Tragic Cessna 340 crash in Florida

[Jim Peace]

On 12/25/2017 at 10:32 PM, NotarPilot said:

I would venture to guess many near 0/0 departures are made each and every day in this country from Cessna 172s to Airbus A380s without problem.  

A-380 zero vis takeoff?  If it were true they would have a HUD and FLIR, specially trained crew etc and at that point it is not zero vis to references.

Even in my 121 company (which is like most) we need 300 or more feet to takeoff depending on conditions and equipment...not ZERO

 

Peace to the families.....

 

 

[Jim Peace]

On 12/25/2017 at 10:32 PM, NotarPilot said:

 

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Jim Peace

[Tommy]

10 minutes ago, Hank said:

You mean the plane won't perform if loaded and flown correctly by it's owner, who does something besides flying other people's planes for a living? How does the plane know who is flying it?

I think he is meant to say "proficient" and "experienced" 

[jetdriven]

57 minutes ago, Hank said:

You mean the plane won't perform if loaded and flown correctly by it's owner, who does something besides flying other people's planes for a living? How does the plane know who is flying it?

Nah Hank I used the wrong word. In this instance I meant to say flown in a professional manner. It’s a demanding airplane when something goes wrong and it happens. Someone who has has rigorous type-specific training and recurrent on type, is proficient, has currency, and knows his plane inside and out.  Sound judgment and decision making, and minimums that are inviolate. You don’t need a Commercial license to fly this way, just a professional mindset.  In the hands of a pilot like this, a Twin Cessna is a safe and extremely capable airplane. In the hands of a rusty or recreational flyer, a dangerous weapon. 

[aviatoreb]

How do we know it was really zero vis?  400 feet looks pretty low and they might be called the same thing off the cuf by the sheriff.

[Yooper Rocketman]

When the mercy flight organization I am currently president for bought their first plane about 15 years ago it was a twin, even though the two longest standing members were NOT twin rated ( I was one of them).  There were a bunch of active and retired airline pilots who out voted us on a single ( interesting enough, none who fly for us today) and passed a resolution to allow the organization to cover the cost to get the two of us "twin rated ".   I flew about 6 hours and decided there was no way I would fly enough to be "proficient " ( the other single rated pilot did the same) and decided I would just continue supporting the organization with flights in my Mooney.  My Mooney was faster than the twin, better in weather, and I was building a single engine prop jet almost twice as fast as the twin .  Couldn't quite see the advantage of a twin.

Years later we sold the A/C equipped Seneca 5 to buy a 3 with better payload, and had enough money left over to buy our first Bonanza.  Operating costs have been half the twin, and our second "newer" turbonormalized Bo is 20 knots faster with FIKA.  I rode in the twin once in the winter time in icing when one set of boots decided to NOT work and will always take a TKS system over boots.   

I have to agree with Byron on this one.  If you are going to fly a twin you better be open to frequent and serious flight training.  These planes are a lot less forgiving of a pilot not dedicated to serious training and real currency.  

Tom

[Piloto]

The original twin engine (wing mounted) concept back in 1910 was to carry a heavier load than that of a single engine plane. It was not intended as a backup engine. A twin dilemma is that if the plane engines are too powerful you may loose control and crash if one fails. On the other hand if the engines are not as powerful you will not able to sustain flight on one engine but have control. Fuselage mounted engines like those in fighter jets provide the best configuration for twins. 

José

[Guest]

On 2017-12-27 at 8:16 PM, jetdriven said:

Nah Hank I used the wrong word. In this instance I meant to say flown in a professional manner. It’s a demanding airplane when something goes wrong and it happens. Someone who has has rigorous type-specific training and recurrent on type, is proficient, has currency, and knows his plane inside and out.  Sound judgment and decision making, and minimums that are inviolate. You don’t need a Commercial license to fly this way, just a professional mindset.  In the hands of a pilot like this, a Twin Cessna is a safe and extremely capable airplane. In the hands of a rusty or recreational flyer, a dangerous weapon. 

Most of those comments apply to singles as well.  Equally dangerous in the hands a rusty pilot.

Clarence

[bradp]

There is a concern based on a pic of the trim tab that the trim tab actuator may have become unbolted and jammed in a “nose down” position. Whether the pilot crashed with the gear up or down may be telling.  

In a flight control failure circumstance it would be doubtful as to an improved outcome in a   Higher visibility environment.  However it is useful to talk about these issues. 

[Yooper Rocketman]

53 minutes ago, bradp said:

There is a concern based on a pic of the trim tab that the trim tab actuator may have become unbolted and jammed in a “nose down” position. 

That would be a bad day in ANY airplane!

