231 Down in North Georgia pasture

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

absolutely, you can't change the laws of physics. And no doubt you've seen many as I have where things didn't go well, both gear up or gear down. I was of the same opinion about leaning towards to gear down but now after having seen a number of gear down emergency landings begin with a successful landing leading to a catastrophic rollout I've altered my thinking to require sufficient room for rollout before lowering the gear. But just as vital,  is landing touching down under control as slow as possible; but precision and speed are tradeoff's. 

That said, because of how easily things can go sideways, in many cases its not at all possible to look at one of these in hindsight and really know how gear up or down would have made a difference.  

Well said. Of course, the correct action is always more evident after the fact! I think Bob Hoover's advice was to fly it into the crash as far as possible. I believe the operative word is CRASH. When you touch down off airport, I think a certain amount of luck is involved.

[rbridges]

2 hours ago, fantom said:

Trying to land gear down has the potential of causing more damage than a clean gear up like the pictured one.

Shearing the gear off, cartwheeling, nose over, toasted gear doors....you name it. Leave the gear up, and stop quickly and usually straight.

Subject pilot did a good job putting her down!

 

 

4 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Unless you KNOW you are making an emergency landing on a well groomed, off airport field suitable for a normal gear down landing, Error on the side of caution and keep the gear up and get the door opened, push the door lock forward while open. This will make sure your not trapped by a stuck door, possibly upside down in the weeds on fire (UWOF). First step in any emergency is to say "this belongs to the insurance company" then save all human life.

That was always my thinking, but at one of the mooney summits, I believe they said gear down for energy dissipation except in a water landing?  Am I remembering wrong?  50/50 on my memory.  

[cbarry]

Obviously, each scenario has unique challenges, but based on what appears to be a reusable airframe with this off field landing, I’d say this pilot made the right decision to keep the gear stored.  

[kortopates]

6 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

To counter point - I have read the theory that gear down that ripping the gear off in a ditch dissipates energy.

as for me I subscribe to the gear up - most of the time - school. For all the reasons said.

 

4 hours ago, rbridges said:

 

That was always my thinking, but at one of the mooney summits, I believe they said gear down for energy dissipation except in a water landing?  Am I remembering wrong?  50/50 on my memory.  

Yes its often true we'll hear of folks comment that the gear probably really helped to dissipate energy; and there probably is some truth to that. But as Skip mentioned above there is also luck involved. So true. When a the crash sequence absorbs energy by sheering off a gear without turning you sideways that is pure luck.

An example. A long body had to perform a go around after a failed landing attempt that may also have included a prop strike. But the Mooney had difficulty climbing and was stalling out within 50' AGL on the go around. The pilot had no time or choice but lowered the nose to prevent stalling. But no where to go over a very populated busy area. Gear was still down and as the Mooney came down on a roof of large store, the first impact was the left main gear hitting an air conditioning unit.  Some people thought that slowed the plane down fast enough to make it survivable. But consider an aircraft is required to accept twice as many G's forward in a crash than what its required to absorb sideways (like 8G vs 4G from memory). Thus an accident is much more survivable keeping the nose ahead than careening sideways. But gear down, and getting ripped off to slow down is pure luck if you're not going sideways and indeed this spun the Mooney to the left. It then went over the roof on to the ground impacting sideways hitting on the passenger side. The older passenger didn't survive but the younger middle aged pilot did; which given the situation seemed pretty miraculous. I am not at all suggesting both would have survived if the gear was brought up. In this case its not at all clear gear position made any difference at all in the final outcome.  But it illustrates that with the gear down its only luck when it absorbs energy shearing off without sending the plane sideways exposing us to less survivable G loads.  

Edited December 22, 2020 by kortopates

[GeeBee]

As far as ADS-B coverage. The incident occurred 3 miles NE of LaFayette, GA airport. If you have been in that area, it is tough to get cell phone coverage, and most ADS-B is on cell towers. Where he put it down is between two ranges of mountains. LaFayette by the way is the location of an excellent engine shop, Gann Aviation. Carlus Gann is the go to guy in GA for engines, and what he produces are works of art. 

[mike_elliott]

17 hours ago, rbridges said:

 

That was always my thinking, but at one of the mooney summits, I believe they said gear down for energy dissipation except in a water landing?  Am I remembering wrong?  50/50 on my memory.  

