Small plane crash on major freeway in Southern California

[KevinAu 441]

27 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

One might think that a twin-engine aircraft is safer than a single-engine aircraft.  After all, if one engine fails, you still have the other to bring you home safely.  That's the whole point of the second engine, right?

If one of the twin engines fails in cruise flight, maybe that's true.  But if it quits right after takeoff, the twin can be extremely difficult to handle.  When the aircraft's landing gear is down, its flaps set, and its airspeed just above the minimum flying speed, the asymmetric thrust generated by the operating engine can flip the aircraft onto its back and out of control.  A "Vmc roll", as it is called, is almost always fatal.  When an engine quits during the critical takeoff phase of flight, a pilot -- even one who does everything right --  may not be able to land the twin-engine aircraft safely.  A short runway make matters only worse.

 

In both situations that I mentioned with very experienced pilots, probably many thousands of hours more than anyone on this forum ever will have,  as well as them being instructors for decades, they could not avoid a crash. Don't insult the two CFI's that I knew and were friends with with a statement like you just did. 

I am going to have to take issue with some notions here.  We do train for and demonstrate during the practical test, engine failures at takeoff.  There is no reason a properly trained and unpanicked pilot should end up in a vmc roll just because the engine failure occured at takeoff.

In a light twin, you either rotate no slower than Vyse, or if you are performance limited and have to rotate below that, your prepared response if you lose the engine below Vmc would be to reduce power on the working engine and land straight ahead wherever you can just like you would have if you lost the engine in a single engine plane.

[BrianW 124]

At least in a twin you have the potential to climb out if the numbers are in your favor.  The challenge of a twin is overcoming that instinct to continue even when it really isn’t an option. Forcing a climb by reducing airspeed below VMC is in the same vein and stretching a glide and stalling.  You need to force yourself not to do it, which can be difficult when the decision needs to be made in milliseconds.  Furthermore, gear and flaps actually reduces VMC, but at the expense of climb performance.  VMC is highest when clean at low density altitudes.

 

As for this accident, he made it around the pattern so he was obviously able to make it past the failure on takeoff point.  There’s a dashcam video out there that shows the crash starting from the turn from base to final.  All I can say is the base leg was very close in and the turn to final was very steep, much steeper than it should have been.  At least he got the wings level before he hit.  As mentioned before, turning into the dead engine could have been a factor, but generally the power reduction during the approach phase of flight significantly reduces asymmetric thrust.

[vgbaron 3,652]

3 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

One might think that a twin-engine aircraft is safer than a single-engine aircraft.  After all, if one engine fails, you still have the other to bring you home safely.  That's the whole point of the second engine, right?

If one of the twin engines fails in cruise flight, maybe that's true.  But if it quits right after takeoff, the twin can be extremely difficult to handle.  When the aircraft's landing gear is down, its flaps set, and its airspeed just above the minimum flying speed, the asymmetric thrust generated by the operating engine can flip the aircraft onto its back and out of control.  A "Vmc roll", as it is called, is almost always fatal.  When an engine quits during the critical takeoff phase of flight, a pilot -- even one who does everything right --  may not be able to land the twin-engine aircraft safely.  A short runway make matters only worse.

 

In both situations that I mentioned with very experienced pilots, probably many thousands of hours more than anyone on this forum ever will have,  as well as them being instructors for decades, they could not avoid a crash. Don't insult the two CFI's that I knew and were friends with with a statement like you just did. 

I have great respect for all CFI's Bob but if they told you they could not recover - either you don't remember what they said or they are not very good.

Not only have I had the engine purposely cut *IN A 310* on takeoff during training but I actually had it happen. I am not a ghost. All I can say is heartfelt thanks to a man named Howard Riley who drilled the procedure into my head and probably saved my life. After gaining control the 310 was able to climb slowly to gain enough altitude to turn safely back to the field and land.

