KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

Why does everyone assume the 152 pilot was a student? It isn't stated anywhere. All I've seen that's certain is that the airplane was a rental. Lots of pilots fly rental 152s and practice takeoffs and landings.
 
I’d guess many pilots would bailed out of the pattern after the radio calls concluding this guy has no idea where he is, not because they thought he’s doing a buck eighty on final.
 
Salty said:
This situation is a lesson to all those experienced pilots out there. Things to remember EVERY time you enter the pattern at an untowered airport:
1. Not everyone has ADSB.
2. ADSB doesn't always work.
3. Not everyone has good situational awareness yet.
4. There are students out there that don't know how fast your expensive, cool, plane is
5. There are planes out there without radios
6. There are planes out there with radios that are broken.
Click to expand...

why is it just for experienced pilots? the whole point I've been trying to make is that there are multiple learning opportunity points (not blame), some of which you'd think experienced pilots would know, and some you wouldn't expect inexperienced pilots to know. that's why they call them learning opportunities. for someone to say "this is 100% the fault of the twin pilot and that's all there is to it" (I'm not saying you said that, I think we all know who did) hides the (unfortunately) ample learning opportunities available to everyone with this incident.
 
Salty said:
This situation is a lesson to all those experienced pilots out there. Things to remember EVERY time you enter the pattern at an untowered airport:
1. Not everyone has ADSB.
2. ADSB doesn't always work.
3. Not everyone has good situational awareness yet.
4. There are students out there that don't know how fast your expensive, cool, plane is
5. There are planes out there without radios
6. There are planes out there with radios that are broken.
Click to expand...
Add:
7. The speed, complexity or cost of an airplane is not an indicator of the pilots experience. Sometime wealthy inexperienced pilots fly very fast airplanes.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Add:
7. The speed, complexity or cost of an airplane is not an indicator of the pilots experience. Sometime wealthy inexperienced pilots fly very fast airplanes.
Click to expand...

Did you intentionally leave out the word ‘cirrus’ between ‘fast‘ and ‘airplanes’? D’OH
 
eman1200 said:
Did you intentionally leave out the word ‘cirrus’ between ‘fast‘ and ‘airplanes’? D’OH
Click to expand...
Lol. Yeah. Lots of airplanes besides the cirrus fit. But yeah. Cirrus is a good example. So is the Columbia/Corvallis/TTX. Both airplanes are single fixed gear and lots of low time guys with scratch end up buying them not really understanding how big the step up really is to that rig.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
If it wasn’t expected it’s because he wasn’t paying attention. If the twin only called at three miles then you have a valid point. The twin called multiple times starting at ten miles. All of which occurred when the 152 was in the pattern.
Click to expand...
I think that you are expecting too much from a student pilot. If the much more experienced twin pilot had slowed down to a proper speed and entered the pattern like everybody else everybody would be alive today. As an experienced pilot yes I would’ve extended my downwind to get out of the guys way. But if the opportunity presented itself on the ground, the twin pilot and I would have a chat.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Does anyone need to write hem down to use them for speed estimates? Where was I when he made his 10-mile call? Where was I when he made his 3-mile call? Do I really have enough time to fly the rest of my pattern before he gets here?
Click to expand...

In a busy pattern (especially when all are Cessnas) Im not going to remember where I was on his 10 mile call.
The 3 mile call while I was on or about to turn base would be the oh-oh moment where I would make changes to my pattern.
 
Baked Potato said:
How do Citation pilots typically refer to themselves while making calls?
Click to expand...
That’s a really tough nut to crack. Citation pilots are either flying the slowest jet ever built or the fastest jet currently in production. Not to mention that when it comes to jets unless you know something about the type its hard to predict normal approach speed. You could safely consider something around 120-130 to be minimum speed on final.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I think that you are expecting too much from a student pilot. If the much more experienced twin pilot had slowed down to a proper speed and entered the pattern like everybody else everybody would be alive today. As an experienced pilot yes I would’ve extended my downwind to get out of the guys way. But if the opportunity presented itself on the ground, the twin pilot and I would have a chat.
Click to expand...

there is a lot to learn here for everyone regardless of experience. The only way to learn it is to objectively evaluate what the errors were that lead to the accident

if you dismiss the 152 pilots errors because it wasn’t “reasonable” to expect them to know how not to find themselves dead then you wont learn as much.
 
