donkaye, MCFI

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.

This has been fatiguing. I started this as a way to provide what I have experienced to be the safest way to do a go around. It has been mucked up by folks who think they know what they're doing but from my perspective don't. So the folks I was trying to help are left confused by much of this red herring nonsense. Too bad.... Just a couple of more things. The lock up on the Rocket trim was caused by using electric trim and running it to the stops on approach. If it had been hand trimmed I don't believe it would have locked. As mentioned above, the Rocket is very nose heavy with the 305 HP engine so with 2 people in front it usually needs be trimmed full up on approach. It took a lot of manual force on the center manual trim wheel to break it loose, but we did manage to do it. Finally, of course you don't raise the gear until until you are at least 50 feet agl to prevent sinking when you do start to bring the flaps up (after the gear). Now think about it. Regarding drag--you are about to touch down, you are in ground effect which reduces induced drag by nearly 50% and near the stall, you add full power and start to climb out of ground effect. You bring up the flaps to T/O position first. The nose pitches up, the stall speed increases, you lose the benefit of ground effect, then p-factor, torque, slip stream increase, you're aggressively trying to trim down, the plane loses lift and starts to sink, and you are in danger of stalling. Does that sound like the wise thing to do? And by the way, the flap motor moves much quicker than the trim motor on the Mooneys I have flown. I'm sure it was designed that way to slow things down on a possible trim runaway situation. In the end, if you want to work harder and have a greater chance of losing control of the plane, by all means bring the flaps up first. If you want to be a more proficient pilot, my advice might be worthy of consideration.

The trim wheel got stuck in the full up position and required a significant amount of pressure to release it.

You've got to be kidding. What happens when you raise the flaps? The nose pitches up, which is exactly what we're working to prevent.

I'd like to relay one other experience that occured last Monday on a Rocket checkout. After doing all the air work and all types of takeoffs and landings, I had the student do a go around. The gear came up, then the flaps were raised too quickly before trimming down, then the trim got stuck full up. It took both hands pushing hard forward to keep control of the plane. While pushing hard on the yoke, we both finally were able to break the trim lock and return to normal flight. Of course had we not been able to break the trim lock there were other things we could have done, but the point here is that in our particular high performance airplanes, raising the flaps without significantly trimming down first could result in loss of control by less experienced pilots. Therefore, back to gear up first WHILE trimming down. When you feel a slight downward force on the yoke, only then reduce the flaps.

There's no argument. Do what you want--in my opinion at your own risk. I gave my opinion that developed over 33 years and over 11,000 hours of flying Mooneys. The pitch up moment, p-factor, and torque on flap reduction is significant, especially in the long body. I don't know why the Ultra POH changed back from the Type S, but whoever made the change made a mistake in my opinion.

No. This.20080402_APPROACH FOR LANDING -CAUTION- The airplane must be wit.pdf20080402_APPROACH FOR LANDING -CAUTION- The airplane must be wit.pdf20080402_APPROACH FOR LANDING -CAUTION- The airplane must be wit.pdf20080402_APPROACH FOR LANDING -CAUTION- The airplane must be wit.pdf

There was a reason the Acclaim Type S (an Ovation with Turbocharging) changed the order in the later POHs. Review PT20J above.

You're talking apples and oranges. There's no Encore upgrade for a Rocket. The "Rocket" was the upgrade.

This is not your airplane, since I don't have the empty weight and moment arm, but it is another Rocket in which I have trained people. This spreadsheet is the best I have known designed by a student of mine who was an engineer. I did "what if" and found for your requirements this is the best you are going to get for your wife and child. The configuration with your friend will not work. It may be possible if you were to have your mechanic put Charlie weights in the back. wb Version 3.8 231 Rocket Family.xls wb Version 3.8 231 Rocket Friend.xls

The GSA 28 Servo weighs 1.4 pounds and in the Bravo is mounted in the tail section beside the pitch servo. At that weight the CG is not going to change much. To me it is definitely worth the price.

