Cessna 310 Down in Compton, Calif.

[Larry Dighera]

Thankfully, there was no fire.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-compton13apr13,0,3190581.story
5 hurt as small plane crashes in Compton
By Richard Winton and Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
April 13, 2008
Five people were injured, four critically, Saturday afternoon when
a twin-engine aircraft crashed nose first into a Compton house and
sliced into the one next door with one of its wings, authorities
said.

The Cessna 310 crashed just before 4 p.m. in the 500 block of West
Cypress Street, said Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the Federal
Aviation Administration.

The plane, which was registered in Nevada, was heading from San
Diego to Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Gregor said. It was about a
mile and a half away from Compton/Woodley Airport, a general
aviation field, but he said it was unclear whether the pilot was
trying to make an emergency landing.

Compton Deputy Fire Chief Marcel Melanson said two of the injured
were the plane's occupants and three were on the ground. ...

He and two other people tried to open the door of the badly
damaged house but couldn't get it to budge. They helped the young
woman out a window, and when she said her mother was inside, they
clambered through the window themselves to search for her.

"I saw the pilot, so we got him out," Wyatt said.

Then he spotted one of the residents of the house moving under the
rubble. Several people struggled to move that man out of the home
through a sliding-glass door.

"You could smell the fumes," said Wyatt, his jeans stained with
the blood of the injured whom he helped. ...

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Apr 13, 3:52 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Thankfully, there was no fire.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-compton13apr13,0,3190581.story
> 5 hurt as small plane crashes in Compton
> By Richard Winton and Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
> April 13, 2008
> Five people were injured, four critically, Saturday afternoon when
> a twin-engine aircraft crashed nose first into a Compton house and
> sliced into the one next door with one of its wings, authorities
> said.
>
> The Cessna 310 crashed just before 4 p.m. in the 500 block of West
> Cypress Street, said Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the Federal
> Aviation Administration.
>
> The plane, which was registered in Nevada, was heading from San
> Diego to Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Gregor said. It was about a
> mile and a half away from Compton/Woodley Airport, a general
> aviation field, but he said it was unclear whether the pilot was
> trying to make an emergency landing.
>
> Compton Deputy Fire Chief Marcel Melanson said two of the injured
> were the plane's occupants and three were on the ground. ...
>
> He and two other people tried to open the door of the badly
> damaged house but couldn't get it to budge. They helped the young
> woman out a window, and when she said her mother was inside, they
> clambered through the window themselves to search for her.
>
> "I saw the pilot, so we got him out," Wyatt said.
>
> Then he spotted one of the residents of the house moving under the
> rubble. Several people struggled to move that man out of the home
> through a sliding-glass door.
>
> "You could smell the fumes," said Wyatt, his jeans stained with
> the blood of the injured whom he helped. ...

So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?
Remember that old homeowner insurance rider
you could get to cover an airplane falling on your
house? Who pays for that mess?
Ken

[[email protected]]

On Apr 13, 6:04 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Apr 13, 3:52 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thankfully, there was no fire.
>
> >http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-compton13apr13,0,3190581.story
> > 5 hurt as small plane crashes in Compton
> > By Richard Winton and Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
> > April 13, 2008
> > Five people were injured, four critically, Saturday afternoon when
> > a twin-engine aircraft crashed nose first into a Compton house and
> > sliced into the one next door with one of its wings, authorities
> > said.
>
> > The Cessna 310 crashed just before 4 p.m. in the 500 block of West
> > Cypress Street, said Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the Federal
> > Aviation Administration.
>
> > The plane, which was registered in Nevada, was heading from San
> > Diego to Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Gregor said. It was about a
> > mile and a half away from Compton/Woodley Airport, a general
> > aviation field, but he said it was unclear whether the pilot was
> > trying to make an emergency landing.
>
> > Compton Deputy Fire Chief Marcel Melanson said two of the injured
> > were the plane's occupants and three were on the ground. ...
>
> > He and two other people tried to open the door of the badly
> > damaged house but couldn't get it to budge. They helped the young
> > woman out a window, and when she said her mother was inside, they
> > clambered through the window themselves to search for her.
>
> > "I saw the pilot, so we got him out," Wyatt said.
>
> > Then he spotted one of the residents of the house moving under the
> > rubble. Several people struggled to move that man out of the home
> > through a sliding-glass door.
>
> > "You could smell the fumes," said Wyatt, his jeans stained with
> > the blood of the injured whom he helped. ...
>
> So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
> the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?
> Remember that old homeowner insurance rider
> you could get to cover an airplane falling on your
> house? Who pays for that mess?
> Ken

My best guess is that the homeowner and his insurance agents will sue
the pilot, the owner, the FBO that last handled the aircraft, the
pilot's last two instructors, the person who did the last annual, the
manufacturers of the airplane, props, engines, and vacuum pump (even
though the pump was working at the time, etc., etc., etc. They will
also blame the airports they took off from and intended to land at,
and try to close them down.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:9301e744-b06f-
:

> On Apr 13, 3:52 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Thankfully, there was no fire.
>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-
compton13apr13,0,3190581.story
>> 5 hurt as small plane crashes in Compton
>> By Richard Winton and Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
>> April 13, 2008
>> Five people were injured, four critically, Saturday afternoon
when
>> a twin-engine aircraft crashed nose first into a Compton house
and
>> sliced into the one next door with one of its wings, authorities
>> said.
>>
>> The Cessna 310 crashed just before 4 p.m. in the 500 block of
West
>> Cypress Street, said Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the Federal
>> Aviation Administration.
>>
>> The plane, which was registered in Nevada, was heading from San
>> Diego to Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Gregor said. It was about a
>> mile and a half away from Compton/Woodley Airport, a general
>> aviation field, but he said it was unclear whether the pilot was
>> trying to make an emergency landing.
>>
>> Compton Deputy Fire Chief Marcel Melanson said two of the injured
>> were the plane's occupants and three were on the ground. ...
>>
>> He and two other people tried to open the door of the badly
>> damaged house but couldn't get it to budge. They helped the young
>> woman out a window, and when she said her mother was inside, they
>> clambered through the window themselves to search for her.
>>
>> "I saw the pilot, so we got him out," Wyatt said.
>>
>> Then he spotted one of the residents of the house moving under
the
>> rubble. Several people struggled to move that man out of the home
>> through a sliding-glass door.
>>
>> "You could smell the fumes," said Wyatt, his jeans stained with
>> the blood of the injured whom he helped. ...
>
> So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
> the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?
> Remember that old homeowner insurance rider
> you could get to cover an airplane falling on your
> house? Who pays for that mess?
> Ken
>
>
>
>
>

The house fairy

Bertie

[Aluckyguess]

> So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
> the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?
> Remember that old homeowner insurance rider
> you could get to cover an airplane falling on your
> house? Who pays for that mess?
> Ken
>
>
whoever has the most money
>
>

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Apr 13, 7:29 pm, wrote:
> On Apr 13, 6:04 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 3:52 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > > Thankfully, there was no fire.
>
> > >http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-compton13apr13,0,3190581.story
> > > 5 hurt as small plane crashes in Compton
> > > By Richard Winton and Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
> > > April 13, 2008
> > > Five people were injured, four critically, Saturday afternoon when
> > > a twin-engine aircraft crashed nose first into a Compton house and
> > > sliced into the one next door with one of its wings, authorities
> > > said.
>
> > > The Cessna 310 crashed just before 4 p.m. in the 500 block of West
> > > Cypress Street, said Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the Federal
> > > Aviation Administration.
>
> > > The plane, which was registered in Nevada, was heading from San
> > > Diego to Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Gregor said. It was about a
> > > mile and a half away from Compton/Woodley Airport, a general
> > > aviation field, but he said it was unclear whether the pilot was
> > > trying to make an emergency landing.
>
> > > Compton Deputy Fire Chief Marcel Melanson said two of the injured
> > > were the plane's occupants and three were on the ground. ...
>
> > > He and two other people tried to open the door of the badly
> > > damaged house but couldn't get it to budge. They helped the young
> > > woman out a window, and when she said her mother was inside, they
> > > clambered through the window themselves to search for her.
>
> > > "I saw the pilot, so we got him out," Wyatt said.
>
> > > Then he spotted one of the residents of the house moving under the
> > > rubble. Several people struggled to move that man out of the home
> > > through a sliding-glass door.
>
> > > "You could smell the fumes," said Wyatt, his jeans stained with
> > > the blood of the injured whom he helped. ...
>
> > So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
> > the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?
> > Remember that old homeowner insurance rider
> > you could get to cover an airplane falling on your
> > house? Who pays for that mess?
> > Ken
>
> My best guess is that the homeowner and his insurance agents will sue
> the pilot, the owner, the FBO that last handled the aircraft, the
> pilot's last two instructors, the person who did the last annual, the
> manufacturers of the airplane, props, engines, and vacuum pump (even
> though the pump was working at the time, etc., etc., etc. They will
> also blame the airports they took off from and intended to land at,
> and try to close them down.

Sounds like a dozen lawyers x 2 years = 24 lawyer years
+ damages to those crippled for life + property damage,
that's just a start.
Best to do a safe landing.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Apr 13, 7:29 pm, wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 6:04 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 13, 3:52 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> > > Thankfully, there was no fire.
>>
>> > >http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-
compton13apr13,0,3190581.st
>> > >ory
>> > > 5 hurt as small plane crashes in Compton
>> > > By Richard Winton and Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times Staff
>> > > Writers April 13, 2008
>> > > Five people were injured, four critically, Saturday afternoon
>> > > when a twin-engine aircraft crashed nose first into a Compton
>> > > house and sliced into the one next door with one of its
>> > > wings, authorities said.
>>
>> > > The Cessna 310 crashed just before 4 p.m. in the 500 block of
>> > > West Cypress Street, said Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the
>> > > Federal Aviation Administration.
>>
>> > > The plane, which was registered in Nevada, was heading from
>> > > San Diego to Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Gregor said. It was
>> > > about a mile and a half away from Compton/Woodley Airport, a
>> > > general aviation field, but he said it was unclear whether
>> > > the pilot was trying to make an emergency landing.
>>
>> > > Compton Deputy Fire Chief Marcel Melanson said two of the
>> > > injured were the plane's occupants and three were on the
>> > > ground. ...
>>
>> > > He and two other people tried to open the door of the badly
>> > > damaged house but couldn't get it to budge. They helped the
>> > > young woman out a window, and when she said her mother was
>> > > inside, they clambered through the window themselves to
>> > > search for her.
>>
>> > > "I saw the pilot, so we got him out," Wyatt said.
>>
>> > > Then he spotted one of the residents of the house moving
>> > > under the rubble. Several people struggled to move that man
>> > > out of the home through a sliding-glass door.
>>
>> > > "You could smell the fumes," said Wyatt, his jeans stained
>> > > with the blood of the injured whom he helped. ...
>>
>> > So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
>> > the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?
>> > Remember that old homeowner insurance rider
>> > you could get to cover an airplane falling on your
>> > house? Who pays for that mess?
>> > Ken
>>
>> My best guess is that the homeowner and his insurance agents will sue
>> the pilot, the owner, the FBO that last handled the aircraft, the
>> pilot's last two instructors, the person who did the last annual, the
>> manufacturers of the airplane, props, engines, and vacuum pump (even
>> though the pump was working at the time, etc., etc., etc. They will
>> also blame the airports they took off from and intended to land at,
>> and try to close them down.
>
> Sounds like a dozen lawyers x 2 years = 24 lawyer years
> + damages to those crippled for life + property damage,
> that's just a start.
> Best to do a safe landing.

You have a talent for stating the idiotic.


Bertie
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Clark >
wrote:

> >> So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
> >> the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?
> >> Remember that old homeowner insurance rider
> >> you could get to cover an airplane falling on your
> >> house? Who pays for that mess?
> >>
> > whoever has the most money
>
> Nope. Whoever has the worst lawyer...

and has money.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>Best to do a safe landing.

Right. That's the point. I thought that second fan was supposed to
spare pilots the embarrassment of joining the homeowners for supper
through their roofs.

I have no familiarity with C-310 fuel systems, but how likely is it
that fuel exhaustion would result in _both_ engines quitting before a
suitable landing site could be reached?

[Frank Olson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> > wrote:
>
>> Best to do a safe landing.
>
> Right. That's the point. I thought that second fan was supposed to
> spare pilots the embarrassment of joining the homeowners for supper
> through their roofs.
>
> I have no familiarity with C-310 fuel systems, but how likely is it
> that fuel exhaustion would result in _both_ engines quitting before a
> suitable landing site could be reached?
>


It's called "gross fuel mismanagement". One of the rescuers remarked on
smelling fumes. I doubt the tanks were empty.

Up here, they don't call the 310 "widow maker" for nuthin'. I recall a
crash by Boundary Bay (British Columbia) were the pilot was engaged in
single engine practice. Got himself into a spin with the operating
engine on the wrong side. Witnesses I interviewed said it looked like
one of those maple seeds... all the way down into the mud. Both pilots
were killed (student and instructor).

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:33:19 GMT, Frank Olson
> wrote in
<PWJMj.50889$Cj7.32602@pd7urf2no>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Best to do a safe landing.
>>
>> Right. That's the point. I thought that second fan was supposed to
>> spare pilots the embarrassment of joining the homeowners for supper
>> through their roofs.
>>
>> I have no familiarity with C-310 fuel systems, but how likely is it
>> that fuel exhaustion would result in _both_ engines quitting before a
>> suitable landing site could be reached?
>>
>
>
>It's called "gross fuel mismanagement".

Perhaps. It could also be called a significant leak, depending on how
the fuel system is designed. Do you have any familiarity with it?

>One of the rescuers remarked on smelling fumes. I doubt the tanks were empty.
>

Of course, under normal circumstances there is nearly always at least
the unusable fuel in the tanks, so if the fumes mentioned were indeed
fuel, that could have been the source. On the other hand, I would
expect fuel tank ruptures to be common in crashes (do fuel bladders
make that less likely? Are C-310s so equipped?), and if there had
been significant fuel aboard, the probability of a post crash fire
would be pretty high, IMO.

In any event, if the C-310 were equipped with tip-tanks, it's
difficult to believe that a pilot would run _all_ the tanks dry before
landing.

>Up here, they don't call the 310 "widow maker" for nuthin'. I recall a
>crash by Boundary Bay (British Columbia) were the pilot was engaged in
>single engine practice. Got himself into a spin with the operating
>engine on the wrong side. Witnesses I interviewed said it looked like
>one of those maple seeds... all the way down into the mud. Both pilots
>were killed (student and instructor).

Are implying that the pilot may have entered such a spin in the event
that one of the engines quit?

[Frank Olson]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>> It's called "gross fuel mismanagement".
>
> Perhaps. It could also be called a significant leak, depending on how
> the fuel system is designed.

Unlikely. In that case it would be gross negligence on the part of the AME.


> Do you have any familiarity with it?

Enough to know that a pre-crash "leak" of this magnitude is unlikely.
The fuel tanks on a 310 are not "cross connected", so a leak (or fuel
line rupture) wouldn't affect the entire system. Cross-feeding could
have been a factor, but no mention is made that there was any problems
with an engine. The story lacks a lot of details. I'd review the NTSB
report on the accident in a few months to get the details. Anything we
might comment on is sheer speculation at this point.


>
>> One of the rescuers remarked on smelling fumes. I doubt the tanks were empty.
>>
>
> Of course, under normal circumstances there is nearly always at least
> the unusable fuel in the tanks, so if the fumes mentioned were indeed
> fuel, that could have been the source. On the other hand, I would
> expect fuel tank ruptures to be common in crashes (do fuel bladders
> make that less likely?

In a crash, all bets are off.


> Are C-310s so equipped?)

Only if it was installed as an "after market" item. I don't know of a
lot of owners that would opt to have that done.


> , and if there had
> been significant fuel aboard, the probability of a post crash fire
> would be pretty high, IMO.
>
> In any event, if the C-310 were equipped with tip-tanks, it's
> difficult to believe that a pilot would run _all_ the tanks dry before
> landing.

Agreed. Hence my comment about fuel mismanagement. In a crash of an
MU-2 onto the roof of an Edmonton (Albert) hospital back in the late
70's (or early '80's - I don't quite recall), the pilots accidentally
shut the fuel off to both engines. That's "mismanagement" that crosses
into the realm of "stupidity".


>
>> Up here, they don't call the 310 "widow maker" for nuthin'. I recall a
>> crash by Boundary Bay (British Columbia) were the pilot was engaged in
>> single engine practice. Got himself into a spin with the operating
>> engine on the wrong side. Witnesses I interviewed said it looked like
>> one of those maple seeds... all the way down into the mud. Both pilots
>> were killed (student and instructor).
>
> Are implying that the pilot may have entered such a spin in the event
> that one of the engines quit?
>

Never implied any such thing. No one really knows what happened. We
can speculate that he was practicing single engine stall recovery and
failed the recovery bit. The end result was that the aircraft
ultimately wound up in an unrecoverable flat spin and "frisbeed" into
the mud. The inboard (in the spin) prop was feathered and outboard
engine was at full power.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Frank Olson wrote:
The story lacks a lot of details. I'd review the NTSB
> report on the accident in a few months to get the details. Anything we
> might comment on is sheer speculation at this point.


That is this case in a nutshell. As a matter of fact, that is EVERY case in a
nutshell. None of us knows what happened. And frankly, I have some doubts
we'll know even after the NTSB issues its report. They'll make their
conclusions and obvious discrepencies will be ignored.

Oh, yeah: I'll make a prediction not knowing anything about this case but
knowing a fair amount of how the NTSB operates: The finding will involve "pilot
error". Anybody want to put $20 on it?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

>
> Oh, yeah: I'll make a prediction not knowing anything about this case but
> knowing a fair amount of how the NTSB operates: The finding will involve "pilot
> error". Anybody want to put $20 on it?
>
>
>

You don't like to gamble much. Do ya? :)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:40:38 GMT, Frank Olson
> wrote in
<WVKMj.179995$pM4.130073@pd7urf1no>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>> It's called "gross fuel mismanagement".
>>
>> Perhaps. It could also be called a significant leak, depending on how
>> the fuel system is designed.
>
>Unlikely. In that case it would be gross negligence on the part of the AME.
>

Perhaps, unless it was caused by FOD on takeoff like the Concord that
crashed, or a fuel line that separated, or....

>
>> Do you have any familiarity with it?
>
>Enough to know that a pre-crash "leak" of this magnitude is unlikely.
>The fuel tanks on a 310 are not "cross connected", so a leak (or fuel
>line rupture) wouldn't affect the entire system.

That is interesting information. Thanks.

So a single separated fuel line anywhere in the system would be
incapable of stopping both engines then?

>Cross-feeding could have been a factor, but no mention is made that
>there was any problems with an engine.

For cross-feeding to have been a factor the pilot would have to have
been transferring fuel from a full tank on one side to an empty one on
the other side, is that correct (I'm not multi rated)?

>The story lacks a lot of details. I'd review the NTSB
>report on the accident in a few months to get the details. Anything we
>might comment on is sheer speculation at this point.

I agree, that it's not very useful to speculate on the cause of this
specific accident without more information, however the fuel system
information of this aircraft type that you provided is useful in
ruling out some scenarios. So general information may be appropriate
at this point.

>>> One of the rescuers remarked on smelling fumes. I doubt the tanks were empty.
>>>
>>
>> Of course, under normal circumstances there is nearly always at least
>> the unusable fuel in the tanks, so if the fumes mentioned were indeed
>> fuel, that could have been the source. On the other hand, I would
>> expect fuel tank ruptures to be common in crashes (do fuel bladders
>> make that less likely?
>
>In a crash, all bets are off.
>
>
>> Are C-310s so equipped?)
>
>Only if it was installed as an "after market" item. I don't know of a
>lot of owners that would opt to have that done.
>
>
>> , and if there had
>> been significant fuel aboard, the probability of a post crash fire
>> would be pretty high, IMO.
>>
>> In any event, if the C-310 were equipped with tip-tanks, it's
>> difficult to believe that a pilot would run _all_ the tanks dry before
>> landing.
>
>Agreed. Hence my comment about fuel mismanagement. In a crash of an
>MU-2 onto the roof of an Edmonton (Albert) hospital back in the late
>70's (or early '80's - I don't quite recall), the pilots accidentally
>shut the fuel off to both engines. That's "mismanagement" that crosses
>into the realm of "stupidity".
>

That is unfortunate indeed. It would seem that after making a change
to the configuration of the fuel system, the pilot might consider the
source of the power loss to be his action, but oh well...

>
>>
>>> Up here, they don't call the 310 "widow maker" for nuthin'. I recall a
>>> crash by Boundary Bay (British Columbia) were the pilot was engaged in
>>> single engine practice. Got himself into a spin with the operating
>>> engine on the wrong side. Witnesses I interviewed said it looked like
>>> one of those maple seeds... all the way down into the mud. Both pilots
>>> were killed (student and instructor).
>>
>> Are you implying that the pilot may have entered such a spin in the event
>> that one of the engines quit?
>>
>
>Never implied any such thing. No one really knows what happened. We
>can speculate that he was practicing single engine stall recovery and
>failed the recovery bit. The end result was that the aircraft
>ultimately wound up in an unrecoverable flat spin and "frisbeed" into
>the mud. The inboard (in the spin) prop was feathered and outboard
>engine was at full power.

It's an interesting incident, but I fail to see how it relates to this
crash. The pilot in this case was apparently en route from San Diego
to Hawthorne with his family aboard.

The post accident investigation should at least reveal which engines
were developing power at the time of impact. But there are myriad
other potential causes than loss of power ...

I guess what I find remarkable about this accident is the fact that
that second engine is supposed to reduce the probability of this sort
of crash.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:22:23 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>:

>I'll make a prediction not knowing anything about this case but
>knowing a fair amount of how the NTSB operates: The finding will involve "pilot
>error".

Given:


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=706cd1ed29be...
CFR Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an
emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on
the surface.


It would seem that the NTSB may have good reason to fault the pilot,
perceived NTSB bias notwithstanding.

[Larry Dighera]

On 14 Apr 2008 20:09:11 GMT, Robert Moore >
wrote in 8>:

>Larry Dighera wrote
>> I guess what I find remarkable about this accident is the fact that
>> that second engine is supposed to reduce the probability of this sort
>> of crash.
>
>A reading of FAR Part 23 indicates that not all light twins are required
>to have a positive rate of climb after the failure of an engine during the
>takeoff climb. If the Vso is less than 61 kts OR the seats/restraint
>systems meet certain strength requirements, the rate of climb/descent needs
>only to be determined.
>

That is interesting information, but according to the news report this
flight was en route not departing.

And what of an engine failure in the landing pattern? Ever since I
lost a good friend and skilled pilot to an engine-out in a twin, I've
had a lot less confidence in the usefulness of that second engine.
There's some information on that accident here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/45f86cfef8afc34a/a6543bb679344313?lnk=st&q=#a6543bb679344313

>You seem to be fixed on airplane problems and in agreement with the usual
>FAA position that if the pilot has a piece of paper in his pocket that says
>that he can fly a light twin, then he can do it.
>

Such an expectation is reasonable.

>My experience in 7 years of GA flight instruction was that few if any
>Private Pilots could safely operate their aircraft after an engine failure
>shortly after liftoff. Note that I am not discussing Student Pilots, but
>those "time-pressed" professionals who haven't practiced engine failures in
>the previous 5-10 yesrs. They get their Flight Reviews in a single, and
>that makes them good-to-go in the twin.
>
>Bob Moore

That is a sad state of affairs indeed, but it only confirms my belief
that two engines makes the odds of having an engine failure twice as
likely.

I tried to have a rational discussion with my son-in-law about this
issue once. He's an avid sailor, and he kept insisting that two
engines make the flight safer, and from his prospective I can readily
see how he would believe this, for it is unquestionably true for
boats. But I believe the statistics fail to support that conclusion
for aircraft.

[Frank Olson]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Perhaps, unless it was caused by FOD on takeoff like the Concord that
> crashed, or a fuel line that separated, or....

I doubt (given where the fuel lines enter the engine compartment) that
FOD could have been a factor. Everything else is speculation.


>
>>> Do you have any familiarity with it?
>> Enough to know that a pre-crash "leak" of this magnitude is unlikely.
>> The fuel tanks on a 310 are not "cross connected", so a leak (or fuel
>> line rupture) wouldn't affect the entire system.
>
> That is interesting information. Thanks.
>
> So a single separated fuel line anywhere in the system would be
> incapable of stopping both engines then?

That's correct. In normal operation the left engine feeds off the left
main and tip tank, and the right engine feeds of the right main and tip.
When you run out of fuel in one of the mains you can crossfeed to the
other engine but that's something the pilot has to manually initiate.


>
>> Cross-feeding could have been a factor, but no mention is made that
>> there was any problems with an engine.
>
> For cross-feeding to have been a factor the pilot would have to have
> been transferring fuel from a full tank on one side to an empty one on
> the other side, is that correct (I'm not multi rated)?

There's no way to transfer fuel between tanks. Crossfeed allows you to
connect the engine directly to the tanks on the opposite wing.


> I agree, that it's not very useful to speculate on the cause of this
> specific accident without more information, however the fuel system
> information of this aircraft type that you provided is useful in
> ruling out some scenarios. So general information may be appropriate
> at this point.

It's all speculation until the pilot is able to relate what happened.
Whether he will do so through the normal media channels is also up to
him (or some intrepid reporter).



>> Agreed. Hence my comment about fuel mismanagement. In a crash of an
>> MU-2 onto the roof of an Edmonton (Albert) hospital back in the late
>> 70's (or early '80's - I don't quite recall), the pilots accidentally
>> shut the fuel off to both engines. That's "mismanagement" that crosses
>> into the realm of "stupidity".
>>
>
> That is unfortunate indeed. It would seem that after making a change
> to the configuration of the fuel system, the pilot might consider the
> source of the power loss to be his action, but oh well...

Unfortunately they were on short final to the Edmonton Municipal
Airport. Even if they'd managed to restore fuel flow to both engines,
the restart procedure for a gas turbine would have taken too long (an
MU-2 is a "prop-jet" to use a layman's term).



>
> It's an interesting incident, but I fail to see how it relates to this
> crash. The pilot in this case was apparently en route from San Diego
> to Hawthorne with his family aboard.

The Cessna 310 is a tough bird to fly. You have to stay well ahead of
things through pro-active "micro-management".


>
> The post accident investigation should at least reveal which engines
> were developing power at the time of impact. But there are myriad
> other potential causes than loss of power ...
>
> I guess what I find remarkable about this accident is the fact that
> that second engine is supposed to reduce the probability of this sort
> of crash.

There are several twin engined aircraft that can't fly on "one mill".
The Cessna 336/337 springs to mind as the best example (in this case).
Some twin engined helicopters are unable to maintain level flight with
one engine out. The 310 is extremely difficult to fly on one engine
particularly at lower speeds or with gear and flaps down. The Aerostar
(of which I'm quite familiar) is another challenge to fly on one mill.

[Allen[_1_]]

--

> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >
> >>> It's called "gross fuel mismanagement".
> >>
> >> Perhaps. It could also be called a significant leak, depending on how
> >> the fuel system is designed.
> >
> >Unlikely. In that case it would be gross negligence on the part of the
AME.
> >
>
> Perhaps, unless it was caused by FOD on takeoff like the Concord that
> crashed, or a fuel line that separated, or....
>
> >
> >> Do you have any familiarity with it?
> >
> >Enough to know that a pre-crash "leak" of this magnitude is unlikely.
> >The fuel tanks on a 310 are not "cross connected", so a leak (or fuel
> >line rupture) wouldn't affect the entire system.
>
> That is interesting information. Thanks.
>
> So a single separated fuel line anywhere in the system would be
> incapable of stopping both engines then?
>
> >Cross-feeding could have been a factor, but no mention is made that
> >there was any problems with an engine.
>
> For cross-feeding to have been a factor the pilot would have to have
> been transferring fuel from a full tank on one side to an empty one on
> the other side, is that correct (I'm not multi rated)?

The cross-feed on the Cessna 310 supplies fuel to the engine from the
opposite side fuel tank. It does not transfer from full tank to empty tank.

--
*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[Allen[_1_]]

--

"Frank Olson" > wrote in message
news:SjRMj.50723$rd2.40385@pd7urf3no...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> >> Larry Dighera wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps, unless it was caused by FOD on takeoff like the Concord that
> > crashed, or a fuel line that separated, or....
>
> I doubt (given where the fuel lines enter the engine compartment) that
> FOD could have been a factor. Everything else is speculation.
>
>
> >
> >>> Do you have any familiarity with it?
> >> Enough to know that a pre-crash "leak" of this magnitude is unlikely.
> >> The fuel tanks on a 310 are not "cross connected", so a leak (or fuel
> >> line rupture) wouldn't affect the entire system.
> >
> > That is interesting information. Thanks.
> >
> > So a single separated fuel line anywhere in the system would be
> > incapable of stopping both engines then?
>
> That's correct. In normal operation the left engine feeds off the left
> main and tip tank, and the right engine feeds of the right main and tip.
> When you run out of fuel in one of the mains you can crossfeed to the
> other engine but that's something the pilot has to manually initiate.
>

Actually the tip tank is the main tank on the Cessna 310 (and 320, 335, 340,
414 and 421B)

--
*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[Mxsmanic]

Ken S. Tucker writes:

> So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
> the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?

The injured will sue the aircraft manufacturer and the airport, because they
have more money. The manufacturer and airport will pay a settlement, the cost
of which they will pass on to you in the form of fees and premimums. The
injured will end up rich, the pilot will lose his license and his airplane,
and possibly his home if he is sued as well. A call will go up for closure of
the airport and new restrictions on pilots.

