UPDATE: The National Transportation Safety Board has released its preliminary report (WPR22FA309) regarding the investigation into the mid-air between a Cessna 340A (N740WJ) and a Cessna 152 (N49931) at Monterey Bay, CA. data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/105763/pdf
Everyone saying the 152 did wrong…he had the right of way, he made his calls, had other insight and called again and he attempted a maneuver to avoid.. the twin just yolos in hot with no regard.
He was also at a lower altitude to the field and in the pattern. The twin pilot should have adjusted his approach to meet the needs of all in the pattern.
He did nothing wrong. But in this case doing everything right still cost him his life. If he had given way to the 340 (even though the 340 didn’t have right of way) he’d at least still be alive and could yell at the 340 pilot once they all got on the ground.
Americans and their rights! It will drive y'all to your early Graves!!! Common sense..... You have a traffic that is faster than you... within 3 miles..... you should be able to see that traffic... Extend your downwind... so tell me this @Midwest Pilot... if you are about to cross the street in a cross walk.... ( pedestrian light signal says "WALK".... while attempting to cross you see that there is a car speed towards the light... what are you going to do? Continue to walk or give way? EXACTLY!!!
I hear some people say the 152 should have given way but there is no way the 152 would know the twin was doing 180kts with a mile of the field. I don’t think the 152 even knew it was a problem until he sees and notices the speed the twin is coming. Could the 152 have done more? Maybe but it would only take 1 choice from the twin to have changed the outcome. Personally I think if there is traffic in the pattern you shouldn’t do a direct final but should join on the 45 downwind. But I’m a new pilot so I could just be naive.
The thing that really kind of hit me the hardest was when the 340 pilot called 1 mile final, and announced he was looking for the left base traffic. He clearly did not have visual on the 152 on left base and yet continued to descend rather than iniating a go around - knowing full well that the plane he could not see below his low-winged aircraft had most likely turned final in front of him at a lower altitude (gee, I wonder why he can't see the 152?!?). The judgement of the "more experienced" 340 pilot gave no consideration to the fact that he knew he was coming in hot to an uncontrolled airfield with student pilots practicing pattern traffic. Just a sad tragedy that was totally avoidable.
If yer pointed at the numbers to land, you have excellent visibility forward and down in a 340. I fly one and it isn't had to see what is below and in front of you.
@@HyperSpaceProphet and yet, here we are... A 340 runs over a 152 and the last comm from the 340 indicates he didn't have visual on the 152 he was very quickly overtaking... Fatigue, speed, AoA, get-there-itis... Whatever the case, he didn't see the 152 until it was too late.
Not counting the 340 pilot was 20 over his flap and 40 over his gear speed and still trying to land? Not counting he could hear 2 other planes was in the circuit. He should have entered the circuit then landed. Safety first last and always.
From what how I interpreted the radio calls, by the time the 340 was actually on 1-mile final that 152 would no longer be on base, so this guy was just way off. Total lack of spatial awareness, and with the speed he was carrying I don't know how he was going to make a safe landing anyway.
The 152 pilot, even knowing the 340 was coming straight in, could not have expected the extreme high speed which completely changed normal expectation of separation.
Agreed… I can’t think of a single aircraft, that could land at Watsonville, and also flys super high approach speeds. Maybe if it’s an F104 I’d expect 180kts … lol
The ridiculous speed of the 340 threw everything off. The 152 flew his base leg 1/4 mile from the runway end, compared to 1/2 mile he was flying in the pattern earlier. If he had flown the 1/2 mile pattern he would have ended up behind the 340. But if the 340 was at 100-110 kt like he must have thought, the 1/2 mile pattern would have been in conflict. I can't think of any good reason the 340 was flying faster than an F18.
This one upset me, because I remember being a student pilot, doing the circuit, working the touch and goes, focusing on all the still conscious things I needed to think about as I practiced my landings. The pilot of the Cessna 152 made the proper calls, he was clearly identifying himself and when he made the decision to not just turn to base, but turn to final, I know at first he thought "I have time, because 3 miles out is enough time for me to land and go again. The 340 was closing at @ 160 kts. At 3 miles out if he was at a stabilized approach he would have taken slightly more than 2 mins to be on close final. In that time the C152 would have turned final at 70, slowed to 65 and would have been over the threshold with the 340 at 1 mile out. Me, as a student pilot would be aware, but thinking the other plane is slowing for final approach *and* aware I'm turning to final lower and ahead. At 160 kts, three miles was just 1 min to short final and with no indication of slowing, the difference in closing speed between the two planes was @ 100 kts with the C!52 in front. The C152 pilot even makes a call out basically saying you are too fast and the 340 never changes the approach until just before collision. In my past flying, unless the pattern at an uncontrolled was empty (and even then NORAD planes may be up) you flew over the airport above pattern altitude and entered a downwind. Had the 340 slowed to approach speeds, even of straight in, he would not have collided. Had the 340 realized there was pattern traffic he should have stopped the straight in and entered the pattern from a 45 or at least cross wind. I am sorry people died due to the arrogance and hubris of a pilot that felt he could not take even another 10/15 minutes to follow proper procedures or common courtesy.
The problem is in real life as a pilot, and I am a CPL/CFI, you will encounter not very savory individuals in the air too. He should have simply extended that downwind instead of acting like a robot as he sounded like. Knowing where the C340 was but taking no evasive action.
There is some equipment showing the c340 was running between 200kt and 180kt, and crossed the 3m at 180kt. If so, it simply further emphasizes the hubris of the c340.
The only thing I would put on the 152 pilot is doing touch and goes at Watsonville in the first place. That uncontrolled airport is crazy busy with rich guy pilots flying down for the weekend from Silicon valley and tons of Learjets and such. Just a short hop over to Marina or Salinas(SNS) is much better airspace for doing patterns and getting some flight time.
The 340 clearly caused the accident with his recklessness, but the 152 could have prevented it. Maybe I'm overly cautious, but why risk cutting in front of a faster airplane that is 3 miles away on final? You expect everyone to assume the recommended speeds, but so do we on the streets with our cars, and we're still on the lookout for outliers that might ruin our day. So again, why risk it?
@@nereanim PLEASE recognize the 152 pilot was a student. At the experience level of a CFI I don’t believe it is realistic to expect an extremely low time and low experience pilot to have perfect ADM. We can pin things on the 152 all day but the cold fact remains, he technically did everything right, and the 340 did everything wrong, as far as the FAA is concerned.
I was there. I was ordering lunch at the restaurant just off the runway when this happened with my good friend who actually knows the pilot of 90FL. We had just landed about 10 minutes earlier, and were on the CTAF with the 152. It was pretty crazy and horrifying seeing it happen, especially right after talking to the victim of it. I looked over after someone exclaimed, so all I saw was debris falling down and the twin cessna going wayyy too fast, with its gear and flaps up. (According to someone there, flightaware clocked them at about 190 knots at the time of the collision) I even thought it was going to go around and recover until I heard an explosion and saw a massive cloud of smoke coming up over the hangers between the restaurant and the twin Cessna’s final resting place. After confirming what I saw with other people there, I thought at first that the twin cessna was just trying to show off by doing a low pass and didn’t take proper precautions. Listening to this now makes we wonder why the hell, if he DID intend to land (or at least stated so) he was carrying so much speed and had his gear up?? Based on the facts I’ve been given and the observations made by, and told to me, no matter how you look at it, it’s the fault of the twin Cessna’s pilot. At the very best, he decided not to overfly the field to look for traffic, instead deciding to come straight in to a pattern with at least 2 other planes, while going a hell of a lot faster than both of them. Not to mention probably going well in excess of even his gear speed. He was not technically breaking the law by doing so, but for those who don’t know, it’s a well known safety precaution/rule to fly above traffic pattern altitude over the field to get a sense of what’s going on before entering the pattern and coming in to land. To be honest, not that it’s even anywhere close to an excuse for any pilot to be this careless, but I really believe that if Watsonville had a tower, which many people already believed it should (considering an average of about 150 arrivals a day) that this would’ve been easily avoided. I hope they finally decide to get one after this; not that it should’ve taken 4 deaths to get that to happen. This guy killed himself, his passenger (who I assume is his wife, girlfriend, or some other family member), his pet dog, and a student pilot minding his own business in the pattern, all because he couldn’t bother to take the time to circle over the field, or to approach at a safe speed. Rest In Peace to all involved, mainly the innocent student pilot, passenger, and dog.
I’m not a pilot, but I live in Watsonville and my old office was across the street from the airport. I know the layout well. Your comment makes a point that is being neglected by everyone’s analysis. No one is looking at the impact trajectory of the 340: down the runway, across some dirt, then finally back across the tarmac into the hanger. The impact was so energetic the 340 was actually spun around by contact with the dirt field, then sent backwards by over 90-degrees back across the tarmac where it embedded itself into the hanger. The momentum the 340 hit the ground with must have been insane.
It seems to me that if he did overfly to look for traffic, the same thing could have happened a few minutes later, no? They were communicating. More importantly though, you're not really clear on what changed your mind about the high speed low pass theory. The clean config seems to make that scenario more likely, not less (sorry in advance if I misunderstood).
@@Milkmans_Son if he did overfly, he would have a better idea of where everyone actually was (based on actually seeing them rather than trying to just visualize it in his head). It might still have happened, but I think it would be much less likely, and he certainly wouldn’t be able to keep a pattern at the speed he was going. I’m sure he would’ve realized that had he tried, and realized he needed to slow down (though I don’t know how he didn’t realize that anyways). Also, what I mean is that I originally thought it was a low pass attempt based on what I saw as it actually happened, but listening to the recording, I realized he said “full stop” which made me think otherwise.
@@Milkmans_Son that’s correct, but there’s more to it. Saying “full stop” on radio means that you intend on coming to a full stop when landing (basically, a normal landing). All other pilots listening would reasonably expect him to be going slow enough to land, which he most certainly was not. A pilot is still supposed to say their intentions though, so if he was going to do a low pass, he should have said so on the radio. He also had his flaps (used to allow a steeper decent angle without gaining excessive airspeed) retracted/not in use. It’s not super uncommon to not use flaps to land, but that pretty much only happens when it’s unusually windy, which it was not. The really odd part was that he didn’t even have his landing gear deployed (the only part of the plane that’s actually meant to touch the ground). That, as well as the fact that he was going more than twice the planes landing speed, tell me that he either did not intend to land, or that he probably would have died anyways had he put the plane on the ground, with or without hitting another plane. There was a huge disconnect between what any sane pilot would expect from what he communicated, and what he actually did. I can’t say for sure exactly what caused it, but no matter what, the only aircraft not doing what they should’ve been was the 340, and to a pretty extreme extent.
I was nearly mowed down once in an almost identical incident. I was a solo student flying full stop take offs and landings in a left-hand traffic pattern, and this fella did a straight in approach at this uncontrolled airport. While I was making calls on the radio, he was not. He saw me turning base to final -- I never saw him at all as he was in the area blocked by the wing of the 150 I was flying. Even though he could see me, and he knew my intentions, he continued his approach and we only missed one another by about 30 feet. He appeared in my windscreen, almost directly overhead. I continued my approach and landed safely. He climbed out and went around. After he landed, he told the airport management that I cut him off. When they asked him why he wasn't using the radio (it was a plane he had rented from the same FBO) he said it wasn't working. The manager went out to inspect his aircraft and found his radio wasn't working because he didn't have the microphone plugged in. The guy had just gotten his license about a month before this incident at a different airport. Left hands were the standard at this airport. He should never have flown a straight in final, especially with traffic in the pattern. The management there knew me, as I had been training there for about a year. In the end he was told they would no longer rent him an aircraft. RIP to the souls lost in this crash.
Just another reminder of how many really bad pilots are out there. Similar incident during my student training. Was flying an Arrow setting up to come in for RWY 12 at KDED as winds were strong and nearly straight down, but when we got there 6 planes(172s) from another school from KDAB were in the pattern for RWY 5. I tell my CFI I am going to make a L turn to get away and come back around to join RWY 5 pattern well after the one just on departure leg and he agrees. Seconds later into the turn he took control and started heading straight again and climbing so I asked him what's wrong and points that idiot is coming right at us. It was a twin going well over 150 kts undercutting us and the 5 other trainers from ERAU in downwind, base, and final to try to beat them in. The ERAU instructors were screaming incl profanities on the radio at him. He was too fast and decided to do illegal R base direct into short final for 12 instead. When I announced concurrent landings happening on intersecting runways, the twin idiot says on radio "don't worry I'll stop on time" so he had radio even though he announced none of his intentions until then. Now this was my 8th out of 9 incursions that someone tried to hit me during my first 40 hours, including 2 on ground where it was clearly their fault/negligence. Irony is next time I went flying w/CFI and had 9th incursion I was definitely quitting. His response to me "You're a great safe pilot and have become really good at landings, so don't quit. You watch these videos about other crashes and eventually these bad pilots are going to kill themselves off leaving you safer." Turns out my CFI was one of those idiots as he afterward decided to go out with a mechanic in a twin he had no right to fly since in was over 5 years out of annual and maintenance was not complete and way faster and different than the twin he learned in. Crashed into trees flying killing all onboard. Took time away and decided to start flying again. Seems these idiots flying are still breeding, so not sure why I continue. Certainly I do not want to become one of these videos or on Kathryns Report
I did a direct final with my CFI and I felt a bit like he was rushing to beat some traffic. I don’t feel comfortable with direct finals unless the pattern is empty but now I’ll be even more cautious to the desire to “beat traffic.” There’s just so little margin for error in flying. Thanks for these videos. As a student it really helps me learn what not to do and also how to fly more defensively.
I am so heartened to read your comment. I'm just a bystander on the ground with no pilot training. While I know that the risk of an underskilled or careless pilot ploughing through my house is extremely low, it is not zero. Every student with a cautious, reasonable attitude like yours helps to make our skies safer for all.
Just yield. I have a faster plane and I do it all the time. I had a crop duster coming in on a long final while I was in pattern last week so I extended downwind. Just make space. Often I'll do right 360s on downwind since my aircraft is faster than most Cessnas etc. A few common sense adjustments and you can completely defuse a situation. Spot it early and announce what you're doing. It's amazing how many ppl dont do this
@@gringoloco8576 agreed, but the 152 did have right of way, and probably did not expect the 340 to be flying so recklessly fast either. The 340 clearly had no situational awareness and wrongly assumed he would be given right of way even though the regulations required him to yield. That said, I too generally yield to faster planes, to avoid situations like this, as I don't trust other pilots to pay attention or know what they are doing.
Same. i had a CFII push the throttle to full while trying to get to a short final. all because he didn't want the downwind traffic to extend any further than they already did. so instead of coming in at 90kts and letting the downwind traffic turn base, we we're hauling ass about 110kts less than 2 miles from the pavement
As a student pilot myself I totally understand this. When the pattern gets busy and there is entering traffic, without experience its hard to judge separation. I know I get very on-edge when I'm crosswind and someone calls xx miles out for the 45. I have no idea how much time until they are entering and where ill be on downwind when they do. If I'm not sure, I leave the pattern and re enter. Sometimes that's the right move. Other times I get laughed at because I could have done 2 more laps before they got there. But I know that uneasy feeling of hoping the other more experienced pilot is paying attention and has things under control. But this one is an example where that didn't pan out
Separation regardless, the 340 was required by law to give way to the cessna 152. But generally, when I know a faster jet or other fast plane is coming up behind me fast, I go around and side step the runway on the upwind, or extend my downwind. Just because I have the right of way, i fly defensively and don't put my life in the hands of others.
Being overly cautious is something my students will do in traffic. Holding short for traffic on downwind, doing a 360 in the downwind for traffic on short final, etc. With experience comes the ability to judge what is safe, and what is not. Better to be cautious than risk tolerant. You can't teach attitude, and your attitude to be cautious will make you an excellent pilot.
When in doubt it's always better to go around or extend downwind. But a good rule of thumb is that a piston airplane approaching the airport is going two miles a minute. (120kts) So 10 miles away, they'll be there in five minutes. A jet is probably going three miles per minute. (180kts) Of course final approach speeds should be lower, and this 340 pilot was way too fast even if no one else was around.
@@jonathanparle8429 Extending the downwind leg puts you out of power-off glide from the airport. I train a 360 in the downwind, we can have up to 5 planes in the pattern here at KEST all training, so it works a lot better than forcing everyone to fly out to an unsafe distance.
I don’t think we’re giving appropriate weight to the twin’s speed. To me, that excessive speed is the largest contributing factor to this accident. I’m a new pilot and even I know that if someone makes a straight in call at 10 miles, I should have about six and a half minutes before they arrive (assuming they’re doing 90 knots). That’s enough time for a complete pattern. If I’m in the downwind, I’m assuming I’ve got plenty of time. The twin was going twice that speed. So he went from 10 miles out to arriving in about three minutes explaining the convergence. Sure, the 152 could have realized that the twin is going much faster based on the time between the 10 mile and 3 mile call, but by then the 152 is configuring to land and focusing on his own final approach. GA is safest when we’re all doing what we expect each other to do. We’re all assuming that everyone else is flying in standards. The speed of the twin made the entire event unpredictable for the 152 pilot. To me, that’s at the crux of this accident. Thank you, as always, Mr. McSpadden for your analysis and constant commitment to aviation safety.
I agree with this, but I tend to focus more on the other side of the accident. I mean, I'm not in control of what the other pilot does, and there are infinite ways of being an reckless a-hole, so if I was this 152, what could I have done? What were the red flags? That's why analyzing what the 152 could have done but didn't do is so important to me Besides, there's not much to analyze about the 340. Just slow down and follow the rules. duh
@@Titere05 That’s a great point, Pablo. I appreciate the perspective. We’re all only PIC in our own airplane and could and should do whatever we can to minimize danger. I agree completely. But I’m a new pilot sitting comfortably in my living room chair at two feet AGL. As a new pilot in the air, I’m still trusting those who are more experienced and advanced around me to be as responsible and safe as I’m trying to be. I still need to think about flying when I’m flying. This one hits home for me because I could easily have been that 152 pilot. If I’m midfield, downwind and someone makes a 10 mile call for the straight in, I honestly wouldn’t think that I should extend my downwind. Not because I’m reckless; far from it. I’d just ‘know’ that I have plenty of time. I’d have made the same decisions as the 152 pilot and that’s pretty scary. I really do thank you for your comment, and it has tons of merit, but new pilots like me are flying by the book (which carries with it lots of assumptions regarding other planes around us) because we don’t yet have the 100s of hours of experience that some other pilots do.
