Pilot Zone > Accident Review/Never Again (I hope..)
Watsonville
Rush:
On Kathryn’s Report now there is an anon who makes a passionate argument that the 152 guy is at fault. The twin had the ROW and a court of law WILL conclude that.
Not saying I agree or disagree just noting the added commentary.
Rush:
--- Quote from: Bamaflyer on August 25, 2022, 07:39:51 AM ---Now the idiots over on POA are arguing over who has right of way concerning gliders vs powered airplanes.
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/kwvi-watsonville-mid-air-multiple-fatalities.139336/page-14
--- End quote ---
Oh Lord I clicked on that. Dbahn had to post:
“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.“
I NEVER understood that rule. “Cutting in” is subjective as hell. Think about driving on the highway. Someone changes lanes in front of you. To one person that might be just fine, but to another he just “cut in front” of them. It might even be different to the same person on different days depending on their mood, and certainly the speed of the car matters as does the distance. If you pull in front of me five car lengths ahead and you’re going faster, that’s not “cutting in”. If you pull in front of me almost grazing my bumper then go slower then me, that’s definitely “cutting in” and I will be pissed.
Where exactly is the line between those two extremes where not cutting in becomes cutting in? I doubt we would all agree on the exact same point. It seems that rule is deliberately left vague as hell. I wonder how many arguments there have been between two pilots once on the ground that went like this: “You cut in front of me!” “Did not!” “Did so!” “Did not!” “Did so too!” “Did not either!” “Fuck you!” “Yo mama!” And then fisticuffs.
EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist:
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/09_afh_ch7.pdf
Rush:
From your pdf:
“While on the base leg, the pilot must ensure, before turning onto the final approach, that there is no danger of colliding with another aircraft that is already established on the final approach. Pilots must not attempt an overly steep turn to final, especially uncoordinated! If in doubt, go around.”
That supports the idea the 152 is to blame. He had not established that there was no danger while on base.
“The final approach leg is a descending flightpath starting from the completion of the base-to-final turn and extending to the point of touchdown.”
This supports that a straight in pilot is NOT “on final” when several miles out, if “final” is defined as only from the distance of the base leg. Therefore the pilot on base is not “cutting in front” of a plane on final.
EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist:
--- Quote from: Rush on August 25, 2022, 09:43:55 AM ---From your pdf:
“While on the base leg, the pilot must ensure, before turning onto the final approach, that there is no danger of colliding with another aircraft that is already established on the final approach. Pilots must not attempt an overly steep turn to final, especially uncoordinated! If in doubt, go around.”
That supports the idea the 152 is to blame. He had not established that there was no danger while on base.
“The final approach leg is a descending flightpath starting from the completion of the base-to-final turn and extending to the point of touchdown.”
This supports that a straight in pilot is NOT “on final” when several miles out, if “final” is defined as only from the distance of the base leg. Therefore the pilot on base is not “cutting in front” of a plane on final.
--- End quote ---
But the diagram does not show final as an airplane ten miles out.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version