Early Analysis: Midair Collision August 18, 2022 Watsonville, CA 

UPDATE: The National Transportation Safety Board has released its preliminary report (WPR22FA309) regarding the investigation into the mid-air between a Cessna 340A (N740WJ) and a Cessna 152 (N49931) at Monterey Bay, CA. data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/105763/pdf

Everyone saying the 152 did wrong…he had the right of way, he made his calls, had other insight and called again and he attempted a maneuver to avoid.. the twin just yolos in hot with no regard.

The thing that really kind of hit me the hardest was when the 340 pilot called 1 mile final, and announced he was looking for the left base traffic. He clearly did not have visual on the 152 on left base and yet continued to descend rather than iniating a go around - knowing full well that the plane he could not see below his low-winged aircraft had most likely turned final in front of him at a lower altitude (gee, I wonder why he can't see the 152?!?). The judgement of the "more experienced" 340 pilot gave no consideration to the fact that he knew he was coming in hot to an uncontrolled airfield with student pilots practicing pattern traffic. Just a sad tragedy that was totally avoidable.

The 152 pilot, even knowing the 340 was coming straight in, could not have expected the extreme high speed which completely changed normal expectation of separation.

I was nearly mowed down once in an almost identical incident. I was a solo student flying full stop take offs and landings in a left-hand traffic pattern, and this fella did a straight in approach at this uncontrolled airport. While I was making calls on the radio, he was not. He saw me turning base to final -- I never saw him at all as he was in the area blocked by the wing of the 150 I was flying. Even though he could see me, and he knew my intentions, he continued his approach and we only missed one another by about 30 feet. He appeared in my windscreen, almost directly overhead. I continued my approach and landed safely. He climbed out and went around. After he landed, he told the airport management that I cut him off. When they asked him why he wasn't using the radio (it was a plane he had rented from the same FBO) he said it wasn't working. The manager went out to inspect his aircraft and found his radio wasn't working because he didn't have the microphone plugged in. The guy had just gotten his license about a month before this incident at a different airport. Left hands were the standard at this airport. He should never have flown a straight in final, especially with traffic in the pattern. The management there knew me, as I had been training there for about a year. In the end he was told they would no longer rent him an aircraft. RIP to the souls lost in this crash.

I was there. I was ordering lunch at the restaurant just off the runway when this happened with my good friend who actually knows the pilot of 90FL. We had just landed about 10 minutes earlier, and were on the CTAF with the 152. It was pretty crazy and horrifying seeing it happen, especially right after talking to the victim of it. I looked over after someone exclaimed, so all I saw was debris falling down and the twin cessna going wayyy too fast, with its gear and flaps up. (According to someone there, flightaware clocked them at about 190 knots at the time of the collision) I even thought it was going to go around and recover until I heard an explosion and saw a massive cloud of smoke coming up over the hangers between the restaurant and the twin Cessna’s final resting place. After confirming what I saw with other people there, I thought at first that the twin cessna was just trying to show off by doing a low pass and didn’t take proper precautions. Listening to this now makes we wonder why the hell, if he DID intend to land (or at least stated so) he was carrying so much speed and had his gear up?? Based on the facts I’ve been given and the observations made by, and told to me, no matter how you look at it, it’s the fault of the twin Cessna’s pilot. At the very best, he decided not to overfly the field to look for traffic, instead deciding to come straight in to a pattern with at least 2 other planes, while going a hell of a lot faster than both of them. Not to mention probably going well in excess of even his gear speed. He was not technically breaking the law by doing so, but for those who don’t know, it’s a well known safety precaution/rule to fly above traffic pattern altitude over the field to get a sense of what’s going on before entering the pattern and coming in to land. To be honest, not that it’s even anywhere close to an excuse for any pilot to be this careless, but I really believe that if Watsonville had a tower, which many people already believed it should (considering an average of about 150 arrivals a day) that this would’ve been easily avoided. I hope they finally decide to get one after this; not that it should’ve taken 4 deaths to get that to happen. This guy killed himself, his passenger (who I assume is his wife, girlfriend, or some other family member), his pet dog, and a student pilot minding his own business in the pattern, all because he couldn’t bother to take the time to circle over the field, or to approach at a safe speed. Rest In Peace to all involved, mainly the innocent student pilot, passenger, and dog.

