KWVI Watsonville MId Air, Multiple Fatalities

He’s made this short trip before, probably many times. I gotta believe he was in a hurry for some reason this time.
 
kyleb said:
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.
Click to expand...
Effectively eliminating the straight-in, increasing the hazards of multiple airplanes with grossly mismatched speeds in the pattern.
 
Kristin said:
There was only about a 3-5 second delay between the C-152 calling his turn to base after the 340 called the 3 mile final. We don't know if he had actually started his turn before he made the call or not. It was 30s later, that the 152 stated that he had the 340 insight. Given that, he was pretty much in position to turn final. That is a position with no good options for the 152. He can't go straight. He can't turn right. All he can do is turn left and climb or descend. At this point, it is the 340 that has the best chance of avoiding the collision.

I would not fault a jury for giving some percentage of blame to the 152 pilot, but I would argue that at most he was a little careless, which might be a reflection of his being a newbie. The 340 pilot OTOH, was reckless. In my mind, reckless trumps possibly careless and this is on the 340.
Click to expand...
I don't know about 'no good options'. Seems like anywhere but extended centerline would do.(and quickly)
 
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...
I saw you were a non-pilot, and that it was your first post. I was gentler to you than I'd be to some of the reprobates around here. :)

As for why the excessive speed, I like Occams' Razor: The simplest explanation is that the twin pilot hadn't intended to land. It's possible he was going to do a high-speed low-altitude pass along the runway, then pull up and enter the pattern normally. He may have been concentrating on making a real high-speed low pass, and not seen the 152. The wreckage should tell the tale; whether the landing gear was down or not. If it was still retracted, he was doing a buzz job.

A darker explanation is that he intended to "bump" the 152, possibly to get back at the student for "cutting in front of him." Sometimes when a person in a fast airplane sees a slower plane in front of him, they fly *under* the slow airplane and pull up right in front of the slow plane to give the pilot a scare (and "bump" him with their propwash). It's happened to me. Can't imagine anyone stupid enough to do that on final approach, though.

Ron Wanttaja
 
PaulS said:
ROW is nice, but if you count on ROW to keep you safe, your going to be sorry. Rules don't need to change, pilots need to smarten up.
Click to expand...

"Rule books are paper: They will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal."
-Earnest K. Gann

Best description of Right of Way I've seen is that you NEVER have a "right of way." It's not something you possess; it's something that other people are expected to yield to you.

Ron Wanttaja
 
MauleSkinner said:
Effectively eliminating the straight-in, increasing the hazards of multiple airplanes with grossly mismatched speeds in the pattern.
Click to expand...

No. Meaning straight-in's need to merge with the existing traffic, not bulldoze their way in.
 
kyleb said:
No. Meaning straight-in's need to merge with the existing traffic, not bulldoze their way in.
Click to expand...
So what would be the “yes/no variable” that determines whether a straight-in can continue if anybody in the pattern has the ROW?

As the FAA sees it now, straight-ins need to merge with existing traffic, not bulldoze their way in.
 
wanttaja said:
A darker explanation is that he intended to "bump" the 152, possibly to get back at the student for "cutting in front of him." Sometimes when a person in a fast airplane sees a slower plane in front of him, they fly *under* the slow airplane and pull up right in front of the slow plane to give the pilot a scare (and "bump" him with their propwash). It's happened to me. Can't imagine anyone stupid enough to do that on final approach, though.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Never seen that one in person, and the only time I've previously heard of it is when various military pilots are playing jackass around international airspace and the like. The Hainan (sp?) EP-3 comes to mind. If that happened to me in the civilian world, it would be all I could do to avoid introducing the miscreant to my friend - Mr. Baseball Bat.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So what would be the “yes/no variable” that determines whether a straight-in can continue if anybody in the pattern has the ROW?

As the FAA sees it now, straight-ins need to merge with existing traffic, not bulldoze their way in.
Click to expand...

The yes/no decision is up to the straight-in guy. Can he merge without disrupting the other aircraft in the pattern? If so, have at it. If not, there are other pattern entries available.

Unfortunately, and as expressed repeatedly in this thread, who has the ROW (or the way it is understood, at least) is that each pilot has an evaluation to make as to whether he or the other guy has the ROW. It is a multi-variable analysis and both need to come to the same answer. If they both think and act as if they have ROW, bad things happen. So change things to put the responsibility *clearly* on one of them.
 
kyleb said:
Never seen that one in person, and the only time I've previously heard of it is when various military pilots are playing jackass around international airspace and the like. The Hainan (sp?) EP-3 comes to mind. If that happened to me in the civilian world, it would be all I could do to avoid introducing the miscreant to my friend - Mr. Baseball Bat.
Click to expand...
Coming back from the Arlington Fly-In about twenty years ago. Never saw more than the tail-on view of an RV disappearing to the south, faster than I could throw a baseball bat at it....

