Mooney down near PIA

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

Well, I guess everyone was wrong about the water damage…

Watched that Facebook video. I wonder if landing gear-up would have made a difference.

IMHO, it would have. They would have slid to a stop quickly; even if they still hit that building the slower speed might have saved them.

This accident video really has me thinking that landing gear up may be the smart play unless dead sticking into an actual airport.  Previously, I've always thought I'd decide based on how the site looked whether I'd land gear up, or not.  This situation with a hard surface road would have been one where I would have had the gear down....now, I'm not so sure that's a good plan.

[Marauder]

IMHO, it would have. They would have slid to a stop quickly; even if they still hit that building the slower speed might have saved them.
This accident video really has me thinking that landing gear up may be the smart play unless dead sticking into an actual airport.  Previously, I've always thought I'd decide based on how the site looked whether I'd land gear up, or not.  This situation with a hard surface road would have been one where I would have had the gear down....now, I'm not so sure that's a good plan.

I think the terrain will dictate some of that decision whether the attempt should be wheels up or down. A friend of mine did an emergency landing after his prop broke. Attempted to belly land in a field and ended up with broken backs for him and his passenger. Got to think that the wheels would have dissipated some of that downward force in his situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ilovecornfields]

I thought the “experts” said you were supposed to land gear up in a field so the gear didn’t get caught on something or flip you over?

I think sometimes you’re just screwed no matter what you do. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to Bob Hoover it, but some situations are going to have crappy endings no matter what. Your only option may be to choose the least crappy alternative. 

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, Marauder said:

I think the terrain will dictate some of that decision whether the attempt should be wheels up or down. A friend of mine did an emergency landing after his prop broke. Attempted to belly land in a field and ended up with broken backs for him and his passenger. Got to think that the wheels would have dissipated some of that downward force in his situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That just sounds like that falls into the "sometimes you're just screwed" category.  I'd be more worried about catching the gear and flipping.

I've thought a good STC would be for seats with a 'crush zone' like helicopter seats often have.  I'd think even an inch of a compressible material would greatly reduce the vertical 'G' force and reduce back injuries.

[LANCECASPER]

I've never thought much about the AMSAFE airbag seat belts until watching that video. The airplane I bought last November has them and I've been thinking that it's just one more thing that needs an inspection, but in that impact that may have limited their travel and slowed down their impact.

The first crash is the vehicle crashing into something. The second crash is the occupant crashing into something in the vehicle. The third crash are your insides (like brain hitting the skull). 

[Marauder]

That just sounds like that falls into the "sometimes you're just screwed" category.  I'd be more worried about catching the gear and flipping.
I've thought a good STC would be for seats with a 'crush zone' like helicopter seats often have.  I'd think even an inch of a compressible material would greatly reduce the vertical 'G' force and reduce back injuries.

In his case, the field was solid, he just didn’t realize that it had a slight upslope until he was committed. I think the wheels being down would have helped in his situation either to absorb some of the impact or allowed him to roll a bit on the slope.

I agree our seats aren’t designed for any type of crash absorption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Raptor05121]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

IMHO, it would have. They would have slid to a stop quickly; even if they still hit that building the slower speed might have saved them.

This accident video really has me thinking that landing gear up may be the smart play unless dead sticking into an actual airport.  Previously, I've always thought I'd decide based on how the site looked whether I'd land gear up, or not.  This situation with a hard surface road would have been one where I would have had the gear down....now, I'm not so sure that's a good plan.

My personal minimums in addition to weather and LOTOT is for dead-stick landings. Unless there is a runway in front of me, the gear is staying up. It seems to be the prevailing way to the best outcome for off-field landings IMHO

[bradp]

Why go for a road with power lines and vehicles when there are miles of fields (as I understand corn and soy) around? I get the corn avoidance. A soy field would be preferable. 

[Ragsf15e]

23 minutes ago, bradp said:

Why go for a road with power lines and vehicles when there are miles of fields (as I understand corn and soy) around? I get the corn avoidance. A soy field would be preferable. 

Agree. I wonder if someone can post a satellite picture of the landing sight and we could see what he might have had to choose from?  Roads have hard things all around them.  Fields usually not but depends on the field.

[Marauder]

Agree. I wonder if someone can post a satellite picture of the landing sight and we could see what he might have had to choose from?  Roads have hard things all around them.  Fields usually not but depends on the field.

Gil’s is the restaurant it crash next to.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Ragsf15e]

Here’s a picture.  Hanna City is about.75nm across.  Not sure what fields are corn, but it appears fields were available vs a small city street.  Always tough to second guess, especially because he did actually land under control (not stalled).

[Ragsf15e]

Just now, Marauder said:

Gil’s is the restaurant it crash next to.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

You beat me!

[Marauder]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Marauder]

You beat me!

You need a faster processor. Hard to say why Route 116 was selected in the town.

From the terrain maps, it looks relatively flat just south of town. Depending on what was planted in those fields, it could have factored in the decision to land on the road.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Guest]

19 hours ago, carusoam said:

More eyewitness accounts…

https://www.pjstar.com/story/news/2022/08/13/small-plane-crashes-in-hanna-city-illinois/65402753007/

Missing corner of the building may have something to do with the accident….

If you zoom in on the picture, it appears to have only the standard fuel filler cap, no long range tanks.

