Mooney down in Ocala FL

[Tony Armour]

I think most know by now but I only reposted from another forum (the post was made by the person on site of the accident)

Since I wasn't too far away I sure did think back to exactly where I was and what I was doing. Just a horrible accident and at first look maybe could have turned out better. 

[Tony Armour]

13 hours ago, Tom said:

Can we at least agree that it is completely imprudent to lambast a Cirrus pilot who floated down in the middle of an open field after an engine out?

I'll agree that if you want to start that debate then take it to another thread. No need hashing it out here. I mean are you looking for a fight ? Out of the blue you have to bring this up ? Really !

[MyNameIsNobody]

It's a theme...

[Shadrach]

19 hours ago, Tom said:

If this were true, this accident (any many like it) probably would not have had this outcome.  (disclaimer: assuming the pilot was attempting the impossible turn)

My beef here (not with you Teejay) is that everyone thinks that they are not going to be "that guy" when these types of things happens to normal people just like us.  And God forbid a guy with a parachute-equipped plane pulls the chute--he survives, probably walks away, but is ridiculed by other pilots.  How idiotic is this.  The chute technology is either dismissed or discounted to be equivalent to "good training or proper flight proficiency."  It is accidents exactly like this one which should cause intelligent people (at least the ones who feel their life is worth $25K) to want to have a chute on board. 

Condolences to the victim here.  There but by the grace of God go I.

Must you turn every crash into chute/no chute commentary on why others have in the past and continue to assail bad behavior that results in a chute pull? This had nothing to do with a Cirrus. Chutes are not available for the Mooney airframe. WTF is your point? It has nothing to do with this accident.

I'm not sure if you are the physician you are referencing, but it seems that you're suggesting that there is no such scenario where a life could be saved by an on the scene bystander responding immediately over waiting for EMS. The very fact that you've made such a statement detracts from your credibility. Bystanders don't always know when EMS will arrive. In this situation, it took 15mins. Perhaps the stats are on your side. Stats don't apply to unique situations and unique situations have little to no impact on stats. 

There but by the grace of God go I if I ever crash in an remote area far from EMS but in the vicinity of people smart enough to sit on their hands and lament about my airplane's lack of a chute.

[mike_elliott]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 7:08 PM, M20Doc said:

I've been unlucky enough to among the first reposponder at 2 crashes on our field, events I try not to think of often. One was a crash of a Europa homebuilt which crashed off the end of the runway, it burst into flames with nothing to be done for the poor sole who luckily died on impact.  The second was an R22 helicopter which crashed into a storm water pond beside my shop, the student survived, but the instructor lost her life on the lawn beside the pond.  

Our hobby is dangerous and extremely unforgiving of carelessness or stupidity.  Our local pilots group recently had pilots using a simulator to try the 180 turn after engine failure on departure.  I was taught better to land straight ahead into whatever wind you have for the slowest possible touchdown.  Even a modest 5 kt head wind results in a 10 kt faster downwind landing after executing a 180 turn, if you make the turn at all.  

Mike, Don what do you teach?

Clarence

Clarence, I will go up with someone to 4500' and we will do a 270 deg turn at a 45 deg bank, best glide and note how much altitude is lost, after counting to 3 to simulate the denial of the brain that one just lost an engine. This drives home the point of knowing exactly how much altitude is needed prior to even considering a turn back. While not judging nor speculating why, I only wish I had done this with Ross Grand.  (I have not met him) perhaps he would have taken a different course of action. I fly in and out of Ocala weekly, keep a car in a hanger there in case I cannot make it back to my homedrone (no approaches) on one of my trips. The terrain around the airport is as good as it gets for off field landing.

Most people find they can perform this maneuver and lose 800-850' in their Mooney. This tells them not to even think about a turn back unless they have at least 1000' altitude above the field elev.

I personally set an altitude bug for 1200' agl prior to launching to remind me of this and to perform the after takeoff check list.

[FloridaMan]

I practice pulling power on downwind at 1000ft AGL and 120mph (but just me). I immediately dirty up the airplane so I don't forget the gear in the simulated failure and keep the prop full-forward. From 1000ft, banking no more than 30 degrees, in that configuration I have no trouble making the field. 

