What caused this Cessna 310b to crash at my local airport?

Scott Carpenter said:
As some of you may know, two weeks ago a Cessna 310b crashed while taking off from a small, one-runway airport in Columbia, California, a small town near the base of the Sierra Nevadas. All four on board were consumed in flames and died.

I'm a reporter at that town's local newspaper, the Union Democrat, and our paper was the first to report on the crash and the deaths. Coverage from the Associated Press and CBS Sacrament soon followed. (You can Google this.)

Can any experienced pilots or mechanics here weigh in on what is likely to have been the cause of the crash, given the circumstances? Do you suspect an engine malfunction, given the make and model? Some kind of pilot error?

The National Traffic Safety Board has since concluded its week-long investigation -- but it isn't likely to release its report on what it believes caused the crash for another 6-8 months. Its next step is to ship the plane's two engines to their manufacturer, Continental Motors, in Alabama for further inspection.

What we know is as follows: Shortly after 4 p.m. on July 24, a 1959 Cessna 310b, with four people onboard, veered from the airport's only paved runway (runway 17) while attempting to take off. (Initial reports said it was landing.) By the time authorities arrived, the plane was engulfed in flames and lay on its belly in a patch of low grass some two or three dozen yards east of the runway. It came to rest roughly parallel with or just beyond the point on the runway where a plane of that size typically rotates.

The four victims -- two roughly middle-aged couples -- were burned so badly that forensic identification required examining dental records.

Conditions were good. It was a near-cloudless day with normal wind conditions.

The pilot, Dan Kreutzfeldt, was a 43-year-old experienced career transport pilot with NetJets. He was flying with his wife and two family members, also a husband and wife.

Thanks for your insights --

Scott Carpenter
Click to expand...
Scott Carpenter said:
As some of you may know, two weeks ago a Cessna 310b crashed while taking off from a small, one-runway airport in Columbia, California, a small town near the base of the Sierra Nevadas. All four on board were consumed in flames and died.

I'm a reporter at that town's local newspaper, the Union Democrat, and our paper was the first to report on the crash and the deaths. Coverage from the Associated Press and CBS Sacrament soon followed. (You can Google this.)

Can any experienced pilots or mechanics here weigh in on what is likely to have been the cause of the crash, given the circumstances? Do you suspect an engine malfunction, given the make and model? Some kind of pilot error?

The National Traffic Safety Board has since concluded its week-long investigation -- but it isn't likely to release its report on what it believes caused the crash for another 6-8 months. Its next step is to ship the plane's two engines to their manufacturer, Continental Motors, in Alabama for further inspection.

What we know is as follows: Shortly after 4 p.m. on July 24, a 1959 Cessna 310b, with four people onboard, veered from the airport's only paved runway (runway 17) while attempting to take off. (Initial reports said it was landing.) By the time authorities arrived, the plane was engulfed in flames and lay on its belly in a patch of low grass some two or three dozen yards east of the runway. It came to rest roughly parallel with or just beyond the point on the runway where a plane of that size typically rotates.

The four victims -- two roughly middle-aged couples -- were burned so badly that forensic identification required examining dental records.

Conditions were good. It was a near-cloudless day with normal wind conditions.

The pilot, Dan Kreutzfeldt, was a 43-year-old experienced career transport pilot with NetJets. He was flying with his wife and two family members, also a husband and wife.

Thanks for your insights --

Scott Carpenter
Click to expand...
 
Witnesses stated the airplane crashed on the second attempt of take off. The left engine quit on the first attempt. The left engine also quit twice taxing from it's tie down. Contrary to what the news said he had owned the airplane for at least 8 years under a business name . He had just recently re-registered under his name.
 
DouglasCharlie3 said:
Witnesses stated the airplane crashed on the second attempt of take off. The left engine quit on the first attempt. The left engine also quit twice taxing from it's tie down. Contrary to what the news said he had owned the airplane for at least 8 years under a business name . He had just recently re-registered under his name.
Click to expand...
Thought it sounded like a vmc roll event. All the training in the world cant prepare you for everything however if your info is true i would have been hesitant to take off a second time without having things checked out on the ground.

