Cessna 310R down near Las Vegas yesterday (Oct 29); two dead

Um, if I lose my engine....and it doesnt restart....its an emergency
 
The bottom line is that he did not fly to survive. He flew away from two airports that he would have reached without even breaking a sweat. Passed over open ground where a forced landing would have been almost a sure thing. He lost precious time arguing with ATC. He responded to losing altitude and airspeed by pulling back. By that point he was just a passenger not a pilot. (shrug - lots of links in the chain to that accident)
 
Dr. O said:
The bottom line is that he did not fly to survive. He flew away from two airports that he would have reached without even breaking a sweat. Passed over open ground where a forced landing would have been almost a sure thing. He lost precious time arguing with ATC. He responded to losing altitude and airspeed by pulling back. By that point he was just a passenger not a pilot. (shrug - lots of links in the chain to that accident)
Click to expand...

Yup, looking at his flight path he could have easily straight in landed at McCarran
 
Based on the FlightAware data above, it looks like the takeoff time was a little before 1629Z.

METARs at LAS:

202010291556 METAR KLAS 291556Z 00000KT 10SM CLR 18/M07 A3021 RMK AO2 SLP217 T01781072=

202010291656 METAR KLAS 291656Z 00000KT 10SM CLR 20/M07 A3020 RMK AO2 SLP216 T02001072=

http://www.ogimet.com/display_metar...20&mesf=10&dayf=29&horaf=23&minf=59&send=send

Using the following Web site, I calculated a DA for LAS of 2,760 at 1556Z, and 3,008 at 1656Z, which is about 600 to 800 feet above field elevation.

https://e6bx.com/density-altitude/

According to AVweb, the spec for single-engine service ceiling on a normally-aspirated 310 ranges from just under 7000 feet to 7500 feet, depending on the model.

https://www.avweb.com/features/cessna-310/
 
Somehow you need to document 6 per 6 to be "lEgAl" in IMC, but flying all over kingdom come with twice the flammable volume without having to demonstrate a single engine cut / SE approach to a landing on a recurrent basis is par for the course. Ok Seems legit.

The insurance critters are right. I'll take "and that's why we can't afford nice things" for $400 Alex...
/sarc
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
It need not necessarily be an emergency. No different than it's not automatically an emergency if you lose the only engine in a single.
Click to expand...
In what situations would you not consider those to be emergencies, and why?
 
hindsight2020 said:
Somehow you need to document 6 per 6 to be "lEgAl" in IMC, but flying all over kingdom come with twice the flammable volume without having to demonstrate a single engine cut / SE approach to a landing on a recurrent basis is par for the course. Ok Seems legit.
Click to expand...
yeah this was a huge surprise to me.. I just did my AMEL and I was astonished that there were no real additional currency requirements...

Palmpilot said:
According to AVweb, the spec for single-engine service ceiling on a normally-aspirated 310 ranges from just under 7000 feet to 7500 feet, depending on the model.
Click to expand...
..and that's probably at max gross, which, presumably this guy was not near. Who knows, he was very calm, almost too calm. Maybe he wasn't at full power on the good engine and was overall too nonchalant about the whole thing

Full power, secure, go to Vysse and point the plane to the closest suitable runway and then declare
 
hindsight2020 said:
Somehow you need to document 6 per 6 to be "lEgAl" in IMC, but flying all over kingdom come with twice the flammable volume without having to demonstrate a single engine cut / SE approach to a landing on a recurrent basis is par for the course. Ok Seems legit.

The insurance critters are right. I'll take "and that's why we can't afford nice things" for $400 Alex...
/sarc

Im generally pretty "socially libertarian" when it comes to the freedom to kill yourself, but these ever mounting externalities (ERAU et al) on my hobby antagonize the living s--t outta me. With friends like these....
Click to expand...

So start a thread and bring up adding requirements annually to demonstrate proficiency in a ME aircraft to PTS/ACS standards, and watch the crying commence.

GA has an attitude of "you only need to demonstrate proficiency once (check ride)" and after that it's on the honor system, which doesn't really exist.

And the 6 per 6 to be legal? How many GA accidents do we witness of guys losing it in IMC?
 
Valid points about recurrent (or the lack of) training, but this was a Part 135 operation, pilots subject to a checkride every 6 months and some form of recurrent ground training as well, though with different models of twins, the pilot may not have done a 310 ride for up to a year.
 
smv said:
Even if the cause of it restarting is you finally remembering to switch tanks? :p
Click to expand...

If you know for certain the reason for stoppage, then yes, soldier on. If at all in question, figure it out on the ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smv
Doc Holliday said:
GA has an attitude of "you only need to demonstrate proficiency once (check ride)" and after that it's on the honor system, which doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...
Much of aviation has the attitude that "you only need to demonstrate proficiency on checkrides". It's just that we drag some pilots kicking and screaming up to standard once or twice a year.
 
