M20M Crash near Pomona, CA

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: allsmiles

 

[kortopates]

The NTSB preliminary report gives very little to go on. The witness they quote tells us the final outcome appeared to be stall/spin about 2/3's of mile from the runway after getting very low and slow. Additionally, there were other witnesses quoted by the press in the parking lot of the complex of the accident site that thought the plane lost power and thought the pilot of the plane was trying to set down on the racetrack till it hit a light tower yet the NTSB chose not to include this somewhat conflicting witness account in their preliminary report so we'll have to wait for the full report to hear what they piece together for the flights final moments.

I personally disagree with the notion that the Mooney needs a larger pattern, or that striving for a tighter pattern is what's leading to stall spin accidents in the pattern. This is simply not true IMO. Large vs tight is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. But to try and put a number on it, it shouldn't be a problem to fly a Mooney on the downwind within a mile of the runway. Stall/spin are most commonly the result of getting low and slow and then often made fatal by uncoordinated turns or excessive bank for the airspeed in the base to final turn. Its the excessively larger pattern, often from being too far behind the airplane, that leads to getting low in the first place and once low there is a tendency to bleed off airspeed from reducing descent rate and increasing reluctance by the pilot to drop the nose as they're approaching a stall thinking they can fix it with power alone since they're already getting too low - which is too often fatal.

A good pattern to strive for, IMO, begins as a continuous descent abeam the numbers and is able to make gradual power reductions or does not need a power increase to make the runway. It just doesn't need a excessively large pattern to do that, but it does require flying a standard pattern and nailing your target airspeeds and descent rate while being aware of the effect of the wind and compensating accordingly.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: kortopates

I personally disagree with the notion that the Mooney needs a larger pattern, or that striving for a tighter pattern is what's leading to stall spin accidents in the pattern. This is simply not true IMO. Large vs tight is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. But to try and put a number on it, it shouldn't be a problem to fly a Mooney on the downwind within a mile of the runway. 

[Shadrach]

Quote: kortopates

A good pattern to strive for, IMO, begins as a continuous descent abeam the numbers and is able to make gradual power reductions or does not need a power increase to make the runway. It just doesn't need a excessively large pattern to do that, but it does require flying a standard pattern and nailing your target airspeeds and descent rate while being aware of the effect of the wind and compensating accordingly.

[eldeano]

I always felt that the chances of engine failure are remote as well, and you still have options.  I'll take the wide pattern.  I also turn out wide after passing about 3/4 of the runway on my circle to land instrument approaches were you tend to be very low.  Technically on an instrument approach you should not be at more then standard rate, even on circle approaches anyway.

At work we have Cessna 208's and you can throw those things around and make them do anything,  short approach, no problem.  I find that when I am in the Mooney I am better off declining short approach requests and flying extended downwinds instead.  Works out much better.

[jetdriven]

I usually fly a little larger pattern than in a 150 but I want to be close to the airport. I tend to fly a steeper pattern as a result, and use 25-30 degrees of bank generally for turns.  Occasionally 45 degrees such as a turn from base to final with a tailwind.  Be aware of your stall speed vs bank (ACTUALLY stall speed vs. G-loading), and unload the wing if a moderate bank angle at lower airspeed.

[jlunseth]

You can define a pattern mathematically.  The turn from downwind to final is one half of a circle or 180 degrees, and the distance from downwind to final is the diameter of the full circle.  Assuming the aircraft is flying at 90 kts., or 1.5 nm per minute, a standard rate turn (2 min.) gives the following result:

2 min. x 1.5 = 3 nm is the circumference of the circle, and the dia. is the circumference divided by pi, so:

Dia. = 3/3.1415926 = .95 nm

A "cockpit simple" way of doing this is 1% of airspeed, or .90 nm.

Using a standard rate turn and not going wings level to square your base will require about a mile.

If you are willing to do a 180 at 30 degrees of bank, my PilotWizz calculator says that is .41 nm .  Again, no change in bank and no squared base. 

Also, this does not allow for any wind.  If pattern altitude wind is 10 degrees across your final course, you need another at least .2 miles.

