KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

Tarheelpilot said:
As you should.


There is no such thing as the best way to enter a pattern. There is only a best way for each scenario. Sometimes the best way is a straight in approach and this is true for every aircraft type.
Click to expand...
I do the vast majority of flights from my home airport, a Class D under a bravo shelf, next to another delta surface area (we only use the pattern to the east because the space to the west is controlled by another airport). I ALWAYS look at final as I'm flying downwind, base, and before taxiing onto the runway to take off.

I appreciate what our controllers are doing, and find flying in our controlled airspace less stressful than pilot controlled fields (which I fly to regularly, but I avoid some, like AWO, like the plague).
 
MIFlyer said:
I do the vast majority of flights from my home airport, a Class D under a bravo shelf, next to another delta surface area (we only use the pattern to the east because the space to the west is controlled by another airport). I ALWAYS look at final as I'm flying downwind, base, and before taxiing onto the runway to take off.

I appreciate what our controllers are doing, and find flying in our controlled airspace less stressful than pilot controlled fields (which I fly to regularly, but I avoid some, like AWO, like the plague).
Click to expand...
Personally, I think "pilot controlled" fields are a myth.
 
MIFlyer said:
I ... find flying in our controlled airspace less stressful than pilot controlled fields.
Click to expand...
I'm exactly the opposite. Totally comfortable in a crowded pattern, but terrified of talking to a controller. I think it has to do with how my brain processes things, spatially instead of verbally. I HATE drive thru windows and will always park and walk in.
 
Palmpilot said:
Personally, I think "pilot controlled" fields are a myth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I'm glad they changed the designation to "non-towered" airports, which is a more accurate description.

A "pilot controlled" field is one where the controller happens to be a pilot. ;)
 
dbahn said:
Yeah, and I'm glad they changed the designation to "non-towered" airports, which is a more accurate description.

A "pilot controlled" field is one where the controller happens to be a pilot. ;)
Click to expand...
I hated even that non towered thang. Good ol' uncontrolled airport was just fine as it had been for just about ever. I started calling them non towered in my posts. I'm going back to uncontrolled.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I'm exactly the opposite. Totally comfortable in a crowded pattern, but terrified of talking to a controller. I think it has to do with how my brain processes things, spatially instead of verbally. I HATE drive thru windows and will always park and walk in.
Click to expand...

Its the law of primacy. Whatever you learned to do first, is what will be more comfortable to you later.

If you learned at a controlled field, you are accustomed to having someone telling you what to do, and keeping an eye on you. You almost feel naked without it.

If you learned at an uncontrolled field, you are used to working alone, coordinating with the others. A controlled field you are afraid someone is watching, and you'll screw up.
 
Palmpilot said:
One thing that worries me is the number of people who sound like they believe that traffic in the pattern has the right-of-way over traffic on final if the traffic on final got there via a straight-in-approach. That seems to me to be a dangerous belief, considering the wording of both Section 11.11 of AC 90-66B and 14 CFR 91.113(g). On the other hand, that which is legal is not always safe. No matter which side of the right-of-way argument you are on, no one should take it for granted that the other aircraft will yield, and everyone should keep their head on a swivel, be ready to take evasive action if needed, and quickly and concisely communicate in which direction they are deviating.
Click to expand...

Are you reading the same doc as you quoted???
AC 90-66B goes into great detail in 9.5 and 9.6 that pilots not flying the standard pattern should "so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft", "avoid interrupting the flow of traffic", and "should bear in mind they do not have priority over other VFR traffic". This clearly indicates that those landing contrary to the 'standard pattern' are subordinate to those in the standard pattern.
14 CFR 91.113(g) indicates that the lower aircraft has priority. Some jerk calling a final from way outside the pattern is usually higher than someone on base.

Just be reasonable, if you are on a 10, or even 5 mile final, do you really think you are actually on 'final' for the meaning of 14 CFR 91.113(g). Class-D is normally only 4NM. Do you think a guy 20 out at 3000' should have priority over the guy on downwind at 800' just because he says he calls out a 20 mile FINAL'????
 
thito01 said:
Are you reading the same doc as you quoted???
AC 90-66B goes into great detail in 9.5 and 9.6 that pilots not flying the standard pattern should "so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft", "avoid interrupting the flow of traffic", and "should bear in mind they do not have priority over other VFR traffic". This clearly indicates that those landing contrary to the 'standard pattern' are subordinate to those in the standard pattern.
14 CFR 91.113(g) indicates that the lower aircraft has priority. Some jerk calling a final from way outside the pattern is usually higher than someone on base.

