Gear Up at KCVH on July 8, Third Major in 12 years For This Airplane

[GeeBee]

Nice Acclaim, sadly gear up landing. It appears to have been a hard luck airplane. Two other major accidents both at KDGO on landing in 2012 and 2014.

https://mail.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/287250 

 

[PT20J]

Sigh.

[good2eat]

Ouch

[Fly Boomer]

8 hours ago, PT20J said:

Sigh.

I'm sure it will live to fight another day.

[GeeBee]

She sure has been badly handled for the last 12 years. There is why your insurance rates are so high.

 

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

She sure has been badly handled for the last 12 years. There is why your insurance rates are so high.

Glad that you pointed this out and not me.....

[GeeBee]

55 minutes ago, Aviationist said:

No it isn’t. 

You don't think 3 major accidents in a given make and model has an effect?

 

[MikeOH]

@GeeBee and @1980Mooney

You guys seem to take some pride in pointing out how your premiums go up due to gear ups yet never offer a solution.  Further, when I ask what kind of 'accident' you think is 'righteous' and deserving of a payout I get crickets.  If you never think you'll make a mistake then why bother with insurance at all?  Look how much money you'd save!

Honestly, gear ups are about the best kind of accident as it is rare that anyone is killed or even injured.

[201er]

39 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

You guys seem to take some pride in pointing out how your premiums go up due to gear ups yet never offer a solution.

I asked my insurance if they would install a bitchin betty gear warning or give me a discount if I did and they said no. Guess they prefer to do it the old fashioned way.

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, 201er said:

I asked my insurance if they would install a bitchin betty gear warning or give me a discount if I did and they said no. Guess they prefer to do it the old fashioned way.

That is odd as you would think insurance companies are all about making money!  Seems hard to believe that they wouldn't be interested if gear-ups were responsible for a large dollar amount of claims??  On the other hand, I've always wondered if most of the big money claims paid out are to the injured and families of the dead; seems that money would dwarf the $50K-$100K payout for a gear up.

[1980Mooney]

54 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

@GeeBee and @1980Mooney

You guys seem to take some pride in pointing out how your premiums go up due to gear ups yet never offer a solution.  Further, when I ask what kind of 'accident' you think is 'righteous' and deserving of a payout I get crickets.  If you never think you'll make a mistake then why bother with insurance at all?  Look how much money you'd save!

Honestly, gear ups are about the best kind of accident as it is rare that anyone is killed or even injured.

Seeing as how problems during the landing phase appear to be the biggest source of incidents and accidents for Mooney's, one would think that it should be the leading topic of discussion.  Instead it seems to morally offend some owners to even mention it. 

It is very hard to know the actual rate of gear-ups, gear collapses, bounces which porpoise into strikes, overshoots of TDZ or runway excursions that result in damage. Many are not reported publicly. In order to discuss a solution one needs to know the rate at which it occurs and all the factors influencing it. 

If one finds it emotionally troubling to discuss the facts and circumstances contributing these landing phase incidents and accidents, then just stop reading about Safety and Accidents.  Given that the 4 lead topics in in the "Mooney Safety and Accident Discussion" have not been updated in 6-7 years, it is clear that the entire discussion is not very popular and that many prefer a "head in the sand" attitude.

[Echo]

Just installed the gear installed verbal alert system I purchased used for $300.

[Echo]

There is a lot of uninsured cost associated with a gear up
 

[Echo]

Loss of use. Increase insurance expense I’m an individual basis. Insurability. Do all you can to not be that guy.

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Aviationist said:

A gear up isn’t a major incident. It’s considered a minor incident and on a Mooney, relative to insurance payouts it’s almost nothing. The FAA doesn’t even consider it an “accident”
 

a tornado blowing through an airport and destroying 8 jets will have an impact on insurance rates. 
 

a mooney with a gear up is basically no factor. Well, unless you are that pilot and was responsible for the gear up landing….

 

but no, this is not why your rates have increased. 
 

also, is this your airplane?

No it is not my airplane but looking at the other two previous accidents which met the definition of both substantial damage and an accident, there has been more payouts for damage than this aircraft is worth in hull value. Tack on this gear up and we are after these three mishaps, at near two times hull value. As for the gear up, while it is not legally defined as an accident the FAA if they find out without a report will likely look for a 709 ride, and a vindictive one at that.

[1980Mooney]

17 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Nice Acclaim, sadly gear up landing. It appears to have been a hard luck airplane. Two other major accidents both at KDGO on landing in 2012 and 2014.

https://mail.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/287250 

 

Right. The first two were with the same owner:

• 2012 https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/287250
• 2014 https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/198812

In the latest case, the current owner registered it in January 2023. 

https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/200917055/n562bg-2007-mooney-acclaim

https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/200921111/n562bg-2007-mooney-acclaim

The Instrument Rated owner, age 65 years per internet, if flying, departed Watsonville early afternoon and was at non-towered Hollister practicing landings.  Although blocked on FlightAware, ADSBExchange, shows from time stamps,  that it appears he flew a touch and go followed by a landing, taxi back and go.  The third landing was a gear up.  The prior day, July 7, he flew the same pattern at non-towered Watsonville (one touch and go, one land, taxi back and go and one full stop).  The July 7 patterns look stabilized.

The July 8 patterns, although not complete, make it look like he may have been struggling turning to base and had flown through the centerline on the second landing.  Winds were crosswind 12-13 mph from the NW to WNW.  On the final pattern he drifted well to the south east while on downwind to Runway 24.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a72e78&lat=36.887&lon=-121.401&zoom=14.5&showTrace=2024-07-08&trackLabels&timestamp=1635703215

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a72e78&lat=36.927&lon=-121.780&zoom=14.5&showTrace=2024-07-07&trackLabels&timestamp=1720394500

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Seeing as how problems during the landing phase appear to be the biggest source of incidents and accidents for Mooney's, one would think that it should be the leading topic of discussion.  Instead it seems to morally offend some owners to even mention it. 

