Mooney accident Central Jersey, April 4, 2022…

[ilovecornfields]

There’s a surgical procedure we sometimes perform in the ED called a “resuscitative thoracotomy.” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resuscitative_thoracotomy - warning - pictures are very graphic). It’s not the most technically challenging procedure to perform but it is quite invasive and for this reason providers are often reluctant to do it until it’s too late (survival rates around 1% are quoted). I’m not saying I do this procedure often , but the times I’ve done it I had to prepare myself and everyone in the room that this might happen, otherwise it would have been a total disaster.

I kind of see the go around this way. If you’re going to do it, you need to be prepared to do it early and the it’s not very challenging to do. If you wait too long to realize you’re in trouble then your chance of survival drops precipitously. 
I was taught that every landing ends in a go around unless you find yourself in conditions to make a safe landing. I think having this mindset helps. I’ve probably done more go-around than others here but I’ve also never bent any metal in over 30 years of flying.

[exM20K]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

Good point but you should also point out 2 other things that any pilot landing there should have been aware of.:

1. If you are landing on 07 then you do not have 3507 ft.  The threshold is displaced 580 ft.  The available runway is only 2927 ft. 
2. Also if you are landing on 07 there is a 0,6% downslope on the runway - the elevation at the beginning of 07 is 85 ft and the elevation at the end of 07 (beginning of 25) is 63 ft.  That is one more thing hindering your ability to stop if you are fast and touch down long.

Foreflight has a Takeoff and Landing runway required function for the premium subscriptions.  I find this very useful and reliable.  It will pre-populate with surface winds and weights from your flight plan and offers the capability to add a "safety" factor of, say 120% of book distance.  The calculation returns total distance, rollout, and approach speed (1.3 Vso).  Natch, it's not going to be very useful if you're too fast, and it serves as a good reminder to maintain the correct airspeed on final.

-dan

[201er]

I love how intact the cabin is. Other than a bend to the center tube, looks unchanged. Even the doors open.

[cliffy]

How do Cessnas ever make a successful go around by leaving their gear down?

They all must crash at the end of the runway because they can't climb with the gear hanging out.

[EricJ]

22 minutes ago, cliffy said:

How do Cessnas ever make a successful go around by leaving their gear down?

They all must crash at the end of the runway because they can't climb with the gear hanging out.

They don't have big drag-making holes in the bottom of the wings when the gear is down.    Bonanzas at least plug half the hole with the inner gear doors.    I think this is why M20Ds could climb well with the gear down, too.

 

[cliffy]

On a go around its only the first 100 feet or so that (for the most part) actually matter. Get above the trees and wires.

Go arounds are not and emergency maneuver. They're just a takeoff from a few feet above ground  (unless you put yourself into a dangerous position in the first place-(too low too close to the trees) 

The difference in height or time/distance to 100 feet with the wheels out or in is small and there are not many people who can fly that precisely where it would make a difference AND if there was THEY wouldn't have put themselves in that position in the first place and IF that much close performance was needed to use a particular airport maybe a reassessment of ones skill set is needed before that operation.

It works whether its a Boeing or a Mooney  Careful application of full power, full RPM and rich mixture (unless high altitude) smoothly fly the airplane to accelerate to climb speed and by then you will be at or near 100 agl so calmly retract flaps to T/O position, retract the gear and then retract the flaps on speed.   Calmly and with smooth application of controls

Its NOT an emergency maneuver, its just a takeoff when you are already at flying speed. 

Don't make it more than what it is. 

And NO I disagree that the open wheel wells will make that much difference at 80-90 kts speed up to 100 AGL.

The gear IMO just doesn't have that much drag at low airspeed to make that much difference to 100 AGL

[carusoam]

Check the Long body gear doors…

They probably all share the 3-piece doors…

One of those pieces is an inner door for closing half the well…

 

Continue to be nice to the downed airman…

I would really like to hear his story… 

 

There is a similar Mooney accident that occurred in NJ… a late decision to go around, on a shortish runway, in a rented plane…. With disastrous results… tree.

Best regards,

-a-

[BravoWhiskey]

8 minutes ago, cliffy said:

On a go around its only the first 100 feet or so that (for the most part) actually matter. Get above the trees and wires.

