1980Mooney

That’s a great analogy. It’s just like cars. Some people fought every innovation to improve safety or drivability as too expensive, too easy, kills the romance of driving, not as efficient/effect as a properly trained “skilled” driver. I can remember the pushback on fuel injection, disc brakes, front wheel drive, Super charging, turbo charging, ABS, airbags, active traction control and of course automatic transmissions versus manual. Today the pushback is on EV and auto pilot. I bet I see the day before I die that they take the “driver“ out of driving. (Ferrari doesn’t sell a car anymore with a manual transmission because no human can shift as fast as an automatic) Innovation in general aviation is slow and initial cost high but most have embraced the benefits of (no carb icing) fuel injection, first Loran and now WAAS GPS, data base terrain avoidance, ADSB traffic and weather. There is pushback by some on CAPS/BRS but I would not be surprised in my lifetime to see it along with single lever control, auto land, 4 point seat belts, air bags as standard on all new generations of high performance singles. The trend in commercial aviation, as the 737 Max saga has illustrated, seems to be making planes easier to fly for pilots with a lower skill base. The same seems to be happening in GA.

Even if you are below the minimum recommend by Cirrus there is still benefit. Not complete but some. Obviously airports vary but 500 ft on base is too low for many because of neighborhood encroachment like where I am. 700 ft is more likely. But if you spin a Mooney at 500-700 ft I would not be very hopeful of surviving. With BRS/CAPS the chances are better. It just depends upon what value you place on loss of life or paralysis. There is still some Benefit vs Cost. It’s a buying decision. I get it.

Seriously, does anyone here put any faith in the spin certification of an M20? Does anyone really make a buying decision based upon some ancient certification in which there is no date, or data or history? Does anyone here have spin training in a Mooney?...and training in a docile Cessna 172 doesn't count...actually in a Mooney? NO - not legally because if you look at the POH intentional spins are not allowed. And why are they not allowed? Because it does not easily recover. OK so once upon a time a skilled test pilot was able to recover a Mooney in one turn but anything done by Mooney is anecdotal today and done by test pilots no longer alive. Bill Wheat passed in 2016. There is some evidence that Mooney's have a tendency to flip on their back if they are loaded aft CG in a spin. It appears that 2,000 ft. may be lost in one turn. http://www.mooneyevents.com/spins.html https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=90612 Truth be known Mooney's may be only marginally better than a Cirrus in a spin depending on loading and if flaps or gear are down. Does anyone here feel confident that they could recover a Mooney in a spin under 2,000 ft.? If spin recovery was a key buying decision then you would buy a Cessna 172 which can apparently recover in 500-800 ft. in one turn. So we take a risk every time we fly a Mooney. Basically our only realistic defense to a spin is to avoid one by having good stall training. This makes the whole discussion about the value of CAPS/BRS ridiculous. Most stall/spin accidents are at low altitude. If you enter a spin in a Mooney there is a good chance that you will not survive. If you enter a spin an a plane with CAPS/BRS there is a good chance you will survive. It is as simple as that. It is a proven safety device. https://www.faa.gov/mobile/index.cfm?event=news.read&update=87827 Some here say that they don't need it. Well it is like shoulder harnesses - you don't need it until you need it. There are some pilot/owners that have failed to install rear shoulder harnesses in older Mooney's that lacked them from the factory because their passengers "don't need them". There are some here that probably don't use the shoulder harness anyway because "they don't need it". It is all well and good until you suffer a hard landing....then you need it. Everything has a cost vs. benefit. Perhaps "I don't need it" really means "I can't afford a plane with it". I get that. Mine doesn't have one either. Would I (and my passengers) feel better if I did have one?...Yes.

Wait a minute....I agree that Mooney's notoriously have fuel tank leaks, the steel cage on older models suffer corrosion especially if tied down outside in humid areas like the Gulf Coast, the shock discs are a pain and ridiculously expensive for a chunk of rubber but I thought that the wing spars were the strongest of any and rock solid....you must be referring to the old wooden wings in the late 50's M20A.

You are absolutely correct. I support your point. Actually the NTSB report screwed up because they attributed the statement About the chute pull to him and also the statements upon the ground when in fact she informed the tower that they pulled the chute and the statements on the ground where alternately made by him and her.

