Sometimes I can't believe Sili Valley
High-tech entrepreneurs killed when nobody should have been flying
Let's take a look at this.
A twin-engine Cessna 310 registered to a Tesla Motors engineer crashed shortly after takeoff this morning in East Palo Alto, wrecking three homes and a day care center and killing all three Tesla employees on board. Miraculously, no one on the ground was injured.
I don't know the specifics of the Cessna 310. I do know that personal-size planes have far more accidents than commercial ones. To me they don't seem like a great idea unless you are very careful about conditions. (Certain microlights, which are slower and have whole-plane parachutes, may be safer, although I'd still only fly them in good conditions.)
Schapelhouman said the crash likely occurred because of "mechanical" difficulties, or "poor visibility" because of this morning's soupy fog, which caused the early-morning cancellations or delays of many flights at the Bay Area's three commercial international airports.
In other words, it was a bad idea to take off at all that day, probably even in a much safer plane with better instruments.
These are the guys who invent electric cars?
"You couldn't see 100 feet in front of you," Ferrell said. He noted that under those conditions, a plane can take off but not land because the runway isn't visible.
You can take off, but you can't land? Who accepts a dare like that?
Collateral damage: 3 homes and a day-care center. Fortunately no one on the ground was injured.
Can anyone explain this to me? It sounds like some airports have ways for landing planes by instruments alone, but the above quote suggests that PA isn't one of them.
Let's take a look at this.
A twin-engine Cessna 310 registered to a Tesla Motors engineer crashed shortly after takeoff this morning in East Palo Alto, wrecking three homes and a day care center and killing all three Tesla employees on board. Miraculously, no one on the ground was injured.
I don't know the specifics of the Cessna 310. I do know that personal-size planes have far more accidents than commercial ones. To me they don't seem like a great idea unless you are very careful about conditions. (Certain microlights, which are slower and have whole-plane parachutes, may be safer, although I'd still only fly them in good conditions.)
Schapelhouman said the crash likely occurred because of "mechanical" difficulties, or "poor visibility" because of this morning's soupy fog, which caused the early-morning cancellations or delays of many flights at the Bay Area's three commercial international airports.
In other words, it was a bad idea to take off at all that day, probably even in a much safer plane with better instruments.
These are the guys who invent electric cars?
"You couldn't see 100 feet in front of you," Ferrell said. He noted that under those conditions, a plane can take off but not land because the runway isn't visible.
You can take off, but you can't land? Who accepts a dare like that?
Collateral damage: 3 homes and a day-care center. Fortunately no one on the ground was injured.
Can anyone explain this to me? It sounds like some airports have ways for landing planes by instruments alone, but the above quote suggests that PA isn't one of them.