Mooney down NJ

[kpaul]

8 hours ago, Hank said:

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.

I use the first third for practice engine out patterns.  Otherwise for visual patterns my planned touchdown point is generally 500' down the runway, this of course requires an aimpoint short of that touchdown point.  If I float more than 500' past my intended touchdown point I go around, not because I can't salvage the landing but because I did not meet my intended landing point meaning I had poor airspeed control, shifting aimpoint, or potentially a tail wind.  Maybe all three.

On an instrument runway 500' is easy to visualize as is the +500 go-around point.  On a non-instrument runway with out markings I estimate.  as for a go-around point without airfield markings, I use the very precise, 1 potato, 2 potato....if I reach 5 potato its time to go around (I don't need that many carbs) also at 65 mph you travel about 95 feet per second, but I like pilot math of 100' per second.

 

edit: The reason I don't use 1/3 is that it is good on a 2000' runway of about 650' but I would never accept 1/3 if I was landing at a 9000' runway unless my aimpoint was intentionally 3000' down the runway to expedite taxi. 

[Danb]

Then Hank had the tree fall on his truck on purpose.     Ok 

[Hank]

8 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

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.  

Jim--

North Georgia is not tornado alley or close by; i was not parked under the tree but half its height away. Severe weather was not forecast. I had stopped by to check on my parents' house and water plants while they were out if town. 

Fortunately for them, I was there to take pictures and save hail samples in the freezer, as window screens and shingles were damaged. When they got home, there was a 4' tall stump leaning over at a crazy angle where the John Deere 850 couldn't pull it any more. 

Some things really are accidents . . . . Maybe not in your intentional world, but certainly in mine. 

[MyNameIsNobody]

10 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

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.  

Come on Jim.  You are talking about an "Act of God".  An accident is an unplanned/unexpected event that may or may not involve personal injury or property damage.  I understand what you are saying...People who live in the 100 or 500 year flood plane have a 1 in 100 or 1 in 500 chance of a catastrophic flood.  You can mitigate the damage by building flood walls or CHOOSING to not reside in the flood plain or "in tornado alley"...by NOT parking under the tree.  

It is STILL an accident, I.E. the event is not "planned for".  If I am trimming an apple this moring and the blade on the tool breaks and the momentum/force causes my hand to be cut.  Was that an accident?  I was not planning on cutting my hand or expecting the blade to break.  The odds of a tree limb falling on a car, the handle breaking an engine on an airplane failing can be reduced by proper/vigilant maintenance.  By buying quality.  By planning ahead....BUT the unplanned event can occur and IS an accident. They are not deliberate acts.  The teenagers yesterday pointing a gun at another and "the gun goes off"...A lot of "things" could have prevented the occurrence...a lot of domino's lined up.  Remove any one and the event does not occur...BUT the gun went off and a girl is dead.  An accident NOT a deliberate act.

I am quite certain that this pilot was NOT trying to kill himself or others.  His actions/inactions lack of planning/weather/plane/weight/performance were ALL factors that lead to the accident.  Fault finding vs. fact finding are just another failure that will lead to another unplanned undesirable event...OR another ACCIDENT to occur.

[bradp]

So then let's just agree to learn something.  

We learned something from the high altitude incident, the Canadian incident.  

We can certainly learn something here.  Most pilots would agree that if we augered in, that something would be learned that could prevent a similar incident.  

 

[Danb]

5 minutes ago, bradp said:

So then let's just agree to learn something.  

We learned something from the high altitude incident, the Canadian incident.  

We can certainly learn something here.  Most pilots would agree that if we augered in, that something would be learned that could prevent a similar incident.  

 

Brad I learn quite a bit critiquing various accidents, I don't like arguing over others plight but using the links in the broken chain of events seems quite useful.

[bradp]

36 minutes ago, Danb said:

Brad I learn quite a bit critiquing various accidents, I don't like arguing over others plight but using the links in the broken chain of events seems quite useful.

Exactly Dan- there are probably many links in this chain. Identification of actual links or even non-factual but plausible links can help the next pilot avoid a similar outcome.  That's why I'm not a big "let's wait to see what the NTSB says" stickler.  

[PTK]

 

On 9/28/2016 at 6:47 AM, Hank said:

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.

Hubris to all of us Hank if we get stuck in the "wow it's horrible what happened to this poor pilot. May they rest in peace" stage.