So, with all due respect to your friends - you do not know what you are talking about. The 310 will maintain a climb with an engine out.

I obviously haven't flown all the twins out there but of the ones I have, I'd rate the 310 as one of the hairiest in engine out procedures.

Vic

[BlueStar 323]

1 hour ago, vgbaron said:

...............310 will maintain a climb with an engine out.

I obviously haven't flown all the twins out there but of the ones I have, I'd rate the 310 as one of the hairiest in engine out procedures.

Vic

Vic,

Congratulations on your successful completion of an engine failure in a C310.  How far above the blue line was you when the engine quit and I'm guessing you weren't coming out of Denver in the summer?

blaustern

[vgbaron 3,652]

2 minutes ago, Bluestar said:

Vic,

Congratulations on your successful completion of an engine failure in a C310.  How far above the blue line was you when the engine quit and I'm guessing you weren't coming out of Denver in the summer?

blaustern

What are you trying to do, get me killed?  It was tough enough but fortunately almost sea level in warm Southern California. That was over 50 years ago and I was too young and stupid to realize how lucky I was. BUT I also had some darn good instructors. They loved flying and they really loved teaching it.

Vic

[Bobsk8 12,753]

9 hours ago, vgbaron said:

I have great respect for all CFI's Bob but if they told you they could not recover - either you don't remember what they said or they are not very good.

Not only have I had the engine purposely cut *IN A 310* on takeoff during training but I actually had it happen. I am not a ghost. All I can say is heartfelt thanks to a man named Howard Riley who drilled the procedure into my head and probably saved my life. After gaining control the 310 was able to climb slowly to gain enough altitude to turn safely back to the field and land.

So, with all due respect to your friends - you do not know what you are talking about. The 310 will maintain a climb with an engine out.

I obviously haven't flown all the twins out there but of the ones I have, I'd rate the 310 as one of the hairiest in engine out procedures.

Vic

Guess you should get on touch with these folks that made this video and explain to them how they are wrong.    I'm certain they will then revise their video.  LOL 

 

 

[BlueStar 323]

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Guess you should get on touch with these folks that made this video and explain to them how they are wrong.    I'm certain they will then revise their video.  LOL 

Bob,

AOPA does some very good stuff.

Some of my basic tenants for light twins are - 

1.  Fly it like it's already on one engine.

2.  Speed is life.

3.  Never trust an airplane any further than I can pick it up and throw it. 

Those of us who have been doing this a long time have lost friends who were giving training in light twins.  It's a very unforgiving business.

blaustern

[Bobsk8 12,753]

14 minutes ago, Bluestar said:

Bob,

AOPA does some very good stuff.

Some of my basic tenants for light twins are - 

1.  Fly it like it's already on one engine.

2.  Speed is life.

3.  Never trust an airplane any further than I can pick it up and throw it. 

Those of us who have been doing this a long time have lost friends who were giving training in light twins.  It's a very unforgiving business.

blaustern

Been researching and reading about aviation safety,  and going to AOPA safety meetings ( dozens of them)  since the late 70's. I have heard dozens of times from very knowledgeable speakers and instructors at these meetings that a combination of an older aircraft that doesn't perform as it did when it rolled off the assembly line, at gross weight, full fuel, short runway, high density altitude, climbing on one engine becomes a crapshoot.

An instructor and I experimented one day with a Piper Apache, out of North Perry Airport in the Miami area, and took off from 9 right and headed for the coastline which is about 6 miles away. We feathered one engine, and climbed at about 100 fpm. There were some 25 story condos on the beachfront, and we had to fly around one of them, because clearance was too close to be considered safe at the altitude we had achieved to fly  above them. Now we had planned all this prior to takeoff, so there was no surprise element at all and we were not at max weight. The first thing that the pilot experiences be it a twin or single engine, when an engine actually quits, is denial. This can't be happening is the normal reaction to a surprise event, which takes a second or two to sink in. If you have flaps down, gear down, engine quits at or just about rotation, by the time the pilot reacts with raising gear, feathering prop, it may be too late to avoid a collision with buildings or terrain. This is how very experienced pilots and even instructors are killed every year. It is not the same as the Multi engine CFI saying, OK now we are going to practice some engine out procedures, so you know what is going to happen in advance. . Before airline  training was done on simulators, there were pilots killed in Transport jets caused by the PF pulling power on the working engine by mistake.  