This one upset me, because I remember being a student pilot, doing the circuit, working the touch and goes, focusing on all the still conscious things I needed to think about as I practiced my landings. The pilot of the Cessna 152 made the proper calls, he was clearly identifying himself and when he made the decision to not just turn to base, but turn to final, I know at first he thought "I have time, because 3 miles out is enough time for me to land and go again. The 340 was closing at @ 160 kts. At 3 miles out if he was at a stabilized approach he would have taken slightly more than 2 mins to be on close final. In that time the C152 would have turned final at 70, slowed to 65 and would have been over the threshold with the 340 at 1 mile out. Me, as a student pilot would be aware, but thinking the other plane is slowing for final approach *and* aware I'm turning to final lower and ahead. At 160 kts, three miles was just 1 min to short final and with no indication of slowing, the difference in closing speed between the two planes was @ 100 kts with the C!52 in front. The C152 pilot even makes a call out basically saying you are too fast and the 340 never changes the approach until just before collision. In my past flying, unless the pattern at an uncontrolled was empty (and even then NORAD planes may be up) you flew over the airport above pattern altitude and entered a downwind. Had the 340 slowed to approach speeds, even of straight in, he would not have collided. Had the 340 realized there was pattern traffic he should have stopped the straight in and entered the pattern from a 45 or at least cross wind. I am sorry people died due to the arrogance and hubris of a pilot that felt he could not take even another 10/15 minutes to follow proper procedures or common courtesy.

IMHO, the 340 pilot flying is simply criminal. The best you can do when you fly like that, is to take only your own life away. But we all know that never happens. Rest in peace, 152 fellow.

Super bad decision by the twin to shoot a straight in approach into an uncontrolled field in my view. The fact that he was coming in at cruise-speeds is insane and to me, puts the fault squarely on the twin pilot's shoulders. The fact that the 152 didn't see him until it was too late due to the the closure rate of the twin - and couldn't get out of the way fast enough - doesn't put the blame on the 152. Sure we can all be extra vigilant and call off our standard in-pattern approach every time an entitled pilot decides he's the priority. Everyone else should of course abide his straight-in wishes because he's larger, faster, and thusly more important. I can't count the number of times I've entered a small rural uncontrolled airport - by the standard procedures - where there appeared to be no one in the pattern, only to find another plane in the pattern that wasn't announcing their turns (or had no radio and ADS-B out). They were easily identified once I was ready join in the pattern.

As a student pilot myself I totally understand this. When the pattern gets busy and there is entering traffic, without experience its hard to judge separation. I know I get very on-edge when I'm crosswind and someone calls xx miles out for the 45. I have no idea how much time until they are entering and where ill be on downwind when they do. If I'm not sure, I leave the pattern and re enter. Sometimes that's the right move. Other times I get laughed at because I could have done 2 more laps before they got there. But I know that uneasy feeling of hoping the other more experienced pilot is paying attention and has things under control. But this one is an example where that didn't pan out

I did a direct final with my CFI and I felt a bit like he was rushing to beat some traffic. I don’t feel comfortable with direct finals unless the pattern is empty but now I’ll be even more cautious to the desire to “beat traffic.” There’s just so little margin for error in flying. Thanks for these videos. As a student it really helps me learn what not to do and also how to fly more defensively.

How in the hell when the 340 actually touched down, did the pilot think it was going to take to stop his plane? at 175 knots! thats what 216 mph?!!! WTF!!

As a pilot and owner of a 340, I can say that if the ADSB speeds are correct, the 340 was WAY too fast. In fact, I don't see how he could LAND at those speeds on short final. Normal approach is 110-120 at 5 miles, then over the numbers at 80-85. Some have stated that the visibility from the cockpit might have been a factor, but you have excellent visibility when pointed to the numbers on short final. I gotta call the fault as the 340 causing this. He wasn't set up for the approach and landing, there was no way he was stable in the last 5 miles, and should have gone around. (note that I am calling this based on the current evidence presented).

“with neither pilot altering their course or taking evasive action...” The student was going around to give way (even though he did have right of way) to the twin because he saw what was about to happen.

The 340’s pilot communicated his intention as straight in, landing, full-stop. But that’s not what he did. First, if he had slowed down for a proper landing approach, his arrival time at runway 2-0 would have been up to a minute later. Giving ample time for the 152’s pilot to have executed whatever pattern he had planned. Second, when the 152’s pilot did see the 340 behind him, his assumption would have been that the 340 was coming in for a landing. In which case, the proper evasive maneuver would be to pull up and let the faster aircraft pass underneath. But the 340 was in no position to complete a landing (way too-fast, landing gear still up, flaps still up). So, it’s only option to evade the 152 was to pull up too. It appears they collided while trying to avoid each other. In both cases, the 152’s fatal decisions came as a direct result of the 340’s pilot having communicated one intention, ...then doing something else instead. Anyway, for what it’s worth, that's my two cents on the matter.