[Frank Olson]

Allen wrote:

Tip tanks being "mains" in Cessna 310, etc.


My bad. I shouldn't have generalized in a thread specifically devoted
to the Cessna 310. :-)

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> I tried to have a rational discussion with my son-in-law about this
> issue once. He's an avid sailor, and he kept insisting that two
> engines make the flight safer, and from his prospective I can readily
> see how he would believe this, for it is unquestionably true for
> boats. But I believe the statistics fail to support that conclusion
> for aircraft.

It's pretty obvious that multiple engines make the flight safer, as long as
the pilot(s) knows how to handle engine failures, and as long as the design of
the aircraft is sufficiently robust to allow reasonable flight characteristics
after the failure of an engine.

That's why airplanes with four engines have fewer restrictions on their
overseas flights than airplanes with three or two engines, and that's why no
commercial passenger jet transports today have just one engine. Even some
military fighter aircraft have occasionally been rejected because they had
only one engine.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> I tried to have a rational discussion with my son-in-law about this
>> issue once. He's an avid sailor, and he kept insisting that two
>> engines make the flight safer, and from his prospective I can readily
>> see how he would believe this, for it is unquestionably true for
>> boats. But I believe the statistics fail to support that conclusion
>> for aircraft.

>
> That's why airplanes with four engines have fewer restrictions on
> their overseas flights than airplanes with three or two engines

Name the restrictions on overseas flights that applied to a B727, DC10,
MD11 or L1011 that didn't apply to a B707, B720, B747, A340, or A380.

[Cary]

On Apr 14, 5:57*pm, Frank Olson
> wrote:*
>
> There are several twin engined aircraft that can't fly on "one mill".
> The Cessna 336/337 springs to mind as the best example (in this case).
> Some twin engined helicopters are unable to maintain level flight with
> one engine out. *The 310 is extremely difficult to fly on one engine
> particularly at lower speeds or with gear and flaps down. *The Aerostar
> (of which I'm quite familiar) is another challenge to fly on one mill.

I owned a C310B for 6 years and had over 700 hours on that plane. I
had 4 real engine failures in that time and never found the plane
difficult to fly on one engine, or to land at low speed with gear and
flaps down. The plane was very stable and easy to fly on either one or
two engines. Maybe your comment applies to later models of the 310,
but it certainly doesn't apply to the 310B.

Cary Mariash

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Anthony, it's obvious that you know absolutely nothing about design strategy
> or flying multi engine aircraft (or single engine aircraft). In fact, you
> know absolutely nothing about flying.


You and Dudley still read his dribblings? Why?




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Apr 14, 8:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
> > the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?
>
> The injured will sue the aircraft manufacturer and the airport, because they
> have more money. The manufacturer and airport will pay a settlement, the cost
> of which they will pass on to you in the form of fees and premimums. The
> injured will end up rich, the pilot will lose his license and his airplane,
> and possibly his home if he is sued as well. A call will go up for closure of
> the airport and new restrictions on pilots.

Well I'd never design an a/c like the 310. By putting
the fuel in the wing tips increases the angular moment,
(like a bar-bell), making spin recovery tough.
I'd likely fatten up the wing root and put the tanks there.
Ken

[Frank Olson]

Cary wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:57 pm, Frank Olson
> > wrote:
>> There are several twin engined aircraft that can't fly on "one mill".
>> The Cessna 336/337 springs to mind as the best example (in this case).
>> Some twin engined helicopters are unable to maintain level flight with
>> one engine out. The 310 is extremely difficult to fly on one engine
>> particularly at lower speeds or with gear and flaps down. The Aerostar
>> (of which I'm quite familiar) is another challenge to fly on one mill.
>
> I owned a C310B for 6 years and had over 700 hours on that plane. I
> had 4 real engine failures in that time and never found the plane
> difficult to fly on one engine, or to land at low speed with gear and
> flaps down. The plane was very stable and easy to fly on either one or
> two engines. Maybe your comment applies to later models of the 310,
> but it certainly doesn't apply to the 310B.
>
> Cary Mariash


700 hours and four engine failures... That equates to about one failure
every 175 hours. Now that's scary. I'd be having a serious talk with
your friendly mechanic. There were two 310's (don't recall the
variants) based at Abbotsford (BC) which accumulated over 2000 hours of
flying time between them in a year and NEVER had one engine failure in
the four years I hung around there. Gear problems were another matter.
I never found the 310 "stable" or "easy to fly" on one engine, but
mind you my check pilots/instructors always seemed to favour "killing"
the critical engine. :-)

[F. Baum]

On Apr 14, 9:40*am, Frank Olson
> wrote:
>
> Never implied any such thing. *No one really knows what happened. *We
> can speculate that he was practicing single engine stall recovery and
> failed the recovery bit.

