5 related adults dead in Cessna 340 crash

1RTK1 said:
Always like my 40% RC planes a little on the tail heavy side with a more neutral stability for aerobatics
Click to expand...

Ha! We all liked CG’s on the tail heavy side once we knew what we were doing.

But there’s a limit that is rigorously calc’d in full scale, not so much with our models where losing one was just pride and $$

RC is a good place to learn a lot about flying.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
kontiki said:
Without trying to come up with numbers, I'm gonna go out on a limb and just claim that typical instruments accurate enough to keep you on an IFR route are probably not accurate enough for guiding a pilot down a runway of whatever width for very long.
Click to expand...

I’ll jump in here and say they are. Gyros are analog instruments. All you’re looking at is the DG.

Why emphasize analog? If you can see well enough to focus on the top of the Instrument, ANY movement from where it was when the aircraft was centered is visible. A tick mark of movement is too much.

The old jokes about flying within half a needle’s width applies.

Now... is the pilot good enough to STOP the movement. That is the real question.

Examples one can try without a CFI aboard are making an altimeter needle stay absolutely glued to a mark on a smooth day. Off your altitude by 50? How about shooting for 10? How about a wiggle? How about not allowing it to move?

The Instrument isn’t the weak link. The eyeballs and skill set of the person looking at the Instrument are.

Most of us can handle it in a car too. Can you keep a needle glued to a speed better than your car’s “autopilot”/cruise control? Sure you can. Especially if you have a tachometer. It multiplies by speed.

I say this about analog because SOME digital stuff is too granular to do stuff like that. As long as the resolution and fractions of data points are small enough, digital can mimic analog. And delay in processing can also be a factor on old stuff.

Analog gyro? The gyro is rigid in space and it thinks the world is turning around it. The Instrument shows tiny tiny changes you probably can’t correct accurately for. But you can learn to average your corrections. And it takes heavy concentration.

The heavy concentration part is likely where this went all wrong. A distraction could be disastrous. That’s the risk analysis one has to remember trying to concentrate hard enough to be that precise. Other instruments have to suffer being mostly ignored for a very short period of time and if something divides your attention, you may be screwed.
 
I agree with the idea that your typical steam gauge DG/HI can actually be used to keep a pilot on the runway - if they’ve practiced and maintained skill.

But I’ll readily admit a huge sense of relief once airborne whenever I’ve practiced this.
 
eman1200 said:
I wonder what those chirps were.....rotated then settled back down? possibly with some side load? in any case, tragic.
Click to expand...
Sounds like wheels touching down, and to get a chirp, they had to "spin up", so he may have been just off the ground for a bit. Poor judgement; some of the available videos show very dense fog.
 
eman1200 said:
I wonder what those chirps were.....rotated then settled back down? possibly with some side load? in any case, tragic.
Click to expand...

Plane might have lifted in ground effect but been unable to climb out of it. The gear was retracted, so either the chirps were prior or they weren’t tire chirps. Maybe tail strikes?

Interesting that the trim tab was past full up.

I’m guessing he was fighting an airplane badly out of trim due to the excess weight putting the CG beyond limits.
 
**** like this sometimes makes me want to stop flying
 
Half Fast said:
Plane might have lifted in ground effect but been unable to climb out of it. The gear was retracted, so either the chirps were prior or they weren’t tire chirps. Maybe tail strikes?

...
Click to expand...

Sounded like tire chirps to me. Possibly one main then the other, with perhaps a bit of drift? Plenty of time to get the gear up after those were heard. And if it was not climbing well maybe an inclination to retract the gear and clean it up? Plane was still airborne and making power 20 seconds later.

From the report. No rudder is not dangerous? Hmmm.

"The mechanic who maintained the airplane stated that the pilot always flew with his feet flat on the floor and not on the rudder pedals. He also stated that the pilot never flew dangerously or recklessly..." o_O :confused: ​
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Sounded like tire chirps to me. Possibly one main then the other, with perhaps a bit of drift? Plenty of time to get the gear up after those were heard. Plane was still airborne and making power 20 seconds later.

From the report. No rudder is not dangerous? Hmmm.

"The mechanic who maintained the airplane stated that the pilot always flew with his feet flat on the floor and not on the rudder pedals. He also stated that the pilot never flew dangerously or recklessly..." o_O :confused: ​
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that is the same mechanic who put his signature under maintenance entries for work that wasn't actually performed.
 