I love “Ill advised” when “reckless” is the blunt truth. 192 knots approach speed is unexplainable, unjustifiable, and irresponsible. Wondering if drugs were involved?

I don’t think we’re giving appropriate weight to the twin’s speed. To me, that excessive speed is the largest contributing factor to this accident. I’m a new pilot and even I know that if someone makes a straight in call at 10 miles, I should have about six and a half minutes before they arrive (assuming they’re doing 90 knots). That’s enough time for a complete pattern. If I’m in the downwind, I’m assuming I’ve got plenty of time. The twin was going twice that speed. So he went from 10 miles out to arriving in about three minutes explaining the convergence. Sure, the 152 could have realized that the twin is going much faster based on the time between the 10 mile and 3 mile call, but by then the 152 is configuring to land and focusing on his own final approach. GA is safest when we’re all doing what we expect each other to do. We’re all assuming that everyone else is flying in standards. The speed of the twin made the entire event unpredictable for the 152 pilot. To me, that’s at the crux of this accident. Thank you, as always, Mr. McSpadden for your analysis and constant commitment to aviation safety.

If the 340 pilot had followed standard uncontrolled field pattern protocol, this accident would not have happened. Period. No excuse for barreling into an active pattern at twice normal short final speed. Let's not assume there's shared responsibility here; there's not. This is 100% on the 340. I will go so far as to say his actions were reckless, without regard for the safety of his aircraft and the others in his vicinity. His flying totally contradicts his CTAF advisory, in that there's no way he could have executed a full-stop landing at that speed. His advisory mislead the 152 pilot, which I believe will be noted as a contributing factor in the accident. IMHO, it's time to crack down on straight-in VFR approaches into uncontrolled fields except for emergencies. We're seeing too many pilots flying unsafe FAR-violation maneuvers, like high-speed low altitude passes. Start putting teeth in the FARs.

The point of impact was inside 200 meters from the runway approach threshold. The 340 pilot was deviating from flying using the published pattern choosing instead a 10-mile dog-leg straight-in, steep descent approach in spite of multiple planes reporting being in the published pattern (see the full audio transcript). At 200 meters (very short final) from the threshold the 340 pilot was flying at 375' agl at a speed in excess of 180 kts (over 208 mph), well above the max gear extension speed limit and well above the max flap extension speed limit (160 kts if it was a newer 340), and about 90 kts (104mph) above normal approach speed. The 340 pilot stated his intent was a full-stop landing (see full audio transcript), which was clearly impossible given the altitude and speed at which he was flying his aircraft. The 340 pilot never included his speed in any of his calls. Conversely, the 152 student pilot was one of two planes flying using the published pattern. The 152 pilot was flying at appropriate altitude, flying at appropriate speed, and making all the appropriate calls. As a student pilot it is highly doubtful that he had ever encountered conflicting traffic approaching in a non-standard path flying at over 208 mph on a straight-in approach, let alone on short-final. I just do not understand why anyone would try and pin the blame on the 152 student-pilot given the 340 pilots actions leading up to the impact.

5:50 "when you see conflict developing take action early" Agree. As long as the burden of detecting conflict and taking action early is placed *on the experienced pilots* , not on the students. If the burden of safety is placed on the people with the least hours and experience... then we are FUBAR The best thing would have had the 340 join the pattern. Teach the 152 what best practices are, and what conflict avoidance means. But some people can't be bothered to do that. The next best thing: had the 340 asked (nicely, pretty please with sugar on top) for the 152 to extend the base leg, the student pilot would have yielded, learned something, earned some confidence and experience. A short "please" when calling direct approach, and a "thank you" after the landing would have made all the difference. Some people can't be bothered to say please and thank you. But nooooo... someone placed the burden of detection and action on the student with low hours, flying a lawnmower with feathers. Beacuse of "reasons"

Such a sad and avoidable incident.

