irishpilot

I'd also avoid trying to deal with the plane hassle while in UPT. Although you are already hired to the unit, UPT is filled with long days and lots of studying. Weekends are for building friendships with your classmates and prepping for Monday's sim/flight event. Rent when you want to scratch the itch and continue narrowing down your plane requirements, so that when you are finished with FTU, you'll be ready to buy. Plane ownership requires a time investment for currency flying, mx scheduling, dealing with unexpected parts breaking, etc. The commodity you won't have in UPT is time. Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

I’ll offer a counter point to buying outdated technology or retrofitting for an INS. The VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) is designed for GPS outages. Spoofing is more difficult to detect in civilian equipment because there is no embedded INS or EGI to trip a warning when the two solutions diverge. This is why always flying with a VOR dialed in is important and is in good keeping with having a backup plan. The FAA VOR MON is designed so that any aircraft above 5,000’ AGL can safely navigate to an airport within 100NM of the MON designated VOR without the required use of DME or ADF. This way pilots can still rely on ILS/LOC/VOR ground based approaches in case of outages, or spoofing if noticed inflight. Oh yeah, the back-up to the back-up is still “Clock-Map-Ground”. Still taught to student pilots and a great skill to brush up on when bored on a XC flight. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/transition_programs/vormon/

Let me know if y'all ever do any fly-ins post-CV19. I'm at KSSF and need to show the wife what our retirement life could look like in an airpark!

@mike_elliott, we had two fatal crashes in 2020 resulting in four fatalities. One M20K and one M20J. Still a low year for Mooney nation, but we should keep striving for zero. Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

I don't think I can save the CAROL query, so here is a snip from their excel output with the docket link for each one: CEN19FA032 https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=98687 ERA19FA023 https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=98530 WPR18FA251 https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=98235 WPR18FA218 https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=98042 WPR18FA210 https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=97975 ANC18FA028 https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=96996 WPR18FA112 https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=96933 ANC18FA024 https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=96733

I think people shy away from the turbo and high fuel consumption. It's easy to compare an Encore or 252 to a Bravo and balk at 18-19 gph cruise. Again, its all about what you want and are willing to pay for. Both 252s and Bravos are great airplanes. I went with a Bravo because when running the TAS and fuel burn, for long distance travel it isn't a huge difference. I've flown and owned both NA and turbo aircraft. For long distance travel, I'd take a turbo any day. I typically fly in the high teens and low FLs and usually hear, "cleared direct destination" 500+ miles out. I am very happy with my Bravo.

@Parker_Woodruff, I agree. Compounding factors such as higher true airspeed, pilot proficiency with DA and decreased aircraft performance all contribute to pilot task load. Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

