Mooney down NJ

[kevinw]

3 hours ago, bradp said:

Unfortunately I think I answered my own question about gear and flaps.  The gear was down and it appears that the flaps are up.  That will degrade climb performance significantly.  Combine with tail wind and a very late go around.... It's at least a link.  

Just a thought but it's possible he retracted the flaps as he was trying to touch down to reduce lift sooner. No way of knowing this but one possibility.

[201er]

4 minutes ago, kevinw said:

Just a thought but it's possible he retracted the flaps as he was trying to touch down to reduce lift sooner. No way of knowing this but one possibility.

Could have stalled while retracting flaps in the go around at high AOA.

[DXB]

3 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

So Pete , How many hours did you have , When you started flying  Mooney ,   I started Flying Mooneys with a hundred or so hours , in a rental situation , and guess what , I and everybody else that rented survived it .....I guess if you have it your way everybody will be flying Warriors until they hit a thousand hours......

 

3 hours ago, PTK said:

Not 1000 hours but maybe 400.

There may be some benefit in considering our personal limits on when and how we fly an unfamiliar aircraft, but I doubt there's much benefit to be extracted from this tragedy by pondering who should get to rent a particular aircraft. And we don't know a thing about this particular pilots experience.

 To tell oneself "I am an experienced pilot with this many Mooney hours" and if only we could find a way to keep such lousy inexperienced pilots from getting into these situations strikes me as blindly egotistical and pragmatically useless.  There is also no paucity of regulation in the dwindling GA world, and there is ample downside for everyone in further regulating access for folks who don't own a plane or telling someone that they don't have enough hours to fly a particular brand. 

[DXB]

As someone who flies the same plane all the time, I'm finding it more helpful to think about  a few other things: (1) my cutoff for how much over target speed I am willing to tolerate on a shorter runway when crossing the threshold without going around. (2)  when I say this is just too much float, for instance after an unexpected shift to a tailwind, and decide to go around. (3) finding the discipline not to pull up but build airspeed instead when those trees are getting bigger in the windshield.  (4) the point at which I say going around just ain't gonna to work following multiple other errors in judgement that got me into terrible hole -  I'll slam on the brakes and accept the possible crunch at the end of the runway. #4 is so intense that it seems next to impossible to prepare for - clearly my executive thinking won't be stellar at that moment.   #1 seems key, and #2 may be somewhat approachable. I certainly don't have these decisions as hard wired as they should be.  Further comments?

[PTK]

7 hours ago, DXB said:

 

There may be some benefit in considering our personal limits on when and how we fly an unfamiliar aircraft, but I doubt there's much benefit to be extracted from this tragedy by pondering who should get to rent a particular aircraft. And we don't know a thing about this particular pilots experience.

 To tell oneself "I am an experienced pilot with this many Mooney hours" and if only we could find a way to keep such lousy inexperienced pilots from getting into these situations strikes me as blindly egotistical and pragmatically useless.  There is also no paucity of regulation in the dwindling GA world, and there is ample downside for everyone in further regulating access for folks who don't own a plane or telling someone that they don't have enough hours to fly a particular brand. 

How blindly egotistical is it for a pilot to not disclose his/her hours in make and model to his passengers? Is that blindly egotistical as well? Have the trusting innocent pax been given informed consent? 

Again purely hypothetical and not intended to draw conclusions from this horrible tragedy.

[Cruiser]

Peter,

Your posts in this thread are somewhat surprising. Did you personally know someone involved in this ACCIDENT? 

[wishboneash]

There have been unfamiliar strips where I have come in and realized I am not set up correctly and gone around. For example, Cameron Park (O61) and Harris Ranch (3O8). Harris Ranch was at night. Second time around, I was much better established and landed uneventfully. If I am over 5kts over speed and looks like I am not going to hit the numbers or slightly beyond, I am going around. Livermore (25L) is 2,700ft and Palo Alto is around 2,400 ft. I usually land on 25L to get to my hangar quicker. It is good practice. Usually, if I am on the top of my game, I can land within 1/2 the runway length without much braking.

