Minnesota Crash

[LANCECASPER]

It usually takes at least* a year for the NTSB to release their final report

 

*edited from "about" to "at least" so that @1980Mooney is able to sleep tonight and this hijacked thread can get back on track

[LANCECASPER]

4 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Not a chance - you are dreaming.
N576CM - The first M20V Acclaim Ultra that crashed on 6/11/2019 in Arizona.  There is still no Final Report - It is approaching 3 years now.
N1149T - M20J fatal formation flying in Florida on 2/13/2020.  The Final just came out 2 weeks ago - More than 2 years
N777WP - M20K fatal that crashed in California on 3/13/2020.  There is still no Final Report.  2 years and counting.
 

I just checked my vital signs on my watch - I'm wide awake. In the 37 years I’ve been following aircraft accidents it has usually taken about a year, some less, some more. It makes sense that in the past couple years that it has taken longer.

[carusoam]

The Acclaim one is an important one…

It was an engine out for a TN’d IO550…That started the accident chain…

What happened after the engine quit was terribly unfortunate…

The lesson we learned from Mark is incomplete…

But we do know… landing on roads can be a really hazardous environment…

Select an open field if able…

Best regards,

-a-

[HumbleNarrator]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

It was an engine out for a TN’d IO550…That started the accident chain…

TSIO-550. While in this application it's essentially turbo-normalized (IIRC Mooney fixed it at 33"), calling it a "TN'd IO550" conjures up aftermarket bolt-on TN kits like those from Tornado Alley. This was an all-Continental factory engine that failed a few hours into its life. (I'm not a huge fan of the [TS]IO-550, though I don't have statistics to back up my sense that they're less reliable than they should be.)

Edited March 31, 2022 by HumbleNarrator

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I just checked mine too because I couldn't remember the last time that the NTSB completed a Final Report on a Fatal Mooney crash in less than one year.

As it turns out the last time the NTSB completed a Final on a fatal Mooney crash in less than a year was back in 2014. (In January  2014 Ovation N1046L took off from a non-towered airport in Michigan in darkness, overcast below 1,000 ft., limited visibility blowing snow white-out conditions, without filing a IFR flight plan or getting a current weather briefing.  The plane stalled and crashed shortly after take-off. It was not too hard for the NTSB to determine what happened)

Back in 2012 and 2013 the NTSB completed a couple other Final Reports in less than a year but if you look at the last 10 years it has taken the NTSB generally 18-24 months to issue a Final Report for fatal Mooney crashes.   And now it does seem to be taking a bit longer requiring more than 2 years to complete the Final Reports.

In the U.S., during the past 10 years, there have been 57 fatal Mooney crashes (according to the Aviation Safety Network Database).  One from 2019 remains open, one from 2020 and all in 2021 are open.

The facts speak for themselves.

 

