HiFlyer

Small plane crash on major freeway in Southern California

Recommended Posts

Dang..... looks like the pilot almost pulled it off. :sad:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

A C310 was leaving KSNA to TRM according to FlightAware, news reports two people onboard with injuries, so hopefully no fatalities....sad story!

Share this post


Link to post

I heard a brief audio clip, right engine failed after T/O....hope the couple are OK.  

Share this post


Link to post

T/O or landing? It's a little confusing from the news report. With the 310 and engine failure on t/o requires immediate corrective action or you can easily lose control. That makes more sense that the speculation that they were landing - losing an engine on landing they should have been able to continue the approach.

Glad the pilot and passenger are ok. Waste of a good 310 though.

 

Vic

Share this post


Link to post

Trying to return to the field after losing the right engine on takeoff, seems like with correct C310 single engine out procedure there shouldn't of been a problem, two people onboard and both in serious but stable condition. A mayday call was made and the pilot seems very panicked, not a voice of someone who had the situation under control. Will be curious to read the NTSB report. Wishing them the best with their recovery. Very sad!

 

Martin

Share this post


Link to post

Sadly an all to common occurrence.

 

Vic

Share this post


Link to post

Cameras are everywhere, now......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

One of the most comforting feelings about flying transport category airplanes is thst when you lose one on takeoff or right at v1, you know your going to climb at a good rate.

Not a luxury with small twins.

Share this post


Link to post

The plane apparently clipped a truck as well. The driver only has a bruised elbow.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I personally knew two CFI's  that were killed in separate crashes in Florida in a 310, with engine failure on takeoff. In that aircraft, the purpose of the second engine is to fly you to the scene of the crash. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Milviz had spent weeks working with a 310 pilot on engine out behavior , its one of the things simulation is well adapted to training for , I realize that getting a twin rating requires having practiced engine out procedures but emergency situations require a calm reasoning that's not a natural reaction to stress , its only through repetition that training overcomes our tendency towards panic.

Simulation has its place , IFR training , Instrument navigation in 0 visibility , stall recovery and emergency situations like the pilot in question had , that wasn't an emergency landing , it was a crash , from what I could see he stalled out ,  the prop wasn't feathered .

Not enough time in sim .

Share this post


Link to post

Needless to say without all the facts, since it will have to be the subject of an AAI to determine those, it's difficult to say how well or badly the pilot did; we don't know the extent of the mechanical issues the pilot was having to deal with. So of course, as with all incidents and how the people involved react, it is easy to judge these from the comfort of a chair. Nevertheless, even without those facts in our possession, one thing we can definitely say is that, since both occupants of the aircraft appear to have survived and only one person on the ground received very minor injuries, then even taking into account luck, the end result turned out pretty well. Part of that appears to be that the aircraft seems to have burst its tanks upon impact and dumped almost all of the fuel on board in an admittefly dramatic-looking, but relatively harmless trail of flames. The other lucky thing is that it miraculously appears to have missed a good many vehicles on the ground and not cartwheeled.

The pilot does sound a bit panicked on the radio and whilst some of that is entirely understandable, being ready to deal with the possibility of something going awry is part of being a good pilot. It is easy to get complacent if you fly an aeroplane regularly and then one day find it doesn't perform as expected. But we know anything can break, thus things going wrong with something mechanical should never be regarded as unexpected. If one takes the attitude of 'expecting the unexpected' and keeps in mind what is to be done if such things do occur, then training will kick in. That is the difference between something becoming more than merely a good anecdote to relate to other pilots when propping up the bar.

Share this post


Link to post

Agree, until the NTSB report is completed it's only speculation. The pilot having survived will also help to determine what went wrong. Turning back to the runway is an instinctual reaction, but after losing an engine getting the dead engine featured and maintaining VMC in level flight should be the first thing done, then once the plane is stabilized head back to the runway. Perhaps he was trying to do this, but it looks like the plane never reached VMC, perhaps not enough time to feature the prop, and then the turn increased the stall speed and loss of control followed. As mentioned it's easy for me to speculate sitting here in front of my computer, so lets be glad the pilot and passenger survived and wait and see what conclusion the NTSB reach.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The 310 is perfectly capable of continuing the climb on one engine IF the proper procedures are immediately followed when you lose one. @CHUCK_JODRY - Milviz did a great job on modelling that aircraft's handling. The first time I did an engine out on t/o run in it my heart jumped up in my throat. All pure speculation but it also is possible that whatever affected the engine that quit also affected the other. I still think he sounded panicked on the ATC but just not enough facts. Main thing is that no one was killed.

As has been said - all is pure speculation

Vic

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

One factor that hasn't been mentioned is which direction he turned; was it to the working engine or the dead engine?

You generally do not want to turn towards the dead engine. The aircraft will tend to turn (both yaw and bank) towards the dead engine due to asymmetric thrust, allowing it to do so at low speed will make it difficult to end the turn, possibly to the point where you lose control. If you turn away from the dead engine, you'll have a tougher time getting into the turn, but the live engine will help you get out of it. That said, attempting low altitude turns with an engine out seems like a bad idea, you should concentrate on going straight and maintaining optimum airspeed to make sure you get some altitude

There are a couple of mnemonics when dealing with engine failures, like "dead foot, dead engine" (determining which engine failed) and "raise the dead" (keep bank towards the live engine)

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Chock said:

Nevertheless, even without those facts in our possession, one thing we can definitely say is that, since both occupants of the aircraft appear to have survived and only one person on the ground received very minor injuries, then even taking into account luck, the end result turned out pretty well. Part of that appears to be that the aircraft seems to have burst its tanks upon impact and dumped almost all of the fuel on board in an admittefly dramatic-looking, but relatively harmless trail of flames.

