Watsonville Midair Crash Explained

Max Trescott of the Aviation News Talk podcast discusses the Watsonville, CA mid-air collision of a Cessna 340 and a Cessna 152. The plane crash occurred at about 2:56 PM on August 18, 2022. Unfortunately, the three people aboard the aircraft and a dog were killed. The 152 crashed on short final for Watsonville Airport’s runway 20, and the C340 crashed into a hangar. Max shows the radar plots for both aircraft and matches it with the ATC audio, so you can see how the accident unfolded.
You can subscribe to the podcast in the Apple Podcasts app here: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... or wherever you get your podcasts. Or listen on the web at aviationnewstalk.com
There are many interesting aspects to this crash, but the most salient fact is that the twin Cessna 340, which flew a long straight in approach to runway 20, was flying at very high speed. And while both planes made all of the recommended radio transmissions, at least one of the final radio calls was ambiguous about the aircraft’s position.
The twin Cessna 340 aircraft often flew into Watsonville on weekends, and the prior weekend, its final approach speed was around 100 knots. But on the day of the accident, the twin was still at about 180 knots when it hit the Cessna 152 on short final. However, the landing gear extension speed for this aircraft is 140 knots. That suggests that either the pilot forgot to put down the landing gear, or he had the gear down and was vastly overspeeding the gear limits. We’ll probably never know why the 340 was flying so fast, but in this case that extra speed was a significant factor in this accident.
Communications were also an issue. Both pilots were communicating in the ways that they were supposed to, but both could have done a better job, as I’ll explain when I play the radio communications.
About 8 miles East of the airport is a ridge that goes up to about 2000 feet. So aircraft that make a long straight in final approach to runway 20 have to first clear that ridge before starting their descent. And when you’re flying a fast airplane, it’s hard to both descend and slow up at the same time, without making a huge power reduction, which may be hard on the engines. So, it pays to reduce power and slow up before you start a steep descent.
What’s really hard to understand is why the pilot of the twin continued to fly an approach to landing at 180 knots, when it would have been almost impossible to land at that speed. Yet the data shows a continual descent to about 200 feet AGL, where the airplanes collided, and the pilot of the twin never gave any indication that he planned to do anything other than land straight in for a full stop. Perhaps the pilot was distracted, as he didn’t reference other aircraft in the traffic pattern until he was about a mile from the airport.
The other aircraft was N49931, a Cessna 152 that was in the traffic pattern flying left traffic to runway 20. The pilot regularly reported his position on crosswind, downwind, base, and final. At the time of the accident, the 152 was on at least his fifth landing, and was making touch and goes.
The Cessna 340 reported his position for a straight in final at 10 miles, 3 miles, and 1 mile. However, he never asked anything about other traffic in the pattern until his 1 mile, transmission, when he asked about the aircraft on base.
Typically, an aircraft on base would join the final at about 1.5 miles from the airport. Yet the twin didn’t inquire about the position of the 152 until it was on a one mile final! At that point, it was very late to ask that question, as an aircraft on base could be expected to turn on final a mile and a half mile before the runway, and the twin had already passed that point.
Also, the 152 pilot’s decision to turn base after hearing the twin was on a 3-mile final was questionable. And the pilot knew it might be close; he actually turned onto base about three-tenths of a mile sooner than he did on his prior circuits around the pattern.
And the 152’s radio call that “you are behind me,” was ambiguous. Did that mean that the aircraft was still on base, and that he was closer to the airport than the twin? Or did it mean that the 152 was on final, and that the twin was coming up rapidly behind him on final?
Both pilots showed questionable judgement. One possible explanation comes from an NTSB study that shows that 40% of pilots involved in fatal accidents tested positive for either over the counter, prescription, or illicit drugs. The most common potentially impairing drug pilots had used was a sedating antihistamine that’s an active ingredient in many over the counter allergy formulations, cold medicines, and sleep aids. Toxicology tests should eventually tell us whether one or both pilots were possibly impaired.
Please Support Aviation News Talk by donating via either:
Patreon ➜ aviationnewstalk.com/Patreon
PayPal ➜ aviationnewstalk.com/PayPal

[@ericlopkoff]

I am truly infuriated by your explanation of this accident. As flight instructor of the year, you of all people should know we have a duty to care for and watch over our student pilots. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve broken off a straight in approach in a jet because I couldn’t make positive contact with traffic in the pattern at non-towered airports. It cost my airline hundreds in jet fuel and saved millions in lost lives and equipment. If you’ve been in this game for more than a year, you should be able to pick out the student pilot on the radio in your sleep. The 340 pilot had a duty to fly his airplane in a responsible manner. 180 knots on final is not responsible. The student pilot is just starting to go beyond rote traffic pattern skills to understanding that not all patterns can be the same due to some jackwagon doing 180 knots on final. Then to insinuate that drugs played a role, is amateur Monday morning quarterbacking and beneath the level of expertise you claim to espouse. This accident rests solely on the pilot of the twin Cessna.

[@kenkessner9594]

I was concerned, as well, regarding the mention of the NTSB report on impairment. We have nothing at this point to lead in that direction. Clearly, there was some reason why the 340 pilot was flying a nonstandard approach but implying possible impairment is a leap. Had the 340 pilot simply entered a conventional pattern entry as recommended by the AIM, both would be alive today. My F/O's were often exasperated with me for taking the time to enter a conventional pattern at nontower airports but doing so avoids these sorts of conflicts when confronted with such dissimilar aircraft. (ATP, 7500hrs jet, 3000 turb helo)..

[@michaelh8890]

I agree w the CFI. IMO it was premature & irresponsible to cite potential impairment. You should have spent more time analyzing the sequence of events, and possible alternative preventive/corrrective actions on the part of both pilots. you never mentioned that the single pilot was a student, which is noteworthy. And hell yes, that 340 driver was significantly out of line barreling inbound at that speed, plus not paying proper attention to the building scenario, including applying proper deference to the 'lowly' single.. While your graphics were good, overall your report is less than helpful, and possibly provides fodder for the lay persons & media

[@vgrof2315]

I lost a number of friends in a P-3 in a similar accident at Moffett Field in CA in the '70s. I am disgusted to think that the aviation world hasn't figured out how to prevent this type accident in 5 decades. Many KZbin "experts" beat their gums to death reviewing accidents and various groups hold safety conferences year after year all to little avail. The aviation insurance companies have to learn to put the hammer down, HARD, to get cowboy pilots like the twin Cessna guy out of the cockpit. Tough to do, I know, but the rest of the aviation world has shown it doesn't have what it takes.