If your falling from the sky hanging from a parachute, the gear helps dissipate energy. If your doing an emergency landing, the energy needed to mitigate is probably on the order of 10/ft/minute vertical and a BUNCH horizontal. Rolling might be less than desirable, especially in a bean field.

[Shadrach]

On 12/20/2020 at 9:39 PM, kortopates said:

So far, the daily FAA report just says "Engine Failure"

Only a handful of very short flights since August, the last 3 being in Sept, Nov and then Dec 17. However the Flightware activity may well be incomplete since it doesn't show the incident flight on Dec 16th which is puzzling since the other short flights were all included with top altitudes of only 2-3K feet - so doesn't appear like a lack of Ads/b coverage. 

https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:96:8329269741454::::P96_ENTRY_DATE,P96_MAKE_NAME,P96_FATAL_FLG:18-DEC-20,MOONEY

Flight aware data is driven by amateur users with ADS B receivers feeding into their database. I do not believe they take FAA data. For whatever reason this flight either wasn’t picked up or his transponder was off.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Shadrach

[Jerry 5TJ]

48 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Flight aware data is driven by amateur users with a DSB receivers feeding into their database. I do not believe they take FAA data. For whatever reason this flight either wasn’t picked up or his transponder was off.

FlightAware does indeed use FAA flight plan data as well as several other sources including a network of over 25,000 receiver sites.  

FlightAware Data Sources

 

[Shadrach]

22 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

FlightAware does indeed use FAA flight plan data as well as several other sources including a network of over 25,000 receiver sites.  

FlightAware Data Sources

 

That’s good to know. Now I have to come up with an alternate theory as to why some flights do not show up.

[steingar]

Keep in mind that with the gear up the airplane is less draggy and might go farther on the energy you've got, might give some extra options.  And yes, I was (very jocularly) pointing out that the accident airplane might be in need of a new engine.

[Bravoman]

I ponder this all the time. I think I would do the same as this pilot in keeping the gear up if I didn’t know the integrity of the turf. Looks like the plane will fly again too. 

[kortopates]

I was just checking to see if the preliminary was out - its not. But I noticed something I didn't earlier. Just a few days before the incident, the aircraft registration was transferred from a LLC to 2 co-owners. Thus probably new owners. What a terrible new ownership experience!

 

[Heidiho]

I want to give an update on the 231 off field landing in North Georgia .  It did happen on December 17, 2020, thank you Kortopates, I looked at the calendar wrong—my bad.    It did occur at least five miles south of Lafayette, on the East side of the ridge from the airport.  The ferry pilot took off from 9A5 after having a new GFC 500 autopilot and other goodies installed by Gann Aviation.   +1 for Gann Aviation, you are correct GeeBee.  Witnesses say after conducting a couple of test flights around 9A5, he took off again to the South for a 12 minute  flight to home drone 1A0 with less than 12 gallons of fuel in each tank.  Upon banking around to head North, the plane lost power resulting in a well executed off field landing in the cow pasture.  This morning, December 24, 2020, mechanic documented for the FAA in a video showing that it was fuel starvation, not contamination or or other engine-related issues.  I have certainly enjoyed the discussions generated regarding off field landings—pros and cons of gear up vs gear down.  PT20Jbottom lined it, ‘when you touch down off airport, a certain amount of luck is involved.  This ferry pilot seemed to have much of that on hand plus some great skill to smooth it in.

[kortopates]

Bummer after all that work too!

Interesting remark about the ferry pilots skillful landing. I guess what skill he lacked in fuel system management he tried to make up in a gentle landing.
I like the first remark on luck!

I hope the pilot either had good insurance or was a named insured on the owners policy.

Still some question about the fuel exhaustion. Sure it wasn’t starvation by banking into a too of low tank and unporting the fuel pickup or actually running the tank dry? Also no fuel in the other tank?
Yep, POH warns us not to take off on a tank with less than 12 gal (for potential of unporting the fuel pickup banking into it).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, kortopates said:

Yep, POH warns us not to take off on a tank with less than 12 gal (for potential of unporting the fuel pickup banking into it).

This brings up a point I’ve wondered about - how low becomes an unporting problem - in any phase of flight?  12 gal?  12 gal even at the end of the flight arriving at the pattern?

