The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Air Safety Institute (ASI) has released a new video in its Early Analysis series providing an initial examination of fatal midair collision at Watsonville Municipal Airport (KWVI) in California.
On Aug. 18, 2022, a twin-engine Cessna 340A with two persons on board and a single-engine Cessna 152 with one person on board collided on final approach at KWVI. All three occupants were killed in the tragic collision.
According to the early analysis by ASI Senior Vice President, Richard McSpadden, the weather was VFR, clear, with 10 miles visibility.
The Cessna 152 had been doing traffic pattern work and was on a left base for Runway 20 turning final. The twin Cessna was on a straight-in approach for Runway 20.
ADS-B tracking data appears to indicate that the twin’s airspeed was high during descent and final approach to Runway 20.
According to ATC recordings, about 10 seconds after the twin Cessna pilot announced on the common traffic advisory that he was three miles out, the Cessna 152 pilot announced being on a left base for Runway 20. The twin pilot then called a one mile final and that he was looking for the traffic on left base. The Cessna 152 pilot immediately responded that he saw the twin behind him — seconds later he said he was going around because the twin was closing in fast. That was the last transmission from either aircraft.
Following the collision, the Cessna 152 crashed in a grassy area near the runway, bursting into flames. The Cessna 340 crashed on the runway, veered off, and crashed into a hangar.
The new video makes a preliminary assessment of the accident, addressing notable portions of the tragic flights, and highlighting areas the NTSB will likely investigate to determine a probable cause, AOPA officials said.
“This accident appears to be a midair collision as a result of a faster airplane overtaking a slower airplane on final approach,” McSpadden said.
He added that while both pilots saw each other, neither acted quickly enough to avoid the collision.
You can see the video here. You can see all videos in the Early Analysis series here.
The twin pilot was 76 years old, maybe his depends we’re at full capacity, who knows.
If you operate out of an uncontrolled airport you have to expect the unexpected. Making a straight in is asking for trouble, ( I think that falls under situation awareness). non radio equipped planes have a hard time giving position reports. Pilots say they love to fly, then slow down and enjoy the trip.
Many heartfelt responses. Lots of anger directed toward the twin pilot. Much to speculate about.
I like Tom Curran’s reply best.
The person flying the twin engine airplane was at fault completely !! As a result he killed the two people in the c-152. No one, not even a commercial type lands an aircraft on a runway at 180-knots !!!! The only people that land at that speed are complete idiots !!! (With the exception of some commercial airliners) Why he attempted to do this is beyond any one’s imagination…The person flying the twin caused four people to lose their lives, that is a very big tragedy… The only explanation for this is, he was a total idiot !!! Otherwise, no explanation !!!
Twin called 3 mile final when he was 5 miles out. Called 1 mile final when he was 2.5 miles out. Straight in, 180 kts, never in a position to land. Cessna pilot probably never visually saw the twin since it was 2 miles above above and behind when the Cessna turned final. I totally agree with the Alpha Hotel comment. I’m sure the jury will agree.
At a towered airport, “Cessna 421 (entering the pattern on downwind) follow the Cessna 172 on a one mile final.”
“But tower, we’re a lot faster.”
Again “Cessna 421 follow the Cessna 172 on a 3/4 mile final.” But tower, we’re a lot faster airplane.”
Tower “then make it a slow airplane!” A different voice “roger, we’ll follow the Skyhawk.”
BOTH pilots here had an opportunity to avoid this tragedy. They are both at fault in some way, but I place more blame on the twin pilot for his excess speed and failure to yield on the straight-in approach. I do a lot of straight-ins, but if someone is in the pattern I am always ready and willing to break it off and join the pattern if there is even a hint of conflict.
in reading comments like this my mind realizes the utter folly of good natured people. and it makes me recognize the mendacity of so many of the darker persuasion.
the alpha hotel ( starts with the first letter, has ss and ole to finish ) in the twin had no intention to land. he came in hot and low and intended to whip past some low time pilot in the pattern.
ALPHA HOTEL
Here is another observation. The 152 is a high wing and on his base leg he may have been looking visually for the twin to his right, but unable to see him coming up so closely above because of the 152 wing. Also the twin being a low wing and coming up so quickly on the 152 would not have seen him beneath. The 152 pilot mentions he saw the twin behind him, but that must have been on his ADS-B. So tragic.
The 152 turned base after the twin called 3 miles. The lower altitude right away does not allow cutting in front or overtaking an aircraft on final. Quit trying to blame it on the twin’s speed. The 152 should have exited to the right instead of a go around remaining in front of the traffic.
Distance relative to what’s on final is undefined as the distances for the pattern.