Just be reasonable, if you are on a 10, or even 5 mile final, do you really think you are actually on 'final' for the meaning of 14 CFR 91.113(g). Class-D is normally only 4NM. Do you think a guy 20 out at 3000' should have priority over the guy on downwind at 800' just because he says he calls out a 20 mile FINAL'????
Click to expand...

There's one fly in that ointment. AC 90-66B is advisory and uses the word "should" in describing the pilot actions. FAR 91.113 is regulatory, not advisory, and uses the word "shall" in describing pilot actions, and in particular uses it in describing what the aircraft at the lower altitude shall NOT do with respect to the aircraft on final. There are many advisory circulars detailing recommended actions, which when not followed do not result in violations. When regulations are not followed, certificate action is an option for the FAA. It's an important distinction.

91.113 (g) Landing
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, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. 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.
Click to expand...

The guy on final can't exercise his ROW if he's on a 20 mile final. It's only relevant when he's close enough to present a hazard to other landing aircraft, but when that happens the other aircraft have to avoid him.

I agree 100% with the part about being reasonable - and courteous, but when push comes to shove you still have to obey the regs.
 
thito01 said:
Are you reading the same doc as you quoted???
AC 90-66B goes into great detail in 9.5 and 9.6 that pilots not flying the standard pattern should "so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft", "avoid interrupting the flow of traffic", and "should bear in mind they do not have priority over other VFR traffic". This clearly indicates that those landing contrary to the 'standard pattern' are subordinate to those in the standard pattern.
Click to expand...

The difficulty is that people are reading 9.5 and 9.6 and assuming that those paragraphs determine who has the right-of-way, while 11.11 of that same AC explicitly states that right-of-way is determined by 91.113.

14 CFR 91.113(g) indicates that the lower aircraft has priority.
Click to expand...

And that very same sentence goes on to say "...but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land..."

Some jerk calling a final from way outside the pattern is usually higher than someone on base.
Click to expand...

See above. Also, saying you're on final is not what gives you the right-of-way. Being on final is.

Just be reasonable, if you are on a 10, or even 5 mile final, do you really think you are actually on 'final' for the meaning of 14 CFR 91.113(g). Class-D is normally only 4NM. Do you think a guy 20 out at 3000' should have priority over the guy on downwind at 800' just because he says he calls out a 20 mile FINAL'????
Click to expand...

The Pilot/Controller Glossary defines Final Approach Course "without regard to distance." The only place that distance comes into it is in determining whether the aircraft turning final is close enough to the one that is already on final to be considered cutting in front of it.

I support being reasonable, and I've said many times that assuming others will yield can have fatal consequences, but ignoring relevant portions of the publications can lead to dangerous misconceptions about who has the right-of-way.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Correct because the specific, 91.113(g), takes precedence over the general, 91.113(d). If it didn't, then an airplane on right base would indeed have right of way over an airplane on final.

Except that 91.113(d), which gives gliders right of way over airplanes and others when converging (except head-on, or nearly so) doesn't apply when approaching to land (see above).
:sosp:
Click to expand...

I just noticed this in AC 90-66B:

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. [Emphasis added]​

I recognize that an AC is not regulatory, but this at least tells us that the FAA is likely to interpret the right-of-way rules between categories as applying "throughout the traffic pattern."
 
thito01 said:
I remember when AC 90-66B was published. One of the main reasons it was published was because "jerks on final" were using the fact that they were on a long "final" to take priority and bust into a bunch of aircraft in the pattern. It was intended to remove the 'loophole' that was created by 14 CFR 91.113(g). It was even reported as such by the aviation press at the time:
https://generalaviationnews.com/2018/05/07/new-advisory-standardizes-non-towered-flight-operations/
Click to expand...

