|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When San Mateo County investigators arrived at the scene of the Feb. 17 plane crash in East Palo Alto, they found the bodies of two victims lying side by side, arms interlocked, and a third victim lying separately on the other side of a large pile of debris.
The investigation report of the San Mateo Coroner’s office, released Thursday, confirms that all three occupants suffered severe burns after the plane hit a high-tension power line and tower near Beech Street in East Palo Alto.
The report focuses on Doug Bourn, a Tesla engineer who piloted the twin-engine 310 R Cessna airplane that took off from the Palo Alto Airport in dense fog at about 7:50 a.m. and crashed a short distance from the runway.
The report attributes Bourn’s death to “multiple blunt injuries.” It states in its conclusion, “Based on all reviewed information, the manner of death has been determined to be an accident.”
The report notes that the plane took off in dense fog. One hour before the accident, the Palo Alto Airport reported that visibility was one-eighth of a mile with a ceiling of 100 feet above ground level.
The plane veered left into the high-tension power line before crashing on Beech Street.
Because of the damage, none of the victims initially could be positively identified. The coroner’s office ultimately relied on dental records to identify Bourn, 56.
The other two victims were later identified as Tesla employees Brian Finn, 42, and Andrew Ingram, 31.
Bourn’s pathology report, also released Thursday, shows that he had no drugs or alcohol in his system. The only chemical found in Bourn’s blood was Metoprolol, a medication for high blood pressure.
Investigators also found several notebooks and items of partially burned clothing in the wreckage, which most likely came out of the luggage, according to the report. The metal frames of the airplane seats were also strewn about the scene, with three seats being “on or near each set of remains.”
Heartbreaking, completely heartbreaking. So much destruction and loss when that plane crashed. Deepest sympathy to the loved ones of the victims. It still seems miraculous luck to me that no one on the ground was injured.
This should not really be classified as “around town” … isn’t that for events and things in Palo Alto … more like Crimes and Incidents.
But, then we get to parse what is an “ACCIDENT” ?
An accident is an unintended consequence.
> An accident is an unintended consequence.
Total smart remark, that does not start or maintain an intelligent discussion about anything.
Not in this context, an accident is a word with no meaning. When people say it was an accident they mean that there is no fault. Calling this an accident may be true in the context of an unintended consequence, but not in the context of making sure it doesn’t happen again of finding out what went wrong.
Was it an accident of the plane failing.
Was it the pilot not missing the wires, not seeing the wires, not knowing the wires were there?
Was it an accident in the sense that regulations did not foresee anyone taking a sharp left turn from the runway into East Palo Alto on a foggy day with limited visibility?
Accident here is a pretty meaningless term in terms of doing or changing anything, in this sense it could be a loaded term.
Not to mention, there are no accidents.
I think it’s sad and unfortunate that these details were published on this website. I would have hoped Palo Alto Online would be more sensitive and respectful to the family and friends of the victims.
“An accident” in this context just means the pilot didn’t crash the plane on purpose.
> “An accident” in this context just means the pilot didn’t crash the plane on purpose.
I suppose one could say that … but was it ever really an issue? Did anyone think that, and does that information tell us anything? One can say that speaking the utterly redundant obvious is unnecessary, so what is the purpose of releasing that statement, and now?
Is there legal significance to it in terms of financial liability?
And why say that unless they can detail what caused the accident precisely … which perhaps the NTSC will not even be able to do for sure?
Sounds more like a CRASH caused by a pilot who did not follow proper procedures. A completely senseless act that should not happen. This “accident” just gives the General Aviation community a black eye.
Geez — leave it alone. It was an accident. When the report comes out it may or may not explain why it happened.
In the absence of clear fault, re-hashing it over and over on these pages does nothing but hurt the families. The pilot tried to get control of the plane, it was out of control, he failed and everyone was killed. Maybe it was weather, maybe it was mechanical, maybe it was pilot error. Again…it was an accident and accidents happen in private aviation just like they do on the road.