Sent from my SM-N930V using Tapatalk
 
Dan and I had flown together many times and often discussed this very scenario after a VMC crash. We couldn't understand how someone could loose control. VMC is a worthless number that has killed many pilots. VMC in this airplane was 84. Single engine safety speed was 105. VYSE 120. Looking at the takeoff roll and crash point I doubt if the airplane even had VMC at takeoff. It was 100 F with a density alt of about 5,400 ft. 4 adults with almost full fuel. He never had a chance. I'm a mechanic and ATP. I wouldn't of even attempted to fly the airplane running that bad with just me in it. Really hard for me to understand this crash. Dan was about the best pilot I had ever flown with who understood that light twins heavily loaded on hot days are a disaster on one engine at TOff. There is nothing unpredictable about a 310. They pretty much do what their suppose to do. If it can happen to Dan it can happen to anybody. Learn from it.
 
DouglasCharlie3 said:
Dan and I had flown together many times and often discussed this very scenario after a VMC crash. We couldn't understand how someone could loose control. VMC is a worthless number that has killed many pilots. VMC in this airplane was 84. Single engine safety speed was 105. VYSE 120. Looking at the takeoff roll and crash point I doubt if the airplane even had VMC at takeoff. It was 100 F with a density alt of about 5,400 ft. 4 adults with almost full fuel. He never had a chance. I'm a mechanic and ATP. I wouldn't of even attempted to fly the airplane running that bad with just me in it. Really hard for me to understand this crash. Dan was about the best pilot I had ever flown with who understood that light twins heavily loaded on hot days are a disaster on one engine at TOff. There is nothing unpredictable about a 310. They pretty much do what their suppose to do. If it can happen to Dan it can happen to anybody. Learn from it.
Click to expand...

I think they call it get-there-itis.

Sorry this hit so close to home for you. I know from a twin single engine out crash that happened here right at Christmas you are left with more questions than answers.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and comments here for others to read...there's a lot of value to them that will serve the intent you are looking to fulfill.


Sent from my SM-N930V using Tapatalk
 
DouglasCharlie3 said:
Witnesses stated the airplane crashed on the second attempt of take off. The left engine quit on the first attempt. The left engine also quit twice taxing from it's tie down. Contrary to what the news said he had owned the airplane for at least 8 years under a business name . He had just recently re-registered under his name.
Click to expand...

it might be the mechanic in me, but I would have pulled her back in the hangar and brought her to an A&P.
 
midcap said:
it might be the mechanic in me, but I would have pulled her back in the hangar and brought her to an A&P.
Click to expand...
I'm not even certified to change a flat tire and I believe I'm definitely thinking the same way.... if my mag check didn't go right I'm taking her to the hanger, let alone an engine needing a restart from dying...
 
douglascharle3-I've landed there a few times, the story I heard from a friend of one of the helicopter pilots on the ground was that he was landing after having some type of a problem. My second hand story might not be correct.
 
SmashTime said:
I'm not even certified to change a flat tire and I believe I'm definitely thinking the same way.... if my mag check didn't go right I'm taking her to the hanger, let alone an engine needing a restart from dying...
Click to expand...

Technically if you're rated, you are certified to change a flat tire.

Of course if you have no experience with split rims, or aircraft tires and assemblies in general, it's a dandy way to hurt yourself, but FAA says you're good to go! LOL.

A left over from the days when GA pilots and everyone else changed all sorts of tires frequently, usually on the cars and the farm tractor more than once per year.
 
denverpilot said:
Technically if you're rated, you are certified to change a flat tire.

Of course if you have no experience with split rims, or aircraft tires and assemblies in general, it's a dandy way to hurt yourself, but FAA says you're good to go! LOL.

A left over from the days when GA pilots and everyone else changed all sorts of tires frequently, usually on the cars and the farm tractor more than once per year.
Click to expand...
...and had to deal with split rims that have a tendency to rearrange a face or other body parts...which aircraft tires won't do generally speaking...
 
Tim Aidley said:
Okay so I hadn't really planned my first post to be a comment on an accident, but I guess I gotta start somewhere...

A disturbing number of these accident reports seem to involve the aircraft being consumed by flames, and all aboard perishing. I realise that systems to reinforce a fuel tank would cost money and weight, but as someone hoping to learn to fly in the fairly near future I find the lack of systems to prevent fuel spillage in the event of an accident rather concerning.
Click to expand...