Go arounds are not and emergency maneuver. They're just a takeoff from a few feet above ground  (unless you put yourself into a dangerous position in the first place-(too low too close to the trees) 

The difference in height or time/distance to 100 feet with the wheels out or in is small and there are not many people who can fly that precisely where it would make a difference AND if there was THEY wouldn't have put themselves in that position in the first place and IF that much close performance was needed to use a particular airport maybe a reassessment of ones skill set is needed before that operation.

It works whether its a Boeing or a Mooney  Careful application of full power, full RPM and rich mixture (unless high altitude) smoothly fly the airplane to accelerate to climb speed and by then you will be at or near 100 agl so calmly retract flaps to T/O position, retract the gear and then retract the flaps on speed.   Calmly and with smooth application of controls

Its NOT an emergency maneuver, its just a takeoff when you are already at flying speed. 

Don't make it more than what it is. 

And NO I disagree that the open wheel wells will make that much difference at 80-90 kts speed up to 100 AGL.

The gear IMO just doesn't have that much drag at low airspeed to make that much difference to 100 AGL

I disagree a bit here.  My first full power go around in the Bravo was an eye opening experience for me.  Trim and flaps are set so the nose wants to go straight up and rudder isn't in T/O position.  So I feel the need to “wrestle” the plane to be straight and level while I gain speed and reconfigure her to takeoff settings.  Different characteristics then being properly trimmed for takeoff.    I’m only a low time pilot but that has been my personal observation.

[cliffy]

Unless you put yourself in a dangerous position max power IMMEDIATELY in most cases is not needed

As I mentioned smooth application of power necessary to accomplish what is needed. 

If you don't need full power why go there immediately?

You don't need to put yourself into an uncontrollable situation just to make a go around. But YES you will have to maintain so semblance  of control with trims out of place.  It may not need MAX power initially to arrest the sink and gain some speed

This is where I differ from what is taught today for go arounds. We teach it as if its an emergency and its not in the vast number of cases and pilots get scared of it because of the way we teach it. You don't have to slam the throttle to the firewall to start a go around. Do it smoothly and in stages. Even at mins IMC smooth application of power (less than max) will arrest the sink before going below mins and smoothly retrim and apply more power as you continue the go around.

Practice it sometime at altitude Set up a normal approach and then try smoothly applying 1/2 or 3/4 full power, pitch to slightly nose up as you accelerate, retrim and then add more power and retrim some more. Do it smoothly and with patience.  

[carusoam]

26 minutes ago, BravoWhiskey said:

I disagree a bit here.  My first full power go around in the Bravo was an eye opening experience for me.  Trim and flaps are set so the nose wants to go straight up and rudder isn't in T/O position.  So I feel the need to “wrestle” the plane to be straight and level while I gain speed and reconfigure her to takeoff settings.  Different characteristics then being properly trimmed for takeoff.    I’m only a low time pilot but that has been my personal observation.

This is why we would like to hear from the good Bravo driver….

There are so many links in this accident chain… and not enough data to know if the plane landed, or made some contact with the runway…

How many links need to be broken to end up on the street…?

 

Some human responses to runway being used up….

• Hitting the brakes….  They are pretty ineffective at high speeds…. More runway slips by…
• Going full throttle… doesn’t accelerate very fast… More runway slips by…
• Off the ground… trimmed full up… at full power… is a bit of a rodeo… more power, more nose up tendency…
• To calm the rodeo… uses good arm strength… or less than full power…
• Delay while thinking… more runway slips by…

 

Especially, if you haven’t landed long in eons of good flying…

The halfway point of every runway is a common decision point… have that thought out in advance…

Gear up makes great stopping power…

Some pretty tough choices to run through in short order…

 

PP thoughts only, not a CFI…

Best regards,

-a-

[jetdriven]

15 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

And after a pilot has properly briefed for runway length, markings and weather, I hope everyone knows what the solution is and the best way to prepare for situations like this.  PRACTICE TOUCH AND GOES.  And stop the insane debate here that it is unsafe to practice touch and goes in a Mooney..  If you don't practice touch and goes then you will be surprised and may feel rushed at the very moment you need to execute the maneuver - hesitation at that moment when you need to act can be deadly especially if there are obstructions.

Your describing a rejected landing which is not the same as a touch and  go.  I am also a strong advocate of these, but not touch and gos. 

[David Lloyd]

7 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Your describing a rejected landing which is not the same as a touch and  go.  I am also a strong advocate of these, but not touch and gos. 

