KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

donjohnston said:
After this happened, I looked at the guys previous flights. I found a number of flights where he flew into WVI doing a low approach at high speeds and then coming around to land. So this event does not appear to be isolated.
Click to expand...

Salty said:
I'm not sure how spending more time in the pattern doing a low pass first is a trick to get down quicker, but perhaps he was an ex-military pilot and just liked to do low passes and overhead breaks and expected everyone else to give the big twin space.
Click to expand...
Based on the info in this thread, this is my takeaway of the twin's intent: (speeds estimated since I don't recall the exact numbers quoted):

Instead of slowing to normal pattern speed (120 KIAS?) and doing a normal pattern (enter on the downwind, configure, base, final, etc), the twin driver would blast in ~200 KIAS at low level. He would pull up in order to bleed off speed, got configured, and did a half-circle turn to final to land. I don't recall the specifics, but I assume if everyone was doing right traffic, he was doing left traffic for his turn to final in order to avoid conflicts.

Blasting in at high speed gets you to the airport environment faster than if you had slowed to normal pattern speed. Assuming he was monitoring the radios, he could also time his pull up in order to sneak in between other landing traffic.

Not saying any of this is legal or proper of course, just was my takeaway on the twin's intent from info in this thread. Like I said, works great every time, right up until it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure 12 hours bottle to throttle works for THC. From my understanding the window for testing positive might be 10x larger than the window for how long the effects last.
(edit for grammar)
 
For the twin,
10 nmiles at reasonable landing configured 90 K is 6.6 minutes.
10 nmiles at 180 knots, not configured for landing, 3.3 minutes.

The twin arrived 3 minutes before the Cessna 152 reasonably expected him, after hearing the 10 nm out report, so flying a tight pattern to be down, and potentially off the runway before the twin crossed the threshold was easily within expected performance. The twin rapidly reporting much closer would seem an attempt to bull anyone else out of the way, rather that actually be advancing at such a high rate. We as pilots, often expect the other guy to be flying in a normal rational manner, as we make our judgement calls on our best move.

At 60K, that Cessna 152 is going to travel 3 NM in the time he could reasonably expect to pass before the twin actually arrived.

I do not like the chemical contents of either pilots blood, but the twin pilot seemed not to actually intend to land, but roar through the pattern for his own pleasure.

I am not inclined to see any medical problem here, just attitude. The 152 was nearly straight ahead, and since the twin was not configured to land, pulling up well before reaching the 152 would have been no big deal, and the 152 could have done his landing, all well and good.
 
The twin falsely reported his intentions. He said he was on final approach. However, final approach is defined as aligned with the runway and descending to land. Based on his aircraft configuration and airspeed, and his previous pattern of behavior at that airfield, the most probable conclusion is that he intended to do a low pass and pull up.

That false report created the dangerous situation. The 152 pilot made a reasonable judgement that he had time to complete a tight pattern and T&G prior to the twin arriving. Had the twin behaved per his stated intentions, he would have been configured with gear/flaps down and traveling at approx 100-110kt. He would have taken twice as long to arrive at the threshhold, and there would not have been a conflict.

We know why the twin did not report his true intentions. Because a low pass is illegal. So he lied.

Note the NTSB statement of cause: failure of the twin pilot to see and avoid. Period.
 
Ed Haywood said:
The twin falsely reported his intentions. He said he was on final approach. However, final approach is defined as aligned with the runway and descending to land. Based on his aircraft configuration and airspeed, and his previous pattern of behavior at that airfield, the most probable conclusion is that he intended to do a low pass and pull up.
Click to expand...
This, this, and this again.
 
bbchien said:
Use of weed even if not intoxicated (whatever that is) demonstrates TERRIBLE judgement. That is incompatible with any sort aerial decision making.
Click to expand...

just to clarify, are you saying anyone using weed or a pilot using weed?
 
Salty said:
Is it?
Click to expand...
I think so. The 500 foot rule applies except as necessary to takeoff or land. So at a remote airstrip with no structures, vehicles, or vessels, a low pass might be legal. I also think the FAA allows for practice go arounds as part of flight training. But at a busy airport with FBO, hangars, etc, and zero intent to land or train on landing ... yeah, I think in this case his behavior was illegal, though there might be some gray zone there.
 
