KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

readytocopy995 said:
but according to what? i don't disagree with you, if i come up against a glider in pretty much any situation i'm giving them the right of way because i have an engine and they don't. but from what i see they only have legal ROW when converging at the same altitude. for landing, the lower aircraft has ROW and it says nothing about engines or gliders or anything
Click to expand...

A mid-air between a glider and power plane can ONLY be caused by "two aircraft converging at approximately the same altitude", which is what the rule describes. And the airplane at the lower altitude does NOT have the ROW over an aircraft on final, which is also clear in the regulation, quoted below:
When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
Click to expand...

One thing that should be very scary about this whole thread is how many pilots don't seem to have read and understood 91.113, which is a guide to avoiding the exact circumstances that cause the overwhelming majority of mid-air collisions, i.e. two aircraft on a final approach course to a non-towered field.
 
dbahn said:
LOL. I would love to be there when a person flying an airplane explains to the FAA why he refused to yield to a glider because it wasn't specific enough for him in the regulation, even though it actually is. Yikes.
Click to expand...
Easy peasy. Quote the reg that says an airplane on one-mile final has to yield to a glider on base. Actually quote it.
 
what plane is slower than a glider? Seriously, the gliders I’ve flown are all below 50 knots on final. Most closer to 40.
 
Lindberg said:
Easy peasy. Quote the reg that says an airplane on on e-mile final has to yield to a glider on base. Actually quote it.
Click to expand...
I already did. See above. It's the same text the FAA will show you when you try to win a ridiculous argument that you should be allowed to land your Cessna while the glider has to land in the woods. Yikes.
 
Salty said:
what plane is slower than a glider? Seriously, the gliders I’ve flown are all below 50 knots on final. Most closer to 40.
Click to expand...
Stall speed with brakes out in a Grob 103 is 48kts. I wouldn't approach slower than 60. It's not a particularly fast gliass ship. Va is 90 kts. Plenty of planes are slower and plenty of gliders for faster, especially between thermals. What's your point?
 
Lindberg said:
Correct because the specific, 91.113(g), takes precedence over the general, 91.113(d). If it didn't, then an airplane on right base would indeed have right of way over an airplane on final.

Except that 91.113(d), which gives gliders right of way over airplanes and others when converging (except head-on, or nearly so) doesn't apply when approaching to land (see above).


:sosp:
Click to expand...
It sounds like 91.113(g) needs to be amended to explicitly state that the rules of 91.113(d) take precedence when aircraft of different categories are involved, or something like that.
 
Last edited:
dbahn said:
A mid-air between a glider and power plane can ONLY be caused by "two aircraft converging at approximately the same altitude", which is what the rule describes. And the airplane at the lower altitude does NOT have the ROW over an aircraft on final, which is also clear in the regulation, quoted below:
Click to expand...

I just completely disagree with you. When I think of right-of-way, I'm thinking of not just the situations when you're actually in direct conflict to crash. Otherwise, why would they have a stipulation for "converging traffic" or "head on" traffic. Like say I'm on a 3 mile final at 1000 ft AGL inbound to land and there's a Cub at 600 ft on a 1-mile left base. To me the regulation says the Cub has the ROW. It says "don't cut in front to take advantage" but say either that's a normal approach for the Cub and they didn't see me, or even just say he's cutting. Don't I have to give way in that situation? I would happily do so. And depending on the circumstances I may ask the pilot about it on the ground.

dbahn said:
I already did. See above. It's the same text the FAA will show you when you try to win a ridiculous argument that you should be allowed to land your Cessna while the glider has to land in the woods. Yikes.
Click to expand...

I feel like many/most of us, and certainly me, are not saying that you SHOULD take the runway over the glider and that I would happily yield to one - but simply that the regulation is a bit vague and doesn't address landing traffic in a particularly strong way. @dbahn above stated that he thinks technically at some point you are converging, thus 91.113(d) applies and while I don't necessarily agree with that basis for why you have to follow 91.113(d) while also maneuvering to land, it's at least a justification for the why
 
readytocopy995 said:
say I'm on a 3 mile final at 1000 ft AGL inbound to land and there's a Cub at 600 ft on a 1-mile left base. To me the regulation says the Cub has the ROW. It says "don't cut in front to take advantage" but say either that's a normal approach for the Cub and they didn't see me, or even just say he's cutting. Don't I have to give way in that situation? I would happily do so. And depending on the circumstances I may ask the pilot about it on the ground.
Click to expand...