I would also like to add that our Mooneys are very tough airplanes. Like many of us, I have read every fatal accident report for at least the F and J models and read many of the others, those involving forced landings are nearly non-existent if the pilot does not stall the airplane. Nobody was killed in any of the accidents below

This one in Ocala was exceptionally disturbing as it supposedly went down in the northwest corner of the field. From Google Earth, it appears that the pilot had options. 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Antares

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Clarence, I will go up with someone to 4500' and we will do a 270 deg turn at a 45 deg bank, best glide and note how much altitude is lost, after counting to 3 to simulate the denial of the brain that one just lost an engine. This drives home the point of knowing exactly how much altitude is needed prior to even considering a turn back. While not judging nor speculating why, I only wish I had done this with Grant Ross (I have not met him) perhaps he would have taken a different course of action. I fly in and out of Ocala weekly, keep a car in a hanger there in case I cannot make it back to my homedrone (no approaches) on one of my trips. The terrain around the airport is as good as it gets for off field landing.

Most people find they can perform this maneuver and lose 800-850' in their Mooney. This tells them not to even think about a turn back unless they have at least 1000' altitude above the field elev.

I personally set an altitude bug for 1200' agl prior to launching to remind me of this and to perform the after takeoff check list.

I think practicing the turn is a fine idea.  However,  I have never understood the value in the "simulated" reaction time exercise. I think it's detrimental. A better exercise is to know what one is capable of doing consistently. This gives a frame of reference in a real live event. If one knows they can turn 90 in 300' and 180 in less than 600' consistently, then they have useful information as soon as the turn has been initiated by glancing at the altimeter. I don't see how counting to 3 when practicing does anything useful. I have reversed course in under 400ft, but it was after several practice attempts and it was unnerving. It required more than 45 degrees of bank at the steepest part of the turn and the stall horn was blaring through the whole exercise. The maneuver could be described as sort of a "descending chandelle". My best attempts were after a lot of practice and it was not something that I could just duplicate.

Entry was performed by pulling the power at 160MPH and then pitching for 120MPH power off and executing the turn when airspeed dropped to 120mph.

[1524J]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

Clarence, I will go up with someone to 4500' and we will do a 270 deg turn at a 45 deg bank, best glide and note how much altitude is lost, after counting to 3 to simulate the denial of the brain that one just lost an engine. This drives home the point of knowing exactly how much altitude is needed prior to even considering a turn back. While not judging nor speculating why, I only wish I had done this with Grant Ross (I have not met him) perhaps he would have taken a different course of action. I fly in and out of Ocala weekly, keep a car in a hanger there in case I cannot make it back to my homedrone (no approaches) on one of my trips. The terrain around the airport is as good as it gets for off field landing.

Most people find they can perform this maneuver and lose 800-850' in their Mooney. This tells them not to even think about a turn back unless they have at least 1000' altitude above the field elev.

I personally set an altitude bug for 1200' agl prior to launching to remind me of this and to perform the after takeoff check list.

Mike, why the 270 deg turn? I was practicing power off 180's and got to where I could get around losing about 400' but recognize I would need some time to loosen the grip my sphincter muscle had on the seat before reacting in the real situation so I doubled my "turn back" altitude to 800'. From what your teaching, it sounds as though I need to be more conservative. I was always taught to never consider what's in front of me but I also can't help thinking there might be a fine line if I lose an engine taking off from Addison in Dallas. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[carusoam]

180° doesn't bring you back to the end of the runway.

Consider the offset caused by the turn's radius.

Best regards,

-a-

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said: Clarence, I will go up with someone to 4500' and we will do a 270 deg turn at a 45 deg bank, best glide and note how much altitude is lost, after counting to 3 to simulate the denial of the brain that one just lost an engine. This drives home the point of knowing exactly how much altitude is needed prior to even considering a turn back. While not judging nor speculating why, I only wish I had done this with Grant Ross (I have not met him) perhaps he would have taken a different course of action. I fly in and out of Ocala weekly, keep a car in a hanger there in case I cannot make it back to my homedrone (no approaches) on one of my trips. The terrain around the airport is as good as it gets for off field landing.

Most people find they can perform this maneuver and lose 800-850' in their Mooney. This tells them not to even think about a turn back unless they have at least 1000' altitude above the field elev.

I personally set an altitude bug for 1200' agl prior to launching to remind me of this and to perform the after takeoff check list.

