KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

[wanttaja]

I listened to the audio of the radio calls and the pilot of the 340 clearly said he was doing a full stop. Again, not a pilot, but as a lawyer I have found that generally there is a reason why things happen, whether intentional or not.

The problem is, the 340's pilot's actions don't match his radioed intentions.

Aircraft like the Cessna 340 have retractable landing gear. According to a review on Avweb, the Cessna 340 has a maximum gear-extension speed of a "pitiable" 140 knots. The wing flaps would also need to be lowered for landing, with a maximum extension speed of 156 knots.

According to the ADS-B data, the 340's speed remained above both of these values. Either the pilot intended to risk his airplane by lowering the flaps and gear well above the placarded speed limits, or he never intended to land. People have examined the man's previous flights and have said he slowed down to appropriate speeds. So why, in this case, is he pretending he's going to land?

Two potential explanations here. First, he may have intended all along to just fly a low approach... a buzz job along the runway. Some airports frown on that. Announcing he was landing when he was intending a low approach might have just been a screen. If pressed afterwards, he could claim that it was part of a go-around because of the 152, or that he saw a dog on the runway.

The second reason? It's kind of related to the "bumping" I mentioned earlier. He may have intended to fly above the 152 as it was rolling out on the runway, to highlight the fact that he'd been cut off. The fact that the 152 had aborted his landing and started a go-around may have thrown him off.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Ed Haywood]

Maybe he was just in a hurry.

IMO this is the likely answer. That and save a few bucks on gas.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The problem is, the 340's pilot's actions don't match his radioed intentions.

Aircraft like the Cessna 340 have retractable landing gear. According to a review on Avweb, the Cessna 340 has a maximum gear-extension speed of a "pitiable" 140 knots. The wing flaps would also need to be lowered for landing, with a maximum extension speed of 156 knots.

According to the ADS-B data, the 340's speed remained above both of these values. Either the pilot intended to risk his airplane by lowering the flaps and gear well above the placarded speed limits, or he never intended to land. People have examined the man's previous flights and have said he slowed down to appropriate speeds. So why, in this case, is he pretending he's going to land?

Two potential explanations here. First, he may have intended all along to just fly a low approach... a buzz job along the runway. Some airports frown on that. Announcing he was landing when he was intending a low approach might have just been a screen. If pressed afterwards, he could claim that it was part of a go-around because of the 152, or that he saw a dog on the runway.

The second reason? It's kind of related to the "bumping" I mentioned earlier. He may have intended to fly above the 152 as it was rolling out on the runway, to highlight the fact that he'd been cut off. The fact that the 152 had aborted his landing and started a go-around may have thrown him off.

Ron Wanttaja

Or third, he was so situationally unaware for whatever reason that he didn’t realize he was going that fast.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Disagree. As a pilot I’m much more concerned with avoiding a midair rather than having the right of way. Both of these aircraft failed to avoid the other.

Following right of way is how pilots avoid midairs. That's the purpose of ROW rules. The only purpose. It's not to arbitrate who gets to the fuel pump first.

 

[wanttaja]

Disclaimer - I am not a pilot. But wouldn't the guy behind the 152 be in the downwind? The 340 knew there was an aircraft in base because he called that he was looking for it. So I would think he should have known there was a plane on base that he never located and taken evasive action before colliding with it.

It's possible the 340 pilot had eyes on a different aircraft. Most aircraft are painted (mostly) white like the 152, a large percentage of them have high wings, like the 152. Pilots tend to use their aircraft's registration number on radio calls, which aren't readable at the distances we're talking about. So Cessna 1111X could be anybody....

The 340 pilot's high speed could have been an attempt to get in front of a second aircraft on base. Yet the 152 pilot was reporting his position, and stated he was going around because of the other aircraft on final.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Flying Keys]

Or third, he was so situationally unaware for whatever reason that he didn’t realize he was going that fast.

I think it’s partially the “in a hurry,” and partially what you just said. I think he might have been overloaded by the three aircraft in front of him and couldn’t come up with an escape quickly enough. Forget landing by that point.

 

[wanttaja]

Or third, he was so situationally unaware for whatever reason that he didn’t realize he was going that fast.

