Sad sight

[N201MKTurbo]

54 minutes ago, 201Mooniac said:

I was flying a rented arrow out of Truckee once and after takeoff when turning crosswind, there was a gust of wind, a rattle of turbulence, and the gear fell down (that might have been the turbulence), made for a fun climbout situation.  Never flew the plane again.

There is always gusty winds and turbulence climbing out of Truckee. It can be tough getting out of that bowl with everything working. It would be a PITA to deal with that gear issue. 

[201Mooniac]

14 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

There is always gusty winds and turbulence climbing out of Truckee. It can be tough getting out of that bowl with everything working. It would be a PITA to deal with that gear issue. 

Agreed, it was a very stressful departure.  I soon after bought my Mooney but would never consider going in there again with that Arrow.

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I don’t know which model this is, but apparently the later or bigger models don’t have the bungees like our J’s do, they drop like a Cessna.

Is this airplane one of those models?

M20L. The first long body. The Porsche motor was removed and replaced within IO-550 by Mod Works. 

[A64Pilot]

4 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

M20L. The first long body. The Porsche motor was removed and replaced within IO-550 by Mod Works. 

So this one’s elevator goes full down when sitting in the ground and nobody in the airplane?

[Hank]

1 minute ago, A64Pilot said:

So this one’s elevator goes full down when sitting in the ground and nobody in the airplane?

Yes.

[PT20J]

15 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

So this one’s elevator goes full down when sitting in the ground and nobody in the airplane?

The J was the last model with the trim assist bungees that center the elevator. From the K on, they have a bob weight and variable down spring, so they sit with the elevator full down.

[flyboy0681]

29 minutes ago, PT20J said:

The J was the last model with the trim assist bungees that center the elevator. From the K on, they have a bob weight and variable down spring, so they sit with the elevator full down.

That answers that.

[toto]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

You MAY disable the Arrow auto extend.  It is not required to do so.  As I understand it, the rental one at my home field still has it operational.

IIRC, it is purely airspeed (did my Comm ASEL and CFI ASE in Arrows).  Including MP seems like it would have been a smart move.

I did my CFI checkride in a rental Arrow and the instructor who did my checkout at the FBO said that they always disable the auto-extend mechanism but that it was fully functional. When I got into the plane with the FAA examiner, he was concerned about it being disabled and he was not comfortable with the SOP answer, so I re-enabled it and the flight was uneventful. 

I imagine that if Piper were to reintroduce the system today, it would be more like the Garmin Autonomi stuff where you would get a screen flashing that says “low airspeed and MP detected, lowering gear in 10..9..” and you would have a chance to say “cancel.”

It’s the automation with no warning in a high-stress scenario that made people hate the system. If I remember correctly, it does beep at you, but it beeps while the gear are extending. I don’t even know what would happen if you threw the interrupt switch in the middle of an auto-extend.

[A64Pilot]

There are a lot of ways “in my opinion” that an auto gear system could be done well and prevent gear ups without being unsafe.

It’s not rocket science.

It may however require just a little bit of training but not much, so far as ditching with gear down being unsafe, I don’t think the stats bear that out, but in the one in a million circumstance of that possibility, just pull the gear circuit breaker or a disable switch.  I’m struggling to come up with a scenario where you would be at low airspeed and low power and or altitude and wouldn’t want the gear down or them being down would constitute a hazard?

Say less than 20” MP and less than 70 kts or less than 100 AGL and less than 70 kts?

It would seem a not to difficult STC to make money on, not just Mooney’s but all retracts, the money of course would come in I think by covering bunches of airplanes, not just one model.

[GeeBee]

I cannot recite to you how many times airplanes in control crash into terrain with the GPWS saying boldly, "Terrain, Terrain PULL UP!". Even worse I can recall one where an experienced 10,000 hour plus Captain, in IMC said, " Forget it, it's a false alarm".  Foolproof gear warning systems? Yeah...sure, when you can fix stupid.

[ilovecornfields]

35 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Foolproof gear warning systems? Yeah...sure, when you can fix stupid.

I don’t think we’ll ever accomplish that, I was just thinking of maybe adding another layer of Swiss cheese.

[A64Pilot]

You can’t fix stupid but you certainly sure can reduce its effects, Have you disabled your stall warning? Why not? Low fuel warning? Low vac warning? They all have some utility even if they aren’t fool proof

So far as the GPWS it’s as good as it’s database and one foreign Airline the database wasn’t very accurate so they got into the habit of ignoring it, and at least once as you said the PIC was on the voice recorder saying ignore it, it’s a false alarm, that’s one of those crash investigation episodes. Two I believe one was a new Russian airliner they were trying to sell to some nation

Here you go, found it. https://simpleflying.com/2012-sukhoi-superjet-crash-indonesia/

Everyone has an opinion, mine is a nearly foolproof system that would prevent the majority of gear ups is not only possible, but not that hard to implement. Nothings fool proof I bet even building elevators fail and drop sometimes, but it’s incredibly rare. But you know if someone overrides it, yes they would gear up.

Edited June 19, 2023 by A64Pilot

[EricJ]

28 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

I don’t think we’ll ever accomplish that, I was just thinking of maybe adding another layer of Swiss cheese.

My AV-17 is wired to the gear horn, so Betty says "Landing Gear" over and over as long as the gear horn is going off.   Even that difference seems like an improvement to me, as it's not an ambiguous horn going off, it's a specific warning.    I like it.

I also get a 500 ft warning from the GPS, which I've used to make another gear check habit.   That's nice, too.

I worry about the warnings failing, or of still just out-goobering the warnings, but it's not hard to improve your chances of avoiding mistakes with the existing equipment.

[GeeBee]

We will fix gear up landings when we stop sin.

 

[1980Mooney]

40 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

We will fix gear up landings when we stop sin.

Or when we take the physically limited , mentally challenged, easily distracted, emotionally hindered, highly fallible human out of the cockpit and let AI take over completely…..

[GeeBee]

As it exists now, the problem is not the need for more warnings but what we do when we are warned. Failure to act to a warning is a symptom of poor training. The failure to promptly act to GPWS, stall and gear warnings fill volumes. You should never fail to act for instance to a GPWS or ask, "why is it going off?". Full power and point the nose to the sky, talk about it later. When the stall warn goes off, reduce the angle of attack....period. As for gear, verify the warning works,  adhere to proper operational discipline, and adhere to checklist discipline. GUMP is not a checklist by the way.

 

 

[A64Pilot]

An automated system is not a warning.

It’s actually rare for a warning to be intentionally ignored, who says I know the gear are up, but I’m going to land that way anyway? I suspicion maybe some, but not very often. If there is an accident most often it’s not recognized as in not even heard, or if it is heard there is confusion as to why it’s sounding. The comedy with the mountain goats is actually sometimes what happens as in the not understanding the reality. People do “lock up” as well as get tunnel vision when task saturated

This is exactly when an automated system could save the day, when someone gets task saturated and is “behind the airplane”, if the GPWS raised the nose and added power for example instead of just talking it may have prevented a couple of accidents.

So why doesn’t it?

So what is the answer? Increased training requirements, maybe a min 1,000 PIC time before allowed to fly complex, 3 flt min required every 30 days?

How about 2 rated pilots required for every flight? That’s what the Army adopted a couple of decades ago. Why?

Because the FAA commissioned an intensive study decades ago with several institutions to try to determine why every so often a very well trained, very experienced pilot in good weather and within crew rest without any physical problems and no home stress etc did something stupid like land long and run off the runway. He wasn’t task saturated nor behind the aircraft, it was an easy approach one he’s made many times.

All they came up with after spending supposedly millions was an acronym, it’s called SLOJ, it stands for Sudden Loss of Judgement, it explains why someone who always drives the same way to work and has done so for years one day runs the stop sign and has an accident, basically it says that everyone rarely is susceptible to a case of dumbass. We are all susceptible to rarely doing something stupid, and honestly there is nothing really that can be done to stop it.

The Army decided that if there were two pilots on board and they had equal authority and there was a policy of “most conservative response” that would prevent many accidents, and they were right, it did.

But it’s not realistic for us to always fly with two pilots, so that’s when automated systems come in, they are sort of the second pilot.

The numbers seem to indicate something needs to be done or our insurance rates will continue to climb, they will have to or companies will just stop writing Mooney’s, think what either does to your resale.

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by A64Pilot

[GeeBee]

Who indeed?

Not too far from you.....

https://www.key.aero/article/air-safety-captain-ignored-landing-gear-warnings

And........

 

[GeeBee]

26 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

An automated system is not a warning.

It’s actually rare for a warning to be intentionally ignored, who says I know the gear are up, but I’m going to land that way anyway? I suspicion maybe some, but not very often. If there is an accident most often it’s not recognized as in not even heard, or if it is heard there is confusion as to why it’s sounding. The comedy with the mountain goats is actually sometimes what happens as in the not understanding the reality. People do “lock up” as well as get tunnel vision when task saturated

This is exactly when an automated system could save the day, when someone gets task saturated and is “behind the airplane”, if the GPWS raised the nose and added power for example instead of just talking it may have prevented a couple of accidents.

So why doesn’t it?

 

Why? Imagine you are this crew and it pulled the nose up BA 38 at Heathrow. They had no time (well 13 seconds) to run a checklist to put the GPWS in over-ride. They barely had enough time to clear the apartment buildings. If the GPWS pulled the nose up the airplane would have crash stalled from several hundred feet.

[MooneyMitch]

Buzzers, horns, voice annunciator, etc….. is not the answer!

As I’ve stated numerous times…. simply modify the Mite Wig Wag gear warning device. Rotate the wagging arm operation 90 degrees and install a hammer type device on the arm end.  This function will smack the pilot on the forehead when the system operates.  That will work !  

[LANCECASPER]

On 6/17/2023 at 3:00 PM, flyboy0681 said:

I came across this today at KIMM during a fuel stop.

This is one case that you want a total loss if you are the owner.

The IO550 converted M20L airplanes were very limited, with single puck brakes, low useful load, nearly impossible to sell, etc. Although some people try to present them as such, they are not an Ovation by any means.