Mike, why the 270 deg turn? I was practicing power off 180's and got to where I could get around losing about 400' but recognize I would need some time to loosen the grip my sphincter muscle had on the seat before reacting in the real situation so I doubled my "turn back" altitude to 800'. From what your teaching, it sounds as though I need to be more conservative. I was always taught to never consider what's in front of me but I also can't help thinking there might be a fine line if I lose an engine taking off from Addison in Dallas. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

180 most likely won't align you with the runway, (depending on xwind) 270 will intercept the runway cl, then a turn back opposite direction to line up and land. This most likely would be a downwind landing, the ground roll could be quite high, speed and distance

Yes I believe you need to be more conservative. Don't pass over a survivable off airport sight to try and save the plane or ego unless you are 100 percent certain you have it made

[mike_elliott]

2 hours ago, mike_elliott said: Clarence, I will go up with someone to 4500' and we will do a 270 deg turn at a 45 deg bank, best glide and note how much altitude is lost, after counting to 3 to simulate the denial of the brain that one just lost an engine. This drives home the point of knowing exactly how much altitude is needed prior to even considering a turn back. While not judging nor speculating why, I only wish I had done this with Grant Ross (I have not met him) perhaps he would have taken a different course of action. I fly in and out of Ocala weekly, keep a car in a hanger there in case I cannot make it back to my homedrone (no approaches) on one of my trips. The terrain around the airport is as good as it gets for off field landing.

Most people find they can perform this maneuver and lose 800-850' in their Mooney. This tells them not to even think about a turn back unless they have at least 1000' altitude above the field elev.

I personally set an altitude bug for 1200' agl prior to launching to remind me of this and to perform the after takeoff check list.

I think practicing the turn is a fine idea.  However,  I have never understood the value in the "simulated" reaction time exercise. I think it's detrimental. A better exercise is to know what one is capable of doing consistently. This gives a frame of reference in a real live event. If one knows they can turn 90 in 300' and 180 in less than 600' consistently, then they have useful information as soon as the turn has been initiated by glancing at the altimeter. I don't see how counting to 3 when practicing does anything useful. I have reversed course in under 400ft, but it was after several practice attempts and it was unnerving. It required more than 45 degrees of bank at the steepest part of the turn and the stall horn was blaring through the whole exercise. The maneuver could be described as sort of a "descending chandelle". My best attempts were after a lot of practice and it was not something that I could just duplicate.

Entry was performed by pulling the power at 160MPH and then pitching for 120MPH power off and executing the turn when airspeed dropped to 120mph.

Altitude loss begins with engine loss, nor at the beginning of the turn. Hence also begins the denial "this can't be happening to me" and the time it takes for capitulation, and execution of your take off emergency plan, which changes as you gain the tool of altitude.

[bonal]

I think somewhere its reported that he was instructed by the CT to make the turn back. first response to that would likely be unable.  also unless you have a good cross wind runway option you will be needing about 270 (180+45+45) degrees to get back to alignment with the departure runway. I agree with Shad 3 seconds is too arbitrary could be more could be less depending on individual and circumstances. also if the engine is still making partial power do you use what you got or shut down completely to prevent it from tearing itself off the mounts depends on circumstances.  according to the witness account the left wing dropped at 200 feet I think like it stalled pilot might have been trying to trade airspeed he did not have. If you really want to make it scary try doing it in a high wing when you lose sight of the runway for about 225 degrees of turn.

[FloridaMan]

I know exactly what went through my head when mine quit: "What the hell? Shit, I've lost my engine" -- look over the cowling and see a couple thousand feet of runway and a field at the end, pull power (I committed to landing and didn't want it coming back to life), full rudder, hold level, drop gear and flaps as fast as I can move, hold level til under 100 mph, keep full rudder in, pull hard back against the trim and dive. I think 3-5 seconds is a good estimate on reaction time. 

I climb at Vy; the thought was that a Vx climb would result in sufficient airspeed loss to have excessive sink rate by the time a failure is identified. It worked out once for me. 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Antares

[Tom]

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Must you turn every crash into chute/no chute commentary on why others have in the past and continue to assail bad behavior that results in a chute pull? This had nothing to do with a Cirrus. Chutes are not available for the Mooney airframe. WTF is your point? It has nothing to do with this accident.