It's possible, I suppose....distracted by the traffic in front of him. But it seems like he would have slowed down once he knew there was a plane in front of him. Also, it seems like configuring the aircraft for landing should have been second nature. *My* airplane, "configuring for landing" just means pulling out the large black knob, but it's different for complex aircraft. He's one minute from touchdown (three miles out, 180 knots) and he isn't pulling the power back to slow to flap-extension speed? Perhaps he was distracted by the plane in front of him, but why continue the approach if you're not configuring the plane for landing?

Ron Wanttaja

 

[MauleSkinner]

It's possible, I suppose....distracted by the traffic in front of him. But it seems like he would have slowed down once he knew there was a plane in front of him. Also, it seems like configuring the aircraft for landing should have been second nature. *My* airplane, "configuring for landing" just means pulling out the large black knob, but it's different for complex aircraft. He's one minute from touchdown (three miles out, 180 knots) and he isn't pulling the power back to slow to flap-extension speed? Perhaps he was distracted by the plane in front of him, but why continue the approach if you're not configuring the plane for landing?

Ron Wanttaja

Situational awareness can deteriorate to a scary degree. I’ve seen pilots in a similar configuration, speed, and position who were fully intending to land.

 

[Flying Keys]

You know, I don’t see 0FL on Flightradar24,

It's possible, I suppose....distracted by the traffic in front of him. But it seems like he would have slowed down once he knew there was a plane in front of him. Also, it seems like configuring the aircraft for landing should have been second nature. *My* airplane, "configuring for landing" just means pulling out the large black knob, but it's different for complex aircraft. He's one minute from touchdown (three miles out, 180 knots) and he isn't pulling the power back to slow to flap-extension speed? Perhaps he was distracted by the plane in front of him, but why continue the approach if you're not configuring the plane for landing?

Ron Wanttaja

His wife and dog were on board - there could have been distractions/sterile cockpit issues. Definitely not positing that as a factor, we’ll never know, anyway, but it’s a possibility that could be detrimental to already-disintegrating SA.

 

[Salty]

Pilots consistently following ROW is how to safely resolve conflicts. That is the purpose of ROW.

Nobody wants to write more regs, but here we have a clear instance where an ambiguity in regs caused fatalities. That can be fixed by clearly defining the start point of final approach for a straight in arrival, so that both pilots know who has ROW without having to do mathematics on the fly.

You can't plan your actions based on another pilot following ROW the way you interpret they should.

 

[FORANE]

So you landed anyway??? Or, you ceded your ROW, and went around (in which case @Salty is right).

As I went around I was considering who had ROW and a few choice words.

 

[Lindberg]

Or third, he was so situationally unaware for whatever reason that he didn’t realize he was going that fast.

And adding to the speculation, he may have been so fixated on his "fish finder," looking for the 152 that (allegedly) wasn't showing up, that he failed to look out the windshield and see it right in front of him.

 

[bbchien]

Be conservative, people! You're just not THAT good!

 

[Lowflynjack]

The wreckage should tell the tale; whether the landing gear was down or not. If it was still retracted, he was doing a buzz job.

I'm thankful you guys aren't NTSB investigators!! In a thread full of unjustified speculation, this may be the worst line I've read!

He had an impact and then attempted to go around. When going around, you pull the gear. It has nothing to do with you doing a buzz job and certainly wouldn't be proof of one.

I attached a witness report from a guy based on the field in case anyone wants to see it.

 

[Silvaire]

...So I would think he should have known there was a plane on base that he never located and taken evasive action before colliding with it.

Well he may have even done that, we don't know, but it's difficult to take evasive action against something you haven't seen yet.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Well he may have even done that, we don't know, but it's difficult to take evasive action against something you haven't seen yet.

Couldn't have said it better myself! A plane turns base in front of you. Are they turning base a mile out, or very close to the runway. Are they above you or below you... that may depend on how far out they are. You start to climb to go around, but about that time the 150 goes around and starts to climb, but you're climbing so you don't see him. So many things could have happened. It's all guesses at this point.

I was coming in to land in my biplane and I'd heard a helicopter at the airport earlier, but hadn't heard him on the radio in awhile. Not only did I make all of my calls, I even asked if he was still in the area. No answer. It turned out to be a student and an instructor in a black Robinson R22 sitting in the middle of a black runway. I never saw them. As I was on very short final, someone came on the radio screaming, "Jack, go around, go around, he's on the runway!" I said "going around" and hit the power quickly moving to the left of the runway. About that time, the instructor panicked and took off, saying he would get out of my way. If I hadn't moved to the left, I think he would have killed us both.