@@thomasmennella5501 I'm a rather new pilot, myself, and I think I'm going to take this accident as a warning when I hear anyone call a straight-in approach. To me that call means they're either not looking for anyone else or simply will not enter a standard pattern. My home airport is a class D that converts to non-towered at night, and there are still commercial turboprops and airliners that arrive after tower is closed. I do pattern work at night for night currency. Somehow I can't imagine an Airbus hearing my lowly downwind report and deciding to maneuver to enter the downwind at a 45. I've been chased off the runway by twin turboprops behind me announcing each mile on straight-in finals at what seemed like 10-15 second intervals. I'm not sure I like extending my downwind or doing a downwind 360 because it keeps me at TPA well away from gliding range of the field and over densely-populated areas with few choices for a safe off-airport landing, should I need it. It also puts me in a position other pilots might not expect (i.e. my own 5-mile final). I think what this means to me is that when I first hear a straight in call and I'm anywhere but base or final, I'm leaving the pattern entirely and climbing out to somewhere safe until that traffic is on the ground.
Super bad decision by the twin to shoot a straight in approach into an uncontrolled field in my view. The fact that he was coming in at cruise-speeds is insane and to me, puts the fault squarely on the twin pilot's shoulders. The fact that the 152 didn't see him until it was too late due to the the closure rate of the twin - and couldn't get out of the way fast enough - doesn't put the blame on the 152. Sure we can all be extra vigilant and call off our standard in-pattern approach every time an entitled pilot decides he's the priority. Everyone else should of course abide his straight-in wishes because he's larger, faster, and thusly more important. I can't count the number of times I've entered a small rural uncontrolled airport - by the standard procedures - where there appeared to be no one in the pattern, only to find another plane in the pattern that wasn't announcing their turns (or had no radio and ADS-B out). They were easily identified once I was ready join in the pattern.
Yeah, i think its another case of get-there-itis. Ill bet you dollars to doll hairs either him or his passenger had some thing they wanted to get to. We shall see
IMO every near miss that involves a careless or reckless pilot's bad choices such as this one's should be reported. That way the reporter can know they have done their duty. It could one day save a life.
ASI does such good work addressing safety concerns in aviation. The discussion about the Watsonville accident is a great conversation and thank you for making this content!
As a pilot and owner of a 340, I can say that if the ADSB speeds are correct, the 340 was WAY too fast. In fact, I don't see how he could LAND at those speeds on short final. Normal approach is 110-120 at 5 miles, then over the numbers at 80-85. Some have stated that the visibility from the cockpit might have been a factor, but you have excellent visibility when pointed to the numbers on short final. I gotta call the fault as the 340 causing this. He wasn't set up for the approach and landing, there was no way he was stable in the last 5 miles, and should have gone around. (note that I am calling this based on the current evidence presented).
Is the cessna 340 considered slippery or hard so slow down at all? This particular straight in approach includes a decent over a 2000 ft mountain around 4-5 NM from the threshold. I'm wondering if it might have been a lack of practice slowing the airplane in a decent.
@@TheBrennan90 It isn't hard to slow down any more than similar airplanes. Every plane model is different, but it isn't appreciably different than any other twin in it's class. Too much power on descent is the only thing I can think.
@@HyperSpaceProphet Well thank you for your reply. I'm also of the opinion that the 340 pilot should have given way to he 152 and gone around if he was unable to get his airplane under control let alone not have converging traffic in sight.
Several friends that fly and my past flying experience we all at the same time said “I bet the twin didn’t have gear down and definitely wasn’t setup to land” when the collision occurred. No way he had gear down at 170.
IMHO, the 340 pilot flying is simply criminal. The best you can do when you fly like that, is to take only your own life away. But we all know that never happens. Rest in peace, 152 fellow.
You think he's criminal because he's the big bad evil twin? Doesn't matter. Sometime on the road and in the skies the bigger or more arrogant guy should not be challenged. Nobody ever proved how much they were in the right by killing themselves.
@@davejohnson8960 He's criminal because he was flying 180 knots on short final, over 90 knots too fast! flying like an arrogant asshole got them all killed!
@@davejohnson8960 The 340 pilot is a criminal because he blew THROUGH the pattern at 180-200kts while lying about his intentions on the radio. He was purely reckless. If he'd done the same thing in a glasair he's still be just as much at fault. This is the same as speeding at night with your headlights turned off as far as I'm concerned.
The point of impact was inside 200 meters from the runway approach threshold. The 340 pilot was deviating from flying using the published pattern choosing instead a 10-mile dog-leg straight-in, steep descent approach in spite of multiple planes reporting being in the published pattern (see the full audio transcript). At 200 meters (very short final) from the threshold the 340 pilot was flying at 375' agl at a speed in excess of 180 kts (over 208 mph), well above the max gear extension speed limit and well above the max flap extension speed limit (160 kts if it was a newer 340), and about 90 kts (104mph) above normal approach speed. The 340 pilot stated his intent was a full-stop landing (see full audio transcript), which was clearly impossible given the altitude and speed at which he was flying his aircraft. The 340 pilot never included his speed in any of his calls. Conversely, the 152 student pilot was one of two planes flying using the published pattern. The 152 pilot was flying at appropriate altitude, flying at appropriate speed, and making all the appropriate calls. As a student pilot it is highly doubtful that he had ever encountered conflicting traffic approaching in a non-standard path flying at over 208 mph on a straight-in approach, let alone on short-final. I just do not understand why anyone would try and pin the blame on the 152 student-pilot given the 340 pilots actions leading up to the impact.
Because, under the current FAA regulations, the 310 pilot did not violate any FAA rules. As wrong as most of us feel this is, that is a fact. Hopefully this accident will stir the FAA into a definitive statement/rule making regarding pattern entries at untowered fields.
If the C152 pilot made any mistake it's that he failed to call final and I feel that would have made all the difference. His response to hearing the twin call 3 mile final, looking for traffic on base was a simple "you're behind me". Had he said "short final, runway 20", maybe the twin jockey would have understood what's what....
@@stevepaul6360 The point of impact is the first time the C152 reached the runway centerline, so he was never established on final. He was angling the base turn in to the airport boundary, probably trying to stay ahead of the C340.
@@eightysea3780 the video here shows the track positions differently. Additional, the Blancolirio channel has a video about this, I recommend you check that one out too...
@@gawebm I fly in Canada so I’ll assume what you’re saying is correct. That just sounds mad to me that approaching short final at 180kt (above gear down speed) and joining untowered airport circuit in such a way doesn’t break some sort of rules. In Canada most times it’s overlooked if it’s not reported but the maximum disciplinary action for improper circuit entry is revoking licence.
5:50 "when you see conflict developing take action early" Agree. As long as the burden of detecting conflict and taking action early is placed *on the experienced pilots* , not on the students. If the burden of safety is placed on the people with the least hours and experience... then we are FUBAR The best thing would have had the 340 join the pattern. Teach the 152 what best practices are, and what conflict avoidance means. But some people can't be bothered to do that. The next best thing: had the 340 asked (nicely, pretty please with sugar on top) for the 152 to extend the base leg, the student pilot would have yielded, learned something, earned some confidence and experience. A short "please" when calling direct approach, and a "thank you" after the landing would have made all the difference. Some people can't be bothered to say please and thank you. But nooooo... someone placed the burden of detection and action on the student with low hours, flying a lawnmower with feathers. Beacuse of "reasons"
The 340’s pilot communicated his intention as straight in, landing, full-stop. But that’s not what he did. First, if he had slowed down for a proper landing approach, his arrival time at runway 2-0 would have been up to a minute later. Giving ample time for the 152’s pilot to have executed whatever pattern he had planned. Second, when the 152’s pilot did see the 340 behind him, his assumption would have been that the 340 was coming in for a landing. In which case, the proper evasive maneuver would be to pull up and let the faster aircraft pass underneath. But the 340 was in no position to complete a landing (way too-fast, landing gear still up, flaps still up). So, it’s only option to evade the 152 was to pull up too. It appears they collided while trying to avoid each other. In both cases, the 152’s fatal decisions came as a direct result of the 340’s pilot having communicated one intention, ...then doing something else instead. Anyway, for what it’s worth, that's my two cents on the matter.
There is a solid reason that the FAA DPE will fail even a CFI check ride if they make a straight-in approach into a non-towered field. It's bad news. If a 45 entry wasn't possible due to terrain, the alternate listed in the aim would be in upwind entry into the crosswind and then into the downwind. Pilots are always doing these straight-in approaches into non-towered Fields not realizing how much danger they're courting for themselves and others. This accident was totally avoidable and the twin pilot was at fault. Sadly neither the 152 student solo pilot or the pilot and his passenger in the twin who decided to save a little time with a straight in will never see another sunset or sunrise. By the way an upwind is NOT a departure leg, look in the aim. So often pilots will call on departure leg that they're on the upwind - amateur hour. the upwind lies on the non pattern side of the airport in the opposite direction of the downwind. I'm surprised how many pilots don't even read their AIM.
Was it a student solo? That could be a huge factor. His unfamiliarity with what to do when something unpredictable happens was their doom. Student pilots can generally fly in the pattern and make their calls pretty well, but entering a busy pattern or giving room for planes arriving in forces them to think differently than what they’re used to.
You might as well be speaking another language. What is FAA DPE? Whats "45 entry"? "an upwind is NOT a departure leg, look in the aim" what does that mean? " So often pilots will call on departure leg that they're on the upwind - amateur hour." why is this amateur hour? whats AIM?
Wrong - my DPE specifically covered and explained that a straight in approach is a legal, stabilized approach to untowered. It was the main teaching point I remember from my PPL checkride. “Read the AIM”
@@jeangingras5409 I can tell you from experience that I know of Private Pilot check rides that failed for doing that and I know CFI check ride candidate who got failed for that. The ironic part about the CFI candidate that failed it wasn't a student of mine, but it was a student of another instructor, he told me his instructor never told him that it would be an automatic fail on a check riide doing a straight into a non-towered field. Apparently the rest of his ride had gone well but he was just finishing his check ride and did a straight in, to a non-towered field and the examiner said I'm sorry I'm going to have to fail you for that. So I have no doubt that there's a lack of standardization across the country sometime with dpes. Unlike many I actually did my CFI check ride with the FAA FSDO directly and not a specially designated DPE. Three people are dead now because someone couldn't follow perfectly good advice on far safer entries because they were trying to save a few minutes. I don't fault you for not knowing, the big problem is we all only know what we've been taught. If we've been taught incorrectly then that's all we know. I've been teaching full time as a CFI for just a little under 20 years and given slightly over 8,000 of hours of instruction . That doesn't automatically make me an expert by any means, but it does give me unique perspective in the day-to-day, much more than your average pilot might. Sadly all that experience, unfortunately, shows you over time through the deaths of other pilots - the kind of things that actually kill pilots. One of which is a straight in into a non-towered field. Of course there was more going on with this most recent accident we also had added to the mix the classic case of a low wing coming in high above a highwing. A classic way to die because both are blind to each other unless they've been practicing situational awareness while flying in the pattern. It didn't have to happen. So folks 45 entry at TPA into the downwind midfield or upwind (which is the leg that sits on the non pattern side of the field heading in an opposite direction of the downwind) into the crosswind all at TPA Like the old adage says Aviation is not an inherently dangerous but it is ruthlessly unforgiving of any carelessness incapacity or neglect. So the very best, squawk VFR, frequency change approved radar services terminated. The very best in your flying adventures remember what we don't know can kill us 👍
I had a very similar incident, except the twin joined the pattern straight in on downwind. I was already on downwind when the twin called out his location. I told my instructor (who wasn't paying attention) that the twin called in the same location we were in. As my instructor grabbed the radio to have the twin repeat, the twin shot over us going roughly twice our speed and missing us by less than 100 feet. Ironically, downwind for this little airport was the road directly behind my house at the time. Had we collided we would have done so over my own house.
Something is definitely off with the 340. I won’t be surprised if we find out the twin wasn’t even configured to land. Which then raises the question as to what the pilot was even doing? Only time I ever approached any airport at cruise speeds was during an air show and having lots of communication with the traffic in the area and the air show staff. 160-180 knots down the runway for an air show pass is no joke!!!
Could be a variety of reasons, but the 152 never should have turned base with a twin announcing THOSE positions on final, not to mention how fast he was closing in. Bottom line, I'd like to know if either plane had an active display of traffic. I'm not a fan of the old days of radios and windows.
“with neither pilot altering their course or taking evasive action...” The student was going around to give way (even though he did have right of way) to the twin because he saw what was about to happen.
BS. The Cessna was in the legal and right. And he tried to get out when noticed the twin was going much faster than he should. The twin was lying and illegal as F.
The accident reminds me of a similar problem I had in the early 1980's. It was an uncontrolled airport, and I was in the pattern doing touch and goes in a 152 when another pilot called a 10 mile final for a full stop. Something didn't feel right, so instead of turning base, I extended my down wind and started looking. The twin pilot was closer than he said and going too fast to possibly land. He floated down the full length of the runway and had to go around.
Yours is a great example of defensive flying, lol. For all the peeps on a 152 flying patterns out there, you CAN avoid these accidents, just be super careful, pay attention to how things unravel and don't always trust that other people will follow the rules. Other pilots might have faster, bigger airplanes, but they don't have to have your fate on their hands
One thing I've noticed is that I've got a good handle on what numbers I need to be hitting at different points in a pattern, and what power/flaps/trim adjustments I'm making at those points in the pattern to hit those numbers, but I don't have that same feeling for straight-ins. I can see somebody in a high performance twin, without the base and final turns to bleed energy, and without a good feeling for what numbers they need to be hitting at what points on a straight-in, showing up over the threshold with way too much energy.
The 152 pilot got his ticket about 2 years ago, so likely fairly low time. It seems doubtful that NTSB report will claim that the 340 had the final right of way per 91.113(g) given distance to an airport with an active traffic pattern. I think the 152 pilot started his downwind/base turn before he called his turn, thinking the 340 was last heard 10 miles out. Even at 3 miles out, if his downwind pattern was about 1/2 mile from the runway centerline, he'd be on final with the airplane setting up for straight in about 2 miles behind. There's so many things wrong with the 340; it's hard to look elsewhere for blame. Straight in instead of joining the pattern, 180 knots on final, not clearly identifying traffic in the pattern - who knows if he had flaps or gear extended? On the 152 side, I think he just didn't have enough experience to react correctly to the 340 driver's errors. If they assign some blame to the 152, it will likely be with the recognition that a more experienced pilot could have avoided the conflict because of experience.
I fly a C414 into uncontrolled airports all of the time. I almost NEVER fly straight in. I go in at 45 and stay at 1300 ft AGL and am slowed to 120kts by then and slower if need be. I still look for aircraft with no radio with clearing turns and assuming not all traffic ATSB. Totally agree with your recommendations, the C340 pilot appears to be at fault. As an experienced pilot with over 8000 hours, I don’t assume every other pilot is as experienced. I’ve broken off approaches plenty of times…..this C340 should have as well. The speed of this C340 is really odd too. Flaps at 160 KIAS, gear at 140 KIAS and final should have been about 95 KIAS with no wind sheer. Sad….AIM recommendations are there for a reason.
Thank you for recognizing that not all of us are going to appear on the glass. I've had a couple of close calls in the past year by guys with their heads down looking at their fancy graphics. ... and yea, check that first sentence in your post.
Nothing wrong with flying a straight in approach, just so long as you don't cut anyone off, observe spacing, yield right of way, and be ready to join the pattern if there is too much traffic to make it work. Being on a long final does not mean you have priority over those in the pattern. on a long final, the person on Base is actually ahead of you. And if you arrive within airport airspace with say 3 planes already in the standard pattern, you are #4 to land no matter what. They were there first and have right of way and priority, they are already in sequence to land. So you can do a straight in, so long as the existing traffic allows. Ever done an IFR practice approach? that's a straight-in.
How in the hell when the 340 actually touched down, did the pilot think it was going to take to stop his plane? at 175 knots! thats what 216 mph?!!! WTF!!
From what I've seen and heard elsewhere about the 340's angle of decent and its speed on a straight-in approach has me wondering if the 340 pilot was performing (or attempting to perform) a high-speed fighter-style penetration. If that is the case, I would also wonder whether he had done this before and gotten away with it. In any event, traffic patterns exist for a reason. Long straight-in approaches to uncontrolled fields are generally ill-advised, no matter how fast (or slow) you fly the approach. There will be more information on this accident later on; I am curious about the 340 pilot's background...
If the 340 pilot had followed standard uncontrolled field pattern protocol, this accident would not have happened. Period. No excuse for barreling into an active pattern at twice normal short final speed. Let's not assume there's shared responsibility here; there's not. This is 100% on the 340. I will go so far as to say his actions were reckless, without regard for the safety of his aircraft and the others in his vicinity. His flying totally contradicts his CTAF advisory, in that there's no way he could have executed a full-stop landing at that speed. His advisory mislead the 152 pilot, which I believe will be noted as a contributing factor in the accident. IMHO, it's time to crack down on straight-in VFR approaches into uncontrolled fields except for emergencies. We're seeing too many pilots flying unsafe FAR-violation maneuvers, like high-speed low altitude passes. Start putting teeth in the FARs.
It is tough enough to see and avoid in a busy airport like Watsonville. It's is even more difficult to see an airplane from a distance that flies at twice the speed of the airplanes that we normally see in the pattern.
Absolutely! At this point I think things have gone far beyond asking such pilots nicely to be more careful. Regulations need to be tightened. The only comment I will make about the poor 152 pilot is that he could have avoided the 340 if he had put in some distance between his plane and the 340, regardless of speed. Obviously not blaming him at all; rather just saying that defensive flying could have kept him safe. I hope the flying community of Watsonville all increase their cautiousness, given the busyness, diversity of aircraft, and nearby terrain at this un-towered field. IMO it's just like defensive driving on the roads. I can't change the fact that some people with whom I share the road are Darwin Award contestants; all I can do is try harder to keep out of their way, and where appropriate, report them.
We all know the 340 was in the wrong here, and what he could have done to prevent the accident, but the more interesting question is, what could the 152 have done?
@@Titere05 The 152 could have extended his downwind. He knew there was traffic on final and didn't have it in sight. Still 100% the 340's fault. Doesn't matter though. I avoid car accidents all the time that would have clearly been the other person's fault, but the other person still pays the price. Fortunately most pilots are pretty darn good. Just the few the Cirrus pilots and this 340 that suck.
@@Capecodham RIP originally meant Requiescat in Pace but nowadays most people treat it as Rest in Peace. I use RIP instead of Rest in Peace to avoid the appearance of not knowing the original meaning. And also because it's quicker to type. When I don't know what an acronym or initialism means I usually google it.
These videos are extremely helpful to me as a student pilot. I cannot imagine what the 340 pilot was thinking - cruise speed and (apparently) gear and flaps up. I have to wonder what would have happened if the 152 had not been present. "Oh, crap! Autopilot still on cruise - I'm going around!" At first I thought maybe he had some medical impairment, but at 1 mile he sounded fine but was already way too close to make the needed adjustments. Very sad but thanks for the excellent analysis.
This is extremely saddening and seems so preventable. As plenty of others have commented, I can't wrap my head around the ludicrous approach speed of the 340. I'm no airline pilot, but 180 kts seems too fast for even a large airliner on final. No amount of "getthereitis" can justify that speed. I assume the 340 pilot never had the 152 in sight. The 152 pilot stated he had the 340 in sight, and there was never an acknowledgment of that or of the go around by the 340 pilot. We weren't in those planes in the situation, and it's easy to better analyze this while safely on the ground. But regardless, I hope this provides further education and prevention of future mid-airs.
I love “Ill advised” when “reckless” is the blunt truth. 192 knots approach speed is unexplainable, unjustifiable, and irresponsible. Wondering if drugs were involved?
I'm a private pilot who has landed at Watsonville many times, and I've never once been there when I'm the only airplane in the pattern, it is a very busy GA airport and that is no secret. So some clown flying a straight in approach twice as fast as he should have is completely blowing it, and he paid for it, idiot, plus he killed a dog, which hurts even more.
I got to agree on the “ Ill advise straight in approach VFR entering the pattern”. To me that’s a very cavalier and arrogant way to fly…. Especially if you know there’s aircraft in the pattern…. Very sad but obvious results.
It seems obvious that the 340 pilot's intentions were NOT to make a "straight-in, full stop". He was too fast to deploy flaps and gear and couldn't possibly make a landing. Perhaps he intended to do a "run and break" but he was never going to do what he claimed. The 152 pilot would have reasonably expected the 340 to be at approach speed because of the pilot's stated intentions. As others have stated, in the UK where I am, traffic in the circuit (pattern) has priority. On straight-in approach to an untowered field where I have landed, if there is someone in the pattern, I negotiate with the other pilot to ensure that I'm not causing him to deviate. I once had the other pilot (on downwind) offer to extend his downwind to accommodate me, but I thanked him and made a standard join. It's polite and it's safe.
I agree. Yes, we're supposed to aviate, then navigate, then communicate, so maybe the 340 pilot was flying first and was going to radio second, for whatever reason. My theory on what happened is that the 340 originally tried to "reserve" the runway a long ways out, like a jerk. He had heard the 152, and knew it was going to land, but thought he could shove him out of the way with his fancy fast plane. However, he couldn't lose speed because he was in a descent, because he's a lousy pilot, and couldn't anticipate that. He probably knew he couldn't land, so he then made another bad decision, and instead of trying to kill more energy by climbing, was going to just overfly at high speed, showing off. The 152 panicked, though, and rose up into the 340's path. The 340 should have climbed out of traffic pattern altitude when he realized he couldn't land, but he tried to show off instead and do a high-speed low pass, but hit the 152 who was just trying to fly safely. Hot dogging, and inability to determine energy state, by the 340 killed them all.
The c152 was a student pilot faithfully calling his pattern and flying by the book, and clearly did not have the experience to be aware of the potential speed of the approaching c340. When he found the c340 booming down he called "go around", still not completely comprehending the true speed of the c340. The c340 was approaching at 180kt-200kt while aware the c152 was on left base. At 3m the c340 acknowledged he had not yet made visual of the c152 on left base; regardless, he doubled down, apparently certain with his speed he could get ahead of the c152 wherever it was. Darwin Award for the c340.
I always find a Darwin Award death unremarkable when only the recipient is dead. This case is infuriating because he caused the death of two other people, and could have killed even more people, on the ground.
Yeah, the C340 approach speed is absolutely bonkers. As a low time private pilot who hasn't flown in a while, my experience is primarily limited to "Flying a C172 at somewhere between 70 and 100 knots at a towered airport." A C152 is even slower still, and figure if that C152 was going 60-70 knots, the C340 was TRIPLING its speed. But not just that, even with both planes attempting to go the same direction, the C340 was going the equivalent of a normal C172's CRUISE SPEED more than the C152 (Nearly 110-120 knots more!) And not only that, their speed when that close to the airport and that close to the ground is higher than what a 737 would be doing in the same scenario. Even if there were no other planes in the sky, I don't know how the C340 pilot was planning to get their plane from 180 knots to 80-90 knots for landing without trashing their gear and flaps. Absolutely egregious airspeeds.
At my field we have a lot of student pilots that fly some incredibly large patterns and it often appears that they are flying a "straight in" when they are actually in their extended pattern. We also have Jets and turbo-props that mingle with the flight school 152s on a daily basis. The rule is that you do not turn base when someone else has announced that they are on final until you have "crossed wings" with the airplane on final. A pilot cannot fly "their pattern" when other pilots in the pattern are flying a longer pattern. If the the 340 would have shown some restraint, and joined the pattern, lives would have been saved. If the 152 would have extended his downwind leg to let the 340 pass, then turned base, the outcome would have similarly been much better. We recently had a situation where a Citation Jet announced they were on 1 mile final and a Cessna 150 entered the runway and attempted to take-off ahead of it, not realizing the closure rate of the Citation. Thankfully, the Alert Citation pilot went around and saved the day. The Citation pilot obviously had the right of way, but living to fly another day beats being involved in an accident where the other person was ruled at fault.
Several months ago I witnessed something similar. A skywest crj-200 was on 2 mile final and a c-172 turned on final right in front of him. Fortunately the crj pilots were aware and pointed her up and over the airport. Meanwhile the 172 just did a touch ago and left the area. I worked skywest at the time so I didn’t here any radio chatter being outside to watch it happen, but a CFI walking by started cussing up a storm over the c-172 pilot.
@@matthewhaselhorst1778 If the 340 wasn't 40k above gear speed and diving for the runway, he might have seen the 152 sooner. The mystery here is all about the 340's speed. He couldn't even have been configured to land unless he had seriously oversped his gear and flaps. And to be on approach if configured at 180k, he would have carried a whole bunch of power which would be weird. Something is just not right. This isn't just about a guy flying a little fast. This isn't about how to enter a pattern. This isn't about turning in front of an airplane on final. Something really strange was going on here. The investigation will be interesting. But it will take 2 years. Dan Gryder will have an opinion in the next couple of weeks I'm sure. But it will just be a studied opinion.
@@bayanon7532 I’m not blaming the 152 pilot. Kind of sounds like you think I am. I was just relating a story to the end of the comment. I’ve just seen some close calls from similar situations. I don’t blame the 152 in this instance
correct. but, it's possible the 152 was unfamiliar with the 340 and how fast it flies, as I know even I'm not familiar with the 340. I know the C414 and C310, but not the 340. He may have assumed that since he was already on base and the 340 was still miles out there should have been plenty of time. and that FAA regulations required the 340 to give way to slower and lower traffic.
Sounds like a good rule! When the margins are too thin and you're relying on the goodwill and decency of other pilots, you're gambling with your life. Might not sound nice or kumbaya, but it's the truth
One thing that happened to us that makes my skin crawl in relation to this was a base turn inside a Cessna Citation we did in our Cessna 310P. As pilots in your mind, you have an idea of approach speeds of other aircraft. We were on downwind, and a Citation was on a long straight in final just like this 340. When the Citation is calling 5 miles, we are just starting to turn base. I'm thinking the Citation is likely 130kts or so. We are turning at 110kts working down to 90kts, no problem. Long runway so we pushed and landed mid field, no issue. There is no way that 152 pilot is thinking that 340 is coming at him at 180kts, he thinks he has plenty of room just like we did (and we did). By the time the 152 pilot saw this guy shooting like a rocket at him it was too late. This is very strange as there is no way that 340 is going to land at such a speed. On top of that the flap and gear speed were both exceeded if they were actually down which seems hard to believe simply because of the high speed. You would have to be in a full power decent to maintain that kind of speed dirty if you even could. Just makes no sense, such a tragedy.
Exactly, if the ADSB speeds are correct, there was NO WAY he could land, I own and fly a 340 and at thsoe speeds he could not have stopped before the end of the field no flaps and likely not been at gear speeds over the numbers.
summarized well. 152 thought he had room had the 340 been flying appropriate speeds, and 340 was required by law to give right of way to lower and slower traffic already in the pattern, and it appears the 340 was in no condition to land anyways.
Exactly, the 152 could never have known, but in my opinion, he should've never assumed! That's why I still slow down on busy intersections even if the light is green. You never know when you'll stumble upon the bastard that's going to ruin your life, or end it
@@Titere05 For sure, I agree 100%. That's why this made me think back on what we "assumed" would be a safe base to final with that Citation and now in retrospect we should have extended the downwind. As you say, never assume. Extra sad that the pilot of the 152 caught this guy coming at him at over 200mph and just couldn't get out of there. Makes you wonder if the 340 pilot hadn't of died or this was just a close call what the FAA would have done if at all?
I'm trying to figure out what I might do in a similar situation. I've never flown a 152, but frequently fly 172s and Cherokee 140 trainers. If I were to turn downwind to base, expecting the 340 to be slowing his approach 5-10 miles out, I'd have already dropped 200-400' below TPA, put in 20 degrees of flaps, and I'd be trimming for a stabilized approach. I'm at about 20-30 kt above Vso. The base leg is short, so if I was about to turn final and looked out my right window to see this twin barreling toward me on a collision course, I'm not sure what the best course of action would be. Even without a collision, this is the type of situation that could kill a pilot on the base leg: a quick, reflexive, defensive steep, uncoordinated turn (in either direction) could develop into a spin or stall -- very dangerous at 600' AGL. Continuing straight (parallel to the base leg past final) would have you cross his path and could result in a collision. Adding power to climb would increase your speed toward the path of his final but may get you above his glideslope. It may also put you into an elevator stall based on your trim. Adding power and turning sharply is only going to increase the likelihood of an uncoordinated turn if you're not counteracting the fully-powered engine with right rudder. Diving puts you lower to ground hazards and makes you less visible to him and him less visible to you. If you're low and slow on base and you see someone rocketing toward you on final, what's the best course of action to deconflict? I get that the answer is "don't get there in the first place," but what's the best choice once you're already past that point?
Something else that bothers me is that at one point, the twin reported his position as being east of the airport. No…not east, more north-northeast. Could the 152 pilot have been thinking that the traffic was going to be behind him and no factor?
I am private pilot student in Europe and from what we study here (idk if it’s exactly the same in the u.s.) airplanes that are already inside the traffic pattern have priority on other traffic willing to enter the pattern. I don’t understand why the twin bird was going so fast, that is very dangerous. Also I don’t understand why the c152 pilot decided to go around? If you are in front of another airplane on final why would you go around, it should be the airplane following to do so. If you are faster and behind a traffic you should be the one going around, not the plane in front.
You are correct on the fact that the C152 that was in the pattern had the right away. However him trying to go around was his attempt to get out of the way because the twin was fast approaching his rear end. Unfortunately the getting out of the way didn’t happen fast enough. However it was obvious that he knew something was wrong and tried to do something about it. This accident was 100% the fault of the twin on multiple levels. The C152 pilot could have done more to avoid it, but it certainly was no fault of his own that this occurred.
In the U.S we are also taught that existing aircraft already in patter SHOULD have the right of way, however I don’t believe that is a solid regulation at un towered fields There is a 200 knot speed limit in patterns and while I understand why it’s that high I feel there should be a tiered system so if you choose the slowest tier your aircraft is capable of safely flying at.
@@VictoryAviation Turning base and turning to final in front of a well announced incoming twin was not something anyone should receive a medal over. The 152 should have extended his downwind and just let the nut job in the 340 do his thing.
@@davejohnson8960 I would have extended my downwind personally. But the law states that the C152 had the right away. I was just explaining the law. Just because someone does have the right away doesn’t mean they shouldn’t exercise caution when making decisions, but technically the twin was in the wrong (with the information we have so far). I always try to stay out of careless pilots’ way myself, but none the less this twin pilot seems to have broken the law and it cost everyone involved their lives.
I had the exact same thing happen to me , I chose to extend my downwind leg and let the king air go ahead of me. There is no agreement about who has the right of way, my concern was maintaining separation.
No matter the speed of the twin, in a 172 or 182 I’m extending downwind if I hear a twin is on a 3 mile final. Make the base turn once abeam of the twin. But I also can’t stand when people do straight in’s to an uncontrolled field. They should be entering the left downwind midfield at a 45. Just safer IMO
I'm not a pilot, just an enthusiast with lots of "armchair" hours, but I was thinking the same thing. Had I been on the downwind hearing of an approaching twin, I'd have extended, waved as he went by, and followed in afterwards. Unfortunately he assumed the twin was coming in at a normal approach/landing speed. This assumption proved fatal.
A straight in isn’t the end if the world, but the twin pilot is 100% at fault for not cooling his jets or doing a quick 360 to provide proper separation. He was hauling ass all the way in with complete disregard for other aircraft.
This happened all the time to me when I was a student pilot. The airport was heavy with training aircraft, but business jets and turboprops would often enter the pattern straight in. Many times I had to fly a very long downwind to accommodate the traffic. No time to argue about it or point fingers…someone has to be courteous rapidly.
This is a great early analysis, thank you. I think that it is a cautionary tale for straight in approaches, specifically straight in approaches if there is known traffic in the pattern. I think the lower aircraft having priority per the FAR 91 regulation is great guidance, regardless of the definition of what aircraft is on final. The lessons of taking action early to deconflict (example/ 360 for spacing) and aeronautical decision making is outlined well in the video. The high speed of the C340 is what I do not understand. I hope that other pilots understand and learn from the analysis and investigation of this collision.
You cannot be making 360's with out creating a collision conflict with the guys behind you. The 152 was right. But the twin was lying about doing a full stop while going at over 200 mph on short final. A Liar.
I don’t know if the audio is edited, but if not and if it’s not precisely synced to the ADS-B, don’t necessarily assume the c152 turned base *after* the c340 called three miles. It’s possible the c152 had to wait for the freq to clear to make his call, and had already started or even completed the turn before he heard the inbound missile’s announcement.
If I hear a guy call a 10-mile final on a sunny VFR day when the pattern occupied and he doesn't make a very clear indication that he will alter to blend in with traffic, I bug out and come back when he's gone. He probably doesn't have the kind of mindset with which I want to share constrained airspace. That said, the 152 had rising terrain in front of him which I almost never have, and he may have been a student who doesn't yet have those gut feelings about who to steer clear of. Based on what I've heard thus far, I don't fault him nearly as much as the guy in the twin.
Agree 100%. I would like to add that, IMHO, radios and windows don't cut it. It doesn't seem like enough pilots and CFIs are using the available technology.
@@davejohnson8960 I couldn’t agree more with this after having done several accident investigation papers for college. I see over and over again through statistics that see and avoid in today’s airspace is not the answer by itself. There’s no way that the human body can compensate for the traffic density and speeds we have in modern aviation.
It’s so eerie watching Richard providing his excellent insight and narration of this incident while knowing that he died just a year after making this video after losing control of a light aircraft he was piloting. Early indications are that they were overweight due to a possible miscalculation, although the final results won’t be released for another year.
RIP to all those who have passed in this tragic accident. My question to twin pilots, if we imagine a world where the 152 was not there, what were the chances of the 340 successfully landing at approach speeds that high so close to the runway? It seems to me that although the 340 pilot had clearly called his intention to land, based on the available data it seems he hadn't bothered to configure the aircraft for it. I am rated in complex retractable singles and I need to be thinking about and planning for my pattern speed a long way out or my aircraft simply won't slow down in time to drop the gear and flaps.
He had no chance at all of landing. He was way above gear and flap speed. Jets don't even approach that fast. Maybe he was planning a low approach to impress someone?
Is it possible he was aborting without announcing? Maybe he was expecting the 152 to land as he went around? I just can't seem to wrap my head around what his intentions were.
THANK YOU, for posting this. I don't fly, but watching the videos and the explanation of this crash on the news, I was thinking "how on earth did THAT happen? I was hoping you would explain it with an animation. You do such an outstanding job narrating and explaining these situations. 🥰
Also, we don't know if the registered pilot of the 340 was the one flying the approach. What other reason could there be for the high rate. (Even above gear speed)
He had a bigger plane and made his 10 mile call, therefore he felt he had the right to fly straight in, and it was the C152’s job to move out of his way.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 Could also have been keeping his speed up so to get on final before the other guy. It's a move you see all the time. I once cross wind at an MF airport in Canada and had someone pop-up off a lake within the zone and try to race me to final. Complete with with a totally bogus 3 mile final call when fella wasn't even close to the extended centerline.
The 340 was higher and because of background ground clutter of buildings, etc, didn’t see the movement of the 150 across the ground. Knowing there was a possible conflict and he did not have a visual on the 150, he should not have continued to the threshold. He could have done a spacing 360 or overflown the runway. Likewise, the 150 should have extended his down wind until the 340 had passed. They both had awareness of the conflict and should have de conflicted the situation. Announcing your location and intentions does nothing to resolve a conflict you know exists. You can not always wait until you have a visual confirmation of the conflict. ATC doesn’t and neither should pilots.
I was almost involved in the same type of accident about 30 years ago. I was flying a 172 on a left downwind at a towered airport. There was a Cherokee 180 about a mile and a half final. The tower cleared me to land and told the Cherokee to follow me. I turned my left base at approximately a half mile out and as I started my turn to final, my 10-year-old brother asked me, "who is that?" I turn to him and he's pointing out his window and I see the Cherokee about two hundred feet from me converging! I quicky bank left, full power and climb. The tower then see's what is happening and asked the Cherokee if he saw the Cessna he just cut off. He replied "no". The tower then told me to go around and make left traffic as he cleared the Cherokee to land. If my brother had not been with me that day, I'm pretty sure it would have been a mid-air. Because of this close call, I ALLWAYS check final on downwind, base leg, and as I am turning final regardless of a towered or non-towered airport.
We can discuss right of way all day, pilot in the pattern vs. pilot on a long final, but there is a simple solution which has worked for me for 40 years of flying. If both pilots are communicating and each knows the other one is there, don't turn on a converging course until you see each other. I routinely land at a controlled airport where the traffic is mostly scheduled airlines. The tower will not let me turn base until I have reported visual contact with traffic on final and the other pilot does the same with me. I don't need a controller to operate the same way at uncontrolled airports. Each pilot knew the other was there. The pilot on final should not continue down the final approach not knowing where the other aircraft in the pattern are. The pilot in the pattern should extend his downwind until he can determine visually that the traffic on long final is not a factor, or wait for the traffic to pass by before turning base. As a commercial helicopter pilot I've been taught to avoid fixed-wing traffic patterns, but the good thing about flying a pattern is that you can communicate your position around the airport easily with other pilots so that they know where to look for you. Fly defensively. I drive cars and ride motorcycles the same way. I assume that the other guy is NOT going to do the right thing until I can verify visually that he won't or can't hit me. I stop even when I have the right of way on the road if someone is about to hit me because the right of way won't make a difference if I'm dead or injured. This is a sad event that could have been avoided so easily.
10 miles is not on “final approach” to a non-tower airport, even if aligned with the runway. Traffic patterns exist for a reason at these airports. Additionally, if the imbecile in the 340 was going to engage in a strafing run of the airport at that speed, he should have included his intentions well before violating a busy traffic pattern. Clearly careless and reckless operation of that aircraft. His estate will be gutted in the lawsuit by the next-of-kin of the 152 pilot.
I sure hope so! I wondered that myself, and I'm pleased to hear your comment about it. Civil litigation is a big part of the system that can improve safety and save lives.
What angers me is that I’ve had this sort of behavior at my local airport KTRM. Many larger aircraft charters totally ignore the traffic pattern and many of them just assume that it is your job to get out of their way. To me, what makes this clearly the fault of the 340 was that there was not just one aircraft in the pattern when the 340 first called in. Just head a little left of the field and turn on the 45. It doesn’t take that much extra time. Don’t fly straight in with traffic in the pattern…particularly when you don’t see them!
Not a pilot, but appreciate your early appraisal, animation, past data & council for pilot's avoidance of this in the future. I recognize that this is very early in the accident analysis, but even to a non-pilot, this was understandable. Thank you for your work.
Here in Australia it is strongly recommended that you overfly the field and join xwind to maximise situational awareness, preparation for landing etc. Straight ins etc are allowed but not recommended. I have been in the C152 situation and chose to extend downwind. In another similar situation when joining 45 degrees downwind, I actually did a 180 and started my circuit/pattern entry again! You have to visually see each other to continue, and neither did - the speeder said LOOKING for aircraft on base, the C152 said YOUR BEHIND ME probably based on radio calls. So sad.
Speculating here, but wonder if the reason for the twin coming in hot may have been that the pilot was so preoccupied looking for the 152 that he simply didn’t configure for landing. Or due to the ridges on the north, and the fact that he wanted to do a straight in, there wasn’t proper energy management to bring it down to approach speed on short final.
Entering a busy trsffic pattern straight-in and at high speed is just criminal, regardless of what the regulations say. My conolescences to the families involved.
There will be fault and blame assigned, but thank you for pointing out that it would be prudent to extend base with a faster aircraft on 1 mile straight-in final. It appears very much possible that the 152 pilot did everything by the rules, but some "defensive flying" may be the best course. The combination of the high airspeed on final and the 340 pilot not being able to spot the 152 in the pattern might point to that pilot having some sort of incapacitation. In a car, it's easy for me to remember that other drivers may be distracted or of limited capacity, and give them a wide berth even if it's a nuisance for me. The same may be prudent in the air.
Can someone explain to me how the twin pilot was going to land with a full stop when he was so close to the airfield and still doing 179+ kts? Presumably he still had gear and flaps up as from what I understand he was still above the speed necessary to deploy both.
Thank you for such a calm and considered analysis. I hope very much that it will counter the tendency of some commenters to leap in pointing fingers before full details are known. Do you (ASI) think that enough emphasis is given during PPL training to detecting and avoiding pattern incursions ? The statistics suggest that there is room for improvement in this area. Do you (ASI) think that the ambiguity in the regulations regarding who has priority (lower / pattern / declared final) should be resolved by means of a change to the regulations, or is it sufficient to leave pilots to sort it out for themselves ?
I cannot understand how the “straight in approach” is still allowed. even if the inbound traffic is IFR - if the field is VMC and it’s not a turbine then fly the standard overhead join. If the twin had flown the standard join this wouldn’t have happened
Very good review of procedures, the accident itself and lessons learned. I fly a mid-size cabin jet into many non-tower airports and it’s nuts how some operate in/out of these airports.
I’m a commercial pilot and I’m scratching my head on this one… all I can come up with is that they were in a hurry. But something just seems really off here
@@aarontiterence6507 Exactly. What was his intentions at 300AGL and less than 1 mile from threshold doing 180kt? Could not have landed to full stop anyway. Listening to the 340 pilot he did not seem quite right, a little spaced out. Perhaps this might be a contributing factor as difficult to explain why someone would be so totally and completely reckless.
How is this possible? Seriously, I don't get it. How can someone, being aware of the pattern traffic, make a long final approach? The traffic pattern is there for a reason! It was absolutely ruthless continuing the approach knowing there's traffic just straight ahead. A 360 would've solved the situation. But anyway… the 340 guy didn't wanna land. 170 kt on final… Suicide?
Yes, the FAA does put their "guidance" in what's called the "AIRMANS INFORMATION MANUAL" and from what I understand it says is you can only make a straight in approach if you give priority to anyone already in the pattern and can conform to their speed. CFIAM JOE COVINO. Lake Havasu, Arizona.
8/20/22. Thx ASI for this clear & visually EZ 2see positions of each a/c as they flew their path to threshold. Great review of rules for VFR pattern priorities. Much enjoyed this analysis. Will watch 4more from you after NTSB initial & final reporting.👍👍👍👏🛩🙂
TCAS is a complicated, and a very expensive system. In this case, both pilots were flying VFR meaning they suppose to look outside for traffic, just like you and I when we drive a car. A good analogy to driving is a motorcycle overtaking you at 100mph on the freeway. You will never see the motorcycle until it passes you because you mind cannot comprehend the closure speed, and your eyes aren't used to see a small rocket with that speed. Even if it was a car at 100mph, you will not recognize the closing speed. This is why airports have established patterns for the specific runways, left pattern or right pattern. It's is like the rule of the road, until someone decides to not follow the rule. Another example is a four-way intersection with no traffic light and no stop sign. By law, you can blow past the intersection at the normal 35mph speed but you are foolish to do so. People slow down or come to a stop and look for cross traffic before proceeding. TCAS is used for jets flying in the cloud, and the closure speed is so fast that it cannot be foreseen by a regular pilot, especially when they cannot possibly see another jet.
At a non towered airport under VFR conditions the Twin pilot did not enter the pattern in the correct path. I’ve dealt with bigger iron pilots like this guy before. Make straight in regardless of “in the pattern” aircraft at the airport. I’ll tell you why the Twin was going so fast, he did not want to go around the pattern behind the 152, cause he was too important to take the time to do that. Sadly, although not at fault in any way, the 152 paid the ultimate price. Kind of like stepping into a crosswalk, the crash still kills. He’d be alive if he had extended his downwind for the jerk in the Twin.
@@islandlife756 "I assume he didn't understand that his excessive speed would have risked his own life even if the 152 hadn't been there." You really think he didnt understand that? LOL. Excuses, excuses.
179 knots 1 mile from final?? “ill-advised”?? Try reckless, or negligent. Better yet, how about homicidal? Yes I see that both parties had a responsibility to see and avoid, but Jesus Tapdancing Christ that twin flew like he was performing a bombing run during the Battle at Midway.
I have not flown that model of Cessna twin in about 40 years. So I may be wrong, Seems a bit high to extend flaps and landing gear. Either way too fast on a short final. Just ran down the kid in the 152.
I don't understand, according to fr24 the Twin was at 170kt@260 ft over the threshold, it doesn't make sense if it wanted to land, it never slowed the plane. Possible Adsb error or malfunctioning anemometer?
I've been flying for 20 years. I trained and have always flattened the airplane to look in the opposite direction before any turn while in the pattern. Over the years I've seen people enter a straight in downwind, a straight in base, and of course a straight in final. I'm sure the poor guy in the 152 thought the twin would take action to avoid him. That assumption cost him his life.
@@stevehuffman1495 True, but I always look at them and take extra care in case they are. I try not to trust others to do the right thing, in any situation that can lead to injury or death.
Nice bit of victim-blaming there. The 340 pilot was barging his way in and ignoring traffic in the established pattern, just expecting everyone else to get out of his way. He was still above both his gear extension speed and his flap limiting speed long after he should have been set up and stabilised. There was no way he was ever going to make the runway with those numbers. He should have stayed high and got in line in the pattern with everyone else rather than mowing down an innocent third party and killing them all
@@Muggles87 If you thought I was blaming the 152 pilot, you misunderstood my comments. I was just saying what I do as far as flattening my wings before a turn and that I have seen jerks enter the pattern at any point. The 340 pilot is clearly at fault.
Flew into the airport three weeks ago, crazy busy. Accident was totally avoidable, sad day! Both parties could’ve done something to avoid the accident. 340 was at fault high rate of speed and straight in approach. 152 should have extended his downwind leg.
@@j_taylor I do not mean to be callous about this, it is tragic and to be honest I have not stopped thinking about it since I heard about it! Sad pissed and upset! The 152 pilot was doing everything he was taught, some idiot comes blazing in! 😣😖😡
Relevant factors in the investigation include: C340 approach ground speed, vertical rate (~1400 fpm prior to impact), ability to configure and land the C340 on a 4500' runway at that speed (nil?), ADS-B EFB traffic info and alert(s) available to C340 pilot, conspicuity of C340 head-on profile (lights, strobes, sun angle, background, etc., for both pilots). Also, we cannot overlook 91.113 (f) which states: "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." Whether that's overtaking a landing, departing, or en route aircraft, that rule must apply if a collision is to avoided from being overrun by another aircraft. Indications are that the C152 pilot kept the C340 pilot aware and updated on his position and intent. That the C340 was on an extended straight-in approach is not by itself a factor. If the C340 pilot adjusted his approach speed, flight path, and communicated the potential for a conflict with the C152, it would have indicated an effort to avoid conflict with a known aircraft in the traffic pattern. Was his radio/audio panel configured so he was only broadcasting, but not hearing other traffic? Separate from hearing the C152 pilot report his position and intent, one also has to wonder why the C340 pilot continued to approach the airport at high speed and high vertical rate to a low altitude. That's not what one does when intending to land, but if he misjudged the descent rate and speed buildup necessary to land straight-in on RWY 20, he could have overflown the airport and entered a crosswind-to-downwind while slowing the airplane for landing. None of that happened. Was pilot fatigue or some other factors that may have incapacitated his judgment? All of that's on the table. Pilots flying high speed aircraft approaching an airport have no special provisions that allow them to claim a priority for landing. The ultimate operational priority is to integrate all operations at and near an airport safely.
It will be interesting to know what the experience level of each pilot was. Was the C-152 pilot a student? Private with little flying time? Was the C152 pilot experienced enough to know what a C-340 was and what his ground speed might be? (In this case excessive) Was the C-340 pilot experienced enough to know that even though it is possible to fly a straight in, is there a chance that other pilots in the pattern might not be at his experience level?
Hmm, not sure what the twin pilot was smoking. It is crazy that a student pilot even said that hey man, you are coming in fast behind me. Something that the twin pilot should have corrected long ago. 100% avoidable! -Max
I just dont understand the speed of the 340, about twice the normal approach and landing speed. Did he have a gun at his head? I look forward to the findings.
Flying a glider, I was also almost "run over" by a douche bag on a straight in. I had called approach to final and was committed to land and the tow plane was bent on getting in before me. I nosed down, gained speed to turn tighter to stay left of the centre line and he blew right past me, trailing the tow line. I even saw the coupling blinking in the sunlight.
This 100% on on the 340 pilot but I thought I would add some insight on the straight approaches too. I come from an area with a high volume of student pilot traffic and just normal GA traffic. I've probably done a straight in approach for almost every checkride I've done and even with extremely picky examiners up to MEI. There is so many people that are shooting practices approaches with or without ATC and it does need to be taken into account. These are mostly straight in approaches more or less. Most of us flying in this area don't expect people to break off their approach for someone in the pattern. Usually we extend our downwind until we are abeam the final traffic and then we turn. We also had faster twins like the 340 and jets come into our uncontrolled field often and a lot of times it was easier for them to put themselves on a 5 mile final instead of trying to get into pattern (Depending on the direction they were coming) but everyone knew that's how it worked and wouldn't mind extending downwind for that. One airport I personally flew into was a straight in approach probably 80% of the +200 approaches into the field. I've broken off the approach because of traffic in the pattern (I was going to fast or slow to make it work) or when I had faster traffic behind me doing a straight in or there was traffic present and I had no idea where they were. Bottom line it's an uncontrolled field people don't always have radios, don't fly somewhat a normal footprint of a pattern for their aircraft, or are even 1000ft AGL. If you are doing a straight in that is your risk and you better know what's happening around you and keeping an eye out just like everything else in flying. If everyone is looking out for themselves and others a straight in approach is not unsafe in my opinion. The 340 blatantly disregarded everyone and his own safety and this could have happened even if he was in a "normal" traffic pattern footprint, in my opinion.
@@davejohnson8960 Considering this was at a non-towered airport, would you feel the same way if the C152 had been a Cub or other aircraft with no radio?
The pilots commenting that 152 should have given way is laughable. Its amazing how some people will always find a way to blame the victim and defend the person who caused the accident. Let this go to a civil trial and the jury will find 340 guilty. The NTSB will also place blame on 340.
The speed may indicate that the 340 pilot was attempting to undercut the slower 152 to avoid having to join the pattern behind it. IMHO if you’re coming straight in in something fast, a 152 on base is already a conflict. They need to be clear of the runway on the other side of their touch and go before setting up on short final.
They had each other in sight all the way to the end and still collided. Unbelievable. At least the 152 pilot tried to do something. Ironically, if he hadn't the planes would have missed.
No, the twin pilot never did confirm he had the C152 in sight. He said he was looking for traffic and then proceeded at break neck speed with no regard for anyone else.
@@adotintheshark4848 He absolutely did. The C152 warned the twin engine pilot and even advised he was breaking off the approach due to safety and the twin just ran right over him.
The twin pilot became upset that the little 152 didn't bow down to him and extend his downwind. The twin pilot decided to -teach him a lesson- and buzz over the 152 as it touched down at high speed. At the last moment, the 152-pilot decided to go-around, I would have too. The twin was starting to pass over the 152 when it pulled up into the path. Now 3 ppl are dead because of an arrogant pilot. My useless 2 cents
You know, you may have hit the nail on the head with this idea. I've been reading a ton about this and you are the first person to raise this possibility. It actually provides and answer to all the questions.
@@gawebm Thanks, it will be interesting to hear what the NTSB discovers when they interview the twin-pilot's friends and family. Was he a hot-head, road-rage guy? Now, I am not saying that he is/was. I may be completely wrong, and he might have been a terrific human. It just makes perfect sense, over 200 mph on final, geez. He was TRYING to catch the 152.
I have witnessed this "road rage" behavior when my instructor encountered left traffic in a published right traffic airport, (Strongsville, Ohio) The instructor made a "chicken" manuever at the offending traffic.
@@sierraromeo I would never fly with that instructor again. During my training days, I had two different instructors actually recommend that I not bother with using the shoulder harness, I put it on anyway and never flew with them again.
@@n721sw The instructor was a 15,000hr captain for United A L, B-727, this was in 1983. The only instructor in the area teaching taildragger proficiency.
UPDATE: The National Transportation Safety Board has released its preliminary report (WPR22FA309) regarding the investigation into the mid-air between a Cessna 340A (N740WJ) and a Cessna 152 (N49931) at Monterey Bay, CA.
data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/105763/pdf
Everyone saying the 152 did wrong…he had the right of way, he made his calls, had other insight and called again and he attempted a maneuver to avoid.. the twin just yolos in hot with no regard.
He was also at a lower altitude to the field and in the pattern.
The twin pilot should have adjusted his approach to meet the needs of all in the pattern.
He did nothing wrong. But in this case doing everything right still cost him his life. If he had given way to the 340 (even though the 340 didn’t have right of way) he’d at least still be alive and could yell at the 340 pilot once they all got on the ground.
Exactly
Americans and their rights! It will drive y'all to your early Graves!!! Common sense..... You have a traffic that is faster than you... within 3 miles..... you should be able to see that traffic... Extend your downwind... so tell me this @Midwest Pilot... if you are about to cross the street in a cross walk.... ( pedestrian light signal says "WALK".... while attempting to cross you see that there is a car speed towards the light... what are you going to do? Continue to walk or give way? EXACTLY!!!
I hear some people say the 152 should have given way but there is no way the 152 would know the twin was doing 180kts with a mile of the field. I don’t think the 152 even knew it was a problem until he sees and notices the speed the twin is coming. Could the 152 have done more? Maybe but it would only take 1 choice from the twin to have changed the outcome. Personally I think if there is traffic in the pattern you shouldn’t do a direct final but should join on the 45 downwind. But I’m a new pilot so I could just be naive.
The thing that really kind of hit me the hardest was when the 340 pilot called 1 mile final, and announced he was looking for the left base traffic. He clearly did not have visual on the 152 on left base and yet continued to descend rather than iniating a go around - knowing full well that the plane he could not see below his low-winged aircraft had most likely turned final in front of him at a lower altitude (gee, I wonder why he can't see the 152?!?). The judgement of the "more experienced" 340 pilot gave no consideration to the fact that he knew he was coming in hot to an uncontrolled airfield with student pilots practicing pattern traffic. Just a sad tragedy that was totally avoidable.
If yer pointed at the numbers to land, you have excellent visibility forward and down in a 340. I fly one and it isn't had to see what is below and in front of you.
@@HyperSpaceProphet and yet, here we are... A 340 runs over a 152 and the last comm from the 340 indicates he didn't have visual on the 152 he was very quickly overtaking... Fatigue, speed, AoA, get-there-itis... Whatever the case, he didn't see the 152 until it was too late.
Not counting the 340 pilot was 20 over his flap and 40 over his gear speed and still trying to land? Not counting he could hear 2 other planes was in the circuit. He should have entered the circuit then landed. Safety first last and always.
@@jacobnyhart6862 I would say if this was a traffic accident the CHP would have cited the 340 pilot/driver for following too closely.
From what how I interpreted the radio calls, by the time the 340 was actually on 1-mile final that 152 would no longer be on base, so this guy was just way off. Total lack of spatial awareness, and with the speed he was carrying I don't know how he was going to make a safe landing anyway.
The 152 pilot, even knowing the 340 was coming straight in, could not have expected the extreme high speed which completely changed normal expectation of separation.
Indeed.
Agreed… I can’t think of a single aircraft, that could land at Watsonville, and also flys super high approach speeds.
Maybe if it’s an F104 I’d expect 180kts … lol
The ridiculous speed of the 340 threw everything off. The 152 flew his base leg 1/4 mile from the runway end, compared to 1/2 mile he was flying in the pattern earlier. If he had flown the 1/2 mile pattern he would have ended up behind the 340. But if the 340 was at 100-110 kt like he must have thought, the 1/2 mile pattern would have been in conflict. I can't think of any good reason the 340 was flying faster than an F18.