**Disclaimer, some of the NTSB reports are not final, I do not work for the NTSB or FAA, and my analysis is only as a concerned Mooney owner and not in an official capacity. I also realize that some of our MS members may be the subject to some of these crashes. The observations are objective and not personal. If there are factual errors in the reports, please let me know with documentation. This is a breakdown of all registered accidents from a range of no injuries to fatal. For this breakdown, incidents are not included. I've attached a slide listing all of the 2018 accidents that has date, accident number, location, etc. For 2018, there were 16 Mooney Accidents (9 non-fatal). Bottom line upfront - The top three Mooney accident causes are slightly different than General Aviation. GA top three being Loss of control, CFIT, and engine loss, in that order. Overall, top Mooney causes, in order: 1. Loss of Control Inflight - 6 2. Engine Loss - 3 3. Misc (hard landing, long landing, instrument fail)- 3* (04/18 had both fuel and long landing as causal factors) 4. CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) - 2 5. Fuel related - 2* (04/18 had both fuel and long landing as causal factors) 6. Gear up - 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A breakdown of the 16 accidents are: No injury - 7 accidents 09/18 - (Preliminary) Engine loss of power on takeoff led to gear up landing. Post crash inspection found some water in the left tank as well as in the fuel lines. NTSB yet to officially determine cause. 08/18 - (Final) Loss of control on ground. The pilot's failure to maintain directional control during takeoff. Owner was in right seat giving a plane checkout to pilot in the left seat. Pilot elected to abort aircraft and veered off runway. Owner took over but did not have brakes on right side. 07/18 (Final) Gear Up. The flight instructor's incorrect use of the landing gear system and his and the pilot's failure to ensure that the landing gear was extended, which resulted in a gear-up landing. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor's unfamiliarity with the airplane. *My take: IP task saturation and misprioritization due to unfamiliar systems. 06/18 (Final) Total engine loss of power. Loss due to unknown reason. An engine start attempted at the airport shortly after the accident was unsuccessful; however, after the airplane was recovered to a recovery facility, the engine was successfully started and run on the airframe using the airplane's own fuel system. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined. 04/18 (Final) Fuel starvation. Causal: The pilot's unstabilized approach, which resulted in the airplane landing long and fast, and the pilot's subsequent decision to steer the airplane off the side of the runway to avoid a runway overrun. Pilot touched down at 100 knots, 30+ knots faster than POH recommended for M20F. 04/18 (Final) Runway Excursion. Causal: The pilot's landing long in tailwind conditions with insufficient runway remaining to stop the airplane. 02/18 (Final) Loss of control on ground. The pilot's improper approach and landing flare in dark night, which resulted in a bounced landing. *My take, fast landing led to pilot-induced oscillations which led to gear overstress. Minor injury - 1 accident 12/18 (Final) Total engine loss of power. Maintenance personnel's improper assembly of the engine during overhaul, which resulted in lubrication restriction due to a bearing shift and the subsequent engine failure. Serious injury - 2 accidents 10/18 (Preliminary) NTSB yet to determine cause. My take: Fuel starvation due to pilot error. Aircraft had enough fuel for the flight, but for an unknown reason the pilot did not select the fullest tank prior to takeoff in accordance with POH and associated pre-takeoff checklist. 01/18 (Final) Loss of control. The pilot's failure to establish the proper airspeed after departure and to maintain adequate clearance from a ridgeline in high-density and downdraft conditions and his subsequent exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall with insufficient altitude to recover. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's inadequate preflight weight and balance calculations, which failed to take into account the gross weight, high-altitude conditions, and center of gravity limit. Fatal - 7 accidents. Click here for breakdown listed in separate thread. 02/18 CFIT 03/18 Loss of control 04/18 Loss of control 08/01/18 Loss of control 08/11/18 Loss of control 09/18 Loss of control 11/18 CFIT 2018 Trends: 1. Loss of aircraft control inflight continues to be the number one killer in Mooney accidents as well as the number one accident cause. This was also the number one cause of accidents 2017. I will follow up with a deep-dive in a later thread. 2. Engine Loss stays at #2 from 2017. Although down from five to three which is an improvement. Of note, similar to 2017, only one engine loss was due to catastrophic mechanical failure. One was due to unknown reasons and the other most likely due to water in the fuel. Also of note, for 2018 engine loss did not result in any fatalities, however 3. Fast Landings. This issue is frequently discussed on Mooneyspace and it contributes to the misnomer that Mooney's are hard to land. They are not. But, the Mooney has a high performance wing with low drag which means being on-speed is key to safe and stable approaches and landings. Airspeed and aimpoint have to be flown with precision. As a community, we cannot accept being 10-15 knots fast over the numbers. Practice approaches and landings frequently and challenge yourself to land within a certain distance and on speed. This will build the muscle memory habit for precise flying. 2018 Mooney Accidents.pptx