		Accident		Final Report
N Number		Date		Date		Years
N4474H		7/15/2021		Open		Open
N9156Z		8/7/2021		Open		Open
N3933H		10/21/2021		Open		Open
N40KA		10/28/2021		Open		Open
N3284F		11/6/2021		Open		Open
N3707H		12/26/2021		Open		Open
N6796N		12/31/2021		Open		Open
N1149T		1/4/2020		3/11/2022		2.18
N777WP		3/13/2020		Open		Open
N56359		1/31/2019		6/1/2021		2.33
N3270F		2/8/2019		6/10/2021		2.34
N111JP		5/8/2019		2/9/2022		2.76
N201DG		5/28/2019		12/3/2020		1.52
N576CM		6/11/2019		Open		Open
N8354E		10/24/2019		3/4/2022		2.36
N201BJ		10/25/2019		12/14/2021		2.14
N5557Q		12/11/2019		3/9/2022		2.24
N602TF		12/31/2019		5/5/2021		1.35
N123JN		2/12/2018		8/11/2020		2.50
N213EJ		3/26/2018		4/8/2020		2.04
N9133Z		5/6/2018		8/11/2020		2.27
N56039		8/2/2018		4/13/2020		1.70
N231EC		8/11/2018		8/25/2020		2.04
N701JM		9/4/2018		12/3/2020		2.25
N9667M		10/23/2018		1/28/2021		2.27
N113TA		11/26/2018		5/19/2020		1.48
N6201N		1/12/2017		3/14/2018		1.17
N53CP		9/16/2017		12/17/2019		2.25
N6894N		11/23/2017		4/20/2020		2.41
N96398		5/9/2016		12/11/2017		1.59
N97119		5/21/2016		2/19/2019		2.75
N7830V		6/11/2016		2/12/2018		1.67
N526AM		9/25/2016		3/18/2019		2.48
N66BB		3/4/2015		3/29/2017		2.07
N5608Q		7/4/2015		7/25/2016		1.06
N370MM		9/10/2015		10/18/2017		2.11
N243CW		10/24/2015		8/28/2017		1.85
N1046L		1/6/2014		9/24/2014		0.72
N6704U		5/6/2014		9/7/2015		1.34
N74584		6/20/2014		5/16/2016		1.91
N72FG		7/11/2014		6/22/2016		1.95
N6447Q		7/19/2014		8/5/2015		1.05
N147MP		7/30/2014		10/21/2015		1.23
N3539X		10/27/2014		10/12/2015		0.96
N231JF		11/12/2014		9/22/2016		1.86
N6466U		11/14/2014		8/10/2016		1.74
N3484X		3/3/2013		1/30/2014		0.91
N6018X		3/28/2013		4/7/2015		2.03
N9330M		5/1/2013		7/7/2015		2.18
N57672		5/7/2013		2/23/2014		0.80
N6709U		7/22/2013		4/23/2014		0.75
N9201R		8/18/2013		10/1/2014		1.12
N7145U		10/9/2013		1/16/2016		2.27
N7145U		2/26/2012		2/13/2014		1.97
N9224M		5/9/2012		6/19/2013		1.11
N9154K		9/17/2012		11/17/2014		2.17
N9524M		12/17/2012		2/12/2015		2.16

I have no intention of arguing with you. I was just letting the individual who was looking for the report know that they haven't missed it, it takes some time. I'm sorry you had to waste all that time proving a point that was already understood. In retrospect I should have said "at least" instead of "about".

EDIT:I've changed "about" to "at least"  in my post above so that the thread can get back on track and the people interested in the results aren't bogged down by all of this.

[carusoam]

14 hours ago, HumbleNarrator said:

TSIO-550. While in this application it's essentially turbo-normalized (IIRC Mooney fixed it at 33"), calling it a "TN'd IO550" conjures up aftermarket bolt-on TN kits like those from Tornado Alley. This was an all-Continental factory engine that failed a few hours into its life. (I'm not a huge fan of the [TS]IO-550, though I don't have statistics to back up my sense that they're less reliable than they should be.)

Use caution with speculation after an accident…

The lost airman is still a part of the community’s memories…

We would all like to know about the actual causes of this accident….

 

Speculation, of course, is often done by starting a separate thread…

Mark’s whole airplane was relatively new… it could have been anything that could interupt the airflow, fuel flow, or sparks from flowing properly…

Feel free to start a different thread…

Best regards,

-a-

[HumbleNarrator]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

Use caution with speculation after an accident…

The lost airman is still a part of the community’s memories…

We would all like to know about the actual causes of this accident….

 

Speculation, of course, is often done by starting a separate thread…

Mark’s whole airplane was relatively new… it could have been anything that could interupt the airflow, fuel flow, or sparks from flowing properly…

Feel free to start a different thread…

Best regards,

-a-

What's speculative about what I wrote? It is (was) a TSIO-550, not a "turbo normalized" IO-550 (as you wrote). It was an "all-Continental" engine that was only a few hours into its life (N576CM received its airworthiness certificate January 31, 2019, crashed June 11, 2019). The pilot reported a "rough running engine" on a recorded ATC frequency.

[A64Pilot]

While I don’t know anything about the accident and landing on a road, but in Army flight school we had to write on all our maps “All roads have wires”.

It’s not often that a road is the best choice

[carusoam]

4 hours ago, HumbleNarrator said:

What's speculative about what I wrote?

 

20 hours ago, HumbleNarrator said:

though I don't have statistics to back up my sense that they're less reliable than they should be.)

Using your words exactly…

It sounded like speculation to me.

Of course, I’m not a writing expert…

 

Without The final report… we typically hold off on speculation….