The 152 pilot got his ticket about 2 years ago, so likely fairly low time. It seems doubtful that NTSB report will claim that the 340 had the final right of way per 91.113(g) given distance to an airport with an active traffic pattern. I think the 152 pilot started his downwind/base turn before he called his turn, thinking the 340 was last heard 10 miles out. Even at 3 miles out, if his downwind pattern was about 1/2 mile from the runway centerline, he'd be on final with the airplane setting up for straight in about 2 miles behind. There's so many things wrong with the 340; it's hard to look elsewhere for blame. Straight in instead of joining the pattern, 180 knots on final, not clearly identifying traffic in the pattern - who knows if he had flaps or gear extended? On the 152 side, I think he just didn't have enough experience to react correctly to the 340 driver's errors. If they assign some blame to the 152, it will likely be with the recognition that a more experienced pilot could have avoided the conflict because of experience.

I had a very similar incident, except the twin joined the pattern straight in on downwind. I was already on downwind when the twin called out his location. I told my instructor (who wasn't paying attention) that the twin called in the same location we were in. As my instructor grabbed the radio to have the twin repeat, the twin shot over us going roughly twice our speed and missing us by less than 100 feet. Ironically, downwind for this little airport was the road directly behind my house at the time. Had we collided we would have done so over my own house.

There is a solid reason that the FAA DPE will fail even a CFI check ride if they make a straight-in approach into a non-towered field. It's bad news. If a 45 entry wasn't possible due to terrain, the alternate listed in the aim would be in upwind entry into the crosswind and then into the downwind. Pilots are always doing these straight-in approaches into non-towered Fields not realizing how much danger they're courting for themselves and others. This accident was totally avoidable and the twin pilot was at fault. Sadly neither the 152 student solo pilot or the pilot and his passenger in the twin who decided to save a little time with a straight in will never see another sunset or sunrise. By the way an upwind is NOT a departure leg, look in the aim. So often pilots will call on departure leg that they're on the upwind - amateur hour. the upwind lies on the non pattern side of the airport in the opposite direction of the downwind. I'm surprised how many pilots don't even read their AIM.

ASI does such good work addressing safety concerns in aviation. The discussion about the Watsonville accident is a great conversation and thank you for making this content!

Forwarding this to my friend who just soloed in his 152. Thank you for pushing this out there so quickly.

I'm a private pilot who has landed at Watsonville many times, and I've never once been there when I'm the only airplane in the pattern, it is a very busy GA airport and that is no secret. So some clown flying a straight in approach twice as fast as he should have is completely blowing it, and he paid for it, idiot, plus he killed a dog, which hurts even more.

Something is definitely off with the 340. I won’t be surprised if we find out the twin wasn’t even configured to land. Which then raises the question as to what the pilot was even doing? Only time I ever approached any airport at cruise speeds was during an air show and having lots of communication with the traffic in the area and the air show staff. 160-180 knots down the runway for an air show pass is no joke!!!

ASI, one of the best aviation channels on YT. RIP to all who lost their lives.

It seems obvious that the 340 pilot's intentions were NOT to make a "straight-in, full stop". He was too fast to deploy flaps and gear and couldn't possibly make a landing. Perhaps he intended to do a "run and break" but he was never going to do what he claimed. The 152 pilot would have reasonably expected the 340 to be at approach speed because of the pilot's stated intentions. As others have stated, in the UK where I am, traffic in the circuit (pattern) has priority. On straight-in approach to an untowered field where I have landed, if there is someone in the pattern, I negotiate with the other pilot to ensure that I'm not causing him to deviate. I once had the other pilot (on downwind) offer to extend his downwind to accommodate me, but I thanked him and made a standard join. It's polite and it's safe.

I fly a C414 into uncontrolled airports all of the time. I almost NEVER fly straight in. I go in at 45 and stay at 1300 ft AGL and am slowed to 120kts by then and slower if need be. I still look for aircraft with no radio with clearing turns and assuming not all traffic ATSB. Totally agree with your recommendations, the C340 pilot appears to be at fault. As an experienced pilot with over 8000 hours, I don’t assume every other pilot is as experienced. I’ve broken off approaches plenty of times…..this C340 should have as well. The speed of this C340 is really odd too. Flaps at 160 KIAS, gear at 140 KIAS and final should have been about 95 KIAS with no wind sheer. Sad….AIM recommendations are there for a reason.

The c152 was a student pilot faithfully calling his pattern and flying by the book, and clearly did not have the experience to be aware of the potential speed of the approaching c340. When he found the c340 booming down he called "go around", still not completely comprehending the true speed of the c340. The c340 was approaching at 180kt-200kt while aware the c152 was on left base. At 3m the c340 acknowledged he had not yet made visual of the c152 on left base; regardless, he doubled down, apparently certain with his speed he could get ahead of the c152 wherever it was. Darwin Award for the c340.

