Virginia Accident

[cujet]

Thanks for the accurate accounting of the steps leading up to the crash. I only hope to be intelligent enough to learn from this. 

[Marauder]

Coop - I’m so happy to hear about the positive outcome of this incident. Also, sharing your experience will help others. 

In my first year of ownership I experienced the “behind the power curve” environment that Don described. 

I was doing a go around on a botched landing with my family aboard and got the plane in a nose high attitude that resulted in the plane just not wanting climb despite full power being applied. 

I was caught in ground effect about 10 feet above the ground with the gear retracted and the stall horn wailing. It took every ounce of will power I had to push the nose forward in order to begin building airspeed. I couldn’t imagine being in that situation with trees in front of me. 

Thanks for sharing. 

[MyNameIsNobody]

8 hours ago, donkaye said:

First, thank goodness "all's well that ends well".  I also appreciate having the person who went through the ordeal explain what happened.  Having said that, if ever there was an example of the importance of having good Mooney specific transition training including all maneuvers included in the Basic Wings Program this was it--no matter the experience level of the pilot.  Here we have an ATP and CFI make incredibly inconceivable decisions and stall the airplane on takeoff.  Had he received a proper checkout with more experience flying at the edge of the envelope there is NO WAY he would have taken off at that airport with runway behind him.  It also proves why I don't do Flight Reviews any more; only Wings Programs.  The Wings Program requires the pilot to do power on stalls.  I have the student do Power on stalls at 65% power.   Do you know the attitude of the Mooney with only that power setting?  Imagine the attitude at 100% power.  It's unbelievable! Then couple that with the laminar flow wing of the Mooney.  Laminar flow wings have a much steeper "backside of the power curve" than the non laminar flow wings of other models like the Cessna 182.  That "J" was going to lose altitude at that attitude.  And to "secondary stall" the airplane requires loading the wing on the primary recovery.  Ouch!!

This was a "lack of training" accident in my opinion leading to the resultant poor decision making.  With lack of adequate training it was a case of "not knowing what you don't know" about the airplane.  The accident chain began back with the lack of a proper aircraft checkout.

This should be an eye opener for those who read this thread.  I thank the pilot for sharing what happened in detail, so that others can benefit.

I have been down this road before with you.  What's the title of the article that this incident could very well be in the future?...NEVER AGAIN.

[MyNameIsNobody]

Mine:

1. Tower, Keep your speed up their is an airliner on a 10 mile final behind you

2. Turkeys on the runway on takeoff

3. Sick Passenger

4. Fatigue combined with a pseudo emergency by an instructor

5. Getting to the fuel pumps first

6. Getting to the runway first

7. Other pilot in the pattern using the opposite runway with poor winds

8. Rapidly approaching cloud layer

9. In a perceived hurry

10. Where did that weather come from

Any could have killed me and those that I love.  Glad I was "Not that guy".  Would be blessed to be "This guy"...

 

1

[donkaye]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

Don, your post strikes me as self-serving self aggrandizement at the expense of someone who is big enough to admit a mistake.  Perhaps there's a time and place for this sort of chest-thumping, but it seems in very poor taste here.

YMMV.

"Self Aggrandizement:  The action or process of promoting oneself as being powerful or important."

Couldn't be further from the truth.  Sorry if you misinterpreted my post.  It was all about training and what I perceived was the root cause of this accident. .  From my perspective it had absolutely NOTHING to do about me.

[Andy95W]

16 minutes ago, donkaye said:

"Self Aggrandizement:  The action or process of promoting oneself as being powerful or important."

Couldn't be further from the truth.  Sorry if you misinterpreted my post.  It was all about training and what I perceived was the root cause of this accident. .  From my perspective it had absolutely NOTHING to do about me.

I'm glad it couldn't be further from the truth.

FWIW, Gus wasn't the only one to "misinterpret" your post. It seems a number of us took it the same way, i.e., in poor taste.

