Mooneys overrepresented in gear ups

[TheTurtle]

AvWeb has a new video about gear ups.  Looks like Mooney has about 10% of them.  Seemed high especially since so many are/were manual where it seems less likely that it would be equipment failure causing it.

Thoughts on reasons?

 

[DVA]

The report looked at actuals since 2010 and the author reports NTSB stats of 80 over the period. He suggests more may have occurred but went unreported. From my experience it's pretty hard not to get that noticed by the FSDO and thus I suspect that the 80 number is not too far off the mark.

That said, in 7 years, 10% of the 80 were in Mooney's according to the report, which means 8 gear ups or about one a year. Seems reasonable to me. I watched last year's mooney GU happen at oshkosh.

[Jeff_S]

As a percentage of retractable gear airplanes flying most regularly, it seems 10% isn't too abnormal. The problem is your dataset is so small that even just a few differences one way or the other will skew the results. Paul's analysis does point out that Bonanzas seem under-represented and I would agree, given the number still flying. 

[RLCarter]

4 hours ago, DVA said:

The report looked at actuals since 2010 and the author reports NTSB stats of 80 over the period. He suggests more may have occurred but went unreported. From my experience it's pretty hard not to get that noticed by the FSDO and thus I suspect that the 80 number is not too far off the mark.

That said, in 7 years, 10% of the 80 were in Mooney's according to the report, which means 8 gear ups or about one a year. Seems reasonable to me. I watched last year's mooney GU happen at oshkosh.

It's over a 5 year period, or so he says

[DVA]

He said he pulled stats from 2010, so I did the math figuring he recently did the video that might be wrong assumption on my part. Regardless, I think you'd agree that it doesn't change things much.

[RLCarter]

Just now, DVA said:

He said he pulled stats from 2010, so I did the math figuring he recently did the video that might be wrong assumption on my part. Regardless, I think you'd agree that it doesn't change things much.

Agreed, would be interesting to how much retract time on the 54% that just smooth ass forgot. As a very low time retract guy, my GUMP is more like GUMP..U..U...U...U...U pretty much until I turn on a taxiway.....lol

[MyNameIsNobody]

Paul covers reasons well. There are 50+ years of Mooney production. There are a lot of them out there. They are a lower priced entry complex aircraft. This would likely equate to more exposure, number of airframes and entry level lower time pilots. 

[steingar]

I examined all the accidents for M20c's for the last decade. Didn't see one gear up.  I bet it's the Johnson bar.  That swing is an event.

[Bob_Belville]

35 minutes ago, steingar said:

I examined all the accidents for M20c's for the last decade. Didn't see one gear up.  I bet it's the Johnson bar.  That swing is an event.

A gear up landing usually won't make it to any accident report. It's just another landing... with a rather short roll out... that need a little help clearing the active... and a call to an insurance company.

[Bob_Belville]

I actually doubt the newbies are the worst offenders. Setting aside mechanical failure, I suppose gear ups happen when the pilot is distracted and has his landing checklist interrupted. complacency might play a role. Pilots with thousands of hours have gear up landing.   

[kortopates]

7 hours ago, DVA said:

The report looked at actuals since 2010 and the author reports NTSB stats of 80 over the period. He suggests more may have occurred but went unreported. From my experience it's pretty hard not to get that noticed by the FSDO and thus I suspect that the 80 number is not too far off the mark.

That said, in 7 years, 10% of the 80 were in Mooney's according to the report, which means 8 gear ups or about one a year. Seems reasonable to me. I watched last year's mooney GU happen at oshkosh.

 

52 minutes ago, steingar said:

I examined all the accidents for M20c's for the last decade. Didn't see one gear up.  I bet it's the Johnson bar.  That swing is an event.

Only one a year!??! That's way off from reality! Most weeks there is at least one Mooney gear up. In the last 10 days of the FAA records show there has been 3 Mooney gear ups already! And if you think the old vintage Mooneys are exempt think again there too. In just the last 3, one was an 81' and the other two were a 67 & 68'. But its really hard to determine if the older Mooneys are electric or J bar because those details are usually lacking and many pilots right after the event will often say the gear failed when they actually forgot. So its also really hard to separate maintenance issues from pilot error. But the over whelming take away is that Mooney gear up happen almost every week and frequently multiple times each weekend. And what's really sad is the its really diminishing the fleet these days since a great many of the vintage birds are under insured in that any gear up will result in the insurance company totaling the plane and selling it for scrap with fewer and fewer getting repaired.

You just won't see the majority of gear up's because they never make their way into the NTSB accident reports.  The vast majority do not constitute an accident; especially for Mooney's. Their is neither significant structural damage nor does anyone rarely get hurt just sliding in on the Mooney belly. Just significant expenses that they get scrapped So these are never considered an accident and only an incident which makes it harder to track details. But the FAA publishes daily accident and incident stats for the last 10 days and you can see the the 3 Mooney gears up reported here: http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:93:0::NO::: But recognize the link shows the current last 10 days of reports whenever you bring it up. So the stats I am referring too will change tomorrow. 

Edited July 10, 2017 by kortopates

[Guest]

How many gear up landings are actually a sale to the insurance company?  Most deductibles are lower than sales commissions and no tire kickers to deal with.

Clarence

[steingar]

1 hour ago, Bob_Belville said:

A gear up landing usually won't make it to any accident report. It's just another landing... with a rather short roll out... that need a little help clearing the active... and a call to an insurance company.

Perhaps, but that can be said for most retractable aircraft. We're left with what's in the records.  The rest is merely speculation.