Maybe it was a Chinese RV? :)

Ron Wanttaja
 
kyleb said:
The yes/no decision is up to the straight-in guy. Can he merge without disrupting the other aircraft in the pattern? If so, have at it. If not, there are other pattern entries available.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly as it exists today. No change required.
Unfortunately, and as expressed repeatedly in this thread, who has the ROW (or the way it is understood, at least) is that each pilot has an evaluation to make as to whether he or the other guy has the ROW. It is a multi-variable analysis and both need to come to the same answer. If they both think and act as if they have ROW, bad things happen. So change things to put the responsibility *clearly* on one of them.
Click to expand...
Each pilot needs to make ROW evaluations any time there is another aircraft nearby. Each pilot also needs to have the situational awareness to determine that an unsafe situation is developing. Merely rewriting regs to be able to place blame is counterproductive.
 
wanttaja said:
I saw you were a non-pilot, and that it was your first post. I was gentler to you than I'd be to some of the reprobates around here. :)

As for why the excessive speed, I like Occams' Razor: The simplest explanation is that the twin pilot hadn't intended to land. It's possible he was going to do a high-speed low-altitude pass along the runway, then pull up and enter the pattern normally. He may have been concentrating on making a real high-speed low pass, and not seen the 152. The wreckage should tell the tale; whether the landing gear was down or not. If it was still retracted, he was doing a buzz job.

A darker explanation is that he intended to "bump" the 152, possibly to get back at the student for "cutting in front of him." Sometimes when a person in a fast airplane sees a slower plane in front of him, they fly *under* the slow airplane and pull up right in front of the slow plane to give the pilot a scare (and "bump" him with their propwash). It's happened to me. Can't imagine anyone stupid enough to do that on final approach, though.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Maybe he was just in a hurry.
If he intended a high speed pass I would think he would have mentioned that.
He started the high speed run long before he knew the 152 was going to cut him off.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Effectively eliminating the straight-in, increasing the hazards of multiple airplanes with grossly mismatched speeds in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There clearly is a time and place for straight ins, but there is very little definition and/or enforcement on where that line is drawn. Having everyone circle the airport in one direction then entering the pattern from that circling the field method worked fine with Jennys and Wacos with no radios, but it's just not suitable for a mix of Cubs and Gulfstreams.
 
BTW, The 152 pilot was local resident Stuart Camenson, 32. C340 pilot was Carl Kruppa 75 and Nannette Plett-Kruppa 67 from Winton Ca.
 
wanttaja said:
I saw you were a non-pilot, and that it was your first post. I was gentler to you than I'd be to some of the reprobates around here. :)

As for why the excessive speed, I like Occams' Razor: The simplest explanation is that the twin pilot hadn't intended to land. It's possible he was going to do a high-speed low-altitude pass along the runway, then pull up and enter the pattern normally. He may have been concentrating on making a real high-speed low pass, and not seen the 152. The wreckage should tell the tale; whether the landing gear was down or not. If it was still retracted, he was doing a buzz job.

A darker explanation is that he intended to "bump" the 152, possibly to get back at the student for "cutting in front of him." Sometimes when a person in a fast airplane sees a slower plane in front of him, they fly *under* the slow airplane and pull up right in front of the slow plane to give the pilot a scare (and "bump" him with their propwash). It's happened to me. Can't imagine anyone stupid enough to do that on final approach, though.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I'd considered something similar to the second scenario myself. Not that they would go under it, but that they expected the 152 to be in front of them, and then they could declare that the 152 "cut in front of him", and execute a go-around. Then get even with all of those slow planes that get in his way all the time. The plan fell apart when the 152 tried to go around to get out of the way. Completely speculation, but it explains the high speed.
 
This thread has morphed into it's own being. Go back to the start. The 340's last call was: "1 mile, full stop, looking for traffic on base" There are YouTuber's still making videos saying there was a student pilot.

Slow down folks...
 
I guess the 340 pilot was simply overwhelmed by the situation ( fast approaching the runway while looking for the 152) and forgot to configure the aircraft to land. Until the last moment, he did eyeball the 152 but too late to jink or slow down to land. I also wonder if he might have programmed the autopilot to follow the glide path, which is why the aircraft descended at a speed out of control when he forgot to pull the power and lower the gear.
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
ROW is nice, but if you count on ROW to keep you safe, you're going to be sorry. Rules don't need to change, pilots need to smarten up.
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m doing it wrong, but I’ve never once considered who has the right of way. I only care about how to safely resolve the conflict. I’ll cede right of way to another aircraft long before it becomes a safety issue.
 
Salty said:
Maybe I’m doing it wrong, but I’ve never once considered who has the right of way. I only care about how to safely resolve the conflict. I’ll cede right of way to another aircraft long before it becomes a safety issue.
Click to expand...

