Very sad

@@swipezios3273 didn't ask, plus you're fatherless

@@swipezios3273 Not the place to say that

very sad accident, it’s all coordination

Blue Skies to all involved. I hate to see ANY wreck; but I really hate to see a student that seemed to have done nothing wrong lose his life. RIP

Shows good situational and spacial awareness. The instructor taught him well. Sad outcome, even when he did everything right.

@@ricardokowalski1579 Hard to find blame. Twin cessna is a much faster traffic. I always tell my student to extend downwind when faster traffic is on short final.

@@gracehu4692 its rather more important to be taught that you don’t go straight in at an airfield that has multiple aircraft in the circuit. You go overhead and join appropriately wherever there’s space. Rather than just barging in and not caring at all about safety. There’s a reason straight in approaches Are banned at the best flight schools in the world.

@@guneetify Not a pilot, maintainer and enthusiast. Is it a safe assumption the twin was trying to cook it in there to avoid joining the pattern with the slower ACFT? I noticed the twin pilots voice intensity or nervousness picked up when 1 mile out and the student was calling the left. Possibly that's when they realized they were coming in to fast?

@@gracehu4692 There will be plenty of blaming on the final report. I agree that extending the downwind is a safer practice. But can we agree that going direct approach, at high speed, on an airport that has traffic on the pattern is NOT a safe practice? Who has a higher burden of safety: the students or the experienced pilots? At 0:50 N90FL calls out "short final" at 1:17 N49331 calls out "left base" After that call, the twin should have flown missed approach and reported the other pilot, *IF* he felt he had been wronged. (Big IF, because the data would have shown him flying too fast) The twin never called "short final", so the student had no cue to extend his own downwind. It was the twin that had to ask nicely, (please extend the downwind and follow me) and say thanks later on the ground.

He caused it, coming in too fast, ignoring the other pilot. His overly laid on "big guy" callouts show a type of arrogance that gets people killed in the air.

@@extraordinarilybasic3250 Yeah, "arrogant" is the word I was looking for to describe that pilot with a single word. That may also be the cause for coming so fast that there would have been no way to slow down for straight-in landing even if there hadn't been other traffic.

That’s the FAA which regulates the air waves, not just the air space. Pilots are taught to communicate in a very brief and non-emotional way. Messages need to be fast and minimal to not crowd the frequencies with too much conversation.

Hollering won’t get the emergency services there any quicker.

They didn't die. fatal injuries!

@@josueamparo1677 that means the injuries were fatal

4, there was also a dog in the 340 :(

Bigger aircraft, bigger ego. But to be fair, the kid in the aircraft in front shouldn't have said he was going around, that was a big mistake.

@@X50505 He was notifying the hot dog that he was trying to escape the crash. This is all on the 340.

@@ethanhiggins4887 the accident happened yesterday at around 2pm PST, more than 24 hours ago

@@cageordie He shouldn't have notified by saying he would go around, that was a costly mistake. It meant his aircraft was climbing into the path of a descending aircraft from above. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's the kid's fault. He was put in a dangerous situation by the moron in the 340 and he panicked. If he'd said "I have you in sight behind me - You're coming at me pretty quick, you need to go around NOW" instead of feeling pressured to go around himself, I would have been avoided.

@@ethanhiggins4887 the point of the midfield entry is to build the space you need between you and the guy in front of you. Overflying the field gives you the best SA of traffic.

@@ethanhiggins4887 Apparently not in this case.

@@ethanhiggins4887 Exactly. I mean, it's not like you could just fly a long upwind leg to sequence yourself in the pattern or anything, right? Or stay fast on the turn to downwind so that you end up on the outside of the pattern and clear of traffic, right? It's truly just a shame that there are no answers to this problem /s

Good to hear you are now a safer pilot for all of us. Your flight instructor should have taught you the proper procedures. Might advise him/her to do so.

@@davidd6635 I guess your instructor failed you on your teaching. There is no proper entry procedure per the regulations. The Aim gives a 45 entry, which is a good practice, but not a requirement.

@@TB-um1xz whatever dude. It’s the safest practice for everybody to enter that way.

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 might want to read my whole comment before you warrior type.

@@TB-um1xz I read the whole thing. David’s instructor didn’t fail him. David said “proper procedure” and proper doesn’t mean requirement. So yes, there is a proper entry procedure even though it’s not a law.

More people are killed by Mustangs every year.

I saw somewhere that the twin Cessna was doing 180kts at the point of impact, I would also like to assume that the 152 wasn’t expecting an aircraft going almost double its approach speed

I'm kinda split on this. Yes he could "legally have right of way" but it's a Cessna twin, he called 3 mile final and then 5 seconds later the 152 stated he was turning base, basically putting himself directly on a collision course with the twin. Even if it had been another 152 on a 3 mile final it would have been tight. I think the 152 fked up here.

@@wagmiorngmi Well, the 152 may have been in-experienced. I can tell you I definitely wasn't doing speed calculations for other traffic my first few times in the pattern as PIC. The twin Cessna pilot should definitely know better though. I assume you'd need some level of experience to fly that thing, and he should know he doesn't have right of way. The Twin Cessna pilot should've gone around as soon as he heard the 152 calling base and didn't have visual contact on him.

152 shouldn’t have turned base after hearing 3 mile final, and the twin should have slowed the fuck down. There’s no reason to be speeding into a busy untowered airport.

@@ethanhiggins4887 This applies to the way a lot of people view driving a car too. It doesn't matter whether someone has the "right of way," or what's expected, or even what the law says. Right or wrong, you're still dead. This gets me with motorcyclists especially who blame cars for the fact that they get killed left and right. Look twice save a life, okay sure whatever, but you're the one who's totally exposed and about to get killed so you'd better assume nobody is doing that and look three times yourself.