[@alasdaircrawford9692]

As the other replies have said, why on earth speculate on impairment at this point. If you want to speculate, most likely the twin was planning a high speed low-pass despite knowing there were aircraft already in the pattern. When you hear a call at 10 miles or even 3 miles and do the math in your head, you simply aren't expecting the straight in traffic to be hauling at 180kn and quite rationally are going to think you have more time. Yes both/either could have broken it off earlier but this is down to the twin - moving way too fast and forcing an unecessary situation on the 152 already in the pattern to deal with. It's a 152, so assume a student and give em some courtesy, let them live.

[@jameschristian9232]

You are completely correct in your assessment . The C-340 pilot was definitely Hot Dogging through the pattern to impress someone now everybody is Dead ! Your friend James

[@aviationalex7x]

As a witness to this accident, I can tell you the gear was up and the flaps were up. The 152 had been in the pattern for near an hour and was making the correct calls. The 340 called “landing” in the calls he made and yet never slowed down.

[@Star-ty1nx]

I’m making an assumption here, but if you have witnessed the C340 with its landing gears and flaps Up, it is possible that the pilot changed his mind and decided to do a low pass prior rejoining the traffic pattern for landing. At the speed of ~180 kts close to the runway threshold, it would have been difficult not to overrun the runway. The NTSB will be able to ascertain how the Twin was configured at the moment of the crash.

[@aviationalex7x]

@@Star-ty1nx the plane was clean. No changes in power before impact. My best guess from what I saw was that he was never intending to land. His airspeed was too high for the length of the approach.

[@davedoe6445]

Thanks for your comment. If you saw that the 340 was clean up to the accident it seems pretty damning, I can't imagine it would even physically be possible to drop enough speed and land. Either he was seriously distracted and/or impaired or was just criminally negligent (like running over a pedestrian in a crosswalk in a school zone going 70 mph).

[@AviationNewsTalk]

Thanks for that information. If the 340 pilot truly planned to go around, it would have made sense for him to climb. But he never climbed, and he never reduced his speed below 178 knots until impact. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

[@gap9992]

With hindsight the 152 pilot could have done some different things to save his own life but the root cause of this accident was 100% down to the decision making and impatience of the twin pilot. He knew the circuit was occupied and he knew there was a possible conflict with an aircraft established in the pattern. He wasn't even stabilised for a landing and just piled into the 152. The "rules" for joining an active circuit are there to prevent an accident like this but they don't help if pilots ignore them to save a few minutes

[@icemachine79]

I suspect he had a medical emergency. Not serious enough to incapacitate him, but enough to make him want to get on the ground ASAP. You can hear the frustration in his voice during his last transmission when he acknowledges the traffic. Either way, he was definitely in a rush to get to the airport.

[@amadexi]

@@icemachine79 Being in a hurry doesn't give you a pass to ignore procedures. Especially when you don't even communicate it.

[@RealWoutLies]

As a student, near solo, I would have extended downwind at the 3 mile call.

[@estesas]

Right, and yet the conclusion here is that “both sides could’ve done better.” Ridiculous.

[@icemachine79]

@@amadexi "Being in a hurry" isn't what I said.

[@zedfourme5085]

The twin was cranking on final 50-100 knots faster than an airliner or biz jet without mentioning this. 99% of pilots wouldn't have been expecting that. Cut the shit. The twin was 110% at fault.

[@Tomeleck]

Some of the caution to assign blame in this case is owing to the increasingly likely legal possibilities these days of litigation ensuing from this accident.

[@AZFlyDive]

The 152 pilot saw the twin, but figured the twin was going about 100 knots, not 180 knots. If the twin had been at normal pattern speed at that position, the twin would have landed behind the 152. That is why he said that the twin would be behind him.

[@pulpmysteryfan]

I agree.The 152 probably figured "The other guy is 3 miles out -- of course I can land in front of him."

[@cmmguy99]

The 152 didnt see the twin until or as he was turning final. pretty hard to see an aircraft coming straight at you over 3 miles away.

[@jdot3345]

I can see pilot error, but immediately jumping to intoxication with ZERO evidence of that in this accident is mind blowing & just wrong!!!

[@tenkaraintheiowadriftless]

Agree, and I think deserving of an apology to the friends and families of those impacted by the accident.

[@jdot3345]

@@tenkaraintheiowadriftless 100% AGREE!!!

[@AviationNewsTalk]

My point was that the NTSB says that 40% of pilots in fatal accidents tested positive for OTC, prescription, or illicit drugs. This is a huge problem among pilots and it's gotten substantially worse in the past decade. With two pilots involved, the chance of a positive toxicology text of at least one of the pilots jumps to 64%. To not mention it as a possibility would be to put our head in the sand about a major issue factor involved in fatal crashes.

[@Senor0Droolcup]

As a Watsonville pilot, let me also add that making a "straight-in" to Runway 20 is VERY unusual. There is a 2000ft ridge just a few miles to the E/NE and that's why there are no instrument approaches on Runway 20. All the instrument approaches are on the reciprocal Runway 02 out over the ocean. Jet traffic approaches using 02. In 25+ years of flying from Watsonville, I don't think I have EVER heard anyone call a straight in to 20. That. is probably why the twin was pushing 180kts on short final: to do a straight-in on 20 you have to cross over the 2,000ft ridge and then dive for final approach. I just can't see any reason for it.

[@ducky8075]

Wattsonville pilot here, I’ve made a few straight ins, especially after flying into the Bay Area, flight following likes to sequence you south out of the airspace at Reid Hillview so when they terminate you you’re doing a straight in for 20. It is not an easy approach and often requires a slip. My guess is the same as yours; the 340 was trying to descend as fast as possible instead of cutting his losses and circling, or re-entering the pattern.

