KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

francisco collazos said:
True but I still haven't gotten my PPL yet (end of the month I hope) and I have learned a lot from these discussions. Next time i'm in the pattern turning crosswind to downwind and someone calls a 5 mi final, I am sure as hell going to pay attention and think through my options. Of course it's not just me, it's me, my wife, my two kids, my mom, my 3 dogs, and my 1 cat. Oh and my sister, my boss my girlfriend, my best friend..etc
Click to expand...

You best not forget to do a weight and balance or you may not ever see the pattern :) ;)
 
Regarding the KWVI mid-air, the NTSB sent this letter to the airport manager regarding placement of posters reinforcing pattern safety.
 

Attachments

  • 11821CF8-ACF0-4C63-8C07-CBC5C1488CAF.jpeg
    11821CF8-ACF0-4C63-8C07-CBC5C1488CAF.jpeg
    226.7 KB · Views: 89
  • 708A5610-6C81-4532-806F-2F58B11F0B23.jpeg
    708A5610-6C81-4532-806F-2F58B11F0B23.jpeg
    283.2 KB · Views: 88
I don’t think it has to be hard & fast either way, like a lot of things, it depends on the particulars.

Why should that airport manager make up a poster? Maybe the FAA should make the poster they like, that reflects the AIM, then distribute it?
 
sourdough44 said:
Why should that airport manager make up a poster? Maybe the FAA should make the poster they like, that reflects the AIM, then distribute it?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the NTSB (not FAA) can only make suggestions. Thus this suggestion.
 
An unfortunate side effect of the suggested poster is that it may reinforce the misconception that aircraft in the pattern have the right-of-way over aircraft on final if the latter got on final via a straight-in approach.
 
Palmpilot said:
An unfortunate side effect of the suggested poster is that it may reinforce the misconception that aircraft in the pattern have the right-of-way over aircraft on final if the latter got on final via a straight-in approach.
Click to expand...
May I suggest the AIM would trump the regulation unless the pilot in the pattern intentionally or negligently cuts off someone on final. We'll see where the blame falls in this one, but I hope totally on the 340.
 
dtuuri said:
May I suggest the AIM would trump the regulation unless the pilot in the pattern intentionally or negligently cuts off someone on final. We'll see where the blame falls in this one, but I hope totally on the 340.
Click to expand...
From a legal point of view, I don't see how the AIM can trump a regulation. Of course we all know that what is legal is not always safe, and if nothing else, the fact that there is so much disagreement on this subject tells us that assuming that the other pilot will yield is not wise. Both pilots are equally dead.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Simple, the FAA can choose who they violate. "Careless or reckless" or "cutting off someone on final".
Click to expand...
Other than the pilots being dead, there's nothing to stop the FAA from violating both of them.
 
Palmpilot said:
Other than the pilots being dead, there's nothing to stop the FAA from violating both of them.
Click to expand...

But what if neither is dead and the twin was just forced to go around? The twin pilot complains to the FSDO and the testimony and the flight paths confirm that the C152 pilot cut in front of the twin and forced him to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
 
dbahn said:
But what if neither is dead and the twin was just forced to go around? The twin pilot complains to the FSDO and the testimony and the flight paths confirm that the C152 pilot cut in front of the twin and forced him to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
Click to expand...
No grounds for complaining, it's "see and avoid" in VMC.
 
dbahn said:
But what if neither is dead and the twin was just forced to go around? The twin pilot complains to the FSDO and the testimony and the flight paths confirm that the C152 pilot cut in front of the twin and forced him to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
Click to expand...
The 152 pilot violated 91.113(g). 91.13 is a little vague, so it's hard to predict whether the FAA would have found the twin pilot guilty of a violation.
 
dtuuri said:
No grounds for complaining, it's "see and avoid" in VMC.
Click to expand...
But "see and avoid" reverts to right of way in conflict resolution. It goes back to ships where one has to stay the course and the other has to yield so that they don't both maneuver right back into each other. There's always the possibility that in this kind of encounter that one pilot never sees the other, in which case obviously the one with the ROW needs to yield to the one violating it. It's sad in this particular situation that they were both in radio contact and still couldn't resolve a conflict.
 
