About time I fessed up

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Andy95W said:

I said the same thing yesterday but everyone wants to add 10 mph or so for "safety". 

I prefer to have the rjght speed for my weight at each landing:  70 mph if light, 75 mph if heavy works well for short final. "Heavy" means "near gross weight," then subtract 5 mph for every 300 lb below gross I am at landing (not at takeoff!).

Works well in my C. 

[carusoam]

On speed...

and on vertical speed too...

It is hard to have a greaser, when you chop the throttle and aim for the numbers... with 1000fpm showing on the (seconds delayed) vsi...

I don't think we talk much about setting a vs and maintaining it around the last portions of the pattern.

Pp Thinking out loud, my worst landings were coming in too fast, resulting in being too high, chopping the throttle.... bounce and go...

Do you guys have any Vs guidance you follow? Select throttle setting for 500fpm starting abeam the numbers?

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Hank]

 

1 minute ago, carusoam said:

I don't think we talk much about setting a vs and maintaining it around the last portions of the pattern.

Pp Thinking out loud, my worst landings were coming in too fast, resulting in being too high, chopping the throttle.... bounce and go...

Do you guys have any Vs guidance you follow? Select throttle setting for 500fpm starting abeam the numbers?

My vertical speed is usually in the 300-350 fpm range in a standard VFR pattern, which I fly about 2-3 blocks wider than the half-mile pattern I learned as a student in a 172. But I cheat--I use an IVSI, which eliminates almost all of the VSI delay.

Just go somewhere with a nice set of PAPI / VASI lights and fly a long final with the lights evenly split between red and white. Then look at your vertical speed. Keep coming down, keep the lights right and look at your vertical speed. That's where you want to keep it from abeam the numbers until you roll wings level on final and can see the lights.

But don't forget to adjust throttle and yoke to keep your intended landing spot stationary in the windshield! Of all the things to check, that's an important one, as is your airspeed--1.3 Vstall, or 90 mph for my C, then 85 on final slowing toward 70-75 over the numbers.

[Andy95W]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

I prefer to have the rjght speed for my weight at each landing:  70 mph if light, 75 mph if heavy works well for short final. "Heavy" means "near gross weight," then subtract 5 mph for every 300 lb below gross I am at landing (not at takeoff!).

Works well in my C. 

We are definitely on the same page, Hank.  In fact, I "borrowed" your idea for doing quick calculations for final approach speed.  I think the only thing we do different is I use 1.2 x Vso instead of 1.3 when I'm landing on my 1900 foot home airport- which gives me about 65 mph.

That works for me with half tanks.  I then add 3 mph for full fuel and/or each adult passenger.  Like you, I start with 70 mph for any runway between 2500 and 5000 feet.  Longer than that, and I use partial flaps and 75-80 and enjoy the float and squeaker landing.

Edit- something else I borrowed from you is adding MP and RPM to give a quick estimate of % power. Thanks for that, too!

[Hank]

9 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

We are definitely on the same page, Hank.  In fact, I "borrowed" your idea for doing quick calculations for final approach speed.  I think the only thing we do different is I use 1.2 x Vso instead of 1.3 when I'm landing on my 1900 foot home airport- which gives me about 65 mph.

That works for me with half tanks.  I then add 3 mph for full fuel and/or each adult passenger.  Like you, I start with 70 mph for any runway between 2500 and 5000 feet.  Longer than that, and I use partial flaps and 75-80 and enjoy the float and squeaker landing.

Edit- something else I borrowed from you is adding MP and RPM to give a quick estimate of % power. Thanks for that, too!

You're very welcome! The landing speed calculation came from @donkaye and the %power addition is from the MAPA PPP textbook for my C model.

But they work, and work well, and are easy to remember.