[@Senor0Droolcup]

@@ducky8075 Thank you! Good points!

[@cmmguy99]

@@ducky8075 The video shows that this pilot(or at least this airplane) had made the same straightin a couple of times before and was way slower. How hard is it to fly a pattern when there are other planes in the pattern?

[@AviationNewsTalk]

It's not that hard to fit into the pattern. If a fast aircraft enters on the 45 and finds slower traffic in front of it, it can fly a wider downwind to avoid conflicting with traffic on the downwind. If necessary, it can also fly a longer downwind to create more space between itself and an aircraft ahead of them. Also, Large and turbine-powered airplanes should enter the traffic pattern at an altitude of 1,500 feet AGL or 500 feet above the established pattern altitude, which provides even more separation from other aircraft.

[@billyrayband]

I don't see the point of dragging drug impairment into this with zero evidence. The speed of the twin and the straight-in approach at an uncontrolled airport with traffic in the pattern were main factors.

[@AviationNewsTalk]

My point was that the NTSB says that 40% of pilots in fatal accidents tested positive for OTC, prescription, or illicit drugs. This is a huge problem among pilots and it's gotten substantially worse in the past decade. With two pilots involved, the chance of a positive toxicology text of at least one of the pilots jumps to 64%. To not mention it as a possibility would be to put our head in the sand about a major issue factor involved in fatal crashes

[@truegret7778]

100% squarely on the pilot 340 Twin. He knew the pattern was occupied and cannot just bully his way into take the runway just because he is coming straight in. IF the 152 had just turned onto downwind, MAYBE the 340 pilot could slip in ahead of another plane already in the pattern. At 10:33 you suggest "the decision by the pilot of the 152 to turn onto base after hearing the 3 mile callout by the pilot in the 340" is questionable - not if the pilot of the 340 was flying at normal approach speed of 100 knots instead of 180 knots - the decision to turn to base was sound.

[@whoever6458]

I feel like this 152 pilot was pretty new but that the twin had more experience. I doubt it would have killed him to join the pattern in a normal fashion.

[@Anonymous99997]

As fast as the twin was going, even without hitting the single, how could he have safely landed at his speed?

[@jameschristian9232]

He could not land at this Speed ,. He was 90 to 100 KTS. ABOVE his maximum airspeed to Deploy Flaps or landing gear without severely damaging his own aircraft even still there would not be enough time or distance to accomplish a landing ! Hot dogging now everybody is Dead !

[@noevalleygiants]

Twin Cessna's fault, full stop. He was reckless. Bombing into the airport with planes in the pattern. Unbelieveable! So sad for the 152 pilot--not his fault in any way.

[@Rodhern]

Hi Max. With regards to 12:10 "both pilots showed questionable judgement", is that really a fair statement when the disparity in the quality of judgement is that great? If you had been on downwind that day, and heard what we hear on the radio, would you have realized that the twin would be pushing in that fast? I am sitting in my comfy chair and still can't quite figure if I should trust the data; I don't think even most fighter jets need that kind of approach speed.

[@martins.28]

Absolutely agree. Landing speed of the Concorde was 160 knots. F-22's land at about 135 to 150 knots and the Starfighter landed at about 175 knots with full flaps (Just to put N740WJ's 181 knots into some kind of perspective). Nobody has to expect someone else flying in on such crazy speeds. So I think saying that the C152 pilot also showed questionable judgement before raising questions about drugs being involved is quite inappropriate. On top of that, the pilot of N740WJ does not seem to have listened to the pilot of the C152 at all. After the announcement that he was looking for traffic on left base, he was probably already busy with somehow managing his high-speed approach.

[@mainelygerman]

How did the 152 pilot show questionable judgement? He had the right of way. He was in the pattern. The twin didn’t follow the recommended pattern entry and was CLEARLY flying a very unstable approach, an approach that you surmised might have exceeded airplane limitations. The blurb about over the counter medications also made absolutely no sense. I don’t know why you would even mention that before toxicology results came out. Very bizarre honestly.

[@-Bill.]

Speed must be right though, you clearly see his closure rate on the airport and the poor 152. He was tearing in like a bat out of hell.

[@icemachine79]

I agree. Since we don't know the exact movements of the C152, it's impossible to make any judgment about its pilot's aviating. His response on the radio was reasonable given the Twin's pilot had obviously heard and understood his previous transmission, so I have no idea what Max was referring to.

[@craytron1393]

This accident reminds me of another Cessna 340 crash near Santee California last year.. Not a midair but a mentally incapacitated pilot with slurred or strained radio calls. The Watsonville C340 pilot in his 70's was obviously out of his mind too. 180 KPH at 2 miles from touch down to a 4500' runway was going to end in a crash whether he hit the 152 or not. The 152 pilot was now a sitting duck. His radio work was fine and when he said you are behind me meant he was #1 and you are #2 SLOW DOWN! He didn't and now both are dead.

[@davedoe6445]

Agreed, it does not really matter what the 152 pilot meant precisely by "You are behind me" because every reasonable interpretation for the 340 pilot would lead to "I need to slow down and enter the pattern"

[@GMD64]

I understand the hesitancy to be candid when multiple people lost their lives so without trying to sound like I'm piling on the twin pilot I'm only stating causal factors that killed three people, two of whom were 100% innocent. The twin's overspeed isn't merely a causal factor it is the primary causal factor, pilots maintain spacing based on judging approximate stabilized landing speed, making it impossible for the single engine pilot to make the call to continue with the final he clearly called out or continue his downwind, it isn't in a pilot's mind to even for one second think another pilot is going to jeopardize another pilots safety by coming in so fast so therefor it would never enter their mind to double the approximate stabilized safe landing speed when estimating spacing. Another causal factor is the very long straight in final, long enough for the twin pilot to hear multiple aircraft using the same uncontrolled airport, instead of joining the pattern he literally rammed his way in as if it was his own private airport. The twin pilot admitted to not seeing the single engine aircraft, instead of attempting any other maneuver to help ensure both his and the unseen pilots safety he continued without a thought to anything but what he was single mindedly committed to doing inspite of the fact he was well aware of traffic and if he couldn't see it it may very well be lower and below him. The twin pilot knows based on his planes low wing design his blind spot is below him. Only the single engine pilot attempted to take any evasive maneuver, and again, going back to the main causal factor didn't have time to do it because of the twins speed. I keep reading comments of what the single engine pilot could have done, with a pilot like the twin Cessna coming at you the only thing he could have done to save himself was not go flying. I realize I failed at not piling on but wow man this was egregious and I feel so bad for the innocent loss of life.

