KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

[Silvaire]

My take: without demonizing anyone. I think the 340 guy was fast because he was trying to sequence himself in between the two planes in the pattern. The 152 guy was in the groove of doing tight pattern work and made pretty much a snap decision when the 340 called 3 miles to turn base early figuring he could make a quick, short approach and it was going to be a T&G so he'd be in and out no problem. That was the set-up, both guys were rushing. The next phase is the 152 guy sees the 340 guy and knows it ain't gonna work. The 340 guy still hasn't seen the 152 guy even though he's looking because he probably thinks he's already ahead of him so he's just looking in the wrong place. By the time the 152 guy calls eyes on and that he's in front it's already too late.

So there's blame on both ends but honestly the 340 guy, if he was gonna do what he did, he should have had eyes on the traffic. If there's a lesson it's that when you feel like you're rushing headlong into an unknown situation it's time to throttle back and take a good long look and establish the situational awareness needed to pull it off. This could have, should have been a non-event. RIP all.

 

[RingLaserGyroSandwich]

Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure the first few times I was doing solo pattern work, I had trouble maintaining situational awareness when the pattern was busy. It was radio call after radio call from various people, sometimes hard to make out, sometimes from different airports, sometimes transmissions getting stepped on, while I'm focused on flying the plane, which early on in my training was very mentally taxing... especially when re-configuring to descend and performing a GUMPS check. I'm not sure, but it's possible I didn't immediately understand what "twin cessna" meant. Was it a flight of two? Twin-engine airplane? If so, does it fly much faster than I do on approach? I was familiar with "Cessna" (I was in a 152), but what would I think if I heard "Pilatus" or "Baron" or something? Also, how many miles out on a final is enough for the other plane that I can continue to turn base and final? What do I do if I'm on base and I suddenly realize a fast plane on final is in conflict with me?

At an airport with a busy pattern due to lots of student pilot activity, I think we all need to be very careful not to overestimate the ability of the other pilot to apply knowledge and experience when making decisions.

 

[Dana]

I think I would have made the same mistake in this scenario as the C150. If someone calls 3 mile final and I am on base ready to turn, I mentally assume I have 2ish minutes to get clear, and would have made the turn too.

Does anybody know how far out the 152 turned base? A half mile or closer base in front of an aircraft on a 3 mile final isn't unreasonable (if the aircraft on final is moving at a reasonable and. Turning a 2 mile base in front of an aircraft a mile farther out, not so reasonable.

 

[CaptainDoug]

Watsonville is a steady full pattern for the entirety of calls from 20 minutes until the crash on the ATC recording. There were different planes calling finals, bases, and downwinds until this.

Lot's of WTF here. If I know the pattern is full I wouldn't be screaming in at 180k and if I call a 3 mile and it's followed by a plane that has called a base I'm probably going to not continue in to land. I think the 152 deserves a little blame as well as he calls a left base after the 3 mile final. If I got a 3 mile final called and the last I had called was downwind, I am also not turning into the path a plane on final. Plenty of head scratching but the twin seemed like he was coming in no matter what and expected everyone else to change their flight paths. Awful.

Lots of WTF is right. I've never flown a Cessna 340 but I have a lot of time in Baron 58s. I haven't flown
the Baron in a bunch of years, but I'm pretty sure that the maximum gear extension speed was 155 knots.
And I'm pretty sure that flaps 15 was the same speed.

How could the 340 be so close in at such a high speed??

 

[Salty]

My take: without demonizing anyone. I think the 340 guy was fast because he was trying to sequence himself in between the two planes in the pattern. The 152 guy was in the groove of doing tight pattern work and made pretty much a snap decision when the 340 called 3 miles to turn base early figuring he could make a quick, short approach and it was going to be a T&G so he'd be in and out no problem. That was the set-up, both guys were rushing. The next phase is the 152 guy sees the 340 guy and knows it ain't gonna work. The 340 guy still hasn't seen the 152 guy even though he's looking because he probably thinks he's already ahead of him so he's just looking in the wrong place. By the time the 152 guy calls eyes on and that he's in front it's already too late.

