KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

(put on flame retardant suit)

Why not just mandate that non-towered airports require pattern entry rather than direct in?

But seriously. As much as many people wouldn’t like that wouldn’t it be a safer way to handle it?
 
Flying Doc said:
Rules are nice but at the end of the day I dont trust any of you…:) on downwind past the numbers I am not turning toward the runway until I know you aint gonna be there to meet and greet!
Click to expand...
So, are you just going to put your head in the sand regarding aircraft with no radio that can perfectly legally land at the same airport as you?
 
wanttaja said:
Certainly a reasonable attitude.

<just to be clear, the following is not directed at Flying Doc>

The trouble is, too many people want to argue about whose FAULT it was, and not as many are interested in how to keep it from happening again....

J**** F******* C*****, folks, it's your NECKS involved. If you're only interested in assigning blame, you're not learning from it.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I guess I see it differently than you. I think there is already a solution to keep it from happening again, and frankly nothing short of this is going to prevent it. LOOK OUT THE FREAKING WINDOW AND DON'T FLY YOUR PLANE INTO ANOTHER PLANE!

Don't be lazy or impatient (both of these guys were). Don't put yourself in a position where you can't do the UPPERCASE above.
 
John Spartan said:
(put on flame retardant suit)

Why not just mandate that non-towered airports require pattern entry rather than direct in?

But seriously. As much as many people wouldn’t like that wouldn’t it be a safer way to handle it?
Click to expand...
Sure…150 knot jets and 60 mph Cubs mix well together in full patterns.

there are actually times when a straight-in is the safest way to work in with traffic in the pattern.
 
Last edited:
Justin M said:
But did he have a reason to thump the 152 until the 152 turned base? If the 152 had extended the downwind, the twin wouldn’t have had a reason to be mad.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand which side of the issue you are approaching this from... :dunno:
 
Justin M said:
But did he have a reason to thump the 152 until the 152 turned base? If the 152 had extended the downwind, the twin wouldn’t have had a reason to be mad.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that if someone is making decisions about flying based on being mad, they maybe shouldn't be flying. That's someone that needs to grow up a bit.
 
Ed Haywood said:
...If nobody has called final when you are abeam the numbers, you would know the closest aircraft on runway heading is at least 3 miles out, and you should be safe to pull power for a tight base and final.

If someone has called final using the "descending below pattern" criteria or one of the IFR definitions, you would know they were within 3 miles, and you should extend downwind until visual contact made, then follow.

The problem is calling final 5+ miles out makes the term meaningless as an accurate description of position, and leads to aircraft on downwind guessing whether they can slip in ahead.
Click to expand...
Making right-of-way depend on what people say on the radio would not address the situation where a plane on final has no operational radio or makes a mistake dialing in the frequency.
 
Last edited:
John Spartan said:
(put on flame retardant suit)

Why not just mandate that non-towered airports require pattern entry rather than direct in?

But seriously. As much as many people wouldn’t like that wouldn’t it be a safer way to handle it?
Click to expand...
That's not necessarily so for airports that have a published instrument approach.
 
MauleSkinner said:
what constitutes a reason to do so in your mind?

I suspect @Justin M was Referring more to the fact that the twin pilot probably wasn’t psychic.
Click to expand...
Psychic or not, I would hope there would never be an intentional reason to attempt that maneuver.

Maybe I'm misreading Justin M's comment, which is why I responded to him with "I don't understand."

Which you responded to instead.

But alas, that's the internet. :dunno:
 
Let's be reasonable about this. Right-of-Way should be determined by scores in Dance Dance Revolution.
 
Justin M said:
But did he have a reason to thump the 152 until the 152 turned base? If the 152 had extended the downwind, the twin wouldn’t have had a reason to be mad.
Click to expand...

ElPaso Pilot said:
I don't quite understand which side of the issue you are approaching this from... :dunno:
Click to expand...
I’m just saying at 10 miles out at 180 knots, the twin driver didn’t intend retaliation for disrespect in the pattern because he hadn’t been cut off yet.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Psychic or not, I would hope there would never be an intentional reason to attempt that maneuver.