[@proudbirther1998]

@golfmikedelta Good Post! I feel the same way about comments on 150s actions and his role in this accident. And the Primary factor in this accident. Ive also learned that the Pilot of 340 was 75 yrs old. He was flying with his wife 67.

[@sbdreamin]

I haven't flown for quite a few decades, but used to fly commercially and in the military. What the twin did was arrogant and rude...unless he was not receiving the transmissions of the other pilots. Still, that doesn't explain his very hot approach.

[@GMD64]

@@sbdreamin Thank you for your service Sir. He was receiving the transmissions from the single engine pilot, he was looking for him and knew his approximate location based on the single engine pilot's appropriate radio calls. I understand your point though, we are all struggling to understand the twin engine pilots behavior, we are all trying to make sense of this, and even doing our best to give him the benefit of the doubt, however, the more I hear about this accident it's hard for me to even call it an accident.

[@mikemicksun6469]

Just like on the Highway the only person who will keep you alive is yourself. The 152 could have continued before turning base and use a 5 mile final as a guidance.

[@davedoe6445]

@@mikemicksun6469 Yeah but unlike the highway, the GA commenters will blame you for "not driving defensively" when you clearly have the right-of-way! At least when someone rams someone from behind or runs over a pedestrian everyone can agree who was at fault.

[@biggru4114]

No reason this accident should of happened. 340A at fault. Who flies a final at 180+ knots and expects to land?

[@dermick]

Hi Max, I do hope that we can use this as a training opportunity. From what you show, I am guessing that the 152 pilot wanted to get out of the way of the twin, which is why he went with a shorter downwind leg. He didn't realize that the twin was going so fast. Anytime there's someone like a twin, a turbine, a jet, or a parachute dropping aircraft on a straight in, I just give them the space they need. They are either burning a lot more fuel than my RV or are under some time pressure, or just a lot busier than I am, so I get out of their way. And of course I make it clear on the radio what I'm doing and why, so they don't have to worry about me, and focus on their landing.

[@lancomedic]

While that shows sound judgment on your part for doing defensive flying I do believe that everyone has an equal right to the public facility whether revenue traffic or not. Also a student on the most critical legs of his pattern might not be calculating the closure rate of a twin that is three miles out. By the time he realized how fast that knucklehead was closing the go-around was too late.

[@lancomedic]

@Dermick I was thinking more about what you said. I still believe that the 152 pilot did nothing wrong and just got in the way of the twin that was going to crash anyway, but sometimes we students and new pilots figure that the guy flying the bigger, more advanced or commercial plane knows exactly what they are doing and are intimidated. What might have been different if the 152 had said to him will I have time to make my touch and go before you get here? Maybe that would have forced the 340 pilot to look at his airspeed. If he gave a rude answer the student would probably have extended his base. Either way the outcome for the 152 would have changed. Maybe the passenger would have spoke up if they heard that exchange. I think that's the lesson here. Don't be afraid to question something if you think it's wrong.

[@886888aa]

Knowing there was a twin on final I would have extended my downwind and would have come in behind him. It's unfortunate that the twin was not following the correct procedure to enter the pattern though as pilots we need to be flexible and never assume anything. As a student pilot you are following a rote procedure and lack the experience to make decisions when things like this happen.

[@truegret7778]

My interpretation of "you are behind me" meant that it was too late for any plane on extended final to be or get in front of the 152 because he is on a short final now or about to be - and the message is "I am on final, next to land, and you land behind me".

[@kevinlim9598]

What I don’t understand is why the f the twin did straight in when there are other planes in the pattern. This is absolutely the twin’s fault.

[@lowik1973]

Equivalent to driving through a small town at 90 MPH. We can look at in many ways, but that is irresponsible.

[@christinecortese9973]

I’m not a pilot so my opinion is probably skewed but from everything I heard on the recordings the twin just plain old ran over the smaller plane. I’d like to be charitable but the guy was coming in way too fast.

[@jameschristian9232]

The C-340 was in Unstable Approach ,. Neither Flaps nor Landing Gear could be Deployed at this Speed for Landing as per. Radio Call ! Possible Intentions ,. Impress the passenger with a Military Stile Landing ,. Drag the Field at Speed pull up around lose speed get down and dirty then make a full stop landing ! Pilot's Depend on Pilot's doing what say on the Radio , It Is Life Or Death Otherwise with out a viable Tower to be that extra set of Eyes . This Guy was Hot Dogging and ended up Killing Everyone ! Your friend James

[@earthwindflier]

Many thanks for the insight, but I STILL have yet to hear from any addressing the fact that Watsonville being a non-towered airport, radio communication ISN'T even required by law as many of the aircraft that go into or out of them might NOT be radio equipped. Furthermore, it totally casts aside the old adage of "AVIATE, navigate, communicate" (in that order). Lastly, if this was a student pilot as has been suggested, how can we possibly expect him to learn AND make mistakes when there were so many decisions were made by the 340 pilot that so flagrantly punished the 152 pilot for a simple misjudgment based most likely on sheer lack of experience. The use of the radio should not be the "get out of jail free card" for poor airmanship and decision making. It is easy for us here to say the 152 should extended his downwind, jumped to the upwind, etc., etc., etc. Blue Skies to all involved, and the sincerest of condolences to their families.

[@nocotton]

My first solo, many years ago, involved a head-on conflict on base leg (I was correct, and the ag plane was technically wrong). Could have ended badly, but the ag truck pulled away at the last possible second. Glad to be here.

