5 killed in Bloomington crash (Cessna 414)

Kristin said:
OK! You don't like my tone, so you attack my intelligence. Interesting demonstration of your intellect.

BTW, the word you want in your post to Ed Fred is "drivel", as in nonsense. "Dribble" is what you do with a basketball.
Click to expand...

This may be a shock to you, but a word can actually have more then one meaning:

Dribble, used as an intransitive verb "to come or issue in piecemeal or desultory fashion" - Merriam-Webster

Me Attorney too :D
 
As an aside, Tom was a commercial pilot that often flew corporate for Sabreliner. Jets, King Airs, all sorts of toys. I just found out that my BiL knew him well. He's recently retired from Sabreliner and Tom flew him often in the corporate jet.

Tom wasn't just a Sunday flier like most of us here.
 
bflynn said:
With your experience, I'd be more impressed if you shared knowledge rather than quips. We've never met and it sounds like were both misreading each other's words.

I'm still waiting. The thread has been informative already, in multiple ways.
Click to expand...

But the point being there is no knowledge until there are facts. The facts aren't out yet and any speculation is inane.
 
timwinters said:
As an aside, Tom was a commercial pilot that often flew corporate for Sabreliner. Jets, King Airs, all sorts of toys. I just found out that my BiL knew him well. He's recently retired from Sabreliner and Tom flew him often in the corporate jet.

Tom wasn't just a Sunday flier like most of us here.
Click to expand...

Meets my expectations.
 
bflynn said:
With your experience, I'd be more impressed if you shared knowledge rather than quips. We've never met and it sounds like were both misreading each other's words.

I'm still waiting. The thread has been informative already, in multiple ways.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we have few facts. I was in the mood to express an opinion based on the constant and universal rush to judge the deceased pilot. It is something that as annoyed me for decades. I get tired of hearing inexperienced pilot's holding forth to non-pilots how the accident-in-question must have happened which invariably involves building themselves up at the deceased pilot's expense. If such behavior was merely narcissistic it would be one thing, but it is harmful to general aviation.
 
FlyingTiger said:
This may be a shock to you, but a word can actually have more then one meaning:

Dribble, used as an intransitive verb "to come or issue in piecemeal or desultory fashion" - Merriam-Webster

Me Attorney too :D
Click to expand...

And probably a better advocate than I am, given your demonstrated ability to put the best face on things. :wink2: You are going to have trouble convincing me that you meant to use it in the second sense as opposed to calling Ed Fred's post nonsense.
 
timwinters said:
As an aside, Tom was a commercial pilot that often flew corporate for Sabreliner. Jets, King Airs, all sorts of toys. I just found out that my BiL knew him well. He's recently retired from Sabreliner and Tom flew him often in the corporate jet.

Tom wasn't just a Sunday flier like most of us here.
Click to expand...

Is Tom the late pilot in this accident? If so, that seems to fit a common profile in such operations.
 
Kristin said:
Unfortunately, we have few facts. I was in the mood to express an opinion based on the constant and universal rush to judge the deceased pilot. It is something that as annoyed me for decades. I get tired of hearing inexperienced pilot's holding forth to non-pilots how the accident-in-question must have happened which invariably involves building themselves up at the deceased pilot's expense. If such behavior was merely narcissistic it would be one thing, but it is harmful to general aviation.
Click to expand...
This should have to be read and acknowledged before being allowed to post speculation on a crash thread.

I am not a professional pilot. I am not a member of a pilots' union. I *have* been an invited party to aviation accident investigations (yes, plural) and a forensic engineer on same. Much like Tim Winters said in another thread, I abhor speculation and the rush to judgement that is so common here.

Nauga,
and his witness marks
 
Kristin said:
Unfortunately, we have few facts. I was in the mood to express an opinion based on the constant and universal rush to judge the deceased pilot. It is something that as annoyed me for decades. I get tired of hearing inexperienced pilot's holding forth to non-pilots how the accident-in-question must have happened which invariably involves building themselves up at the deceased pilot's expense. If such behavior was merely narcissistic it would be one thing, but it is harmful to general aviation.
Click to expand...