If you do an airman’s search you will see that both husband and wife are Instrument rated. This makes them amongst the more highly trained husband-wife flying teams. From an aircraft search they appear to have previously owned other high performance complex singles, a Piper Saratoga and another Cirrus. They appear to be rather active flyers and on the surface should possess a skill level higher than the average. If you listen to the ATC recording (without gaps- attached) Kristina is the only one talking to the tower/control. It appears that she was PIC although he may have been flying and she was handling the radios. She noted that they lost airspeed indication. She sounded very calm and under control. At a critical moment when they were instructed to climb she says that they lost sight of terrain. Rather than climb in what is a very capable high altitude turbocharged plane, they (one or both of them) made a split second decision to pull the chute. This is a situation where you have 2 equally trained pilots at the controls. Maybe the husband panicked and pulled the chute while she was trying to fly out of danger. Or the other way around. She says to control “we just pulled the chute”. Perhaps having a chute changes a pilot’s decision making process regarding risk. Perhaps, since they are both similarly trained and rated, (and married) there is an element of Crew Resource Management (CRM) problem going on. Some here immediately label the pilot(s) “incompetent”. Lack of training doesn’t seem to be the major issue. Usually no one issue is the sole causation of an incident/accident. In this case 1) apparent equipment failure 2) flight into IMC 3) Skill?/Currency?/CRM? The NTSB report will be interesting. KASE2-Twr-Jan-27-2020-2200Z(Gaps Removed).mp3

I am always surprised at the knee jerk reaction to completely dismiss the value of CAPS/BRS anytime it is mentioned and instead completely blame the pilot. To say “It has EVERYTHING to do with VFR flight into IMC weather conditions.” and “ has NOTHING to having or not having a BRS or the airframe type.” is just so wrong. First we don’t know exactly what happened. Pilots fly from VFR into IMC all the time and don’t crash. It is a function of many factors - pilot training, skill, current practice, knowledge of individual plane, medications, health, vision, inner ear, amount of sleep, mental state, medical event, plane equipment/flight characteristics (instruments, auto pilot, wing leveler, handling, stability, loading, etc) and actual weather conditions at the moment. Yes flight into IMC was a factor but that alone doesn’t automatically lead to a crash outcome. That is blaming one causation while ignoring actions to mitigate the outcome. Yes the wrong combination will result in a crash. it might be better to say that the tragic loss in Kingston, Ontario “had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that airplanes are heavier than air”. Pilots have to fight that fact every flight and most are successful. But if they are not as a last safety net they can be saved by CAPS/BRS. And it’s not just for the weekend warrior amateur. Yes it even can be of value to the professionals. That commercial pilot flew a Cessna 182T into apparent icing in Louisiana last week killing 3. And what about Scott Crossfield, one of the most badass pilots in the world, who perished when his Cessna encounter weather in 2008. I am sure their families wish the planes had BRS. If someone is contemplating spending $800,000-900,000 for a new high performance single, the cost of CAPS is relatively small but the potential benefit is large. It is just a matter of time before the insurance rates practically mandate it. It seems that most female spouses get it now. It is hard to understand why it creates such pushback by some pilots but it must be that they view the new build market from the lens of the used aircraft market. This topic is about why Mooney is closed down. It’s pretty obvious why Cirrus is crushing the competition out of business.

"Will be" game over?.....The GA high performance single market has spoken. Mooney is building and selling no planes. No sales means no cash flow. No cash flow means no employees. Piper discontinued the Saratoga 10 years ago. Columbia and successor TTX has failed. The Beechcraft piston line is on life support selling 5 Bonanza's in the first 9 months of 2019. It is just a matter of time before the Textron accountants kill it. In the mean time there seem to be endless arguments here about CAPS belittling it as if it is only of value to female spouses. These arguments sound like those 120 years ago about the value of lifeboats on passenger liners....take up too much space, too heavy, cost too much to maintain, of no use or value to a skilled and capable captain/pilot.. of course they are of no value until you need them. Then they are invaluable. A plane owner based here at Sugar Land and his entire family would still be alive today if they had been flying a Cirrus in Canada during the Christmas holiday instead of a Piper. I am sure everyone can think of someone in their local aviation community who would be alive today if their plane had CAPS/BRS. And previous posts ridicule single lever controls on Cirrus as well as composite construction. But think about it - single lever controls puts them one step closer to integrated automation which brings Autoland Systems closer to commercial reality. And the composite planes that I see at my A&P sure seem to look a lot better than their aluminum cousins. Lastly the problem with sneering at fixed gear in Cirrus is that you are looking at where they have been instead of looking at where they are going. Does anyone really think that Cirrus has been sitting on their hands doing nothing? The Cirrus Vision SF50 has been delivered so the engineering resources and talent likely is working on SR22 improvement. I am sure they are mindful of the Diamond D50 threat and I would bet they are working on retractable gear. Likewise Diamond has to think hard about how the D50 will ever take meaningful share from Cirrus if the D50 lacks BRS. Cirrus and Diamond seem to be vying for the trifecta - speed, useful load and total safety solution. Cirrus has the greatest resource and cashflow to win the game. And of the others Piper seems only interested in milking low end trainers and high end turboprop. Textron has the cash but seems only interested in business jets. And Mooney is shut down.

True… That’s what happens when there’s only about 250 left of the original 15,000 P51’s produced. Maybe if we wait until only 250 of the original 11,000+ Mooney’s are still flying, then we will see some meaningful price appreciation.....

Consider this. The owner of the plane with the jack through the wing, N6466Q, will get his plane repaired regardless of the cost which will be paid for by the offending shop and its insurance. The unfortunate owner of the "green machine", N2953L, may be in greater peril of loss depending on damages and his level of insurance and personal resources. And as pointed out in another current topic in General Mooney Talk, the owner of N2953L may get dropped by his insurance company going forward while the owner of N6466Q will not.

You are correct in your assessment. And this action will spiral up prices for another reason than the smaller population of pilots. I suspect that most of these pilot owners who are being dropped for filing claims had not owned their plane long enough to pay total premiums over time equal to the cost of the accident claim loss. Insurance is a "pooled risk" in which the insurers will charge total rates high enough to cover total claims while still earning a return. The action of the insurance company (especially if it is insurance companies in mass) to drop owners like this guarantees that the dropped owners will not pay any more premiums into the "pool" in the future to cover this past shortfall. So who pays to cover the loss in the "pool"?....the rest of us in the form of higher premiums!

The video confirmed the eyewitness account per NTSB. A homeowner adjacent the runway commented on BeechTalk: ”One of my neighbors caught the flight on one of his surveillance cameras. You can see the plane pitch way up, I'd estimate it to be 40 degrees. Then disappear out of the frame for a few seconds, then come nearly straight down.”

Here is one fact. We know that Mooney committed before the holidays to pay the employees 2 weeks holiday pay and then they reneged on paying them after the holidays. The owners/management are either callous and devious liars that are despicable in their treatment of the valued employees with knowhow or alternatively they are completely incompetent buffoons. Take your pick. A great way to build brand loyalty and buyer confidence. https://dailytimes.com/promotions/article_c8cf8c5e-30d8-11ea-ae58-0bf9a97b793c.html "Mooney furloughs employees again, walks back holiday pay " https://dailytimes.com/opinion/article_fea81790-322e-11ea-ae05-1b1d91593048.html "Mooney’s employees are the heroes who have suffered

The warranty is 3 years or 1000 hours, whichever is earliest...right? Mooney only delivered 29 aircraft in the last 3 years according to GAMA. On average half the warranty has expired for the group and one of the newest aircraft is gone. That's a pretty small class.

I am curious to know if you are simply assuming that there is no debt in Mooney. Clearly lots of cash flowed into Mooney International Corporation. But unless you have seen the accounting books you don't know if it's immediate parent, Soaring America Corporation, used an equity infusion or used a debt instrument to Soaring America to book the cash transfer. Saying it another way, Mooney may have a massive IOU debt to Soaring America and Soaring America could be Mooney's biggest creditor. It's just a matter of how they have financed the business. Additionally there may be some third party debt and there may be vendor advances and payables. Additionally if there is debt of any sort you don't know if it is secured or unsecured. Since it has been reported that Mooney has welched on its commitment to pay employees holiday pay, we may assume they have no cash. But Mooney likely has ongoing cash expenses for security, utilities and property taxes in Texas are due this month. There may be outstanding law suits and new ones may be filed so there are probably bills from lawyers piling up. Soaring America may choose to throw Mooney into bankruptcy in order to stop the continuing cash drain and limit potential future legal liabilities. Or others may force it. If they don't pay property taxes on the plant, which I assume are substantial, the City of Kerrville/School District/County (whichever is appropriate) will move to foreclose on the properties by yearend. Vendors may be able to place liens on assets for non-payment. If it does go into bankruptcy they may seek liquidation or alternatively seek reorganization. If it is liquidation then there is no entity left to seek anything against. Everyone that is owed anything by the company, (regardless of repayment of debt, vendor payables, warranties on planes, service agreements, taxes payable, lawyers, pending lawsuits, utilities, etc) are creditors as you point out. They all have to get in line in order to make their case to get a share of whatever asset can be turned into cash. Each party has to make their case to the bankruptcy judge that they should get some sort of priority. Those that are secured may get 100% of what is owed while others that are unsecured may get cents on the dollar or nothing. All parties will be hit with legal expenses further reducing the effective settlement, if any. Once it is settled everyone gets what they get and there is no further obligation or recourse for anything. If it is the reorganization route then the legal entity will survive, although it could have a different name. Everyone that is owed anything is still a creditor but they need to make a case that they should get priority on being repaid (or warranty protected) from what might be a viable ongoing business. The equity holders usually get crushed. The problem is that some assets have to be turned into cash or someone needs to bring new cash to the company. In that case the warranties could survive and be approved by the court if the judge believes that the "New Mooney" is viable enough to service its ongoing obligations.