Great Lakes crash in San Diego, Ca

I believe this is 3617L out of Plus One Flyers
 
Sounds like a failed "impossible turn". Again.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Sounds like a failed "impossible turn". Again.
Click to expand...

Looks that way. I’m glad that both people survived, and I hope for speedy recoveries.

Armchair flying here, etc., but it seems like it would have been better to turn left to land instead of right. I fly a Great Lakes with a similar paint scheme, so this one has got me thinking. Assuming he was flying at around 80mph which is around the best Vy, he would probably have been climbing at around 800fpm. If he took off in 500 ft and used full length, he would have been at about 280ft if using 28L or 450ft if using 28R (zero wind conditions) when over the departure end of the runway. If the engine quit there, that’s not enough altitude to make a 180 turn. He turned right towards the Keyocera plant. A left turn looks more benign. My ASES instructor would drill into me to verbalize the plan for engine failure on takeoff prior to every takeoff. Seems like a good idea to me.


The circled area below is the approximate crash site. Sure looks like a left 90° turn would have given a few more options.
f5f1b45bfd1eaebda45066b4feb1d782.jpg
 
I remember sushi deli! Mrs. Steingar used to bring me that when I worked late at the lab. All my labbies were jealous because they thought I had a rich girlfriend who could bring me sushi. How little they knew.
I'd still rather land in control in someone's neighborhood than stall/spin.
 
Ouch. That is bad country ahead. I agree, assuming the assumptions are correct, that going to port might have had more options.
I would like to think that I would have in his situation (being a legend in my own mind ;) stuffed the nose down hard, stood on the left rudder and aileron to make a left 90 or at least a 45 and then try to flare softly onto that brown stuff - whatever it is. And I am not criticizing the pilot - he was there at that instant and I wasn't.
 
The lack of any ground scarring or damage to the fence makes it look like this one went pretty much straight in. Stall / spin likely.

I was on shift sitting in the hangar office just across the runways on the South side of the airport and never even knew it happened.
 
Direct C51 said:
The lack of any ground scarring or damage to the fence makes it look like this one went pretty much straight in. Stall / spin likely.

I was on shift sitting in the hangar office just across the runways on the South side of the airport and never even knew it happened.
Click to expand...
I noticed that as well. I wish I could say I wouldn't attempt that kind of turn back during an engine failure after takeoff, but I've never been in that position so I don't really know. I wish the occupants a speedy recovery.
 
Direct C51 said:
The lack of any ground scarring or damage to the fence makes it look like this one went pretty much straight in. Stall / spin likely.

I was on shift sitting in the hangar office just across the runways on the South side of the airport and never even knew it happened.
Click to expand...

Yep, I’m afraid you’re right about the stall spin. It looks like it just pancaked into that area next to the factory. It’s impossible to know how I would react in a similar situation, but I hope that reviewing accidents like this will at least cause me to think about a plan at every takeoff for dealing with an engine failure. Of course we don’t know yet if an engine failure was the cause. One of the articles about the crash said there was a lot of spilled fuel, so it’s not like they didn’t have gas.
 
jimhorner said:
Yep, I’m afraid you’re right about the stall spin. It looks like it just pancaked into that area next to the factory. It’s impossible to know how I would react in a similar situation, but I hope that reviewing accidents like this will at least cause me to think about a plan at every takeoff for dealing with an engine failure. Of course we don’t know yet if an engine failure was the cause. One of the articles about the crash said there was a lot of spilled fuel, so it’s not like they didn’t have gas.
Click to expand...

They posted a few weeks ago that the plane just got a new engine, governor, mags, and prop. Not saying that's related, but just a reminder to be extra cautious after your plane has major work done to it.
 
Bender Aviation said:
They posted a few weeks ago that the plane just got a new engine, governor, mags, and prop. Not saying that's related, but just a reminder to be extra cautious after your plane has major work done to it.
Click to expand...

Always a somewhat scary time right after major work. My mechanic insisted on putting the first hour on the plane himself after putting a new engine on.

In this case, I think that if it were I, with major work having been done to my engine, I would be using 28R full length every time. More runway in front, more altitude at the end of the runway, and an easier turn to the left towards the open ground in case of a problem. I have no idea, of course, what happened in the case of this accident.
 
Bender Aviation said:
They posted a few weeks ago that the plane just got a new engine, governor, mags, and prop. Not saying that's related, but just a reminder to be extra cautious after your plane has major work done to it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. After hearing all these "infant mortality" stories about new engines, the first several hours with my crate Lycoming were tense. You always imagine you're hearing sounds, or feeling vibrations, that are not quite right.

Wishing a speedy recovery to those involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top