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.
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.
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.)
My impression (with ~20h single-engine, so not exactly an authority) is that while they train single-engine operations, they don't really do it at takeoff exactly because you're close to Vmc, the speed where you don't have enough rudder authority with one engine to keep the plane from going out of control, which would have consequences similar to what happened here.
I believe it was in "Outliers" Malcolm Gladwell claimed that airplane accidents are often the cause of several critical failures, not just one. It would be interesting to find out if that theory holds true in this case, as you seem to be hypothesizing.
Any kind of accident, not just airline accidents are usually the result of more than one failure.
Even simple accidents are usually remarkably complex to piece together and almost always start with a very simple small thing that by itself would not be enough to cause an accident. The follow-up to that first thing is just as important, or possibly even more so.
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.
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.
Although it should be noted that much of the editorialized parts of the story seem to have been added quite a bit after it was submitted. The article is currently 2-3x as long as when I first read it. At least don't blame the OP.
It was Jalopnik otherwise known as the hand that feeds the Top Gear news section. If you read TheRegister you might understand a little. Just because someone dies you shouldn't stop acting like yourself.
If there are rules, the only plausible reason not to announce the rules is so that you can change them without having to give notice. This assumes that the rules haven't been announced, of course; maybe they have.
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.
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.)
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.
It's a car company created in the spirit and likeness of a tech startup by founders who were previously successful tech startup founders. Their upcoming IPO was already evaluated as extremely risky even for an IPO and now they have to deal with this tragedy. I think that it's a combination of all these reasons more than the proximity to silicon valley. If the company were in Germany and in the same situation, I think I'd still be interested in the story and the fallout.
Aside from the power issues affecting Palo Alto and tragic loss of life, such a story is likely to drum up speculation about how the loss of talent will affect Tesla Motors. Seeing as talking about startups (or just popular businesses) in such a fashion happens a lot on HackerNews, I really don't see this story as out of place.
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"
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.
