Link

The harrowing final moments of a small plane that plummeted to the ground Sunday were captured on a dashcam video, as family members have identified one of the five victims in the tragedy.


The Cessna 414 Chancellor crashed in Santa Ana, approximately a mile from John Wayne Airport, in the parking lot of a shopping center, according to Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Arlene Salac. She added the pilot of the aircraft had declared an emergency shortly before the crash.

A driver captured the moment the plane spiraled to the ground on a dashboard camera. People who witnessed the crash said the plane's engine cut out as it fell to the ground.


This photo provided by Eddie Ponsdomenech shows a twin-engine aircraft crashed near the South Coast Plaza shopping center in Santa Ana, Calif., Sunday, Aug. 5, 2018. Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Arlene Salac says the twin-engine Cessna 414 declared an emergency before crashing about a mile (1.6 kilometers) from Orange County's John Wayne Airport. (Eddie Ponsdomenech/PonsMedia via AP)

"My godson and I heard the noise, and then I looked up, and it was already lowering down. It, like, lost control, and it was twirling, and the more twirl, the more lower it came down, and then we heard the bang," Connie Hernandez told ABC7.

All five people on board the aircraft were killed, officials said. One of the victims was identified by family members as 29-year-old Nasim Ghanadan, who is a realtor at Pacific Union and was on the flight for work, KGO-TV reported.


A spokesperson for Pacific Union told KGO-TV that all of the passengers on the flight worked for the company.

No fire = no fuel.

I saw that on the news this morning. Didn't look like much of a "spiral" to me, more like a Dauntless dropping in on the Hiryu.

Isn't it supposed to "glide" after losing power?

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
No fire = no fuel.

I saw that and figured it ran out of gas on approach. Bad calculations on fuel?

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
No fire = no fuel.

Do you mean no fire or explosion upon impact? Could it had been an engine issue causing it to crash but there was limited fuel on board?

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
I saw that on the news this morning. Didn't look like much of a "spiral" to me, more like a Dauntless dropping in on the Hiryu.

Isn't it supposed to "glide" after losing power?

Only if the pilot has a cool head and doesn't freak out and make mistakes.

The planes will glide, some will "fall with style", the nose shouldn't be pointed at the ground. If I had to guess, and I think the no fuel theory seems likely, the pilot ran out of gas and then traded airspeed for glide until there was no airspeed left and stall/spun it. A very wise and old pilot, I believe Bob Hoover, said you fly the plane into the crash and all the way until it stops moving. Never give up, and realize that you may NOT make the airport and come up with another plan...fast.

Crappy deal.

Running out of gas on both engines would be really bad luck.

Judging by where it hit in relation to the airport (one I have landed at hundreds of times) when the engine(s) quit, an emergency was declared, the plane headed straight for the airport. As it descended, and became more and more apparent that it might not make it to the airport, the pilot pulled back further and further to get altitude, resulting in the stall/spin straight nose down.

Maybe there was a fuel management problem. The Cessna twins fuel system is complicated, and gets a lot more complicated when you are close to the ground. No fire, though.

I spent a little over a year working with a friend doing recoveries for insurance companies. Lots of folks do run out of gas (sometimes with fuel onboard, just not in the selected tank) but we picked plenty up that did not involve a fire though there was plenty of fuel on board.

Looking closely at the video, the airplane appears to be rotating to the right while pointing straight down. First thought that comes to mind is that he got slow trying to stretch the glide, stalled while uncoordinated and departed into a spin. Lacking spin recovery training (PARE - Power off, Ailerons neutral, rudder opposite the spin [step on the heavy one], Elevator to break the stall), he panicked and pushed forward on the elevator without applying opposite rudder. Great way to induce an accelerated spin in a single, think of the ice skater pulling her arms in. In a Pitts S2B or a Bellanca Decathlon it just about doubles the apparent rate of rotation. I’d guess the only reason the 414 wasn’t spinning a lot faster is because with the engines on the wing they are closer to the CG than on a single and the pitch change doesn’t change the moment arm from the spin axis as much as it does on a single.

Unfortunate event. There are laws that one can sometimes get away with breaking, but they aren’t typically aerodynamic laws...

I launched an engine in a C-421 once upon a time. Same airframe, bigger engines on the 421. I think this 414 was the short nose variety, which I also flew. I was at altitude and had a severe and sudden oil leak. I shut it down, declared an emergency and took vectors to a good airport with an ILS to a safe landing. The engine required a tear down, crank shaft, bearings, starter adapter and a few other expensive parts.

Speed is your friend, whether you have 2 engines, 1 engine or no engines running. Like Otto said, a controlled crash is always better than an out of control crash. You stand a chance flying it all the way to the ground, but out of control is near 100% fatal.

This was either a VMC rollover or a stall/spin. They look very similar, but results are identical. Very sad.

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
I saw that on the news this morning. Didn't look like much of a "spiral" to me, more like a Dauntless dropping in on the Hiryu.

Isn't it supposed to "glide" after losing power?

Only if the pilot has a cool head and doesn't freak out and make mistakes.

