KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

One potential weakness in the "unreasonably fast" argument is that 180 knots is within the AC 90-66B's stated limit of 200 knots in the pattern. :eek:

11.10 Airspeed Limitations. Airplanes should not be operated in the traffic pattern at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).​
Gear speed for the aircraft is 140. How can 180 be considered reasonable? It’s practically full throttle.
 
In driver Ed in 1970 it was drummed into us that a rear end accident is always the fault of the one that rear ends the car ahead as ‘last clear chance’ to avoid is on that car. The example given is why you don’t tailgate. To drift the thread downwind. . .
 
That’s like saying if the guy behind me wasn’t speeding, he wouldn’t have rear-ended me when I saw him approaching and slammed on the brakes.


Yes, there are…and one of them is how an overtaking aircraft passes, and the 152 turned into that path.

Or is it like saying some jackhorn doing 180 in the right lane on the interstate plows into a student driver's underpowered subcompact as he merges from the onramp, with the student never remotely expecting being overtaken at that speed while merging...

Yes the 180 driver may have had the right of way, but there could be an argument made of excessive (reckless?) speeds for the traffic conditions.
 
One potential weakness in the "unreasonably fast" argument is that 180 knots is within the AC 90-66B's stated limit of 200 knots in the pattern. :eek:

11.10 Airspeed Limitations. Airplanes should not be operated in the traffic pattern at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).​

There was about a 10 knot headwind, so closer to 190 indicated. I know 190<200, but it was blazingly fast for a pattern.
 
Or is it like saying


Or is it like saying some jackhorn doing 180 in the right lane on the interstate plows into a student driver's underpowered subcompact as he merges from the onramp, with the student never remotely expecting being overtaken at that speed while merging...

Yes the 180 driver may have had the right of way, but there could be an argument made of excessive (reckless?) speeds for the traffic conditions.
As I said, I’m not absolving the 340 pilot, but I’m also not absolving the 152 pilot. Neither demonstrated a reasonable level of airmanship IMO.
 
Go arounds are taught to follow the guide for overtaking, to pass on the right. That allows the pilot to keep the conflicting traffic in view without aircraft structures blocking. The fact that the left wing was pulled off says the C152 was using a proper procedure in giving way to a plane on final. Going left would put you over the ramps and hangars. If the Cessna 340 broke off the approach I would have expected a straight out climb, given the behavior exhibited on his final. Straight ahead at full throttle. Any other direction would require traffic in sight.
 
Go arounds are taught to follow the guide for overtaking, to pass on the right. That allows the pilot to keep the conflicting traffic in view without aircraft structures blocking. The fact that the left wing was pulled off says the C152 was using a proper procedure in giving way to a plane on final. Going left would put you over the ramps and hangars. If the Cessna 340 broke off the approach I would have expected a straight out climb, given the behavior exhibited on his final. Straight ahead at full throttle. Any other direction would require traffic in sight.
Who was the 152 overtaking?
 
Ok. Let’s make the comparison more accurate

  • The slow car uses its turn signal and changes lanes in front of the fast car at normal lane change pace and the fast car is a little dot in the mirror - let’s say this car is going 55 mph
  • All the other traffic on the road is going between 55 and 65 mph
  • the fast car is going just below it’s maximum possible speed - though it isn’t “speeding” from a legal standpoint, it is going 2.5 times faster than all the other traffic on the road - let’s say 150 mph
  • the fastest typical speed for cars of this type passing other cars is around 75
  • The fast car plows into the back of the slow car
Now, tell me about this blaming the slow car for the rear ending again?
 
“That's more like a person pulling out to make a left turn in front of someone where the left turning driver had sufficient time to make their turn but for the speed of the other driver.“

. . . and the pulling out driver had announced their intention and had a beacon that showed where they were in real time to the other driver.
 
Ok. Let’s make the comparison more accurate

  • The slow car changes lanes in front of the fast car at normal lane change pace and the fast car is a little dot in the mirror - let’s say this car is going 55 mph
  • All the other traffic on the road is going between 55 and 65 mph
  • the fast car is going just below it’s maximum possible speed - though it isn’t “speeding” from a legal standpoint, it is going 2.5 times faster than all the other traffic on the road - let’s say 150 mph
  • the fastest typical speed for cars of this type passing other cars is around 75
  • The fast car plows into the back of the slow car
Now, tell me about this blaming the slow car for the rear ending again?
Change the first bullet to “slow car moves into the passing lane to avoid the overtaking car” and I’d agree.
 