The intent was admirable, but the implementation was advisable only. Personally, I would favor a published stall speed threshold, or something similar, that allowed planes that must fly fast the option of a straight in but prohibit planes that can fly slowly from entering the pattern on a final. If a certain make and model has a published power off stall speed of xx knots, they would be required to enter upwind, crosswind or downwind only, whenever approaching to land.
 
thito01 said:
I remember when AC 90-66B was published. One of the main reasons it was published was because "jerks on final" were using the fact that they were on a long "final" to take priority and bust into a bunch of aircraft in the pattern. It was intended to remove the 'loophole' that was created by 14 CFR 91.113(g). It was even reported as such by the aviation press at the time:
https://generalaviationnews.com/2018/05/07/new-advisory-standardizes-non-towered-flight-operations/
Click to expand...
From the article: "It makes clear that airplanes terminating an instrument procedure with a straight-in approach do not have the right of way over VFR traffic in the pattern, said Boll." I notice that he is "a member of the NBAA Access Committee," i.e., not an FAA employee.

If that was indeed the intention of the FAA, then they botched it, because other than practice instrument approaches in VFR conditions, the portions of AC 90-66B that mention straight-ins do not specify who has the right-of-way. Even if they did, the latest revision, which is Editorial Update AC 90-66B Chg 1, added this to Paragraph 1: "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." Meanwhile, in Paragraph 11.11, the AC still says:

"Throughout the traffic pattern, right-of-way rules apply as stated in § 91.113".​

And 91.113 has not been amended since 2004.
 
dbahn said:
There's one fly in that ointment. AC 90-66B is advisory and uses the word "should" in describing the pilot actions. FAR 91.113 is regulatory, not advisory, and uses the word "shall" in describing pilot actions, and in particular uses it in describing what the aircraft at the lower altitude shall NOT do with respect to the aircraft on final.
Click to expand...

The word "shall" is meaningless without a definition of what shall or shall not be done. So where is the regulatory definition of "final approach to land"?

Final Approach for IFR is defined by the FAA as "The flight path of an aircraft which is inbound to an airport on a final instrument approach course, beginning at the final approach fix or point and extending to the airport or the point where a circle-to-land maneuver or a missed approach is executed."

Some seem to think that the VFR definition is "lined up on runway heading and declared on final". But where is that stated?
 
Palmpilot said:
The Pilot/Controller Glossary defines Final Approach Course "without regard to distance." The only place that distance comes into it is in determining whether the aircraft turning final is close enough to the one that is already on final to be considered cutting in front of it.
Click to expand...

Final Approach Course does not mean Final Approach. Two different things.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Some seem to think that the VFR definition is "lined up on runway heading and declared on final". But where is that stated?
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter when there's a lot of distance between the aircraft. It only matters when they are converging. And "calling" anything can't be the determination, because some aircraft don't have radios, but they still need to adhere to ROW regulations.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Final Approach Course does not mean Final Approach. Two different things.
Click to expand...
The P/CG definition for Final references the definition of Final Approach Course.

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.)​

If you can find an FAA definition of Final Approach, with a distance limit, I'll be happy to see it. Until then, the questions about how far out you can be and still be on final approach don't really settle anything.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
The P/CG definition for Final references the definition of Final Approach Course.

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.)​

If you can find an FAA definition of Final Approach, with a distance limit, I'll be happy to see it. Until then, the questions about how far out you can be and still be on final approach don't really settle anything.
Click to expand...

It is not a distance limit, it is a fix or event. Per the P/CG:

FINAL APPROACH [ICAO]− That part of an instrument approach procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or point, or where such a fix or point is not specified. a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified; or b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an aerodrome from which: 1. A landing can be made; or 2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.​

FINAL APPROACH-IFR− The flight path of an aircraft which is inbound to an airport on a final instrument approach course, beginning at the final approach fix or point and extending to the airport or the point where a circle-to-land maneuver or a missed approach is executed.​


The third word in the term FINAL APPROACH COURSE has a meaning:

COURSE− a. The intended direction of flight in the horizontal plane measured in degrees from north.
​
So the FINAL APPROACH COURSE just describes your directional status. It says nothing about whether you are on "final approach for landing".