Last edited:
either pilot could have prevented this, neither one did.

But I’m sure the family of the 152 driver is happy now that the NTSB has “blamed” the twin driver.
 
The worst thing is, if you see the picture that the witness on the ground took, if the twin had actually been coming in to land and had continued down to the runway, the collision would have been avoided - but because he attempted to turn right, he hit the 152 right above him with his wing tip and caused the collision.
 
Hengelo said:
I'm not sure 12 hours bottle to throttle works for THC. From my understanding the window for testing positive might be 10x larger than the window for how long the effects last.
(edit for grammar)
Click to expand...
More like 3600 times as long. Someone smokes a joint, they can be high for four hours or so. It’s detectable, depending on the test used, for 60 days.

Me: Three decades full-time law enforcement, contact with thousands of marijuana users every year. Never once had to fight someone who was stoned or investigate an assault that marijuana intoxication prompted someone into, but dealt with alcohol-related violence nearly every day.

I also got to meet people at the highest end of success in life as well. Some would be surprised, and maybe uncomfortable accepting, that some of society’s absolute highest performers smoke marijuana. It absolutely can be used in moderation and without deleterious effect. Just like alcohol.

Note: I don’t use it and don’t suggest that anyone use it.
 
SkyChaser said:
The worst thing is, if you see the picture that the witness on the ground took, if the twin had actually been coming in to land and had continued down to the runway, the collision would have been avoided - but because he attempted to turn right, he hit the 152 right above him with his wing tip and caused the collision.
Click to expand...

At that speed, roll rate was probably a factor in his inability to avoid a collision once he saw the 152. I'm not familiar with the handling characteristics of the 340, but above 160mph my Decathlon rolls like it is flying through a tub of peanut butter. Pulling up might have given him a better chance.
 
ateamer said:
More like 3600 times as long. Someone smokes a joint, they can be high for four hours or so. It’s detectable, depending on the test used, for 60 days.

Me: Three decades full-time law enforcement, contact with thousands of marijuana users every year. Never once had to fight someone who was stoned or investigate an assault that marijuana intoxication prompted someone into, but dealt with alcohol-related violence nearly every day.

I also got to meet people at the highest end of success in life as well. Some would be surprised, and maybe uncomfortable accepting, that some of society’s absolute highest performers smoke marijuana. It absolutely can be used in moderation and without deleterious effect. Just like alcohol.

Note: I don’t use it and don’t suggest that anyone use it.
Click to expand...

24 states have now legalized recreational marijuana. A majority of Americans live in those states. The current FAA position is untenable and is going to have to change.

I despise the stuff. But we live in a democracy, and the people have spoken.
 
Salty said:
Is it?
Click to expand...
I believe there are examples of FAA action against pilots for doing them. It may be that the failure to slow to approach speed is definitive evidence that there was no intention of landing, creating a violation of 91.119, and in most low passes speed and sometimes the abrupt pull-up are part of the display. Trent Palmer claimed an inspection pass, but the FAA didn't buy it.
 
dbahn said:
I believe there are examples of FAA action against pilots for doing them. It may be that the failure to slow to approach speed is definitive evidence that there was no intention of landing, creating a violation of 91.119, and in most low passes speed and sometimes the abrupt pull-up are part of the display. Trent Palmer claimed an inspection pass, but the FAA didn't buy it.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you at all. But I'm still not convinced there is clear regulation against it.
 
Salty said:
I don't disagree with you at all. But I'm still not convinced there is clear regulation against it.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that some of the other regulations are clear, either. But they're all subject to the decision of an administrative law judge, who has a lot of leeway in what "seems to be clear".
 
asicer said:
I happened to browse the "recents" list and noticed 2 rows with the same number. That's never a good sign. Looks like the final report came out on Thursday:

Docket:

NTSB Docket - Docket Management System

data.ntsb.gov data.ntsb.gov
Click to expand...
Probable Cause—The failure of the pilot of the multi-engine airplane to see and avoid the single-engine airplane while performing a straight-in approach for landing. The 150 did see the twin but didn’t avoid. I can’t believe that wasn’t even mentioned in the cause.

