C310R 101G Final Report
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2024
- C310R 101G Final Report
FlyWire Store:
flywire-store....
Patreon FlyWire:
/ flywire
FlyWire is about exploring flight and the freedom this incredible experience brings us on a personal level. Flying has always captured the imagination and excitement of living life to its fullest. Hi, I'm Scott Perdue. In a former life I flew the F-4 and F-15E, more recently I retired from a major airline. I've written for several aviation magazines over the years, was a consultant for RAND, the USAF, Navy, NASA as well as few others, wrote a military thriller- 'Pale Moon Rising' (still on Kindle). But mostly I like flying, or teaching flying. Some of the most fun I had was with Tom Gresham on a TV show called 'Wings to Adventure". We flew lots of different airplanes all over the country. Now with FlyWire I want to showcase the fun in flying, share the joy and freedom of flight and explore the world with you. Make sure you subscribe if you want to go along for the ride!
#Pilot #Fly #Flying #Fly yourself #aviation #FlyingTraining #LearntoFly #adventure #military aviation #aviationhistory
Website: www.flywire.on...
Merch Links: flywire-store....
My Book: Pale Moon Rising tinyurl.com/5a...
Twitter: @FlyWireO / flywire.online
Facebook: / flywireonline
If you have an emergency declare it and remember you own the airspace when you have make that declaration. Great review, thanks.
I like this guy…no showboating no BS, just the facts and an INFORMED opinion. This guy should be running the TSB!!!
Thanks Scott. As a new 62 yr. old pilot, the knowledge and wisdom you are sharing likely will save lives - including mine one day.
I always ASSUME my engine is going to fail on takeoff at some point....so I'm not surprised and I've thought ahead. NOT 100% of my thinking or attention, but it's a conscious mindset. It's never happened.
In a single engine plane, IF the engine fails on takeoff, you have only one option....LAND AHEAD....lower the nose and try to find an open area. Unless you've gained enough altitude that gives your TIME (trading altitude for airspeed) to do a 180.
Thanks for the review. I live in LAS and actually saw him pre-flight that morning. I couldn’t believe he tried to get to HND, vs VGT or even LAS. LAS would have been more than accommodating to get him in on 19R.
ATC priority is to aircraft in distress. If he would have just declared an emergency then Bravo Airspace be damned. ATC would have got him to the ground with time and speed to spare and he would have a lot of options available to him.
This was such a sad case. As you stated Scott, the pilot failed to do the right thing. He should have declared the emergency and either returned to his point of origin or diverted to the airfield almost directly ahead of him. And, he should of kept turning into his good engine. Not turned left.
Aviate, navigate, communicate. Fly the air plane, keep airspeed up and worry about the questions afterward.
I have my own idea on the situation, and ones like it, because the airplane is hard to fly with one engine out, better off with both engines out and at least you can control it or a land out crash Landing. Seems like better chances for survival than the corkscrew jack asses. I’ve seen way too many roll and dive under full power on one side. Just terrible flying discipline
Why do you feel the need to comment when the first thing you say is “as you stated” meaning you actually don’t have shit to add
Thanks for helping us learn without any nonsense!
Thank you for sharing. Good report. It did look like he was trying to pull up. I think you are accurate in your assessment that he [key words] "didn't accept reality. He had an agenda and was gonna pursue that agenda - didn't think about the issues" -- That observation is applicable to many situations besides aviation mishaps. I can look at the quality of interactions I sometimes have in my own life and say the same thing - that someone along the line can't accept reality... is pursuing an agenda and not thinking about the issues...
An exercise in futility. Seems to be a common human dilemma.
But you can't let others' poor judgement sometimes get you down.
Thanks again for sharing. Stay safe out there.
Another very well thought out video Scott. There's a whole lot that can be learned from situations like these if we just pay attention to what really matters instead of going off on a tangent.
I generally enjoy your content, but this kind of discussion of mishaps where we can learn from it is the stuff I really benefit from. Things I'm taking away: Declare the emergency, don't worry about "inconveniencing" anyone - put it down in the closest, safest place. Also, twins require additional, regular training to fly so you're as ready as possible when more complex problems occur.
Thomas, you got the takeaways just right!
What additional training ?
New subscriber and pilot here...thank you for putting up your channel.🙂
Having flown my 310Q to all LV AP’s
This hits close to home
Ever since primary training
Alway think of
“What if?”
Be prepared to maintain air speed try to avoid obstacles and stall right before impact if possible.
Thank you.
I lost a friend a few years ago in a very similar accident. He was a very experienced pilot.
Engine failure on takeoff is tough to manage with a powerful twin like the C310.
Turn into the dead engine and you may wind up cartwheeling to your doom.
Not if you are a real pilot. Anyone can do Mild Maneuvering.
I 100% agree with your observations Scott. Thank you for taking the time to make these informative videos.
