KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

Fearless Tower said:
I don’t know about equally, but both pilots had a responsibility to avoid.

The 152 turned base knowing that the 340 was on a 3 mile final. That was a fatal mistake.

The 340 was being an idiot trying to force the straight in while ignoring everyone else in the pattern, but had I been in the 152, there is no way I would have turned (or remained) on base knowing there was a 340 on a 3 mile final.
Click to expand...
I like how you can say the obvious without being an *******. I don’t have that skill set.
 
175kts over the threshold? Almost like he was planning on a high speed, low pass with an overhead break.

His prior (straight in) approach into that runway he was almost 100kts slower.
 
Sounds right about the low pass. The last ADS-B hit was 129 knots right before he went into the hangar.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don’t know about equally, but both pilots had a responsibility to avoid.

The 152 turned base knowing that the 340 was on a 3 mile final. That was a fatal mistake.

The 340 was being an idiot trying to force the straight in while ignoring everyone else in the pattern, but had I been in the 152, there is no way I would have turned (or remained) on base knowing there was a 340 on a 3 mile final.
Click to expand...
I'd give a twin a wide berth, but I'm not sure if it was clear the 152 knew it was a twin. I'd also figure If I'm a mile out and two miles ahead of another landing prop plane, I've got room. There's no legitimate reason for a piston aircraft to be going 150+ on a 3 mile final with multiple aircraft in the pattern. Perhaps the 152 has some responsibility. But, there is no doubt the twin holds the lions share. He has the best visibility and had no reason to be going that fast. How do you plow into a 152 when you've been on final for 10 miles and blame the 152? Sorry, but that's BS.
 
I just skimmed through, seems the twin has a higher share of the blame, majority. One thing I’m always a fan of, that’s tuning the frequency early & get a feel for traffic. With light winds, could be a different runway than planned.

If the traffic is light, I may slip straight in, though not with conflicting traffic. If traffic is a near zero, I may want to overfly anyway to look over the runway before landing.
 
Clip4 said:
situational awareness. The 152 pilot misunderstood the approach speed of the aircraft on final, even it the aircraft was using the proper approach speed of 90 knots the 152 pilot should not have turned in front of the faster traffic on final. A simple break out was in order for the 152 because the scenario was unsafe.
You can argue the 152 had the right of way if you want, but he was dead right.

Likewise the other aircraft should have turned right to join the upwind and avoid the 152 instead of continuing the approach behind a much slower aircraft he didn’t see.
Click to expand...
Assuming a more typical approach speed for the twin, turning final more than two miles ahead of them certainly wouldn't be an issue. Even if it was a boorish move, the twin wasn't listening. Oh, the radio was on, and sound was going into his ears, but stopping right there.
 
Kristin said:
This is all on the C-340. His estate will be in litigation soon.
Click to expand...
So the reg that says you can't cut in front of an aircraft on final doesn't count?

The C-340 should have broken off as soon as he realized that there was a plane on base and should have climbed and entered an upwind and synched in with existing traffic, to include dropping out of warp. 1/4 impulse should have been adequate.
Click to expand...

In the interest of the survival of all concerned, I agree. And the 152 should have yielded to the traffic on final, for the same reason.
 
Isn’t VLE in the 340 140kias? There’s no way he could have been safely configured to land. I’m thinking this had to be a setup for a low pass.
 
Palmpilot said:
So the reg that says you can't cut in front of an aircraft on final doesn't count?



In the interest of the survival of all concerned, I agree. And the 152 should have yielded to the traffic on final, for the same reason.
Click to expand...
At what point is it "cutting in front"? Three miles, not so much.
 
A few things here, I think the twin knew the pattern was busy and came in hot to try to sneak ahead of the 150. I also think that was a terrible plan. I'm guessing the 150 was a student, or a low hour pilot. He did a stupid thing turning in front of the twin. He announced the base turn after the twin called 3 miles IIRC. Then it sounds like the 150 turned final but didn't call the turn which pretty much sealed his fate IMO.

I fly straight ins when it makes sense. For me that is when the pattern is empty, or there might be one plane that will not be a conflict. If more than that I will maneuver for a traditional entry.

These two guys were doing the bare minimum to avoid each other. They were making calls, but that was it. In this situation I would have talked to the other pilot. The guy in the 150 could have said " Hey twin on final, I'm ready to turn left base here, where are you?" The twin would probably have responded, " please don't do that, I'm fast and we'll conflict." The 150 could have said "OK, I'll extend another mile" Which would have been more than enough for this to work.

My point is a quick conversation up front would made this a non issue from the beginning. Just making calls here isn't enough. Talk to the other pilot. RIP
 
Flying Keys said:
Isn’t VLE in the 340 140kias? There’s no way he could have been safely configured to land. I’m thinking this had to be a setup for a low pass.
Click to expand...

The twin called 3 miles, landing, full stop. Whether that would have happened, who knows.
 
Lon Stratton said:
Sounds right about the low pass. The last ADS-B hit was 129 knots right before he went into the hangar.
Click to expand...

He was doing 180 over the ground (with a 9 knot headwind) on a quarter mile final where the collision occurred. Every ADS-B hit after that is post-collision.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
At what point is it "cutting in front"? Three miles, not so much.
Click to expand...

This. Define “final.” At 3 miles per minute, that’s a lot of ask for most pattern-burners, especially if there was no further communication of intent to do anything but a normal landing, which I maintain was not what he was configured to do.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
At what point is it "cutting in front"? Three miles, not so much.
Click to expand...
I dunno bout that. I don’t think I’d likely do it by just reporting turning base. I’d have an actual conversation with the straight in guy about it first. Specially if I was in something as slow as C150.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
At what point is it "cutting in front"? Three miles, not so much.
Click to expand...
At a point that results in the traffic on final needing to take evasive action, I would think. Certainly at a point that results in an accident, no?

Personally, I extend my downwind if I'm in doubt about whether there's enough room.
 
Palmpilot said:
So the reg that says you can't cut in front of an aircraft on final doesn't count?

In the interest of the survival of all concerned, I agree. And the 152 should have yielded to the traffic on final, for the same reason.
Click to expand...
Here's the actual rule:
§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(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...

In my opinion, when you read "cut in front of" - that means to squeeze in where it causes a problem. Under normal circumstances it would be entirely reasonable for the Cessna 152 to continue base to landing if the twin had been at more "normal" speeds 3 miles out... towers sequence folks all the time like that. Also, this is why your call signs need to be accurately descriptive. If you tell a low-time student, or low time private pilot in a Cessna 152 that there's another Cessna 3 miles out, they may think that they have plenty of time, when in fact I've actually heard Citation pilots also use the call "Cessna" which is a much different approach speed.

If we want to go with the strict interpretation of not cutting in front of an aircraft on final, then any time I call a 6 mile final, all the other traffic needs to extend their downwinds 3-4 miles while I drone in in my Luscombe... which is not a reasonable interpretation of the intent of that rule.
 
Just based on what I know so far, I’m thinking that just going around isn’t always the best idea in situations like this. You still have a faster plane up the tail pipe of a slower one situation. Go around left/right side. Or just break out. A left/right 45 or 90 or something. I wouldn’t stay on the extended centerline of the runway and I would communicate clearly what I was doing.
 
Flying Keys said:
Define “final.”
Click to expand...

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.)
(See FINAL APPROACH-IFR.)
(See SEGMENTS OF AN INSTRUMENT
APPROACH PROCEDURE.)​

At 3 miles per minute, that’s a lot of ask for most pattern-burners, especially if there was no further communication of intent to do anything but a normal landing, which I maintain was not what he was configured to do.
Click to expand...

"Careless or reckless," maybe. :dunno:
 
PaulS said:
A few things here, I think the twin knew the pattern was busy and came in hot to try to sneak ahead of the 150. I also think that was a terrible plan. I'm guessing the 150 was a student, or a low hour pilot. He did a stupid thing turning in front of the twin. He announced the base turn after the twin called 3 miles IIRC. Then it sounds like the 150 turned final but didn't call the turn which pretty much sealed his fate IMO.

I fly straight ins when it makes sense. For me that is when the pattern is empty, or there might be one plane that will not be a conflict. If more than that I will maneuver for a traditional entry.

These two guys were doing the bare minimum to avoid each other. They were making calls, but that was it. In this situation I would have talked to the other pilot. The guy in the 150 could have said " Hey twin on final, I'm ready to turn left base here, where are you?" The twin would probably have responded, " please don't do that, I'm fast and we'll conflict." The 150 could have said "OK, I'll extend another mile" Which would have been more than enough for this to work.

My point is a quick conversation up front would made this a non issue from the beginning. Just making calls here isn't enough. Talk to the other pilot. RIP
Click to expand...
Yup. Ya gotsta chat with each other about things.
 
RyanShort1 said:
If we want to go with the strict interpretation of not cutting in front of an aircraft on final, then any time I call a 6 mile final, all the other traffic needs to extend their downwinds 3-4 miles while I drone in in my Luscombe... which is not a reasonable interpretation of the intent of that rule.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider it cutting in front if it wasn't close enough to create a hazard. I have no idea how an ALJ would rule on it. All I know is, if I'm the one on downwind, I extend if I'm in doubt. And if I'm the one on a straight-in, I make sure I'm ready to go around if needed, even if I'm on an instrument approach.
 
I know the rules are a little different at the landing phase, but at any other time the overtaking aircraft has responsibility to avoid the aircraft being overtaken. He rear-ended the slower flying aircraft at nearly double the speed. If he was looking out the windshield he should have been able to see the other aircraft.
 