Eggggzactly! You articulated my thoughts quite well. I would've just said that I get tired of going through this same bullsh*t after every crash.
 
bflynn said:
I'm neither ATP nor do I work as pilot, I'm an IFR student so why pilots die on approach is both of interest and relevant to me.. If being a paid pilot is the requirement to post here, then this place will become deader than the red board.

In the end, I participate in crash threads because I want to learn something about why it happened so I can try to keep that as experience....so I don't repeat it.

BTW, I'll admit that 90% is the wrong number. I just rechecked the Nall report for commercial airplane operations and 69% of the accidents are directly related to pilot error with another 14.2% unknown and the rest (16.8%) attributed to mechanical issues. If we split the unknown, it's roughly 76% chance that it was his fault no matter what his qualifications.

I'm waiting to hear more about this. It doesn't feel like a missed approach, it's too early and the turn was the wrong way. There was no reason to break off the approach, but pilots sometimes do strange things. I'm leaning toward mechanical, but I'm almost always leaning toward mechanical. I did with Germanwings, I did with AF 447.
Click to expand...

Understood.

As you said you're a VFR PPL SEL, which is cool, but when you start making sharp statements regarding a multi engine IFR accident, realize you're speaking about something you know nothing of and are not even qualified to do.

Yes your opinion is still valued, just realize it's like me judging a engneer when a building collapses, somewhere I'm not qualified, and set the tone accordingly.
 
Holy Christ on a cracker..I've been around here for a few unfortunate accident threads and everyone of them ends up the same.

Also, what's with the whining about folks speculating, it's a friggin message board, journalistic integrity is not a requirement. Welcome to the internet.

Carry on.
 
This crash still haunts me. I've shot that approach in a 421 at night. It's dark as hell out there even on a clear night. I would imagine that with the weather there would have been nothing to distinguish up from down by looking out the window for a prolonged stretch of time.

Add into that that the auto-pilots on twin Cessnas quit at the most inconvenient times (mine will dump turning final). Further, if it's only the altitude that fails then it won't sound an audible indicator (the "Alt" simply goes from green to yellow).

A plausible scenario could have been he thought the AP caught the glide slope when it really didn't (or the AP subsequently failed). Thinking the AP had the slope he might have spent a little extra time looking for the runway (which lights up like a Christmas tree in the darkness). He scans and sees he's below the GS and initiates a climb not realizing how slow the dirty plane is.

That could initiate a stall. Which in that plane at that altitude is something that is irrecoverable.
 
Fitcja said:
This crash still haunts me. I've shot that approach in a 421 at night. It's dark as hell out there even on a clear night. I would imagine that with the weather there would have been nothing to distinguish up from down by looking out the window for a prolonged stretch of time.

Add into that that the auto-pilots on twin Cessnas quit at the most inconvenient times (mine will dump turning final). Further, if it's only the altitude that fails then it won't sound an audible indicator (the "Alt" simply goes from green to yellow).

A plausible scenario could have been he thought the AP caught the glide slope when it really didn't (or the AP subsequently failed). Thinking the AP had the slope he might have spent a little extra time looking for the runway (which lights up like a Christmas tree in the darkness). He scans and sees he's below the GS and initiates a climb not realizing how slow the dirty plane is.

That could initiate a stall. Which in that plane at that altitude is something that is irrecoverable.
Click to expand...

The autopilot is certainly a possible failure mode that I would assume that the NTSB will check out, assuming there is enough left of it to check. If a Cessna series 400 autopilot was installed, it is doubly suspect. Those things have killed more than one person I would wager. I had one roll me past 60 degrees of bank once when I engaged it and reached back to grab a Jepps book. This was a night IFR freight flight. Lesson learned for a newbie freight dog at the time.