One advantage of a 310. A substantial amount of fuel is in the tip tanks, which both appear to have detached and were flung well forward away from the main section of the fuselage. Fortunate indeed that nobody on the freeway were seriously injured in their vehicles, and that the aircraft hit very flat and slid.

Share this post


Link to post

Pure Speculation:

 

I have a feeling, he was not prepared and hasn't practiced engine out in a long time.  It would be good to know when he went out with an instructor and did an engine out procedure. Most of us, once we get our license and ratings, we relax our guard and get complacent.

I remember doing the multi engine rating and it was all about one engine out and and maintaing the speed above the  blue indicator. All these twins can climb at straight and level with single engine.. not at 800FPS at least at 200FPS. 

* airspeed below which directional control cannot be maintained.   Vmca 
* airspeed below which an intentional engine cut should never be made.  Vsse 
* airspeed that will give the best single engine rate of climb (or the slowest loss of altitude).  Vyse 
* airspeed that will give the steepest angle of climb with one engine-out.  Vxse 
 

If he had been practicing these engine outs, he would not have panicked.  This is again speculation on my part ... 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/30/2017 at 11:18 PM, ahsmatt7 said:

One of the most comforting feelings about flying transport category airplanes is thst when you lose one on takeoff or right at v1, you know your going to climb at a good rate.

Not a luxury with small twins.

Maybe.

blaustern

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/3/2017 at 7:34 PM, vgbaron said:

The 310 is perfectly capable of continuing the climb on one engine

Vic

Maybe.

blaustern

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Manny said:

Pure Speculation:

 

I have a feeling, he was not prepared and hasn't practiced engine out in a long time.  It would be good to know when he went out with an instructor and did an engine out procedure. Most of us, once we get our license and ratings, we relax our guard and get complacent.

If he had been practicing these engine outs, he would not have panicked.  This is again speculation on my part ... 

I don't know what you fly, but I have to do recurrent training annually.

Ever had a real engine failure on departure?  

blaustern

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Manny said:

Pure Speculation:

 

I have a feeling, he was not prepared and hasn't practiced engine out in a long time.  It would be good to know when he went out with an instructor and did an engine out procedure. Most of us, once we get our license and ratings, we relax our guard and get complacent.

I remember doing the multi engine rating and it was all about one engine out and and maintaing the speed above the  blue indicator. All these twins can climb at straight and level with single engine.. not at 800FPS at least at 200FPS. 

* airspeed below which directional control cannot be maintained.   Vmca 
* airspeed below which an intentional engine cut should never be made.  Vsse 
* airspeed that will give the best single engine rate of climb (or the slowest loss of altitude).  Vyse 
* airspeed that will give the steepest angle of climb with one engine-out.  Vxse 
 

If he had been practicing these engine outs, he would not have panicked.  This is again speculation on my part ... 

There are some older twins, on a hot day, that will be lucky to see 200 fpm, with full fuel and passengers. My flight instructor, a CFII with many  thousands of hours, was killed, when an engine went out just as he rotated, and he couldn't clear a strip mall across the street from the airport. He was killed, along with his student and a passenger in the wreck and ensuing fire. Knew another  CFI, Multi Engine instructor ferrying a 310 from one airport to another, a distance of about 6 miles. Just after rotation, she her right  engine, plane went inverted, and she crashed into the side of a house. In both instances, the aircraft never got higher than about 150 feet agl. These two CFI's probably taught thousands of engine outs, but the specs on the V speeds, are for standard temperature, a new engine, and split second reaction. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/3/2017 at 10:27 PM, n4gix said:

One factor that hasn't been mentioned is which direction he turned; was it to the working engine or the dead engine?

You generally do not want to turn towards the dead engine. The aircraft will tend to turn (both yaw and bank) towards the dead engine due to asymmetric thrust, allowing it to do so at low speed will make it difficult to end the turn, possibly to the point where you lose control. If you turn away from the dead engine, you'll have a tougher time getting into the turn, but the live engine will help you get out of it. That said, attempting low altitude turns with an engine out seems like a bad idea, you should concentrate on going straight and maintaining optimum airspeed to make sure you get some altitude

There are a couple of mnemonics when dealing with engine failures, like "dead foot, dead engine" (determining which engine failed) and "raise the dead" (keep bank towards the live engine)

Unfortunately and sadly, there is a third such mnemonic. "....with an engine fail in a twin, the second engine will generally get the aircraft to the crash site...."

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bluestar said:

I don't know what you fly, but I have to do recurrent training annually.

Ever had a real engine failure on departure?  

blaustern

What Private Pilots are forced to do recurrent training?  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Manny said:

What Private Pilots are forced to do recurrent training?  

Any that want to have a long life expectacy and have a bit of common sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.