Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,307
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities
- Thread starter Shawn
- Start date
Shawn
En-Route
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
What goes up, must come down.
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
Hate to screw up a good meme, but Bernoulli wasn’t Italian. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-Bernoulli
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,307
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Spinning wheels, got to go 'round!
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
Who said anything about "dismissing" an Advisory Circular? They typically offer good advice on a variety of topics. But you can't count on everyone accepting them either, which is also why you need to know the ROW regulations, particularly because the guy flying a 10 mile straight in may know that he has the ROW and ASSume that everyone else will remain clear. I think in this Watsonville crash, the twin pilot used his radio like a horn - not a two way communication device.
Albany Tom
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2021
- Messages
- 3,471
- Display Name
Display name:
Albany Tom
Is that why people believe there are holes in his theory?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
What about the mentality of dismissing these parts of that AC:
"The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way."
"Throughout the traffic pattern, right-of-way rules apply as stated in § 91.113".
"Throughout the traffic pattern, right-of-way rules apply as stated in § 91.113".
Shawn
En-Route
Well, can't remember the exact wording but pretty sure it is something like there is not a rule for every situation and when there is not pilots should use their best judgment...in this case what is considered "good judgment" in this scenario in the eyes of the FAA is laid out plain as day in the above AC that a straight in should not disrupt the traffic pattern. Even though he may have been regulatory correct, he failed at understating that principal and he killed another pilot IMO.
Just because you can does not mean you should.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
That last sentence is especially true given the confusion the FAA has created around this issue.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
But if you can't you shouldn't.
You can't cut in front of an aircraft on final, whether you agree with his doing that approach or not. You should always be ready to clear the approach path if an aircraft on final is close enough to hit you (or close enough to file a complaint with the FSDO that you violated 91.113). No doubt the speed of the twin was a huge factor in this collision, and I suspect that the C172 pilot was dutifully attempting his own "should" maneuver by going around, but by sidestepping on the upwind side of the pattern he still cut in front of the twin, which in this case was fatal.
bfmetcalf
Pre-takeoff checklist
I'm a little confused. The guy doing the straight in final was born in 1947...
2-Bit Speed
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,116
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
And as my grandfather would say, "Damn kids."
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
bfmetcalf
Pre-takeoff checklist
But the guy who cut in front of him was a good bit younger.
You are correct there. I place a heavier blame on a 180kn straight in final with traffic in the pattern though. 1 made a mistake, 1 was off the rails.
dtuuri
Final Approach
He was acting like a kid!
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
I do as well, not so much for a legal straight-in as for his excessive speed in doing it.
I believe that there is probably some airspeed that justifies a straight in approach. I don't know what speed that is (I do know that I don't fly a plane that would qualify), but when you consider that the turning radius is proportional to the square of airspeed, it means that an aircraft going twice as fast needs four times the turning radius. That can have the effect of forcing an aircraft with a high stall speed to circle the field then still have to enter on a longer than usual final. As much as I don't want to see more regulations, I think limiting the applicability of the straight-in (maybe based on stall speed? ) would benefit all of us from a safety standpoint.
Last edited:
bfmetcalf
Pre-takeoff checklist
I agree. Nothing wrong with a legal straight in and as you said, could be necessary in some cases. But he was way above landing or pattern speed from what I've read on the airplane in question. Something was way off on that straight in.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
So how is this for simple math example to formulate a regulation?
A Cirrus (used as a fast, clean design) has a stall speed of 60 knots. If you allow an approach speed of 120% over published stall speed, his safe approach speed could be 72 knots. A King Air has a stall speed of 80 knots, yielding a similar calculation for an approach speed of 96 knots. (Those numbers mean a King Air has nearly twice the turning radius at estimated approach speed.) A regulation that prohibited straight in approaches to aircraft with a stall speed of, say, less than 65 knots would eliminate the Cirrus and similar aircraft from straight-ins but permit the King Air and similar faster aircraft to exercise that option. Obviously virtually most all of the fleet of single engine aircraft would also have to enter the pattern normally, and those that qualified for straight-ins would be justified in doing them. The Cirrus driver could insist he needs a higher approach speed, but that would still not permit him to fly straight in because it's based on published airspeed, not pilot preference.
It would not take many calls to the FSDO reporting violations to quickly change the behavior, and knowing that all aircraft on final have a minimum high approach speed (vs. the C172 meandering down final), helps pilots in the pattern to better estimate flow and plan their approach.
(NOTE: This is not anti-Cirrus. It's an example of a fast airplane being able to operate slowly on approach.)
A Cirrus (used as a fast, clean design) has a stall speed of 60 knots. If you allow an approach speed of 120% over published stall speed, his safe approach speed could be 72 knots. A King Air has a stall speed of 80 knots, yielding a similar calculation for an approach speed of 96 knots. (Those numbers mean a King Air has nearly twice the turning radius at estimated approach speed.) A regulation that prohibited straight in approaches to aircraft with a stall speed of, say, less than 65 knots would eliminate the Cirrus and similar aircraft from straight-ins but permit the King Air and similar faster aircraft to exercise that option. Obviously virtually most all of the fleet of single engine aircraft would also have to enter the pattern normally, and those that qualified for straight-ins would be justified in doing them. The Cirrus driver could insist he needs a higher approach speed, but that would still not permit him to fly straight in because it's based on published airspeed, not pilot preference.
