N1246G

HISTORY OF FLIGHTOn February 27, 2017, about 1641 Pacific standard time, a Cessna T310Q, N1246G, was destroyed when it collided with multiple residences after departure from Riverside Municipal Airport (RAL), Riverside, California. The airline transport pilot and three passengers were fatally injured; one passenger received serious injuries. The airplane was registered to the pilot who operated the airplane under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the personal cross-country flight that was destined for Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC), San Jose, California.

According to the surviving passenger, she was invited by an acquaintance to fly in the airplane to southern California as both their daughters were scheduled to participate in a competition. On February 24, 2017, the group completed an uneventful flight from SJC to RAL. According to receipts and witnesses, on February 25, 2017, the pilot returned to RAL and had the airplane fully refueled; the pilot also purchased several terminal instrument procedure charts and en route low altitude charts.

The group returned to RAL about 1200 on the day of the accident and loaded the airplane with their bags. According to the surviving passenger, they boarded the airplane, and the pilot started the right engine but was unable to start the left engine. They deplaned and went into the airport terminal. After waiting for some time, they again tried to depart but had to return to the terminal. The passenger was not sure if the problem was "not being able to start the engine or the weather is bad." The surviving passenger inquired about the problem with the pilot's wife, who was also a passenger on the airplane; the wife became anxious and started to put pressure on the pilot to depart. After the surviving passenger offered to rent a car, the pilot's wife insisted that they would return to SJC in the airplane.

According to an airport operations employee, he saw the pilot and passengers walk to the airplane and then heard the pilot on the RAL ground control frequency requesting a visual flight rules (VFR) clearance to SJC. The operations employee reported that he heard an air traffic controller cancel the pilot's VFR flight plan and ask the pilot to file an IFR flight plan. The operations employee observed the pilot and passengers exit the airplane and return to the terminal.

The pilot asked an employee of a flight school that had an office in the terminal building if he could help him file an IFR flight plan. The flight school employee instructed the pilot to call "1-800-wxbrief," and the pilot wrote down the number. According to the flight school employee, the pilot appeared rushed. After the pilot left his office and exited the building, the flight school employee went into the hallway where the passengers were sitting and spoke with them. The passengers were "anxious to get home," and one of the passengers said that she needed to be at work the following morning. During this time, another passenger began making alternate transportation arrangements. The pilot then contacted a flight service station and filed an IFR flight plan.

The pilot and passengers boarded the airplane for the third time, and the pilot started the engines and contacted the ground controller. About 1602, the pilot requested and was granted an IFR clearance to SJC; he did not read back the entire clearance and advised the ground controller that he was not familiar with the airport obstacle departure procedure. The ground controller reissued the IFR clearance, and the pilot requested to standby. About 7 minutes later, the pilot made a request to taxi for departure, and the ground controller prompted him to read back the IFR clearance. After the ground controller again reissued the IFR clearance, the pilot read back the clearance correctly.

About 1615, the ground controller issued taxi instructions, which the pilot read back incorrectly. After the controller reissued the taxi instructions slowly, the pilot read them back correctly. At 1632, while in the run-up area, the pilot read back the obstacle departure procedure correctly and subsequently advised the tower controller that he was ready for departure. The tower controller then issued holding instructions to await the airplane's IFR release, and the pilot acknowledged the communication without repeating the hold short instructions. At 1638, the pilot received a takeoff clearance from the tower controller.

The airport operations employee saw the airplane's departure and reported that, after an uneventful liftoff and initial climb, the airplane began a left turn as it entered the clouds (reported ceiling 600 ft). Radar data captured the airplane at 1639:50, just beyond the runway's midfield point at an altitude of about 1,100 ft mean sea level (msl) or about 300 ft above ground level (agl). At 1640:08 and at an altitude of 1,300 ft msl, the airplane turned left to a heading of 070° magnetic. The airplane maintained the same heading until radar contact was lost at 1640:27 at an altitude of 1,700 ft msl (about 900 ft agl). No distress calls were received from the pilot.

The surviving passenger recalled that the airplane shook during climb out, but she could hear the engines running continuously. The airplane entered a cloud and then began to vibrate violently as it started to descend. The vibration was accompanied by a horn sound, which the surviving passenger later identified as the airplane's stall warning horn after hearing an exemplary one. The surviving passenger reported that although she was not focused on the engines for the remainder of the flight, she did not recall any interruptions in power. Further, she observed the pilot manipulating the controls during the descent to impact.

The end of the flight was captured by a surveillance video camera located about 800 ft north of the accident site. The video showed the airplane descending rapidly towards the ground in a slight left wing-low attitude. The airplane's nose attitude could not be determined due to the quality of the video. The airplane disappeared behind a residence, immediately thereafter fire and smoke appeared. PERSONNEL INFORMATIONThe 83-year-old pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single-engine land and commercial privileges for airplane multi-engine land. He also held a flight instructor certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land, airplane multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. The pilot's most recent second-class medical certificate was issued on October 13, 2016, and included the restriction that he must wear corrective lenses. At the time of the exam, the pilot reported that he had accumulated 9,600 hours of flight experience of which 21 hours were in the previous 6 months. An excerpt of the pilot's personal flight record, which covered 2008, was furnished by the family. His most recent flight logbooks were not recovered. It could not be determined when the pilot had last flown in instrument meteorological conditions or when he had last completed an instrument competency check. AIRCRAFT INFORMATIONAccording to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records, the airplane was manufactured in 1974 and registered to the pilot and his wife on September 25, 2007. The airplane was powered by two Continental TSIO-520 J, turbocharged, direct-drive, air-cooled, 310-horsepower engines. A review of the airplane's maintenance logbooks revealed that the most recent annual inspection was completed on February 1, 2017, at an accumulated flight time of 4,830 hours. At the time of annual inspection, both the left and right engines had accrued about 1,265.1 flight hours since their most recent overhauls.

The airplane was equipped with two main wing fuel tanks with a total capacity of 102 gallons and two auxiliary wingtip tanks with a total capacity of 63 gallons. According to a fuel station attendant who worked for the fixed base operator at RAL, on February 25, 2017, he fueled the airplane at the pilot's request. The attendant topped off each of the airplane's four fuel tanks adding a total of 54 gallons of 100LL aviation gasoline. A fuel sample taken by an FAA inspector from the fuel truck that was used to refuel the airplane did not show any evidence of water or debris contamination.

Weight and Balance

An airplane weight and balance estimate was computed using occupant weights from the autopsy reports and from the surviving passenger. The baggage weight was determined by weighing an assortment of personal effects and baggage recovered from the accident site. The computed total weight was 5,812 pounds (lbs), which was 312 lbs over the airplane's maximum allowable gross weight of 5,500 lbs. The manufacturer does not provide center of gravity (CG) limits for weights above gross weight; the computed CG of 36.82 inches was forward of the forward limit of 38.67 inches at gross weight. Figure 1 shows the airplane weight and balance estimate plotted on the manufacturer's published CG moment envelope diagram from the pilot's operating handbook (POH).

Figure 1 - Airplane Center of Gravity Moment Envelope Plotted with Main & Auxiliary Tanks at Full Capacity

According to the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3B), the flight characteristics of a multi-engine airplane will vary significantly with shifts of the CG within the approved envelope. At forward CGs within the envelope, the airplane will be more stable, with a slightly higher stalling speed, a slightly lower cruising speed, and favorable stall characteristics. However, the airplane's performance outside the performance envelope cannot be predicted.

Stall Characteristics

According to the POH, the airplane's stall speed was 75 knots with no bank and 78 knots with 20° of bank.

Fuel Consumption

Climb and endur...