donkaye, MCFI

Thanks, Lance, you are correct. He definitely has been questioning my competence, but I knew that from the beginning. Remember he was the one who upon getting his Bravo said it only took him a few times around the pattern to be making great landings. This from a pilot who says, "Low time VFR only pilot, so what the hell do I know". I engaged because I thought there might be some value to others in my answers. And then there's new member JackK, apparently a commercial pilot who appears not to even own a Mooney, maybe has never flown one, but apparently based on flying many other model airplanes, thinks he knows how to fly a Mooney. To him my approach to teaching is all wrong. My problem with him is that some people on this forum might actually believe what he says. As if I don't know that putting the gear down early requires higher engine power around the pattern. I do it for a number of reasons I've already discussed. And doing only power off approaches is ridiculous. You are not going to run a 3° slope power off. Descent rates are greater making learning how to flare more difficult. In my 58 years of flying GA in 57 different models of airplanes, I have found that if you have mastered the precision required to fly the Mooney well, it is reasonably easy to fly other types of airplanes, but the reverse is not true.

It's for both. The smart a** answer to the 2nd question is "You know it when you see it". The CFI answer is: A stabilized approach on final, on speed, on slope with the aim point remaining stationary, and with the flare started at a point such that with a constant increase in back pressure on the yoke the rate of descent goes to zero at touchdown with the main wheels rolling on with not even a squeak and enough energy remaining to control the lowering of the nose wheel after touchdown of the mains.

1. Not well. A different procedure is taught for the power off 180° for the Commercial. 2. Not if a student is training with me. 3. Agree if you're flying a jet. That's the speed I used to fly downwind in the Citation 525. No way for the average Mooney pilot. The procedure I discussed above is the best training procedure I have found to efficiently transition a pilot who hasn't flown a Mooney. Most of our brains are pretty smart at adapting over a period of time. After a significant number of hours in a particular type of airplane, a pilot can use his own experience to modify his flying. However, until that time, a good solid repetitive procedure will keep people safe. For example, I have over 11,000 hours flying Mooneys. I actually had a Controller at San Jose surprise me a couple of weeks ago by coming on frequency after I landed with a congratulations. He said they clocked me at 186 knots entering the downwind and were surprised I was able to slow the plane for landing. I know my plane's performance and know the rate at which I can comfortably slow it down. The absolute best complement I ever got, though, was a few years ago. I was out practicing touch and goes early in the morning at San Jose. Although a Class C airport, they are pretty cooperative when traffic is light. I was minding my own business doing my normal practicing on the left runway with all different types of approaches including a very short approach involving a turn onto final and touchdown right after the rollout. I had no idea that anyone was watching. As I was on downwind on the next circuit, a Southwest Airlines pilot who apparently had been awaiting his takeoff clearance for some time was cleared for takeoff on the right runway. As he powered up, he came on frequency and said, "Thanks for the show". I didn't say anything, but he made my day.

A pilot with many thousands of hours can adapt as they see fit. Believe it or not, though, many airline pilots I've transitioned into their new to them Mooney, had much to learn when it came to proficiently flying a Mooney.

Unless I am misunderstanding the question, a VFR Circuit approach and landing is the same as doing a pattern here in the US. Regarding an IFR approach, things are a little different with the variety of situations, and the complexity of that is better discussed with your flight instructor. Referenced to the Ovation, Bravo, and Acclaim.

When doing pattern work with full stop landings: 1. Take off with approach flaps. Apply about 5 pounds of back pressure on the yoke. (Bob Krommer's "The Mooney Pull". The plane will fly off the ground when it's ready to fly. 2. In the crosswind and 100 feet below pattern altitude put the gear down. This applies the "brakes" to keep the plane from accelerating once at pattern altitude. 3. Reduce power to maintain 90 knots on downwind (Gear and Approach Flaps). By putting the gear down first before power reduction saves having to do an additional power change to maintain speed had the power been reduce first. 90 knots is a comfortable speed to maintain an appropriate distance from the runway on downwind. Without putting the gear down first a very low power setting would be required to maintain a speed below flap speed below 110 knots. Also, using this speed keeps the airplane from getting ahead of the pilot and provides for easy transition to base leg. 4. At 3° from the aim point reduce power to about 12" nominally, turn base while trimming up and adding full flaps simultaneously. By setting the nose of the airplane at 3° down the addition of the flaps will automatically cause the plane to slow to 80 knots thereby simplifying pilot workload. 5. Turn final early enough to keep the bank angle at standard rate and adjust power to main 75 knots nominally at mid-weight. Control speed with elevator and altitude with power. This is antithetical to the Jacobson Flare method. Behind the power curve it is safer to do so because pitch provides an immediate response, while power provides a delayed response. While I appreciate Jacobson's attempt to mechanically fly the airplane to a landing, even though some may use it successfully, there is a reason it has not caught on in the 40 years he has been advocating for it. Even using his method there is still an art to his last 4 seconds to flare at the proper rate to touch down with the proper amount of energy remaining. The rate of simultaneous power reduction and flare is basically the same as taught conventionally. The bottom line to "Why not reduce power to slow down and then only add gear and flaps app when commencing the final descent for landing on downwind?" is to maintain a consistent and simplistic approach to landing without letting the airplane "get ahead" of the pilot.

