I just read that Randy, “built premier plastic surgery programs in Los Angeles and traveled the world caring for children with hard-to-treat deformities,” it sounds like Randy really helped a lot of people in his 72 years of life.
I am not a pilot, but a former flight attendant. Richard is an amazing teacher and unbiased source of information. I always look forward to these posts and the comments from the community. Thanks to all!
Light twins: 1.5 times the power, 2x the cost and mechanical issues, 3x the skill required. The point made in the video about accepting a glide to landing off airport in some scenarios can't be forgotten. Break the mindset that a twin always makes it to a runway. So many pilots accept gliding into a field in a single engine airplane with open arms, only to suddenly chuck that mentality out the storm window the moment they get in an airplane with two props. If you know you're pushing the limits of SE performance (High, hot, and/or heavy!) for your airplane, consider that second engine your ticket to a better glide ratio, not a guarantee you'll make it back to pavement.
Yeah but I also think 2 bad choices were made by the pilot as well ; 1. "Im gonna gain altitude " and 2. Staying in the left turn- Did the suggestion by tower to go left to 33 stop him from making a long lazy right. Iunno, all monday morning QB. Rest in peace. Thoughts for the family
@@roderickcampbell2105 Yes, I am sure they do, or help out and reduce the consequences. I hope more people subscribe who are pilots. I am not a pilot and have to say I would be worried now travelling in a light aircraft with someone after seeing a lot of these. Even when people do not make terrible decisions and are good pilots, who fly well, there seems a very fine line at times and the consequences dire if you happen to cross it slightly.
I was on the southern end of Santa Fe when the 310 went down, and saw the horrible black smoke. We have been having calculated 10,000+ density altitudes for weeks. It was HOT the morning of the accident. Santa Fe has been near all-time record heat this past week. Please be careful this summer. It is not worth the risk when it gets so hot at high altitude (6300ft field elevation).
Yeah I just had this video pop in my suggestions, I hadn't watched any other from him since the accident, and frankly it's still heartbreaking to watch...
The excellent commentary and analysis is very much appreciated. The outcome of this situation is truly terrible and tragic. Dr. Sherman was an ambassador to both the aviation and medical communities. Condolences to his family and may he RIP.
@@AM-hs4bz I know, plane piloted by former NFL player Russ Francis. They made a mistake. Or he made a mistake I guess. Oops! But the OP above, who is he talking to? As you point out, the guy is dead. Lame comment.
I live about 35 miles south of Santa Fe at a field elevation of 6500' and to the pilots around here, summer is for annuals. We've got something like 300 VFR days per year, so we're not missing out.
Great breakdown of the factors involved in this crash. I am not a pilot but I spent 4 years assigned to a KC-135 flight simulator as a maintenance tech in the USAF. Part of my job included daily pre-flighting the simulator to ensure all systems are operating correctly. Also, during simulated flights with actual crewmembers, my job was to observe the various training "missions" to detect any anomalies in the equipment that may need further attention. One of the most common simulated failures was having an outboard engine fail during rotation at takeoff. Too often, the pilot would step on the wrong rudder pedal to compensate for the severe differential thrust. Of course, that caused the simulator to simulate a loss of control and then simulate a crash. When that happened, the IP (instructor pilot) would become very angry with the crew. Whenever responding to an engine failure, over the years, I heard him say emphatically "step on the good engines" when referring to the rudder pedals and which rudder response is called for.
First off, condolences to the family. It does sound like he was a capable pilot as well as a surgeon, and there are four immediate takeaways or lessons learned to use today. First, know your density altitude and how to apply that to your s.e.l. Climb chart and if the number is too low for you, reduce the weight and/or leave at a cooler daylight time. Second, brief your departure and worst case emergency procedure to yourself before each departure (he had a nice clear area straight ahead. Third, know that emergency procedure (and practice it at recurrent training) by heart. You might not have time if you’re single pilot in a light twin to reference a checklist. But do use it when you get the “aviate” portion well under control. And fourth, RAISE THE DEAD engine that is. ALWAYS bank into the good engine. This pilot did not have quite yet the aviate portion in hand yet so there was really no need to talk to the tower, the controller was not going to help save the day and as a matter of fact contributed to the bad situation by saying he was cleared left turn back. I would not lhave been saying anything (except “oh shit” to myself) until I had the emergency under control. I loved that airplane, especially the turbo models as I flew 100s of hours flying freight in them at night, with only once having a partial engine failure, over a city.
As a light twin pilot my self, I can only hope that when (and if) I have a real engine failure my glider pilot instincts will keep me from trying to fly when the airplane is not. That’s the major survival factor in a light twin engine failure. Sometimes the operative engine will only fly you to the crash site.
Great point about accepting your off airport landing rather than augering in at 100kts+ still trying to climb. Sad and discouraging to see any pilot go down like this, but particularly one with this breadth of time and experience.
If you look at the area, the choice of an off site landing was as simple as looking down. He even had the option of a dirt road that was perpendicular with runway so he wouldn't even have required a turn and most likely could have gone gear down, particularly if he was having trouble raising them. Of course in that situation processing the information and making a decision is extremely difficult and time sensitive. I bet in flying those older aircraft, his natural instinct would be to preserve them in this type of a situation. Perhaps that kicked in here. But the fatal error of turning into the dead engine, seems like a massive oversight for someone with the vast experience he had.
My instructor told me the best thing to do if you lose an engine on a twin during takeoff is to pull both throttles back to idle and land straight ahead. Even though I never flew a twin, I never forgot him giving me that advice…this was around 1992.
Thank you sir for pointing out that sometimes the best option in this situation is to feather both engines and prepare the aircraft for an off-field landing such as on a road or highway.
Good video, but please recheck the comment (7:28) that the SE climb performance is based on wings level climb. Normally the climb performance is based on climbing with a five degree bank into the good engine which reduces the sideslip and drag. Great comment on accepting what you have got if you are not climbing. If it happens before the gear is up, think as a friend said "well I just sold the aircraft to the insurance company" power off both sides and go for the straight ahead off field landing.
Lesson learned: (1) be prepared when flying in high density altitude, and (2) in an engine out situation even at low altitude, where a second engine can provide sufficient climb performance for the situation, be prepared to fight back the instinct to turn toward the quickest landing pattern, particularly if that turn leans to the off engine, and concentrate first on gaining altitude to run the checklist(s) and perform a single engine landing. What is surprising is that the last words of the pilot seem to indicate he understood this and was focussed on gaining altitude. I suspect something else happened after he started to attempt to gain altitude. One possibillity is that the wrong engine was turned off.