Yep, you got that one correct.

Watching his wife being dogpilled in the air can cause distractions

I wish I could say the same. But, I can’t. I practice Instrument approaches at pilot-controlled airports. Those involve a straight in approach. The difference is that I keep a constant two-way communication with possible traffic. And, I make sure that my approach is stabilized. Other than that, I prefer to cross at TPA+1000 feet high and midfield for a tear drop 270 to downwind.

@JG - If a jet is approaching an airport to land, there should be clear and constant communication between all of the pilots involved. The jet may even want to communicate it speed as well as distance when approaching when there is traffic already established in the pattern. If all else fails, the jet should join the normal flow of traffic using the standard traffic pattern procedure. But, do so at 500 feet above Traffic a pattern Altitude. And, possibly a little wider of a pattern.

Actually from the comms alone you could see that a fast approaching twin will be in conflict with the base-turning single. Both give their position on the radio but both didn't care about the other and continued. The best thing here would have been to talk to each other to resolve this conflict that was clearly building up far before final.

Unfortunately he was too nice and it cost him his life. He should never have gone around, he had right of way, he should have slammed the guy in the C340 and told him to go around.

Yeah and he sounded so calm... RIP

Someone behind him sounded like it was “his space”… 🥴

@@degas according to FAR the twin should have right of way because he is on a final. But at the same time the single was lower, so he also had the right of way over higher aircraft... Although FAR specifically said lower aircraft shouldn't use that to cutin for a final, this is causing both pilot think they had right of way, because the single engine pilot didn't think the twin can approach that fast. Twin announced he is on final, Cessna turned final after that. They collided because the twin was quite fast and descended onto the single. They probably didn't see him until the last second. (The single engine guy said he "sees you" probably refers to he sees them on an iPad though ADSB, not actually visual.) The bigger problem is the Twin didn't join the pattern as he supposed to, we didn't hear transmission before he announced his straight in, but if he knows there are other traffic in pattern, he should have join the pattern.

@@AaronShenghao Thanks Aaron for the expertise/info…appreciate that.

Cessna probably didn’t think the twin would get there that fast. The twin didn’t state a time estimate and was apparently barrelling in at some rediculously fast ground speed like 160kts

I was there when this happened. I have to say, the twin cessna was flying at a pretty insane speed for approach. He didn’t even have his gear or flaps down. I can’t really fault the 152 on this one. As far as I could tell, he would’ve easily landed before the twin and been clear of the runway if the twin wasn’t going nearly 200kts on final (according to a pilot also at the scene looking at flightaware or a similar sight. Based on how fast I saw him going even after the collision, that definitely sounds about right)

I wasn't aware of the twin's approach speed. This is very odd. It makes me wonder now if it wasn't intentional. He was fully aware the 152 was trying to avoid him and was in the middle of diverting away, yet he was still coming in hot and clean. Did the twin make any last-second uncommon maneuvers that would have chased the 152? If his intention was a full-stop landing, why was he clean and fast? At that speed, I assume he had the throttle open as well.

@@ryanmcgowan3061 the really odd part is that he banked hard right at the very last second, as if he failed to see the 152 until the last second and tried to avoid it. That would make sense that he’d be that low if coming in to land, but he clearly either had no intention of landing, or would’ve killed himself anyways had he tried to on that pass. It’s a very weird set of circumstances that I still don’t know exactly what to make of. Regardless, the twin was most certainly doing many things very, very wrong. My very first thought was that it was suicide. After hearing my friend and other pilots say that they also saw the gear and flaps up, that’s all I could surmise. He had a dog, and there was a pet hospital nearby, so mayyyybe he was in a rush to get his sick dog there? That doesn’t really make sense, but then again none of it does when you add it up.

AFAIK there were three planes. The pilot saying “you’re coming at me pretty fast” was not involved and went around. Accident was between the fast aircraft and another plane that entered final shortly afterwards.

There is a 1-2 second Ring doorbell video of the 152 going down that I saw from a local news report... it was at the very end. Sad news, RIP to all. It is the only footage that I've seen so far, but surely there is more.

After a three year investigation...

That Cessna was coming in way, way too fast. Add in a low wing / high wing mix: not the first time this happened.

@@TheBeingReal there were 2 Cessnas

Family and friends of those who lost loved ones? 🤔🤔 something like the cousins of the cousins of the victims?

Nice seeing you here and love your channel, but I doubt it. If the "you're coming at me pretty quick man" didn't make him more cautious then the student with right of way declaring student pilot likely wouldn't have fazed him either. I'm guessing it turns out the twin engine was a doctor or dentist.

Twin was cooking though. I was in a very similar situation my first xc solo and said hey, I’ll extend down wind for you

@@jakeesco4573 it looks like there is terrain on the left downwind for 20 a little over a mile past the threshold. I’ve never flown in there, just looking at the chart. I’m trying to decide what I would have done differently if I was the 152, and I can’t think of it. Sad.

@@jeffersonstatecrash I thought of an option... When a fast high performance airplane calls up on short final simply depart the pattern, maneuver around a bit and come back in on a 45 to downwind. Time it so that the fast airplane will be on the ground when you turn base-to-final. Or, if you have eyeballs on the faster aircraft you can extend downwind and follow him (giving consideration to wake turbulence, depending on the size of it).

@@jeffersonstatecrash I had another thought... in a way, this is less about flying and more about the trust we put in other people to take care and keep us safe, based on the assumption that they are taking care to keep themselves safe (keeping us safe as a result). It's like driving or walking your dog down the side of the road. You are trusting people to be responsible enough to not kill you. That is misplaced trust... or at least, it's a level of trust that the unknown mystery person has not earned since they have not demonstrated that they are worthy of that trust.

Yeah I watched that too, you can also hear in his voice that it was almost like he was saying i'm landing no matter what

@@iitzfizz Because he was one of those "old timers" that knew it all. That's what got him and others killed. No fool like an old fool.

@@iitzfizz I picked up on that to. He sounded annoyed, like "get out of my way, I am a fast boy." Its like an asshole cutting you off at a light thinking its their god given right because they drive G wagon but its fatal.

It appears to me that the C152 pilot might have been a student doing solo pattern work, or maybe a newly minted private pilot with very little experience. Really sad. *_I do put most of the blame on the twin Cessna._* He was way too fast for the approach. When a newbie pilot hears “Cessna” (even though he said “twin”) and “3 miles”, they don’t expect the aircraft to come barreling in at *180 kts.* The typical approach speed for that plane, is about HALF of that at 90 to 95 kts!! In fact, there is no good reason on god’s green earth why the twin should have been doing that absolutely ludicrous speed right on short final!! 🙄 That was a classic unstabilized approach. And he certainly would not have been able to land, carrying that speed!! Not sure what the hell he was thinking or doing!

@@747-pilot From watching another video the 152 was indeed a student pilot who was doing touch and goes. Seems the plane the student was flying appeared to be one of the slowest single engine aircraft and the pilot wasn't experienced in being able to do swift maneuvers to avoid the twin, so it was a deer in the headlights situation.

Yeah - this guy is grounded forever. Sad and unnecessary.

Exactly, the 340 didn't fly the pattern and going way too fast. Probably trying to beat the 150 in... how'd that work out... duty to see and avoid, the 150 saw him and tried to avoid, but 90 kts trying to avoid 180 kts is tough.

He grounded himself, Jesus will now perform the debriefing.😃🤯😳

In this case he permanently grounded himself, but this is an all too common experience, these cowboys who believe an extra engine gives them precedence over less powerful and less experienced pilots. Basically eff off out of my way, I’m coming through. A really stupid mindset.

@@carolynpatterson5217 Unfortunately he took another innocent life with him! I’m particularly saddened by this incident, as I heard from others that the C152 pilot was a solo student practicing touch and gos in the pattern. I can remember back in the days when I was a student pilot myself (incidentally, I trained in a 152 as well). I would have been terrified, and probably would not have even had the presence of mind, of this pilot, to take the evasive action that he took! He did what he could (with his limited capabilities as a student), and attempted a go-around, but, sadly the twin 340 Cessna was barreling in at him, at an insane 180 kts, which sealed the fate of the airplanes, right there!

Ironically, the approach speed for most jets, including the 747, is around 140 Kts (a few knots + or - depending on the situation), with landing gear down and full flaps. So he was a full 40 kts faster than most airliners! 🙄 And that, right there, should tell you all you need to know!!! And, I know for sure that it says in the FARs (although I can’t recall the exact section of part 91), that a pilot attempting a “straight in” at an uncontrolled field, has the sole responsibility to inform, look for, and give way if necessary, to traffic that is already in the pattern! And this applies equally to aircraft flying IFR in VMC conditions as well! Of course, if conditions were IMC, you wouldn’t have VFR traffic in the pattern.

@@747-pilot 737 is also 140 kts The dude who was flying was absolutely reckless

@@747-pilot also, FAR says that with two or more aircraft on approach to land, the one at the lower altitude has the right of way. Likely the 152 was at pattern altitude even when the twin gave his initial position report and landing intention. I'd say this is 90/10 on the twin pilot.

@@jrod_pilot_miami Sounds right to me. The single wasn't completely blameless but the lion's share of the fault is squarely on the twin pilot.

he could have been on an instrument approach too. Both are to blame here I think.

The twin had right away because it was on final. The altitude right away is only for if two aircraft are approaching an airport not in pattern or with one on final.

It is concerning to me that so many pilots either don't know or misremember what the actual regs are here in the youtube comments. Why aren't planes falling out of the sky on an hourly basis?

@@xfireboyx1 Negative. Read the FAR/AIM. The pattern was established by aircraft on CTAF at the airport before he made his "10 mile" call. He knew there was a pattern and ignored it. The twin just didn't want to go into the pattern because 95% of his time flying into this airport previously, he went straight in. The twin was also WAY above operating speeds to land the airplane in stable, coordinated flight. Was way above speeds to extend flaps and landing gear. How you going to land at 180kts? The twin was overtaking the 152, and all other aircraft in the pattern. § 91.113 (f) The 152 had right of way. The slower, less maneuverable aircraft has right of way. The 152 is slower and less maneuverable than a 340. § 91.113 (d) (e) The 152 had right of way. The 152 was also lower to the ground and in the established pattern. § 91.113 (g) The 152 had right of way. Just because you CAN zip in and do something doesn't make it right or legal. A little "Watsonville traffic. Twin would like to do a straight in. Can you extend your pattern just a little to let us go straight in?" No discussion with the other traffic about squeezing in. § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. (f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear. (g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft. I suspect this accident will update § 91.113 section (g) here.

150 should've extended down wind sad that you said he was right cause he's dead right

The twin was literally flying an approach at the landing speed of an SR-71. For a straight in? No way the 152 could have anticipated that sort of 'approach speed.' The right of way doesn' t matter really because the twin 340 couldn't have landed at that speed, in fact he'd even have trouble staying near the airport if the tried to do a go around at that speed. It makes no sense what-so-ever for that pilot to fly his plane at that speed and then call out for a straight in full-stop.

