Cessna 335 twin crashed on take off at KFXE today.

[Piloto]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

Whats with the epaulets and wings on that sweater? That seems little odd..

The pilot was from Dominican Republic with a Green card here in the US. The sweater with the epaulets and gold wings are common in many countries to project a high class professional image standard, specially when working with paying passengers or employers. Similar to MDs wearing a white coat and stethoscope when attending patients. Or Top Guns wantbe wearing military style leather jackets and Ray-Ban sunglasses when going flying.  Like this one:

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/sherpajacket.php?recfer=23759

José

Edited December 4, 2018 by Piloto

[gsengle]

The pilot was from Dominican Republic with a Green card here in the US. The sweater with the epaulets and gold wings are common in many countries to project a high class professional image standard, specially when working with paying passengers or employers. Similar to MDs wearing a white coat and stethoscope when attending patients.  
José

Yes but he was flying in Florida. I’m asking if anyone knows the nature of the operation that conducted that flight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Piloto]

1 minute ago, gsengle said:

 

Yes but he was flying in Florida. I’m asking if anyone knows the nature of the operation that conducted that flight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Supposedly he was ferrying back the plane for maintenance.

José

[Yetti]

Cleared for take off on 13 that goes out over the water.

Tower asks if he is going to stay along the shore

Pilot says he has a fire

I am going to put it into the water to put the fire out, not turn around to get to the airport.

Not a twin pilot.

 

[Andy95W]

6 hours ago, steingar said:

 A simple analysis of accident data reveals that in terms of fatal accidents twins aren't one whit safer than singles. 

And this is where José is absolutely correct in his implications. For many General Aviation twin-engine pilots who do not participate in regular recurrent training, twins do have more fatal accidents than singles.  Percentage-wise after an engine failure, A LOT more.

But José doesn't differentiate between those pilots and professionals who go through difficult and demanding recurrent training every 6-12 months and operate in a crew environment on very capable turbine powered airplanes. He lumps them all together and comes up with the outrageous conclusion that all multi-engine operations are less safe than single engine operations. 

If his conclusions were correct, then why don't Airlines here in the United States operate single engine airplanes?  The answer is simple- the FAA knows that José is wrong in his conclusions, and would never allow a Part 121 certificated Airline to operate an airplane with only one engine due to safety considerations.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Piloto said:

Just an engineer involved in the B777 fly by wire PFC and RDR-4 Radar design and flight testing (Convair 580). FAA certification experience per FAR Part 23, 25

José

And with those qualifications you designed and approved your extended range tanks with a drain valve that doesn’t drain the sediment and debris from the bottom of the tank?  

Clarence

Edited December 4, 2018 by M20Doc

[jetdriven]

Yikes !

[Piloto]

28 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

And this is where José is absolutely correct in his implications. For many General Aviation twin-engine pilots who do not participate in regular recurrent training, twins do have more fatal accidents than singles.  Percentage-wise after an engine failure, A LOT more.

But José doesn't differentiate between those pilots and professionals who go through difficult and demanding recurrent training every 6-12 months and operate in a crew environment on very capable turbine powered airplanes. He lumps them all together and comes up with the outrageous conclusion that all multi-engine operations are less safe than single engine operations. 

If his conclusions were correct, why don't Airlines here in the United States operate single engine airplanes?  The answer is simple- the FAA knows that José is wrong in his conclusions, and would never allow a Part 121 certificated Airline to operate an airplane with only one engine due to safety considerations.

Single Cessna 208 Caravans are used for passenger carrying by some airlines to hard to reach remote locations like lakes (amphibian configuration)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_208_Caravan

Back in the 1920s multiengine planes goal was to carry more load not for engine redundancy.

José

[Guest]

4 hours ago, jetdriven said:

only the newest 400 series Cessnas have the fuel crossfeed shutoff. I think the bonded smooth wing models, such as the 421C, 414A, and 402C.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2018/Jan/140841/Cessna (Multiple Models), Exhaust System.pdf

 

 

 

Correct, if it has tip tanks it doesn’t have crossfeed shutoff valves. There is an S/B to replace the crossfeed lines behind the firewall with stainless steel lines.  Few have complied.

Clarence

[Guest]

3 hours ago, gsengle said:

 

Appears to be a 1980 which should have a crossfeed shut off, I believe.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/12/cessna-335-n79hp-fatal-accident.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I look after a 335, no crossfeed shutoff valve on tip tanked Cessna twins.

Clarence

[Piloto]

4 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

And with those qualifications you designed and approved your extended range tanks with a drain valve that doesn’t drain the sediment and debris from the bottom of the tank?  