Regardless of who has right of way the under these circumstances and profile the 152 should have extended his down wind and or exited the traffic pattern down wind and come back again at the 45 to re-enter the traffic pattern.
How do you know in your head what that other guy given in this scenario on final is really doing and going to wind up doing ?
Should we wait and “hope” the other guy will yield to you?
No thanks.
Much rather to attempt to minimize the given risk profile and let the other guy have his way whether I like it or not and just try to live to fly another day.
Maybe that’s why I get to share this today perhaps as more than once in the past I’ve been in the pattern and having done just that.
Think I’ll wait for the NTSB…as long and painful a process that it is.
I disagree with Jim and Des. The 152 pilot had no idea that the C340 was screaming in at such a high rate of speed. He thought he had plenty of spacing, as well as priority since he was on base leg, and lower and slower. The 340 pilot was at fault for exceeding a normal traffic pattern speed, and not entering the pattern in accordance with AC 90-66B when there was another plane in the pattern. He apparently was an egotistical jerk who thought that since he was flying a twin he had priority over everyone else and could do as he pleased. In any case he was way too fast to land out of that approach, and common sense would have dictated he fly an up-wind leg at pattern altitude past the airport for a cross-wind entry to downwind. Very tragic that these kind of pilots not only add to the bad image we have with the non-aviation public, but take innocent lives with them when they do these stupid pilot tricks.
Another thought occurs. Did the C340 pilot have an ADSB-IN display? Was he even looking for any other traffic in front of him? Apparently not.
“Another thought occurs. Did the C340 pilot have an ADSB-IN display? Was he even looking for any other traffic in front of him? Apparently not.”
ADSB-In on the twin would not necesarily show anything if the single did not have ADSB-Out. Also, one or both aircraft could have been too low for ADS-B reception. The eyes have it.
This is tragic . The FAA should a a better job of clarifying who was in the right of way . Because 91.113 g says the landing or final approach has the right of way which the twin engine was on altho he was not on a stabilized approach .plus . the 152 didn’t announce he was on final …
Nonsense. The traffic pattern rules are clear, the aircraft in the pattern has ROW. The twin Cessna was never “in the pattern” since he was trying to land out of a straight in approach. I see this pretty often and if theres something the FAA should do it’s to educate these hot shot twin pilots to FLY A TRAFFIC PATTERN!
Fault is now irrelevant, as all occupants are dead.
However: It appears that either the 340 pilot was a hot-shot jet-jockey, or blissfully unaware that his speed was double what it should have been. The Cessna 152 pilot did make several calls in the pattern, advising all the way. I do not think the C-152 pilot realised the speed of the twin until it was way too late to correct. The 340 pilot clearly saw the traffic, but did nothing about it. I cannot fathom what he was going to do about the traffic, assuming that the 152 had just landed.
It appears to me to be a get the hell out of my way situation, and the 152 never imagined that somebody would be so dumb as to approach at breakneck speed, then snap the throttles to close for a show-ff landing, I’ve seen guys in twins do this to demonstrate how quickly speed is reduced, but those guys have done so with no one in the pattern – certainly not with someone in the critical landing phase. Not that it makes it right.
This situation is like driving 70 miles an hour in traffic just to get to a red light.
The 152 was already on base, about to turn final, when the 340 called a three mile, straight in final. Far too late for the 152 to “extend downwind.” And the 152 began to go around when he realize the 340 was getting too close.
This is all on the 340, who was hot rodding it and failed to yield to traffic in the pattern while he was doing a straight in.
In this case, I’d fault both pilots. They both saw each other, and communicated that they did, but neither took appropriate action to ‘ See and Avoid’.
– The Cessna should have extended his downwind.
– The C340 pilot should have reduced his speed to a more reasonable 90-95 kts,, NOT 180 kts, on short final. This is way higher than the flap and gear speeds.
There was no way the C340 could land and stop on the 4,500 ft runway, doing 180 kts !
Agree big time re cessna pilot useing a bit of common sense could have easily extended the downwind to be number 2 for landing and they would all have lived happily ever after.
Yes. I don’t turn in front of twins or jets anywhere in the pattern. Besides the obvious differences in ground speed, it is pretty easy to incorrectly estimate and report distances and closure rates. Follow the rules of course, but also fly defensively and don’t put yourself in a hazardous position.
Desmond, READ the article. The Cessna was NOT ON DOWNWIND! He was on base turning final. How’s he suppose to extend downwind when he’s already well established on base? The hot shot twin should have flown a pattern but if he’s doing a straight in, he was suppose to yield to planes in the pattern.
Amen, YIELD to traffic in the pattern. Straight in anywhere is not IN the pattern.