Mooney down

[gsxrpilot]

As they say... every airplane will fly a little overweight, but no airplane will fly without fuel.

[M20F]

2 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

As they say... every airplane will fly a little overweight, but no airplane will fly without fuel.

Well they fly without fuel, they just don't fly very far 

[Bob_Belville]

45 minutes ago, Oldguy said:

And if I recall the selfie they took just before takeoff, I don't believe they were of the 170# adult types....

Careful, these are real people with real feelings... 

[Yetti]

My DPE was a flight test engineer for Navion.  He was talking about how they may have loaded too many sand bags in the back.  How else you find out right?   He asked how do you think I got back down?    I said just tell me.    He said as straight and level the whole way with no abrupt changes or anything.  I said that make alot of sense.   If it will fly keep it flying smoothly and level.

[Marauder]

12 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Careful, these are real people with real feelings... 

And with BIG appetites!

[bonal]

48 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Careful, these are real people with real feelings... 

I know this is in reference to the overloaded Mooney but the fact is there are four people with serious injuries from this accident which was bad enough and then the news of hourman has taken my sense of humor away. I know that sometimes we get to joking as a way of dealing with sadness or stress. My prayers for these folks and especially our fellow Mooney space member and their families 

[Oldguy]

1 hour ago, Bob_Belville said:

Careful, these are real people with real feelings... 

Did not mean anything disrespectful or mean, but there are many of us (my hand goes up) who do not fit into the 170# category used for the standard pilot/passenger. We talk about 4-place planes, but with 21st century adults, it is difficult to load up four of us and make a flight anywhere nearly as long as our bladder restrictions would limit us and have legal reserves. With me at 6'5" and my wife at 5'5", we exceed the 340# number for two people. If we put the kids in the plane with us, my 6'8" son and 5'9" daughter eat up another chunk of useful load.

[Mooneymite]

13 minutes ago, Oldguy said:

.... but there are many of us (my hand goes up) who do not fit into the 170# category used for the standard pilot/passenger.

Ah, the mythical FAA 170# passenger.

You'll find him standing next to the unicorns.  

Next time you fly on a commercial flight, look around the gate house and think about the fact that except for "child weights", everyone, including clothing, wallets, keys, cell phones, etc. is counted as 170#.....

Edited December 29, 2015 by Mooneymite

[Bob_Belville]

17 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

Ah, the mythical FAA 170# passenger.

You'll find him standing next to the unicorns.  

Next time you fly on a commercial flight, look around the gate house and think about the fact that except for "child weights", everyone is counted as 170#.....

Which seems to me gets us back to the point of a lot of my posts on this thread: these planes do not suddenly become unflyable or unsafe at the MGW and CG they were certified to. And we should be very critical of the initial jump to conclusions which the local press (and the local sheriff?) did in the Nogales accident.

I seem to recall that in the wild west days in Alaska pilots regularly exceeded mwg by 50%(?) Long range ferry flights get permits @ "interesting" T.O. weight. Just saying.  

[steingar]

Do keep in mind that there are those of us who are diminutive and fit in small airplanes quite comfortably.  I once filled the seats of my old Cherokee 140 with pax and gas and was neither over gross nor fell foul of reserve rules.  I can be done, and can be done with facility in a Mooney, with its thousand pound payload.  

[M20F]

15 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

Ah, the mythical FAA 170# passenger.

You'll find him standing next to the unicorns.  

Next time you fly on a commercial flight, look around the gate house and think about the fact that except for "child weights", everyone is counted as 170#.....

Average weight of a female in 2010 is 166.2lbs and average for male is 195.5lbs.  I can carry 4x196lb men and 38 gallons of fuel in my M20F (counting my 10lbs of junk in the hat rack).  If you figure 8GPH LOP at 135 knots that gives you 4hrs plus daytime VFR reserves or 540 NM's.  I certainly get why some of the newer Mooney owners find 4 people to be incredulous but for the older Mooneys with 1000lb+ useful loads it is very doable (even with baggage).

[Mooneymite]

While I know exactly how much I weigh in my stocking feet, I got a shock the first time I got on the scale decked out for flight.  It ain't just your shoes that add weight, it's all those numerous "other necessities" in your pockets and attached to your person!

Hint:  NEVER weigh your wife, or her possessions if you want a happy and long-lasting marriage.  

[M20F]

6 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

I got a shock the first time I got on the scale decked out for flight.  It ain't just your shoes that add weight, it's all those numerous "other necessities" in your pockets and attached to your person!

Try weighing all the stuff floating around the cabin of your plane (charts, flashlights, headsets, etc.) as well, be surprised what it all adds up to.

[steingar]

7 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

Hint:  NEVER weigh your wife, or her possessions if you want a happy and long-lasting marriage.  

Unfortunately, overloading an airplane can shorten both your life and your marriage.  Mrs. Steingar is sufficiently intelligent to know that when I ask I do so for safety and need an honest if not conservative answer.

With others I figure out my payload minus gas and me, and let them tell me if I can safely make the flight.  I do stress that I need a really honest answer for safety purposes.  I have yet to offend anyone, at least in asking weights for flight.  I offend lots of folks in other fun and useless ways.

[mike_elliott]

“If it had caught fire, they wouldn’t have got out,” Tiffin said.
A law enforcement officer arrived and he and Tiffin used a tire iron to try to free them from the cabin. “It took us dang near 15 minutes to get the door open,”

I cant begin to emphasize enough if you have to make an off airport landing, make sure the door is opened prior to landing/impact. While I don't remember opening it yet from my accident, the door being opened is what probably saved my life.  Always brief your passengers to open it without question if you so instruct.

Thankfully, Mr. Tamayama's plane did not catch fire, which a ruptured tank or bladder could have easily done.