Clarence

Have you ever thought why all the Cessna and other planes use this valve? Simple: tank debris can not clog the drain valve holes. If the drain holes were at the very bottom the holes in the mounting plate would be clogged and would only drain from the top of the stem, leaving the undrained water to be pick up by the fuel outlet screen.

José

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Piloto said:

Have you ever thought why all the Cessna and other planes use this valve? Simple: tank debris can not clog the drain valve holes. If the drain holes were at the very bottom the holes in the mounting plate would be clogged and would only drain from the top of the stem, leaving the undrained water to be pick up by the fuel outlet screen.

José

If the drain is meant to drain sediment and debris from the fuel tank, it should be at the bottom of the tank.  If your theory is correct why have none of the airframe manufacturers issued instructions and kits to change the design to your method?  Because it’s wrong! What a cock and bull explanation.  

Smart pilots get maintenance to fix their drain valves if they don’t drain on their preflight.

Clarence

[Guest]

I’m going to suggest a much safer way to operate twin engined aircraft.  Because the risk of engine failure is higher in twins, all take offs should be conducted on one engine only.  Then at a safe altitude the second engine will be started and used for increased speed for the remainder of the flight.

Way back in time the Aero Commander company flew one of their twins from Oklahoma to Washington DC on one engine to prove how safe they were.  From the Twin Commander website here’s the story

. The Aero Commander also had an unprecedented margin of safety relative to other aircraft due to its single engine performance capabilities. The Aero Commander was capable of taking off, flying and landing on a single engine while maintaining a high degree of stability. To prove this, and to enhance market recognition of the plane, in May of 1951, the Company successfully completed a flight from Oklahoma City to Washington DC loaded to full gross weight with one propeller removed from the plane. This was a first for the aviation industry and a strong demonstration of the asymmetric control and responsiveness of the Aero Commander.

Clarence

Edited December 4, 2018 by M20Doc

[Yetti]

I am going to suggest that none of the planes I fly on catch on fire.

[rpcc]

So hey all - this thread just sucks.  Brings the Mooney community down - Mr Jose is has control of the yoke I'm afraid.

[Piloto]

4 hours ago, M20Doc said:

If the drain is meant to drain sediment and debris from the fuel tank, it should be at the bottom of the tank.  If your theory is correct why have none of the airframe manufacturers issued instructions and kits to change the design to your method?  Because it’s wrong! What a cock and bull explanation.  

Smart pilots get maintenance to fix their drain valves if they don’t drain on their preflight.

Clarence

 

4 hours ago, M20Doc said:

If the drain is meant to drain sediment and debris from the fuel tank, it should be at the bottom of the tank.  If your theory is correct why have none of the airframe manufacturers issued instructions and kits to change the design to your method?  Because it’s wrong! What a cock and bull explanation.  

Smart pilots get maintenance to fix their drain valves if they don’t drain on their preflight.

Clarence

Here are  Cessna planes applicability of the F391-72 drain valve.

https://www.univair.com/miscellaneous/view-all/f391-72-fuel-drain-valve-7-16-inch-20-thread/

Here are Mooney planes applicability for the F391-53S drain valve

https://www.univair.com/engine-parts/view-all/f391-53s-flush-drain-valve-7-16-inch-20-thread/

 

The F391-53S Mooney valve needs a special nutplate mounting plate with small drain channels in contact with the bottom skin. These channels can be easily clog with just PRC -22- flowing into it during a reseal job. Or deteriorating old sealant pieces. Some mechanics try to clear these channels through the drain valve hole on the skin. But in doing so they remove sealant from the nut plates rivets causing fuel stains in the area.

  I found about this issue back in 1983 when my old M20C engine quit during the takeoff run. At the taxiway I removed the drain valve and water poured which I didn't get when I drained through the valve before because it was draining from the top of the valve stem.

. I replaced the valves with F391-72 and filler cap O-rings. Never had the problem again. Best way to remove any debris or sediment is to remove the valve an let it drain. 

José   

Your picture shows sealant at the bottom  next to the adapter plate. This amount of sealant would have clogged the F391-53S nutplate drain channels. Notice how the F391-72 drain holes are in the clear after sealant application. I replaced the valves with F391-72 and filler cap O-rings. Never had the problem again. Best way to remove any debris or sediment is to remove the valve an let it drain. 