I was just reviewing the thread, and this photo from post #740 sure tells a story. If only the twin had started the evasive action a little sooner, or had descended a little lower before starting the turn. :(

upload_2022-9-15_17-36-17-png.110547
 
All I'm saying is the FAA can pick and choose what they want to punish or not. Here, they can (or the NTSB can) make a statement about straight-in maniacs if they choose to. The 340 was extremely reckless in my opinion and should have slowed down, side-stepped to the right and taken it around. BTDT. Also, BT&NDT and learned how hard it is to spot a plane on base sometimes, even with four eyes looking, especially at a high IAS.
 
No question that either one of them could have done things differently and this wouldn't even have been a close call. There's no excuse for the twin pilot's behavior, which was blatantly poor airmanship.

But personally, I consider it careless and reckless to cut in front of someone on final. I think that it's actually more careless than it is reckless, because some pilots don't even look at the final approach course while they're on base, and some don't bother to look because they think they have the right of way.
 
dtuuri said:
All I'm saying is the FAA can pick and choose what they want to punish or not. Here, they can (or the NTSB can) make a statement about straight-in maniacs if they choose to. The 340 was extremely reckless in my opinion and should have slowed down, side-stepped to the right and taken it around. BTDT. Also, BT&NDT and learned how hard it is to spot a plane on base sometimes, even with four eyes looking, especially at a high IAS.
Click to expand...

I just reviewed a portion of the CTAF recording. The 152 pilot announced left base four seconds after the twin pilot finished his three-mile position report. About twenty seconds later, the twin pilot announced not having the 152 in sight, in his one-mile position report. I don't know what the FAA or the NTSB will say, but since the twin pilot still didn't have the conflicting traffic in sight that close in, as a matter of self-preservation he should have initiated his go around at that time, if not sooner, IMO (and announced it). That should have been sufficient to avoid the collision, because the 152 pilot's final transmission (his go-around call) didn't come until about twenty seconds later.
 
dbahn said:
But personally, I consider it careless and reckless to cut in front of someone on final. I think that it's actually more careless than it is reckless, because some pilots don't even look at the final approach course while they're on base, and some don't bother to look because they think they have the right of way.
Click to expand...

Normally, I don’t look down the final approach course while on base, and I don’t really consider that careless. I do take a scan before turning base however, and if someone is announcing a straight in I’ll either extend downwind or execute a 360 and re-enter the downwind (depending on traffic and airspace considerations).

Once on base, it’s a short transition to final and other considerations take precedence such as not overshooting and maintaining airspeed. A lot more planes go down during this critical transition rather than getting run over by a twin going Mach 3.

Another consideration is … if I remember right … the 152 pilot was a student. Unfortunately he didn’t have a wealth of experience to draw from. Hopefully he was announcing “student solo” during his calls. I would encourage any student pilot flying solo to include that phraseology with your calls. That will help other pilots and ATC be a bit more understanding and accommodating for you.
 
woodchucker said:
Normally, I don’t look down the final approach course while on base, and I don’t really consider that careless.
Click to expand...
I do.

The last good chance you have to avoid an unexpected mid-air is to have the wings level and look at the final approach course while you still have time to turn inside the traffic pattern and have him miss you - whether he's landing or has decided to go around.

True, you shouldn't expect a twin on straight to travel three miles in 60 seconds. But if he was going that fast you'd probably only see him literally at the last minute, and that last minute is still your last chance, as it would be for someone going a more normal speed but just not seen by you, which does happen frequently.
 
woodchucker said:
Another consideration is … if I remember right … the 152 pilot was a student.
Click to expand...
A lot of people in this thread were making the assumption that the 152 pilot was a student pilot, but according to this news article, "He earned his pilot's license in June 2020."

https://abc7news.com/watsonville-pl...ified-municipal-airport-carl-kruppa/12154113/

According to post #436, "There is a Stuart Camenson in the database with a 2nd class medical who received his PPL in 7/9/20."
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
A lot of people in this thread were making the assumption that the 152 pilot was a student pilot, but according to this news article, "He earned his pilot's license in June 2020."

https://abc7news.com/watsonville-pl...ified-municipal-airport-carl-kruppa/12154113/

According to post #436, "There is a Stuart Camenson in the database with a 2nd class medical who received his PPL in 7/9/20."
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I thought it was part of the initial info but haven’t followed updates too closely.
 
dbahn said:
I do.

The last good chance you have to avoid an unexpected mid-air is to have the wings level and look at the final approach course while you still have time to turn inside the traffic pattern and have him miss you - whether he's landing or has decided to go around.