The planes will glide, some will "fall with style", the nose shouldn't be pointed at the ground. If I had to guess, and I think the no fuel theory seems likely, the pilot ran out of gas and then traded airspeed for glide until there was no airspeed left and stall/spun it. A very wise and old pilot, I believe Bob Hoover, said you fly the plane into the crash and all the way until it stops moving. Never give up, and realize that you may NOT make the airport and come up with another plan...fast.

Crappy deal.

My first thought was, after running out of fuel, the pilot stalled it and desperately trying to get some lift.

quote:

Link

The Cessna 414 has poor single-engine performance. There's a modified version by RAM that improves performance, but also makes a departure from controlled flight more rapid and pronounced due to greater differential thrust.

A multi engine airplane has thrust which is not along the centerline of the aircraft; it's out on the wing, which means that if the thrust is not symmetrical on both wings, the airplane will yaw...turn and bank...toward the dead engine. There is a certain speed, depending on weight, center of gravity, temperature, etc, at which directional control can no longer be maintained. This speed, usually referred to as "Vmc" is a point at which full rudder wont' stop the yaw and roll, and the airplane will depart controlled flight in a turning and rolling motion in the direction of the failed engine. The result is a descending, rolling turn, which is what's seen in the video.

Light twins don't lose 50% of their performance after an engine failure; they lose up to 80% of their performance, and depending on the aircraft and its' weight, pressure altitude, outside temperature, etc, the aircraft often cannot maintain altitude. The aircraft will drift down, and the common joke is that the other engine is there to get the airplane to the scene of the crash.

The 414 doesn't do well on one engine. Of all the Cessna light twins, it's got the worst performance. The 421 has terrible single engine performance, but the 414 is considerably worse on one engine.

The 414 has bit of a complicated fuel system, each wing with a main and aux tank, and often a very small wing locker fuel cell behind the engine nacelle. A takeoff on that tank or on minimal fuel, or simply fuel switching or mismanagement can result in a failure shortly after takeoff.

Most light airplane pilots today are taught, wrongly, to switch fuel tanks to the fullest tank prior to departure. It's a dangerous practice that's almost universally taught by instructors and on most checklists for light airplanes, and it's very poor airmanship.

I've seen a lot of 414 owners/pilots run the aux tank dry, instead of switching tanks before it runs dry (by timing the tank); the engine fails and the airplane yaws into the failed engine. Most of the time this happens in cruise, as one should not take off on that tank, but it's possible to do so with a short fuel supply available.

If an engine fails, airspeed must be maintained above Vmc; if speed falls below that necessary to maintain directional control, the airplane absolutely will depart controlled flight and the only possibility for recovery is to retard the power on the good engine. The 414 has tip tanks, which puts considerable mass with fuel at the wingtips, which means that once a rotation is started in a Vmc roll, it will be very difficult to stop with aircraft flight controls; a departure will require considerable altitude to effect recovery.

As someone else noted, commonly a lack of fire in a crash of this nature indicates lack of fuel. If an aircraft has lack of fuel, that would certainly account for the engine failure, but the departure from controlled flight is on the pilot.

As with all aircraft mishaps, speculation on the cause should wait until the facts are in, as the result of an investigation. The above comments regard light twins in general, and just what was actually seen on the video. I won't speculate as to what actually occurred.

It's not uncommon in mishaps involving light twins to find them overloaded, with the center of gravity off, which often means a higher minimum control speed. An attempt to maintain altitude with an engine failed, when the airplane cannot maintain altitude on one engine, will result in airspeed loss and eventual loss of directional control. Likewise, an attempt to turn too steeply (eg, a return back to the runway) with an engine out can increase angle of attack (angle of airflow approaching the wing) to a stall angle very rapidly; with an engine out a stalling control departure will happen at a much higher speed than anticipated, and may occur much more rapidly than one expects. Add to that inexperience or low time, and the potential is there to not recognize or control the situation. Again, not speculating on this particular case, but this is common in light twin loss of control situations.

The FlightAware track shows it on a track from Concord southerly to near Catalina before turning towards John Wayne, to what seems to be a right downwind to 20R.

No idea when the emergency was declared, or why, of course.

The 414 is easy to fly with an engine-out, so long as airspeed is maintained, when in cruise flight or with adequate altitude. On takeoff, there's a high probability of putting it down on or just past the runway, with an engine failure at or close to lift-off.

If the aircraft is allowed to stall or depart controlled flight (eg, Vmc roll), then it's got a glide angle approaching 90 degrees, the glide ratio of a set of car keys, and is not an easy airplane to fly. It's got short wings, is fairly short coupled, and not a lot of rudder. Aileron use can aggravate the spiral or spin.

If the failed engine is shut down and propeller feathered, it's controllable with a fairly mild descent with one engine still turning (operative). So long as one holds off applying flap until necessary, and with holding gear until close, it's fine.

It's not uncommon to see pilots try to move quickly in a perceived emergency, often making it worse. I've seen people feather the wrong engine, or shut down the wrong engine on a number of occasions in the training environment, and a few times outside the training environment. Getting wrapped up with fuel management radio calls, and cockpit duties, instead of flying the airplane can result in a fairly quick loss of airspeed and departure from controlled flight.