That's a normal approach for a Cub, maybe even a bit far out. If you're on a 3 mile final with traffic like Cubs in the pattern, you're either outside the pattern on a straight in and it's up to you to adjust and avoid other traffic (i.e. the Cub), or you're flying a pattern that's way too big.
 
Tried to keep up with this whole thread, but it's a bit challenging with all the back-and-forth. I think some have touched on the 340's past flights, but dang. Assuming Mr Kruppa was the only pilot (which seems reasonable), he was a busy guy. Flying 10-15 times a month, but with flight lengths mostly less than 30 minutes, with more than one clocking in at just 11 minutes. According to the write up on Kathryn's Report, "Kruppa appeared to be the co-owner of Custom Farm Services in Winton, a fourth-generation family owned management operation in Merced County." I assume the 340 was used as part of his business, perhaps flying around to different farms and different clients?

And, looking at the speed graphs on FlightAware, he does seem to be remarkably consistent at keeping his speed up right until the end. Another comment on Kathryns Report pointed out that he didn't have an instrument rating, which seems a little odd for someone flying a twin.

Also, tough not to note the pilot's age (75). We're all gonna get old someday (many of us are already there). There are stereotypes of old men such as: Stubborn, know-it-all, and possessing a sense of entitlement. While It's not fair to judge someone based solely on their age and a stereotype, at the same time, stereotypes exist for a reason. Previous flightaware tracks certainly don't paint a picture of someone with a lot of patience.

Also, out of the 36 flights viewable on FlightAware since 25 May, only 6 of them had an arrival time later than 2:55 PM (the approximate time of the accident). Age-related cognitive decline is real, and one of the symptoms is a deterioration in mental capacity throughout the day. All of us tend to be sharper in the first hours of the morning than we are towards the end of the day, but decline throughout the day becomes larger and steeper the older we get. It's why that old curmudgeon in the office can seem like an OK individual in the morning, but turn into Capt. Grumpy Pants by the end of the day.

Finally, a comment on Kathryns Report from an eyewitness on the field (another pilot) described the 340 as struggling to make a go around after the collision (and obviously being unsuccessful). Terrifying to think of those final moments in the cockpit of the 340 as the pilot struggled to keep it aloft. The pilots in the 152 probably never saw it coming, but the 340 had the terrifying experience of trying to save it and failing.
 
fasteddie said:
Tried to keep up with this whole thread, but it's a bit challenging with all the back-and-forth. I think some have touched on the 340's past flights, but dang. Assuming Mr Kruppa was the only pilot (which seems reasonable), he was a busy guy. Flying 10-15 times a month, but with flight lengths mostly less than 30 minutes, with more than one clocking in at just 11 minutes. According to the write up on Kathryn's Report, "Kruppa appeared to be the co-owner of Custom Farm Services in Winton, a fourth-generation family owned management operation in Merced County." I assume the 340 was used as part of his business, perhaps flying around to different farms and different clients?

And, looking at the speed graphs on FlightAware, he does seem to be remarkably consistent at keeping his speed up right until the end. Another comment on Kathryns Report pointed out that he didn't have an instrument rating, which seems a little odd for someone flying a twin.

Also, tough not to note the pilot's age (75). We're all gonna get old someday (many of us are already there). There are stereotypes of old men such as: Stubborn, know-it-all, and possessing a sense of entitlement. While It's not fair to judge someone based solely on their age and a stereotype, at the same time, stereotypes exist for a reason. Previous flightaware tracks certainly don't paint a picture of someone with a lot of patience.

Also, out of the 36 flights viewable on FlightAware since 25 May, only 6 of them had an arrival time later than 2:55 PM (the approximate time of the accident). Age-related cognitive decline is real, and one of the symptoms is a deterioration in mental capacity throughout the day. All of us tend to be sharper in the first hours of the morning than we are towards the end of the day, but decline throughout the day becomes larger and steeper the older we get. It's why that old curmudgeon in the office can seem like an OK individual in the morning, but turn into Capt. Grumpy Pants by the end of the day.