So there's blame on both ends but honestly the 340 guy, if he was gonna do what he did, he should have had eyes on the traffic. If there's a lesson it's that when you feel like you're rushing headlong into an unknown situation it's time to throttle back and take a good long look and establish the situational awareness needed to pull it off. This could have, should have been a non-event. RIP all.

I agree with your scenario being likely. But speeding up was the douche move. You don’t speed up when you can’t see the traffic. And you don’t fly 180 on a three mile final when you don’t see the traffic. But I agree, he thought he was superior between his experience and his speed and could squeak in front of all those piddly students.

The student on the other hand could not be expected to know someone might blast in at 180 knots.

 

[Martin__]

Always a chain of events behind these accidents and the biggest abnormality here is clearly the 180+ kts approach ground speed. What is it, 30-40 knots above gear extension to the threshold? It doesn't make any sense, unless you consider the intent of a low pass several in here have speculated about.

 

[readytocopy995]

Does anybody know how far out the 152 turned base? A half mile or closer base in front of an aircraft on a 3 mile final isn't unreasonable (if the aircraft on final is moving at a reasonable and. Turning a 2 mile base in front of an aircraft a mile farther out, not so reasonable.

if that track is correct, the 152 basically was doing a short approach. something like a 2000-ft or roughly 1/3-mile base. he starts his turn essentially immediately after the twin calls a 3-mile final. that's why i have said that the 152 also screwed up, he's probably thinking "somebody is 3 miles out, here i am abeam the numbers, i can squeak it in ahead of him." had the twin been doing 120 kts that may have worked. but the twin also never seems to have seen the traffic on base.

both knew that they were potentially in the way of another plane and that there may be an impending conflict. they just never altered their paths or reacted to the situation unfolding before them. in my opinion two planes colliding in midair is almost difficult to do. had the twin offset even 50 feet from centerline on his approach until he saw the traffic this likely never even happens

 

[Silvaire]

I don't know why but everyone, regardless of who's side they are on, seems to be making the assumption that one of these guys was just a dick and was either bullying their way in or cutting the other guy off. It's true that neither of them had the eyes-on situational awareness they should have had to do what they did and that they were both in a rush to get there first but that rush could have been an attempt to ACCOMODATE the other guy and lessen the inconvenience as opposed to cutting him off.

I mean, we don't know either of these dudes. They could have both been the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet but just made a horribly unfortunate miscalculation.

 

[Silvaire]

if that track is correct, the 152 basically was doing a short approach...

That's what I saw too. He turned base immediately after the 340 called 3 miles, he was pretty much abeam the numbers. That's why I give the 340 guy some slack for not spotting him, he didn't expect him to be there he probably thought he had already passed him and had achieved his goal of not forcing the guy to extend his downwind two miles out.

 

[CaptainDoug]

Equally?

Curious why you'd fault the 152 driver. He tried to GTFO when he figured out it wasn't gonna work out. Got plowed for his troubles by a 180kt straight-in twin.

I'll just chime in and say that what the 340 pilot did was horrendous - screaming into a busy uncontrolled airport like that straight in.
But the 152 should have known that when that when the reckless 340 pilot called a 3 mile final (assuming that he heard it) was
bad judgment. But judgment can deteriorate when you're stressed or just too busy flying downwind to base - particularly if
you're a low time pilot. For all I know, the 152 pilot could have been a nervous student. If the 152 pilot had some time
to think (coupled with some knowledge) he could figure that if the 340 being three miles out could reach the runway in less than
two minutes - assuming it was flying anywhere from 90 to 120 knots. That quick calculation would take experience and knowledge
and some math skills. Don't forget a simple rule of thumb is 60 knots is one mile a minute, 120 knots is two miles per minute, etc.
But even without that knowledge, a slow plane like a 152 should not have turned base with a twin engine Cessna being three miles out.
Maybe the 152 pilot was just too inexperienced to know that? It's horrible that the 340 pilot wasn't courteous enough to have the
poor 152 pilot more time in his life to learn - 180 knots on final is unconscionable - jets aren't even allowed to do that - they'd run
off the runway in most cases!