True, you shouldn't expect a twin on straight to travel three miles in 60 seconds. But if he was going that fast you'd probably only see him literally at the last minute, and that last minute is still your last chance, as it would be for someone going a more normal speed but just not seen by you, which does happen frequently.
Click to expand...

Not saying you are wrong and I’m certainly not picking a nit over it, but if the scan is completed before turning base (eyeballs and screen) when you have time and are already facing that general direction AND you don’t have a head on profile so relative motion will be more apparent, I still question the thought of turning your eyes 90* in the opposite direction during a crucial phase of flight. A quick glance? Maybe. But if you see an aircraft bearing down on you in a quick glance as you are turning final it’s likely too late.

Both aircraft essentially ignored the radio calls and that’s what would have made the difference here. Well, that and the twin driver seemingly trying to beat the 152 pilot into the short final. ☮️
 
woodchucker said:
Not saying you are wrong and I’m certainly not picking a nit over it, but if the scan is completed before turning base (eyeballs and screen) when you have time and are already facing that general direction AND you don’t have a head on profile so relative motion will be more apparent, I still question the thought of turning your eyes 90* in the opposite direction during a crucial phase of flight. A quick glance? Maybe. But if you see an aircraft bearing down on you in a quick glance as you are turning final it’s likely too late.

Both aircraft essentially ignored the radio calls and that’s what would have made the difference here. Well, that and the twin driver seemingly trying to beat the 152 pilot into the short final. ☮️
Click to expand...
I agree with you about it mostly being about bad communication. My home base has a traffic mix and numbers similar to Watsonville and I've seen both good and bad in that regard.

But I have also seen good and bad patterns. I've had to search for that trainer reporting downwind or base because they apparently thought they were in a 737 and were miles away. So, like @dbahn, I take that one last look at the extended final. I figure it as basic cost/benefit. The benefit might only pay off once in a while, but the look costs me nothing.
 
dbahn said:
The last good chance you have to avoid an unexpected mid-air is to have the wings level and look at the final approach course while you still have time to turn inside the traffic pattern and have him miss you - whether he's landing or has decided to go around.
Click to expand...
Were you in my traffic pattern last week?
 
woodchucker said:
Not saying you are wrong and I’m certainly not picking a nit over it, but if the scan is completed before turning base (eyeballs and screen) when you have time and are already facing that general direction AND you don’t have a head on profile so relative motion will be more apparent, I still question the thought of turning your eyes 90* in the opposite direction during a crucial phase of flight. A quick glance? Maybe. But if you see an aircraft bearing down on you in a quick glance as you are turning final it’s likely too late.
Click to expand...

The quick glance has to be completed before it's too late to take evasive action. I look at it like double authentication. You've already been looking for landing traffic throughout your approach. If you missed something earlier, it will easy to see at that point, and if you will be cutting him off you are violating 91.113.
 
I don’t disagree with any of that, but I still say there’s no way you can visually protect yourself from a twin coming that fast on final. It’s just too far away to see until it’s too late. There’s no time to react in that position. The twin would have had a plane banking in front of it. Much easier to see.
 
dbahn said:
But "see and avoid" reverts to right of way in conflict resolution. It goes back to ships where one has to stay the course and the other has to yield so that they don't both maneuver right back into each other.
Click to expand...
Aviation has one major distinction from the nautical right of way rules: There's no stand-on vessel in aviation. While the rules give the burdened aircraft specific guidance to give-way, both aircraft are obliged to "see and avoid other aircraft."
 
flyingron said:
Aviation has one major distinction from the nautical right of way rules: There's no stand-on vessel in aviation. While the rules give the burdened aircraft specific guidance to give-way, both aircraft are obliged to "see and avoid other aircraft."
Click to expand...
For those not understanding the significance of being the "stand-on vessel": The stand-on vessel is expected to maintain its course and NOT maneuver, until the very last moment to avoid collision.

The aviation right of way rules were also written in an era long before aircraft radios were universal. I doubt the CAA in 1935 would have considered an aircraft three miles from the airport as being on "final approach," even if the pilot had yelled it out the window.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Either way, the principle purpose of the right of way is to establish which vessel (or in this case aircraft) is obliged to remain clear the other, as in 91.113 (b):

"When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear."
 
