Jump to content

Fastest M20F ever....


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Whoa…he had T&B, alt, VSI, ASI and a whiskey compass? That should be enough for just about anyone to keep it right side up.

It is very easy to fixate on a misbehaving instrument.  About 10 vacuum pump failures over the years, even in VFR conditions, you just can't not look and involuntarily try to follow a dying AI.  I learned early on to cover the vacuum instruments as soon as a failure was discovered.  This new stuff is fascinating on it's own, misbehaving it would be hypnotic.

That's a nice looking F, despite the seat stains.  Whoever buys it better check all the overspeed/overstress stuff.  As soon a they buy it, they need to take it to a good Garmin shop and make certain it has a battery and ADAHRS for that HSI and have it reconfigured as a Standby ADI/MFD and a reversionary switch added.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2021 at 4:03 PM, David Lloyd said:

It is very easy to fixate on a misbehaving instrument.  About 10 vacuum pump failures over the years, even in VFR conditions, you just can't not look and involuntarily try to follow a dying AI.  I learned early on to cover the vacuum instruments as soon as a failure was discovered.  This new stuff is fascinating on it's own, misbehaving it would be hypnotic.

That's a nice looking F, despite the seat stains.  Whoever buys it better check all the overspeed/overstress stuff.  As soon a they buy it, they need to take it to a good Garmin shop and make certain it has a battery and ADAHRS for that HSI and have it reconfigured as a Standby ADI/MFD and a reversionary switch added.

I’ve had one Vac failure (oddly while getting checked out in the Mooney) and one AI failure. The AI was a window into how things can go bad. I was in between layers in heavy rain when I hit heavy rain and moderate turbulence. It was expected and no big deal but the heavy rain and layer below made for what was ostensibly IMC. When things smoothed out, it was clear that the vertical axis of the AI was showing a climb in level attitude so I reached up to adjust it. The knob was a bit stiff and as I twisted it a crack propagated across the glass from the knobs location.  The instrument rolled off to the left shortly thereafter. I ripped the back page from the magazine my wife was reading and covered the AI. Had it failed earlier in the heavy rain and turbulence, I would have been much less comfortable. All that being said, this guy is an ATP with professional recurrency training and more than 5000hrs. I’m not beating up on him, but if it’s that “easy“ to lose control of an aircraft with a known instrument failure (in my mind one of the safest things about glass is that a tells you when you shouldn’t use it), Then many of us or just one instrument failure away from dying.  I’ve never done partial panel an actual. The event referenced above is the closest I’ve ever come. I’m not beating up on this guy but i’d love to talk to him. Recovering in a partial panel situation is a lot harder than not letting it get away from you in the first place. He didn’t recover, he was very lucky to find VMC and had have adequate altitude and presence of mind to recover. He obviously did some things right. He never gave up. He also managed to regain control of the aircraft without destroying it in the process… No small feat given some of the Flight data.

 

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2021 at 11:52 AM, M20Doc said:

I have a hard time believing the numbers that were reported.  Looking at the flight path in the report it pears to have been going down hill at 23000 rpm or 240 kts, pulls out the bottom to go up hill at 8500 rpm. And it didn’t pull the wings off?  I think the data from the failed unit is as reliable as the unit.

Strangely Garmin didn’t want to share any data.

The investigation attempted to determine more precisely the source of the initial fault. However, no supplemental information about the instrument, possible reasons it would require realignment while the aircraft was in flight, or analysis of the occurrence aircraft’s recorded fault logs were provided to the investigation by Garmin

Clarence

I’ve been thinking about this and think what you suggest is possible. However, I don’t find the data that hard to believe. Doing a loop in something as slow as a Stearman will yield momentary climb rates in excess of 10,000FPM. In a Mooney, 242KIAS would be easy to attain in an inadvertent full throttle “spilt S”.  It’s a strong airframe. I’m not surprised that it held up. Everything he did during this upset could be performed without exceeding the known limits of the airframe though it sure looks like he came close…. Really would be interesting to see the G loading data

Edited by Shadrach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is Peter Garmin when these discussions happen? Heard he just had a second GI-275 installed.

Personally, I never bought into same manufacturer backup strategy. Whether it is my Aspen’s or Garmin’s. That’s why I love the ESI-500. Now that’s a Swiss watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally had my Swiss watches removed this year - and believe me I was one who really loved and was amazed by the mechanical Swiss watches.  However, its just a fact: as amazing as they are, they are just not as reliable.  But I also have a Swiss watch, an actual mechanical autowinder watch by Zenith, and heck, I guess my Swiss watch will have to be my Swiss watch for now on.