Excellent review. With such a failure merely flying the aircraft can absorb much of your brain power. Having to take one's hand off the controls to run through the engine failure sequence can be very demanding when you can hardly keep the aircraft under control. With the high D/A everything on the s/e checklist must be correctly and expeditiously completed or the aircraft simply will not perform. This is where recent/recurrent single engine failure proficiency is so important.
Learned something. I thought even with density altitude any turbo charged engines performs as it would at sea level? I'm guessing now that may not be the case?
@@MikinctYes it can be done. I’ve demonstrated a cessna T310 with a RAM 2 conversion climbing from 9000FT at a rate of 200Ft/minute. However contrary to the VMC demo. My Airspeed was below blue line but above red line while maintaining direction control. Engine settings on the good engine were at 32 inches and 2500 RPM. POH says it can maintain 17000 FT on one engine but the climb performance will start to degrade around 13000 FT as you would have to maintain a higher indicated airspeed to maintain directional control as rudder would become less effective with denser air.
If you watched the video, it wasn't density altitude that was the problem. He should have been able to slowly climb to 17,000 feet on a single engine under those conditions. It sounds like he did not get the plane set up properly for single engine.
@linanicolia1363 where did snyone state which engine died? It's just a guess at this point, right? Could've been the right engine that lost power until the investigation is done.
Richard, Thanks for the early analysis on these accidents realizing that everything is not known about the accident, but there are definitely lessons that can be learned while the accident is fresh in our minds.
Perhaps the pilot turned too soon before sorting out his plane. That checklist is rather daunting as well. Pilot was one busy person trying to handle everything. Got me. My condolences to his family. Wish this would've turned out better.
Its crazy how hot and dry it gets every summer here in New Mexico. Lots of the state has high altitude. This was in the 'cool' morning. I Fly RC jets. Electric ducted fans. Planes that will fly out of your hand @ sea level (easily hand launched) will take a full throttle run on a 300' runway to take off. Its amazing how much MMPH you lose with thin dry air.
"Don't fight it...accept it... deal with the best option you have available." That's a simple and yet wonderful piece of advice, and so logical. I think Richard McSpadden might be a Vulcan.
Will be of interest to find out what state the props were in- whether the correct one, or if any, were in feather or not. Even so, turns on one engine are very demanding in terms of aircraft performance, as this video mentions.
Great report, my 2 cents is in line with your evaluation, put another way, he stopped flying the airplane, instead he felt it was necessary to start talking to ATC instead of following the procedures you outlined, straight ahead, clean up, lower wing slightly. At that density altitude, the 310, 402 and 421 need both engines to fly, picking a relatively flat spot and ditching it straight ahead was his only chance, making the turn sealed his fate. The DTSB makes it a point for pilots to mentally brief themselves prior to every departure, this technique can save lives in any aircraft.
@@bobteter4300 I’m guessing he didn’t actually know what poor performance was available on the day in that 310. I wonder when the last time he did any SE air work. Training matters.
You gave us a very good overview of procedure for engine loss in a twin for a stable climb and thank you. However, no mention was made on turning into the dead engine. It sounded like the tower asked if he could make a left turn, directing him to the closest runway. It would be sad to find out that he turned into a dead engine trying to rush into a landing on the closest runway, instead of following procedure to establish a climb of some sort straight ahead, or if not possible landing straight ahead gear up. Hopefully, he wasn't in 'gotta save this plane' mode.
I don't fly planes but have watched scores of these uploads.It seems that many crashes of twin engine planes occur when the pilot tries to return to the airport with a quick U turn.I understand the get back on the ground as soon as possible but often it leads to disaster.
The focus on density altitude is important, but it's possible this airplane had a fair bit of margin still. He was solo - that usually means a LOT less weight when you include luggage etc etc. Some cessna 310's are carrying 6 people aren't they? And many are turbocharged. The other issues (cleaning up / feathering / bank / direction of turn etc) all seem like potentially very direct contributors. Gear out, no feather, turn into dead engine, let speed decay? That would be pretty bad. If he was trying to climb my guess is his speed WAS decaying (keep speed is usually part of engine out but I don't know multi) - that was his radio call.
As I commented under Blancolirio's video: "6400 maximum, then down to 6100, so the airport actually seems to sit higher than immediately surrounding terrain. Even if he feathered correctly, it's obvious that he was never gaining altitude, which was his plan (as per audio). I wonder if, after noticing that he wasn't gaining altitude, he tried to go for the highway. When I fly single engine I tend to always look for suitable field to land, while when I fly the Seminole (counter-rotating prop, so no critical engine) I tend to focus more on Vmc and proper procedure. But we need to remember that even in a twin, we need to look for suitable landing area in case of engine failure. Two months ago at KLAF (low altitude, 600ft) on simulated engine failure I could barely climb while keeping slightly above Vmc, even after simulating feathering 😮"
Good point! Every pilot should look at the Google map around their home field to find suitable landing spots or taking it a step further and using the measurement tool. You'd be surprised what looks big enough but is not.
I'm not sure why you were trying to climb just above Vmc. Fly blue line (Vyse) for best single engine climb rate. You should never be below blue line except on short final when landing is assured. Note however that Vyse may be slightly lower than what is marked on the airspeed indicator when flying at low weights or high density altitudes.
Great analysis. This pilot seemed exceptionally well qualified and capable of dealing with this emergency. Hopefully the NTSB can sort this out and we can learn from this tragedy.
@@bombsaway6340well then you're not great right? But I know that it's very hot out there these days and the plane wasn't climbing and he was over hostile terrain... It's always better to crash land into ground as opposed to stalling in the air. Also if it was a left engine out, turning left was a mistake.
Thanks for the indepth analysis Sir.. lesson learnt is on an engine failure just on lift off.. - counter the yaw - wings level - landing gears in - feather the inoperative engine - maintain single engine climb out speed - gain safe alt And then look for landing options Thankyou Sir
It's better stated as: 1. Maintain heading with rudder 2. Pitch for blue line 3. Mixture, props, throttles forward 4. Gear up, flaps up 5. Identify, verify, feather 6. Establish zero sideslip (3-5 degrees bank into the good engine and half a ball into the good engine).
That pilot seemed to be very qualified to fly this Cessna. He sounded very calm when reporting his engine failure to tower. We are not sure which engine failed at this point but the tower cleared him for a left turn. I learned that you never want to turn towards the dead engine. The tower, in my opinion, should just have said "cleared to land any runway". Aviate, navigate, communicate. I know the tower wants to help but they should understand that the pilot in distress runs the show. If the pilot needs anything from tower he will call. Keep communication to the absolute minimum and let the pilot fly. He is pretty busy.