With respect, that advice is EXACTLY how to get more straight in approaches at your uncontrolled airport. If it seems normal that pattern traffic will yield to a straight-in approach, why would anyone NOT opt for the straight-in approach more often? IMO, the burden is on the straight-in approach, it should not be an option at an uncontrolled airport with ANY other traffic already in a pattern.

@@fortusvictus8297 This seems like its coming from someone who has never been on an instrument flight plan. Not saying that was the case in this scenario but not allowing straight in approaches is just impractical.

@@jirons2709 If the straight in approach aircraft had yielded none of this would have happened tho… he heard 3 times that the Cessna was in pattern and disregarded everytime….

@@noahshields507 to be fair, Cessna in the pattern heard the twin engine was on a short final and he just kept flying his normal pattern. It seems like neither pilot took action to avoid this.

I got my private at an uncontrolled but spend most my time in towered fields, I like a straight in approach if it won’t cause conflict with the current pattern but personally in a SEL I don’t mind extending my downwind a mile to get them in. That said when you don’t have a super large runway and there’s multiple VFR aircraft in the pattern you gotta be super careful

Seemed like they were all following a left traffic except from the twin which came straight in. Seems like pretty standard pattern to me. Where did you get the Twin speed from? N931 had the twin in sight and said he was the twin was behind him, knowing the twin had no visual on him. My first impression is that N931 had a case of get-there-itis and was set on landing before the twin. Sad situation. RIP

Straight-in is a standard pattern entry.

@@StratMatt777 Not according to the AIM

the 152 was doing touch and goes. no get home itis. 340 was doing 160 kts and didn't see him in the pattern

@@BakedCd See what happens when you don't touch an airplane for 6 years?

Yep. IFR pilots have every right to maintain currency by flying a practice IAP straight in to minimums per 61.57(c). Nothing is wrong with straight ins, and they're required to maintain IFR currency. Should you make a habit of it, especially if circumstances dictate that you can enter a pattern traditionally? Surely not. However, the 152 driver heard the Twin Cessna was on 3mi final, disregarded that the Twin Cessna on final had right away per 91.113, turned base in front of him and paid for it. Paint that mental picture that you're hearing on the radio. If you can't, don't fly. And for God sakes have your head on a swivel, especially when you're in that base leg.

@@ss-tx-rx2860 well said.

@@ss-tx-rx2860 I don’t think the twin was on an IFR approach. They usually state that as part of their CTAF call outs so those in the pattern know what to expect. To be fair, not knowing anything about this accident before watching this video, and the first transmission was him calling a 10 mile straight in final, I pretty much knew how it was going to end.

@@FLYSUBS89 Indeed.

wonder how long until we are watching a vid of fow ss lawn darted one

182 kts at 400 feet.

Twin cessna did the final as if he is driving a F-18

@@LongTran-em6hc Yes.

Wow

You have a wise instructor. That beating may have saved your life

This has nothing to do with a straight in approach. The twin Cessna was at 180 knots and not even configured to land. Something else is at play here. Straight in approaches have their time and place

And yet all instrument approaches are straight in

When you're flying a 1600 kilogram chunk of metal that goes 700 mph then no, not all that shocking at all.

​@@jeffbrownstain except no one here was flying at mach 1 lol 😂

@@caribbaviator7058 Mach 1 refers to the speed of sound in a particular medium. The exact speed of Mach 1 varies depending on the conditions, such as temperature and humidity, as these factors affect the speed of sound. At sea level and at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit), Mach 1 is approximately 1,225 kilometers per hour (761 miles per hour) or 340 meters per second (1,125 feet per second). This value is commonly rounded to about 1,235 kilometers per hour (767 miles per hour) for general calculations. It's important to note that the speed of sound changes with altitude and temperature, so the precise value of Mach 1 can differ in different conditions. Commercial airliners typically cruise at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 0.85, which is roughly 926 to 977 kilometers per hour (575 to 607 miles per hour) or 257 to 271 meters per second (843 to 889 feet per second). The specific cruising speed depends on the aircraft type, but most commercial jet airliners operate within this range. It's important to note that these speeds are lower than the speed of sound (Mach 1) to avoid generating excessive noise and to maintain efficiency. My comment was something called hyperbole. You should look it up.

Yep, the twin came straight in at a high rate of speed with his elbows out like he owned the airport!

@@nzsaltflatsracer8054 agreed, though the C152 was also errant in the timing of his turn to base presumably knowing the twin was already on final. Good decision to go around. Sadly it wasn’t enough.

@@nzsaltflatsracer8054 Sounds like you have a case of air-rage there, buddy. Is it illegal to fly straight in? Is the world supposed to revolve around you and your exact aircraft type, and your hobby flying? Do you feel like you own the airport? We all know that your types have your blood pressure skyrocket when you feel like you've been "cut off" and you feel offended if someone has a faster plane. You need to realize that there are all kinds of aircraft, all kinds of flying, and you need to adapt. You're not alone up there, and you don't own the airport. It's just so baffling that (usually retired) people pottering around for leisure at like 90 knots suddenly get air rage if they'd have to extend their base for like 1 mile because someone else isn't on an exactly identical mission as they are... How much of a hurry are you in to keep repeating your circuits in your leisure flying at 90 knots that extending for like half a minute makes your blood boil? Do you realize that most other types of flying requires far more delays and adapting to others?