A few points:
-The presence and utilization of a chute in the present accident would likely have saved a life. 
-Chutes are currently not available for Mooneys secondary to inadequate market demand.
-Accidents such as the present case should contribute to market demand, but
-People such as yourself have repeatedly discounted the utility of using a chute when other off-field landing options are available (e.g. ditching instead of landing on ground under a chute).  The present case is one more of many data points showing this argument invalid. 
-People such as yourself offer specious arguments against using the chute (e.g. "it's just a matter of time until someone on the ground is killed" while people continue to die for want of more safety options). 
-Your comments are antithetical to those advocating for the development of a chute system for Mooneys.
-You don't get that Mooney pilots, like Cirrus pilots, like 182 pilots, ALSO make bad decisions, freeze-up during an adrenaline dump, are insufficiently proficient or skilled at handling emergencies, and do all manner of things that results in their deaths, the deaths of their passengers, and injuries to people and property on the ground.
-WTF will it take for you to get it that continuing the "but, but, the chute makes you a dummy incompetent pilot...real pilots like me don't make flight planning mistakes and can make the impossible turn safely" is an exercise in bravado that does nothing to promote safety.

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I'm not sure if you are the physician you are referencing, but it seems that you're suggesting that there is no such scenario where a life could be saved by an on the scene bystander responding immediately over waiting for EMS. The very fact that you've made such a statement detracts from your credibility. Bystanders don't always know when EMS will arrive. In this situation, it took 15mins. Perhaps the stats are on your side. Stats don't apply to unique situations and unique situations have little to no impact on stats. 

There but by the grace of God go I if I ever crash in an remote area far from EMS but in the vicinity of people smart enough to sit on their hands and lament about my airplane's lack of a chute.

Please cite where anyone suggested that people should categorically not respond to an accident.  In the alternatively, make up some stuff in your mind and respond aloud to that.

Bottom line is that one lawsuit costs more than the development of a chute for the Mooney.  Guess we'll have to wait for that.

[1524J]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

180 most likely won't align you with the runway, (depending on xwind) 270 will intercept the runway cl, then a turn back opposite direction to line up and land. This most likely would be a downwind landing, the ground roll could be quite high, speed and distance

Yes I believe you need to be more conservative. Don't pass over a survivable off airport sight to try and save the plane or ego unless you are 100 percent certain you have it made

The airplane and ego would never enter my mind if I lost an engine on takeoff.   I've been doing this for over 15 years (but not a lot of hours) and never had a CFI suggest practicing a 270 degree turn, but what you're saying makes sense. Do you consider what's in front of you before pushing the throttle on takeoff? My home drome is flat, parallel highway with lots of good options. That's not the case in a lot of instances and I try to have a plan (which way will I turn, what's to the left, right, ahead, ect. if I lose power at unfamiliar airports. Depending on conditions, it almost seems that pre planned altitude could be adjusted. My first CFI taught me 500'. I realize now he was probably thinking about his ability to get turned around.   Thanks for the help!

 

[mike_elliott]

Just now, 1524J said:

Do you consider what's in front of you before pushing the throttle on takeoff

Absolutely, and I have a plan for each takeoff in case things go pear shaped.

[Tom]

Just now, mike_elliott said:

Absolutely, and I have a plan for each takeoff in case things go pear shaped.

An example of this in action:

 

[bonal]

As for the other debate on this thread I would try to assist regardless unless 1st responders were certain to get there sooner.  I have recurring CPR and first aid training (although I don't agree with the compressions only method someone could bleed out in the time it takes for official responders to arrive. Something as simple as applying pressure to a wound can save a life. I know I don't compare to a professional EMT but I know enough to help and that might make the difference. Nice vid of the glider pilot recovery so instead of a chute how about a better glide ratio.  I remember when a man drown in the Oakland Alameda estuary and the fireman stood on shore and did nothing because a water rescue was not part of their training.  I was so pissed about that story hell I had water rescue training when I was in the Boy Scouts for Pete's sake.

[cnoe]

I practice the turn occasionally with plan A being to land somewhat straight ahead unless I'm "certain" I have sufficient altitude to turn around. I did this 13 times in a row last week with 2 of the 13 being 270 degree turns.

I set this up as a 100 mph power-on climb with 15 degree flaps as if I was taking off since that's the configuration I typically depart in. I may do it without flaps next time since those are raised fairly early during climb-out. I'm not sure why anyone would practice this from a 160 mph cruise configuration.

