Sunday, September 04, 2022

Beechcraft 58 Baron, N142DR: Fatal accident occurred September 04, 2022 in Galt, Sacramento County, California

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. 

Investigator In Charge (IIC): Salazar, Fabian

The National Transportation Safety Board travelled to the scene of this accident.

Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Sacramento, California 

Location: Galt, California
Accident Number: WPR22FA332
Date and Time: September 4, 2022, 08:50 Local
Registration: N142DR
Aircraft: Beech 58 
Injuries: 2 Fatal
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Instructional

On September 4, 2022, about 0850 Pacific daylight time, a Beech BE-58 airplane, N142DR was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Galt, California. The flight instructor and pilot receiving instruction were fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight.

Multiple witnesses, who were hunting about one mile from the accident site, reported seeing the airplane spinning. One witness stated that “it was not nose down but more flat.” Another witness stated there was no engine noise.

Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) captured the airplane as it departed McClellan Airfield (MCC) Sacramento, California about 0707. The airplane the flew direct to Calaveras County Airport (CPU), San Andreas, California, at an altitude of 4,500 feet mean sea level (msl). The airplane arrived at CPU about 0726 and then departed to the northwest. The airplane climbed to an altitude of 3,000 ft, maintained about 180 knots, and arrived at Modesto City-County Airport (MOD), Modesto, California, about 0750. The airplane then proceeded to Tracy Municipal Airport (TCY), Tracy, California, and arrived about 0810. The airplane then departed TCY, climbed to an altitude of 4,500 ft, maintained about 180 knots, and proceeded to the north. About 0835, the airplane performed about a 360° turn to the right followed by a 360° turn to the left. After the two turns the airplane maintained 4,600 ft and continued to the northeast. About 0837, the airplane’s ground speed began to slow from 168 knots to 87 knots, and maintained about 4,600 ft, then increased its speed to 149 knots. About 0839, the airplane began to decelerate again. One minute later, while the airplane was decelerating through 100 knots, it began a left turn. The last ADS-B data points captured the airplane as it continued to decelerate and descend in a left turn. The last data point captured at 0841 recorded the airplane at an altitude of 400 feet msl (figure 1).

The airplane came to rest on a magnetic heading of 270°, in a narrow slough mostly covered with aquatic vegetation. There was no ground scar leading into the water, and only the vegetation immediately around the airplane appeared disturbed. All major components remained attached to the airplane except for the left propeller, which separated from the engine at the crankshaft flange. The one-piece windshield was shattered, and the cabin structure was displaced slightly over the left wing. The underside of the fuselage and both wings exhibited substantial upward crushing throughout. The empennage exhibited minor damage. Both engines remained attached to the wings and both propellers were feathered.

The airplane was recovered to a secure facility for further examination.



Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Make: Beech 
Registration: N142DR
Model/Series: 58 
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Amateur Built:
Operator: 
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Operator Designator Code:

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: VMC
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: KSAC,19 ft msl 
Observation Time: 08:53 Local
Distance from Accident Site: 14 Nautical Miles 
Temperature/Dew Point: 25°C /13°C
Lowest Cloud Condition: Clear
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 5 knots / , 290°
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility: 10 miles
Altimeter Setting: 29.9 inches Hg
Type of Flight Plan Filed:
Departure Point:
Destination:

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 2 Fatal
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: 
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 Fatal
Latitude, Longitude: 38.30462,-121.35155

Those who may have information that might be relevant to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation may contact them by email witness@ntsb.gov, and any friends and family who want to contact investigators about the accident should email assistance@ntsb.gov. You can also call the NTSB Response Operations Center at 844-373-9922 or 202-314-6290. 

Aircraft crashed in orchard under unknown circumstances. 

Date: 04-SEP-22
Time: 15:50:00Z
Regis#: N142DR
Aircraft Make: BEECH
Aircraft Model: 58
Event Type: ACCIDENT
Highest Injury: FATAL
Total Fatal: 2
Flight Crew:  1
Pax: 1
Activity: PERSONAL
Flight Phase: EN ROUTE (ENR)
Operation: 91
Aircraft Missing: No
Damage: SUBSTANTIAL
City: GALT
State: CALIFORNIA

 Kenneth Mueller and Richard Conte
~




Two men, including a Raley's executive and the supermarket company's pilot, died when their Beechcraft 58 Baron plane crashed near Galt less than 20 minutes after taking off from Tracy Municipal Airport on Sunday.

