wombat

I like to tell people "You can always go around" but that's not actually true. There comes a point in many landings where a go-around is no longer possible. On a long runway (5,000' or more) with light weight and low density altitude, you can probably go around at any point at all, up to and including after a full stop. But on a short runway and/or poor performance due to aircraft weight or DA, there is a point beyond which even with perfect technique, a successful go-around will not be possible. In this case it sounds like the pilot probably had relatively poor technique to begin with, carrying too much energy into the landing (or continuing to produce it) so it's not surprising that they didn't have good command of the energy required to go-around and control of the factors that would affect that a lot like flaps and gear. What can/should we do to help prevent this from happening to others? I hardly think of Mooneys as STOL aircraft, but perhaps we should add additional time during BFRs for short field landings and go-arounds? Many Mooneys fly exclusively from very long runways (4,000' or more counts as 'long' here) and it's easy to get away with extremely sloppy landing airspeeds, since you can just float your way to a touchdown eventually. So if your ideal final approach airspeed is 75 Kt, it's easy to fly it 'usually' at 85, and if you are plus or minus 10 it always works out. Since we all know that 2,500' is doable, so this is setting pilots up for failure as they have lost the skill and knowledge to fly the approach at 75. With the false confidence of years of landings at long runways, they set themselves up for failure. I wonder when the accident pilot last did their BFR and when the last time they did short field landing practice was. Or when they last did slow flight, or heard their stall warning horn.

Can you tell us more about the painstaking part of it? On my non-inflatable one, I glued it in, and that was kind of it. Not really possible to do much adjustment easily.

@201er You are all over these polls recently!

https://lasar.com/placards-decals

I had a traffic conflict once. I was on base to runway 2 at KPWT, a NORDO aircraft was on the wrong side base to 20, not talking. He apparently was on frequency, because someone on the ground radioed "Mooney turning from right base to final, there is another aircraft turning from left base to final right under you, be careful!" And I responded with "I can't see him, I'll go around" and added power. Then and only then did the other guy pipe up and say "That's me, I'll just leave to the North."

@DXB Can you share a file with that so I can print it out for my plane? I really like what you've done there.

To remove ambiguity, I say "Traffic who might be in the vicinity of the Twisp airport, FAA airport code Two Sierra Zero, be advised that Mooney model Mike Two Zero Kilo, FAA Identifier Mike Two Zero Tango, November Fife Seven Seven Tree Sierra, Serial Number Two Fife Dash Zero Eight Four Two has now exited Runway One Zero. I make no claims about the condition of this or any other runway, or about my position after exiting. Please contact my lawyer for all future communications. Land at your own risk, warranty void if removed, offer void where prohibited by law, sign here to acknowledge your receipt of this radio transmission" That was not actually true, it was a joke. I say "Mooney 5773S clear of the runway" If I'm at an airport with multiple runways, I'll often say "Clear of all runways" But I do always include my full call sign. @MikeOH If I extend your argument about two aircraft on different runways and someone inbound for landing getting confused about who is where, then what if one aircraft lines up while another is still rolling out? The third aircraft in the pattern will think the runway is clear when it isn't. They heard a call that someone was on final, then a call that someone was lining up on the runway, then a call that someone has cleared the runway. So they've got no way of knowing if the runway is clear for landing. Unless of course they look outside.

Absolutely! +10 knots minimum, even when sitting on the ground with the engine off. Seriously though... no.

Update: The folks at knots2U (aircraftdoorseals.com) said they have a thicker profile door seal that they'll send me at no cost as a replacement. I'm on the hook to remove the existing one and install the new one, but this sounds like a great solution to me; I'll update this again when this change has been made. @shawnd No, I had not tried that one yet. I think if this new thicker seal doesn't work for me I'll just go to the inflatable one. But I'll keep it as a backup plan!

I don't hate my fellow man, even when he's tiresome, surly, and tries to cheat at poker. I figure that's just the human material. And him that finds any cause for anger and dismay is just a fool for expecting better. - Buster Scruggs Some people sure are tiresome and surly at the very least.

That's a great attitude, in my opinion. You fly your aircraft following the regulations and in a way and in locations that are compatible with your personal safety standards. When you see a situation that isn't compatible, you wait for a bit, and maybe just go somewhere else. Yeah. I would love for there to be a good study done on this, but it takes either more money than I'm willing to spend, or more time than I'm willing to spend to do it myself. Personally, I don't have much of a preference on if an airport is towered or not when I am picking destinations. Other than I will tend to pick airports where I can stroll down to a river or lake when I can, and those tend to be non-towered. I might avoid a super-busy non-towered field (S43 on Labor Day Weekend, for example) if there is a reasonable alternative. But if there isn't... Well, I was there on Sunday, so I guess that speaks for itself.