I'd like to hear from folks how are we going to carry the discussion further than that. A lot further thsn that. Take actions to address and make steps in resolving our crisis in GA as illustrated by this event. We are GA and this is our crisis. We need a long term strategy to find solutions. How are we going to make changes? We owe it to ourselves and God knows we owe it to our passengers.

If we forget this and let it slowly disappear in the sunset until the next one wakes us up, hubris to all of us.

My questions were: when do we, (as in we collectively in GA), look and scrutinize closely at who can rent what airplane? When do we seriously look at currency, total time, and time in make and model? When do we look at our pilot training model and see if it can be improved? 

These are unpopular things to talk about. They may be perceived as more regulation. Peehaps thete's dome truth to that. But are we up to the task of self regulating our GA? Certainly we can't be killing ourselves and our pax with our negligence.

I don't hear anything being discussed. 

[Skates97]

2 hours ago, PTK said:

 

Hubris to all of us Hank if we get stuck in the "wow it's horrible what happened to this poor pilot. May they rest in peace" stage.

I'd like to hear from folks how are we going to carry the discussion further than that. A lot further thsn that. Take actions to address and make steps in resolving our crisis in GA as illustrated by this event. We are GA and this is our crisis. We need a long term strategy to find solutions. How are we going to make changes? We owe it to ourselves and God knows we owe it to our passengers.

If we forget this and let it slowly disappear in the sunset until the next one wakes us up, hubris to all of us.

My questions were: when do we, (as in we collectively in GA), look and scrutinize closely at who can rent what airplane? When do we seriously look at currency, total time, and time in make and model? When do we look at our pilot training model and see if it can be improved? 

These are unpopular things to talk about. They may be perceived as more regulation. Peehaps thete's dome truth to that. But are we up to the task of self regulating our GA? Certainly we can't be killing ourselves and our pax with our negligence.

I don't hear anything being discussed. 

I would like to know who the "We" are that you keep talking about. You speak of "we collectively in GA" scrutinizing who can rent a plane. That would imply self regulation, but then you seem to imply that "we in GA" are perhaps not up to the task of self regulating. Which is it that you are recommending, more government oversight or more common sense on the part of the owner renting the aircraft, the pilot flying it, or the passengers getting on the plane?

I think that the term "crisis" is thrown around a little too much. Yes, there are planes that go down and lives are lost. Frequently it appears that the accident and loss of life could have been prevented, often easily prevented by better preparation, better training, or just more common sense. Does that then become the job of the government to add more regulations? It is impossible to regulate common sense. This is beginning to sound like it is falling into the "if there's anything at all we can do to save one more life we need to do it" line thought. More regulations will not solve the problem of GA crashes and loss of life. Better training and education will, but that should not be mandated by the government. The more regulations that are added, the more you will see GA dwindle until it disappears. All that will be left are those that are learning and logging tie until they can move onto flying professionally instead of the folks going out for a weekend trip or a morning breakfast run.

I'm just a low time student taking my checkride in a little over two weeks. However, I watch just about every Youtube video that AOPA puts out with their Air Safety Institute as well as reading up on accident reports, what happened, and how they could have been prevented. Why? Because I don't want to be another statistic that someone is reading about. There is a risk in flying GA and a risk in getting in a GA plane as a passenger. It is my responsibility to make sure that if I am the pilot I am competent, proficient, and prepared. If I am the passenger it is my responsibility to make sure that the pilot is competent, proficient, and prepared. I don't need more rules and regulations so that I can "pass the buck" on my personal responsibility.

I think the real questions that each of us should be asking ourselves are:

• When will each of us as individuals look closely at who can rent our plane if we are in the business of renting planes? (The school I am at actually rents a Mooney and a  Piper Apache. They are very careful of who rents and require check-out rides. Even if you are renting one of their Cherokees with tons of time and want to fly to Catalina or Big Bear they require a check-out ride there before you can go on your own. Not because regulations require it, but because they personally require it.)
• How do I look at currency, total time, and time in make and model if I am renting a plane or those items of the pilot if I am getting in a plane that is being rented? (Let's not overlook going for a ride with someone in their own plane who may be current, but not currently proficient.)
• Finally, what am I doing to make sure that I am properly trained and prepared to fly, and what am I doing to constantly improve myself?

There are plenty of regulations, what we need more of is personal responsibility.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Skates97

[201er]

3 hours ago, PTK said:

My questions were: when do we, (as in we collectively in GA), look and scrutinize closely at who can rent what airplane? When do we seriously look at currency, total time, and time in make and model? When do we look at our pilot training model and see if it can be improved?

