Mooney Clips Trees During Approach at Washington Island, WI

[flight2000]

Picture in the article makes it look like the prop departed the plane after it hit trees (or upon impact) on the approach end of the runway.  Glad everyone walked away, but me thinks this might be another candidate for the chop shop. 

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/door-co/news/2017/07/15/plane-crashes-during-washington-island-fly-fish-boil/481958001/

Brian

Edited July 16, 2017 by flight2000

[MyNameIsNobody]

2250 and turf.  Trees.  Better bring your A game...

[MyNameIsNobody]

Travel side note:  Washington Island is off the tip of door county (Wisconsin "thumb" peninsula.  Used to take the car ferry out there and a passenger only ferry to Rock Island (primitive camping) for a week of fun as a kid.  I remember seeing the Weatherly (an America's Cup winning boat) docked.  Got to "come aboard her".  Absolutely beautiful teak.  Learned that the keel was almost as tall as the mast (which was VERY tall) making deeper water a requirement for her operation.  I remember my brother killing a "record high" 16 black flies with his hands and forearms.  Yes, there were just a few flies

Record water time was about a minute.  That Michigan water is C.O.L.D.  George would say "Shrinkage"...

Edited July 16, 2017 by MyNameIsNobody

[Hank]

1 hour ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

2250 and turf.  Trees.  Better bring your A game...

I used to visit a 2000' grass field, open approach to 2 but a cement factory's gravel pile on short final for 20. My limits going in and out were 2 people and half tanks.

But my home field at the time was 3000' with trees on both ends, actually had to level off on final to (Preferred) 26 until I could see the numbers over the trees. Final on 8, I just aimed for the edge of the trees, and eventually would see the numbers; usually pulled throttle to idle about then to increase sink for a nice landing.

[Yooper Rocketman]

I did some detective work and I think the plane is N9303V.  I have no clue if it's one of our Mooney Space participants.  Glad no one was seriously hurt.

Tom

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=9303V

[kortopates]

IMO this is hardly an indictment of the dangers of a short runway but purely a reminder of the perils of dragging it in or the low and slow short field approach. Sadly way too many pilots are taught in their ab initio training the very poor and dangerous method of dragging it in on a short fields when they should have learned to do a more precise steeper approach with less power that never gets on the backside of the power curve. It's not only safer but also provides shorter rollout.

I have never been to Washington Island but we have a similar popular runway on the west coast (L52) that is very popular with Mooney fly-ins which are attended by all models of Mooneys a few times each year. It's paved but has a steeper obstruction clearance slope than this one yet so far we've never lost a Mooney on it (that I know of).

But of course very glad their was only damage to the bird and not people!!! But I hope this bird flys again someday.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyNameIsNobody]

Parts of "that" plane will fly again.  The whole plane?  I doubt it.

[kortopates]

Parts of "that" plane will fly again.  The whole plane?  I doubt it.

Yeah, I see now both wings are pretty damaged as well as the front of the fuselage.
BTW, meant to include this link for the witness account of the low and slow approach:
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/07/accident-occurred-july-15-2017-at.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PTK]

Glad this one ended well for pilot and pax.

[steingar]

19 hours ago, Hank said:

But my home field at the time was 3000' with trees on both ends, actually had to level off on final to (Preferred) 26 until I could see the numbers over the trees. Final on 8, I just aimed for the edge of the trees, and eventually would see the numbers; usually pulled throttle to idle about then to increase sink for a nice landing.

At what speed?  Quite curious, this was my approach to an occluded strip last year that ended in a prop strike.

[Hank]

3 hours ago, steingar said:

At what speed?  Quite curious, this was my approach to an occluded strip last year that ended in a prop strike.

Pattern entry through base leg, 90 mph with Takeoff flaps; drop gear abeam intended point of landing to start descent on downwind.

Roll wings level on final at 85 mph, slowing to 75 mph minus 5 mph per 300 lb. below gross on short final; add power to stop descent but hold airspeed until clear of trees; 70-75 mph until over the runway, slow to flare, stall horn just before touchdown. I have a video on Vimeo [Mooney Landing KHTW] shot with a handheld camera out the front windshield showing a landing at this field [my home for seven years], but the panel is not visible--I thought my wife was taking pictures, not shooting video . . . Touchdown was on the 3rd stripe.

[steingar]

My approach as well, would up with a HARD bounce and prop strike.  I swear I was at about 75 mph.

