KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

[dbahn]

Define "final"? Quarter mile? Half mile? Ten miles? If someone calls in on a twenty-mile straight-in, does all other traffic yield to them?

Final is not defined with respect to distance in any FAA publication I could find. In fact, in the Pilot Controller Glossary (page 39) they specifically define it as "without regard to distance". I don't find any reference to a different definition for VFR.



And distance really doesn't matter. It's rate of closure that matters and that's always a judgment call. You just can't cut an aircraft off on final. I suspect the FAA interprets that to mean doing something that's "unsafe", and if the pilot on final has to go around I suspect that meets the definition. So no, you don't yield to anyone just because they're on final or if they simply announce something to that effect. You yield if it's unsafe to join the final in an unsafe manner. Hell, I can't even see an aircraft on a ten mile final, and even at 180 knots that's still about three minutes to intersecting a normal base leg.

 

[MauleSkinner]

There is no rational expectation that a plane will be at 600 feet doing 180 knots with his gear and flaps up when they have made a call that they are landing.

you’re assuming that the pilot was in control of the airplane, not miles behind it.

 

[Flying Doc]

I think some of this can be minimized in the future if

Moral of the

Define "final"? Quarter mile? Half mile? Ten miles? If someone calls in on a twenty-mile straight-in, does all other traffic yield to them?

14CFR 91.113 defines the right of way rules. Note that this was written before aircraft radios were common. On that basis, how is "final" defined? Quarter mile? Half mile? Twenty miles?

Ron Wanttaja

Lets not be silly. If someone declares Final assume they are on final. Of course if they are in another state do what you need to do. But if you dont know where they are for sure, you dont know how fast they are, or have not seen them dont turn base. It may be safer… in my opinion. I am not blaming the student in the accident just looking at how this can be avoided in future.what we can do better.
Of course the plane on final should be reasonable but if they are not then the plane in the pattern needs to protect self.
Even in tower environment seems that students can get locked into their turns focusing on flaps speed etc but not actively hearing whats going on with the coms. To make self preserving decisions.

 

[wanttaja]

Almost makes me wonder if he was planning out of frustration to wake-thump the 152 with a low pass and then go-around.

A bit of a road rage demonstration for a perceived cutting in line.

That's actually been my theory for quite a while. Or he was planning to buzz the other airplane as it rolled out.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Lets not be silly. If someone declares Final assume they are on final.

Again, define "final". IIRC, the twin pilot declared "final" at first ten miles away, then again three miles away. As soon as someone announced "final" on the radio, is everyone expected to yield them? No matter if they're 30 seconds, one minute, or five minutes from landing? It's kind of different from someone claiming "shotgun," though it is a bit more life-and-death.

I'm looking for a workable definition of "final." Something other than Justice Potter's pronouncement*.

My own definition is that a plane is on final when:

1. It is configured for landing (e.g. flaps and gear down, prop to appropriate setting), and
2. It has assumed its final approach speed, and
3. It is in a position where it can land safely if the engine quits.

#1 and #2 are classic references the logic in 91.113, with less-maneuverable aircraft having the right of way. A plane configured for landing is less maneuverable than one that is not and has more problems avoiding a collision. If you don't have your gear and flaps down, and are flying at 200 knots, you aren't on final.

#3 is more problematic. This is more a 1930s-style definition (since I fly a 1930s-style airplane). The FAA now teaches maintaining power on approach.

Ron Wanttaja

*"I know it when I see it." He was referring to p*rn, but.....

 

[schmookeeg]

Almost makes me wonder if he was planning out of frustration to wake-thump the 152 with a low pass and then go-around.

A bit of a road rage demonstration for a perceived cutting in line.

That's an interesting theory and gives me pause to consider. I really hope it's not true. I don't want to share sky with people out to teach others "a lesson". Half of the joy I get from aviation is how collaborative it all is.

 

[dbahn]

1. It is configured for landing (e.g. flaps and gear down, prop to appropriate setting), and
2. It has assumed its final approach speed, and
3. It is in a position where it can land safely if the engine quits.

Uh, oh! Those apply to my Cub for most of every flight. We better add, "has CLIMBED UP to pattern altitude".