[@RealGoldRealWealth]

@@nocotton Glad you ARE here! We need all the "not so bold pilots" to become "old pilots"!!

[@Elevendyeleven]

Those last words are incredibly sad to listen to. I live a couple miles away from here. Im not surprised theres no tower here. The leadership here thinks its not their responsibility to address such issues as a lot of traffic at their tiny airport surrounded by homes.

[@tomedgar4375]

I disagree, we can dissect rules all day long but at the end of the day we have dead pilots because one pilot did not manage his descent/approach speed and gave total disregard to slower aircraft already in the pattern.

[@pulpmysteryfan]

@@alpenglow1235 As far as right-of-way, I read 91.113 (g). Does that rule apply to a plane on a 10 mile final, and you're on base? How about 5 miles? Or 3, which is the case here. The rule doesn't address the "long final" scenario. If I were on a normal base leg and someone called a 5 mile final I'd feel comfortable and justified in turning final. I can see someone feeling the same way when the other place calls a 3 mile final (although I'd certainly feel nervous about it). I'm guessing the 152 pilot turned base assuming he had plenty of time to land without conflict with the twin, and he was about to turn final when the "3 mile" call was made, which made things awkward. And as soon as he saw the twin rapidly approaching, he made a call, and announced his intension. All in all, I think the 152 pilot acted more reasonably than the twin pilot. Also, I'm not familiar with the speed limit you're citing. I can't imagine anyone flying in the pattern at 250 knots.

[@alpenglow1235]

@@pulpmysteryfan, 91.113(g) is a clearly worded and absolute statement. An aircraft on final is, with some exceptions, low, slow, and dirty. The rule is designed to protect aircraft operating in a vulnerable phase of flight. As far as long final goes: if you are considering turning final in front of an aircraft already established on final, the burden is upon you to determine the prudence of this act. A B-737 might use a 140 knot final approach speed. That’s about 2.3 mile/minute. How many miles/minute does a 152 travel at final approach speed? How fast can a 152 get out of the way of a B-737? As far as distance, and long final go: If you turn final in front of someone, and they go-around, would this be empirical evidence that you took the RoW from them? Speed limit: There isn’t a speed limit for Class E. And, there is no designated speed limit for traffic patterns. So, the only applicable speed limit is for aircraft below 10,000 msl: 250 kias. Of course, what we don’t know about the Cessna 340 is why it going fast. Was the pilot distracted? Perhaps there was a landing gear malfunction. Or, maybe the pilot or passenger was having a medical issue.

[@U20E27]

Strait in approach with the hills as a back drop make spotting the twin from base pretty difficult add that the twin was no where close to a stabilized approach speed makes seeing the twin near impossible. Not to mention the speed would also alter where the 152 pilot would typically expect to see the twin vs where it actually was. Last of all this accident and the recent Vegas accident were both elder 70+ yr old pilots who were carrying high speeds into a busy pattern both taking an abnormal non standard runway approach. I do think FAA needs to get more serious about elder pilots, and given the air traffic today vs 45yrs ago pattern approach procedures need to be clarified and enforced by the Pilot community. As a kid we had a regular who was well known for dropping in on established traffic barging his way to the runway. My flight instructor was well aware of him and we actually used him as a training subject given if he was out we could expect his aggressive pattern barging when he returned. I was flying out of this air strip since I was 12 as co pilot in a veri eze I built with my WWII pilot family member. By the time I soloed officially at 17yrs I had had many pattern incursion experiences with this pilot. His license was finally yanked after years of known basically abuse at the airport. It was the flight instructors filing reports along with other pilots including my 44,000 hour WWII pilot family member filing first hand reports on this guy that got him yanked from being a air hazard.

[@paulliebenberg3410]

Kind of interesting the witness comment that flaps and gear were up on the twin Cessna; I'm wondering if the guy was going to do a "zoomie" down the runway to impress somebody waiting on the ground followed by a return to landing. Or to impress his passenger.

[@alpenglow1235]

Perhaps the gear would not go down. Perhaps what had been just another routine flight had suddenly become a non-routine auxiliary landing gear extension procedure. Could the pilot have been busy? What we do know is dead men can’t argue wi the Flight Instructor Of The Year!

[@1shoedog1]

Why does anyone think the C340 pilot intended to land at 174 knots (200 mph - Nascar speeds)? Sounds to me like the 340 could not land safely even if he announced he was intending to do so. From what I've read he didn't even have his landing gear down.

[@pulpmysteryfan]

I don't think he could have landed. There was no way to git rid of that much speed and get set up for a normal stabilized approach. Maybe he was planning on doing a low pass along the runway. Did he have friends on the ground?

[@trickedouttech321]

There might be a fault on both but it falls on the 340, had no business straight in with traffic in the pattern.

[@hekterr6677]

100% agree Watsonville should have a tower..

[@Senor0Droolcup]

I'm a Watsonville pilot. The Cessna 152 pilot was very new. He was probably very surprised to have another aircraft making a straight-in approach while there were already 2 aircraft in the pattern and a 3rd about to join. Is it really that hard for the 340 to just get in the pattern like everyone else?

[@proudbirther1998]

The 340 pilot was 75. Im not sure how much experience he had in aviation. I don't know if he was ex military or had a career with the Majors. I made a joke that i don't think this guy EVER flew 45's to join a pattern. I see it at my work, some old judges drive the the wrong way on a one way street for a short distance to get to the main road. They don't want to be bothered taking a 3 min detour. Also for him to be doing 180 on short final makes me think "he was having a 'commander in chief moment"

[@Zuckerpuppekopf]

One would think on a straight in approach, even if it's fast, the PIC would have amazing visibility of the base end of the pattern and hence would be able to easily pick out people coming in on base or final on the pattern, and since they themselves are on a straight in approach, just as easily pull up for a go around prior to any entanglement. Since the twin never acknowledged pattern traffic until 1 mile from the strip, that means he had about 20 seconds to correct at his speed, which is actually quite sufficient time for a normally alert pilot. The twin pilot correctly identified his distances to the airport, so it's hard to believe he also didn't notice his approach speed was twice what it should have been. The twin pilot's judgment seems fishy to me, and the 152 pilot seems much more correct in his interactions.