[aviatoreb]

Aoa indicator 

[Hank]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

Aoa indicator 

Those work, iff:

• Your plane has one (not so many)
• It is properly calibrated (???)
• It's mounted in your line of sight (only some)

So for our purposes, from what I can tell the percentages run about 10%, 80% and 50%, so use of the AoA applies to about 0.1 x 0.8 x 0.5 = 0.04, or 4% of us pilot types. The 96% of us have to use VSI, ASI and eyes looking at the desired landing spot.

(Yes, I made up the stats [estimating on the high side], but did the math correctly. Do I get extra credit for the "iff"?  )

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, Hank said:

Those work, iff:

• Your plane has one (not so many)
• It is properly calibrated (???)
• It's mounted in your line of sight (only some)

So for our purposes, from what I can tell the percentages run about 10%, 80% and 50%, so use of the AoA applies to about 0.1 x 0.8 x 0.5 = 0.04, or 4% of us pilot types. The 96% of us have to use VSI, ASI and eyes looking at the desired landing spot.

(Yes, I made up the stats [estimating on the high side], but did the math correctly. Do I get extra credit for the "iff"?  )

In the biz - we call them made up numbers with extreme artificial precision.  Doh! 

Anyway yes to all that you said, but... it is something within out control as pilot-owners and I will say again, AOA indicators, but now in a fuller sentence.

AOA indicators are well worth it and greatly simplify all of the mental computations for producing better and more consistent landings.  When a) you have one, b you have gone to the trouble to properly calibrate it which is not so hard, c) you get one that allows you to put it in your line of site where your eyes should be during landing which is out the window so get one that you can see on top of your glare shield.

[gsxrpilot]

During my transition training when I bought my first Mooney, I asked the CFI what speeds I should look for on final. He said never mind the ASI, just look out the window at the runway and land the plane. I've not bothered with the ASI on landing since then. Well, that's not exactly true. When flying formation, I need to maintain a steady 90 knots to the numbers, so I obviously use the ASI for that. But otherwise, I just look out the window and land the plane. It worked in the C and works in the K as well.

#EyeballAOA

[cbarry]

I’m not an instructor and without riding shotgun with you on this particular flight it’s hard to assess, but It sounds  like you basically flew the approach all the way to the runway (some would say flew it into the ground). In other words, (as you have mentioned) the descent was not arrested.  However,   in my experience, using the flare to arrest the descent,  especially in the Mooney, can easily cause ballooning.  The arrest is best accomplishing by simply flattening out the flight path a few feet above the runway and as the airspeed starts to decay, begin the flare.  Most all of us, I know I sure have, gone through some aviating slumps.  Practice doesn’t always make perfect, but with good instruction can help make us safer and more confident in our own abilities.  Thanks for sharing your experience because this helps us all hopefully become better aviators!  

[steingar]

15 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I'm not sure I can agree there's not enough energy, and I wonder if you did hit some wind shear close to the ground.  I can recall coming in at 65 KIAS with some passengers and hitting some wind shear just before starting my flare.  We must have dropped the last 50' in 2 seconds.  I hurried the flare just in time to avoid a hard landing (translation--I yanked on the yoke and prayed), and I STILL ended up floating for about 3-4 seconds before touching down.  Ironically, it ended up being a greaser and my passengers didn't know why my face was white when we got out.

In retrospect, my first reaction should have been to add power and go around, but if you were closer to the ground you might not have had time to react anyway.

I suppose that's possible.  Lots of trees around, don't recall the winds.  You'll forgive me if I don't repeat the experiment to find out...

[steingar]

16 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

Why nine months??

 

Because I got dicked around HARD by my insurance company. They paid up in the end, but it took awhile.  It was so bad that there was a 0.5 AMU charge at the end, for the J-bar holder, that I just swallowed because I didn't want to deal with them.

