Mooney down NJ

[wishboneash]

It is not about regulation, more about currency and judgment for that particular flight (in all phases of the flight). We have got away with mistakes and I have my share of "never again" stories. Each flight is different, and there are pilots who kill themselves whether they be 100 hr private or 6000 hr CFI/IIs. Most times we get away with a bruised ego, at worst a damaged plane and live to fly another day. I guess when get-there-it-is, over-confidence or poor planning/judgment comes into the picture all the regulation in the world won't save you when several things break down in the chain. Without the facts in for this particular incident, these are general comments. Many times, the instructor evaluating a renter has his/her limitations as well. I prefer to get instruction from an instructor who has the fundamentals of flight down (and is also willing to be challenged by the student) and has experienced a lot of real world situations in different types of aircraft (I don't care if they are Mooney specific or not). I am fortunate that I have such an instructor.

[PTK]

40 minutes ago, Alan Fox said:

Sky Manor , (or sky manure) as we like to call it , is in an area of rolling hills , and it is hard to really get  good visual cues as to your altitude , and the field altitude , also coupled with the power lines at the end of the prevailing runway , it is easy to come in steep and fast , If you are not precise with airspeed control , it is easy to come in hot........ I have been there probably a hundred times , and still almost always use the whole runway.....

I disagree. The airport has published GPS approaches for both runways and an additionsl VOR approach for 7. 

Did he make use of it?

[gsengle]

Not sure how GPS non-glideslope (Lnav) approaches are relevant on a VFR day...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alan Fox]

6 minutes ago, gsengle said:

Not sure how GPS non-glideslope (Lnav) approaches are relevant on a VFR day...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

they are not , especially for a VFR pilot in VFR conditions.....Unfortunately our hobby can be deadly , I am out of this thread , I don't particularly like where it is headed.....

[Tony Armour]

2 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

I think its best to let them grieve in peace ,

I imagine that Mike is asking in regards to the Bill Gilliland foundation that helps Mooney pilot families in their time of need. 

http://www.mooneysummit.com

[mike_elliott]

5 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

I think its best to let them grieve in peace ,

Alan, I agree. Now is the time for family and friends. We, the Mooney Summit, Inc's Bill Gilliland foundation, do not plan to call them anytime soon. We get that, probably better than most can appreciate. We want to reach out to the victim's families and offer crisis intervention support and financial assistance like we have done for 7 other families so far when the time is right. We do have our protocol on how it is handled and my wife who is a  therapist, leads our initiative. This is where your donations to the Mooney Summit go, to help our loved ones when we can no longer help. In the meantime, we need to gather contact info, unfortunately.

[Tony Armour]

 If anyone wants to hear the ATC audio here it is: http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/mooney-crash-at-sky-manor-(n40)-nj/

 

[Alan Fox]

Paid with

PayPal balance

Transaction ID

87N64844KU9880521

Sent to

Mooney Summit, Inc.

http://www.mooneysummit.com

Amount

$20.00

Donation details

Sent to Mooney Summit, Inc.

$20.00

Fee

$0.00

• See details on classic site

Print details

Need help?

If there's a problem, make sure to contact the seller through PayPal by March 26, 2017. You may be eligible for purchase protection.

• Report a problem
• Report this as unauthorized

[mike_elliott]

3 minutes ago, Alan Fox said:

Paid with

PayPal balance

Transaction ID

87N64844KU9880521

Sent to

Mooney Summit, Inc.

http://www.mooneysummit.com

Amount

$20.00

Donation details

Sent to Mooney Summit, Inc.

$20.00

Fee

$0.00

• See details on classic site

Print details

Need help?

If there's a problem, make sure to contact the seller through PayPal by March 26, 2017. You may be eligible for purchase protection.

• Report a problem
• Report this as unauthorized

Thanks Alan for your kindness.

[ALP]

I don't think currency or qualifications is an issue in this case. My experience with Airmods was very good.

Several years ago prior to owning I took my transition training in their rental Mooney. Even with many hours, they still required 10 hours dual. I had to wait several weeks to start with one of their "Mooney qualified" instructors.

They wouldn't "toss the keys" to anyone that didn't meet their requirements.

Al

 

[Shadrach]

What a sad state of affairs.  RIP to the deceased. I hope the families find peace in due time.