[@cmmguy99]

Airplanes easily get lost in the clutter of the ground. I can be following an airplane in the pattern and then lose it in the clutter, then it takes a second or two to reacquire. With the 340 moving so far out it would be easy to believe that it was no factor and then to hear him call 1 mile would be shocking.

[@alpenglow1235]

91.113(g) gives right-of-way to the aircraft ON FINAL APPROACH. Also, the speed limit in this airspace is 250 knots. The actual situation inside the cockpit of the twin is unknown, yet many KZbin pundits are jumping at this opportunity to make some bucks with speculative commentary. No one knows if there was mechanical distraction? Or, a landing gear malfunction? But, it is undeniable that dead men don’t argue with Flight Instructor Of The Year.

[@Zuckerpuppekopf]

@@alpenglow1235 As the radio calls and flight paths suggest, both planes were on final, since the twin was "behind [the 152 pilot]". And there is clear ambiguity in the law since it's a bit absurd to be able to claim being on final miles out from the airport, or whenever you want to claim it out of pattern.

[@alpenglow1235]

@@Zuckerpuppekopf, Read 91.113(g). There is no ambiguity in the rule.

[@alpenglow1235]

@@Zuckerpuppekopf, The twin called 3 mile final as the 152 was midfield downwind. As 91.113(g) states, the twin was ahead of the 152 by default.

[@jamesbranch2078]

It's chilling to think that these are the final words someone has spoken.

[@mw6563]

Excellent information and detail. Fundamentally the 152 in the pattern was performing predictably, normally and safely. The 340 driver was not and clearly got way behind his plane (190kts, gear speed), distance call outs and situational awerness (tally-ho on L base traffic). The 152 driver had no way of knowing or anticipating the unusually high approach speed and true distance of the 340 but did try to break off in his last transmission. Could the 152 have extended his downwind until spotting the straight in? Sure. Should he have? Sure. But thats 20/20 hindsight. Very sad.

[@danielmierop662]

Can a c-340 be landed without damage at that speed? And at that runway, simulator or for real?

[@apivovarov2]

Small airplanes pilots still need to visually see each other to avoid collisions. For instance, technologically less advanced sailboats use AIS to see other boats and report their own location. Nowadays the devices are quite affordable. AIS transmitter is going to be required for racers in SF bay. How come small airplanes still not required to have VHF/GPS based system to exchange 3D position data with other airplanes.

[@davedoe6445]

It's worse, the FAA now mandates tracking for 2 lb drones, yet you can still fly your radio-free Cub wherever you like. GA has no idea how much they are going to be crushed by political demand for drone airspace.

[@Daetalus67]

I think the Cessna twin pilot, almost sounds tired or impaired in some way. I mean he made the calls and did not speak slow, but there were some "um's" and he just sounded robotic. Wonder how long his flight had been? Tired maybe? Or as mentioned in this video, many accidents are linked to the use of over the counter drugs that can cause drowsiness. Perhaps something of that nature. But to me, this seems more the fault of the Cessna twin, what with coming barreling in like he did without trying to really locate the Cessna in the pattern. He could have stayed high and overflown the runway then entered the pattern if there was any doubt as to where the Cessna single was. I mean come on dude, two people lose their lives so you can put it down 5 minutes sooner? Really?

[@OrhanBaser1]

Great analysis Max; thank you. It is very sad that the accident happened.

[@dactel2]

The blatant disregard of SOP by the C340 seems to be the chief cause of this accident. When one strays off from the SOP, he no longer is on the same page with other pilots….

[@alpenglow1235]

Did Benny Hill write your S.O.P.? 91.113(g) gives right-of-way to the aircraft ON FINAL APPROACH. Also, the speed limit in this airspace is 250 knots. The actual situation inside the cockpit of the twin is unknown, yet many KZbin pundits are jumping at this opportunity to make some bucks with speculative commentary. No one knows if there was mechanical distraction? Or, a landing gear malfunction? But, it is undeniable that a dead man can’t argue with Flight Instructor Of The Year.

[@Anonymous99997]

I am wondering whether there was a malfunctioning pitot tube on the twin that was telling the pilot that he was going slower than he was.

[@cmmguy99]

Unlikely. He knew how far he was from the airport and apparently never dropped his gear or flaps. A GPS would have given him ground speed.

[@U20E27]

Coastal CA many of our uncontrolled airports have hills as a backdrop to the final approach. Fast, small aircraft are difficult to spot especially if your really moving!! Even 120-130knots at many of these smaller airports is considered fast and can make it exponentially more difficult to spot a plane on a straight in with hill terrain rising up behind the flight path. When we flew these airports 40yrs ago in the Veri eze 180cruise, 120pattern, 90 wheels on the ground that plane was basically invisible!!’ We had really communicate our location to fellow traffic given 90% of the time they just couldn’t spot us… Not to mention 120 is twice what I was doing when I was in the 152 around the airport. The veri eze wasn’t good at responding to power below 120 thanks to the fixed high pitch prop and 100hp. You could fire wall it at 90 and take a nap before you saw any valuable speed uptick which made your commitment to landing or going around very different than typical aircraft.

[@cmmguy99]

Learned to fly in Huntington Beach in the late 80's. Many saturdays we had 5 planes in the pattern and a very popular fly-in restaurant so it was a busy place. I dont recall there every being a midair. No one flew straightins and if you did, you got a lot of crap after you landed.

[@saabpoppa]

Unfortunately, pilots flying twins and performance singles are prone to landing straight in, correlating speed with priority. The AIM exists to make entries into the pattern more predictable and therefore safer. Straight-in approaches are not part of acceptable procedure. I was coming into KMAN in 2019 and heard a King Air coming straight in, I made my turn to final and suggested they enter the pattern the right way; they came in on the 45 to downwind and everything went well. In the FBO, I found that the King Air was piloted by TWO DPEs! I was a DPE at the time, so I was really disappointed to witness two rule enforcers like me wantonly violate safety rules. If an applicant elected to perform a straight-in approach on a checkride I would not pass them, and I suspect the two DPEs would have said the same thing.

