Let’s start over - Mooney caravan incident

[N9201A]

You're pretty much solidifying my opinion of how badly this was, and continues to be, handled.

You still don’t know how this was “handled.” Nor has any interest in learning been demonstrated.

Your issue seems to be that no one has shared with *you*. That perhaps your opinion didn’t factor into decision-making doesn’t make for bad decision making, whatever you may think.

[N9201A]

8 hours ago, EricJ said:

You said, "As an outside observer, it would be difficult to assess anything except what’s posted here."    That assumes that only the information posted here can be assessed by an outside observer, which is clearly not correct.

Yes, lots of people were there, in the flight, saw the aircraft, and, very importantly, experienced how the event was handled on site at the time.   Many of them have talked about it here and elsewhere, and all over the country after they went home.

Are you saying nobody who was there can be accurate about how they experienced how it was handled on site?

Perhaps I am not being clear.  All of my remarks refer to the actual incident, not "talking about" the incident.  Everyone you cited - those in the flight, at OSH, or like you, valued MooneySpace readers -- don't have any information about the incident except what has been posted/published or what they could see *after* the incident (the aircraft) or learn second-hand. 

Now, if your issue is "talking about" the incident, or "how the event was handled at the time (OSH?), it WASN'T "handled at the time."  Responsible organizations (like the NTSB and, in this case, the Caravan) investigate and discover facts, analyze them, and then act.  That is exactly what happened here.  

While some may have disagreed with that approach, it has been vindicated.  This incident does not involve something where there was a "hack" or "fix" to a technical issue on an aircraft that could be shared.  And the very public information that was and is being shared, and will also continue to be shared, you need only read the website, come to a clinic, or come to a presentation to learn.  That includes information directly from incident witnesses and participants, not second hand speculation or scuttlebutt. 

The Caravan is a volunteer, charitable organization without shareholders or paid membership.  It is open to all and completely transparent to its participants.  Those pilots, many of whom are MooneySpacers, do not seem to be on MooneySpace complaining that they have not been given information and are entitled to it here, now, when they want it.  

That no one has personally explained to you everything that was learned is a disappointment with which you will have to live, just like the Caravan will apparently have to bear the burden of your disapproval. 

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, N9201A said:

That no one has personally explained to you everything that was learned is a disappointment with which you will have to live, just like the Caravan will apparently have to bear the burden of your disapproval. 

At some point you should just put the shovel down.

[N9201A]

At some point you should just put the shovel down.

Sorry, was looking for reasoned discourse. Wrong room, sorry to have troubled you.

[N9201A]

The thing that bothered me the most- and I suspect others, as well- is that there is good information out there that the Caravan didn't divulge to those who aren’t members of their group.
Like many members here, I’ve done some simple formation flying generally for the purpose of in-flight photography.  I would love to know more about how to do so safely, but for a variety of reasons I have no desire to join the Caravan.  I suppose I’ll just infer the lessons I need from the scant information that is available.
It all struck me as a little petty, like when  chriscalandro had a fuel tank problem and refused to share the resolution here because of some childish snit he had with some of our members.
———————————-
EDIT: after reading [mention=8146]N9201A[/mention]‘s post above, I looked at the safety section of the Mooney Caravan website.  There is a lengthy write up of the incident and lessons learned.  That wasn’t there the last time I had visited.
Thank you to the Mooney Caravan for posting that information to the website.
https://www.mooneycaravan.com/web/Mooney/Pages/Safety/2019.asp?Zr07Pyvpx=FDEM V0pvqr06 f6n6rzr06&Zr07TPyvpx=fnsr6B

In fact an immediate benefit of form flying is getting lots of great pics of your bird.

But one doesn’t have to fly with the Caravan to OSH to try form flying. In fact, most people who regularly fly form locally do not get to the OSH flight.

A clinic is just one way to try it. Find some qualified formators (Caravan, B2Osh, credentialed FFI, FAST, etc.) near you and work out a flight with them. PM me or look on the Caravan site for resources, or contact a leader of one of the organizations in your area.

It’s a lot of fun and addictive. The form community is welcoming and offers robust camaraderie as well. And it’s essential for aerial photography, as you point out.

[N9201A]

2 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Believe it or not I was actually trying to be courteous in my post above.  

I find your posts, Sir, to be unnecessarily argumentative and defensive.  Whereas before I was genuinely interested in the “lessons learned” from this event, now I just don’t care.  

