Cessna 310 hits a house in Riverside, CA

SoCal RV Flyer said:
"She watched as the plane slowly taxied for takeoff. As it did, the plane rocked back and forth, front to back. Pennington said she doesn’t know much about airplanes, but “I’ve been here 25 years and I’ve never seen an airplane go like this,” she said, motioning with her hand."

Wow, I know it's a witness account and that they don't always get it right, but that suggests an extreme rearward cg.

I know my plane will do a static tail strike if both passenger and pilot try to board at once, standing on the steps simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Is this what is being referred to as an "eyewitness account of a tail strike during taxi"? Looks to me like the eyewitness just said that the plane was rocking back and forth during taxi, then SoCal RV Flyer added a comment about his experience with a static tail strike. Maybe I missed something.
 
luvflyin said:
If it turns out to be the CG thing I wonder what was different from the flight down. I always thought the 310 was a four seat airplane.
Click to expand...

Just a WAG but I dated (and married) a high school cheer leader. Back in the day I went to a handful of those cheerleading competitions. Those HS girls are the most "car jockeying" group I've ever met. Would be very plausible that the trip to the event didn't involve 5 occupants. Again, just a WAG so please don't crucify me. :rolleyes2:
 
Cavorter said:
She said the tail was striking the ground. That is pretty damning. Well, we will see once they analyze the W&B I suspect we will find out it was way aft of the allowed range and probably over gross too.
Click to expand...

ELee3 said:
Is this what is being referred to as an "eyewitness account of a tail strike during taxi"? Looks to me like the eyewitness just said that the plane was rocking back and forth during taxi, then SoCal RV Flyer added a comment about his experience with a static tail strike. Maybe I missed something.
Click to expand...

After looking back through a few sources (including this thread) I think this (first quote) may be bad information. If that's the case then I apologize for focusing on it.

I still don't see any harm in discussing the possible reasons for a crash. I learn a lot just from brainstorming on what could have gone wrong. No chest pounding here.
 
arkvet said:
I still don't see any harm in discussing the possible reasons for a crash. I learn a lot just from brainstorming on what could have gone wrong. No chest pounding here.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%! Many of us have been around aviation for a long time and have a pretty good idea how accidents occur. Not saying we are experts, not at all, but there is nothing wrong respectfully discussing and even speculating on an accident if it ends up making you think and you learn something. Which I think is the case in most of these threads.
 
Not sure how credible the eyewitness is. They claim the pilot couldn't start the airplane, so taxied it to the terminal. How did he taxi if it wouldn't start, stick his feet out the bottom and do a Fred Flintstone?
 
Katamarino said:
Not sure how credible the eyewitness is. They claim the pilot couldn't start the airplane, so taxied it to the terminal. How did he taxi if it wouldn't start, stick his feet out the bottom and do a Fred Flintstone?
Click to expand...

It's a twin, so it will taxi just fine on one engine. Not saying that's what happened, but it's quite possible it was still taxiing on its own power.

Also, someone mentioned it...but the 310 is a six seat aircraft, not four. It seems unlikely that it would be over gross based only on the passenger count. I can't comment on the balance or what baggage may have been aboard.
 
mscard88 said:
I agree 100%! Many of us have been around aviation for a long time and have a pretty good idea how accidents occur. Not saying we are experts, not at all, but there is nothing wrong respectfully discussing and even speculating on an accident if it ends up making you think and you learn something. Which I think is the case in most of these threads.
Click to expand...
Yup. Twice I've come across something in speculations here that led me to getting some training with a CFI. One was a partial panel speculation. I realized I was undertrained during my Instrument training. I had done a lot of partial panel of course, but not much in "recognizing" that an instrument was failing. I hired a CFI right out for that and did it on a Simulator. The other was during a BFR. I covered the entire panel and did some good ole' seat of the pants flying. I still have no idea what the NTSB found to be the actual cause on either of the accidents that led to the threads here. There have been many others that have led me to think about, remind myself and review other things. If I ever bite it y'all feel free to analyze it and speculate about it. I won't be scoring you on how well you guessed the actual cause.
 
Last edited:
arnoha said:
It's a twin, so it will taxi just fine on one engine. Not saying that's what happened, but it's quite possible it was still taxiing on its own power.

Also, someone mentioned it...but the 310 is a six seat aircraft, not four. It seems unlikely that it would be over gross based only on the passenger count. I can't comment on the balance or what baggage may have been aboard.
Click to expand...

If it's an older model (excluding the 310R) it's a problem trying to stay in balance on them. Often you can't carry 6 adults.
 