Well said. Thank you.
Scott, once again, a very good analysis. Love the fact you're well versed in Maintenance as well. Your initial video on this mishap was actually the first FlyWire video I happened upon. Thorough examination of our mistakes is how we get better. Help us continue getting better.
Bolars!
Cool, thanks! Seems like we have something else in common?
@FlyWire- scott perdue Yes, I was there same time you were, 92-95. I crewed 90-0248 and 91-0326 that tour. IIRC Mark B. "Buck" Rodgers was the boss.
Even though Vmca varies with density altitude and (to a lesser degree) with center of gravity, one should mark, say, the highest possible Vmca somewhere on the ASI.
I once came uncomfortably close during training on an C 310 P(?) and what surprised me was the rate of the speed decay 😯 towards Vmca! It goes fast!
Right on the money on this one Scott. Apologize later, just get it on the ground even if you bend the plane. The important thing is to walk away from it.
Lots of open desert. There were a few good options. In a twin, you lose an engine that low, dont try the "impossible turn", just look 45° in front of you and go there. Fly the airplane into the ground, push tbe yoke forward, literally. Must keep airflow over the airfoil. Once your at 75ft or so. Prep for that landing.
Too many accidents recently were pilots pull the yoke back to try anx keep it flying but thats not what we are all taught to do. That first 3-5 seconds is the "Oh sh%# moment" then you must act, get the nose down no matter what. You'll increase survivability 70%.
That was an awesome presentation. 100% spot on.
I love your videos and your insight to the probable causes of accidents. I use these videos to learn new lessons or re-enforce my knowledge.
Thanks, Craig. I appreciate that!
Always learning from your videos. Thanks for sharing your significant experience. As a new 310 owner I take note.
Thanks!
yes
Great report Scott. Thanks for the very educational update.
Love the detail on the engine analysis and leak down test. Having that knowledge as a pilot would prevent you from flying knowing just how serious a condition it is.
Every pilot should have intricate knowledge of their engine and its standard operating tolerances and parameters.
Thoroughly enjoyed this video Scott👍🏻👍🏻
As a pilot it takes more then knowing your engine. You must be proficient in all areas.
Good job. Glad you got into Continentals and leak down testing. Hope FAA honchos watch this and learn.
I dont fly now but Im an avid watcher of yours, Gryders and JB's channels. The thing I take from all these reports is...learning culture. The entire early stage GA training process needs changing. Way to many poor decisions being made and were loosing way too many people.
Thorough report Scott, I have a particular interest in this report, as I was under contract to buy an airplane from Robert's estate before I learned the cause of his demise. As an MEI I found it unusual that the early videos and audio demonstrated a very competent pilot losing altitude with the left engine feathered. Report shows 20 degrees C, peak of 3000' altitude where the 310R at 5500lbs (max gross weight) should climb around 180-200 fpm. They should have been less than max gross and been able to achieve better than 200fpm with no issue maintaining altitude SE service ceiling that day at gross weight should have been just less than 6000ft. ADSB shows N101G climbing from 1st report of engine failure at 9:30 until 9:32 and holding 3000ft until almost 9:33 at between 103 and 104kts (of course no wind correction) then airspeed dropped from 103 to 90 and altitude started slipping away. I 100% agree with you at 1st sign of engine failure he should have declared an emergency. Turing back to KVGT was an option, but, personally I would have landed KLAS for longer runways, better emergency services and avoiding turns. Regardless of his bad decision, it makes no sense to me why at 20C he was not only unable to climb but losing altitude. It's certainly possible he botched the airspeed, but, he seemed to nail it for the 1st 2 minutes and even climb from 2800 to 3000 with the engine inoperative.
It remains a big question. Don't forget that at 3000' he was around 800' above the ground.
@@FlyWirescottperdue I completely understand his AGL concern. I was writing more about a 12K hour pilot maintaining speed and gaining altitude for the scariest two minutes, then, to somehow allow airspeed to fall and start/keep losing altitude, would be consistent with an additional failure or distraction. Again, the engine failed at 2800MSL 600AGL and he made it to 3000MSL 800AGL and somehow went down with no intent to land nearby,
Maybe the good engine was starting to overheat and he reduced power on it to "save it from damage"?
I have a little knowledge about the pilot in this case. He flew often out of KMYF. I had spoken with him on a few occasions. Our mechanic had worked on his planes in the past. That mechanic quit working for him due to pilot's aversion to completing necessary repairs. Also, there was a history of FAA issues. I think the reason the pilot did not declare an emergency, and shot for an airport less notable, was to avoid FAA scrutiny. That would also be the reason he did not land off-field.
Didn’t work out very well did it?
@@FlyWirescottperdue It did not. He had other engine failures on the same plane. He was a friend of one of our pilots. They both ran 135 operations. I think he was more worried about the impact on that, than the possible outcome of his last flight.
