KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

OneCharlieTango said:
The 340 called 10 miles straight in at 22:05. Two minutes and two seconds later, he called 3 miles. A little math puts that at 206 knots. Thirty seconds later, he called one mile. That's 240 knots! Of course, those are his estimates, but it seems pretty clear he wasn't going any 140 knots or less.
Click to expand...
If you're nice and give him a few more seconds and say he did 9 miles in 3 mintues that works out to.... whattya know?
 
Lowflynjack said:
Everyone is quoting 180 kts, but like you, I don't think it's true. We'll see when the NTSB report come out.

A guy based on the field said he heard the impact and saw something falling from the sky. He didn't know it was the 152 at that time. He said the 340 was flying down the field at full power when one of his engines quit and he rolled, diving into the hangar.

I think they both made the decision to go around and it just ended up with them in the same space at the same time.
Click to expand...

This is the second post today doubting the speed. Even if the instantaneous ADS-B was wrong, note his position, make a time hack, note it 3 minutes later and do the math. Or listen to his radio calls:

22:05 10 miles

24:07 3 miles (7 miles, 2:02 elapsed = 206 knots)

24:37 1 mile (2 miles, 0:30 elapsed = 240 knots)

Total - 9 miles, 2:32 elapsed = 213 knots

If it were a more reasonable speed, say, 150 knots, that would be 4 minutes. 120 is 5, and so on.

Now, given the fuzzy accuracy and comm lag when self-reporting, and the solid accuracy of the ADS-B track, I can pretty much guarantee the 180+ is correct. In fact, I’ll bet he was a little more than 10, 3, and 1 mile when he made those calls. He closed the gap that fast.

edit to remove part of another post I never finished
 
There were two planes in the pattern when the 340 began his approach. For some reason the 152 ADS-B out was not functioning. Speculation is that it had a Skybeacon and the pilot forgot to turn on the nav lights. Anyway, all of the speed and ROW things aside the 340 was most likely just trying to sequence his approach so as to fit in and not disrupt the existing traffic so that could explain the speed. Another possible factor is that if he was glancing at his screen he might have mistaken the second Cessna (which had ADS-B out and was behind the 152) as the one talking on the radio. There is a lot to unpack here. It's normal for us to speculate but let's ease up on the blame game stuff.
 
Last edited:
Just consider: no student pilot, nor most of the rest of us would even consider that an aircraft self-announcing at 10 miles would be on a one mile final two and a half minutes later. If that were the case, they’d either have to be way off on their calls or coming in extremely fast.

Ludicrous speed, indeed.

Speaking of, have any of us ever been on a crosswind, in a typical pattern (no extensions, super long runways, or crazy flight/wind envelopes), and had a close conflict on final with someone who called a(n accurate) ten mile straight in when you were on the crosswind?
 
Silvaire said:
There were two planes in the pattern when the 340 began his approach. For some reason the 152 ADS-B out was not functioning. Speculation is that it had a Skybeacon and the pilot forgot to turn on the nav lights. Anyway, all of the speed and ROW things aside the 340 was most likely just trying to sequence his approach so as to fit in and not disrupt the existing traffic so that could explain the speed. Another possible factor is that if he was glancing at his screen he might have mistaken the second Cessna (which had ADS-B out and was behind the 152) as the one talking on the radio. There is a lot to unpack here. It's normal for us to speculate but let's ease up on the blame game stuff.
Click to expand...

I agree that it was not an easy setup. However, all four Cessnas, each with a different call sign were talking and correctly announcing their positions and intentions. Bombing in at 180kts was the problem. It gave him only about 3 minutes to figure it all out, and at least :30 of that was spent by him talking. If he had slowed down and had an extra minute or two, even on a straight-in, it could have made for a better understanding of where he could have fit in.
 
Salty said:
True, but I feel a lot more sorry for one of them. One was a student pilot that probably did the best he could.
Click to expand...
This is a key point that many seem to keep missing. The 152 pilot was a student. We have to cut him some slack; his judgement isn't going to be as honed as a more-experienced pilot.

Get a lot of student traffic around my home field, because it's uncontrolled and near three controlled airports with flight schools. They flock to my airport on the assumption they can get more landings in. Yes, I've ground my teeth several times at the size of the traffic pattern, but recognize that they have enough to contend with.

