Mooney lost in Hollister CA

[mooneygirl]

To me, the video doesn't look like a Mooney, but the write up says "Muni".

http://www.kionrightnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13568566

A very sad situation.  Sorry to lose someone in our Mooney family.

[flight2000]

Very sad to see, but it's definitely a Mooney though.  The tail and baggage door are the give aways in the shot at :51 seconds.  It's a newer one too, as the wings have the landing lights in them.  Not sure when they started that from the factory, but think it was mid 90's. 

RIP and prayers for the pilot's family.

Brian

[banjo]

doesn't look like a mooney to me

[flight2000]

I was able to find this data on the FAA website.  The aircraft was a 1999 Ovation, S/N 29-0182.  Looks like it

was recently sold and reregistered in Australia in October (data from Australia's aviation website). Here's a photo as N831RG.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/086266.html

********************************************************************************

** Report created 11/26/2010 Record 8 **

********************************************************************************

IDENTIFICATION

Regis#: VHPPA Make/Model: M20 Description: M20T/G MOONEY

Date: 11/25/2010 Time: 1433

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N

Damage: Substantial

LOCATION

City: HOLLISTER State: CA Country: US

DESCRIPTION

AIRCRAFT OF AUSTRALIA REGISTRY; CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES; THE

ONE PERSON ONBOARD FATALLY INJURED; HOLLISTER, CA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1

# Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: 251433Z 13004KT 10SM CLR -01/-03 A3026

OTHER DATA

Activity: Unknown Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER

[Jeff_S]

Always tragic. What kind of tire was that at :59, though? It looks like an off-road tire from a taildragger.

[rbharvey]

Tire looks like it came from an agricultural sprinkler (the big boom type) wonder if that is what upset the aircraft? (from what should of been a survivable ditching)

[scottfromiowa]

I agree.  That wheel is NOT off a Mooney...Tragic...

[mooneygirl]

I flew Maggie home from Jackson/Westover [JAQ] after having her entire engine baffling replaced, and the fuel tanks sealed.  Around Coalinga I thought I heard a strange whooshing sound.  Turns out it was just headset noise.  When I am flying alone as I was yesterday, I am always looking for other aircraft and a place to put her down. I am not saying this to criticize our lost Mooney pilot, just to remind us all that this passion of ours is risky.

After attending the Super Safety Seminar in San Diego, and all the AOPA safety seminars at Summit, it was nice to put all of that knowledge in my flight yesterday. It had been about seven weeks since I flew Maggie.

From the cursory report it sounds like perhaps a problem after lift off.  Four miles from the airport.  Maybe tried to turn back?  Hollister is in our "back yard" so to speak, so it feels more real.

AOPA has done a great job with Real Pilot Stories: http://www.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/index.html  Maybe some good Saturday/Sunday reading and watching.  Let's be safe out there.

[29-0363]

This tragic accident has also been reported in the Australian press.  The pilot was ferrying it from Hollister to Hilo then island hopping to Sydney (his home town I believe).  It would have been well above MTOW with fuel required for the first leg.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-doomed-last-flight-of-a-magnificent-man-and-his-flying-machine-20101128-18cfe.html

To cover the 2200 NM from Hollister to Hilo would require additional tanking with around 90 USG.  The added fuel capacity is achieved by removing the rear seats and fitting drums or a flexible bladder piped into the main tanks.  MAC authorize an overload for this purpose of MTOW plus 15%, which is adequate for the required fuel load.  when I had 29-0156 ferried to Australia in 2000 the MTOW was 24% over, and 29-0363 in 2006 was able to do it within the MAC approved 15% extra.  It is almost impossible to get the CG outside the extended W+B envelope.

 

[HopePilot]

So Jolie, did you find you were a little "rusty" after seven weeks off?  I think I notice I'm not quite as sharp after more than two, but it could be my imagination.

[DaV8or]

I really don't know the details of this story, but it sounds like he did what lots of folks do with an engine out, head for a farmer's field. This illustrates that they aren't always a safe bet. It kind of looks like fresh plow, so soft dirt and entanglement with irrigation piping. Looks like there were triping hazards for a plane landing at 70-80 mph. Think about getting your car up to 75 mph and then just pointing it into a open field. Yikes!

In all likelyhood, it was his best option at a presumed low altitude, so I am not critisizing the pilot, his piloting skill or his decision making. He probably did the best thing and it just didn't work out. Flying is risky.

[mooneygirl]

From reading the MAPA list, looks like it was a ferry flight and perhaps the onboard extra fuel tanks shifted causing the airplane to not be controlled.  Such a sad thing.