Maybe I'm misreading Justin M's comment, which is why I responded to him with "I don't understand."

Which you responded to instead.

But alas, that's the internet. :dunno:
Click to expand...
That’s one of the reasons this fails the test as a “road rage” incident for me...his speed was excessive long before he knew anybody was going to turn in front of him.

Having just yesterday watched two professional pilots try to fly an approach at 300KIAS (I say “try” because their 5-mile turning radius put them almost perpendicular to the final approach course at the FAF), just being behind the airplane seems like a way more likely scenario.
 
Justin M said:
I’m just saying at 10 miles out at 180 knots, the twin driver didn’t intend retaliation for disrespect in the pattern because he hadn’t been cut off yet.
Click to expand...
That I understand, and I have seen these speeds at 10 miles out.

What I can't reconcile, is why 180 knots, no gear, and no flaps at 600'... unless he changed his mind about a hot-approach-and-drop-it-in when the 152 called base, and executed his late go-around.

Because there was no way he was landing on that particular runway.

But it's all conjecture at this point.
 
Salty said:
I guess I see it differently than you. I think there is already a solution to keep it from happening again, and frankly nothing short of this is going to prevent it. LOOK OUT THE FREAKING WINDOW AND DON'T FLY YOUR PLANE INTO ANOTHER PLANE!

Don't be lazy or impatient (both of these guys were). Don't put yourself in a position where you can't do the UPPERCASE above.
Click to expand...
A M E N

It’s just this simple.
 
Palmpilot said:
Making right-of-way depend on what people say on the radio would not address the situation where a plane on final has no operational radio or makes a mistake dialing in the frequency.
Click to expand...
Nothing addresses all situations.
 
I think a safe way to handle this is “always assume you do not have the right of way”.

For example, if I’m attempting a straight in, and I become aware of ANY traffic in the pattern, and there’s a hint of conflict, I’ll delay/do a 360/join pattern normally. I do not expect the guy in the pattern to give way to me, unless they say they’re extending downwind for me. I don’t “expect” that, it would be a “favor”

When I’m the guy in the pattern, generally the “rules” say that I have right away, but if someone is attempting a straight in, I’ll extend downwind for them every time just to “play nice”. It’s easier for me to extend downwind than make them do a 360 or fly out of their way to join the pattern.

Now, if you’re trying to do a straight in with 5-10 other planes in the pattern, you’re being stupid, but I’ll still extend downwind because when two planes end up in a smoking hole it doesn’t really matter who had “right of way”.
 
dans2992 said:
Now, if you’re trying to do a straight in with 5-10 other planes in the pattern, you’re being stupid, but I’ll still extend downwind because when two planes end up in a smoking hole it doesn’t really matter who had “right of way”.
Click to expand...
I disagree…if the airplane flying the straight-in is something wildly out of sync with what’s in the pattern, the straight-in is probably the safest option. Of course, that takes courtesy from at least some of the pilots in the pattern.

I can recall one instance of a jet coming into an airport with 20 airplanes and 3 gliders in the pattern (yes, we WERE all there at once.) there was no way he’d fit into the pattern, so we made space for him.
 
"Right of Way" is not an entitlement or privilege. It is a tool to make actions of converging aircraft more predictable. See and Avoid is more likely to succeed when all aircraft behave as expected. We all know that.

No set of rules covers all situations perfectly, but if well written they can cover most situations well enough. Too much ambiguity makes rules difficult to consistently follow, which creates dangerous situations.

This accident is an illustration of that, and the extended debate in this thread is proof. Better guidance from the FAA on deconfliction of straight in approaches with pattern traffic would help avoid ambiguity over which aircraft has ROW.

Defining Final Approach for VFR as "aligned with runway and below pattern altitude" would provide sufficient clarification. So would "aligned with runway and within 3 miles". Either would make ROW provision about not cutting in front of aircraft on final easier to apply, and help prevent accidents like this one.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Defining Final Approach for VFR as "aligned with runway and below pattern altitude" would provide sufficient clarification. So would "aligned with runway and within 3 miles". Either would make ROW provision about not cutting in front of aircraft on final easier to apply, and help prevent accidents like this one.
Click to expand...