There are several reasons for this…

And I’m happy to explain it all…

If you want to discuss infant mortality of engines we have threads for that as well…

Mooney accidents involving the death of the aviators take on a bit of extra sensitivity…

 

If it helps… you are welcome to send me a PM…

Best regards,

-a-

[HumbleNarrator]

On 3/31/2022 at 9:09 PM, carusoam said:

 

Using your words exactly…

It sounded like speculation to me.

Of course, I’m not a writing expert…

 

Without The final report… we typically hold off on speculation….

There are several reasons for this…

And I’m happy to explain it all…

If you want to discuss infant mortality of engines we have threads for that as well…

Mooney accidents involving the death of the aviators take on a bit of extra sensitivity…

 

If it helps… you are welcome to send me a PM…

Best regards,

-a-

In that sentence I wasn't referring to this accident specifically, just my general sense, and not necessarily infant mortality. I've never seen one (admittedly, I only have about 2 dozen I've flown behind) that make it to TBO with all original cylinders. I've seen some gnarly failures (rods through cases). I've worked a number of accidents, and talked to a lot of experts. The consensus is that we're seeing more [TS]IO-550 engines fail in flight than you'd expect in relatively new airframes. But kind of like a medical doctor who notices "everyone has the flu these days," those observations are of somewhat limited scope. The stats might be that the big bore TCMs are the most reliable things out there. But eyebrows have been raised.

[GeeBee]

7 hours ago, HumbleNarrator said:

In that sentence I wasn't referring to this accident specifically, just my general sense, and not necessarily infant mortality. I've never seen one (admittedly, I only have about 2 dozen I've flown behind) that make it to TBO with all original cylinders. I've seen some gnarly failures (rods through cases). I've worked a number of accidents, and talked to a lot of experts. The consensus is that we're seeing more [TS]IO-550 engines fail in flight than you'd expect in relatively new airframes. But kind of like a medical doctor who notices "everyone has the flu these days," those observations are of somewhat limited scope. The stats might be that the big bore TCMs are the most reliable things out there. But eyebrows have been raised.

Given that almost half the "late model" single engine airplanes produced have the [TS]IO-550 engine, and the other half are of various makes and models, it kind of makes sense you would see that the [TS]IO-550 was the dominant failing engine in new airframes. Think about it.

  

[exM20K]

9 hours ago, HumbleNarrator said:

In that sentence I wasn't referring to this accident specifically, just my general sense, and not necessarily infant mortality. I've never seen one (admittedly, I only have about 2 dozen I've flown behind) that make it to TBO with all original cylinders. I've seen some gnarly failures (rods through cases). I've worked a number of accidents, and talked to a lot of experts. The consensus is that we're seeing more [TS]IO-550 engines fail in flight than you'd expect in relatively new airframes. But kind of like a medical doctor who notices "everyone has the flu these days," those observations are of somewhat limited scope. The stats might be that the big bore TCMs are the most reliable things out there. But eyebrows have been raised.

Here is a number to put some context to your observation: 107.  That is the current total of CAPS “Saves” (ugh) as of September of last year.  Most Cirrus piston aircraft are powered by a TSIO550 or IO550.  Not all chute pulls are engine failures, not all engine failures are chute pulls, and not all engine failures are mechanical.  But I’d bet that especially since Cirrus started focusing on training, most engine failures do lead to chute pulls.  Just for fun, let’s pretend that 107 is the number of catastrophic engine failures.

the cirrus fleet flies approximately 1 million hours per year. So in 10 years of flying, 107 engine failures in 10 million flight hours?  And many of the 107 were more than 10 years ago.

107 / 10,000,000 is an astonishingly small number.  
-dan

[carusoam]

Odd use of statistics follows…

For reliable engines…

There may be about a half dozen MSers that have graduated up to turbine engine flying…

Turbines are known for their reliability….

