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

S

Scott Carpenter

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
3
Display Name
Display name:
scott.carpenter4491
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
 
No one on here knows. Anything that any of us would post would be pure speculation and you would have nothing more than a list of typical causes. If I were you I'd just wait for the NTSB report. Why the rush? What is your concern? I find it odd that a reporter would seek out facts or data on a site like this.
 
Most accidents have multiple causes, or a chain of events leading up to the accident. The only folks with all the facts and the tools to make the determination are at the NTSB. I'm waiting for them.
 
How long was the runway?
What were the winds at the time?
What was the density altitude at the time?
How much did the people weigh?
How much luggage was on the plane?
How much fuel was last loaded on the plane?
Where was the fuel loaded?
Who loaded the fuel?
When and what maintenance was last done on the plane?
Was it 2 dozen or 3 dozen yards?
How do you know when a plane rotates?
 
SkyDog58 said:
No one on here knows. Anything that any of us would post would be pure speculation and you would have nothing more than a list of typical causes. If I were you I'd just wait for the NTSB report. Why the rush? What is your concern? I find it odd that a reporter would seek out facts or data on a site like this.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
Thanks -- I know you can hardly venture definitive answers without much more information, and that the official word from the NTSB investigation is the only official or verifiable source of answers here. Still, are there any typical malfunctions or pilot errors that one might expect in the case of this crash? Once a private pilot myself, I know there are certain likely emergency scenarios laid out in pre-flight checklists, for example.
 
Can you answer the questions above?
 
All I know is that the runway is 4700 feet long -- can't say on any of the other questions.
 
If you can't answer the basic questions then you have nothing to go on. Guess we will all be waiting on the NTSB.
 
So then, as you were once a private pilot and are currently a local reporter with more access to the site than any of us and possibly even access to witnesses; what is your theory?

Also care to share why you are no longer a private pilot? Did you lose your certificate?
 
Going out on a limb... nearly 50% of fatal aircraft accidents are found to be pilot error, and just over 5% are due to mechanical or maintenance.
 
Anyone theory given here should be classified as pure speculation and therefore not a good source for reporting on aircraft accidents. Speculation is great for some stuff, but especially disrespectful to dead pilots and the other victims. Most pilots see these things as something that can happen to them and are loathe to throw another under the bus, so to speak. Rather, they give the dead and the investigation the courtesy of waiting for the facts to be released before speaking. That said, I'm sure someone will eventually be willing to pontificate while unencumbered by facts or experience.
 
Scott, you are not going to get much love nor information here. The general aviation community in general loath the way accidents are reported and because of this, hold said reporters in low esteem on a professional level. None of us want to help you or anyone else paint GA in a bad light. I applaud you for actually trying to find some accurate info, but past history tells us that almost all reporting on GA aircraft accidents are sensationalized and only diminishes pubic opinion of aviation safety. We fight every day against onerous regulations put in place to solve non existent safety issues. Poor press hurts us, we are not likely to help ourselves out of business. I do mean this with respect.
 
Scott Carpenter said:
Thanks -- I know you can hardly venture definitive answers without much more information, and that the official word from the NTSB investigation is the only official or verifiable source of answers here. Still, are there any typical malfunctions or pilot errors that one might expect in the case of this crash? Once a private pilot myself, I know there are certain likely emergency scenarios laid out in pre-flight checklists, for example.
Click to expand...
Warning....pure speculation:

Given the type of aircraft and limited details you have provided, about all I can say is that when a twin 'veers' off the runway and crashes on takeoff, it is most commonly a result of an engine failure during the takeoff.

What caused the failure, why the pilot couldn't recover...etc could be any multitude of reasons and not even worth speculating about without more details.
 
He's just fishing for a Sunday update for the Sunday paper. Maybe not. Not many if any on here will bite. The NTSB is very thorough and the questions listed above, and more, will be investigated, researched, tested, and then, only then, will they issue their best estimate of what likely occurred in a final report. Even so, some times even they get it wrong, not often, but they do. Patience grasshopper, you'll get your story some day.
 
Last edited:
The joy of him quoting me will be how he is going to explain taking a large mythical furry creature as one of his sources....
 
Too many people are usually to eager to give an opinion,never based on facts. Let the investigation continue,let the professional investigators give the cause.
 
frfly172 said:
Too many people are usually to eager to give an opinion,never based on facts. Let the investigation continue,let the professional investigators give the cause.
Click to expand...
There are some incidents where the answers to those questions can be obvious. Such as Get-There-itis into known icing or IMC, etc. This doesn't appear to be one of those.
In all accidents however, there is one constant. Gravity...
 
There are more constants to airplane accidents: An aircraft is involved, There is usually a pilot, Sometimes there is a passenger, there are sometimes an engine or two, there are wings, There are flight controls, There are engine controls.
 
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, for starters, your airport has TWO runways... 17-35, 11-29. Research, man!

Paul
 
I have inside information that this airport has No Control Tower! The other name in the industry for such an airport is 'Out of Control'. A dirty little secret in the aviation world. (Maybe I have that wrong, it might be 'Uncontrolled', but still.)
 