The twin at Watsonville was three miles out about one minute before the collision, so he would have met that criterion.

He was probably below pattern altitude by the time of the collision, but I don't know how much before.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I disagree…if the airplane flying the straight-in is something wildly out of sync with what’s in the pattern, the straight-in is probably the safest option. Of course, that takes courtesy from at least some of the pilots in the pattern.

I can recall one instance of a jet coming into an airport with 20 airplanes and 3 gliders in the pattern (yes, we WERE all there at once.) there was no way he’d fit into the pattern, so we made space for him.
Click to expand...
Ok. That’s the exception, you are correct. I’ll bet you’ll get hate from the other aircraft in the pattern though, even though it’s the most logical thing for the jet to land straight in.
 
dans2992 said:
Ok. That’s the exception, you are correct. I’ll bet you’ll get hate from the other aircraft in the pattern though, even though it’s the most logical thing for the jet to land straight in.
Click to expand...
If I’m going to get hate for being safe and courteous, they’re not worth worrying about.
 
Salty said:
So, are you just going to put your head in the sand regarding aircraft with no radio that can perfectly legally land at the same airport as you?
Click to expand...
Huh? Oh yeah there is sand in my plane from the dunes. Chilax, no im going to avoid it by not turning toward final approach lane until I know where he she or them is. Then after we land buy pilot a beer and tell em to get a fking radio… we are not in the stone age rebel.
And if that does not work going to use the red light on your radioless plane.
Sry if you want a serious answer make a serious comment.
 
dans2992 said:
I think a safe way to handle this is “always assume you do not have the right of way”.

For example, if I’m attempting a straight in, and I become aware of ANY traffic in the pattern, and there’s a hint of conflict, I’ll delay/do a 360/join pattern normally. I do not expect the guy in the pattern to give way to me, unless they say they’re extending downwind for me. I don’t “expect” that, it would be a “favor”

When I’m the guy in the pattern, generally the “rules” say that I have right away, but if someone is attempting a straight in, I’ll extend downwind for them every time just to “play nice”. It’s easier for me to extend downwind than make them do a 360 or fly out of their way to join the pattern.

Now, if you’re trying to do a straight in with 5-10 other planes in the pattern, you’re being stupid, but I’ll still extend downwind because when two planes end up in a smoking hole it doesn’t really matter who had “right of way”.
Click to expand...

The only thing I would add is that if there are more than 4 or 5 in the pattern doing circuits and aircraft are coming in from elsewhere that's just not a good thing.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I disagree…if the airplane flying the straight-in is something wildly out of sync with what’s in the pattern, the straight-in is probably the safest option. Of course, that takes courtesy from at least some of the pilots in the pattern.

I can recall one instance of a jet coming into an airport with 20 airplanes and 3 gliders in the pattern (yes, we WERE all there at once.) there was no way he’d fit into the pattern, so we made space for him.
Click to expand...
I got *no* problem cutting some slack to someone who is flying a high-performance airplane that needs more consideration. No problem at all.

Of course, I have to *know* about it. We've had cases here in the PNW where bizjets and whatnot remain with Center during their approach and landing to an uncontrolled field. No one knows they're coming until someone spots an incoming blur.

Even more fun, they prefer to fly front-course localizer approaches. So, if the wind is in the wrong direction, they'll be landing opposite to the rest of the traffic. Without talking to us.

Of course, if a midair takes out a local Captain of Industry, the media will blame the "little Cessna".

Most of the straight-in cases in "normal" GA aircraft are 100% laziness. They don't want to take the three minutes to swing around and enter the pattern on the downwind.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Flying Doc said:
Huh? Oh yeah there is sand in my plane from the dunes. Chilax, no im going to avoid it by not turning toward final approach lane until I know where he she or them is. Then after we land buy pilot a beer and tell em to get a fking radio… we are not in the stone age rebel.
And if that does not work going to use the red light on your radioless plane.
Sry if you want a serious answer make a serious comment.
Click to expand...
Looks like head in the sand to me.
 