I had a pair of GI275 installed, and I do like the form factor of a panel of round gauges, so when they hit on that concept, I was the perfect customer - still has a bit of a classic look but much more modern inards.  Heck I even went svt.

And I kept my mechanical backup electric gyro by lifesaver.  Because only a fool thinks anything is fool proof.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2021 at 11:58 AM, Shadrach said:

Whoa…he had T&B, alt, VSI, ASI and a whiskey compass? That should be enough for just about anyone to keep it right side up.

It’s an accident.  Almost everyone of these we read is the same thing.  How could it possibly happen and yet it does.  Hence “accident”.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, M20F said:

It’s an accident.  Almost everyone of these we read is the same thing.  How could it possibly happen and yet it does.  Hence “accident”.  

I read accident reports intently and with a careful eye because there is always something to be learned from them if the investigators were able to come to a reasonable conclusion (sometimes they simply can't). One of the many items that I take to heart is the experience of some of the pilots, many are ATP's with thousands of hours, yet some of them found themselves in situations that they couldn't overcome, and that concerns me to no end. Of course there are dozens of VFR pilots who get in over their head when encountering IMC, but the ones that strike me are the incidents involving well seasoned pilots and I ask myself how it could possibly happen, yet they do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2021 at 10:51 AM, mike_elliott said:

I know I read that it was returned to service after inspected in accordance with Appendix G of Canadian Aviation Regulations Standard 625, for what thats worth. @M20Doc would have a better feel if it involves engineering structural analysis or a "well, that looks ok to me, even tho we now leak a bit from the tanks..." standard. These planes have a redline far below where this was operated at for reason, and this one wasnt made of a super aluminum others were not made of. S=P/A is not a dynamic formula, either the exceeded speed was wrong, the original never exceed speed was miscalculated, or physics are wrong, but something doesnt "compute"

 

 

 

My first thought after reading was how does one know the data recorded was accurate if the instruments recording were,malfunctioning ?

second, with regard to the never exceed speed.  I am certain that there is a healthy margin built into those numbers and are also calculated for unexpected turbulence.  (Edited.... this is not a suggestion to avoid the limits or overestimate speeds, just a not that there is t anything engineered today for a consumer market that doesn’t have safety factors built in)
either way, it appears the pilot is lucky to be alive. 
I have a had more than one failure in IMC, and I can tell you conclusively, that your back pockets are touching even when you do everything right!

this incident doesn’t make me want vacuum instruments anymore, but I do think I would prefer a backup of a different brand. Two of the same devices failing simultaneously, when it wasn’t an electrical fault had to be like lottery odds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, M20F said:

It’s an accident.  Almost everyone of these we read is the same thing.  How could it possibly happen and yet it does.  Hence “accident”.  

Agreed, I could point all to the V-Tail Bonanza ATP rated pilot that died along with his 2 passengers when he tried to descent through an IMC Layer from about 7000' to 1700' after a loss of his vacuum pump - which he knew about while still VMC and didn't think he would have any issue - I say that primarily not to be a smart ass but because he didn't even slow down from cruise before descending into IMC. Sadly he didn't get but about 1000' down from where he started before managing to over stress the plane and break the tail off causing an aluminum shower spread out over a mile on the ground. Way to many pilots don't take partial panel seriously enough.

Incidentally, I sure wish this was properly posted in the "Mooney Safety and Accident Discussion" forum plus the title is so misleading I only stumbled across this by accident. Maybe we can get Craig to move this to its proper forum - no offense to the OP who likely doesn't know the difference. Its an excellent topic and was very thankful to see it posted. But its really nothing to do with Vintage Mooney's other than it happended in one.

Edited by kortopates
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, kortopates said:

but because he didn't even slow down from cruise before descending into IMC. Sadly he didn't get but about 1000' down from where he started before managing to over stress the plane and break the tail off

Wow, didn't slow down?  Failure to think?

Configure for a stabilized approach, set power and trim for 500 fpm, after that it's all about using the TC to keep the wings level and pull out MP as you descend to control speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

Agreed, I could point all to the V-Tail Bonanza ATP rated pilot that died along with his 2 passengers when he tried to descent through an IMC Layer from about 7000' to 1700' after a loss of his vacuum pump - which he knew about while still VMC and didn't think he would have any issue - I say that primarily not to be a smart ass but because he didn't even slow down from cruise before descending into IMC. Sadly he didn't get but about 1000' down from where he started before managing to over stress the plane and break the tail off causing an aluminum shower spread out over a mile on the ground. Way to many pilots don't take partial panel seriously enough.