I'm an average pilot at best, though I fly 150-200 hours per year. In the 13 turns I practiced, my altitude losses ranged from a low of 300' to a high of 500'. That's (attempting) holding 100 mph and a 45 degree bank. My biggest problem is getting SLOW enough in the turn as I usually end up going 110-115 mph out of the turn. I'm sure that if I could control the speed better my altitude loss would be consistently less than 400' in a 180 and less than 500' in a 270 degree turn.

Not accounting for the delayed reaction to an engine out I would likely double the altitude loss to at least 800' before even considering the turn around maneuver. From my practice scenarios the problem again for me is less about stalling and more about slowing down in the turn. My currently practice is to use the boost pump as my "bug" telling me when I can at least consider the turn around. If 800 or 1000 is my number then I leave the boost pump on until THAT altitude keeping in mind that if I haven't turned it off yet I'm landing straight ahead.

One more thing (that somebody already alluded to)... there are all sorts of "engine outs", many of which leave you with "some" power remaining. The only one I've ever been a party to was a sudden, unmistakable cylinder barrel separation that caused the airframe to shake violently leaving no choice but to get down as quickly as possible. I was not the PIC being only 13 at the time but decades later I still remember it like yesterday. My now-deceased father side-slipped down so that he could see around the oil-soaked windshield and the four of us were able to hike out on our own. I hope I learned something that day; I believe I did.

 

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Altitude loss begins with engine loss, nor at the beginning of the turn. Hence also begins the denial "this can't be happening to me" and the time it takes for capitulation, and execution of your take off emergency plan, which changes as you gain the tool of altitude.

Forgive my ignorance as I have never had a take off engine out on take off. You say altitude loss begins with engine out? Why? I think you can say for sure that the climb stops at engine out, but I'm not sure I follow that altitude loss starts with engine out unless your below Vx. I usually climb at 120MIAS.

I am not saying that there is no "This can't be happening to me" moment, I just don't think it useful to practice panicking. Knowing what you and the airplane can do after the "This can't be happening to me" moment is whats relevant. once you're finished freaking out at some point you're going to assess your situation. If at that point the Altimeter shows that your 750'AGL and you know you 500' is doable then you've an idea where you stand.

[cnoe]

As an amateur with only a single incident to gain experience from, the one thing burned into my psyche is that if something bad happens to your engine the most important thing to do is to promptly unload the wings by either relaxing pressure on the yoke or by pushing forward an appropriate amount. These planes aren't going to fall out of the sky unless you stall them. In my practice scenarios I don't see a sudden loss of altitude when pulling out the power but then I don't normally climb out at Vx or Vy either. 

[mike_elliott]

39 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Forgive my ignorance as I have never had a take off engine out on take off. You say altitude loss begins with engine out? Why? I think you can say for sure that the climb stops at engine out, but I'm not sure I follow that altitude loss starts with engine out unless your below Vx. I usually climb at 120MIAS

Because you now have a loss of thrust. To maintain altitude, you must compensate with pitch at the expense of airspeed. In your F, Vy  is 108mph, something you might consider using until 1000' AGL, then transition to your 120 climb cruise for better cooling. Vbg Best power-off glide speed – the speed that provides maximum lift-to-drag ratio and thus the greatest gliding distance available is 100MPH at full gross, higher if slightly under. Now, in this sphincter stretching moment, if you are going to pitch up to reduce a couple of miles an hour, you are somewhat correct, you wont lose altitude immediately, but you will in short order. Otherwise, with F=MA being the law, and F now at 0, something has to give, and altitude is the price maintaining Vy

54 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I am not saying that there is no "This can't be happening to me" moment, I just don't think it useful to practice panicking

I don't  advocate practicing panicking, quite the contrary. If I said something that led you to believe it is useful to practice panicking, I apologize. I cannot see where I did, but understand how people can take things out of context when dealing with an asynchronous forum. I advocate practicing for an emergency situation and maneuver in a sequence and timing most likely to occur. There will be latency while the brain sorts out things. Don't ignore this in the emergency procedure process. In fact, at every "Oh sh&t" moment, train yourself to say "this belongs to the insurance company"

[bradp]

In medicine there's this new concept of "just-in-time" training.  The idea is that you practice something that you anticipate happening.  The applications are in procedures but also in team dynamics.  There are studies ongoing that say that if your ICU team practices or discusses how to respond to an in hospital cardiac arrest for a particular patient that there will be no surprises and instead of trying to figure out "why" (i.e. Reversible causes) during an event. Instead you anticipate them just prior to an event for a particular patient you think is at high risk of that or another similarly bad event happening.  Its a risk management model for critical care delivery. It's sounds morbid, it's nascent, and there are many naysayers, but it does parallel the concept of a takeoff briefing as Mike and others among us practice.  