The crash happened at an orchard near Christensen and Twin Cities roads in Galt, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

A report of the crash came in at 8:54 a.m., Sacramento County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Sgt. Kionna Rowe said.

"The caller advised that they saw a small plane go down and heard a loud sound," Rowe said.

The Cosumnes Fire Department and deputies with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office responded to the call, Rowe said. When authorities arrived at the scene, they located the aircraft in a "marshy area" inside of a private orchard.

Both victims, identified as 56-year-old Kenneth Mueller of El Dorado Hills and 68-year-old Richard Conte of Orangevale, were pronounced dead at the scene, according to Rowe.

Chelsea Minor, a spokeswoman for Raley's, said Mueller was the company's chief financial officer and Conte was its chief pilot.

"Our organization is deeply saddened and heartbroken," Minor said on Monday. "At this time, we are focused on supporting their families, friends and our colleagues."

The Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board are investigating the cause of the crash.

Attempts to reach Tracy Municipal Airport for comment were unsuccessful.



68 comments:

  1. Per CBS 13 Sacramento: “The coroner's office says 56-year-old Kenneth Mueller and 68-year-old Richard Conte were killed in the crash over the weekend.“ Richard Conte was a well known DPE, and was the DPE for my PPL checkride

    Per Flightaware N142DR, Left KTCY 11:23AM, flew north, reached 4,500’, did a right and a left 360 (training, check ride?), and at 11:40AM, fell out of the sky at a rate exceeding 4000 FPM. Whatever it was, it was sudden and catastrophic.

    https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N142DR/history/20220904/1523Z/KTCY/L%2038.30481%20-121.35152/tracklog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard did my PPL and IR rides :(

      Delete
    2. Did my PPL also 2 years ago. Can’t believe this happened.

      Delete
  2. Richard was a very accomplished pilot. Known for his thorough check rides. I’ve flown with him several times. He was the guy who could “fly the crate the plane came in”. A truly astonishing tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. very tragic, he was my DPE for my MEI... Rich was a strait shooter to the point, cool calm and collected. Baron a tuff plane for slow flight/ training etc...@ 4500ft... not much time to recover stall in twin. RIP... Condolences to both family, both men helped many people to achieve their dreams/career.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I flew with Rich for over 40 years. I could write a book on some of the adventures we had. I have had the privilege of flying with many famous pilots. Rich was the best. I use to kid him about the Barron being the only airplane built where you could do everything right and still crash. If anybody in the world could have saved this airplane it would of been him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From the track log it looks like they were doing training starting with a steep turn right, then left, followed by low speed maneuvering and something went horribly wrong on the second low speed maneuver.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm always amazed that GA seems to have as many deaths that occur during training maneuvers as there are on actual planned flights. And they always seem to happen at relatively low altitudes. Why not give yourself another 3-4000 feet as a safety zone?

      Delete
    2. It sure looks like a flat spin. Another ten-thousand feet may not have made any difference.

      Delete
  6. Another question I have is, did this Baron have dual controls fitted? May their souls rest in peace and condolences to the loved ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If this is the same barron N142DR I looked at that Rich was flying several months ago it did have dual controls

      Delete
    2. Here is a link to a photo of the panel in N142 DR. It had dual controls.

      https://media.sandhills.com/n142dr-1985-beechcraft-58-baron/img.axd?id=1021590366&wid=6072144879&rwl=False&p=&ext=&w=614&h=460&t=&lp=&c=True&wt=False&sz=Max&rt=0&checksum=jrrPiiVMxzwTmsG%2fpBN3%2fAn%2fcbRanPB7Bwmk0gUQm2Q%3d

      Delete
  7. Richard Conte could fly just about anything. Jets, Seaplanes, helicopters. I knew him to be an excellent pilot who emphasized safety in all his flight operations. He will be missed. RIP

    ReplyDelete
  8. RIP, sudden losses are hard to understand and accept.

    Wonder why a corporate officer non prof need flying one?

    side note, in 2022, why are light piston twins still sought for regional corporate use?
    from planandpilot "The fact is, putting a twin in the hangar doesn't double the ownership cost of a single; it easily triples it or more."