It is very hard to know the actual rate of gear-ups, gear collapses, bounces which porpoise into strikes, overshoots of TDZ or runway excursions that result in damage. Many are not reported publicly. In order to discuss a solution one needs to know the rate at which it occurs and all the factors influencing it. 

If one finds it emotionally troubling to discuss the facts and circumstances contributing these landing phase incidents and accidents, then just stop reading about Safety and Accidents.  Given that the 4 lead topics in in the "Mooney Safety and Accident Discussion" have not been updated in 6-7 years, it is clear that the entire discussion is not very popular and that many prefer a "head in the sand" attitude.

Let's take your comments one at a time:

1) Do you have data to support these incidents and accidents are the biggest COST to insurers, and therefore are the largest factor in driving premiums?  'Cause I haven't seen it.  And, for the record, the fact this topic keeps getting brought up does not morally offend me in any way; I can't speak for others.  However, to call the constant pointing out of gear-ups a 'discussion' is stretching things more than a bit...

2) Agree. Thanks for supporting my point in item 1 So, why the constant need to bring up every gear up? (and whine about insurance premiums without any evidence they are actually responsible?)

3) Again, not emotionally troubling to me.  But it seems the continual bringing up of these incidents has proven pretty pointless.  Perhaps it's not 'head in the sand' but "the serenity to accept the things you cannot change".  Sadly, apparently I cannot accept these continual posts anymore than I can stop responding to them; so, I extend the same suggestion to you: just stop reading my responses! 

[GeeBee]

So are you saying losses do not affect premiums? 

[Echo]

Losses are 100% the leading cost in doing business for insurance carriers. To suggest otherwise is beyond ignorant 

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, Aviationist said:

A gear up isn’t a major incident. It’s considered a minor incident and on a Mooney, relative to insurance payouts it’s almost nothing. The FAA doesn’t even consider it an “accident”
 

a tornado blowing through an airport and destroying 8 jets will have an impact on insurance rates. 
 

a mooney with a gear up is basically no factor. Well, unless you are that pilot and was responsible for the gear up landing….

 

but no, this is not why your rates have increased. 
 

also, is this your airplane?

You make it sound like all airplane insurance policies are painted with the same brush.  Retracts, fixed gear, fast, slow, piston, turboprop, jet - makes no difference.  Everything is in the same risk pool and tied to payouts on 737Max and bizjet crash/writeoffs.

I wonder why @Parker_Woodruff has told us many times that we pay a premium over similarly valued Cessna 182's. - why it is so hard for new pilot's to get Mooney insurance.

And I guess the cost of gear-up repair is a big nothing burger to the insurance companies. - what do you reckon an Acclaim gear-up costs knowdays? - 90,000?  $100,000 more?

When discussing a $5,000 policy back in 2020:

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

So are you saying losses do not affect premiums? 

Assuming you are responding to my post, I have no idea how you got that idea!?!?  I'm saying that I'm not convinced that gear ups are the major factor in our premiums; obviously, they contribute something.

If we expand to include Parker's data (posted above by 1980Mooney) that Mooney's have more runway incidents than other makes/models, then it is logical that our premiums are higher.  But we were discussing gear-ups, and note Parker specifically comments this would be true even with FIXED gear.  However, the same question arises: what is the solution to bringing Mooney 'runway incidents' down to be in line with other makes/models?

[1980Mooney]

 

10 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

 But we were discussing gear-ups, ..

Actually we have been discussing "problems during the landing phase". 

5 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Seeing as how problems during the landing phase appear to be the biggest source of incidents and accidents for Mooney's, one would think that it should be the leading topic of discussion.

 

10 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

However, the same question arises: what is the solution to bringing Mooney 'runway incidents' down to be in line with other makes/models?

You already highlighted one of the impediments.

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Perhaps it's not 'head in the sand' but "the serenity to accept the things you cannot change". 

 

 

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Assuming you are responding to my post, I have no idea how you got that idea!?!?  I'm saying that I'm not convinced that gear ups are the major factor in our premiums; obviously, they contribute something.

If we expand to include Parker's data (posted above by 1980Mooney) that Mooney's have more runway incidents than other makes/models, then it is logical that our premiums are higher.  But we were discussing gear-ups, and note Parker specifically comments this would be true even with FIXED gear.  However, the same question arises: what is the solution to bringing Mooney 'runway incidents' down to be in line with other makes/models?

As a very rich man once said to me. "From little pennies big dollars fall". 

[donkaye]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Assuming you are responding to my post, I have no idea how you got that idea!?!?  I'm saying that I'm not convinced that gear ups are the major factor in our premiums; obviously, they contribute something.

If we expand to include Parker's data (posted above by 1980Mooney) that Mooney's have more runway incidents than other makes/models, then it is logical that our premiums are higher.  But we were discussing gear-ups, and note Parker specifically comments this would be true even with FIXED gear.  However, the same question arises: what is the solution to bringing Mooney 'runway incidents' down to be in line with other makes/models?

In my opinion better training including bounced landing recovery training and a willingness to get that instruction.  It takes an instructor with lots of Mooney time to be willing to do that type of training.

[MikeOH]

48 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

You already highlighted one of the impediments.

Well, at least I'm a realist...and not a Don Quixote tilting at windmills.  I've asked for solutions but none seem to be forthcoming...and I've been reading accident reports since 1972; nothing changes so much as it remains the same, I'm afraid.