Very bad Cessna 310 crash in Riverside

[jetdriven]

I think Jose is saying he would be safer in his M20J than if he were flying any twin, and for that, I would have to agree.

[Ron McBride]

I have 500 hours in a 310G.  I have had an engine failure in it, on takeoff,  just before rotation.  It was not fun.   But I kept it on the runway.  A 310G will fly and climb on 1 engine, I have done this many times in practice.  You must stay current and practice.   If you are above single engine service ceiling the plane will start a controlled slow descent, hopefully there is a runway available soon, before you run out of airspace.  the descent rate will depend on your density altitude above the single engine service ceiling. You can fly a long ways on 1 engine if needed.    Again practice and be current.

On the 310G, stall is 80mph, vmc was 80 also, rotation at 95mph, vyse 114mph and vyme 126mph. Cruise climb is 140mph.    Cruise speed is 185Knots and 25 gph. All Speeds can and will very by aircraft weight, and CG.

If you are in your Mooney, an engine failure anywhere, the decision is made for you, you are going down, hopefully a runway is available.

I fly a Mooney, I would have another 310 if I could afford the maintenance, fuel and the costs to stay current and proficient.   I can afford to do these in my Mooney.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, AndyFromCB said:

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.

OK, I was with you right up to the second paragraph were you claim that a T310R  that is 500lb under gross with one engine feathered will out climb a J model at MGW.  Maybe at Leadville, but not likely and that hardly stands up to scrutiny.  

The expression "fighting fire with fire" comes to mind; it's especially apropos if one were to substitute the word bull$#!% for the word fire.

The factory claims S/E ROC for a T310R at gross (5500lbs) is 370FPM. Are you suggesting that the factory number is conservative by 75%?  Your assertion that if the aircraft were 500lbs lighter that ROC will then increase another 53% over your already absurd number to 1000fpm is complete and utter horse-s-h-i-t.

[Hank]

14 hours ago, jetdriven said:

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.

Quite irrespective of Somalia [and Belarus, too   ), I think you got the causation wrong. Global warming is what is driving down the piracy rates, and that's antoher reason we should all park our Mooneys and get nice, used Priuses instead. Think of their families, forced into bad situations by their job-displaced spouses . . .. .

P.S.--there's something wrong with the labeling on the "Number of Pirates" axis, and note the decrease on the graph should slow down in the late 20th century as the Somalis came into network TC coverage.

[AndyFromCB]

22 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

OK, I was with you right up to the second paragraph were you claim that a T310R  that is 500lb under gross with one engine feathered will out climb a J model at MGW.  Maybe at Leadville, but not likely and that hardly stands up to scrutiny.  

The expression "fighting fire with fire" comes to mind; it's especially apropos if one were to substitute the word bull$#!% for the word fire.

The factory claims S/E ROC for a T310R at gross (5500lbs) is 370FPM. Are you suggesting that the factory number is conservative by 75%?  Your assertion that if the aircraft were 500lbs lighter that ROC will then increase another 53% over your already absurd number to 1000fpm is complete and utter horse-s-h-i-t.

How about read my post again. I said a 325hp T310R, not a factory 285hp one. A sea level climb on a 325hp T310R is 650fpm on one engine as per RAM supplement. 40hp makes all the difference in the world. And clearly, you've never flown a light twin. 500lb goes a long way, granted maybe not 350fpm worth, but definitely worth 200fpm. It sure works like that on a B58, the closest manual I actually have handy on this computer and an airplane I've flown and practiced engine out climbs on multiple occasions. 500lb less in a Baron generally means 500fpm vs 300fpm on one.

Edited March 1, 2017 by AndyFromCB

[Shadrach]

22 hours ago, AndyFromCB said:

How about read my post again. I said a 325hp T310R, not a factory 285hp one. A sea level climb on a 325hp T310R is 650fpm on one engine as per RAM supplement. 40hp makes all the difference in the world. And clearly, you've never flown a light twin. 500lb goes a long way, granted maybe not 350fpm worth, but definitely worth 200fpm. It sure works like that on a B58, the closest manual I actually have handy on this computer and an airplane I've flown and practiced engine out climbs on multiple occasions. 500lb less in a Baron generally means 500fpm vs 300fpm on one.

You said a T310R not the Ram IV you mentioned in a subsequent sentence.  My experience in light twins is admittedly pretty limited (a handful of SIC time in a C421 and B55). My experience with laws of physics however is not diminished by my lack of twin experience, nor does your greater experience in twins trump said laws. 

I believe that a Ram IV will do 640FPM on one engine.  I do not believe that a 9% weight reduction will result in a 56% increase in ROC.

It matters not how much time you have if your numbers defy physics.

 

[Shadrach]

6 hours ago, cnoe said:

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

One of our now retired local instructors who shall remain nameless used to demonstrate engine out controllability to his more advanced students by rolling the aircraft around the dead engine.  Adequate airspeed makes all of the difference.

