast into a pattern that contained other aircraft.

We need to be better. ( I don't give a crap if anyone thinks that is gratuitous, it's the truth.) Stop doing stupid ****.

 

[Palmpilot]

For IFR flights, the FAA defines "final approach" as the segment of flight inbound from Final Approach Fix (FAF) or published glide slope intercept altitude. I'm not IFR rated so will leave more detailed discussion to those with greater knowledge.

Since IFR approaches are supposedly the primary justification for straight in vs pattern entry, that definition could be a useful starting point for defining a VFR final approach. So how far is the FAF from the airfield at Watsonville?

Alternatively, you could define it the same way most VFR pilots would. The point where you are aligned with the runway and below traffic pattern altitude. That would have the merit of being congruent with the right of way rules.

I went looking for a formal definition also and only found that.

There is no approach into WVI that follows the 340's course. He would be on the other side of the field if he were shooting his.. what, speed category E approach -- him and the SR-71

The Pilot/Controller Glossary provides a couple of definitions that appear applicable. The one for "final," which I quoted earlier, refers to the final approach course. The definition for the latter term refers to the portion of an instrument approach leading to a runway, but it goes on to say "or an extended runway centerline," which could apply to either VFR or IFR aircraft. And it specifies "all without regard to distance."

FINAL− Commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with a landing area.

(See FINAL APPROACH COURSE.)
(See FINAL APPROACH-IFR.)
(See SEGMENTS OF AN INSTRUMENT
APPROACH PROCEDURE.)​

...
FINAL APPROACH COURSE− A bearing/radial/ track of an instrument approach leading to a runway or an extended runway centerline all without regard to distance.​

Section 9.5 of AC-90-66B, which discusses straight-ins, has been quoted by others, and it has a number of recommendations that some people may be interpreting as altering the right-of-way rules, but that same AC goes on to say in section 11.11 that right-of-way rules apply as stated in § 91.113 throughout the pattern.

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 2/25/19 AC 90-66B CHG 1 4 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.

11.11 Right-of-Way. Throughout the traffic pattern, right-of-way rules apply as stated in §91.113; any aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other aircraft. In addition, when converging aircraft are of different categories, a balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft; a glider has the right-of-way over an airship, airplane, or rotorcraft; and an airship has the right-of-way over an airplane or rotorcraft. Note: Parachute operations are subject to 14 CFR part 105. Parachute operators are required to coordinate their operations with the airport manager before they take place, and utilize proper radio notification during operations.​

The bottom line for me is that differences of opinion on who has the right-of-way in this situation are sufficiently widespread that expecting the other pilot will yield is a dangerous assumption.

 

[Kristin]

So the reg that says you can't cut in front of an aircraft on final doesn't count?



In the interest of the survival of all concerned, I agree. And the 152 should have yielded to the traffic on final, for the same reason.

"
FAR 91.113(g) states in operative part ". . . When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

If I am arguing for the plaintiff, I point out that the 152 did not cut in front of the other aircraft because the other aircraft was not in the traffic pattern, nor on an instrument approach, and at any rate I could not have guessed that he was coming in at 180 kts. I would point out that the 340 was faster than would have been allowed had there been a control tower and that coming in at that speed was completely reckless. I would also point out that recommended pattern entry was not followed and I would have a couple of well regarded expert pilots who would testify that the 340 pilot was violating all sorts of norms in aviation.

If I were defending the estate of the 340 driver, I would make the point you do. I would try to establish that all my landing lights were on and that the C-152 pilot should have known that I was a bigger and faster plane. I would be hoping that the jury would give the C-152 pilot some percentage of the blame, but would be urging the estate and insurer to settle the case.

 

[Flying Keys]

All straight-in approaches at KWVI are to runway 2, so reciprocal to 20, which was in use. There was a Cessna overhead doing a practice VOR-A, which is circle-to-land only, kind of perpendicular from the SSE. I’m not sure if that muddled the picture, especially for a go around or escape maneuver.