 

Helpful things 

1) look at the google earth / satellite view as part of preflight for an unfamiliar airprot to identify both potential landing spots and hazards

2) we should have a plan for engine out on runway, just after takeoff but r/w unobstructed area available, when in that "red zone" between runway end and XXX AGL and a defined minimum AGL is at which the impossible turn is possible.  

3) we should know our outs for being in that red zone.  This might mean runway selection choice is altered from straight upwind to a crosswind runway if the straight ahead options are better. 

4) we should consider in which direction we would turn should there be an engine out.  Adage is that although the turn radius is the same either way a less steep bank will be required turning into the wind and the lateral deviation from the runway will be less than if turning away from the wind.  This would add a margin of lesser wing loading in the turn.  That would seem really important to me.   There will be more altitude available closer to the runway.  Rolling out with a crosswind pushing you toward the runway instead of away from it will lessen the need for an additional turn and degraded glide close to the ground.   This calculus might change there is a crosswind runway available.  

 

I hate surprises in two contexts - at work, and in the air.   Anticipating things going to heck in a hand basket may help avoid surprises    

 

Caveat as I have not yet had to deal with an engine out.   Hopefully will not have to but probably will at some point. 

[Cyril Gibb]

I climb at well beyond Vx/Vy based on this article by Deakin:

http://www.advancedpilot.com/articles.php?action=article&articleid=1842

It makes sense to me.  As usual, YMMV.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, bradp said:

In medicine there's this new concept of "just-in-time" training.  The idea is that you practice something that you anticipate happening.  The applications are in procedures but also in team dynamics.  There are studies ongoing that say that if your ICU team practices or discusses how to respond to an in hospital cardiac arrest for a particular patient that there will be no surprises and instead of trying to figure out "why" (i.e. Reversible causes) during an event. Instead you anticipate them just prior to an event for a particular patient you think is at high risk of that or another similarly bad event happening.  Its a risk management model for critical care delivery. It's sounds morbid, it's nascent, and there are many naysayers, but it does parallel the concept of a takeoff briefing as Mike and others among us practice.  

 

Helpful things 

1) look at the google earth / satellite view as part of preflight for an unfamiliar airprot to identify both potential landing spots and hazards

2) we should have a plan for engine out on runway, just after takeoff but r/w unobstructed area available, when in that "red zone" between runway end and XXX AGL and a defined minimum AGL is at which the impossible turn is possible.  

3) we should know our outs for being in that red zone.  This might mean runway selection choice is Alfred from straight downwind to a crosswind runway if the straight ahead options are better. 

4) we should consider in which direction we would turn should there be an engine out.  Adage is that although the turn radius is the same either way a less steep bank will be required turning into the wind and the lateral deviation from the runway will be less than if turning away from the wind.  This would add a margin of lesser wing loading in the turn.  That would seem really important to me.   There will be more altitude available closer to the runway.  Rolling out with a crosswind pushing you toward the runway instead of away from it will lessen the need for an additional turn and degraded glide close to the ground.   This calculus might change there is a crosswind runway available.  

 

I hate surprises in two contexts - at work, and in the air.   Anticipating things going to heck in a hand basket may help avoid surprises    

 

Caveat as I have not yet had to deal with an engine out.   Hopefully will not have to but probably will at some point. 

Hi Brad,

I am sure you know the reputation of flying doctors - too distracted, too get there itis, too much money so too much plane too soon, and for whatever reason they have the reputation is sometimes more prone to accidents.

You seem to have the opposite attitude of the stereotype and in part because you refer to the practice of you profession when thinking about flying.  Where do you think the other doctors reputation comes from?

I remember about a year ago seeing a local neurosurgeon dictating int a dictaphone notes about an upcoming surgery while walking around his plane preflighting. Yikes, talk bout multi-tasking  I am note sure which I would prefer less - to fly with him while he was distracted half thinking about surgery, or to have been that surgery he was planning while distracted half thinking about flying.