Seneca down in KY.....

N801BH said:
Geez.....
On the day where 4 were killed in Kentucky. 100 or more were slaughtered on the highways....

What about their kids ????
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if you are intentionally putting forth a Non Sequitur, or if you simply don't understand what I wrote.

Had the little Sailor survived after loosing her family in a car accident, my compassion for her would be no different.

F01LA explained it probably better than I could, but if I had small children, it would be time to reevaluate the risk/reward involved with flying. I'm not saying it would make me not fly, I'm just saying that considering the lives of those close to me would be the right thing to do.
 
I wonder if a parachute would of made this a completely different outcome?
 
My concerns are who will love her like her parents and have her best interests at heart.

She could end up being abused. I pray for this little girl and can not get her out of my mind. I have thought about her everyday. Breaks my heart as I am sure it does everyone what happened to this little girl and her family.

Tony
 
NTSB preliminary on this is out. Looks like they had fuel, might have been losing both engines, right appeared to have been out. He asked fo a VFR airport, which is intersting as he was on an IFR flight plan. Gear was up.

Rough terrain at night with low visibilty, a controlled crash might have been difficult.

I will have to think pretty hard about if I would have the gear up or down if I had a forced landing in those conditions. I think I would have put it down.

Unless he lost control, maybe due to an electrical failure.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150103X93856&key=1
 
Electrical failure? All four P leads? What other kind of electrical failure would cause engine out? Are there electric fuel pumps?

Carburetor ice?
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Remember that all 4 P-leads would have to ground themselves - broken P-leads result in an engine that keeps running - not one that quits.
Click to expand...


Doh.... Okay, then what could fail electrically that would prevent the engine from running other than the mags? Did all four mags quit?
 
Maybe they are unrelated. It would seem odd, but maybe he had an electrical issue where he couldn't see the panel, and didn't have navigation. That could explain the VFR and vectors to an airport request.

Flying a plane at night with a flashlight is a challenge.

With the engines out, he should still be able to fly the plane. With the electrical out, the plane would fly, it would be challenging, but should be doable. Both out, I don't know the odds, but that would be a very bad situation at night.
 
Last edited:
Remember guys....

The 7 years old girl lived, is in great shape and most probably saw everything that went wrong....

She will be the key in getting to the facts ..IMHO...
 
From the report the left engine was running (chordwise scratching of the left propellor and the left turbocharger had rotational scoring) possibly with diminished power. Possibly dimished power since he reported problems with both engines. Induction icing?
 
On the fuel pump question, the Senaca does have aux fuel pumps. Used for take off and ldg and these pumps provide the fuel pressure for priming. Typical Piper.

Engines are turbo'd and fuel injected. It is possible to get impact icing on the air filter but, it has alternate air doors for this.
 
ronnieh said:
On the fuel pump question, the Senaca does have aux fuel pumps. Used for take off and ldg and these pumps provide the fuel pressure for priming. Typical Piper.
Click to expand...

On a Seneca II, the auxiliary fuel pumps would not noramlly be used for takeoff ot landing.
 
N801BH said:
Remember guys....

The 7 years old girl lived, is in great shape and most probably saw everything that went wrong....

She will be the key in getting to the facts ..IMHO...
Click to expand...

Being the parent of one, I would suggest that:

1. a 7-year old is generally a notoriously unreliable witness on a good day, and with likely some significant post-trauma stress even less so. Or she simply might have been plugged in to her DS/iPod/whatever and not paying attention.

2. probably the only thing she would have heard from the others onboard given the short timeframe from the call to ATC to the approximate time of the wreckage is some sort of excited utterance or comforting words, not a blow-by-blow of the problem as it developed.
 
Sounds like the mishap pilot couldn't handle the OEI and spun it in. The twin safety factor is a myth for the majority of hobby pilots.

