Mooney Crash In Houston County TN

[kurtsnyder]

I haven't seen this posted anywhere:http://www.newschannel5.com/story/17586009/small-plane-crashes-near-houston-county-airport

It's amazing that everyone only had minor injuries with as bad as the plane looks. The cabin area sure remained intact. The crazy thing is, I was at Humphreys Co. Airport that morning and spoke with Jay about 30min before he went down. I even checked out his plane. I was really upset when I found out. When I made it back to my home base, everyone was terrified that it was me who crashed since they knew I was flying in that area that morning and they heard that a Mooney went down. You can imagine their relief when they found out I was OK. Houston Co. Airport is a pretty tricky little airport. It's down in a valley and on downwind, you feel like you're only a couple hundred feet AGL. It's only 3000' long which is short if you're used to 5000'+ runways. I'm glad everyone is safe!

Here are some pics: http://photos.newschannel5.com/displayimage.php?album=483&pos=0

[kris_adams]

Glad all three of them were ok.  The Sheriff's story seems to contradict itself.   They also call it a "1969 Mooney J model aircraft."

[kurtsnyder]

Oh, that's another thing. The pilot told me that's an F model. Stupid news media. A quick google search show that the J model wasn't produced in 1969.

[Shadrach]

 

And there are some that have suggested that the steel rollcage was put in place for "cost cutting" measures...  I have seen too many Mooneys balled up around a perfectly intact passenger compartment to beleive that is the case.

 

[PTK]

I'm very glad all are ok. 0M5 happens to be my Mooney's previous home! It is a 4000 foot runway. When both the tail section and engine compartment are severed off the fuselage it must've been a hell of a crash! But thanks to the legendary Mooney cage they walked away! Nothing short of amazing!

[jetdriven]

Looks like they cartwheeled.  What a testament to the strength of these rugged airplanes!   I am glad everyone made it. 

[Bennett]

Still waiting for the airbag STC for M20Js.  Airbags plus the roll cage give you a fighting chance of walking away from a pretty bad situation. 

[johnggreen]

Byron, 

You know that I like you and respect your comments and opinions, seriously.  So when I point out this "foible" you won't be offended, I hope.

The comment as to the "strength of these rugged airplanes" is a little humorous to me.  On the Beech site, an A-36 just went down in New York and brought forth the same comments about the integrity of the Beech design; bull******.  As much as "we all" like to profess the superiority of the airplanes we fly, truth is, they are all built to the same specs.  AND---

In the event of a crash, if the impact is great enough, the integrity of the structure surrounding you is almost irrelevant.  If you will review recent accidents, there was one a couple of months ago with a cabin class Cessn that was making an IFR approach, I believe to Aspen.  The airplane didn't crash, but it hit the runway so hard that, I believe, two occupants were killed and another had a broken back; a real trajedy as all but the pilot were members of the same family.  The airplane is shown there sitting on its collapsed landing gear nearly intact.  One commenter said it looked like the airplane could be jacked up and flown away.  Well, I doubt that.

Truth is, if you impact the ground with enough G force, your are probably going to break your neck, or hit the instrument panel hard enough to stop your heart, or smash your head with enough trauma that you are dead instantly.  In MANY cases, the seat belt and shoulder harness will cut into you hard enough to cause a fatal injury without any obvious external injuries.

My point, well, I guess I'm just a purveyor of truth and have ABSOLUTELY NOT BRAND LOYALTY.  You are obviously a very intelligent person (as I judge from your writing) and a damn skilful pilot.

So, let's not contribute to complacency with the idea that the tube frame of a Mooney is going to save your ass from a bad crash.

Now, remember, I like and respect you, so don't overreact or get mad.

Just making a point.

Still friends I hope.

Jgreen

[mooneygirl]

Well myself, my daughter, my father and another passenger walked out of a knarly situation because of that roll bar.  Six trees down on top of us, upside down in a mud pond.  She protected us all the way to the ground. Sorry John, but I believe in that roll cage.  [side note, ASI falling under 60 mph when started impacting trees with wing].

