PILOT SPIN
Pilot Zone => Accident Review/Never Again (I hope..) => Topic started by: Rush on August 20, 2022, 11:00:21 AM
-
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/08/cessna-340a-n740wj-fatal-accident.html
-
There is a heated debate on a FB page on this one. I heard the radio transmissions. I don’t think the kid doing his solo in the 152 did anything be wrong.
-
Lots of talk about ROW and who has it. It does not appear the twin was on an IFR plan, if someone knows differently please speak up. Even if he was he was likely cleared for the visual. I was not taught that straight in was proper traffic pattern entry. More than one plane were in the pattern, twin should have broken it off and entered the pattern instead of barreling on in. Doesn't matter now, they're all dead.
-
There is a heated debate on a FB page on this one. I heard the radio transmissions. I don’t think the kid doing his solo in the 152 did anything be wrong.
From what I can tell, he did nothing wrong at all. The twin guy was at fault. He failed to see and avoid. He knew the guy was there. He should have been the one to initiate the missed as soon as he heard the 152 announce turn to base.
I'm going to assume he had his wife as pax (plus dog) and hopefully she gave him hell on the ride down. "You killed us, you asshole!" I know that's what I'd be saying.
-
Lots of talk about ROW and who has it. It does not appear the twin was on an IFR plan, if someone knows differently please speak up. Even if he was he was likely cleared for the visual. I was not taught that straight in was proper traffic pattern entry. More than one plane were in the pattern, twin should have broken it off and entered the pattern instead of barreling on in. Doesn't matter now, they're all dead.
That’s the crux of the argument on a FB page. Someone said “Get your instrument rating and you’ll learn that you go straight in.” Totally ignorant statement. I have my IR, but when it comes to being on an approach in VMC, you get no priority or privileges.
True the FARs give priority to someone on final to someone not on final. But so what? Does that apply to 3 mile finals? 10 mile finals? You can be right, even if end up being dead right.
-
That’s the crux of the argument on a FB page. Someone said “Get your instrument rating and you’ll learn that you go straight in.” Totally ignorant statement. I have my IR, but when it comes to being on an approach in VMC, you get no priority or privileges.
True the FARs give priority to someone on final to someone not on final. But so what? Does that apply to 3 mile finals? 10 mile finals? You can be right, even if end up being dead right.
When everybody else is operating VFR on a clear day in the pattern, you just look like an ass to come screaming in on a long final claiming you're IFR. Being on an IFR plan does not absolve you from see and avoid in VMC conditions. Sure you can practice approaches, but break it off above pattern altitude. To blast in like that just seems rude.
But who knows, maybe he had good reason to push everybody else out of the way so he could get down in a hurry, maybe his wife was yammering at him about how bad she had to pee.
-
Here’s Richard McSpadden’s take on this.
https://www.facebook.com/100000302565825/posts/pfbid0JxY9N2vMsJSwR8EDgka2dNDsyt4f1Y6SBM6MTMt2k4Z4i3aEbAYE8txTarTaXj8ul/?d=n
-
AOPA video:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/august/22/early-analysis-watsonville-municipal-airport?=utm_source=News&utm_medium=Content&utm_campaign=RSS
-
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-family-mourns-loss-of-32-year-old-killed-17392612.php
Stuart Camenson, 32, was an avid flyer who was raised in the Bay Area and graduated from UC Santa Cruz.
Provided by the Camenson family/
A Bay Area family was mourning the death of their 32-year-old son, an energetic and avid flyer who died in a midair plane collision at Watsonville Municipal Airport in Santa Cruz County.
Stuart Camenson was practicing loops — touch downs and lift offs on the runway — at the airport on August 18, the day of the crash. He had been working on getting additional flight experience and certificates, his parents, Lori and Steve Camenson, said.
Um…… no. He was not practicing “loops”. Reporters. Sheesh.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/09_afh_ch7.pdf
-
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.
-
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.
But the diagram does not show final as an airplane ten miles out.
-
But the diagram does not show final as an airplane ten miles out.
Exactly. So, “… before turning onto the final approach, that there is no danger of colliding with another aircraft that is already established on the final approach.” therefore the 152 pilot is not at fault. He determined there was a danger, yes, but not a danger of colliding with an aircraft already established on final. The twin was nowhere near final, not until he zoomed up into the 152’s business out of nowhere.
The 152 was aware the twin was a potential danger but didn’t view him as being established on final, if you define final as within the dimension of the base leg, and the potential danger was remote. He thought he had time. The whole thing boils down to the speed of the twin plus the 152 pilots unawareness of that speed until it was too late.
-
The twin coming in at 2x normal approach speed to me simply means the twin driver was trying to beat the 152 to the runway. Well, he sure beat the 152...
I do straight in approaches and still will do them in the future, but I listen to the radio intently and look for traffic. If anyone is in the pattern, anywhere in the pattern, I break off the straight in and join the pattern as expected. And yes, I call that on the radio such that those in the pattern understand my intentions.
-
The twin coming in at 2x normal approach speed to me simply means the twin driver was trying to beat the 152 to the runway. Well, he sure beat the 152...
I do straight in approaches and still will do them in the future, but I listen to the radio intently and look for traffic. If anyone is in the pattern, anywhere in the pattern, I break off the straight in and join the pattern as expected. And yes, I call that on the radio such that those in the pattern understand my intentions.
People commenting have looked at the history of this plane’s flights and apparently coming in fast like that was his habit. In this case yes, he was aware of the 152 and surely intended to get in front of him for the runway, but he had typically came in fast, presumably whether there was traffic in the pattern or not. For that to be your default seems to indicate a lack of caution, of not taking the time to do as you do, listen and look intently to get the whole picture of traffic.
There is now an obit posted on Kathryn’s. He seemed like a nice guy but had a lot of irons in the fire. Maybe he was a type A personality, approached everything full speed ahead. Impatient? You can get away with that for a while. Maybe age played into it, you don’t think as fast as you get older. He might have put together the physics and projected the danger sooner if he were younger, or perhaps started his turn a split second sooner just enough to avoid the hit.
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/08/cessna-340a-n740wj-fatal-accident.html
Interesting how they wrote that up: Passed away unexpectedly - along with his wife and dog. Might as well go ahead and add “in a plane crash”. Anyone reading it who didn’t know about the crash is gonna go “huh”? Usually when a 75 year old “passes away unexpectedly”, it’s a stroke or heart attack.
-
The twin coming in at 2x normal approach speed to me simply means the twin driver was trying to beat the 152 to the runway. Well, he sure beat the 152...
I do straight in approaches and still will do them in the future, but I listen to the radio intently and look for traffic. If anyone is in the pattern, anywhere in the pattern, I break off the straight in and join the pattern as expected. And yes, I call that on the radio such that those in the pattern understand my intentions.
If you are alone in the pattern, I'm all about changing things about as long as you do it safely and you don't endanger others. You never know when you will need those skills. At the airport I fly at, we fly right hand patterns quite a bit due to retard liberals. It took a bit to get used to. Now it's normal to me.