I apologize if I have offended you, my comment was an (apparently) unsuccessful attempt to be witty.  Numerous people who admit they know nothing about formation flying nevertheless decide they can attack the integrity of pilots and passengers who escaped a very grave situation and an organization composed of many fine volunteers who devote countless hours every year promoting safety and continually improving processes and procedures so that many people here can enjoy a common experience.  So getting one's hackles up is unsurprising, but if I offended you, that was certainly not my intent.

Whether you care or not, the "lesson learned" are public and are still available to you -- and anyone else who cares to invest the time to understand them.    

Edited May 21, 2021 by N9201A

[carusoam]

This discussion would probably benefit from a bit of personal touch...

It would help to know who the author is...

I just about know who every Caravaner is... but still have to look them up to be sure...

This is important Because the subject is very serious...

Most Caravaners have three names...

1) One they get assigned as a formation pilot...

2) An MS Screen name... you choose how hidden you want to be...

3) The one your family selected for you...

4) A tail number, Mooniac, M20F... or other common names selected can’t separate you from the other people around here...

 

For a serious conversation... you probably want to be as open as possible with your name(s)

People are giving honest feedback...

They want you to be successful...

 

If they don’t know you, or don’t know who you are....  they are going to have a hard time knowing you are being witty...

 

The Caravan is an awesome organization.... lead by very talented and professional people...  Some military pilots, some medical doctors, all serious Mooniacs, with very impressive backgrounds....

The situation that occurred was handled incredibly well... In the most open way possible... with the most professional review and follow-up....

It’s a tough message to deliver...

Yet the message is getting lost...

Let me know if I can help...

Everybody cares... or they wouldn’t bother to mention a thing...

Best regards,

-a-

[steingar]

The problem I see is really simple.  From the sounds of it (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) the accident resulted from Caravan participants ignoring Caravan rules.  How new rules will solve that I do not know.

Edited May 21, 2021 by steingar

[chriscalandro]

Isn't this the thread that had to be restarted because the initial discussion was purposely thrown off the rails to hide any real information or discussion?

 

And you expected those same people to share real, informative, honest, recollection of events?

 

Come on now...

 

To react to the comment about me publicly sharing information- the situation is the same. 

[Becca]

15 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Here is a view from an outside observer that knows nothing about formation flying.  I have looked at the reports and the pictures.  

• Why is a plane with 55% more power/thrust placed behind a slower plane?  With some throttle mismanagement I can see why it might be easy for the Ultra to accidentally overtake the early J model.  
• We have all done nice level steep turns where we feel our own wake upon complete turn.  It is an interesting non-event.   Wake turbulence from the thin laminar flow wing and significantly smaller engine/prop of the smaller bodied early J somehow created enough wake to upset the Ultra?  This wake somehow made the Ultra lurch down and forward and then pop up in front of the slower J?  Really?
• The report shows the J right wing crushed and the skin materially buckled up several inches.

• The Ultra empennage and left wing must have been terrifyingly close to the J from the view of the J copilot.  And the J copilot has a clear view of the wing.  See these examples from the copilot seat. 

• Both the pilot and copilot can lean forward for an even better view of the leading edge of the wing.

• Yet the experienced pilot and copilot claim to have not seen the actual impact nor the damage after the fact?  The buckle, the upward deflected ripple, the missing paint could not be seen?  Really?
• Every Mooney owner knows how sensitive the trailing edge of the rudder is to rough handling.  A clumsy hand  can cause the plane to be out of hands off trim in level flight.  And the remedy is to gently deflect the trailing edge with your thumbs, trial and error, to bring it back to neutral hands off performance.  Yet we have a picture of the Ultra rudder trailing edge severely bent.

• Yet the experienced factory pilot didn't feel any uncommanded right rudder, any yaw, any unusual unbalance in hands off level flight?  Really? Really?

I think this is why it is a bit hard for the outside observer to believe the explanations in the reports.  And why there are some of the comments. The planes came within about a foot of one or both planes crashing.  One or both pilots should have realized that they needed to declare an emergency and land immediately rather than blithely continuing on. 

It may be addictive and "fun" but it is not without additional risk.  It obviously requires great care and planning and trust in the other pilots.  It can challenge even the most experienced as this shows. And if it goes wrong there is the risk that it may harm not just your plane but another.  Luckily they didn't end up like the fatal Mooney formation flight at Spruce Creek a year ago.

Report_ERA20FA101_100944_5_20_2021 7_28_33 PM.pdf

NTSB: Crashed plane was part of 4-aircraft formation - News - The Ledger - Lakeland, FL

 

 

 

 

this post ^^ 

but that’s just non-formation situational awareness.  Presumably in formation, and arriving at Oshkosh, there would be significantly above normal priority placed on spacial awareness.  The aircraft that was hit in the tail would not have been able to see it happen; but the aircraft which was struck in the wing, was struck by an aircraft that was in front of him and would have been visible (not to mention that type of wing damage had to have yawed/rattled the plane on impact). I am really surprised the NTSB did not either challenge this narrative or comment on why it would be credible to claim that the pilots did  not realize this happened in flight. 

You can go to the NTSB docket to read both pilot statements (I don’t believe either pilot has chosen to comment here on MS but if they did please someone direct me, I am curious as to a first person POV, though I would assume they are both so lawyered up they probably are keeping quiet.)

One thing I observed in the incident report from the Caravan was a doubling down on consistent procedures and training, which I think is good.  As someone who’s done spacecraft accident and anomaly investigations one thing that I noticed was lacking in the Caravan report is there was no list or analysis of root causes or contributing causes.  There’s often cultural issues that need to be addressed in leadership and instruction, and hopefully there’s awareness there too.  I would be curious if the Caravan brought in any outside people to do an independent review and recommendations, and if those were incorporated, or if they kept it all “in house”?  

I am only left to speculate and infer as to what those contributing causes were by the types of procedure changes that were made presumably in response to them.  I think it’s an open secret that the factory pilot had not attended a Caravan clinic (a fact that i did not notice in either report - does anyone know if this is just an untrue rumor?).  But a lot of changes appear to be made to address “regional” differences in training, is it possible the other pilot’s regionally provided training was somehow lacking or divergent in some way?  I don’t know.  Likewise there seems to be emphasis on changes for right seat training for the passenger/copilot/spouse/child attending.  Was there a distraction in the cockpit involved? Could something have been averted with a more prepared right seater?  Again I don’t know, I am again only inferring from the procedure changes.  Lastly I didn’t realize until all these reports issued that there was a chase/photo plane trailing them.  I suppose it’s cameras weren’t on?  Why didn’t it observe this event?  (Also yikes if a trailing photo pilot didn’t observe a midair, why not?)  Maybe in the future the photo aircraft should have go-pros running at all times just for the purposes of post flight lesson learned and critiques (you never know, they may observe a close call.). Are there any statements from that photo pilot?  Curious to hear that.  Are either of the two accident pilots going to be permitted to fly in the Caravan again, are they getting any sort of remedial training or qualifications above and beyond just attending the usual formation training? There’s lots of questions that all of these reports just do not answer for me.

I look forward to attending the briefing at Oshkosh.  I hope the Mooney caravan has reached out to all the other caravans with its lessons learned!  I think the caravans are a cool thing, I want them to succeed.. safely!

 

Edit:  I now realize N9201A was the accident airplane so I assume the MS poster with that tail number is the pilot?  Maybe he can answer some of these questions directly instead of leaving us to speculate.  

Edited May 21, 2021 by Becca

[Hank]

Thank you, @Becca, for the reasoned, dispassionate questioning of the official narrative and apparent non-response from "officialdom" about this event. There has been a lot of "move along, nothing to see here" from the Caravan, followed eventually by the NTSB (non-)report on the event.

Maybe your clearly articulated post will finally penetrate at least the minds of the caravan. Many of us "outside observers" have seen little to no response from the Caravan, and all members have been very close-mouthed and defensive. And no, I don't have the time, money or interest level to rush off to one of their training events to hear about it; besides, not having been to one in the past, I would have no basis of comparison to evaluate what had changed . . . .

Back to listening and watching, with few expectations other than more defensive, accusatory and obfuscatory postings.

[chriscalandro]

Again, not only were they unwilling to talk about it, they actively stopped any outside discussion. 
 

Not a organization I’d want anything to do with. 

[Marcopolo]

@Becca, please keep poking as you are getting very close the true issue(s) here.

 

For the first time in 5+ years I have to disagree with Anthony, mainly on how "well" this has been handled, in my opinion.

 

Sorry if this is considered a BS way to enter back into this discussion, but I believe time has been on the side of what I believe are the true issues here and they seems to have been forgotten.

 

Ron Mander

Marcopolo

N1079B (2018 and 2019 Caravan Element Lead)

[bradp]

There’s a video of the 4 ship formation just before the incident.  The formation with the ultra at 2:50 ish mark was from the incident day.  The YouTube account is from the passenger who took all the video from the chase / photo plane that day. 
 

 

[carusoam]

23 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Given all the risks highlighted above shouldn't formation flying require a separate insurance endorsement?...a separate risk pool?...a separate fee?

No.

Are we going to run through a menu each time we fly?

What happens when I forget to run through the menu that day, am I not current?

Are we now blaming the Caravan for raising our insurance rates?

Can I get a discount because I have never flown formation?

 

What happens when I ride in a formating plane? Should I get insurance as the right seater?

I don’t know…. But if I encounter insurance questions like this every time I leave my house….  I’d never go jogging again…

Jogging for health reasons can put you in the hospital….

 

 

Hey, maybe you have a point… there is a line in my insurance docs asking if I use grass strips…

Maybe they need more questions like that so they can raise my rates more…

 

Try to remember that we are all on the same team…

Improving safety is a team effort…

Improving safety without telling somebody to stop flying would be nice too…

 

There isn’t going to be an acceptable time to say all we need to do is raise the other guy’s cost…

Try to be friendly while finding a solution…

Best regards,

-a-

[Vance Harral]

I like the cut of your jib, 1980Mooney.  I also don't think I should pay more to subsidize others' risk taking.

So... here's a list of risky behaviors many Mooney owners do not engage in:

• flying at high density altitude
• flying over mountains
• flying over water
• flying at night
• flying in instrument conditions
• flying IMC with less than 3 independent attitude indicators
• flying IMC at all, regardless of equipment
• flying without an engine monitor
• flying without ADSB-IN for traffic and weather
• flying without an angle of attack indicator
• choosing not to sump the tanks before every single flight
• choosing not to run a specific W&B calculation before every single flight
• taking off or landing on runways with less than a 50% margin vs. book performance
• performing touch-and-go's in a complex airplane

It's easy to find accident reports associated with each of these behaviors.  So please let us know which of these actions you engage in, and how much it's appropriate to raise your rates, so the rest of us are not paying to subsidize your deliberately risky behavior.

Yeah, yeah, I know... the risks you take are perfectly reasonable, it's only the risk others take that are unreasonable and should put them in a separate insurance pool.

I  hope the list above illustrates the problem with this way of thinking.  Shared risk is the bedrock of insurance, and separating buyers into smaller and smaller pools eventually kills the whole concept.  You already pay an adjusted rate that takes into account the type of airplane you choose to fly, how much it's worth, your ratings, and your experience.  How much more do you really want to carve up that pool?  Are you sure doing so is actually going to benefit you?

 

[Yetti]

1 hour ago, Vance Harral said:

• flying at high density altitude
• flying over mountains
• flying over water
• flying at night
• flying in instrument conditions
• flying IMC with less than 3 independent attitude indicators
• flying IMC at all, regardless of equipment
• flying without an engine monitor
• flying without ADSB-IN for traffic and weather
• flying without an angle of attack indicator
• choosing not to sump the tanks before every single flight
• choosing not to run a specific W&B calculation before every single flight
• taking off or landing on runways with less than a 50% margin vs. book performance
• performing touch-and-go's in a complex airplane

I

 

 

You forgot to add flying with multiple failure prone software in your 275s

 

[DCarlton]

Did insurance cover the damage ?

It's a long thread; I may have missed it.

[carusoam]

Just now, 1980Mooney said:

I understand your logic.  With one pool we all rise or fall together.  Regardless of the cause or fault.  That is why we, as GA pilots and owners, should be happy paying our share of the pooled loss of Lion Air 610, and Ethiopian Air 302, and Malaysian Air 370 and the poorly trained pilot that stalled and then nosed into the ground 767 Atlas 3591.  One pool.

So with this logic…

You have made it clear….  It doesn’t matter what the Mooney pilot does in his spare time…

How many gear up landings is the equivalent of one LionAir accident?

What was the total cost of a couple of dented Mooneys during a formation flight?