I don't hear anything being discussed. 

What you think that you should qualify to rent your plane from yourself to fly? Go scrutinize yourself.

[bonal]

This type of incident certainly brings out strong opinion accompanied with emotion since collectively we all share a close bond to all pilots and flyers.  Lots of different thinking here and it's always essential that we never become complacent.  Another post that linked an actual study about membership to type clubs such as MAPA (even though not part of the study) indicated there is a reduction in accident rates when compared to non member types. I know that just being a part of Mooney Space has given me lots of knowledge to add to my flying.  I wonder about statistics on MS I have been here since 2013 I think and there are over 2000 members how many accidents both non and fatal have there been with MS pilots. Seems like way below average accident rates. For instance the discussion on AOA and despite 201'rs approach to the subject it has me thinking  more about how I fly my wing even though I was always aware of the concept and that airspeed is only part of the equation. As sad as this thread is I want to thank all of you who continue to offer information that helps us all be better qualified to fly these airplanes. God speed to those that are lost doing what brings them happiness.

[DonMuncy]

When we hear about an accident with loss of life, our first thoughts (rightfully) are condolences for the family and friends of the deceased. At that point, since we don't KNOW all the facts, we must wait for the NTSB report, a couple of years down the line, to know the (at least official) cause of the accident.

But if we want to use the accident as a learning experience, we have to make some guesses and assumptions. At this point, I hope we are not saying "the pilot screwed up by doing x", but rather, "perhaps factor x was involved, and if so, how do we improve our piloting abilities in this regard".

I think these discussions are valid, but we should be careful to be cognizant of the fact that we are dealing with how to improve, rather than placing blame. 

[201er]

29 minutes ago, PTK said:

In my opinion, folks, we need to look at pilot qualifications and scrutinize who can rent what airplane. 

Doing the minimum like a checkout to satisfy insurance requirements is being, well...negligent. On both sides of the transaction. And although it is a transaction it has to be looked at as a lot more than a transaction. There are lives at stake.

We need to look at the potential renter's log book and determine what airplane he/she can rent based on time in make and model. They should only be able to rent and carry passengers in the airplane they have the most time and therefore experience in.

So then post your logbook here for everyone to look at and scrutinize.

Edited September 29, 2016 by 201er

[PTK]

47 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

When we hear about an accident with loss of life, our first thoughts (rightfully) are condolences for the family and friends of the deceased. At that point, since we don't KNOW all the facts, we must wait for the NTSB report, a couple of years down the line, to know the (at least official) cause of the accident...

We can wait two years for yet another NTSB report and by then this will be old news. We'll be talking about another tragedy and of course waiting for another NTSB report two years after that. On and on.

In my opinion, folks, we need to look at pilot qualifications and scrutinize who can rent what airplane. 

Doing the minimum like a checkout to satisfy insurance requirements is being, well...negligent. On both sides of the transaction. And although it is a transaction it has to be looked at as a lot more than a transaction. There are lives at stake.

We need to look at the potential renter's log book and determine what airplane he/she can rent based on time in make and model. They should only be able to rent and carry passengers in the airplane they have the most time and therefore experience in. 

Does anyone feel that's too much regulation to handle?

(Not referring specifically to this tragedy as the exact circumstances are not known.)

[Hank]

Yes, Peter, that is too much regulation to handle. It will make it difficult to ever change types. Say someone has 400 Cedsna hoursand wants a HP checkout in a Bo. Can'tuse the Bo with family for 400 hours, but must instead add more Cessna hours, even if flying the Bo exclusively for 200? How is that safer? NOT a good idea for GA or Safety.

[Cruiser]

4 hours ago, PTK said:

When do we look at our pilot training model and see if it can be improved? 

This is the only question you raise that has any meaning with regards to safety. The FAA is currently working (with industry experts) on improving this.

No pilot is infallible, regardless of ratings and experience

[Parker_Woodruff]

-

[Danb]

This should be up to the owners and insurance carriers to set precedent,policies and procedures. The passengers should make sure there pilot is up to snuff, a technical term. I know even being a pilot I won't fly with someone who I don't feel it  is competent on that given day. I stopped flying with a high time pilot because he stopped using his checklist. 