 

 

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

As they say... every airplane will fly a little overweight, but no airplane will fly without fuel.

They'll continue to fly, but the ROC is lousy...

[FloridaMan]

This forum sure is quick to guess and second guess incidents. I had an engine failure several months ago. The symptom was that the engine got quieter and I was no longer climbing. Upon recovery it was discovered that both spark plugs in the #4 cylinder failed due to damage caused by suspected FOD. 

[Bob_Belville]

5 hours ago, Antares said:

This forum sure is quick to guess and second guess incidents. I had an engine failure several months ago. The symptom was that the engine got quieter and I was no longer climbing. Upon recovery it was discovered that both spark plugs in the #4 cylinder failed due to damage caused by suspected FOD. 

There's a thread on Facebook on this accident. It links a news report that the sheriff says the FAA investigator says the plane was 300# overweight, the plane was not designed for 4 adults, at that was the primary cause of the accident.

Baloney.

[FloridaMan]

3 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

There's a thread on Facebook on this accident. It links a news report that the sheriff says the FAA investigator says the plane was 300# overweight, the plane was not designed for 4 adults, at that was the primary cause of the accident.

Baloney.

 

Yes, and the later model J's were certified to fly with an extra 160 lbs max gross. Ferry permits allow for 110 percent of max gross within CG limitations without an engineering evaluation ( http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/overweight-aircraft.html ). That means that the M20F could operate without an engineering evaluation for ferry operations at 274lbs heavier, or a later J could operate with essentially the same flight characteristics and powerplant at 440lbs over the max gross of that M20F. 

I don't think 300lbs over max gross brought that plane down. And I believe that in incident involving the C model with five large people, it was found that there was significant amounts of water in the carburetor. 

[N33GG]

6 hours ago, Antares said:

 

Yes, and the later model J's were certified to fly with an extra 160 lbs max gross. Ferry permits allow for 110 percent of max gross within CG limitations without an engineering evaluation ( http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/overweight-aircraft.html ). That means that the M20F could operate without an engineering evaluation for ferry operations at 274lbs heavier, or a later J could operate with essentially the same flight characteristics and powerplant at 440lbs over the max gross of that M20F. 

I don't think 300lbs over max gross brought that plane down. And I believe that in incident involving the C model with five large people, it was found that there was significant amounts of water in the carburetor. 

That may all be true, but if the aircraft was in fact 300 pounds overweight, the FAA will likely not give that factor a pass, even if it is determined not to be the primary cause of the accident.  It will be duly noted in the accident report, and not in a good way.

[FloridaMan]

Actually, come to think of it, what does the FAA's statement have to do with anything but enforcement? Isn't determining the cause up to the NTSB?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob_Belville]

27 minutes ago, N6719N said:

That may all be true, but if the aircraft was in fact 300 pounds overweight, the FAA will likely not give that factor a pass, even if it is determined not to be the primary cause of the accident.  It will be duly noted in the accident report, and not in a good way.

No one here said or implied otherwise. What we're railing about is the obviously inaccurate and irresponsible reporting.

• I doubt that 1) the FAA has already determined that the plane weighed 3040# on take off;
• 2) that the FAA told anyone that a M20F was not designed to carry 4 adults;
• 3) that the FAA had already somehow determined that the weight of the plane was the cause of the accident.

All of these assertions, which surely make the pilot out as reckless, are in that news report, attributed by the media to the "sheriff" who might be expected to know what he's talking about. We've seen this kind of premature speculation several times on this public forum. As pilots, assumed to be "experts", we need to be more responsible.  

[Shadrach]

16 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

No one here said or implied otherwise. What we're railing about is the obviously inaccurate and irresponsible reporting.

• I doubt that 1) the FAA has already determined that the plane weighed 3040# on take off;
• 2) that the FAA told anyone that a M20F was not designed to carry 4 adults;
• 3) that the FAA had already somehow determined that the weight of the plane was the cause of the accident.

All of these assertions, which surely make the pilot out as reckless, are in that news report, attributed by the media to the "sheriff" who might be expected to know what he's talking about. We've seen this kind of premature speculation several times on this public forum. As pilots, assumed to be "experts", we need to be more responsible.  

Agree with you about the "inaccurate and irresponsible". Unfortunately I don't share your doubts about the FAA. I can say with some confidence the NTSB would not say such a thing (unless it's an intern), but I think the with the FAA it's luck of the draw. There's an interesting mix of competent individuals and d-bags driving the culture.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Shadrach

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, Shadrach said:

Agree with you about the "inaccurate and irresponsible". Unfortunately I don't share your doubts about the FAA. I can say with some confidence the NTSB would not say such a thing (unless it's an intern), but I think the with the FAA its luck of the draw. There's an interesting mix of competent individuals and d-bags driving the culture.

You may be right about the FAA. I hope not. I guess I'll give them the benefit of the doubt as I will the pilot until much more official comes out. It's hard to imagine even a FBO lineboy, let alone a government official telling a news reporter that any airplane was not designed to put butts in all the seats.

[N33GG]

15 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

No one here said or implied otherwise. What we're railing about is the obviously inaccurate and irresponsible reporting.

• I doubt that 1) the FAA has already determined that the plane weighed 3040# on take off;
• 2) that the FAA told anyone that a M20F was not designed to carry 4 adults;
• 3) that the FAA had already somehow determined that the weight of the plane was the cause of the accident.

All of these assertions, which surely make the pilot out as reckless, are in that news report, attributed by the media to the "sheriff" who might be expected to know what he's talking about. We've seen this kind of premature speculation several times on this public forum. As pilots, assumed to be "experts", we need to be more responsible.  

I agree with you.  I said "IF".