Incidentally, I sure wish this was properly posted in the "Mooney Safety and Accident Discussion" forum plus the title is so misleading I only stumbled across this by accident. Maybe we can get Craig to move this to its proper forum - no offense to the OP who likely doesn't know the difference. Its an excellent topic and was very thankful to see it posted. But its really nothing to do with Vintage Mooney's other than it happended in one.

Wasn’t this the one where he was in VMC on top and there were VMC conditions not far away?

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kortopates said:

I sure wish this was properly posted in the "Mooney Safety and Accident Discussion" forum plus the title is so misleading I only stumbled across this by accident. Maybe we can get Craig to move this to its proper forum - no offense to the OP who likely doesn't know the difference. Its an excellent topic and was very thankful to see it posted. But its really nothing to do with Vintage Mooney's other than it happended in one.

@mooniac58

Is there a way to move this really IMPORTANT THREAD as requested by @kortopates above..?

And adjust the title too?

The safety issues have become more important to properly broadcast than the OP originally had in mind…

Best regards,

-a-

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn’t this the one where he was in VMC on top and there were VMC conditions not far away?
Clarence

Yes, about 45 min away is my recollection. But in fairness to the pilot, i’d put that on the controller in that the pilot did declare and asked the controller if there was any better weather than by his destination and the controller didn’t look beyond the airports in his sector. The controller didn’t take the emergency very seriously either. But the nevertheless the PIC should have been more direct and say he had x hours of fuel on board and ask what VFR airports were they in range of.
But there a lot of things the pilot could have done to have greatly increased their chances of survival.

Instrument skills are the quickest to perish. The Bonanza pilot was just getting back into flying after a long hiatus- at least in his Bonanza. With the Mooney pilot the report only mentions hours - not the all important instrument time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

but the ones that strike me are the incidents involving well seasoned pilots and I ask myself how it could possibly happen, yet they do.

This for me is the most intesting part of this incident and why I would love to hear the pilot’s version of what transpired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing rarely discussed with partial panel, in the classic 6 pack, is the condition of the TC or T&B.  While the gyro itself is quite reliable, the damping and response can deteriorate.  It may be one of the most ignored instruments until it is making grinding noise or is used for partial panel.  I recently started working with someone on their instrument rating and the TC worked, but was unusable.  It had no damping and was twitchy to an extreme.  The airplane was legal for IFR, so we theoretically could have been in the soup and one vacuum pump failure from disaster.  Also, it must be remembered that a TC and a  T&B are slightly different instruments and have different behavior with regards to roll response.  Even if someone has done partial panel work on one, they may not be fully proficient on the other.  My point is, there may be additional variables in the pilots ability to maintain control under partial panel, especially when renting or borrowing an aircraft, as was the case here.  I have to wonder if the Condition of the remaining instruments was investigated.  It would be easy to overlook a misbehaving secondary instrument when equipped with such modern primaries.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob,

I have spent years mentioning how crummy the TC is as a back-up device…

Your explanation why it fails the user miserably is incredibly helpful… :)

Worn TCs look and behave well in smooth air…. Add turbulence bumps, and suddenly they are un-followable…

Thanks for filling in the details on how some TCs become un fit for use as back-up to AIs in IMC…

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given this and the other thread on the dual reversionary 275 failure, I wonder if it is time for the FAA to seriously consider an AD, at least on dual systems. Its a great instrument with lots of detail, but like all things electronic, has a propensity for ceasing to be. 

The major problem with the TC as a backup is turbulence. When the plane gets tossed around the TC pretty quickly exceeds the limits of what little it can tell you. It is helpful in calm, stable conditions but that is about it. I have yet to meet one that does a 2 minute turn in anything approaching 2 minutes, except for the TC in the 275, which seems to be very accurate.

The other backup partial panel instruments such as the ASI and HSI/DG are lagging indicators, they don’t tell you what attitude you are putting the plane in with your current control moves, they tell you what the result is of the (unknown) attitude you put the plane in a minute ago. Expect major altitude and airspeed variations in actual turbulent IMC partial panel and a real workout. You had better have some altitude AGL, you are going to need it.

It is very apparent that redundant AI’s of separate technologies is necessary to maintain life safety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, carusoam said:

@mike_elliott has demonstrated the ability to have interesting guest speakers present their experiences at Mooney Summit…

The recovery from an actual unusual attitude would surely make an interesting presentation… with a few lessons learned…

:)

Best regards,

-a-

/new under ware event = on

Thanks for the compliment Anthony. This year, Rick Junkin has put together the agenda and is doing the lions share of heavy lifting. Make sure those of you who attend let him know how appreciative you are of all the time and effort he is putting in for your benevolence.

