Mooney crash Friday in Germany

[Mooneymite]

Awful, there you go spoilin' the fun of skewering some hapless pilot by introducing facts.

 

Can't you just join the fun and "pile on"?  

 

Yes, I was a little suspicious of the weather descriptor "dense fog".  I really like the numbers to quantify such.

[Jim Peace]

Somewhat unfair to castigate the pilot without looking at the forecast! God forbid you ever get caught out by the weather

Like many smaller aerodromes, Shoenhagen doesn't have it's own official weather reports, so one takes them from other airports in the vicinity. 

16nm NE is EDDB (Schoenefeld)

TAF AMD EDDB 011945Z 0119/0218 18005KT 8000 NSC BECMG 0119/0122 3500 BCFG TEMPO 0119/0210 1200 PRFG PROB30 TEMPO 0119/0209 0300 FG=

Note this is the AMENDED forecast, issued after the accident - the original was

TAF EDDB 011700Z 0118/0218 18005KT CAVOK BECMG 0201/0203 4000 BR PROB30 TEMPO 0203/0207 0800 FG BECMG 0206/0208 8000=

so you wouldn't plan a flight in those conditions to arrive at 19:00-19:30Z?

Here's the TAF from Tegel, 22nm NNE:

TAF EDDT 011700Z 0118/0218 14003KT CAVOK TEMPO 0204/0207 3500 BR BECMG 0204/0207 20005KT=

 

And here's the METARS for the time:

METAR EDDB 011850Z 14004KT 9999 MIFG NSC 11/10 Q1020 NOSIG=
METAR EDDT 011850Z 00000KT 9999 MIFG NSC 12/10 Q1020 NOSIG=
METAR EDDB 011920Z 15003KT 9999 MIFG NSC 11/10 Q1020 NOSIG=
METAR EDDT 011920Z 03001KT 9999 R08L/1200VP2000D R08R/P2000N MIFG NSC 11/10 Q1020 NOSIG=

See how quickly that has changed from similar to that forecast to considerably worse than forecast to the east?

The visibility I believe is in meters...so I would not go......especially if not a legal approach

 

You want to arrive between 1900 and 1930z with this?  "" TEMPO 0119/0209 0300 FG=""

 

300 meters?  you are a much better pilot then me....not even a 1000 foot vis.....

 

​tell me what category 1 mins for visibility are....maybe I have it wrong.....

[Jim Peace]

Awful, there you go spoilin' the fun of skewering some hapless pilot by introducing facts.

 

Can't you just join the fun and "pile on"?  

 

Yes, I was a little suspicious of the weather descriptor "dense fog".  I really like the numbers to quantify such.

"" TEMPO 0119/0209 0300 FG=""  300 meters is not dense enough for you?  this is forward visibility....not ceiling

[Jim Peace]

Guys,,,,even though METARS and TAF are supposed to be standard worldwide they are NOT.......I repeat they are NOT....

 

if you are planing a trip outside the USA please get some sample weather info for where you are going and make sure you have the ability to decode it 100%.....

 

I have been flying outside the USA for a long time and I still get it all twisted around......refer to a decoding chart all the time......

[Awful_Charlie]

The visibility I believe is in meters...so I would not go......especially if not a legal approach

 

You want to arrive between 1900 and 1930z with this?  "" TEMPO 0119/0209 0300 FG=""

 

300 meters?  you are a much better pilot then me....not even a 1000 foot vis.....

 

​tell me what category 1 mins for visibility are....maybe I have it wrong.....

Remember that TAF is issued after the accident

At 17:00 (just two hours before) they gave

EDDB 011700Z 0118/0218 18005KT CAVOK BECMG 0201/0203 4000 BR PROB30 TEMPO 0203/0207 0800 FG BECMG 0206/0208 8000=

So CAVOK, getting worse but still VFR 6 hours after planned landing, with a TEMPO 8 hours after landing (and 10 hours after issue) to CAT1 single pilot/no autopilot minimum

 

I'm curious why you wouldn't despatch into forecast CAVOK regardless of what approaches are available, and wonder what you do want for departure?

 

CAT1 mins are 550m with multi pilot or coupled autopilot, or 800m for single pilot only. I recently found out that German registered (D-) aircraft are required to have an serviceable autopilot for IFR, so doubtless it was on board and ok.