When I'm in the pattern at an uncontrolled airport I assume that the other pilot
might do something wrong - I guess I call it defensive flying - a little similar to
defensive driving.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not that it doesn't count but that it's not all that simple. The FAA is also on record that, although there is nothing wrong with a long straight in, an aircraft not flying pattern is to avoid interfering with aircraft which are. This is from AC 90-66B (my emphasis). It has a long history, including several enforcement actions.

9.5 Straight-In Landings. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern when arriving or departing a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, particularly when other traffic is observed or when operating from an unfamiliar airport. However, there are occasions where a pilot can choose to execute a straight-in approach for landing when not intending to enter the traffic pattern, such as a visual approach executed as part of the termination of an instrument approach. Pilots should clearly communicate on the CTAF and coordinate maneuvering for and execution of the landing with other traffic so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft. Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in landings, particularly when flying a base leg prior to turning final.​

That's what I was talking about when I referred to the FAA muddying the waters. If they really mean what they say in the advisory circular, why don't they put it the reg, instead of leaving a regulation in place that appears to conflict with what they say they want pilots to do?

Max Trescott did a segment on this accident in his most recent Aviation NewsTalk podcast. He pulled the audio from the accident and for about a half hour before. Earlier there was a similar situation. The pilots talked back and forth and worked it out. The conization here between the twin and the single was pretty standard but insufficient. We have a very similar situation at my home base - days that it gets busy with a mix of pattern and straight in ops. We try to do a good job keeping each other up on what we are doing.

I saw that this morning, but I didn't get a chance to read it yet, because I was getting ready to go flying. One of the planes in my club just got a GFC 500 autopilot installed, and I was looking forward to trying it out.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Okay, my mind is changed...

Fake news! This never happens on message boards!

 

[CaptainDoug]

That's what I was talking about when I referred to the FAA muddying the waters. If they really mean what they say in the advisory circular, why don't they put it the reg, instead of leaving a regulation in place that appears to conflict with what they say they want pilots to do?

At an airport with a busy pattern due to lots of student pilot activity, I think we all need to be very careful not to overestimate the ability of the other pilot to apply knowledge and experience when making decisions.

Very good point. In my view, the 340 pilot wasn't conscientious in his actions.
For example, he was clearly above gear speed - so if he was doing a fly over
the airport, he should have been at pattern altitude.

The FARs say that twins and turbine planes have pattern altitudes of 1,500
feet AGL. So if the 340 overflew the airport at 1,500 feet and gently entered
a crosswind to a downwind at or so at 120 knots everything would have been fine.
If it was too busy for that, he could have done a teardrop entry to the downwind
at 1500 feet and that would have worked fine too if no other twin or turbine was
entering a 45 degree downwind. So there's lots of ways to be safe in an
uncontrolled airport. What the 340 did wasn't safe at that speed and I think that
he collided with the 152 at about 700 feet! The 340 might have violated a FAR
if he was overflying the field because he wasn't at pattern altitude. And although
he was below the mandator 200 knots in the airport traffic area - it wasn't by much.

 

[Palmpilot]

My take on this is that both pilots made poor decisions. It's interesting because they were both communicating exactly where they were, but basically not reacting to the situation they were seeing develop. I think the twin could have made a comment as simple as "I'm doing 180kts" and the 152 probably would have decided to tuck in behind. Both pilots actively chose to put themselves in the way of the other.

The twin was doing a stupid speed and called in a long final, straight in. In my opinion, this is a poor choice when you're entering a busy field you know to have students. The 152 turned base after the twin called a 3-mile final, which was a poor choice. When I'm in the pattern and somebody quick is on final, appropriately done or not, I will basically always go in behind them and I will tell them I'm doing so. It's sad because something as simple from the twin as "Hey I'm going fast you mind coming in behind me?" would have saved three lives. Because even if I have enough room in front, I'm going to be slow to get down and they are probably going around behind me. The 152 I think sort of "rightly" thought that he had the right-of-way because he was 100% "in the pattern" while the twin was basically cutting the line, and I'm sure that's why he turned, but he put himself in harms way by doing so - right or not. Some of you will disagree and say that he made his calls and was on final and was in the pattern...and because many of us disagree on what's right and legal or just appropriate is exactly why I treat a plane on final as ahead of me unless they are well, well, clear. Anyway, the twin further screwed up by not recognizing an issue when he hears the 152 turn base right in front of him. If that's me and I'm coming into an uncontrolled field straight in, the second I see the pattern is screwy, somebody making dumb turns, or if it just seems busy I'm going to bug out and enter the pattern by the book.

