Mooney Crash at Sky Manor N40

[GeorgePerry]

There's another thread on this accident, but the lesson to be learned wasn't really brought out.  For anyone not familiar here's a link to the NTSB accident report.

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20160926X05905&key=1

Its a one page read, but for those who want to get right to the point - Here's the readers digest version.  Low time in type pilot attempting to landing a Mooney on a "relatively" short runway. The pilot doesn't appreciate that flying 20 knots fast won't work, esp when the runway is short.  Goes around and tries again - but this time attempts to force the plane down.  For anyone who's been around the Mooney community for any time at all understands this is an all too common accident narrative within our community.

When I help a low time in type pilot transition into a Mooney I tell them there are two things that they must do to fly the plane safely.  

(1) You must land on the mains first, never the nose wheel.  Never force the plane on the ground.  

(2). Airspeed control and discipline on final approach is critical.  On final approach, for every knot fast above target airspeed, add 100 feet to your landing distance.  

But we continue to see pilots make the same mistake time and time again.  With very little transition training, pilots coming out of common cessna and piper trainers to fly a Mooney need to know not all airplanes fly the same.  Cessna & Piper aircraft allow for so much sloppiness in airspeed control, these good trainers teach some really bad habits.  When these bad habits translate over into a new aircraft, like a Mooney, often times pilots don't realize the sloppiness they've been able to get away with in other planes is setting them up for disaster.

Here's a good article on the subject by Donald E. Kaye,  Master CFI.  Anyone giving transition training to new-to- pilots should understand this and teach to it.

 

George

 

[carusoam]

George,

Thanks for posting this as quickly as possible. The NTSB had some good resources to get details from. Pilots and surveillance videos...

Best regards,

-a-

[Piloto]

Wonder if they had seat belts on. From the picture it looks like a survivable one. Thinking about putting a 4 point seat belts in my M20J like those used in racing cars. You always see the driver walking away from crashes worse than this one.

José

Edited October 14, 2016 by Piloto

[StevenL757]

George, really appreciate this visibility and your comments.  The topic of landing distance vs. airspeed was discussed in detail at the Summit this year, and resonated with me as one of the many things to never forget when configuring our ships for approach and landing.

Regards, Steve

[Ftlausa]

Jose,

   According to the report, the impact was nose first from a stall spin.  Straight ahead would probably have been more survivable.  I too have thought about 4 point restraints in my J.  If you figure out how to do it, please let me know.  AmSafe would be nice also.   

 

[Hank]

Sounds like he tried to go around after having a prop strike, didn't climb well, retracted the flaps, tried to clear the trees and stalled. Not sure that a 4-point harness would have helped . . . Listening to an old Rod Machado CD this week, he said to stay under the 9G limit that our seats are made to withstand, the stopping distance from 100 mph needs to be over 30 feet. Doesn't look like this accident had that.

[gsengle]

And a steeper than standard good slope on the papi, could have had the pilot outside his normal envelope a bit, wondering why at a power setting he normally used he was ending up fast?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[201er]

George, do you think ASI will make one of their detailed safety videos about this one?

[N601RX]

According to the ntsb report the plane settled onto the runway and stayed with 400-500 ft of runway remaining. Standing on the brakes and let it go off the end of the runway would likely have resulted in only minor injuries. 

[Piloto]

One benefit of 4 point seat belts is that it minimizes the high turbulence sensation. I found about this flying a Convair 580 (intentionally) into windshear events for predictive windshear radar (RDR-4B) testing.

José

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Hank said:

Sounds like he tried to go around after having a prop strike, didn't climb well, retracted the flaps, tried to clear the trees and stalled. Not sure that a 4-point harness would have helped . . . Listening to an old Rod Machado CD this week, he said to stay under the 9G limit that our seats are made to withstand, the stopping distance from 100 mph needs to be over 30 feet. Doesn't look like this accident had that.

That 9 g rating was based on a much lighter weight than most of us are currently. 200-300 pounders would lower the g rating.

Clarence

[gsengle]

According to the ntsb report the plane settled onto the runway and stayed with 400-500 ft of runway remaining. Standing on the brakes and let it go off the end of the runway would likely have resulted in only minor injuries. 

It read to me like it was still porpoising and never settled on to al three which means they were still at flying speeds over 65kts. You're probably right but they were still really in the air with seconds of runway left. They needed to go around at the first bounce, but that late in the game with obstructions, eek.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeorgePerry]

2 hours ago, 201er said:

George, do you think ASI will make one of their detailed safety videos about this one?

Not the specific accident but the larger issue...Which is sometimes a botched landing can end badly but a botched go around is often fatal.  Rule being wave off decision needs to be made early (no lower than 100') and once committed to a landing, often times it's better to keep it on the ground than attempt a go around without the required airspeed and runway to make it happen.  This accident and the baron at Shannon VA are eerily similar in this regard. 

[Hank]

Land in the first third of the runway or go around.

Never push forward on the yoke to land.

These are the simple basics that my initial CFI beat into me, and two months later my Mooney transition CFI added, Airspeed Control.

[PTK]

Just now, Hank said:

Land in the first third of the runway or go around.

Never push forward on the yoke to land.

These are the simple basics that my initial CFI beat into me, and two months later my Mooney transition CFI added, Airspeed Control.

And never ever ever retract flaps on go around before confirming prc.

[201er]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

Land in the first third of the runway or go around.

Nope! How much runway length is left plays a far greater role. If it's 6000ft of runway remaining ahead you can do a few more touch and goes. If the runway was only 1800ft in the first place, by 1/3 it's already too late!

