Fatal crash in California on July 15

[PT20J]

5 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

I have been told there was a tubing thickness change also by a Mooney engineer.

That is correct. It's in the IPC if anyone wants the details.

[PT20J]

 

 

This topic of gross weight changes w.r.t Js and Rockets comes up from time to time. What is known

12 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I posted this Monday. It got lost in transfer to new web host. 
Since this plane was "seats full" many comments here assume it was "over gross" inferring that is the cause of the accident.  But Max Gross is just a number that some engineer picked as a compromise that may or may not reflect a true threshold for safe operation.  The FAA Weight & Balance Handbook (FAA-H-8083-1B) states "The designers of an aircraft set the maximum weight based on the amount of lift the wings or rotors can provide under the operational conditions for which the aircraft is designed. The structural strength of the aircraft also limits the maximum weight the aircraft can safely carry. The designers carefully determine the ideal center of gravity (CG) and calculate the maximum allowable deviation from this specific location."
This accident J model was serial number 24-0744 with a MGW of 2,740 lbs.  But in 1990 Mooney engineers decided that J models with serial number 24-3201 and up could increase the MGW to 2,900 lbs.  The only difference between the accident plane and the later planes was the plastic curved wingitps.  And those same engineers decided that all J models back to serial number 24-1686 could magically increase to 2,900 lbs. for only the cost of a piece of paper (Special Letter SL-92-1).  And then in 1994 Rocket Engineering strapped an IO-550 on a J model taking the MGW originally to 2,997 lbs (one bracket from a K model was added to the side of the frame to support the heavy Continental).  And then in 1997 Rocket magically increased the MGW to 3,200 lbs. without any modification other than a piece of paper.  And consider that the Ovation and Eagle have the same wings (and flaps and ailerons) and steel cage as the J (with another foot of aluminum in the baggage compartment and basically the same empennage) taking the MGW to 3,374.  And we have people practically wetting themselves here on MS hoping for a 400-500 lbs. increase from Mooney taking them to 3,600-3,800 lbs.
Clearly there are limitations on wing loading and power loading.  Modern Mooney's have the strongest wings in the industry.  The same wing and steel frame will support 2,740 lbs. as well as 3,600+ lbs.  Wing loading is not the limitation. (this in not a Piper).  The landing gear are the limitation on load.  Yes the controls will become more heavy and you need to pay attention to speed in banking and landing.  I fly my modified J (Missile) frequently seats filled and at 3,200 MGW.  I owned and flew it before the mod and quite frankly I don't notice much difference in handling before vs. after the mod.
Power loading is another matter.  As you fill each seat or fuel tanks in the J the power loading grows detrimentally.  Rate of climb deteriorates as well as acceleration and speed.  Take off rolls are longer.  The decline in performance is a continuum and not a cliff at the "MGW".  Ferry pilots take off over gross all the time.  Charles Lindberg did it.  You have to carefully manage converting forward energy into lift with slow shallow climbs.  You cannot get uncomfortable and jerk the nose up.  You have to be patient.  If you have a long enough runway without obstructions you can become airborne safely.  But the margin of safety narrows.  And this may understandably make many here feel very panicky.  Hence Rocket and Mooney bumped the power with the big Continental 6's to 280, 300 and 310 HP improving power loading and allowing the MGW to comfortably increase.
Flying has a higher risk than many other activities and flying safely is about managing those risks. Think about this.  Suppose Pilot A owns Mooney 24-1685 and Pilot B owns Mooney 24-1686.  The planes are identical in every physical way and they are going to fly together.  Pilot A is limited to a MGW of 2,740 lbs.  Pilot B bought the SL-92-1 so he has a MGW of 2,900 lbs.  Assume both planes load up to 2,900 lbs with passengers, luggage and fuel to fly to their destination.  Is Pilot A really flying "less safe" than Pilot B?  If Pilot A had an accident on the way would we be as critical of him as some of the comments about the deceased pilot are here?
My point is "over gross" alone did not cause this crash.  This was not an inflight break-up or loss of a wing.  N4474H looked pristine and I think I see a Powerflow exhaust on it.  Previous comments said the owner put a Scimitar prop on it.  About 21 pics of his really great looking J that you can page thru showing before paint/upgrades and after:
Aircraft N4474H (1978 Mooney M20J 201 C/N 24-0744) Photo by Doug Robertson (Photo ID: AC1505766) (airport-data.com)
I personally don't know anything about the deceased pilot or his flying history. FAA Airman says he was Commercial SEL and Instrument.  Maybe it was something as simple as just not making full power at max weight combined with limited margins to safely clear obstacles.  Perhaps something more severe such as he lost the engine or even suffered a health event at the worst possible time. But let's give him the benefit of an open mind regarding this tragic outcome.

is that all the Js that have the increase to 2900 lbs had a tube change in the cage. (The change also required remarking the airspeed indicator and checking the rudder balance). We do not know what set the limit at 2900 lbs, but after the change to the cage it was probably performance. Rocket fixed the performance with more power. Someone a while back posted Rocket STC documentation that had different GW limits depending on serial number so not all modified airplanes got the same increase.

