Mooney Fatality, Bartow, FL.

[skydvrboy]

3 minutes ago, steingar said:

Thank you.  That adds some insight.  I bet they were light to get cheap fuel, and perhaps they pushed it a bit.  When you're low and slow you don't have a lot of time to react.  Still a horrible tragedy.  My heart's out to their community.  I know how I felt when I thought this was a friend of mine.

Pure speculation, but that could have been the case: $3.66 vs $4.52 at departure airport. 

Spruce Creek is a very friendly community.  According to the pilot flying lead, he has to keep his hangar door closed when he works on his plane or he can't get anything done.  Too many people will walk over and want to talk airplanes. 

For me, the worst thing would be having to fly back home without one of my close friends.

[ArtVandelay]

Thank you.  That adds some insight.  I bet they were light to get cheap fuel, and perhaps they pushed it a bit.  When you're low and slow you don't have a lot of time to react.  Still a horrible tragedy.  My heart's out to their community.  I know how I felt when I thought this was a friend of mine.

But it’s such a short trip, 78nm, that’s less 3/4 hour, maybe 9 gallons...I can’t imagine leaving the ground with less than 10 gallons.

[exM20K]

speculation over on BT and 2nd hand reports that the prop came off.

Pics don't show any prop evident.

https://www.theledger.com/photogallery/LK/20200213/NEWS/213009975/PH/1

 

very sad, and a horrifying scenario to imagine.

-dan

[bonal]

Looking at all the attached pics and there isn't much showing the nose in fact not much of the whole front remaining at least that can be seen from those photos. Such a short flight hard to imagine they ran out of fuel but I suppose anything is possible. Patience I'm sure we will find out what happened and then we can all learn from this horrible accident 

[steingar]

1 hour ago, exM20K said:

speculation over on BT and 2nd hand reports that the prop came off.

Pics don't show any prop evident.

https://www.theledger.com/photogallery/LK/20200213/NEWS/213009975/PH/1

 

very sad, and a horrifying scenario to imagine.

-dan

That makes a lot more sense than just running out of gas.  My thinking is if it were fuel exhaustion all they had to do was keep it under control, the Mooney would take care of them.  But loosing the prop is a whole 'nother animal.

[Mooney in Oz]

Medical event?

[irishpilot]

Let's hold off on the speculation until we get evidence or analysis from eye witnesses or the NTSB.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[RLCarter]

48 minutes ago, Mooney in Oz said:

Medical event?

Both were pilots from what I've heard.... So not very likely 

[RLCarter]

9 hours ago, skydvrboy said:

No, but when flying formation, only the lead aircraft communicates with ATC.  The Mooney can be heard twice, once when checking in on frequency and once when directed to extended trail.  Lead makes the call and everyone else responds in order "Lake 2, Lake 3, Lake 4".

Thanks , didn't realize it was a formation flight

[ChrisV]

4 hours ago, irishpilot said:

Let's hold off on the speculation until we get evidence or analysis from eye witnesses or the NTSB.

Here is why I disagree with this, and feel free to rip into me if you disagree:  by waiting for what actually caused this accident whether it is fuel starvation, medical or a prop falling off, we will only think about that one cause, and one or two solutions.

On the other hand, monday morning quarterbacking these accidents, it forces us to think about the different scenarios, however unlikely, that cause various kinds of accidents.  I have never considered my prop falling off the airplane on approach before.  Probably due to the low likelihood of this ever happening.  It is not something I will ever worry about, but it is beneficial to think about, and to theorize what I should do in this event.

 

Just my .02

[irishpilot]

Speculation is different than choosing specific "what if" scenarios to walk through. So far this thread is speculative. If you'd like to take the prop falling off as a first discussion point, I support it because it is specific and safety-oriented.

For one, I know what engine failure feels and looks like, but I have no idea how these planes respond to a propeller departing inflight.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Mooney in Oz]

9 hours ago, RLCarter said:

Both were pilots from what I've heard.... So not very likely 

Thanks, you're right.

That slipped my mind when I considered the pilot's age.

[gsxrpilot]

6 hours ago, irishpilot said:

Speculation is different than choosing specific "what if" scenarios to walk through. So far this thread is speculative. If you'd like to take the prop falling off as a first discussion point, I support it because it is specific and safety-oriented.

For one, I know what engine failure feels and looks like, but I have no idea how these planes respond to a propeller departing inflight.

Isn't "speculation" how we come up with all possible "what if" scenarios? I'm with @ChrisV in that we should not wait for the NTSB to give us the one, actual cause, but should be speculating all the possible causes and learning from all of them. 

I for one, do a lot of formation flying. And have always thought that one of the benefits is having "assistance" in the air in the event of a problem. it's also interesting that there wasn't any communication. It's normal that only Lead would be talking to ATC. But that doesn't preclude any of the others in the flight from speaking up if there is a problem. 

So I'm speculating that if this airplane was 4th in the formation and they were on an overhead break to land, then it would have been the one airplane, not in sight of any of the others during the landing maneuver. Even if they were not on tower frequency but were on the inter flight freq, Lead and the other members of the flight, would have known if they had said something. This makes me think it was a very sudden event or one very close to the ground.

Regardless, it is a tragedy and our thoughts go out to those family and friends of the pilots. 

[mike_elliott]

speculative "what if" narrative is one thing, conclusive positions based on speculation (its safe to say fuel starvation was an issue) is counterproductive at best and rather hurtful to surviving friends and relatives about the pilots (yes they were both pilots) judgmental skills. May I ask we keep kindness in our speculation?