EDIT: I’m wrong. I just read the probable cause and remembered wrong that 152 did not see the twin but made his decision to go around based on a position report from the twin.
 
Last edited:
eman1200 said:
Was that before or after his “evasive action” of turning final into the 1 mile final of the twin?
Click to expand...
That was after turning final in front of what he assumed was a twin that was far enough away for him to safely execute a touch and go - and what would have been a far away enough plane had the twin been appropriately configured and utilizing appropriate speeds for the environment.
 
SkyChaser said:
That was after turning final in front of what he assumed was a twin that was far enough away for him to safely execute a touch and go - and what would have been a far away enough plane had the twin been appropriately configured and utilizing appropriate speeds for the environment.
Click to expand...

Nah, sorry. Listen to the tapes. Dude NEVER should have turned final. Didn’t have a visual at the time, twin (actually both) were making their calls, and yes, of course we all know the twin was at warp speed and shouldn’t have been. Zero chance out of a billion I would have turned final in that scenario.
 
The C150 just picked the wrong place to go around. They both headed to that spot at the last second.

Radios can help, but they need to be used effectively.
 
Lindberg said:
eman1200 said:
Nah, sorry. Listen to the tapes. Dude NEVER should have turned final. Didn’t have a visual at the time, twin (actually both) were making their calls, and yes, of course we all know the twin was at warp speed and shouldn’t have been. Zero chance out of a billion I would have turned final in that scenario.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
eman1200 said:
Nah, sorry. Listen to the tapes. Dude NEVER should have turned final. Didn’t have a visual at the time, twin (actually both) were making their calls, and yes, of course we all know the twin was at warp speed and shouldn’t have been. Zero chance out of a billion I would have turned final in that scenario.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but, I ain’t readin’ all the way back through a 29 page thread, but if memory serves me right, when he saw the twin he elected to go around. Go around by turning to the direction ‘final’, thereby setting up the ‘rear end’ situation. So not exactly ‘turning final’ but the result the same.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah, but, I ain’t readin’ all the way back through a 29 page thread, but if memory serves me right, when he saw the twin he elected to go around. Go around by turning to the direction ‘final’, thereby setting up the ‘rear end’ situation. So not exactly ‘turning final’ but the result the same.
Click to expand...
You could just go back one page and read the NTSB final report.
 
Lindberg said:
You could just go back one page and read the NTSB final report.
Click to expand...
I’m wrong. I just read the probable cause and remembered wrong that 152 did not see the twin but made his decision to go around based on a position report from the twin.
 
the question I have on all of this - the plane on final always has the right of way. Its defined at 14 91.113 or something. Not always a fan of how the FAA proceeds to talk around its legalese, but then the final arbiter is that a plane on final has the right of way. But is a plane that isnt in landing configuration over an airport that you would obviously be in some sort of landing configuration - even if he called final, considered to be "on final" for legal purposes. And apparently the NTSB has come out and kind of arbitrated this to determine that the 340 was not considered to be on final. . .

Also, approach speed for a 340 should be around 120. No way would it be 90-100 as thats below blue line.
 
luvflyin said:
I’m wrong. I just read the probable cause and remembered wrong that 152 did not see the twin but made his decision to go around based on a position report from the twin.
Click to expand...
But everyone needs to think logically. You're on base and close to turning final when you realize you may have a conflict from an aircraft on final who you don't see, who has the ROW and may not even be able to see you below his nose. Which way do you turn?

My argument is that you immediately turn left to the inside of the pattern and remove the risk of collision if he either (1) continues on final to land or (2) goes around and moves to the right side of the runway. You simply get out of his way without entering the final approach path, in this case on the assumption that trying to turn back to the downwind puts you head to head with him, because it's way too late to just "extend downwind". Both these guys were communicating but were not processing it well, and they had plenty of time to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top