I don't. I recognize that flying slowly means different control pressures, but I just smoothly use whatever control "Pressures" are required without thinking about any difference in "feel". Nor does that matter. Just do what it takes using whatever control "Pressures" are necessary, not using abrupt jerky movements I see so many people exhibit in the beginning of my training with them.

It's good to practice slow flight. That's one of the reasons it is part of a Wings Program Activity that I use: A070405-08. Having said that, a good landing requires the correct airspeed for the weight AND proper slope management. If you come in flat at 2° or less to your aim point, you are not going to have consistent good landings. There's not enough flare angle for the transition to the landing attitude.. If you come in at 4° or greater, the flare rate is too great to smoothly control the flare without possibly ballooning. The aim point should not move during the approach. Once you have the 3° site picture imprinted in your mind, combined with the proper approach speed, every landing should be a masterpiece. The proficient pilot feels comfortable flying through the complete dynamic range of the airplane. If you don't, then go up and fly the dynamic range until you do feel comfortable. You, your passengers, and your insurance company will appreciate it.

Having seen the results of bent blades when a prop is not turning and comparing the picture to that of the accident airplane's prop, the pictures look similar. I've also seen pictures of props after gear up landings when the prop had been spinning. They have curled blade tips. Therefore, it appears to me that the prop wasn't spinning in the accident airplane implying the engine wasn't running. Awaiting the results of the NTSB investigation...

Still: Impulsivitity and Invulnerability. "New" to him airplane, previous issue, marginal weather ==> Don't Fly

I've been thinking about this accident a lot since I read about it here on Mooneyspace yesterday. In my opinion this was an accident that shouldn't have happened, no matter the ultimate physical cause. For nearly 4 weeks and 4 pages of numerous thoughts this plane and circumstance has been discussed. Some very sharp people have entered the discussion. Yet it was clear to me at least, though the OP asked for assistance in his first post, he had his heart set on flying that airplane--no matter what. I have found the instrument rating provides a close look into the personality of an individual. Personality traits are magnified and by the conclusion of that endeavor it is not difficult to identify areas that could be problematic to future flying adventures. Although certainly no psychiatrist, I like to go over the 5 hazardous attitudes and discuss any one I think might cause a potential issue for the student in the future. Obviously this needs to be done tactfully. However, in 31 years of instructing I've still had 2 former instrument students kill themselves as a result of the hazardous attitudes I discussed with them. One was "resignation" and the other was "anti-authority". If I were to hazard a guess at this one, it would be a combination of a small dose of "impulsivity" mixed with a large dose of "invulnerability". I hope the lesson of this tragedy, is that we all carefully look through the lens of the 5 hazardous attitudes before we push the throttle forward.

I put a Surefly on the left Mag of my Bravo. Works great. No need for 500 hours inspections on it. No hot start issues. I would still feel uncomfortable with dual Sureflys.

It should work now.

After some years of flying all of us have had experiences that cannot be had on the ground or adequately described. This past week we had an unusual for October weather system come through the Bay Area. I had a student finishing up training for his Instrument Rating and we were finally able to get some significant time in the clouds. After the days' training I flew back to San Jose. The IFR flight was at 6,000 feet and it turned out to be just on top of the clouds. I decided to video some of it. You can really get the sense of speed, as I was indicating 170 knots. BTW, my student passed his checkride later that day. https://youtu.be/v8VPCZS_JFI

Why did the Seller sell the plane right after purchasing it? Same issue and didn't tell it to you? I wouldn't consider flying in that plane until I had a definite reason for the engine failure. What kind of confidence in the plane can anyone have in such a circumstance? Suppose the engine had quit right after takeoff at 400 feet. You had a lucky day.