I don’t know – seems a bit too low and slow for me:
Click to expand
Our FAA has rules for a reason, non?
This is a Cessna 310, or something similar, just after it buzzed the Financial at well under Minimum Safe Altitude, which in this case is 1000-something feet above ground level.
Escaping to the northeast:
Click to expand
Now, do I have your tail number? No I don’t. So you win this round, Flyboy.
Regardless, I cry foul.
Until next time…
(And try to not kill yourself or your passengers or any ground-dwellers before then.)
And there’s a little background on this after the jump.
Ashton, you’re not funny – try something else.
Ashton, your entourage (and also all the Pop Chips people) were afraid to tell you that your skits were not even remotely entertaining. What else didn’t they / don’t they tell you?
Oh, and the reviews are in:
Hey man, nice shot.
Click to expand
Hey, can you guess which street in San Francisco was remade to be a firebreak, you know, around 1906? Sure you can. Just look at the photo. You see, it, unlike the useless, quarter-mile long, Octavia Boulevard “Livable Streets” experiment, is wide for a reason.
Omni-Vision – This referred to the rear windows on some Cessna singles, starting with the 182 and 210 in 1962, the 172 in 1963 and the 150 in 1964. The term was intended to make the pilot feel visibility was improved on the notably poor-visibility Cessna line. The introduction of the rear window caused in most models a loss of cruise speed due to the extra drag, while not adding any useful visibility
Does it make sense to commute to Los Angeles for work, assuming you had a pilot’s license and an airplane? I don’t know.
Does it make sense to listen to the advice of your air traffic controller concerning the advisability of taking off into heavy fog, even if you don’t have to? Yes it does.
Is there a reason why pilots are told to turn over the Bay after takeoff? Yes there is.
Here’s what people down Palo Alto Way are saying.
The former N5225J, a Cessna 310R with relatively new, perfectly-fine-at-the-time engines:
(I’ll tell you, I don’t know why our federal government subsidizes Tesla Automotive (and for that matter, General Monkeybusiness in Detroit). Was Tesla paying for the avgas that this Cessna was burning? Does Tesla reimburse CEO Elon Musk for the jet fuel that he burns as he joyrides around the world, as is his wont? I think Tesla used to, but I don’t know about these days. You know, for an electric car company what’s produced not a whole bunch of electric cars, Tesla seems to burn up a lot of petroleum…)
Anyway, here’s the summary – the whole thing you’ll find after the jump.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, February 17, 2010 in Palo Alto, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/22/2011
Aircraft: CESSNA 310R, registration: N5225J
Injuries: 3 Fatal.
The pilot departed the airport in near-zero visibility instrument meteorological conditions, and shortly after takeoff, struck a power pole and power lines before impacting terrain. Review of recorded air traffic control tower (ATCT) transmissions revealed that the pilot was initially given his instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance to turn right to a heading of 060 degrees and climb to 3,000 feet. Shortly after verifying his IFR clearance, the pilot received his IFR release from the ATCT controller and was informed that the runway was not visible to the controller. The controller further informed the pilot that takeoff was at his own risk. Shortly after, the controller notified the pilot that he had two minutes for his IFR release, before it expired. The pilot stated that he did not hear a “cleared for takeoff” instruction from the controller. The controller responded that he could not clear the pilot for takeoff, due to not having the runway environment in sight and that “the release is all yours and it’s at your own risk sir.” The pilot acknowledged the transmission and proceeded to take off. One witness, who was adjacent to the accident site, reported that she observed an airplane “suddenly appear from the fog” left of her position. The witness stated that she continued to watch the airplane fly in a level or slightly nose up attitude until it impacted power lines.
Accident site evidence was indicative of a level impact with a power pole about 50 feet above ground level (agl) and at a high airspeed. All major structural components of the airplane were located within the wreckage debris path. Examination of the airframe, engines and propellers disclosed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical anomaly. Weather conditions reported five minutes prior to the accident were wind variable at 5 knots, visibility 1/8th mile, fog, and vertical visibility of 100 feet agl. Weather conditions recorded by the ATCT 11 minutes after the time of the accident were visibility 1/16th mile, fog, and a vertical visibility of 100 feet agl.
Local law enforcement provided recordings from a sound recording system, which captured the accident sequence. The recordings were coupled with airport surveillance radar to interpolate a flightpath for the airplane. The interpolated flightpath indicated an approximate 45-degree left turn shortly after departure to the area of initial impact with the power pole and power lines. A sound spectrum study determined both engines were operating near full power.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot’s failure follow the standard instrument departure as instructed, and his failure to attain a sufficient altitude to maintain clearance from power lines during takeoff in instrument meteorological conditions.”
If you’re flying over San Francisco less than 500 feet above the hills and trees and whatnot, then you’re flat-hatting.
And that’s not good, is it?
Click to expand
Is this trip really necessary?