M20C down in Wichita 3/18

[gsxrpilot]

5 minutes ago, Hank said:

Hmmm . . . My C doesn't have any of that. I routinely fly 400nm on about 30 gal. Fuel change is by the yoke clock; totalizer is on the fuel pump when I land. Never put in more than 40 gal, and that was going way around icing conditions, into the wind the whole way. 4:40 flight time going home, after 2.5 hours outbound. 

Guess I'm an accident waiting to happen?  I think not. 

Yeah, should have added... all those IF's OR Experience...

[N33GG]

5 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I've done over 500 nm many times in my C and I've never added more than 40 gal on landing. This is often with a head wind. With a no wind average, I easily go over 700 nm and still don't burn more than 40 of my 52 gal.

I've done 500 miles too.  But the previous post stated strong headwinds.  Strong headwinds can change everything in a hurry.  We are dealing with apples and oranges here.

Ok guys, really.

 

[N33GG]

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Proficiency does not equal judgement. I was technically proficient at riding motorcycles and driving cars at 17. I could heal and toe downshift and was very comfortable at 7-8/10ths of my vehicles capability. I also won my fare share of wheelie contests on everything from XR80s to liter sport bikes. However, my judgement was for $hit and I'm lucky that I made it to 20.  So many things were out of my control in my teens. Taking control of a machine and operating it at a high level made me feel like something was under my control. I was completely addicted to performace (A vice that's not entirely been exercised). Very young and inexperienced men won the Second World War flying machines that today are considered more challenging to fly by experienced old timers..

I have flown with people with several thousand hours "experience" that I wouldn't dare let my family ride with!

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

Hmmm . . . My C doesn't have any of that. I routinely fly 400nm on about 30 gal. Fuel change is by the yoke clock; totalizer is on the fuel pump when I land. Never put in more than 40 gal, and that was going way around icing conditions, into the wind the whole way. 4:40 flight time going home, after 2.5 hours outbound. 

Guess I'm an accident waiting to happen?  I think not. 

Yes, at altitude I'm sure you burn <10gph, but that's also where headwinds were likely strongest. What's your fuel burn at 4500'? Do you think departing on a 500nm flight into 20-25kt headwinds in a M20C without a fuel totalizer is wise?  Do you fly high when the winds are high? By comparison the more thermally efficient IO360 burns 10.5 or more at any altitude up to 5000' with full throttle and 2400RPM or more.

[Yooper Rocketman]

Did they determine this was a fuel or piloting decision issue?  Just wondering if I missed something?

Tom

[bonal]

3 minutes ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

Did they determine this was a fuel or piloting decision issue?  Just wondering if I missed something?

Tom

Nothing mentioned on the cause but it's always my first thought when one goes down so close to destination after a long flight. 

[Mooneymite]

8 minutes ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

Did they determine this was a fuel or piloting decision issue?  Just wondering if I missed something?

Tom

Tom!  Stop trying to determine the facts.  It is much more fun to hang the pilot based on wild guesses and pure speculation.  

Personally, I have pretty well determined this accident was caused by a non-TSO'd clock in the pilot yoke.  

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

Tom!  Stop trying to determine the facts.  It is much more fun to hang the pilot based on wild guesses and pure speculation.  

Personally, I have pretty well determined this accident was caused by a non-TSO'd clock in the pilot yoke.  

Or it was a non TSO'd LED landing light which caused increased aerodynamic drag and loss of range.

Clarence

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Yes, at altitude I'm sure you burn <10gph, but that's also where headwinds were likely strongest. What's your fuel burn at 4500'? Do you think departing on a 500nm flight into 20-25kt headwinds in a M20C without a fuel totalizer is wise?  Do you fly high when the winds are high? By comparison the more thermally efficient IO360 burns 10.5 or more at any altitude up to 5000' with full throttle and 2400RPM or more.

Yep,that trip was into the wind, west across NC at 4000, climbing to 9000 then 10,000 between GSP and TYS, descending back to 4500 to LEX then turning east back to HTW. Ground speed was generally ~105 knots +/- 5, except crossing terrain towards TYS I hit 68 kts ground speed while indicating 135 mph at 10,000 msl. I climbed to 10 because I was doing lots of weaving around cloud tops (28° OAT) and it was sunset. Total time 4:40, 40 gals (actually 40 point something, less than 41 gal). But there was icing in southern WV, I had to go around. Had 15 min in the left tank, everything else in the right, that's as close as I was comfortable cutting the left tank.