I never understood doing a 360 in the pattern at a non-towered field. Why not just widen the leg, or if on final you end up getting too close to the aircraft ahead of you (or if there is any other unanticipated conflict) just enter upwind and make the four squared cornered turns in the pattern? It's still 360 degrees of turning but in a less disruptive manner to the flow with better visibility as there are segments with wings level between the the four turns. Sure, it adds a little time and burns a little fuel, but compared to what? The rest of the flight?

They can work well in towered operations but can be chaotic at non-towered fields.
 
dbahn said:
I never understood doing a 360 in the pattern at a non-towered field. Why not just widen the leg, or if on final you end up getting too close to the aircraft ahead of you (or if there is any other unanticipated conflict) just enter upwind and make the four squared cornered turns in the pattern? It's still 360 degrees of turning but in a less disruptive manner to the flow with better visibility as there are segments with wings level between the the four turns. Sure, it adds a little time and burns a little fuel, but compared to what? The rest of the flight?

They can work well in towered operations but can be chaotic at non-towered fields.
Click to expand...
All this makes sense but what the final straw was … the Cessna turning base into evil knievel without knowing exactly where he was or how fast. The Twin pushed the dominos instead of entering pattern.
Seems like some that fly mostly towered develop certain habbits (including straight ins) and those that fly mostly at non towered airports assume everyone is in the pattern.
 
Flying Doc said:
Thanks for contributing with … nothing.
Click to expand...
I don’t really like it when pilots I might encounter ignore reality. There are planes without functional radios and there always will be. People will make mistakes on the radio even when they are functioning. You should not rely on the radio.
 
Flying Doc said:
Seems like some that fly mostly towered develop certain habbits (including straight ins) and those that fly mostly at non towered airports assume everyone is in the pattern.
Click to expand...
Maybe the towered flyers should stay away from non-towered fields for just that reason. They NEED a radio and so does everyone else.

The awareness skills that pilots develop at non-towered fields apply to both towered and non-towered fields. There is no corresponding opposite to that for pilots who fly mostly at towered fields.
 
This whole towered versus non-towered pilots thing is kind of dumb. It is much more challenging to find traffic in a busy towered environment than it is in a non-towered environment IMO. In towered instances, traffic is coming from every direction. Some travelling at 70 knots some moving well over 200 knots. You have to constantly watch out for others and on occasion take evasive action.

I generally find less traffic at non-towered airports, and entry to the area is much more predictable, it's easier. I use my radio, adsb and my eyes to find traffic. I don't understand where this concept that if you are talking on the radio you are not looking outside comes from. Apparently it's a super power that I (and most other pilots) possess. I regularly talk on the radio while looking for other traffic..... nothing bad happens! Really, it can be done.

The non-radioed guys, well, I wish they weren't so shy. The guys who complain about too much chatter on the radio? I'm with you for the people talking about lunch or catching up while other airplanes are trying to make calls. But the guys who complain about too many position calls? I've never heard that happen and I wish you wouldn't discourage others from thinking that's a thing.
 
dbahn said:
Maybe the towered flyers should stay away from non-towered fields for just that reason. They NEED a radio and so does everyone else.
Click to expand...
I'm based at a field that the closest uncontrolled airport to three different towered airports. They tend to flock to our field for touch-and-goes.

Hard to tell which, exactly, are from the towered fields (they stopped the ear tags years ago :)) but I find two general characteristics.

The first is a Mother-May-I attitude, where they feel they have to announce everything. I don't *need* to know that you're taxiing from the gas pumps to the runup area. The airport surface is flat and unobstructed, can see from one end to another.

The other is Look-At-Me-I'm-ATC; where some feel they can do anything they want, as long as they announce it on the radio.

Classic example was back when I was flying NORDO. Was on final behind another plane, when they apparently decided they were too close to the plane in front of THEM. Rather than going around, they opted to do a 360 on final. Didn't know I was back there. Gave them a cheery wave as they passed about a quarter mile away, flying in the opposite direction. No doubt they thought it was my fault.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Define "final"? Quarter mile? Half mile? Ten miles? If someone calls in on a twenty-mile straight-in, does all other traffic yield to them?
Click to expand...
100% Agree.

If “Final” was as blatantly obvious as some of the posters want to think then the majority of this discussion would have been moot and abbreviated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top