Very bad Cessna 310 crash in Riverside

[par]

For those who haven't seen or heard about the story, here is a link to what happened yesterday: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/three-killed-in-fiery-california-plane-crash/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab4i

Those of you who own or have owned a twin, in curious to know what you guys make of this incident. Watching the grainy video of the plane right before the crash, I can see an extremely high rate of descent but it does not look like a spin. By the accounts of this video, it appears the pilot was flying the plane all the way down but in a neighborhood, options are less than limited. I don't know what could have caused a dual engine failure but if I had to guess, I'd say it's fuel related. Anyways, it was a tough situation for the pilot to say the least. Curious as to what you guys think.

[M20S Driver]

Wrong fuel was the first thing that came to my mind.  

The rate of descent would have been less if he was on at least one partial engine and at gross weight.

[Piloto]

It was probably one engine failure during the climb. The pilot took immediate action to avoid the spin but with the load in the plane it was kind of hard to maintain altitude on one engine at low speed. Or he feather the good engine. The typical engine out on take off incident. I heard recently on the news of a Super King Air crash in Australia.

 

Looks like two engines is not enough.

José

[Shadrach]

From what I can see, it looks as though he had little energy left and road it in at a high rate of descent rather attempting to arrest the descent which would have led to a stall and likely a spin.  I can't imagine the terror of holding a descent into a neighborhood while being engine out and little to no energy to manage. Just sitting there keeping the wing unloaded while watching the world rush up to meet you. RIP

[kevinw]

I'm not a ME pilot but I've read about what's called "no man's land". It's the airspeed between Vmc and Vyse. If you lose one engine on takeoff in this danger area the only real option is to cut the throttle on good engine and set it down because the plane isn't fast enough to climb on one engine. If the airspeed falls below Vmc we all know what happens next and it's not pretty. I wonder if she (wife was the pilot) lost an engine at or near this airspeed. Another possibility is she stalled it on takeoff. Considering fuel, baggage and weight of the passengers, it could've been over-grossed. Whatever the cause it's a terrible tragedy.

[kortopates]

I am not sure what to make of the grainy video but the descent looks much too steep be a controlled glide or flight. But the wings do look level as it comes in very steeply. But angle looks stalled or the pilot attempting to recover from one. Also can't really tell either but the video looks like one prop is turning slowly but that could be the shutter effect. Guess we'll be waiting on the prelim to even know what kind of accident this was. But this was not a under powered light twin but C310Q with TSIO-520's. Coming down only 1 1/2 miles from the airport with possibly both engines out makes you wonder if it was a fueling issue i.e. Jet A. But we also see a prop on the roof shows signs of damage suggesting it was under power. I also heard the plane originally taxied out intending to do a IFR to VFR on top departure and then decided against it and taxied back to the ramp before the accident departure.

Many are speculating that one of the badly burned woman that was ejected into the house was also the pilot. You'd expect a rear pax would be much more likely to be ejected. Plus the Fire chief Moore on the scene said the "pilot did not appear to be among the survivors". If the pilot was the registered owner, he was an electrical engineer in San Jose and ATP rated ASEL, commercial AMEL and a CFI-II.

Very sad accident. 

Edited February 28, 2017 by kortopates

[par]

Having looked into the 310 as I would like to purchase one at some point, it is a very capable platform even on single engine. Based on the article, there were some kids in the plane so I find it hard to imagine that it so so heavily loaded that it could not manage a lesser rate of descent. Also, being a mile from the airport and still being below blue line speed seems unlikely unless they started experiencing issues right after TO and let the airspeed fall out of their scan. We will wait and see what happened but hopefully we can all learn from this tragedy.

[kmyfm20s]

This article says that the pilot had a hard time getting the plane started. 3 separate attempts? Always tragic especialy when kids are involved.

http://ktla.com/2017/02/28/teen-among-3-killed-in-riverside-plane-crash-ntsb-investigation-underway/

[Guest]

I once read an article which said that most twins, whether piston or turbine lose 80% of their excess thrust needed for climbing when one engine fails.  If your climb rate was 2500 ft/ min, 500 may do the job, on the other hand if it's normally 1000ft/min, 200 May not do it.

A sad day for aviation when things like this happen.

Clarence

[kevinw]

1 hour ago, kmyfm20s said:

This article says that the pilot had a hard time getting the plane started. 3 separate attempts? Always tragic especialy when kids are involved.

http://ktla.com/2017/02/28/teen-among-3-killed-in-riverside-plane-crash-ntsb-investigation-underway/

That's not a good sign. As someone posted earlier, possibly fueled with Jet A? If so is is possible the engines would run well enough to taxi and take off?