What’s your real agenda? To get rid of the airport? Sue the victim’s family for money to help the city budget? Won’t happen. Or, is the agenda just to have the “controversy du jour” rant about.
Move on.
My agenda is not to get rid of airports. In fact I think the US could use more “GA Friendly” airports. My Agenda, if I really had one, would be to get pilots to train more often, follow procedures more rigidly, and stop killing people needlessly.
In my profession, I deal with bent airplanes and broken bodies regularly. As a pilot, seeing these crashes hits a little too close to home to just sit idly by.
Flying light aircraft is extremely safe. However, it can be made safer with a little forethought, and extra training. Unfortunately, fellow pilots don’t think it will happen to them until its too late.
Calling it an “accident” is a bit of a cop out, as if nothing could have been done to prevent it. Quite simple, it was a crash that could have been prevented. The pilot made a mistake and he paid the price. My prayers to his family as well as the other victims.
There are different levels of “accidents” and this APPEARS to be a classic case of launching into bad conditions without sufficient training to handle the emergency. I agree with Jamie that no one intended to crash, but if you use poor judgment, you are making an accident more likely to happen. There’s an old flying expression that I always consider before launching: “If you die in bad weather – you’ll get buried on a sunny day.”
It can be classified as an accident only if one concludes that the pilot didn’t commit suicide, which is extremely unlikely. He was however extremely reckless by taking off in very dense fog, and had quite possibly disregarded basic safety procedures by turning in the wrong direction and maybe even showing off by flying over the house of one of his passengers. Do we call a fatal crash caused by a reckless driver who disobeyed basic road rules an accident? We may never know what really happened, but it seems more and more like a terrible tragedy that could been even more deadly caused by recklessness.
>> In the absence of clear fault, re-hashing it over and over on these pages does nothing but hurt the families.
This is patent nonsense, the families were hurt by a norm that is dangerous and far too unregulated. That plane should never have been where it was, and if the pilot was experiencing some kind of mechanical failure, which there was no evidence of so far, he should have been trained or told what do if something goes wrong … ie. crash over the bay.
These attempts to support the airport, are dishonest in almost all their appearances trying to make talk about safety and the airport an issue of hurting the family’s feelings is really despicable.
Hard to believe someone is so petty as to criticize which category I put this in when I responded. Hey, for me, it’s around town, as I live in EPA. Also, 1 of the victims was an EPA resident, the others were SC County residents, and worked for a local firm – around town, that is.
400,000 Americans die of smoking related diseases every year, many other die of smoking related fires and some of second hand smoke — possibly
so in the last 50 yrs about 20,000000 have died from smoking, a huge number EPA residents have died from smoking, drugs and violence.
ZERO 3rd party EPA residents have died from crashes from Palo Alto Airport.
It is important to be rational about risks to life, too much emotion and too little logic leads to bad decision quality– but is still used by some as a play for money– though courts are cracking down on that strategy very hard– and that is a good thing
Gun makers are not liable for shooting deaths in EPA, distillers are not liable for domestic violence and DUI deaths in EPA.
Attempts to profit from this accident will go nowhere, if you sue make sure it is on contingency, not billable hours– let the lawyers assume the risk– otherwise a lot of plaintiffs will be in debt for a long, long time
Sharon, as usual, you don’t get the point. Too many lives were at risk w/this flight that ended tragically. No one is talking about gun death, drug death, smoking cigarettes leading to death. The subject is this plane crash and it deserves much consideration. Did you view the crash site? Did you see the damaged homes, street and vehicles? That’s not even getting into the loss of human life. It was a horrific tragedy, and an avoidable one.
Your anti-EPA pov is tiresome as you don’t seem to really know much about the community, except perhaps what you read and make assumptions from there.