That experience is one of the reasons I have always hand flown my approaches.
 
WoooPigSooie said:
Holy Christ on a cracker..I've been around here for a few unfortunate accident threads and everyone of them ends up the same.

Also, what's with the whining about folks speculating, it's a friggin message board, journalistic integrity is not a requirement. Welcome to the internet.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

Were it only on the internet. Unfortunately, uninformed speculation blaming the dead pilot has been around before the internet was invented, and probably before computers themselves were invented.
 
Kristin;1753145... said:
That experience is one of the reasons I have always hand flown my approaches...
Click to expand...

Very solid advice about hand flying the approach.

Curious, how prone would you be to being five seconds late to react to something after an exciting and emotionally draining event and then flying night IFR with no concept of a horizon? When I get tired the biggest thing I have to watch out for is fixating. Sometimes I end up talking myself through everything just to keep it all in check.

For the record, I firmly believe that the person who died trying to land this plane was a better pilot than I am. In fact, I probably would have stayed in Indiana because the thought of flying to minimums at night still spooks me.

But this person undoubtedly had the skill and experience to shoot this approach and yet didn't make it. Something impaired his expertise. Without an engine failing on approach, what are the things that could do that to someone this good?
 
One thought I had as a possible scenario would be an AI failure that slowly rolled over and the A/P follows it. Combine this with a tired pilot or a bunch of drunk and rowdy passengers and I could see how things might get out of hand. Obviously the NTSB will be looking at what the pilot was doing in Indianapolis while the game was going on. Did he have a ticket and was hooping and hollering, or was he taking a catnap at the FBO. I am a big fan of pilot naps. That approach to mins after a long duty day, is a set up for trouble, but when your passengers don't show up when they say they will, and you get stretched out, whose fault is it if the pilot isn't sharp. Legally, it is the pilot's fault, but one really has to look at the system.

I took numerous charters into Peoria back in the 80's. It was two hour flight to get there and the passengers needed to be there by 9am. Sometimes they didn't come back until 5:30 pm or so. You can do the math. It was a long 14 hour day often with an approach back home in Michigan. I loved Byerly's snooze rooms. I always tried to get 4-5 hours of sleep so I didn't have to rely on the adrenaline that comes with handflying an approach to mins. But that adrenaline sure has been a good thing at times.
 
Kristin said:
Were it only on the internet. Unfortunately, uninformed speculation blaming the dead pilot has been around before the internet was invented, and probably before computers themselves were invented.
Click to expand...
Because human pilot has always been the weakest link in the aviation.
If you don't like speculations - don't read it, don't participate but don't try to play a forum cop.

Fitcja said:
what are the things that could do that to someone this good?
Click to expand...
Read many accident reports. If 2 pilots with combined experience of close to 50,000 hrs can hit a mountain in good VFR/night conditions in a brand new aircraft equipped with the latest gadgets/TAWS anything is possible, specially in IMC like that one. If an ATP with 20,000 hrs can run out of fuel while taking his family for a ride in a Piper. If a 747 pilot can takeoff from a taxiway instead of runway at Anchorage at night.. If 2 very experienced airline pilots can crash perfectly good airplane in crystal clear daytime weather, what else is impossible?
 
Last edited:
Kristin said:
One thought I had as a possible scenario would be an AI failure that slowly rolled over and the A/P follows it. Combine this with a tired pilot or a bunch of drunk and rowdy passengers and I could see how things might get out of hand.
Click to expand...

Loathe, though I am to post in this thread, I can't help but notice that you have harped repeatedly on not speculating to damage the fragile pilot, and yet, and yet - we seem to have come full circle now.

Note that this is actually your third speculation relating to this accident and the pilot flying it. I'm guessing, but with some evidence from past posts that you consider your crystal ball better than the rest of us. Which may be true enough, given my lack of crash investigation, but it's rather churlish of you to scold others while engaging in the same activity -- counselor. :wink2:
 
She was responding to my question, to which I am grateful.
 