This incident could have been avoided if the pilot possessed either greater skill or greater judgment. Much like morality, neither of these can really be legislated effectively. This pilot may have demonstrated superb flying skills during a check out and just had a bad day.  We've all had them to some degree.  There was a time when I'd have said that 2900' was a low margin strip and something to be avoided.  I don't feel that way anymore. Unless there's an obstacle that necessitates staying high, a 2900' strip is well within the performance capabilities of a any medium bodied Mooney...even at gross weight.  Judgment is knowing whether both you and the aircraft are up to task at hand.  

Another factor - When I was a renter, I studied the POH of any aircraft I was going to check out in with great interest. I checked the J model POH, it recommends an approach speed of 74KIAS@ 2600LBS and 78KIAS@2900.  That is 1.4Vso...it is also down right lousy advice in any Mooney. For all of the overly complicated table and charts, no where in the POH does it say that it is advisable to reduce speed to 1.2Vso by the threshold.  If the aircraft is flown at 78KIAS to the threshold at MGW with full flaps, that is 22KTS above stall (even more in ground effect). If you fly as the POH suggests, forget about actually landing in the first 1000' even 1500'.  What is funny is that the POH for my F recommends an approach speed of 80MPH at gross(2740lbs) or a more reasonable if not slightly hot 1.3Vso (I like 1.2Vso for normal ops and 1.1Vso for fields <1800'). The J model POH recommends 5 mph faster when 140lbs lighter than my F POH for the same airframe.  I thought that the POHs were supposed to have improved as the years went on. Certainly not in this regard.

Those of you with a desire to regulate should maybe focus your efforts on trying to ensure the MFGs provide POH numbers and recommendations that are actually consistent and usable. 

 

[mooniac15u]

26 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

What a sad state of affairs.  RIP to the deceased. I hope the families find peace in due time.

This incident could have been avoided if the pilot possessed either greater skill or greater judgment. Much like morality, neither of these can really be legislated effectively. This pilot may have demonstrated superb flying skills during a check out and just had a bad day.  We've all had them to some degree.  There was a time when I'd have said that 2900' was a low margin strip and something to be avoided.  I don't feel that way anymore. Unless there's an obstacle that necessitates staying high, a 2900' strip is well within the performance capabilities of a any medium bodied Mooney...even at gross weight.  Judgment is knowing whether both you and the aircraft are up to task at hand.  

Another factor. When I was a renter, I studied the POH of any aircraft I was going to check out in with great interest. 

I checked the J model POH, it recommends an approach speed of 74KIAS@ 2600LBS and 78KIAS@2900.  That is 1.4Vso...it is also down right lousy advice in any Mooney. For all of the overly complicated table and charts, no where in the POH does it say that it is advisable to reduce speed to 1.2Vso by the threshold.  If the aircraft is flown at 78KIAS to the threshold at MGW with full flaps, that is 22KTS above stall (even more in ground effect). If you fly as the POH suggests, forget about actually landing in the first 1000' even 1500'.  What is funny is that the POH for my F recommends an approach speed of 80MPH at gross(2740lbs) or a more reasonable if not slightly hot 1.3Vso (I like 1.2Vso for normal ops and 1.1Vso for fields <1800'). The J model POH recommends 5 mph faster when 140lbs lighter than my F POH for the same airframe.  I thought that the POHs were supposed to have improved as the years went on. Certainly not in this regard.

Those of you with a desire to regulate should maybe focus your efforts on trying to ensure the MFGs provide POH numbers and recommendations that are actually consistent and usable. 

 

Not sure which version of the POH you are looking at but it must be for a later J model if it includes a speed for 2900 lbs.  The Mooney that crashed was a 1980 J which would have had a max weight of 2740 lbs.  I don't have my actual POH in front of me but the electronic copy I have of the generic Information Manual lists the following speeds:

Normal Landing Distance:

2740 - 71

2500 - 69

2300 - 65

Maximum Performance Landing Distance:

2740 - 65

2500 -62

2300 -59

[gsengle]

A non precision GPS approach into a busy VFR uncontrolled field enhances safety?? A long straight in with others in the pattern? These are dive and drive not glidslope approaches. They actually prove due to lack of LPV approaches what the situation is for stabilized approaches anyway. I don't get what you're saying!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsengle]

The commercial guys have ILS, or LPV, with long runways and the required clear approaches and lighting systems that go with them. This field called for a standard traffic pattern in line with the other traffic all day long. A long straight in would be a collision risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsengle]

Non precision with a MAP is colloquially referred to as a "dive and drive". Believe me that practice wouldn't fly in the US, we fly VFR traffic patterns at fields like this. This was a weekend at VFR uncontrolled field with multiple planes in a standard traffic pattern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kpaul]

Just now, gsengle said:

Non precision with a MAP is colloquially referred to as a "dive and drive".