When I was a pretty new pilot, I was on downwind at Arcata, CA, which is a non-towered field. A regional turboprop airliner announced turning a seven mile final, and I announced turning something like a half-mile base. I hoped seven miles was enough, and apparently it was, because when I was pretty well along on the parallel taxiway, I saw him pass abeam me on the landing rollout.

 

[Palmpilot]

Very good point. In my view, the 340 pilot wasn't conscientious in his actions. For example, he was clearly above gear speed - so
if he was doing a fly over the airport, he should have been at pattern altitude. The FARs say that twins and turbine planes have
pattern altitudes of 1,500 feet. So if the 340 overflew the airport at 1,500 feet and gently entered a crosswind to a base at about
120 knots everything would have been fine. If it was too busy for that, he could have done a teardrop entry to the downwind at
1500 feet and that would have worked fine too if no other twin or turbine was entering a 45 degree downwind. So there's lots
of ways to be safe in an uncontrolled airport. What the 340 did wasn't safe at that speed and I think that he collided with the
152 at about 700 feet! The 340 might have violated a FAR if he was overflying the field because he wasn't at pattern altitude.
And although he was below the mandator 200 knots in the airport traffic area - it wasn't by much.

The second paragraph you quoted was not something I wrote (but I don't disagree with it).

 

[luvflyin]

 

[Llewtrah381]

if that track is correct, the 152 basically was doing a short approach. something like a 2000-ft or roughly 1/3-mile base. he starts his turn essentially immediately after the twin calls a 3-mile final. that's why i have said that the 152 also screwed up,

I agree. While I think the 340 bears much of the blame, looking at the video you posted, it sure looks like the 152 was rushing things as well. “3 mile Final” to me means 3 miles per the GPS, which is shorter - sometimes WAY shorter - than 3 miles to the threshold. Plus, I doubt people call distances consistently at precisely the number they say. The call could have been made at 2 1/2 miles GPS too - maybe 2 miles from the threshold.

If, as appears in the video, the 152 had either not started their Base or had just started it, I’d be thinking I’m about to roll into a turn for a roughly 1/2 mile Base in front of a faster plane that is probably no more than 3 miles away from the field and may be closer to 2-2 1/2 miles from the threshold.

The 340 pilot clearly didn’t play well with others by doing the straight-in but the 152 shouldn’t have turned Base till he had them in sight. If I was about set to make that turn then heard someone call a 3 mile final, the least I’d do would be to stop the turn, wait till I positively saw the traffic, then either extend the Downwind or, if I really thought it was safe, call “…turning left base, traffic on Final in sight”.

Easy to Monday-morning QB this. It’s a shame both paid with their lives for their decisions.

 

[kyleb]

I'll just chime in and say that what the 340 pilot did was horrendous - screaming into a busy uncontrolled airport like that straight in.
But the 152 should have known that when that when the reckless 340 pilot called a 3 mile final (assuming that he heard it) was
bad judgment.

The 152 pilot (I think) assumed the 3 mile final traffic was operating at a reasonable speed. It is *generally* a good assumption that you can turn in front of piston traffic on a 3 mile final. Did the twin pilot announce what he was flying (and if he had, would that have meant anything to the student pilot)? I mean, the experienced folks would know not to turn final in front of an F-104 on a 3 mile final, and honestly, you probably don't want to turn in front of any jet on a 3 mile final, but a recip? Assuming he's 2 miles behind you when you roll out on the runway heading, it'll take him 2 minutes to catch you even if he's doing 120 and you're doing 60. In a rational world, that should allow you to be off the runway by the time he gets to the threshold.