[Chock 17,769]

Unfortunately, the notion that experienced pilots, and even instructors, cannot make mistakes is sadly untrue. I've seen it happen, more than once, and I personally have known two CFIs who died as a result of unbelievably silly mistakes which we all would doubtless claim we'd never make (I'd tell you what the mistakes were, but I doubt anyone would believe me, they were that stupid). I've even had an instructor 'freeze' on me once when he flew us into into a thunderstorm, forcing me to get us out of trouble whilst he sat there behind me, absolutely catatonic. Trust me, anyone from a novice to a seasoned pilot with thousands of hours can screw up, and any pilot who claims he's never made any screw ups at all, is probably lying, it's just that sometimes we get away with it and sometimes, with aviation being very unforgiving, something truly bad happens.

Less tragically, and coincidentally on that same flight where the instructor froze on me, I got on the radio as I was coming in to land, to alert another instructor who was coming in at the same time as me in his own single seater aircraft, that his gear wasn't down. Unfortunately in that instance he didn't hear my transmission and bellied it onto the grass, fortunately with almost no damage at all since the grass was soaking wet at the time (from that same thunderstorm we'd got in trouble with) and he landed it very gently. A bunch of us picked the aircraft up with brute force, then someone leaned in the cockpit and dropped the gear; the only 'damage' was green streaked grass stains on the GRP underbelly of the aeroplane, literally no structural damage to the fuselage or wingtips at all. Pretty amazing, but very embarrassing for the pilot concerned in the club bar later that day. Bet he never put that incident in his logbook lol, but it's in mine hahahaha.

[vgbaron 3,652]

Bob - I don't know what you are reading into what I posted but maybe you should stop smoking the funny stuff.  Somehow I think we agree but are disagreeing. Maybe, since you might be hung up on semantics, I should qualify my original statement ( which *I* thought would be understood) - The Cessna 310 is capable of maintaining flight on a single engine - under the right circumstances. In MY case the circumstances were right so please don't insult ME by telling me it cannot be done.

We're talking about something with so many variables here, density altitude, weight, experience, etc etc. Of course there are more scenarios that end up in disaster than are successful.

You mention the Piper Apache - I had almost as much time in that as the 310 and for the life of me, I could NOT maintain altitude on a single engine. That a/c was coming down - slowly but definitely. *I* found the 310 to be more powerful and more capable but I wasn't talking about flying around sightseeing on a single engine - the idea is to get down safely.

I did so please stop telling me I am wrong.

Vic

[KevinAu 441]

Lots of talk here about what to do and how planes perform after losing an engine on take off.  Not sure what any of it has to do with this particular crash because this plane crashed on the landing approach.  If there is a lesson to be reinforced here, it would probably have to be the importance of not panicking in *any* malfunction and maintaining the discipline to take time, maintain aircraft control, carefully perform your procedure, and make a stable approach.

[MartinRex007 390]

3 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

4 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

Lots of talk here about what to do and how planes perform after losing an engine on take off.  Not sure what any of it has to do with this particular crash because this plane crashed on the landing approach.

After losing an engine on take-off....

 

[KevinAu 441]

7 minutes ago, MartinRex007 said:

 

And your point?

[MartinRex007 390]

I think they are related, losing an engine on takeoff and crashing on trying to land....??

 

[vgbaron 3,652]

There was initial speculation that the pilot lost and engine on takeoff, possibly panicked and immediately turned back to the airport which led to discussing engine out procedures.

Vic