[Alan Fox]

4 hours ago, PTK said:

Yes Hank I agree. The owner determines who can rent their plane and uses insurance guidelines. The question then becomes how adequate are typical insurance requirements? As an example are 400 hours tt with 10 hours as pic in make and model enough for the Mooney? 

I don't think it is. 

(I'm using examples for the sake of discussion. Not specific to the individual pilot in this accident.)

So Pete , How many hours did you have , When you started flying  Mooney ,   I started Flying Mooneys with a hundred or so hours , in a rental situation , and guess what , I and everybod

 

1 minute ago, Cruiser said:

Peter,

Your posts in this thread are somewhat surprising. Did you personally know someone involved in this ACCIDENT? 

No , he's just being a Dick......A Dental Dick...... Sorry if I broke the rules........He is never a Dick in person.......Can't figure it out......

[PTK]

Traditionally trainer aircraft are Warriors, 180's or Cessnas. After getting the ppl pilots continued to fly these aircraft as owners if they bought or as renters. Consequently they built time in make and model as they built tt. More importantly they learned the airplane and became more proficient in it. 

To decide one day to get a checkout in another make and model aircraft and fly several hours to satisfy insurance requirements may be "legal" but may very well be even farther from proficient. To compound this by loading up passengers and killing them is negligence. Why do underwriters ask for time in make and model? 

Does anyone disagree?

(For puropses of general discussion. Not in any way passing judgement to what happened in this tragedy.)

[PTK]

7 hours ago, Cruiser said:

Peter,

Your posts in this thread are somewhat surprising. Did you personally know someone involved in this ACCIDENT? 

No.

An accident is an event unplanned or unintended caused by chance.

Negligence is lack of reasonable and ordinary care in the management of the machine due to lack of skill which causes damage or injury to others. 

Crashing due to failure of the machine can be reasonably called an accident because it happens by chance.

Crashing from a botched landing and goa is negligence because it happens by something other than pure chance. 

(This is a general discussion and not intended to pass judgement or draw parallels from this unfortunate tragedy.)

[N601RX]

The critical thing any time there is reason to believe airport length may be an issue is to pick a pre determined point on the ground and say if I don't have the wheel firmly planted on the ground by this point I'm going around. Don't continue floating along trying to save the landing or trying to decide if you should go around. The go around point should be selected in advance, not as your flairing to land.   I've went into some under 2,000 ft grass strips doing this and have yet to have a scare. 

[Hank]

I always use the first third of the runway. That's what my primary CFI beat into me. If I'm too high, I also go around. The shorter the field, the smaller the landing zone is. Too long, too high or too fast, go around.

But trying to set some sort of national standard of minimum total time or hours in type to rent is just wasted hot air, as well as a poor suggestion. I bought my Mooney with 62 hours total, zero in type,  zero complex. The key is training, and I sought out a good instructor and almost immediately after attended a MAPA PPP. I learned to fly my Mooney the right way while still m in "student pilot" mode. Aren't there already too many regulations discouraging people from flying? There were no rental Warriors where I was (or am now), and few Cessna skills translate well into flying a Mooney. Why waste time and money acquiring skills that mean little, and building habit patterns that must change???

[jonhop]

11 hours ago, PTK said:

Not 1000 hours but maybe 400.

 

 

Okay, that would rule me out. Purchased my J with 97 hours total time on my PPL with only 10 hours in 2015 since 2006. The hours were a BFR and flying club currency hours after a long time away from flying. Got checked out to fly 172's and a Grumman Tiger. Amazingly, my instructor signed me off to fly the Tiger solo in the club before the 172, when I got my license with a 172. Mooney insurance requirements were an additional 5 hours of dual instruction from a CFI with 25 hours of Mooney time. The flying club I joined after my hiatus had lots of high performance and complex aircraft to rent. Each one had a 25 hour requirement in complex/high performance type and an owner checkout for a select few birds. The club had NO MOONEY's to rent and will not add one in the future on leaseback due to too many insurance claims from prop strikes even though they had the same 25 hour complex requirement.

