310 wrecks in Ruidoso NM :(

Dang. Apparently seven aboard the six-seat aircraft. Apparently three children among them, so may have been under two years. Sad no matter what.
 
Sad....very sad.

I was recently asked to put 2 adults & 2 small children in a cherokee, I would make 3 adults. I said no. They were annoyed. I don't think we're friends anymore. But everyone's alive.
 
Last edited:
Bad deal, sorry for all involved. Engine-out arrivals often result in over-shoots. Should be interesting.
 
murphey said:
Sad....very sad.

I was recently asked to put 2 adults & 2 small children in a cherokee, I would make 3 adults. I said no. They were annoyed. I don't think we're friends anymore. But everyone's alive.
Click to expand...
Whoever came up with the reg that allows adults to hold babies on their laps in airplanes was either a few cards short of a full deck or they had a death wish for small kids. In an age where parents can go to jail and/or have their kids taken away for driving with them in a car without a recently approved and properly secured kid seat, I can't believe that this is still allowed. Kudos to you for some uncommon sense.
 
gismo said:
Whoever came up with the reg that allows adults to hold babies on their laps in airplanes was either a few cards short of a full deck or they had a death wish for small kids. In an age where parents can go to jail and/or have their kids taken away for driving with them in a car without a recently approved and properly secured kid seat, I can't believe that this is still allowed. Kudos to you for some uncommon sense.
Click to expand...

We watched three people climb out of a tandem RV at Gastons... Dad flying, Mom seated in the back seat, baby on Mom's lap. They're gonna have to start building a 4-seat RV-10 soon.
 
Article says not only seven folks, there was baggage! High density altitude AP.
I haven't seen anything credible on a single engine approach, where did that come from Wayne?

Best,

Dave
 
It matters not. Anyone flyinh with seven pax in a 6 seat plane with bags....has already shown disregard for the laws.....of physics.

Very very sad.
 
4 adults
1 16yo
1 12yo
1 11yo

I know the 310 'lifts a ton', but 5 adults and 2 teenage boys + luggage and 4hrs fuel.......:confused:
 
Because the two events (EOL's and overshoots) are so closely linked and the runway is longer than an Aggie's face on Thanksgiving weekend.

Dave Siciliano said:
Article says not only seven folks, there was baggage! High density altitude AP.
I haven't seen anything credible on a single engine approach, where did that come from Wayne?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Pure speculatin': the 11 and 12 y.o.'s might not have weighed 150 together, and could've been in one seat/seatbelt.

When my kids were little, they'd fit well in one of the Cessna 150's seats, side by side. Eventually I got the childs 3rd seat put in.

Also, you could go light on fuel and make the W&B work out.

Always tragic when the bad crap happens. God rest their souls.
 
Dr. Bill said:
Pure speculatin': the 11 and 12 y.o.'s might not have weighed 150 together, and could've been in one seat/seatbelt.

When my kids were little, they'd fit well in one of the Cessna 150's seats, side by side. Eventually I got the childs 3rd seat put in.

Also, you could go light on fuel and make the W&B work out.

Always tragic when the bad crap happens. God rest their souls.
Click to expand...

I've forgotten exactly what the rules say about putting 2 kids in one belt but that's just about as bad as carrying a baby in someones lap. I was thinking that only older airplanes that were grandfathered in WRT the 2 in 1 seat belt arrangement were legal in that regard.
 
gismo said:
I've forgotten exactly what the rules say about putting 2 kids in one belt but that's just about as bad as carrying a baby in someones lap. I was thinking that only older airplanes that were grandfathered in WRT the 2 in 1 seat belt arrangement were legal in that regard.
Click to expand...


2 kids (heck, even most adults so long as the combined weight doesn't exceed max belt load) in one belt side by side can be very effective and doesn't really add any major issues to individual belts. Actually, a "teamed" crash configuration could be superior.
 
weilke said:
4 adults
1 16yo
1 12yo
1 11yo

I know the 310 'lifts a ton', but 5 adults and 2 teenage boys + luggage and 4hrs fuel.......:confused:
Click to expand...

I'll repost this from the RB because I'm not sure people realize what a ton buys you in a 310....

It was on landing. After that run, I doubt 7 people in the plane was causal of this. They would have most likely been ok of weight and balance. Depending on the size of everyone, since they were making a fuel stop short (indicating that he may have left fuel on the ground), it's possible they even took off ok.

Your typical T-310R has a useful load between 2000 and 2200 lbs. Figure for the 420 mi trip you'll use <100 gallons, so 120 will give you reserves, that's 720 lbs. Even at a low useful load of 2000lbs, that leaves 1280lbs for 7 humans, half of whom probably totaled 300 lbs (11 and 12 year old boys are not typically big. That's 980. Take out 600 for 4 adults, that's 380 left for luggage. As someone else said, with 6 seats in a 310 there isn't a bunch of luggage room, so there probably wasn't much. That's nearly 54lbs per person allowance anyway, which most likely didn't happen. Most people travelling like this have 35lbs of luggage, so that would leave room for even more body weight or fuel, or performance hedge, heck, they could have been under gross. Two small boys would fit into one seatbelt on a side by side.