 

[Kenny Phillips]

See and avoid actually works quite well, but like everything else, it takes training and practice. Very few pilots put in the effort.

What you believe is "working well" is merely the big sky.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If you don't have your gear and flaps down, and are flying at 200 knots, you aren't on final.

If the twin wasn’t on final, this accident didn’t happen.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What you believe is "working well" is merely the big sky.

true…I didn’t see you, and you were obviously there. How did you know it was me? (And, of course, since you saw me, I presume you avoided me, which means it worked every time.)

 

[wanttaja]

Uh, oh! Those apply to my Cub for most of every flight. We better add, "has CLIMBED UP to pattern altitude".

Shhhh! Applies to my Fly Baby, too. If I'm a'writin' a rule, dern right it'll be to my advantage.

Years ago, I was president of my airport's advisory board. Traffic pattern altitude was 900, and folk were pressing for 1200 feet for "Standardization." Long extra climb for a Fly Baby in the summer. I called for a 1,000-ft TPA, and that's where it is today.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

If the twin wasn’t on final, this accident didn’t happen.

The twin was on a cross-country flight at low altitude....1/2

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Flying Doc]

Again, define "final". IIRC, the twin pilot declared "final" at first ten miles away, then again three miles away. As soon as someone announced "final" on the radio, is everyone expected to yield them? No matter if they're 30 seconds, one minute, or five minutes from landing? It's kind of different from someone claiming "shotgun," though it is a bit more life-and-death.

I'm looking for a workable definition of "final." Something other than Justice Potter's pronouncement*.

My own definition is that a plane is on final when:

1. It is configured for landing (e.g. flaps and gear down, prop to appropriate setting), and
2. It has assumed its final approach speed, and
3. It is in a position where it can land safely if the engine quits.

#1 and #2 are classic references the logic in 91.113, with less-maneuverable aircraft having the right of way. A plane configured for landing is less maneuverable than one that is not and has more problems avoiding a collision. If you don't have your gear and flaps down, and are flying at 200 knots, you aren't on final.

#3 is more problematic. This is more a 1930s-style definition (since I fly a 1930s-style airplane). The FAA now teaches maintaining power on approach.

Ron Wanttaja

*"I know it when I see it." He was referring to p*rn, but.....

By the time you go through gumps and rules above, the newb focused on his airspeed and making sure second notch of flaps is in while on base, will surely find a way to delaminate your paint. Just teach proper merging technique.
Rules are nice but at the end of the day I dont trust any of you… on downwind past the numbers I am not turning toward the runway until I know you aint gonna be there to meet and greet!

 

[Palmpilot]

The problem is, there were no survivors who could explain the reasons for the actions that led up to the accident. Without that, and without physical evidence, the investigators' jobs are far more challenging. At some point, they're going to have to declare...without knowing the entire situation...what the cause of this accident was. I can see there being a lot of back-and-forth within the NTSB as to how they're going to want to call this.

Ron Wanttaja

I would like to see the NTSB take the FAA to task for thoroughly muddying the waters on who has the right-of-way by writing guidance that conflicts with the regulations. That creates dangerous situations by making it so that pilots don't know what to expect from each other. The FAA's response to this accident was to modify the guidance in a way that doubles down on the ambiguity, making the situation even worse.

 

[wanttaja]

By the time you go through gumps and rules above, the newb focused on his airspeed and making sure second notch of flaps is in while on base, will surely find a way to delaminate your paint. Just teach proper merging technique.
Rules are nice but at the end of the day I dont trust any of you… on downwind past the numbers I am not turning toward the runway until I know you aint gonna be there to meet and greet!

Certainly a reasonable attitude.

<just to be clear, the following is not directed at Flying Doc>

The trouble is, too many people want to argue about whose FAULT it was, and not as many are interested in how to keep it from happening again....

J**** F******* C*****, folks, it's your NECKS involved. If you're only interested in assigning blame, you're not learning from it.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Palmpilot]

Define "final"? Quarter mile? Half mile? Ten miles? If someone calls in on a twenty-mile straight-in, does all other traffic yield to them?

14CFR 91.113 defines the right of way rules. Note that this was written before aircraft radios were common. On that basis, how is "final" defined? Quarter mile? Half mile? Twenty miles?