There is speculation now that maybe some Jet A in the fuel might have happened.
 
luvflyin said:
There is speculation now that maybe some Jet A in the fuel might have happened.
Click to expand...
My SWAG when I was taking to a buddy at work was fuel contamination. The same weekend I pulled a quarter cup of water out of one of my tanks due to all the rain.
 
arnoha said:
It's a twin, so it will taxi just fine on one engine. Not saying that's what happened, but it's quite possible it was still taxiing on its own power.

Also, someone mentioned it...but the 310 is a six seat aircraft, not four. It seems unlikely that it would be over gross based only on the passenger count. I can't comment on the balance or what baggage may have been aboard.
Click to expand...
A C310 will barely taxi single engine, and if it does it's very hard to control.
 
I didn;t know flying a 310 was this dangerous with an engine out.

Barry Gregory, a 72-year-old Perris resident, who said he’s been flying since he was 21, said that is potentially disastrous.

“Losing an engine in a twin is the worst-case scenario,” he said. In a Cessna 310, he said, “It’s going to take you right to the ground.”
 
ircphoenix said:
My SWAG when I was taking to a buddy at work was fuel contamination. The same weekend I pulled a quarter cup of water out of one of my tanks due to all the rain.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly as well. Lots of rain that weekend before they left. If you take a small enough sample, it's entirely possible that draw out only water and so it looks like there's no water at all. Depending on what you're looking through at or how rushed you are, you may not notice the lack of blue.
 
Last edited:
3 in the green said:
My thoughts exactly as well. Lots of rain that weekend before they left. If you take a small enough sample, it's entirely possible that draw out only water and so it looks like there's no water at all.
Click to expand...
Well, if the water happens to be blue....

Only time I've seen that, though, is in 6PC's video.
 
Is it too soon to start with the cheerleaders must have been from Nebraska to cause a w/b problem jokes?
 
midcap said:
I didn;t know flying a 310 was this dangerous with an engine out.

Barry Gregory, a 72-year-old Perris resident, who said he’s been flying since he was 21, said that is potentially disastrous.

“Losing an engine in a twin is the worst-case scenario,” he said. In a Cessna 310, he said, “It’s going to take you right to the ground.”
Click to expand...
I have a fair amount of time in a C310, and always considered it one of the better performing twins when SE.
 
Zeldman said:
I agree, losing an engine in a twin is not the worst case scenario.
Click to expand...

Depends how sick it is too. I flew a C310 on my MEI ride that engine out wouldn't hold altitude, at 2-3000' mls. FAA examiner couldn't believe it. Dog of the 4-5 310s at the FBO. That's why we used it for multi training. ;) :D
 
mscard88 said:
Depends how sick it is too. I flew a C310 on my MEI ride that engine out wouldn't hold altitude, at 2-3000' mls. FAA examiner couldn't believe it. Dog of the 4-5 310s at the FBO. That's why we used it for multi training. ;) :D
Click to expand...
That is odd, and apparantly that one was a pig. I have done several 135 checkrides which entailed engine failure on climb, and it never had issues. Reasonably low DA during those rides however.
 
I just did a W&B on my R with 6 170lbs paxs, 100lbs of cabin baggage and 600 lbs of 100ll and it's still under weight and within CG...:yes: Don't know about the earlier models...:dunno:
 
midcap said:
I didn;t know flying a 310 was this dangerous with an engine out.

Barry Gregory, a 72-year-old Perris resident, who said he’s been flying since he was 21, said that is potentially disastrous.

“Losing an engine in a twin is the worst-case scenario,” he said. In a Cessna 310, he said, “It’s going to take you right to the ground.”
Click to expand...
Not sure who he is but he is misinformed. 310's have pretty good single engine performance.


This guy somehow managed to not go "right to the ground".
 
Twin_Flyer said:
I just did a W&B on my R with 6 170lbs paxs, 100lbs of cabin baggage and 600 lbs of 100ll and it's still under weight and within CG...:yes: Don't know about the earlier models...:dunno:
Click to expand...

As I've mentioned before, I've flown the I, M, Q, and R models. Excluding the R model, the older models suffer a CG problem due to not having that nose compartment. I flew them on a 135 operation and often had problems carrying a total of 6 (incl me) due to the CG. That was my experience anyway.
 
Radar Contact said:
Not sure who he is but he is misinformed. 310's have pretty good single engine performance.


This guy somehow managed to not go "right to the ground".
Click to expand...

I was watching the first seconds of the video thinking "Wow, that must have been a big kerblooey, the prop is stopped".

Then the still photos of the damage...Jeezus!

But the pilot looks to be calm and collected.
 
Looks like the prop is feathered.

No need to get excited. The plane will stay in the air.
 
luvflyin said:
If it turns out to be the CG thing I wonder what was different from the flight down. I always thought the 310 was a four seat airplane.
Click to expand...
Later models could have 6 seats IIRC.
 
luvflyin said:
If it turns out to be the CG thing I wonder what was different from the flight down. I always thought the 310 was a four seat airplane.
Click to expand...
gismo said:
Later models could have 6 seats IIRC.
Click to expand...
Even the earliest 310s were listed as five-seat airplanes -- two in front, three across in back. With the 1963 310H the seating was changed to a three-row configuration, accommodating a sixth seat (optional). 1964 310I below:

cessna_310i_int.jpeg
 
I didn't really follow this one when it happened. However, I just read about it in the latest Plane&Pilot. Very curious that an ATP and CFI/CFII (AMEL +ASEL) didn't know how to file and had such trouble with reading back clearances.

Screenshot_2019-07-03-08-59-42-106.jpeg Screenshot_2019-07-03-09-00-13-219.jpeg
 
83 year old pilot, geez, maybe at some point it's time hang it up, or at least only fly solo in good VFR conditions.
 
If I remember correctly there was obvious cognitive decline, and his family had tried to get him to stop flying.
 
With no offense to the, ahem, most "highly experienced" members of POA, I'm not sending any member of my family as passengers in a light twin into IMC with only one pilot if he or she is 83 years old.

The report is painful reading. I don't speak ATC but there's a remark in the call from ground to tracon before takeoff (not in the final report, it's in the docket) where ground says "good luck" and tracon says "oh boy" which sounds like ground _knows_ the guy is struggling. Obviously out of his depth, get-there-itis, very likely not instrument current, over-gross and out of CG, stalled a working airplane immediately on entry into IMC.
 
N884 said:
CAPS > twin
Click to expand...

LOL. Just what light GA needs. Inexperienced IFR pilots, with obvious cognitive difficulties, unable to even read back a clearance accurately, flying Cirrus aircraft into IMC because they can save themselves and their passengers from the consequences of their own bad judgement and poor decision making with a red handle.

The lack of an airframe parachute wouldn't appear a contributing factor to the root causes in this instance.
 
GRG55 said:
LOL. Just what light GA needs. Inexperienced IFR pilots, with obvious cognitive difficulties, unable to even read back a clearance accurately, flying Cirrus aircraft into IMC because they can save themselves and their passengers from the consequences of their own bad judgement and poor decision making with a red handle.

The lack of an airframe parachute wouldn't appear a contributing factor to the root causes in this instance.
Click to expand...
Nah. You swapped cause and effect. I’ve never heard of anyone actually doing anything more risky because Cirrus. Do you Drive extra risky because airbag? However, a high school girl can pull a red handle. You don’t need to be 80 to have a medical issue. 10 out of 10 passengers prefer a red handle when it hits the fan. Can’t believe folks still go out of their way to hate Cirrus.
 
N884 said:
Nah. You swapped cause and effect. I’ve never heard of anyone actually doing anything more risky because Cirrus. Do you Drive extra risky because airbag? However, a high school girl can pull a red handle. You don’t need to be 80 to have a medical issue. 10 out of 10 passengers prefer a red handle when it hits the fan. Can’t believe folks still go out of their way to hate Cirrus.
Click to expand...

I don't hate Cirrus. But your post:

N884 said:
CAPS > twin
Click to expand...

is utter nonsense.

Particularly so in the context of the accident that is the subject of this thread. That was my point.
 
Risk compensation is not a myth. I've seen plenty of gratuitous cirrus videos doing multiple approaches in actual reported icing conditions because of the presence of TKS.

It doesn't have to be visible stunts to be risk compensation. The mere implicit decision to pursue incursions into IMC under the soothing placebo of the presence of a chute on board is a textbook definition of risk compensation.

I'm not talking from the cheap seats either. I'd never fly a civil converted prior mil fighter/trainer turbojet aircraft without a hot seat that cannot be dead sticked, like my work airplane for instance. That's risk compensation right there.
 
Prob lots of videos of lots of people doing lots of things. Doesn’t really win/lose arguments... what we know is every CAPS deployment within the envelope (and some outside the envelope) have been a 100% successful outcome. I don’t think placebo was the right word here.

We also know that CAPS have been used in only roughly 1% of the fleet. Probably not worth arguing about so much. Sadly there are (old?) pilots who still fly their Cirrus into a smoking hole—COPA is trying hard to train/retrain/help. I once heard military had same lack of take up when first using ejection seats. The jury is not out here (unless you try hard to ignore). CAPS for the win. Every thinking pilot likes redundancy, CAPS is only airframe redundancy and nothing more. Nothing not to like.

In related news, can you say the same for every twin pilot that lost an engine? A 100% success rate? Of course not. I’m sick of these twins killing people. Gives us all a black eye. I know the old guard will be quick to point out why it won’t happen to them... me? I’m not too proud. The more outs my family has, the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top