The tower first cleared him to turn left and then cleared him for any runway of his choosing. He probably should have declared an emergency, ignored the tower and flown straight until he gained some altitude and had things cleaned up before turning and communicating further. And make sure he turned into the good engine. I 100% agree about all the talking, especially single pilot at age 72
I had a left engine failure right after take-off in a tired, old Piper Apache. Fortunately, being a short field, the gear was already retracted. It was a thrill a minute getting back to my home field, as that Apache would not climb over 900 feet MSL. What it did prove was that I was a better pilot than I thought.
I tried this in the same plane in Microsoft Flight Simulator in the same conditions. I couldn't get a climb rate out of it on one engine at that density altitude, and I also crashed. More specifically, I failed the right engine just after take off. The plane struggled to stay level, in fact I couldn't maintain level flight. I rotated at 90 knots, and was about 100 feet above ground when the engine failed, and it just rolled right and crashed. I feel for this fellow. What bitch of a situation to find yourself. :(
Excellent video. A tragic accident and a loss to both his family and community. As for causes, Is it possible that under pressure and due to the high density altitude that the first reaction to the failure would be to push the mixture up to full rich instead of leaving it set for best power at that altitude? Mixture is the first item on the checklist and says “as required for flight altitude” however it is very easy to do when most of your training and home base is at sea level that with a failure the ingrained first reaction in memory is mixture full rich as that results in max power at sea level. Full rich in this case would cause a loss of performance due to the altitude. Also with his significant experience is more complex types that have auto rich functions some reversion may have been a factor. Any which way it is easy to judge when not in the seat. I look forward to the report and the lessons from the video particularly about accepting on off field landing if there is a lack of performance is pertinent. On old and wise instructor once told me that in light twin the second engine will carry you to the scene of the accident.
Very important case for us light twin pilots. Gave me new perspective on temperature related airfield DA WRT preflight preparation/considerations. One thing of importance is advising which engine failed b/c normally one would want to keep (gentle shallow) turns to the side of the good engine. If he had a left engine failure he would want to avoid left turns and needed to immediately advise tower. Another reason to keep the engines in good shape so a remaining engine can indeed provide max or near max power. Furthermore consideration must be given to mixture settings for max power , full forward is great for cooling but may not provide max power esp at high DA. It was moot but esp at a larger airport he should also have immediately declared an emergency so ATC could put the commercial jets out of the way on a hold or such. Addendum: did his engine actually quit or seize or did the turbocharger fail causing big MAP splits? TC failure esp at high DA may result in significant performance decrement on that side but usually would not require shutting that engine down and feathering, just ignore the split MAPs till back safely on the runway.
I would be interested in how much PIC time this pilot had in the warbirds, especially the multis. I would imagine the warbird multi PIC's would always have engine out procedure down pat.
Question. Did pilot firewall throttles and mixture. If so, it could have reduced power output in remaining engine. Turbo's don't like to be red-lined. This may well have nothing to do with density altitude and more about training.
I just read that Randy, “built premier plastic surgery programs in Los Angeles and traveled the world caring for children with hard-to-treat deformities,” it sounds like Randy really helped a lot of people in his 72 years of life.
Excellent analysis. So tragic and a good reminder all the way around to know it can happen to the best. He must have had a severe case of wanting to get back to the airport. So tragic that he made a left turn. How many hours total did he have? Sounds like he had made plenty of good decisions and had grat flying skills to make it to 72.
This is my home airfield. I'm not multi-rated, but from what I understand, the first thing you do when you have an engine failure is get clean. Get above clean stall speed, get the gear up, get the flaps up, and get to best single engine climb speed. Then you can start to unfuck things. Turning is not going to help your situation if your aircraft isn't clean and well past VMC. Not sure if ATC giving the man a turn was a factor in the crash, but it certainly doesn't help adding more work to an already over-saturated work load.
Recency of experience is key. Especially at such a high density altitude. There's very little room for error or sloppiness in procedure. Another factor some may not consider is wind shear due to orographic or other turbulence. Not a big deal at full power but a huge deal when hugging blue line with an unfeathered prop, gear, flaps and lights flapping in the breeze.
as a lay person watching this, is the suggetion not to turn around but to continue to fly straight and climb until you can get to the next forward airport?
So sad, but you can see the difficulty he had since the Airport (KFAF)'s surveyed elevation is 6348 feet MSL. All the surrounding terrain is 6500 and above in the immediate area of the airport (according to the approach plate for Runway 20). Yet his departure altitude was at most 6050 feet MSL. Something is wrong with his altitude figures as he's lower than the terrain he's flying over. Very sad. Approach plate can be viewed on Skyvector.
Maybe the ADS-B data is output pressure normalized to 29.92? Barometric pressure was 30.27 which would be about a 350 foot difference, which lines up with the data.
Having flown a Cessna T-50 Bobcat with 245 HP engines and CS but not feathering props, the rule was if an engine failed on takeoff to pull back the throttles and land straight ahead. There was no hope of flying on one. Better to crash wings level than nose down and/or inverted.
according to another youtube doing the analysis the single engine service ceiling is only 7400 feet, Ill have to look that up now. Aopa website says SE Service Ceiling is only 7400 ft.
@@Hedgeflexlfz The Aviation Safety Network website marks the aircraft as a "Cessna T310R II". T standing for Turbo. aviation-safety.net/wikibase/318173
I was doing engine failures after gear-up in the DA42 full-cockpit sim this summer. The first two went ok. Then on the third when my instructor failed the critical engine at about 400 feet something went wrong. I somehow got distracted and failed to keep an eye on the airspeed indicator. I think I got fixated on looking outside at the ground rising up and was also unconsciously pulling back on the stick. In my mind I thought my airspeed was still good, so I was confused as to why the plane was going out of control even though I had full right rudder and an increasing (and obviously counter-productive) amount of right aileron. I didn't realise it, but not only had I slowed below blue line but red line as well! Afterwards, it occurred to me that maybe this was the explanation of how all these experienced pilots have suffered Vmc rollovers on takeoff! The key lesson here is LOOK AT YOUR AIRSPEED EVERY TWO TO THREE SECONDS WHEN YOU ARE ENGINE OUT CLOSE TO THE GROUND! Keep it at blue line!!!