Most fire scenarios happen after not maintaining directional control at high speeds or high vertical or horizontal rate impacts caused by not maintaining overall control of the aircraft.

Controlled flight to a crash doesn't usually cause fires. You have to work pretty hard to rip up the airframe enough to structurally damage the fuel tanks and have fuel hit a hot engine.

You'll find a lot more crumpled airplanes that didn't catch fire than did in the accident reports, generally.
 
I have a bit of a different take on this post, which granted I'm pretty late too. Pilots, this board included are routinely bashing the media for poor and misinformed reporting on aviation accidents. Here we have an OP, IIRC Scott who is a reporter for a local paper come to this board to get help with a story, while certainly no one wants to speculate except all the pilots who want to speculate :) I'd say many of us are missing a great opportunity to inform a member of the press. Some have offered good suggestions but many have jumped down his throat. Some have given possibilities but suggested he wait for the outcome of the NTSB report. They guy has a job to do we could give him a bit more help and make some suggestions. By the time the NTSB report is final the story will be lucky if it garners a 6th page blurb of one paragraph. I say Kudos to Scott for doing what a lot of reporters don't, asking questions from people with actual experience.
 
Well he was given some advice. I recommended that he do several things. Talk to witnesses. Talk to the FAA. Talk to the NTSB. Talk to local pilots who knew the pilot. Talk to mechanics who knew the airplane. Talk to a known person in his community or even outside who is an aviation expert. I also advised against soliciting wild speculation from some guy on the internet that he has not vetted for his level of expertise.

I know that many of you here know each other fairly well or have at least met in person once or twice so maybe you can vouch for one another's level of experience and knowledge. I only know a couple of people on here personally. I have formed some opinions on others here in regards to their expertise based upon the knowledge and reasonableness exhibited in their posts. However if I were a reporter doing a story on an accident, I would still do the type of research I outlined above. I would not post an open inquiry on an internet site. If I did choose to use someone on POA as a resource, I would choose someone that I had formed a well based opinion on and send them a personal message and then double check what they told me. That is how it should be done.
 
Tim Aidley said:
Okay so I hadn't really planned my first post to be a comment on an accident, but I guess I gotta start somewhere...

A disturbing number of these accident reports seem to involve the aircraft being consumed by flames, and all aboard perishing. I realise that systems to reinforce a fuel tank would cost money and weight, but as someone hoping to learn to fly in the fairly near future I find the lack of systems to prevent fuel spillage in the event of an accident rather concerning.
Click to expand...

It's not just the fuel tank that can be the source. There are fuel lines from the tank, a fuel selector which has to be accessible from the cockpit, electric boost pumps (which are usually switched on for take-off and landing), fuel strainers, fuel drains that are sometimes remote from the tank, and so forth. A failure of the integrity of any one of those can be the source of fuel, especially if a tank is draining through that rupture.

Even the commercial airline manufacturers, with airplanes costing hundreds of millions of $, have not found a way to entirely eliminate the potential for post crash fires.

In all things in life it's a matter of managing the risks of whatever activity is being contemplated - skate boarding, base jumping, driving to the supermarket, or anything else. From the information in posts #43 and #45 above for reasons we can only speculate it appears the pilot might have done a better job of that in this instance.

From my work in highly hazardous industrial environments (sour gas production) back in the 1980s there was a huge change in safety program approach to try to eliminate fatalities that were occurring when people with training would still enter the hazardous area without donning necessary personal protective equipment. It was discovered that one time or annual "training" wasn't enough. Repeated and recurring scenario based rescue training had to be done to maximise the probability we humans will react properly in a stressful, unusual emergency situation. This is mandatory in the world of professional pilots; for the most part voluntary among private GA pilots. We could probably do a better job preventing GA accidents in the first place, but the challenge is to avoid imposing even more cost on an already expensive activity.
 
Last edited:
I read a news report that says the NTSB has narrowed the possibilities down to pilot error, mechanical failure, or the weather. Great, thinks I, that rules out the crew being abducted by aliens (I guess now we have to add terrorist acts to the list, but this was back before we worried about such things).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top