I thought I was going to have to agree with salty again, but no. I thought I never once considered who had the right of way until I remembered that time I was on short final and some jerk decided to pull onto the runway to back taxi. He was on frequency and could hear me but just didn't care.
 
FORANE said:
I thought I was going to have to agree with salty again, but no. I thought I never once considered who had the right of way until I remembered that time I was on short final and some jerk decided to pull onto the runway to back taxi. He was on frequency and could hear me but just didn't care.
Click to expand...
So you landed anyway??? Or, you ceded your ROW, and went around (in which case @Salty is right).
 
Blame whoever you like, they're both dead. Of course folks are going to wind up suing each other, someone might wind up suing themselves by mistake. Blame will be decided by a group of people with no aviation knowledge of any kind (having flown so much as a paper airplane will get potential jurors disqualified) and the expert they believe will be the one with the bigger hair.

Says me those of us who fly faster airplanes really need to look out for the slower ones, and not use our increased speed to edge them out. Mr. Kruppa was the elder more experienced pilot, he should have been looking out for the new guy. Just my take.

I think the lesson to draw from this is Mr. Kruppa paid for his mistake with his and his woman's life. Bruce circles overhead, I drop gear and ways out and come in the speed of a Skyhawk. Blazing straight in can be hazardous to your health.
 
Salty said:
Maybe I’m doing it wrong, but I’ve never once considered who has the right of way. I only care about how to safely resolve the conflict. I’ll cede right of way to another aircraft long before it becomes a safety issue.
Click to expand...
One reason for even having ROW rules is to prevent two vessels from taking opposite evasive actions that cause them to collide, when having only one of them taking evasive action would not. For example, two aircraft at the same altitude approach each other at right angles. Each one politely turns to go behind the other one. That puts them on a head-on collision course rather than having one pass safely behind the other.

Ironically, in this case it appears that both pilots were taking evasive action too late and probably heading for the same place for a go-around. Had the C152 recognized his obligation to yield to a speeding goon on final and taken his own evasive action sooner it's highly likely that this accident would never have happened.
 
dbahn said:
Had the C152 recognized his obligation to yield to a speeding goon on final and taken his own evasive action sooner it's highly likely that this accident would never have happened.
Click to expand...
Yep and if he hadn't reacted at all, or if he'd reacted later, same outcome. They met at one specific point in the air. Anything even slightly different would have changed the outcome.
 
Was there anybody else behind the 152 on downwind? If the 152 wasn’t broadcasting ADS-B, he may have not initially realized it was there, and been keeping his speed up to sequence in front of the next plane in line. Then when he realized the 152 was on base in front of him, he kept his speed (and gear) up for a go-around.

And/or, at age 75, his reaction time wasn’t what it used to be. At that age there are many good pilots who are still sharp, but also some who should hang up their wings. It doesn’t have to be “incapacitation” per se.

I must say, this thread has opened my eyes on straight-ins, making me better understand that in some cases it may in some situations be the best option for a faster plane to get in… but it’s on the pilot of the faster plane to keep his eyes open, control his speed, and have a plan B if he can’t safely merge in. Clearly that wasn’t the case there.

But whether it’s appropriate to turn base in front of somebody on long final depends on the situation. My usual technique is throttle to idle abeam the numbers, I’ll turn a half mile base in front of a 172 droning in on a 3 mile final at my home field and be long off the runway by the time he gets there… but if it’s a cabin class twin I’ll grumble but extend my downwind and stay out of his way.
 
Salty said:
Maybe I’m doing it wrong, but I’ve never once considered who has the right of way. I only care about how to safely resolve the conflict. I’ll cede right of way to another aircraft long before it becomes a safety issue.
Click to expand...
You're doing it wrong. The reason there are ROW rules is so everyone (theoretically) knows who should cede and what they should do to effect that. For instance, when two aircraft approach head-on, both are supposed to divert to the right (like the Chicken scene in Rebel Without a Cause). If one's only thought about this is "how to safely resolve," and not what the ROW rules are, he might just jink one way or another, increasing the odds of collision.
 
jpskies said:
I guess the 340 pilot was simply overwhelmed by the situation ( fast approaching the runway while looking for the 152) and forgot to configure the aircraft to land. Until the last moment, he did eyeball the 152 but too late to jink or slow down to land. I also wonder if he might have programmed the autopilot to follow the glide path, which is why the aircraft descended at a speed out of control when he forgot to pull the power and lower the gear.
Click to expand...

