Minnesota Crash

[jlunseth]

The NTSB gave a press conference, I believe yesterday. Its on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/KSTPTV/videos/978394926281658/?t=7

Not much additional informational that we do not already have, except the NTSB rep makes clear that it was the left stabilizer and elevator that departed the aircraft. He says nothing about the right assembly so I would assume that was on the aircraft when it impacted. Three people in the aircraft, sadly all deceased. Two in the house, fortunately uninjured. He says things like, "the plane was 10 miles out and on final" without saying the magic words "instrument approach," but he confirms there was a solid deck. 

[Scott Dennstaedt, PhD]

1 hour ago, jlunseth said:

Thank you for the actual weather Scott. He was landing on 10R according to the ATC recording, that would have put the aircraft right at intercept altitude for the ILS or the RNAV 10R into FCM. 

There was a cell that had passed to the east by the time I heard about this accident and looked at the wx at around 8 pm. It was small in diameter but the top was 37k or better. Is there a way to retrieve the NEXRAD at the time of the accident, which apparently was around 6:40 CDT? This is speculation, but the pilot deviated left of the final approach course a little, and that may even have been before he penetrated the deck if the deck was 2900. It is possible he was trying to avoid a cell sitting on the final approach course or a little south of it. That would help explain a deviation to the north to avoid the cell, then a correction back south to get on the final approach course, and then an immediate turn to the north if he ran into the cell again.

John,

I assumed the accident was 5:40 pm CDT based on the Flightaware track?  At that time the accident area was dominated by a thin stratocumulus deck.  The only cell was over 30 miles to the southeast.  This cell was rapidly dissipating and moving ENE well south of the MSP area.  The IR image I posted earlier also shows just a stratocumulus deck in the immediate area of the accident.  There was no deep, moist convection within 30 miles.   I also checked the Level II NEXRAD to see if there were any outflow boundaries passing through the approach corridor to FCM.  Didn't see any.  The only thing I see in the NEXRAD shows a stabilizing atmosphere setting in with time.  

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, Scott Dennstaedt, PhD said:

John,

I assumed the accident was 5:40 pm CDT based on the Flightaware track?  At that time the accident area was dominated by a thin stratocumulus deck.  The only cell was over 30 miles to the southeast.  This cell was rapidly dissipating and moving ENE well south of the MSP area.  The IR image I posted earlier also shows just a stratocumulus deck in the immediate area of the accident.  There was no deep, moist convection within 30 miles.   I also checked the Level II NEXRAD to see if there were any outflow boundaries passing through the approach corridor to FCM.  Didn't see any.  The only thing I see in the NEXRAD shows a stabilizing atmosphere setting in with time.  

So low level but “Gentlemen’s IFR”.

[jlunseth]

Thanks Scott. The cell that was east later in the day, looked as though it would have passed well south of the accident site. It does not appear he ran into a cell.

[toto]

51 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

jlunset and David Lloyd have mentioned the Instrument Approaches for 10L and 10R.  Maybe it is a coincidence but N9156Z started to turn off course immediately after Tower cleared Dr. Edney for 10R.  The reason I highlight this is because that is the exact location of waypoint SIGCO which is the IAF for RNAV(GPS) 10L.  The plane had already passed the IAF for RNAV(GPS) 10R at waypoint ZAMUD.

The pics indicate that he still has the Garmin 530/430 WAAS stack with the  King KFC-150 Auto-Pilot.  I have the same stack with a different autopilot.

Is it possible, just possible, that he had set up the Garmin 530 for 10L and when Tower cleared him to land 10R that he tried to switch the the Approach back to the correct runway?  First of all the Garmin 530 can be a bit confusing when making that change.  I assume he was already coupled up and letting the autopilot take him in.  Remember that the IAF for 10R was behind him at that point.  As he dialed in the correct approach on the Garmin the autopilot would try to turn the Mooney back towards the IAF at ZAMUD.  This leads to immediate confusion in the IMC and generally the quickest way to resolve is to either disconnect the autopilot or cancel the approach on the Garmin 530.  Trust me - I have dealt with this situation before.  That would mean he would need to hand fly it and get back on course.  It could be nerve-wracking at the worst time and lead to disorientation.

 

This is all pretty interesting - especially the turn just after passing SIGCO.

Being overloaded by GNS buttonology is clearly a possible factor here, but it does seem strange that he would pick the 10R approach with ZAMUD instead of “vectors” or whatever. Feels more like he hit the AP disconnect and then SD got him while maneuvering.

Obviously the right thing to do after hearing the 10R clearance would have been to query the tower controller and get back on the same page before selecting a new approach. If he was relatively low-time (or relatively inexperienced with the AP), he might have used the disconnect button by rote instead of selecting HDG while coordinating with tower. 

05094R10L.pdf 05094R10R.pdf

[toto]

By the way, does anyone have a LiveATC recording of the approach controller before the handoff?