It would not take many calls to the FSDO reporting violations to quickly change the behavior, and knowing that all aircraft on final have a minimum high approach speed (vs. the C172 meandering down final), helps pilots in the pattern to better estimate flow and plan their approach.
(NOTE: This is not anti-Cirrus. It's an example of a fast airplane being able to operate slowly on approach.)
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm not sure what you are trying to solve here. Most instrument approaches culminate with straight in finals. Banning them for a segment of GA won't work, ever. Straight ins are not inherently dangerous, but there are dangerous pilots out there. In this particular accident, I think the twin pilot would have been just as much of a menace entering the pattern on the 45 because the problem was not the straight in final, it was his excessive speed and total lack of situational awareness. I've said this before, and I will say it again, I think this type of approach, excessively fast, was a normal thing for this guy. He just expected everyone to get out of his way. I'd bet that he has had other situations where if the other pilot was not on his game it would have ended in tragedy. Unfortunately this guy and the 150 guy, who made a mistake turning base after the 3 mile final call, collided, both lost situational awareness at the same time. Or probably more likely, the 150 pilot sensed something was wrong, but didn't know how to fix it. That's the unfortunate case here. Had the 150 pilot been more aware, or maybe had more experience, he would have thought to himself "WTF is that guy doing?, I'm staying away from him".
I fly 22s. They stall at 61 knots, full flaps, gross weight. The airspeed indicator reads 64 knots at that speed. Most recommended approach speeds, and the recommend approach speed for many 22s. is 130 percent of that stall speed (1.3 Vso). So the approach speed 78 knots. But Cirrus recommends that speed over the fence, I actually fly most of the final at about 85 knots. Slowing the final 6 knots ( or more, I've been using the AOA indicator) from a couple hundred feet. On an instrument approach, Cirrus recommends flying the final at 100 knots, and landing with 1/2 flaps if you breakout below 500 feet. You slow down when you see the runway.
I think the onus is on the straight in pilot to figure out how to blend in with established traffic. I also think it is hugely important that pilots talk to each other when there is a potential conflict. I was on another forum, making this point, and a guy there was taking me to task saying that those extra radio calls are a bad thing because it ties up the airwaves, and that making standard radio calls is all that is needed. That's what these guys were doing, making standard radio calls, neither of them figured it out. If one had spoken up to the other, it would have snapped both of them out of it and this would not have happened.
That said, pilots making circuits in the pattern should yield or make room for incoming traffic when it makes sense. I also think pilots should self limit themselves to no more than 3 planes at one time making circuits. 5 or 6 planes doing patterns at an uncontrolled field is just stupid IMO.
I do straight ins when it makes sense. Sometimes I break off and maneuver to a 45 entry. No big deal. Sometimes a pilot will ask where I am and extend for me. No big deal. If I hear a nervous pilot, I'll break off, tell the pilot I'll stay out of their way and I'm maneuvering to a 45 entry. No big deal.
If I'm in the pattern and hear someone calling a straight in, I'll make a call after them, even if I had just made one a minute before, a lot of times the straight ins are being handed off from ATC and don't hear previous calls. This stuff is just common sense, and some experience.
We don't need more rules, hell, read this thread, we can barely agree on the rules we have now.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
I don't care what the speed limit should be. I'm just suggesting that certain aircraft are perfectly capable entering the pattern before the base leg, and should do so. Obviously, the allowance of straight-ins for all aircraft has been abused too often.
One of the reasons this thread is so long is that (1) there's plenty of fault to find on either or both pilots in the Watsonville crash and (2) the current 91.113 isn't understood by many pilots, and it addressed the location where well over half the mid air collisions occur.
2-Bit Speed
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,116
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
I have a question (as a non-pilot): Would it be a good idea (or bad or just useless) to mandate calling your airspeed when on a straight-in final? So... when the 340 called his 10 mile straight-in final, he would also declare his airspeed, and again every time he repeated the call.
I don't think requiring airspeed declarations of aircraft in the pattern would do anything, but it seems like a reasonable idea for straight-ins due to the wide variance in aircraft capability.
Would this help situational awareness or just over-saturate the pilots in the pattern?
P.S. Sorry if this question was raised elsewhere.
I don't think requiring airspeed declarations of aircraft in the pattern would do anything, but it seems like a reasonable idea for straight-ins due to the wide variance in aircraft capability.
Would this help situational awareness or just over-saturate the pilots in the pattern?