 

[steingar]

In the space of three miles he was going to decrease his speed 40 knots without losing altitude, get his gear and flaps deployed and then loose another 100 knots to land. Yeah, tell us another.

 

[exncsurfer]

Couldn't have said it better myself! A plane turns base in front of you. Are they turning base a mile out, or very close to the runway. Are they above you or below you... that may depend on how far out they are. You start to climb to go around, but about that time the 150 goes around and starts to climb, but you're climbing so you don't see him. So many things could have happened. It's all guesses at this point.

I was coming in to land in my biplane and I'd heard a helicopter at the airport earlier, but hadn't heard him on the radio in awhile. Not only did I make all of my calls, I even asked if he was still in the area. No answer. It turned out to be a student and an instructor in a black Robinson R22 sitting in the middle of a black runway. I never saw them. As I was on very short final, someone came on the radio screaming, "Jack, go around, go around, he's on the runway!" I said "going around" and hit the power quickly moving to the left of the runway. About that time, the instructor panicked and took off, saying he would get out of my way. If I hadn't moved to the left, I think he would have killed us both.

A sidestep could have saved the day here(among many other things), although he didn't have much time(the 152) once he had the guy in sight(speeding towards from behind). He had around 20-30 seconds, maybe, once he saw the 340 to do something if these times are right:

24:17 Cessna 152 N49931
Called a left base with 1 mile to go (immediately after the 3 mile call by the 340)

24:37 Cessna 340 N740WJ
Called a 1 mile final and looking for traffic that just called left base.

24:48 Cessna 152 N49931
"Yeah I see you. You are behind me"

25:00 Cessna 152 N49931
"I'm going to go around then, because you are coming at me pretty quick man."

25:28 ATC or another pilot
"Everybody please be advised there is an accident...

 

[Lowflynjack]

A sidestep could have saved the day here(among many other things), although he didn't have much time(the 152) once he had the guy in sight(speeding towards from behind). He had around 20-30 seconds, maybe, once he saw the 340 to do something if these times are right:

Agree. I was thinking more of the 340 side-stepping, but before you move, you should have the other aircraft in sight. If he didn't see him, moving in any direction could have been fatal or could have saved their lives.

 

[exncsurfer]

Agree. I was thinking more of the 340 side-stepping, but before you move, you should have the other aircraft in sight. If he didn't see him, moving in any direction could have been fatal or could have saved their lives.

Well, I think up would have been a safe bet, the 340 would have good visibility 'up' and plenty of speed to get there quick. The 150 wouldn't outclimb him, especially since he was doing 180(allegedly)

 

[skyking3286]

Waiting for the NTSB report but I read that the C340 had banked hard right. Video seems to show the C152 without the left wing (could indicate that the C152 was stepped to the side on the go around?). Things will become clear in the weeks ahead but that video does not show a plane that is going to land on final. Low wing/high wing and the long nose means that the C340 probably didn't have a visual on the C152 until the final second. https://www.kron4.com/news/californ...ideo-shows-debris-falling-from-sky-explosion/

 

[Flying Keys]

How far of a sidestep? There was a 182 on a high, offset upwind just to the north.

 

[wanttaja]

I'm thankful you guys aren't NTSB investigators!! In a thread full of unjustified speculation, this may be the worst line I've read!

He had an impact and then attempted to go around. When going around, you pull the gear. It has nothing to do with you doing a buzz job and certainly wouldn't be proof of one.

All the ADS-B data shows the aircraft well above the gear-limit speed for the Cessna 340. *Could* the aircraft fly at 180 knots if the gear was down? I kind of doubt it.

So the best assumption is that the gear was *never* down. And from that, we have to ask, "why?"

If the gear WAS down, he probably had to carry scads of power to maintain the glide slope. Again....why? Why shove your plane through the air 40 knots faster than the gear-limit speed? What *possible* justification would the pilot have had for that?

Previous ADS-B tracks for this aircraft show a more-traditional approach path. Why? What was different about this day?