[exM20K]

Not a T310, but the docs are available online here.

DA42NG OEI Climb rate @ 2000 MSL and 0*:

4407#: 235 fpm

4189#: 275 fpm

3748#: 355 fpm

 

so roughly a 5% reduction in weight gives a 17% increase in climb performance.

and a 15% reduction in weight gives a 51% increase in climb performance.

It's a pretty linear relationship.

-dan

 

[peevee]

I read today they found a survivor with 90% of her body covered in 3rd degree burns. That's awful.

[kevinw]

I read today they found a survivor with 90% of her body covered in 3rd degree burns. That's awful.

Yes, the Mom. One of the teenagers also survived with relatively minor injuries if you can believe it. Read they were treating her as critical but only minor injuries. Unbelievable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

58 minutes ago, peevee said:

I read today they found a survivor with 90% of her body covered in 3rd degree burns. That's awful.

Jaysus. Brings things back in perspective. Heartbreaking...

[Shadrach]

14 hours ago, exM20K said:

Not a T310, but the docs are available online here.

DA42NG OEI Climb rate @ 2000 MSL and 0*:

4407#: 235 fpm

4189#: 275 fpm

3748#: 355 fpm

 

so roughly a 5% reduction in weight gives a 17% increase in climb performance.

and a 15% reduction in weight gives a 51% increase in climb performance.

It's a pretty linear relationship.

-dan

 

Agreed, it would be more more accurate to look at it in terms of lbs lifted per HP which is relatively linear whether adding hp or reducing weight.  Percentages muddy the water and are not linear at all.  For instance at 18,000ft a 5% reduction in weight creates an 825% increase in climb...but at that altitude a 100% increase is required just to maintain altitude.  

My post could have been more clear.  I still find it highly unlikely that a Ram IV climbs out at 1000fpm on one engine at 5000lbs, but that's for another thread.

[peevee]

15 hours ago, kevinw said:

Yes, the Mom. One of the teenagers also survived with relatively minor injuries if you can believe it. Read they were treating her as critical but only minor injuries. Unbelievable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sitting in a rear facing seat maybe? Poor girl.

[Hank]

I thought the passenger with minor injuries was ejected? Which was a surprise, because that usually leads to major injury or death; apparently this time it helped to escape the fire.

A truly bad story . ..

[kevinw]

I went to Katheryn's Report and followed up on this story. Here are a few excerpts:

A cafe owner near the airport was the last person to see the pilot alive. She said he appeared worried and attempted to take off three times. "I was so worried even the last moment they left," said Delmy Pennington. "I said, 'Why are they leaving?'"

Delmy Pennington was working at her cafe at Riverside Municipal Airport on Monday afternoon when she noticed a small plane struggling to take off amid heavy rain.

“It looked like the airplane didn’t start right, something was wrong,” said Pennington, co-owner of the D&D Airport Cafe. 

After it stopped raining, the group returned to the plane, this time finally taking off. But Pennington said she was concerned about what she saw: The back of the plane shaking.

“It looked to me like it was hitting the floor,” Pennington said of the airplane’s tail. She said she had never seen that happen before, even though she has watched “thousands of airplanes” take off from the airport. 

Based on this information it would seem very unlikely the pilot was unaware of a problem but decided to takeoff anyway. Hope we can all learn a little from this.

[MB65E]

When did they arrive at RAL?

It on and off rained all weekend in SoCal.  Monday was heavy at times. Did they take fuel Monday? 

Sad,

-Matt 

[thinwing]

Sad...three takeoff attempts...hm...sitting out all weekend in rain with Maybe a couple leaky o rings on the fuel caps.Its wet and maybe she didn't quite sump the tanks...either way ,to me ,that grainy video looked like the 310 came straight down...just like a vmc roll with loss of control.A miracle the teenager survived after being thrown clear...

[jrwilson]

I think he tried to start the engine multiple times, not take off three times, I think the waitress wasn't the most articulate and no one bothered to clarify.

[kortopates]

6 hours ago, kevinw said:

I went to Katheryn's Report and followed up on this story. Here are a few excerpts:

A cafe owner near the airport was the last person to see the pilot alive. She said he appeared worried and attempted to take off three times. "I was so worried even the last moment they left," said Delmy Pennington. "I said, 'Why are they leaving?'"

Delmy Pennington was working at her cafe at Riverside Municipal Airport on Monday afternoon when she noticed a small plane struggling to take off amid heavy rain.

“It looked like the airplane didn’t start right, something was wrong,” said Pennington, co-owner of the D&D Airport Cafe. 

After it stopped raining, the group returned to the plane, this time finally taking off. But Pennington said she was concerned about what she saw: The back of the plane shaking.

“It looked to me like it was hitting the floor,” Pennington said of the airplane’s tail. She said she had never seen that happen before, even though she has watched “thousands of airplanes” take off from the airport. 