The drag demonstration was too simplistic. There are a lot more forces or reduction thereof involved in the go around that play a more important role in the decision to raise the gear first. A mechanical engineer would be more suited to sort that out than a flight instructor. The empirical fact remains that with the forces involved, raising the flaps first in the Mooney can have severe negative consequences, especially in the long body Mooneys. Raising the flaps causes a significant nose up moment the control of which increases the pilot workload beyond that required by raising the gear first. Couple that with increased p-factor and torque associated with advancing the throttle, and you're setting yourself up for possible control problems. Mooney was smart enough to change the order to gear up first in the Acclaim. Others can rationalize the reverse all they want at their own peril. I will continue to teach gear first as the safest method to use when initiating a go around in a Mooney.

In word, Yes. 1. If there is a nose down pitching moment on gear retraction, then in over 11,000 hours of Mooney time, I've never experienced it. Even if there was, that would be a good thing because there would be less trim down needed. 2. If you've committed to a go around, go around. All you need is to change your decision, NOT have enough runway remaining, and go off the runway. No matter how you cut it, when full power is added to a Mooney in a go around and flaps are reduced first, passengers are likely to get upset when they see their pilot aggressively trimming down to control the airplane, thinking something is wrong because of their aggressive movements. Gear up while trimming down with "casual urgency" and when there is a little forward pressure from the yoke, reducing flap deployment to T/O, will not cause passengers possible undue anxiety.

You shouldn't be landing with speed brakes deployed. If you do, I'd hit the speed brake button and raise the gear at the same time.

I haven't flown the Skywagon, but I think all the high wing airplanes I have flown pitch up when flaps are applied and the opposite when flaps are retracted. Why? The CG of a high wing airplane is below the drag force vector of the flaps causing a pitch up moment around the CG when flaps are applied. The opposite for a low wing airplane like the Mooney. (The exception is the Piper. Maybe the reason is its stabilator. I don't know) At any rate you can't compare the two. I will say on the 310 HP upgrade to the Acclaim, going to full power on a go around and bringing the flaps up 1st will provide quite a surprise to the uninformed that could easily lead to an LOC accident.

Vlo (going up) is 106 kts for the Acclaim Type S.

Due to the significant pitch up when flaps are retracted in Mooneys, especially the long body Mooneys, I have taught to retract the gear 1st, trim down, then retract the flaps when going around. I always taught the student that the drag of both were comparable. While most POHs say retract the flaps 1st, in this case I think safety is more important in my opinion than an incorrectly written POH. Finally, in the Acclaim Type S the POH does have the gear being retracted before the flaps in a go around. I recently saw a YouTube video of a recent test conducted in a Bonanza on the given topic. For the Bonanza the conclusion was that the flaps should be retracted first. I decided to run the test on my airplane, a Bravo M20M. At 4,500 feet I slowed the plane to a steady 105 knots ( 5 knots below maximum flap extension speed), engaged the autopilot in altitude hold mode and extended the gear. The plane stabilized at 87 knots for a drag reduction of 18 knots. I retracted the gear and returned to a stabilized 105 knots. I then extended full flaps and waited see where the airspeed would stabilize. It stabilized at---87 knots, the same as with the gear extended. Demonstrated conclusion: Confirming my earlier statement, for safety reasons, the gear should be retracted while trimming down before the flaps are retracted in a Mooney go around.

With age being a concern, without being asked I provided very extensive documentation to USAIG, the company who has insured my aircraft for most of the past 33 years of ownership. I'm not sure if it helped but they renewed with a several hundred dollar increase over last year. Documentation included participation in the Wings Program (Basic 20, Advanced 14), Website showing Instructing for the MAPA Safety Foundation, number of years being a Master Instructor, Recipient of the FAA Master Pilot Award, Participation in the previous Wings Program for 15 years, Copy of 2nd Class Medical, and details of total time in all aircraft flown including all models of Mooneys along with details of all instruction given.

You are correct. If you have an older GTN 750 and not the Xi there may be an issue, if the AFMS says you must change to VOR for the FAS, as it doesn't look like Garmin updated their manual. That is not the case with the latest GTN 750 Xi version. See attached. Since both models were certified to TSO C-129 standards, you would think they could both fly the VOR approach similarly. I deliberately left off a Localizer type approach, since the FAS must be flown with the CDI in localizer mode, as there is no way to monitor it with a bearing pointer.

I'd refer you to AC 90-119. PBN, Performance Based Navigation. Read especially Chapter 12. AC_90-119_Coord_Copy.pdf