[Jim Peace]

Remember that TAF is issued after the accident

I got that backwards......read it wrong....OK so CAVOK becoming just over 2 miles vis (4000 meters)  a few hours later.....

 

Not sure I would do it, I would have to have lots of local knowledge on the wx patterns....plus I don't fly at night in a single if I can help it.....I do not mind taking off into the night just before sunrise.....it gives search and rescue a lot of daylight to find you,,plus the day shift ER doctors are working....cruising before sunset,,,,10 or 12 hours till day light.....not for me

[Guest]

Perhaps the lack of post crash fire means the fuel tanks were running a bit LoP. Certainly would cause one to push limits to land.

Clarence

[PTK]

Somewhat unfair to castigate the pilot without looking at the forecast! God forbid you ever get caught out by the weather

Like many smaller aerodromes, Shoenhagen doesn't have it's own official weather reports, so one takes them from other airports in the vicinity.

16nm NE is EDDB (Schoenefeld)

TAF AMD EDDB 011945Z 0119/0218 18005KT 8000 NSC BECMG 0119/0122 3500 BCFG TEMPO 0119/0210 1200 PRFG PROB30 TEMPO 0119/0209 0300 FG=

Note this is the AMENDED forecast, issued after the accident - the original was

TAF EDDB 011700Z 0118/0218 18005KT CAVOK BECMG 0201/0203 4000 BR PROB30 TEMPO 0203/0207 0800 FG BECMG 0206/0208 8000=

so you wouldn't plan a flight in those conditions to arrive at 19:00-19:30Z?

Here's the TAF from Tegel, 22nm NNE:

TAF EDDT 011700Z 0118/0218 14003KT CAVOK TEMPO 0204/0207 3500 BR BECMG 0204/0207 20005KT=

And here's the METARS for the time:

METAR EDDB 011850Z 14004KT 9999 MIFG NSC 11/10 Q1020 NOSIG=

METAR EDDT 011850Z 00000KT 9999 MIFG NSC 12/10 Q1020 NOSIG=

METAR EDDB 011920Z 15003KT 9999 MIFG NSC 11/10 Q1020 NOSIG=

METAR EDDT 011920Z 03001KT 9999 R08L/1200VP2000D R08R/P2000N MIFG NSC 11/10 Q1020 NOSIG=

See how quickly that has changed from similar to that forecast to considerably worse than forecast to the east?

No, I wouldn't. You are a much better pilot I suppose.

[DaV8or]

Strong plane and lucky/experienced pilot. And a parachute wouldn't have helped him.

 

Perhaps better judgement would have? Why is he flying around in fog?

[DaV8or]

Perhaps the lack of post crash fire means the fuel tanks were running a bit LoP. Certainly would cause one to push limits to land.

Clarence

 

I think a poster above reported the tree on fire. However, that is a good question, what were his reserves? Why didn't he fly somewhere with better conditions?

[FloridaMan]

Germany has a reputation for weather turning for the worst in a hurry. A friend of mine who flies over there suggested that perhaps the guy didn't want to spend the 120Euros for the IAP. He also mentioned that he did not like flying into that airport due to the high trees and that the approach is very difficult, even in the day. 

[N9453V]

Germany has a reputation for weather turning for the worst in a hurry. A friend of mine who flies over there suggested that perhaps the guy didn't want to spend the 120Euros for the IAP. He also mentioned that he did not like flying into that airport due to the high trees and that the approach is very difficult, even in the day. 

 

I believe in most ICAO countries (definitely in Canada and I believe the UK as well), if you need to divert to another airport, you do not pay any en route, approach or landing fees for the diversion and subsequent departure.

 

I frequently fly approaches to minimums in my Mooney, but before commencing the approach, I am expecting to go missed and ensure I have the fuel to do so. When I fly to Calgary, I always plan to land at CYBW since landing and ramp fees at CYYC are over $200 CAD, but if I can't get in after 1 approach at YBW, I'm going to YYC.

 

-Andrew

[yvesg]

I believe in most ICAO countries (definitely in Canada and I believe the UK as well), if you need to divert to another airport, you do not pay any en route, approach or landing fees for the diversion and subsequent departure.