I agree even on a car rebuild i would not mix bearing brands or even if using old bearings from a donor engine (like when building old race engines)
Always only used old bearing as the pair they came as from the old engine. not half of 1 bearing and 1 other bearing from different cylinder
Great considering explanation that makes total sense to me a once but long time ago lapsed pilot.
That Background craft sure is looking sharp.
Thanks Scott. Another great video. 🇺🇸
I think you are very correct in your assessment of this problem!!! I think it’s too bad that certain issues are not treated as emergencies more often even though they can be handled as every day occurrences.. Training and proficiency are the keys to success as we all know… Thanks for putting this important video out, that I hope many pilots will pay attention too.. I seem to remember a B25 story that could have had the same outcome, but made it to the ground just fine.. Thanks Scott…
That B25 was my story!
@@FlyWirescottperdue Yes, I knew that, but not sure many other people did.. That’s a great story that many people should know about on many levels.. You had a great outcome that could have been not so good.. The part that I really remember to this day is how you handled ATC and let them know what you were going to do.. You really were not asking permission.. I think that if more people were not afraid to declare an emergency, and do what it takes to get on the ground safely, less of these fatal accidents would happen.
Another great commentary, Gunny. One point: in the IO-520 in multiengine applications, oil pressure is added to the prop dome to increase propeller speed and removed from the prop dome to decrease propeller speed (backwards from the single-engine applications like in your Bonanza). In a twin, catastrophic oil loss will cause the propeller to feather when the prop dome pressure drops. The pilot may or may not have feathered the prop-does the docket note the position of the propeller control in the cockpit?
That aside, your conclusions, and the questions you raise, are valid. Thanks for another great episode.
Thanks Tom! Unfortunately the investigation was not that thorough!
My 182's 0-470R last year had 25/80 on #1 cyl at annual. My IA could not believe I didn't have a performance gripe. The plane flew great all summer and the performance was there. The min 60/80 is an FAA thing, unless the manufacturer has procedures. Continental did a lot of testing to come out with that SB and minimum psi orifice at the time of day compression testing. (43-46psi can be the usual value in the Midwest.)
I like your show!!
Great video and conclusions thanks Scott. I have an aerodynamic question regarding the pilot's control inputs. From the enhanced video, we can see a feathered prop (which is good) but I don't see much, if any rudder being used. If I'm seeing it correctly, he's using ailerons to keep the wings level. Am I right in thinking that the rudder is arguably the most important control in this circumstance to produce a cleaner profile? I'm surprised how such a light high powered twin failed to maintain height on one engine. I'm wondering if adverse yaw (which would add to the already bad yaw from the good engine) from using large amounts of aileron was the reason he couldn't develop any reasonable speed.
David, excellent observation! In that clip he is not using bank/rudder to create a zero side slip flight path and that is bad. It uses extra energy and was probably the largest factor in his losing energy to whole time. The airplane was designed to use up to 5 degrees of bank and it should have been flown that way.
100% on point...
I spent my first 3 years flying 135 in Cessna 310 Q and R's I really liked the Q model and flew it the most on a canceled check run in the Mid-1970 'The thing with the airplane and any light twin is that on take off if you have an engine failure, just retard both throttles and land straight ahead. I always made that decision before the takeoff and what I would do in the climb out thru 1000 AGL. After going past 1000 AGL you have a lot more options. Light twins can be a tricky beast. Fine when everything is working as it should, they become a real hand full when they don't. Most of the light piston twins are getting quite old now, they don't make many new ones as they did back in the day. The 135 rule changes made are so that you can fly pax in single-engine aircraft like the Cessna 208! The thing is that light twins will bite you hard if you let them.
Night Pilots are the best. All weather single pilot on light twins. I still hear them at 4 in the morning. I did that in 1985 . Best experiences.
But to retard both and not fight it if EFATO is a non pilot deal. I used to practice EFATO on 310's. EFATO at 400 agl and turnaround the airport at 500 agl. To a 3,000 feet long runway only. ELM CFI as my CFI. No BS he allowed. That saved my life.
Gunny, great discussion of this mishap. It would be interesting to learn more about the MPs look back and when he last accomplished a flight review. Another point is that he seemed to be nonchalant about the engine failure which led to delay landing at the nearest suitable airport. Prayers for him and his family.
Thanks Skid!
Thanks for the clear analysis!
Condolences to the family. It generally all comes down to poor aeronautical decision making. Generally high time pilots don’t make these mistakes. This was a survivable incident.
You are 100% correct. compression numbers didn't have anything to do with it. These ntsb guys should have to defend their positions, like a dissertation.
I find most interesting is the fact that when the alternator failed it spewed shrapnel into the oil which would find its way into every passageway in the engine. Even though there were no obvious bits in the oil filter. They may have been too small to be seen.
The engine should have been COMPLETELY torn down and every oil passage thoroughly cleaned out.