Again following this logic…  Hangar rash is the same as Mooney formation accidents…

I thought we got a discount for parking in a hangar…

It kind of appears that parking in a hangar is now more dangerous than parking outside…

I vote no on selecting a smaller pool.

I vote no on making insurance more challenging to get…

I vote no a lot…

 

Best regards,

-a-

[Becca]

On 6/13/2021 at 7:19 PM, Vance Harral said:

I like the cut of your jib, 1980Mooney.  I also don't think I should pay more to subsidize others' risk taking.

So... here's a list of risky behaviors many Mooney owners do not engage in:

• flying at high density altitude
• flying over mountains
• flying over water
• flying at night
• flying in instrument conditions
• flying IMC with less than 3 independent attitude indicators
• flying IMC at all, regardless of equipment
• flying without an engine monitor
• flying without ADSB-IN for traffic and weather
• flying without an angle of attack indicator
• choosing not to sump the tanks before every single flight
• choosing not to run a specific W&B calculation before every single flight
• taking off or landing on runways with less than a 50% margin vs. book performance
• performing touch-and-go's in a complex airplane

It's easy to find accident reports associated with each of these behaviors.  So please let us know which of these actions you engage in, and how much it's appropriate to raise your rates, so the rest of us are not paying to subsidize your deliberately risky behavior.

Yeah, yeah, I know... the risks you take are perfectly reasonable, it's only the risk others take that are unreasonable and should put them in a separate insurance pool.

I  hope the list above illustrates the problem with this way of thinking.  Shared risk is the bedrock of insurance, and separating buyers into smaller and smaller pools eventually kills the whole concept.  You already pay an adjusted rate that takes into account the type of airplane you choose to fly, how much it's worth, your ratings, and your experience.  How much more do you really want to carve up that pool?  Are you sure doing so is actually going to benefit you?

 

Major thread creep... I wouldn't be opposed for insurance discounts for some of those things - particular equipment like ADSB-in, in flight weather, and electric attitude systems are real proven safety features that counter known causes of accidents - like car insurance where you get discounts for ABS system (at least back in the old days when they weren't as common.)  It acts as incentives for you to expend money to improve the safety of flight.  Insurance rates have gotten absurdly high, a few discounts for people that do things to reduce risk (or spend more time training and proving proficiency, etc.), seems like it would be warranted ..

Edited June 16, 2021 by Becca

[jetdriven]

But now insurance companies are charging 250$ to attend the Mooney safely foundation  instruction clinics. And I know for a fact they don’t offer discounts for attending the training as well. 

[201er]

On 6/15/2021 at 8:35 PM, Becca said:

Major thread creep... I wouldn't be opposed for insurance discounts for some of those things - particular equipment like ADSB-in, in flight weather, and electric attitude systems are real proven safety features that counter known causes of accidents - like car insurance where you get discounts for ABS system (at least back in the old days when they weren't as common.)  It acts as incentives for you to expend money to improve the safety of flight. 

Ha! Insurance doesn’t give discounts for anything except a useless AOPA membership and even then it’s usually not more than the dues. I’d rather my insurance keep their discount than essentially throw in a free AOPA membership just so they could make excuses for slowly killing GA.

[PT20J]

On 6/16/2021 at 6:55 PM, 201er said:

Ha! Insurance doesn’t give discounts for anything except a useless AOPA membership and even then it’s usually not more than the dues. I’d rather my insurance keep their discount than essentially throw in a free AOPA membership just so they could make excuses for slowly killing GA.

The real value of AOPA, SPA and EAA memberships is to support their lobbying and legal efforts to oppose overly restrictive and costly rules, policies, and taxes. They aren’t always successful, but I’d hate to imagine where we would be without their efforts.

Skip

[Becca]

Not entirely trying to resurrect this thread - but someone mentioned there was going to be a forum at Osh on lessons learned from the midair.  Can someone tell me what the title of it is so I can find it in the program?  Thanks!

[chriscalandro]

5 hours ago, Becca said:

Not entirely trying to resurrect this thread - but someone mentioned there was going to be a forum at Osh on lessons learned from the midair.  Can someone tell me what the title of it is so I can find it in the program?  Thanks!

“How to get out of dealing with the FAA”

followed up by -

“How to fabricate, build, and maintain your story”

Edited July 22, 2021 by chriscalandro