Tantalum said:
..and that's probably at max gross, which, presumably this guy was not near. Who knows, he was very calm, almost too calm. Maybe he wasn't at full power on the good engine and was overall too nonchalant about the whole thing

Full power, secure, go to Vysse and point the plane to the closest suitable runway and then declare
Click to expand...
I'm still wondering about that "sounded like a helicopter" thing...maybe he didn't have the dead one feathered.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Much of aviation has the attitude that "you only need to demonstrate proficiency on checkrides". It's just that we drag some pilots kicking and screaming up to standard once or twice a year.
Click to expand...

A military concept that is resurging is what to do after the initial immediate action steps in an emergency. These "Follow On Steps" may vary for the same emergency, depending on which associated systems are degraded.

In the event of a powerplant failure on a multi-engined aircraft, those actions could be somewhere between "Continue" and "Land As Soon As Possible."

I know the C-310 has non-redundant systems on the engines, so you will lose either an alternator or pump of some kind, I don't remember. That will influence your follow on plan.

On a simple airplane, there may be nothing to do but keep flying, although slower.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I'm still wondering about that "sounded like a helicopter" thing...maybe he didn't have the dead one feathered.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why I reserved further comment since I thought there could have been some visual illusion with the camera frame rate, but it looked to me like a slowly windmilling prop. A feathered condition would have those blades parked.
 
Doc Holliday said:
...How many GA accidents do we witness of guys losing it in IMC?
Click to expand...

I find it a bit disturbing that some of those accident pilots have a LOT more time than I do, and presumably a lot more IFR time than I do.

As for recurrency, simulators are steadily improving and I've been using the Piper Seneca set up in the Alsim 250 our Club bought one year ago to supplement the refresher dual I do in the Aztec.

Palmpilot said:
In what situations would you not consider those to be emergencies, and why?
Click to expand...

Aviate. Navigate. Communicate.
This pilot was wasting time "communicating" while he forgot about the first two. How else do you fly by more than one viable landing spot, all while an airplane that should be able to climb is losing altitude?

How many accidents have been posted here in the past few years where there was absolutely nothing wrong with the airframe or the flight controls, yet the airplane augered in nose first, out of control? How's worrying about declaring an emergency going to help change those outcomes, including the example of this thread?

The objective is to get the airplane down wings level with the slowest forward and vertical momentum at touchdown so you and your passengers have the highest probability of walking away. If ATC or someone else can help you, by all means declare an emergency. Otherwise worrying about communicating an emergency is just a distraction to the more important tasks at hand.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
It need not necessarily be an emergency. No different than it's not automatically an emergency if you lose the only engine in a single.
Click to expand...

Losing any engine in a light twin is definitely definitely definitely an emergency.

Looks like he lost the left engine which is the critical engine in the 310. In my Q model (which isn’t much different than the R in terms of power to weight), doesnt have crap for SE performance on the right engine only. The right engine at full power and full gross will pretty much take you to the crash site.

I’ve done plenty of SE training in my 310Q and it barely holds straight and level at 1000 MSL on a hot summer day in south Texas. It certainly won’t hold blue line. I would think a turn back to VGT would be the only option if I lost any engine in a light twin. He was only 1 mile away when it happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
smv said:
Even if the cause of it restarting is you finally remembering to switch tanks? :p
Click to expand...

He should be on the mains for take-off and landing already. It’s an airplane limitation. You burn 60-90 min from the mains before switching to the Aux tanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
GRG55 said:
Aviate. Navigate. Communicate.
This pilot was wasting time "communicating" while he forgot about the first two. How else do you fly by more than one viable landing spot, all while an airplane that should be able to climb is losing altitude?

How many accidents have been posted here in the past few years where there was absolutely nothing wrong with the airframe or the flight controls, yet the airplane augered in nose first, out of control? How's worrying about declaring an emergency going to help change those outcomes, including the example of this thread?

The objective is to get the airplane down wings level with the slowest forward and vertical momentum at touchdown so you and your passengers have the highest probability of walking away. If ATC or someone else can help you, by all means declare an emergency. Otherwise worrying about communicating an emergency is just a distraction to the more important tasks at hand.
Click to expand...
It sounded like you were saying that it wasn't an emergency. Having an emergency and declaring an emergency are two different things. I'm not saying that anyone should give declaring the emergency higher priority than handling the emergency.
 
Palmpilot said:
It sounded like you were saying that it wasn't an emergency. Having an emergency and declaring an emergency are two different things. I'm not saying that anyone should give declaring the emergency higher priority than handling the emergency.
Click to expand...