[Shadrach]

On 10/9/2017 at 4:35 PM, steingar said:

August 2016 I was delivering my Mooney M20c to my mechanic, Bobby Norman, at the Parr airport (42I) in Zanesville Ohio. I had interaction with Bobby years ago, and he came highly recommended by a number of local Mooney owners.  I had thought the field was about 2300 feet (wrong, more on that later) so coming in over the trees I pulled the power to idle, put it in a forward slip and came down.  75mph over the numbers, flared and BANG!.  Hardest landing I'd ever done in anything.  At the top of the bounce I had a choice, and decided to ride it out. I was uncomfortable trying to go around at a short strip in that predicament.  The aircraft bounced a couple more times and stopped, and I taxied back.  I had struck the prop in that landing, quite badly.

The prop was bent asymmetrically, and the craskshaft busted.  I hit hard enough that the force went through the gear into the Johnson bar, wrecking the mechanism that holds it in place (Bobby only figured that part out when he started taxiing.  He said it was quite exciting).

It took 9 months for the tear down, prop repair, and everything else.  The engine repairs were done by a very reputable shop, and the aircraft is now back in service.  I just did the first oil change after the teardown.  I would have overhauled the engine at this juncture, but it only had 700 hours, and I didn't have the money.

What I did wrong:  The first thing is entirely insidious.  I should have checked the length of the field, since it is now a very comfortable 3k feet.  Why didn't I?  Because the last time I was there it was 2300 feet!  Hardest thing in the world is to override personal experience, but sometimes we really have to.

Of course, the other big thing was pulling the power over the trees.  Once I got into the runway environment the aircraft didn't have the energy to overcome the sink.  Why pull power?  Normally in this situation I maintain 12-13" manifold pressure, and use a forward slip.  Indeed, most of my landings done this way are well within 2K feet.  So why did I change?  Worry about a field that I thought (incorrectly) was short.  Even if it was 2300, I could have landed the Mooney in it just following my normal procedures.  Talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

What I did right: riding it out and letting it settle turned out to be the perfect move.  I had an asymmetric prop, a badly damaged engine, and I was at a somewhat short and very narrow strip surrounded by hills and mountains.  I don't know what would have happened had I put in the power, but it wouldn't have been good.   Sometimes its just better not to add extra energy to a bad situation.  Perhaps if you don't you'll prang the airplane, but if you do you get to be the one pranged.  I recall a fatal TBM accident nearly identical to mine, the aircraft landed hard and struck the prop.  The only difference is that guy put in the power at the top of the bounce, and now he's dead.

I can't put into words what this did to me. If you noticed me gone for an extended period, its because I couldn't show my face after this.  I think one thing might give you an idea, today is the first day I'm thinking I'll actually stick with this aviation thing.  I've sort of been on the fence thinking about bailing for the last year.

With any luck this will help someone not make the mistake I did.  At least it had one silver lining.  Hopefully I'll never say I landed worse.

Steingar,

Your candor is appreciated. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and as painful as it might've been to post your experience, it's behind you now.   I have some comments on what you've posted. I hope they are taken with good will as my intention is not to beat up on you for the incident ( I wasn't there and didn't see what happened) but to evaluate your post accident analysis which has statements that I find difficult to reconcile with what I know about airplanes and Mooneys specifically.

I don't believe that pulling power over the trees is or was a problem.  Nor do I believe that crossing the numbers at 75 mph is or was a problem. You stated that you didn't have enough energy to overcome "the sink".    This doesn't pass the smell test for number of reasons. 

1) A Mooney in an uncontrollable sink won't bounce, it will pancake.  A Mooney that is flown into the runway environment above stall speed and allowed to land nose wheel first will certainly bounce. The faster and harder the nose hits, the more dramatic the bounce.

2)  75 mph is more than adequate in ground effect to flare the aircraft. Even if you started the flared high, if you held it in the flare you should've touched down on the mains first.

3)  If you had hit hard mains first, it's doubtful that the prop or the gear mechanism would have been damaged. To do the kind of damage you've described, the nosewheel had to have impacted hard and at a nose low attitude.