[cliffy]

With Jet A in instead of 100LL the engines will run and the takeoff will happen but the energy available just isn't there to continue flight. Check out Bob Hoover's crash for the same thing in the Commander. He said that even he couldn't tell the difference until airborne.

Again, it's too early to speculate as to what caused the issue with the available information. 

Having 15,000+ hrs multi I can say that keeping up with training plays a big part in the outcome of any engine out situation in a multi-engine airplane. If one gets an ME and then goes years without good recurrent it only spells disaster if something goes wrong. These comments are NOT pointed at the case in question. 

[BKlott]

Many years ago late on a Sunday afternoon I witnessed a guy kill himself, his wife and their teenage daughter in a Cessna 310. He had a power loss on departure, the right engine, but rather than set it back down on the runway or flying it into the flat farmers field off the end of the runway, he attempted to climb instead. The plane was making a strange sucking kind of sound as it went by me. The nose was up and the inboard gear doors were closing but it was not hardly climbing at all. The 310 would climb a bit, then settle some, then climb some more. At one point the plane pitched up and started to roll right. The pilot dumped the nose and it started descending. It disappeared behind a tree line. Next thing we (including his relatives which were watching all of this from the ramp) saw was a dark, black column of smoke coming up from behind those trees. No sound of explosion, no sound at all. Just that awful column of smoke followed by the relatives going berserk.

I then remembered that he started the right engine first, which I thought was strange. Didn't they usually start the left engine first? Either way, the right engine balked. He had difficulty starting it and when it did finally catch, it ran rough for an extended period of time before smoothing out.

Other significant factors included the fact that the pilot taxied to the end of the runway, turned and took off. He did not have time to conduct a thorough run up or methodically work his way through his checklist. Wonder what that might have shown him?!

Post accident reports indicated that the right engine did indeed experience a power loss for undetermined reasons. The plane had been modified with extra fuel tanks (was purchased at auction from the U S Marshal Service...former drug runner) and was "loaded to the gills with fuel". The family reported that the pilot was anxious to return to Atlanta before dark. The accident occurred close to 6:00 pm from the now defunct Tampa Bay Executive Airport.

Ever since I witnessed that accident I have been scared of twins. Took one lesson in a Seminole since then and did enjoy it but whenever I'm at the field and some guy in a twin departs, I do get a quesey feeling inside and I say to myself "I hope they both keep running". Then I turn away because I don't want to see another one.

I realize all of things that he did wrong. He rushed, didn't do his run up, could have aborted on the runway or in the adjacent field. Instead he tried to do the impossible and paid the ultimate price. Stuff happens fast and you better have your head in the game.

[KLRDMD]

5 hours ago, kortopates said:

But this was not a under powered light twin but C310Q with TSIO-520's.

The video isn't loading for me but a Q model Cessna 310 was the last of the IO-470 engines. The R model was when they introduced the IO-520s and that model and engine was also offered turbocharged.

[kortopates]

3 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

The video isn't loading for me but a Q model Cessna 310 was the last of the IO-470 engines. The R model was when they introduced the IO-520s and was that model and engine was also offered in a turbocharged model.

I should has said T310Q. Its an earlier variant of the Q, before the R, and is also a turbocharged TSIO-520 FAA registration

[KLRDMD]

5 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I should has said T310Q. Its an earlier variant of the Q, before the R, and is also a turbocharged TSIO-520 FAA registration

I didn't realize any of the Q models had 520s or turbos. Good to know.

[Shadrach]

14 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

I didn't realize any of the Q models had 520s or turbos. Good to know.

Probably the least reliable installation for this airframe.

[Piloto]

Simple math shows that a twin will have twice the number of engine failures vs a single. An engine failure on take off on a twin has the same outcome as a single. And engine failure on take off is more prone to happen than in cruise due to the higher stress on the engine. I feel safer now on my M20J.

José

[jetdriven]

7 minutes ago, Piloto said:

Simple math shows that a twin will have twice the number of engine failures vs a single. An engine failure on take off on a twin has the same outcome as a single. And engine failure on take off is more prone to happen than in cruise due to the higher stress on the engine. I feel safer now on my M20J.

José

You're taking non-related data and forming a faulty hypothesis.  There are not more engine failures on takeoff due to higher stress. There are more engine failures in cruise due to the higher % of hours being operated at cruise. I would suspect that more engine failures on takeoff are caused by fuel mismanagement or water than higher stress.... Takeoff is when a dry tank or one full of water causes problems, with less time to recover...