Ron Wanttaja

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

All the ADS-B data shows the aircraft well above the gear-limit speed for the Cessna 340. *Could* the aircraft fly at 180 knots if the gear was down? I kind of doubt it.

So the best assumption is that the gear was *never* down. And from that, we have to ask, "why?"

If the gear WAS down, he probably had to carry scads of power to maintain the glide slope. Again....why? Why shove your plane through the air 40 knots faster than the gear-limit speed? What *possible* justification would the pilot have had for that?

Previous ADS-B tracks for this aircraft show a more-traditional approach path. Why? What was different about this day?

Ron Wanttaja

Forgot to put the gear down that day due to some distraction, but still ran the MP at the same numbers he usually did on approach?

 

[PaulS]

Disclaimer - I am not a pilot. But wouldn't the guy behind the 152 be in the downwind? The 340 knew there was an aircraft in base because he called that he was looking for it. So I would think he should have known there was a plane on base that he never located and taken evasive action before colliding with it.

Shelly there are a lot of different things being discussed here. But my impression is that the 152 pilot had the twin in sight when he turned to final and said that he saw the twin behind him and was going around. The twin was on the final from 10 miles, maybe even further out. Look up airport traffic pattern to see what the different steps of the pattern are. The 152 should have had no one close behind him after turning final, unfortunately it appears he turned in front of the twin.

 

[PaulS]

I'm thankful you guys aren't NTSB investigators!! In a thread full of unjustified speculation, this may be the worst line I've read!

He had an impact and then attempted to go around. When going around, you pull the gear. It has nothing to do with you doing a buzz job and certainly wouldn't be proof of one.

I attached a witness report from a guy based on the field in case anyone wants to see it.

Trying to go around after an impact is probably another bad decision in a series of bad decisions.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Trying to go around after an impact is probably another bad decision in a series of bad decisions.

I've never been in a mid-air... not sure how I would react.

 

[skyking3286]

"The 152 should have had no one close behind him after turning final, unfortunately it appears he turned in front of the twin."

IMHO perhaps: A three mile final report at normal speeds would indicate that one could reasonably think no one was close behind him at 120 mph approach for the C340. That be a 60 mph difference in the approach speeds and three miles would be enough time. Go 60 mph for three miles in the car. The pattern was a little wide for the C152, so that might be a factor in the timing of the baseleg to final. I see some instructors using 737 style patterns when close and tight keeps the runway in use for engine out possibilities. Just a thought. It would be way too tight for my standards, but maybe not out of the question for busy flight school.

C152 turned in front of the twin, but quickly realized the situation, and was in the process of going around to clear the runway. It's all on the 340 to see and avoid, no matter what the traffic pattern rules are. It was VFR. The 152 saw and avoided to the best of its ability. The C340 didn't. A jury trial would be an easy case for damages.

That video should change minds about the reaction times and ability to move out of the way. I've seen P51 Mustangs on final that looked slower.

 

[wanttaja]

Trying to go around after an impact is probably another bad decision in a series of bad decisions.

One of those Kobyashi Maru scenarios. Personally, I think I'd regain control of the aircraft, then decide whether to try to plant the aircraft or bring it around carefully.

The trouble is, going to full power will tend to destabilize the aircraft.

Had my ailerons jam momentarily on a recent takeoff. Broke them free a moment later, but never considered killing the power and trying to set it down. Probably should have.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Country Flier]

"The 152 should have had no one close behind him after turning final, unfortunately it appears he turned in front of the twin."

The two halves aren't quite the same, close. A three mile final report at normal speeds would indicate that one could reasonably think no one was close behind him at 100 mph approach. That be a 40 mph difference in the approach speeds and three miles would be enough time. Go 40 mph for three miles in the car. Even if it was a 60 mph difference. He turned in front of the twin, but that was in the process of going around to clear the runway. It's all on the 340 to see and avoid, no matter what the traffic pattern rules are. It was VFR. The Cessna saw and avoided to the best of its ability. That video should change minds about the reaction times and ability to move out of the way. I've seen P51 Mustangs on final that looked slower.

I agree. I landed my Mooney M20R today just 1 mile behind a DA40 (albeit at a towered class C) with no problem. I just slowed down. Why the 340 didn't slow down, at least at the 3 mile point, is what puzzles me.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It's all on the 340 to see and avoid, no matter what the traffic pattern rules are. It was VFR. The 152 saw and avoided to the best of its ability. The C340 didn't. A jury trial would be an easy case for damages.