The accident reminds me of a similar problem I had in the early 1980's. It was an uncontrolled airport, and I was in the pattern doing touch and goes in a 152 when another pilot called a 10 mile final for a full stop. Something didn't feel right, so instead of turning base, I extended my down wind and started looking. The twin pilot was closer than he said and going too fast to possibly land. He floated down the full length of the runway and had to go around.

Another professional and insightful analysis, thank you. RIP for those involved.

Thanks for an excellent analysis....from a CFI/former airline pilot RIP

This is extremely saddening and seems so preventable. As plenty of others have commented, I can't wrap my head around the ludicrous approach speed of the 340. I'm no airline pilot, but 180 kts seems too fast for even a large airliner on final. No amount of "getthereitis" can justify that speed. I assume the 340 pilot never had the 152 in sight. The 152 pilot stated he had the 340 in sight, and there was never an acknowledgment of that or of the go around by the 340 pilot. We weren't in those planes in the situation, and it's easy to better analyze this while safely on the ground. But regardless, I hope this provides further education and prevention of future mid-airs.

Just how did the 340 intend to stop flying in at such a high speed? Totally irresponsible flying in my opinion.

In Australia, traffic on straight in approach finals are to give way to traffic already in the circuit. Circuit traffic have right of way.

I got to agree on the “ Ill advise straight in approach VFR entering the pattern”. To me that’s a very cavalier and arrogant way to fly…. Especially if you know there’s aircraft in the pattern…. Very sad but obvious results.

These videos are extremely helpful to me as a student pilot. I cannot imagine what the 340 pilot was thinking - cruise speed and (apparently) gear and flaps up. I have to wonder what would have happened if the 152 had not been present. "Oh, crap! Autopilot still on cruise - I'm going around!" At first I thought maybe he had some medical impairment, but at 1 mile he sounded fine but was already way too close to make the needed adjustments. Very sad but thanks for the excellent analysis.

If I hear a guy call a 10-mile final on a sunny VFR day when the pattern occupied and he doesn't make a very clear indication that he will alter to blend in with traffic, I bug out and come back when he's gone. He probably doesn't have the kind of mindset with which I want to share constrained airspace. That said, the 152 had rising terrain in front of him which I almost never have, and he may have been a student who doesn't yet have those gut feelings about who to steer clear of. Based on what I've heard thus far, I don't fault him nearly as much as the guy in the twin.

One thing that happened to us that makes my skin crawl in relation to this was a base turn inside a Cessna Citation we did in our Cessna 310P. As pilots in your mind, you have an idea of approach speeds of other aircraft. We were on downwind, and a Citation was on a long straight in final just like this 340. When the Citation is calling 5 miles, we are just starting to turn base. I'm thinking the Citation is likely 130kts or so. We are turning at 110kts working down to 90kts, no problem. Long runway so we pushed and landed mid field, no issue. There is no way that 152 pilot is thinking that 340 is coming at him at 180kts, he thinks he has plenty of room just like we did (and we did). By the time the 152 pilot saw this guy shooting like a rocket at him it was too late. This is very strange as there is no way that 340 is going to land at such a speed. On top of that the flap and gear speed were both exceeded if they were actually down which seems hard to believe simply because of the high speed. You would have to be in a full power decent to maintain that kind of speed dirty if you even could. Just makes no sense, such a tragedy.

One of the best videos if not the best video that you guys have produced, so many thoughtful insights! Keep up the good work!

Something else that bothers me is that at one point, the twin reported his position as being east of the airport. No…not east, more north-northeast. Could the 152 pilot have been thinking that the traffic was going to be behind him and no factor?

I was almost involved in the same type of accident about 30 years ago. I was flying a 172 on a left downwind at a towered airport. There was a Cherokee 180 about a mile and a half final. The tower cleared me to land and told the Cherokee to follow me. I turned my left base at approximately a half mile out and as I started my turn to final, my 10-year-old brother asked me, "who is that?" I turn to him and he's pointing out his window and I see the Cherokee about two hundred feet from me converging! I quicky bank left, full power and climb. The tower then see's what is happening and asked the Cherokee if he saw the Cessna he just cut off. He replied "no". The tower then told me to go around and make left traffic as he cleared the Cherokee to land. If my brother had not been with me that day, I'm pretty sure it would have been a mid-air. Because of this close call, I ALLWAYS check final on downwind, base leg, and as I am turning final regardless of a towered or non-towered airport.