This post serves to post the 2018 Mooney Fatal Accidents so we can learn and discuss prevention methods in an effort to lower future fatal accidents for our community. I'll break down the info as best I can, and I will highlight possible causes if they are not identified by the NTSB. In 2018, there were seven fatal accidents resulting in 9 fatalities. 02/2018 - CFIT (final report) - The pilot's failure to maintain clearance from terrain during a visual approach in dark night visual meteorological conditions, which resulted in controlled flight into terrain. 03/2018 - Loss of aircraft control (final report) - The pilot's exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack during takeoff, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall/spin. Report speculates that a possible factor was the pilot's seat slide back. There is not enough evidence to support that claim but it is something that has caused Mooney crashes. 04/2018 - Loss of aircraft control (final report) - The pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed while departing in instrument meteorological conditions, moderate turbulence, and low-level wind shear, which resulted in the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack and a subsequent aerodynamic stall. *My take: this could have also been spatial disorientation which drove loss of aircraft control. 08/01/2018 - Loss of aircraft control (final report) - Loss of aircraft control in the final turn. The pilot's exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack while maneuvering for landing, which resulted in a cross-control aerodynamic stall, spin, and impact with terrain. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor's delayed remedial action in preventing the stall. 08/11/2018 - Loss of aircraft control (final report) - Loss of aircraft control in the final turn. The pilot's exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack during the landing approach as a result of his diversion of attention after a series of non-essential aircraft systems became inoperative following the failure of the engine-driven vacuum pump, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall/spin. 09/2018 - Loss of aircraft control (final report) - The pilot’s failure to maintain aircraft control during a go-around due to his premature flap retraction, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and subsequent loss of control. 11/2018 - Collision with terrain (final Report) - for reasons that could not be determined based on the available information. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's poor preflight planning and poor decision to depart on the accident flight. Recommendations/takeaways for us: 1. For 2018, Loss of aircraft control accounts for 71% of Mooney fatalities. This is statistically significant and much higher than 2017. 2. Task management and misprioritization of a non-critical system malfunction are contributing factors in two of these accidents. Systems knowledge and a good scan of available instrument data can help pilots correctly identify the malfunction and categorize it as a "land as soon as possible" vs "land as soon as practical." For us at Mooneyspace, when is the last time you read the POH and reviewed critical systems such as your electric, fuel, and vacuum setup? If you can't remember, please set aside some time to study. 3. For those of us who are CFI/CFII, the 08/01/18 crash should serve as a reminder to know when a student/pilot has exceeded their limits and take aircraft control prior to exceeding yours. Everyone has techniques, but for those who are new CFIs, realize be conservative in your approach. Sometimes, pilot error can put the plane in such a position that there is no time for a verbal correction, and a physical intervention is required to maintain a flying attitude. 4. 2018 saw a 42% higher accident rate compared to 2017 Mooney fatal accidents. Also of note, none of the fatal accidents in 2018 were related to catastrophic mechanical failure such as engine or structural failure. Lack of proficiency, lack of currency, and a breakdown in instrument crosscheck led to loss of situational awareness for almost all of these accidents. For those who fly regularly for travel, set aside some time to practice approaches and landings, or practice instrument approaches. For those have large breaks in flying, spend the time with a CFI and focus on tasks you are rusty or weak at and build your proficiency and confidence. These are just my observations and thoughts on how to help our community analyze accidents and how to incorporate what we learn into our safety culture.

I put car seats in the plane until I switched them to booster seats in the car. Really it comes down to can they see out the window and does the back seatbelt shoulder strap go across their chest vs neck. This is for rear-seat Mooney flying. For front, they'd need a booster to see.

Got it gents. I'll look at Precise A5. I've got lots of time at altitude and the Oxysavers work fine. I've got at least 50 hours on them. I just need two more O2 setups. @kortopates anything specific that makes Precise better? Between MH and Precise equipping two seats is about $100 difference.

Looking for MS recommendations. I've got a couple old Oxysaver constant flow cannulas that work well, but I need two more for the rear. It looks like these are made by Aerox. Before I buy their older style, it seems that Mountain High has breathing stations that come with their MH4 flowmeter. https://www.mhoxygen.com/product/bnc-breathing-station/?attribute_connector-type=SCOTT&attribute_flowmeter-type=MH4 Has anyone used the Mountain High flowmeters? Just FYI, I'm not looking to step up to pulse-demand systems. Thanks in advance!

Agree. Anything that would wifi or bluetooth connect and lower pre-takeoff checklists would be awesome.

Totally agree. It is tough when flying a plane with Guard as a toggle-on and it going off due to a unscheduled test. Well worth the call to tower prior.

Donated!

IMHO, GA is a market that is saturated with several manufactures all with a high barrier to entry. That barrier is training and aircraft cost. The reason Cirrus is selling well is twofold: 1) the advertised safety benefit of BRS and 2) the safety culture Cirrus built. Cirrus offers new and pre-owned owner training as part of the purchase. They control the training CFIs get to call themselves CSIPs, and they have a very active Cirrus culture. Prior to the new ownership, Mooney was not available, nor part of cultivating a Mooney safety and/or lifestyle culture. A booth at an Airshow is primarily for targeting new owners, and in today's day of social media, I don't think that is really an effective outreach strategy. Shunning the vast majority of Mooney owners (ones who own older models) is a great way to push them to other brands when they are ready to upgrade to a newer airframe. Bottom line: 4-seat single engine piston aircraft are luxury items for the vast majority of owners. Sure we justify the cost with things like, "I don't need to go through TA, or I want the flexibility in travel, etc." So what draws in someone to spend between $600-900k for a plane? Simply put: lifestyle. Manufactures that make a desirable product, target advertising to their demographic, and give owners a sense of belonging do well. With all that said, this is a new plane - new day with Mooney. My hat's off to Jonny and team for their outreach on MS. My humble recommendation going forward: Rebrand with one or two models that have something that older Mooney's do not. Things like more automation, safety features, speed, or efficiency. As part of that rebranding - tie the current Mooney owners to the Brand and culture. Sort of like Telsa, most of us our Mooneyiacs and we'll help spread #Mooneylife (BTW - that hashtag currently isn't even a thing). Just my humble thoughts as a two-time Mooney owner ('65E, '00 Bravo).