José   

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Piloto

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Piloto said:

 

Here are  Cessna planes applicability of the F391-72 drain valve.

https://www.univair.com/miscellaneous/view-all/f391-72-fuel-drain-valve-7-16-inch-20-thread/

Here are Mooney planes applicability for the F391-53S drain valve

https://www.univair.com/engine-parts/view-all/f391-53s-flush-drain-valve-7-16-inch-20-thread/

 

The F391-53S Mooney valve needs a special nutplate mounting plate with small drain channels in contact with the bottom skin. These channels can be easily clog with just PRC -22- flowing into it during a reseal job. Or deteriorating old sealant pieces. Some mechanics try to clear these channels through the drain valve hole on the skin. But in doing so they remove sealant from the nut plates rivets causing fuel stains in the area.

  I found about this issue back in 1983 when my old M20C engine quit during the takeoff run. At the taxiway I removed the drain valve and water poured which I didn't get when I drained through the valve before because it was draining from the top of the valve stem.

. I replaced the valves with F391-72 and filler cap O-rings. Never had the problem again. Best way to remove any debris or sediment is to remove the valve an let it drain. 

José   

Your picture shows sealant at the bottom  next to the adapter plate. This amount of sealant would have clogged the F391-53S nutplate drain channels. Notice how the F391-72 drain holes are in the clear after sealant application. I replaced the valves with F391-72 and filler cap O-rings. Never had the problem again. Best way to remove any debris or sediment is to remove the valve an let it drain. 

José   

 

 

 

So in your opinion and STC’d kit it is better to have the holes in the drain valve 1/4-3/8” above the lower wing skin as in the picture a few posts above.  This prevents the holes in the valve from ever getting clogged.  But it also ensures that gallons of water could be rolling around in the bottom of the tank and never be drained even if you removed the valve from the aluminum plate.  

I don’t see how you got this approved by the FAA.

Clarence

[flyboy0681]

I can't believe how far down this thread has digressed.

[ArtVandelay]

Have you ever thought why all the Cessna and other planes use this valve? Simple: tank debris can not clog the drain valve holes. If the drain holes were at the very bottom the holes in the mounting plate would be clogged and would only drain from the top of the stem, leaving the undrained water to be pick up by the fuel outlet screen. José

 

If the drain is clogged, shouldn’t it be obvious there is a problem (slower flow)?

And I would not use Cessnas as an example, they had to add fuel drains (6 per tank IIRC) because they had problems with the single drain not getting the water out.

As long as the holes are lower than the fuel pickup it will work, unless you end up in turbulence, then it’s up to the gasolator.

I’ve never had water drain from the gasolator, I wonder how much it can hold vs how much can be left below the drain?

 

[Johnnybgoode]

On 12/4/2018 at 1:07 AM, jetdriven said:

That’s the biggest load of bullshit I have read all week. The 335 when it’s cleaned up, (with the gear up flaps up and banked into the operating engine)  will easily climb and fly on one (less) engine. Anything less than that is poor technique.  

Same as the mighty Herk.

[steingar]

15 hours ago, Andy95W said:

And this is where José is absolutely correct in his implications. For many General Aviation twin-engine pilots who do not participate in regular recurrent training, twins do have more fatal accidents than singles.  Percentage-wise after an engine failure, A LOT more.

But José doesn't differentiate between those pilots and professionals who go through difficult and demanding recurrent training every 6-12 months and operate in a crew environment on very capable turbine powered airplanes. He lumps them all together and comes up with the outrageous conclusion that all multi-engine operations are less safe than single engine operations. 

If his conclusions were correct, then why don't Airlines here in the United States operate single engine airplanes?  The answer is simple- the FAA knows that José is wrong in his conclusions, and would never allow a Part 121 certificated Airline to operate an airplane with only one engine due to safety considerations.

You are of course correct, but perhaps you should think about what the GA single engine accident rate would look like if we all trained and flew like the pros.  Also, most f the pros are flying turbine engines, which has a much lower failure rate than their poor cousins the piston engine.

[Piloto]

10 hours ago, M20Doc said:

I don’t see how you got this approved by the FAA.

Clarence

Same way It got approved for the Cessna

José

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Piloto said:

Same way It got approved for the Cessna

José

While Cessna uses the same valve as your STC, their installation has the holes flush with the inner surface of the lower tank skin, not elevated 3/8” above the skin.

I guess we’ll just have to disagree.

Clarence

[Piloto]

For practical purposes these drains valves can not pass trough debris because it will  clog and jam the internal mechanism, causing them to continuously leak and stain the area. Just one teaspoon of sand will jam the mechanism.

José 

[jetdriven]

3 minutes ago, Piloto said:

For practical purposes these drains valves can not pass trough debris because it will  clog and jam the internal mechanism, causing them to continuously leak and stain the area. Just one teaspoon of sand will jam the mechanism.

José 

And that should alert you to pull the drain and clean the tank. There shouldn’t be any shit in the tank, however water is a possibility. I wonder how many people have been killed by your faulty design?