Mooney Down At Lakeway TX 3R9

[1980Mooney]

10 hours ago, Red Leader said:

This has gotten so far off topic - This thread was about the Mooney Down at Lakeway TX 3R9. 

Right.  He did not need to make a 180 degree turn.  At the point of engine stoppage, he was at 5,000 ft AGL and 6.3 nm from Lakeway.  Many have complained about 3R9 being short and hard to find, however it is called the Texas Hill Country for a reason.  There are not many suitable places to safely emergency land.  There was one golf course near Bee Cave (where he suffered the engine failure) and the long runway at Austin Bergstrom was 16 nm. away (which was too far away).  He should have flown more directly to land on Runway 34 at Lakeway.  There was a modest crosswind.

If he was flying best glide of about 90 kts then he would have made the runway in about 4 1/2 minutes.  Situational awareness at all times is key and critical..  As @PT20J noted, new tech like Smart Glide make it easier, but a moving map with "direct to" works - follow the magenta line.  Still it only works if you are aware, watching and thinking about your options as you fly.

Edited March 1 by 1980Mooney

[Yetti]

5 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Right.  He did not need to make a 180 degree turn.  At the point of engine stoppage, he was at 5,000 ft AGL and 6.3 nm from Lakeway.  Many have complained about 3R9 being short and hard to find, however it is called the Texas Hill Country for a reason.  There are not many suitable places to safely emergency land.  There was one golf course near Bee Cave (where he suffered the engine failure) and the long runway at Austin Bergstrom was 16 nm. away.  And he could have flown more directly to land on Runway 34.  There was a modest crosswind.

If he was flying best glide of about 90 kts then he would have made the runway in about 4 1/2 minutes.  Situational awareness at all times is key and critical..  As @PT20J noted, new tech like Smart Glide make it easier, but a moving map with "direct to" works - follow the magenta line.  Still it only works if you are aware, watching and thinking about your options as you fly.

So you are suggesting going from a rural area to gliding over a major City trying to make a very busy airport with lots of big iron coming and going? 

Edited March 1 by Yetti

[Hank]

11 minutes ago, Yetti said:

So you are suggesting going from a rural area to gliding over a major City trying to make a very busy airport with lots of big iron coming and going? 

Looks to me like he's suggesting going tonthe rural airport that he posted a picture of. Although I have a hard time faulting the pilot for "wasting" two whole minutes figuring out what was happening before turning, it does appear that he could have flown a more direct route to the airport. Would it have made a difference? Hard to tell at this point, but every little bit helps.

[Pinecone]

11 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Not the only time. Engine failure in cruise above a desirable airport or off airport landing area but  in IMC or with a thick layer of IMC below you.  Descending through the clag above best glide would yield surplus of energy when breaking out into VMC where you could slow to Vbg while maneuvering for the approach.

And doing so pisses away energy.    

I see your thinking, that you would end up breaking out with extra airspeed, but won't you feel like an idiot if doing your way ended up with you short of the runway?

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, Yetti said:

So you are suggesting going from a rural area to gliding over a major City trying to make a very busy airport with lots of big iron coming and going? 

No I am saying he should have turned towards Lakeway directly towards Runway 34 at Lakeway 3R9.  Austin Bergstrom was too far away at 16 nm,  - he only had 5,000 ft AGL to lose at that point.  Apologies for the misunderstanding on the wording - I revised it.  

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Looks to me like he's suggesting going tonthe rural airport that he posted a picture of. Although I have a hard time faulting the pilot for "wasting" two whole minutes figuring out what was happening before turning, it does appear that he could have flown a more direct route to the airport. Would it have made a difference? Hard to tell at this point, but every little bit helps.

Correct.  But what he did in the 2 minutes was critical:

• In those 2 minutes, as he "figured out" what was going on he traded lower altitude for more speed (which everyone above points out is inefficient - creating more drag and wasting the little energy he had)
  • During those 2 minutes he went from 124 kts to 160 kts while losing 1,500 ft. (presumably not because he was able to restart but because he used altitude - his engine was dying and then dead)

it seems to me that if you are flying and your engine starts losing significant power, or if any system is causing a problem that you don't understand (especially if you are new to the plane), the prudent thing to do is to fly towards the nearest airport while "figuring it out".  And as pointed out - gain altitude to slow down towards optimum glide speed thereby converting kinetic energy in potential energy which you can use over the airport environment.  Two minutes could make all the difference.....after all we don't have a chute.

[Yetti]

28 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

No I am saying he should have turned towards Lakeway directly towards Runway 34 at Lakeway 3R9.  Austin Bergstrom was too far away at 16 nm,  - he only had 5,000 ft AGL to lose at that point.  Apologies for the misunderstanding on the wording - I revised it.  

There was 2 minutes between the "oh no" and the first turn.  I could see that much time being spent running the Emergency check list, working the radios and evaluating options and creating a plan on where to go.  Just making a 5 mile left traffic for Lakeway would have worked.  I would guess some disorientation to where the airport was.

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, Pinecone said:

And doing so pisses away energy.    

I see your thinking, that you would end up breaking out with extra airspeed, but won't you feel like an idiot if doing your way ended up with you short of the runway?

It pisses away unneeded energy. The scenario I described is one where the airport or desired off airport landing area does not require a max performance glide to reach.  My argument is that under such a scenario, it's a fine idea to pitch for best glide until you’re assured that you’re over the airport environment. Once you have that assurance, dropping the nose to speed up would put you in the position of exiting the clouds with more energy than you would’ve had by simply holding  Vbg.  

If I am practicing engine out approaches and I arrive at my high key point at Vbg and 600 feet above my desired altitude, i’m going to make adjustments. I may drop the nose and speed up, or slow the airplane down depending on any number factors affecting the approach. Either way, I’m pissing away energy and for good reason.

Bottom line is if I’m going to exit the clag at roughly the same position over the airport after circling down, I would find it favorable to break out into VMC conditions at 140KIAS rather than 85 KIAS.

[1980Mooney]

1 minute ago, Yetti said:

There was 2 minutes between the "oh no" and the first turn.  I could see that much time being spent running the Emergency check list, working the radios and evaluating options and creating a plan on where to go.  Just making a 5 mile left traffic for Lakeway would have worked.  I would guess some disorientation to where the airport was.

Hence - always be cognizant of your situation and be thinking about your nearest airport (constant situational awareness).  Or if you are able to incorporate technology like "Smart Glide" let your plane "think about it all the time for you".  

I will admit that it is easy to zone out on long cross country trips or even focus more on "sight seeing" on a recreational flight - and not be constantly on top of situational awareness. That is where technology helps - I bet we see more "Smart Glide" capabilities on other brand avionics.

[Yetti]

13 hours ago, Yetti said:

OK so here it is.  F Model.  4000 feet.   Executive Summary:  semi waste of valuable time in a high stress situation.  Left the video camera in the plane.  So film at 11.

 

The first time I did not pull the throttle all the way back. (Probably muscle memory to set up for a landing)   You get maybe a couple hundred feet and I felt the urge to trim the plane.  Which would then waste more time trimming for 100.  The second time pulled throttle all the way out.  Got less than 30 seconds of up time.   Maybe 100 feet.   Here is one for you physics people.   Third one I turned into the wind think it was 11 knots.   Maybe 50 feet of up.  

 

Back to the off topic.   You have 16 seconds of up time till the speed drops from 135 to 100 Knots.   Which has made me realize something.   I did the speed tape in the Skyview in Knots, Because maps and flight planning.   (Don't worry I still have the ASI which has both mph and knots.)   I should have let speed drop to 86-90 Knots to get best glide.   See we have all learned something today.  Working on the video.

