A quick update on the latest information and explanation about the Cessna turbo 310 crash in Sante Fe that killed a renowned doctor and surgeon. Here's the link to the recreation of this accident: • Backstory Santa Fe Crash
Man you do great analysis of accidents. I have over 2000 hours instructing in light twins, airline pilot now, but it drives me crazy when people think you are guaranteed to be able to climb on one engine on a light twin. I would drive that point home with my students through the drag demo, performance charts, and accident pictures of a light twin looking like a lawn dart with the tail sticking in the air. The pilot got below vmc, probably thinking he would climb, which resulted in loss of directional control and rolling into the dead engine and coming down almost vertically. Probably one of my proudest moments of instructing was when one of my former students lost a engine on a twin and landed at the nearest airport. He had enough altitude, but the best performance he got was a 200-300ft rate of descent. He told me during the emergency he remembered the training that a climb was not guaranteed and to not get get below vmc.
I recently tested this scenario with an instructor out of KEGE in my P-Baron. Previously, I had practiced OEI procedures in a 58P Baron at Simcom. The simulator made the process of returning to the airport very doable, even over GTOW. My instructor wanted to see how my plane would actually perform in a simulated engine-out scenario. I wasn't wild about the idea as I felt that was something that you only practiced in the simulator. The Beech 58P has turbocharged TSIO 520s producing 325HP per side. The right engine was pulled back to 10" MP and 2400 RPM, starting at 500' AGL. The plane was 200 pounds below GTOW. The operative (left) engine was at about 80% power to keep the temps down. Eagle's field elevation is 6545' MSL. There are rocks everywhere. The density altitude was around 9000'. My climb rate, with no more than 5-degree turns, averaged about 200 fpm at Vxse. I had almost no climb rate at Vyse. It was a very humbling experience. A controlled off-field landing should be at the top of every twin pilot's list just as the author has stated. Incidentally, your recent video entitled "Vmc or Die" was the best explanation of Vmc that I have ever heard. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with GA!
I fly a normally aspirated C310F on the east coast. Not too many terrain obstacles to worry about but density altitude does get quite high on hot summer days. Accidents like this are sobering. This pilot "failed the test" when his engine failed. Will I? Recurrent training in one thing. An actual failure is another. Thanks for your no nonsense videos. Your sharp, noir style gets the point across.
This crash reminds me of my instructors advice to keep flying until all the pieces come to a stop. I put this advice to good use in the last hour of my float training with less 100 hours in my logbook. I had a partial engine failure during take off as I cleared the hydro lines at the edge of the lake. A very rough field was my only choice and I mentally prepared myself for the face smashing consequences of flipping the Cessna into a ball of tin foil (no shoulder harnesses). To my great surprise, the abused and failing Franklin engine was still putting out just enough power for level flight. An opening in the forest presented itself and I gingerly nudged the floats between the trees and into the clear with open swamp below. I discovered a very small rate of climb and returned to an uneventful landing on the lake I had started from. The check pilot signed my logbook for my float rating and I set about fixing the engine. I learned a lot about engines and flying that day but the most important thing I learned was the value of my instructors advice to keep the wing flying right into the ground. Maintaining control was essential, not crashing was just a bonus.
Taking off from Santa Fe you would see mountains around you wherever you look. However the Sectional and other terrain maps show pretty flat terrain for some distance beyond the airport on the course he was flying. The first contour shown on the sectional southwest of SF is 5750, actually 600 feet below the departure field and some 15 miles distant. Probably flying low and slow the land appears more bumpy; and there are power lines to the north and south. Point is there appears to be no need to make an immediate turn. The pilot said he wanted to gain altitude and seems to have had the room to try and do so. Wings level is the proper attitude until you know you have excess energy to give up to a maneuver. Stress and panic can lead to strange decisions; and it's good for those of us trying to learn from others' mistakes to remain humble, and consider that what seems clear in the comfort of our homes may look very different when we are in the hot seat.
It would seem from initial reports that he hit the ground with the prop windmilling, which is likened to a plywood disc out there. Tremendous drag. If that’s the case then we know why he was so slow. Gear was apparently up, but if he didn’t feather the dead engine prop that windmilling propeller dragged him to his demise. Your analysis on everything was good…but our jet airline world knows nothing of feathering propellers. I’m an MEI (and recently retired as an LCA on the 787 with 33,000 hours TT). I once had an engine fail in an Aztec with passengers. Got it feathered immediately and shot an ILS to land. Every takeoff should include a crew or self brief of what steps will be taken with an engine failure. Now I fly Citations and my Turbo 210 and do that every time. Keep up the good work. 😊
Are there parallels between the accident in Santa Fe and the accident in Addison TX, where a King Air crashed on a hangar seconds after takeoff? Is there a correlation between Vstall and Vmc? Why I enjoy your channel so much: You have a talent for putting your intellectual finger right on the spot with technical expertise and pointed wording: when the California sports car acts like a pig...and the accidental visit of a Benedict Canyon area resident to a trailer takes place at a location called Holy Faith or just Santa Fe.
Great job. Thank you for the math in the preceeding video. Who woulda thunk a Turbo Twin would be in grave danger with an engine out? Sadly the numbers don't lie. You are doing excellent work.