One of the lessons that was stressed to me as a student driver was "Try not to surprise those around you." It applies in the flying world too. A piston twin screaming down final at 180 knots is so far out of the norm it would have come as a surprise to anyone on this board.

 

[AlleyCat67]

I don't know why but everyone, regardless of who's side they are on, seems to be making the assumption that one of these guys was just a dick and was either bullying their way in or cutting the other guy off. It's true that neither of them had the eyes-on situational awareness they should have had to do what they did and that they were both in a rush to get there first but that rush could have been an attempt to ACCOMODATE the other guy and lessen the inconvenience as opposed to cutting him off.

I mean, we don't know either of these dudes. They could have both been the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet but just made a horribly unfortunate miscalculation.

It's worth thinking about similar situation that can lead to an equally bad result: an IFR plane coming into an uncontrolled field and canceling late. I gather that wasn't the situation here, but it's easy for an IFR pilot to think that they are still on an approach after they cancel, and barrel straight in with only late radio calls. I once had a radio argument with a Citation pilot who did exactly that at KDMW, and landed straight in with a tailwind because that's the approach he was on before cancelling. Often better to sidestep, cross midfield, and join the pattern on the downwind.

 

[RyanB]

Every time I do a Young Eagles flight I worry about smacking into the back of a Skyhawk.

Why? Your speeds in the pattern are nearly identical.

 

[eman1200]

Why? Your speeds in the pattern are nearly identical.

dude.............mooney. c'mon, man!

 

[Silvaire]

Here's the thing that is weird, and I think it needs to be mentioned. How many car crashes (same thing right, two vehicles - intersecting paths) do you think occurred yesterday? We could look at national, state or even county records. Probably no news stories on CNN and definitely no forum where everybody has already figured out who the victims are, where they live and started to lay blame on whose fault it was.

Being a pilot is ftriggin' BRUTAL if you happen to die doin' it.

 

[Palmpilot]

Blancolirio has posted a narrative of the events with the LiveATC recording correlated to a diagram of the locations of the aircraft.

 

[Martin__]

As far as a low pass, I would be interested to know if wreckage gear lever was up or down

 

[mandm]

Went flying today and experienced both sides of the scenario.

Traffic pattern work - I was on downwind and another plane was straight in, I waited until traffic was in sight and abeam and turned base to keep traffic in sight, verified traffic was displayed on adsb. I had to slow down since the other plane was slower and considered a go around for a moment but continued in slowing down and got enough space to land since the plane was a touch and go.

On the other hand going to another airport (uncontrolled) I was straight in at about 130kts, a Cessna in the pattern, and another plane. I announced my position and that I would let the Cessna go first, adjusted speed, verified traffic on adsb, once traffic is in sight, follow traffic in. Other traffic on adsb showed position no factor. So I was content and continued to land.

Another airport I wanted to do pattern work but I didn’t like the runway the other guy was using, plus winds were picking up, so just ditched the idea and went home.

When other traffic is a potential concern, I also turn on more lights to gain possible visibility.

Doesn’t matter who is right, both are dead.

 

[Silvaire]

...Traffic pattern work - I was on downwind and another plane was straight in, I waited until traffic was in sight and abeam and turned base to keep traffic in sight...

Yup, that's pretty much SOP as far as I was taught and it really needs to be emphasized more in this discussion. It's not a crime to do what these guys did but if you are going to do that you need to have eyes on the other guy and know exactly what is going on. I mean, honestly, it is as simple as that.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Ok, next evaluate the pilot flying the twin.

That’s easy. Seems like the kind of jack wagon that insists on the straight in while occasionally making a radio call or two but not actually listening to what anyone else is saying on the freq.


Kind of like that Citation pilot a while back that told everyone else to get out of his way because he was flying a jet.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would have to look it up, but I believe there was an airline pilot violated for doing less than a 5 mile straight in. I don't recall the circumstances, but I seem to remember the FAA's argument in the case was that it was not a straight in approach since it started less than 5 miles out.

Yep. The violation was for making a right turn in a left pattern. But your point about less than 5 miles being considered "in the pattern" (at least for an airline) is well-taken.

here's the decision in the 1992 Boardman case

 

[midlifeflyer]

1) great sentence (looks like you got an early start on happy hour!) and 2) you think that would hold up in a court of law? "mmmm, oh, about 1, 1.5, maybe 2ish, somewhere around there".

Something-ish is about as specific as you can get. There's no definition I'm aware of. I think the size of the pattern theoretically changes a bit with the type of traffic and terrain. Check out that Boardman case linked in the previous post for how it's been handled legally (and fuzzily).

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's what I was talking about when I referred to the FAA muddying the waters. If they really mean what they say in the advisory circular, why don't they put it the reg, instead of leaving a regulation in place that appears to conflict with what they say they want pilots to do?

YMMV but I don't think a straight in conflicts with the regs. The reg only says that all turns must be made to the left (unless right is indicated). All that means to me us that if I make a turn in the pattern it must be a left turn, not that I must make a minimum number of turns.

 

[flyingron]

The first rule in 91.113:

General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft

 

[RingLaserGyroSandwich]

The only guidance (not requirements) I'm aware of is from https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_90-66b.pdf

Straight-In Landings. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern when arriving or departing a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, particularly when other traffic is observed or when operating from an unfamiliar airport. However, there are occasions where a pilot can choose to execute a straight-in approach for landing when not intending to enter the traffic pattern, such as a visual approach executed as part of the termination of an instrument approach. Pilots should clearly communicate on the CTAF and coordinate maneuvering for and execution of the landing with other traffic so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft. Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in landings, particularly when flying a base leg prior to turning final.​

Clear as mud.

 

[Palmpilot]

YMMV but I don't think a straight in conflicts with the regs. The reg only says that all turns must be made to the left (unless right is indicated). All that means to me us that if I make a turn in the pattern it must be a left turn, not that I must make a minimum number of turns.

That wasn't what I meant. I was talking about the confusion over who has the right-of-way, the plane on a straight in, or the plane already in the pattern. The differences of opinion suggest that it's not safe for either pilot to assume that the other pilot will yield.

 

[NordicDave]

Some have commented the C152 pilot shares some blame for not leaving the pattern when the C340 sped onto the direct approach. This is my local airport.

The C152 pilot was a practicing solo pattern work, and has very few options to deviate the pattern. Let's remember the C152 was not the only plane in the pattern and the airport has mountains higher than TPA on 2 sides.

• Why didn't 152 extend his downwind as a courtesy to the C340?
  Look at a map, the standard downwind to base turn is the airport side of Pinto lake. Beyond Pinto Lake are the Santa Cruz mountains with elevation of under 3000'. He would have needed to abandon the pattern to the right where the Mooney was departing. Raising terrain happens quickly.
  
  
• Why Didn't the 152 extend his base leg?
  Continuing on base past runway 20, and you're now on downwind for RWY 09 which shortly intersects with rwy 20. Remain even longer on down wind for 09 and you're in the mountains with fog starting to develop on the other side this ridge line. Turn Base for 09 and you're in the active para Jump area.
  
  
• Why in a few people's minds is it the right of way for a twin to declare direct to active runway, and everyone else had just better darn evacuate the area?
  When the twin declared he was coming in direct, he could not see the field as he was on the opposite the mountain range. At 3 miles he's still 1500' above TPA for single engine piston aircraft. and not visible to high wing aircraft.

For people who actually fly this airport, all the options for safe operations options belonged to the C340 pilot. The 152 was very limited in his options, which all involved risk.

If there was blame for the 152 pilot, it's thinking the C340 would follow right-of-way rules common for a pattern entry. Easy to armchair the 152's decisions. He had few choices and his level of training perhaps less. We have a duty to watch for students and rusty pilots practicing; and work with them & not bully away around them.

 

[eman1200]

Some have commented the C152 pilot shares some blame for not leaving the pattern when the C340 sped onto the direct approach. This is my local airport.

The C152 pilot was a practicing solo pattern work, and has very few options to deviate the pattern. Let's remember the C152 was not the only plane in the pattern and the airport has mountains higher than TPA on 2 sides.

• Why didn't 152 extend his downwind as a courtesy to the C340?
  Look at a map, the standard downwind to base turn is the airport side of Pinto lake. Beyond Pinto Lake are the Santa Cruz mountains with elevation of under 3000'. He would have needed to abandon the pattern to the right where the Mooney was departing.
  
  
• Why Didn't the 152 extend his base leg?
  Continuing on base past runway 20, and you're now on downwind for RWY 09 which shortly intersects with rwy 20. Remain even longer on down wind for 09 and you're in the mountains with fog starting to develop on the other side this ridge line. Turn Base for 09 and you're in the active para Jump area.
  
  
• Why in a few people's minds is it the right of way for a twin to declare direct to active runway, and everyone else had just better darn evacuate the area?
  When the twin declared he was coming in direct, he could not see the field as he was on the opposite the mountain range. At 3 miles he's still 1500' above TPA for single engine piston aircraft. and not visible to high wing aircraft.

For people who actually fly this airport, all the options for safe operations options belonged to the C340 pilot. The 152 was very limited in his options, which all involved risk.

so no one ever extends downwind at that airport? I guess we have to believe you, because looking at the map I'm not seeing any of what you describe. I see plenty of room everywhere to extend, do a right 360, climb above pattern altitude, lots of thing other than turning directly into oncoming traffic.

 

[NordicDave]

so no one ever extends downwind at that airport? I guess we have to believe you, because looking at the map I'm not seeing any of what you describe. I see plenty of room everywhere to extend, do a right 360, climb above pattern altitude, lots of thing other than turning directly into oncoming traffic.

Look at a terrain map with the eye of a student pilot. His only option was departing the pattern to the right circling over city of Watsonville and reenter on the 45 for rwy 20. Which is exactly what the twin pilot should have done. Interesting how people want to find fault with the C152 pilot.

After Pinto Lake, you're into raising terrain. Of course you can extend some, but not enough to accommodate another plane 3 miles out, assuming standard pattern speeds.

 

[eman1200]

Look at a terrain map with the eye of a student pilot. His only option was departing the pattern to the right circling over city of Watsonville and reenter on the 45 for rwy 20. Which is exactly what the twin pilot should have done. Interesting how people want to find fault with the C152 pilot.

I don't WANT to fault anyone. when someone like you comes in and places 100% of the blame on one pilot and says the other pilot had ZERO options, I call BS. I agree with your point that from a STUDENT pilot perspective, he WASN'T AWARE of options that he had, but I completely disagree with your point that there WERE NO options. I also don't understand what the problem is with "circling over a city"......so what? a right 360 and rejoining downwind is a pretty typical scenario that happens everywhere, and I see no reason why this isn't an option here at this airport.

 

[AKBill]

Threads like this are a good reminder that not everyone has the same level of experience. A low time pilot or student just learning to fly vs a MEL pilot not willing to enter the traffic pattern at a reasonable speed with what seems to me little thought of the other planes in a full pattern.

A sad accident that was avoidable.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

At what distance from the airport is one part of the pattern?

Sort of depends on "which" pattern, but I'd

Look at a terrain map with the eye of a student pilot. His only option was departing the pattern to the right circling over city of Watsonville and reenter on the 45 for rwy 20. Which is exactly what the twin pilot should have done. Interesting how people want to find fault with the C152 pilot.

After Pinto Lake, you're into raising terrain. Of course you can extend some, but not enough to accommodate another plane 3 miles out, assuming standard pattern speeds.

Could he have not flown the overhead? I've gotten instructions for that, with a plane landing under me.

 

[NordicDave]

I don't WANT to fault anyone. when someone like you comes in and places 100% of the blame on one pilot and says the other pilot had ZERO options, I call BS. I agree with your point that from a STUDENT pilot perspective, he WASN'T AWARE of options that he had, but I completely disagree with your point that there WERE NO options. I also don't understand what the problem is with "circling over a city"......so what? a right 360 and rejoining downwind is a pretty typical scenario that happens everywhere, and I see no reason why this isn't an option here at this airport.

How about taking an anger management class someday?