Yes.
You and I are in agreement. I was keying off a couple of early posts on this thread about declaring an emergency.

Kenny Phillips said:
I think that if I caged one, my first call would include the word "emergency"...
Click to expand...

flightwriter said:
...it sure seems at least a couple opportunities were missed to declare an emergency and land back at VGT...
Click to expand...

Perhaps his declaring an emergency early on might have helped him. But given he seemed to be having trouble a) flying the airplane (maybe he was dealing with more than one problem, such as misfueling with jet?), and
b) with situational awareness (flying past more than one good opportunity to put the ailing, descending airplane down under control),
I have my doubts.

No argument that losing an engine meets the definition of having an emergency (serious, unexpected, potentially dangerous).
 
jd21476 said:
Um, if I lose my engine....and it doesnt restart....its an emergency
Click to expand...

Bill Jennings said:
Hell, even if it does restart it's an emergency. Get on the ground ASAP!
Click to expand...

smv said:
Even if the cause of it restarting is you finally remembering to switch tanks? :p
Click to expand...

Fracpilot said:
He should be on the mains for take-off and landing already. It’s an airplane limitation. You burn 60-90 min from the mains before switching to the Aux tanks.
Click to expand...

Red.... Because footballs do not have feathers. o_O
 
GRG55 said:
...Perhaps his declaring an emergency early on might have helped him. But given he seemed to be having trouble a) flying the airplane (maybe he was dealing with more than one problem, such as misfueling with jet?), and
b) with situational awareness (flying past more than one good opportunity to put the ailing, descending airplane down under control),
I have my doubts....
Click to expand...
My thinking in this case is that he was already talking to ATC, and "emergency" is only one word. It would presumably have stopped ATC from telling him "you can't turn that way."
 
Fracpilot said:
.

I’ve done plenty of SE training in my 310Q and it barely holds straight and level at 1000 MSL on a hot summer day in south Texas. It certainly won’t hold blue line.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Even the semenhole I had to endure 2.2 hobbs sweating to the oldies in furnance hell C TX during that ATP ride was climbing at 150-200fpm on one between 3000 and 4500msl with surface temps around 35C, 400# below gross. The poh supports that empirical observation.

No dog in the multi fight, but physics says a 285hp 310 should be able to meet or exceed that climb gradient in the same density altitude conditions as the semenhole, since it gives the same power loading at gross (5500÷285) as a pa44 flown at 3473#. I'm not trying to impute your proficiency or the aircraft mechanical condition, but I'm going with science on this one.
 
Fracpilot said:
It certainly won’t hold blue line.
Click to expand...
Can you expand on that? Blue Line is supposed to be single engine climb speed.. are you saying that if you fly blue line the plane is actually descending, even at 1K agl?

If true, then this does call into question the actual value of that second engine.. in effect you are doubling your chance of an engine failure and without any real added margin from it
 
Tantalum said:
Can you expand on that? Blue Line is supposed to be single engine climb speed.. are you saying that if you fly blue line the plane is actually descending, even at 1K agl?

If true, then this does call into question the actual value of that second engine.
Click to expand...
To ensure that you make it to the scene of the accident.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Interesting. Even the semenhole I had to endure 2.2 hobbs sweating to the oldies in furnance hell C TX during that ATP ride was climbing at 150-200fpm on one between 3000 and 4500msl with surface temps around 35C, 400# below gross. The poh supports that empirical observation.

No dog in the multi fight, but physics says a 285hp 310 should be able to meet or exceed that climb gradient in the same density altitude conditions as the semenhole, since it gives the same power loading at gross (5500÷285) as a pa44 flown at 3473#. I'm not trying to impute your proficiency or the aircraft mechanical condition, but I'm going with science on this one.
Click to expand...
I’ve actually shut down the left (“critical”) engine and feathered in mine and had no problem maintaining 6000 msl in the winter. I’d link the video but it was the first one I made and pretty rough to watch. :)

Just recently I was testing out my autopilot and used the book simulated feathered setting and had no problem at 5000msl on a 90+ degree day. The a/p flew it surprisingly well and the YD even kept a split ball with no rudder trim.

I have the 470’s vs 520’s of a stock R. I’ve heard the 550 conversion makes single engine significantly better and MAY consider that when these engines tell me they are ready.

My experience has been she behaves quite well, all things considered, in OEI scenarios. Not that I’m hoping to ever test it out in all real world scenarios.
 
Tantalum said:
If true, then this does call into question the actual value of that second engine.. in effect you are doubling your chance of an engine failure and without any real added margin from it
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, we very much usually only hear of the times it goes bad. I personally know several guys that have lost one and landed just fine (310, 340, 414 and 421). The room for error in these events is often very small. If you are well trained/proficient, have an otherwise sound plane and have appropriate conditions (think NA mountains, etc), there is a real added safety margin.
 
