One factor that hasn't been mentioned is which direction he turned; was it to the working engine or the dead engine?

You generally do not want to turn towards the dead engine. The aircraft will tend to turn (both yaw and bank) towards the dead engine due to asymmetric thrust, allowing it to do so at low speed will make it difficult to end the turn, possibly to the point where you lose control. If you turn away from the dead engine, you'll have a tougher time getting into the turn, but the live engine will help you get out of it. That said, attempting low altitude turns with an engine out seems like a bad idea, you should concentrate on going straight and maintaining optimum airspeed to make sure you get some altitude

There are a couple of mnemonics when dealing with engine failures, like "dead foot, dead engine" (determining which engine failed) and "raise the dead" (keep bank towards the live engine)

12 hours ago, Chock said:

Nevertheless, even without those facts in our possession, one thing we can definitely say is that, since both occupants of the aircraft appear to have survived and only one person on the ground received very minor injuries, then even taking into account luck, the end result turned out pretty well. Part of that appears to be that the aircraft seems to have burst its tanks upon impact and dumped almost all of the fuel on board in an admittefly dramatic-looking, but relatively harmless trail of flames.

One advantage of a 310. A substantial amount of fuel is in the tip tanks, which both appear to have detached and were flung well forward away from the main section of the fuselage. Fortunate indeed that nobody on the freeway were seriously injured in their vehicles, and that the aircraft hit very flat and slid.

Pure Speculation:

 

I have a feeling, he was not prepared and hasn't practiced engine out in a long time.  It would be good to know when he went out with an instructor and did an engine out procedure. Most of us, once we get our license and ratings, we relax our guard and get complacent.

I remember doing the multi engine rating and it was all about one engine out and and maintaing the speed above the  blue indicator. All these twins can climb at straight and level with single engine.. not at 800FPS at least at 200FPS. 

* airspeed below which directional control cannot be maintained.   Vmca 
* airspeed below which an intentional engine cut should never be made.  Vsse 
* airspeed that will give the best single engine rate of climb (or the slowest loss of altitude).  Vyse 
* airspeed that will give the steepest angle of climb with one engine-out.  Vxse 
 

If he had been practicing these engine outs, he would not have panicked.  This is again speculation on my part ... 

On 6/30/2017 at 11:18 PM, ahsmatt7 said:

One of the most comforting feelings about flying transport category airplanes is thst when you lose one on takeoff or right at v1, you know your going to climb at a good rate.

Not a luxury with small twins.

Maybe.

blaustern

On 7/3/2017 at 7:34 PM, vgbaron said:

The 310 is perfectly capable of continuing the climb on one engine

Vic

Maybe.

blaustern

1 hour ago, Manny said:

Pure Speculation:

 

I have a feeling, he was not prepared and hasn't practiced engine out in a long time.  It would be good to know when he went out with an instructor and did an engine out procedure. Most of us, once we get our license and ratings, we relax our guard and get complacent.

If he had been practicing these engine outs, he would not have panicked.  This is again speculation on my part ... 

I don't know what you fly, but I have to do recurrent training annually.

Ever had a real engine failure on departure?  

blaustern

2 hours ago, Manny said:

Pure Speculation:

 

I have a feeling, he was not prepared and hasn't practiced engine out in a long time.  It would be good to know when he went out with an instructor and did an engine out procedure. Most of us, once we get our license and ratings, we relax our guard and get complacent.

I remember doing the multi engine rating and it was all about one engine out and and maintaing the speed above the  blue indicator. All these twins can climb at straight and level with single engine.. not at 800FPS at least at 200FPS. 

* airspeed below which directional control cannot be maintained.   Vmca 
* airspeed below which an intentional engine cut should never be made.  Vsse 
* airspeed that will give the best single engine rate of climb (or the slowest loss of altitude).  Vyse 
* airspeed that will give the steepest angle of climb with one engine-out.  Vxse 
 

If he had been practicing these engine outs, he would not have panicked.  This is again speculation on my part ... 