Based on this information it would seem very unlikely the pilot was unaware of a problem but decided to takeoff anyway. Hope we can all learn a little from this.

I read that too. But if this was his difficulty in his final startup, I also read he had previously taxied to the runway to take off with a VFR on top clearance and then decided for whatever reasons he should file IFR to his destination - maybe he got a tops report he didn't like. regardless he then taxied back to the ramp. So I thought the hard starting later after he delayed to refile etc could have just been from the pilot havng a hot start challenge or even flooded the engine. I just wouldn't take hard starting alone to be indicative of a real engine issue. But not to say its not indicative of a real problem either.

I don't know what to think about the low tail.  But my first thought is that if the tail was practically hanging on the ground wouldn't the pilot be unable to taxi with the nose wheel practically off the pavement. i.e. you think it would be obvious to the pilot. 

Other reports are in conflict with the heavy rain on departure at that time. I recall only light rain. 

Anyway suspicions are neither engine was making power on impact. The propeller on the roof appears to be fully feathered and not bent in fashion consistent with making power from the better pictures we see in the news. So one of the good theories IMO is this could be a miss-fueling with JetA. And after suggesting above the hard starting could mean nothing more than something like a hot start, it could also help give credence to a miss fueling event (but I haven't had that experience with that  and hope I never do!). If the registered owner was flying, its hard to believe an ATP rated and CFI endorsed pilot would take off with such an an out of CG condition that would lead to a stall that some others have speculated. I hope he didn't not bother to sump his tanks because of the weather or but if it was JetA he apparently didn't notice it was clear rather than blue.

Here is an article on the JetA theory based in part on witness accounts of black smoke in trail as the plane went down, or possibly a ruptured fuel line:

http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20170302/engine-problems-smoke-hint-at-riverside-plane-crash-cause

But of course we still don't even have the preliminary yet.

[wiguy]

 The 'misfuel' is of course on the list. Then even with the proper fuel, how long was the plane parked in the rain? A few hours? A few days & nights?

 

  Anytime I have been parked for a while I approach my fuel checks very carefully. The mention of the 'difficulty starting' could be just a flooded engine or an indicator of more problems. One would think if there were serious problems it would lead to further evaluation before the family is loaded up?

 

  I know, no official word on the details, just general observations.  

[kortopates]

The Prelim on this came out on this yesterday: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170227X34320&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA 

No mention on a possible miss-fueling. But they did verify the pilot was the 83 year old ATP pilot and registered owner (therefore we assume is PPL wife was not the pilot flying) and they describe the pilot's witnessed difficulty getting the left engine started after the right started.

The most pertinent points they made in the report IMO was: " A preliminary review of ATC audio revealed that the controller issued an IFR clearance to the pilot multiple times before he repeated the instructions back to the controller correctly. Witnesses that were listening to the pilot's communications with ATC reported that the pilot required progressive taxi instructions to runway 09, the departure runway. Once the pilot reached the runway, the controller read the departure clearance to the pilot, verbatim. After an uneventful runway departure, the airplane began a left turn as it entered the clouds. A portion of the airplane's final moments of flight were captured by a surveillance video, which showed the airplane descend towards the ground in a slight left wing low attitude. The airplane disappeared behind a residence, which was immediately followed by the presence of fire and smoke."

If you also add in what is only rumor at this time, but from comments made purportedly from someone working their, that when the pilot returned after an earlier attempt to depart with a IFR to VFR on top clearance, he went to the FBO to buy charts and asked the FBO how to file an IFR flight plan. This strongly implys he had not intended to make any IFR legs on this trip from SJC and even worse, implying the pilot may have lacked any IFR recency in experience. Only rumor at this stage but the prelim does seem to corroborate to some degree. But its now going to be a year or more wait to get the final report.

Also sadly, one of the two woman survivors of the crash died on the 7th. This was the mother that suffered 3rd degree burns over 90% of her body that was pulled out of the burning house:  http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20170308/riverside-plane-crash-victim-stacey-pierce-dies  

[Skates97]

Needing a progressive taxi at Riverside? It's a pretty easy place to navigate around... I went there a couple times while getting my PPL and was able to navigate without help. 

[wishboneash]

So the controller read the clearance out one final time even after multiple attempts by the pilot to read back the clearance? I guess the controller was trying to make sure he really got it! That's very strange. It almost seems like the controller isn't sure he got the clearance down and is washing his hands off this guy.

[peevee]

I find it hard to believe an atp rated pilot didn't know how to file a flight plan. Maybe he was asking for a computer to use or something. Never know I guess.

[EricJ]

24 minutes ago, peevee said:

I find it hard to believe an atp rated pilot didn't know how to file a flight plan. Maybe he was asking for a computer to use or something. Never know I guess.

Probably some age-related cognitive issues setting in.   Doesn't matter how many ratings or how much experience you have when that stuff starts to happen.