Freaky to think that just 3 months after posting this video, the man, the legend himself would die in near identical circumstances. Rip. Richard McSpadden. "I’d like the memory of me to be a happy one. I’d like to leave an afterglow of smiles when life is done."
For those saying he should have turned right into the good engine, he would have been turning into higher terrain. His ADS-B data shows he could not climb more than about 100' agl, so this would have been a bad option as well. With no climb performance, either due to density altitude or not having the time/wherewithal to secure the dead engine, landing straight ahead was the only 'good' option he had.
Apparently ATC gave clearance for a left hand turn back to runway.I`m not a pilot but are you not supposed to turn into the direction of the dead engine?The left engine being the failure.
I understand the fear of crashing but I’ve never understood the need to do complex maneuvers to return to the airport before recovering the aircraft and gaining altitude before maneuvering back to the airport.
It sounds to me like the pilot may have gotten overloaded, and leaned on ATC's turn suggestion instead of making his own judgement. Is there room to improve how ATC handles engine failures? Could they be trained to always ask which engine, and to suggest the most likely safe turn? Or at the very least, not to suggest a turn direction at all in those cases?
I have a glider rating. Why pull the power back if descending on one engine? Any additional energy extends the potential glide performance, increasing options? I never understand why powered planes don't have the control enhancing function of spoilers / speed brakes, and cost would seem relatively inconsequential when actually needed.
In a twin engine plane you can only use so much power on the non-failed engine before you lose directional control below minimum control airspeed. But in a descent, yes, you could possibly use some power from the good engine to extend the glide.
The 100 knot ground track with the given DA would be about 87 knots indicated, which is not much margin above Vmc-- the figure is given for a constant heading, with *5 degrees bank into the operating engine* , not a banked turn away from it. And 87 knots is quite shy of best climb even going straight. It's unclear whether the data is showing baro normalized to 29.92, which might explain why it reads lower than field elevation, maybe 350-400 feet higher given field conditions. Still, that's only a few hundred feet to play with at best, and well on the wrong side of Vyse means behind the power curve. Can't trade altitude for airspeed to get up to best climb, and a turn robs critical energy exactly when it's needed most. From there it doesn't take much to induce an accelerated stall/spin at 85 knots during the turn to final just as the pilot runs out of right rudder.
Any twin engine airplane that has a gross weight of under 6000 pounds isn’t required to have a positive rate of climb when an engine fails. So basically the operating engine will take you to the scene of the accident. This pilot should have done some weight and balance as well as determine his single engine climb performance. Had he done this, this adds to his decision making. In case of an engine failure. Great Video!!
Randy was an incredible person. So generous and kind. I loved him dearly as well as many others. Prayers for his family. He will be missed.
So sorry for his loss, and prayers to for his family.
Sorry to know this. My condolences.
I just read that Randy, “built premier plastic surgery programs in Los Angeles and traveled the world caring for children with hard-to-treat deformities,” it sounds like Randy really helped a lot of people in his 72 years of life.
❤
@@02markcalwow, what a man. Prayers to the family.
Got to ride with Randy on a C-47 with him as the pilot. Absolutely incredible human being and a man who loved what he did. RIP sir.
When Richard's on deck, I'm all ears. Thank You for the good reminders of what to prepare for given these circumstances.
I am not a pilot, but a former flight attendant. Richard is an amazing teacher and unbiased source of information. I always look forward to these posts and the comments from the community. Thanks to all!
Thank you!
@@richardmcspadden9189 -- my dear Richard, may you rest in peace. 😢
Light twins: 1.5 times the power, 2x the cost and mechanical issues, 3x the skill required.
The point made in the video about accepting a glide to landing off airport in some scenarios can't be forgotten. Break the mindset that a twin always makes it to a runway. So many pilots accept gliding into a field in a single engine airplane with open arms, only to suddenly chuck that mentality out the storm window the moment they get in an airplane with two props. If you know you're pushing the limits of SE performance (High, hot, and/or heavy!) for your airplane, consider that second engine your ticket to a better glide ratio, not a guarantee you'll make it back to pavement.
well stated
Wise words. the instinct seems to be save the plane rather than save yourself and it ends up doing neither.
Yeah but I also think 2 bad choices were made by the pilot as well ; 1. "Im gonna gain altitude " and 2. Staying in the left turn- Did the suggestion by tower to go left to 33 stop him from making a long lazy right. Iunno, all monday morning QB. Rest in peace. Thoughts for the family
Could he have landed on that road? Just interested?
@@pilotactor777road landings can sometimes work out fine, other times it's rush hour.
Outstanding anaysis - as usual. You are so informative yet respectful I can't applaud you enough
These reports are wonderful. I hope they save lives.
@@roderickcampbell2105 Yes, I am sure they do, or help out and reduce the consequences. I hope more people subscribe who are pilots.
I am not a pilot and have to say I would be worried now travelling in a light aircraft with someone after seeing a lot of these. Even when people do not make terrible decisions and are good pilots, who fly well, there seems a very fine line at times and the consequences dire if you happen to cross it slightly.
@@zakelwe ironically so true in the case of this video
I was on the southern end of Santa Fe when the 310 went down, and saw the horrible black smoke. We have been having calculated 10,000+ density altitudes for weeks. It was HOT the morning of the accident. Santa Fe has been near all-time record heat this past week. Please be careful this summer. It is not worth the risk when it gets so hot at high altitude (6300ft field elevation).
You’re calling the pilot stupid and acting like you’re being helpful. GFY
RIP Richard... you were a great pilot, and an even better man. Fly high.
Yeah I just had this video pop in my suggestions, I hadn't watched any other from him since the accident, and frankly it's still heartbreaking to watch...
Those light twins is the kind of plane I wouldn’t ever want to have an engine failure on takeoff. That’s nearly a death sentence 😮
The excellent commentary and analysis is very much appreciated. The outcome of this situation is truly terrible and tragic. Dr. Sherman was an ambassador to both the aviation and medical communities. Condolences to his family and may he RIP.
Richard RIP - You will be missed by thousands of us.
Who you talking to?
@@sethtenrecthis man who presenting the show died recently in aircraft crash
@@AM-hs4bz I know, plane piloted by former NFL player Russ Francis. They made a mistake. Or he made a mistake I guess. Oops!
But the OP above, who is he talking to? As you point out, the guy is dead. Lame comment.
I live about 35 miles south of Santa Fe at a field elevation of 6500' and to the pilots around here, summer is for annuals. We've got something like 300 VFR days per year, so we're not missing out.
This seems like an immediate take home lesson, even without any facts.
Up north we use Winter for annuals since ice is our problem.
Great breakdown of the factors involved in this crash. I am not a pilot but I spent 4 years assigned to a KC-135 flight simulator as a maintenance tech in the USAF. Part of my job included daily pre-flighting the simulator to ensure all systems are operating correctly. Also, during simulated flights with actual crewmembers, my job was to observe the various training "missions" to detect any anomalies in the equipment that may need further attention. One of the most common simulated failures was having an outboard engine fail during rotation at takeoff. Too often, the pilot would step on the wrong rudder pedal to compensate for the severe differential thrust. Of course, that caused the simulator to simulate a loss of control and then simulate a crash. When that happened, the IP (instructor pilot) would become very angry with the crew. Whenever responding to an engine failure, over the years, I heard him say emphatically "step on the good engines" when referring to the rudder pedals and which rudder response is called for.
Dead Foot, Dead Engine
Colonel McSpadden,
Thank you for your analysis and professionalism.
Paul (in MA)
First off, condolences to the family. It does sound like he was a capable pilot as well as a surgeon, and there are four immediate takeaways or lessons learned to use today. First, know your density altitude and how to apply that to your s.e.l. Climb chart and if the number is too low for you, reduce the weight and/or leave at a cooler daylight time. Second, brief your departure and worst case emergency procedure to yourself before each departure (he had a nice clear area straight ahead. Third, know that emergency procedure (and practice it at recurrent training) by heart. You might not have time if you’re single pilot in a light twin to reference a checklist. But do use it when you get the “aviate” portion well under control. And fourth, RAISE THE DEAD engine that is. ALWAYS bank into the good engine. This pilot did not have quite yet the aviate portion in hand yet so there was really no need to talk to the tower, the controller was not going to help save the day and as a matter of fact contributed to the bad situation by saying he was cleared left turn back. I would not lhave been saying anything (except “oh shit” to myself) until I had the emergency under control. I loved that airplane, especially the turbo models as I flew 100s of hours flying freight in them at night, with only once having a partial engine failure, over a city.
The quality content of this channel never ceases to amaze me.
Thank you. We are able to tap into a lot of depth and breadth at AOPA.
RIP Richard McSpadden. You were one of the greats.
Can’t imagine a better person than Richard to help us all learn from and avoid these tragedies. Thank-you.
I think he taught us how to learn from and avoid these tragedies. Stay out of these light aircraft.
Fly the wing. Nothing else matters. Thrust is optional. Lift is not!
As a light twin pilot my self, I can only hope that when (and if) I have a real engine failure my glider pilot instincts will keep me from trying to fly when the airplane is not. That’s the major survival factor in a light twin engine failure. Sometimes the operative engine will only fly you to the crash site.
You need better training.
CapFreddy speaks wisdom and mirrors what we heard from the speaker. @@colinrasmussen9470 does not.
blue line baby😂
If only aircraft used quality engines like those made by Honda and Toyota.
No one wants to ditch an aircraft away from a regular runway but sometimes it's your best option.
Excellent video. Gold standard of accident analysis.
Thanks for watching!
Great point about accepting your off airport landing rather than augering in at 100kts+ still trying to climb. Sad and discouraging to see any pilot go down like this, but particularly one with this breadth of time and experience.
If you look at the area, the choice of an off site landing was as simple as looking down. He even had the option of a dirt road that was perpendicular with runway so he wouldn't even have required a turn and most likely could have gone gear down, particularly if he was having trouble raising them. Of course in that situation processing the information and making a decision is extremely difficult and time sensitive. I bet in flying those older aircraft, his natural instinct would be to preserve them in this type of a situation. Perhaps that kicked in here.
But the fatal error of turning into the dead engine, seems like a massive oversight for someone with the vast experience he had.
He died doing what he loved.
@@bastogne315 yeah, that helps 🙄
Rip Richard, I will miss these videos hosted by you :(
A great clear and concise presentation. Thanks.
My instructor told me the best thing to do if you lose an engine on a twin during takeoff is to pull both throttles back to idle and land straight ahead. Even though I never flew a twin, I never forgot him giving me that advice…this was around 1992.
Thank you sir for pointing out that sometimes the best option in this situation is to feather both engines and prepare the aircraft for an off-field landing such as on a road or highway.
Thanks for the analysis. Too bad there wasn't a better outcome.
Good video, but please recheck the comment (7:28) that the SE climb performance is based on wings level climb. Normally the climb performance is based on climbing with a five degree bank into the good engine which reduces the sideslip and drag. Great comment on accepting what you have got if you are not climbing. If it happens before the gear is up, think as a friend said "well I just sold the aircraft to the insurance company" power off both sides and go for the straight ahead off field landing.
I love these analyses. I am not even a flight attendant. I believe these are great informative videos for any pilots to learn from.
I love the way you describe the issue in hand Not all of us are rocket scientist.
Richard is one of the most clear and logical speakers I've ever heard. Keep up the excellent work.
Lesson learned: (1) be prepared when flying in high density altitude, and (2) in an engine out situation even at low altitude, where a second engine can provide sufficient climb performance for the situation, be prepared to fight back the instinct to turn toward the quickest landing pattern, particularly if that turn leans to the off engine, and concentrate first on gaining altitude to run the checklist(s) and perform a single engine landing. What is surprising is that the last words of the pilot seem to indicate he understood this and was focussed on gaining altitude. I suspect something else happened after he started to attempt to gain altitude. One possibillity is that the wrong engine was turned off.
Thank you for the kind comments.
“Put all the odds in your favor.”
- Barry Schiff
Excellent review. With such a failure merely flying the aircraft can absorb much of your brain power. Having to take one's hand off the controls to run through the engine failure sequence can be very demanding when you can hardly keep the aircraft under control. With the high D/A everything on the s/e checklist must be correctly and expeditiously completed or the aircraft simply will not perform. This is where recent/recurrent single engine failure proficiency is so important.
These early analysis videos are great but what happened to the full length videos? I miss them. They were awesome.
More Accident Case Studies coming soon.
@@AirSafetyInstitute I was wondering the same thing. Good to hear.
Tragic but a solid reminder to do your density altitude calculations.
Learned something.
I thought even with density altitude any turbo charged engines performs as it would at sea level?
I'm guessing now that may not be the case?
Well, yes that was the first consideration he likely missed and that left turn, with an idle left engine.....was the kiss of death.
@@MikinctYes it can be done. I’ve demonstrated a cessna T310 with a RAM 2 conversion climbing from 9000FT at a rate of 200Ft/minute. However contrary to the VMC demo. My Airspeed was below blue line but above red line while maintaining direction control. Engine settings on the good engine were at 32 inches and 2500 RPM. POH says it can maintain 17000 FT on one engine but the climb performance will start to degrade around 13000 FT as you would have to maintain a higher indicated airspeed to maintain directional control as rudder would become less effective with denser air.
If you watched the video, it wasn't density altitude that was the problem. He should have been able to slowly climb to 17,000 feet on a single engine under those conditions. It sounds like he did not get the plane set up properly for single engine.
@linanicolia1363 where did snyone state which engine died? It's just a guess at this point, right? Could've been the right engine that lost power until the investigation is done.
Richard,
Thanks for the early analysis on these accidents realizing that everything is not known about the accident, but there are definitely lessons that can be learned while the accident is fresh in our minds.
great breakdown, and 100% agree with your final thought.
Perhaps the pilot turned too soon before sorting out his plane. That checklist is rather daunting as well. Pilot was one busy person trying to handle everything. Got me. My condolences to his family. Wish this would've turned out better.
Its crazy how hot and dry it gets every summer here in New Mexico. Lots of the state has high altitude. This was in the 'cool' morning. I Fly RC jets. Electric ducted fans. Planes that will fly out of your hand @ sea level (easily hand launched) will take a full throttle run on a 300' runway to take off. Its amazing how much MMPH you lose with thin dry air.
Dry isn't a density problem, humid is.
High, hot, humid.
Thank you for the loud and clear reminder
Well done on the upgraded overview w/charts and aides.
Working on my multi-engine add-on now. I can attest to how much more difficult a light twin is to fly on a single engine.
"Don't fight it...accept it... deal with the best option you have available." That's a simple and yet wonderful piece of advice, and so logical. I think Richard McSpadden might be a Vulcan.
Outstanding analysis. And really sorry for the loss. Blue skies ✈️
Single engine max altitude is about 7500 not 17500, the density altitude was higher than the single engine service ceiling.
Cessna T 310 R, II turbocharged - Performance Data
Horsepower: 285 Gross Weight: 5500 lbs
Top Speed: 237 kts Empty Weight: 3723 lbs
Cruise Speed: 223 kts Fuel Capacity: 102 gal
Stall Speed (dirty): 70 kts Range: 517 nm
Takeoff Landing
Ground Roll: 1306 ft Ground Roll 640 ft
Over 50 ft obstacle: 1662 ft Over 50 ft obstacle: 1790 ft
Rate Of Climb: 1700 fpm Rate of Climb (One Engine): 390 fpm
Ceiling: 27400 ft Ceiling (One Engine): 17200 ft
Cessna T310R II Performance Specifications
Horsepower: 2 x 285 HP
Best Cruise Speed: 223 KIAS
Best Range (i): 517 NM
Fuel Burn @ 75%: 27.2 GPH
Stall Speed: 70 KIAS
Rate of climb: 1,700 FPM
Rate of climb (1 engine out): 390 FPM
Ceiling: 27,400 FT
Ceiling (1 engine out): 17,200 FT
I disagree please check the specs again.
i think the focus should not be on why the engine quit. the time for figuring out why is later. it quit so dont turn into a dead engine.
Will be of interest to find out what state the props were in- whether the correct one, or if any, were in feather or not. Even so, turns on one engine are very demanding in terms of aircraft performance, as this video mentions.
these turns are discouraged, especially in low altitude.
This video is excellent! Thank you for the lesson!
Thank you for sharing. Always appreciated. Great reminder for sure.
Thanks for watching!
As I review this................. he should fly straight ahead as long as need be to get altitude..... then he would be fine.
yeah. You could lose both engines and land straight down, hoping to miss any house or anything in the way. You may total the plane, but walk away.....
@@linanicolia1363 In this case there was land clear of obstacles straight ahead. With the left turn he plowed into a trailer home.
Great report, my 2 cents is in line with your evaluation, put another way, he stopped flying the airplane, instead he felt it was necessary to start talking to ATC instead of following the procedures you outlined, straight ahead, clean up, lower wing slightly.
At that density altitude, the 310, 402 and 421 need both engines to fly, picking a relatively flat spot and ditching it straight ahead was his only
chance, making the turn sealed his fate. The DTSB makes it a point for pilots to mentally brief themselves prior to every departure, this technique can save lives in any aircraft.
It's easy for us to be critical, but you would be hard pressed to find a more qualified MEL pilot. Fate is the Hunter, may he RIP.
@@bobteter4300 I’m guessing he didn’t actually know what poor performance was available on the day in that 310. I wonder when the last time he did any SE air work. Training matters.
You gave us a very good overview of procedure for engine loss in a twin for a stable climb and thank you. However, no mention was made on turning into the dead engine. It sounded like the tower asked if he could make a left turn, directing him to the closest runway. It would be sad to find out that he turned into a dead engine trying to rush into a landing on the closest runway, instead of following procedure to establish a climb of some sort straight ahead, or if not possible landing straight ahead gear up. Hopefully, he wasn't in 'gotta save this plane' mode.
Well, we heard him say that he was gonna try to get some altitude. But I guess he forgot to do that before he made that turn. Don’t forget he was 72.
Miss your videos Richard . Fly high
I don't fly planes but have watched scores of these uploads.It seems that many crashes of twin engine planes occur when the pilot tries to return to the airport with a quick U turn.I understand the get back on the ground as soon as possible but often it leads to disaster.
Great video as usual, may he fly with angels now 😢
The focus on density altitude is important, but it's possible this airplane had a fair bit of margin still. He was solo - that usually means a LOT less weight when you include luggage etc etc. Some cessna 310's are carrying 6 people aren't they? And many are turbocharged. The other issues (cleaning up / feathering / bank / direction of turn etc) all seem like potentially very direct contributors. Gear out, no feather, turn into dead engine, let speed decay? That would be pretty bad. If he was trying to climb my guess is his speed WAS decaying (keep speed is usually part of engine out but I don't know multi) - that was his radio call.
As I commented under Blancolirio's video:
"6400 maximum, then down to 6100, so the airport actually seems to sit higher than immediately surrounding terrain. Even if he feathered correctly, it's obvious that he was never gaining altitude, which was his plan (as per audio). I wonder if, after noticing that he wasn't gaining altitude, he tried to go for the highway.