..the fog is an obvious red flag here.. however looking at the other known elements it does appear that the plane may have been grossly out of trim. Someone had posted up thread back when this first came out about the CG, and how given the loading and weights of the people, etc., there was no way to load that plane and keep it within CG range. The two chirps do paint a picture of a plane lifting off briefly, then settling back down, possible one gear first then the other

Had there not been fog people may be alive still, however, given a plane out of CG trim this crash may have been inevitable

..PS, I don't really understand the notion to paint the pilot as unsafe or taking unnecessary risks.. this is not a criminal proceeding, and whether he was the best pilot in the world, or the most careless in the world, doesn't really change what the actual cause of the crash is, and how we can learn from it. Maybe he loaded the plane out of CG because he is careless and reckless, but the guy is already dead and doesn't change the lesson learned from this to obey CG limits of the plane, and / or treat hard IMC conditions with more respect
 
I suggest everyone read through the information contained in the docket before commenting further.
They actually have the videos downloadable under 'related files'.
 
Hoo boy, and this is why we can't have nice things.....

upload_2018-12-28_12-45-7.png
:rolleyes:
 
Tantalum said:
.

..PS, I don't really understand the notion to paint the pilot as unsafe or taking unnecessary risks.. this is not a criminal proceeding, and whether he was the best pilot in the world, or the most careless in the world, doesn't really change what the actual cause of the crash is, and how we can learn from it. Maybe he loaded the plane out of CG because he is careless and reckless, but the guy is already dead and doesn't change the lesson learned from this to obey CG limits of the plane, and / or treat hard IMC conditions with more respect
Click to expand...
This isn’t any kind of proceeding. This is just chewing the fat and shooting the bull, yes?

But I would argue that attitude and historical behavior patterns are probably at the heart of this. Why? Because it is safe to assume that the pilot, as all pilots, have had the requirement to load within the CG limits, gross weight limits,etc drilled into him.

So the question can become, “why did he do risky or prohibited things on this flight?” Or why did he fly to limits of part 91 operations when prudence (e.g. whole family on board for $500 lunch) might suggest to this experienced pilot that a foggy departure should be waited out.

Very legit questions I’d say.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Bill Watson said:
So the question can become, “why did he do risky or prohibited things on this flight?” Or why did he fly to limits of part 91 operations when prudence (e.g. whole family on board for $500 lunch) might suggest to this experienced pilot that a foggy departure should be waited out.

Very legit questions I’d say.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
Most pilots are capable of roughing out a takeoff weight calculation, but CG calculations elude way too many pilots, including those who make their living flying. And since they can't do weight and balance, they don't.

What you end up with is "It's got enough seats" and "we're about max gross weight."
 
The actions of some pilots are practically beyond comprehension. In addition to the falsified maintenance logbook and expiration of the required aircraft IFR inspection, there was this discrepancy.



The mechanic who maintained the airplane stated that, 2 days before the accident, at the request of the pilot, he moved the co-pilot seat aft and adjusted the rear seats forward. He also stated that the accident airplane had a known autopilot issue; if the autopilot was engaged on the ground, it would command the elevator trim full nose-down. He understood this issue was a result of the autopilot's gyros not being level on the ground, which caused the autopilot to sense and attempt to compensate for a high pitch attitude. He stated that the accident pilot was aware of this autopilot issue.
 
GRG55 said:
"The mechanic who maintained the airplane stated that the pilot always flew with his feet flat on the floor and not on the rudder pedals. He also stated that the pilot never flew dangerously or recklessly..." o_O :confused: ​
Click to expand...

Sounds like a quick way to die in a light twin. Engine failure near Vmc, while IMC, at full power. It would have gone over before he knew what was happening.
 
Sad. But looking back certainly seemed cavalier with safety.
If you have to tug the plane out because it’s too foggy to taxi- there’s your sign.

Trying to take off with a plane heavy and way out of trim is a dangerous and difficult. May have gotten fast while fighting to rotate and rotated for a moment and then chirped.

Clearly not a PoA member. This may sound crazy but when I think about flight planing or safety things In general, my mind goes through the: “what would the PoA members be writing about my smoking hole if I did this and it turned badly”.
Should be a safety checklist item!!!
 