I've got plenty of credibility in the aviation community and on this forum. My screen name is no more or less fake than yours. You resorting to name calling by saying my screen name is 'fake' is childish. The FAA requirements are not a theory, they are regulation. I was being civil until you decided that your budget and risk tolerance applied to everyone, even after I pointed out that there are people with higher risk tolerance and lower budget as well as people with a lower risk tolerance and higher budget and that your personal opinion on this topic holds no special place and the sole authority on this has already made a decision that is contrary to yours.

14 CFR 61.89(a)(7) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft: ... (7) When the flight cannot be made with visual reference to the surface; or

I just wrote them off. See, it's that easy! They can be implemented for an amount of money and time, just like a radio. The presence or lack of these things have a measurable impact on safety, just like a radio. Sure, they have different values, but it's a difference in opinion on if the expense is worth the value. And your opinion is worth no more or less than that of an airline official in this regard. Anyway, the bottom line here is that different people and organizations have different budgets and different tolerances for different types of risk but the FAA is the final authority on the limit of risk and they say that flying in many places without a radio is just fine.

Go Velocity!!! I've got a partially completed XL-RG that I've been ignoring for a long time until I have more time to work on it.

What's the actual risk? How many accidents have actually occurred due to one or more aircraft not having a radio where if they had purchased and used a radio the accident would not have happened? "Close calls" don't count because everybody has their own definition of what a close call is. I expect that number is astonishingly small. And you say there are plenty of things that are legal per the regs, but unwise... And that radios fits into that but TCAS/auto-throttles does not... I will tell you that a lot of the flying public and airline pilots/employees would tell you that auto-throttles/TCAS are EXACTLY comparable and if anything, more important than radios in a bugsmasher.

I had a co-worker that was totally freaked out because another plane passed within 2 NM of them (near KPAO) and they didn't get a call from the tower and they didn't have ADS-B in. They said they were going to file a complaint about the tower controller and will never again fly a plane without ADS-B in. They got mad at me when I asked if they were only ever going to fly in ADS-B mandated airspace for the rest of their life. And I totally agree with you on the idea/joke/whatever that if another aircraft is 'too close' you can just zoom in on your EFB to get some better perspective. Does anyone know where the last 50 mid-air accidents have occurred in relation to towered Vs. untowered airports Vs. not in the vicinity of an airport? Is there a difference in mid-air collision frequency per flight hour or airport operation between towered and untowered? FYI, "close calls" don't matter, only actual accidents/incidents. See @Vance Harral, @Schllc and my comments about how various people have different opinions on what makes a close call. Of the last few I can think of, 2 were at towered (Coeru D'alene, and Arapahoe) and 1 was not in the vicinity of an airport (Alaska) But I'm not really doing any research here, I'm just going from faulty memory. Anyone else is welcome to actually research this.

I didn't do it to annoy anyone, but I use "Clear of the runway" as well. I'm not just clear of runway 10, I'm clear of runway 28 as well. Once I'm off, you can land any direction you want, for all I care!

Money. There are plenty of people flying who can barely afford it and a handheld radio might be a trivial cost to you but it's not to them. The FAA gives us our requirements, and I prefer to let people that meet those requirements fly in peace. I know one guy who worked out the cost to rebuild his plane (experimental) and was debating that Vs. buying and installing a ADS-B out system since rebuilding from scratch would actually have been about $500 cheaper and he could rebuild without an electrical system while he had already added an electrical system to the current plane. He did end up adding ADS-B because he would have taken maybe a year to rebuild Vs. a week for ADS-B install. You might say "Well, if they can't afford this, they shouldn't be flying!" but don't forget that the airlines say all that about each and every piston aircraft and anything with less than 50 passenger seats. If you don't have two pilots, TCAS, autothrottles, and a positive rate of climb with one engine inop, you shouldn't be in the sky at all! Freaking cheap jerks making the sky unsafe for everyone. Also, not every location in the country is going to let you monitor CTAF (or WX or anything) from 50 miles out. For example, from my home airport to KBFI in Seattle, it's 102 miles, but the terrain goes up by 9,000' in the middle and then back down. The terrain goes up 4,000' in the first 4.4 miles and 7,000' in the first 11 miles. I think the best solution is to follow the regulations such as see and avoid and use the tools you have available radios if you got 'em, ADS-B when you can, and so on to reduce the risk, and remember that not everyone has all the same equipment or skills.

Can you post some pictures when you get it installed?