Ron Wanttaja

This was covered earlier in the thread, which can be summarized as follows:

One of the P/CG definitions of final includes the phrase "without regard to distance." Some people counter that this would require yielding to a plane that is too far away to pose a hazard and is therefore ridiculous, but that argument ignores the regulatory language that provides the exception "unless well clear" to the right-of-way rules.

 

[Palmpilot]

...My own definition is that a plane is on final when:

1. It is configured for landing (e.g. flaps and gear down, prop to appropriate setting), and
2. It has assumed its final approach speed, and
3. It is in a position where it can land safely if the engine quits.

#1 and #2 are classic references the logic in 91.113, with less-maneuverable aircraft having the right of way. A plane configured for landing is less maneuverable than one that is not and has more problems avoiding a collision. If you don't have your gear and flaps down, and are flying at 200 knots, you aren't on final.

#3 is more problematic. This is more a 1930s-style definition (since I fly a 1930s-style airplane). The FAA now teaches maintaining power on approach.

Ron Wanttaja

*"I know it when I see it." He was referring to p*rn, but.....

If your proposal is to make the right-of-way depend on those three factors, how would a person about to turn base know who has the right-of-way?

 

[MauleSkinner]

I would like to see the NTSB take the FAA to task for thoroughly muddying the waters on who has the right-of-way by writing guidance that conflicts with the regulations. That creates dangerous situations by making it so that pilots don't know what to expect from each other. The FAA's response to this accident was to modify the guidance in a way that doubles down on the ambiguity, making the situation even worse.

The problem is if you define traffic pattern rules to the level people seem to want here, you’ll create situations where pilots can’t fit dissimilar aircraft into a traffic pattern.

As has been stated many times here, it’s not about who was right or wrong, it’s about exercising courtesy in the vicinity of an airport.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Rules are nice but at the end of the day I dont trust any of you… on downwind past the numbers I am not turning toward the runway until I know you aint gonna be there to meet and greet!

Amen!

 

[PaulS]

Every post I read about what the twin guy should have done and what he was doing wrong, or maybe he had road rage, or whatever..... every post like this reaffirms that not turning base until the twin was in sight or on the ground was the absolute right thing to do here. And I wonder if the 152 guy might have had a little "screw you, I'm turning" attitude here. We'll never know, but I really think the 152 guy just didn't understand the danger he was putting himself in.

As for the twin guy? I suspect something like this was going to happen sooner or later. I doubt this was his first time doing something like this. In fact I think others alluded to that earlier in this thread.

 

[Daleandee]

Again, define "final". IIRC, the twin pilot declared "final" at first ten miles away, then again three miles away. As soon as someone announced "final" on the radio, is everyone expected to yield them? No matter if they're 30 seconds, one minute, or five minutes from landing? It's kind of different from someone claiming "shotgun," though it is a bit more life-and-death.

I'm looking for a workable definition of "final." Something other than Justice Potter's pronouncement*.

My own definition is that a plane is on final when:

1. It is configured for landing (e.g. flaps and gear down, prop to appropriate setting), and
2. It has assumed its final approach speed, and
3. It is in a position where it can land safely if the engine quits.

#1 and #2 are classic references the logic in 91.113, with less-maneuverable aircraft having the right of way. A plane configured for landing is less maneuverable than one that is not and has more problems avoiding a collision. If you don't have your gear and flaps down, and are flying at 200 knots, you aren't on final.

#3 is more problematic. This is more a 1930s-style definition (since I fly a 1930s-style airplane). The FAA now teaches maintaining power on approach.

Ron Wanttaja

*"I know it when I see it." He was referring to p*rn, but.....

Time to touchdown could be an indicator added to the list ...

 

[Flying Doc]

Every post I read about what the twin guy should have done and what he was doing wrong, or maybe he had road rage, or whatever..... every post like this reaffirms that not turning base until the twin was in sight or on the ground was the absolute right thing to do here. And I wonder if the 152 guy might have had a little "screw you, I'm turning" attitude here. We'll never know, but I really think the 152 guy just didn't understand the danger he was putting himself in.

As for the twin guy? I suspect something like this was going to happen sooner or later. I doubt this was his first time doing something like this. In fact I think others alluded to that earlier in this thread.