That said, I personally have been in an unusual attitude in IMC and have shared this story with a number of you and my clients when training. Suffice it to say, a simple distraction like in my case ATC asking everyone on a certain freq change to a new freq and me trying to plug it in while trying to remember what she said during a decending turn. Next thing you know, I look back to the gauges from the radios and I am going down 1500' min and a 45 deg bank. "Best fix this or die" I say to myself shortly before ATC says "27V, everything ok?"

/ New under ware event = over

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

/new under ware event = on

Thanks for the compliment Anthony. This year, Rick Junkin has put together the agenda and is doing the lions share of heavy lifting. Make sure those of you who attend let him know how appreciative you are of all the time and effort he is putting in for your benevolence.

That said, I personally have been in an unusual attitude in IMC and have shared this story with a number of you and my clients when training. Suffice it to say, a simple distraction like in my case ATC asking everyone on a certain freq change to a new freq and me trying to plug it in while trying to remember what she said during a decending turn. Next thing you know, I look back to the gauges from the radios and I am going down 1500' min and a 45 deg bank. "Best fix this or die" I say to myself shortly before ATC says "27V, everything ok?"

/ New under ware event = over

This is why I always write down freq changes on my kneeboard before reaching for the radio . . . . Memory ain't always what it's cracked up to be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while ago I read in the Canadian regulations that in order to remove the turn coordinator you require 3 AI’s. Transport Canada seems to think that they’re still important.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2021 at 7:35 AM, Shadrach said:

I’ve been thinking about this and think what you suggest is possible. However, I don’t find the data that hard to believe. Doing a loop in something as slow as a Stearman will yield momentary crime rates in excess of 10,000FPM. In a Mooney, 242KIAS would be easy to attain In an inadvertent full throttle “spilt S”. It’s a strong airframe. I’m not surprised that it stood up. And everything he did during this upset could be performed without exceeding the known limits of the airframe though it sure looks like he came close…. Really would be interesting to see the G loading data

I didn’t find it hard to believe either.  Damage from overloading the airplane (speed or Gs) doesn’t happen exactly at the published limits.  I don’t see the airplane coming apart 1 kt or 0.1 G over the limits, but at some point damage starts to happen.  Maybe invisible at first, but increasing with continued stress until things become noticeable like the popped rivets and leaking fuel.  
In the F-15E (yes, it’s designed a little differently but the same principle), we had had Level 1-5 for Over Gs.  Level 1 just requires an inflight battle damage check by your wingman, then continue.  Level 3 might require declaring an emergency and an exterior maintenance inspection.  Level 5 requires all of the above plus the pilot buying the crew chief a case of beer and helping him remove every single inspection panel on the airplane.

I think the guy did great by somehow not pulling 8 Gs when he saw the ground coming up through the haze.  That might have initiated uncontrolled disassembly.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2021 at 12:17 PM, flyboy0681 said:

Spot on. If the two -275's didn't have independent AHRS, the second unit would have been rendered useless. My partners and I are now looking into a second GI 275 for the HSI and we are insisting that the unit have its own AHRS separate from the current ADI.

Can’t imagine it’s possible they didn’t have their own AHRS. You wouldn’t be able to put it in hsi mode if it didn’t have its own. Reversion wouldn’t work etc. 

but I’ve had a dual AHRS failure with two independent 275s. Garmin took possession of the plane for 2 weeks for engineering diagnostics but didn’t give any specific answer to either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had correspondence with the lead investigator for the Canadian occurrence. You can read the report that gathers information pertaining directly to what happened as opposed to what could have been.  The dual failure wasn't detailed in the report as the 2nd unit, the HSI was not configured as a backup instrument.  The Primary ADI went into realignment for an unknown reason and the pilot failed to maintain control of the airplane with the backup instruments.

The correspondence did reveal the HSI that was installed months before the ADI, was with ADAHRS +AP and backup battery.  It was configured as an HSI only, meaning it could display nothing else besides an HSI, never an ADI.  Because it was not a backup, no reversionary switch was required.  The AHRS source set on the HSI was the one in the ADI, not in accordance with the AFMS.  Wrong AHRS source is why the HSI failed at the same time as the Primary ADI.

What could have been:  First, it would have been helpful to have the HSI AHRS set up on it's internal AHRS source per the AFMS (Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement).  If the airplane had remained straight and level, the ADI should have realigned.  That may have taken a minute or two.  That is a long time in the clouds.  Not straight and level, realignment may take longer, if at all. The AFMS says if the AHRS is lost in the ADI, the AHRS can be sourced from a 2nd unit having ADAHRS, in this case the HSI.  Even better would have been for the owner and shop instead of an HSI, configure the second unit as a Standby ADI/MFD.  Use the HSI all day long but if the primary ADI realigned, the 2nd unit would automatically change to the ADI screen.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.