This guy is an embarrassment to Mooney pilots.

[201er]

2 hours ago, Marc_B said:

I think “that would never be me” should be added to the FAA Hazardous Attitude list. The cure is “this could happen to me.”

Shoot, I must be guilty as heck of that one because I have a pretty endless list of stuff people do in planes that can't happen to me because I would never attempt it!

 

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, 201er said:

Shoot, I must be guilty as heck of that one because I have a pretty endless list of stuff people do in planes that can't happen to me because I would never attempt it!

 

 

 

You would never attempt to pull the chute?

[Hank]

23 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

You would never attempt to pull the chute?

It won't fit through the 1" gap when the door is popped. And if it did, it'd never drag ME through that tiny little gap!

[201er]

36 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

You would never attempt to pull the chute?

I wouldn't be caught flying a Cirrus

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, 201er said:

I wouldn't be caught flying a Cirrus

Yeah, I kind figured it was something silly like that.

[FlyingDude]

8 hours ago, Marc_B said:

I think “that would never be me” should be added to the FAA Hazardous Attitude list. The cure is “this could happen to me.”

It already is there! Under "complacency"

 

[Joshua Blackh4t]

11 hours ago, Marc_B said:

I usually read to these threads with a grain of salt. Meaning we usually will never know what was going on in the cockpit or with the equipment that day. It’s easy to get lulled into the mindset that “it will never happen to me” or “I’d never put myself in that situation.”  But we all know that situations happen and we don’t rise to the occasion, but fall to the level of training we have set for ourselves. 
So instead of pointing out flaws, I like to imagine this was me and I need to learn from it.  What happens when wx changes and isn’t what was forecast? What happens when something isn’t working right?  What happens when the autopilot fails with a difficult approach required. 
the sad part is that these stories are numerous but yet we all don’t seem to learn from them. 
When things go wrong humans can get so incredibly tunnel vision focused it’s truly amazing.  Helmet fires don’t just happen to the ignorant, they happen to us with new experiences that our minds are trying to sort out. 
I think “that would never be me” should be added to the FAA Hazardous Attitude list. The cure is “this could happen to me.”

Very agreed.

As I said earlier. Despite the terrible situation, the pilot made a lot of good decisions in sorting himself out and survived.

We all could get there and I hope we are just as good/lucky.

And any students reading this, never be scared to admit you are in a bad spot. Even if its your fault. Its better to have people talking about your radio calls, than about your accident investigation 

 

[Marc_B]

3 minutes ago, Joshua Blackh4t said:

And any students reading this, never be scared to admit you are in a bad spot.

100% and not just students.  I spent some time at Osh checking out some of the NATCA lectures and it is always interesting to see the resources available to ATC that you might not realize were available to you if they weren't volunteered to you or specifically requested.  But I think its always difficult to fess up that you're in a bad situation especially if/when you feel that it may be your fault or due to your choices.  It was interesting to hear ATCs view of minimum fuel vs fuel emergency...

I hope if the time comes I have the discipline to be calm, embrace the emergency that exists, and ask for the right help.  Duck your head and barrel on to disaster is all too easy sometimes.

[Pinecone]

It comes down to, to get to the point you are at, things went wrong.  The holes in the swiss cheese have been aligning (or the chain links being attached).  And you want to STOP that from continuing.

Calling for help is one good way to try to stop the progression to a mishap.

[kortopates]

The vast majority of these stories, including many of the fatal IMC accidents we read about begin for one simple reason. A pilot who is not instrument current and certainly not proficient thinks it’s okay to venture into IMC conditions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fly Boomer]

12 hours ago, Joshua Blackh4t said:

Its better to have people talking about your radio calls, than about your accident investigation 

And, in the case of the worst outcome, better to be seen than viewed.

[1980Mooney]

This discussion has been skewed by the title.  There is no doubt that the pilot made mistakes.  Some felt bad for the pilot.  Others condemned him as an unqualified VFR pilot that sullied the reputation of Mooney owner/pilots who incredulously believe this could never happen to them.

But a lot of incorrect assumptions have been made by many making comments.

First of all this happened back in December 2015.    https://www.natca.org/2016/03/14/jeffrey-schuler-new-york-tracon/

The owner/pilot was Instrument Rated.  He joined MooneySpace and actively posted from 2013-2016.  His MS name was "garysuperpilot"