When I fly single engine I tend to always look for suitable field to land, while when I fly the Seminole (counter-rotating prop, so no critical engine) I tend to focus more on Vmc and proper procedure. But we need to remember that even in a twin, we need to look for suitable landing area in case of engine failure. Two months ago at KLAF (low altitude, 600ft) on simulated engine failure I could barely climb while keeping slightly above Vmc, even after simulating feathering 😮"
Good point! Every pilot should look at the Google map around their home field to find suitable landing spots or taking it a step further and using the measurement tool. You'd be surprised what looks big enough but is not.
I'm not sure why you were trying to climb just above Vmc. Fly blue line (Vyse) for best single engine climb rate. You should never be below blue line except on short final when landing is assured. Note however that Vyse may be slightly lower than what is marked on the airspeed indicator when flying at low weights or high density altitudes.
Winds calm? What was the terrain elevation situation on the oppisite runway?
I am not a pilot but at 35 years old I can’t imagine learning this skill and being so knowledgeable and reactive, to navigate an emergency situation.
Great analysis. This pilot seemed exceptionally well qualified and capable of dealing with this emergency. Hopefully the NTSB can sort this out and we can learn from this tragedy.
Clearly not or he would still be alive. 🤔
@greggpedder That's not necessarily true.
@@greggpedder Even great pilots make mistakes or find themselves in no win scenarios.
@@bombsaway6340well then you're not great right? But I know that it's very hot out there these days and the plane wasn't climbing and he was over hostile terrain... It's always better to crash land into ground as opposed to stalling in the air. Also if it was a left engine out, turning left was a mistake.
Mother Nature is very unforgiving and doesn’t give two hoots as to experience or type ratings. Respect her!!
Thanks for the indepth analysis Sir.. lesson learnt is on an engine failure just on lift off..
- counter the yaw
- wings level
- landing gears in
- feather the inoperative engine
- maintain single engine climb out speed
- gain safe alt
And then look for landing options
Thankyou Sir
It's better stated as:
1. Maintain heading with rudder
2. Pitch for blue line
3. Mixture, props, throttles forward
4. Gear up, flaps up
5. Identify, verify, feather
6. Establish zero sideslip (3-5 degrees bank into the good engine and half a ball into the good engine).
That pilot seemed to be very qualified to fly this Cessna. He sounded very calm when reporting his engine failure to tower. We are not sure which engine failed at this point but the tower cleared him for a left turn. I learned that you never want to turn towards the dead engine. The tower, in my opinion, should just have said "cleared to land any runway". Aviate, navigate, communicate.
I know the tower wants to help but they should understand that the pilot in distress runs the show. If the pilot needs anything from tower he will call. Keep communication to the absolute minimum and let the pilot fly. He is pretty busy.
The tower first cleared him to turn left and then cleared him for any runway of his choosing. He probably should have declared an emergency, ignored the tower and flown straight until he gained some altitude and had things cleaned up before turning and communicating further. And make sure he turned into the good engine. I 100% agree about all the talking, especially single pilot at age 72
Thank you for the informational video. Great reminders for all pilots
I had a left engine failure right after take-off in a tired, old Piper Apache. Fortunately, being a short field, the gear was already retracted. It was a thrill a minute getting back to my home field, as that Apache would not climb over 900 feet MSL. What it did prove was that I was a better pilot than I thought.
I tried this in the same plane in Microsoft Flight Simulator in the same conditions. I couldn't get a climb rate out of it on one engine at that density altitude, and I also crashed. More specifically, I failed the right engine just after take off. The plane struggled to stay level, in fact I couldn't maintain level flight. I rotated at 90 knots, and was about 100 feet above ground when the engine failed, and it just rolled right and crashed. I feel for this fellow. What bitch of a situation to find yourself. :(
Does it mean that you should rotate at higher airspeed to cater to the environmental conditions?
So sad to see this😢
Excellent video. A tragic accident and a loss to both his family and community.
As for causes, Is it possible that under pressure and due to the high density altitude that the first reaction to the failure would be to push the mixture up to full rich instead of leaving it set for best power at that altitude? Mixture is the first item on the checklist and says “as required for flight altitude” however it is very easy to do when most of your training and home base is at sea level that with a failure the ingrained first reaction in memory is mixture full rich as that results in max power at sea level. Full rich in this case would cause a loss of performance due to the altitude. Also with his significant experience is more complex types that have auto rich functions some reversion may have been a factor. Any which way it is easy to judge when not in the seat. I look forward to the report and the lessons from the video particularly about accepting on off field landing if there is a lack of performance is pertinent. On old and wise instructor once told me that in light twin the second engine will carry you to the scene of the accident.
Very important case for us light twin pilots. Gave me new perspective on temperature related airfield DA WRT preflight preparation/considerations. One thing of importance is advising which engine failed b/c normally one would want to keep (gentle shallow) turns to the side of the good engine. If he had a left engine failure he would want to avoid left turns and needed to immediately advise tower. Another reason to keep the engines in good shape so a remaining engine can indeed provide max or near max power. Furthermore consideration must be given to mixture settings for max power , full forward is great for cooling but may not provide max power esp at high DA. It was moot but esp at a larger airport he should also have immediately declared an emergency so ATC could put the commercial jets out of the way on a hold or such. Addendum: did his engine actually quit or seize or did the turbocharger fail causing big MAP splits? TC failure esp at high DA may result in significant performance decrement on that side but usually would not require shutting that engine down and feathering, just ignore the split MAPs till back safely on the runway.
There is a river valley off to the right. I would have headed for that until a safe altitude could be attained.
Thank you and great video as always ! 👍👍👍👍👍👍😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I would be interested in how much PIC time this pilot had in the warbirds, especially the multis. I would imagine the warbird multi PIC's would always have engine out procedure down pat.
The info I was looking for was an explanation for the left turn. What prevented a better right turn?
Thanks for the insights.
Question. Did pilot firewall throttles and mixture. If so, it could have reduced power output in remaining engine. Turbo's don't like to be red-lined. This may well have nothing to do with density altitude and more about training.
Pilot was a brilliant surgeon. He will be missed by many
I just read that Randy, “built premier plastic surgery programs in Los Angeles and traveled the world caring for children with hard-to-treat deformities,” it sounds like Randy really helped a lot of people in his 72 years of life.
@@02markcal He was a friend of a friend. Apparently extroadinary man. Too bad. Only good thing was the house was apparently empty.
Excellent analysis. So tragic and a good reminder all the way around to know it can happen to the best. He must have had a severe case of wanting to get back to the airport. So tragic that he made a left turn. How many hours total did he have? Sounds like he had made plenty of good decisions and had grat flying skills to make it to 72.