I don’t think it’s that cut-and-dried. While I’m not absolving the 340 pilot by any means, it could also easily be argued that the 152 maneuvered into the path of the 340…Twice. Once when he continued base to final, and once when he sidestepped toward the path that, by regulation, the 340 would be required to follow to pass an aircraft that he was overtaking.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

I don’t think it’s that cut-and-dried. While I’m not absolving the 340 pilot by any means, it could also easily be argued that the 152 maneuvered into the path of the 340…Twice. Once when he continued base to final, and once when he sidestepped toward the path that, by regulation, the 340 would be required to follow to pass an aircraft that he was overtaking.

While true, the 152 pilot didn’t realize how fast he was traveling…until the final moments…I can’t blame the 152 pilot for not figuring out the 340 was traveling 180 knots based on radio calls.

 

[skyking3286]

True, no doubt. But as an exercise in Philadelphia lawyering, let’s say the Cessna152 was simply landing according to FAA guidance in an established traffic pattern. Show chart to jury. The 152 then moved immediately to avoid the 340 when visually aware of the threat of a nonstandard high speed entry using the FAA suggested go around procedure to go to the right of the centerline. The left wing was violently ripped from the Cessna It was see and avoid rules. The C152 followed that rule to avoid the traffic. Regardless of the use of the traffic pattern, which was legally recognized as the proper procedure, the C152 did nothing out of what could be expected whereas the 340 was approaching at an extreme speed into a crowded area of aircraft traffic. I would think a jury wouldn’t have a problem understanding the case, regardless of we pilots might think and debate. The case would hinge on the 340 trying to say the 152 was in an area that would be reasonably unexpected. The radio calls would undercut that expectation. Play tape. Then ask them to imagine a truck barreling through a roundabout at 60 mph.

 

[MauleSkinner]

While true, the 152 pilot didn’t realize how fast he was traveling…until the final moments…I can’t blame the 152 pilot for not figuring out the 340 was traveling 180 knots based on radio calls.

Again, not absolving the 340 pilot. But how do you excuse maneuvering in front of where the 340 would be required to maneuver for avoidance?

 

[PaulS]

I've never been in a mid-air... not sure how I would react.

Neither have I, I'm flying a Cirrus and it is part of the training to talk about what to do. But I haven't thought about it in other planes, I will now, and I'm leaning towards getting on the ground, especially if there is an airport under me. Easy to say though, I get it.

 

[Jim K]

Neither have I, I'm flying a Cirrus and it is part of the training to talk about what to do. But I haven't thought about it in other planes, I will now, and I'm leaning towards getting on the ground, especially if there is an airport under me. Easy to say though, I get it.

In this case though, there was no way the 340 could've gotten on the ground and stopped. I'm guessing he had no idea how fast he was until he was on top of the 152. At that speed, a go around was really the only choice he had. Maybe you could chop the power and make a 360, but if I had just hit another airplane, I'd be inclined to keep it in the air and try to figure out what was still working, assuming it acted like it still wanted to fly.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Again, not absolving the 340 pilot. But how do you excuse maneuvering in front of where the 340 would be required to maneuver for avoidance?

Simply because of the excessive speed of the 340, he probably never encountered a incoming aircraft doing 180 knots on final, I know I haven’t.

 

[Dana]

Again, not absolving the 340 pilot. But how do you excuse maneuvering in front of where the 340 would be required to maneuver for avoidance?

If the 340 wasn't going unreasonably fast, it wouldn't have had to maneuver.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Simply because of the excessive speed of the 340, he probably never encountered a incoming aircraft doing 180 knots on final, I know I haven’t.

If the 340 wasn't going unreasonably fast, it wouldn't have had to maneuver.

That’s like saying if the guy behind me wasn’t speeding, he wouldn’t have rear-ended me when I saw him approaching and slammed on the brakes.

 

[Palmpilot]

If the 340 wasn't going unreasonably fast, it wouldn't have had to maneuver.

One potential weakness in the "unreasonably fast" argument is that 180 knots is within the AC 90-66B's stated limit of 200 knots in the pattern.

11.10 Airspeed Limitations. Airplanes should not be operated in the traffic pattern at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).​