P.S. Sorry if this question was raised elsewhere.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
Some aircraft don't have radios, and others don't use them or are on the wrong frequency. It does help when someone calling a final from way out does so in minutes (or seconds), as some pilots currently do. There's some inherent inaccuracy in time to destination, even with GPS, but I think distance may be inherently even more inaccurate.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
But you are reinforcing my point, that the rules are difficult to interpret, more rules will just make it more difficult. I would say 95 percent of the straight ins I do are done with no other aircraft nearby. Making another rule around this is just unnecessary.
If you really want a rule change to come out of this, I think a change that would have more impact on safety would be to require a flight review every year instead of every two years. A good flight review would have probably nipped the twin pilot's excessive speed habit in the bud, and possibly helped the 150 pilot understand you need to save your own life out there, you can't depend on the other guy to do it.
I'm not sure it would help. I have asked pilots on straight ins their speed before when I was unsure. But I think in most cases it's just extraneous info that is rather useless. More useful is to just think about where you are in relation to them. If someone calls 10 miles out and you are on base about to turn final, you are probably ok. I would just restate that I was base turning final. But if you just turned downwind from crosswind, or you are about to turn base and hear a 3 mile final call. Speak up and work it out. In the crosswind to downwind scenario, that's a perfect time to say " xxx traffic, cessna xxx, turning downwind from crosswind, aircraft on 10 mile final, how fast are going?" Based on his answer you can figure out what to do.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Those are problems from anywhere in the pattern. I'd be fine for requiring a radio at public airports. But to your point, I try to always be on the lookout for errant aircraft, especially in the pattern.
ElPaso Pilot
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,452
- Display Name
Display name:
ElPaso Pilot
This was an exceptional edge case. I can't see cluttering up the airwaves looking in the rear view mirror at one knucklehead's lack of judgement.
It would just become more noise that would be ignored.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Since he was born in 1947, maybe he had to pee really bad. (Not joking!)
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
How would you factor instrument approaches into that regulation, especially in MFR conditions? And some airports don't have circling minimums published. (HAF is an example.)
By the way, would you make the right-of-way rule dependent on whether the straight-in was legal? That would require a pilot on base, or about to turn base, to know information about the other aircraft that would not be readily available.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
"Twin Cessna on a three-mile final"
"Is there room for a 152 to turn a half-mile base?"
"Negative."
"152 extending downwind."
Last edited:
RingLaserGyroSandwich
Pre-takeoff checklist
Agree with what's implied above. Standard calls are a great start, and they can prevent some problems, but they don't always solve them. Spamming the radio is bad, but a simple question/answer to verify there is not a danger of collision is totally warranted.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think it was mentioned somewhere that the twin pilot's previous straight-ins to this airport had not been so blazing fast.
dtuuri
Final Approach
For a non-pilot that's a good "thinking outside the box" question. Yes, if you're coming in 40 knots over landing gear operating speed it would be good to announce it because at 180 kts, if that's a reliable speed, this was a buzz job in the making not a landing. Mandatory, though? Nah. Discussing this accident during flight reviews ought to be mandatory though. Speed kills and don't fly over top of anybody trying to land.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
FAA:
and:
Also FAA:
Those, plus the fact that the FAA has not provided an unambiguous definition of "final approach" that applies to both VFR and IFR traffic, make it easy to understand why people are confused about right-of-way in this situation.
"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."
and:
"Pilots conducting instrument approaches in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow of traffic and should bear in mind they do not have priority over other VFR traffic."
Also FAA:
"Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface..."
Those, plus the fact that the FAA has not provided an unambiguous definition of "final approach" that applies to both VFR and IFR traffic, make it easy to understand why people are confused about right-of-way in this situation.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
So relying on the rules is a very bad crash avoidance strategy. Desiring more rules is also probably a bad strategy.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
. . . unless all you do is make existing rules clear and not open to misinterpretation.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Relying SOLELY on the rules certainly is. We have to use all of the tools at our disposal
I think the published guidance could be written less confusingly.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Tarheelpilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,393
- Location
- North Carolina once again.
- Display Name
Display name:
Tarheelpilot
I would also propose that if we were to clarify current rules or write new ones it would do nothing to change the behavior of the people causing problems now. As it stands reasonable people don’t have any issues playing nice with others in the traffic pattern. The ones we have problems with will always be problems regardless of the rules.
CaptainDoug
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2022
- Messages
- 49
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
I saw you were a non-pilot, and that it was your first post. I was gentler to you than I'd be to some of the reprobates around here.
As for why the excessive speed, I like Occams' Razor: The simplest explanation is that the twin pilot hadn't intended to land. It's possible he was going to do a high-speed low-altitude pass along the runway, then pull up and enter the pattern normally. He may have been concentrating on making a real high-speed low pass, and not seen the 152. 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.
Ron Wanttaja
The Baron's (B58's) max gear extension speed is just about 155 knots, if I remember correctly -
it's been years since I've flown one. If it's not that exactly, it's very close to that - 152 maybe.
If the Baron pilot was doing a high-speed pass, he should have been at pattern
altitude for twins - which is 1,500' AGL. Going down low at that high rate of
speed makes no sense - it's not only idiotic, it's fatally dangerous!