My theory is he tried to feather but couldn't. On a lot of piston twins there is a lockout that prevents the prop from feathering below a certain prop rpm. Or maybe there was some other failure in the feather mechanism. Possibly when he saw he couldn't maintain altitude by climbing straight out, he thought his drift down rate was minimal enough that he would be able to make it back to the field. However, making a turn greatly increased his sink rate. At the same time he also got too slow and lost directional control.
I’m actually putting something together on that right now. The short answer is that as long as the rudder is “half out of center” towards the operating engine, bank doesn’t substantially increase Vmc. If a pilot cross-controls with opposite bank and excessive rudder, Vmc increases substantially.
I think the controller was suggesting a flight path that would have brought the aircraft around to approach the nearest runway. That would have been runway 33.
All theis explanation sounds pretty logical . But pilots ultimately must build muscle memory out these extreme events in order to react on time and counting on good luck not to crash. The pilot seemed well qualified but probably lacked enough training to overcome the problem .
Most of the advice I hear is "raise the dead," and never turn into the dead engine. I understand in your video that you said the plane would take longer to turn into a good engine. I really don't understand this concept. Is it a bad idea to practice only turning into a good engine if you have the space? How would you practice turning into the dead engine? Since you are under immense stress if an engine fails, maybe only practicing Raise the Dead might be a better option. Your thoughts? Also if you do have to turn into the dead engine how much of a bank would you recommend not exceeding if airspeed was stable? Thanks I like your videos they are very informative.
“Raise the dead” is where the confusion comes in. Not centering the ball (by maintaining half out of center towards the good engine) is all you need to do to ensure that “actual” Vmc is at or below “published” Vmc. The direction of a turn does not meaningfully impact “actual” Vmc speed. If you want to fly a constant heading at ball half center you need a 5 degree bank. That becomes your new “wings level” reference for turns.
The engine may perform better because of the turbo, but what is there to improve the performance of the prop? With thinner air, wouldn’t the prop have to turn faster for more power or increase pitch to make up for the lack of thinner air? I’m just trying to wrap my head around this. Can someone tell me if I’m seeing this right?
Dan did this one Sunday night. His explanation addresses your concerns exactly. And yes, the aircraft as 'turbo normalized', would've done the job just fine at that density/altitude. The pilot was just not prepared for this specific emergency.
There would be a slight drop in performance for the prop reasons you mentioned, but not very much. Lift vs true airspeed is also affected. Performance decreases a bit, but the aircraft should have still had enough power to return for landing.
Even before my multi rating even though nobody told me , i realized that with an engine failure after take off one of my options would be to retard the good engine to idle and take what i got ...in other words trying to fly the plane sometimes may not be the best option...but nobody teaches u that
Question, an engine with normalize Turbo will produce full power, in this case, up to 17’K. Do you know if the prop is producing full thrust? My guess is not. The Turbo helps, no question about it, but the prop is not producing the same thrust due to the density altitud. Is this correct?
The aircraft is RATED/test/validated for single engine performance at this (density) altitude by Cessna. That's what the POH is for. If it weren't, then nobody would be taking off at higher density altitudes.
The engine makes rated power all the way up to 17k. There will be a little loss of thrust by the propeller at higher density altitudes, but not nearly as much as normally aspirated engines experience
all twins? what about the diamond da 62 on the RU-vid videos they simulate a fail engine by cutting it off. does that plane have different flight characteristics that allow it to behave differently then other twins?
I’m not entirely sure what line you’re referring to. Shutting down a twin to simulate an engine failure at a safe altitude isn’t uncommon in training. Doing it at 50 feet on a hot day would be.
@@flyingformoney777 thanks. I was hoping that the case would be that such failure was somehow mitigated by da62's plane design, automated control system, something or some such. ok, well, the laws of physic must be obeyed.
The DA62 is a nice airplane. I don’t know about all its automated features, but I’m sure they help with safety. Vmc limitations will still exist, as will limitations on performance following an engine failure (the DA62 has a single engine service ceiling of 11,000’, which means it has less performance than the turbo Cessna 310-which can go over 17,000’). Better than a non-turbo twin, but still a challenge in the even of an engine failure…
I’d imagine he would have had full tanks to teach the west coast. With 1 POB, how much weight margin could he have had below gross weight/ or performance limited takeoff weight?
Dumb question maybe.. if it was possible to climb with one engine, why not gain enough altitude to make the turn safely and with out doing a 30 degree turn .. I know you have to balance safety with one engine and wanting to land as soon as possible, but would not my observation be the better alternative ? I do not fly just love airplanes
That’s what he should have done. The pilot would have experienced quite a bit of surprise/shock at the failure, and would have been pretty stressed. Unfortunately things seem to have gotten out of control for him.
This is why I watch your videos, to hear your expert opinion on accidents like this. The turbo engines might have lulled the pilot into a false sense of security that he might not have had with the non turbo 310. PS. Your lawsuits for Jab deaths reasoning proves you should just stick to what to you know. Aviation!!
There is a video produced by Beechcraft of a Baron stalling before Vmca is reached. I would describe the result as a violent split S. There is an old adage: you can turbocharge the engine but you can’t turbocharge the wing.