10 miles is not on “final approach” to a non-tower airport, even if aligned with the runway. Traffic patterns exist for a reason at these airports. Additionally, if the imbecile in the 340 was going to engage in a strafing run of the airport at that speed, he should have included his intentions well before violating a busy traffic pattern. Clearly careless and reckless operation of that aircraft. His estate will be gutted in the lawsuit by the next-of-kin of the 152 pilot.

At my field we have a lot of student pilots that fly some incredibly large patterns and it often appears that they are flying a "straight in" when they are actually in their extended pattern. We also have Jets and turbo-props that mingle with the flight school 152s on a daily basis. The rule is that you do not turn base when someone else has announced that they are on final until you have "crossed wings" with the airplane on final. A pilot cannot fly "their pattern" when other pilots in the pattern are flying a longer pattern. If the the 340 would have shown some restraint, and joined the pattern, lives would have been saved. If the 152 would have extended his downwind leg to let the 340 pass, then turned base, the outcome would have similarly been much better. We recently had a situation where a Citation Jet announced they were on 1 mile final and a Cessna 150 entered the runway and attempted to take-off ahead of it, not realizing the closure rate of the Citation. Thankfully, the Alert Citation pilot went around and saved the day. The Citation pilot obviously had the right of way, but living to fly another day beats being involved in an accident where the other person was ruled at fault.

Thank you for the update, we really appreciate it

From what I've seen and heard elsewhere about the 340's angle of decent and its speed on a straight-in approach has me wondering if the 340 pilot was performing (or attempting to perform) a high-speed fighter-style penetration. If that is the case, I would also wonder whether he had done this before and gotten away with it. In any event, traffic patterns exist for a reason. Long straight-in approaches to uncontrolled fields are generally ill-advised, no matter how fast (or slow) you fly the approach. There will be more information on this accident later on; I am curious about the 340 pilot's background...

We can discuss right of way all day, pilot in the pattern vs. pilot on a long final, but there is a simple solution which has worked for me for 40 years of flying. If both pilots are communicating and each knows the other one is there, don't turn on a converging course until you see each other. I routinely land at a controlled airport where the traffic is mostly scheduled airlines. The tower will not let me turn base until I have reported visual contact with traffic on final and the other pilot does the same with me. I don't need a controller to operate the same way at uncontrolled airports. Each pilot knew the other was there. The pilot on final should not continue down the final approach not knowing where the other aircraft in the pattern are. The pilot in the pattern should extend his downwind until he can determine visually that the traffic on long final is not a factor, or wait for the traffic to pass by before turning base. As a commercial helicopter pilot I've been taught to avoid fixed-wing traffic patterns, but the good thing about flying a pattern is that you can communicate your position around the airport easily with other pilots so that they know where to look for you. Fly defensively. I drive cars and ride motorcycles the same way. I assume that the other guy is NOT going to do the right thing until I can verify visually that he won't or can't hit me. I stop even when I have the right of way on the road if someone is about to hit me because the right of way won't make a difference if I'm dead or injured. This is a sad event that could have been avoided so easily.

Great video, great information. Thank you!

Great commentary. Looking forward to subsequent updates from the NTSB.

So the twin was doing 180 knots at 200ft half a mile from runway and expected to land!?

I am private pilot student in Europe and from what we study here (idk if it’s exactly the same in the u.s.) airplanes that are already inside the traffic pattern have priority on other traffic willing to enter the pattern. I don’t understand why the twin bird was going so fast, that is very dangerous. Also I don’t understand why the c152 pilot decided to go around? If you are in front of another airplane on final why would you go around, it should be the airplane following to do so. If you are faster and behind a traffic you should be the one going around, not the plane in front.

Thank You!! Excellent reporting.

It’s haunting watching this in October 2023 RIP man

THANK YOU, for posting this. I don't fly, but watching the videos and the explanation of this crash on the news, I was thinking "how on earth did THAT happen? I was hoping you would explain it with an animation. You do such an outstanding job narrating and explaining these situations. 🥰

RIP to all those who have passed in this tragic accident. My question to twin pilots, if we imagine a world where the 152 was not there, what were the chances of the 340 successfully landing at approach speeds that high so close to the runway? It seems to me that although the 340 pilot had clearly called his intention to land, based on the available data it seems he hadn't bothered to configure the aircraft for it. I am rated in complex retractable singles and I need to be thinking about and planning for my pattern speed a long way out or my aircraft simply won't slow down in time to drop the gear and flaps.

Thanks again for the analysis and lessons!

It’s so eerie watching Richard providing his excellent insight and narration of this incident while knowing that he died just a year after making this video after losing control of a light aircraft he was piloting. Early indications are that they were overweight due to a possible miscalculation, although the final results won’t be released for another year.

This appears to be the situation where a high wing aircraft is under a low-wing aircraft and the 340 never saw him because he was above the Cessna and also was looking too far to the left. The C152 was right in front of him. The 340 pilot sounded rushed and tired. Poor kid in the Cessna never had a chance.

The 340 was higher and because of background ground clutter of buildings, etc, didn’t see the movement of the 150 across the ground. Knowing there was a possible conflict and he did not have a visual on the 150, he should not have continued to the threshold. He could have done a spacing 360 or overflown the runway. Likewise, the 150 should have extended his down wind until the 340 had passed. They both had awareness of the conflict and should have de conflicted the situation. Announcing your location and intentions does nothing to resolve a conflict you know exists. You can not always wait until you have a visual confirmation of the conflict. ATC doesn’t and neither should pilots.

Very good analysis, thanks a lot.

8/20/22. Thx ASI for this clear & visually EZ 2see positions of each a/c as they flew their path to threshold. Great review of rules for VFR pattern priorities. Much enjoyed this analysis. Will watch 4more from you after NTSB initial & final reporting.👍👍👍👏🛩🙂

I had the exact same thing happen to me , I chose to extend my downwind leg and let the king air go ahead of me. There is no agreement about who has the right of way, my concern was maintaining separation.

179 knots 1 mile from final?? “ill-advised”?? Try reckless, or negligent. Better yet, how about homicidal? Yes I see that both parties had a responsibility to see and avoid, but Jesus Tapdancing Christ that twin flew like he was performing a bombing run during the Battle at Midway.

Very good review of procedures, the accident itself and lessons learned. I fly a mid-size cabin jet into many non-tower airports and it’s nuts how some operate in/out of these airports.

Thank you very much for this very informative Video! A sad and totally avoidable crash!

Entering a busy trsffic pattern straight-in and at high speed is just criminal, regardless of what the regulations say. My conolescences to the families involved.

No post crash fire? Was the 340 out of fuel? I stick with the 150, he was following procedure.

the usual calm, precise, professional and informative posting ... regards

Excellent & concise explanation. Thank you

How is this possible? Seriously, I don't get it. How can someone, being aware of the pattern traffic, make a long final approach? The traffic pattern is there for a reason! It was absolutely ruthless continuing the approach knowing there's traffic just straight ahead. A 360 would've solved the situation. But anyway… the 340 guy didn't wanna land. 170 kt on final… Suicide?

I cannot understand how the “straight in approach” is still allowed. even if the inbound traffic is IFR - if the field is VMC and it’s not a turbine then fly the standard overhead join. If the twin had flown the standard join this wouldn’t have happened

Excellent analysis and explanation. What a tragic event. The twin’s speed on final was bizarre.

Nice analysis Mr. Mcspadden.. Very fair and impartial. Accidents happen. We try and learn so we don't repeat. Thanks.

Hopefully, they'll do a drug/alcohol/substance test. What is the gear down, stabilized approach speed for the 340? Is it 180 knots? Does an airport guide tell/suggest a traffic pattern entry? Does the pilot have a history? I'm not a pilot but have an interest in piloting.

There will be fault and blame assigned, but thank you for pointing out that it would be prudent to extend base with a faster aircraft on 1 mile straight-in final. It appears very much possible that the 152 pilot did everything by the rules, but some "defensive flying" may be the best course. The combination of the high airspeed on final and the 340 pilot not being able to spot the 152 in the pattern might point to that pilot having some sort of incapacitation. In a car, it's easy for me to remember that other drivers may be distracted or of limited capacity, and give them a wide berth even if it's a nuisance for me. The same may be prudent in the air.

Thank you 🙏

would the twin even have been able to land at that speed or would he have gone off the end of the runway?

340 hit 152 from the back? That is criminal man Also lack of TCAS in general aviation amazes me in a bad way.

This is a great early analysis, thank you. I think that it is a cautionary tale for straight in approaches, specifically straight in approaches if there is known traffic in the pattern. I think the lower aircraft having priority per the FAR 91 regulation is great guidance, regardless of the definition of what aircraft is on final. The lessons of taking action early to deconflict (example/ 360 for spacing) and aeronautical decision making is outlined well in the video. The high speed of the C340 is what I do not understand. I hope that other pilots understand and learn from the analysis and investigation of this collision.

Very well explained and I agree 100% with your analysis.

Hmm, not sure what the twin pilot was smoking. It is crazy that a student pilot even said that hey man, you are coming in fast behind me. Something that the twin pilot should have corrected long ago. 100% avoidable! -Max

The pilots commenting that 152 should have given way is laughable. Its amazing how some people will always find a way to blame the victim and defend the person who caused the accident. Let this go to a civil trial and the jury will find 340 guilty. The NTSB will also place blame on 340.

I don’t know if the audio is edited, but if not and if it’s not precisely synced to the ADS-B, don’t necessarily assume the c152 turned base *after* the c340 called three miles. It’s possible the c152 had to wait for the freq to clear to make his call, and had already started or even completed the turn before he heard the inbound missile’s announcement.

Not a pilot, but appreciate your early appraisal, animation, past data & council for pilot's avoidance of this in the future. I recognize that this is very early in the accident analysis, but even to a non-pilot, this was understandable. Thank you for your work.

Here in Australia it is strongly recommended that you overfly the field and join xwind to maximise situational awareness, preparation for landing etc. Straight ins etc are allowed but not recommended. I have been in the C152 situation and chose to extend downwind. In another similar situation when joining 45 degrees downwind, I actually did a 180 and started my circuit/pattern entry again! You have to visually see each other to continue, and neither did - the speeder said LOOKING for aircraft on base, the C152 said YOUR BEHIND ME probably based on radio calls. So sad.

The Twin was at fault. There was a plane in the goddamn pattern on base.

I had flown for 30 years, 5600 hours in GA, within 14 months I had two near misses while in the pattern at my home field. Two idiots in warbirds buzzing the field at 300+ knots in a P-40 and P-51. Cost one guy a 6 month suspension and the other guy his license. Second had a jerk doing a 10 mile straight in but also using the wrong frequency. He flew over me on final, we missed by 75 feet vertically. I have flown into YYZ,ORD,CLE,DTW,PIT,MSP, in IFR conditions and I was never as scared as in these incidents. Sold my plane and my headset, No thanks folks, I choose life.

Well said. thank you for avoiding speculation and sticking to facts as we currently know them. Nice presentation. I have my thoughts on this, I am sure you do as well. You approached it like the NTSB will in the factual.

At a non towered airport under VFR conditions the Twin pilot did not enter the pattern in the correct path. I’ve dealt with bigger iron pilots like this guy before. Make straight in regardless of “in the pattern” aircraft at the airport. I’ll tell you why the Twin was going so fast, he did not want to go around the pattern behind the 152, cause he was too important to take the time to do that. Sadly, although not at fault in any way, the 152 paid the ultimate price. Kind of like stepping into a crosswalk, the crash still kills. He’d be alive if he had extended his downwind for the jerk in the Twin.

Flying a glider, I was also almost "run over" by a douche bag on a straight in. I had called approach to final and was committed to land and the tow plane was bent on getting in before me. I nosed down, gained speed to turn tighter to stay left of the centre line and he blew right past me, trailing the tow line. I even saw the coupling blinking in the sunlight.

Thanks 🙏

What a sad accident this is, and it looks like the C340 flew way too fast on this straight in approach...a speed you normally don't land with this aircraft...it's far above what is recommended for a stable landing (the max speed gear down and flaps is also much lower than what the C340 flew). Wishing all family and relatives the best in these heavy loss.

I've been flying for 20 years. I trained and have always flattened the airplane to look in the opposite direction before any turn while in the pattern. Over the years I've seen people enter a straight in downwind, a straight in base, and of course a straight in final. I'm sure the poor guy in the 152 thought the twin would take action to avoid him. That assumption cost him his life.

Flew into the airport three weeks ago, crazy busy. Accident was totally avoidable, sad day! Both parties could’ve done something to avoid the accident. 340 was at fault high rate of speed and straight in approach. 152 should have extended his downwind leg.

Awesome video. 👍👍👍🛩️🛩️🛩️🛩️

Hearing of these reports always sends a shiver down my spine and reminds me of how lucky i am. Back in 1989 I survived a mid-air collision between 2 Cessna 207s. Despite having the engine pretty much dislodged from it's mounts, losing all instrumentation and a jammed throttle, I made it back. Sadly the occupants of the other aircraft did not survive as the aircraft spirraled in. 'There by the Grace of God go I'. My logbook entry has these words by author Richard Bach below it,.." Those of us who fly have our debts to pay"...Keep safe out there people..

Also, we don't know if the registered pilot of the 340 was the one flying the approach. What other reason could there be for the high rate. (Even above gear speed)