Nor is it the same as a missed approach.  10 knots fast, 100 feet high, a little tailwind, a downslope runway, all these things add up.  Doable with a 5000' runway, maybe 4000', maybe even 3500'.  Less than 3000'? Won't work for a Mooney. Making the go-around decision while floating in ground effect halfway down the runway won't work with 3000' either.

Go find a 3000' runway and set up for a normal landing.  10' off the runway, put the power in and go around.  How far down the runway before you are back above the tree tops?  What would have happened beginning the go around more than halfway down the runway?  Everyone should visit a shorter runway and practice occasionally.

[DXB]

Missed approach, go-around, rejected landing, touch and go...related concepts with perhaps some important differences worth contemplating - suspect these differences and their related procedures are better codified for the guys who fly big jets. For them, the rejected landing may be one that's best left to practice in the big sims? For us, the practice missed approach from 200 AGL with the foggles on is a lot like the go-around from 20 AGL at the threshold, yet the visual cues are quite different.  Also for us, practicing a rejected landing melds into the touch-and-go concept quite a bit... but I'm still not expressing opinion here on the appropriateness of touch and goes in a Mooney 

[exM20K]

10 hours ago, cliffy said:

Unless you put yourself in a dangerous position max power IMMEDIATELY in most cases is not needed

As I mentioned smooth application of power necessary to accomplish what is needed. 

If you don't need full power why go there immediately?

Agree 100%. Upwind to crosswind on a balked landing features prominently in SR22 mishaps, including the only two fatal mishaps I witnessed.  Full power, P factor, mis or disuse of rudder, and the pilot cranks it into a left turn. Plane is already yawed nose left and very close to critical AOA. Left wing stalls, and you’re done.

The second one I witnessed was at 1C5, and the pilot had bounced repeatedly.  It is this sort of less-than-total control that separates a rejected landing from a go around.  T&G’s in my experience, have been used to save time in primary training, and the maneuver is very different from a rejected landing: no anxiety, the plane is performing as expected, and no fixation or tunnel vision on the abnormal state (running out of runway, the approaching obstacles, or the imminent prop strike after bounce number 2.

Approopriate practice could be combined with crosswind practice: Fly aligned with the runway centerline in or above the ground effect, and initiate the go around from landing configuration. Get that muscle memory in place, and the more comfortable you are with the less-than-full power need, the you’re more likely to perform well under stress.

Finally, in long descents, I will trim in quite a bit of left rudder.  I’ve inserted into my approach to landing checklist “neutralize rudder trim.”  In practice, I go a bit right of center to lessen the load on go around.  Full power, left rudder trim, and flaps full->approach would be a handful. And a foot-full!

-dan

[cliffy]

To throw a monkey wrench in the works (or is that too old of a phrase?)

I don't quite understand the reluctance to well planned touch and gos even in Mooneys

I used to do T&Gs in 727s and 737s and not in the sim!  Same with low approaches to a go around.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about either.

Let's call it what it is- What we have is a competency issue.  

Not enough experience or training to competently handle the airplane in any reasonable situation.

And as I have said here previously- many of our accidents are nothing more than too much airplane for the trained level or experience of the PIC. 

Its sometimes hard to swallow the truth pill. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by cliffy

[carusoam]

2 minutes ago, cliffy said:

 

I don't quite understand the reluctance to well planned touch and gos even in Mooneys

 

Cliffy,

Apparently, most of the reluctance is…

TnGs are a large source of GU landings… 

There is so much going on at one time… distraction/brain fade, blocks proper use of the gear mechanism… (switch or J-bar)

 

Everyone needs to find a way to keep distraction away… 

Key words… “Well Planned”

Best regards,

-a-

[cliffy]

4 minutes ago, exM20K said:

Agree 100%. Upwind to crosswind on a balked landing features prominently in SR22 mishaps, including the only two fatal mishaps I witnessed.  Full power, P factor, mis or disuse of rudder, and the pilot cranks it into a left turn. Plane is already yawed nose left and very close to critical AOA. Left wing stalls, and you’re done.

We have a Cirrus here that does training and I watch all the time as they do T&Gs, Its ALWAYS slam the throttle forward and I listen as the engine/prop combo cycle thru about 3 cycles of trying to come to a stable RPM. Waaa-waaa-waaa as the prop tries to catch and stabilize the power delivery. 

Slamming the power fwd only causes control problems and engine/prop wear and tear. Its not necessary. 

[PeteMc]

8 minutes ago, cliffy said:

I used to do T&Gs in 727s and 737s and not in the sim!

At Moses Lake?  Remember passing by one time and seeing a plane and a the runways looking very proportional and "normal" initially.  Then it hit me about how long the Rwys are there and what size that plane must have been.   Similar situation years later seeing a C-5 going into Stewart, NY (KSWF). 

[cliffy]

2 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

At Moses Lake?  Remember passing by one time and seeing a plane and a the runways looking very proportional and "normal" initially.  Then it hit me about how long the Rwys are there and what size that plane must have been.   Similar situation years later seeing a C-5 going into Stewart, NY (KSWF). 

No 727s at T&T near MIA out in the swamp and 737s at MKC  During the heyday of GI Bill training thousands of T&Gs were done at BFL in Lear 20s

[Shadrach]

On 4/5/2022 at 12:25 AM, 1980Mooney said:

He was landing on 07.  He had filed to land there at 47N.  He was doing 104 kts and at 125 ft geometric at approx. 0.3 miles from the threshold of 07.  Field elevation is 86 ft.  40 ft. AGL is a bit low and he was a bit fast but he should have landed.  No idea why he departed off the end of the runway.

ADS-B Exchange - tracking 6005 aircraft (adsbexchange.com)

A bit fast?  Let's see... runway is 3507', DT is 580', so 2927' available for landing.  Nearly 1.8*Vso on final if he was at gross weight which he most certainly was not after a 2hr flight so likely much closer to 2xVso.  Flame me for speculating, but if the data is reliable, it looks to me like he never really landed on the runway... His wheels may have touched but the plane was likely still flying.  With the end of the runway getting closer and closer the landing was likely aborted and botched. Carrying that much surplus energy into the runway environment can bite anywhere, much more so with <3000' to work with.  Glad he made it out.  Lack of fire was a godsend...

[Shadrach]

I don't disagree that a pilot should be able to handle a go around.  However, I think it more likely that poor speed control on final caused this accident, the abort/go around was the final link.  Not enough folks practicing slow flight nor being disciplined with approach speeds.  I don't fly an Ovation, but I can do math.  1.3Vso at Gross weight is 76KTS.  Can someone help me understand why you would want to be faster than that?  FAA generally recommends 1.4XVso on base leg which rounds to about 85kts in a Bravo a MGW.  Is there something unique about long bodies that encourages extra speed?  If I found myself  arriving at the threshold at 1.4Vso or above without a good reason, I would not consider myself current to carry passengers.

[Cruiser]

I have no opinion on the chain of events leading up to the decision to go around.

Once that decision was made, the outcome was inevitable. It sounds like the airplane got behind (backside of) the power curve. When on the backside of the power curve, the airplane will not climb and with obstacles ahead, the only way to react is to pull back in an effort to make the plane climb, but it is impossible to do. The plane wallows in a very high angle of attack just barely flying, It is going to go down even at full power. A very sick feeling when there is nothing you can do to stop it. 

[Cruiser]

6 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

snip ...  I don't fly an Ovation, but I can do math.  1.3Vso at Gross weight is 76KTS.  Can someone help me understand why you would want to be faster than that? ...snip

as with many other models, the Ovation gets mushy going that slow, Not as responsive to the controls and gives the pilot and uncomfortable feeling. 
Not an excuse, only an observation. 

 

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, Cruiser said:

as with many other models, the Ovation gets mushy going that slow, Not as responsive to the controls and gives the pilot and uncomfortable feeling. 
Not an excuse, only an observation. 

 

Understood. They all feel mushy at slow speed. They all share the same control surfaces.  I’m trying to discern if there is something about long bodies that makes them feel more sluggish. I would not think there is much difference in roll from model to model. 

[Bravoman]

15 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

as with many other models, the Ovation gets mushy going that slow, Not as responsive to the controls and gives the pilot and uncomfortable feeling. 
Not an excuse, only an observation. 

 

As I recall from my Bravo days, which I reminisce upon fondly, I  didn’t want to be much over 75 knots over the fence unless in gusty conditions. I always shot for between 70 and 75 depending on weight, runway length, etc. It was the sweetest landing plane I ever flew.