Of course, it's possible that something occurred with the flight beyond normal or abnormal operations. Open nose baggage door, structural issues, assymetric flap, propeller governor failure, flight control failure, etc; or any number of other possibilities could complicate or prevent recovery.

sns3guppy's post above is why statistically speaking, singles are a lot safer than twins.

Sure, in "theory" if one engine fails you have a spare to provide more time/distance to a safe landing. In practice, it often doesn't work out that way for many reasons.

Yet another one is psychology, with an engine still working, the pilot may not think the situation is as dire as it is (or is about to be). With a single, if it goes out you have no choice but to immediately trim her for best glide speed and start looking for the best place to put down (while still working the engine problem...which is probably *cough* fuel starvation).

In the larger picture, There are a lot more twins than singles, and when flown professionally, the twin is considerably safer. It's not the engines or the airplane, but rather the way in which it's operated.

Multi engine twins use additional engines for performance; speed and climb performance (as the formula for climb performance is excess thrust), but they also offer redundancy in electrical generation, hydraulics, pneumatics, instrumentation, etc.

People often think of single engine airplanes in terms of engine failure, but most are lacking in they have less instrumentation and capability, reduced anti-ice/de-ice (or none), less redundancy in electrical and instrument power, and so forth.

A light twin can be flown safely if one plans for each possibility.

Even a complete engine failure due to exhaustion or starvation requires correct procedure, feathering both propellers, airspeed, holding off on gear and flaps, etc, for any chance at success; in that respect it's no different than most other light aircraft, but offers lower glide and a faster landing speed...and it's that faster forced landing speed due to weight and aerodynamics that means more kinetic energy on landing. Of course, one must get that far, as opposed to a loss of control before making it to the landing.

Statistically speaking a lot more people fly on multi engine aircraft, with far fewer mishaps and incidents, than single engine aircraft. One doesn't see a lot of airline or corporate single-engine operation, after all.

^^^^

The statistic I saw was for private aviation. That they are safer on the commercial side makes sense with Pros at the yoke.

When I got my multi engine rating to fly the Turbo 310R, I was convinced that the biggest, or at least a very big, factor in safe operation was recent currency. You just have to know how to do everything, be very familiar with how it all works, all the procedures, in case.

With the Mooneys, this was much less a factor. With the Malibu and Mirage I went to after the Cessna twin, it was nearly as big a factor. Having tried both, I think twins ought to be avoided by nonprofessional pilots.

Not a pro pilot, I felt like I had to have 10 hours minimum in the last 30 days, or get an instructor until I did. I also avoided IFR minimum departures and night departures all the time. A pro pilot might not have that luxury, I imagine.

This worked out OK. I always felt like I was on top of the airplane, free to make other judgments about the flight, weather, routing, fuel, etc. Of course, I was never really tested for the most part, except a few times, like the night, raining, gusting, quartering tailwind landing where after I had managed to bring the Encore to a stop still on the concrete, the tower asked if I required assistance, very exciting. I flew the Mirage too close to thunderstorms once, but survived. I lost instrumentation in the Mirage on two occasions, both VMC, thankfully.

Currency is very important, as all aviation skills are perishable. Three weeks out of the cockpit, and I feel it, and it shows.

The broader and greater the individual experience base, the greater the pool to draw from so far as addressing an abnormal or emergency situation, or making judgement and calls in general. The same is true of training; the more extensive the training background, the deeper the pool for selecting correct choices and outcomes. Neither experience nor training is immunity by any means, but they do increase one's ability to address a problem, fly the airplane, and make correct decisions regarding weather, navigation, go/no-go, emergencies, mechanical irregularities, and so on.

You're absolutely right about thunderstorms. They ought be avoided at all costs. In a former life, one of my jobs was atmospheric research; specifically thunderstorm penetration. My assignment was flying a turbojet airplane into thunderstorms, equipped with sensors and test gear, for research purposes. My feeling on that today is that I never want to go near or into another thunderstorm for the remainder of my natural life, however long that may be. There are forces inside, and outside, that far exceed any aircraft's capability, or a pilot's ability to cope. I have been rolled over, stalled, slammed, beaten up, iced, lightning-struck, and hurt in them, and there are things inside that are far worse than what I encountered. Bad ju-ju. We did get some very valuable data, though.

The greater the problem or the more challenging the conditions, the more important it is to stay within limitations and to follow procedures. Most of them are written with extensive research, testing, and effort, and many are crafted in blood from mistakes and fatalities that went before. I always try to learn from the lessons of others, than to forge my own.

Aviation is an unforgiving business, as this event shows. Especially with light civil twins with cantankerous fuel systems flow by people who grew up driving push to start automatic transmission cars that do it all for you.

Not dangerous, but if you don’t know what you are doing or aren’t proficient, they can eat your ass in a heartbeat.

There is no hard data to prove one way or the other if 2 engines are safer than 1. The biggest part is the missing data. Most successful one engine inoperative landings are not reported. Most single engine airplanes that have a failure are reported since bent metal is likely.