Tom

[Guest]

1 hour ago, bradp said:

There is a concern based on a pic of the trim tab that the trim tab actuator may have become unbolted and jammed in a “nose down” position. Whether the pilot crashed with the gear up or down may be telling.  

In a flight control failure circumstance it would be doubtful as to an improved outcome in a   Higher visibility environment.  However it is useful to talk about these issues. 

There have been 2 recent AD’s on the trim system on Cessna twins.  screws that hod the trim tab horn corroded almost all the way thru.

Clarence

[NotarPilot]

Interesting discussion here. I think most of us can agree that it’s possible the weather had nothing or little to do with the crash and that’s what bothers me most about the sheriff’s comments.  Comments like his should be reserved for after a thorough investigation by the professionals at the NTSB once we know the facts.

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, NotarPilot said:

I think most of us can agree that it’s possible the weather had nothing or little to do with the crash

uhhhh, launching in super low vis/ceilings situation could have a LOT to do with this crash. Lets not let your disdain for his comments distort reality here. I think most of us would agree that wx played a role in his ability to not have a safer outcome

[Parker_Woodruff]

On 12/27/2017 at 7:16 PM, jetdriven said:

Nah Hank I used the wrong word. In this instance I meant to say flown in a professional manner. It’s a demanding airplane when something goes wrong and it happens. Someone who has has rigorous type-specific training and recurrent on type, is proficient, has currency, and knows his plane inside and out.  Sound judgment and decision making, and minimums that are inviolate. You don’t need a Commercial license to fly this way, just a professional mindset.  In the hands of a pilot like this, a Twin Cessna is a safe and extremely capable airplane. In the hands of a rusty or recreational flyer, a dangerous weapon. 

Insurance companies rate "Pro-Flown" a lot cheaper than "owner-flown" for a reason.  They also offer higher liability limits for "pro-flown" as well.

As you say above, a professional manner should lend itself to frequent, intensive recurrent training, preferably sim-based.
 

Owner pilots can be as proficient and skilled as pro pilots, especially if they train and fly like pro pilots.

There are pro pilots that get complacent and don't want to train, too.

[Mcstealth]

On 12/26/2017 at 8:39 AM, aviatoreb said:

Just some context - for the life of GA where people react as if flying an airplane smaller than an airbus is crazy and there is a screw loose in anyone who does it...

And this same reaction comes from people around here many of whom do things that I would not do and I find them to be much more dangerous and scary to me.

1) Snowmobiles - especially over frozen lakes.  Snowmobiles go 100mph and every year in this state we read stories about people nearby who died either by crashing into a tree or breaking through a frozen lake where there was a thin spot.

2) ATV's....crash into cars (driven on streets which is illegal), or crash into trees, or simply tip over into ditches.

3) Hunting - people seem to be constantly accidentally shooting each other.

I don 't begrudge any of those people for doing those activities, but ... not for me.  (P.S. my knock on hunting was not to be a anti gun something so lets not go there....I was just saying that I keep reading in the paper of two buddies going into the woods hunting and one of them accidentally shoots the other thinking it was a deer or something).

..and yet people are mostly fine with those activities and the risk associated with it, as am I, for others.

(Runner up activities, jet ski, speed boat, canoe (yup), bicycles (I do that a lot - yikes), skate board, roller skates, bath tubs, sky diving ...well sky divers are crazy).

No mention of motorcycles.

[aviatoreb]

23 minutes ago, Mcstealth said:

No mention of motorcycles.

Oh yeah!  I forgot!  Motorcycles too...

[NotarPilot]

6 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

uhhhh, launching in super low vis/ceilings situation could have a LOT to do with this crash. Lets not let your disdain for his comments distort reality here. I think most of us would agree that wx played a role in his ability to not have a safer outcome

Yes it could, I’m not disputing that. In my original post I even said that chances are (statistically speaking) this accident was due to pilot error.  My issue is when judgements are made by people in authority during press conferences before an accident investigation is completed. Hell, before it even started the sheriff seemed like he pretty much made up his mind.

However, could he have had an engine quit at a critical moment during take off that could have caused the same crash even in VFR conditions?  A non proficient pilot in a twin that goes OEI could suffer a similar fate, even in VFR, if he isn’t up on his emergency procedures. So if that were to be the case, what difference does the weather make?  I can’t speak to the proficiency level of the pilot as I do not have enough information and I’m going to guess neither did the sheriff when he made his statements.  As far as the weather goes It’s possible that it was less of a contributing factor than his proficiency and decision making, but who knows?  Of course all this is purely hypothetical and we won’t know more until a thorough and complete investigation is completed.  Until then I will reserve my judgement on what happened.  I can only guess at this point.