[exM20K]

I can see pitch issues with the fuel tank, but how could a coordinated turn cause any mischief?

-dan

[carusoam]

Things to consider when trying to find fuel in the tank...

1) Each tank has one pick-up...

2) they are located at the trailing edge of the tank, on the inboard corner... pretty close to the sump drain...

3) There are not much for baffles to hold fuel in place

4) Staying coordinated is important for keeping fuel from running away from the pick-up

5) Staying nose level, or up in the case of a climb, pushes fuel toward the pick-up

6) if you know all of your fuel is in one tank, raising that wing while in a climb attitude should empty as much fuel as possible...

PP thoughts about Mooney fuel tanks, nothing to do with this off field landing...

Best regards,

-a-

[Heidiho]

Congratulations!  After going Full circle around the incident, We have finally landed back on  the point I was making  in my first post:  Because there are always variables in flying that we can’t manage, it is important that we manage those we can, the easiest one being, whether or not we have sufficient fuel to get us safely to our destination.  A thorough pre-flight should never take a back seat to complacency—no matter how short the flight or how great and knowledgeable a pilot we think we are.   Much headache, heartache, and expense can be eliminated by erring on the side of safety.  Merry Christmas to all.

[takair]

16 hours ago, Heidiho said:

I want to give an update on the 231 off field landing in North Georgia .  It did happen on December 17, 2020, thank you Kortopates, I looked at the calendar wrong—my bad.    It did occur at least five miles south of Lafayette, on the East side of the ridge from the airport.  The ferry pilot took off from 9A5 after having a new GFC 500 autopilot and other goodies installed by Gann Aviation.   +1 for Gann Aviation, you are correct GeeBee.  Witnesses say after conducting a couple of test flights around 9A5, he took off again to the South for a 12 minute  flight to home drone 1A0 with less than 12 gallons of fuel in each tank.  Upon banking around to head North, the plane lost power resulting in a well executed off field landing in the cow pasture.  This morning, December 24, 2020, mechanic documented for the FAA in a video showing that it was fuel starvation, not contamination or or other engine-related issues.  I have certainly enjoyed the discussions generated regarding off field landings—pros and cons of gear up vs gear down.  PT20Jbottom lined it, ‘when you touch down off airport, a certain amount of luck is involved.  This ferry pilot seemed to have much of that on hand plus some great skill to smooth it in.

 

In the first image, is that a disconnected fuel line on top of the engine?  Was that removed as part of the investigation?

[carusoam]

I circled the line that Rob is asking about...

-a-

 

[kortopates]

On the bright side, it sure looks like minimal airframe damage and should be flying again very soon after its TDI and new prop and whatever belly skin damage it needs repaired!

[skydvrboy]

Back to Flight Aware tracking, my flights NEVER show up unless I get flight following.  I have position only flights turned on and all my flights show as position only.  Perhaps I’m doing something wrong, but I have Ads-B out and it just doesn’t seem to matter.  In fact, you can see on my Nov. 19th flight track where I picked up flight following, where I cancelled it, and where I picked it up again on the return.  Are others seeing flights show up when not on flight following or an IFR flight plan?

[kortopates]

Back to Flight Aware tracking, my flights NEVER show up unless I get flight following.  I have position only flights turned on and all my flights show as position only. ...

Confused between never show up without flight following vs all your flights show as position only.
I assume they are all being picked up as Ads/b positional data?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Heidiho]

Rob, with regards to your fuel  line question, I don’t know,  we didn’t question the mechanic’s procedure—Just stopped in to take some photos of the plane’s damage and get an update regarding the cause of the incident.  

[M016576]

22 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

This brings up a point I’ve wondered about - how low becomes an unporting problem - in any phase of flight?  12 gal?  12 gal even at the end of the flight arriving at the pattern?

Great question, and I was wondering the same thing...

 

Has anyone else thought about this?  
 

The tank on each wing in a E/F/J/K holds ~32 gallons usable... so you’re telling me that if I have 35% fuel remaining in that wing tank, I might lose my engine if I bank up a little?  Would the ferry pilot have regained his engine if he’d just switched tanks when the engine started to stumble? (My guess is yes).  Man... having to ditch an aircraft for fuel starvation when you’ve got 20+ gallons on board, in an airplane with 64 gallon tanks; just seems all wrong.

Edited December 26, 2020 by M016576