1 minute ago, Hank said:

These are the simple basics that my initial CFI beat into me, and two months later my Mooney transition CFI added, Airspeed Control.

And don't get me started on what would have been a more valuable education than a few beatings from an instructor...

Edited October 14, 2016 by 201er

[Guest]

Part of the issue may well be the myth that Mooneys are really hot and should never be flown too slow on approach.  How many prop strikes are a result of this myth being perpetuated?

 In this accident a prop strike would have been the best outcome, not the sad outcome we got.

Clarence

[Hank]

50 minutes ago, 201er said:

Nope! How much runway length is left plays a far greater role. If it's 6000ft of runway remaining ahead you can do a few more touch and goes. If the runway was only 1800ft in the first place, by 1/3 it's already too late!

And don't get me started on what would have been a more valuable education than a few beatings from an instructor...

The Skyhawks didn't have AoA installed. And our 3000' runway had trees at both ends. Never tried a touch and go there, but someone did regularly in a Comanche 250 . . . The "first third" rule fits the overwhelming majority of runways long enough to depart from, even the 2000' grass strip just up the river. It even worked when I diverted to GSP due to strong, gusty crosswinds, it's 11,000' long.

[eman1200]

When I help a low time in type pilot transition into a Mooney I tell them there are two things that they must do to fly the plane safely.  

(1) You must land on the mains first, never the nose wheel.  Never force the plane on the ground.  

(2). Airspeed control and discipline on final approach is critical. 

 

call me crazy but no one should be waiting until 'mooney transition time' to learn this.  this holds true for any plane and as far as I know is part of primary training.  problems arising from not following the above steps are just exacerbated in mooneys.  learn the above steps long before you fly a mooney.

[PTK]

One very important thing that hasn't been mentioned is trim setting. The trim setting on landing is a higher up setting than that for take off. If he forgot to reset the trim on the go it caused the pitch up and stall. This is most likely to happen in a touch and go and it's a "gotcha" for a low time in type pilot combined with the convenience of electric trim!

Incidentally, always check trim operational range and make sure the trim setting indicator is showing correct trim setting. Not acting up and misleading.

[Mooneymite]

14 hours ago, PTK said:

And never ever ever retract flaps on go around before confirming prc.

Really?  What's your reference for this?

I don't think I've ever flown a plane where going from land flaps to approach setting wasn't the step right after applying power...irrespective of climb rate.  Unlike the gear.

Typical procedure:

Power....set.

Flaps....approach.

Positive rate...gear up.

Getting rid of land-flaps-drag is very important in a maximum performance go-around.

[ArtVandelay]

There is several threads in the past about practicing touch&gos, one thread states MAPA prohibits them. Seems to me if you don't practice them, accidents like these are bound to occur.

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, teejayevans said:

There is several threads in the past about practicing touch&gos, one thread states MAPA prohibits them. Seems to me if you don't practice them, accidents like these are bound to occur.

Practicing aborted landings is different from doing touch and goes and is certainly not discouraged. E.g., I flew with Mike Elliott @ KECP last year and he declared a go around after we were over the runway but before we flared for touch down.

[DXB]

22 hours ago, GeorgePerry said:

There's another thread on this accident, but the lesson to be learned wasn't really brought out.  For anyone not familiar here's a link to the NTSB accident report.

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20160926X05905&key=1

Its a one page read, but for those who want to get right to the point - Here's the readers digest version.  Low time in type pilot attempting to landing a Mooney on a "relatively" short runway. The pilot doesn't appreciate that flying 20 knots fast won't work, esp when the runway is short.  Goes around and tries again - but this time attempts to force the plane down.  For anyone who's been around the Mooney community for any time at all understands this is an all too common accident narrative within our community.

When I help a low time in type pilot transition into a Mooney I tell them there are two things that they must do to fly the plane safely.  

(1) You must land on the mains first, never the nose wheel.  Never force the plane on the ground.  

(2). Airspeed control and discipline on final approach is critical.  On final approach, for every knot fast above target airspeed, add 100 feet to your landing distance.  

But we continue to see pilots make the same mistake time and time again.  With very little transition training, pilots coming out of common cessna and piper trainers to fly a Mooney need to know not all airplanes fly the same.  Cessna & Piper aircraft allow for so much sloppiness in airspeed control, these good trainers teach some really bad habits.  When these bad habits translate over into a new aircraft, like a Mooney, often times pilots don't realize the sloppiness they've been able to get away with in other planes is setting them up for disaster.

Here's a good article on the subject by Donald E. Kaye,  Master CFI.  Anyone giving transition training to new-to- pilots should understand this and teach to it.

 

George

 

I find it very puzzling that this particular pilot would approach 20kt too fast at a shortish strip, or anywhere else for that matter. I also don't know how this figure would be determined by the ntsb investigator writing the report. This was an inexperienced pilot - 200ish hrs.  But at least per public statements by the FBO renting the plane, the guy had 60 hrs in type and 30 hrs logged in the particular J model in the accident.  That's enough time to know that 20 kts over is absurdly too fast.  My C would punish me with endless floats in my first 10-20 hrs even when I was 5kts too fast. Major errors in airspeed control on final get trained out of you pretty quick - the plane has no patience for them. Then you fine tune, learning to adapt to wind conditions, weight, etc.   But 60 hrs is plenty of time to get the major errors like this trained out of you.

I dunno.  It just seems there's more here than just a pilot approaching ridiculously too fast. Perhaps pitot/static malfunction or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong.

[201er]

20 minutes ago, DXB said:

I dunno.  It just seems there's more here than just a pilot approaching ridiculously too fast. Perhaps pitot/static malfunction or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong.

Tailwind