​
 
Good gravy. Is there ANY rule in aviation that is hard and fast?
 
...and it will cost you much more than you thought.
 
Ed Haywood said:
It is not a distance limit, it is a fix or event. Per the P/CG:

FINAL APPROACH [ICAO]− That part of an instrument approach procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or point, or where such a fix or point is not specified. a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified; or b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an aerodrome from which: 1. A landing can be made; or 2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.​

FINAL APPROACH-IFR− The flight path of an aircraft which is inbound to an airport on a final instrument approach course, beginning at the final approach fix or point and extending to the airport or the point where a circle-to-land maneuver or a missed approach is executed.​
Click to expand...

What do you do for runways that don't have a straight-in approach published, like the one that was in use at WVI at the time of the accident?

The third word in the term FINAL APPROACH COURSE has a meaning:

COURSE− a. The intended direction of flight in the horizontal plane measured in degrees from north.
​
So the FINAL APPROACH COURSE just describes your directional status. It says nothing about whether you are on "final approach for landing".
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's valid to apply the definition of "course" in isolation from the words "final approach." Would you say that an aircraft that was flying the specified direction, but offset by ten miles, was on the final approach course?

Using the definitions you quoted, I guess it's possible to be on the final approach course without being on final approach. Trouble is, non-IFR pilots wouldn't know when they have the right-of-way and when they don't. And that would also be true for IFR pilots who didn't have the specified fixes memorized for all the instrument approaches to that runway.

Another problem with the "how far out does final approach extend" question is that even if the FAA were to come up with a specific distance that would apply for right-of-way purposes, as soon as the aircraft reaches the specified distance, it's on final. I don't think that's going to satisfy the people who want traffic already in the pattern to have the right-of-way.
 
This discussion and accident have taught me quite a bit. That 20 pilots discussing the same topic each have their own interpretation of rules and FAA suggestions and their own method of landing. That is scary and the fact that we dont have a unified method is why this happened. Some criticized the new pilot some the twin pilot. Heck if we cant even agree after the fact how is the low hour pilot to even stand a chance in adversity near a untowered, pilotuncontrolled, classless, ugh you know the place with a runway that all talk and no one listens.
 
Flying Doc said:
This discussion and accident have taught me quite a bit. That 20 pilots discussing the same topic each have their own interpretation of rules and FAA suggestions and their own method of landing. That is scary and the fact that we dont have a unified method is why this happened. Some criticized the new pilot some the twin pilot. Heck if we cant even agree after the fact how is the low hour pilot to even stand a chance in adversity near a untowered, pilotuncontrolled, classless, ugh you know the place with a runway that all talk and no one listens.
Click to expand...
Don’t be “no one”…Listen. And look out the window.
 
I suppose we can all agree that the FAA needs to re-write the FAR’s and have a definitive word on straight in finals and traffic patterns. Short of an emergency order, I’m not holding my breath for a NPRM process in the next years. So time to move on to another subject. We’ve beat this one down to a stand-off. I’m in the traffic pattern rules crowd. Otherwise anarchy rules.
 
Here's why I think the lesson is about communication and not right of way.

Just a few days ago I was returning to our home base with a trainee. Busy traffic pattern as usual. Someone calls in right downwind. It's left traffic so I key the mic. "Did someone report right downwind?" Then "right base." I asked again. Was promptly told to shut the F up since they needed to land "now" but didn't want to say it was an emergency or inform the pattern about the need to get down in any way.

Only a few minutes later, an approach to the pattern by another airplane. Call indicated that they were concerned about a sputtering engine. They pulled up into a wide downwind parallel to us and we, of course, told them we were slowing to give them priority.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Add:
7. The speed, complexity or cost of an airplane is not an indicator of the pilots experience. Sometime wealthy inexperienced pilots fly very fast airplanes.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of a saying of that stuck with me about many players who play football in the NFL. It's called the NFL
because you're lucky to get a chance to play but it's probably Not For Long!

So an inexperienced pilot whose flying something that's over his head probably won't be doing flying
for long either. At least with light jets they need to pass a type rating - so that weeds out a lot.
 
Wonder what the rules are in Italy. Skip forward to the 0:40 mark.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top