• At the time of the incident the owner/pilot was 62 yrs old
• He got his Instrument ticket in 2007
• From 2001-2004 he owned a Cessna 150,  N714CA
• From 2004-2013 he owned a Piper Cherokee 140,  N9939W
• In 2013 he purchased his M20F, N9525M.  He sold it in 2019 https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/24911601/n9525m-1967-mooney-m20f
  • On MS he said
    • "..I purchased a 67f model in may for 41k. It had new paint, fresh overhaul 10smoh (was a local shop however) , new schimitar prop, and a new interior. On the minus side it had limited avionics. It only had original wing leveler, kx 155 w/ gs, mk12w/ head, dme, fuel flow totalizer, and rather old audio panel. It also had an alternate static source and backup vacuum system."
    • "What I have done is panel mount a 396 GPS which I bought used for $500 and yoke mount an iPad mini w/fore flight.
• In 2014 on MS he said:
  • " Yeah, I've been flying IFR for eight years and still don't "enjoy" a minimum approach all that much. I remember being told to set minimums your comfortable with. I don't feel as indestructible as I did 40 years ago and try not to take chances I don't need to. Flying needs to stay something I love to do and not something I have to do."
• And in 2015 on MS he said:
  • "(yoke mount) +1 ipad mini. w/foreflight  standard ipad blocks too much"

 

So on the day of the incident, he may or may not have been current.  He may or may not have checked any weather before departing - apparently not in sufficient detail.  Obviously he was not proficient that day.  He did not do his VOR checks before takeoff based on his comments about VORs.

But he kept his cool while in the clag as @Joshua Blackh4t noted.  He never sounded panicked.   He hand flew the plane on the VOR approach and landed.

This was "way back in 2015" and he did not have a fancy integrated panel and autopilot like so many are dependent upon today. As @C.J. noted this is not Mooney specific.

I wonder how many current Mooney owner/pilots, with fancy integrated panels and autopilots, could hand fly if they lost GPS or their panel.  How many can even still fly a VOR approach?  How many still even have VORs in their plane?

Think about the next 5-10 years as pilots become more and more dependent upon more and more capable integrated avionics.  I see so many accidents where the pilots depend upon the autopilot but lack proficiency to hand fly when it fails.  This may have happened to the ATR in Brazil.  It also appears to be the case with the recent Pilatus crash in Wyoming - they told ATC the autopilot failed before they lost control.

 

Edited August 13 by 1980Mooney

[Sue Bon]

For the record.... I didn't mean something like that would never happen to me because I'm an IFR pilot in VFR weather. I agree that the pilot kept his cool and responded to ATC and got out of a harrowing situation safely. 

I was wondering about his planning while he was still on the ground.

It is important to ask for help if you need it. It is important to be able to hand fly your airplane and to respond to ATC and let them help you. It's even better to not get into a dangerous situation in the first place. Pre-flight planning goes a long way in that regard.

[FlyingDude]

@1980Mooneythanks for the facts.

Garmin 396 is not ifr capable. It's not waas. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/313

We have a dude that's flying an aircraft with VFR GPS on the panel, iPad to improvise ifr (but without the wisdom to bring a charger), no 30-day vor check, so that plane is completely VFR only, no awareness on fuel quantity, no awareness of the incorrect fuel gauge (if you stick that dipstick into the tanks at preflight and observe your gauges, you'll know). These are all sh*t that he WAS OBLIGED to know or do before hopping on that plane. That's excluding if the wx was forecasted to be like that or if it was a surprise. Ok, I'll assume the gauge broke in flight. The rest, he's guilty. Period.

This guy crashed 10nm from my house.

https://eu.hometownlife.com/story/news/2023/06/15/new-hudson-fatal-plane-crash-pilot-error-ntsb-northville-family/70326575007/

People who knew him said that he was an anti authoritarian ... "phallic skull" to paraphrase one guy. Yes he was speaking behind the dead and I'm sure the Carrie Bradshaws among us would never do that. He never got reported, always got his bfrs (assuming he actually got bfrs). And he killed his family. He kept his cool till the end, too. 

Flying is serious stuff. It can kill you. We have to do what we can to prevent sh*t. If then sh*t happens inadvertently, then yea, that's a whole different story. Like those German guys who ditched their Malibu off of Greenland due to unexpected oil pressure loss. They did all they could and survived to tell the story. You can't put the iPad guy or the power line guy in the same category. No matter how much you potentially identify with them because potentially you yourself pull some shady stuff.

[kortopates]

This discussion has been skewed by the title.  There is no doubt that the pilot made mistakes.  Some felt bad for the pilot.  Others condemned him as an unqualified VFR pilot that sullied the reputation of Mooney owner/pilots who incredulously believe this could never happen to them.
But a lot of incorrect assumptions have been made by many making comments.
First of all this happened back in December 2015.    https://www.natca.org/2016/03/14/jeffrey-schuler-new-york-tracon/
The owner/pilot was Instrument Rated.  He joined MooneySpace and actively posted from 2013-2016.  His MS name was "garysuperpilot"

