

3 Tesla workers die in E. Palo Alto plane crash - pg
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/17/BA391C32O5.DTL

======
sean12345
I see two possibilities: pilot loss of control due to disorientation caused by
IMC conditions and subsequent powered flight into the ground or an engine
failure. A loaded Cessna 310 has very poor climb performance with a single
engine running. Probably an engine failure is the likely cause with the poor
weather inhibiting the pilot's ability to make an off runway landing in the
marsh.

~~~
cameldrv
I agree that those are the two likely possibilities. Given that the pilot was
pretty experienced, and was a multi-engine instructor, I'd say that
disorientation is less likely.

On a cold day at sea level, the 310 should be able to get at least 200fpm. The
book number is about 300fpm. However, they may not have been going fast enough
to get book performance, and a plane that old usually can't make nearly the
book numbers. They hit at about .3nm from the end of the runway, significantly
left of the extended centerline, and at an altitude of about 100 feet. That
would be consistent with a climb rate of about 150-200fpm.

My guess is that the left engine failed. The left engine is the critical
engine, and so the plane would have very strongly wanted to turn left. It
would have been slow having just taken off, and so the pilot probably had to
turn to keep his speed up and maintain a positive climb rate. He probably
either forgot about the power lines, or was just hoping to clear them since he
couldn't see them.

Sadly, this is probably just another instance of the second engine being just
enough to get you to the scene of the crash.

~~~
mynameishere
Do pilots train flying 2-engined planes in emergency (ie, 1-engine)
conditions?

~~~
cameldrv
Yes, they do. The supposed advantage of a twin engine plane is that you can
fly if one quits. The FAA makes you demonstrate that you can handle the plane
on one engine before they turn you loose with a twin-engined plane, but the
unfortunate reality is that the fatal accident rate for twin engined (small,
piston) planes is worse than singles. The problem is that the probability of
an engine failure is twice as high in a twin as in a single. In a single, if
the engine quits, you're a glider, and the plane is fairly straightforward to
handle. As long as you don't hit anything too solid, you'll be OK if you keep
the plane under control through the landing. In a twin though, you have to do
everything just right, or you can end up out of control and hit the ground
nose down and die.

In most light twin planes, both props turn the same direction, and so the
plane has a natural left-turning tendency when climbing. If the left engine
goes out, you're in a very bad situation, because now the plane really wants
to go to the left. If you indulge it, you don't get to go where you want. If
you don't, you may get a worse climb rate (which is already very bad.)

~~~
nradov
Why don't they spin the props opposite directions?

~~~
Daniel_Newby
It would make props and many engine parts non-interchangeable, significantly
increasing capital and maintenance costs.

------
mingdingo
What happened to the old article that was just here? It seems the points
remain but the comments are all gone. Also, it's been reposted by pg...

~~~
jrockway
The other article was tripe. People were upvoting based on worthiness of the
story, not on the particular writing at the original site. Now everyone can
read actual facts and come up with their own opinions.

~~~
jazzychad
So, I submitted the original story. When it was submitted, the article on the
page was much different that what it appears to be now. I just came back from
lunch to find my submission "overridden". In this case I don't mind because of
the situation, and I would rather have an article with more journalistic
integrity take center stage, but there were some good comment threads going on
the original submission. However, it did seem odd that it happened.

~~~
aquadoctorbob
I find your previous comment humorously prophetic in light of this :)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1132225>

~~~
jazzychad
heh.. yeah. which is actually why I'm not upset that it got reposted.

------
SpacemanSpiff
Godspeed. Don't know if many readers here are also pilots, but it's always sad
to see something like this happen to a fellow aviator. I've flown 310's quite
a bit and they can be a handful on a single engine - although I will refrain
from speculating about the crash further. Incidentally it's possible to track
the investigation using the NTSB website: <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp>
The accident synopsis will be available online as soon as they update their
database. My condolences.

~~~
sokoloff
FAA's AAI site will have the "just the facts" version of the report far sooner
than the NTSB. (In all likelihood, it will be on the FAA site tomorrow.)

[http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/prelimina...](http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/preliminary_data/)

~~~
SpacemanSpiff
Interesting. Thanks.

------
aw3c2
As sorry as I am for those who are affected, I just do not see the relevance
for this site. People die every day. People in startups die every day. Is this
special because it is in the news, because it was a spectacular death?

Actually I find it highly questionable to draw attention to these kinds of
incidents.

~~~
axod
Well despite being a very sad event, it affects many people here - Power is
out all over Palo Alto.

~~~
aw3c2
Ah, now I get it. Palo Alto = Silicon Valley. Ok, that explains the attention.

~~~
jacquesm
And even if that wasn't the case Tesla Motors is followed closely by quite a
few people here.

------
neurotech1
Not sure if its been posted, but the names of the victims have been released
by Mercury News.

"The Mercury News has learned through sources close to the company that the
deceased are: Doug Bourn, 56, of Santa Clara, a senior electrical engineer;
Andrew Ingram, 31, of Palo Alto, an electrical engineer; and Brian M. Finn,
42, of East Palo Alto; a senior manager of interactive electronics"

[http://www.mercurynews.com/top-
stories/ci_14425582?nclick_ch...](http://www.mercurynews.com/top-
stories/ci_14425582?nclick_check=1)

------
slay2k
Better article:

<http://www.mercurynews.com/business-headlines/ci_14416855>

This is depressing.

------
faramarz
One of the people on video said it well "we're very vulnerable without power."

Coincidently, Elon Musk's focus has partly been addressing that.

~~~
pyre
I'm curious as to what you mean. I don't see Tesla Motors/Paypal/SpaceX as
addressing that. Tesla Motors might be addressing, "we're vulnerable without
gasoline or oil," but not electricity.

~~~
faramarz
I'm mostly referring to his SolarCity business/investment.

------
alttab
Did anyone else see this and think "I wonder if it was a job?"

Maybe I have too much Reddit in me, but damn.

RIP and respect.

~~~
walkon
Huh? You think they were knocked off by big oil companies?

