Winchester, TN Mooney Accident, 18 April

[wiguy]

  Just after take-off, 5 on board the 4 seat aircraft. I didn't see mention of kids.  They call it a Cessna too. Glad they all seem to be O.K..

 

 

 

     http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newschannel5/news/4-Injured-When-Cessna-Crashes-After-Takeoff-300548641.html?lc=Tablet

 

 

     http://www.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=175510

[chrisk]

Looks like the pilot did a good job putting it down

[Wakeup]

I'm happy everyone is ok but 5 people on board?? WTF!! Where they all wearing clown outfits? Troy

[flyntgr1]

That aircraft sat for over 10 years in Decatur AL up until a few months ago. I looked at buying it, but the guy wanted to much (20k) for a Mooney that had potential for major issues. Someone in Winchester TN bought it and slapped an annual on it and has had it listed for about 30K up until recently.

[MB65E]

Darn, Here comes the 5 seat debate again. I bet something is published regarding operating with 5 aboard. Glad they are ok. Can't help but notice the last name associated with the owner...

-Matt

[flyntgr1]

I doubt he was onboard. I'm pretty sure he was the one that bought it from the guy in Decatur that I talked to. I noticed that the listings for it by him had been removed recently (barnstormer and eBay). I bet he sold it to an unsuspecting buyer and the registration hadn't caught up.

Like I said, this aircraft sat in a community hanger for many years up until a few months ago. The engine had been torn down after a gear up and a new prop put on, but the owner never flew it. It had dry rotted vacuum lines and what else wrong with it.

[carusoam]

Pressley + TN?

Not the U-boat guy is it?

[Piloto]

They were lucky that the plane didn't caught on fire. The three on the back seat couldn't be too big since on a M20C you can barely fit two people.

José

[Hank]

Can't imagine putting four other people in my C.

Two people were trapped and were "extracted" by the fire dept cutting the cage and laying the roof over. It's good that they got out, but man I hate seeing pictures like that. At least everyone "is expected to recover." Erlanger had a good reputation when I lived near Chattanooga in the 90s.

[N601RX]

http://www.smokymountainaeroplanes.com/planes/1967-mooney-m20c-electric-gear

[MyNameIsNobody]

Glad no fire. Could have been a horrible tragedy. Hope all recover and the facts are a good learning experience. Write-up on sale says "sat a couple years"...What's a decade among friends...

[Marauder]

Pressley + TN?

Not the U-boat guy is it?

The TV report mentions a Brent Pressley as the last owner. Jerry is the father, Ron is the son who was killed on a ferry flight and I think Brent was his brother.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=59528697

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bob]

Way too much history of: loss of power, breaking of rules and crashes with the last name of Pressley.

Glad all survived this time!

[GeorgePerry]

Without knowing the specifics of the accident, the report states there were 5 passengers on board.  As someone who spends every day working on GA safety, when I see things like this it is VERY FRUSTRATING!  If this proves to be true, then it's a clear violation of the POH.  

 

If we could eradicate flagrant rule violators, the GA accident rate would immediately be reduced by 50%.  Every time a GA pilot breaks the rules or demonstrates poor judgement, he does it at the detriment of general aviation's reputation and worst of all the wellbeing of his passengers. 

[Mooneymite]

Without knowing the specifics of the accident, the report states there were 5 passengers on board.  As someone who spends every day working on GA safety, when I see things like this it is VERY FRUSTRATING!  If this proves to be true, then it's a clear violation of the POH.  

 

If we could eradicate flagrant rule violators, the GA accident rate would immediately be reduced by 50%.  Every time a GA pilot breaks the rules or demonstrates poor judgement, he does it at the detriment of every other pilot's reputation and worst of all the wellbeing of his passengers. 

 

>>>Every time a GA pilot breaks the rules....<<<

 

George, I just did a quick word search on my '74 M-20C POH and could find no reference to maximum number of passengers.  Perhaps I missed it and a more careful reading will reveal it, but I don't think Mooney stipulated a "number" of passengers...only the proscribed weight and balance numbers.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Perhaps a case could be made that putting three small children in the back seat "demonstrates poor judgement", but I can't see that a rule was broken.

[Johnnybgoode]

Or perhaps one was a lap child, under 2 years of age, not req'd to be in a belt. Lots of assumptions of things done wrong in that post that I think would be better left investigated than assumed.

My 2 cents only...

[takair]

Without knowing the specifics of the accident, the report states there were 5 passengers on board.  As someone who spends every day working on GA safety, when I see things like this it is VERY FRUSTRATING!  If this proves to be true, then it's a clear violation of the POH.  

 

If we could eradicate flagrant rule violators, the GA accident rate would immediately be reduced by 50%.  Every time a GA pilot breaks the rules or demonstrates poor judgement, he does it at the detriment of general aviation's reputation and worst of all the wellbeing of his passengers.

George

I don't disagree with you, the basic TCDS is 4 PAX, however I seemed to recall a way around this and found this in another forum:

FAA Interpretation 1990-14 regarding FAR 91.14(a)(3) [which is now FAR 91:107(a)©]: "As long as approved safety belts are carried aboard the aircraft for all occupants, and the structural strength requirements for the seats are not exceeded, the seating of two persons whose combined weights does not exceed 170 pounds under one safety belt where the belt can be properly secured around both persons would not be a violation of the regulations for an operation under Part 91." AOPA's subject report, Traveling with Children and Family, is available on AOPA Online.

I clipped this into another post as well. I have to question what would happen to the two people in the same belt. The velocity vector with the belt would bring them together. However, it may not be a complete violation of the rules if the above is true. Perhaps you have more visibility to this.

[Shadrach]

I've had 4 adults plus an infant in my plane. We were well with in the W&B envelope (80lbs under gross) for our 1.5hr XC trip from KHGR to KFFA. What was illegal about it?  I'm not sure any of us should speak to the details of this crash. Although the Pressleys have a verifiable history of ignoring regs, so nothing would surprise me.

[GeorgePerry]

George

I don't disagree with you, the basic TCDS is 4 PAX, however I seemed to recall a way around this and found this in another forum:

FAA Interpretation 1990-14 regarding FAR 91.14(a)(3) [which is now FAR 91:107(a)©]: "As long as approved safety belts are carried aboard the aircraft for all occupants, and the structural strength requirements for the seats are not exceeded, the seating of two persons whose combined weights does not exceed 170 pounds under one safety belt where the belt can be properly secured around both persons would not be a violation of the regulations for an operation under Part 91." AOPA's subject report, Traveling with Children and Family, is available on AOPA Online.

I clipped this into another post as well. I have to question what would happen to the two people in the same belt. The velocity vector with the belt would bring them together. However, it may not be a complete violation of the rules if the above is true. Perhaps you have more visibility to this.

 

You are absolutely correct...Yes there is some "fudge" room if you're talking small kids that don't put the plane out of W&B and can be belted under one belt.  However if it turns out he had 5 adults in his C then shame on him.  the news report didn't specify the age of the other passengers.  Glad no one was seriously hurt.

[flyntgr1]

I know everyone is concerned with the 5 people part of this, but I think this is another example of reasons to get a good prepurchase on an aircraft. I would be willing to bet that the aircraft had little done to it other than a quick annual, some paint, and a good buff after it say for that long.

[Shadrach]

I know everyone is concerned with the 5 people part of this, but I think this is another example of reasons to get a good prepurchase on an aircraft. I would be willing to bet that the aircraft had little done to it other than a quick annual, some paint, and a good buff after it say for that long.

Is it Sherwin Williams or Dupont that carries the shade "Matte finish LBJ Red"?

[chrisk]

Was there rain in the area the day of or before the accident?  I'm just wondering if it another example of water in the fuel system?

[Mooneymite]

 

The Type Certificate Data Sheet lists the number of seats as 4. 

 

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/cd54a24fc81bae1c86257df20054b12c/$FILE/2A3_Rev_56.pdf

 

 

 

Mmmmmm.  Maybe....

 

I'm not convinced that number of seats from the TCDS necessarily = maximum number of passengers.

 

As you know, lap children have been legal co-occupants of seats for years.

 

I prefer to wait until the facts are documented before pontificating.

[M20F]

I prefer to wait for all the facts are documented before pontificating.

In aviation we are quick to try and demonstrate intelligence but often slow to demonstrate wisdom. Great post.

[flyntgr1]

Was there rain in the area the day of or before the accident? I'm just wondering if it another example of water in the fuel system?