Skip

[jlunseth]

You know, electronics are a really nifty thing that have made all of us safer. We don’t have to have a discussion with ATC about the weather ahead any more, we can see it on the panel when we are still hundreds of miles away with the same degree of accuracy they can. Who would have thought?

It takes just an hour or less to set up very sophisticated w&b calculators in Foreflight or Garmin Pilot or any of a dozen other EFBs or onboard devices, and it takes only minutes to run a w&b. Setting aside flights that the pilot has done a hundred times before and done the w&b, like going up alone in your aircraft, there is no good reason at all not to do a w&b before each and every flight. You are already sitting there looking at the weather and your weather briefing on Foreflight, why not just stick a couple of numbers in the w&b calculator while you are there.

I agree we should wait and find out what the facts are. 

Like everyone else, I also have lost two people in aviation accidents, both were caused by human error, not the pilot’s in either case, but other people whose work the pilot should have taken care to inspect. Always. No matter what. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, jlunseth said:

You know, electronics are a really nifty thing that have made all of us safer. We don’t have to have a discussion with ATC about the weather ahead any more, we can see it on the panel when we are still hundreds of miles away with the same degree of accuracy they can. Who would have thought?

It takes just an hour or less to set up very sophisticated w&b calculators in Foreflight or Garmin Pilot or any of a dozen other EFBs or onboard devices, and it takes only minutes to run a w&b. Setting aside flights that the pilot has done a hundred times before and done the w&b, like going up alone in your aircraft, there is no good reason at all not to do a w&b before each and every flight. You are already sitting there looking at the weather and your weather briefing on Foreflight, why not just stick a couple of numbers in the w&b calculator while you are there.

I agree we should wait and find out what the facts are. 

Like everyone else, I also have lost two people in aviation accidents, both were caused by human error, not the pilot’s in either case, but other people whose work the pilot should have taken care to inspect. Always. No matter what. 

I would be curious to read the details of these two events. Your experience is rare in that both losses were not pilot error.  I have lost several casual acquaintances to aircraft accidents. In both cases the main cause was poor decision making.

[cliffy]

You learn in this  game by studying what the other guy did wrong and not doing the same thing!

As I've said before here-

You're not a safe pilot until you have been "tempered" and you get tempered when you do something in an airplane that scares the living crap out of you and YOU know YOU did it to yourself!

As for me in my 50+ years in this game I have personally known many who have made smoking holes in the ground-

One in  C-150 taking off of a sandy beach overloaded at a density altitude of 7,000+ feet and never getting out of ground effect

Another taking off at night in low IFR right after getting the IR and rolling into the ground

Another doing low altitude aerobatics in a Corsiar and doing a loop too low

Two others trying to get into a night IFR landing in the mountains by going below mins in  Jetstar

Another going into the Florida swamp at the speed of sound with a fire on board in a DC-9

Another by not being current in  a Connie and putting it into trees at the end of a runway

These are just 7 of the many I have known

Sometimes you can avoid the sword by doing things right and sometimes your ticket gets punched even when you did it all correct. Its all part of life and trying to do the best you can every flight. Anything short of trying hard every flight only increases the chances of a poor outcome. 

As Dirty Harry once said- "A man's got to know his limitations!"

Pay attention to what you  are doing as ALL the regulations were written in someone's blood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[carusoam]

For 1980…

Yes, planes are safe to fly over MGTOW…

They are even safe to fly at max with four seats full…

The only thing required to make that happen safely… is the performance data to know it is going to work as planned…

 

The performance data needs to have all the facts…

The pilot is going to rely on the data… whether it comes from a POH, or he collected performance for his plane in similar conditions…

Make sure your friends are using the right data, the right way… with a plan B…

 

My M20C, with a young family of four, used a short runway often….

Plan B was to be off the ground at the halfway point, or be stopping before the end….

 

Adding to the casual conversation…. Since we don’t know the facts of the day… 

Best regards,

-a-

[MooneyMitch]

We don’t talk about this, and maybe it’s just a given that we all keep our tires correctly inflated to the exact pressures given ( as we do the same with our auto tires, right? ), so me bringing it up is not necessary.

However, at the risk of sounding stupid by mentioning this topic, if tires are under inflated, all data, POH information, density altitude calculations are for not.

I’m so sorry for the loss of life, and for the families and friends left behind.

Be safe everyone. 

[mike_elliott]

The Mooney Summit has reached out to the oldest surviving son to offer assistance

[kortopates]

The Preliminary accident report is now available.

The only new information given in the report, is that witnesses revealed the plane landed on rwy 27, with winds out of the west but per the report it took off opposite direction with some unknown tail wind:

"The airplane accelerated down the runway 09; the pilot rotated just short of the displaced
threshold and according to the witness, barely cleared the fence. The rotation was not smooth,
and it appeared as the pilot suddenly pulled the nose up (“jerked it”)."

Report_WPR21FA272_103489_7_30_2021 6_56_33 PM.pdf

No actual wind nor temperature metar information is available though although the prelim gives it for nearby FOT its pretty meaningless. 

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by kortopates