Ron Wanttaja
 
There is one other person to consider.

There is the instructor that may not have correctly taught the student pilot to not turn in front of traffic on final...imagine what (s)he may be feeling.

All speculation.
 
Same trip a week before:
85a5a879b58b186c26b41da90694f9df.jpg
 
dtuuri said:
Well, was the gear down or not? :dunno: Max gear speed is 140 kts.
Click to expand...

I don’t know how it could have been, safely. That’s where a lot of us are thinking “what the heck.”
 
Zeldman said:
There is one other person to consider.

There is the instructor that may not have correctly taught the student pilot to not turn in front of traffic on final...imagine what (s)he may be feeling.

All speculation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it’d be tough for a student to do the timing and mental math required to figure out that 3 miles = 1 minute for that particular guy.
 
Flying Keys said:
Just consider: no student pilot, nor most of the rest of us would even consider that an aircraft self-announcing at 10 miles would be on a one mile final two and a half minutes later. If that were the case, they’d either have to be way off on their calls or coming in extremely fast.

Ludicrous speed, indeed.

Speaking of, have any of us ever been on a crosswind, in a typical pattern (no extensions, super long runways, or crazy flight/wind envelopes), and had a close conflict on final with someone who called a(n accurate) ten mile straight in when you were on the crosswind?
Click to expand...


That's the experience thing, I always try to figure out how fast the incoming plane is going. It's pretty easy if they show as a target on foreflight. Even a Cirrus can be doing 180 over the ground, but a twin at ten miles gets me thinking that he's probably moving. If you hear a business jet call at 10 miles out alarms should be going off in your head that it will be a potential issue for you quickly. That's why communication is so key. If I'm in the pattern and a plane calls at 10 miles, I report my position in the pattern right after, even if I had just made a report. Pro pilots will usually talk to you if they think there will be an issue. Depending on the situation I'll usually offer to extend my down wind. Generally I would say that about half the time the incoming pilot will either thank me, or tell me that it's not necessary.
 
Flying Keys said:
I can pretty much guarantee the 180+ is correct. In fact, I’ll bet he was a little more than 10, 3, and 1 mile when he made those calls. He closed the gap that fast.
Click to expand...
You're assuming his calls weren't his exact location, but you're thinking he was further out than he called... why? What if he was closer than he called? He may have called 3 miles and then realized he was closer when he checked after hearing the other plane turn base in front of him. There's a reason the NTSB does the investigations and not internet sleuths!
 
Lowflynjack said:
You're assuming his calls weren't his exact location, but you're thinking he was further out than he called... why? What if he was closer than he called? He may have called 3 miles and then realized he was closer when he checked after hearing the other plane turn base in front of him. There's a reason the NTSB does the investigations and not internet sleuths!
Click to expand...


Because the ADS-B and all the evidence foots. For it to be the way you described, the 340 would have to have made calls that were off by several miles. “Over the ridge” in the 10-mile callup is a pretty good descriptor that puts him at least 10 miles out. Figuring out his speed by the timing of the remainder of the calls is just math. And again, it foots with the ADS-B.

How fast do you think he was going?
 
Flying Keys said:
eah, it’d be tough for a student to do the timing and mental math required to figure out that 3 miles = 1 minute for that particular guy.
Click to expand...
..to this point, do you guys ever give time estimates?

I understand distance is important so the folks in the traffic can orient where you are, but if someone is trying to plan pattern spacing and when to turn based, etc., wouldn't time also help? Also assume that not everyone knows every type

Makes you think if the twin Cessna had said "10 miles out but I'll be there in 2 minutes" the guy in the 152 may have thought to extend..
 
Tantalum said:
..to this point, do you guys ever give time estimates?

I understand distance is important so the folks in the traffic can orient where you are, but if someone is trying to plan pattern spacing and when to turn based, etc., wouldn't time also help? Also assume that not everyone knows every type

Makes you think if the twin Cessna had said "10 miles out but I'll be there in 2 minutes" the guy in the 152 may have thought to extend..
Click to expand...

I’ve been thinking about that. It’d be a different standard, for sure. Lots of head math and/or GPS programming on everybody’s part to pull it off, but it certainly would be relevant for those types of decisions. Hard to translate into where to look for traffic, though, without a distance in there as well.
 