This is my home airfield. I'm not multi-rated, but from what I understand, the first thing you do when you have an engine failure is get clean. Get above clean stall speed, get the gear up, get the flaps up, and get to best single engine climb speed. Then you can start to unfuck things. Turning is not going to help your situation if your aircraft isn't clean and well past VMC. Not sure if ATC giving the man a turn was a factor in the crash, but it certainly doesn't help adding more work to an already over-saturated work load.
Recency of experience is key. Especially at such a high density altitude. There's very little room for error or sloppiness in procedure. Another factor some may not consider is wind shear due to orographic or other turbulence. Not a big deal at full power but a huge deal when hugging blue line with an unfeathered prop, gear, flaps and lights flapping in the breeze.
as a lay person watching this, is the suggetion not to turn around but to continue to fly straight and climb until you can get to the next forward airport?
Excellent presentation! Thanks.
So sad, but you can see the difficulty he had since the Airport (KFAF)'s surveyed elevation is 6348 feet MSL. All the surrounding terrain is 6500 and above in the immediate area of the airport (according to the approach plate for Runway 20). Yet his departure altitude was at most 6050 feet MSL. Something is wrong with his altitude figures as he's lower than the terrain he's flying over. Very sad. Approach plate can be viewed on Skyvector.
Maybe the ADS-B data is output pressure normalized to 29.92? Barometric pressure was 30.27 which would be about a 350 foot difference, which lines up with the data.
Having flown a Cessna T-50 Bobcat with 245 HP engines and CS but not feathering props, the rule was if an engine failed on takeoff to pull back the throttles and land straight ahead. There was no hope of flying on one. Better to crash wings level than nose down and/or inverted.
Thank you for the lesson.
RIP Spad! 😪
according to another youtube doing the analysis the single engine service ceiling is only 7400 feet, Ill have to look that up now. Aopa website says SE Service Ceiling is only 7400 ft.
You're referring to non-turbocharged 310 performance numbers. The aircraft in this accident was turbocharged.
Naturally aspirated is 7400 feet, turbocharged is 17200 feet.
@@Hedgeflexlfz This plane should have had little trouble climbing and staying in the air on one engine, even given the density altitude..
@@Hedgeflexlfz The Aviation Safety Network website marks the aircraft as a "Cessna T310R II". T standing for Turbo. aviation-safety.net/wikibase/318173
Thank you for the video
I was doing engine failures after gear-up in the DA42 full-cockpit sim this summer. The first two went ok. Then on the third when my instructor failed the critical engine at about 400 feet something went wrong. I somehow got distracted and failed to keep an eye on the airspeed indicator. I think I got fixated on looking outside at the ground rising up and was also unconsciously pulling back on the stick. In my mind I thought my airspeed was still good, so I was confused as to why the plane was going out of control even though I had full right rudder and an increasing (and obviously counter-productive) amount of right aileron. I didn't realise it, but not only had I slowed below blue line but red line as well! Afterwards, it occurred to me that maybe this was the explanation of how all these experienced pilots have suffered Vmc rollovers on takeoff! The key lesson here is LOOK AT YOUR AIRSPEED EVERY TWO TO THREE SECONDS WHEN YOU ARE ENGINE OUT CLOSE TO THE GROUND! Keep it at blue line!!!
2:15 Would have been interesting to see what the C310 SE Rate of climb chart show with current conditions.
Please stop the weatherman presentations and go back to the old format/graphics.
Freaky to think that just 3 months after posting this video, the man, the legend himself would die in near identical circumstances. Rip. Richard McSpadden.
"I’d like the memory of me to be a happy one.
I’d like to leave an afterglow of smiles when life is done."
Fly the airplane first, talking is not first
For those saying he should have turned right into the good engine, he would have been turning into higher terrain. His ADS-B data shows he could not climb more than about 100' agl, so this would have been a bad option as well. With no climb performance, either due to density altitude or not having the time/wherewithal to secure the dead engine, landing straight ahead was the only 'good' option he had.
Do we know what engine failed?
@@scottw5315 I haven't seen anything confirmed, but all signs seem to point to the left. Regardless, turning right was not a good option in any case.
"well at least I'm alive" is never a disappointing statement when looking at a destroyed plane.
Apparently ATC gave clearance for a left hand turn back to runway.I`m not a pilot but are you not supposed to turn into the direction of the dead engine?The left engine being the failure.
Your nods of faith towards the NTSB is perplexing. Are you not aware of Dan Gryder's work?
I understand the fear of crashing but I’ve never understood the need to do complex maneuvers to return to the airport before recovering the aircraft and gaining altitude before maneuvering back to the airport.
It sounds to me like the pilot may have gotten overloaded, and leaned on ATC's turn suggestion instead of making his own judgement. Is there room to improve how ATC handles engine failures? Could they be trained to always ask which engine, and to suggest the most likely safe turn? Or at the very least, not to suggest a turn direction at all in those cases?
Airspeed on ADS-B track appears to be in excess of 100 knots on the upwind leg. Could it really be too slow for a single engine operation?
ADS-B tracks show ground speed, not airspeed. In calm air, at a 9000 ft density altitude, 100 knots over the ground is an airspeed of about 87 knots.
I have a glider rating. Why pull the power back if descending on one engine? Any additional energy extends the potential glide performance, increasing options? I never understand why powered planes don't have the control enhancing function of spoilers / speed brakes, and cost would seem relatively inconsequential when actually needed.
In a twin engine plane you can only use so much power on the non-failed engine before you lose directional control below minimum control airspeed. But in a descent, yes, you could possibly use some power from the good engine to extend the glide.
The 100 knot ground track with the given DA would be about 87 knots indicated, which is not much margin above Vmc-- the figure is given for a constant heading, with *5 degrees bank into the operating engine* , not a banked turn away from it. And 87 knots is quite shy of best climb even going straight. It's unclear whether the data is showing baro normalized to 29.92, which might explain why it reads lower than field elevation, maybe 350-400 feet higher given field conditions. Still, that's only a few hundred feet to play with at best, and well on the wrong side of Vyse means behind the power curve. Can't trade altitude for airspeed to get up to best climb, and a turn robs critical energy exactly when it's needed most. From there it doesn't take much to induce an accelerated stall/spin at 85 knots during the turn to final just as the pilot runs out of right rudder.
Any twin engine airplane that has a gross weight of under 6000 pounds isn’t required to have a positive rate of climb when an engine fails. So basically the operating engine will take you to the scene of the accident. This pilot should have done some weight and balance as well as determine his single engine climb performance. Had he done this, this adds to his decision making. In case of an engine failure. Great Video!!