Things do change during this phase of the approach.  I generally slow to 90 on the downwind, then 80 for final and 75 over the fence, but I also square my base.  The reason for squaring base is simple.  If you do not, you will never see the aircraft on short final, the pilot has not been announcing, or has been but switched to the wrong frequency, or never switched at all.  That aircraft will be under your belly.  So despite the fact that your airspeed is slowing during the downwind to final, you are also not going to want to maintain a standard rate turn or an unvarying bank angle, you are going to make turns and go wings level for a period.

Given this, my rule of thumb is that a half mile pattern is tight, too tight, and should be done only in special instances such as circle to land with weather issues.  3/4's of a mile works, but you still need to make tight turns and if you get to square your base it will be only for a second or two.  I like a 1 mile or better pattern.  It allows you to square base and look for traffic on short final, and none of the turns need to be overly tight.  A 1 mile pattern also allows me to drop one notch of flaps only, and maintain 90 until on final before dropping the second notch and slowing to 80.  This gives me a much better buffer above stall speed, which in my aircraft is 66 at 30 degrees, but if I am forced to increase the bank for any reason, such as coming in on one parallel, there is an aircraft on another, and the wind is pushing me there, if that bank angle goes to 45 my stall is high 70's, and over that the stall is over 80 kts.

I like doing the "drop in" tight patterns as much as anyone.  I have done hundreds of them.  I did a couple dropping in to Kalispell from over the mountains with the speed brakes deployed that were really fun.  It has just occurred to me that it is not the hundreds I have done that I should worry about, it is the one I have not done yet where the wind is unanticipated, the turns too tight, and I am just momentarily distracted from maintaining airspeed or pitch.  I really love adventures, so much so that I would like to have a few more.

[scottfromiowa]

In the Midwest we have "sections" gridded in many areas.  Usually running with cardinals these one mile field references are good indicators to let you know "where you are" in relation to physical distances from airports.  I use them regularly while in the pattern and making turn from downwind to base.  My GPS gives me an audible alert "500" this is generally when I am on final.  If I hear "500" while on base I know I'm low.  A nice reminder in addition to visual references.

[richc22a]

Quote: jetdriven

I bet for every airspeed indicator that sticks there are 100 pilots in the grave who simply got distracted and stalled the airplane.

[johnggreen]

The simple habit of limiting all banks to a maximum of 30 degrees in the pattern, would save a lot of lives.

Jgreen

[Cris]

Keep in mind that the Mooney and its wing are basically a motorized glider. When the CFI suggests to keep the pattern tight so that one can glide to the field in the event of an engine out point out that our A/C will glide a lot further than other A/C. Hence no need to keep a pattern as tight as one might in a Piper or Cessna & certainly no need to overbank as John G points out. 

[jetdriven]

Keep in mind the 1.43 increase in stall speed in a 45 degree bank only applies in level flight, in a descending turn, its less.

[PTK]

Quote: Cris

Keep in mind that the Mooney and its wing are basically a motorized glider. When the CFI suggests to keep the pattern tight so that one can glide to the field in the event of an engine out point out that our A/C will glide a lot further than other A/C. Hence no need to keep a pattern as tight as one might in a Piper or Cessna & certainly no need to overbank as John G points out. 

[drmarkflies]

Thanks for the analysis John. I used to fly my M20M patterns like I was in the 172 trainer and always had to pull hard on the reigns on final (i.e., pitch up to slow down). I'm now usually flying the 1 mile pattern you suggest. Doing so really reduces the workload, allows slow-down time, and having space to square out the patten makes it easy to see others in the pattern. I got scolded by ATC at KFTG for my 1-mile pattern... too close to KDIA bravo I guess, but mostly I think, a good practice.