The only thing a 150 can safely turn into the path of that is on a 1-3 mile final is the Goodyear Blimp.
@@bw162 The 150 has right-away as the lower aircraft compared to the 340.
This one upset me, because I remember being a student pilot, doing the circuit, working the touch and goes, focusing on all the still conscious things I needed to think about as I practiced my landings. The pilot of the Cessna 152 made the proper calls, he was clearly identifying himself and when he made the decision to not just turn to base, but turn to final, I know at first he thought "I have time, because 3 miles out is enough time for me to land and go again.
The 340 was closing at @ 160 kts. At 3 miles out if he was at a stabilized approach he would have taken slightly more than 2 mins to be on close final. In that time the C152 would have turned final at 70, slowed to 65 and would have been over the threshold with the 340 at 1 mile out. Me, as a student pilot would be aware, but thinking the other plane is slowing for final approach *and* aware I'm turning to final lower and ahead.
At 160 kts, three miles was just 1 min to short final and with no indication of slowing, the difference in closing speed between the two planes was @ 100 kts with the C!52 in front. The C152 pilot even makes a call out basically saying you are too fast and the 340 never changes the approach until just before collision. In my past flying, unless the pattern at an uncontrolled was empty (and even then NORAD planes may be up) you flew over the airport above pattern altitude and entered a downwind. Had the 340 slowed to approach speeds, even of straight in, he would not have collided. Had the 340 realized there was pattern traffic he should have stopped the straight in and entered the pattern from a 45 or at least cross wind.
I am sorry people died due to the arrogance and hubris of a pilot that felt he could not take even another 10/15 minutes to follow proper procedures or common courtesy.
The problem is in real life as a pilot, and I am a CPL/CFI, you will encounter not very savory individuals in the air too. He should have simply extended that downwind instead of acting like a robot as he sounded like. Knowing where the C340 was but taking no evasive action.
There is some equipment showing the c340 was running between 200kt and 180kt, and crossed the 3m at 180kt. If so, it simply further emphasizes the hubris of the c340.
The only thing I would put on the 152 pilot is doing touch and goes at Watsonville in the first place. That uncontrolled airport is crazy busy with rich guy pilots flying down for the weekend from Silicon valley and tons of Learjets and such. Just a short hop over to Marina or Salinas(SNS) is much better airspace for doing patterns and getting some flight time.
The 340 clearly caused the accident with his recklessness, but the 152 could have prevented it. Maybe I'm overly cautious, but why risk cutting in front of a faster airplane that is 3 miles away on final? You expect everyone to assume the recommended speeds, but so do we on the streets with our cars, and we're still on the lookout for outliers that might ruin our day. So again, why risk it?
@@nereanim PLEASE recognize the 152 pilot was a student. At the experience level of a CFI I don’t believe it is realistic to expect an extremely low time and low experience pilot to have perfect ADM. We can pin things on the 152 all day but the cold fact remains, he technically did everything right, and the 340 did everything wrong, as far as the FAA is concerned.
I was there. I was ordering lunch at the restaurant just off the runway when this happened with my good friend who actually knows the pilot of 90FL.
We had just landed about 10 minutes earlier, and were on the CTAF with the 152. It was pretty crazy and horrifying seeing it happen, especially right after talking to the victim of it.
I looked over after someone exclaimed, so all I saw was debris falling down and the twin cessna going wayyy too fast, with its gear and flaps up. (According to someone there, flightaware clocked them at about 190 knots at the time of the collision) I even thought it was going to go around and recover until I heard an explosion and saw a massive cloud of smoke coming up over the hangers between the restaurant and the twin Cessna’s final resting place.
After confirming what I saw with other people there, I thought at first that the twin cessna was just trying to show off by doing a low pass and didn’t take proper precautions.
Listening to this now makes we wonder why the hell, if he DID intend to land (or at least stated so) he was carrying so much speed and had his gear up??
Based on the facts I’ve been given and the observations made by, and told to me, no matter how you look at it, it’s the fault of the twin Cessna’s pilot.
At the very best, he decided not to overfly the field to look for traffic, instead deciding to come straight in to a pattern with at least 2 other planes, while going a hell of a lot faster than both of them. Not to mention probably going well in excess of even his gear speed.
He was not technically breaking the law by doing so, but for those who don’t know, it’s a well known safety precaution/rule to fly above traffic pattern altitude over the field to get a sense of what’s going on before entering the pattern and coming in to land.
To be honest, not that it’s even anywhere close to an excuse for any pilot to be this careless, but I really believe that if Watsonville had a tower, which many people already believed it should (considering an average of about 150 arrivals a day) that this would’ve been easily avoided. I hope they finally decide to get one after this; not that it should’ve taken 4 deaths to get that to happen.
This guy killed himself, his passenger (who I assume is his wife, girlfriend, or some other family member), his pet dog, and a student pilot minding his own business in the pattern, all because he couldn’t bother to take the time to circle over the field, or to approach at a safe speed.
Rest In Peace to all involved, mainly the innocent student pilot, passenger, and dog.
I’m not a pilot, but I live in Watsonville and my old office was across the street from the airport. I know the layout well. Your comment makes a point that is being neglected by everyone’s analysis. No one is looking at the impact trajectory of the 340: down the runway, across some dirt, then finally back across the tarmac into the hanger. The impact was so energetic the 340 was actually spun around by contact with the dirt field, then sent backwards by over 90-degrees back across the tarmac where it embedded itself into the hanger. The momentum the 340 hit the ground with must have been insane.
It seems to me that if he did overfly to look for traffic, the same thing could have happened a few minutes later, no? They were communicating.
More importantly though, you're not really clear on what changed your mind about the high speed low pass theory. The clean config seems to make that scenario more likely, not less (sorry in advance if I misunderstood).
@@Milkmans_Son if he did overfly, he would have a better idea of where everyone actually was (based on actually seeing them rather than trying to just visualize it in his head). It might still have happened, but I think it would be much less likely, and he certainly wouldn’t be able to keep a pattern at the speed he was going. I’m sure he would’ve realized that had he tried, and realized he needed to slow down (though I don’t know how he didn’t realize that anyways). Also, what I mean is that I originally thought it was a low pass attempt based on what I saw as it actually happened, but listening to the recording, I realized he said “full stop” which made me think otherwise.
@@josephnadeau6689 So he would have just left out the full stop part (if his intent was the high speed pass)? I'm not a pilot.
@@Milkmans_Son that’s correct, but there’s more to it. Saying “full stop” on radio means that you intend on coming to a full stop when landing (basically, a normal landing). All other pilots listening would reasonably expect him to be going slow enough to land, which he most certainly was not.
A pilot is still supposed to say their intentions though, so if he was going to do a low pass, he should have said so on the radio.
He also had his flaps (used to allow a steeper decent angle without gaining excessive airspeed) retracted/not in use. It’s not super uncommon to not use flaps to land, but that pretty much only happens when it’s unusually windy, which it was not.
The really odd part was that he didn’t even have his landing gear deployed (the only part of the plane that’s actually meant to touch the ground).
That, as well as the fact that he was going more than twice the planes landing speed, tell me that he either did not intend to land, or that he probably would have died anyways had he put the plane on the ground, with or without hitting another plane.
There was a huge disconnect between what any sane pilot would expect from what he communicated, and what he actually did.
I can’t say for sure exactly what caused it, but no matter what, the only aircraft not doing what they should’ve been was the 340, and to a pretty extreme extent.
I was nearly mowed down once in an almost identical incident. I was a solo student flying full stop take offs and landings in a left-hand traffic pattern, and this fella did a straight in approach at this uncontrolled airport. While I was making calls on the radio, he was not. He saw me turning base to final -- I never saw him at all as he was in the area blocked by the wing of the 150 I was flying. Even though he could see me, and he knew my intentions, he continued his approach and we only missed one another by about 30 feet. He appeared in my windscreen, almost directly overhead. I continued my approach and landed safely. He climbed out and went around. After he landed, he told the airport management that I cut him off. When they asked him why he wasn't using the radio (it was a plane he had rented from the same FBO) he said it wasn't working. The manager went out to inspect his aircraft and found his radio wasn't working because he didn't have the microphone plugged in. The guy had just gotten his license about a month before this incident at a different airport. Left hands were the standard at this airport. He should never have flown a straight in final, especially with traffic in the pattern. The management there knew me, as I had been training there for about a year. In the end he was told they would no longer rent him an aircraft. RIP to the souls lost in this crash.
The world is never in short supply of a**holes
I had a Twin Beech do the same at ESN (Newman Field), the circuit was active but the pilot didn't have time for anybody else.
I’m glad you are here telling the story. Keep flying safe
Just another reminder of how many really bad pilots are out there. Similar incident during my student training. Was flying an Arrow setting up to come in for RWY 12 at KDED as winds were strong and nearly straight down, but when we got there 6 planes(172s) from another school from KDAB were in the pattern for RWY 5. I tell my CFI I am going to make a L turn to get away and come back around to join RWY 5 pattern well after the one just on departure leg and he agrees. Seconds later into the turn he took control and started heading straight again and climbing so I asked him what's wrong and points that idiot is coming right at us. It was a twin going well over 150 kts undercutting us and the 5 other trainers from ERAU in downwind, base, and final to try to beat them in. The ERAU instructors were screaming incl profanities on the radio at him. He was too fast and decided to do illegal R base direct into short final for 12 instead. When I announced concurrent landings happening on intersecting runways, the twin idiot says on radio "don't worry I'll stop on time" so he had radio even though he announced none of his intentions until then. Now this was my 8th out of 9 incursions that someone tried to hit me during my first 40 hours, including 2 on ground where it was clearly their fault/negligence. Irony is next time I went flying w/CFI and had 9th incursion I was definitely quitting. His response to me "You're a great safe pilot and have become really good at landings, so don't quit. You watch these videos about other crashes and eventually these bad pilots are going to kill themselves off leaving you safer." Turns out my CFI was one of those idiots as he afterward decided to go out with a mechanic in a twin he had no right to fly since in was over 5 years out of annual and maintenance was not complete and way faster and different than the twin he learned in. Crashed into trees flying killing all onboard. Took time away and decided to start flying again. Seems these idiots flying are still breeding, so not sure why I continue. Certainly I do not want to become one of these videos or on Kathryns Report
@@thomasminer7154 where do you fly out of? I'm over at 2W6 and fly to ESN, CGE and GED often.
I did a direct final with my CFI and I felt a bit like he was rushing to beat some traffic. I don’t feel comfortable with direct finals unless the pattern is empty but now I’ll be even more cautious to the desire to “beat traffic.” There’s just so little margin for error in flying. Thanks for these videos. As a student it really helps me learn what not to do and also how to fly more defensively.
I am so heartened to read your comment. I'm just a bystander on the ground with no pilot training. While I know that the risk of an underskilled or careless pilot ploughing through my house is extremely low, it is not zero. Every student with a cautious, reasonable attitude like yours helps to make our skies safer for all.
never try to beat the traffic. just accept your place in line and land according to who got there first. it doesn't take that much time.
Just yield. I have a faster plane and I do it all the time. I had a crop duster coming in on a long final while I was in pattern last week so I extended downwind. Just make space. Often I'll do right 360s on downwind since my aircraft is faster than most Cessnas etc. A few common sense adjustments and you can completely defuse a situation. Spot it early and announce what you're doing. It's amazing how many ppl dont do this
@@gringoloco8576 agreed, but the 152 did have right of way, and probably did not expect the 340 to be flying so recklessly fast either. The 340 clearly had no situational awareness and wrongly assumed he would be given right of way even though the regulations required him to yield.
That said, I too generally yield to faster planes, to avoid situations like this, as I don't trust other pilots to pay attention or know what they are doing.
Same. i had a CFII push the throttle to full while trying to get to a short final. all because he didn't want the downwind traffic to extend any further than they already did. so instead of coming in at 90kts and letting the downwind traffic turn base, we we're hauling ass about 110kts less than 2 miles from the pavement
As a student pilot myself I totally understand this. When the pattern gets busy and there is entering traffic, without experience its hard to judge separation. I know I get very on-edge when I'm crosswind and someone calls xx miles out for the 45. I have no idea how much time until they are entering and where ill be on downwind when they do. If I'm not sure, I leave the pattern and re enter. Sometimes that's the right move. Other times I get laughed at because I could have done 2 more laps before they got there. But I know that uneasy feeling of hoping the other more experienced pilot is paying attention and has things under control. But this one is an example where that didn't pan out
Separation regardless, the 340 was required by law to give way to the cessna 152.
But generally, when I know a faster jet or other fast plane is coming up behind me fast, I go around and side step the runway on the upwind, or extend my downwind. Just because I have the right of way, i fly defensively and don't put my life in the hands of others.
Being overly cautious is something my students will do in traffic. Holding short for traffic on downwind, doing a 360 in the downwind for traffic on short final, etc. With experience comes the ability to judge what is safe, and what is not.
Better to be cautious than risk tolerant. You can't teach attitude, and your attitude to be cautious will make you an excellent pilot.
When in doubt it's always better to go around or extend downwind. But a good rule of thumb is that a piston airplane approaching the airport is going two miles a minute. (120kts) So 10 miles away, they'll be there in five minutes. A jet is probably going three miles per minute. (180kts) Of course final approach speeds should be lower, and this 340 pilot was way too fast even if no one else was around.
This is the reason I prefer towered airports
@@jonathanparle8429 Extending the downwind leg puts you out of power-off glide from the airport. I train a 360 in the downwind, we can have up to 5 planes in the pattern here at KEST all training, so it works a lot better than forcing everyone to fly out to an unsafe distance.
I don’t think we’re giving appropriate weight to the twin’s speed. To me, that excessive speed is the largest contributing factor to this accident. I’m a new pilot and even I know that if someone makes a straight in call at 10 miles, I should have about six and a half minutes before they arrive (assuming they’re doing 90 knots). That’s enough time for a complete pattern. If I’m in the downwind, I’m assuming I’ve got plenty of time. The twin was going twice that speed. So he went from 10 miles out to arriving in about three minutes explaining the convergence. Sure, the 152 could have realized that the twin is going much faster based on the time between the 10 mile and 3 mile call, but by then the 152 is configuring to land and focusing on his own final approach. GA is safest when we’re all doing what we expect each other to do. We’re all assuming that everyone else is flying in standards. The speed of the twin made the entire event unpredictable for the 152 pilot. To me, that’s at the crux of this accident. Thank you, as always, Mr. McSpadden for your analysis and constant commitment to aviation safety.
I agree with this, but I tend to focus more on the other side of the accident. I mean, I'm not in control of what the other pilot does, and there are infinite ways of being an reckless a-hole, so if I was this 152, what could I have done? What were the red flags? That's why analyzing what the 152 could have done but didn't do is so important to me
Besides, there's not much to analyze about the 340. Just slow down and follow the rules. duh
@@Titere05 That’s a great point, Pablo. I appreciate the perspective. We’re all only PIC in our own airplane and could and should do whatever we can to minimize danger. I agree completely. But I’m a new pilot sitting comfortably in my living room chair at two feet AGL. As a new pilot in the air, I’m still trusting those who are more experienced and advanced around me to be as responsible and safe as I’m trying to be. I still need to think about flying when I’m flying. This one hits home for me because I could easily have been that 152 pilot. If I’m midfield, downwind and someone makes a 10 mile call for the straight in, I honestly wouldn’t think that I should extend my downwind. Not because I’m reckless; far from it. I’d just ‘know’ that I have plenty of time. I’d have made the same decisions as the 152 pilot and that’s pretty scary. I really do thank you for your comment, and it has tons of merit, but new pilots like me are flying by the book (which carries with it lots of assumptions regarding other planes around us) because we don’t yet have the 100s of hours of experience that some other pilots do.
@@thomasmennella5501 I'm a rather new pilot, myself, and I think I'm going to take this accident as a warning when I hear anyone call a straight-in approach. To me that call means they're either not looking for anyone else or simply will not enter a standard pattern. My home airport is a class D that converts to non-towered at night, and there are still commercial turboprops and airliners that arrive after tower is closed. I do pattern work at night for night currency. Somehow I can't imagine an Airbus hearing my lowly downwind report and deciding to maneuver to enter the downwind at a 45. I've been chased off the runway by twin turboprops behind me announcing each mile on straight-in finals at what seemed like 10-15 second intervals. I'm not sure I like extending my downwind or doing a downwind 360 because it keeps me at TPA well away from gliding range of the field and over densely-populated areas with few choices for a safe off-airport landing, should I need it. It also puts me in a position other pilots might not expect (i.e. my own 5-mile final). I think what this means to me is that when I first hear a straight in call and I'm anywhere but base or final, I'm leaving the pattern entirely and climbing out to somewhere safe until that traffic is on the ground.
Great points. Be obvious, be normal, be expected. The graveyards are filled with those who had the right-of-way.
@@michaelzehnpfennig8379 Or you can tell the privilege seeking guy on the straight in if he can fly the pattern or why he cant? TOO RUSTY?
Super bad decision by the twin to shoot a straight in approach into an uncontrolled field in my view. The fact that he was coming in at cruise-speeds is insane and to me, puts the fault squarely on the twin pilot's shoulders. The fact that the 152 didn't see him until it was too late due to the the closure rate of the twin - and couldn't get out of the way fast enough - doesn't put the blame on the 152. Sure we can all be extra vigilant and call off our standard in-pattern approach every time an entitled pilot decides he's the priority. Everyone else should of course abide his straight-in wishes because he's larger, faster, and thusly more important. I can't count the number of times I've entered a small rural uncontrolled airport - by the standard procedures - where there appeared to be no one in the pattern, only to find another plane in the pattern that wasn't announcing their turns (or had no radio and ADS-B out). They were easily identified once I was ready join in the pattern.
Yeah, i think its another case of get-there-itis. Ill bet you dollars to doll hairs either him or his passenger had some thing they wanted to get to. We shall see
Yes, that's how the American class system works.
@@Phiyedough Yes, the dog in the 340 was upper crust.
@@Phiyedough It's how it works in every country.
IMO every near miss that involves a careless or reckless pilot's bad choices such as this one's should be reported. That way the reporter can know they have done their duty. It could one day save a life.
ASI does such good work addressing safety concerns in aviation. The discussion about the Watsonville accident is a great conversation and thank you for making this content!
As a pilot and owner of a 340, I can say that if the ADSB speeds are correct, the 340 was WAY too fast. In fact, I don't see how he could LAND at those speeds on short final. Normal approach is 110-120 at 5 miles, then over the numbers at 80-85. Some have stated that the visibility from the cockpit might have been a factor, but you have excellent visibility when pointed to the numbers on short final. I gotta call the fault as the 340 causing this. He wasn't set up for the approach and landing, there was no way he was stable in the last 5 miles, and should have gone around. (note that I am calling this based on the current evidence presented).