Peter how do you propose to regulate the industry, we can't even regulate ourselves. If we do ok on our two year ride review we're ok, maybe for that day anyway. If you take enough online courses you'll be able to skip the review, without even flying for your last two years i.e. being a wings member with enough wings for the period. I'd rather make,yes I said it, someone with below x time in the last year have to take recurrent training, if we're not going to stay current on our then it should be forced upon us. That's regulation.

 

[PTK]

7 minutes ago, Danb said:

...I'd rather make,yes I said it, someone with below x time in the last year have to take recurrent training, if we're not going to stay current on our then it should be forced upon us. That's regulation.

That's a start. I know in NJ at least even the driving privilege is obtained in stages with restrictions every step of the way.

[glafaille]

We don't yet know what happened to this flight that resulted in tragedy.  Our hearts are saddened by the news.

Regardless of the reason, such an event is a sobering reminder that disaster is always close at hand either through mechanical failure, weather or personal error.  Endeavors involving complex machines traveling at high speed can NEVER be made 100% safe, there will always be risk.  You can't legislate good judgement or the ability to anticipate problems.  It's up to each of us as pilots to develop personal policies, minimums and thought processes to insure the safety of ourselves, family and friends who place their lives in our care.

Sadly there are some that never fully recognize or accept the latent dangers of any kind of travel.  People die in airplanes, boats, cars, on bicycles, and stepping off a curb.  However, I believe that flying in a well maintained aircraft, piloted by a careful, thoughtful, person, aware of his limitations and those of his machine, to be among the safest methods of travel.

May God bless our friends on this flight and the family and friends they leave behind.

[Alan Fox]

Lets see , who does the statistics on accidents , and probability equations , and compiles the actuary tables , and every conceivable variable in reference to aviation accidents ????   Oh yea , the insurance companies , The FAA , and the NTSB........  They are perfectly capable of making the rules on who is qualified and capable.......  Asked , and answered.....

[Smiles201]

Much of this discussion is predicated on the idea that risk can be managed and that only bad or poorly prepared pilots come to harm. It is a little humbling to note, however, that seasoned pilots with thousands of hours of experience make mistakes or somehow get into unexpected situations that they can't handle. Hell, I almost had a midair in the middle of nowhere New Mexico. So while we need to constantly discuss safety, and be ever vigilant, it is important to recognize that no one is immune from an accident.

[Shadrach]

On September 29, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Danb said:

This should be up to the owners and insurance carriers to set precedent,policies and procedures. The passengers should make sure there pilot is up to snuff, a technical term. I know even being a pilot I won't fly with someone who I don't feel it  is competent on that given day. I stopped flying with a high time pilot because he stopped using his checklist. 

Peter how do you propose to regulate the industry, we can't even regulate ourselves. If we do ok on our two year ride review we're ok, maybe for that day anyway. If you take enough online courses you'll be able to skip the review, without even flying for your last two years i.e. being a wings member with enough wings for the period. I'd rather make,yes I said it, someone with below x time in the last year have to take recurrent training, if we're not going to stay current on our then it should be forced upon us. That's regulation.

 

How is a passenger to determine if a pilot is "up to snuff"?

[Danb]

7 hours ago, Shadrach said:

How is a passenger to determine if a pilot is "up to snuff"?

I don't know, sometimes sarcasm goes by unnoticed 

[whiskytango]

On 9/27/2016 at 10:03 AM, kevinw said:

As we all know correct airspeed is crucial when landing a Mooney and someone who occasionally rents this type of aircraft probably doesn't understand this completely. That said, a Mooney probably isn't an ideal rental plane. I came from a Piper Archer and transitioning to the J took  some time. I received 10 hours of dual but I don't think I was comfortable and proficient until about 25 so I didn't take passengers until then. From there I got better and better just like everyone else and now I have about 200. My point to all of this is the Mooney is a different animal and an unforgiving beast. I told my instructor once if I fly the airplane the way I was taught, there are no problems. You can get away with a lot in an Archer because it hides your mistakes but in a Mooney there are consequences and unfortunately this is one of them. Prayers to the family; this is terrible.

This is true.  I remember when I transitioned into my K model after owning an E model.  I bought the K from a dealer at an airport with a 7000 x 100 foot runway.  The CFI doing the transition training told me never to let the airspeed get below 90 kts on final!! (I am convinced he was afraid of Mooneys). That worked on a 7000 foot runway where you could float for 4000 feet before touching down.  After finishing the training I ignored his advice and followed the POH v-speeds, because the aircraft was going to be based at an airport with a 2500 foot runway.  It worked out fine, but there was not much room for error.