Mr. Carpenter hasn't returned to check, nor respond to this thread and I don't think he will.
 
edit; @Scott Carpenter

Some reading for those in the media reporting aircraft accidents:

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/03/why-are-we-so-obsessed-with-plane-crashes/
(He missed: the public are basically disgusting ghouls, all fed by the sensationalism provided by our media.)

The media should grow up and show some restraint & decency:
http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/MediaReportingAccidents.htm

We would love it if reporters would spend the smallest modicum of effort to research their words and try to get some details even close:
http://www.askthepilot.com/media-and-airplanes/
 
Scott, I know exactly what caused the crash, rapid deceleration and a moving object meeting a non moving object.



Are you interested in reporting facts,mor just making a "story"?


The NTSB is actually pretty good at fact finding (for a government agency), I'd suggest out of respect for those who lost their lives, you wait until the NTSB releases their findings.
 
Last edited:
Scott Carpenter said:
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?
Click to expand...

In no particular order, with no claim of relative probability:

- Sudden yaw from an engine failure
- Object/animal on runway
- Unexpected passenger input on controls (e.g. passenger pushes rudder pedal on takeoff)
- Brake lockup
- Tire failure
- Pilot medical crisis
- Wind gust
- Runway problem (encounter rut, etc.)
- Landing gear failure (one gear leg collapses, etc.)
- Pilot distraction (for instance, passenger suddenly getting sick, unusual instrument indication, baggage door flying open, etc.)
- Bird strike
- Control jam
- Premature rotation/stall
- Fuel misload (all tanks on one side full, all on other side empty)

Given the pilot's experience level, simple loss of control is unlikely. Most accidents result from a chain of failures, where if one of several events DIDN'T happen, the accident would have been avoided. This is why we're urged to wait for the NTSB investigation, which should discover evidence (animal carcasses, broken parts) that allow the investigator to determine a probable cause.

ALL accidents are pilot error, but sometimes the pilot's only mistake was getting out of bed that morning.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
Mike Smith said:
Scott, you are not going to get much love nor information here. The general aviation community in general loath the way accidents are reported and because of this, hold said reporters in low esteem on a professional level. None of us want to help you or anyone else paint GA in a bad light. I applaud you for actually trying to find some accurate info, but past history tells us that almost all reporting on GA aircraft accidents are sensationalized and only diminishes pubic opinion of aviation safety. We fight every day against onerous regulations put in place to solve non existent safety issues. Poor press hurts us, we are not likely to help ourselves out of business. I do mean this with respect.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with this more. It's news and you have a job to do. If I was your boss and you said I ain't writing nothing until the NTSB report comes out next year, I'd probably fire you. Please report things as responsibly as you can.
 
luvflyin said:
I can't agree with this more. It's news and you have a job to do. If I was your boss and you said I ain't writing nothing until the NTSB report comes out next year, I'd probably fire you. Please report things as responsibly as you can.
Click to expand...

Which means doing some actual real investigative reporting. 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.

It does NOT mean soliciting wild speculation from some guy on the internet that you have not vetted for his level of expertise. That is irresponsible from the start. It is also being lazy and stupid. All he is doing is confirming the attitudes or suspicions of many on here about how the press handles stories on aviation accidents. He is pathetic.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Which means doing some actual real investigative reporting. 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.

It does NOT mean soliciting wild speculation from some guy on the internet that you have not vetted for his level of expertise. That is irresponsible from the start. It is also being lazy and stupid. All he is doing is confirming the attitudes or suspicions of many on here about how the press handles stories on aviation accidents. He is pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yeah on the first paragraph. Do us a favor and remove the second paragraph. That isn't exactly doing POA or the pilot community at large any favors in the respectability department
 
In the piston driven world, the second engine often takes the plane to the scene of the accident. Vmc rolls are tough when truly unexpected.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah on the first paragraph. Do us a favor and remove the second paragraph. That isn't exactly doing POA or the pilot community at large any favors in the respectability department
Click to expand...

While I don't think the direct insults (in the post you quoted) were necessary, I agree with his sentiment. I work in a profession where the press often reports misinformation and infers how we could have acted differently, with zero expertise and often using rampant speculation (and worse, fueling issues from the errant reporting that they are never held accountable for).

In this case, two red flags popped up.

1-the OP bragging about being the first to cover the story. Typical media. First has become more important than having facts, even when four lives are gone and others are never the same.

2-The OP's follow-up of essentially "I know no one knows, but what do you THINK happened?" I can almost guarantee that the published article would have read "we talked to an expert and they said..."

I'm sorry but my respect for the media in all forms is zilch-point-nada. Bodies aren't even cold and all they care about is being the first with the news that the other station/paper/etc doesn't have yet. I get that to some extent this is their job, but professional fact based journalism was abandoned long ago for sensationalism.
 
James331 said:
Scott, I know exactly what caused the crash, rapid deceleration and a moving object meeting a non moving object.



Are you interested in reporting facts,mor just making a "story"?


The NTSB is actually pretty good at fact finding (for a government agency), I'd suggest out of respect for those who lost their lives, you wait until the NTSB releases their findings.
Click to expand...
Number one rule in journalism never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Going out on a limb... nearly 50% of fatal aircraft accidents are found to be pilot error, and just over 5% are due to mechanical or maintenance.
Click to expand...

I thought this 'pilot error' number was more like 88%? Not that I like to blame fellow pilots, just the way it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top