Finally, a comment on Kathryns Report from an eyewitness on the field (another pilot) described the 340 as struggling to make a go around after the collision (and obviously being unsuccessful). Terrifying to think of those final moments in the cockpit of the 340 as the pilot struggled to keep it aloft. The pilots in the 152 probably never saw it coming, but the 340 had the terrifying experience of trying to save it and failing.
Click to expand...
Considering his last words I think the 152 saw it coming all too well.
 
Dana said:
That's a normal approach for a Cub, maybe even a bit far out. If you're on a 3 mile final with traffic like Cubs in the pattern, you're either outside the pattern on a straight in and it's up to you to adjust and avoid other traffic (i.e. the Cub), or you're flying a pattern that's way too big.
Click to expand...
I don't see anything in 91.113(g) that says you have to be in the pattern to be on final approach, nor anything that makes ROW dependent on the size of your pattern.
 
fasteddie said:
T...Finally, a comment on Kathryns Report from an eyewitness on the field (another pilot) described the 340 as struggling to make a go around after the collision (and obviously being unsuccessful). Terrifying to think of those final moments in the cockpit of the 340 as the pilot struggled to keep it aloft. The pilots in the 152 probably never saw it coming, but the 340 had the terrifying experience of trying to save it and failing.
Click to expand...
Do I remember rightly that the 340 had an engine failure as a result of the collision? If so, single-engine go-arounds are dicey under the best of circumstances, and whatever damage the twin suffered in the collision would certainly not qualify as the best of circumstances. For one thing, sufficient damage to cause the engine to stop (if that's what happened) could well have compromised the ability to feather the prop.
 
Palmpilot said:
It sounds like 91.113(g) needs to be amended to explicitly state that the rules of 91.113(d) take precedence when aircraft of different categories are involved, or something like that.
Click to expand...
It would, unless it already says what they want it to say.
 
Lindberg said:
It would, unless it already says what they want it to say.
Click to expand...
It seems unlikely that they would want to make it OK for powered aircraft to force gliders to have off-airport landings.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't see anything in 91.113(g) that says you have to be in the pattern to be on final approach, nor anything that makes ROW dependent on the size of your pattern.
Click to expand...

I think there was more forethought in the FAA's writing of 91.113 than some people realize.

Part 91.113(d) defines right of way based on aircraft maneuverability, which applies to all types of convergence except for head on (in which case if both aircraft turn right, maneuverability isn't critical).

Part 91.113 (e) (f) and (g) all define ROW based on position, but it's kind of silly to think that means, for instance, that a balloon has to remain clear of an airplane, or that any of the other descriptions negate the ROW described in (d).

You can alter your position but you can’t change your maneuverability, which is why (d) takes precedence over the subsequent sections.
 
Last edited:
dbahn said:
...You can alter your position, but can change your inherent maneuverability...
Click to expand...
I assume you meant can't change your inherent maneuverability.
 
Fasteddy makes some good points about older pilots, and at 88, I recognize that I am not near as good as I was at 75, when I was still flying. A 75 year old who is flying regularly might be a better pilot than some of us who only fly a few times a year. I no longer fly as PIC, on a voluntary basis, I am just not good enough anymore.

The 340 pilot may have had his head down searching for the 152 on his "glass does everything" with its ADSB, for the location of his traffic. Unfortunately, his technology failed him, as the 152 was not transmitting.

And then he looked out the window, and there it was!

As stated earlier, the original equipment, Mark 1 eyeball, or Mark2, (augmented with glasses), is the most important device as we fly the landing phase of flight.

I think that all the discussion here about right of way is not relevant to the actual logic of the 340 pilot, as I do not believe he was actually looking through the windscreen at the critical time. It is, on the other hand, educational for those of us who are still alive and well, adjusting our intentions for our future flights.

 
Would be interesting to know why the 152 wasn't on ADS-B. Equipment failure, maybe?
 
fasteddie said:
Would be interesting to know why the 152 wasn't on ADS-B. Equipment failure, maybe?
Click to expand...

Another person who had rented that aircraft said it had a Skybeacon so if you didn't turn on the nav lights it would be OFF. Last ADS-B track data from it was on the 16th.
 
Silvaire said:
Another person who had rented that aircraft said it had a Skybeacon so if you didn't turn on the nav lights it would be OFF. Last ADS-B track data from it was on the 16th.
Click to expand...

As an aside note ... if it is true that ADSB wasn't on because the nav lights were not on it might be wise to power the Skybeacon separately. I know that it was designed this way to make the installation much easier.
 