Are you talking about this one? https://lasar.com/seals-gaskets/cabin-door-seal-912018-001

After messaging back and forth with someone from the company that produced my door seal (Knots2U, A.K.A. Aircraftdoorseals.com), his best suggestion is to take some sticky-backed foam and put a layer on the door frame side. I'm not excited about this because it'll get torn up pretty darned quick. I'm considering abandoning it and removing it and installing the inflatable one.

EDIT: Looks like you saw that I have, just a little after you posted. There are arguments to be made for and against those radio calls. But just because something is not a recognized Self−Announce Position and/or Intention phrase doesn't mean it's not useful. "There are deer on the runway that are not moving away." is not a recognized Self−Announce Position and/or Intention phrase but I think it could be useful and if the conditions were right, I'd use it. Some people have their pet peeves and just because some of the people that have this as their pet peeve work for the FAA doesn't change the fact that it can be useful. But regardless, I just follow the rules. Yes, there is no guarantee that you won't have multiple people reply. Or nobody. But people are not required to have radios (or use them even if they do have them) to begin with. So we never had a guarantee of success to begin with. And what do we do if multiple people try to self-announce at the same time? Or when multiple people check on with ATC at the same time. Or any simultaneous radio transmission. Also, @Hank's example is a bit of a strawman. If there are 5 people in the pattern all making radio calls, even if "Any Traffic In The Area Please Advise" was an acceptable radio call in some situations, it wouldn't be appropriate in that situation. Regarding "Last Call".... It lets everybody else on the frequency know that you are not going to be making any further calls on that frequency and probably not listening on that frequency any more. My home airport has another airport less than 5 miles away but they are on different frequencies. Many people only have a single radio and when they switch from one frequency to another, if they don't say "last call" nobody else will know if they should expect to continue to talk on the frequency they have been on. Or even those of us that have multiple radios, when we switch, someone that isn't listening to both won't be able to hear after the switch and they won't know what's going on. Just like everything though there are times you could use it that are not appropriate. EDIT: Oh, and my pet peeve is when people say they are 'taking the active'... Oh really? Where are you taking it? Can you bring it back later? You must have some amazing lift capacity if you can take the whole thing!!! But I recognize these are just silly thoughts and it's a personal preference. Everybody knows what the person means and that part is really the important part. It does leave which runway they are 'taking' as an unanswered question which could be important. But if it is, just ask. Regardless, I don't give people a hard time about saying they are "taking" the runway. With students or someone I'm flying with or when we're sitting around just BS-ing I sometimes bring it up as a stupid pet peeve but that's about it, because that's what it is.

I'm in a meeting that I can't leave but don't have to pay attention to, so I guess I'll expand on my opinions here... Regarding Color and Type Vs. Tail Number. I think this is actually a complex issue. Many aircraft have ADS-B In and Out these days and if you announce your tail number they can associate your announcement to what they see on their ADS-B In display. The difference between many models is so trivial that announcing your type is wasteful. We'd be way better off announcing size and speed. There are many people who will behave 'better' if they are not anonymous. Of course, none of *us* here, but many other people. So in this way, the tail number announcement is a safety improvement. Yeah, if you can read someone's tail number, you're probably dangerously close. Out of the 5 voices announcing "White Cessna in Downwind", how many planes should I be looking for? I use my type and tail number on the radio. Regarding "Any Traffic In The Area Please Advise" There are people who might be flying in the area that have information that would be useful to the incoming pilot that just don't say it for whatever reason. It's letting people know that the incoming pilot is looking for information that might be locally known but not published such as: Current landing runway Animals on or near the runway Wind conditions No-radio aviation traffic in the area On the other hand, everybody else should be letting someone who is just entering the area know this stuff anyway. I don't say this.

You know that's counter to the FAA's published documentation in AC90-66B section 10.3.1 right? From the AC: Self-announce transmissions may include aircraft type to aid in identification and detection, but should not use paint schemes or color descriptions to replace the use of the aircraft call sign. For example, “MIDWEST TRAFFIC, TWIN COMMANDER FIVE ONE ROMEO FOXTROT TEN MILES NORTHEAST” or “MIDWEST TRAFFIC, FIVE ONE ROMEO FOXTROT TWIN COMMANDER TEN MILES NORTHEAST,” not “MIDWEST TRAFFIC, BLUE AND WHITE TWIN COMMANDER TEN MILES NORTHEAST.” This is the same document and paragraph even that says ""Any traffic in the area, please advise" should not be used under any condition. I agree with one of those and disagree with one. I expect you are the same, but I also expect our positions are reversed. For what it's worth, I follow both recommendations/statements/whatevers... Actually, I don't really know if I agree with either of them.... in my opinion it gets into a lot of pretty weird human psychological behaviors. But I still do what the FAA has said I should. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66B.pdf