My point is that numbers are so arbitrary! For the case of rentals, I would imagine that a personal checkout program that would include dual instruction in the make and model where the instructor/club has the power to dictate the number of hours that are necessary--after all, each pilot has a different flying acumen--to show that a pilot is COMPETENT in the rental aircraft. Could be beneficial for clubs and owners and eliminate future accidents...

I have no problems putting my J down and pulling off of 27L at KSEE, 2738X60, in about a 2/3rd of the runway or by about half of 27R, 5342X100. Only when I'm full of fuel does this require heavy braking... This shortens my taxi and will prepare me for those short fields that I may encounter if I ever take my J into one... If I rented my J to someone, you'd better be sure that I'd know where they are taking it and whether they are up for it. 

[Jim Peace]

1 hour ago, PTK said:

An accident is an event unplanned or unintended caused by chance.

There's no such thing as an accident....

[Hank]

1 minute ago, Jim Peace said:

There's no such thing as an accident....

Do tell! I'd love to hear true stories of a life where everything goes well, and there are no unhappy surprises. 

Are you saying that when a small tornado passed nearby and a healthy tree blew over onto my car while I watched through the kitchen window that I could have somehow prevented it from happening? Took me all day to cut my car out, and I didn't get the stump cut down for a couple more; the angled mess of roots sticking out of the ground took much time and sweat to eliminate. 

[kevinw]

No.
An accident is an event unplanned or unintended caused by chance.
Negligence is lack of reasonable and ordinary care in the management of the machine due to lack of skill which causes damage or injury to others. 
Crashing due to failure of the machine can be reasonably called an accident because it happens by chance.
Crashing from a botched landing and goa is negligence because it happens by something other than pure chance. 
(This is a general discussion and not intended to pass judgement or draw parallels from this unfortunate tragedy.)

I think what he is trying to say is all accidents are personal to us as pilots. This one especially so because two people lost their lives in a Mooney. I think many of us agree this particular accident angers us because it was preventable. No one here is being a dick. It's just really hard to stomach that these people died because the pilot wasn't able to control the approach to landing. I'm no expert but he was on his second go around and that tells us a lot. He was clearly having trouble controlling the airspeed, angle of approach or both. Point is this one hurts and we're all just trying to understand it and prevent it from happening again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jim Peace]

4 minutes ago, Hank said:

Do tell! I'd love to hear true stories of a life where everything goes well, and there are no unhappy surprises. 

Are you saying that when a small tornado passed nearby and a healthy tree blew over onto my car while I watched through the kitchen window that I could have somehow prevented it from happening? 

Yes...if you live in tornado ally, or close by or if you live where there can be any type of convective activity there is a chance that a tree will come down on your car if you park your car near one.  This is not an accident.  There is a very good chance that this could happen.  It has happened to thousands and thousands of people.

My last house I had all tall trees removed that could do harm if they came down.  My sister is having two gigantic trees removed from near her house this Thursday because if there is a storm they will flatten her house.  Healthy or not it is not safe to have these things near your home or car.  If you want to take the chance and park under one then fine.  But don't call it an accident when one falls on your car.  

[Shadrach]

On September 27, 2016 at 1:59 PM, PTK said:

How blindly egotistical is it for a pilot to not disclose his/her hours in make and model to his passengers? Is that blindly egotistical as well? Have the trusting innocent pax been given informed consent? 

Again purely hypothetical and not intended to draw conclusions from this horrible tragedy.

Disclosing hours means nothing. If I head out to the drome tomorrow to take a ride in a 172, many of the time the 100hr wonders straight out of training can handle the plane better than the multi 1000+hr once a month warrior.