The issue is rational understanding of risk and uncertanty
Many people in PA and EPA smoke and they also fear flying yet they drive cars
Now the courts have adopted a rational, evidence based approach– good
Your risk of dying from smoking is much greater than your risk of dying when driving which is much, much, much greater than your risk of being killed or injured by a plane from PA Airport– in fact the risk of the latter is Zero, based upon available facts and evidence.
The risks for death or serious injury in EPA are smoking, drugs, Domestic violence, gangs, DUI, and HIV– planes falling out of the sky are no risk at all.
So go for contingency not billable hours– there is no case– no money– not that that will deter people– decision quality is a rare quality
Very sad accident for all involved
In the interest of evidence, reality and truth
Here is the data that lets you know the risks to your life and property in this area
see–http://paloalto.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Palo+Alto&s1=CA&c2=East+Palo+Alto&s2=CA
Actually as a ATP your definition of this accident is correct. Sorry but you others just don’t get it.
sharing these details publicly is in bad taste.
My risk from smoking ?
How clueless can you get. I have no risk from smoking because I can control whether I smoke or not and I just do not take on the risk.
Really this is more like the risk from air pollution. It kills people and cuts into their lives. So we regulate it. Obviously when this kind of thing can happen the regulation on planes is either absent or needs updating. The problem is that the arguments and attitudes we get from pilots and supporters of the airport is suspiciously like the arguments we got from bankers to repeal Glass-Steigel financial regulation. I am tired of the whole country getting pushed around from crappy arguments and lousy logic based on people who make money off of bad or risky behavior.
The facts remain that there have been ZERO 3 rd party deaths or injuries by flights from or to PA Airport in 60yrs of operation.
Meanwhile the real risks to people in EPA are these
http://paloalto.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Palo+Alto&s1=CA&c2=East+Palo+Alto&s2=CA
Look carefully at the rates for murder, rape and assault
The real danger to Palo Alto is the spill over effects of this violence to PA.
The terrorist drug gangs in EPA are now using high powered military type weapons with a potential killing range of up to a mile, stray bullets from these gang wars are a clear and present danger to PA residents and to commuters driving to and from the Dumbarton Bridge
The Palo Alto Airport presents no risk look at the facts to asses relative risk– do the math–
I’ve been a pilot since 1979 and have thousands of hours in many types of aircraft. There is no shortage of imbeciles who think their flying skills are better than they really are. It’s pretty obvious that this was another bad or inexperienced pilot who killed his passengers. If the pilot was buzzing one of his workers homes, especially in 1/8th mile visibility, that’s not an accident, that’s criminal negligence. 98% of aircraft “accidents” are a result of bad decisions, failure to plan ahead and a over estimation of a pilots skill, resulting in the “accident” happening.
There’s an extensive study done by the NTSB a few years back, that detailed the loss of proficency in IFR skills in a very quick timeframe. In this study, it was determined that a pilot who was not IFR qualified, got him/her self into an IFR situation, lost control and crashed within 90 seconds. Whereas low time IFR pilots who didn’t keep proficent, experienced the loss of control, resulting in a departure from controlled flight, thereby crashing in 120 seconds.
An IFR pilot took off in 1/8th visibility from Van Nuys, before the airport opened and he was trying to sneak out early. This pilot had thousands of VFR hours, he had flown in all types of weather, but after taking off thinking he could climb out on top quickly, he crashed in Reseda 81 seconds after wheels up. JFK Jr. killed his passengers because he was IFR inexperienced, only having a few hours of IFR instruction. He thought he could fly in IFR with minimal training and from the time he lost control, till he hit the water, was 30 seconds.
I’m guessing this pilot overestimated his proficency if he had an IFR rating and if he didn’t, it’s nothing short of unintended criminal manslaughter. He also didn’t bother planning out his flight to avoid these power lines, so in my opinion, this is not an accident, it was caused a by a stupid pilot.
BTW, mechanical failure was not an issue in this crash. My sympathy to the families and I hope they sue this pilots estate for every penny they can get, because it’s clear as the nose on your face, that he was 100% at fault.