You dont actually practice engine out stall recovery in a twin. The
closest thing would be a VMC demo.
FB

[F. Baum]

On Apr 14, 2:09*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote
>
> A reading of FAR Part 23 indicates that not all light twins are required
> to have a positive rate of climb after the failure of an engine during the
> takeoff climb. If the Vso is less than 61 kts OR the seats/restraint
> systems meet certain strength requirements, the rate of climb/descent needs
> only to be determined.
>
Good point. The 310 will fly (And Climb) just fine with an engine out.
Especially at sea level where this accident happened.

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message ...
> On Apr 13, 6:04 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 3:52 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Thankfully, there was no fire.
>>
>> >http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-compton13apr13,0,3190581.story
>> > 5 hurt as small plane crashes in Compton
>> > By Richard Winton and Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
>> > April 13, 2008
>> > Five people were injured, four critically, Saturday afternoon when
>> > a twin-engine aircraft crashed nose first into a Compton house and
>> > sliced into the one next door with one of its wings, authorities
>> > said.
>>
>> > The Cessna 310 crashed just before 4 p.m. in the 500 block of West
>> > Cypress Street, said Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the Federal
>> > Aviation Administration.
>>
>> > The plane, which was registered in Nevada, was heading from San
>> > Diego to Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Gregor said. It was about a
>> > mile and a half away from Compton/Woodley Airport, a general
>> > aviation field, but he said it was unclear whether the pilot was
>> > trying to make an emergency landing.
>>
>> > Compton Deputy Fire Chief Marcel Melanson said two of the injured
>> > were the plane's occupants and three were on the ground. ...
>>
>> > He and two other people tried to open the door of the badly
>> > damaged house but couldn't get it to budge. They helped the young
>> > woman out a window, and when she said her mother was inside, they
>> > clambered through the window themselves to search for her.
>>
>> > "I saw the pilot, so we got him out," Wyatt said.
>>
>> > Then he spotted one of the residents of the house moving under the
>> > rubble. Several people struggled to move that man out of the home
>> > through a sliding-glass door.
>>
>> > "You could smell the fumes," said Wyatt, his jeans stained with
>> > the blood of the injured whom he helped. ...
>>
>> So what happens now? Does the homeowner sue
>> the pilot or the plane owner? Can they?
>> Remember that old homeowner insurance rider
>> you could get to cover an airplane falling on your
>> house? Who pays for that mess?
>> Ken
>
> My best guess is that the homeowner and his insurance agents will sue
> the pilot, the owner, the FBO that last handled the aircraft, the
> pilot's last two instructors, the person who did the last annual, the
> manufacturers of the airplane, props, engines, and vacuum pump (even
> though the pump was working at the time, etc., etc., etc. They will
> also blame the airports they took off from and intended to land at,
> and try to close them down.


you forgot they should sue Parker because once upon a time they made vacuum pumps, and they paid even though they were
not a contributing factor...

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:05:21 -0700, F. Baum wrote:

> You dont actually practice engine out stall recovery in a twin.

Didn't you ever see the joke about Santa's biennial?

- Andrew

[Cary]

On Apr 16, 12:02*am, Frank Olson
> wrote:
> Cary wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 5:57 pm, Frank Olson
> > > wrote:
> >> There are several twin engined aircraft that can't fly on "one mill".
> >> The Cessna 336/337 springs to mind as the best example (in this case).
> >> Some twin engined helicopters are unable to maintain level flight with
> >> one engine out. *The 310 is extremely difficult to fly on one engine
> >> particularly at lower speeds or with gear and flaps down. *The Aerostar
> >> (of which I'm quite familiar) is another challenge to fly on one mill.
>
> > I owned a C310B for 6 years and had over 700 hours on that plane. I
> > had 4 real engine failures in that time and never found the plane
> > difficult to fly on one engine, or to land at low speed with gear and
> > flaps down. The plane was very stable and easy to fly on either one or
> > two engines. Maybe your comment applies to later models of the 310,
> > but it certainly doesn't apply to the 310B.
>
> > Cary Mariash
>
> 700 hours and four engine failures... *That equates to about one failure
> every 175 hours. *Now that's scary. *I'd be having a serious talk with
> your friendly mechanic. *There were two 310's (don't recall the
> variants) based at Abbotsford (BC) which accumulated over 2000 hours of
> flying time between them in a year and NEVER had one engine failure in
> the four years I hung around there. *Gear problems were another matter.
> * I never found the 310 "stable" or "easy to fly" on one engine, but
> mind you my check pilots/instructors always seemed to favour "killing"
> the critical engine. *:-)

Frank,
I don't remember if it was you or someone else I responded to
privately. Publicly I will let you know that the 1st engine failure
(right engine) occurred when the gear on the engine that drive the wet
vacuum pump started to deteriorate. It sent metal into the crank case,
a piece eventually damaging the front main bearing. This led to loss
of oil pressure and loss of prop control. I shut the engine down and
flew home without incident. The other three were related to an engine
rebuild (left engine) where the rebuilder used the wrong main bearing
the first time, did not fit the correct main bearing properly the
second time, and still couldn't fit it properly the third time. This
rebuilder is no longer in business! My plane did not have autopilot
and I spent a lot of time hand flying in IFR, and a lot of time with
an instructor who pulled engines on me all the time. I think all the
practice I had flying single engine made these engine outs non-events.

Cary