Bearings from 2 different makers....NO. Bearings are sold as a set for a reason.
Excellent analysis and insight as always. And don't apologize for being blunt - you are speaking to the living, and attempting to prevent deadly missteps. And it is a bit ironic that your sometimes "by the book" approach regards the verity of the NTSB is modified by observing they dropped the ball here on the real cause(s) - does this mean you are getting closer to Dan Gryder's stance on the NTSB? Teasing aside, I admire anyone who calls a spade a spade, irrespective of whatever "authority" has spoken. Richard Feynman famously wrote "Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of the Experts". In that sense, your pragmatic analysis of the facts is refreshing.
Convenience can kill. That little strip further from "home" that is another hour of messing around after you are down will save your life.
Start wondering when you get faster engine warmups.
I was always told that the only difference in losing an engine in a light twin vs a single engine is that in a light twin the second engine merely takes you to the crash site. In other words, assume you won’t sustain controllable flight and all that second engine is doing is buying you a little more time to set it down than you’d have in a single engine aircraft.
I never understood that logic. I am not a pilot but one would think that one strong working engine in a twin should provide a better opportunity to get to a safe landing quicker than an engine failure in a single engine.
@@Troyboy2121 think about it this way, let’s say we could have 2 identical airplanes, but one with a single engine and one with a twin. Let’s assume weight and drag are identical.
The single engine has a 150 HP engine. It requires 120 HP to fly at 5000 feet. So it has 30 HP in reserve.
The twin has 2 engines at 100 hp each. It needs 120 to fly at 5000 feet. This means it has 80 HP in reserve. So it can fly faster and higher than the single engine, since it has 50 extra HP.
However, when it loses one engine, the remaining engine cannot produce 120 hp to maintain 5000 feet. It can only produce 100 HP and it will come down.
Las Vegas is already at 2100 feet. If you do everything perfect, you can go down slowly and maintain an altitude at low level, but you have to be on the ball.
@RTB RTB_Dutchy Do you have a twin rating? the faa requires twin engine airplanes to fly and climb max gross on one engine flaps and gear up
@@matthewcolgrove9098 I have a multi engine rating and fly jets. I don’t fly light twins. What you are saying is incorrect. Here is what the FAA has to say:
The current 14 CFR Part 23 single-engine climb performance requirements for reciprocating-engine twins are as follows:
• More than 6,000 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight and/or Vso of more than 61 knots. The single-engine rate of climb in feet per minute at 5,000 mean sea level (MSL) must be equal to at least .027 Vso squared. For twins type-certificated on February 4, 1991, or thereafter, the single-engine climb requirement is expressed in terms of a climb gradient, 1.5 percent.
• 6,000 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight and Vso of 61 knots or less. The single-en- gine rate of climb or climb gradient at 5,000 MSL must simply be determined. The rate of climb could be a negative number. There is no requirement for a positive single-engine rate of climb at 5,000 feet or any other altitude.
Rate of climb is the altitude gain per unit of time, and climb gradient is the actual measure of altitude gained per 100 feet of horizontal travel, expressed as a percentage. An altitude gain of 1.5 feet per 100 feet of horizontal travel is a climb gradient of 1.5 percent.
Regarding climb performance, the light twin with OEI will perform marginally at best and may not be capable of climbing at all under existing conditions. There is no requirement that a light twin in the takeoff or landing configuration must be able to maintain altitude, even at sea level, with OEI.
I was explaining in general. I don’t know the C310, but a quick search shows me it’s less than 6000 lbs.
@RTB RTB_Dutchy I just got my commercial and looking for my first job so I’m sure you know more than me but 23.2120 (b)(1) says light twins have to have a 1.5 percent climb gradient at 5,000 pressure altitude. Not sure what crashworthiness is but that lines up with what others have told me about twin engine airplanes.
Great analysis and mechanical insight. Not declaring an emergency on an engine out in a 310 is hard to understand, given multi-engine training and flight reviews. FAA has enumerated pilot personality traits that can contribute to bad decision making like this. Worth a review.
I agree with you. Personality is a big deal and we need to Winco out those people we don’t have a good flight discipline
So truly thanks for your in-depth view... A terrible thing to watch... When there is something wrong get it down as safely as possible...
The engine problem was low torque on the case bolts after the cylinder replacement.
That’s what I suspect.
Should there not be some attention to mechanical malpractice to some extent?
@@karlscribner7436 Even when there is evidence of gross deviations they are rarely enforced.
Good call!
Any accident always has a chain of events where if that chain is broken then the accident will not occur. I am wondering, if after this accident, the FAA made an inspection tour of the facility that rebuilt the engine since it seems that is where this chain started.