[johnggreen]

Mooneygirl,

And obviously, you missed the whole point.  The trees impacting the structure slowed the airplane at a rate that did not create sufficient G force to break you necks.  I am very happy for your well being, but do you have any engineering data that would support the idea that the outcome would have been different in a Cessna, Piper, or Beech, or just brand loyalty?

Jgreen

[Parker_Woodruff]

Well, go look at the insurance liability rates for the M20 airframes. You'll find them to be among the lowest of single engine aircraft. Since liability rates are mostly determined by passenger bodily injury exposure, I'd consider that to be a significant indication of a safe, sound design.

[jbs007]

I think there is a mix here maybe people aren't getting? 

If G force is high enough, doesn't matter if the airframe stays intact, you die.

HOWEVER

If G force is not enough to kill you, you can still devide accidents in two subcatagories, those that were fatal and those that weren't.  For accidents where G forces alone are not enough to kill you, I bet the role cage greatly enhances survivability. 

It would be interesting if someone compiled data on "like" accidents between aircraft models to give a little statistical correllation between steel cage and survivability...  NOT IT!

 

EDIT:  Glad everyone survived!  Hooray Mooneys!  Anyone know the cause?  These are always good discussions.  Especially if we can get the PIC in on it.

[Dave Marten]

All three survived without major injury. I believe a significant factor was what appear to be front seat shoulder harnesses. If you look closely it appears this Mooney was upgraded with a shoulder harness kit (black-see screenshot below).

Installing shoulder harnesses is one of the best investments you can make (not for your planes sake but for yours). Shoulder harnesses reduce accident fatalities by 20% and serious facial injuries by 88%.

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/seatbelt_web2.pdf

None of use hate our instrument panel so badly that we'd use our face to overhaul it! Likewise don't waste your panel upgrade money on plastic surgery to overhaul your face!

Fly safe!

[Dave Marten]

Sorry, photo missing. Here ya go!

[Antoni Deighton]

Quote: jbs007

I think there is a mix here maybe people aren't getting? 

If G force is high enough, doesn't matter if the airframe stays intact, you die.

HOWEVER

If G force is not enough to kill you, you can still devide accidents in two subcatagories, those that were fatal and those that weren't.  For accidents where G forces alone are not enough to kill you, I bet the role cage greatly enhances survivability. 

It would be interesting if someone compiled data on "like" accidents between aircraft models to give a little statistical correllation between steel cage and survivability...  NOT IT!

 

EDIT:  Glad everyone survived!  Hooray Mooneys!  Anyone know the cause?  These are always good discussions.  Especially if we can get the PIC in on it.

[PTK]

Quote: jbs007

I think there is a mix here maybe people aren't getting? 

If G force is high enough, doesn't matter if the airframe stays intact, you die.

HOWEVER

If G force is not enough to kill you, you can still devide accidents in two subcatagories, those that were fatal and those that weren't.  For accidents where G forces alone are not enough to kill you, I bet the role cage greatly enhances survivability. 

It would be interesting if someone compiled data on "like" accidents between aircraft models to give a little statistical correllation between steel cage and survivability...  NOT IT!

 

EDIT:  Glad everyone survived!  Hooray Mooneys!  Anyone know the cause?  These are always good discussions.  Especially if we can get the PIC in on it.

[N9937c]

I had a wise old pilot convey some thoughts to me 40 years ago.

One of them:

"That fuselage is just there to keep the wind out of your eyes, Its not made to run into anything!"

larry

[johnggreen]

Parker,

I'm not doubting you or calling you out as the "Punks" say, but I would really like to see insurance rates broken down to the single variable of aircraft brand and models.

Rate schedules which would show a Mooney to have lower rates would run counter to the statistics that show a higher fatal accident rate (for example) of the J model Mooney compared to a Skyhawk or Skylane.  

My personal experience in paying for aircraft insurance does not, on first blush, indicate any reduced rate schedule favoring my Mooney.  That is even in comparison to my aerobatic Decathlon that sat in the hangar with it for most of the time of my ownership.

YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP A TRULY INTERESTING POINT.  If you will look up some rating schdules on your end, I will call my agent, Frank Kimmel, on Monday and ask for supporting information.

Thank you,

Jgreen

[johnggreen]

Larry,

Thank you.  You understand what I was trying to say.

Jgreen

[johnggreen]

Larry,

Thank you.  You understand what I was trying to say.

Jgreen

[jetdriven]

Quote: johnggreen

Byron, 

You know that I like you and respect your comments and opinions, seriously.  So when I point out this "foible" you won't be offended, I hope.

The comment as to the "strength of these rugged airplanes" is a little humorous to me.  On the Beech site, an A-36 just went down in New York and brought forth the same comments about the integrity of the Beech design; bull******.  As much as "we all" like to profess the superiority of the airplanes we fly, truth is, they are all built to the same specs.  AND---

In the event of a crash, if the impact is great enough, the integrity of the structure surrounding you is almost irrelevant.  If you will review recent accidents, there was one a couple of months ago with a cabin class Cessn that was making an IFR approach, I believe to Aspen.  The airplane didn't crash, but it hit the runway so hard that, I believe, two occupants were killed and another had a broken back; a real trajedy as all but the pilot were members of the same family.  The airplane is shown there sitting on its collapsed landing gear nearly intact.  One commenter said it looked like the airplane could be jacked up and flown away.  Well, I doubt that.

Truth is, if you impact the ground with enough G force, your are probably going to break your neck, or hit the instrument panel hard enough to stop your heart, or smash your head with enough trauma that you are dead instantly.  In MANY cases, the seat belt and shoulder harness will cut into you hard enough to cause a fatal injury without any obvious external injuries.

My point, well, I guess I'm just a purveyor of truth and have ABSOLUTELY NOT BRAND LOYALTY.  You are obviously a very intelligent person (as I judge from your writing) and a damn skilful pilot.

So, let's not contribute to complacency with the idea that the tube frame of a Mooney is going to save your ass from a bad crash.

Now, remember, I like and respect you, so don't overreact or get mad.

Just making a point.

Still friends I hope.

Jgreen

[aviatoreb]

Hi John,

Long response since I am very interested in the topic.

At the time of choosing an airplane, then I respectfully disagree with you.  After that, it is not important since I most certainly do not fly my airplane as if a roll cage will get me out of any metal bending incidents.  I fly it like an egg shell with me inside.  Nonetheless a steel cage roll cage was definitely a factor in my choice.

I agree that when the g-forces get high enough, it does not matter what you are in - a CFIT into the side of a mountain at 175kts is a bad thing and no structural airplane will save the delicate occupants inside.  No airbags, no seatbelts, nothing.  Even 100kts into the side of something hard - forget about it.  Some crashes though are more like at highway car speeds.  That is still a very dangerous speed but better builds and better engineering can do something there to help.  Yes for sure that engineering cannot help every time, not even close.  That cabin class Cessna incident you site is case in point.

Do you really say that all airplanes are identically built and identical in their impact profile?  You and I both have no data to discuss this in anything other than a thought experiment.  Many incidents are not those 100+kts into something hard incidents.  Its a matter of percentages in my head.  If there is something that improves the situation 10% of the time, then go for that.  I really feel (yes I don't know) that a robust body around you is a good thing.

Jolie and her family are a wonderful example of a strong build saving the day.  Bless you Jolie.  I had a friend about 5 years ago in a similar scenario survive in a Mooney crash.  Engine out in cruise at high altitude and in emergency decent to the nearest runway failed to clear the last row of trees and ended up nose down just inside the airport gate.  He would have come through without a scratch as he and passanger got out of a destroyed airplane fine, but then the plane burned and he went back for his dog and got some hand and face burns.  He is quite healthy and happy today.  The official estimate is he clipped those trees at 90kts at 50ft AGL.  This near and dear annectodal incident was part of my choice of airplanes.

I agree that many incidents are not survivable no matter what.  But, Many incidents are not stall spins at pattern altitude nose straight down or CFIT into the side of a mountain.   Those are too much to hope even a stronger airplane could help for all the reasons you said.  A strong airplane that does not impinge on the occupants inside the airplane is a good thing in those certain crashes that are roughly at car speeds.  That at least give a chance of survival.  The perception around here, and with me too, is that some airplane building methods - the so called AL can - where there is no frame is an airplane that is more likely to fold around the occupants in a crash.