[mike_elliott]

2 hours ago, steingar said:

I examined all the accidents for M20c's for the last decade. Didn't see one gear up.  I bet it's the Johnson bar.  That swing is an event.

There was one in the video

[steingar]

14 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

There was one in the video

If that was a  J-bar M20c the crash occurred over a decade ago.  The only one of which I've ever heard was a participant on this board, who's airplane was "repaired" incorrectly. he couldn't bring the gear down, so landed with it up.  Insurance bought him a new Mooney.

[mike_elliott]

Dmax once said he repaired more J bar gear ups than the elect gear. Point being, complacency that your are better off with a J bar from having a gear up is to be avoided. The mistake is typically not the problem of the technology of the system, but the training, competency and diligence of the PIC. MAPA safety seminars have had a few happen even, and not because they were a J bar or electric.

[Guest]

I had a call today from an owner of Porsche powered M20L who just had a gear collapse, sadly it will likely end up on the scrap heap, he wasn't happy to hear that news. luckily he has a spare.  

Another recently had gear failure in British Columbia.

Clarence

[steingar]

So I have just seen an analysis by Ron Wattanja, who analyses airplane crashes for the EAA. I must report my own error.  According to Ron, who is THE expert on these things, according to the gear ups that have made it into the accident databases the number for J-bar Mooneys is indistinguishable from the number for electric gear Mooneys. I stand corrected.

[kortopates]

On 7/10/2017 at 6:34 PM, steingar said:

So I have just seen an analysis by Ron Wattanja, who analyses airplane crashes for the EAA. I must report my own error.  According to Ron, who is THE expert on these things, according to the gear ups that have made it into the accident databases the number for J-bar Mooneys is indistinguishable from the number for electric gear Mooneys. I stand corrected.

And it only took another week for us too see another gear up in a vintage model. This one in a 63' C J bar Mooney that was auctioned last fall - see http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:96:13652792576812::::P96_ENTRY_DATE,P96_MAKE_NAME,P96_FATAL_FLG:17-JUL-17,MOONEY

But that was just 1 of 3 Mooney accidents and incidents over the past weekend 

[Fighterpilot1232]

Take notice to the fact that he made it clear that he pulled data from the NTSB, since 2010. 

 

He made it clear that all gear up landings are not reported so there is some percent error in those numbers anyways.

 

 

 

On 7/9/2017 at 0:08 PM, DVA said:

The report looked at actuals since 2010 and the author reports NTSB stats of 80 over the period. He suggests more may have occurred but went unreported. From my experience it's pretty hard not to get that noticed by the FSDO and thus I suspect that the 80 number is not too far off the mark.

That said, in 7 years, 10% of the 80 were in Mooney's according to the report, which means 8 gear ups or about one a year. Seems reasonable to me. I watched last year's mooney GU happen at oshkosh.

 

@DVA, I agree with you the numbers do seem reasonable for the 80 over a 7 year period, Mooneys are no 177 but they do have gear ups often, so @TheTurtle do you really think that Mooneys were misrepresented here. I feel like the numbers are reasonable.

 

[TheTurtle]

1 minute ago, Fighterpilot1232 said:

Take notice to the fact that he made it clear that he pulled data from the NTSB, since 2010. 

 

He made it clear that all gear up landings are not reported so there is some percent error in those numbers anyways.

 

 

 

 

@DVA, I agree with you the numbers do seem reasonable for the 80 over a 7 year period, Mooneys are no 177 but they do have gear ups often, so @TheTurtle do you really think that Mooneys were misrepresented here. I feel like the numbers are reasonable.

 

I didnt say misrepresented.  I said over represented statistically.  Are 10% of the GA planes flying Mooneys?  if so then the number would seem OK.  If not why are we having more gear ups than XYZ planes?

[Fighterpilot1232]

5 minutes ago, TheTurtle said:

I didnt say misrepresented.  I said over represented statistically.  Are 10% of the GA planes flying Mooneys?  if so then the number would seem OK.  If not why are we having more gear ups than XYZ planes?

Misrepresentation= Over/Under   Sorry about my translation not being verbatim to yours..

 

Maybe because of the fact that Mooney used Johnson bar gear on some of the pre-J models, a good portion of the fleet are Johnson bar aircraft. Its a lot harder to forget to "swing" your gear with the massive arm than a small switch on the panel.

 

Maybe Mooney pilots are just better pilots than most .

Edited July 27, 2017 by Fighterpilot1232

[RobertGary1]

Why would you report a gear up to the NTSB when it's not required?

 

-Robert 

[Fighterpilot1232]

13 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Why would you report a gear up to the NTSB when it's not required?

 

-Robert 

You don't?

If you are not required there is no reason to put yourself in more of a mess than you are already in.

The insurance company is going to be your biggest issue, and convincing your wife to fly with you again , Because of the fact that you are not requires to report to the transportation safety board there is a gap in the statistics used in this video. Or any other for that matter. @RobertGary1

Edited July 27, 2017 by Fighterpilot1232
Additions, Adding a member tag

[jlunseth]

Well, I do have a thought on why this happens in Mooneys.  We are in love with the speed, so lots of people come into the airport fast, and wait until they are on the downwind to drop the gear.  They want to get to the airport as fast as they can.  Unfortunately, there is always stuff that happens in the pattern.  The tower wants to have a conversation, there is another plane coming in on a conflicting path, there is somebody on the ground taking off on a conflicting runway, there is someone in the pattern not talking, lots of distraction.  It's maybe conservative, but I do my LCB GUMPS 6 miles out and then talk to myself when I turn base and on final.  That means I am coming in to the pattern at 90, not 120, but so be it.  Knock on wood, I am in the "not yet" category.