Live data from Hacker News

3 Tesla workers die in E. Palo Alto plane crash

sfgate.com

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: 3 Tesla workers die in E. Palo Alto plane crash

#31

What happened to the old article that was just here? It seems the points remain but the comments are all gone. Also, it's been reposted by pg...

Arbitrary killing of posts and comments by editorial fiat is a storied HN tradition.

It's not arbitrary, it's just not explained.

Re: 3 Tesla workers die in E. Palo Alto plane crash

#32

I see two possibilities: pilot loss of control due to disorientation caused by IMC conditions and subsequent powered flight into the ground or an engine failure. A loaded Cessna 310 has very poor climb performance with a single engine running. Probably an engine failure is the likely cause with the poor weather inhibiting the pilot's ability to make an off runway landing in the marsh.

I agree that those are the two likely possibilities. Given that the pilot was pretty experienced, and was a multi-engine instructor, I'd say that disorientation is less likely.

On a cold day at sea level, the 310 should be able to get at least 200fpm. The book number is about 300fpm. However, they may not have been going fast enough to get book performance, and a plane that old usually can't make nearly the book numbers. They hit at about .3nm from the end of the runway, significantly left of the extended centerline, and at an altitude of about 100 feet. That would be consistent with a climb rate of about 150-200fpm.

My guess is that the left engine failed. The left engine is the critical engine, and so the plane would have very strongly wanted to turn left. It would have been slow having just taken off, and so the pilot probably had to turn to keep his speed up and maintain a positive climb rate. He probably either forgot about the power lines, or was just hoping to clear them since he couldn't see them.

Sadly, this is probably just another instance of the second engine being just enough to get you to the scene of the crash.

Re: 3 Tesla workers die in E. Palo Alto plane crash

#33

One of the people on video said it well "we're very vulnerable without power." Coincidently, Elon Musk's focus has partly been addressing that.

I'm curious as to what you mean. I don't see Tesla Motors/Paypal/SpaceX as addressing that. Tesla Motors might be addressing, "we're vulnerable without gasoline or oil," but not electricity.

Re: 3 Tesla workers die in E. Palo Alto plane crash

#34

I see two possibilities: pilot loss of control due to disorientation caused by IMC conditions and subsequent powered flight into the ground or an engine failure. A loaded Cessna 310 has very poor climb performance with a single engine running. Probably an engine failure is the likely cause with the poor weather inhibiting the pilot's ability to make an off runway landing in the marsh.

So, who killed the electric car again?

Tesla has 500+ employees. 3 died today. It's likely that the company can continue to go on.

Re: 3 Tesla workers die in E. Palo Alto plane crash

#35
post #14

As sorry as I am for those who are affected, I just do not see the relevance for this site. People die every day. People in startups die every day. Is this special because it is in the news, because it was a spectacular death? Actually I find it highly questionable to draw attention to these kinds of incidents.

Aside from the power issues affecting Palo Alto and tragic loss of life, such a story is likely to drum up speculation about how the loss of talent will affect Tesla Motors. Seeing as talking about startups (or just popular businesses) in such a fashion happens a lot on HackerNews, I really don't see this story as out of place.

Re: 3 Tesla workers die in E. Palo Alto plane crash

#36

I see two possibilities: pilot loss of control due to disorientation caused by IMC conditions and subsequent powered flight into the ground or an engine failure. A loaded Cessna 310 has very poor climb performance with a single engine running. Probably an engine failure is the likely cause with the poor weather inhibiting the pilot's ability to make an off runway landing in the marsh.

I agree that those are the two likely possibilities. Given that the pilot was pretty experienced, and was a multi-engine instructor, I'd say that disorientation is less likely. On a cold day at sea level, the 310 should be able to get at least 200fpm. The book number is about 300fpm. However, they may not have been going fast enough to get book performance, and a plane that old usually can't make nearly the book numb…

Do pilots train flying 2-engined planes in emergency (ie, 1-engine) conditions?

Re: 3 Tesla workers die in E. Palo Alto plane crash

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that those are the two likely possibilities. Given that the pilot was pretty experienced, and was a multi-engine instructor, I'd say that disorientation is less likely. On a cold day at sea level, the 310 should be able to get at least 200fpm. The book number is about 300fpm. However, they may not have been going fast enough to get book performance, and a plane that old usually can't make nearly the book numb…

Do pilots train flying 2-engined planes in emergency (ie, 1-engine) conditions?

My impression (with ~20h single-engine, so not exactly an authority) is that while they train single-engine operations, they don't really do it at takeoff exactly because you're close to Vmc, the speed where you don't have enough rudder authority with one engine to keep the plane from going out of control, which would have consequences similar to what happened here.

Re: 3 Tesla workers die in E. Palo Alto plane crash

#38
post #33

One of the people on video said it well "we're very vulnerable without power." Coincidently, Elon Musk's focus has partly been addressing that.

I'm curious as to what you mean. I don't see Tesla Motors/Paypal/SpaceX as addressing that. Tesla Motors might be addressing, "we're vulnerable without gasoline or oil," but not electricity.

I'm mostly referring to his SolarCity business/investment.

Re: 3 Tesla workers die in E. Palo Alto plane crash

#39
post #14

As sorry as I am for those who are affected, I just do not see the relevance for this site. People die every day. People in startups die every day. Is this special because it is in the news, because it was a spectacular death? Actually I find it highly questionable to draw attention to these kinds of incidents.

It's a car company created in the spirit and likeness of a tech startup by founders who were previously successful tech startup founders. Their upcoming IPO was already evaluated as extremely risky even for an IPO and now they have to deal with this tragedy. I think that it's a combination of all these reasons more than the proximity to silicon valley. If the company were in Germany and in the same situation, I think I'd still be interested in the story and the fallout.
Post reply on HN