Speaking and agreeing with the main thesis of your point - that even a strongly built airplane is not going to save the day sometimes - my other long time passion is bicycle riding.  I wear a helmet every singly time I ride.  Helmet have changed dramatically since I started.  The first decent helmet (after the leather hair nets) was the big plastic Bell in the mid 1980s.  That was a very very strong helmet.  Too strong.  People were getting severe concussions wearing there helmet because their heads with decelerate too quickly upon impact and hit the side of the helmet and their brains would decelerate too quickly inside their sculls.  Helmets changed dramatically starting with the "Giro" brand helmet that was based on an entirely different theory, in the late 1980s.  It was the first all styrofoam helmet that blew to pieces when your head hit the ground.  It was just foam held together with lycra.  I don't have the stats available but I have most definitely read them with great interest some time ago - it was shown definitively that this modern idea made for helmets that made for dramatically less severe injuries.  The physics is simple - when the helmet blows to pieces it is absorbing a lot of energy and decelerating your head less severely instead of a harder helmet staying intact and transfering too much energy to your head.  ALL helmets are made by this method now. 

Same story with bicycles as airplanes.  If you get in a bad enough crash, it does not matter what post impact safety device helmet or roll cage you are wearing.  Get run over by a truck and that helmet won't help.

When an airplane crashes at a moderate speed, say 80ts and the nose compresses and the tail falls off that is absorbing some energy.  My interpretation is that is like a bicycle helmet falling apart.  Hopefully there is an inner cage around the humans to hopefully keep them in tact.

So you are saying two different things John if I may summarize.  Please feel free to counter my summary of your statement.

1.  Mooneys are not any stronger than any other airplane and they are all built to the same strong standard, from a crash worthy standpoint.

2. It doesn't matter how strong your airplane is in many crashes if the crash is too severe.

So on point 2, I countered that I agree completely that a too strong crash is too much, but a strong airplane can help in some crashes that are less severe where a less strong airplane would not.  If that is a 10% improvement even then that is worth the trouble to me.

On point 1, I do not think that crash worthiness was part of FAA certification was it?  Just flying strength.  Can it pull so many g-loads in certain maneuvers and is the flutter point well defined and so forth.  Crash worthiness is not part of the government involvment.  Many airplanes seem to be built to 1950s car standards.  I have seen the Diamond airplanes in crash tests with crash dummies in car crash test chambers (that was my previous airplane).  I find it hard to believe that all the different airplanes with all different build methods are identical in crash worthiness. It is possible but it would surprise me.

I was corresponding with the airplane airbag people about a year ago and looking forward to the M20K STC for them.   I think they are a good thing.

IN ANY CASE - now that we all have a Mooney here - we all agree to fly them very carefully and try to not crash - this discussion is only actually a decision at time of purchase.  I don't think anyone is flying as if they are immune to injury becasue of their particular airplane build.

Now please everyone lets all knock on wood.  And be actively careful out there.  Bicycle and airplane. 

Thank goodness for this particular crash.  It is really amazing that all survive to see that yoke sticking straight up in the air.

[stevesm20b]

Anyone that thinks the cage structure around the passenger compartment in a Mooney doesn't offer greater protection to the occupants than other aircraft without that kind of structure, should look into how much safer race cars are with cage structures compared to cars in accidents without that kind of protection. Of course there is a limit to the protection it provides but is still a lot better than not having it at all.

[201er]

aviatoreb put it very well. Even just looking at this crash, it is evident that the passenger compartment held up very well while the rest of the airplane disintegrated. This doesn't prove that others do it worse, but it does show how well the Mooney roll cage does hold together. Considering the majority of accidents happen on takeoff/landing, we are indeed looking at a speed range of 60-100 knots rather than 175! This was an example of one of them. So happy to see that everyone got out ok!

[rob]

Tubular steel, welded into triangular shapes isn't an accident.