Scott your comments hit home “He frankly didn’t accept reality “. He had an agenda (interesting word choice) and he was going to pursue it. “ There are times when i am talking through my engine out procedure near a Bravo. … I must do it. Maybe agenda in this circumstance means a plan , one is not even consciously aware of but overrides what we know is right. Perhaps driven by lack of confidence, knowledge and as you stated not accepting the reality of the situation because it’s too hard, inconvenient or “simply not possible “.
Thanks Scott. You nailed it!
I'm just not sure what he was thinking. Didn't he coordinate the rudder? I got my multi-ing he 310R and flew charter with it. I loved the plane, and we shut an engine down in training and it flew with full fuel and myself and the MEI. And passing by airports? So sad.
Thanks for the foot-stomping report Scott. I wonder if some element of too much dependence and confidence in the book rather than situational awareness was at play here? And also if a little food-stomping up the backside of a CFI or two might be in order as well?
Sure is hot, in the State of Denial.
Thank you, Scott.
Pretty disciplined, not just tearing your mic off and saying, f*%$ this... idiot.
You're the best!
Great Points. No excuse for killing your passenger.
Sounds like Mike Bush would have something to say about that ntsb report on the engine.
Would appreciate a report on T-6G N7197C accident on 8/4/21.
This was probably in the first video but what was the density altitude and what engines were in the 310?
It seems like the pilot expected to be able to safely fly 11 miles on 1 engine and I agree if he’s by himself.
Great video, thank you. Twin pilots have to be prepared for the higher complexity of their aircraft. This pilot apparently wasn't.
It doesn’t really matter what made the left engine fail. Probably the cylinder bolts weren’t torqued properly. Yes, all engines can fail, which is why there is two. The pilot did seem to properly feather the left prop. BUT… that right engine does not seem to be operating at 2700 RPM, which is where it would make the most power. In addition, we don’t know what the fuel mixture was, but I’ll bet it was at “full rich”, which is NOT the most power setting. Yes, he should have returned to VGT… literally, just turn around (with right turns into the good engine). The plane was likely WAY TOO SLOW, which increases induced drag. The pilot allowed the plane to get to slow, and that might be because the right engine wan’t making maximum power. The plane wasn’t anywhere near gross weight.
That plane is not certified to fly on one engine. It is not a ‘spare’…it is needed. OEI on that plane means you are going down.
Just bad decision making.
No go around the pattern and land ?
Curious as to why pre-flight emergency plans aren’t required.
Thank you for producing videos with excellent and informative info Scott, it’s a huge help to me as I’m a green pilot. Keep ‘em coming, please!
One suggestion though, could you dive a bit deeper into what corrective actions he could have made to avoid the VMC roll? Obviously he should have declared an emergency and landed at the nearest airport, road, open field, or whatever he could make, but are there additional points of performance specific to that bird that could’ve changed the outcome?
Good idea for another video.
It's baffling as to why he got so slow and also why he didn't climb. Even if he had full fuel, there were only two people on board, so he was relatively light - even if it was a hot day.
He didn't have the performance to climb. Last Vegas is over 2000msl. Density altitude fly a factor in many days there.
@@jerryhargis7730 do you know this as fact or is this a theory? What was the density altitude that day & time? I can calculate the rest out of the 310 POH.
The reason for the Pilots Choice Where was the Tear Down Engine work Accomplished?
Excellent advice always from you. So why were so many indicators missed.
That the pilot failed to deal with the engine failure is clear.
But the NTSB analysis of the engine is strange. Crank and rod bearing failure, followed by throwing a rod, would not prompt a sharp person to focus on cylinder compressions (which were actually acceptable) or the fact that the mags still functioned, which was also mentioned. Loose cylinder hold down nuts, while bad, are not likely to have anything to do with throwing a rod. It sounds like they did not bother to determine the prop blade position, which was sure relevant. (To the loss of control, not the thrown rod.)
I wonder if the NTSB has any "gearheads" that are very familiar with reciprocating engines, or
if they just follow checklists covering typical common causes. The manicure of the investigator might be a sign.
Follow a checklist and try and find a mechanical reason for the accident.
Good assessment; failure to aviate, navigate, and communicate.
Yes. I have to wonder if he had declared emergency then controller response would have suggested the closer airfields. He may have locked his mind into Henderson and not have had other options in his head due to overload of tasks. It's tough to be human in such an unforgiving scenario. Very sad loss.
I wonder if the excessive bank angle to the right (side with the ‘good’ engine) indicates that the pilot was trying to maintain control with excessive aileron input and not enough rudder?
I think what you suggest is likely, but not for the reason you stated.
A 310 should have no trouble maintaining level flight on one engine with the dead engine feathered. I have yet to see an explanation as to why that apparently wasn’t possible here. It suggests to me that the good engine may not have been all that good either.
Possibly, more likely pilot technique.
Great oversight of an avoidable loss of life.
Being blunt as you called it, is exactly what is required,. If the pilot had been blunt with themselves about the requirement to get the aircraft on the ground as soon as possible, they would still be alive.
Whatever the cause of the engine failure the accident was avoidable through following known best practice of tried and tested methods. Oh, and the same with maintenance. Why anyone would mix bearing shells is beyond my comprehension. This is known to create issues and should be avoided in any engine. let alone one in an aircraft. The decision to do that is based on economic factors one way or another and as such show poor judgement by those involved.
lose oil pressure, bearings melt, engine overheats, connecting rods seize and snap, compression rings anneal resulting in loss of compression, etc.
It struck me at the time of your original video and even more so now, that this crash was a product of either familiarity breeding contempt or complete ignorance of the fact that the C310 doesn't play nice at low speeds even with both engines. IIRC, however, in your 1st video, you said this guy had several hundred hours in this plane so can't have been ignorant. And if this engine had a bad history during that timespan, maybe this pilot had done a lot of 1-engine flight in this plane already so got complacent. I know a guy who has a C340 and lost an engine. He reported this but declined to declare an emergency when asked if he wanted to. His answer was that he'd previously owned a Travel Air and flew on 1 engine seemingly more often than not, so was totally fine flying a C340 on 1 engine. That seems a dangerous attitude.
Indeed, I think complacency is a huge factor here.
Agree with everything Flywire says...
But, at the very end at 9:38 there are huge powerlines between the pilot and Henderson airport. If he climbs he stalls and crashes. If he goes under the huge powerlines he will never regain the altitude and crashes before he gets to Henderson. If he turns, he crashes.
Unfortunately, the pilot made a number of bad decisions and by the time he saw the powerlines in front of him, he had no way out. It is questionable if the plane could have made it to Henderson even without the powerlines in the way, and without calling for emergency landing clearance.
I don’t think it had the energy to make it Henderson. He was trying to trade airspeed for altitude to clear those power lines. He didn’t make it.
Yes, From google maps it looks like he was about 4 or 5 miles from Henderson, so even without the powerlines it would have been doubtful.
Whatever you do...don't stall it. Crash slow and level, you have a chance...crash inverted like this one or the Nepali Airliner...pretty hard....normally there are survivors on a passenger plane when they crash on landing
Can you explain or point me where I can find more info on compression readings and why a low compression reading is not necessarily a bad thing?
Look for the Continental Service Bulletin on Differential Compression testing.
I don't understand this accident. The 310 was airborne for 10 minutes, and achieved 3,000'. The airplane wasn't heavy. The gear & flaps were assumedly up. The report says the inoperative engine was feathered. Why did he give up the altitude until established on final? Why did he allow airspeed to decay? How did this twin pilot make those mistakes? Even if he had no recent light twin recurrent training, the concept of Vmc and blueline is written inside the eyelids of any ME pilot. We would all benefit from the answer to that question.
Good questions. Sure he reached 3000’, but that’s only 800’ above the ground.
@@FlyWirescottperdue Yes. Given it was 800' AGL, gear and flaps up, engine feathered, this was (essentially) an enroute/approach accident, or a pattern altitude accident, not a take off accident. Was the remaining engine not developing full power? That would explain a fair bit. It still wouldn't explain bypassing a perfectly good runway or a Vmc roll by a ME CFI with thousands of flight hours. Something led an experienced pilot to make those fateful decisions, and while we will never know, we would greatly benefit from keeping ourselves from those same mistakes.
Far too many pilots think they need permission from ATC in an emergency, or delay declaring an emergency. With an engine out close to the ground and having trouble maintaining altitude, I'm going to turn to the nearest runway, fly the airplane, and then TELL ATC what I'm doing. There is no need to ask or wait for permission to enter positive control airspace, or get a landing clearance if you have an emergency. There is no need to declare an emergency or receive an acknowledgment prior to executing what is immediately necessary for the safe landing of the airplane. I see too many accidents where this was a factor, and somehow this is an important training detail that not all pilots know cold.
@@midweekpowderhound Human factors i bet. The airplane can fly on one engine for hours, but not the pilot. My multi CFI told me is tiring to fly on one engine and slow you go. And yes to avoid long distances on one. Then you have to crossfeed the fuel tanks. He had 2 full feathered landings on Piper Aztec, when charter pilot. Over the sea. One with cargo just keeping the alt at climb power for almost half hour.
G'day Scott,
Wow..., yikes !
Talk about
Target Fixation..., &
Get There-itis...
He's like the
RAF
Pathfinder Crews,
Trained to,
"Press ON,
REGARDLESS...!"
from 1943 onwards...
(though by late '44 - '45, the Wall Posters exhorting such selflessly patriotic sentiments, officially supplied and adorning the Pathfinder Force Bases and Training/Conversion Establishments..., were increasingly being corrected ; by random Wits, using Indian Ink to cross out the last word - & add in
"Rewardless...!"
instead...).
What,
Warbles
Wonders...;
Was
SO
Very terribly
IMPORTANT to the
Deceased...,
At Henderson Field...,
That he
Sat in his suddenly Spontaneously
Single-Engined
Twin Cessna...,
On Climbout...,
Failed to declare any kind of
Difficulty, let alone any
Emergency underway and afoot...,
As he
Flew AWAY
From the nearest viable
Runway
On an Airport to which he could have
Easily descended unto and
Alighted
Upon...,
Then he overflew
ANOTHER perfectly achievable
Approach to the Runway of another
Different
Airport...,
Before trying to
Zig-Zag around
Controlled Airspace
While
"Stretching the Glide" and
Wallowing under his
Velocity Minimum required to maintain Control...,
Ye
Olde
V.M.C...,
Y'see...(?!?).
Back before
"Political Correctness"
One might wonder,
What sort of a
Promise he was
Sniffing
After...;
And
Were her
Tits
Really THAT
Big...?
Something
IRRESISTABLE was
Pulling him to
Make it to
Henderson Field
That day
Or
BUST...
And he went
CrashBurnDie
In the
Attempt...
In pursuit of
What ?
Pray do tell us that answer...;
What led him so singlemindedly
To conduct a devastating
Single-engined
Kamakaze Attack on
A
Paddock of Dirt and Weeds
Beside a Fence and a Shed ?
Why could he not have landed, telephoned his "Urgent Appointment" and taken a
Taxi or Uber -
15 miles is a mind buggaringly stupidly short Trip for a Twin-turbocharged Retractable Cessna 310 to be used for, carrying one person at such huge acquisition price, Air Navigation Fees, and Insurance Premiums and hourly operating costs ...
15 miles in a Car overland, 15 to 30 minutes ?
That's faster than one can walk from the Carpark to go Airside to untie and Preflight (an already fuelled) C-310, start it, warm it up, open a Radio Flight-Plan Clearance To Taxi, then to Take off ; get permission to fly 15 miles, join the Circuit and land, taxi in, and tie-down parked at Henderson...
Maybe he had a special Mechanic at Henderson, and he was trying to get airborne hoping to limp over to that particular Workshop ; thinking his Twin would be
Plenty
Grunty
Enuf...
For him to
Squeeze over the Boundary-fence,
Heroically,
In his
D(ayd)reams...?
It's hard to know what would be more embarrassing to have to admit to, at the
Pearly Gates...
On a Promise, and the
Tits were
Big...!
Or
Trying to fly a
Single-Engined Twin
To the
Mechanic,
Three
Airfields and
Fifteen miles down the
Frog & Toad...
(Road..., that is.).
I'd be feeling pretty bloody silly,
Either way,
To be honest (!).
Keep on keeping on,
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
What am I missing? The NTSB report, and you, stated that the "left engine was feathered" but in the video at 2:13 shows the right engine is the one having trouble
Patrick, in that video we are looking at the right front of the airplane. You must always refer to ‘side’ from the perspective of the airplane. Not the observer.
How can an alternator Failure through metal fragments into the engine?
Is it internal driven by the crankshaft or something and shares oil with the engine?
In the IO520/550 design the alternator is driven by the crankshaft at the front of the engine.
Why was the power from the one engine not enough to gain speed, keep speed?
Not every twin can fly on a single engine. Especially older designs. The second engines were put on to increase performance (speed, etc.) at cruise, rather than as a safety measure. IOW, with two engines you can fly fast. With one engine, you might descend slower - but you are still going down, no matter what. They are not designed or certified to fly with an engine out.
Newer planes claim to avoid this, and some older one, too. But sometimes it comes down to weight, as to whether you can make it work.
It’s not down to the engine alone, the pilot is the central issue.
@@FamilyManMoving thanks for responding, I always thought it was a safety thing, if one engine died you can keep flying with the other
@@williamkennedy2069 You can -- if you have the altitude , and take the correct actions .
Full power on the operating engine and zero side-slip configuration and attitude will enable the ship to descend at a very shallow angle to single-engine absolute ceiling and slowly climb from there as fuel burns off. Useful if you’re crossing the Rockies when it happens , but not when you’re near single engine service ceiling and don’t take the correct actions immediately when close to terrain .
@@davidwhite8633 doesn't sound like enough of a benefit to weren't spending all the extra money to have two engines
I thought the 310 should be able to climb on a single engine at 100-200 feet per minute.
Gotta be in front of the power curve.
😎
Great review but I'm disappointed in the govts review of mechanical issues. Pilot did the right thing getting the engine tore down & rebuilt, sounds like the A&P working on it may have used some poor procedures which likely contributed to the engine failure. Then, faced with that failure, our pilot failed to take the safest or second safest options (airfields) and failed to maintain control of the aircraft as he was trained to do. Lot to learn here...but our govt won't help us get there.