[PTK]

16 hours ago, DXB said:

...To tell oneself "I am an experienced pilot with this many Mooney hours" and if only we could find a way to keep such lousy inexperienced pilots from getting into these situations strikes me as blindly egotistical and pragmatically useless.  There is also no paucity of regulation in the dwindling GA world, and there is ample downside for everyone in further regulating access for folks who don't own a plane or telling someone that they don't have enough hours to fly a particular brand. 

What's blindly egotistical is not admitting to himself and his pax that he just can't safely land there and maybe he should go somewhere else. His ego may have been hurt and it would be an embarrassing inconvenience but he and his pax would be alive today and respect him for his safe decision. He wasn't alone. He had passengers onboard. He failed them and betrayed their trust by his gross negligence.

(Not speaking specific to this tragedy or what transpired.)

[Alan Fox]

16 minutes ago, PTK said:

What's blindly egotistical is not admitting to himself and his pax that he just can't safely land there and maybe he should go somewhere else. His ego may have been hurt and it would be an embarrassing inconvenience but he and his pax would be alive today and respect him for his safe decision. He wasn't alone. He had passengers onboard. He failed them and betrayed their trust by his gross negligence.

You have no idea whatsoever what his mindset was , or his experience was , or what happened.....  For all you know , his passenger could have got scared and grabbed the controls......  YOU DON'T KNOW ,  Don't talk about the ego of someone you have never met....... 

[DXB]

17 minutes ago, PTK said:

What's blindly egotistical is not admitting to himself and his pax that he just can't safely land there and maybe he should go somewhere else. His ego may have been hurt and it would be an embarrassing inconvenience but he and his pax would be alive today and respect him for his safe decision. He wasn't alone. He had passengers onboard. He failed them and betrayed their trust by his gross negligence.

Yeah..just being "purely hypothetical" and "not intending to draw conclusions from this horrible tragedy" right?  Thank goodness- 'cause otherwise this might be construed as a self-righteous rant condemning the actions of a dead pilot whose situation you don't know the first thing about.  Might even come off as a little blindly egotistical.   Framing a pilot who, on the surface, doesn't seem that different from you or me as "grossly negligent" may make us feel better, but it doesn't do a damn thing to make anyone safer - quite to the contrary I suspect.  

[kortopates]

Invulnerability, one of the 5 dangerous attitudes, is just as bad as the Macho attitude and all the others. Just say'in...

[PTK]

8 hours ago, DXB said:

Yeah..just being "purely hypothetical" and "not intending to draw conclusions from this horrible tragedy" right?  Thank goodness- 'cause otherwise this might be construed as a self-righteous rant condemning the actions of a dead pilot whose situation you don't know the first thing about.  Might even come off as a little blindly egotistical.   Framing a pilot who, on the surface, doesn't seem that different from you or me as "grossly negligent" may make us feel better, but it doesn't do a damn thing to make anyone safer - quite to the contrary I suspect.  

Look, I get it. Sometimes calling a spade a spade may not be PC. It's uncomfortable and may sound rude or impolite and unpopular. Beating around the bush is more convenient and may give you the feel good warm and fuzzies.  But that "doesn't do a damn thing to make anyone safer" either.

So what do we do? Once we get passed the initial shock of such a horrific tragedy maybe we can try and face the problem head on to identify its causes. Recognize it exists and that we have a lot of work to do. Only then can we work towards solving it. 

As we learn at the Mooney Safety Foundation, we have to first identify the chain of latent failures before we can break it. 

[Hank]

Hubris, Peter. You, not the poor, deceased pilot. You don't have any idea about his training,experience level or what happened, yet you are condemning his as incompetent. Sure am glad to know that you never have a bad day or make a mistake. Hubris. Look it up, then look in a mirror.

[PTK]

How about the poor passengers Hank? Do we forget about them? It's all about us pilots?