Mooney Down- botched go around

[N601RX]

http://www.9news.com.au/National/2014/09/05/13/37/Plane-hits-hangar-east-of-Perth

[ArtVandelay]

Close call, looks to be a propane or fuel tank next to it that could have ruptured.

[DrBill]

That's not a  propane tank, that's one of those giant Kangaroo eggs !

[Wakeup]

A Lancair went down close to my airport in Chattanooga yesterday after losing an engine. He was within 5 miles of the airport and couldn't see it. Very sad. My prayers go out to his family.

[201er]

That's why you don't practice touch and goes in a Mooney!

[Danb]

201er . I could not agree more.

[flyboy0681]

Sad to see the plane destroyed (but elated she walk away) because there is a Mooney following there with about 150 nationwide and they are a tight group.

[ryoder]

Why not practice touch and goes in a Mooney? I did when I started my transition training but instead of doing them at the 4000 ft airpark we did them at St Pete's long 9000 foot runway.

[Guest]

Not trying to be judgemental but I thought that on a touch and go you would want to retract the gear and raise the flaps?

Clarence

[Tommy]

Thought touch and go is an integral and vital part of any pilot's skill set?

 

I realise that there are many variables (speed, flaps, trims, power, prop, etc) need to be taken care of simultaneously and it can overwhelm a novice pilot. That's why when I did my first 10 touch and go'es I had an instructor take care of the flaps and we did it on a long runway.

 

After that, I became very comfortable to do everything on my own in a go-around situation.

[Cris]

That's why you don't practice touch and goes in a Mooney!

On the contrary, If you don't practice touch and goes you will not be able to handle a go around when appropriate or required. As an instructor I would not sign off a pilot who could not or would not demonstrate a go around including touch and goes.

[201er]

I would not domstrate touch and goes. It's a potential accident not worth creating out of thin air. I have no problem executing a go around. The touch and go is about the most useless maneuver to practice and is just a cheap substitute to full stop landings. This is not the first touch and fo related Mooney accident I come across. I am sure glad the lady is ok. I don't think the lesson should be missed that touch and goes in complex airplanes create accidents that would not happen otherwise.

[Hank]

Here we go again . . .

Nothing wrong with TnG on a long runway (5000' or more). I generally mix them in with misses when doing currency practice approaches; just like the real thing, the goal is to be in a position to make a normal landing.

But then again, I fly at night, I cross the Appalachians day/night, VMV/IMC, and over remote areas without following interstates (cause they don't go the right directions) or hopping airport to airport. I don't live near the coast, so I've not tried extended overwater flight yet, and may not anyway. But according to a vocal minority here, I'm crazy to fly my Mooney (denigrated as a "piston single") the way I do, in and out of where I live.

Ain't nothing wrong with TnG, or practice approaches. This takeoff got away from the pilot somehow. It will be interesting to see how the aircraft is recovered, and what the ultimate cause was. And it will not read "because the pilot performed a touch-and-go maneuver."

[dcrogers11]

I'm so glad that the pilot was not injured and hate to see the plane in that condition, but in looking at the way the plane came to rest says a lot about the strength of the wing spar as it almost looks like the plane fell flat out of the sky hitting and straddled the hangars. 

 

Don

[Rhumbline]

That's why you don't practice touch and goes in a Mooney!

 

I'm not convinced anyone here can ascribe a cause or contributing factor to this accident as yet.  Folks in another hemisphere have some investigating to do before they reach any conclusions.  I wonder where the speculation would lead had the report failed to mention T&G's?

 

I would not domstrate touch and goes. It's a potential accident not worth creating out of thin air. I have no problem executing a go around. The touch and go is about the most useless maneuver to practice and is just a cheap substitute to full stop landings. This is not the first touch and fo related Mooney accident I come across. I am sure glad the lady is ok. I don't think the lesson should be missed that touch and goes in complex airplanes create accidents that would not happen otherwise.

 

I've observed with some amusement the debate over T&G's in other threads.  Advocates and detractors both have their points.  I agree absolutely that T&G's are a cheap substitute for full stop landings.  Provisionally, I strongly disagree that the T&G is among the most worthless of maneuvers.  It is clear that there are some who, due to inexperience, aircraft complexity, ability, etc, etc, etc should not be doing T&G's in any aircraft or under any circumstance.  It is up to the individual to evaluate the worth and advisability of the T&G.  I do not consider the T&G poor airmanship or lax judgment if carefully considered and executed.

 

Because the T&G provides a cheap substitute for full stop landings I am able to get in 10-15 takeoffs and landings a week.  That's a lot of practice at a critical phase of flight I consider crucial.  When I was an instructor, this was a tremendous value and, I believe, skill and confidence building maneuver for my students as well.

 

A local Mooney driver just cracked his plane up for the second time (I understand there was a 3rd unreported incident).  The plane's now owned by the insurer.  I doubt he'll fly again.  Both accidents/incidents occurred during landing.  The point being a plane can be landed safely and a T&G can be safely executed.  There are just some folks who should be doing neither.   

[flyboy0681]

Add me to the list of those that believe T&G's have their place. On more than one occasion I came in too hot and porpoised down the runway only to pick it up and try again before destroying the nose gear. If I had no practical experience in touch-n-goes, execution of the maneuver may have been just as ugly.

[triple8s]

There is no doubt a touch and go is a vital skill set and a pilot needs to be able to perform it quickly and perfectly. One thing I believe gets one into trouble is being hesitant to decide to execute a go around. Think about a small fire getting started and you don't admit it's out of hand, you wait a minute or seconds and in those few seconds your in action or lack of proper action the situation develops into something that cannot be saved. I wonder how many times a pilot has had the gut feeling " ok this is a sloppy a$$ approach but I can still make the landing" when he really ought to just go around and pride leads to a crash or damagd airplane. I fly off of a 3499 ft runway, it's my home base, if the speeds aren't right we all know what happens in a Mooney. I think pride probably suckers some pilots farther into an attempt to pull a landing out of the hat when the go around could have been executed a few seconds earlier making the go around (touch and go) MUCH easier. Oh and when the tower asks "what are your intentions? ? " just say I need vectors to try it again. Humbling......yes, but much less embarrassing and definitely safer than what can happen, if you wait too long to go around.

[John Pleisse]

I would not domstrate touch and goes. It's a potential accident not worth creating out of thin air. I have no problem executing a go around. The touch and go is about the most useless maneuver to practice and is just a cheap substitute to full stop landings. This is not the first touch and fo related Mooney accident I come across. I am sure glad the lady is ok. I don't think the lesson should be missed that touch and goes in complex airplanes create accidents that would not happen otherwise.

 

Most competent Mooney pilots know touch and goes are a recipe for trouble. Almost all don't do them. However, the video mentioned she was practicing a "go-around" in preparation for her commercial license. So the real "lesson" here is, most competent Mooney pilots should, from time to time, get with a CFI and practice the go-around and know it well. The touch and go discussion is moot....the real discussion should be getting a commercial ticket and not getting behind the power curve when the nose darts straight to the sky on a go-around.

[Awqward]

Added to that the airfield YNTM (Northam, the town of my birth) almost always has a strong crosswind....TnGs may have their uses ( although I can't think of any) but adding in a cross wind with maybe a bounced landing plus not anticipating the strong nose up pitch force...better to do go-around practice without actually landing..,,better to do x-wind landings as stop and goes....

[DS1980]

Most competent Mooney pilots know touch and goes are a recipe for trouble.

 

Will you please provide a source for this?

[Hank]

My airline pilot CFII had no issue with touch and go, provided field length was good (> 5000').

[Cruiser]

the problem with Touch n Go's or missed approaches in a Mooney is the strong pitch up attitude that results from applying full power with approach trim still set. If the pilot is not prepared for this it can be quite a surprise. Even when the pilot is aware, it takes a strong arm to hold the nose down while taking out most of the trim that was dialed in for the approach. Not much else can be done until the trim is under control. If the trim is not taken out, the nose will remain high, with extreme yoke forces ultimately slowing to the point of getting on the backside of the power curve. The plane stalls, the nose drops and hits the ground hard. The Mooney suspension will bounce the nose right back up and without enough power and a strong left turning tendency, the plane will depart the runway completely out of control. It won't fly and with the nose up there is no steering.

The only recourse is to pull the power and get it stopped. It only takes 17 seconds................

Don't ask me how I know!

[Guest]

I fail to see the difference between a touch and go and a missed approach or overshoot. In both cases the plane is configured for landing, "gear down", "landing flaps", nose trimmed up, power reduced.

Both require the same changes to configuration, flaps to "take off" setting, trim to "take off" setting, and maximum power applied.

The problem is the time available to make the change in configuration, a stop and go adds as much time as required.

Clarence

[Hank]

I fail to see the difference between a touch and go and a missed approach or overshoot. In both cases the plane is configured for landing, "gear down", "landing flaps", nose trimmed up, power reduced.

Both require the same changes to configuration, flaps to "take off" setting, trim to "take off" setting, and maximum power applied.

The problem is the time available to make the change in configuration, a stop and go adds as much time as required.

Clarence

Now I'm confused. Touch and go is the same as a missed approach, but we should not do TnG? Are missed approaches therefor also bad?

I agree about needing time to reconfigure, thus no TnG on runways shorter than 5000'. Wheels down, flaps up, throttle forward, crank on trim while watching airspeed and rotating. Then raise gear and continue to climb, adjusting trim for the climb.

[bonal]

M20doc I was thinking the same thing. Every one says if you bounce the landing you should do the go around. I guess the only difference would be intent. At least when one does a T and G your mind set will be on procedure