[zaitcev]

On 7/16/2017 at 0:18 PM, kortopates said:

IMO this is hardly an indictment of the dangers of a short runway but purely a reminder of the perils of dragging it in or the low and slow short field approach. Sadly way too many pilots are taught in their ab initio training the very poor and dangerous method of dragging it in on a short fields when they should have learned to do a more precise steeper approach with less power that never gets on the backside of the power curve. It's not only safer but also provides shorter rollout.

I happen to agree with your point about proper approaches at short fields, but I cannot help observing that landing a Mooney you're always at the back of a power curve. In my M20E the tip of the curve is at 105 mph and nobody lands that fast. Nitpicking aside, here's a classic video that demonstrates the style of approach to land that you advocate above (I think that one probably still wants to land just a shade faster in a Mooney and use the excess to perform a round-out):

 

[Fighterpilot1232]

I hope the occupants are ok, is the air frame totaled?

On 7/16/2017 at 1:33 PM, Yooper Rocketman said:

I did some detective work and I think the plane is N9303V.  I have no clue if it's one of our Mooney Space participants.  Glad no one was seriously hurt.

Tom

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=9303V

Looks like she might be bent

Edited July 27, 2017 by Fighterpilot1232

[Yooper Rocketman]

16 hours ago, Fighterpilot1232 said:

I hope the occupants are ok, is the air frame totaled?

Looks like she might be bent

Initial report was it's totaled.

[Fighterpilot1232]

15 minutes ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

Initial report was it's totaled.

That's terrible.

[carusoam]

Context is important...

There have been two accidents involving Mooneys and trees near the traffic pattern lately...

One stalled prior to falling into the trees.  This one landed pretty hard in a crumpled mess after hitting the trees.

two people walked away, two people did not...

a totaled plane is not so terrible, when you walk away from it.

Many Mooneys have given everything in the protection of its occupants... there is still room for improvement.

Best regards,

-a-

[carusoam]

+1 with Peter's request...  ^^^

I think something got lost in translation, or choice of words?

It is not normal to be on the backside of the power curve...

The one time this is normal, is in slow flight...  evidenced by:

• slow speed
• high AOA/attitude
• large amount of power required to stay airborn

This often does happen when dragging the plane in... something to be avoided.  

Student Pilots run into this challenge when initially learning or re-learning to fly.  So many variables to follow vs. cognitive capacity/overload....

A normal approach is using low power, nose low, trading altitude for energy...  

Being on the back side of the power curve is slow, close to stalling, with a high AOA, near the ground.

Clearly, only a private pilot's thoughts.  Not a CFI!

Best regards,

-a-

 

[PTK]

On 7/27/2017 at 4:25 PM, zaitcev said:

...but I cannot help observing that landing a Mooney you're always at the back of a power curve...

Please elaborate because I don't understand! What do you mean you're always behind the power curve?

[Bryan]

I think he means by dragging it in, you have used most of your power to arrest your decent (rate) and have nothing left in case of a go-around or getting low. (behind)

[PTK]

1 hour ago, Bryan said:

I think he means by dragging it in, you have used most of your power to arrest your decent (rate) and have nothing left in case of a go-around or getting low. (behind)

I know what he means. What I was questioning is why does he "always" find himself behind the power curve? Not a good place to be. Especially down low if needs to go around. Adding power and lowering the nose can cause to slam into the ground! It would be better to maintain proper airspeed on the approach.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Bryan said:

I think he means by dragging it in, you have used most of your power to arrest your decent (rate) and have nothing left in case of a go-around or getting low. (behind)

That's not how I land my Mooney! I'm generally at idle power on short final, a d glide to touchdown at 70-75 mph until I flare. 

[zaitcev]

Goodness gracious, now I have to ask how many pilots even seen a power curve and know what side of it is front and where the back side begins? Anyhing slower Vbg is on the back of it!

Picture from John S. Denker.

[Hank]

9 hours ago, zaitcev said:

Goodness gracious, now I have to ask how many pilots even seen a power curve and know what side of it is front and where the back side begins? Anyhing slower Vbg is on the back of it!

Picture from John S. Denker.

Yep. I stay on the front side (pitch for speed, power for altitude) until power goes to idle somewhere on short final. Airspeed is 70-75 mph based on my current weight. Dragging it in is so much more work . . . Done it a few times, don't really care for it.