I had an approach recently where I was straight in and doing a practice RNAV approach with the autopilot, and while doing so, another plane began doing pattern work at my destination. We were communicating, and he reported he had me in sight and would extend his downwind, but he looked so close to the field on ASDB that I was definitely distracted trying to get my own eyes on him that when I finally did, I realized my approach speed was much higher than it should have been -- so that may have been the circumstance here, too. (I was single engine with no gear to configure, though, and I also began my approach from the FAF with one notch of flaps in, so my "much higher" wasn't as drastic as with the twin in this case).

I definitely see responsibility falling on both pilots in this tragic accident. There has been a lot written about ROW rules, but since I came to flying from boating, the related/additional rule I always keep in mind (from boating) is that regardless of whether you think you have the ROW, your primary focus should be on avoiding collision, and thus you have the obligation/duty to take evasive action even if you are the "stand-on" vessel with the ROW. That rule is a recognition/reminder that while knowing the ROW rules is important, there will be times when someone can't or doesn't comply (or maybe even is confused about the best way to comply), and you've got to be aware that a conflict might happen, and be thinking how to diffuse or fix the situation even if the "rules" say the other guy should be doing that instead of you. So, even if the twin thought he had ROW, he needed to be plotting to go around/avoid as soon as he heard the 152 turning base, and make that decision soon enough to not even be close to a collision. For the 152, I'm pained that he didn't have his ADSB on, even for the pattern work. Having that one switch (nav lights) on might have saved his life and the lives of others (seeing the 152 turning in my path on my iPad would have certainly had me climbing/avoiding even without having actual visual contact).

Last comment re: ROW -- I agree you have to know the rules, so that you know how others (and yourself) will be expected to behave. But they cannot and do not cover every situation in a rigid fashion. So, it may well be safer for some planes to avoid the pattern and fly straight-in, and then the judgment calls must be made as to when that straight-in has ROW over someone already in the pattern. You can't avoid the judgment calls. If you make those judgment calls from a position of "at all costs, I must avoid a risk of collision," you'll usually have the right mindset to do what's needed to resolve any conflict or potential conflict.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
You're doing it wrong. The reason there are ROW rules is so everyone (theoretically) knows who should cede and what they should do to effect that. For instance, when two aircraft approach head-on, both are supposed to divert to the right (like the Chicken scene in Rebel Without a Cause). If one's only thought about this is "how to safely resolve," and not what the ROW rules are, he might just jink one way or another, increasing the odds of collision.
Click to expand...
ROW rules may help determine the best way to resolve the conflict, but I don't use them to determine if there is a conflict.
 
Dana said:
Was there anybody else behind the 152 on downwind? If the 152 wasn’t broadcasting ADS-B, he may have not initially realized it was there, and been keeping his speed up to sequence in front of the next plane in line...
Click to expand...

There was another plane in the pattern behind the 152. While there are certainly merits to the ADS-B system there is also the factor that people may tend to rely on it or trust it more than they should. It seems plausible that the 340 guy thought the guy on the radio was the second plane which would have shown on his ADS-B display. So even though he was looking for him he was looking in the wrong place.
 
Silvaire said:
There was another plane in the pattern behind the 152. While there are certainly merits to the ADS-B system there is also the factor that people may tend to rely on it or trust it more than they should. It seems plausible that the 340 guy thought the guy on the radio was the second plane which would have shown on his ADS-B display. So even though he was looking for him he was looking in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

I believe 0FL was on the departure leg after a t&g when the accident occurred. 9BE was just northwest of the airport, also turning to a 200 heading on the missed, just above pattern altitude and climbing.
 
Salty said:
I’ve never once considered who has the right of way. I only care about how to safely resolve the conflict.
Click to expand...

Pilots consistently following ROW is how to safely resolve conflicts. That is the purpose of ROW.

Nobody wants to write more regs, but here we have a clear instance where an ambiguity in regs caused fatalities. That can be fixed by clearly defining the start point of final approach for a straight in arrival, so that both pilots know who has ROW without having to do mathematics on the fly.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Pilots consistently following ROW is how to safely resolve conflicts. That is the purpose of ROW.

Nobody wants to write more regs, but here we have a clear instance where an ambiguity in regs caused fatalities. That can be fixed by clearly defining the start point of final approach for a straight in arrival, so that both pilots know who has ROW without having to do mathematics on the fly.
Click to expand...


Disagree. As a pilot I’m much more concerned with avoiding a midair rather than having the right of way. Both of these aircraft failed to avoid the other.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Nobody wants to write more regs, but here we have a clear instance where an ambiguity in regs caused fatalities. That can be fixed by clearly defining the start point of final approach for a straight in arrival, so that both pilots know who has ROW without having to do mathematics on the fly.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn’t be fixed…aircraft of vastly differing speeds are still involved. A jet having ROW on a (pick your number)-mile final is an entirely different animal than a Cub having ROW at that same distance.

It wasn’t an ambiguity in regs that caused the fatalities, it was a loss of situational awareness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top