Well if he's bringing a FAST one (say, a Latitude) into a 5000 ft strip, he'll be "nuts on" that book Vref, which to the piston operator is a "high speed", ten miles out. C340, not so much. 110 kts is just fine.

Me, I'm hanging out DEAD over the airport above GA TPA, and I'm not going anyplace till he's down. 130 knots and with small margins, THAT IS WHY THERE IS A STRAIGHT IN.

Remember the Challenger crash at aspen? It was a maneuvering stall, a 150 kts. All hands died.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Why does everyone assume the 152 pilot was a student? It isn't stated anywhere. All I've seen that's certain is that the airplane was a rental. Lots of pilots fly rental 152s and practice takeoffs and landings.
Click to expand...

I tried to look him up in FAA DB but no record found for his last name.
 
I'm following a few threads on this, so not sure if this was mentioned here or not. Of course it's all unverified for now. My understanding is that the 340 pilot was a VFR ppl, with a multi rating and no instrument rating. That really doesn't compute for me.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
there is a lot to learn here for everyone regardless of experience. The only way to learn it is to objectively evaluate what the errors were that lead to the accident

if you dismiss the 152 pilots errors because it wasn’t “reasonable” to expect them to know how not to find themselves dead then you wont learn as much.
Click to expand...
Uh huh, well, I wasn’t so much dismissing the errors of the C 152 as expecting more from the more experienced pilot. When you see student driver sign on a car, you don’t give them a little extra courtesy and understanding?
Still doesn’t change what I said about the behavior of the twin pilot
 
Buddy of mine flew a 340 for awhile. I showed him one of the vids with the positions and speeds. He was shocked. He admits approaches did get fast for him as ATC was notorious for keeping him high then let him down fast. But he said between spoilers flaps then gear that thing would come right out of hyperspace.
One rule he was reinforced recently on recurrent was stabilized approach-no changes in configuration once below 1000 AGL.
Technically this 340 didn’t do anything once below 1000 either I guess.
I do practice approaches at my field all the time with traffic in the pattern as well as skydivers cannonballing down. But our heads are on a swivel- we are all talking to each other, not just announcing.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Uh huh, well, I wasn’t so much dismissing the errors of the C 152 as expecting more from the more experienced pilot. When you see student driver sign on a car, you don’t give them a little extra courtesy and understanding?
Still doesn’t change what I said about the behavior of the twin pilot
Click to expand...
How would anyone know it was a student pilot in the 152?
 
Flying Keys said:
My theory, and this is pure conjecture that we’ll never know for sure, is he wanted to come in fast and slow down and configure at the last second to get in before the other traffic, as was established by several prior similar flightpaths...
Click to expand...

Yup that's what I've been trying to say as well and the 152 guy turned base at the three mile call with the idea of doing the same thing. It may be that they were both simply trying to accommodate each other but it was a miscalculation. I mean the 340 guy may have considered that if he slowed to 90 kts at three miles that poor guy in the 152 would have to extend his downwind halfway to South County. We just don't know and it's not right to be hanging anyone out to dry at this point without knowing. Especially a dead guy.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Why does everyone assume the 152 pilot was a student? It isn't stated anywhere. All I've seen that's certain is that the airplane was a rental. Lots of pilots fly rental 152s and practice takeoffs and landings.
Click to expand...

Been wondering the same thing. I haven't seen anything yet that identifies any of the victims. This whole discussion has kinda gone off the rails if you ask me.
 
I know a lot of people hate speculation, and 90% of what is said won't turn out to be what happened, but I think there's value in discussing the various scenarios even if not factual to this specific event. Again, I know this bothers some people.
 