 

[dbahn]

Let's just say, hypothetically, that the twin had taken evasive action a few seconds earlier than he did and averted the collision. He then files a report with the FSDO alleging that the C152 pilot violated 91.113 by failing to give way to an aircraft on final approach, forcing him to take evasive action. My guess is that the FAA would have faulted the C152 pilot on a regulatory basis, but also admonished or even violated the twin Cessna pilot for careless and reckless operation, based almost solely on his approach speed into an airport with busy pattern activity. They would likely NOT have violated him for simply doing a straight in approach since they readily acknowledge that those are not prohibited.

 

[Kristin]

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.

There was only about a 3-5 second delay between the C-152 calling his turn to base after the 340 called the 3 mile final. We don't know if he had actually started his turn before he made the call or not. It was 30s later, that the 152 stated that he had the 340 insight. Given that, he was pretty much in position to turn final. That is a position with no good options for the 152. He can't go straight. He can't turn right. All he can do is turn left and climb or descend. At this point, it is the 340 that has the best chance of avoiding the collision.

I would not fault a jury for giving some percentage of blame to the 152 pilot, but I would argue that at most he was a little careless, which might be a reflection of his being a newbie. The 340 pilot OTOH, was reckless. In my mind, reckless trumps possibly careless and this is on the 340.

 

[Daleandee]

I'll stay out of the blame game here but I do wanna ask those that are in the know ... if you are descending at 180 knots at one mile from the threshold (well above gear & flap speed) is it even possible to get this thing slowed down enough to make a landing? Seems he's done similar landings like this but man oh! man that must take some finesse ...

 

[Fearless Tower]

I'll stay out of the blame game here but I do wanna ask those that are in the know ... if you are descending at 180 knots at one mile from the threshold (well above gear & flap speed) is it even possible to get this thing slowed down enough to make a landing? Seems he's done similar landings like this but man oh! man that must take some finesse ...

Can’t speak to the 340 specifically, but I have done similar approaches to Class B airports during a big push in Barons.

You basically have to descend slightly below glide slope and then on short final pull the power to idle and pitch up to get slowed down.

Drop the gear, trim like hell and land with no flaps.

 

[judypilot]

Some have commented the C152 pilot shares some blame for not leaving the pattern when the C340 sped onto the direct approach. This is my local airport.

The C152 pilot was a practicing solo pattern work, and has very few options to deviate the pattern. Let's remember the C152 was not the only plane in the pattern and the airport has mountains higher than TPA on 2 sides.

• Why didn't 152 extend his downwind as a courtesy to the C340?
  Look at a map, the standard downwind to base turn is the airport side of Pinto lake. Beyond Pinto Lake are the Santa Cruz mountains with elevation of under 3000'. He would have needed to abandon the pattern to the right where the Mooney was departing. Raising terrain happens quickly.
  
  
• Why Didn't the 152 extend his base leg?
  Continuing on base past runway 20, and you're now on downwind for RWY 09 which shortly intersects with rwy 20. Remain even longer on down wind for 09 and you're in the mountains with fog starting to develop on the other side this ridge line. Turn Base for 09 and you're in the active para Jump area.
  
  
• Why in a few people's minds is it the right of way for a twin to declare direct to active runway, and everyone else had just better darn evacuate the area?
  When the twin declared he was coming in direct, he could not see the field as he was on the opposite the mountain range. At 3 miles he's still 1500' above TPA for single engine piston aircraft. and not visible to high wing aircraft.

For people who actually fly this airport, all the options for safe operations options belonged to the C340 pilot. The 152 was very limited in his options, which all involved risk.

If there was blame for the 152 pilot, it's thinking the C340 would follow right-of-way rules common for a pattern entry. Easy to armchair the 152's decisions. He had few choices and his level of training perhaps less. We have a duty to watch for students and rusty pilots practicing; and work with them & not bully away around them.

A thousand times this. I'm really glad you pointed out that when the C340 announced 10 miles he wasn't even over the mountains yet. Here's my take on why the C340 pilot bears the greater blame:

First, how fast an airplane coming straight at you is extremely hard to judge. This was brought home to me forcefully when I watched an AOPA safety video with that kind of scenario, i.e., someone approaching almost head on (i.e., their nose is pointed at you). The image you see is pretty small until, suddenly, it isn't--it "blossoms" radically. So he could reasonably have thought that when the twin was behind him, it was far enough away. I think the fact that he kept his eyes on the twin even after turning showed he was trying hard to be safe. In addition, there was no way he could have judged or expected that the twin would come in that fast. It doesn't take long to develop a fairly accurate "feel" for how other planes "behave" on approach and landing, and clearly the twin was well above normal approach speed.

Second, he had been calling his legs and the twin violated all the "rules" about traffic patterns at busy airports where there is a lot of training, something the twin should have known, since apparently he flew in and out of there a lot. Like it or not, we tend to rely on other people doing what they're supposed to do. If we couldn't things would be chaos. It can take a little bit of time (it doesn't take much) to recognize that someone isn't following the "rules". Even though the twin announced he was coming straight in, it would not be unreasonable to have assumed the twin would assess the situation and make appropriate corrections. That, coupled with the speed and approach angle, could introduce just enough delay in the C152 pilot's perspective to hinder a timely exit.

Three, the twin was bombing it in. C152s are extremely slow. It is entirely possible the C152 pilot responded in a timely manner but just couldn't get his airplane out of the way fast enough.

Sorry, but I put this entirely on the twin: he was too fast, he wasn't cognizant of the traffic situation at the airport, he had the C152 right in front of him, not off to the side (the twin was off to the side of the C152) and had the greater opportunity to see and avoid and reacted either not at all or way too late.

 

[Kristin]

I'll stay out of the blame game here but I do wanna ask those that are in the know ... if you are descending at 180 knots at one mile from the threshold (well above gear & flap speed) is it even possible to get this thing slowed down enough to make a landing? Seems he's done similar landings like this but man oh! man that must take some finesse ...

Back in my freight flying days in a C-310R, I could come bombing in at that speed at 3 miles out. Pretty difficult at a mile. I couldn't even hang out the landing lights at 180 kts. First notch of flaps was 160 kts and gear and full flaps 140 kts.

 

[dbahn]

Sorry, but I put this entirely on the twin: he was too fast, he wasn't cognizant of the traffic situation at the airport, he had the C152 right in front of him, not off to the side (the twin was off to the side of the C152) and had the greater opportunity to see and avoid and reacted either not at all or way too late.

Again, it's the responsibility of the pilot joining the final approach to assure that he is not interfering with an aircraft already on final approach, regardless of how the aircraft got there and regardless of their respective altitudes. That's the regulation. That means that your LAST opportunity to prevent a conflict occurs when you still have time to turn away from the final approach course, and the only good way to do that at that point is to turn in a direction that keeps you on the pattern side of the runway, left turn if left hand pattern, right turn if right hand pattern. That last opportunity also coincides with your best opportunity to actually see the aircraft on final, who very likely doesn't actually see you.

 

[Palmpilot]

All straight-in approaches at KWVI are to runway 2, so reciprocal to 20, which was in use. There was a Cessna overhead doing a practice VOR-A, which is circle-to-land only, kind of perpendicular from the SSE. I’m not sure if that muddled the picture, especially for a go around or escape maneuver.

A further complication would be that the MDA on the VOR-A is only about 140 feet above the light-aircraft TPA.

 

[Palmpilot]

"
FAR 91.113(g) states in operative part ". . . When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

If I am arguing for the plaintiff, I point out that the 152 did not cut in front of the other aircraft because the other aircraft was not in the traffic pattern, nor on an instrument approach, and at any rate I could not have guessed that he was coming in at 180 kts. I would point out that the 340 was faster than would have been allowed had there been a control tower and that coming in at that speed was completely reckless. I would also point out that recommended pattern entry was not followed and I would have a couple of well regarded expert pilots who would testify that the 340 pilot was violating all sorts of norms in aviation.

If I were defending the estate of the 340 driver, I would make the point you do. I would try to establish that all my landing lights were on and that the C-152 pilot should have known that I was a bigger and faster plane. I would be hoping that the jury would give the C-152 pilot some percentage of the blame, but would be urging the estate and insurer to settle the case.

As a non-attorney, I sometimes have to remind myself that there are attorneys arguing both sides of any dispute. In the unlikely event that I were to be put on the jury for such a case, I can imagine having difficulty choosing between those alternatives, and I can see how dividing the percentage of blame could end up being the outcome.