There is no reason that "That flight was doomed" necessarily because of the loading. It isn't a typical load, but not necessarily out of limits either. The 310 is a very capable airplane.
Click to expand...

I would be looking at oxygen deprivation as a suspect in this accident.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
2 kids (heck, even most adults so long as the combined weight doesn't exceed max belt load) in one belt side by side can be very effective and doesn't really add any major issues to individual belts. Actually, a "teamed" crash configuration could be superior.
Click to expand...
While strapping two kids into one belt is certainly safer than leaving them without any securing, I have read about cases where the two in one approach led to one child getting crushed by the other badly enough to cause serious internal injury and when a belt is loose enough to fit around two kids it's unlikely to set properly over their pelvic bones which can also cause internal damage that wouldn't occur with proper belt usage. Finally, in a lot of cases where the two kids are small enough to fit in one belt/seat, they really need a booster to force their belt into the proper position.

Then there's the issue that Dr Chien has raised before, that being the unpleasant consequences of forcing two kids into such close proximity.
 
wabower said:
Why?:dunno:
Click to expand...

Oxygen deprivation leads to bad mental function, and this one reads like he just plain screwed the pooch flying the plane. The airport was probably seeing a DA of 10,000' or more, I don't know who if anyone was on oxygen or what altitude they were flying. If they were 10,500 on the altimeter, they could very well have been cruising along at a DA of over 14,500', and DA is what your body oxygenates at. A descent to a DA of 10,000' may not have allowed enough time in the still O2 poor atmosphere for his blood and brain to re-oxygenate to a proper level for cognitive thought. Makes me wonder if the PIC was on O2 or not is all.
 
Anyone with enough time in a 310 to discuss a fuel management issue? I know some 340s have a very complex tank system. I understand the pilot didn't have much experience in this plane.

Best,

Dave
 
Same system, Dave. Nothing difficult about it, and much simpler than many other systems (some tip-tank Bonanaza's) with aux fuel tanks and return lines to main tank(s) only . For a trip of that length, fuel management should consist of using the mains and maybe a short stint on the aux tanks, with no locker transfer necessary.

An experienced instructor can demonstrate that the total time required for fuel management is less than a minute per trip, but without knowing the pilot's level of proficiency/training, any opinion is simply conjecture IMO.

Dave Siciliano said:
Anyone with enough time in a 310 to discuss a fuel management issue? I know some 340s have a very complex tank system. I understand the pilot didn't have much experience in this plane.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
Oxygen deprivation leads to bad mental function, and this one reads like he just plain screwed the pooch flying the plane. The airport was probably seeing a DA of 10,000' or more, I don't know who if anyone was on oxygen or what altitude they were flying. If they were 10,500 on the altimeter, they could very well have been cruising along at a DA of over 14,500', and DA is what your body oxygenates at. A descent to a DA of 10,000' may not have allowed enough time in the still O2 poor atmosphere for his blood and brain to re-oxygenate to a proper level for cognitive thought. Makes me wonder if the PIC was on O2 or not is all.
Click to expand...

Got to agree with this - the plane was based in Texas (flatland, compared to New Mexico) and altho the owner may have been familiar with DA issues in Texas, KGDJ has elevation 778 ft, southwest of Dallas. Unless they frequently flew in the west texas area in the summer, they may have understood the issue of DA but not DA & O2.

Reminds me...I need to get my tank refilled - it's down to 800, enough to get night current this week.
 
These seems to also raise the issue of a possible stall short of the runway. High DA, high load in the plane and as he descended, ground speed would be faster than what he was used to.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
These seems to also raise the issue of a possible stall short of the runway. High DA, high load in the plane and as he descended, ground speed would be faster than what he was used to.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

How does stalling short lead to over shooting the runway? He didn't have a high load at his landing fuel state, he just had a full cabin.
 
Have we established he overshot? I know he was away from the runway. Did witnesses say he overshot?

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Have we established he overshot? I know he was away from the runway. Did witnesses say he overshot?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

It's what the article said, whether that is accurate I can't attest to, but that was what it said. I think he was zoned out hypoxic, wasn't dealing with airspeed and came smoking in too out of it either to figure out he wasn't going to make it or couldn't react to it.
 
This one has me scratching my head. As to hypoxia, a post on Avsig addresses that. I don't know what altitude he flew out at, but DA shouldn't have affected him in the airport area. As you said, he may not have been low long enough to recover if he flew out higher.

Best,

Dave
=========================================

The human respiratory system is not sensitive to density altitude, just pressure altitude. Because of all the myriad labyrinths and passages in your lungs, by the time inhaled air gets to your alveoli (the itty bitty sacs where gas exchange takes place), the air is always at 98.6°F and 100% humidity, regardless of what temperature and humidity were outside. For any given pressure altitude the human lung will always see the same density altitude.

That isn't to say hypoxia couldn't have been a factor for other reasons - prolonged high-altitude cruise, for example.
 
An eyewitness allegedly reported that he lawn-darted short of the runway.
Dave Siciliano said:
Have we established he overshot? I know he was away from the runway. Did witnesses say he overshot?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
I guess we'll see Wayne. Stall makes more sense to me, but not if it was well after a runway overshoot. Short of the runway as you describe sure points that-a-way.

Best,

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top