 

I frequently fly approaches to minimums in my Mooney, but before commencing the approach, I am expecting to go missed and ensure I have the fuel to do so. When I fly to Calgary, I always plan to land at CYBW since landing and ramp fees at CYYC are over $200 CAD, but if I can't get in after 1 approach at YBW, I'm going to YYC.

 

-Andrew

Andrew, I am not aware of any en route or approach fees anywhere in Canada... only landing and ramp fees.

Yves

[Piloto]

One option I use outside the US to get weather info is my smart phone. Below 5,000ft AGL you can connect to the Internet and get area weather from local wx sites. This could have alerted the German pilot of deteriorating conditions.

 

José

[N9453V]

Andrew, I am not aware of any en route or approach fees anywhere in Canada... only landing and ramp fees.

Yves

 

Yves, on small aircraft up to 2 metric tonnes, in lieu of terminal and en route fees NAV CANADA levies an annual fee of $68 ($17 per quarter for foreign registered aircraft) and a $10 daily fee for specific international airports (up to $1200 per year) like YVR, YYC, YYZ, etc...

 

You are correct, however, that NAV CANADA does not charge approach fees.

 

More details are here: http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Publications/Customer-Guide-Charges-EN.pdf

 

-Andrew

[Awqward]

In Europe enroute charged are only applied to IFR aircraft >2000kg MTOW....but 53V is correct about landing fees being waived in the event of an unplanned emergency weather diversion....but not all airfields are signed up to that scheme and it only applies to the landing fee...not the (mandatory) handling charges or passenger charges or departure charges....so you will still get charged...eg around $150 - $200 at Edinburgh in Scotland

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tommy]

I wouldn't dish out judgment so quick as to best wait for the formal investigation report.

As long as he is doing everything by the rule, then he is entitled to fly in this condition.

You can only call him stupid if he busted those rules and regulations.

But when you consider that we the pilots strap ourself in a steel cage traveling at 165knots and carrying a whole heck of fuel underneath us at altitude that's often incompatible with human life.

That's pretty stupid if ask a lot of people!

[N9453V]

I wouldn't dish out judgment so quick as to best wait for the formal investigation report.

As long as he is doing everything by the rule, then he is entitled to fly in this condition.

You can only call him stupid if he busted those rules and regulations.

But when you consider that we the pilots strap ourself in a steel cage traveling at 165knots and carrying a whole heck of fuel underneath us at altitude that's often incompatible with human life.

That's pretty stupid if ask a lot of people!

 

Tommy, I generally agree and as I mentioned, I fly approaches to minimums (often in night IMC) which some would say is stupid, but it's legal and I believe reasonably safe so long as the aircraft is maintained properly and flown proficiently.

 

We don't know all the facts, but if it's true that he made a second visual approach to an airport without an instrument approach in the fog, then that is both illegal and stupid.

 

-Andrew

[jetdriven]

I think the article missed the obvious credit due shown right in the middle of the wreckage: that steel "roll cage". It is reminiscent of a NASCAR crash.  

the M20 preceeded NASCAR

[jetdriven]

You want it to shear off, dissipating energy, as a matter of fact if I had to ditch where there was no open area to land, aiming between two large trees 20-30 ft apart may be a good strategy, energy is dissipated and you leave the fuel behind you

but you cant change direction quick enough to centerpunch between the two trees, hit one dead on and you are dead. Luck is nice but I cant remember ever reading about a pilot who tells the tale of steering between two trees.

[ArtVandelay]

but you cant change direction quick enough to centerpunch between the two trees, hit one dead on and you are dead. Luck is nice but I cant remember ever reading about a pilot who tells the tale of steering between two trees.

http://www.ridgeaire.com/pdf/Bud.pdf

[shorrick mk2]

How could Bud have "red-line torque" and "normal power indications" with feathered props?!

[FloridaMan]

What kind of Mooney and prop is that? It looks like it has a 4-blade wooden prop. 

[Awqward]

http://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/stcs/mooney_5.htm

[carusoam]

Expect that is a "composite", European built, prop from MT.

Mooney Bravo with MT prop can be seen at the MT site here...

http://www.mt-propellerusa.com/en/mtusa/products.htm

The four blade makes it look very Mustang like.

Best regards,

-a-

AQ types faster than I do!