MetalCloud said:
**** like this sometimes makes me want to stop flying
Click to expand...

Your assertion was vague, so forgive me for presuming. Do you mean the "indignity" behind light piston equipment you paid too much for, failing to meet your expectations of a legitimate all-weather transportation conveyance?
 
He took off over gross on a 45min flight. That's a judgement issue.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Most pilots are capable of roughing out a takeoff weight calculation, but CG calculations elude way too many pilots, including those who make their living flying. And since they can't do weight and balance, they don't.

What you end up with is "It's got enough seats" and "we're about max gross weight."
Click to expand...

More like, can't be bothered to do one is more like it. "I didn't buy this _____ to end up [insert performance limitations part 25 twin turbines don't have that light pistons do have here]"
 
Perhaps he'd have been OK if he'd gone faster. My understanding is that centre of lift moves backwards as speed increases, and can mitigate a rear CG.
 
Zeldman said:
What makes you say this.??
Click to expand...
The report stated that he wanted the plane towed out as the fog was too dense near hangars.
If it’s that thick that you can’t see to taxi safely. Maybe shouldn’t be taking off!
 
benyflyguy said:
The report stated that he wanted the plane towed out as the fog was too dense near hangars.
If it’s that thick that you can’t see to taxi safely. Maybe shouldn’t be taking off!
Click to expand...

Ok. Thanks. I don't know what the situation was at that particular airport at that time. But there has been a few times I tugged the plane out onto the ramp, or followed the "follow me" truck to the runway to avoid piles of plowed snow.

I guess it is the shouldn't be taking off part I am not understanding. Part 91 allows zero/zero take offs. I agree that a VFR pilot should not take off in those conditions, but under certain conditions a current and proficient instrument pilot should not have problems taking off. Yes, there is risk involved like anything else that has to be evaluated and taken into consideration.
 
Zeldman said:
I guess it is the shouldn't be taking off part I am not understanding. Part 91 allows zero/zero take offs. I agree that a VFR pilot should not take off in those conditions, but under certain conditions a current and proficient instrument pilot should not have problems taking off.
Click to expand...


While the logbooks conveniently burned up with the plane, unless he had another 340 or 414 stashed somewhere else that he flew every week, he was at best marginally current to fly on instruments in that 340.

You have to watch the videos on the NTSB site to appreciate the nuttiness of this undertaking.
 
weilke said:
While the logbooks conveniently burned up with the plane, unless he had another 340 or 414 stashed somewhere else that he flew every week, he was at best marginally current to fly on instruments in that 340.

You have to watch the videos on the NTSB site to appreciate the nuttiness of this undertaking.
Click to expand...
Are they off the link above??
 
Zeldman said:
I agree that a VFR pilot should not take off in those conditions, but under certain conditions a current and proficient instrument pilot should not have problems taking off. Yes, there is risk involved like anything else that has to be evaluated and taken into consideration.
Click to expand...


Unless one of those conditions is being a year and a half past due for IFR cert of the xpndr and pitot system, he should not have been flying this plane in ANY sort of IFR. IFR cert skipped, engine maintenance skipped and fraudulent entries in maintenance log,.... Who knows whether he was "current and proficient" as an instrument pilot, but he does not seem like a prudent fellow so I doubt it.

We all take risks, but as you say those risks have to be evaluated. I wonder how this risk evaluation would have gone. "Let's see, now. The engines are past due for maintenance by a few years. The IFR cert is way out of date. It's so foggy I'm afraid to taxi the plane. The only risk in going is the lives of me and my family, whereas the risk of waiting for the fog to lift is being late for lunch. Sounds like we're GO!"
 
From the link posted above, two separate individuals questioned the pilot’s ADM skills. One a mechanic and one a CFI. Both subsequently refused to fly with him.

That has to be a telling factor right there. It’s really a shame his family and friends didn’t have the knowledge to not trust him as well. What’s that quote out of Top Gun? My crew and my plane come first. While it’s just a movie script a lot of people would still be alive if PICs adhered to it. Especially Goose.
 
MauleSkinner said:
You'd be amazed...Less than 20% of the pro pilots I train can do a W&B without help.
Click to expand...

What kind of pro pilot? If you’re talking about an airline guy that hasn’t seen a W&B in 30 years, I can understand. Some 91 dude flying a 414, a flight instructor, etc...not so much. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top