Daleandee said:
As an aside note ... if it is true that ADSB wasn't on because the nav lights were not on it might be wise to power the Skybeacon separately. I know that it was designed this way to make the installation much easier.
Click to expand...
It's more wise to look outside as though there might be another plane that doesn't have adsb out or it has failed. Every day I think more and more that adsb reduces safety as much as it improves it.
 
Salty said:
It's more wise to look outside as though there might be another plane that doesn't have adsb out or it has failed. Every day I think more and more that adsb reduces safety as much as it improves it.
Click to expand...
Could be. It partly depends on where the display is located. I only have traffic displayed on my iPad, which is on a kneeboard and way outside of my scan. I glance at it in flight, but I don't think I've ever looked at it while in the pattern. I certainly don't plan to start doing so in the future.
 
Salty said:
It's more wise to look outside as though there might be another plane that doesn't have adsb out or it has failed. Every day I think more and more that adsb reduces safety as much as it improves it.
Click to expand...

We agree. But if you are gonna have ADSB then it should be on. Tying it to the nav lights seems to be not a great idea.
 
Salty said:
It's more wise to look outside as though there might be another plane that doesn't have adsb out or it has failed. Every day I think more and more that adsb reduces safety as much as it improves it.
Click to expand...
It's just like ADS-B weather - strategic and not tactical.
 
It's just too tempting to trust the dots on a screen. A siren's call.
 
Does anyone know what the latency on those dots is - no way is it real-time.
 
Mxfarm said:
Does anyone know what the latency on those dots is - no way is it real-time.
Click to expand...
It depends. It can be quite up to date if conditions are right. Which I think is part of the "lure".
 
How about regulatory interpretation? The rule has already been written and has been in effect for quite some time. In a suspected violation of the regulations I believe it's up to an administrative law judge to interpret the regulation. Personally, I'm very much doubting that judge is going to rule against the glider trying to land ahead of a powered airplane that has the capability of climbing or maintaining altitude in order to yield to the glider.

.
 
At the points these two were at during their initial encounter, adsb would be of little to no use. They both were making pretty accurate callouts. ADSB is useful for targets who are not talking, or to see relative positions of targets that may not be on a downwind or final. But with a downwind, base or final call, looking out the window is all that is necessary and indeed, all that would work.
 
PaulS said:
At the points these two were at during their initial encounter, adsb would be of little to no use. They both were making pretty accurate callouts. ADSB is useful for targets who are not talking, or to see relative positions of targets that may not be on a downwind or final. But with a downwind, base or final call, looking out the window is all that is necessary and indeed, all that would work.
Click to expand...

But ADSB gives you trending paths based on speed and heading, and would have given an early warning that the 340 was on a high speed collision course. There’s no way to judge speed visually even if you can see it at a distance.
 
Agree it is unfortunate the 152 was adsb equipped but not turned on. Certainly would have helped. i like adsb when practicing approaches combined with listening helps you really see the picture. Try to match up what I hear with what I see on the box. We do have aircraft in the pattern that don’t have adsb on or working and I find myself working hard to see those targets.
If the 152 had adsb on I’m sure the 340 had some time of collision warning on the gps that would have been screaming at him.
Wasn’t there Someone already on the go in the pattern with 340 on short final. Perhaps he thought he had no traffic conflict with a target already on the go???
 
I was heading toward WVI recently, and I tuned in the CTAF 20 or 30 miles out. When I heard how busy the pattern was, I went elsewhere!
 
benyflyguy said:
Agree it is unfortunate the 152 was adsb equipped but not turned on. Certainly would have helped. i like adsb when practicing approaches combined with listening helps you really see the picture. Try to match up what I hear with what I see on the box. We do have aircraft in the pattern that don’t have adsb on or working and I find myself working hard to see those targets.
If the 152 had adsb on I’m sure the 340 had some time of collision warning on the gps that would have been screaming at him.
Wasn’t there Someone already on the go in the pattern with 340 on short final. Perhaps he thought he had no traffic conflict with a target already on the go???
Click to expand...

The 172 on the go wasn’t being picked up well by adsb exchange at WVI, but it was picked up prior to and after the crash elsewhere. It was, however, picked up by the noise abatement site, along with the 152.

The 182 on the missed was well-tracked on all tracking sites, as was the 340.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top