It's worth considering that if the aircraft bounced, the aircraft still had enough energy for the wing to fly.  Taken further, we know that if there was adequate energy for the wing to continue flying, there was adequate energy for the tail to continue flying. We can therefore deduce that whatever the control inputs made in close proximity to the runway, there was not adequate up elevator input to achieve the desired touchdown attitude.

Here's where I will speculate just a bit about what might've happened.   I think your own confidence or lackthereof, played a big part in the chain of events. I think that it's indeed likely that you flared high. The basic instinct when one is high, slow and at high AOA is to relax back pressure. The fact that you often use power on short final may have exacerbated your sense that the airplane was in an uncontrolled sink. when back pressure was released while at slow speed, power off with deteriorating airspeed. I believe you sank quickly at a nose low attitude, hit hard and "porpoised". It likely happened so fast that you weren't sure what hit you.

 I certainly hope that you continue flying. Pilots learn from mistakes. Expensive mistakes that you can walk away from are very humbling but give you more experience points than almost anything in Aviation.   You may feel like you really pooched this and there's a good chance that you did. So what, you're not the first. If you keep flying you will be a pilot that has lived through an experience that many do not understand.  If that doesn't put you closer to being a salty old dog, then I don't know what does. Don't beat yourself up; try to find a good Mooney instructor and get comfortable with short field technique even if you're not doing it at a short field. 

 And just a quick word about short field technique. Proper short feel technique in a Mooney does not entail dragging the aircraft to the threshold  behind the power curve. Proper short field technique means a steep power off descent to the touchdown zone at slow speed with the wing unloaded transitioning to full aft elevator in the flare (if done right the yoke will be to the stops in your gut) with ground effect cushioning the touchdown further.  A true short field landing is a commitment to touchdown at the beginning of the flare.  The yoke continues aft until there's no more left or the mains touch... the ideal is for both to happen simultaneously.

Too many Mooney drivers get hung up on runway length. 2300 feet is not a challenging runway for a light C model. Indeed it's more than twice what you should use if you're on A game (unless landing over an obstacle). A runway of that size does not require a short field technique. It merely requires good technique. That means 1.2Vso on short final and slowing into ground effect over the numbers. If as a group we would just understand our stall speed for current configuration and adjust approach speeds accordingly we wouldn't have nearly as many problems.

One of the runways at my home drome has a turn off 1000 feet from the REILs.  Every month or two I do three landings on that runway. If I can't make three landings in a row that terminate at the thousand foot turn off with moderate braking (at most), I don't consider myself current in type...

Edited November 1, 2017 by Shadrach

[carusoam]

Nice write-up Ross!

Best regards,

-a-

[bradp]

Ross you had some landing videos a while back - any with short field technique you can share? 

[KLRDMD]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

If as a group we would just understand our stall speed for current configuration and adjust approach speeds accordingly we wouldn't have nearly as many problems.

Here here !

[Bartman]

I read the original post a few weeks ago, and read it again tonight. It didn't register in my brain that a forward slip was being used at low altitude over the trees. I tried that once during a BFR over some trees on a 2500 ft strip and my CFII about came unglued. I was a little fast and a little high and was trying to save a bad final approach. He cautioned me that this may be a very useful technique with more altitude, but never use it in a Mooney coming over the trees as I would not have enough energy to flare and arrest the sink rate, just like Ross posted so well above. Anyway, we powered out, went around and I came in slower at 70mph instead of nearly 80 over the trees and executed a great landing and stopped just past half field. 

This is the first post I have read where someone included low altitude slip as a normal landing technique. Don't get me wrong I'm no expert, but I bet the slip created a sink rate that could not be overcome. The flare became a low altitude stall and and hit nose low. 

[Shadrach]

53 minutes ago, bradp said:

Ross you had some landing videos a while back - any with short field technique you can share? 

I am in the middle of annual right now, but perhaps I'll make a few movies after.  It's tough to make time for such frivolous pursuits now that we've two babies in the house...

[bradp]

Then put some baby videos up ;-)

[Shadrach]

7 hours ago, bradp said:

Then put some baby videos up ;-)

Not a video but a pretty cool pic! This was summer 2016 coming home from ME. He was pretty engaged for a 7 month old!

Edited November 1, 2017 by Shadrach

[steingar]

11 hours ago, Bartman said:

I read the original post a few weeks ago, and read it again tonight. It didn't register in my brain that a forward slip was being used at low altitude over the trees. I tried that once during a BFR over some trees on a 2500 ft strip and my CFII about came unglued. I was a little fast and a little high and was trying to save a bad final approach. He cautioned me that this may be a very useful technique with more altitude, but never use it in a Mooney coming over the trees as I would not have enough energy to flare and arrest the sink rate, just like Ross posted so well above. Anyway, we powered out, went around and I came in slower at 70mph instead of nearly 80 over the trees and executed a great landing and stopped just past half field. 

This is the first post I have read where someone included low altitude slip as a normal landing technique. Don't get me wrong I'm no expert, but I bet the slip created a sink rate that could not be overcome. The flare became a low altitude stall and and hit nose low. 

I've always used forward slips for landing.  Never thought not to.  Don't think I'll use one coming over the trees again.

[steingar]

21 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Steingar,

I don't believe that pulling power over the trees is or was a problem.  Nor do I believe that crossing the numbers at 75 mph is or was a problem. You stated that you didn't have enough energy to overcome "the sink".    This doesn't pass the smell test for number of reasons. 

1) A Mooney in an uncontrollable sink won't bounce, it will pancake.  A Mooney that is flown into the runway environment above stall speed and allowed to land nose wheel first will certainly bounce. The faster and harder the nose hits, the more dramatic the bounce.

2)  75 mph is more than adequate in ground effect to flare the aircraft. Even if you started the flared high, if you held it in the flare you should've touched down on the mains first.

3)  If you had hit hard mains first, it's doubtful that the prop or the gear mechanism would have been damaged. To do the kind of damage you've described, the nosewheel had to have impacted hard and at a nose low attitude.k

The other factor in this is the undulating nature of the runway.  I suspect had it been flat I'd have had a bad bounce and that might have been the end of it.  I think the prop dug in because it hit a rise.  Could be wrong, admittedly.

Quote

It's worth considering that if the aircraft bounced, the aircraft still had enough energy for the wing to fly.  Taken further, we know that if there was adequate energy for the wing to continue flying, there was adequate energy for the tail to continue flying. We can therefore deduce that whatever the control inputs made in close proximity to the runway, there was not adequate up elevator input to achieve the desired touchdown attitude.

Don't know.  Mooney's can have tail stalls while the wing is still flying, at least according to a couple CFIs.  

Quote

Here's where I will speculate just a bit about what might've happened.   I think your own confidence or lackthereof, played a big part in the chain of events. I think that it's indeed likely that you flared high. The basic instinct when one is high, slow and at high AOA is to relax back pressure. The fact that you often use power on short final may have exacerbated your sense that the airplane was in an uncontrolled sink. when back pressure was released while at slow speed, power off with deteriorating airspeed. I believe you sank quickly at a nose low attitude, hit hard and "porpoised". It likely happened so fast that you weren't sure what hit you.

Could be, like I said I don't fully trust my memory of these events.  But I have flair high before, I know I have because of the increased sink.  Occasionally the nose balloons just a bit.  Like I said, a smudge of power can smooth those right out.  Poor technique, admittedly.  I know you guys land perfectly every time, but I'm just a mere human bean.

Quote

 And just a quick word about short field technique. Proper short feel technique in a Mooney does not entail dragging the aircraft to the threshold  behind the power curve. Proper short field technique means a steep power off descent to the touchdown zone at slow speed with the wing unloaded transitioning to full aft elevator in the flare (if done right the yoke will be to the stops in your gut) with ground effect cushioning the touchdown further.  A true short field landing is a commitment to touchdown at the beginning of the flare.  The yoke continues aft until there's no more left or the mains touch... the ideal is for both to happen simultaneously.

Yeah, that even happens now and again.

Quote

Too many Mooney drivers get hung up on runway length. 2300 feet is not a challenging runway for a light C model. Indeed it's more than twice what you should use if you're on A game (unless landing over an obstacle). A runway of that size does not require a short field technique. It merely requires good technique. That means 1.2Vso on short final and slowing into ground effect over the numbers. If as a group we would just understand our stall speed for current configuration and adjust approach speeds accordingly we wouldn't have nearly as many problems.

That's where I am really and truly upset with myself.  The vast majority of my landings are well within 2 thousand feet, and I usually make the first turn off.  Yeah, had I just did what I always do I'd not have a story here.

Quote

One of the runways at my home drome has a turn off 1000 feet from the REILs.  Every month or two I do three landings on that runway. If I can't make three landings in a row that terminate at the thousand foot turn off with moderate braking (at most), I don't consider myself current in type...

Well someone just needs to buy you a cape.

[jetdriven]

Tail stalls are a myth in the short and mid body airplanes, and a rumored event in the long body. 

Like Ross I go out and get my three landings.  A mid weight J will  stop in 800' repeatably without abusing the plane. 

[pinerunner]

I'd like to thank you very much for this post. I was raised with bush flying and it's natural that I would be considering just how short a strip I might go into and how to go about it. Obviously speed control is everything and it's that Mooney's would be trickier than a Super Cub, but I had no idea that it could be so easy to have a prop strike as long as you touch down on the mains first, which I understand you did. I routinely use 80 mph in final and slow down to about 75 if I'm going into a shorter field. I've also used forward slips at 90 mph if I'm too high but I haven't explored just how much slower than that I can bring that technique into play.

If a freak wind shear isn't the culprit I have another explanation. I think you might have been the victim of an accelerated stall. While I've seen top seaplane pilots skim the trees, drop the nose with full flaps, and flare dramatically to get into short lakes (or even just to save time taxiing back to the dock). I don't think the laminar flow wing on our Mooney's is so forgiving of a sharp pull-up at low speeds, though. With the forward slip you generated more downward momentum than usual and maybe you waited just a split second too long and had to pull up and flare aggressively enough to force the stall. Your experience reminds me that I'm not flying a Cessna.   

Someone with an AOA indicator could test this out nicely, at altitude. A G-meter would be nice too, or just have your wife sit on a scale and read off the numbers.

Edited November 1, 2017 by pinerunner

[steingar]

2 hours ago, pinerunner said:

If a freak wind shear isn't the culprit I have another explanation

I suppose a wind shear is possible, though I don't recall anything like that.  Like I said, I don't consider my memories of the event all that trustworthy.

2 hours ago, pinerunner said:

I think you might have been the victim of an accelerated stall. While I've seen top seaplane pilots skim the trees, drop the nose with full flaps, and flare dramatically to get into short lakes (or even just to save time taxiing back to the dock). I don't think the laminar flow wing on our Mooney's is so forgiving of a sharp pull-up at low speeds, though. With the forward slip you generated more downward momentum than usual and maybe you waited just a split second too long and had to pull up and flare aggressively enough to force the stall. Your experience reminds me that I'm not flying a Cessna.   

Someone with an AOA indicator could test this out nicely, at altitude. A G-meter would be nice too, or just have your wife sit on a scale and read off the numbers.

The thing is I usually don't yank on the flight controls, I make an effort to be smooth and make small corrections, especially close to the ground.  But again, I cannot rule it, or much of anything else out.  Good news is the aircraft got its Pitot Static check yesterday and I start IFR training soon.  All i got is a VOR and DME, but that will have to do for now.