[Yetti]

27 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Hence - always be cognizant of your situation and be thinking about your nearest airport (constant situational awareness).  Or if you are able to incorporate technology like "Smart Glide" let your plane "think about it all the time for you".  

I will admit that it is easy to zone out on long cross country trips or even focus more on "sight seeing" on a recreational flight - and not be constantly on top of situational awareness. That is where technology helps - I bet we see more "Smart Glide" capabilities on other brand avionics.

Ya I think my SOP would have been get over the airport.   Tell everyone to get out of the way and do a spiral down over the field.   The river or lake would have been a potential target for me.    Again he got down and walked away so that is all that really matters.

I am wondering if he was relying on ATC to help figure things out.

[Pinecone]

52 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

He pisses away unneeded energy. The scenario I described is one where the airport or desired off airport landing area does not require a max performance glide to reach.  My argument is that under such a scenario, fine idea to pitch for best glide until you’re assured that you’re over the airport environment. Once you have that assurance, dropping the nose to speed up would put you in the position of exiting the clouds with more energy than you would’ve had by simply holding  Vbg.  
 

 Define practicing inch now and I arrive at my high key point at Vbg and 600 feet above my desired altitude, i’m going to make adjustments. I may drop the note and speed up, or slow the airplane down depending on any number factors affecting the approach. Either way, I’m pissing away energy and for good reason.

Bottom line is if I’m going to exit the clag at roughly the same position over the airport after circling down, I would find it favorable to break out into VMC conditions at 140KIAS over over 85 KIAS.

I think the difference in opinion is I don't think there is any unneeded energy, until you hit something.

There are plenty of ways to get rid of energy, but no way to get it back if the engine is out.

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I think the difference in opinion is I don't think there is any unneeded energy, until you hit something.

There are plenty of ways to get rid of energy, but no way to get it back if the engine is out.

Agree there and appreciate the folksy wisdom, but if you are over the airport and you pop out of the clag at 1000AGL and 1.5miles from airport center, are your margins for setting up the approach greater at 140KIAS or 85 KIAS all other things being equal?

You arrive in VMC at the same distance (1.5NM) from the airport and with the same potential energy (1000agl) but with an extra 55KIAS of kinetic energy that would have otherwise been used for sight seeing while engine out in IMC at Vbg.

I get it...when making absolute statements, it's no fun being presented with scenarios that contradict it.

[Pinecone]

As I said before, I can see your point. 

OTOH, I would rather pop out right over the field at 80 knots versus 1.5 miles away. 

But 1.5 miles away at 80 knots will make the runway with altitude to spare.

[LANCECASPER]

At the point where he lost power the airplane belonged to the insurance company. One of the stages of grief is denial. He bought the airplane days before, had a pre-buy and now the unthinkable is happening - he has lost an engine. I can see completely why it took a little bit to decide what to do. I would go so far as to say that anyone that hasn't had this happen to them should probably just be an interested observer rather than a Monday morning quarterback. He didn't fly with a rough engine past any airports trying to make it back to a more preferable airport. He found a place to put it down and he did. We should all be so fortunate if the same thing ever happens to us.

Yes it would have been great had he made the best landing of his life with no damage at an airport that just happened to have a Mooney Service Center and a new engine in the crate waiting for an airplane that needed it. But the story has a great ending, he survived and will live to tell his story. So many stories in the Mooney Safety & Accident Discussion don't end this well.

[Steve0715]

Well said.  It would be nice to know why the engine failed.

[1980Mooney]

6 hours ago, Steve0715 said:

Well said.  It would be nice to know why the engine failed.

The pilot reported to ATC that he was experiencing “low manifold pressure”. Then the engine quit. Subsequently after landing the FAA saw oil on the belly. Apparently he did not report low oil pressure per the Prelim.  And the FAA checked the dipstick but did not note any damage to case or cylinders.
 

Is it possible that he lost the oil hose to the turbo charger and first the turbo failed to boost?  Then pumped all his oil out? 
 

