Cessna 414 down near John Wayne - 5 Dead

Tantalum said:
That's a little scary. Those bigger Cessna twins are proper machines.. there really should be some standardized program out there beyond the basic multi instruction you may get in a Duchess. Sad. Rough weekend for accidents
Click to expand...

Well besides the AMEL rating, you’d need a high power endorsement to fly a 414 as well as many other twins. I personally think a multi high power endorsement would be a good endorsement to add to the regs though I would not hold my breath. I received my AMEL in a Duchess and my HP in a 182. Would I combine those two quals and haphazardly go fly a 414? Frack no! But one can. The only limiter besides some common sense is one’s insurance company which will require that you receive a “checkout” and we all know those come in a wide variety of quality and thoroughness. A recipe for disaster to be sure but to be fair, there is no indication at this time that the accident pilot was not adequately trained.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Would I combine those two quals and haphazardly go fly a 414? Frack no! But one can
Click to expand...
Heck. If one had the money they could go fly a TBM with their PPL and 60 hrs of time

SkyDog58 said:
A recipe for disaster to be sure but to be fair, there is no indication at this time that the accident pilot was not adequately trained.
Click to expand...
For sure, and the other poster's comment about him spending more time in the POH than working and the other about him going to sim training show that the guy was intent on learning the machine. But if the culture is not standardized, and is up to the instructor, with what sounds like some potentially shoddy sim training out there.. then all the training in the world might not help that much unfortunately

It just boggles the mind how on a beautiful clear VFR day things can go that belly up that you are spiraling straight nose down into the ground.
 
Tantalum said:
Thanks Ted, as usual your posts are informative and detailed. That's the part that's a little surprising to me.. from what I've read a plane like a 414, 421, etc., are more complex to fly and demanding than some turbines out there. Given that the crash footage shows the plane spiral diving in with no fire the immediate cause seems to be one that could have been easily avoided. Sad
Click to expand...

There are some things that make the cabin class piston twins more challenging to fly than turbines and some things that make them less challenging to fly. As an airplane itself, the thing is very docile and easy to fly. There's nothing hard about it. The procedures aren't complex and things don't happen very quickly in it on the whole. Engine management is easier in some ways, harder in others. Different overall. My opinion, and granted this is moving to the MU-2 as a turbine from the 414, is the 414 is easier to fly. The MU-2 warrants its special requirements. The 414 does not.

But, the 340/414/421 are still "high performance" aircraft with more weight than many are used to, a W&B envelope that is hard to keep off the aft CG limit and can be hard to keep within max gross weight... there are issues.

My first flight in the 414 was the ferry flight from Oklahoma to Nebraska after it had been sitting for 6 years. I had never flown a 414 before. No issues and I wasn't uncomfortable with doing that. But, keep in mind that I had around 2,000 hours in piston twins, including Navajos and 310s. So there was nothing particularly unusual about the 414 for me. I would not recommend this for most, but it was fine in that situation.

I would NOT have done the same in the MU-2, even if it was legal.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The lack of a fire does indicate fuel starvation on both engines, which can be caused by a number of potential reasons, failure to put adequate fuel in the plane being the primary one. The complexity of the fuel system also can cause people to run out of fuel. It's not that it's hard, but it requires extra thought as you do have to actively manage the fuel between all 4-6 tanks.
Click to expand...

And with that in mind, it could have been something as messed up as switching to the wrong tanks when doing his GUMP check and going to empty tanks rather than fullest. We do not know.
 
SkyDog58 said:
And with that in mind, it could have been something as messed up as switching to the wrong tanks when doing his GUMP check and going to empty tanks rather than fullest. We do not know.
Click to expand...

Correct. Many have crashed Twin Cessnas due to fuel exhaustion with 50+ gallons on board.
 
Does the fact that there doesn’t appear to be any post crash fire change anyones hypothesis?

Ted, I know you have a lot of time in the 414 series.
 
Ryanb said:
Does the fact that there doesn’t appear to be any post crash fire change anyones hypothesis?

Ted, I know you have a lot of time in the 414 series.
Click to expand...

Fuel starvation to both engines coupled with failure to maintain proper speed on approach could result in a stall/spin and what happened. The lack of post-crash fire would support this theory the most. Gliding is especially hard in a cabin class twin - you never train for a double engine failure and most people don't know best glide speed for their twin. Plus, energy management, and with two windmilling props you will slow down very quickly, especially when low and slow. Most pilots don't know energy management from my observation. Not saying this pilot did or did not, just an observation I've had.

Something similar happened to a 340 a few years ago in Virginia. First flight post-purchase, just ran out of fuel.