I would gladly go turbine if Mooney had that option… 350shp would be fine for me…

 

Of that half dozen planes and pilots we know pretty well…

One of them had an engine out recently… with a successful landing…

 

So much for statistics and selecting a reliable engine… 
 

Fly early, often, and train much…. Read up, live long…

Best regards,

-a-

 

[hais]

6 hours ago, exM20K said:

Here is a number to put some context to your observation: 107.  That is the current total of CAPS “Saves” (ugh) as of September of last year.  Most Cirrus piston aircraft are powered by a TSIO550 or IO550.  Not all chute pulls are engine failures, not all engine failures are chute pulls, and not all engine failures are mechanical.  But I’d bet that especially since Cirrus started focusing on training, most engine failures do lead to chute pulls.  Just for fun, let’s pretend that 107 is the number of catastrophic engine failures.

the cirrus fleet flies approximately 1 million hours per year. So in 10 years of flying, 107 engine failures in 10 million flight hours?  And many of the 107 were more than 10 years ago.

107 / 10,000,000 is an astonishingly small number.  
-dan

Mike Busch has an article on failure modes of piston engines - reading that you get a better appreciation on how reliable engines really are. 

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, carusoam said:

Odd use of statistics follows…

For reliable engines…

There may be about a half dozen MSers that have graduated up to turbine engine flying…

Turbines are known for their reliability….

I would gladly go turbine if Mooney had that option… 350shp would be fine for me…

 

Of that half dozen planes and pilots we know pretty well…

One of them had an engine out recently… with a successful landing…

 

So much for statistics and selecting a reliable engine… 
 

Fly early, often, and train much…. Read up, live long…

Best regards,

-a-

 

I have read a bit about reliability of turbine engines and how that reliability description is usually stated.  I am sorry I cannot remember source - but paraphrasing, forgive me....

I read that turbine engines are incredibly reliable on their own, on the order of 100 times more reliable than a piston engine - as far as the engine is concerned.  But other things that can cause an engine to quit, which can happen in piston or turbine, are still there, including 

-fuel contamination

-fuel starvation, and fuel starvation comes in multiple varieties including good old hard knock pilots forgetting to add enough fuel, to something wrong with the fuel delivery system such as for example fuel pump, frozen lines, water in the lines freezing, which then relates to fuel contamination.

If you drive the reliability of one component (the engine itself) to almost zero, the next largest factors dominate the problem.

I don't know what the actual reliability of turbine propulsion is, full system evaluated instead of just the engine part, but my guess from having heard many anecdotes of engine stoppage which would be so rare as to likely never hear about it if it were as reliable as claimed, is it is much more reliable than piston but not nearly a hundred times more reliable.

Edited April 4, 2022 by aviatoreb

[A64Pilot]

Turbines are reliable largely due their age (they aren’t as old usually) the level of maintenance they get, the amount of money usually spent on them, and there are so many time limited items that if followed pretty much replace items prior to failure.

If you look at turbine Ag aircraft that usually are flown more like normal GA aircraft, their reliability is less, most often what brings down a turbine Ag plane is engine failure

[T. Peterson]

On 8/9/2021 at 11:39 AM, exM20K said:

this one doesn't seem all that mysterious to me. LOC on an instrument approach (meandering across the LOC) due to incapacitation, vacuum / instrument failure, or other unknown, break out of the overcast at low altitude in unusual attitude at warp 9, big hard pull, and that's it.

Very sorry for the loss.

-dan

I am certainly no expert, but Dan’s  explanation seems to me the most plausible. Even a Mooney wing can’t take that kind of a hit. American lost an Airbus a few years ago just due to over controlling the rudders. The tail separated and that was in controlled flight during climb. I can’t imagine the stress on those wings if Dan’s theory is correct and I think it is correct.

 I too am very sorry for the loss of these lives.

Torrey

[LANCECASPER]

This one is particularly troubling. No accident has to happen, but this one was so preventable on so many levels. The list is lengthy of what led up to the accident. 

I always cringe when people say that the wing is indestructible on a Mooney and they repeat the old story that when the wing was tested the wing didn't break but the test jig did. Anything that gives a false sense of security is not a good thing. Any wing or any airframe will come apart if it is subjected to enough force. Even if the wing is over-built, which I'm not sure that it is, the elevator is not. Test pilots have reported a lot of flutter at speeds not much over Vne and that is a major reason Darwin Conrad of Rocket Engineering said years ago that a small turbine wouldn't do well on the M20 airframe.  Vne is there for a reason and should be respected on a Mooney just like it should be on any airplane. So sad for the families, but hopefully this can be studied in safety classes and much can be learned.

[ArtVandelay]

Final is out, highlights:

Estimated they exceeded 8 Gs.

Friend indicated Mooney was difficult to control speed when pitching down?

Pilot was doing S turns to slow down (using rudder) despite having speed brakes, and used trim for pitch control, both were his normal SOP.

Pilot would normally use the autopilot, why he wasn’t is unknown. He rarely did ILS, preferred GPS approaches.

Found allergy medication in his system.

Out of currency.


So my takeaway: on drugs possibly making him sluggish, doing an approach he wasn’t familiar with and probably couldn’t get the autopilot working using ILS, and poor habits to try to compensate for his poor technique and didn’t use the tools available to him…..accident was foreseeable.


https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/103651/pdf

[jlunseth]

On 8/13/2021 at 7:33 PM, tigers2007 said:

Mine has been private for years. All I asked them was to make it private. I didn’t give any sort of reason. On the other hand my aircraft registration is not. Nor is FCC address data.

False sense of security. It is private in what the FAA puts out. However, the world is now full of private receivers that get the full ADSB information. You can go on websites and find that information. Or an anti-noise, anti-flying activist can find it easily. Get the tail number go to the registry, get the home address. 

[Brandt]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

You may have missed that a new topic on this very crash was started in "General" on this back on March 23 when the Final came out.  There are 3 pages of comments.  Yes I know it is confusing when people don't post Accident discussion in the "Safety and Accident" topic section....

 

If you’re referring to my post it actually was posted in the Safety and Accident forum?

[ArtVandelay]

If you’re referring to my post it actually was posted in the Safety and Accident forum?

I think he was referring to mine, but I’m confused as well by multiple threads, I just did a quick search and this thread is what I found.

[Nippernaper]

I thought it might be good to wrap up some of the structural strength discussion that occurred in this thread, now that the final report is out.  NTSB estimates the wings failed during a pull-up (or tightening of the spiral dive) at more than 8 Gs.  Three passengers, and the plane's gross weight is listed at 3564 lbs.  Assuming partial fuel and standard passenger weights, weight at the time of the accident would be somewhere around 3340 lbs (based on an assumed useful load of around 990 lbs).  So, failure load is somewhere around 26,700 lbs for the wings under positive (upward) loading.  For those of us flying mid-bodies or short bodies, with essentially the same wing structure, that means the wing failure load is somewhere north of 9.5 Gs.  Probably more, since the decrease in weight from the long bodies to the mid and short bodies is mostly in the fuselage and engine, which will decrease the bending moments in the wings more than a straight ratio of weights.

Summarizing, although the Mooney wing is not infinitely strong, and you can break them by going fast enough and pulling back hard enough, they are incredibly robust, and likely one of the strongest airframes in the GA fleet.

 

[Shadrach]

7 minutes ago, Nippernaper said:

I thought it might be good to wrap up some of the structural strength discussion that occurred in this thread, now that the final report is out.  NTSB estimates the wings failed during a pull-up (or tightening of the spiral dive) at more than 8 Gs.  Three passengers, and the plane's gross weight is listed at 3564 lbs.  Assuming partial fuel and standard passenger weights, weight at the time of the accident would be somewhere around 3340 lbs (based on an assumed useful load of around 990 lbs).  So, failure load is somewhere around 26,700 lbs for the wings under positive (upward) loading.  For those of us flying mid-bodies or short bodies, with essentially the same wing structure, that means the wing failure load is somewhere north of 9.5 Gs.  Probably more, since the decrease in weight from the long bodies to the mid and short bodies is mostly in the fuselage and engine, which will decrease the bending moments in the wings more than a straight ratio of weights.

Summarizing, although the Mooney wing is not infinitely strong, and you can break them by going fast enough and pulling back hard enough, they are incredibly robust, and likely one of the strongest airframes in the GA fleet.

 

This sort of puts to rest the myth that the pilot will lose consciousness before the spar gives up.  The thing that I found remarkable was the symmetrical failure. I would expect a hand built structure to have a single weakest point that would fails first...after which aerodynamic loads would be reduced. I never expected to see wings folded in the same spot to the same degree (more or less).  

 

[Nippernaper]

It may seem counterintuitive, but it does seem like that's how wings typically fail.  See video link below of a cropduster pulling it's wings off.