If the owner walks away with a check he/she will be better off in the long run. There aren't a lot of the L airframes remaining, with only 42 produced. Some were destroyed in 2004 in Hurricane Charlie waiting for IO550 conversions.

[A64Pilot]

11 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Why? Imagine you are this crew and it pulled the nose up BA 38 at Heathrow. They had no time (well 13 seconds) to run a checklist to put the GPWS in over-ride. They barely had enough time to clear the apartment buildings. If the GPWS pulled the nose up the airplane would have crash stalled from several hundred feet.

Why would it have stalled if they had auto throttle? I don’t fly Airliners but isn’t it pretty standard now? Isn’t there a “Go-around” button? is it possible that it could be as simple as the GPWS simply activating the go-around button? I freely admit to having only a passing interest in airliners and zero experience, but do have significant experience with fly by wire military aircraft (helicopters).

I’m not particularly a fan of automation, but admit it has its place, especially if it’s easily overridden. But bringing up stall, why is it even possible to stall an airliner? They have angle of attack sensors, I’m sure most are fly by wire now, so why is it a pilot can stall one? 

I have no idea about the incident you speak of but am certain that nothings perfect, I’m certain for instance that there are accidents that could be attributed to auto anti-lock brakes, but for every accident, there are a whole lot more it prevents.

But back to Mooney gear, I believe an automated gear system would be easy to implement and would prevent the majority of gear -ups and could easily be overridden for the very rare circumstance were a gear up landing is desired. I mean a landing height warning is nice, but as evidenced by the video posted a lot of visual and aural warnings are ignored by pilots concentrating on a difficult approach or talking to tower etc.

Do people regularly video all of their flights? why? Where else could these video’s come from?

[GeeBee]

9 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Why would it have stalled if they had auto throttle? I don’t fly Airliners but isn’t it pretty standard now? Isn’t there a “Go-around” button? is it possible that it could be as simple as the GPWS simply activating the go-around button? I freely admit to having only a passing interest in airliners and zero experience, but do have significant experience with fly by wire military aircraft (helicopters).

I’m not particularly a fan of automation, but admit it has its place, especially if it’s easily overridden. But bringing up stall, why is it even possible to stall an airliner? They have angle of attack sensors, I’m sure most are fly by wire now, so why is it a pilot can stall one? 

I have no idea about the incident you speak of but am certain that nothings perfect, I’m certain for instance that there are accidents that could be attributed to auto anti-lock brakes, but for every accident, there are a whole lot more it prevents.

But back to Mooney gear, I believe an automated gear system would be easy to implement and would prevent the majority of gear -ups and could easily be overridden for the very rare circumstance were a gear up landing is desired. I mean a landing height warning is nice, but as evidenced by the video posted a lot of visual and aural warnings are ignored by pilots concentrating on a difficult approach or talking to tower etc.

Do people regularly video all of their flights? why? Where else could these video’s come from?

Use the auto throttles? Uhhh, because they had no power?

GPWS pulls the nose up? That is MCAS on steroids.

 

[A64Pilot]

3 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

This is one case that you want a total loss if you are the owner.

I am not postulating that happened here, but I suspect that sometimes maybe a few of the gear-ups are just exactly that, based on an owner finding out what a very expensive repair might cost, subtracting what’s owed and value of the airplane and finding out they may owe way more than it’s worth, or simply just can’t afford the repair.

Insurance for example isn’t going to pay for extensive corrosion repair for example, or an engine making metal, but will pay out on a gear-up, and it’s very rare I think for anyone to get hurt that way.

But it’s purely a suspicion, I am certain though that some at least hope this is the year the insurance company buys their airplane due to hurricane damage just based on what I see on the flight lines.

What’s interesting is the Marina’s that I have ridden Hurricanes out in, it’s very common for them to go out and double line any boat that’s not, and send the owner a bill for doing so, the reason is a boat that breaks free can pin ball around and damage several, but then so can a tied down airplane. I have heard but can’t verify that if that happens and the Marina didn’t secure it that they can be found culpable, if so why isn’t the Airport?

[A64Pilot]

29 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Use the auto throttles? Uhhh, because they had no power?

GPWS pulls the nose up? That is MCAS on steroids.

 

You’re saying the engines quit? Real easy to write in the software that if the engines don’t respond then don’t pull up the nose and or have a simple override switch on the yoke. But even further, why is it even possible to stall an airliner?

I already said that I’m not familiar with that accident, is that the one from fuel icing? Pretty much one in a million isn’t it? I’m sure if you look hard enough you can find an accident that the seat belt killed the person, but it would be exceedingly rare, so we wear seat belts even though they killed someone.

I believe the Snell foundation was started that way, a wealthy man’s son died from injuries caused by the helmet and he decided no other man would lose a Son to a poorly designed helmet, or at least that is what I heard long ago, but even those poorly designed ones probably saved hundreds for the one that was killed.

1957 it seems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell_Memorial_Foundation

Nothing is perfect, but things can be made pretty close, and give you an easy override for those times when it’s not.

Edited June 20, 2023 by A64Pilot