[@davedoe6445]

It seems to me that with ADS-B that kind of behavior could be policed automatically. Even if the FAA does not police it, someone could look into finding consistent "straight-in" folks at uncontrolled fields and post a "wall of shame"

[@saabpoppa]

@@davedoe6445 Yes, but as you know, the AIM is not statutory but only advisory - and that's the excuse the straight-in crowd quotes. Similar behavior at KFDK resulted in it becoming a towered airport. A few years later an SR-22 collided with a helicopter and two people were killed. Speaking for myself, the closest I've ever come to another aircraft in flight is at my home (towered) airport KHEF. Don't know what the solution is, honestly.

[@davedoe6445]

@@saabpoppa I would argue 91.113g forbids straight-in approaches when there are other lower aircraft in the pattern. Admittedly the “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.” phrase is confusing. I interpret it to mean that you can’t dive under the pattern and claim priority, but the straight-in crowd use that phrase to justify calling “10 mile finals” from 8000 feet. Nevertheless, nothing would prevent pilots from reporting each other to some third party “reputation app”. Everyone makes mistakes; but it seems many times these midairs occur when there is at least one party who has a history of making poor choices known to at least some other pilots. Admittedly there is a “moral hazard” aspect to the reputation tracker idea if when a bad pilot comes within 10 miles of an airport everyone’s ipad rings alarms and they scramble to get away from him as fast as possible. That problem exists today - many experts are quick to emphasize defensive flying - but the result is that it rewards bad behavior! “yeah all the little guys SHOULD make way for me!” If there is no punishment for poor flying AND it gets you what you want then I predict you will see more poor flying.

[@JoshPiland]

I always appreciate your thoughts Max. I’m curious how ADS-B informed or did not inform the situational awareness of the pilots? IF either or both planes had an MFD with visible data points of their positions? Isn’t ADS-B supposed to help us avoid collisions? All the best!

[@davedoe6445]

Obviously a tracking system like ADS-B (but better) needs to be mandated for all of GA.

[@namibgtv6]

NO reason to bomb into a pattern at 180 KTS in any aircraft, let alone a light twin. Big jets approach at typically 140-150 KTS, yet this special kind of clown had to enter a pattern at that speed, and kill himself and others. Also, 2 of these occurring in the span of about a month, almost identical, both inside the pattern, close to the threshold… What the hell are you guys doing over there in the land of the GREAT????

[@jeremyhill2243]

I agree I have no idea why there is a tower at Salinas I’m also in agreement that it should be moved to Watsonville that place is crazy!

[@publicmail2]

Could be the twin pilot had to use the restroom very bad, or had some other issue that he needed to get on the ground quickly.

[@FishyHandle]

Oh he got down really quickly alright. In fact now he won’t have to deal with any issues he was having anymore. I feel sorry for the young pilot mostly.

[@jamesmorris913]

Exactly. I don't give a damn, how smart, or rich (and, obviously; you have to be rich to own a Cessna 340) anybody is..no 75 year old(the age of the 340 pilot) has ANY DAMN BUSINESS being at the controls of such a complex piece of machinery. Period, FULL STOP.

[@jamesmorris913]

Having said that..I could not be sorrier, for what the loved-ones of all 3 of these people must be going through, right now; in the aftermath of this sudden, devastating loss.

[@hekterr6677]

Turns out the gear wasn’t down or the flaps…pilot was distracted ? Pilot only earned his private PL AT age 70…5 years flying experience as a PPL…I would like to know who the DPE Was that tuned the senior citizen loose in a 340…If the 340 pilot was in a more manageable for a rookie senior 182, 3 people would still be alive..

[@sambiscits6711]

I am not a pilot, but I was wondering if this could be some sort of air rage?

[@georgelingle2051]

Outstanding KZbin podcast. I know that you are a busy, busy man, but I think it would be great if you could be on video for your entire podcasts. 😀😀😀

[@AviationNewsTalk]

Thanks for your kind words.

[@ForTheLoveOfRightRudder]

The better choice for the 152 clearly should have been returning to the downwind but this is 100% the twins fault.

[@cmmguy99]

That is impossible once you are on base. He had another plane behind him in the pattern. The best he could do would be to fly upwind with a side step. But even that I would be worried what the twin might do in response.

[@ForTheLoveOfRightRudder]

Well that's true at the decision point you are referring to, but he really should have reevaluated when he made his decision to turn base, at that point that twin was already too close. So at that point he could have turned back to downwind. Obviously after he's on final, his options are limited to side stepping to upwind or doing a high missed approach. The former would maybe have been better. Who knows, it's all Monday morning quarterbacking at this point. This whole thing should have been avoided by the twin. My point is, he put himself in harm's way in a slow 152 and a twin barreling down the pipe on a straight in with no regard to existing planes in the pattern.

[@cmmguy99]

@@ForTheLoveOfRightRudder How far out was the 340 when the 152 turned base? Was there a 5 mile call, a 3 mile call? the 340 was going so fast that it would be very easy to judge you had plenty of time.

[@ForTheLoveOfRightRudder]

I'm not quite sure what your point is sorry. First it's 100% not impossible to turn back downwind after turning base in a 150, but in not defending the twin....it's 100% his fault. Are you not actually reading what I wrote?

[@cmmguy99]

@@ForTheLoveOfRightRudder My point is that it was easy to think you didnt have a spacing problem if the 340 was traveling at a normal approach speed. It wasnt until he caught the visual of the 340 did he realize that he was in danger. Explain how you would safely leave Base? There is a 172 that just turned downwind from crosswind blocking a left turn and there is traffic inbound blocking a right turn. Without visual on any of them, it would feel unsafe to make either turnbacks to downwind. If he had known how fast the 340 was going, then obviously extending the downwind would have been the safest or do a right turn out of the pattern and reenter on the 45. Thanks for your reply. I wasnt trying to be obtuse or imply you thought the 152 was at fault.

[@billymania11]

My money is on the twin pilot suffering a drug interaction or having some sort of medical condition. For example and in my case, I take 3 different drugs for my blood pressure and on occasion (once or twice a month), my mental faculties can be affected quite a bit. It primarily affects my concentration and awareness. The episode can last 1 to two hours and is not predictable. In any event, RIP to all involved.