This technique is frowned upon and was addressed by the FAA in a Safety Alert for Operators (SAO).  https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2009/SAFO09011.pdf

[gsengle]

That's fine it's just a nickname I don't fly them that way, but are you saying you'd advocate flying one of these non-precision approaches into a uncontrolled field on a VFR day with other planes in the normal VFR traffic pattern using a long straight in as a way of enhancing safety? Or that a non-glide slope approach into a field with obstructions that is short somehow makes for a stabilized situation? More than a standard traffic pattern? Mid air risk aside?

You're missing my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kpaul]

Just now, gsengle said:

That's fine it's just a nickname I don't fly them that way, but are you saying you'd advocate flying one of these non-precision approaches into a uncontrolled field on a VFR day with other planes in the normal VFR traffic pattern using a long straight in as a way of enhancing safety?

You're missing my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope I get your point, I was only commenting on the dive and drive statement.

But as a matter of practice if there is an approach to the active runway, I always load it.  I would prefer ILS or LPV, but I will load the most precise available.  I don't plan on flying a long final to a busy VFR/uncontrolled field, but you should still be on final at about the VDP for the approach even in a visual pattern. 

[gsengle]

Another pet peeve, there is no such thing as an active runway at an uncontrolled field.

My point is that having non precision approaches to a totally VFR field does nothing for you at all. You have to visualize and fly the proper pattern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flight2000]

Some more to chew on...

https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/54i6qk/watched_this_entire_crash_unfold/

Brian

[kpaul]

Just now, gsengle said:

Another pet peeve, there is no such thing as an active runway at an uncontrolled field.

So if at this busy field everyone is landing one runway that is not the active runway?...YGBSM.  Call it what you want, active, primary, prevailing, the one everyone is using.  There are ways of knowing where you are in relation to the end of the runway you intend to land on and base your glide path.  3 degree = 300ft/nm if you know where the end of the runway is you can adjust your rate to meet an intended point of touch down at a comfortable/controllable.  Amazing how an non-precision GPS approach has the runway approach end as a waypoint, I can see how this in no way aids in safety why flying VFR. 

[gsengle]

It's not an active. You're supposed to use your own judgement as to runway.

And I just think it's silly to be messing with the GPS when your flying a standard pattern and should be looking outside and at altitude and airspeed and the sight picture and for other traffic when it's nice weather out. That's why we fly standard patterns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsengle]

Moreover, the standard traffic pattern and an RNAV LNAV approach are totally different, so suggesting that safety is enhanced by everyone abandoning traffic patterns to fly approaches that 1) not everyone is equipped to fly and 2) not everyone is rated to fly, doesn't make any sense to me. (This was the prior suggestion, not yours)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DXB]

7 minutes ago, flight2000 said:

Some more to chew on...

https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/54i6qk/watched_this_entire_crash_unfold/

Brian

Good description - knowing the field, I found it very easy to visualize what happened from the narrative. On a related note, when taking off from a short field, we are taught to pick an abort point if not achieving 70% takeoff speed by that location and stick to it.  I definitely do this for anything 3000-ish feet or less - longer for very high DAs but that doesn't really come up in my flying.   What I don't do is set a go around decision point when I get an endless float. I've certainly had plenty of these, including at this very airport, and I just ride it out and try not to force it on. I realize that without a set point for this decision, I might easily wait too long, as this pilot appears to have done.  Do  other folks have a set practice on this?  Maybe that would be a useful place to go with this discussion.     

I'm also glad to hear some more experienced folks who think landing at Sky Manor isn't totally easy.  I've done well at Andover on the exact same day (<2000 feet, with hills, power lines, etc) and then had 2900ft Sky Manor make me look like a fool.

 

[gsengle]

The hard point would be to realize that it is better to stop and crash straight ahead than to try and go around when you're facing obstructions... I would think.

I've done it once and overran the end in a Mooney into grass by about 5 feet early in my Mooney flying. No damage worked out ok. No idea whether a go around would have worked out....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk