Mooney down NJ

[201er]

The RNAV25 approach is only good till 600' AGL, then you're just as visual as anyone else. So I don't see how it plays any relevance. You can just as well crash on the go-around from an ILS approach, so flying instruments to this kind of field isn't particularly relevant on a clear day.

As per the "active runway" discussion, there is a plausible chance that this was a contributing cause in the accident. The fact that he was too fast on 2 approaches indicates one of two things. Either poor piloting or a tailwind. Nothing to discuss if it's the former so we give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the tailwind. You don't have much to work with even with a headwind, so a tailwind is a disaster there. Tailwind makes a go around all the harder. Not only because you are crammed to climb but also it gives an illusion of faster airspeed. And if you're the run-of-the-mill pilot that flies by look-out-the-window and maintain your airspeed, it is very dangerous. Need to milk all the performance you can out of the climb because you're running out of space quickly but can't get too slow either. As for the "active runway" dilemma, most likely there were a bunch of guys already in the pattern using runway 25 because the last guy used 25, etc. I have seen traffic patterns stay on the turned-tailwind runway for hours at airports where everyone assumes there's such a thing as an "active runway."

I don't have any Mooney videos to Sky Manor but here's one from back when I was renting an Arrow. You'll get a good appreciation for those power lines on short final, the trees on the end, and the tightness overall coming in. Granted, this is a fairly easy airport for a Skyhawk, a light challenge for an Arrow, and a moderate challenge for a Mooney. The flaps and gear bring the hershey wing arrow down like a rock when I cut the power. I was able to pretty consistently make the halfway turn off. In the Mooney, that is only possible with a good headwind or heavy braking. It's rare that I don't coast the Mooney down to the end. Truth be told, the takeoff out of Sky Manor bothers me more than the landing. And a Go-Around is kind of the worst bit of both.

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by 201er

[kpaul]

17 minutes ago, DXB said:

Do  other folks have a set practice on this?  Maybe that would be a useful place to go with this discussion.    

At work we brief a touchdown and go-around point for every runway we land at.  Part of that keeps the other pilot from guessing what the plan is and the other is to ensure that we are practicing precision aviation not TLAR.  If you can't maintain an aimpoint within normal parameters they - go-around, conversely if you are floating and come up to the pre-briefed go-around point, you go-around.  The go-around point should be based on distance remaining that would allow a normal landing and braking.  The point can be a runway remaining marker if the field has them or a easily identifiable landmark such as a taxiway. If you do touch and gos, you should also have a push-it up point in mind as well.

Even in my Mooney when solo I mentally brief (ok I actually brief out loud even when solo) both my touchdown and go-around point. 

[Danb]

Gregg I went into a strange to me field over the weekend Clemson SC, studied the afd R traffic on one left on the other,ok. I called Unicom for field advisories, listened for 20 minutes out, cross wind no one responded, so I guessed r/w 7, after landing a plane came in on 25. I asked the dude working if he heard me ask for advisories,  as expected he said he wasn't allowed to give that info for insurance reasons. I guess it's better to guess?

[gsengle]

Sometimes they will call the wind but they will never tell you what runway you should use. When in doubt do a low pass so you can see the windsock and then land on the second go round.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jim Peace]

1 hour ago, kpaul said:

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.  

With all due respect it is not the "active" runway....and you cannot call it what you want....It is the "runway in use."

The term "active" is reserved for runways that are in use at controlled fields.

We need to be very specific in the words we use to describe things or in clearances.  For example you would never tell the tower you are "ready for takeoff" would you?

 

[PTK]

2 hours ago, gsengle said:

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

If someone for whatever reason is having trouble "getting good visual cues as to altitude and the field altitude" as was posted earlier, please explain to me how flying an approach in vfr, granted np approach, is irrelevant. 

Also please show me the regs where it prohibits flying straight in vfr. It is also a collision risk to spend more time than necessary in the pattern with other traffic. 

I see nothing wrong with flying and utilizing an approach for assistance to an unfamiliar field.

I also see nothing wrong with straight in finals vfr whenever possible with proper communication. It enhances safety by getting you on the ground sooner. 

 

[gsengle]

If someone for whatever reason is having trouble "getting good visual cues as to altitude and the field altitude" as was posted earlier, please explain to me how flying an approach in vfr, granted np approach, is irrelevant. 
Also please show me the regs where it prohibits flying straight in vfr. It is also a collision risk to spend more time than necessary in the pattern with other traffic. 
I see nothing wrong with flying and utilizing an approach for assistance to an unfamiliar field.
I also see nothing wrong with straight in finals vfr. 

Because it doesn't help you decend for landing AT ALL. It's non precision.

Second while not prohibited, straight ins are considered poor form when others are in the pattern. The standard pattern is preferred. You're asking for a mid air or at least others swearing under their breath as you cut them off.

Finally, flying abeam on a downwind at a standard altitude is *designed* to help you repeatably get down to the airport in a stabilized fashion. I'm assuming most flight instructors would agree on that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArtVandelay]

I also see nothing wrong with straight in finals vfr. 

As long as you are careful not to be cutting in, forcing others to extend their patterns, I agree.

[gsengle]

Yes but he is arguing that it makes for safer landings because somehow a nonprecision approach somehow makes you more stabilized than a standard pattern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wishboneash]

Straight-ins might violate FAR 91.113. Try that on a check-ride and you are likely to fail.

[PTK]

25 minutes ago, gsengle said:

 

Because it doesn't help you decend for landing AT ALL. It's non precision.

Second while not prohibited, straight ins are considered poor form when others are in the pattern. The standard pattern is preferred. You're asking for a mid air or at least others swearing under their breath as you cut them off.

Finally, flying abeam on a downwind at a standard altitude is *designed* to help you repeatably get down to the airport in a stabilized fashion. I'm assuming most flight instructors would agree on that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Granted a np approach will not bring you down to the numbers it will help you greatly in setting up flying a stabilized approach. This can be especially useful at an unfamiliar field. I wouldn't dismiss it as irrelevant. It's another resource to be used as needed. Runway 25 has an LP approach (next best thing to an LPV) which brings you down to 522 agl. 

Nobody said cut others off. You're saying that.

I said with proper communication as situations allow. 

[Jim Peace]

As for Sky Manor I fly my C in and out of there all the time.  I come in heavy and sometimes light.  I top off almost every time.  I never had had an issue there, on 25 which is down hill I still get off about midway down on that sidewalk of a taxiway. I love the place.  Be on speed and stablized and no problem.  There is a wind sock at the approach end of 25 that I look for almost every time before I touch down.  Aviate well navigate and communicate and no issues other than what to have for lunch and hope that you have the hottest waitress of the bunch..... 

You guys are making this sound like Andover or something.......

 

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Jim Peace

[Jim Peace]

While I am at it....having a parrot wondering all over a flight deck while doing an approach is more dangerous than landing at Sky Manor.  

[Guest]

The parrot was checking the bank angle and AoA.

Clarence

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Not if all the traffic did the same approach type.  Thats my point.  And please enlighten me but i cant remember ever being taught a "dive and drive" approach, is this in PPL syllabus?  

Andrew, 

1) You fly in a country with considerably less GA traffic. It's very different from many parts of this country.  On any given Sunday at any number of the fields near me I am mixing with Aeronca's, Cubs,  Luscombes, T6s, Stearmans, Stinsons, Yaks, Swifts, L39s, the occasional ZLIN C-37 or oddball Fieseler Stork...and then there's the brand B, C, M, P as well as gliders, turbines and Rotorcraft. Every aircraft I've named and more can be found in flying condition at my quiet little airport.  They are not all equiped with radios, much less IFR certified. With all the variations in performance and equipment, we have to be flexible and work together for spacing.  If I'm honest, pilots often do a better job at this than a tower without a radar feed.

2) The approach didn't cause this accident. It's likely that excess approach speed created the first link in the accident chain. Mooneys are often flown faster than they need to be whether on a long stabilized approach or in the pattern.

3) the "dive and drive" approach to which Gsengle refers, has no provision for a precision descent; after a given fix you are cleared to "dive" to MDA and then "drive" to the runway environment.  There are not a lot of ILS approaches into 2900' runways; at least not here.

What we know is that this guy was too fast on approach and too slow in the go around climb out. None of us know why.

[PTK]

28 minutes ago, wishboneash said:

Straight-ins might violate FAR 91.113. Try that on a check-ride and you are likely to fail.

I don't see how. 

[Shadrach]

25 minutes ago, PTK said:

Granted a np approach will not bring you down to the numbers it will help you greatly in setting up flying a stabilized approach. This can be especially useful at an unfamiliar field. I wouldn't dismiss it as irrelevant. It's another resource to be used as needed. Runway 25 has an LP approach (next best thing to an LPV) which brings you down to 522 agl. 

Nobody said cut others off. You're saying that.

I said with proper communication as situations allow. 

Stabilized Schmabilized. If you're going into a short field, be ready to drop all the flaps and go into a full cross controlled descent if needed. Hanging on the prop for 3 miles making delicate adjustments to throttle and pitch does not make for a proficient pilot.

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

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

No one ever said the factory was a paragon of consistency. I think the numbers shown below border on bad advice for any airport.

[kpaul]

36 minutes ago, wishboneash said:

Straight-ins might violate FAR 91.113. Try that on a check-ride and you are likely to fail.

According to the FAR you are referring to...

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

Not sure what you are getting at.

[wishboneash]

There could be situations where traffic operating in the pattern are at lower altitude and close in to the field than straight-in traffic. Essentially aren't you cutting them off? If there are three or four aircraft converging on a Saturday morning into a popular breakfast airport ranging from a C152 to a Mooney (not uncommon), I don't see any organized way of landing straight-in without a major foul up. With a standard pattern it is possible to adjust leg distances to ensure separation. There are times of course that a field has little or no traffic and a straight in is perfectly OK. I have heard on checkrides, DEs can get anal about proper pattern entry as advised by FAR/AIM so they don't look kindly on straight-ins into uncontrolled fields, whether or not they are busy (esp on commercial checkrides).

[Shadrach]

I've mentioned this before in other threads, but a gotcha that almost got me once was the throttle friction lock.  I had landed at a little 1800' strip with 330' of DT due to trees. The topography wakes the wind do weird things and I had the friction lock loose so I could quickly add and remove power through the rising and sinking air.  I forgot to tightened the friction lock after landing. The take off went fine, but the air was bumpy. I removed my hand from the throttle to raise the gear, flaps and retrim.  In that short span of time, the throttle closed enough to reduce our climb to about 200FPM.  

[gsengle]

And also at an uncontrolled field if you're straight in, how are you sure you're not cutting off or heaven forbid about to collide with a Nordo plane in the pattern? I fly straight ins, on occasion, but you have to be careful, and I only do it when the traffic situation is pretty clear, in both senses of the word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[201er]

5 minutes ago, gsengle said:

And also an uncontrolled field if you're straight in, how are you not sure you're cutting off or heaven forbid about to collide with a Nordo plane in the pattern? I fly straight ins, on occasion, but you have to be careful, and I only do it when the traffic situation is pretty clear, in both senses of the word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is exactly right. If I'm approaching an airport from a direction that most favors a straight in, I call a straight in. Then if I get a lot of calls on the radio indicating the pattern is really busy, I say that I'm on the straight in but will break off to upwind if there isn't space for me. Most of the time I work it out so I can squeeze in. If things are crazy hectic, I go directly for the upwind or away from the pattern for a 45 entry. Let me just say that sky manor is one of those airports where a straight in final on a Sunday probably isn't going to cut it. Even though a straight in is best for where I'm coming from, I will swing it well away from the airport to join on a 45.

[kpaul]

8 minutes ago, gsengle said:

And also an uncontrolled field if you're straight in, how are you not sure you're cutting off or heaven forbid about to collide with a Nordo plane in the pattern? I fly straight ins, on occasion, but you have to be careful, and I only do it when the traffic situation is pretty clear, in both senses of the word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with you that straight ins are not necessarily a good idea or the safest solution to entering a VFR pattern that already has traffic established.

Devils advocate though if I am on a 1 mile straight in final and someone on downwind turns in front of me how am I cutting them off?

[PTK]

6 minutes ago, 201er said:

...Let me just say that sky manor is one of those airports where a straight in final on a Sunday probably isn't going to cut it...

Why not?