[cujet]

41 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

 unless you consider the type to be severely underpowered GA aircraft  

The lack of sufficient power has been a safety issue from the very start. Climb rate is often (almost) directly proportional to available thrust. It is my fervent belief that underpowered aircraft are less safe when compared to a similar example with sufficient thrust to weight. A partial loss of power, either via density altitude, cylinder issues or for other reasons, puts underpowered aircraft at far greater risk. We lost a cylinder in our Extra 300L just after takeoff. The remaining 5 cylinders were able to manage a fairly normal traffic pattern and landing. I lost a piston in a 150 in cruise and the descent rate was 700FPM with a still (barely) running engine. Extreme examples, sure. However, I think my belief has merit. Minimizing the time spent near the ground is a good thing. 

 

EDIT: It's one reason why I prefer 6 cylinder engines coupled with excellent thrust to weight. As individual cylinder issues or partial power loss events are less likely to be catastrophic. 

Edited October 10, 2017 by cujet

[PMcClure]

Personal Minimums? 

[DXB]

4 hours ago, Fly By said:

Pay particular attention to the “I did not have enough control to really pick a spot at that point, but I had enough rudder to keep the nose between the trees” part.  That is his Navy training kicking in.  I preach rudder control during slow flight and stalls to my students.  Ailerons are ineffective, but the rudder works all the way to the ground.  This likely kept him from rolling over and auguring in like we see so many GA pilots do in scenarios like this.

 

Point well taken.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, cujet said:

The lack of sufficient power has been a safety issue from the very start. Climb rate is often (almost) directly proportional to available thrust. It is my fervent belief that underpowered aircraft are less safe when compared to a similar example with sufficient thrust to weight. A partial loss of power, either via density altitude, cylinder issues or for other reasons, puts underpowered aircraft at far greater risk. We lost a cylinder in our Extra 300L just after takeoff. The remaining 5 cylinders were able to manage a fairly normal traffic pattern and landing. I lost a piston in a 150 in cruise and the descent rate was 700FPM with a still (barely) running engine. Extreme examples, sure. However, I think my belief has merit. Minimizing the time spent near the ground is a good thing. 

 

EDIT: It's one reason why I prefer 6 cylinder engines coupled with excellent thrust to weight. As individual cylinder issues or partial power loss events are less likely to be catastrophic. 

If six cylinders are good, eight is the best choice.

Clarence

[PTK]

I respectfully disagree with the characterization by some of Don’s post. I do not at all see his post as “self aggrandizement.”

On the contrary, I see a lot of information in his post. Information that is both pertinent to this accident and very educational on the characteristics of the airplane and the laminar flow wing we fly. 

As much as we love our laminar flow wings, they don’t fly as well when slow and in high angle of attack. High drag comes on very quickly at higher angles of attack. Example: early rotation on take off. Induced drag rises quickly and with the slow AS the take off becomes next to impossible. 

Is it conceivable that this is what happened here and it could’ve been avoided if the PIC had some type training and understood the airplane?

[Guest]

A mildly trained monkey could fly a Mooney, it's not that complex.  

The issue is not lack of training, but a take off with too little runway available for the power/performance of the plane.  With a slightly longer runway none of this thread would be happening and the pilot might only have had a slightly raised heart rate as he cleared the trees.

Clarence

[jetdriven]

5 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

Don, your post strikes me as self-serving self aggrandizement at the expense of someone who is big enough to admit a mistake.  Perhaps there's a time and place for this sort of chest-thumping, but it seems in very poor taste here.

YMMV.

I disagree. Don is simply pointing out the importance of type specific training. We've had 3 Mooneys from this board crash in the past couple weeks. For as safe as airplanes are, we are doing a terrible job of representing the fleet. 

[Mooneymite]

1 hour ago, PTK said:

I respectfully disagree with the characterization by some of Don’s post. I do not see his post as “self aggrandizement.”

It is not what Don said so much as how he said it, where he said it and when he said it.  In my opinion, it lacked class and tact.  Some perfectly good pilots are oblivious to such.

Kinda like bedside manner.  

YMMV.