[Bob]

I did not think about the tanks shifting, interesting thought!

As far as a possible engine out.  He could have lost the engine and tried to control the glide the best he could.  But was makeing wrong choices due to the unknowns when overweight.

How does a Mooney fly when 1, 2 or 400 pounds over weight?  How does it glide when overweight and the CG is outside of the safe envelope?  Maybe something strange happens in this situation only when the power is taken away.  Kind of like the "back side of the power curve".  But even worse!

[Bacachero]

If I was doing the investigation, I would pay very close attention on the evidence related to the securing of the tanks, I think Jolie is right.

[richardheitzman]

I wonder what casued his fatality, and did he have airbags on board. Not trying to turn this in to a sales event, but dammit, Mooney aircraft are TOUGH and I don't care if he was going 80 knots when he hit the ground, if he suffered fatal injury from head strike or torso strike then airbags would have saved his life. I HATE reading these types of stories now knowing they died when they could have lived.

[carusoam]

Richard,

when you look quickly through the video, you will see the remains of an overhead irrigation device.  Parts of the support structure are imbedded in the Ovation's tail, and a support / wheel (off road looking tire) is also part of the wreckage.  Not much detail, but it looks like the airplane impacted the irrigation equipment on the ground, shreading airplane and irrigation equipment.

Disappointing tragedy.

-a-

[N9937c]

What is really strange is that the plane did not catch fire. You would think with all that gas there would be nothing left.

larry

[29-0363]

Looking at the video footage it would appear there was not a lot of forward speed at impact, as the airframe seems relatively intact.  The other point is the absence of post-crash fire, which is surprising considering the quantity of fuel that could have been on board.  Maybe the flight was a test of the modified fuel system with a minimum in the ferry tanks?

As far as performance with the MTOW + 15% allowance for ferry fuel, the Ovation accelerates slower and takes a little longer on the ground roll, but once cleaned up there is little difference in performance.  The CG with ferry tanks is usually well within the envelope.

An Ovation in normal configuration with 2 POB and full fuel it will be close to MTOW and the CG almost at the forward limit.

 

 

[pacfly7]

Hate to let you all know but many of these "speculations" are incorrect. Being the other pilot in the other aicraft and being there the day of departure I can let you all know there is no way the tank shifted aft it simply was not possible, there was light weight suitcases 2 of them put against the back wall stopping this from happening.

Going to the site it was clearly an engine failure! it is unfortuneate and extremely sad that the outcome was as such but I assure you all he done everything in his power to put it down safely but obiously there were other factors of which none of us will ever really know all I know is he was a very competent pilot.

[29-0363]

The NTSB Report on this accident is now available on line here:

 http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20101125X11507&ntsbno=WPR11FA059&akey=1

The  report  has findings (excerpts cut and pasted below) which are at odds with an earlier post by the pilot of the other aircraft VH-PPP was to fly in company with.  Significantly, there were some sobering findings that remind us there are risks when you operate outside of the envelope.

In summary, there were four items that, each in isolation should not have contributed to the crash, but in entirety might have compounded a normally insignificant event into a tragic outome.

The pilot was well qualified and experienced (including aerobatics), but it would seem none on the Mooney airframe except for the flight from the point of purchase.. 

The aircraft was approved to operate at MTOW plus 15% over but calculated to be about MTOW plus 22%.. 

The fitting of the ferry tank bladder was not in accordance with the Special Flight Permit issued  by the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority, in that it was not properly secured and relied  on being a snug fit between the sides of the fuselage and some suitcases to prevent aft travel.

 The post crash W+B determination found the CG was 0.79 outside (aft) of the envelope.

The NTSB inspection could find no reason why the engine should not deliver power.  

There was also some discussion about the erratic operation of the Autopilot.

The paperwork and other documentation for MTOW plus 15% was provided by a very experienced ferry operation in Kempsey, NSW, Australia who have facilitated the import of quite a few M20R and M20TN into Australia (including 29-0363).

FERRY CONFIGURATION INCREASED MTOW

The Operating Instructions for the ferry tank system referred to Mooney engineering instructions, which allow for a one-time 15 percent increase in maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) totaling 3,873 pounds. Under this condition, the center of gravity range must be between 47.5 and 51.0 inches. Additionally, the never exceed speed (Vne) varies linearly between 174 knots at the airplane's standard MTOW of 3,368 pounds through to 124 KIAS at 3,873 pounds. (the calculated MTOW was  4,128 lb)

Here are the CASA documents relating to the Ferry Authorisation.  It seems they were released under the FOI (Freedom of Information).