Fitcja said:
She was responding to my question, to which I am grateful.
Click to expand...

Were I a counselor, given the past thread direction, I would say 'objection, calls for speculation'. Nothing wrong with asking open ended questions, it always helps to keep things unbiased. The correct answer would be something like 'there are a million things that could have gone wrong. We will wait for the investigation to complete and then learn from those findings.' To go off on the AI & A/P because it once happened to her, and is putatively a source of many problems is no more probable than an asymmetrical gear or flap deployment(and now you've got me doing it as example).
 
olasek said:
Read many accident reports. If 2 pilots with combined experience of close to 50,000 hrs can hit a mountain in good VFR/night conditions in a brand new aircraft equipped with the latest gadgets/TAWS anything is possible, specially in IMC like that one. If an ATP with 20,000 hrs can run out of fuel while taking his family for a ride in a Piper. If a 747 pilot can takeoff from a taxiway instead of runway at Anchorage at night.. If 2 very experienced airline pilots can crash perfectly good airplane in crystal clear daytime weather, what else is impossible?
Click to expand...

Certainly many things are possible. I'm curious as to what is probable given the facts and what we can divine from the evidence.

Things we know:
A) The plane lost more speed in a three minute stretch than one would expect at that point in the flight.
B) The plane attempted to regain altitude and lost speed in the process.
C) The plane made a turn to the left, which is not consistent with the missed procedures for that approach.
D) Visibility was zero. No stars. No ground lights. No horizon.
E) The pilot was highly experienced and familiar with the airport.
F) The plane had at least a Garmin 530WAAS.

Things we can hypothesize from the evidence:
A) The plane came down hard on its nose and right side up. This would indicate both engines were operational and that the final loss of altitude was more likely a stall than Vmc.

The reason why I pose this is that I want to learn from it. I cast no judgements on anyone - especially the pilot. I just want to understand how this could happen to a skilled aviator so that I can avoid similar peril. Meanwhile, the investigation results will come out in 2016 or 2017. My hope is to learn more before then.
 
Last edited:
I personally focus more on reading NTSB fatal reports more then I do on reading speculation about crashes. I agree some "positive" can come out of speculation and reading speculation doesn't bother me personally.

But..I get by far more value by reading every single fatal NTSB report that happens in my state or any state that touches my state. Mostly so that I keep the reality that you can indeed get killed fresh in my head and hopefully don't repeat the same dumbass mistakes. Since, most of them, are indeed dumbass mistakes.

If I am flying to an area I've never been before and I expect any sort of "challenge" I also pull the fatal reports for the last few years for that area and read those as well.

Not really any good reason that I stick to my own "region" for most of the reports other then it feels more real when I've been to the places many times. That feeling of real is important, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Fitcja said:
I just want to understand how this could happen to a skilled aviator
Click to expand...
Wait for the report but don't expect any 'Eureka' moment, that all of a sudden your aviator's wisdom will be so enriched. NTSB are not mind readers, most often they can't tell why a pilot did what he did, they only confirm (and it is only their best guess) that he did it. They can't tell what was going in pilot's mind or which part of his brain malfunctioned. You will often find phrases loss of control for unknown reason, spatial disorientation, poorly executed rushed approach, inadvertent loss of control due to some malfunction and diverted attention, etc.
 
Last edited:
olasek said:
Wait for the report but don't expect any 'Eureka' moment, that all of a sudden your aviator's wisdom will be so enriched...
Click to expand...

True. For example, the 421 crash that killed the family from Florida a few years back basically said "...the plane was flying too slow..." However, the report on the 421B that crashed at Palwaukee (N920MC) was frighteningly specific and helpful.
 