Yes, indeed, exactly.
Is the cessna 340 considered slippery or hard so slow down at all? This particular straight in approach includes a decent over a 2000 ft mountain around 4-5 NM from the threshold. I'm wondering if it might have been a lack of practice slowing the airplane in a decent.
@@TheBrennan90 It isn't hard to slow down any more than similar airplanes. Every plane model is different, but it isn't appreciably different than any other twin in it's class. Too much power on descent is the only thing I can think.
@@HyperSpaceProphet Well thank you for your reply. I'm also of the opinion that the 340 pilot should have given way to he 152 and gone around if he was unable to get his airplane under control let alone not have converging traffic in sight.
Several friends that fly and my past flying experience we all at the same time said “I bet the twin didn’t have gear down and definitely wasn’t setup to land” when the collision occurred. No way he had gear down at 170.
Forwarding this to my friend who just soloed in his 152. Thank you for pushing this out there so quickly.
IMHO, the 340 pilot flying is simply criminal. The best you can do when you fly like that, is to take only your own life away. But we all know that never happens.
Rest in peace, 152 fellow.
You think he's criminal because he's the big bad evil twin? Doesn't matter. Sometime on the road and in the skies the bigger or more arrogant guy should not be challenged. Nobody ever proved how much they were in the right by killing themselves.
@@davejohnson8960 He's criminal because he was flying 180 knots on short final, over 90 knots too fast! flying like an arrogant asshole got them all killed!
@@davejohnson8960 The 340 pilot is a criminal because he blew THROUGH the pattern at 180-200kts while lying about his intentions on the radio. He was purely reckless. If he'd done the same thing in a glasair he's still be just as much at fault. This is the same as speeding at night with your headlights turned off as far as I'm concerned.
@@davejohnson8960 Guy. Of course is criminal to shoot like a maniac on a place there are other airplanes doing legal things. Man up. Dont suck
The point of impact was inside 200 meters from the runway approach threshold. The 340 pilot was deviating from flying using the published pattern choosing instead a 10-mile dog-leg straight-in, steep descent approach in spite of multiple planes reporting being in the published pattern (see the full audio transcript). At 200 meters (very short final) from the threshold the 340 pilot was flying at 375' agl at a speed in excess of 180 kts (over 208 mph), well above the max gear extension speed limit and well above the max flap extension speed limit (160 kts if it was a newer 340), and about 90 kts (104mph) above normal approach speed. The 340 pilot stated his intent was a full-stop landing (see full audio transcript), which was clearly impossible given the altitude and speed at which he was flying his aircraft. The 340 pilot never included his speed in any of his calls. Conversely, the 152 student pilot was one of two planes flying using the published pattern. The 152 pilot was flying at appropriate altitude, flying at appropriate speed, and making all the appropriate calls. As a student pilot it is highly doubtful that he had ever encountered conflicting traffic approaching in a non-standard path flying at over 208 mph on a straight-in approach, let alone on short-final. I just do not understand why anyone would try and pin the blame on the 152 student-pilot given the 340 pilots actions leading up to the impact.
Because, under the current FAA regulations, the 310 pilot did not violate any FAA rules. As wrong as most of us feel this is, that is a fact. Hopefully this accident will stir the FAA into a definitive statement/rule making regarding pattern entries at untowered fields.
If the C152 pilot made any mistake it's that he failed to call final and I feel that would have made all the difference. His response to hearing the twin call 3 mile final, looking for traffic on base was a simple "you're behind me". Had he said "short final, runway 20", maybe the twin jockey would have understood what's what....
@@stevepaul6360 The point of impact is the first time the C152 reached the runway centerline, so he was never established on final. He was angling the base turn in to the airport boundary, probably trying to stay ahead of the C340.
@@eightysea3780 the video here shows the track positions differently. Additional, the Blancolirio channel has a video about this, I recommend you check that one out too...
@@gawebm I fly in Canada so I’ll assume what you’re saying is correct. That just sounds mad to me that approaching short final at 180kt (above gear down speed) and joining untowered airport circuit in such a way doesn’t break some sort of rules. In Canada most times it’s overlooked if it’s not reported but the maximum disciplinary action for improper circuit entry is revoking licence.
ASI, one of the best aviation channels on YT. RIP to all who lost their lives.
5:50 "when you see conflict developing take action early"
Agree. As long as the burden of detecting conflict and taking action early is placed *on the experienced pilots* , not on the students.
If the burden of safety is placed on the people with the least hours and experience... then we are FUBAR
The best thing would have had the 340 join the pattern. Teach the 152 what best practices are, and what conflict avoidance means. But some people can't be bothered to do that.
The next best thing: had the 340 asked (nicely, pretty please with sugar on top) for the 152 to extend the base leg, the student pilot would have yielded, learned something, earned some confidence and experience.
A short "please" when calling direct approach, and a "thank you" after the landing would have made all the difference. Some people can't be bothered to say please and thank you.
But nooooo... someone placed the burden of detection and action on the student with low hours, flying a lawnmower with feathers. Beacuse of "reasons"
The 340’s pilot communicated his intention as straight in, landing, full-stop. But that’s not what he did. First, if he had slowed down for a proper landing approach, his arrival time at runway 2-0 would have been up to a minute later. Giving ample time for the 152’s pilot to have executed whatever pattern he had planned. Second, when the 152’s pilot did see the 340 behind him, his assumption would have been that the 340 was coming in for a landing. In which case, the proper evasive maneuver would be to pull up and let the faster aircraft pass underneath. But the 340 was in no position to complete a landing (way too-fast, landing gear still up, flaps still up). So, it’s only option to evade the 152 was to pull up too. It appears they collided while trying to avoid each other. In both cases, the 152’s fatal decisions came as a direct result of the 340’s pilot having communicated one intention, ...then doing something else instead. Anyway, for what it’s worth, that's my two cents on the matter.
The twin pilot was a liar, thats all. No covering needed.
There is a solid reason that the FAA DPE will fail even a CFI check ride if they make a straight-in approach into a non-towered field. It's bad news. If a 45 entry wasn't possible due to terrain, the alternate listed in the aim would be in upwind entry into the crosswind and then into the downwind. Pilots are always doing these straight-in approaches into non-towered Fields not realizing how much danger they're courting for themselves and others. This accident was totally avoidable and the twin pilot was at fault. Sadly neither the 152 student solo pilot or the pilot and his passenger in the twin who decided to save a little time with a straight in will never see another sunset or sunrise.
By the way an upwind is NOT a departure leg, look in the aim. So often pilots will call on departure leg that they're on the upwind - amateur hour. the upwind lies on the non pattern side of the airport in the opposite direction of the downwind. I'm surprised how many pilots don't even read their AIM.
Was it a student solo? That could be a huge factor. His unfamiliarity with what to do when something unpredictable happens was their doom.
Student pilots can generally fly in the pattern and make their calls pretty well, but entering a busy pattern or giving room for planes arriving in forces them to think differently than what they’re used to.
You might as well be speaking another language. What is FAA DPE? Whats "45 entry"? "an upwind is NOT a departure leg, look in the aim" what does that mean? " So often pilots will call on departure leg that they're on the upwind - amateur hour." why is this amateur hour? whats AIM?
Wrong - my DPE specifically covered and explained that a straight in approach is a legal, stabilized approach to untowered. It was the main teaching point I remember from my PPL checkride. “Read the AIM”
DPE? CFI?
@@jeangingras5409 I can tell you from experience that I know of Private Pilot check rides that failed for doing that and I know CFI check ride candidate who got failed for that. The ironic part about the CFI candidate that failed it wasn't a student of mine, but it was a student of another instructor, he told me his instructor never told him that it would be an automatic fail on a check riide doing a straight into a non-towered field. Apparently the rest of his ride had gone well but he was just finishing his check ride and did a straight in, to a non-towered field and the examiner said I'm sorry I'm going to have to fail you for that.
So I have no doubt that there's a lack of standardization across the country sometime with dpes. Unlike many I actually did my CFI check ride with the FAA FSDO directly and not a specially designated DPE.
Three people are dead now because someone couldn't follow perfectly good advice on far safer entries because they were trying to save a few minutes. I don't fault you for not knowing, the big problem is we all only know what we've been taught. If we've been taught incorrectly then that's all we know. I've been teaching full time as a CFI for just a little under 20 years and given slightly over 8,000 of hours of instruction . That doesn't automatically make me an expert by any means, but it does give me unique perspective in the day-to-day, much more than your average pilot might. Sadly all that experience, unfortunately, shows you over time through the deaths of other pilots - the kind of things that actually kill pilots. One of which is a straight in into a non-towered field. Of course there was more going on with this most recent accident we also had added to the mix the classic case of a low wing coming in high above a highwing. A classic way to die because both are blind to each other unless they've been practicing situational awareness while flying in the pattern. It didn't have to happen. So folks 45 entry at TPA into the downwind midfield or upwind (which is the leg that sits on the non pattern side of the field heading in an opposite direction of the downwind) into the crosswind all at TPA
Like the old adage says Aviation is not an inherently dangerous but it is ruthlessly unforgiving of any carelessness incapacity or neglect.
So the very best, squawk VFR, frequency change approved radar services terminated. The very best in your flying adventures remember what we don't know can kill us 👍
I had a very similar incident, except the twin joined the pattern straight in on downwind. I was already on downwind when the twin called out his location. I told my instructor (who wasn't paying attention) that the twin called in the same location we were in. As my instructor grabbed the radio to have the twin repeat, the twin shot over us going roughly twice our speed and missing us by less than 100 feet. Ironically, downwind for this little airport was the road directly behind my house at the time. Had we collided we would have done so over my own house.
Thanks for an excellent analysis....from a CFI/former airline pilot
RIP
cfi?
Such a sad and avoidable incident.
Both pilots screwed up badly. Still even when you make a grievous mistake it is still a lot of bad luck to collide and crash.
What did the 152 pilot do wrong?
Something is definitely off with the 340. I won’t be surprised if we find out the twin wasn’t even configured to land. Which then raises the question as to what the pilot was even doing? Only time I ever approached any airport at cruise speeds was during an air show and having lots of communication with the traffic in the area and the air show staff. 160-180 knots down the runway for an air show pass is no joke!!!
I wonder about the 340 pilot dealing with a health crisis
Could be a variety of reasons, but the 152 never should have turned base with a twin announcing THOSE positions on final, not to mention how fast he was closing in.
Bottom line, I'd like to know if either plane had an active display of traffic. I'm not a fan of the old days of radios and windows.
“with neither pilot altering their course or taking evasive action...” The student was going around to give way (even though he did have right of way) to the twin because he saw what was about to happen.
BS. The Cessna was in the legal and right. And he tried to get out when noticed the twin was going much faster than he should. The twin was lying and illegal as F.
The accident reminds me of a similar problem I had in the early 1980's. It was an uncontrolled airport, and I was in the pattern doing touch and goes in a 152 when another pilot called a 10 mile final for a full stop. Something didn't feel right, so instead of turning base, I extended my down wind and started looking. The twin pilot was closer than he said and going too fast to possibly land. He floated down the full length of the runway and had to go around.
Yours is a great example of defensive flying, lol. For all the peeps on a 152 flying patterns out there, you CAN avoid these accidents, just be super careful, pay attention to how things unravel and don't always trust that other people will follow the rules. Other pilots might have faster, bigger airplanes, but they don't have to have your fate on their hands
One thing I've noticed is that I've got a good handle on what numbers I need to be hitting at different points in a pattern, and what power/flaps/trim adjustments I'm making at those points in the pattern to hit those numbers, but I don't have that same feeling for straight-ins. I can see somebody in a high performance twin, without the base and final turns to bleed energy, and without a good feeling for what numbers they need to be hitting at what points on a straight-in, showing up over the threshold with way too much energy.
The 152 pilot got his ticket about 2 years ago, so likely fairly low time. It seems doubtful that NTSB report will claim that the 340 had the final right of way per 91.113(g) given distance to an airport with an active traffic pattern. I think the 152 pilot started his downwind/base turn before he called his turn, thinking the 340 was last heard 10 miles out. Even at 3 miles out, if his downwind pattern was about 1/2 mile from the runway centerline, he'd be on final with the airplane setting up for straight in about 2 miles behind.
There's so many things wrong with the 340; it's hard to look elsewhere for blame. Straight in instead of joining the pattern, 180 knots on final, not clearly identifying traffic in the pattern - who knows if he had flaps or gear extended? On the 152 side, I think he just didn't have enough experience to react correctly to the 340 driver's errors. If they assign some blame to the 152, it will likely be with the recognition that a more experienced pilot could have avoided the conflict because of experience.
I fly a C414 into uncontrolled airports all of the time. I almost NEVER fly straight in. I go in at 45 and stay at 1300 ft AGL and am slowed to 120kts by then and slower if need be. I still look for aircraft with no radio with clearing turns and assuming not all traffic ATSB. Totally agree with your recommendations, the C340 pilot appears to be at fault. As an experienced pilot with over 8000 hours, I don’t assume every other pilot is as experienced. I’ve broken off approaches plenty of times…..this C340 should have as well. The speed of this C340 is really odd too. Flaps at 160 KIAS, gear at 140 KIAS and final should have been about 95 KIAS with no wind sheer. Sad….AIM recommendations are there for a reason.
You should probably edit that first sentence.
Thank you for recognizing that not all of us are going to appear on the glass. I've had a couple of close calls in the past year by guys with their heads down looking at their fancy graphics. ... and yea, check that first sentence in your post.
@@bills6093 Yes, he doesn't sound like a very competent pilot does he!!😂
Nothing wrong with flying a straight in approach, just so long as you don't cut anyone off, observe spacing, yield right of way, and be ready to join the pattern if there is too much traffic to make it work.
Being on a long final does not mean you have priority over those in the pattern. on a long final, the person on Base is actually ahead of you. And if you arrive within airport airspace with say 3 planes already in the standard pattern, you are #4 to land no matter what. They were there first and have right of way and priority, they are already in sequence to land.
So you can do a straight in, so long as the existing traffic allows.
Ever done an IFR practice approach? that's a straight-in.
The 340 would have had right of way though according to the FAR 91.113. whether he was overspeed or not is irrelevant to who had right of way.
How in the hell when the 340 actually touched down, did the pilot think it was going to take to stop his plane? at 175 knots! thats what 216 mph?!!! WTF!!
He was flying faster than a 737 on landing
From what I've seen and heard elsewhere about the 340's angle of decent and its speed on a straight-in approach has me wondering if the 340 pilot was performing (or attempting to perform) a high-speed fighter-style penetration. If that is the case, I would also wonder whether he had done this before and gotten away with it. In any event, traffic patterns exist for a reason. Long straight-in approaches to uncontrolled fields are generally ill-advised, no matter how fast (or slow) you fly the approach. There will be more information on this accident later on; I am curious about the 340 pilot's background...
If the 340 pilot had followed standard uncontrolled field pattern protocol, this accident would not have happened. Period. No excuse for barreling into an active pattern at twice normal short final speed. Let's not assume there's shared responsibility here; there's not. This is 100% on the 340. I will go so far as to say his actions were reckless, without regard for the safety of his aircraft and the others in his vicinity. His flying totally contradicts his CTAF advisory, in that there's no way he could have executed a full-stop landing at that speed. His advisory mislead the 152 pilot, which I believe will be noted as a contributing factor in the accident. IMHO, it's time to crack down on straight-in VFR approaches into uncontrolled fields except for emergencies. We're seeing too many pilots flying unsafe FAR-violation maneuvers, like high-speed low altitude passes. Start putting teeth in the FARs.
It is tough enough to see and avoid in a busy airport like Watsonville. It's is even more difficult to see an airplane from a distance that flies at twice the speed of the airplanes that we normally see in the pattern.
Absolutely! At this point I think things have gone far beyond asking such pilots nicely to be more careful. Regulations need to be tightened. The only comment I will make about the poor 152 pilot is that he could have avoided the 340 if he had put in some distance between his plane and the 340, regardless of speed. Obviously not blaming him at all; rather just saying that defensive flying could have kept him safe. I hope the flying community of Watsonville all increase their cautiousness, given the busyness, diversity of aircraft, and nearby terrain at this un-towered field. IMO it's just like defensive driving on the roads. I can't change the fact that some people with whom I share the road are Darwin Award contestants; all I can do is try harder to keep out of their way, and where appropriate, report them.
Well said SEADAB
We all know the 340 was in the wrong here, and what he could have done to prevent the accident, but the more interesting question is, what could the 152 have done?
@@Titere05 The 152 could have extended his downwind. He knew there was traffic on final and didn't have it in sight. Still 100% the 340's fault. Doesn't matter though. I avoid car accidents all the time that would have clearly been the other person's fault, but the other person still pays the price. Fortunately most pilots are pretty darn good. Just the few the Cirrus pilots and this 340 that suck.
Another professional and insightful analysis, thank you.
RIP for those involved.
RIP?
@@Capecodham Yes, sadly there were fatalities
@@Capecodham RIP originally meant Requiescat in Pace but nowadays most people treat it as Rest in Peace. I use RIP instead of Rest in Peace to avoid the appearance of not knowing the original meaning. And also because it's quicker to type. When I don't know what an acronym or initialism means I usually google it.
@@johnny_c-l I wonder why that was left out?
@@islandlife756 Do you think the dead have seen this or is this all about the one who say, RIP, to pretend to care?
These videos are extremely helpful to me as a student pilot. I cannot imagine what the 340 pilot was thinking - cruise speed and (apparently) gear and flaps up. I have to wonder what would have happened if the 152 had not been present. "Oh, crap! Autopilot still on cruise - I'm going around!" At first I thought maybe he had some medical impairment, but at 1 mile he sounded fine but was already way too close to make the needed adjustments. Very sad but thanks for the excellent analysis.
This is extremely saddening and seems so preventable. As plenty of others have commented, I can't wrap my head around the ludicrous approach speed of the 340. I'm no airline pilot, but 180 kts seems too fast for even a large airliner on final. No amount of "getthereitis" can justify that speed. I assume the 340 pilot never had the 152 in sight. The 152 pilot stated he had the 340 in sight, and there was never an acknowledgment of that or of the go around by the 340 pilot. We weren't in those planes in the situation, and it's easy to better analyze this while safely on the ground. But regardless, I hope this provides further education and prevention of future mid-airs.
I love “Ill advised” when “reckless” is the blunt truth. 192 knots approach speed is unexplainable, unjustifiable, and irresponsible. Wondering if drugs were involved?