If it weren't for the already lousy desirability of light piston twins in this market, the parachute people could otherwise pull off (no pun intended) a profitable pitch for BRS retrofits on these orphan makers.
 
No mention whether the alternate engine air doors were opened or not. I would guess his "engine problem" was due to clogged air filters. This being masked by turbos until it was really clogged. Mixtures both found full rich, one of the first things we try with a rough running engine.

If engines were shaking due to prop ice, I doubt both engine throttles would have been firewalled.

We have a low airport count in Ky and M34 was low mvfr at best. Weather was worsening going North to his destination.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Sounds like the mishap pilot couldn't handle the OEI and spun it in. The twin safety factor is a myth for the majority of hobby pilots.
Click to expand...

Until you look at the pilot's ratings and experience. He also had flown 50 hours in the six months preceding the accident.
 
Reedster said:
NTSB preliminary on this is out. Looks like they had fuel, might have been losing both engines, right appeared to have been out. He asked fo a VFR airport, which is intersting as he was on an IFR flight plan. Gear was up.

Rough terrain at night with low visibilty, a controlled crash might have been difficult.

I will have to think pretty hard about if I would have the gear up or down if I had a forced landing in those conditions. I think I would have put it down.

Unless he lost control, maybe due to an electrical failure.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150103X93856&key=1
Click to expand...

Yep, always put the gear down, it will absorb impact as designed until over stress, them provides a bending arm on the strut/sheet metal structure which folds/bends/tears and absorbs energy. You buy what you can with what you have.
 
3393RP said:
Until you look at the pilot's ratings and experience. He also had flown 50 hours in the six months preceding the accident.
Click to expand...


That might even further reinforce that "twin safety" is a myth...

Look at the King Air incident in Witchita recently. I'm sure that guy was no greenhorn either.
 
Henning said:
Yep, always put the gear down, it will absorb impact as designed until over stress, them provides a bending arm on the strut/sheet metal structure which folds/bends/tears and absorbs energy. You buy what you can with what you have.
Click to expand...

I agree with Henning.....

Use as much stuff as you can to shed energy.. Makes for a greater chance to either walk away or survive....:yes:......:)
 
dans2992 said:
That might even further reinforce that "twin safety" is a myth...

Look at the King Air incident in Witchita recently. I'm sure that guy was no greenhorn either.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and that was my original point; I accounted for the mishap pilot's flying experience "profile" when I made my comment. Ratings mean jack. Everybody is a hero on their PPL/CPL-ME/ATP-ME checkride. Thats probably as proficient as most of these hobby pilots are for the rest of their flying tenure. Same goes for hours count. 1000 hours of a well-behaving piston twin doesn't do jack for a pilot's ability to successfully negotiate an unplanned OEI scenario. Like I said, in practical reality, twin engine safety factor is a myth for hobby pilots. I'd go so far as to say in the absence of a parachute, the deceased would have fared better dead sticking a saratoga into the wooded night.
 
Makes sense, and I would have erred on the side of putting the gear down.

I think the only time I would naturally consider gear up would be in water as I was always told that gear down will flip the plane.

What's funny is the POH says: Landing without power - Gear up down depending on terrain. Of course it doesn't give any suggestions on what terrain should be up or down.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Sounds like the mishap pilot couldn't handle the OEI and spun it in. The twin safety factor is a myth for the majority of hobby pilots.
Click to expand...

You need to do some research before running your mouth. This guy was hardly a 'hobby pilot'.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You need to do some research before running your mouth. This guy was hardly a 'hobby pilot'.
Click to expand...


Is the "twin safety factor" a myth for "hobby pilots" or for _piston_ twins? Do pro pilots on marginally powered piston twins fare just as badly as "hobby pilots"?

Most pro pilots are flying turbine equipment. I think that recent crash near midway was a piston twin flown by a pro pilot....
 
Fearless Tower said:
You need to do some research before running your mouth. This guy was hardly a 'hobby pilot'.
Click to expand...