 

[kortopates]

I used to think gear down on a solid flat surface was a good strategy. I changed that long ago to only if there is sufficient distance to roll out safely after seeing many aircraft make the perfect landing only to hit something before they could get slowed down. If the impact didn’t get them often the fire and explosion did. So now I am convinced a wheels up landing can greatly improve one’s chances getting slowed down enough to avoid lethal impact when the rollout isn't clear or very limited.
Unfortunately, there is little we can do with a low wing aircraft to avoid clipping a wing and going sideways other than try to get slowed down before it happens or avoiding roads with traffic in the first place.

In this case hard to know if a gear up landing would have made enough difference to help, since the pole came up real fast. In hindsight, seems like landing in one of the nearby fields would have given more room to safely decelerate.

Of course we’ve all seen pilots pull off landing on a freeway on the news without any damage and want to optimistically try to replicate that rather than pick a guaranteed damaging crash site. But we need to be realistic about sacrificing the plane to protect our butts.

Speaking of back injuries, we do have control over the speed we make contact with the ground but easier said than done when trying to set it down between moving vehicles or ducking under over head wires and the like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited August 14, 2022 by kortopates

[Brandt]

 

 

[Raptor05121]

2 hours ago, bradp said:

Why go for a road with power lines and vehicles when there are miles of fields (as I understand corn and soy) around? I get the corn avoidance. A soy field would be preferable. 

I flew survey for 6 months all around Peoria and Springfield two years ago. Very intimately familiar where he went down. Right now is corn fields with full stalks or already harvested fields. Both are preferable over downtown main street.

 

[Will.iam]

I just wonder if you lockup the brakes and dump the flaps on touch down is it really that much longer of a ground roll than belly landing of which you have no control once you are skidding down the street and i would think at on gear level if you hit an on coming car better to hit at engine grill level than scooting on the ground and have the car grill engine at chest / head hight or maybe car rolls over top of you in the collision making survival less of a chance. I mean we think of landing on the gear being longer because we are trying to save tires from getting bald spot / blowout but in this situation i would think intentionally standing on the brakes would slow the plane aggressively and maybe if it’s starting to veer off course you could let up on one brake or push rudder to have the nose wheel help with directional control. Are there even tests or data to support or rebuke this either way? Am i just way off on this hypothetical setup?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

Well, I guess everyone was wrong about the water damage…

Watched that Facebook video. I wonder if landing gear-up would have made a difference.

I think it would float longer and further with the gear retracted.  The ground effect cushion is pretty good with the wing mere inches from the ground. Also I’d have to wonder about the friction of three tires versus metal on asphalt.

[takair]

1 hour ago, Will.iam said:

I just wonder if you lockup the brakes and dump the flaps on touch down is it really that much longer of a ground roll than belly landing of which you have no control once you are skidding down the street and i would think at on gear level if you hit an on coming car better to hit at engine grill level than scooting on the ground and have the car grill engine at chest / head hight or maybe car rolls over top of you in the collision making survival less of a chance. I mean we think of landing on the gear being longer because we are trying to save tires from getting bald spot / blowout but in this situation i would think intentionally standing on the brakes would slow the plane aggressively and maybe if it’s starting to veer off course you could let up on one brake or push rudder to have the nose wheel help with directional control. Are there even tests or data to support or rebuke this either way? Am i just way off on this hypothetical setup?

I don’t think you want to lock up all together.  That leads to skidding which causes the rubber to essentially liquify and actually reduces friction.  It’s the equivalent of hydroplaning.  It is the reason anti-lock brakes exist.  You are right, you would want to maximize braking, but not to the point of locking up.

[Shadrach]

14 hours ago, M20Doc said:

I think it would float longer and further with the gear retracted.  The ground effect cushion is pretty good with the wing mere inches from the ground. Also I’d have to wonder about the friction of three tires versus metal on asphalt.

This was my thinking as well. I’ve never landed gear up but the “in cockpit” videos I’ve seen do not demonstrate significant deceleration .  I think a Mooney with the gear up on hot Asphault would float like an air hockey puck. I also dislike like the idea of losing almost all directional control upon touchdown.  This was an odd place to chose to land off airport. Looks like the Main Street in a very small town. It was full of cars and and other obstacles..  The aircraft touched down just ~250’ from the building that it hit.  I don’t think putting it in on the belly would have made much difference. I am baffled by the chosen landing sight given the surrounding terrain.

[MikeOH]

With heavy, but not maximum, braking I can make the first turn-off at home field; 650 feet.  How far does a gear up mooney slide after contact?  I'd bet less than that.  As far as float, I would be deliberately flying on, not waiting around for a full stall landing!

[ilovecornfields]

Would be great to have some information on what the actual distances are. I found this video of a Cessna 210 landing gear up in San Luis Obispo (KSBP) at 2:56 and it looks like they slide past where I usually stop with the gear down. I'm assuming you might still have a little bit of steering with the rudder for the first few seconds landing gear up. With damaged or sheared landing gear you may lose directional control faster than you would with a flat surface.

I agree. Doesn't look like the most favorable landing site.

 

[Will.iam]

Is that maximum braking with  raising the flaps? As more weight on wheels makes s huge difference. And wasn’t there a guy on here that videoed stopping at 400ft? Granted it was a C or E model not an ovation but still impressive.