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just had my commercial multi engine checkride on the 8/15 and he was very throw on Vmc. He was a great pilot and will be missed. My condolences to the family’s.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rest In Peace Richard & Ken.

    Richard was the best guy in aviation. Always willing to help others. Always ready with a smile and cheer. One of the nicest people I’ve ever known. They both will be sorely missed. Our condolences go out to the family’s and friends of Richard & Ken.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Richard Conte has inspired me through thick and thin. He is the definition of experience and as professionalism. But more, so much more than that, he trained, inspired, and put his soul into the general aviation community in the Sacramento area and beyond. He coached so many of us who otherwise would be safe, confident flying professionals today.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And yes. That last comment had a Manhattan in front of it. I am so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe simulating an engine-out?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bad news. Sounds like the guys were well liked. RIP

    Wreckage impact looks like the result of a fairly flat spin to the left.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have only been a licensed pilot since September. 1971, but I will tell you that your evaluation is spot on. They ran out of air, in my opinion, and yours.
      Training in real airplanes is becoming somewhat irrelevant. I have become a fan of technology. Real stuff should be relegated to the end of training, not the beginning.

      Delete
    2. I agree that the wreckage looks like they were in a flat spin. There was similar Baron crash, though not a 58, in Texas in 2001. VMC training resulting in a flat spin with no recovery. [Oct 4 2001, N8164R Accident Number: FTW02FA004]

      Delete
    3. I had heard from a friend that in a spin, the cowlings when rotated will create lift and hold the nose up, keeping it in a flat spin.

      Delete
  15. Richard was well known DPE / CFII in the Sacramento area based at KMCC. Even though he was the chief pilot for private company, I'm inclined to conclude this was some sort of training / dual given flight and he was not the pilot flying with all due respect to the other pilot.

    The day before, a very similar track was flown from Tracy to KMCC. About 10nm west of Galt there are two 360s in opposite direction followed by two slow speed maneuvers at about 3000ft where ground speed slows to less than 80kts followed by altitude and airspeed recovery. The day before the accident: https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a0aa79&lat=38.513&lon=-121.493&zoom=9.0&showTrace=2022-09-03

    On day of the accident, while apparently executing the same maneuver in the same area as the previous day, the pilot flying does the same two 360s followed by two slow speed maneuvers at about 4500ft. While trying to recover from the second slow speed maneuver the plane perhaps experiences a stall from which recovery was not possible? We'll wait to see what the investigation reveals.
    https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a0aa79&lat=38.285&lon=-121.365&zoom=13.4&showTrace=2022-09-04&timestamp=1662306001

    ReplyDelete
  16. From pictures It does look like a clockwise flat spin based on how the tail came to rest. The right propeller looks to be feathered which could indicate engine out training. We flew a B55 for 10 years and it was critical to understand that Baron's are not recoverable from a flat spin. The tail simply is not big enough and air flow is blanked out if in a flat spin. Horrible tragedy, God speed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually it appears to have been in a spin to the left … counterclockwise as viewed from above. Descending basically vertical while rotating in a very slight nose down pitch. First contact is the nose/props/engines and the impact causes those to deflect to the right slightly as the impact stops rotation quickly. The tail continues to rotate as the main portion of the aircraft comes to a sudden stop. If you look at the LH horizontal stabilizer/elevator you can see that it sheared vegetation as it continued its rotation counter clockwise.

      Delete
    2. Also … the right wing appears to have wrinkles forward of the spar and the left wing aft of the spar supporting counter clockwise.

      Bad news.

      Delete
  17. It appears as if the airplane was in a level attitude (flat spin) with high vertical energy. Both engines were displaced to their right and the aft fuselage also bends towards the right (facing forward). This suggests the impact occurred while rotating horizontally but moving to left with sufficient energy to cause that damage. A spin creates centrifugal force so if it was spinning to the right, that force might have caused it to impact with some sideways motion towards its left. Minimal ground scarring indicates almost no movement after impact. Right elevator appears full up. Right aileron deflected up, but hard to tell position of left aileron from picture (probably down). The left horizontal stabilizer and elevator do not appear in the picture (absence may be significant). The nose appears heavily damaged and possibly deflected slightly to the right. I think the missing cabin roof may have been removed to extract the victims. As someone mentioned, the right propeller may be feathered (I can’t tell).

    It’s a real mystery how a long time instructor/DPE with so many years of experience can get into a predicament like this. DPEs are trained and directed by FAA to take control before a maneuver becomes dangerous. They are usually unfamiliar with the applicant who is expected to demonstrate competence on their own. That doesn’t mean an applicant can’t make such a mistake that an airplane immediately becomes uncontrollable as appears the case here. Dual controls are required for FAA practical tests, incidentally.

    (Note: At this point, it has not been factually disclosed the purpose of the accident flight)

    Instruction is different. An instructor has to expect student mistakes and then manage those within a safe flight envelope. You have to train and ensure a student understands and can handle maneuvers required for a rating or certificate. That means there will be more mistakes during training. They cannot be avoided, although the instructor is still responsible to intervene when necessary. I wonder if this may have been a training scenario where the student was struggling and the instructor may have wanted to demonstrate “what this twin engine airplane does”, maybe a little too aggressively. It’s at least of some interest that the DPE/Instructor knew the other pilot and was reported to be an employee of the company.

    My observations are no more or less valid than any others and derive from reading the information in this report along with the pictures. In other words I could be wrong and in any case, we need to await an investigation. As an active instructor, I want to learn from an accident and this website is really good at providing food for thought. Along with others, I offer condolences to the family and friends of these two pilots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Several years ago I was training a ATP pilot in his new purchase of a 55. I got bit in a snap entry into a spin. Owning a Pitts S1S I'm no stranger to aerobatics. The airplane took several turns before recovery. We landed, I grabbed the parachute ou of the Pitts and went up alone to 10,000ft. After exploring the 55's single engine personality I never got in a Baron again. The 58 with VG's would be worse. After that I always referred to the Baron as the only airplane you could do everything right and still crash. Rich new what I thought of the Baron. I believe he did everything right. Except he was flying a 58.

      Delete
    2. What is it about the Baron that scared you, or what is it about the plane that is different to other twins? SE pilot here trying to understand.

      Delete
    3. The width of the elevator, it's not wide enough. In the flat spin thrust from the engines over the elevator must be attained in order to raise the tail. It's a bad design and we flew a B55 for 10 years. A Cessna 310 for example has a massive elevator and was designed as a twin. It will recover with no issue but the Baron is really a straight tail Bonanza with two engines. Why they never fixed this is baffling? There are a number of Baron fatal flat spins over the years, very sad.

      Delete
  18. I just wrote above before reading comments just previous. Their analysis of spin in left direction makes more sense. Missing stabilizer/elevator may be under the left wing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Not sure but it looks like the left elevator/stab is actually still attached but under what was tall vegetation

    ReplyDelete
  20. I did two check rides with Richard and he was kind enough to always offer sage advice despite his busy schedule. Fantastic pilot; super knowledgeable about so many aircraft. A crushing blow. I’m sure I will instinctively pick up my phone to want to email him countless times in the future, only to realize that’s not possible. I hope the ntsb will really try to figure out what happened. Even if Richard wasn’t flying at the time, I just can’t imagine this is simple pilot error accident.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Like many people, I’m grappling with the fact that his very nice man I spent half a day with to earn my PPL, opening the world of aviation to me, is no longer with us. In addition to losing such a well-loved member of our aviation community, I’m stunned that such an experienced and versatile pilot couldn’t get himself out of this situation. I think we all want to know how exactly this tragedy unfolded so we can never find ourselves in this situation, and hope the NTSB can find some good answers in time :-/.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I have read there is no doubt that these were great guys and that the CP/DPE was a sharp pilot.

      This is a reminder that flying is very unforgiving and the consequences can be dire. After all, we are all human and humans can make mistakes.

      So far I have been lucky.

      Delete
    2. “Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.”

      Nothing in life risk free, and I think we all know there is risk every time we step behind those controls. We also know that vast majority of that risk is mitigated through common sense, diligence, planning and understanding personal limitations but the key is knowing what the risks are. Whether it was the pilot, plane or maneuver (which was repeated from the day before, and possibly many times before) *something* happened. If anything, I hope the NTSB we can figure out the lesson learned here so we all can avoid this scenario, and perhaps provide some meaning for their deaths.

      Delete
    3. You are spot on … like I said, I have been lucky … and I am thankful for that luck.

      Delete
  22. According to flightaware, the day before the accident they had an identical flight to the accident flight. The last flight of the day on Sept 3rd from Tracy to McClellan, the pilots performed steep turns and then 2 maneuvers which dropped their speed by about 70 kt both times. The next day during the accident flight they performed the same steep turns in almost the exact spot as the day before. They completed the same maneuver as yesterday's flight afterwards, in the same location as before and again dropping their speed to around 90 kt before recovering back to 150 kt. The ADSB data drops off during their second speed decreasing maneuver, again in the same exact location as yesterday's final flight. May be possible they were giving a show to family/friends on the ground, or maybe they were just particular about when/where they do maneuvers. Rest in peace to both, the circumstances of this accident leave me with a lot of questions.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Low-time pilots kill themselves due to inexperience, pros due to complacency.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The ability to PUSH the nose down after stalling is not in everybody. Some cant, and even do a Panic Pull.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the nose will go down after a stall without your help. You're thinking of an engine out on takeoff.

      Delete
    2. Before a stall (or at) the appropriate response to recovery if there is a loss of directional control in this airplane is to bring BOTH THROTTLES TO IDLE. There is no other response that will not kill you.

      Delete
    3. The nose will drop in a stall, your job is to push the control wheel forward to break the stall...

      Delete
    4. I’m guessing that you guys haven’t read the Colgan Air 3407 accident report.

      Delete
    5. The actions of the Colman pilots were strangely similar to the recovery from a tail plane stall procedure

      Delete
  25. How about the PF got done with steep turns and slow flight, started a Vmc demo, pitched up below Vmc which caused the aircraft to start rolling, bank increased causing stall speed to increase, aircraft stalled, and because it was in uncoordinated flight, it entered a spin. Rich probably did the right thing to recover from the spin, but the spin was flat and non-recoverable due to design shortcomings in the Baron.

    It only takes a few seconds too long leaving the operating engine running and nose up in the VMC demo to generate a bank angle that will stall the aircraft, spinning it if in uncoordinated flight. Since spins are prohibited in multi-engine aircraft, we have to leave a margin of error for a PF in training or checking to do the wrong thing without causing the emergency they are demonstrating how to avoid. If you own a Baron and want to train Vmc demos, do it in a Duchess where you can recover a spin like the guys on youtube.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I also might add one additional factor. Instructing your “boss” who you have a personal, professional(he signs your paycheck), and emotional connection. As a surgeon, there is a reason why we refer patients whom we deem we have too “personal connections”. Might the instructor be slightly hesitant to grab the controls in a situation that needed an emergency response? My best instructors were “friends, family, employees”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction, my best instructors were NOT friends, family or employees.

      Delete
  27. FYI: The photos show the accident AFTER the first responder pulled the aircraft out of that stream behind it. Audio of the fire department relays the information that the first responders had to "swim" to the aircraft to get to the occupants. The stream doesn't look that deep, but with the plane nose sitting against the bank, would put the cockpit right in that stream. Also, in the wide shot, check out that big dark gash in the vegetation (left of stream) and the, what appears to be, skid marks in the soil further left in the photo. Wish the shot was bit wider (to the left). Be interesting to see what the FAA guys learned in that area. Also Richard was a family member and I flew with him on a trip to California back in 2010. As others have said, he was an excellent pilot, with 50 years experience, and it's hard to imagine a situation he couldn't turn around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From a reliable source, those tracks in the dirt around the plane were made by the emergency vehicles attending the scene. Not from the plane itself.

      Delete
  28. We cannot use the top view photo for evidence of the spin rotation. Need first responders photographs to help determine the direction. However...

    How about the PF began a typical, textbook, Vmc demo, left propeller windmilling and creating yaw producing disc drag. PF pitched up slightly below Vmc which caused the aircraft to start yaw rolling to the left (usual Vmc maneuver demo). The CFI may well have immediately retarded the power on the running engine (right side). Left engine prop windmilling, right engine prop at high power setting suddenly is reduced. The C/S prop tries to maintain the RPM as it's pitch flattens out. This flattening out creates a whole lot of disc drag which WILL yaw/roll the airplane very quickly to the right. This increases the stall speed and rotational rate due to the propellers high drag. The stall occurs and the aerodynamic lift of the cowls help keep the pitch up just enough to let the full stall develop during the rotation around the yaw axis. Bang, an unrecoverable flat spin develops. Investigated three such-- Travelaire-- 2 souls; BE-18 with 13 parachutists and a Baron with 6 souls on board. All occupants were fatally injured. 21 nice people snuffed out because of a fouled up procedure.

    Too rapid of a power reduction at the critical Vmc juncture will cause the flat spin to occur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Puzzling for the CFI to lose control recovering from the PF's actions if you consider Cassie's post about the accident day appearing to be a repeat of the previous day.

      Performing the same profile and control steps on the 4th as were done on the 3rd would not be expected to produce a significantly different response that got away from the student and no recovery by the CFI.

      Here are the day before and day of tracks, with viewing frames matched to support switching back and forth, overlay style. Comparing the speeds and track for the period after the two loops suggests that Cassie is correct. Two days in a row doing the same maneuvers, presumably using the same control inputs at entry, same throttle changes, seeing same disc drag effects, expecting same recovery.

      Day before (3 Sept) track:
      https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a0aa79&lat=38.289&lon=-121.419&zoom=11.1&showTrace=2022-09-03&trackLabels
      Day of accident (4 Sept) track:
      https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a0aa79&lat=38.289&lon=-121.419&zoom=11.1&showTrace=2022-09-04&trackLabels

      Delete
  29. Crashed in a right turn spin. Wreckage doesn't necessarily say it was a flat spin, like so many here think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe you to be correct. I also believe it was very close to recovering.

      Delete
    2. I agree, had they started the training sequence at 6.000AGL, they might have made it!!

      Delete
  30. https://usfreedomflyers.org/vaxxed-pilot-goes-into-cardiac-arrest-freedom-flyers-expose-massive-airline-cover-up/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A health condition makes the most sense in speculations...Depending on the other person in the plane's aviation/communications experience..Was it a charter flight, instructional flight or a combo???

      Delete
  31. Apparently training was going on as indicated by the left then right turns…

    ReplyDelete
  32. Analysis shows that both engines were feathered! A spin involving a highly experienced DPE doesn't make sense unless you postulate that the instructor intentionally failed an engine during training in a low-speed situation close to Vmc and the student, instead of feathering the good engine reaches over and fails the good engine by mistake. The plane immediately loses the airspeed required to maintain Vmc, drops a wing and enters a spin from which recovery was impossible that close to the ground with two feathered engines. It has happened many times before; one of the most egregious was the crash of an ATR 72-600 operating as TransAsia Airways Flight 235 in February of 2015 where the captain shut down the left engine after the failure of the right engine. Hard to believe that a professional flight crew could do this, but they did. I believe that's what happened inside the cockpit of this Baron. Very sad!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good hypotheses, but in the Trans Asia example, when the crew initiated their response the power levers for both engines would still be positioned where they had been before the first engine faltered. That is the circumstance for every cruise flight engine falter event.

      When the trainer dropped power on the first engine of the Baron, it created a visually obvious position mismatch of the paired levers, even if the trainer pulled full lean to do so. Black, Blue, Red handles, in pairs.

      Delete
  33. Regarding the Baron58 Galt Ca crash, all very interesting comments. As a former SEL pilot, I can only imagine the complexities of stall/spin recovery in the Baron, and especially so with the danger of entering an unrecoverable spin mentioned. However, what hasn't been discussed are the actual physical stresses both men must have been under with the flat spinning going on. I hated the stall-recovery portion of my single-engine flight training, especially in climbing turns as it was somewhat disorienting. So with the flat spinning of this accident, could that physical stress have interfered with inputting a proper recovery response, if there might have been one?

    ReplyDelete
  34. We flew a Baron for 10 years and it was very well known taught that if you got it into a flat spin under no circumstance could you recover. The elevator is not wide enough so even at full power on both engines no thrust hits the tail which is required. See the Cessna 310 tail as an example, it's a big tail and was designed as a twin. The Baron is a Bonanza with two engines and although it does have a bigger tail it's not big enough. RIP :(

    ReplyDelete
  35. If they were Hartzell props they would automatically feather with a lack of oil pressure such as in a detachment. The one 310 crash I examined with McCauley C-87's such as used on the 58 also feathered at detachment.

    ReplyDelete