Silvaire said:
Yup that's what I've been trying to say as well and the 152 guy turned base at the three mile call with the idea of doing the same thing. It may be that they were both simply trying to accommodate each other but it was a miscalculation. I mean the 340 guy may have considered that if he slowed to 90 kts at three miles that poor guy in the 152 would have to extend his downwind halfway to South County. We just don't know and it's not right to be hanging anyone out to dry at this point without knowing. Especially a dead guy.
Click to expand...

If I’d been up there, the surprise would have been the three mile call. You just called 10 miles two minutes ago, how are you already at three miles? Jeez, that’s quick. That 3 mile call gave everybody just one minute to unf*** themselves, talk, figure it out. If he’d been flying 140 knots indicated, it would have given an extra 23 seconds. Count those seconds right now.

Now, for me, I would have extended at the point of the three mile call and said something to the effect of “where the h*** did this guy come from?” It may have not even registered to me that this was the guy with the 10 mile call from two minutes ago. It’s a tall ask for everybody to consider 3 miles = 1 minute.

But maybe the 152 was already committed to the turn. It will be interesting to see the actual timing of that turn w/r/t the calls. Maybe there’s something that can key directly on the timing of the calls, kind of like a clapperboard in a tv/movie production - might be the emergency callout from the ground
 
Flying Keys said:
...But maybe the 152 was already committed to the turn. It will be interesting to see the actual timing of that turn w/r/t the calls...
Click to expand...

That's what's missing because there is no ADS-B track data for the 152. How did that base turn compare to the ones he had made earlier in his circuits? Was it made earlier because of the 3 mile call or did it match what he'd been doing all along?
 
The twin pilot was a private pilot, single/multi, no instrument rating, most recent certificate issued four years ago. The 152 pilot was a private pilot, nothing additional, issued two years ago.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Why does everyone assume the 152 pilot was a student? It isn't stated anywhere. All I've seen that's certain is that the airplane was a rental. Lots of pilots fly rental 152s and practice takeoffs and landings.
Click to expand...

Withholding names until the authorities announce them.

The C152 Pilot was 32-year-old male who somewhat recently earned his PPL and was practicing technique in the pattern the day of the collision.

The C340 pilot was 75 years old and at the time of collision on short final to the aircraft final resting place at the other end of the field, the landing gear was never deployed.

Once the C340 came to a rest, it took out 2 T hangars and the aircraft inside. The energy of the C340 was terrific to have sliced the wing off the C152 and finally stop short of 4000’ later; taking out 3 walls of a T hangar, compressing 2 planes inside, and the C340 fully inside the hangar as if it was wheeled in the front door to park.

Silvaire said:
That's what's missing because there is no ADS-B track data for the 152. How did that base turn compare to the ones he had made earlier in his circuits? Was it made earlier because of the 3 mile call or did it match what he'd been doing all along?
Click to expand...

The C152 had TailBeacon ADSB which requires the nav lights enabled. It appears the nav lights were off and ADSB was not on. KWVI airspace doesn’t require ADSB, but always good precaution.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
This situation is a lesson to all those experienced pilots out there. Things to remember EVERY time you enter the pattern at an untowered airport:
1. Not everyone has ADSB.
2. ADSB doesn't always work.
3. Not everyone has good situational awareness yet.
4. There are students out there that don't know how fast your expensive, cool, plane is
5. There are planes out there without radios
6. There are planes out there with radios that are broken.
Click to expand...

7. Added above
8. There are pilots on the wrong frequency for that airport, "pleased to find the airport doesn't seem busy today".
9. An aircraft in distress has the ROW over virtually every piece of equipment in the air, and you can't always see (or hear) that it's in distress. An aircraft with an electrical fire in the panel won't be smoking, likely won't be talking much and may very well be flying straight in, possibly faster than usual.
10. Some pilots are gladiators.
11. There are a few dangerous pilots out there that don't care about any of the above.
 
Silvaire said:
That's what's missing because there is no ADS-B track data for the 152. How did that base turn compare to the ones he had made earlier in his circuits? Was it made earlier because of the 3 mile call or did it match what he'd been doing all along?
Click to expand...