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

A mildly trained monkey could fly a Mooney  

Hey, I resemble that remark 

[Deb]

22 hours ago, exM20K said:

Lots of good advice in the thread.  Let me add another suggestion: be mindful of the winds aloft.  Light & variable at the surface may be a significant tail wind just over the tree line - exactly where you don't want a push or loss of IAS.  If 3000' winds are, for example, 230@20, I'm not taking off to the north.  Glad you and family are well.

Jim Carriere on Beechtalk amplified on these comments:

[...] Now what about prevailing wind and choice the runway? A windsock isn't a 100% guarantee of what the climbout winds will be; consider what your winds might be immediately after takeoff during those moments climbing out of ground effect and away from the trees.
There's something in his writeup about observing the windsock during preflight and taxi, a radio exchange between pilot and unicom, and his decision--in good conscience and considering those factors--to takeoff to the north.
That moment notwithstanding, I suspect there could have been a light tailwind almost immediately after liftoff. I cautiously use the word "suspect" because archived METAR data is no more or less certain than someone with good knowledge of the field and local weather patterns; I view both sources with an open mind but also a critical eye.
The METARs show a prevailing, light wind out of the south (tailwind), and while it may have been calm at the windsock for a few minutes during taxi and takeoff (approximately 1300Z), consider that there may very well have still been a light wind from just below treetop height or so. Vx in that model airplane is about 80mph/70kts and book stall speed is 50kts (comparable to many Beeches although slightly lower). [...]
(A performance note, the temp/dewpoint/altimeter combination makes about 1,000' density altitude.)
And I mentioned it once, but once again, hindsight. I prefer to learn from it and to teach from it than to judge.
Footnotes:
[...]
METARS with closest one underlined:
KW75 071335Z AUTO 17005KT 10SM OVC047 23/22 A3013 RMK AO1 T02290221
KW75 071315Z AUTO 17005KT 10SM OVC045 22/22 A3013 RMK AO1 T02230216
KW75 071255Z AUTO 17004KT 10SM OVC047 22/21 A3012 RMK AO1 T02160214
KW75 071235Z AUTO 18004KT 10SM SCT047 21/21 A3012 RMK AO1 T02110211
KW75 071215Z AUTO 17004KT 10SM CLR 21/21 A3011 RMK AO1 T02060206

And:

TAKEOFF OBSTACLE NOTES: Rwy 1... 65' AGL tree 663' from DER, 129' left of centerline.

We didn't see the tree specifically mentioned in the Chart Supplement – it was only in the Obstacle Notes from the Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) Departure Procedures at the beginning of the Terminal Procedures (approach plate book). This information might be more difficult to find for a VFR only pilot. 

None of this is meant as criticism by any means. These are learning points for us that we might not have considered previously. @Cooperd0g, we're glad you and your family are unharmed, and thank you for sharing the painful details.

[rbridges]

On 10/8/2017 at 12:24 AM, ragedracer1977 said:

The journalism sucks.   They are talking about 2 separate crashes.

I try not to be a grammar nazi, but I've noticed some of the writers on yahoo and other websites have been really awful.

[flyboy0681]

23 minutes ago, rbridges said:

I try not to be a grammar nazi, but I've noticed some of the writers on yahoo and other websites have been really awful.

Add to the mix that a lot of the Yahoo writing comes out of India. 

 

[pinerunner]

I didn't know that houses made good shock absorbers. I wonder how you can identify the soft squishy ones.

[sgrooves]

5 hours ago, Marauder said:

Coop - I’m so happy to hear about the positive outcome of this incident. Also, sharing your experience will help others. 

In my first year of ownership I experienced the “behind the power curve” environment that Don described. 

I was doing a go around on a botched landing with my family aboard and got the plane in a nose high attitude that resulted in the plane just not wanting climb despite full power being applied. 

I was caught in ground effect about 10 feet above the ground with the gear retracted and the stall horn wailing. It took every ounce of will power I had to push the nose forward in order to begin building airspeed. I couldn’t imagine being in that situation with trees in front of me. 

Thanks for sharing. 