Ok. Let’s make the comparison more accurate

  • The slow car uses its turn signal and changes lanes in front of the fast car at normal lane change pace and the fast car is a little dot in the mirror - let’s say this car is going 55 mph
  • All the other traffic on the road is going between 55 and 65 mph
  • the fast car is going just below it’s maximum possible speed - though it isn’t “speeding” from a legal standpoint, it is going 2.5 times faster than all the other traffic on the road - let’s say 150 mph
  • the fastest typical speed for cars of this type passing other cars is around 75
  • The fast car plows into the back of the slow car
Now, tell me about this blaming the slow car for the rear ending again?

ah yes, the classic "it's ok for me to do something unsafe because you also did something unsafer" rebuttal.
 
And just for the record, I’ve never heard of anyone, ever, being found at fault being the front car in a rear end collision. Even in cases where the person in front has intentionally caused a collision, it is widely accepted that the person behind is, at best, driving carelessly if they are not able to stop in time.
 
And just for the record, I’ve never heard of anyone, ever, being found at fault being the front car in a rear end collision. Even in cases where the person in front has intentionally caused a collision, it is widely accepted that the person behind is, at best, driving carelessly if they are not able to stop in time.
Hence all the “brake check” videos on YouTube. ;)
 
Reading some of the comments here is a bit disturbing.
It is completely unreasonable to think that you should have to anticipate traffic on a 1-2 or 3 mile final going 200mph! I don’t care if it’s a turbine, jet, or rocket powered for that matter. I’m willing to bet that for most of us, when we are in the pattern doing 90-120kts and we are abeam or at the 45° and we here “Cessna 3 mile straight in” without question we are turning base. The guy in the 150 made a call at every point. When the guy in the 340 heard the 150 call base, at that exact moment it was HIS responsibility to see and avoid. I heard the word “airmanship” mentioned. If im on a 3 mi final and I hear someone turning base, it’s basic “airmanship” to determine of I have proper separation. The 340 driver doing 200mph either demonstrated pi$$-pore airmanship or had no idea he was fast or was purposely being a jacka$$. Unfortunately in this instance an innocent person lost his life in the purging of an idiot
 
Reading some of the comments here is a bit disturbing.
It is completely unreasonable to think that you should have to anticipate traffic on a 1-2 or 3 mile final going 200mph! I don’t care if it’s a turbine, jet, or rocket powered for that matter. I’m willing to bet that for most of us, when we are in the pattern doing 90-120kts and we are abeam or at the 45° and we here “Cessna 3 mile straight in” without question we are turning base. The guy in the 150 made a call at every point. When the guy in the 340 heard the 150 call base, at that exact moment it was HIS responsibility to see and avoid. I heard the word “airmanship” mentioned. If im on a 3 mi final and I hear someone turning base, it’s basic “airmanship” to determine of I have proper separation. The 340 driver doing 200mph either demonstrated pi$$-pore airmanship or had no idea he was fast or was purposely being a jacka$$. Unfortunately in this instance an innocent person lost his life in the purging of an idiot
I notice that nowhere did you claim that either pilot was seeing and avoiding, per the regs.
 
I guess the 340 pilot was simply overwhelmed by the situation ( fast approaching the runway while looking for the 152) and forgot to configure the aircraft to land. Until the last moment, he did eyeball the 152 but too late to jink or slow down to land. I also wonder if he might have programmed the autopilot to follow the glide path, which is why the aircraft descended at a speed out of control when he forgot to pull the power and lower the gear.
Ahh… glad you recovered to CVR & FDR.
Could be useful to the NTSB.
 
I notice that nowhere did you claim that either pilot was seeing and avoiding, per the regs.

Let me see if I can dumb it down for you
1. Clearly see and avoid was not properly executed to a successful outcome.
2. When this gets litigated it will come down to who bares majority responsibly
3. My money’s on the 340 guy being in the losers corner when it’s all said and done
 
In the space of three miles he was going to decrease his speed 40 knots without losing altitude, get his gear and flaps deployed and then loose another 100 knots to land. Yeah, tell us another.
Help me out here. Just how fast was he going at three miles out? If he had to lose 140 knots…??? A twin lands much faster than a single.
 