Radar Contact said:
Keep in mind, we very much usually only hear of the times it goes bad. I personally know several guys that have lost one and landed just fine (310, 340, 414 and 421). The room for error in these events is often very small. If you are well trained/proficient, have an otherwise sound plane and have appropriate conditions (think NA mountains, etc), there is a real added safety margin.
Click to expand...
Thanks, and I generally agree.. hence why I recently got my AMEL. But the poster above said that he is basically crashing his 310Q on one engine, that even at 1K AGL (on a hot day) he can't maintain blue line

The beat to hell Duchess we trained on could easily maintain blue line and 7K altitude on one engine. Different plane, but the 310 is a real, proper twin, I would imagine its performance to be decent, and at least per Palmpilot's research above the 310 should be able to maintain altitude on one engine. I was surprised by the above poster's apparently weak 310Q numbers
 
Tantalum said:
Thanks, and I generally agree.. hence why I recently got my AMEL. But the poster above said that he is basically crashing his 310Q on one engine, that even at 1K AGL (on a hot day) he can't maintain blue line
Click to expand...
That just hasn’t been my experience. You’ll see here (if you want it’s about 3:45-6:45). I was a 5000 msl with about 93F surface temp and 23.5 warmer than ISA at 5000. I was at book feathered setting (minus about 25 rpm) and I never firewalled the right engine. I left the RPMs at 2450 (top of green arc) vs 2625 max rpm for engine longevity reasons. In a real world loss I would firewall that and the performance would be slightly improved.
 
Tantalum said:
Thanks, and I generally agree.. hence why I recently got my AMEL. But the poster above said that he is basically crashing his 310Q on one engine, that even at 1K AGL (on a hot day) he can't maintain blue line

The beat to hell Duchess we trained on could easily maintain blue line and 7K altitude on one engine. Different plane, but the 310 is a real, proper twin, I would imagine its performance to be decent, and at least per Palmpilot's research above the 310 should be able to maintain altitude on one engine. I was surprised by the above poster's apparently weak 310Q numbers
Click to expand...
I think the poster is not understanding his operating speeds. If the way I'm reading it (and appears the way you're reading it) is actually the case, he could speed up to blue line (which will require some descent) and then have better performance than he's getting at whatever speed it's "barely hold[ing] straight and level". That's why Blue Line is the target, not something merely above Vmc.

Fracpilot said:
I’ve done plenty of SE training in my 310Q and it barely holds straight and level at 1000 MSL on a hot summer day in south Texas. It certainly won’t hold blue line.
Click to expand...
 
While checking out in an Aztec, the left engine begin sputtering badly after we reduced power for Vmca demos, so we left it at the zero thrust setting and landed. Not much of an event, since the rest of the flight was a constant descent to touchdown. No emergency, didn't mention it to ATC.

Sort of like the single engine approaches during the ATP practice and flight test, except for some reason we would advise tower we were single engine. Company policy, I guess...
 
Tantalum said:
Can you expand on that? Blue Line is supposed to be single engine climb speed.. are you saying that if you fly blue line the plane is actually descending, even at 1K agl?...
Click to expand...
Not totally sure what he meant, but he said 1000 MSL, not AGL.
 
Radar Contact said:
That just hasn’t been my experience. You’ll see here (if you want it’s about 3:45-6:45). I was a 5000 msl with about 93F surface temp and 23.5 warmer than ISA at 5000. I was at book feathered setting (minus about 25 rpm) and I never firewalled the right engine. I left the RPMs at 2450 (top of green arc) vs 2625 max rpm for engine longevity reasons. In a real world loss I would firewall that and the performance would be slightly improved.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the share, that's a beautiful panel and plane you've got there..

I need to find some way to move into aircraft ownership in the next 5 years.. renting sucks, especially for the kind of flying I like to do (Aztec/310/Seneca are on the realistic short list)
 
MauleSkinner said:
I think the poster is not understanding his operating speeds.
Click to expand...
Yes, something certainly does not seem to add up

I'm all for hyperbole but that sounded objective
 
Palmpilot said:
Why? AGL is irrelevant to engine performance.
Click to expand...
Yes, but 1K AGL at some place like Tahoe would make more sense that a plane would struggle to maintain altitude, even at blue line, especially on a hot day. But 1K MSL.. I mean.. I would assume even the underpowered early twins would be able to sustain flight at 1K MSL

But what do I know! Either way you should be landing. I just found it curious since most people you talk to and stuff you read will put a twin with an engine out between 5K ish to 8K..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top