Speaking from my memories as a student during that time I was flying solo before PPL….. in retrospect I had no clue, could barely keep up with managing fear, plane configuration so on… and would not have thought of the situation where I am in the pattern with other planes but another one is coming in straight in?! I falsely assumed the other pilots knew what they were doing.
I dont think the poor fella in the 152 realized the danger he got himself in.. with the Twin coming in hot like that at a training airport. He was just repeating his pattern maneuvers and the twin added a dangerous element he didn’t expect. Bad combo of events.

I saw the same scenario play on my approach and it happens very fast. I had about 15 seconds to decide to go missed when hearing the student go on base. I have the video clip maybe ill post but just shows how far from the runway I was when he was coming at me on short base. He never knew I was there.

 

[dbahn]

Time to touchdown could be an indicator added to the list ...

That's essentially what pilots should learn to do, but it takes training and experience. GPS might make that practical, at least for aircraft on final, but even that might not be practical at an airport with the touchdown point may still be a mile away from the GPS reference point.

 

[Flying Doc]

That's essentially what pilots should learn to do, but it takes training and experience. GPS might make that practical, at least for aircraft on final, but even that might not be practical at an airport with the touchdown point may still be a mile away from the GPS reference point.

Two things I would like to hear if someone is coming in straight while i am on downwind.

1. 5miles out (distance) at 100kts. Still I wont turn base until I know I can get to the final phase clear of you.
2. Sry for being a douche I had to use the john., or my plane is way cooler and faster. This way we can have a beer and share stories.

 

[dbahn]

Two things I would like to hear if someone is coming in straight while i am on downwind.

How about, "five mile final. Will enter upwind for traffic in the pattern. Please advise."?

In the NORDO Cub I usually enter upwind anyway. It gives me an opportunity to see the airport environment, and I like making turns in the pattern. I think it's much safer that way.

 

[Tools]

Hmmm… only TWO things I ever need to hear:

1. Lead, you’re on fire
2. I’ll take the fat one

That’s it. Otherwise, shut up. Keep your eyes open.

 

[John Spartan]

Certainly a reasonable attitude.

<just to be clear, the following is not directed at Flying Doc>

The trouble is, too many people want to argue about whose FAULT it was, and not as many are interested in how to keep it from happening again....

J**** F******* C*****, folks, it's your NECKS involved. If you're only interested in assigning blame, you're not learning from it.

Ron Wanttaja

Well my only relatable experience was in a 172 headed downwind when a twin headed in on ILS to the same runway told me I could squeeze in between. I declined and told them I’d extend. Cost me maybe 4 minutes extra to turn behind him and never felt rushed. 4 minutes could have saved lives.

 

[wanttaja]

Well my only relatable experience was in a 172 headed downwind when a twin headed in on ILS to the same runway told me I could squeeze in between. I declined and told them I’d extend. Cost me maybe 4 minutes extra to turn behind him and never felt rushed. 4 minutes could have saved lives.

About two months ago, I was turning final and heard a distorted call with "straight in". Didn't know if it was for my home field (our CTAF at the time was shared) but I thought of Watsonville. Powered up and got out of Dodge.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Ed Haywood]

I have seen final approach defined as "aligned with runway and begun descent from pattern altitude to touchdown point". Thought it was an FAA pub, but can't find it now. IMO that is a workable VFR definition. For IFR use FAF, FAP, or GS intercept.

All 4 positions are reasonable points at which to require other aircraft to yield. If the FAA clarified the definition, there would be less confusion about where an aircraft reporting "on final" actually is. For VFR it would also disambiguate the right-of-way regulation a bit, since an aircraft on final would be below any aircraft in the pattern that had not begun to descend.

 

[Albany Tom]

I have seen final approach defined as "aligned with runway and begun descent from pattern altitude to touchdown point". Thought it was an FAA pub, but can't find it now. IMO that is a workable VFR definition. For IFR use FAF, FAP, or GS intercept.
...

So using that definition, and a 3 degree descent, and a pattern altitude of 1000'.... Some basic math leads to 1/tan(3) x 1000', which is about 19080 feet, which is about 3.14 nautical miles. To me then, if you're 10 miles out, you're either on an instrument approach, a practice instrument approach, or you're just flying toward the airport while descending. That's if my math is correct.