• At the time of the incident the owner/pilot was 62 yrs old
• He got his Instrument ticket in 2007
• From 2001-2004 he owned a Cessna 150,  N714CA
• From 2004-2013 he owned a Piper Cherokee 140,  N9939W
• In 2013 he purchased his M20F, N9525M.  He sold it in 2019 https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/24911601/n9525m-1967-mooney-m20f
  • On MS he said
    • "..I purchased a 67f model in may for 41k. It had new paint, fresh overhaul 10smoh (was a local shop however) , new schimitar prop, and a new interior. On the minus side it had limited avionics. It only had original wing leveler, kx 155 w/ gs, mk12w/ head, dme, fuel flow totalizer, and rather old audio panel. It also had an alternate static source and backup vacuum system."
    • "What I have done is panel mount a 396 GPS which I bought used for $500 and yoke mount an iPad mini w/fore flight.
• In 2014 on MS he said:
  • " Yeah, I've been flying IFR for eight years and still don't "enjoy" a minimum approach all that much. I remember being told to set minimums your comfortable with. I don't feel as indestructible as I did 40 years ago and try not to take chances I don't need to. Flying needs to stay something I love to do and not something I have to do."
• And in 2015 on MS he said:
  • "(yoke mount) +1 ipad mini. w/foreflight  standard ipad blocks too much"

 
So on the day of the incident, he may or may not have been current.  He may or may not have checked any weather before departing - apparently not in sufficient detail.  Obviously he was not proficient that day.  He did not do his VOR checks before takeoff based on his comments about VORs.
But he kept his cool while in the clag as [mention=20853]Joshua Blackh4t[/mention] noted.  He never sounded panicked.   He hand flew the plane on the VOR approach and landed.
This was "way back in 2015" and he did not have a fancy integrated panel and autopilot like so many are dependent upon today. As [mention=50414]C.J.[/mention] noted this is not Mooney specific.
I wonder how many current Mooney owner/pilots, with fancy integrated panels and autopilots, could hand fly if they lost GPS or their panel.  How many can even still fly a VOR approach?  How many still even have VORs in their plane?
Think about the next 5-10 years as pilots become more and more dependent upon more and more capable integrated avionics.  I see so many accidents where the pilots depend upon the autopilot but lack proficiency to hand fly when it fails.  This may have happened to the ATR in Brazil.  It also appears to be the case with the recent Pilatus crash in Wyoming - they told ATC the autopilot failed before they lost control.
 

Thanks for all the extra details. But given those facts it’s much worse than i was realizing. I assumed he had a real IFR GPS but just 2 portable GPS’s. Probably rationalized doesn’t do “hard IFR” and therefore didn’t need to follow the regs wrt to using a IFR certified GPS to fly RNAV under IFR. Perhaps years of normalization of deviation got him complacent as a magenta line pilot till this day when the weather was far more than he could handle.

Very possible too that the 396 GPS was working fine but given the busy workload the pilot may have screwed up the buttonology and got to over loaded to figure it out since he had to fly the plane.

Do we know what if anything the FAA did about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[takair]

A few more details narrated in the controller’s award ceremony….

 

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, kortopates said:

Do we know what if anything the FAA did about this.

No idea.  It does not show up in the NTSB database or the FAA Incidents (ASIAS).

[Ibra]

The pilot looked more like who was once an experienced IFR pilot but not he is not familiar with panel GPS and likely always relied on iPad to make ATC shortcuts, I know similar pilots who have no clue how to use GPS but know how to use VOR, ADF, ILS…I flew with one pilot who asks heading every time he gets a direct, scraps 2 out of 3 GPS procedures due to fat fingers, does not know the fixes in GPS plates and he can’t fly without iPad…

This pilot was clearly behind his airplane and currency, yet he was not a zombie doing VFR in IMC: he was operating under IFR, he can keep wings level and he was surprisingly very calm and he took his time with ATC 

His fuel situation is very interesting nonetheless, I am not sure what his fuel minima? I assume he flies very light in weather 

I am impressed by US ATC: the patience and the skill to handle this: vectoring instead of GPS direct, offering VOR approach with frequency…

 

Edited August 14 by Ibra

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Ibra said:

The pilot looked more like who was once an experienced IFR pilot

Someone who was once an experienced IFR pilot would make sure they knew how to use the equipment on board. 

Although I guess it depends on the "experience." 100 different flight or the same flight 100 times?

 

17 hours ago, kortopates said:

This discussion has been skewed by the title.  There is no doubt that the pilot made mistakes.  Some felt bad for the pilot.  Others condemned him as an unqualified VFR pilot that sullied the reputation of Mooney owner/pilots who incredulously believe this could never happen to them.
But a lot of incorrect assumptions have been made by many making comments.

I am absolutely guilty of making assumptions here, but not the "can't happen to me" variety. Rather, this is a definite rant topic for me.

This is one of a number of videos which have come up recently (several unfortunately by Mooney pilots, so it's time to leave the Cirrus folks alone) who are saying things out loud on frequency, basically telling ATC they have no clue how their equipment works or how to do something as basic as adding a new destination and loading an approach in a GPS flight plan. 