[Shadrach]

IMHO, the difference in glide ratio means little. A mooney is not basically " a motorized glider" (even the most inefficient gliders drop at ~20/1 and 30 or 50/1 is more common).  It is an airplan and a sleek design when cleaned up in cruise. When dirtied up in the pattern at 1000ft the "glide ratio" advantage is not as significant as one might think.  Fly the numbers, don't worry about the size of your pattern. The wing does not care if you're flying a .5 mile, 1 mile, 2 mile, 3 mile etc...base leg, it only cares that you've not exceeded critical AOA regardless of balk angle. To focus on anything else is folly and in my opinion, poor airmanship...

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Shadrach

IMHO, the difference in glide ratio means little. A mooney is not basically " a motorized glider" (even the most inefficient gliders drop at ~20/1 and 30 or 50/1 is more common).  It is an airplan and a sleek design when cleaned up in cruise. When dirtied up in the pattern at 1000ft the "glide ratio" advantage is not as significant as one might think.  Fly the numbers, don't worry about the size of your pattern. The wing does not care if you're flying a .5 mile, 1 mile, 2 mile, 3 mile etc...base leg, it only cares that you've not exceeded critical AOA regardless of balk angle. To focus on anything else is folly and in my opinion, poor airmanship...

[Cris]

Quote: Shadrach

IMHO, the difference in glide ratio means little. A mooney is not basically " a motorized glider" (even the most inefficient gliders drop at ~20/1 and 30 or 50/1 is more common).

[drmarkflies]

Quote: Cris

I think the Bravo is about 1:13... based on experiments. Does anyone know the actual spec for the Bravo and whether it is the same as the Ovation?

[Shadrach]

Quote: Cris

Oh my, I just don't seem to be able to get a metaphor across. The issue referenced is simply that the Mooney is an efficient aircraft & has a much greater ability to glide than say a 172 N with about a 1:9 ratio. In other words at 1000' the 172 will glide 9000' in no wind conditions. The Rocket & Missile referenced will go 16000' and the F model 12,700' for each 1000' of altitude. I think the Ovations are a bit better. To get that glide one would pitch up to best glide speed & retract the gear not to difficult in an engine out sceanario especially if one practices occasionally. The point is not that the Mooney is a motorized glider but rather that I'd rather be in it than another A/C with a lesser glide and yes it does therfore allow for a wider patteren with the same level of safety as brand X all else considered.  

 

[fantom]

Quote: Shadrach

 

[Shadrach]

Quote: fantom

 

No, it's thankfully always been under the cowl when I check it

[fantom]

Quote: Shadrach

[Shadrach]

Quote: fantom

[jlunseth]

Ross, no one discounts your thoughts because you fly an F.  Its a great plane.

But I have to repeat, for every one time the engine quit, twenty pilots stalled and spun, and nine of those pilots died.  That is what started this thread.  And the one time the engine quit, the pilot lived.

The glide ratio is not very important to how one flies a pattern.  Its only usefulness is to refute the argument that we should fly tight patterns because the engine might quit.  It does that alot less than we kill ourselves, and if it does quit in a Mooney, you don't need to be over the hangar buildings to make the runway. 

There is another piece of this that needs to be said.  If a Mooney pilot flies a tight pattern and makes, let's say, a base to final tight turn, and the pilot's eyes focus on the ASI and drift away from the turn coordinator a little bit, then the plane skids slightly, the pilot is now in the classic setup for a cross controlled stall.  I have only flown an F once, and we did not stall it, but I understand the older, shorter bodied aircraft are better behaved in stalls.  These pieces, I have to say, really impressed me:

http://www.mooneyevents.com/flying1.html

http://www.mooneyevents.com/spins.html

http://www.mooneyevents.com/spins2.html

What impressed me most was two things.  First, "Full stall -- BAM! -- we're upside down in a spin. " is pretty fast.  Second, some of the comments were that it does not take much of a cross control, and very little error on the pilot's part in responding the wrong way by pulling back on the yoke.

We practice these types of stalls precisely because they are the kinds of things that happen in the pattern. 

I am not impressed by controllers or guru's who put Mooneys in the same class as aircraft with 40 something stall speeds.  They would not make comments if a Citation or King Air flies a wide pattern into the very same airport. 

I posted a comment to Landsberg's blog, never heard back. 

[jlunseth]

 

Have you ever lost an engine?