[@gregeastwood5761]

100% twin driver. Terrible flying…

[@alpenglow1235]

91.113(g) gives the aircraft on final approach the right-of-way. And, the twin was below the speed limit of 250 knots. Although there are numerous uninvestigated causal factors, one thing is certain: A dead man can’t argue with Flight Instructor Of The Year.

[@danno2646]

91.113(g) gives the aircraft on final approach the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight, (i.e. those that are not landing). 91.113(g) then goes on to clarify that when two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, (such as one airplane that is established in the traffic pattern and another that is on an extended straight-in approach to the same airport), the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way. The C-152 was clearly at the lower altitude. And although the twin was below the speed limit, barrelling straight-in to a busy traffic pattern at twice the typical approach speed, while making no effort to avoid other traffic, is clearly a case of operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another, (i.e. 91.13). Just my own thoughts as an aviation attorney.

[@lzgbe.1961]

Great explanation but please take one step closer to the mic on your next video. Your soft voice does not carry very well even with my volume cranked up.

[@AviationNewsTalk]

Thank you for the feedback, I'll keep that in mind in the future.

[@dactel2]

AC90-66B

[@Philc231]

Your audio is very low .

[@alpenglow1235]

“…pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times for aircraft executing straight-in approaches.” AIM 4-3-3 AC 90-66B 9.5

[@hesingshesobs]

Icarus. Icarus.

[@cmmguy99]

I am not giving the 340 a pass as I think he holds 100% of the blame, but...... How would this have been better? Lets say that speed is always part of the equation. What if, as a change to verbage, a pilot on a straight-in reported his TIME to final instead of distance to final? What if the 340 had reported the amount of time to touchdown at each call instead of distance. Distance means nothing to a pilot that doesnt know the speed of a given aircraft but if a pilot heard "1 minute final" instead of 3 mile final, would that help the other pilots know better how to judge where the aircraft on final is relative to them? BTW, to a VFR pilot, if you are flying IFR in VFR conditions, reporting that you are on "RNAV 5 to RWY 20" is meaningless. DONT use IFR nomenclature for position reporting, it is useless information.

[@toddw6716]

This is due to training of IFR pilots. In training they are always making straight ins instead of joining the pattern. When IFR pilots shoot an approach and it’s vfr they need to join the pattern. If he had the speed would have been lost. This is the root of the problem, nothing else! Your part of the problem because your continuing the narrative of this fool and his perception that he is number one! So your opinion is not correct and thus you sir are part of the problem.

[@davedoe6445]

Indeed this commentary raises some curiosity in my mind on the approach habits of Mr. Trescott himself.

[@gmcjetpilot]

Let me save you all 13 minutes a Twin doing a straight in at high speed hit a Cessna in pattern turning base to final. The Cessna saw the twin and aborted the landing. We are talking twin (low wing) and Cessna (high wing). Juan Brown did a great analysis as usual with audio and charts (even from his hotel room in UK). Non towered airports are a risk. I'm not against straight in (do it all the time on instrument approaches) but you have to use radio, eyes (and ADS-B but not overly rely on it). If in doubt or airplanes are in the pattern, abort straight in approach and enter downwind from 45. Twin was COOKING and going way to fast, over took the Cessna as if doing a high speed pass not landing. The Cessna had the right of way and did see the Twin and was making good radio calls. He misjudged the overtake (and understandably as the twin was going way over approach speed) and did not take evasive maneuvers in the vertical, like dive. In Pvt pilot training there is NO training on how to take evasive manuvers to avoid a MID AIR. Do you Climb? Dive? Turn? Turn Harder? With TCAS in the airliners I fly all evasive manuvers are in the vertical, increasing or decreasing climb or decent. If he would have pushed the Cessna down (yes even negative G which most Pvt pilots would NOT do instinctively) he might have saved his life.

[@Hedgeflexlfz]

Highly unlikely they were impaired by drugs.

[@AviationNewsTalk]

I disagree. An NTSB study says that 40% of pilots in recent fatal accidents tested positive for OTC, prescription, or illicit drugs. With two pilots involved, there's a greater than 50% chance they were involved.

[@Hedgeflexlfz]

Can you link me that study? Thank you.

[@Hedgeflexlfz]

@@AviationNewsTalk 40% of pilots testing positive for over the counter medications or prescribed medication is a LOT different than testing positive for illegal narcotics

[@AviationNewsTalk]

@@Hedgeflexlfz If you Google "NTSB/SS-14/01" you'll find it. I don't think KZbin let's us post links in the Comments. But if they do, it's: www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1401.pdf

[@AviationNewsTalk]

You said it was unlikely they were impaired by drugs. OTC and prescriptions medicines are drugs. If your point was that it's unlike they were impaired by "illegal" drugs, then I agree. But it's not just illegal drugs that lead to plane crashes; other drugs do too. My point is that statistically, there's a better than 50% chance that one of these three drug types will be found in at least one of the pilots (since there were two pilots).

[@proudbirther1998]

Carl Kruppa, Nannette Plett-Kruppa were in the twin-engine Cessna 340. He was 75 yrs old. His wife was 67. The other guy in the 152 Stuart Camenson, 32. I doubt the old guy ever flew a 45 into the pattern. He sure wasn't going to start now. I wonder if his wife was yelling at him to SLOW DOWN, YOU FORGOT THE GEAR, AND I STILL DON'T SEE THE GUY ON BASE. 180 on short final this guy was having a BIDEN MOMENT for sure

[@glendavis1266]

Keep politics out. Who cares what you think as it’s tainted!

[@glendavis1266]

Stupid comment!

[@alpenglow1235]

“…pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times for aircraft executing straight-in approaches.” AIM 4-3-3

[@raoulcruz4404]

What’s your point? The Cessna 152 pilot was aware of the twin Cessna. 152 pilot made a radio call saying he spotted the twin. Later made a radio call that acknowledged the twin engine aircraft was behind him. The only person not aware was the pilot making the straight in approach.