But I know my plane, it's steady 9 gph block time when leaned. Now that I've reworked the doghouse twice and carb heat once, it's 10-15 mph faster and will actually run 15-25°LOP if I want to. So sure, I'd make that flight again. KFAY --> KHTW the long way. Don't recall the mileage, but the headwinds were horrible. I generally went direct at 7500 to 10,000 depending on direction and VFR / IFR on that route.

In the meantime, we'll just have to wait and see what happened here, just like with the Cirrus chute pull on approach. Eventually both stories will come out,and the planes will have had fuel left or not.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

Tom!  Stop trying to determine the facts.  It is much more fun to hang the pilot based on wild guesses and pure speculation.  

Personally, I have pretty well determined this accident was caused by a non-TSO'd clock in the pilot yoke.  

I'm not hanging anyone. I just enjoy the mental exercise.

[Yooper Rocketman]

I know how topics can drift, with no real intent to place blame, just hypothesizing, but this new Mooney pilot could be one of us in a few years.  I hate to have him stumble on this thread before even knowing any of us and see the direction it went.  Being part of the Lancair builders thread, I've seen some people alienated by a blog like this when the ultimate facts later revealed the pilot did an awesome job dealing with a failure beyond his control.  This may still be the case here too.

Tom

[kerry]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/teen-pilot-girlfriend-explain-survived-plane-crash-115048824--abc-news-topstories.html?nhp=1

Here's a interview of the pilot and his girlfriend.

[Shadrach]

So either they got the travel time wrong or this was a 2 leg trip.  Original reports said they were en route from Nashville. This recent report called it an 1hr:45min flight. Nashville to Wichita is definitely not a 1:45 in an M20C. So perhaps more to the story.  Sad to see so much facial trauma given they were both wearing shoulder harnesses.

[Danb]

I really haven't seen any hanging of people , I would not consider doing that, there have been a host of accidents since I've joined mooneyspace and honestly  think it provides a good source of education or information looking at differing aspects of what might have occurred. If this exercise just saves one of us it is invaluable. We have learned quite a bit about hypoxia, slow flight and accompanying stall characteristics fuel burn etc. Don't consider this bashing if done properly maybe a learning experience for us. We have experience from 100 hours to over 10,000 hours along with years over 40, therefore sharing our information is one of the best uses of this forum, in my opinion.

[ArtVandelay]

On March 18, 2016 at 6:24 PM, 1524J said:

From the report it sounds as though some of the injuries are serious. Hope these kids are able to make a full recovery. Good job picking a spot to set her down. 

I wonder if they held?  Also the iPad on the windshield and camera and other flying objects may have been a factor.

[pinerunner]

20 hours ago, Hank said:

Yep,that trip was into the wind, west across NC at 4000, climbing to 9000 then 10,000 between GSP and TYS, descending back to 4500 to LEX then turning east back to HTW. Ground speed was generally ~105 knots +/- 5, except crossing terrain towards TYS I hit 68 kts ground speed while indicating 135 mph at 10,000 msl. I climbed to 10 because I was doing lots of weaving around cloud tops (28° OAT) and it was sunset. Total time 4:40, 40 gals (actually 40 point something, less than 41 gal). But there was icing in southern WV, I had to go around. Had 15 min in the left tank, everything else in the right, that's as close as I was comfortable cutting the left tank.

But I know my plane, it's steady 9 gph block time when leaned. Now that I've reworked the doghouse twice and carb heat once, it's 10-15 mph faster and will actually run 15-25°LOP if I want to. So sure, I'd make that flight again. KFAY --> KHTW the long way. Don't recall the mileage, but the headwinds were horrible. I generally went direct at 7500 to 10,000 depending on direction and VFR / IFR on that route.

In the meantime, we'll just have to wait and see what happened here, just like with the Cirrus chute pull on approach. Eventually both stories will come out,and the planes will have had fuel left or not.

Hank,

A lot of folks say you can't do LOP with an M20C. Kudos for mastering your craft.