There is a YouTube video posted somewhere long ago in this thread that has data from a noise abatement monitoring program that picked up data from the 152 that the other ADS-B sites did not. I’m reserving judgement on the veracity of it - it looks legit, but hard to know for sure as it’s on someone else’s computer.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Because an experienced pilot would have known to extended his base
Click to expand...

Extending the base [and downwind] at KWVI is difficult as a pilot quickly encounters rising terrain into the mountains.

Low and slow traffic has right away, especially those playing by the pattern rules. Plus what Pilot if any could even imagine a guy cooking through the airspace space at 200 miles an hour who said he wants to make a full stop landing?
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
Because an experienced pilot would have known to extended his base
Click to expand...
Sweet Jesus.

By your logic both pilots are inexperienced. An experienced pilot wouldn’t have been doing 180 three miles out of forced the straight in to a midair.

You’re just arguing for the sake of being right and are making no logical sense whatsoever.
 
NordicDave said:
Extending the base at KWVI is difficult as a pilot quickly encounters rising terrain into the mountains..
Click to expand...

I'm sure you meant "downwind" but no, you've got 5 miles at least. A 152 can slow down to 60 or 70 and turn base as soon as the straight in passes abeam then follow him in.
 
NordicDave said:
Extending the base at KWVI is difficult as a pilot quickly encounters rising terrain into the mountains.
Click to expand...
. . . not if you compare "quickly" in a C172 to "quickly" in a speeding Cessna twin. :eek: :eek:

And you don't actually have to hit the rising terrain.
 
shelly said:
I tried to post a link to an article from KRON4 with identities now disclosed but the post wasn't approved since it was my first post and had a link.

My question is, and has been, whether the 75 year old pilot of the 340 had a medical event that prevented him from piloting the plane in for a safe landing. That is the only thing that makes sense to me (a non-pilot) as to why his speed wasn't adjusted to allow him to even put down his landing gear. I wonder if something happened....
Click to expand...

He probably wouldn’t be making radio calls if that were true.
 
Salty said:
don't forget about the "lower aircraft has right of way" thingy
Click to expand...

The challenge there is that the 152 pilot probably had no idea how high the twin was. A light twin at 2-3 miles, head-on, isn't necessarily easy to spot.
 
shelly said:
My question is, and has been, whether the 75 year old pilot of the 340 had a medical event that prevented him from piloting the plane in for a safe landing. That is the only thing that makes sense to me (a non-pilot) as to why his speed wasn't adjusted to allow him to even put down his landing gear. I wonder if something happened....
Click to expand...
Medical incapacitation is often speculated in aircraft accidents, but is rarely present.

In the past 20 years, there have been, at most, eleven accidents in a given year where incapacitation was involved. That particular peak occurred in 2010, when there were about 1800 total accidents. That's about 0.6% of accidents.

In addition, in the vast majority of these cases, aircraft control was lost. Not so with this case, with the aircraft continuing on a straight line and a descent towards the runway. The pilot was also making some normal radio calls with no indication of physical distress.

More details about incapacitation here:

https://www.kitplanes.com/homebuilt-accidents-the-pilots-condition/

Ron Wanttaja
 
Salty said:
What if I start my descent 5 miles out, or I don't until 1 mile out and ride the elevator down? I don't think there's an easy answer.
Click to expand...

Which is why the rule needs to be that aircraft established in the pattern have the ROW over straight in's. Might have to fill in a few more details around it, but we need to get away from multiple criteria to determine ROW. Who's on final, who's lower, etc. It only needs to be one yes/no variable.
 
shelly said:
Thank you for taking the time to explain why it is unlikely. My son (the pilot in the family) has repeatedly said that the pilot of the 340 "got behind" (if I recall his terminology correctly). I just can't understand the excessive speed so, as a lawyer, am looking for an explanation. Perhaps if I was a pilot, it would be more apparent to me. Tragic, regardless of the cause.
Click to expand...
Many people fly planes to get somewhere fast...might explain it, IDK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top