[rbridges]

20 hours ago, bradp said:

Another thing to consider is fuel burn when flying formation is typically 30% or so higher than in typical cruise. 

I didn’t know that. What’s the reason for the higher fuel burn?

[bradp]

Frequent and sometimes large power changes, always ROP, too much focus to look at or care about engine gauges except for dedicated and coordinated glance, so you’re typically full mixture relying on the altitude compensating servo to do its job.  

[N201MKTurbo]

20 minutes ago, bradp said:

Frequent and sometimes large power changes, always ROP, too much focus to look at or care about engine gauges except for dedicated and coordinated glance, so you’re typically full mixture relying on the altitude compensating servo to do its job.  

I used to do a lot of formation flying. We always strived for precision and tried to keep the power changes to a minimum. Once on someone’s wing, tiny and infrequent power changes seemed to be the way to go. We strived to figure out our power settings for different maneuvers so we could keep the throttle jockeying to a minimum. 

My step fathers nephew was a fighter pilot in the Air Force for 25 years. I asked him once for some guidance on formation flying. That conversation lasted over four hours. It got down to statements like “I would start with my sight line between this rivet and a sensor on the nose then sweep it to this bolt on the windshield during a left turn, then sweep my sight line back to the sensor on rollout.” He would say exactly what power increase or decrease he would use and exactly what time he would change power.

He gave me a lot of insight into how to do it right. It takes a lot of practice to nail it. 

[exM20K]

Neighbors said a propeller knocked out a car window.
 

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-polk/volusia-county-couple-identified-as-two-people-killed-in-bartow-plane-crash

[chriscalandro]

5 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

speculative "what if" narrative is one thing, conclusive positions based on speculation (its safe to say fuel starvation was an issue) is counterproductive at best and rather hurtful to surviving friends and relatives about the pilots (yes they were both pilots) judgmental skills. May I ask we keep kindness in our speculation?

Tell me where the fuel went then. All the reports, all the evidence so far suggests fuel starvation.

clearly the tanks ruptured, but no evidence of fuel was found on the ground. 

without an official report, yeah it’s speculative, but dyed fuel doesn’t just disappear. It leaves evidence. 
 

I think it’s safe to say fuel starvation was a factor. 
 

nothing unkind about making educated speculations from facts. 

Edited February 15, 2020 by chriscalandro

[ArtVandelay]

Tell me where the fuel went then. All the reports, all the evidence so far suggests fuel starvation.
clearly the tanks ruptured, but no evidence of fuel was found on the ground. 
without an official report, yeah it’s speculative, but dyed fuel doesn’t just disappear. It leaves evidence. 
I think it’s safe to say fuel starvation was a factor. 

No it’s not. The plane crash and hit very hard, wings ruptured and fuel sprays far and wide and evaporated, not going to leave much of stain that would be noticeable.
Here’s a video of a Cirrus, notice the fuel spray at impact, and no fire.

[jetdriven]

How far was the car from the crash site? Blades do come off during the crash. This one was mostly vertical so maybe, maybe not 

[chriscalandro]

The report said there was sputtering then the motor went silent. Sounds like the wings rocked a bit and then it pretty much nose dived. 
 

that’s what I read anyway. 

[N201MKTurbo]

Who’s to say the propellor didn’t depart the plane and the plane was low on fuel at the same time? One doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the other. Legal minimum fuel is only 5 gallons. Even if the wing ruptures it will mostly evaporate and even if it does catch on fire, it won’t burn very long.

[carusoam]

xxxxx, when you realize who gave the eyewitness account and how accurate eyewitnesses are in general...

What did they mean by sputtering?

When I run a tank dry, the engine goes silent... is that what the eyewitness meant?

A silent plane still glides pretty well... especially with two skilled pilots aboard.

Pilots that fly in formation, fly with precision...  enough to keep the clean side up, all the way to the ground...

 

If the engine is sputtering... it has fuel.

 

If a prop departs my engine... I expect to hear an over rev... hardly sputtering...

If I am still conscious... I’ll be shutting  down the engine.... prior to figuring out how bad my WnB problem is...

 

If you are still with me... have you done a WnB on your plane to see what it looks like when a prop departs?

Same for if the engine departs...

 

It is imperative to shut the engine down quickly with a prop only partially missing... the imbalance can tear the engine off its mount... the imbalance is measured in thousands of pounds... the mount itself may get torn from the firewall...

As for fuel being spread around... The auto ignition temperature of gasoline is around 500°F... some exhaust parts may get this hot, but only close to the exhaust valve, and deep at the core of the muffler...  parts that are glowing red are about this hot...

Believe it or not... not all accidents that spill gasoline are going to light themselves on fire...

No fire, does not mean there was no gasoline...

 

Since the prop seems to be important to this discussion...

Lets invite our prop guy to join the conversation... @Cody Stallings  (Not many details to go on yet...)

There is always a topic that goes with propellor hubs...

We need more information to even begin valid speculation... 

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, chriscalandro said:

Tell me where the fuel went then. All the reports, all the evidence so far suggests fuel starvation.

clearly the tanks ruptured, but no evidence of fuel was found on the ground. 

without an official report, yeah it’s speculative, but dyed fuel doesn’t just disappear. It leaves evidence. 
 

I think it’s safe to say fuel starvation was a factor. 
 

nothing unkind about making educated speculations from facts. 

Lack of fire does not mean lack of fuel.

Clarence