You’re joking right? You have to be joking with that comment. The twin should’ve joined the traffic pattern like everyone else, got his ass in line and would’ve landed safely. Instead, he comes straight in like he owned the damn place and people died. He didn’t have the damn right of way. You attacking people with your comment isn’t just insensitive, it’s wrong. And so are you.

@@anthonyclary1198 Another with air rage... Funny that you accuse others of "owning the airport" when that's exactly your error. The world doesn't revolve around you and your exact kind of flying.

Yeah and slower aircraft had right of way. I wonder if communication going to the twin Cessna was bad. Should have just entered the pattern and secured visual unless they thought their configuration was unable to transition in and out of the normal pattern. Hopefully NTSB shows what happened. Sad and scary stuff for me as I'm working on my own flying.

@@TheOfficial007 my only fear when I fly is traffic, planes without transponders and pilots not communicating properly. Visual flying should have more regulations in my opinion. We still need to scream clear prop before starting the engine but I don't need to tell anyone that I'm landing a plane. Absurd.

@@ismaelaramburu3544 well vfr will be held in a different regard for it holds a lower point of instrument dependency since it is predominant when visibility is better unless commercial. But uncontrolled airports will always have this degree of uncertainty. Its down to every pilot to manage their safety and for the safety of others around can be focused on. Good habits and procedures will do alot but people have to always not be complacent and be on the edge of their seat when in critical areas of vulnerability.

Is it illegal to fly straight in? Was it necessary for the single to barge right in front despite him clearly knowing there was someone already on final, and knowing that it's a twin? If pilots can't deal with straight in approaches then clearly there is something wrong with the situation. Flying unnecessary circuits doesn't make sense, and old boomers need to re-train if they can't otherwise adapt to a changing world where everyone doesn't fly like in the 30's... It's time for the old timers to stop demanding without any basis that everyone make unnecessary circuits, burning fuel and wasting time. Sure, for old retired men flying nothing but circuits every time and nothing else it's in their self-centered interests to try to make the whole world revolve around their flying, and stubbornly refuse to adapt even to perfectly legal and logical flying of others. If someone is already on final don't turn in out of spite because you jealously feel that you're being "cut off" because they came straight in, or because you feel inconvenienced because you can't fly _exactly YOUR WAY_ with your routine of turning in for final exactly at your habitual point without any flexibility or taking others into account at all. We all know that a huge percentage of old timers and boomers, especially fixed-in-their-ways hobby pilots with little training get air-rage from others flying straight in. They are wrong to get that air-rage, and it's not a healthy phenomenon.

@@MattyEngland Seriously? Who cares how old they were? It was a horrible accident that left several families grieving. Is your input really necessary? It's people like you, with your preconceived bias towards others, who causes the most animosity in society. Shame on you.

the single engine cut infront of a twin engine on 1 mile final. the guy that turned based was the cause of the accident.

@@pistonburner6448 nice troll

@@pistonburner6448 at an uncontrolled airport the aircraft already in the circuit have right of way. Also joining overhead or downwind will give the pilot time to establish within the traffic pattern and more chance to see and avoid the other aircraft. Just flying straight in at an uncontrolled airport is poor airmanship and at that speed just reckless especially as he didn't even see the other traffic

And a straight-in at an uncontrolled airport. See my other post.

@@soccerguy2433 re-check the right of way rules

@@soccerguy2433 No, he was lower and closer, so he had right off way.

​@@michaele8347 Lower aircraft has the right of way. If they are on the same level, the aircraft off to the left wing need to yield. In this case, the Cessna is in front and lower as well. So he has the right of way.

I gotta believe the twin pilot was impaired in some way.

That alone is... odd. The FAS of such an aircraft should be around 60-70 knots, maybe 90 tops. Let's hope it wasn't a simple case of _Getthereitis_

@@QemeH Well it's definitely not 60-70kts, because VS0 in almost every twin Cessna is >70kts. That puts Vref right around 90. Twin Cessna drivers may choose to approach faster than 90 if they've elected to use less flaps, have a gust factor, are assigned a faster speed on final by ATC, etc. Now no one's arguing that 170KTAS isn't odd, I'm with you there. But odd isn't against regulation. They may have been on an IAP and given "maintain 160kts or greater until a 3mi final" type instruction from TRACON then just had trouble slowing down - I've had it happen in my Bonanza.

@@QemeH it absolutely sounded like getthereitis. :(

@@ss-tx-rx2860 Why do you try to excuse this stupid idiot of a Twin-Jet-Pilot who killed himself and two other human beings?

And not blaze in the pattern at 180 knots!!!

Even worse that his declared intention was a full stop but he was going WAAY too fast to land. He should have gotten out of this approach and called a go around long before contact with the other Cessna.

I don't know what the Visual conditions/time of day was, but the fact that the one pilot could see the other coming up from behind, yet the other didn't see the Cessna would indicate that the twin engine Was going too fast and/or didn't see the Cessna even when advised it was there. I am also not impressed with the nearby towers advisories of nearby traffic either. couple times it sounded like he was trying to say it properly but didn't.

Keep in mind, for IFR work we have to do straight in approaches.

@@armastat there was no nearby tower. This was an uncontrolled airport

@@aj3751 If you listened to the audio you would understand what I meant. 'Nearby' indicates that the controller was NOT at the airport. Uncontrolled does Not mean it is unmonitored.

it happens often on atc less airfields.

This is what we were taught during military flight training... whenever there was any aircraft on finals, we couldn't turn base until they were through our 9 o'clock. Always a good rule of thumb to have in your back pocket.

