Posts Tagged ‘cessna’

Flying Low and Slow Over San Francisco – Where Do You Land If Your Engine Cuts Out? Well, Who Knows?

Thursday, June 19th, 2014

I don’t know – seems a bit too low and slow for me:

Click to expand

Our FAA has rules for a reason, non?

Low and Slow Over San Francisco – Aging Cessna 172N Skyhawk Flies Pretty Darn Low Above Alamo Heights

Friday, November 22nd, 2013

IMO.

Heading towards Golden Gate Park:

Click to expand

The Joys of Buzzing Market Street in Your Aging Cessna 310 Twin – What’s the “Minimum Safe Altitude” Over SF?

Wednesday, February 27th, 2013

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.)

 

 

Ashton Kutcher and that Horrible San Francisco-Based PopChips Company Make the 2012 Fineman PR Blunder List

Monday, December 17th, 2012

All the deets are right here, at FinemanPR.

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:

God, Popchips are awful. The flavors suck.”

Popchips SUCK! I can believe I let you weiners influence me into buying a bag of that collossal garbage.”

(more…)

Wow: Seeing San Francisco From Above the Mission District Through “Omni-Vision” – Rear Window, Cessna Skyhawk

Friday, August 10th, 2012

Hey man, nice shot.

Via singlespeeder2007:

Click to expand

Viewing notes:

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

National Transportation Safety Board Holds Tesla Automotive Employee Responsible for Fatal Air Crash in Palo Alto

Monday, November 28th, 2011

(As always, If You Assume That Any Given Plane Crash is Due to Pilot Error, You’ll Probably Be Right.)

Here’s an article about the new NTSB report.

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.

Oh well.

Here’s what people down Palo Alto Way are saying.

And here‘s the “chilling recording” from a SpotShotter tower. (It’s about what you’d expect, with crashing noises and the yelling of the day care center kids who saw the crash.)

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.

NTSB Identification: WPR10FA136

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.”

(more…)

Flat-Hatting Over San Francisco in Your Aging Cessna SkyMonster

Monday, April 11th, 2011

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?

The “Co-Owner” of a Local Flying School Threatens This Very Blog

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

Read below to see the message that came over the transom of this little blog yesterday, the very blog you’re looking at right now. It concerns a post from a year and half ago about an airplane crash-landing that resulted in no major injuries

The missive, in its entirety: 

“When you google Flying Vikings your false article comes up. If you do not fix your false statements. I will deal with you. My name is Celine Correa and I am a co-owner of Flying Vikings. You need to report on the many thousands and thousands of flight hours we have done. Call me and I will give you verifiable details no false hoods. You need to correct your article immediately.
 
Celine”

O.K. fine. If anybody wants to go through and find any of the purported “false statements,” well then have at it – that would help me out.

Otherwise, I don’t think I’ll be “reporting” on Flying Vikings’ “many thousands and thousands of flight hours” (is that a lot? My dad, currently pushing up daisies in Virginia, had five figures worth of flying hours with no accidents, AFAIK) in some sort of fairness-doctrine type of deal.

The comments are open on this post, if anyone wants to pipe up. Thanks for your help.

Here it is: 

Another Accident Involving Hayward-based Flying Vikings, Inc.

Today’s headlines include news of the crash landing of a Flying Vikings, Inc. Cessna 172 in Oakland, California.

The San Jose Mercury News earlier reported that N61736 ”had a gas leak,” but now is going with ”mechanical problems” as the cause of this incident. KCBS, which labels this single engine plane the KCBS Radio Traffic Plane, is reporting the pilot claimed the oil pressure guage plummetted just before the engine conked out. This aircraft, built in 1974, suffered “substantial damage” during an incident in 1981.  

The following language, written before today’s accident, appears on the Flying Vikings website:

Since Flying Vikings also has a contract with local news gathering organizations, students are offered opportunities to build time that no other school can. Fly 3 to 6 hours a day and get paid.