True! I think they were disposed to NOT give him the benefit of the doubt. He had a reputation, I have heard.
The pilot probably didn't turn back to the departure airport because he still had a working engine. When he saw that his 310 was struggling to maintain altitude he had a lot of brushy fields to choose from for a landing. It doesn't look like he flew over the wires -- he didn't get that far -- but it looks like he was pulling up to try to fly over the wires.
That’s my point Ray’s Dad… that working engine would have safely taken him back to VGT.
@@FlyWirescottperdue I agree 100%, call an emergency and land at the closest airfield, even if half your engines are still working.
You have a left engine that suffered oil pressure lose, it's a core turn in for a factory overhauled unit. A cheap FBO overhaul got two people killed and of course the Pilot is blamed.....
Frustrating that the authorities and their probable cause/reports ignore the need for ppl to learn from accidents and prevent future problems… which is why they’re even in their positions in the first place. All of their decisions, reports, and recommendations, etc. have an impact on the world of flight, and at this point the number they’ve done and lack of effort and research and sophistication has snowballed into a ridiculous & problematic failure that DOES have legitimate effects- not only does it impact their reportd/recommendations up the line to more influential authorities/lawmakers, but it stunts the ability of GA pilots to be more prepared and competent, the ease at which they could miss a larger trend/issue is highly worrisome; and it’s also a HUGE waste of money to act like the proper steps are taken just for the last ppl in the line to make half ass findings/reports. They collect & store the airplane pieces, gather/ collect evidence, test and study all the parts & background, analyze & condense the info, & write up a final report as well as post the whole docket for the public… Just imagine the amount of companies/contractors that depend on their business or how many ppl/jobs are involved in each investigation in some way? (It’s almost an industry all its own…) And imagine how much money each one ends up costing? In some ways I worry they’re not incentivized to decrease the number of accidents… but with all the effort they put in, there’s no excuse nor to involve public health evaluation or do their own more detailed & knowledgeable studies on the causes and potentially preventative factors. They don’t do that bc they do the BARE MINIMUM.
They require all of the groundwork & take all of the steps to make a proper investigation… just to, in the end, create some lazy, unhelpful, unreliable, ignorant, & uninformed final report/probable cause!
Plus, whatever aspects they maybe ARE tracking (hopefully) will not be as accurate; and thus, their more generalized and long term recommendations and analysis re: GA and the airline industry as a whole, are going to be less accurate and ineffective and unhelpful, as well.
It’s hard to believe that gov. agencies and employees can get away with being THAT INCOMPETENT and lazy for SO LONG…
Every report & it’s findings matters, bc it paints a bigger picture over time and can point to serious gaps (i.e. in safety, training, maintenance, etc) or demonstrate changes that are needed. When they don’t track causes and don’t find appropriate outcomes, then everything built upon those evaluations is worthless, and they’re wasting taxpayer money but have seemingly no one to answer to! This is yet another example of an ineffective, unhelpful, overly simplistic report that’s not thorough or informative. SMH 🤦♀️
Meanwhile the politicians are more interested in appointing one who checks the right boxes in non-aviation areas than appointing a competent nominee for the position of FAA Administrator. The most recent appointee for FAA Administrator had no actual aviation experience. The Secretary of Transportation claimed that the nominee was well qualified because he ran the Denver airport. In that position the nominee oversaw parking, terminal operations, and many other non-flying activities but had little to do with flying, airplane operations, or anything else involving aviation. Fortunately he withdrew. What were the individual who nominated him and the Secretary of Transportation thinking when they nominated an individual with no real aviation experience for the position of FAA Administrator? Are they competent?
Good question.
If memory serves me right ATC asked him if he wanted to divert to LAS and he declined.
Apparently this plane was not going to stay in the air that long....long enough to return or divert???? Thus.... LAND AHEAD.
I'm pretty sure he seen the power lines in the last few seconds causing the pull up then roll... Sad state of affairs....
In my opinion light twins are more dangerous than singles. Having 2 engines makes low quality pilots overconfident,.
👍☑
To me as a non pilot it sounds like the pilot was so used to practicing 1 engine out landings or flying with the "dead engine" at idle power and figured as it performed well then he would be fine or even better off when it was making no power & feathered. just because its feather and no longer windmilling its still making lots of drag than an engine at idle power with prop spinning near 1000 rpm.
Very likely.
Don't tempt fate, she bites so hard that it's just not worth it.
I love how most here think they will make the right decisions when the ^%& hits the fan. The human condition tells us that most will not.
I hope paying attention to this video would help!
This seems like some sort of overt normalcy bias on the part of the pilot but even that is questionable if the pilot was aware of the work that had been done on that motor. As for the official report, it appears to compound the already bad reactions to what actually took place. RIP
There were no injuries to passangers and pilot.
Both killed. Did you see the video?
@@FlyWirescottperdue Hi Scott. I was thinking about the Piper.