Sounds good, but be extra careful not to run into obstacles when doing that. We have a 1000' tower 4 miles off the approaching end and most students would not see it until too late, distracted by searching for the other aircraft.

@@Shadow__133 Of course, but you wouldn't be instructed to do this at an unfamiliar field and with close high ground or obstacles that intersect the circuit altitude. Extending downwind is one option, but if for some crazy reason there is obstacles then a right hand orbit was the other. Bear in mind we don't operate at uncontrolled airfields.

@@Ken8129 I mean yes we do. This was our primary training location and you shouldn't be surprised that students (and some instructors) forget about such things when they are in the pattern. It's easy to think extending a downwind is a good solution without considering all ramifications. We also had a solo student that lost the runway after atc (partial controlled) asked her to extend the downwind. Another aircraft had to guide her back top gun style. If you instruct long enough these things shouldn't come as a surprise. Flying is easy, figuring out what is trying to kill you not as much.

Transponder, TCAS.

@@user-vc7ep7xj7s these are not airliners. They will not have TCAS, nor are they required to have any equipment to receive aircraft transponder information

@@kylegrage8679 ADS-B

@@ginacalabrese3869 only ADS-B out equipment is required and not even that is a requirement at this particular airport. See FAR 91.225

:(

Which video did they appear in earlier? Tried to find it but couldn't.

@@bombconnery Look up "Student Pilot has STUCK THROTTLE"

Is the pilot who thinks that what they are doing is more important usually flying the faster airplane with higher performance?

@@StratMatt777 Just in general, it could be any pilot on the CTAF. I've heard it time, and time again. ...unfortunately. As I've mentioned, it doesn't always end in tragedy but it is far too common. Don't you agree?

@@StratMatt777 I think when there is a pattern and two have reporting a turn for short final while you've attempted a straight in approach, it may have been a better decision to join the traffic pattern to make sure you don't miss someone in the sequencing. A very unfortunate event where comms were good but maybe a change in procedure for straight in approaches may help stop future accidents like this from happening? Whose to say but the investigators. Condolences for everyone involved, a truly saddening event.

It very much sounded that way to me too, like everyone was just supposed to move out of the way or something because it was the bigger plane. Its just a tiny community airport. There are students and even sometimes kids at this airport, not to mention homes all around it. So sad to hear the other guy try to say something, before it was too late.

@@3ifmCinematography Absolutely! Most of my CFI experience was at controlled airports in the Seattle area, often when we went over to Bremerton (uncontrolled) it could get pretty crazy. People need to not trust anyone else to do the right, responsible thing. We are the only ones who truly ensure our own safety... even if we have to just up and leave the pattern and come back later because we have a bad feeling.

I understand why a jet would just enter a straight in approach but a twin engine should be capable of flying the pattern. Not to mention he called 3 mile final then 1 mile final in such a short amount of time. Was that editing or was the twin cessna really moving fast?

@@thorium9503 According to another video he was going way faster than he should have been. Link: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iJ6Klseq2rnad3U.html

@@thorium9503 Allegedly the twin was supposed to approach at more of a 100-90KT Vref speed whereas it was travelling more 160-180KT GS. Not sure of the wind conditions on the day.

@@thorium9503 Juan brown said the twin engine was going 160-170 kts..... way too fast

@@sct4501 Jesus. In that case, it’s the Twin’s fault 100%

Right on.

I fly out of an untowered airport and the only guys who pull that nonsense is the private jets (for obvious reasons). Whenever one is anywhere close, everyone else has to basically stop their landing and takeoff intentions until the jet lands.

@@Michael-zf1ko I bet a lot of these high performance singles and twins think they are jets and expect the same treatment.

How does one maintain instrument currency per 61.57(c) then? In VMC it requires flying a published approach (straight in) to minimums.

@@ss-tx-rx2860 most (not all) uncontrolled fields don't have an ILS. You're supposed to have a safety pilot on board for doing simulated approaches. The easy answer is to try avoiding being an asshat by not doing a simulated approach when the pattern is loaded up.

Always always always enter pattern on the downwind, and check your belly before turning final

Wow so sorry you had to witness that first hand but thank you for that. I'm new into aviation as well only flying out of KMRY so far and this had made me think about it as well. We can only do the best we can

It is perfectly normal to repeat the scene in your head and to think about it even at unopportune moments for a few days. Give yourself time to grieve and to process what you experienced. Try to talk about it with people who can understand what catastrophic an impression this would have made on you. Allow yourself the time you need to help. This should ease the process and get you back to mental stability in due course. If, however, you find yourself wake up in cold sweats or unable to sleep at all - if you have flashbacks or triggers that cause anxiety in you - if you feel like your personality has been changed by it in a way ou don't like yourself - if you can't ever fully shake the event even a few days after it is over - then please seek professional help. Soldiers, firefighters and other first responders can all suffer from PTSD and nobody thinks less of them for it. So if you struggle, get help! You'll be amazed what wonders a therapist can work, I've seen it done with a few of my buddies. (But again: A gradual grieving "journey" is absolutely normal and not every bad dream is a sign of PTSD. Just be aware of it and you'll be fine.)

@@wasupchristo thank you graciously for the kind words. Early on everything reminds me of it, Im already planning on talking to a pro because of the weird emotions ive been experiencing. Advice VERY appreciated

@@DiecastJetz Oh wow, that's terrible. Sorry you had to see that. The cause of this accident was the Twin-engine pilot coming in at an unbelievable 182kts all the way down to 400 feet. This is complete and total insanity- and a TOTAL disregard for the safety of ALL aircraft in the pattern, and also for the passenger of the criminally negligent pilot of the twin. This crash was not REALLY caused by airplanes, this crash was not caused by aviation, a similar crash could have also occurred on the highway by a guy driving a Corvette through other traffic at 140 mph. This crash was caused by one man who was in such a hurry with his fast expensive airplane that he came in at a speed that NO PILOT wound enter the pattern at. I was a CFI for 9 years. At this point, GA aircraft are extremely safe. And even if your engine quits you can glide down and land (assuming that you are ALWAYS on lookout for an emergency landing place, a great habit)... Therefore, since the airplanes are very safe, we can say that aviation and airplanes don't cause accidents any more than a car or gun does. Irresponsible people cause accidents. The lesson you take away from witnessing this tragic horrific event is that it is up to YOU and no one else to be aware of all traffic around you and for you to count on YOU to keep proper separation from other aircraft and to not count on random strangers you don't even know to do the right thing as they operate their airplane. There was at least one idiot like this out there. Who knows if there could be others? Airplanes don't kill people, people with bad attitudes making bad decisions kill people. I see your 737 avatar... if your dream is to become an airline pilot and you are now thinking of walking away, consider this... Aside from the criminally negligent actions by this rich irresponsible pilot who was in a big damn hurry with his fancy airplane, let's pinpoint another factor that MUST have been a factor for this accident to have occurred... Do you know it? This was an uncontrolled field where there is no tower to coordinate traffic. If you want to instantly magically eliminate ANY possibility of this happening to you you could find a flight school at a controlled airport and tell them that you never ever want to fly to an uncontrolled field and that you will never ever fly to an uncontrolled field and that you just want to train to get your Commercial pilot's license to go to the airlines. Oh wait.... you'll have to instruct to build enough time for the airlines and you'll end up using uncontrolled fields... and teaching students how to use them. Well, I'm not going to delete all that stuff I typed! The key is to always be aware of all the traffic around you. Listen to everything on frequency and make a 3D picture in your mind of where all these aircraft on frequency are. Of course, some experimental aircraft may not be on frequency, or aircraft without electrical systems, but that is pretty rare... I don't want to give you the false impression that 100% of traffic is on the CTAF, however, in most cases 100% of it is. But there is that rare exception (that I have witnessed maybe two or three times at KPWT in 9 years of instructing). You CAN make the effort to be SO AWARE of all other traffic that it will be IMPOSSIBLE for this to happen to you. It is so sad that the C152 student pilot was not trained that there are irresponsible people who do the wrong thing... however, most pilots don't come in at 182 kts like an a-hole. This was such an unexpected, negligent, completely avoidable accident. It's just nuts. You simply have to be super-careful at uncontrolled fields. I can confidently assure you, based on 9 years of giving instruction, that you CAN aquire the skills and habits that ensure that this could not possibly ever happen to you. I promise! In fact, you are now the best trained new pilot there is when it comes to being aware that such rare random insanity could actually occur. Therefore, YOU are uniquely equipped to protect yourself from such events. This will make you a DAMN GOOD pilot and a damn good instructor. Don't let this irresponsible, careless ass hat kill your dream. He's just not worth it. I am more than happy to answer any questions you have about flying. Another good tip- be careful at sunset when the sun is low on the horizon and you can't see. I wouldn't fly at an uncontrolled field at that time at all.

Well, if you're a redditor then there's not much anyone can do for you. At least you're milking this tragedy for the maximum attention for yourself.

sorry to hear that ... but your insight will be valuable

The Cessna 152 was at fault. Traffic on final has the right of way. The twin Cessna was on final (3 miles is short based on its speed) and the Cessna 152 chose to cut in front of them.

@@ryanbradley2875 The twin was going about 180 kts on final approach according to ADSB. That is double the proper approach speed. That is ignoring the fact that the cessna is slower and was likely lower which is what is required for right of way

@@ryanbradley2875 Well, that tears it! To quote the great philosopher Merle Haggard, "Friend, you're on the fightin' side of me!" 😄😆😇

@@ryanbradley2875 nonsense. The 340 failed to integrate into the traffic pattern. Just because you call it a “final” doesn’t mean you have right of way.

@@subject1196 The Cessna 152 was on base when the twin announced a 3 mile final. The 152 caused the accident by turning in front of a plane that was 1 minute from the runway environment. The lower rule only applies to two airplanes on final. In this case the 152 was not on final and should have given way. If the 152 had cut in front of a jet on a 3 mile final, no one would be arguing the 152 wasn't at fault. A fast twin is no different.

They were communicating here, both had situational awareness, one had traffic in sight and yet they still collided.

@@kewkabe probably not insight, maybe referring on iPad through ADSB

I used to be based at an airport that had a Learjet 24 based there this was a non towered airport and when I heard him on the radio I would always go around or exit the pattern! He would always come straight in !!

Criticize them so more people don't make them.

unfortunately straight in isnt the right way to do it... not to mention apparently this guy in the twin was doing in excess of 150 knots.

That’s what the FAA recommends but it’s weird when VFR and IFR start mixing and pilots avoid doing those maneuvers to save time and fuel

@@nicolasrios5736 i doubt the twin was on a vfr approach. never mentioned anything about an approach other than straight in and he was looking for the other plane so it was obviously VFR conditions. and if he was doing an IFR approach then he was definately WAY too fast for it lol maybe he thought he was in a 757 :D imho going by the audio (and i have JBs video playing right now) he steamrolled that single engine plane

I'm surprised that with this climate hysteria people haven't turned to finally accept the straight in approaches which make so much more sense for many pilots. Straight in approaches aren't really any more dangerous anyway, as all aircraft join either the circuit or the final at some point no matter what. It was not unclear at all where the twin was, and for sure their speed was nothing out of the ordinary in aviation...even clearly called out as a twin. My 2c is that if someone is already on final then don't squeeze in by turning right in front of them...

@@pistonburner6448 i dont generally have an issue with straight ins, heck ive done it myself, but if there is obviously other traffic in the pattern then use the correct pattern entry procedures. as far as "dont squeeze by", the single engine cessna was already 1) lower than he was 2) already on final by the time the twin caught up to him. BOTH OF WHICH give him the right of way

@@MattyEngland 195 at 2000ft Wtf did the guy think he was flying an f104?!

@@ethanhiggins4887 Eye Witnesses interviewed, and the 152's conflict call are in accord with the 340's approach being extremely fast, making a closing rate on the order of 70KT, way too fast for the 152 pilot who was being overtaken. Stow your expletives.

340 was a low wing, probably never saw the 150 below him, also because he was on final and simply had right of way. Sad accident, simply could have been avoided for sure.

@@Zetep 340 didn't have right of way the 152 did he was on final lower and closer. I can call a 100 mile final that does not mean I have the right of way over other aircraft actually near the field.

I used to fly a 414 into an uncontrolled airport all the time, I always joined the downwind at pattern altitude, gear down, full flaps and doing 100 knots IAS...it just isn't that hard to make a twin Cessna fit into the flow at a little planes airport.

What facts support your finding of fault? I'll give you the ones that support mine. Fact 1: FAR 91.113 says that traffic on final has right of way over other airborne traffic and traffic on the surface. Fact 2: The Twin Cessna driver called 3mi final. Fact 3: After the 3mi final call from the Twin Cessna, the 152 driver announced left base. It seems to me that the 152 driver is 100% at fault, because he disregarded 91.113 by failing to yield the right of way and turning inbound in front of traffic already established on final.

@@ss-tx-rx2860 I'm always amazed that people on the internet are able to declare the cause and any fault immediately after an accident or incident. There must be some system by which they are able to acquire all the facts and data before the rest of us and even the NTSB. Wish I knew the trick.

@@ss-tx-rx2860 Interesting that you feel the need to post the same thing under all of the many comments. Sometimes being right can still end you up in the grave.

@@guysmith5095 "Go back and listen to tower ". There is no tower at this airport. Perhaps you should go back and listen.

there was error only on the twin cessna

after which the twin pilot took off and made another straight in approach

@@JustSayN2O You are probably right! I learned years later that the pilot of the 310 lost his life in a fatal incident.....

I'm having trouble believing the ADS-B data. The maximum flap extended speed for that plane is 160kn at flaps 15 and 140kn at flaps 45, the maximum gear down speed is 140. Why on earth would he be at 180kn on short final?! 180 is close to the landing speed of a 737 without flaps. That's just absurd

@@rumichael you know, you could be right in the error of Ads-b data. I’ve seen large errors in speed/altitude on it before. However, the twin Cessna did make the call at 3 miles and literally seconds later called a 1 mile final. It seemed super fast to me.

@@lalochivafan I guess we will have to wait for the NTSB report. But this type of plane can't land at this speed. According to the performance charts of the C340 you need 75-80% throttle to get to 180kn and that's in a clean configuration (no flaps & gear)

@@rumichael yeah I think you’re right. Assuming the video hasn’t been altered, and that position reports are accurate, he calls out 3 miles and then 15 seconds later, he calls 1 mile final. That’s 2 miles per 15 seconds or (thanks google) 480 mph. Reminds me of the old photoshopped meme of a c172 breaking the sound barrier lol

The twin passed 1 mile at 180kts, the threshold speed was in the 170s. If that twin prop was landing at SFO, it would be overtaking the commercial jets.

In 53 seconds he had traveled 7 miles 😩

He wasn't even flying his aircraft safely. 180 knots on approach when his landing gear extended speed shouldn't exceed 140 knots! Wtf was he doing?!

Agreed...seen it all the time.

There is nothing wrong with flying straight in, and flying a practice IAP to maintain currency per 61.57(c) requires it. In fact, the only reg violated was by the 152 pilot who heard that the Twin Cessna was on a 3mi final, disregarded that the traffic on final has right of way per 91.113, and turned base anyway. It's the actions of the 152 driver that killed himself and 2 others. Sure, flying an approach at max forward speed may be reckless, but that could've been ATC assigned. I've been given "maintain at least 160kts until a 4mi final" by TRACON into pilot controlled fields plenty of times as part of an approach clearance in my Bonanza. It's unusual, but neither unheard of nor against regulations.

Where in the FAA regs does it say that calling a 3 mile final gives you priority over an aircraft on base? (Btw, the twin Cessna was closing in at Concorde approach speeds.)

Btw, 91.113 has enough ambiguity to drive a truck through. While I understand SS-TX-RX’s possible interpretation, at what point does ‘final’ mean ‘final’? 1 nm, 3 nm, 5 nm, 10 nm, 50 nm? Convention dictates that straight-in pilots give way to aircraft flying a traffic pattern. If this convention among most pilots I know and that of straight-in cowboys’ interpretation of how they can get right-of-way through 91.113 flying fast and low is so at odds then the FAA better step up and clarify this in the regs.

It'll probably become towered after this.

this is true generally, but in this case i could "see" the conflict just listening to the audio..

Most accidents occur during VFR conditions

That’s what appropriate radio calls and situational awareness are for

Sure, but if I'm on a 1 mile final with traffic in front of me that I can't see, I'm no longer on final...

@@gnomish844 Absolutely.