Sometimes there are accidents that are highly educational - some recent PC-12 accidents are of this caliber, they teach a lot, one in 2009 which was about to land full of young skiers at Butte, Montana, another more recent when the whole family of 6-7 perished over Florida. They are educational because it is well known what pilots did wrong and in both cases it was just a small inattention that cascaded...
 
Last edited:
olasek said:
Because human pilot has always been the weakest link in the aviation.
If you don't like speculations - don't read it, don't participate but don't try to play a forum cop.
Click to expand...

I don't like uninformed blaming of the pilot based on inapplicable statistics and stupid statements blaming the pilot for flying in night IMC with passengers. I have as much right to express my opinions as anyone else. I can't police the forum as I am not a moderator with the power to edit or delete posts.
 
docmirror said:
Loathe, though I am to post in this thread, I can't help but notice that you have harped repeatedly on not speculating to damage the fragile pilot, and yet, and yet - we seem to have come full circle now.

Note that this is actually your third speculation relating to this accident and the pilot flying it. I'm guessing, but with some evidence from past posts that you consider your crystal ball better than the rest of us. Which may be true enough, given my lack of crash investigation, but it's rather churlish of you to scold others while engaging in the same activity -- counselor. :wink2:
Click to expand...

If you read more closely, you will note that I am suggesting avenues of investigation into possible causes, without stating that I think one more likely than the other. I also give my basis for thinking why this is a theory that might be plausible enough to merit consideration. The NTSB team does the same sort of brain storming to guide their investigation, at least when the team works well together. None of it assigned blame to the pilot, as have some of the bald speculation which has stated in this thread that it must be his fault based on false statistics or some other idiotic statement.

And as noted, I was answering a question.
 
jesse said:
I personally focus more on reading NTSB fatal reports more then I do on reading speculation about crashes. I agree some "positive" can come out of speculation and reading speculation doesn't bother me personally.

But..I get by far more value by reading every single fatal NTSB report that happens in my state or any state that touches my state. Mostly so that I keep the reality that you can indeed get killed fresh in my head and hopefully don't repeat the same dumbass mistakes. Since, most of them, are indeed dumbass mistakes.

If I am flying to an area I've never been before and I expect any sort of "challenge" I also pull the fatal reports for the last few years for that area and read those as well.

Not really any good reason that I stick to my own "region" for most of the reports other then it feels more real when I've been to the places many times. That feeling of real is important, IMO.
Click to expand...

Good stuff, I do the same. I read the NTSB reports for similar reasons I welcome the speculation. My end goal in these instances is to gain knowledge of the who, what, when, where, and why. Most of the time we have to wait a while to learn the 'why.' In the meantime, I often learn more about aviation by everyone's discussions of the 'why' than I do by the final report. Maybe that's a low time thing, not sure.
 
Fitcja said:
Certainly many things are possible. I'm curious as to what is probable given the facts and what we can divine from the evidence.

Things we know:
A) The plane lost more speed in a three minute stretch than one would expect at that point in the flight.
B) The plane attempted to regain altitude and lost speed in the process.
C) The plane made a turn to the left, which is not consistent with the missed procedures for that approach.
D) Visibility was zero. No stars. No ground lights. No horizon.
E) The pilot was highly experienced and familiar with the airport.
F) The plane had at least a Garmin 530WAAS.

Things we can hypothesize from the evidence:
A) The plane came down hard on its nose and right side up. This would indicate both engines were operational and that the final loss of altitude was more likely a stall than Vmc.

The reason why I pose this is that I want to learn from it. I cast no judgements on anyone - especially the pilot. I just want to understand how this could happen to a skilled aviator so that I can avoid similar peril. Meanwhile, the investigation results will come out in 2016 or 2017. My hope is to learn more before then.
Click to expand...


That both engines were operational is a poor assumption, you have only one factor of 3 indicating it was, and that factor is manageable.
 
Informed speculation after an accident is good and healthy, and can serve multiple purposes.
I personally read, like many pilots, all accident reports I find relevant to my type of flying. When I started instrument flying, I focused on those. When I learned helis, I read every single report that had to do with the types I was flying.
I feel every accident, esp. fatal ones, is me in another universe, in a "what if" scenario. So I imagine myself in the pilot's shoes, and try to highlight the links in the chain I'd have tried to break, while knowing that couch flying you don't feel the same get-there-itis pressures as when out there doing it for real.
On POA I appreciate and enjoy reading posts from the more experienced flyers, who can contribute to my knowledge and give me new insights. Not so enthused reading the "night + fog = death" posts, which are akin to "didn't file a flight plan" articles (or "performed a medical check of the crankshaft") in the popular press.
What is different about this specific accident compared to the typical ones is that in the latter an informed pilot can come up with a good guess as to the probable cause within a couple of days of the event, while here the initial evidence is puzzling. I find nothing wrong with us laying down the known facts and trying to brainstorm together to come up with plausible scenarios based on our collective knowledge and experience, similar to what the NTSB itself does, as Kristin said above.
If I can learn one more tidbit of relevant info before my next approach to minimums, I will feel (and hopefully be) a bit safer and that's my primary goal.
 
WoooPigSooie said:
Holy Christ on a cracker[.] I've been around here for a few unfortunate accident threads and every[ ]one of them ends up the same.
Click to expand...

Then why the astonished exclamation about this one?

Also, what's with the whining about folks speculating[? I]t's a friggin message board[. J]ournalistic integrity is not a requirement.
Click to expand...

Unfounded public defamatory speculation is irresponsible for anyone, not just journalists. It's reasonable to discuss possible causes, including pilot error. It's not reasonable to assert, given what we do and do not know so far, that pilot error is the strongly probable cause of this crash.
 
acrophile said:
Then why the astonished exclamation about this one?



Unfounded public defamatory speculation is irresponsible for anyone, not just journalists. It's reasonable to discuss possible causes, including pilot error. It's not reasonable to assert, given what we do and do not know so far, that pilot error is the strongly probable cause of this crash.
Click to expand...

No accident has one cause, there is always a chain of events, and one of the links at least has a operator error factor.
 
acrophile said:
Unfounded public defamatory speculation is irresponsible for anyone, not just journalists. It's reasonable to discuss possible causes, including pilot error. It's not reasonable to assert, given what we do and do not know so far, that pilot error is the strongly probable cause of this crash.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And there is a big difference between that and what Kristin did, regarless of what docmirror says.
 
Henning said:
That both engines were operational is a poor assumption, you have only one factor of 3 indicating it was, and that factor is manageable.
Click to expand...

Not sure what the 3 factors are, but the NTSB has said that initial tests indicate both engines seemed relatively intact, with further lab tests forthcoming. Not saying that's proof the engines were working well on impact, but it's an interesting clue.
 
RotorDude said:
Not sure what the 3 factors are, but the NTSB has said that initial tests indicate both engines seemed relatively intact, with further lab tests forthcoming. Not saying that's proof the engines were working well on impact, but it's an interesting clue.
Click to expand...

Intact means only that. The three factors are speed, altitude, and attitude. To me the proponerance says he was having an engine problem that may very well have been compounded with other factors. The thing that sucks about most of these types of events is they have cascading failures and multiple issues involved.
 
Henning said:
That both engines were operational is a poor assumption, you have only one factor of 3 indicating it was, and that factor is manageable.
Click to expand...

It's a reasonable one, though. Here is the evidence we have from photographs and about the plane:

1) The plane was right side up on impact. It did not Vmc roll.
2) The damage was "limited" to the front of the fuselage.
3) The plane was losing speed and altitude.
4) The weight on the wings is in the neighborhood of 17 lbs. per square foot.