[lithium366]

I am a bit skeptical about eyewitness comment in youtube: most likely he could not hear the sound of an airplane until the last 1-2 seconds because the rate of the descent was so high. However looks like he saw it enough to describe a lot of details and according to his own words - the sound of an airplane is what made him to think, look up, find an airplane in a sky and capture so many details

Edited August 9, 2021 by lithium366

[Shadrach]

52 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

I am surprised that the tower wasn’t more persistent in making contact with him especially since he was on an instrument approach.  He had a low altitude alert which he never corrected.. The alarm must’ve been going off continually in the tower. The tower controller should’ve noticed that his altitude was not recovering and continuing to drop. When I listen to liveATC archive I don’t think the tower tried to contact him and ask him if he needed assistance until after he had already crashed.

Perhaps a teachable moment for the controller but don’t think it would have changed a thing. My guess is the pilot was severely disoriented before the alert:

3100 87KTS

6 secs +1000fpm avg

3200 79kts

8secs +750fpm avg 

3300 77kts 

6 secs -1000fpm avg

3200 98kts

5 secs and -2400fpm avg

3000 126kts

Assuming no instrument failure, he was likely chasing instruments that were chasing the the plane’s dramatic pitch changes and likely doing so with wrecked inner ear from said pitch changes. 

[lithium366]

8 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Eyewitness account matches the video perfectly.  I'm not sure why people think the wings folded between frames one and 2.  They were already folded.  For them to fold between frame one and 2 is a physical impossibility. 

Unless he decided to comment after he saw the video and not an eyewitness at all

Disclaimer: my party says wings can’t fold between 2 frames

Edited August 10, 2021 by lithium366

[Shadrach]

8 minutes ago, lithium366 said:

I am a bit skeptical about eyewitness comment in youtube: most likely he could not hear the sound of an airplane until the last 1-2 seconds because the rate of the descent was so high. However looks like he saw it enough to describe a lot of details and according to his own words - the sound of an airplane is what made him to think, look up, find an airplane in a sky and capture so many details

Can you explain in more detail? I hear airplanes all the time that are miles away and much higher then this one was. The wording may be a bit awkward, perhaps even embellished, but the idea that you would only hear the engine for the last two seconds because it was descending in excess of 250kts doesn’t make sense to me.

[Flyfalcons]

14 minutes ago, lithium366 said:

I am a bit skeptical about eyewitness comment in youtube: most likely he could not hear the sound of an airplane until the last 1-2 seconds because the rate of the descent was so high. However looks like he saw it enough to describe a lot of details and according to his own words - the sound of an airplane is what made him look up

Rest assured that the sound of a rapidly descending aircraft is most capable of traveling through clouds and is audible before said aircraft emerges.

[lithium366]

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

Can you explain in more detail? I hear airplanes all the time that are miles away and much higher then this one was. The wording may be a bit awkward, perhaps even embellished, but the idea that you would only hear the engine for the last two seconds because it was descending in excess of 250kts doesn’t make sense to me.

It was previously mentioned that an airplane lost 1000ft in 3 seconds, this is more like 1/3 of a speed of the sound. You hear airplanes flying far and not towards you normally but if you look at the videos of low passing airplanes in youtube you will see that you don’t hear the sound until it is too close

[lithium366]

22 minutes ago, Flyfalcons said:

Rest assured that the sound of a rapidly descending aircraft is most capable of traveling through clouds and is audible before said aircraft emerges.

He heard the sound of a low flying airplane. Probably already as low as 1000-2000ft AGL. Based on speeds mentioned above he had 3-6 seconds to think: what’s this noise, then look up and (maybe he got lucky) to find and airplane in a relatively big sky (remember how hard it is to find traffic in the air when you scan for it?) and capture all the details about folding wings, abrupt controls, debris from the tail etc. Now add the speed of the sound into an account - an airplane was falling with 1/3 speed of the sound means 1/3 less time from the moment you hear it (2-4 seconds). 
 

My main point - we don’t have a reason to trust someone in the Internet. I am sure NTSB will speak with him and verify

Edited August 10, 2021 by lithium366

[Flyfalcons]

I dunno, when I am on the ground and hear an aircraft, I can spot it almost immediately.  Just don't be too disappointed when the eyewitness's account turns out to be just about exactly what happened.  We haven't come up with new ways to crash singles in a while, and this case will be no exception.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Flyfalcons

[jlunseth]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I am surprised that the tower wasn’t more persistent in making contact with him especially since he was on an instrument approach.  He had a low altitude alert which he never corrected.. The alarm must’ve been going off continually in the tower. The tower controller should’ve noticed that his altitude was not recovering and continuing to drop. When I listen to liveATC archive I don’t think the tower tried to contact him and ask him if he needed assistance until after he had already crashed.