I look at this incident with what we know at this point and I feel both are at fault if you look purely at the actions of the pilots. I also think one pilot ( the twin guy) should have known better than to get into the position for this to happen. On the other hand, the 152 pilot should have been more conservative in his decision making, especially as a student or a newly minted pilot, whichever he was. I still think he had to have felt uneasy about turning off the downwind but still thought he would be ok. He just didn't know what he didn't know. Had this just been a close call he would have learned a valuable lesson, to listen to that doubt in situations like this. There was no reason to make that turn to base, and the turn to final? Even scarier. It would have cost him probably a minute or two of more flying time to stay in the downwind and kept him safe. I think with a little more experience he might have developed this sense.

As I gain more experience flying I'm know I'm more cognizant of little traps like this scenario. I don't trust distance callouts from pilots. We have great tools now that give us these numbers relatively easily. But sometimes we get it wrong. Also in most aircraft, you program a waypoint, such as the airport identifier into the gps and that is what is used for the distance that is called out. But in reality, that number is the distance to some point on the field that is NOT the end of the runway. The number being reported could be off by a mile or more depending on the size of the field.

Personally I wouldn't turn in front of someone calling out a 3 mile final at an uncontrolled airport knowing what I know. It's too much of a crap shoot, why take the chance?

Pilots who fly faster airplanes require more training and should be having their skills reviewed by a competent instructor a couple times a year. I'm not advocating for that to be codified, but I think it's just part of the due diligence process for someone who wants to be a competent pilot. I remember talking with an instructor I respected about flying the Cirrus sr-22. He told me that this was an airplane that could cover long distances quickly and could get you into trouble quickly. He said if you want to fly an airplane like this you should get your instrument rating. I think that is good advice.

The pilot of the 340 was a private pilot, flying a quicker and more capable aircraft than the Cirrus, but seems to only have had his multi rating, no instrument rating. Personally I'm having trouble with this. I wonder if this pilot really understood the danger he was putting himself and others in by blasting into a pattern with other aircraft in it, via a straight in final, at 180 knots? I don't think he ever considered this, maybe it was never taught to him. I don't think what he did was illegal or against any regulation. But I think it was stupid and he stacked the deck against himself, he lost his life. It's a sad tragedy.
 
Let me see if I can dumb it down for you
1. Clearly see and avoid was not properly executed to a successful outcome.
2. When this gets litigated it will come down to who bares majority responsibly
3. My money’s on the 340 guy being in the losers corner when it’s all said and done
I understand its all about blame, not safety.
 
Does the 340 have speed brakes?
To the best of my knowledge, no.
That said, I have extensive experience in the 310, and it was common to keep high speed until short final, chop power, pick nose up a bit, configure, and land. That was back in the check flying days when things were a bit rogue…. But doable.
 
To the best of my knowledge, no.
That said, I have extensive experience in the 310, and it was common to keep high speed until short final, chop power, pick nose up a bit, configure, and land. That was back in the check flying days when things were a bit rogue…. But doable.
That's probably not out of the question. I know I've done something similar in the Cardinal, when ATC has left us high and dry over Grand Prairie coming in to Dallas Executive and tower asks if we can get down for a straight in to 13. Pick the nose up at 2000 feet, drop flaps at flap operating speed, dump the gear at gear speed, and throw in flaps as needed / maybe a bit of a slip. It's not pretty, but it can be done. The extra speed would make it challenging, though. It still seems like that wasn't forced on the twin in this situation. It sure seems that some unknown factor had him going fast...
 
I’m trying to nail down the timing using the Webtrak map. It’s the only resource that shows all four Cessnas at WVI. Based on the the callouts, it almost looks like the 150 had just begun the base turn when the 340 made his 3 mile call. It’s likely within +-3 seconds.

The 340 was actually doing 200 knots groundspeed (!) for a few seconds right about the time of the 3-mile call. So forget 180 at that point. He was coming out of a slight overshoot right of course and about to correct back onto final. There was a Cessna 172 on the go just over the runway, the accident 152 initiating his base turn, and a 182 1 mile south of the airport on the missed, crossing left to right.

Here is the approximate sight picture in Google Earth using ADS-B position data from FlightRadar24, adsbexchange, and Webtrak. The accident 152 is the orange dot, 90FL (pattern) is green, and 9BE (missed VOR-A) is blue. Note that the dots are not proportional to aircraft size.