My understanding is the guy owned a furniture store. I could be wrong, this is the internet after all (hint: relax). Last time I checked, that qualifies one as a hobby pilot. There's nothing pejorative about it. My use was certainly not intended to be pejorative.
 
hindsight2020 said:
My understanding is the guy owned a furniture store. I could be wrong, this is the internet after all (hint: relax). Last time I checked, that qualifies one as a hobby pilot. There's nothing pejorative about it. My use was certainly not intended to be pejorative.
Click to expand...

Hobby pilot has a pretty negative connotation, especially in the context you used. His qualifications were quite extensive.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Hobby pilot has a pretty negative connotation, especially in the context you used. His qualifications were quite extensive.
Click to expand...

Hobby pilot means one thing, he does it for entertainment, not occupation. You may assign a negative connotation to it, but that is not universal. A hobby is something you spend your money to do that you enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Hobby pilot has a pretty negative connotation, especially in the context you used. His qualifications were quite extensive.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the negative connotation.

Even pilots who only fly for fun, like myself now, can still strive for professionalism in their flying.

The technical aspect of whether someone is flying with a specific mission or being paid for it has zero bearing on skill, experience or ability.

Hence the moniker "hobby pilot" carries no meaningful information and will probably be construed by many as derogatory.
 
Are we to assume he ran one tank dry (one tank "on" one tank "x-feed") running both engines? That seems to be what is being hinted at, but then again maybe the guy was flipping switches left and right trying to fix the problem? Wouldn't one be acutely aware of the massive fuel imbalance (and one of the tanks not going down while the other way appears to have a leak by comparison) if he was running the whole time on one tank? I watch the fuel like an OCD person off their meds and on red bull. I'm specifically looking at the totalizer, fuel gauges, and all engine parameters, and range estimations in extreme detail every 5 minutes (G1000).

I mean this guy was a CFII/MEI. Engine problems (generically) are boost pump, switch tanks (x-feed in this case), alternate air, adjust mixture/throttle. A generic flow to live by...

I hate to think this was a simple screwup of he was flying on one tank, and when things went wrong he just froze (I suspect the freeze was caused by both engines acting up at once, the ultimate YGTBFKM moment for any twin pilot).

This is just one of those accidents that "bothers" me. Just like the TBM that iced up out of Teterboro, which really bothers me. Some accident reports just eat away at me, particularly as I don't have the kind of time and experience this guy had and it is an uncomfortable reminder that anyone can have a bad day...
 
I read through the accident report & a question has been nagging me.

Since the pilot was apparently on two drugs that he didn't disclose to the AME is the general consensus that he insurance company would deny the claim?

I'm sure non-disclosure on medical applications is not uncommon among our fellow aviators.
 
Report says this particular seneca had the long range tanks (128 gallons total). That's 61.5 usable per side. Doing a quick math from TLH to M34 (granted he crashed short), would put it at around 3.2 duration at 140 GKTS, so at a 65ish% power setting that would give it enough fuel on one tank to run both engines to the accident area. Seems absolutely plausible based on that math, to run dry circa the accident area after leaving one selector in Xfeed since the run-up.

Now, looking at the flight EYW-TLH, looks like the guy was running rather rich (25gph combined) judging by the fuel receipt, if we are to assume he filled up all the way both times. That high fuel flow wouldn't surprise me considering "I didn't buy this airplane to go slow" thrown in with the general propensity for the Conti 360 turbos to run hot as **** in most OEM piper installations, requiring stupid rich settings compared to the NA Lyco counterpart in the Seneca I/Arrow. If he was running that rich during the accident flight, then no way he would have made it as far as he did on one tank. They did find fuel in the right tank, and the right engine ran fine in the test stand, so we know the failure was fuel exhaustion. Piper seminoles have had dual ice failures due to the carb installation, but ice fails in seneca with its injected engines, especially the turbo contis? My money is on fuel exhaustion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top