Rockets are awesome. Finding one that has the equipment you want = unicorn plane. If you see one on the market, take a look. There usually are always a few Bravos on the market at any given time.

@PilotGrant sounds like you are well on your way for research. LR tanks would be nice if it fits your mission. However, standard range tanks still give you serious legs if you run 27/2200. By my calculations, full LR tanks adds another 180 lbs of fuel weight. For power settings, a lot of us keep under 400 CHT and 1550 TIT. Technique only.

I'm in San Antonio, TX (KSSF) and have a 2000 M20M. It is a great plane and I'm always looking for an excuse to fly! Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Do some more Bravo research. 29/2400 and 27/2200 are the two most widely accepted power settings. Also, AC eats into your UL. Also, extended tanks are great, but eat into UL and you can stuff over 100 gal on the stock tanks. I routinely run up against UL when flying my family. The FIKI works great, but I don't file into known icing. I've used it a few times encountering ice and it works as advertised. PM me and we can chat. There are a lot more Bravo-isms and things to look for during prebuy. Expect most planes will have some deferred Mx so first year will be expensive especially at the rate you plan to fly. Best of luck! They are awesome planes and are speed demons, especially up high. They are great for long distance and if you keep up on mx, dispatch rate is high. I'm planning on San Antonio TX to Gunnison CO next month and it is non-stop for two people and bags or one stop for a family and small bags. Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

I'm in a communal hangar at KSSF and have been waiting at several nearby airports for almost two years. No vacancies for T-Hangars.

I'd be interested to see what the NTSB final report says. Like most accidents, there is a chain of events that led to this. From what is available, here are the things for us to think about without knowing all the details of this specific accident: 1. Avoid wx that exceeds your capability or the plane's. 2. Don't fly into IMC without an IFR rating. This may seem obvious, but "get-thereits" can drive decisions that put pilots into wx they are not able to handle. 3. Continue practicing and understanding your plane's avionics so that you can use them to shed pilot loading when situations arise. I think of John F. Kennedy Jr's spatial D crash when there was a working autopilot which he never engaged. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2010/july/pilot/10-mistakes-jfk-jr-made 4. For those of us who are IFR-rated, practice hand-flown approaches down to mins under with a view-limiting device. Also practice it with your coupled autopilot to ensure you know which gates to look for (when the RNAV switches from enroute to terminal, etc.). 5. Circling at mins is a perishable skill. Especially, when executing missed during the circle. Either practice circling enough so that you are comfortable with doing so at mins, or file to a destination that doesn't require it if you are uncomfortable. Circling right under an overcast ceiling with great vis isn't bad, but doing so right at the vis approach limit is much more difficult. 5. If you fly in IMC there are two types of pilots: those who have diverted to a wx alternate and those who will. When mission planning, walk through what you'll need to do to get to your original destination (does that airport have Uber service, or will family come to get you). When I was weekly commuting to see my family, I had my wife get the notifications on FlightAware and she'd track me to see if I was going to my original destination or going to the nearby regional airport with an ILS. We always had a backup plan and a GO/NO-GO decision. This helps fight the "get-thereits". 6. Lastly, have a solid GO/NO-GO decision that you've thought through BEFORE your big family ski trip, or your trip to X destination.

You must not be flying a Bravo. 60 gal gives me 2.5 hrs + 30 min reserves. Slightly jealous...

@Rprieb, thanks for posting. We created the safety section so we could have objective discussion about safety, incidents, and how to learn from others. This is all to drive home a safety culture that makes us all better aviators. Whatever insights and/or lessons learned you're willing to share will be paying it forward. Share only what you are comfortable with. Your Friendly Safety Mod

I'm not a fan of converting the Bravo section to Turbo. The Bravo has enough "Bravo-isms" specific to that model that I've found value in as a Bravo owner. However, I'm a fan of creating a turbo section as turbo flying has procedures and best practices that apply to several models. Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk