Mooney Crash In Houston County TN

[John Pleisse]

I'll tell you what....looking at the panel pulled out with the firewall and those yokes sticking straight up.........this could have been a lot worse.

And to add to the Beech discussion....a F33 or an A36 would look nothing like this after a similar impact. Not even close.

[201er]

Looking at those pics again, I can see how the passengers were relatively unharmed... but the legs!? Considering how we stick our legs practically into the engine compartment and looking how the engine and panel are entirely torn away, yikes!

[nels]

I doubt Mooney was only considering safety when putting the metal cage around the passenger compartment but rather an engineering and cost measure to get what they needed for production. I do think it is obvious from the photos of this Mooney crash that the cockpit survived intact due to the steel tube structure. It is state of the art these days that race cars have a seperate driver's structure or cockpit that will stay rigid and intact while the rest of the car sheds parts and energy during a crash. These Mooney pictures seem to show that this Mooney did try to shed its tail assembly and engine, nowhere near what a modern design Indy car would do but maybe some intuative thought actually did go into the original design.

[Bennett]

Quote: 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]

Aviatoreb,

Your post is a correct and interesting read, but I didn't see that we disagreed on anything.  You can go to any aircraft make website, especially Beech, and see countless and repetitious statements of Brand superiority that have no basis in fact, statistics, or engineering data.  In fact, the link listed below is of a Beech A-36 that went down recently with no injuries.  That was, of course, according to all the Beech commenters based on the superiority of the Beech airframe!!

I have heard repetitive and mind numbing claims of how wonderful the Mooney tube structure is and all types of conjecture as to how and why it was built that way and that's the way they build race cars on to infinitum.  As of yet, I have not seen one piece of hard evidence that it is true.  Not one.  

On the other hand, there is one statistic (piece of hard evidence I propose) as to a Mooney superiority; inflight structural integrity.  There are almost zero instances of a Mooney coming apart in the air.  That certainly cannot be said for the Bonanza of any model.

I just think that pilots should be a cut above the fanciful conclusions of the general populace.  Unfortunately, I rarely see it.  Whatever airplane one chooses to fly, you should know it's strengths and weaknesses.  You should also know that if and when things go bump in the night (so to speak) that you had better do everything possible to save your ass.  In the case of a forced landing, that means reaching terra firma at minimum airspeed, the airplane under control, and wings level.  If you cartwheel, for instance, the g forces you will encounter will kill you perhaps without so much as putting a scratch anywhere on your body.

I believe that with the help of the various commenters, some of whom appeared to disagree with me (but in fact did not) several very valuable points have been made.

That was my intent.

Jgreen

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/04/20/ ... er-county/

[M20F-1968]

This has become a long thread with lots of opinions.  Once the pilot and passengers recover from their traumatic episode, I would like to hear from them as to what caused them to loose control in the first place.  We are not going to change the structural aspects of our aircraft, but we can learn from others actual experiences leading up to this accident.

John Breda

[David Mazer]

Since, and I think you are correct with respect to the information provided here, that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other with respect to the Mooney roll cage improving survivability in a crash, we are left to make a guess from indirect information and statistics.  The general guess seems to be that an airframe designed to withstand higher G forces and that has a markedly better in-flight failure rate should also provide better protection at the junction between survivable and unsurvivable accidents.  With no other information from which to make a conclusion, I would side with the stronger frame provides some benefit at that particular intersection knowing that it is a guess and knowing that I don't want to test the hypothesis with any Mooney or any other airplane for that matter.

[Parker_Woodruff]

John,

Every insurance carrier is different.  And, with the increasing amount of insurance companies chasing shrinking amounts of business, almost all insurance rating is also a function of market competition.  But in order to provide valid responses to your concerns, I've answered some topics below in bold, which I hope you'll find satisfactory.

Quote: 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.  

I don't actually  have the fatality rates as actuarial differences calculated by insurance companies are kept under their lock and key - not even a broker like myself would typically have access to that.  One thing is for certain.  Cessna 182s are typically down at the low end of the scale.  Planes that I see on the higher end of the scale are always the Piper Comanches and the LSAs (even with crazy experienced pilots!!!)

I do know that I paid for for liability in my Cessna 172 than my Mooney M20K.  The M20J was slightly higher back when I owned it, but I also needed some special policy provisions which were only offered by 1 company at the time.  The other quotes were in line with the M20K.

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.

Your aerobatic Decathlon will likely rate lower than your Mooney due to having only 2 seats that are subject to passenger bodily injury.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: johnggreen

Aviatoreb,

Your post is a correct and interesting read, but I didn't see that we disagreed on anything.  You can go to any aircraft make website, especially Beech, and see countless and repetitious statements of Brand superiority that have no basis in fact, statistics, or engineering data.  In fact, the link listed below is of a Beech A-36 that went down recently with no injuries.  That was, of course, according to all the Beech commenters based on the superiority of the Beech airframe!!

[jetdriven]

NASCAR cars have something like 2.5" 4130 chromoly tubing.  And a hell of a lot of it as well. Mooneys have tubing ranging from 3/4 to 1".  Its not a roll cage per se, but a structural element.  Rag and tube Luscombes cubs, and Maules are built that way too. Mooneys have metal over the tubes instead of fabric.

 

John brings up an excellent point about Bonanzas.  I have seen a  few Bonanza crashes and they usually rip the belly out, then the firewall buckles and the engine rolls under the airplane. Severe enough, the whole forward fuselage tucks under and the cabin splits open at the roof, throwing the occupants out the top.  The airframe absorbs energy like that Giro helmet.

They just have different failure mdoes. Alll  certified airplanes are pretty strong. I cant still help but thinking that the premium brand "M" or "B" airplanes are a little overbuilt compared to brand "C" or "P" singles.  Definately compared to LSAs.  And those are probalby still an order or magnitude greater than many homebuilts.

[201er]

Just came across this (happened not too long ago in fact):

http://www.rappnews.com/2012/03/08/no-fatalities-in-amissville-plane-crash/90243/

http://www.rappnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/r_planeClose-08web.jpg

Nothing left but the roll cage. Fire must have consumed all of it. Both occupants survived!

[johnggreen]

Apologies to all for the long blank page at the end of my post.  I pasted the link from the Beech site and don't really know what happened.

I think, hope, that the people who contributed and read this thread picked up on the point I was trying to make; in the event of a crash, nothing is going to save you if the impact is severe enough or you are thrown around inside whatever shell you might be sitting.  A review of the death of Dale Earnhart and the safety changes that came about because of that accident might be in order.  An occupant can ride through an "event" fully enclosed in a shell of whatever that protects them from outside objects, but if the deceleration is great enough, or if they strike objects inside the shell, they will die.

Breaking a person's neck is unfortunately a fairly easy thing to do if the angle is just right.  Blunt trauma to the organs from the front of the torso will stop the heart or cause organs to burst causing one to bleed to death.  A relatively minor blow to the head can be fatal if it induces internal bleeding.  Fire? let's not even go there.

Many years ago I came up on an auto accident that looked almost minor.  The car had run off the road and hit a tree in the front yard of a house in a small town just west of here.  The driver was walking around a little shaken when I got there.  The ambulance drivers couldn't get the passenger out because the car was crumpled slightly in the right and the passenger door would not open.  I was in a work truck with a winch and winched the door open.  The driver, a very robust looking young man was concious, showing little pain or stress, and talking to us the whole time.  The passenger was removed with what looked like nothing but a broken leg.  I was shocked to learn the next day that he bled to death from internal injuries.

There are, I am sure, plenty of docs and EMT's on this forum who could give countless examples of instances of fatal accidents where the victim appeared to be unscathed.

The point, well, I made my point.  Every pilot should have scenarios in his head about having to put a disabled aircraft on the ground with minimum deceleration to the occupants.  Otherwise, as Byron points out, no cabin, of any structural design is going to save you; regardless of your brand loyalty.

Jgreen

[29-0363]

johnggreen is 100% correct in his understanding of how one might survive an airplane crash, or in the alternative, what will kill you.  It's all about the rate of deceleration, and why if you are ever in a life threatening situation you must try and maintain control of your crash if possible.

The steel cage of the Mooney might protect you from intrusion of airplane parts and external objects, and the human body can stand an awful lot of "G" force, but your internal organs and brain just can't tolerate the sudden impact against the inside of your chest cavity or your skull.

I always remember a Baron that had a CFIT on a night approach to an airport not too far from where I live, where both pilot (who I knew and had once worked for) was killed, along with his passenger. The Baron looked almost unscathed, like it needed new props and it would fly again, so it wasn't the integrity of the airframe or a steel cage that might have saved these guys. As I was led to understand it, their fatal injuries were caused by vertical rather than forward deceleration.

 

Stay safe!

[DaV8or]

I think we need to regognize the steel frame for what it is, a great way to attach an engine, wood wings with a single carry through spar and a wood tail together. In Al's day, most GA planes were built with steel frames and then covered with fabric. He chose to cover with aluminum for aerodynamic and durability reasons as well as to compete in the new market place with planes like the all metal Cessnas and the Bonanza. The safety of "the cage" is just a really nice, unintended side benefit we enjoy. The comparison to the cages used in race cars is kind of a stretch. It may be stronger than some moncoque aluminum airframes out there, but let's not get carried away.

[scottfromiowa]

In the event of an off airport landing "controlled crash" better to go gear up or down in a planted bean/corn field?  Would gear down absorb some energy or just make it more likely to cartwheel if one digs in?  I have always thought I would go gear up in this scenario, but agree with the gear absorbing some energy and helping to decelerate speed as they collapse...

There are a lot of these opportunities in the Mid-West with engine failure and no available airport in glide range.

[jbs007]

Quote: scottfromiowa

In the event of an off airport landing "controlled crash" better to go gear up or down in a planted bean/corn field?  Would gear down absorb some energy or just make it more likely to cartwheel if one digs in?  I have always thought I would go gear up in this scenario, but agree with the gear absorbing some energy and helping to decelerate speed as they collapse...

There are a lot of these opportunities in the Mid-West with engine failure and no available airport in glide range.

[scottfromiowa]

Quote: jbs007

 I've never crashed a Mooney before so this is speculation(Neither Have I), but in case of engine failure, I don't see why you have to hit the ground with enough vertical velocity to be so dangerous.  (I am NOT talking vertical velocity...I'm talking about hitting the ground with forward motion of over 50mph...Farm fields often have rocks etc...if you absorb "speed/energy" with gear and stop more quickly you limit your exposure to hitting an unknown object that could potentially cause a RAPID deceleration that could cause catastrophic injury)  Why not just affect a normal approach profile? (STILL going over 50mph when I touch down) In the case of shooting a decent approach to landing in a field engine out, I think gear up would be safer.  (O.K. thanks, but hoping for someone to chime in with some experienced refernces on preferred method)In a single engine GA aircraft, if you need to rely on gear absorbing vertical energy, I think maybe you're doing something wrong.(Again...NOT talking vertical energy here...talking about stopping in a shorter distance...but not TOO SHORT"  If you have an engine out AT ALTITUDE is there any reason to impact the ground harder than in a normal landing???(NO, but a normal landing STILL has some significant energy that I wish to reduce as quickly as safely possible...therefor I too am curious about whether gear-up or down in this scenario (planted beans and or corn) is best... I'm curious.

[231flyer]

I was taught in order of preference (no real life expereince in off-field landing I must admit thankfully):

1)Road/parking lot - paved smooth surface: Gear Down

2)Hard compacted earth - field/golf course etc: Gear Down

3)Fresh plowed field with visible furrows: Gear Down (land parallel to the furrows)

4)Planted Field (corn, beans, soft/short plants): Gear UP

5)Water (River/Lake/pond): Gear UP

6)Trees (aim for the canopy): Gear UP and pray really hard.

 

[KSMooniac]

Some facts to interject into the discussion... when the vast majority of GA planes were designed, there were no crashworthiness requirements!  Under the old CAR 3 regs that Mooneys, Bonanzas, etc. were certified, there were only static strength requirements for in-flight loading.  Therefore, it is somewhat correct to say they were designed to the same standards, but incorrect to say they are equivalently crashworthy.  Mooneys in fact are more generally survivable than just about any comparable plane due to the steel cage.  Steel is stronger, and will yield to a greater extent than aluminum, and thus it will absorb a LOT more energy than a 100% aluminum airframe, and thus ultimately transfer less energy (lower g-forces) to the occupants.  (just like the bicycle helmet analogy)  Insurance rates reflect this.  Whether Al Mooney chose the steel cage design for better crashworthiness or just as a good engineering decision... I don't know, but it most certainly is a safety benefit!

Fast forward to more modern times, Part 23 regs are the rule of the land, and they are a LOT more extensive and include crashworthiness criteria.  Newer designs like the Commanders (I think) and especially the Cirrus and Columbia had to meet these stricter criteria.  This is done by more complex seat design, though, instead of an entire airframe solution.  Cessna stepped up with their modern 172/182/206 production and added the newer seats when they could have just reintroduced the "old" seat designs...good for them.

And finally, I do agree that there are many crashes where it doesn't matter what you fly or what you sit on...they won't be survivable.  But I'll firmly argue that Mooneys are more survivable than just about any other comparable GA plane.  Any structural engineer should be able to understand why that is.

[scottfromiowa]

Quote: 231flyer

I was taught in order of preference (no real life expereince in off-field landing I must admit thankfully):

1)Road/parking lot - paved smooth surface: Gear Down

2)Hard compacted earth - field/golf course etc: Gear Down

3)Fresh plowed field with visible furrows: Gear Down (land parallel to the furrows)

4)Planted Field (corn, beans, soft/short plants): Gear UP

5)Water (River/Lake/pond): Gear UP

6)Trees (aim for the canopy): Gear UP and pray really hard.

 

[rob]

Why gear up in a planted field?

 

I would think that I'd go gear down. The gear may give you clearance over a hard object that would otherwise rip through the aluminum and or/hit the steel cage and stop you quickly. Additionally, I would think that the nosegear is much more likely to collapse than cause the airplane to flip over - similar to the video running around of the collapse on takeoff. And lastly, the gear is sure to absorb at least some impacts , no?

[fantom]

When things go wrong, maintain your cool, fly that plane all the way into the crash, and unless there's a compelling reason otherwise, keep the gear in the well....you'll stop quicker and straighter most times.

If you haven't already run out of fuel, turn the selector to off. For some reason there's no fuel around this crash. The Bo driver did a good job of putting her down.

Http://Yorktown.patch.com/articles/planes-crashes-in-yorktown#video-9677527

[231flyer]

Rob, I think the theory (I have no practical experience) is to try and maintain directional control as best possible.  In a planted field the corn stalks etc can ensnare the gear and cause a gear collapse and thus lose directional control. Also, the condition of the ground may be obscured under the folliage so again a belly landing is prefered.  Just what I learned, I dont think any of my instructors had any off field experience either.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: KSMooniac

And finally, I do agree that there are many crashes where it doesn't matter what you fly or what you sit on...they won't be survivable.  But I'll firmly argue that Mooneys are more survivable than just about any other comparable GA plane.  Any structural engineer should be able to understand why that is.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: johnggreen

Apologies to all for the long blank page at the end of my post.  I pasted the link from the Beech site and don't really know what happened.

I think, hope, that the people who contributed and read this thread picked up on the point I was trying to make; in the event of a crash, nothing is going to save you if the impact is severe enough or you are thrown around inside whatever shell you might be sitting.  A review of the death of Dale Earnhart and the safety changes that came about because of that accident might be in order.  An occupant can ride through an "event" fully enclosed in a shell of whatever that protects them from outside objects, but if the deceleration is great enough, or if they strike objects inside the shell, they will die.

Breaking a person's neck is unfortunately a fairly easy thing to do if the angle is just right.  Blunt trauma to the organs from the front of the torso will stop the heart or cause organs to burst causing one to bleed to death.  A relatively minor blow to the head can be fatal if it induces internal bleeding.  Fire? let's not even go there.

Many years ago I came up on an auto accident that looked almost minor.  The car had run off the road and hit a tree in the front yard of a house in a small town just west of here.  The driver was walking around a little shaken when I got there.  The ambulance drivers couldn't get the passenger out because the car was crumpled slightly in the right and the passenger door would not open.  I was in a work truck with a winch and winched the door open.  The driver, a very robust looking young man was concious, showing little pain or stress, and talking to us the whole time.  The passenger was removed with what looked like nothing but a broken leg.  I was shocked to learn the next day that he bled to death from internal injuries.

There are, I am sure, plenty of docs and EMT's on this forum who could give countless examples of instances of fatal accidents where the victim appeared to be unscathed.

The point, well, I made my point.  Every pilot should have scenarios in his head about having to put a disabled aircraft on the ground with minimum deceleration to the occupants.  Otherwise, as Byron points out, no cabin, of any structural design is going to save you; regardless of your brand loyalty.

Jgreen