Fuel starvation seems the top option to me, but it should be pretty clear to the NTSB if that happened or not. If you do have fuel starvation you won't lose both engines at once - it'll be one engine and the other a couple minutes later. They never burn exactly the same amount.
 
If indeed it was fuel starvation and he lost one engine first, being a low time guy would more than likely use most if not all of his available attention to deal with that issue. Add to that a fairly busy airspace, then the other engine quits, things start happening extremely quickly.
It would be interesting to know where in the sequence of events he made the call to declare the emergency.
 
From the Channel 4 news story, @ 1:18.
Crash.png

Is that the prop in the trunk of the car? Hard to tell which way it is bent?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Fuel starvation seems the top option to me, but it should be pretty clear to the NTSB if that happened or not. If you do have fuel starvation you won't lose both engines at once - it'll be one engine and the other a couple minutes later. They never burn exactly the same amount.
Click to expand...

Never flown a 414 but plenty of time in the 310. Does the 414 have any tanks that should not be used during descent, because they may unport, like the wing aux tank in the 310?
 
slacktide said:
Never flown a 414 but plenty of time in the 310. Does the 414 have any tanks that should not be used during descent, because they may unport, like the wing aux tank in the 310?
Click to expand...
A 414's fuel system is similar to a 310/421A/B. main tanks are the tip tanks, inboards are aux and return fuel from aux goes to main tank on same side. It is possible to be burning fuel from the aux tanks and have it overflow the vent in the tips. Common practice is to burn an hour out of the tips and switch to aux tanks, when they get low, go back to mains which will be nearly full again.
 
Tantalum said:
Why was it a rough weekend, or why should there be a standardized program?

On the weekend perspective there was an Extra 400 that crashed taking out 5 people, then this Cessna, there was I think at least one other one (we had a thread).

If the latter, then standardization has been shown to generally improve safety, etc. I agree with @kayoh190 I don't think we need more regulations, but there should be some standard curriculum that even if Cessna doesn't offer (since you know, they abandoned GA :stirpot:) has been established by the pilots who fly the bigger Cessna twins. All planes are proper machines, fine, but they're not as forgiving as a 172 or Duchess, which is what most people will earn their ratings on. In the case of the MU2 there are specific regulations around it. Cirrus technically does not, but just about all insurance carriers and clubs will require you go through their standardized program. The slideshows are a little weak, but the actual flying portions are comprehensive. Those 10 hrs are very stimulating as you work through the curriculum and you come out the other side much more comfortable with the plane itself. Do people still do stupid magenta line tricks, of course! But accident rates have shown the training helps. Surprised that there is no standard "big Cessna" program out there. From my research the insurance just requires some X amount of dual time.. but without some kind of structure or syllabus that dual time is useless if it's just you and your buddy going on some XC flights.



Thanks Ted, as usual your posts are informative and detailed. That's the part that's a little surprising to me.. from what I've read a plane like a 414, 421, etc., are more complex to fly and demanding than some turbines out there. Given that the crash footage shows the plane spiral diving in with no fire the immediate cause seems to be one that could have been easily avoided. Sad
Click to expand...
When you refer to the MU-2 you are in fact referring to regulatory mandated training just like any other type rated aircraft. So if you want training on cabin class piston twins to be anything like what’s required on the MU-2 you’re asking for more regulations.

The SR-22 is a good example of an aircraft where IF the owner seeks out training it is available. It is also an example of an aircraft that the average private/instrument rated pilot experienced with Cherokee/Skyhawk performance needs the training to be safe. It isn’t required nor should it be.

Cabin class pressurized piston twins also require training to be safe if you don’t have experience in similar equipment. I have 4 type ratings and I would not operate one without training. It would be nice if Cessna was still supporting the training for legacy out of production aircraft but frankly I don’t expect them to. Cirrus only does it because it helps them sale airplanes.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Fuel starvation to both engines coupled with failure to maintain proper speed on approach could result in a stall/spin and what happened. The lack of post-crash fire would support this theory the most. Gliding is especially hard in a cabin class twin - you never train for a double engine failure and most people don't know best glide speed for their twin. Plus, energy management, and with two windmilling props you will slow down very quickly, especially when low and slow. Most pilots don't know energy management from my observation. Not saying this pilot did or did not, just an observation I've had.

Something similar happened to a 340 a few years ago in Virginia. First flight post-purchase, just ran out of fuel.

Fuel starvation seems the top option to me, but it should be pretty clear to the NTSB if that happened or not. If you do have fuel starvation you won't lose both engines at once - it'll be one engine and the other a couple minutes later. They never burn exactly the same amount.
Click to expand...

My thought is if this is a fuel starvation crash, with one engine feathered the 414 flies just fine. If for some reason the prop was not or could not be feathered than there will be a problem. Then if the other engine starts surging and losing power and is not feathered then there will be disastrous results. As Ted stated we never train for a double engine failure.