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef11-2905.pdf

 FERRY TANK SYSTEM

Examination of the airplane wreckage revealed that no bladder tank support straps were installed. The bladder was additionally equipped with orange tie-down straps, stitched into the bladder material, but these were also not attached to the fuselage structure. The aft seat belts were still in place, and had not been removed to make room for the tank straps. Examination of the bladder tank fragments revealed that it was a 238-gallon-capacity air cargo type, manufactured by Turtle-Pac.

Two 7-foot-long sections of 1/2-inch thick plywood had been installed across the full width of the fuselage spanning from the back of the front seat through to the baggage compartment. The plywood obscured access to the aft seat belt anchor points. Additional plywood strips and foam padding were located along the inner fuselage sidewalls. 

The airplane was equipped with baggage tie-down straps. The lower straps were located underneath the plywood, and as such, were obscured from a position where they could be utilized to secure the baggage.

The pilot installed the fuel ferry system, 2 days prior to the accident. Review of the airplane's maintenance records revealed that on November 23, 2010, a certified Airframe and Powerplant mechanic found the airplane's ferry fuel system fit for flight. In a subsequent interview with the IIC, the mechanic stated that he observed yellow tie down straps installed over the bladder tank at the time of the inspection. The pilot of the other Mooney stated that prior to departure, the tank in the accident airplane was positioned behind the pilot seat, and held in place by the airplane's sidewalls and luggage in the aft baggage area.

Fueling records obtained from Gavilan Aviation, Inc., revealed that the airplane was serviced with the addition of 210 gallons of aviation gasoline at 1730 the night prior to the accident. The pilot of the other airplane reported that the wing fuel tanks were emptied during the installation of the ferry fuel system, and as such, the fuel purchased reflected the total fuel onboard.

WEIGHT AND BALANCE

A weight and balance report, dated November 2004, was located in the airplane. The report indicated a basic empty weight of 2,400.4 pounds. No weight and balance sheet referring to the airplane in the ferry flight configuration was located.

The following approximate loading information was garnered during the on-scene, and follow-up examinations. The weight within the forward cabin area, which included the pilot, baggage, water, and the fuel transfer pump system, was about 285 pounds. The aft seat area, which contained the bladder fuel tank, its associated plywood supports, long-range radio, and an assumed total fuel of 121 gallons, was about 722 pounds. The equipment in the aft baggage area totaled about 187 pounds, and included both aft seats, plywood supports, additional water, baggage, and a life raft. According to the Mooney Pilot Operating Handbook (POH), the maximum allowable weight in the baggage area was 120 pounds. The wing fuel tanks, with a usable capacity of 89 gallons, were estimated to contain about 534 pounds of fuel.

Based on these values, the airplane's weight at takeoff was about 4,128.4 pounds, 255.4 pounds in excess of the MTOW in the ferry tank configuration, and 760 pounds beyond the standard MTOW. Extrapolation of the weights and cargo positions based on the Mooney loading graph, resulted in a center of gravity position of 51.79 inches, 0.79 inches beyond the aft center of gravity limit.

ENGINE OPERATION

No anomalies were noted, which would have precluded normal engine operation. Refer to the public docket for the complete airframe and engine report.

THE PILOT

The pilot was an Australian citizen, and his flight experience information was provided by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). Review of his logbooks by the ATSB revealed that the last entry was recorded on April 24, 2010. At that time, he had accrued a total of 2,540.3 flight hours. The records revealed that the pilot had flown seven multi-legged international ferry flights, three of which were on the same initial route as the accident flight. No prior Mooney aircraft experience was noted in the logbooks.

 

[carusoam]

 

According to the FAA.  

Possibly over weight (255# beyond ferry limit), out of balance (.79"), missing ferry tank tie downs, and low mooney time, resulted in flying below stall speed according to portable Garmin GPS...

throttle plate found closed and throttle control in pulled back position when inspected.  Gear up and flaps up too. 

Still a very unfortunate result.

-a-

 

[flyboy0681]

I just read the report and the following items struck me as odd..

1. According to the pilots logbook (he held a ATP), his previous flight was logged exactly seven months prior to the fatal flight. Nothing is mentioned about instrument currency.

2. The report states "No prior Mooney aircraft experience was noted in the logbooks."

3. The life raft was in the aft baggage area.

 

As bad as the crash was, a testament to the Mooney can be summed up in the following sentence "The left and right wings remained attached to their respective wing root"