From this we can form a hypothesis. For example, we can hypothesize that the pilot made great attempts to keep the plane's attitude level. For example, when he was losing altitude he nosed the plane up and made a decision that sacrificed speed for altitude. Why he did that is an interesting question. But the data suggests that he didn't (or couldn't) add power.

Let's assume he had an engine failure. If that's the case then the one thing you don't do is climb. You level the plane, stay away from red line, go full power with the good engine, identify, verify, feather. We don't have evidence that an engine was feathered. Further, a single engine, IFR approach to minimums would favor a decision for a gear up landing. It's a huge and very well lit runway and while the plane was slow, it was close enough that a clean plane on one engine possibly could have made it.

But he clearly chose not to do this and instead chose to turn left while continuing to lose altitude and likely speed. The latter is drawn from the evidence of how much of the plane was in tact on impact. Moreover, there was no Vmc roll - which given the speed of the aircraft would likely have been present with an engine out.

So, given the decisions the pilot seems to have made, the disposition of the plane on impact and the other evidence currently available, an engine failure doesn't seem to fit. It's certainly still possible. But for me there's too much evidence inconsistent with that hypothesis.

Please note, it is not lost on me that we are talking about the deaths of real people. People, it should be added, who have loved ones who are grieving their loss. My conjecture here is in no way meant to minimize or trivialize their heartbreak. I'm not doing this as a game. Rather, my hope is that by having this discussion that those of us who pilot these machines can learn from what happened and, perhaps, avoid a future loss.
 
How old was the guy? It could be as simple as he had a heart attack or stroke and bye-bye.

We know nothing.
 
Fitcja said:
It's a reasonable one, though. Here is the evidence we have from photographs and about the plane:

1) The plane was right side up on impact. It did not Vmc roll.
2) The damage was "limited" to the front of the fuselage.
3) The plane was losing speed and altitude.
4) The weight on the wings is in the neighborhood of 17 lbs. per square foot.

From this we can form a hypothesis. For example, we can hypothesize that the pilot made great attempts to keep the plane's attitude level. For example, when he was losing altitude he nosed the plane up and made a decision that sacrificed speed for altitude. Why he did that is an interesting question. But the data suggests that he didn't (or couldn't) add power.

Let's assume he had an engine failure. If that's the case then the one thing you don't do is climb. You level the plane, stay away from red line, go full power with the good engine, identify, verify, feather. We don't have evidence that an engine was feathered. Further, a single engine, IFR approach to minimums would favor a decision for a gear up landing. It's a huge and very well lit runway and while the plane was slow, it was close enough that a clean plane on one engine possibly could have made it.

But he clearly chose not to do this and instead chose to turn left while continuing to lose altitude and likely speed. The latter is drawn from the evidence of how much of the plane was in tact on impact. Moreover, there was no Vmc roll - which given the speed of the aircraft would likely have been present with an engine out.

So, given the decisions the pilot seems to have made, the disposition of the plane on impact and the other evidence currently available, an engine failure doesn't seem to fit. It's certainly still possible. But for me there's too much evidence inconsistent with that hypothesis.

Please note, it is not lost on me that we are talking about the deaths of real people. People, it should be added, who have loved ones who are grieving their loss. My conjecture here is in no way meant to minimize or trivialize their heartbreak. I'm not doing this as a game. Rather, my hope is that by having this discussion that those of us who pilot these machines can learn from what happened and, perhaps, avoid a future loss.
Click to expand...

I'm not understanding why you would assume a VMC roll just because there was an engine out. You do realize that on the Twin Cessnas with the VG kit that Vmc is below stall making it a non issue right?
 
txflyer said:
How old was the guy? It could be as simple as he had a heart attack or stroke and bye-bye.

We know nothing.
Click to expand...

My sad guess is that the left engine ran out of fuel before the right. They were flying a 414 with more than 3 people, so they were fuel limited. I will bet a couple of those guys at least we're of 'healthy country boy' stature as well; he would likely have been leaving as much fuel behind as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top