The first is the positions at 21:54:15Z, about the time of the 3-mile call. Distance to threshold 3.2 miles. Speed 198 knots.
N740WJ 3 mile call.JPG


The second is the positions 33 seconds later, at 21:54:48Z, about the time of the 1-mile call. Distance to threshold 1.4 miles. Speed 179 knots.
Note that it is physically impossible for the initiation of the one mile call to have occurred at or less than 1 mile from the threshold as it took exactly 20 seconds to traverse from the 1-mile to threshold distance to the point of impact (.95 miles away), yet communications from either of the two accident aircraft continued for 26 seconds after the initiation of the 1-mile callout.
N740WJ 1 mile call.JPG


Lastly, the positions 10 seconds prior to impact. 10 seconds is the amount of time the FAA has determined that it takes to spot, identify, realize the threat, react to it, and have the aircraft respond. Speed 182 knots.
N740WJ 10 seconds.JPG

Note that at this speed, there weren't a lot of good escape options for the 340. The 182 (blue) was still moving left to right, climbing, and had not yet begun the turn to the west. The 172 was straight ahead, climbing on the departure leg, and the 152 on a collision course on left base. An abrupt right turn would have put him close to the path of the 182, if nothing else changed with the 182's flight path (and he wouldn't know what the 182 was going to do). You could ostensibly stay low under the 182, but there's rising terrain to almost 500' to the northwest. The only other option is a HARD turn to the north, but now you're into potential structural limitations.

I will also say this: the 340 would have been above the horizon throughout the 152's base to final turn. It's a LOT to ask any pilot to assume 7 miles, 2 miles, and .95 miles would be traversed as quickly as they were. But I guarantee I would have been looking hard when the 3 mile call came. Even if I'd started my base a few seconds prior, I might unstart it and fly away from final. Mental math would have kicked in and realized something's not right. I wonder if there were more communications that the LiveATC scanner didn't pick up.

Either way, bad setup. I'm going to go with my original notion - the 340 has the vast preponderance of blame, but there has to be a little on the 152. See and avoid and quick reactions could have prevented this once the spidey senses kicked in, even if he wasn't at fault for initiating the base turn. Don't let that become the focus over the utter bo**ocks flying of the 340, more of a footnote.
 

Attachments

  • N740WJ 10 seconds.jpg
    N740WJ 10 seconds.jpg
    227.1 KB · Views: 15
I still say the only believable reason for the 340 going that fast is that he was planning a buzz job. He announced landing intentions for plausible deniability. The medical problem angle doesn’t fit. Even if it did, stupid pilot tricks are much more common than whatever medical incapacitation you might want to guess that would leave the pilot able to approximate a correct altitude while missing airspeed by some 40% or so.
 
There is a Stuart Camenson in the database with a 2nd class medical who received his PPL in 7/9/20. So if this is him, then he was not a student pilot.
 
I still say the only believable reason for the 340 going that fast is that he was planning a buzz job. He announced landing intentions for plausible deniability. The medical problem angle doesn’t fit. Even if it did, stupid pilot tricks are much more common than whatever medical incapacitation you might want to guess that would leave the pilot able to approximate a correct altitude while missing airspeed by some 40% or so.
Has anybody looked at near fuel exhaustion for the 340? I noticed no fires and I'm struggling to explain why he was in such a hurry to get down.

Or maybe he had a very full bladder, and no Little Johnny on the plane... I have seen pilots land and run to the bathroom like bats outa hell.

No excuse for any of the above, though.
 
Let’s add a caveat to this scenario and see if some here have a different opinion

let’s say the 152 didn’t have a radio. Now who would you put the blame on? He would be the lower and slower and closest to the runway right?
Same goes for the 340 driver. Let’s say his com died 15 miles out. Wouldn’t change the outcome and would still be legal right? Just like going 200kts in the pattern.
Im tired of hearing all the bs about legalities and regs not being broken. When the regs allow you to do stupid things, the responsibility of that outcome falls squarely in your lap.

now let’s put a tower at this airport. It now becomes a class D airport. Every single class D airport I’ve flowed at will regularly turn you in front of 3 mile final traffic, and sometimes even 2 mile traffic. Do you know why that is? Because no jacka$$ ever enters the pattern at 200kts.

On the previous few flights to the same airport this guy entered the pattern at a much more acceptable speed so this wasn’t something new to him. I don’t care how good a pilot you are, you could have slipped this thing six ways from Sunday and short of throwing out a boat anchor, at that speed there is no way in hell he’s making a landing anywhere on the pavement.
 
Back
Top