They make a spoiler kit for the 340, maybe dude thought he'd pop and dump at the fence?
I'm a private pilot who has landed at Watsonville many times, and I've never once been there when I'm the only airplane in the pattern, it is a very busy GA airport and that is no secret. So some clown flying a straight in approach twice as fast as he should have is completely blowing it, and he paid for it, idiot, plus he killed a dog, which hurts even more.
Killed a dog, on top of killing two other humans as well? JFC
The dog matters more than the person?
so, the loss of 1 dog is more grievous than 2 innocent human beings? for God's sake, that is positively sickening
@@coldlakealta4043 See what I mean, a dog would never judge like that, and there's a reason dog backwards is god.
@@xn40sarethebest You're inferring a conclusion I didn't imply
I got to agree on the “ Ill advise straight in approach VFR entering the pattern”. To me that’s a very cavalier and arrogant way to fly…. Especially if you know there’s aircraft in the pattern…. Very sad but obvious results.
Even more arrogant is any pilot that doesn't have the means to properly visualize the activity of the pattern. Radios and windows don't cut it.
It seems obvious that the 340 pilot's intentions were NOT to make a "straight-in, full stop". He was too fast to deploy flaps and gear and couldn't possibly make a landing. Perhaps he intended to do a "run and break" but he was never going to do what he claimed. The 152 pilot would have reasonably expected the 340 to be at approach speed because of the pilot's stated intentions. As others have stated, in the UK where I am, traffic in the circuit (pattern) has priority. On straight-in approach to an untowered field where I have landed, if there is someone in the pattern, I negotiate with the other pilot to ensure that I'm not causing him to deviate. I once had the other pilot (on downwind) offer to extend his downwind to accommodate me, but I thanked him and made a standard join. It's polite and it's safe.
I agree. Yes, we're supposed to aviate, then navigate, then communicate, so maybe the 340 pilot was flying first and was going to radio second, for whatever reason. My theory on what happened is that the 340 originally tried to "reserve" the runway a long ways out, like a jerk. He had heard the 152, and knew it was going to land, but thought he could shove him out of the way with his fancy fast plane. However, he couldn't lose speed because he was in a descent, because he's a lousy pilot, and couldn't anticipate that. He probably knew he couldn't land, so he then made another bad decision, and instead of trying to kill more energy by climbing, was going to just overfly at high speed, showing off. The 152 panicked, though, and rose up into the 340's path. The 340 should have climbed out of traffic pattern altitude when he realized he couldn't land, but he tried to show off instead and do a high-speed low pass, but hit the 152 who was just trying to fly safely. Hot dogging, and inability to determine energy state, by the 340 killed them all.
The c152 was a student pilot faithfully calling his pattern and flying by the book, and clearly did not have the experience to be aware of the potential speed of the approaching c340. When he found the c340 booming down he called "go around", still not completely comprehending the true speed of the c340.
The c340 was approaching at 180kt-200kt while aware the c152 was on left base. At 3m the c340 acknowledged he had not yet made visual of the c152 on left base; regardless, he doubled down, apparently certain with his speed he could get ahead of the c152 wherever it was. Darwin Award for the c340.
I don't think it's a Darwin award when you murder someone along with killing yourself. Piece of shit award is more like it
I always find a Darwin Award death unremarkable when only the recipient is dead. This case is infuriating because he caused the death of two other people, and could have killed even more people, on the ground.
Yeah, the C340 approach speed is absolutely bonkers. As a low time private pilot who hasn't flown in a while, my experience is primarily limited to "Flying a C172 at somewhere between 70 and 100 knots at a towered airport." A C152 is even slower still, and figure if that C152 was going 60-70 knots, the C340 was TRIPLING its speed. But not just that, even with both planes attempting to go the same direction, the C340 was going the equivalent of a normal C172's CRUISE SPEED more than the C152 (Nearly 110-120 knots more!) And not only that, their speed when that close to the airport and that close to the ground is higher than what a 737 would be doing in the same scenario.
Even if there were no other planes in the sky, I don't know how the C340 pilot was planning to get their plane from 180 knots to 80-90 knots for landing without trashing their gear and flaps. Absolutely egregious airspeeds.
Darwin for both. Bottom line, IMO, the 152 should have taken a knee and extended its downwind.
In Australia, traffic on straight in approach finals are to give way to traffic already in the circuit. Circuit traffic have right of way.
At my field we have a lot of student pilots that fly some incredibly large patterns and it often appears that they are flying a "straight in" when they are actually in their extended pattern. We also have Jets and turbo-props that mingle with the flight school 152s on a daily basis. The rule is that you do not turn base when someone else has announced that they are on final until you have "crossed wings" with the airplane on final. A pilot cannot fly "their pattern" when other pilots in the pattern are flying a longer pattern. If the the 340 would have shown some restraint, and joined the pattern, lives would have been saved. If the 152 would have extended his downwind leg to let the 340 pass, then turned base, the outcome would have similarly been much better. We recently had a situation where a Citation Jet announced they were on 1 mile final and a Cessna 150 entered the runway and attempted to take-off ahead of it, not realizing the closure rate of the Citation. Thankfully, the Alert Citation pilot went around and saved the day. The Citation pilot obviously had the right of way, but living to fly another day beats being involved in an accident where the other person was ruled at fault.
Several months ago I witnessed something similar. A skywest crj-200 was on 2 mile final and a c-172 turned on final right in front of him. Fortunately the crj pilots were aware and pointed her up and over the airport. Meanwhile the 172 just did a touch ago and left the area. I worked skywest at the time so I didn’t here any radio chatter being outside to watch it happen, but a CFI walking by started cussing up a storm over the c-172 pilot.
@@matthewhaselhorst1778 If the 340 wasn't 40k above gear speed and diving for the runway, he might have seen the 152 sooner. The mystery here is all about the 340's speed. He couldn't even have been configured to land unless he had seriously oversped his gear and flaps. And to be on approach if configured at 180k, he would have carried a whole bunch of power which would be weird. Something is just not right. This isn't just about a guy flying a little fast. This isn't about how to enter a pattern. This isn't about turning in front of an airplane on final. Something really strange was going on here. The investigation will be interesting. But it will take 2 years. Dan Gryder will have an opinion in the next couple of weeks I'm sure. But it will just be a studied opinion.
@@bayanon7532 I’m not blaming the 152 pilot. Kind of sounds like you think I am. I was just relating a story to the end of the comment. I’ve just seen some close calls from similar situations. I don’t blame the 152 in this instance
correct. but, it's possible the 152 was unfamiliar with the 340 and how fast it flies, as I know even I'm not familiar with the 340. I know the C414 and C310, but not the 340. He may have assumed that since he was already on base and the 340 was still miles out there should have been plenty of time. and that FAA regulations required the 340 to give way to slower and lower traffic.
Sounds like a good rule! When the margins are too thin and you're relying on the goodwill and decency of other pilots, you're gambling with your life. Might not sound nice or kumbaya, but it's the truth
One thing that happened to us that makes my skin crawl in relation to this was a base turn inside a Cessna Citation we did in our Cessna 310P. As pilots in your mind, you have an idea of approach speeds of other aircraft. We were on downwind, and a Citation was on a long straight in final just like this 340. When the Citation is calling 5 miles, we are just starting to turn base. I'm thinking the Citation is likely 130kts or so. We are turning at 110kts working down to 90kts, no problem. Long runway so we pushed and landed mid field, no issue. There is no way that 152 pilot is thinking that 340 is coming at him at 180kts, he thinks he has plenty of room just like we did (and we did). By the time the 152 pilot saw this guy shooting like a rocket at him it was too late. This is very strange as there is no way that 340 is going to land at such a speed. On top of that the flap and gear speed were both exceeded if they were actually down which seems hard to believe simply because of the high speed. You would have to be in a full power decent to maintain that kind of speed dirty if you even could. Just makes no sense, such a tragedy.
Exactly, if the ADSB speeds are correct, there was NO WAY he could land, I own and fly a 340 and at thsoe speeds he could not have stopped before the end of the field no flaps and likely not been at gear speeds over the numbers.
summarized well. 152 thought he had room had the 340 been flying appropriate speeds, and 340 was required by law to give right of way to lower and slower traffic already in the pattern, and it appears the 340 was in no condition to land anyways.
Exactly, the 152 could never have known, but in my opinion, he should've never assumed! That's why I still slow down on busy intersections even if the light is green. You never know when you'll stumble upon the bastard that's going to ruin your life, or end it
@@Titere05 For sure, I agree 100%. That's why this made me think back on what we "assumed" would be a safe base to final with that Citation and now in retrospect we should have extended the downwind. As you say, never assume. Extra sad that the pilot of the 152 caught this guy coming at him at over 200mph and just couldn't get out of there. Makes you wonder if the 340 pilot hadn't of died or this was just a close call what the FAA would have done if at all?
I'm trying to figure out what I might do in a similar situation. I've never flown a 152, but frequently fly 172s and Cherokee 140 trainers. If I were to turn downwind to base, expecting the 340 to be slowing his approach 5-10 miles out, I'd have already dropped 200-400' below TPA, put in 20 degrees of flaps, and I'd be trimming for a stabilized approach. I'm at about 20-30 kt above Vso. The base leg is short, so if I was about to turn final and looked out my right window to see this twin barreling toward me on a collision course, I'm not sure what the best course of action would be. Even without a collision, this is the type of situation that could kill a pilot on the base leg: a quick, reflexive, defensive steep, uncoordinated turn (in either direction) could develop into a spin or stall -- very dangerous at 600' AGL. Continuing straight (parallel to the base leg past final) would have you cross his path and could result in a collision. Adding power to climb would increase your speed toward the path of his final but may get you above his glideslope. It may also put you into an elevator stall based on your trim. Adding power and turning sharply is only going to increase the likelihood of an uncoordinated turn if you're not counteracting the fully-powered engine with right rudder. Diving puts you lower to ground hazards and makes you less visible to him and him less visible to you. If you're low and slow on base and you see someone rocketing toward you on final, what's the best course of action to deconflict? I get that the answer is "don't get there in the first place," but what's the best choice once you're already past that point?
Something else that bothers me is that at one point, the twin reported his position as being east of the airport. No…not east, more north-northeast. Could the 152 pilot have been thinking that the traffic was going to be behind him and no factor?
I am private pilot student in Europe and from what we study here (idk if it’s exactly the same in the u.s.) airplanes that are already inside the traffic pattern have priority on other traffic willing to enter the pattern. I don’t understand why the twin bird was going so fast, that is very dangerous. Also I don’t understand why the c152 pilot decided to go around? If you are in front of another airplane on final why would you go around, it should be the airplane following to do so. If you are faster and behind a traffic you should be the one going around, not the plane in front.
You are correct on the fact that the C152 that was in the pattern had the right away. However him trying to go around was his attempt to get out of the way because the twin was fast approaching his rear end. Unfortunately the getting out of the way didn’t happen fast enough. However it was obvious that he knew something was wrong and tried to do something about it. This accident was 100% the fault of the twin on multiple levels. The C152 pilot could have done more to avoid it, but it certainly was no fault of his own that this occurred.
In the U.S we are also taught that existing aircraft already in patter SHOULD have the right of way, however I don’t believe that is a solid regulation at un towered fields
There is a 200 knot speed limit in patterns and while I understand why it’s that high I feel there should be a tiered system so if you choose the slowest tier your aircraft is capable of safely flying at.
@@VictoryAviation Turning base and turning to final in front of a well announced incoming twin was not something anyone should receive a medal over. The 152 should have extended his downwind and just let the nut job in the 340 do his thing.
@@davejohnson8960 I would have extended my downwind personally. But the law states that the C152 had the right away. I was just explaining the law. Just because someone does have the right away doesn’t mean they shouldn’t exercise caution when making decisions, but technically the twin was in the wrong (with the information we have so far). I always try to stay out of careless pilots’ way myself, but none the less this twin pilot seems to have broken the law and it cost everyone involved their lives.
I had the exact same thing happen to me , I chose to extend my downwind leg and let the king air go ahead of me. There is no agreement about who has the right of way, my concern was maintaining separation.
No matter the speed of the twin, in a 172 or 182 I’m extending downwind if I hear a twin is on a 3 mile final. Make the base turn once abeam of the twin. But I also can’t stand when people do straight in’s to an uncontrolled field. They should be entering the left downwind midfield at a 45. Just safer IMO
I'm not a pilot, just an enthusiast with lots of "armchair" hours, but I was thinking the same thing. Had I been on the downwind hearing of an approaching twin, I'd have extended, waved as he went by, and followed in afterwards. Unfortunately he assumed the twin was coming in at a normal approach/landing speed. This assumption proved fatal.
A straight in isn’t the end if the world, but the twin pilot is 100% at fault for not cooling his jets or doing a quick 360 to provide proper separation. He was hauling ass all the way in with complete disregard for other aircraft.
This happened all the time to me when I was a student pilot. The airport was heavy with training aircraft, but business jets and turboprops would often enter the pattern straight in. Many times I had to fly a very long downwind to accommodate the traffic. No time to argue about it or point fingers…someone has to be courteous rapidly.
Exact? You died?
This is a great early analysis, thank you. I think that it is a cautionary tale for straight in approaches, specifically straight in approaches if there is known traffic in the pattern. I think the lower aircraft having priority per the FAR 91 regulation is great guidance, regardless of the definition of what aircraft is on final. The lessons of taking action early to deconflict (example/ 360 for spacing) and aeronautical decision making is outlined well in the video.
The high speed of the C340 is what I do not understand. I hope that other pilots understand and learn from the analysis and investigation of this collision.
You cannot be making 360's with out creating a collision conflict with the guys behind you. The 152 was right. But the twin was lying about doing a full stop while going at over 200 mph on short final. A Liar.
Just how did the 340 intend to stop flying in at such a high speed? Totally irresponsible flying in my opinion.
I don’t know if the audio is edited, but if not and if it’s not precisely synced to the ADS-B, don’t necessarily assume the c152 turned base *after* the c340 called three miles. It’s possible the c152 had to wait for the freq to clear to make his call, and had already started or even completed the turn before he heard the inbound missile’s announcement.
If I hear a guy call a 10-mile final on a sunny VFR day when the pattern occupied and he doesn't make a very clear indication that he will alter to blend in with traffic, I bug out and come back when he's gone. He probably doesn't have the kind of mindset with which I want to share constrained airspace.
That said, the 152 had rising terrain in front of him which I almost never have, and he may have been a student who doesn't yet have those gut feelings about who to steer clear of. Based on what I've heard thus far, I don't fault him nearly as much as the guy in the twin.
I believe he was PPL
Agree 100%. I would like to add that, IMHO, radios and windows don't cut it. It doesn't seem like enough pilots and CFIs are using the available technology.
@@davejohnson8960 I couldn’t agree more with this after having done several accident investigation papers for college. I see over and over again through statistics that see and avoid in today’s airspace is not the answer by itself. There’s no way that the human body can compensate for the traffic density and speeds we have in modern aviation.
It’s so eerie watching Richard providing his excellent insight and narration of this incident while knowing that he died just a year after making this video after losing control of a light aircraft he was piloting.
Early indications are that they were overweight due to a possible miscalculation, although the final results won’t be released for another year.
RIP to all those who have passed in this tragic accident. My question to twin pilots, if we imagine a world where the 152 was not there, what were the chances of the 340 successfully landing at approach speeds that high so close to the runway? It seems to me that although the 340 pilot had clearly called his intention to land, based on the available data it seems he hadn't bothered to configure the aircraft for it. I am rated in complex retractable singles and I need to be thinking about and planning for my pattern speed a long way out or my aircraft simply won't slow down in time to drop the gear and flaps.
He had no chance at all of landing. He was way above gear and flap speed. Jets don't even approach that fast. Maybe he was planning a low approach to impress someone?
Is it possible he was aborting without announcing? Maybe he was expecting the 152 to land as he went around? I just can't seem to wrap my head around what his intentions were.
@@riverraisin1 A Zoom Pass to impress the passenger. A Pig Pilot.. Easy to see that.
THANK YOU, for posting this.
I don't fly, but watching the videos and the explanation of this crash on the news, I was thinking "how on earth did THAT happen?
I was hoping you would explain it with an animation.
You do such an outstanding job narrating and explaining these situations. 🥰
would the twin even have been able to land at that speed or would he have gone off the end of the runway?
@@Drcraigfreeman exactly correct. No way he could ahve landed coming in at that speed.
One of the best videos if not the best video that you guys have produced, so many thoughtful insights! Keep up the good work!
Also, we don't know if the registered pilot of the 340 was the one flying the approach. What other reason could there be for the high rate. (Even above gear speed)
He had a bigger plane and made his 10 mile call, therefore he felt he had the right to fly straight in, and it was the C152’s job to move out of his way.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 Could also have been keeping his speed up so to get on final before the other guy. It's a move you see all the time. I once cross wind at an MF airport in Canada and had someone pop-up off a lake within the zone and try to race me to final. Complete with with a totally bogus 3 mile final call when fella wasn't even close to the extended centerline.
@@winternet7718 I’ve seen this. It’s piss poor ADM
The 340 was higher and because of background ground clutter of buildings, etc, didn’t see the movement of the 150 across the ground. Knowing there was a possible conflict and he did not have a visual on the 150, he should not have continued to the threshold. He could have done a spacing 360 or overflown the runway. Likewise, the 150 should have extended his down wind until the 340 had passed. They both had awareness of the conflict and should have de conflicted the situation. Announcing your location and intentions does nothing to resolve a conflict you know exists. You can not always wait until you have a visual confirmation of the conflict. ATC doesn’t and neither should pilots.
I was almost involved in the same type of accident about 30 years ago. I was flying a 172 on a left downwind at a towered airport. There was a Cherokee 180 about a mile and a half final. The tower cleared me to land and told the Cherokee to follow me. I turned my left base at approximately a half mile out and as I started my turn to final, my 10-year-old brother asked me, "who is that?" I turn to him and he's pointing out his window and I see the Cherokee about two hundred feet from me converging! I quicky bank left, full power and climb. The tower then see's what is happening and asked the Cherokee if he saw the Cessna he just cut off. He replied "no". The tower then told me to go around and make left traffic as he cleared the Cherokee to land.
If my brother had not been with me that day, I'm pretty sure it would have been a mid-air.
Because of this close call, I ALLWAYS check final on downwind, base leg, and as I am turning final regardless of a towered or non-towered airport.
My gosh! I hope the tower gave the Cherokee pilot a phone number to call when he landed.