[Deb]

It seems to have been a (lack of) fuel issue:

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20160322X70716&key=1
 

NTSB Identification: CEN16LA129

14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation

Accident occurred Friday, March 18, 2016 in Wichita, KS

Aircraft: MOONEY M20C, registration: N9262M

Injuries: 2 Minor.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On March 18, 2016, about 1115 central daylight time, a Mooney M20C, N9262M, lost engine power while on approach to the Col. James Jabara Airport (AAO), Wichita, Kansas. The pilot and his passenger received minor injuries. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to and operated by the Sabris Corporation, Wichita, Kansas, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and no flight plan had been filed. The flight originated from Dickson (M02), Tennessee, about 1130 was destined for AAO.

The pilot said he was on an extended downwind leg for landing when the engine suddenly lost power. He did not recall the forced landing. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector who examined the airplane reported finding no fuel in the left fuel tank. The fuel selector was positioned on the left tank. Some fuel was noted in the right fuel tank. The auxiliary fuel pump switch was off. There was no evidence of fuel spillage on the ground.

[bonal]

On March 20, 2016 at 8:59 AM, bonal said:

Since the airplane is basically intact I'm sure the first thing they will check is for fuel in the tanks.

Uh huh what !

[N33GG]

So close, and yet, so far away.

[Shadrach]

Flight planning it today I show 43gals required to make that trip in my F model.   I feel really bad for this kid because he made a simple mistake. Perhaps he was never instructed as to how to best manage his fuel.  Had he coordinated his tank switches in such a way that he arrived at his destination with his fuel consolidated in one tank, he likely would have made it.  

[DXB]

15 hours ago, Deb said:

It seems to have been a (lack of) fuel issue:

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20160322X70716&key=1
 

Huh, disappointed but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Glad the pilot and passenger are ok, but at this point, it looks like just another one for the fuel exhaustion NTSB wall of shame.  Remind me to decline the local news interviews if I survive an accident after doing something stupid.   

[bradp]

More SPTs.  Thankfully they will be okay but prelim points to both a lack of planning and potentially a lack of appropriate response to an engine out.  Correct me if I'm wrong C drivers but he presumably had 52 gal on departure with 48-51 usable at somewhere in the neighborhood of 43+ gallons required.  That's really pushing it in my book.  Hopefully will learn and fly another day, but this kind of stuff will only be reflected in litigation (if pockets are deep enough and harm is great enough), higher insurance premiums, and reinforcement of the impression that anything with one engine will fall on your bourse (or golf course).  

 

Likely would have made is not the same thing as definitely would have made it.  A fuel stop was in order.  There was plenty of cheap gas along the magenta line. And I don't think that will alienate anybody it's just a statement of fact.  Some of my best instructors / mentors / bosses told me when I did something stupid, how not to do it again, and I am appreciative of that.  

[DXB]

56 minutes ago, bradp said:

More SPTs.  Thankfully they will be okay but prelim points to both a lack of planning and potentially a lack of appropriate response to an engine out.  Correct me if I'm wrong C drivers but he presumably had 52 gal on departure with 48-51 usable at somewhere in the neighborhood of 43+ gallons required.  That's really pushing it in my book.

That's correct for the standard fuel capacity on the C-  Though day vfr legal, I'm not sure I have the balls as another low time pilot to cut it that close even after installing fuel flow.  Given he was on "extended downwind", I also suspect he might have had enough time/ altitude to switch tanks and turn on the boost pump after the engine quit.  Not to mention having checked if on fuller tank and turning on the pump as part of before landing check...

[carusoam]

1) FF with a totalizer #1 Xmas gift for yourself...

2) Knowing your actual fuel capacity is important.  Knowing just what the book says it may be is not as good.

3) knowing the usable fuel is nice, but what happens to usable fuel when you point the nose down...?

 

M20C lesson...situation: test flights around the traffic pattern with a low level of fuel in both tanks.  Expecting a worse case scenario you can switch tanks.  Lowering the nose while descending to land has the fuel sloshing forwards.  Not the same level of usable fuel that you thought you had level on the ground.

Switching tanks is an ungodly amount of a few seconds of eerie silence.  Manage the power, and land knowing you goofed up the fuel planning already.  a Go-around doesn't sound like a good idea at that point.  Where does the fuel slosh to on the Go-around..?

Knowing where the fuel pick-up is in the tank could help you get a few more minutes of air-time.

 

Maybe this pilot already knows all that and only got lucky.  Good chance he will be planning better the next time.

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

[Hank]

I think my Owners Manual says to switch to a tank with at least 6 gals for takeoff and landing. Need to check that. My guess is to prevent uncovering the fuel pickup from either nose-down attitude or acceleration.