Flying Keys said:
Because the ADS-B and all the evidence foots. For it to be the way you described, the 340 would have to have made calls that were off by several miles. “Over the ridge” in the 10-mile callup is a pretty good descriptor that puts him at least 10 miles out. Figuring out his speed by the timing of the remainder of the calls is just math. And again, it foots with the ADS-B.

How fast do you think he was going?
Click to expand...
I don't know! I just think the data will change as we get more info. 180kts on short final in a plane that has 140kts gear speed doesn't pass the smell test for me. I think he may have been going around sooner than we know, maybe at 3 miles when he heard the 150 turn in front of him. When the 150 went around, I'll assume he stopped descending and the 340 went full power and climbed.

I have my thoughts just like everyone else, but I hope we get some good info when the report comes out.
 
Lowflynjack said:
You're assuming his calls weren't his exact location, but you're thinking he was further out than he called... why? What if he was closer than he called? He may have called 3 miles and then realized he was closer when he checked after hearing the other plane turn base in front of him. There's a reason the NTSB does the investigations and not internet sleuths!
Click to expand...

Coming back to this once more…

The instantaneous ADS-B speed registered over 180 kts gs for almost the entire approach (until about the moment of impact). But to further back my assertions, look at the timestamps. At exactly 10nm from WVI (as the crow flies), it was 21:51:50. At the moment of impact, just about over the fence, it was 21:55:15. That’s 3 minutes and 25 seconds to traverse those 10 nautical miles. That’s an average speed of 176 knots.

Now, he actually flew about 15% farther than that because he made a 30° left turn (with a slight overshoot) to join a 5 mile final. That does not help his (or your) case. From the same time beginning stamp of 21:51:50, 10nm as the crow flies, he actually flew closer to 11.5nm to reach the same ending timestamp of 21:55:15, which is closer to 202 knots average groundspeed.

So for your countertheory to hold weight, not only would the instantaneous ADS-B readouts have to be wrong, but also the position timestamps, as well as the communication.

We will certainly wait for the NTSB to issue a final report - there could certainly have been other mitigating factors, but there’s a lesson to be learned now about high speed straight-ins, no matter what end of them you’re on.
 
Flying Keys said:
Coming back to this once more…

The instantaneous ADS-B speed registered over 180 kts gs for almost the entire approach (until about the moment of impact). But to further back my assertions, look at the timestamps. At exactly 10nm from WVI (as the crow flies), it was 21:51:50. At the moment of impact, just about over the fence, it was 21:55:15. That’s 3 minutes and 25 seconds to traverse those 10 nautical miles. That’s an average speed of 176 knots.

Now, he actually flew about 15% farther than that because he made a 30° left turn (with a slight overshoot) to join a 5 mile final. That does not help his (or your) case. From the same time beginning stamp of 21:51:50, 10nm as the crow flies, he actually flew closer to 11.5nm to reach the same ending timestamp of 21:55:15, which is closer to 202 knots average groundspeed.

So for your countertheory to hold weight, not only would the instantaneous ADS-B readouts have to be wrong, but also the position timestamps, as well as the communication.

We will certainly wait for the NTSB to issue a final report - there could certainly have been other mitigating factors, but there’s a lesson to be learned now about high speed straight-ins, no matter what end of them you’re on.
Click to expand...

One thing I would add to those doubting the 340's groundspeed. Flightaware will sometimes provides estimates to fill in gaps in data. ADSBexchange doesn't. It shows the raw data being received from the ADS-B. Therefore the groundspeed readouts are accurate and real time data coming from the GPS and ADS-B equipment on the aircraft. Those show 180 kts nearly the entire approach. Which is the point here, he was well above approach and/or gear speeds all the way down final. Another link in the accident chain.
 
midwestpa24 said:
One thing I would add to those doubting the 340's groundspeed. Flightaware will sometimes provides estimates to fill in gaps in data. ADSBexchange doesn't. It shows the raw data being received from the ADS-B. Therefore the groundspeed readouts are accurate and real time data coming from the GPS and ADS-B equipment on the aircraft. Those show 180 kts nearly the entire approach. Which is the point here, he was well above approach and/or gear speeds all the way down final. Another link in the accident chain.
Click to expand...

This. I downloaded the KML from Flightradar24 with timestamps and instantaneous data at each datapoint. You can look at it both ways: data or distance/time and you get the same answer.
 
Flying Keys said:
This. I downloaded the KML from Flightradar24 with timestamps and instantaneous data at each datapoint. You can look at it both ways: data or distance/time and you get the same answer.
Click to expand...

you keep saying "instantaneous", "instantaneous", "but it's instantaneous" as if the more times you say it the more you think it justifies what you're saying. if it's instantaneously wrong, who gives a sht that it's instantaneous? I'm not saying that's the case here, but enough already. "but it's instantaneous".....
 
My theory, and this is pure conjecture that we’ll never know for sure, is he wanted to come in fast and slow down and configure at the last second to get in before the other traffic, as was established by several prior similar flightpaths.

When he called 3 miles (I think he was closer to 3.5-4) and the 152 called base immediately after, it threw him off. The 182 at his 12:00 to 1:00 high with unknown intentions probably also gave him a lot to think about. He was running out of options and took too long to figure it out - land, go around, go around which way?

The point is he didn’t have the one thing he needed to figure it out, along with everybody else: time.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
But the 152 pilot wasn’t expecting the twin to be doing 180+ knots.
He realized it only after making the turn, then attempted to avoid by going around.
The twin committed 4 sins….#4 continuing without visual contact despite the 152 being on final and commenting how fast the twin was.

This accident is 100% fault of the twin. Remember the jet pilot who was criticizing everyone in the pattern as he continued on his long straight in approach despite comment about how dangerous this was?
Different pilot, same attitude.

Yes, arm chair pilots can criticize the 152 pilot, but I see nothing he did that was blatantly wrong.
Click to expand...
If it wasn’t expected it’s because he wasn’t paying attention. If the twin only called at three miles then you have a valid point. The twin called multiple times starting at ten miles. All of which occurred when the 152 was in the pattern.
 
eman1200 said:
you keep saying "instantaneous", "instantaneous", "but it's instantaneous" as if the more times you say it the more you think it justifies what you're saying. if it's instantaneously wrong, who gives a sht that it's instantaneous? I'm not saying that's the case here, but enough already. "but it's instantaneous".....
Click to expand...

ADS-B readouts are giving us two different things:
  1. Instantaneous data blocks with geometric altitude, groundspeed, and course. These have been known to be wrong occasionally, but also can vary from point to point due to technique, wind, etc.
  2. Position and time.
So you can have individual points using #1 say he was doing 600 knots and simply do the math using #2 to figure out that’s not the case.

But in this case both correlate (along with the aforementioned communications). And that’s the key. You want it to be wrong, but it’s not going to be. I’m sure NorCal had him, too and that will correlate the ADS-B data. In the end, if I’m wrong about the speed, I’ll be right back here to eat crow.
 
Flying Keys said:
Speaking of, have any of us ever been on a crosswind, in a typical pattern (no extensions, super long runways, or crazy flight/wind envelopes), and had a close conflict on final with someone who called a(n accurate) ten mile straight in when you were on the crosswind?
Click to expand...
My first solo was a nearly identical situation. Except it was a Baron screaming in on a straight-in with 8 aircraft in the pattern. My first landing attempt was aborted from the base leg whilst 7 other voices on CTAF commenced berating the Baron pilot. As they should. I did not know then how much danger I was actually in. My CFI nearly had a stroke.

My next landing attempt was uneventful. I'm sure if my CFI had known that KPWT would all of sudden become the busiest GA field in Washington state that day, he would have reconsidered sending me up alone. Hindsight and all.
 
IMO two bits of guidance from the FAA would help remove ambiguity on ROW and better deconflict straight in approaches:

1. Define straight in arrival as a traffic pattern entry on the extended upwind, with the aircraft required to establish pattern altitude and airspeed before entry.
2. Define final approach as the segment descending from the pattern to the runway.

In other words, separate the long final approach into two phases of flight by a clearly recognizable event. There would be an initial approach to pattern altitude, a declared entry on the extended upwind, then a final descent. That would remove ambiguity on who has ROW and increase awareness of the positioning of aircraft on long straight in approaches.
 
Ed Haywood said:
IMO two bits of guidance from the FAA would help remove ambiguity on ROW and better deconflict straight in approaches:

1. Define straight in arrival as a traffic pattern entry on the extended upwind, with the aircraft required to establish pattern altitude and airspeed before entry.
2. Define final approach as the segment descending from the pattern to the runway.

In other words, separate the long final approach into two phases of flight by a clearly recognizable event. There would be an initial approach to pattern altitude, a declared entry on the extended upwind, then a final descent. That would remove ambiguity on who has ROW and increase awareness of the positioning of aircraft on long straight in approaches.
Click to expand...
What if I start my descent 5 miles out, or I don't until 1 mile out and ride the elevator down? I don't think there's an easy answer.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
If it wasn’t expected it’s because he wasn’t paying attention. If the twin only called at three miles then you have a valid point. The twin called multiple times starting at ten miles. All of which occurred when the 152 was in the pattern.
Click to expand...

You’re asking the 152 pilot to do speed estimates based on timing communication calls? I was never taught to note the time of CTAF calls. The kid still has to fly the plane, lookin outside (there was additional traffic ), and now want him to note times and making speed estimates?!
 
This situation is a lesson to all those experienced pilots out there. Things to remember EVERY time you enter the pattern at an untowered airport:
1. Not everyone has ADSB.
2. ADSB doesn't always work.
3. Not everyone has good situational awareness yet.
4. There are students out there that don't know how fast your expensive, cool, plane is
5. There are planes out there without radios
6. There are planes out there with radios that are broken.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
You’re asking the 152 pilot to do speed estimates based on timing communication calls? I was never taught to note the time of CTAF calls. The kid still has to fly the plane, lookin outside (there was additional traffic ), and now want him to note times and making speed estimates?!
Click to expand...
Making speed estimates is part of situational awareness.

no, I wouldn’t expect a student to have mastered it, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t know how to do it.
 
The 152 pilot is at fault for trying to get "one more in", as if he was entitled.
The 340 Pilot is at fault for not being defensive and not managing "time progression of approach" to a busy field. It is tempting when coming down over the "bowl" from the northeast, out of 8K, to save fuel and time, to keep it clean an bomb on in with little power. It's just stoopid.

Last Thursday, we failed. Wow, just Wow.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Making speed estimates is part of situational awareness.

no, I wouldn’t expect a student to have mastered it, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t know how to do it.
Click to expand...
Does anyone note (write down) the times of traffic calls and their reported positions while flying a pattern?
I make note of airplane type and estimate speed based on that.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Does anyone note (write down) the times of traffic calls and their reported positions while flying a pattern?
I make note of airplane type and estimate speed based on that.
Click to expand...
Does anyone need to write hem down to use them for speed estimates? Where was I when he made his 10-mile call? Where was I when he made his 3-mile call? Do I really have enough time to fly the rest of my pattern before he gets here?
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
You’re asking the 152 pilot to do speed estimates based on timing communication calls? I was never taught to note the time of CTAF calls. The kid still has to fly the plane, lookin outside (there was additional traffic ), and now want him to note times and making speed estimates?!
Click to expand...
You should learn. Might keep you from turning in front of some ******* barreling into the pattern one day.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Does anyone need to write hem down to use them for speed estimates? Where was I when he made his 10-mile call? Where was I when he made his 3-mile call? Do I really have enough time to fly the rest of my pattern before he gets here?
Click to expand...
And then throw it all out the window because accuracy of some random pilots call isn't good enough to base decisions on anyway. JMO. Now that I'm wiser, I'm extending my downwind if a twin calls final less than 10 miles out and I'm in a 152. When I was a student, I knew to do that if it was a Citation jet, but I wouldn't have for a 340. A thousand students a day make the mistake this student made. If the experienced pilots in the area aren't being douche bags nobody dies from it.
 
Salty said:
And then throw it all out the window because accuracy isn't good enough to base decisions on anyway. JMO. Now that I'm wiser, I'm extending my downwind if a twin calls final less than 10 miles out and I'm in a 152. When I was a student, I knew to do that if it was a Citation jet, but I wouldn't have for a 340. A thousand students a day make the mistake this student made. If the experienced pilots in the area aren't being douche bags nobody dies from it.
Click to expand...
How do Citation pilots typically refer to themselves while making calls?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top