A visual aid to help imagine yourself staring at a motionless propeller low over the Bay Area. Click to expand:

175264529_c84380bc84_o-copy.jpg

The dash of a Cessna 172 and a view of Candlestick Park, from the incredible Telstar Logistics Flickrstream

Here’s a photo of a different Flying Vikings aircraft, a Piper that suffered a fatal accident in 2006. Readers may find this link, relating to the Piper crash, of interest, however, it might lead you to unproven speculation about the cause of that tragedy.

The Federal Aviation Administration and Cal OSHA should be able to determine the cause of this forced landing fairly easily.

A relatively happy ending to a scary situation.

So that’s the purported “false article” from 2008.
 
Actually, the only reason I found this incident noteworthy at the time was the number of conflicting reports about the cause of  this incident. The National Transportation Safety Board investigated and concluded the problem was:
 
“A loss of engine power due to oil starvation. The oil starvation event was due to the failure of maintenance personnel to tighten the mounting bolts for the newly installed vacuum pump.”
 
Seems the pump had just been replaced three days earlier and the flight of June 30, 2008 was the first one using the new pump.
 
All the deets from the NTSB, after the jump.
 
(more…)

KCBS in Denial About Yesterday’s Crash Landing in Oakland, CA?

Tuesday, July 1st, 2008

First,  let’s all agree that denial, (also called abnegation), is:

 “is a defense mechanism‘ postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept…”

Can a radio station be in denial? Well, how about the coverage KCBS AM 740  is giving to yesterday’s crash landing of a traffic-reporting Cessna 172. KCBS reports this incident thusly: “Plane Lands near I-80 Ramp” with an account about how “freeway traffic was not affected by the landing”.

Firstly, KCBS used this in the webpage URL: “Plane-Blocks-I-80-Off-Ramp” – so this was spurious information? Or maybe the plane blocked the off-ramp, but not the freeway? Secondly, other media sources correctly called this incident a “crash-landing,” as that’s what it was. Thirdly, KCBS reported last month’s other crash landing of a Cessna 172 in the bay area as a “crash landing.”

175264529_c84380bc84_o-copy.jpg

The dash of a Cessna 172 that didn’t crash land in the bay area last month, from the incredible Telstar Logistics Flickrstream

There’s lots of ways to report a story. KCBS certainly chose a drama-free approach. As must be obvious by now, you can put a Cessna 172 (that has a landing weight pretty close to a tiny 2-seat Smart Car) down in a very small piece of real estate, but yesterday’s crash landing could easily have been fatal.

So, better check yo self before you wreck yo self (again). Just saying,

Another Accident Involving Hayward-based Flying Vikings, Inc.

Monday, June 30th, 2008

Today’s headlines include news of the crash landing of a Flying Vikings, Inc. Cessna 172 in Oakland, California.

The San Jose Mercury News earlier reported that N61736 “had a gas leak,” but now is going with “mechanical problems” as the cause of this incident. KCBS, which labels this single engine plane the KCBS Radio Traffic Plane, is reporting the pilot claimed the oil pressure guage plummetted just before the engine conked out. This aircraft, built in 1974, suffered “substantial damage” during an incident in 1981.  

The following language, written before today’s accident, appears on the Flying Vikings website:

Since Flying Vikings also has a contract with local news gathering organizations, students are offered opportunities to build time that no other school can. Fly 3 to 6 hours a day and get paid.

A visual aid to help imagine yourself staring at a motionless propeller low over the Bay Area. Click to expand:

175264529_c84380bc84_o-copy.jpg

The dash of a Cessna 172 and a view of Candlestick Park, from the incredible Telstar Logistics Flickrstream

Here’s a photo of a different Flying Vikings aircraft, a Piper that suffered a fatal accident in 2006. Readers may find this link, relating to the Piper crash, of interest, however, it might lead you to unproven speculation about the cause of that tragedy.

The Federal Aviation Administration and Cal OSHA should be able to determine the cause of this forced landing fairly easily.

A relatively happy ending to a scary situation.