I don’t think there is a reason to criticize the controller. The intercept altitude for the ILS 10R approach is 2700. The NTSB guy, in one of the interviews, says that is the approach the aircraft was on. The other intercepts (RNAV’s 10R & L)are 2700 and 2800. The aircraft was at or above intercept altitude at 17:39:39 on the ADSB graphic (and continuously before that), just 8 seconds before it impacted at 39:47. If you listen to the animated tape, tower called two or three times. Someone else earlier in the thread made the opposite comment, that the controller should have kept quiet. In this instance there was not time for the controller to make any difference.

[lithium366]

52 minutes ago, Flyfalcons said:

I dunno, when I am on the ground and hear an aircraft, I can spot it almost immediately.  Just don't be too disappointed when the eyewitness's account turns out to be just about exactly what happened.  We haven't come up with new ways to crash singles in a while, and this case will be no exception.

I am almost positive this scenario is what happened. He described the most plausible scenario 2 days after crash when he could read enough and did not say anything new. He could tell this to investigators at the scene and this would be in the news but looks like he just walked away just to post the comment 2 days later on the youtube? Just wanted to say that so far the only real evidence for us is the crappy video and chances of this comment on the youtube of being a red herring are very high. This is the beauty of the Internet: I can create a new account and comment that an airplane was flapping it’s wings and everyone will talk about this

Edited August 10, 2021 by lithium366

[DJE22]

5 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Is there a replay of the NTSB interview anywhere?  I cannot find anything.  If so please provide the link.  Thanks

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/08/mooney-m20m-257-tls-bravo-n9156z-fatal.html
 

[ArtVandelay]

The animated tape is compressed and deleted controller conversation with another plane. The tower didn’t call 3 times until well after the plane crashed. But you’re right it doesn’t make any difference in this instance. 

Actually the controller did call 3 times to give him clearance to land. Third time was just his tail number, which he acknowledged, then got his clearance and acknowledged with “roger”, no tail number IIRC.

[Davidv]

47 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

The animated tape is compressed and deleted controller conversation with another plane. The tower didn’t call 3 times until well after the plane crashed. But you’re right it doesn’t make any difference in this instance. 

I listened to the LiveATC archive and the controller does call three times immediately after checking in to give him landing clearance.  
 

https://archive.liveatc.net/kfcm/KFCM2-Aug-07-2021-2230Z.mp3

[tigers2007]

Juan did not do his homework.  Dr Edney bought the Mooney in April 2012 from an owner in Las Vegas.  Here is the ad when it was for sale last in 2012 - N9156Z | 1991 MOONEY M20M BRAVO on Aircraft.com  Read the Inspection status and it notes that the Annual is due Jan 2012.
Below is a scan of the AviationDB history of ownership.
I think he got his Instrument Ticket in 2016.  The FAA Airman will show the date of the latest certification. Don't know when he got his Private.  I do not believe the statement that he got his Private in 2016 is creditable.
 

Right on 1980! I cringe/get angry when I see major media talking-heads falsely associating the certificate date with being the total-years-of-experience.
When I had to change the address with the FAA in 2018 I was shocked to see that my “certificate date” was now dated 2018. The first thing I thought of is how I would be judged if something tragic were to happen; “Oh that guy Ed? He JUST got his license this year!” Yet I’ve been flying since the 90’s.

[kerry]

I've flown in the right seat of this airplane when it was based at KVGT.  At the time this airplane was in excellent condition.  The previous owner let it go and built a RV10.  It's very surreal to hear the events of this Mooney.  To those that past away may they RIP.

[Cody Stallings]

13 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

What confuses me is how do you build the vertical velocity that the data seems to show in a nose up attitude in 2,000 ft or less, or any attitude except nose straight down.

‘I can see how wings up may contribute to the nose up attitude, the shuttle cock thing, but it seems in the first frame that they weren’t up?

Lose the horizontal and the nose will drop, not come up?

What is the max velocity of a dense object dropped from 2,000 ft?  Not that a aircraft is dense, they aren’t at all. How do you get to over 200 kts from 2,000 ft without being nose straight down and wide open, especially with the gear hanging out in the wind?

I’m not throwing any theories because frankly what appears to have happened, doesn’t seem possible.

This can get started with Vacuum Pump failure when the AI starts laying down an your on Instruments.

Matter of Fact it’s almost the Textbook left turn off the Final approach course.

[brndiar]

brilliant evaluation

 

[wiguy]

 Yep, I’m thinking Juan is on the correct track, tragic as it may be. 
 

  Hey, that’s one of my favorite birds, the Tree Swallow, sure sign of Spring. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by wiguy

[eman1200]

brilliant evaluation  

I’m just curious what’s “brilliant” about it? He states all the facts that we already know, then says it’s a LOC incident. Uh, ya, we know that. The only thing “brilliant” about that video is he says mooneys are great planes.