3 miles, even if I'm just at the numbers downwind, I extend, and unless you're slower than me (unlikely), I'm going to go 1.5 out, we pass, I turn, it's all good.

10 miles, if you're in a similar aircraft, I'd be going out 5 miles to extend. That's the next airport maybe. So 10 miles, you're going 100 kts, I'm averaging maybe 75, and my approaches are steeper than 3. I'll be down in 2 minutes, more or less, and that will put you 4 minutes behind me.

But taking this back to the OP....If that twin was going 2x 100kts, and the Cessna wasn't doing a steep approach, then my simple math puts them in the same space at the same time if the twin was 10 miles out. To do that, echoing what someone else speculated, the twin may have been trying to do that, or rather to do a 'high speed go around' to make some sort of point. I can see the Cessna believing the twin really wasn't on final yet, and that he had plenty of time. Not an attorney, but if - and it's a big if - twin was intentionally doing something reckless, it would seem to me like he caused this. As a couple of others have said above.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I have seen final approach defined as "aligned with runway and begun descent from pattern altitude to touchdown point". Thought it was an FAA pub, but can't find it now. IMO that is a workable VFR definition. For IFR use FAF, FAP, or GS intercept.

All 4 positions are reasonable points at which to require other aircraft to yield. If the FAA clarified the definition, there would be less confusion about where an aircraft reporting "on final" actually is. For VFR it would also disambiguate the right-of-way regulation a bit, since an aircraft on final would be below any aircraft in the pattern that had not begun to descend.

But which pattern altitude? The piston one or the turbine one?

 

[midwestpa24]

Almost makes me wonder if he was planning out of frustration to wake-thump the 152 with a low pass and then go-around.

A bit of a road rage demonstration for a perceived cutting in line.

That's an interesting theory and gives me pause to consider. I really hope it's not true. I don't want to share sky with people out to teach others "a lesson". Half of the joy I get from aviation is how collaborative it all is.

An interesting theory indeed, and would make sense given the known facts of why a twin would be at that altitude, configuration, and speed.

I had a similar situation occur with one of my students. It was their first solo, first solo trip around the pattern. As my student was abeam the numbers and beginning to slow and descend, another pilot in a typical bug smasher called "5 mile straight in final, traffic permitting". My student considered that transmission, announced and turned base, calculating they were ahead of, lower altitude, and the other pilot said "traffic permitting". My student took that to mean, they had time, the other pilot was conceding right of way to traffic in the pattern, and they had right of way being in the pattern and at lower altitude and closer to the airport.

The pilot on the straight in did continue the long final, buzzed my student on the runway at that point while doing their "go-around", and made some snide comments over the radio, completely shattering my student's confidence which had been an issue we had been dealing with for quite a while (good stick abilities, low confidence).

 

[wanttaja]

I have seen final approach defined as "aligned with runway and begun descent from pattern altitude to touchdown point". Thought it was an FAA pub, but can't find it now. IMO that is a workable VFR definition.

Back when I was a student, my instructor (can't remember if it was Wilbur or Orville) taught me to pull power abeam the numbers, and descend through base and final.

As Albany Tom pointed out, with a 3 degree glide slope, that puts the base turn over three miles from the airport. I got curious as to what that would look like at my home field, so I grabbed Google Earth.

This shows the downwind and final legs for Auburn WA (S50), along with some sample base-turn points. Blue arrows show distance in miles from the runway.

With a high-drag, low-power aircraft, I prefer turning base fairly close. On quiet days with no conflicting traffic, I'll often turn closer. The average base leg looks to be about one mile out. When the day gets busy, the base turns tend to get near Highway 18, and then a bit further south.


Obviously, the "Don't descend until on final" path puts things even further south.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[schmookeeg]

I hate people that mess with student pilots -- and I frankly just assume anyone in a C150/C172/PA28 is a student on their first solo and try to play nicely with them.

We had a jerk in a stearman SMOKE our runway ahead of a student on his first solo. Complete IMC on the ground. Luckily our CFI was there on the radio and waved our solo to go do some practice work and return in 15 minutes.

Airport management "didn't see it" so "couldn't do nuttin" about it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Back when I was a student, my instructor (can't remember if it was Wilbur or Orville) taught me to pull power abeam the numbers, and descend through base and final.