There are some older twins, on a hot day, that will be lucky to see 200 fpm, with full fuel and passengers. My flight instructor, a CFII with many  thousands of hours, was killed, when an engine went out just as he rotated, and he couldn't clear a strip mall across the street from the airport. He was killed, along with his student and a passenger in the wreck and ensuing fire. Knew another  CFI, Multi Engine instructor ferrying a 310 from one airport to another, a distance of about 6 miles. Just after rotation, she her right  engine, plane went inverted, and she crashed into the side of a house. In both instances, the aircraft never got higher than about 150 feet agl. These two CFI's probably taught thousands of engine outs, but the specs on the V speeds, are for standard temperature, a new engine, and split second reaction. 

On 7/3/2017 at 10:27 PM, n4gix said:

One factor that hasn't been mentioned is which direction he turned; was it to the working engine or the dead engine?

You generally do not want to turn towards the dead engine. The aircraft will tend to turn (both yaw and bank) towards the dead engine due to asymmetric thrust, allowing it to do so at low speed will make it difficult to end the turn, possibly to the point where you lose control. If you turn away from the dead engine, you'll have a tougher time getting into the turn, but the live engine will help you get out of it. That said, attempting low altitude turns with an engine out seems like a bad idea, you should concentrate on going straight and maintaining optimum airspeed to make sure you get some altitude

There are a couple of mnemonics when dealing with engine failures, like "dead foot, dead engine" (determining which engine failed) and "raise the dead" (keep bank towards the live engine)

Unfortunately and sadly, there is a third such mnemonic. "....with an engine fail in a twin, the second engine will generally get the aircraft to the crash site...."

1 hour ago, Bluestar said:

I don't know what you fly, but I have to do recurrent training annually.

Ever had a real engine failure on departure?  

blaustern

What Private Pilots are forced to do recurrent training?  

3 minutes ago, Manny said:

What Private Pilots are forced to do recurrent training?  

Any that want to have a long life expectacy and have a bit of common sense. 

1 hour ago, silverheels2 said:

Unfortunately and sadly, there is a third such mnemonic. "....with an engine fail in a twin, the second engine will generally get the aircraft to the crash site...."

I mentioned that on page one of this thread.  

2 hours ago, Bluestar said:

Maybe.

blaustern

No maybe about it. As stated - the Cessna 310 is perfectly capable of continuing the climb on one engine.

Now, if you wish to factor in a bunch of other stuff like a drunken pilot, second engine failure, birds or witches on brooms - yes - THEN maybe works.

And yes I have.

 

Vic

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

I mentioned that on page one of this thread.  

Unanimous then, Bob. Although my remark was a bit more general. :)

Didn't mean to plagiarize.

58 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

No maybe about it. As stated - the Cessna 310 is perfectly capable of continuing the climb on one engine.

Now, if you wish to factor in a bunch of other stuff like a drunken pilot, second engine failure, birds or witches on brooms - yes - THEN maybe works.

And yes I have.

 

Vic

One might think that a twin-engine aircraft is safer than a single-engine aircraft.  After all, if one engine fails, you still have the other to bring you home safely.  That's the whole point of the second engine, right?

If one of the twin engines fails in cruise flight, maybe that's true.  But if it quits right after takeoff, the twin can be extremely difficult to handle.  When the aircraft's landing gear is down, its flaps set, and its airspeed just above the minimum flying speed, the asymmetric thrust generated by the operating engine can flip the aircraft onto its back and out of control.  A "Vmc roll", as it is called, is almost always fatal.  When an engine quits during the critical takeoff phase of flight, a pilot -- even one who does everything right --  may not be able to land the twin-engine aircraft safely.  A short runway make matters only worse.

 

In both situations that I mentioned with very experienced pilots, probably many thousands of hours more than anyone on this forum ever will have,  as well as them being instructors for decades, they could not avoid a crash. Don't insult the two CFI's that I knew and were friends with with a statement like you just did. 

2 hours ago, Manny said:

What Private Pilots are forced to do recurrent training?  

FAA requires a biennual flight review.