We can discuss right of way all day, pilot in the pattern vs. pilot on a long final, but there is a simple solution which has worked for me for 40 years of flying. If both pilots are communicating and each knows the other one is there, don't turn on a converging course until you see each other. I routinely land at a controlled airport where the traffic is mostly scheduled airlines. The tower will not let me turn base until I have reported visual contact with traffic on final and the other pilot does the same with me. I don't need a controller to operate the same way at uncontrolled airports. Each pilot knew the other was there. The pilot on final should not continue down the final approach not knowing where the other aircraft in the pattern are. The pilot in the pattern should extend his downwind until he can determine visually that the traffic on long final is not a factor, or wait for the traffic to pass by before turning base. As a commercial helicopter pilot I've been taught to avoid fixed-wing traffic patterns, but the good thing about flying a pattern is that you can communicate your position around the airport easily with other pilots so that they know where to look for you. Fly defensively. I drive cars and ride motorcycles the same way. I assume that the other guy is NOT going to do the right thing until I can verify visually that he won't or can't hit me. I stop even when I have the right of way on the road if someone is about to hit me because the right of way won't make a difference if I'm dead or injured. This is a sad event that could have been avoided so easily.
You are right
10 miles is not on “final approach” to a non-tower airport, even if aligned with the runway. Traffic patterns exist for a reason at these airports. Additionally, if the imbecile in the 340 was going to engage in a strafing run of the airport at that speed, he should have included his intentions well before violating a busy traffic pattern. Clearly careless and reckless operation of that aircraft. His estate will be gutted in the lawsuit by the next-of-kin of the 152 pilot.
I sure hope so! I wondered that myself, and I'm pleased to hear your comment about it. Civil litigation is a big part of the system that can improve safety and save lives.
@@islandlife756 greed does not always solve problems.
What angers me is that I’ve had this sort of behavior at my local airport KTRM. Many larger aircraft charters totally ignore the traffic pattern and many of them just assume that it is your job to get out of their way. To me, what makes this clearly the fault of the 340 was that there was not just one aircraft in the pattern when the 340 first called in. Just head a little left of the field and turn on the 45. It doesn’t take that much extra time. Don’t fly straight in with traffic in the pattern…particularly when you don’t see them!
@@johnjones-yt8rt the cocky twins loaded rich, has it coming.
@redbird444 WELL SAID!!
there is no 10 mile final at ga airport.
I said the same thing too. In the civil suit 340 will be found guilty.
Not a pilot, but appreciate your early appraisal, animation, past data & council for pilot's avoidance of this in the future. I recognize that this is very early in the accident analysis, but even to a non-pilot, this was understandable. Thank you for your work.
No post crash fire? Was the 340 out of fuel? I stick with the 150, he was following procedure.
Excellent analysis and explanation. What a tragic event. The twin’s speed on final was bizarre.
Here in Australia it is strongly recommended that you overfly the field and join xwind to maximise situational awareness, preparation for landing etc. Straight ins etc are allowed but not recommended. I have been in the C152 situation and chose to extend downwind. In another similar situation when joining 45 degrees downwind, I actually did a 180 and started my circuit/pattern entry again! You have to visually see each other to continue, and neither did - the speeder said LOOKING for aircraft on base, the C152 said YOUR BEHIND ME probably based on radio calls. So sad.
This is what my CFI taught me and definitely what I'd do. Great advice 👍
It's the same in the US, but the 340 pilot likely had money. So rules are different
Speculating here, but wonder if the reason for the twin coming in hot may have been that the pilot was so preoccupied looking for the 152 that he simply didn’t configure for landing. Or due to the ridges on the north, and the fact that he wanted to do a straight in, there wasn’t proper energy management to bring it down to approach speed on short final.
So the twin was doing 180 knots at 200ft half a mile from runway and expected to land!?
Nice analysis Mr. Mcspadden.. Very fair and impartial. Accidents happen. We try and learn so we don't repeat. Thanks.
Entering a busy trsffic pattern straight-in and at high speed is just criminal, regardless of what the regulations say. My conolescences to the families involved.
Great commentary. Looking forward to subsequent updates from the NTSB.
There will be fault and blame assigned, but thank you for pointing out that it would be prudent to extend base with a faster aircraft on 1 mile straight-in final. It appears very much possible that the 152 pilot did everything by the rules, but some "defensive flying" may be the best course. The combination of the high airspeed on final and the 340 pilot not being able to spot the 152 in the pattern might point to that pilot having some sort of incapacitation. In a car, it's easy for me to remember that other drivers may be distracted or of limited capacity, and give them a wide berth even if it's a nuisance for me. The same may be prudent in the air.
Can someone explain to me how the twin pilot was going to land with a full stop when he was so close to the airfield and still doing 179+ kts? Presumably he still had gear and flaps up as from what I understand he was still above the speed necessary to deploy both.
It’s haunting watching this in October 2023
RIP man
Thank you for such a calm and considered analysis. I hope very much that it will counter the tendency of some commenters to leap in pointing fingers before full details are known.
Do you (ASI) think that enough emphasis is given during PPL training to detecting and avoiding pattern incursions ? The statistics suggest that there is room for improvement in this area.
Do you (ASI) think that the ambiguity in the regulations regarding who has priority (lower / pattern / declared final) should be resolved by means of a change to the regulations, or is it sufficient to leave pilots to sort it out for themselves ?
I cannot understand how the “straight in approach” is still allowed. even if the inbound traffic is IFR - if the field is VMC and it’s not a turbine then fly the standard overhead join. If the twin had flown the standard join this wouldn’t have happened
Very good review of procedures, the accident itself and lessons learned.
I fly a mid-size cabin jet into many non-tower airports and it’s nuts how some operate in/out of these airports.
For a non pilot, can someone tell me reasons why he would be coming in at twice the average speed for an approach?
I’m a commercial pilot and I’m scratching my head on this one… all I can come up with is that they were in a hurry. But something just seems really off here
Drunk.
@@aarontiterence6507 Exactly. What was his intentions at 300AGL and less than 1 mile from threshold doing 180kt? Could not have landed to full stop anyway. Listening to the 340 pilot he did not seem quite right, a little spaced out. Perhaps this might be a contributing factor as difficult to explain why someone would be so totally and completely reckless.
How is this possible? Seriously, I don't get it. How can someone, being aware of the pattern traffic, make a long final approach? The traffic pattern is there for a reason! It was absolutely ruthless continuing the approach knowing there's traffic just straight ahead. A 360 would've solved the situation. But anyway… the 340 guy didn't wanna land. 170 kt on final… Suicide?
Yeah I suspect there's a piece still missing from the puzzle.
Was the 340's gear down? Approach flaps?
No, and no.
Yes, the FAA does put their "guidance" in what's called the "AIRMANS INFORMATION MANUAL" and from what I understand it says is you can only make a straight in approach if you give priority to anyone already in the pattern and can conform to their speed. CFIAM JOE COVINO. Lake Havasu, Arizona.
. CFIAM JOE COVINO.?
@@Capecodham Certified flight instructor, airplane, single & multi engine.
Certificated flight instructor, not Certified. Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), not Airmans...
"if you give priority to anyone already in the pattern " - there is no such rule or guidance in the AIM. There should be but there insn't.
8/20/22. Thx ASI for this clear & visually EZ 2see positions of each a/c as they flew their path to threshold. Great review of rules for VFR pattern priorities. Much enjoyed this analysis. Will watch 4more from you after NTSB initial & final reporting.👍👍👍👏🛩🙂
340 hit 152 from the back? That is criminal man
Also lack of TCAS in general aviation amazes me in a bad way.
TCAS is a complicated, and a very expensive system. In this case, both pilots were flying VFR meaning they suppose to look outside for traffic, just like you and I when we drive a car. A good analogy to driving is a motorcycle overtaking you at 100mph on the freeway. You will never see the motorcycle until it passes you because you mind cannot comprehend the closure speed, and your eyes aren't used to see a small rocket with that speed. Even if it was a car at 100mph, you will not recognize the closing speed. This is why airports have established patterns for the specific runways, left pattern or right pattern. It's is like the rule of the road, until someone decides to not follow the rule. Another example is a four-way intersection with no traffic light and no stop sign. By law, you can blow past the intersection at the normal 35mph speed but you are foolish to do so. People slow down or come to a stop and look for cross traffic before proceeding. TCAS is used for jets flying in the cloud, and the closure speed is so fast that it cannot be foreseen by a regular pilot, especially when they cannot possibly see another jet.
@@2Phast4Rocket Windows and radios are not ideal.
the usual calm, precise, professional and informative posting ... regards
At a non towered airport under VFR conditions the Twin pilot did not enter the pattern in the correct path. I’ve dealt with bigger iron pilots like this guy before. Make straight in regardless of “in the pattern” aircraft at the airport. I’ll tell you why the Twin was going so fast, he did not want to go around the pattern behind the 152, cause he was too important to take the time to do that. Sadly, although not at fault in any way, the 152 paid the ultimate price. Kind of like stepping into a crosswalk, the crash still kills. He’d be alive if he had extended his downwind for the jerk in the Twin.
You're possibly right, but at that speed the twin was going to have to go around anyway. Absolutely no logic to his decision making.
Why was he so fast (180 kts ground speed) at short final. Would have been able to even land if the 152 was not there?
@@acnorea123 I assume he didn't understand that his excessive speed would have risked his own life even if the 152 hadn't been there.
@@islandlife756 Right. But I gather he was an experienced pilot, so wondering if he was he impaired, disoriented in some way.
@@islandlife756 "I assume he didn't understand that his excessive speed would have risked his own life even if the 152 hadn't been there." You really think he didnt understand that? LOL. Excuses, excuses.
Great video, great information. Thank you!
179 knots 1 mile from final??
“ill-advised”?? Try reckless, or negligent. Better yet, how about homicidal? Yes I see that both parties had a responsibility to see and avoid, but Jesus Tapdancing Christ that twin flew like he was performing a bombing run during the Battle at Midway.
I was kind of thinking homicidal as well!
I have not flown that model of Cessna twin in about 40 years. So I may be wrong, Seems a bit high to extend flaps and landing gear. Either way too fast on a short final. Just ran down the kid in the 152.
I don't understand, according to fr24 the Twin was at 170kt@260 ft over the threshold, it doesn't make sense if it wanted to land, it never slowed the plane.
Possible Adsb error or malfunctioning anemometer?
I've been flying for 20 years. I trained and have always flattened the airplane to look in the opposite direction before any turn while in the pattern. Over the years I've seen people enter a straight in downwind, a straight in base, and of course a straight in final. I'm sure the poor guy in the 152 thought the twin would take action to avoid him. That assumption cost him his life.
I wonder if the 152 pilot had any idea that the 340 was not only faster, but moving at about double the normal approach speed.
@@bills6093 When entering a highway, we don't expect other traffic to be going 120 mph.
@@stevehuffman1495 True, but I always look at them and take extra care in case they are. I try not to trust others to do the right thing, in any situation that can lead to injury or death.
Nice bit of victim-blaming there. The 340 pilot was barging his way in and ignoring traffic in the established pattern, just expecting everyone else to get out of his way. He was still above both his gear extension speed and his flap limiting speed long after he should have been set up and stabilised. There was no way he was ever going to make the runway with those numbers. He should have stayed high and got in line in the pattern with everyone else rather than mowing down an innocent third party and killing them all
@@Muggles87 If you thought I was blaming the 152 pilot, you misunderstood my comments. I was just saying what I do as far as flattening my wings before a turn and that I have seen jerks enter the pattern at any point. The 340 pilot is clearly at fault.
What is proper or normal procedures for entering the pattern at an uncontrolled airport??? Isn't it entering on a 45 into downwind???
Flew into the airport three weeks ago, crazy busy. Accident was totally avoidable, sad day! Both parties could’ve done something to avoid the accident. 340 was at fault high rate of speed and straight in approach. 152 should have extended his downwind leg.
...*could* have extended.... FTFY
@@nitramluap should have! Student Pilot does anyone know? Sad !!!
@@Calgold49 Yes, new pilot in the 152 didn't have the experience that you have. Give'em hell.
@@j_taylor I do not mean to be callous about this, it is tragic and to be honest I have not stopped thinking about it since I heard about it! Sad pissed and upset! The 152 pilot was doing everything he was taught, some idiot comes blazing in! 😣😖😡
Relevant factors in the investigation include: C340 approach ground speed, vertical rate (~1400 fpm prior to impact), ability to configure and land the C340 on a 4500' runway at that speed (nil?), ADS-B EFB traffic info and alert(s) available to C340 pilot, conspicuity of C340 head-on profile (lights, strobes, sun angle, background, etc., for both pilots). Also, we cannot overlook 91.113 (f) which states: "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." Whether that's overtaking a landing, departing, or en route aircraft, that rule must apply if a collision is to avoided from being overrun by another aircraft.
Indications are that the C152 pilot kept the C340 pilot aware and updated on his position and intent. That the C340 was on an extended straight-in approach is not by itself a factor. If the C340 pilot adjusted his approach speed, flight path, and communicated the potential for a conflict with the C152, it would have indicated an effort to avoid conflict with a known aircraft in the traffic pattern. Was his radio/audio panel configured so he was only broadcasting, but not hearing other traffic? Separate from hearing the C152 pilot report his position and intent, one also has to wonder why the C340 pilot continued to approach the airport at high speed and high vertical rate to a low altitude. That's not what one does when intending to land, but if he misjudged the descent rate and speed buildup necessary to land straight-in on RWY 20, he could have overflown the airport and entered a crosswind-to-downwind while slowing the airplane for landing. None of that happened. Was pilot fatigue or some other factors that may have incapacitated his judgment? All of that's on the table.
Pilots flying high speed aircraft approaching an airport have no special provisions that allow them to claim a priority for landing. The ultimate operational priority is to integrate all operations at and near an airport safely.
It will be interesting to know what the experience level of each pilot was. Was the C-152 pilot a student? Private with little flying time? Was the C152 pilot experienced enough to know what a C-340 was and what his ground speed might be? (In this case excessive) Was the C-340 pilot experienced enough to know that even though it is possible to fly a straight in, is there a chance that other pilots in the pattern might not be at his experience level?
Yes the 152 pilot was a student pilot, reportedly on an early solo flight
The 340 pilot was demanding right away from all other aircraft in the pattern. Just another asshole pilot dead. Unfortunate the student lost his life
Is a long final against FAA VFR Rules?
Hmm, not sure what the twin pilot was smoking. It is crazy that a student pilot even said that hey man, you are coming in fast behind me. Something that the twin pilot should have corrected long ago. 100% avoidable!
-Max
I just dont understand the speed of the 340, about twice the normal approach and landing speed.
Did he have a gun at his head? I look forward to the findings.
Flying a glider, I was also almost "run over" by a douche bag on a straight in. I had called approach to final and was committed to land and the tow plane was bent on getting in before me.
I nosed down, gained speed to turn tighter to stay left of the centre line and he blew right past me, trailing the tow line. I even saw the coupling blinking in the sunlight.
This 100% on on the 340 pilot but I thought I would add some insight on the straight approaches too. I come from an area with a high volume of student pilot traffic and just normal GA traffic. I've probably done a straight in approach for almost every checkride I've done and even with extremely picky examiners up to MEI. There is so many people that are shooting practices approaches with or without ATC and it does need to be taken into account. These are mostly straight in approaches more or less. Most of us flying in this area don't expect people to break off their approach for someone in the pattern. Usually we extend our downwind until we are abeam the final traffic and then we turn. We also had faster twins like the 340 and jets come into our uncontrolled field often and a lot of times it was easier for them to put themselves on a 5 mile final instead of trying to get into pattern (Depending on the direction they were coming) but everyone knew that's how it worked and wouldn't mind extending downwind for that. One airport I personally flew into was a straight in approach probably 80% of the +200 approaches into the field. I've broken off the approach because of traffic in the pattern (I was going to fast or slow to make it work) or when I had faster traffic behind me doing a straight in or there was traffic present and I had no idea where they were. Bottom line it's an uncontrolled field people don't always have radios, don't fly somewhat a normal footprint of a pattern for their aircraft, or are even 1000ft AGL. If you are doing a straight in that is your risk and you better know what's happening around you and keeping an eye out just like everything else in flying. If everyone is looking out for themselves and others a straight in approach is not unsafe in my opinion. The 340 blatantly disregarded everyone and his own safety and this could have happened even if he was in a "normal" traffic pattern footprint, in my opinion.
Takes two to tangle. Both screwed up.
@@davejohnson8960 Considering this was at a non-towered airport, would you feel the same way if the C152 had been a Cub or other aircraft with no radio?
The pilots commenting that 152 should have given way is laughable. Its amazing how some people will always find a way to blame the victim and defend the person who caused the accident. Let this go to a civil trial and the jury will find 340 guilty. The NTSB will also place blame on 340.
Rich people get their way all the time
The speed may indicate that the 340 pilot was attempting to undercut the slower 152 to avoid having to join the pattern behind it.
IMHO if you’re coming straight in in something fast, a 152 on base is already a conflict. They need to be clear of the runway on the other side of their touch and go before setting up on short final.
They had each other in sight all the way to the end and still collided. Unbelievable. At least the 152 pilot tried to do something. Ironically, if he hadn't the planes would have missed.
No, the twin pilot never did confirm he had the C152 in sight. He said he was looking for traffic and then proceeded at break neck speed with no regard for anyone else.
@@VictoryAviation exactly 100% correct
@@VictoryAviation But didn't the 152 pilot warn him?
@@adotintheshark4848 He absolutely did. The C152 warned the twin engine pilot and even advised he was breaking off the approach due to safety and the twin just ran right over him.
Thank you for the update, we really appreciate it
The twin pilot became upset that the little 152 didn't bow down to him and extend his downwind. The twin pilot decided to -teach him a lesson- and buzz over the 152 as it touched down at high speed. At the last moment, the 152-pilot decided to go-around, I would have too. The twin was starting to pass over the 152 when it pulled up into the path. Now 3 ppl are dead because of an arrogant pilot. My useless 2 cents
You know, you may have hit the nail on the head with this idea. I've been reading a ton about this and you are the first person to raise this possibility. It actually provides and answer to all the questions.
@@gawebm Thanks, it will be interesting to hear what the NTSB discovers when they interview the twin-pilot's friends and family. Was he a hot-head, road-rage guy? Now, I am not saying that he is/was. I may be completely wrong, and he might have been a terrific human. It just makes perfect sense, over 200 mph on final, geez. He was TRYING to catch the 152.
I have witnessed this "road rage" behavior when my instructor encountered left traffic in a published right traffic airport, (Strongsville, Ohio) The instructor made a "chicken" manuever at the offending traffic.
@@sierraromeo I would never fly with that instructor again. During my training days, I had two different instructors actually recommend that I not bother with using the shoulder harness, I put it on anyway and never flew with them again.
@@n721sw The instructor was a 15,000hr captain for United A L, B-727, this was in 1983. The only instructor in the area teaching taildragger proficiency.