. There are less pirates now than there were in 1820. The average global temperature is higher.   Therefore, the lack of pirates has caused global warming..

An engine failure in a twin above a weight in which it can climb on one engine, or an engine failure below Vyse will most likely result in the same outcome as a single, an off-field landing. worst case a crash. But single engine pilots lose control after an engine failure on takeoff too, and some surprising crashes given the terrain and the weather. That pilot would crahs a single or a twin with an engine failure on takeoff.

Anyways, a well-maintained twin flown by a professional pilot or a private pilot with a professional mindset and skill, is some margin safer than a  single flown by the same pilot.  there are are more options before putting it in the dirt. Im not saying twins are safer than singles. Im saying that a skilled pilot in a twin has more options and often better outcomes than if in a single engine.

Edited March 1, 2017 by jetdriven

[Yetti]

That's a horribly done graph and excludes Somole pirates.  Very Racist and not inclusive at all of Somole pirates.

[cliffy]

Let's go back to school for a short while shall we?

First, light twins don't have to show any ability to climb on one engine even at sea level when certified (unlike Part 25 certified aircraft that do). Virtually all do however, some better than others.

Lets look at Piper Apache (160 hp) and a Twin Comanche (160 hp) Both will fly on one engine. The Apache to around 4500' ASL and the TC to about 7000' ASL.

This is "density altitude" so if you fly on 2 engines to Telluride and you lose one on takeoff, your on the ground no matter what you do in either. 

If you're at sea level you "should" be able to fly and come back and land IF YOU'RE UP TO IT!

If your density altitude is higher than the airplanes single engine ceiling you won't fly very far after takeoff if you lose one. You will hit the ground somewhere near the airport.

If you fly over ground that is higher than the SE ceiling, guess what? You're on the ground again. If you elect to fly a twin over ground that is higher than the SE ceiling, its you making that choice and you'd better have a way out if you want to keep flying. 

If the airplane is capable and crashes it ain't the airplanes fault. 

The angst and umbrage against twins is misplaced. With proper training and ATTITUDE they are as safe as any other airplane.  

[cnoe]

Having never flown a twin I have a question... Can any/most/all light twins be trimmed to fly straight (feet-off) with one-engine-only at full power (when above Vyse)? Or is it a continual fight all the way to the ground? I'm just curious.

It seems like a (one-engine) twin would greatly extend one's (engine-out) range as long as controllability wasn't an issue. Thanks in advance for the input.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jetdriven]

Rudder authority depends on airspeed. Generally in cruise and descent, yes, it will trim out nicely. Banked slightly into the food engine and a half ball displacement is min drag. But a full power takeoff or anything like high power, low airspeed, you trim some of the rudder pressure off but you are always holding a good bit of rudder.  It's not all bad. It help keep you aware of which engine has failed. 

[mooniac15u]

9 hours ago, Yetti said:

That's a horribly done graph and excludes Somole pirates.  Very Racist and not inclusive at all of Somole pirates.

Is there a lot of piracy in landlocked Belarus?

[Shadrach]

23 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

Is there a lot of piracy in landlocked Belarus?

Beat me to it, but I'm glad someone did!

[AndyFromCB]

12 hours ago, Piloto said:

Simple math shows that a twin will have twice the number of engine failures vs a single. An engine failure on take off on a twin has the same outcome as a single. And engine failure on take off is more prone to happen than in cruise due to the higher stress on the engine. I feel safer now on my M20J.

José

You keep on saying this and I for a fact know it is not true. Plenty of twins will fly away with one quitting right at rotation, depending on weight, altitude and speed. We've been here before and yet you keep on spewing this BS. Last time this happen I even showed you a video of a Diamond taking off on a single engine. Commander crossed the entire US of A with a prop stowed in the back. I know for a fact a 421C will do it. I know a fact an Aerostar will do. I know for a fact a Navajo will do it. And I certainly know a RAM IV T310R will do it because I've spent quite a few hours in the right seat of one.

I know for a fact that a T310R with 325hp will out climb your M20J on one if 500lb under gross (it will hit 1000fpm) and will easily do 650fpm at gross at sea level. Why do you keep on spewing this BS when certification requires it for twins that stall above 61knots. You can feel safer in your M20J, because after all we are in the new "I don't know it for a fact, but I fell it's true era" but a properly flown twin, on a proper length runway, gives you a ton more options than a single. A T310R will blow right thru blue line with all 3 wheels still on the ground under 3000ft at gross. Fly it from a 5000ft runway and you can be as safe as a jet. An Aerostar will climb away with the wheels hanging out.

Edited March 1, 2017 by AndyFromCB