I found the 414A a fairly simple plane. I had lots of twin time before the 414 and the only real difference was the pressurization, which took all of 5 minutes to learn. W&B was straight forward, no surprises. One engine out was ok, the A/P could fly with only one engine if I needed it. I flew it at MGW out of an airport elevation of 6500 feet with summer density altitudes reaching 10,500 and it did fine, just keep an eye on temps. Company standardization for fuel planning was plan a straight 50 GPH, which was very conservative, and land with 1 hour fuel IFR or VFR.

As someone mentioned, seems training for private owners on one engine out situations is not done very often, so competency would be lacking.

An awful tragedy for sure. I don't fly a 414 anymore but I am interested to learn what happened here.
 
slacktide said:
Never flown a 414 but plenty of time in the 310. Does the 414 have any tanks that should not be used during descent, because they may unport, like the wing aux tank in the 310?
Click to expand...

@N747JB got the description correct on the fuel system. The main difference in the turbo Twin Cessnas vs. the naturally aspirated 310 is the additional low pressure pumps from the aux tanks for vapor suppression. However the possibility of unporting still exists no different. I don't recall that ever being mentioned as an issue in the 310. I always tried to time my fuel use such that I would run out of fuel on the auxes in cruise, that way there was never a worry about forgetting to switch to the mains. With a bit over 2 hours en route he should have had some fuel in the aux tanks (or nacelle tanks if the plane was so equipped), and if it was a RAM VII as I think was stated elsewhere, even with 5 people there should have been enough useful load to do the flight sufficiently.

@Zeldman made a good point about one prop maybe not feathering. That would be a bad situation, and most pilots don't check to make sure their props actually feather in flight. The feather check performed on the ground does not confirm that functionality. I advocate it to be done once a year.
 
sarangan said:
Regardless of fuel starvation, is it really possible to make an airplane dive straight down like that? I've never observed myself during a practice stall or spin exercise, but I don't think it is really 90-deg nose down like it shows on that video.
Click to expand...
I was kind of thinking the same thing, the attitude of that dive seems really unusual.
 
sarangan said:
Regardless of fuel starvation, is it really possible to make an airplane dive straight down like that? I've never observed myself during a practice stall or spin exercise, but I don't think it is really 90-deg nose down like it shows on that video.
Click to expand...

Yes. The TBM that crashed in NJ was almost straight nose down. The report on Wayne's 340 when it crashed was that it was about 85 degrees nose down.

It is entirely possible to end up that way.
 
Tantalum said:
Heck. If one had the money they could go fly a TBM with their PPL and 60 hrs of time...
Click to expand...

You can't legislate common sense.
And there's no evidence (yet) that a lack of training or a lack of available training was a contributory cause to this accident.


Tantalum said:
...It just boggles the mind how on a beautiful clear VFR day things can go that belly up that you are spiraling straight nose down into the ground.
Click to expand...

Doesn't take a Cessna 414, a piston twin ("proper machines"?) or even the availability (or lack) of standardized training to boggle the mind in this fashion.
Hmmm, loss of control plane crashing nose down into a retail parking lot within sight of the destination airport, with a bit of it caught on video. Where have we heard that before?

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20160609X50758&key=1
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....ev_id=20160609X50758&ntsbno=CEN16FA211&akey=1

As I said, you can't legislate common sense.


A side note for those of you keying on the lack of fire in the 414 accident. The aircraft in the above incident did NOT run out of fuel, but there was no fire after it impacted the parking lot in that instance either.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
And there's no evidence (yet) that a lack of training or a lack of available training was a contributory cause to this accident.
Click to expand...
certainly, my intent is not to implicate a pilot. It was more a curiosity on my part as far as how comprehensive the training is. By "proper machine" all I meant was that it's much more than your standard 172 / Duchess. Heck, a Cirrus really isn't that complex, you have G1000 in Skyhawks these days, but it flies differently enough that the manufacturer felt responsible to create their own training program. It might be partially marketing wank, but I think the safety record speaks for itself that following that stronger standardize training paradigm the accident rate dramatically improved
 
Ted DuPuis said:
My personal experience with 414 training was so-so at best, as well. Yes, there are good instructors out there (some would say I'm one of them) who really know the planes and challenge their students to make them better pilots while teaching them what they need to know to be safe in the airplane. When I went to sim training for the 414, it was a joke. The instructor had never sat in a Twin Cessna before, had very little multi time, and I ended up teaching him more about the plane (plus making corrections in the material) than he taught me. Now, I know more about the plane than most students coming in, but it was a complete joke and a waste of time and money. That's not the case for everyone, but there's no consistency and there's no requirement for instructors who actually know a lot about what they're teaching - it's a crapshoot.
Click to expand...
Ted, where did you do your sim training for the 414?
 