Had a very similar situation at an unfamiliar airport in my first year with my J. Shorter runway than I was used to. Pattern altitude was also an unusual-around-here 2,000ft above the field with tall trees. AWOS reporting light and variable. Came in a little hot but not too bad, floated, floated (must've had a little tailwind too) and decided to go around a little late. Retracted all of my flaps and gear too early. Stall harn buzzed. I had to fight the urge to pull up with the trees and the end of the runway approaching. Pushed down with all that I could (trim was up for landing). Got the nose down, built some speed, and made it over the trees with some room to spare but a little too close for comfort. Now, after my instrument rating and more short-field work, my go-around technique- and decision making- is much better. 

I truly appreciate everyone who shares their experiences, good and bad, it helps us think about the situations that we would have not otherwise. Glad Cooperd0g made it out okay. 

[Jeff_S]

Kudos to the pilot for coming clean and giving us all information that we can/should use to improve our own safety.

I see multiple lessons here. It's easy (in fact, probably easier) for experienced pilots to get complacent and expect positive outcomes even in marginal situations. It also shows that even the "best of the best" (sorry, Top Gun reference) can have an off day. And yes, a combination of primacy skills (use those rudders) and good engineering (Mooney roll cage) turned a bad situation into something less than horrible. Awesome.

This was a graphic illustration of a simple phrase that I picked up from our good friend Mike Elliott during a BFR a few years ago, borne of his personal experience. I repeat this phrase usually on every pre-flight and run-up, and it's simple: don't be in a hurry to die.  That applies in just about everything we do when we take to the air.

[Shadrach]

On 10/10/2017 at 11:20 AM, cujet said:

The lack of sufficient power has been a safety issue from the very start. Climb rate is often (almost) directly proportional to available thrust. It is my fervent belief that underpowered aircraft are less safe when compared to a similar example with sufficient thrust to weight. A partial loss of power, either via density altitude, cylinder issues or for other reasons, puts underpowered aircraft at far greater risk. We lost a cylinder in our Extra 300L just after takeoff. The remaining 5 cylinders were able to manage a fairly normal traffic pattern and landing. I lost a piston in a 150 in cruise and the descent rate was 700FPM with a still (barely) running engine. Extreme examples, sure. However, I think my belief has merit. Minimizing the time spent near the ground is a good thing. 

 

EDIT: It's one reason why I prefer 6 cylinder engines coupled with excellent thrust to weight. As individual cylinder issues or partial power loss events are less likely to be catastrophic. 

What you say about thrust is true, but there is a difference to how the M20 airframe climbs compared to a say a C185 (I use these examples because it's a recent comparison for me).  The plane I was flying recently checking out in was a P-ponk 185 with the 285hp O-550.  I had a ball with it (thought it flies like a truck) but one of the things that stuck with me was the pitch (read trim as the airframe is not exactly light in pitch) required to get even 500fpm out of it.  It requires quite a bit more than the M20 for the same ROC.  The M20 airframe (my experience is in mid and short bodies) climbs relatively flat compared to other non laminar wing aircraft. If one is not used to this, the temptation is to keep pulling when the correct action is to wait as long as possible for the airframe to accelerate.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Shadrach

[bonal]

CD just thought I'd add that am so glad you and yours were able to walk away from this an because you had the courage to let us all know what happened and were able to do so. Instead of a debate on what we thought might have happened we have been having a productive discussion that for me has added quite a lot of useful information to my knowledge base. Once again so happy you are alright and hope you get back into another underpowered GA airplane soon.

[Cooperd0g]

I have had a few people ask me and yes, I plan to keep flying GA. My wife is very forgiving and understanding. Plus she really enjoys flying and was super excited to have a plane of our own as we had talked about it for years. Right now I will let the insurance settle out and get everything sorted. 

We also discussed that from now on I will conduct a full brief with her on the plan just as if she was my co-pilot or wingman on a military flight. That way she will know if I'm doing something different and make me justify it. This is our way to mitigate this type of issue from happening again.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Cooperd0g

[carusoam]

CD,

Keep up the good work.

Many of us don't have the best writing skills. you seem to get past this harshness pretty well too.

I know we mean the best, it just doesn't always come out right.

Thanks again.

Best regards,

-a-