Salty said:
I don’t disagree with any of that, but I still say there’s no way you can visually protect yourself from a twin coming that fast on final. It’s just too far away to see until it’s too late. There’s no time to react in that position. The twin would have had a plane banking in front of it. Much easier to see.
Click to expand...
Especially considering it would have had little to no relative motion.
 
woodchucker said:
Both aircraft essentially ignored the radio calls and that’s what would have made the difference here.
Click to expand...
When I listened to the audio to determine the timing, I didn't get the impression that they were ignoring the radio calls. I did get the impression that neither one of them fully grasped the implications of what they were hearing, until it was too late.


(The audio recordings start at about the 4:25 mark.)
 
Recently I had the tower clear me to come straight in final, 1st to land, i was 3 miles out. A few seconds after i read back clearance to land first, I heard a student pilot, who I knew, saying he is turning base. I could tell he wasnt listening that I am on final and possible merge issue. I didnt know where he was on base. The tower said nothing. I told tower I dont have visual and am concerned on where the base pilot is. Tower said nothing for too many seconds…. and I repeated myself.
Knowing what happened here I told tower I am going around climbing right … and broke off my final pulled right and climbed away. After I said and did that tower comes back “my tail no go around expect right down wind blah blah.. as if it was his idea”.
What I am getting at here is that students have no clue or experience that sometimes they need to extend their downwind or are afraid to get too far from airport… and that even with a Tower this could have turned bad. I wish instructors spent more time teaching pattern safety and unusual situations and not only mechanics of landing.
 
Palmpilot said:
When I listened to the audio to determine the timing, I didn't get the impression that they were ignoring the radio calls. I did get the impression that neither one of them fully grasped the implications of what they were hearing, until it was too late.


(The audio recordings start at about the 4:25 mark.)
Click to expand...

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. That was my implication though.
 
dbahn said:
The quick glance has to be completed before it's too late to take evasive action. I look at it like double authentication. You've already been looking for landing traffic throughout your approach. If you missed something earlier, it will easy to see at that point, and if you will be cutting him off you are violating 91.113.
Click to expand...

I guess my point is you are already scanning (both eyes and screen and radio). That last quick glance before turning final is not going to resolve anything. I’m pretty sure we don’t disagree on best practices. Maybe semantics.
 
woodchucker said:
I guess my point is you are already scanning (both eyes and screen and radio). That last quick glance before turning final is not going to resolve anything. I’m pretty sure we don’t disagree on best practices. Maybe semantics.
Click to expand...
I think if you watch another pilot closely you'll see that many of them aren't really scanning for traffic as much as they are looking ahead and at the altimeter/airspeed indicator/bank indicator and concentrating on the approach and landing. It's just human nature to focus on the task at hand.

My point is that pilots need to train themselves to perform that final check on every landing, knowing that they are about to occupy the airspace where the majority of mid-air collisions occur - on final at a non-towered airport. Once you turn your back to the final approach course you are 100% committed to having the other aircraft see you and take his own evasive action, which is exactly what happened at Watsonville, even with radios.
 
dbahn said:
I think if you watch another pilot closely you'll see that many of them aren't really scanning for traffic as much as they are looking ahead and at the altimeter/airspeed indicator/bank indicator and concentrating on the approach and landing. It's just human nature to focus on the task at hand.
Click to expand...
Thank you for another good reason for me to cover the instruments when giving training.
 
dtuuri said:
Simple, the FAA can choose who they violate. "Careless or reckless" or "cutting off someone on final".
Click to expand...

dbahn said:
But what if neither is dead and the twin was just forced to go around? The twin pilot complains to the FSDO and the testimony and the flight paths confirm that the C152 pilot cut in front of the twin and forced him to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
Click to expand...

Palmpilot said:
The 152 pilot violated 91.113(g). 91.13 is a little vague, so it's hard to predict whether the FAA would have found the twin pilot guilty of a violation.
Click to expand...

Palmpilot said:
I was just reviewing the thread, and this photo from post #740 sure tells a story. If only the twin had started the evasive action a little sooner, or had descended a little lower before starting the turn. :(

upload_2022-9-15_17-36-17-png.110547
Click to expand...


Let's remember the Twin pilot was NOT in landing configuration. He crashed flaps up and gear up at 200mph. We need to be predictable in the pattern, and a missile coming through in cruise configuration is not a common occurrence on our field.

The investigation showed this knuckle-headed twin pilot landed at our airport monthly and would never enter the pattern. If the pattern was full, he would break overhead and make right traffic over near the jump zone (as the picture above shows) and reenter for another direct to final. This is a left traffic pattern runway.

The twin pilot was a ticking time bomb who should have been stopped earlier.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top