From the first article: "Crews were working to clean up spilled fuel at the location." Granted, it doesn't say how much fuel, but it seems to me that if there were so little as to cause a dual engine-out, there wouldn't be all that much to have to worry about cleaning up by emergency crews.
 
MFE said:
From the first article: "Crews were working to clean up spilled fuel at the location." Granted, it doesn't say how much fuel, but it seems to me that if there were so little as to cause a dual engine-out, there wouldn't be all that much to have to worry about cleaning up by emergency crews.
Click to expand...

Unless the pilot messed up the fuel management between the tanks. As Ted mentioned it would not be the first time.
 
My guess is left engine failure for fuel starvation and VMC roll on final. One of my biggest takeaways from my MEI ride was simulated engine failure on final. No bueno.
 
dfwnightflyer said:
One of my biggest takeaways from my MEI ride was simulated engine failure on final. No bueno.
Click to expand...

That shouldn't be a big deal. You're already at a low power setting anyway, thus at a relatively low risk for a loss of control.

Engine failure on departure and a lack of attentiveness will likely bite you sooner than a loss on final.
 
Agreed but that still looks like vmc roll to me. Maybe he was misconfigured or attempting a go around. Sad all around.
 
If the airplane was only 2 miles from SNA, he would have been talking to the controller. I assume this recording not been found on liveATC?
 
mondtster said:
That shouldn't be a big deal. You're already at a low power setting anyway, thus at a relatively low risk for a loss of control.

Engine failure on departure and a lack of attentiveness will likely bite you sooner than a loss on final.
Click to expand...

It can absolutely be a big deal if you’ve gotten yourself slow and/or below the glideslope. You’re already dirty...

What do you do as you lose an engine, you go from low power setting to high power on one engine, either from habit, or because you have no choice (because you’re low and or slow)....

A part 91 owner may not have great SOPs, but a really good one in that airplane is always stay on or above glideslope, using all your tools including ILS or LPV even when VFR, and stay above single engine best rate of climb until field made... Something like 120kts...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fox News reported that witness stated that the props were not turning before it hit. I would have thought it would have had some sort of glide capability. That is a dense area, with not a lot of options.
 
gsengle said:
It can absolutely be a big deal if you’ve gotten yourself slow and/or below the glideslope. You’re already dirty...

What do you do as you lose an engine, you go from low power setting to high power on one engine, either from habit, or because you have no choice (because you’re low and or slow)....

A part 91 owner may not have great SOPs, but a really good one in that airplane is always stay on or above glideslope, using all your tools including ILS or LPV even when VFR, and stay above single engine best rate of climb until field made... Something like 120kts...
Click to expand...

If you've screwed yourself that badly then sure. My point is, with the power pulled back Vmc is lower. You are at more risk for a loss of control on takeoff when you're at full power already then one quits. I personally feel that the guy I was responding to took the wrong thing away from the multiengine training and should be more worried the departure than the landing.

And yes, I've landed a few times with one engine inoperative.
 
mondtster said:
If you've screwed yourself that badly then sure. My point is, with the power pulled back Vmc is lower. You are at more risk for a loss of control on takeoff when you're at full power already then one quits. I personally feel that the guy I was responding to took the wrong thing away from the multiengine training and should be more worried the departure than the landing.

And yes, I've landed a few times with one engine inoperative.
Click to expand...

We are primed for engine failure on the takeoff roll, we brief it, we are ready. We take off and clean up and hopefully are only briefly exposed. Landing failures can sneak up on you and you box yourself into a corner...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dfwnightflyer said:
Agreed but that still looks like vmc roll to me. Maybe he was misconfigured or attempting a go around. Sad all around.
Click to expand...
That is overly simplistic thinking and can get you killed in a twin.

VMC roll is not the only way to lose control in flight in a twin. Stall/spins with asymmetrical thrust bite more twin pilots than true VMC rolls.
 
gsengle said:
We are primed for engine failure on the takeoff roll, we brief it, we are ready. We take off and clean up and hopefully are only briefly exposed. Landing failures can sneak up on you and you box yourself into a corner...
Click to expand...
That is true. But landing failures are more likely to be stall/spins than VMC rolls.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is true. But landing failures are more likely to be stall/spins than VMC rolls.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as you point out, asymmetrical thrust can sure complicate things...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
All it takes is you add power and one side starts coughing and you get too focused and forget to fly the airplane. Low dirty and slow is no place for distraction or imperfection. A lot of things can get f’ed up and corrected with a lot of sky underneath ya but get yourself under the slope and slow and throw a curve and you’ll be hard pressed get out unscathed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top