As Albany Tom pointed out, with a 3 degree glide slope, that puts the base turn over three miles from the airport. I got curious as to what that would look like at my home field, so I grabbed Google Earth.

This shows the downwind and final legs for Auburn WA (S50), along with some sample base-turn points. Blue arrows show distance in miles from the runway.

With a high-drag, low-power aircraft, I prefer turning base fairly close. On quiet days with no conflicting traffic, I'll often turn closer. The average base leg looks to be about one mile out. When the day gets busy, the base turns tend to get near Highway 18, and then a bit further south.

View attachment 120437
Obviously, the "Don't descend until on final" path puts things even further south.

Ron Wanttaja

And if

My own definition is that a plane is on final when:
3. It is in a position where it can land safely if the engine quits.

Then there is basically no final at any airport with pilots flying a “normal” traffic pattern.

No wonder the FAA can’t make it simple…we as “experts” here can’t do it.

 

[BMan]

...
I had a similar situation occur with one of my students. It was their first solo, first solo trip around the pattern. As my student was abeam the numbers and beginning to slow and descend, another pilot in a typical bug smasher called "5 mile straight in final, traffic permitting". My student considered that transmission, announced and turned base, ...

I'm a newb student nowhere near solo, but reading this with consideration that if I was in your student's shoes, my thoughts would be: it isn't critical I land that moment; the other guy might have misjudged distance (3-4 mi instead of 5); so, I'd just announce an extension of my downwind and look for that final traffic. Would that be acceptable ADM or disrupt others who may be in the pattern? This is something I'll definitely ask about as training progresses.

 

[fasteddie]

As for the twin guy? I suspect something like this was going to happen sooner or later. I doubt this was his first time doing something like this. In fact I think others alluded to that earlier in this thread.

Yeah, waaaay back in this thread, I recall there was some detailed info about how the twin driver was known for pulling these kinds of shenanigans at this airport. Bombing into the pattern at max-blast on a straight-in, and then doing a quick turn to final if he wasn't able to get in on his initial attempt. Or something to that effect - it's several pages back.

I also think the twin driver's age and degraded cognitive abilities will come into play. Dude was 75, flying into a busy airport, on a hot August afternoon, after already flying a couple legs that day. Tough environment for anyone, even tougher for the AARP crowd. To add, when old dudes get tired they tend to get impatient and ornery. Not a helpful attitude in a sky full of airplanes.

 

[midwestpa24]

I'm a newb student nowhere near solo, but reading this with consideration that if I was in your student's shoes, my thoughts would be: it isn't critical I land that moment; the other guy might have misjudged distance (3-4 mi instead of 5); so, I'd just announce an extension of my downwind and look for that final traffic. Would that be acceptable ADM or disrupt others who may be in the pattern? This is something I'll definitely ask about as training progresses.

There is never a problem erring on the side of caution and giving the other person right of way. My student could have very well done the same, but they made the decision that the other pilot had ceded the right of way. They weren't necessarily wrong either. Where things went sideways was the other pilot deciding to "road rage" on the unsuspecting student pilot. There was no need for that, and compromised the safety of both aircraft, which could have been the case in the crash being discussed here.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Back when I was a student, my instructor (can't remember if it was Wilbur or Orville) taught me to pull power abeam the numbers, and descend through base and final.

Pretty much everyone is taught that way, I assume.

If nobody has called final when you are abeam the numbers, you would know the closest aircraft on runway heading is at least 3 miles out, and you should be safe to pull power for a tight base and final.

If someone has called final using the "descending below pattern" criteria or one of the IFR definitions, you would know they were within 3 miles, and you should extend downwind until visual contact made, then follow.

The problem is calling final 5+ miles out makes the term meaningless as an accurate description of position, and leads to aircraft on downwind guessing whether they can slip in ahead.

 

[Justin M]

Almost makes me wonder if he was planning out of frustration to wake-thump the 152 with a low pass and then go-around.

A bit of a road rage demonstration for a perceived cutting in line.

But did he have a reason to thump the 152 until the 152 turned base? If the 152 had extended the downwind, the twin wouldn’t have had a reason to be mad.