Palmpilot said:
I wouldn't consider it cutting in front if it wasn't close enough to create a hazard. I have no idea how an ALJ would rule on it. All I know is, if I'm the one on downwind, I extend if I'm in doubt. And if I'm the one on a straight-in, I make sure I'm ready to go around if needed, even if I'm on an instrument approach.
Click to expand...
That's what I teach my students - they need to know what kind of aircraft is on final and be able to make a judgment on whether or not they would cut that aircraft off, or cause them an issue continuing their approach. If that's likely, you've got to extend. If they can continue at normal speeds and you can land and get off the runway, that's not cutting.
The real issue / frustration is when you have multiple aircraft in the pattern, and extending, or doing ANY other maneuver may cause separation issues. Case in point, you're in a Cub, doing 70 MPH on downwind, tucked in a tighter pattern, you have a Cessna 172 bearing down behind you, and a Bonanza breathing down everyone's neck from behind and a bit wider - you're not sure if he even sees you, and as you are about to call base in the Cub, a Pilatus PC-12 calls a 3 mile final. Been there done that back in the day - not great. You can't really break out to the right, turning left is turning base, the guy behind you is going to be working hard at slow flight in the pattern, and the Bonanza driver might just be a concern. Oh, and add in someone doing a midfield crossover!
 
Were I going to try and land in front of another aircraft on a distant final approach (and I have) it would only be after positive 2-way communication to make certain there was no collision risk. No way would I turn in front of an approaching aircraft without.

I think that twin was headed for an accident on way or another if he was really coming in to land. What's the gear speed on one of those?
 
Palmpilot said:
So the reg that says you can't cut in front of an aircraft on final doesn't count? In the interest of the survival of all concerned, I agree. And the 152 should have yielded to the traffic on final, for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Flying Keys said:
Isn’t VLE in the 340 140kias? There’s no way he could have been safely configured to land. I’m thinking this had to be a setup for a low pass.
Click to expand...

Kenny Phillips said:
At what point is it "cutting in front"? Three miles, not so much.
Click to expand...

The pattern discussion is interesting. When a pattern is relatively full, don't approaching aircraft have an obligation to conform to the pattern? Seems pretty basic. Slow traffic and Landing traffic always have right away. Full-stop.

On an uncontrolled field, isn't it more prudent and safe when everyone takes their place in line and flys in a predictable manner?

3 miles out isn't "on final" unless you're a 757.
 
Last edited:
NordicDave said:
The pattern discussion is interesting. When a pattern is relatively full, don't approaching aircraft have an obligation to conform to the pattern? Seems pretty basic. Slow traffic and Landing traffic always have right away. Full-stop.

3 miles out isn't "on final" unless you're a 757.
Click to expand...
Approaching jets are airplanes, too.
 
NordicDave said:
....When a pattern is relatively full, don't approaching aircraft have an obligation to conform to the pattern? Seems pretty basic. Slow traffic and Landing traffic always have right away. Full-stop....
Click to expand...

huh?!?? slow traffic has right of way? news to me....
 
eman1200 said:
huh?!?? slow traffic has right of way? news to me....
Click to expand...
91.113 (f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.
That wouldn’t give a slow plane the right to cut in front and ‘create’ the overtake of course. But once the overtake is there, the overtakor has an obligation to not smack into the overtakee
 
luvflyin said:
91.113 (f) ...That wouldn’t give a slow plane the right to cut in front and ‘create’ the overtake of course. But once the overtake is there, the overtakor has an obligation to not smack into the overtakee
Click to expand...

yeah, that was kinda my point
 
As the pilot of a dead-slow homebuilt, I'm always concerned with getting run up from behind by straight-in traffic. One issue is mistrust in the case of "three mile final" calls...it it*really* three miles? I usually fly tight patterns (turn base ~1/4-1/3 mile out) and a normal aircraft three miles out would be well behind me.

Ron Wanttaja
 
luvflyin said:
Gotcha. I know how how stressful it must be for Mooney driver to always have to be worrying about all those slow planes out there:devil::stirpot::popcorn::goofy:
Click to expand...
Every time I do a Young Eagles flight I worry about smacking into the back of a Skyhawk.
 
wanttaja said:
As the pilot of a dead-slow homebuilt, I'm always concerned with getting run up from behind by straight-in traffic. One issue is mistrust in the case of "three mile final" calls...it it*really* three miles? I usually fly tight patterns (turn base ~1/4-1/3 mile out) and a normal aircraft three miles out would be well behind me.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

hhmm, I tried quoting you but looks like you edited out the portion I wanted to quote......when the slow plane was on downwind and the extra stupidly fast plane was on final, the slow plane did not have right of way.
 
eman1200 said:
when the slow plane was on downwind and the extra stupidly fast plane was on final, the slow plane did not have right of way.
Click to expand...

Right, but when the slow plane was crosswind in the pattern, prior to the fast plane showing up, he certainly had the right of way.

So at what point did he lose that right of way?

The twin was barging into a full pattern.
 
donjohnston said:
An interesting video with audio.

Click to expand...

wow...

This accident could have been avoided so many ways.

The 152 could have extended, knowing there was an aircraft on final. Granted, I don't know the pilot of the 152s experience level. Was this a solo student pilot? Might have misjudged how far away, and especially how fast the 340 was going.

The 340 pilot could have slowed down. Could have made traffic calls sooner. Could have recognized the conflict between the base traffic and himself and made some type of attempt to avoid. Even if you have the right of way, you can be dead right! Logic would assume the 340 pilot had a little more experience. He did not even acknowledge the other aircraft's go around to attempt to avoid him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top