What do the Turbo owners think?  What happens when the turbo starts to fail due to lack of oil? 
 

“The pilot reported that while in flight, the engine had a low manifold pressure reading and then the engine sustained a total loss of power.”

” A large amount of engine oil was observed trailing rearwards on the underside of the fuselage. The engine oil level was checked after the accident and oil was not observed on the dipstick”  

 

[exM20K]

10 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

The pilot reported to ATC that he was experiencing “low manifold pressure”. Then the engine quit. Subsequently after landing the FAA saw oil on the belly. Apparently he did not report low oil pressure per the Prelim.  And the FAA checked the dipstick but did not note any damage to case or cylinders.

The wastegate requires oil pressure to  close, so a loss of oil pressure would (at least for a little while) induce a loss of MP as all the exhaust is dumped out the tailpipe.  I would treat any loss of MP in a turbocharged plane as an emergency requiring a landing now.

-dan

[Fly Boomer]

19 minutes ago, exM20K said:

The wastegate requires oil pressure to  close, so a loss of oil pressure would (at least for a little while) induce a loss of MP as all the exhaust is dumped out the tailpipe.  I would treat any loss of MP in a turbocharged plane as an emergency requiring a landing now.

-dan

I didn't go back to the beginning of this topic, but I would expect that a significant loss of manifold pressure resulting from a turbo failure would mean that the airplane had to have been at a high enough altitude to justify the plunge in MP back to normally aspirated values.

[exM20K]

1 hour ago, Fly Boomer said:

I didn't go back to the beginning of this topic, but I would expect that a significant loss of manifold pressure resulting from a turbo failure would mean that the airplane had to have been at a high enough altitude to justify the plunge in MP back to normally aspirated values.

Incident happened at 7000, where ambient pressure is 23” or so.  So a drop in manifold pressure from 30-something to 21 or 22 would for sure be an attention-getter.  I’m not suggesting that is what happened, but rather offering that as the immediate effect on a cruising turbo engine in the event of oil pressure loss.

-dan

[Fly Boomer]

10 hours ago, exM20K said:

Incident happened at 7000, where ambient pressure is 23” or so.  So a drop in manifold pressure from 30-something to 21 or 22 would for sure be an attention-getter.  I’m not suggesting that is what happened, but rather offering that as the immediate effect on a cruising turbo engine in the event of oil pressure loss.

-dan

Didn’t go back to read the altitude, but a 10-inch (or greater) drop would certainly be, as you say, an “attention getter”.  

[Will.iam]

I have seen where it was stated that because of the low or pressure or loss of oil the turbo wasn’t making enough boost, but I just wonder if as he was losing manifold pressure, your natural instinct would be to apply more throttle to try to increase that manifold pressure But it would also cause the fuel servo to apply more fuel.  Since the MP wasn’t increasing this would have the effect of flooding out the engine and killing it I only state this as there is an emergency in the POH to lean out the mixture if your turbo has failed. 
If a suspected turbocharger or turbocharger waste gate control system failure results in a complete loss of engine power, ·the following procedure is recommended: At altitudes above 12,000 ft., an overrich mixture may result and the engine may quit operating if the turbocharger fails. Mixture .........................•.. .. ..... . ..... IDLE CUTOFF Throttle ............. •. .........•.. •... SET at CRUISE POSITION Propeller ........................................ FULL FORWARD Mixture ....••.•..........•. ADVANCE slowly until engine starts then ADJUST to fuel flow for selected power setting. Continued Flight.. . ... . LAND as soon as practible 

[Jeff Uphoff]

On 3/4/2023 at 8:59 PM, Fly Boomer said:

I didn't go back to the beginning of this topic, but I would expect that a significant loss of manifold pressure resulting from a turbo failure would mean that the airplane had to have been at a high enough altitude to justify the plunge in MP back to normally aspirated values.

This would have been pretty much any altitude in my 231. It cruised at over 30", which isn't achievable via normal aspiration.