My concern is that there who have died because of it. In the past I've mentioned my list of GPS tasks pilot don't know how to do which I use for recurrent instrument training and avionics transitions. Nothing crazy; every one of them something that happens in the real world of instrument flight with some regularity. The list got started after a fatal accident at RDU (Raleigh) in which a pilot, based on the ATIS, loaded an approach and then was given a different approach once checking in with TRACON. Plenty of time to perform this 6-10 second task. Instead, the pilot began complaining about avionics problems (sound familiar?), crashed and died. 

 

[kortopates]

I am absolutely guilty of making assumptions here, but not the "can't happen to me" variety. Rather, this is a definite rant topic for me.
This is one of a number of videos which have come up recently (several unfortunately by Mooney pilots, so it's time to leave the Cirrus folks alone) who are saying things out loud on frequency, basically telling ATC they have no clue how their equipment works or how to do something as basic as adding a new destination and loading an approach in a GPS flight plan. 
My concern is that there who have died because of it. In the past I've my list of GPS tasks pilot don't know how to do which I use for recurrent instrument training and avionics transitions. nothing crazy; ever one of them something that happens in the real world of instrument flight with some regularity. The list got started after a fatal accident at RDU (Raleigh) in which a pilot, based on the ATIS, loaded an approach and then was given a different approach once checking in with TRACON. Plenty of time to perform this 6-10 second task. Instead, the pilot began complaining about avionics problems (sound familiar?), crashed and died. 
 

i agree (especially the experienced IFR pilot) with all but the part quoted with my name wasn’t me which is odd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

18 minutes ago, kortopates said:

the part quoted with my name wasn’t me which is odd.

That is odd. Looking back, I think I grabbed text you quoted from someone else and it got attributed to you.

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

in which a pilot, based on the ATIS, loaded an approach and then was given a different approach once checking in with TRACON. Plenty of time to perform this 6-10 second task. Instead, the pilot began complaining about avionics problems (sound familiar?), crashed and died.

I'm a fellow ranter about this.  I actually think the industry does instrument pilots a disservice, by evangelizing the idea that you must set up an approach "properly", in advance, so you never have to make last minute changes.  Yep, I'm looking squarely at Gary Reeves and the cadre of other CFIIs with their never-program-VTF! screeds, and related advice.  These folks set up an idea in the heads of their clients, that GPS approach programming is scary.  That you get one shot at it, and you better get it done well in advance of commencing the approach.  Any late-breaking change and you're screwed, because it's just not possible to fly the airplane and handle the button-ology.

Bunk, I say.  Even with the old etch-a-sketch interface on the GNS navigators, it's just not that hard.  But like other aviation skills, it requires a lot of practice.  Repeated reps of doing the same basic things with a few variations.  Unlike other aviation skills, GPS programming can be practiced at home, in short increments, for free.  So I just don't think there's any excuse for a modern IFR pilot operating on an instrument flight plan to be weakly or not-at-all proficient in loading a new approach on short notice.

[kortopates]

I'm a fellow ranter about this.  I actually think the industry does instrument pilots a disservice, by evangelizing the idea that you must set up an approach "properly", in advance, so you never have to make last minute changes.  Yep, I'm looking squarely at Gary Reeves and the cadre of other CFIIs with their never-program-VTF! screeds, and related advice.  These folks set up an idea in the heads of their clients, that GPS approach programming is scary.  That you get one shot at it, and you better get it done well in advance of commencing the approach.  Any late-breaking change and you're screwed, because it's just not possible to fly the airplane and handle the button-ology.
Bunk, I say.  Even with the old etch-a-sketch interface on the GNS navigators, it's just not that hard.  But like other aviation skills, it requires a lot of practice.  Repeated reps of doing the same basic things with a few variations.  Unlike other aviation skills, GPS programming can be practiced at home, in short increments, for free.  So I just don't think there's any excuse for a modern IFR pilot operating on an instrument flight plan to be weakly or not-at-all proficient in loading a new approach on short notice.

I agree with you there, buttonology is a huge part of IFR proficiency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Vance Harral said:

Even with the old etch-a-sketch interface on the GNS navigators, it's just not that hard.  But like other aviation skills, it requires a lot of practice. 

For jollies, I set this up in the PC-based GNS trainer which, because you have to use a mouse or keyboard to simulate pushes and turns, is even more cumbersome than in the actual etch-a-sketch :D.  

I entered a flight plan from KFRG to KHVN. Then I (1) added KBDR and (2) loaded the BDR RNAV 29 approach. To be fair, I left out the part about briefing enough of the plate to select a transition, but each took 13 seconds.  

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

Yep, I'm looking squarely at Gary Reeves and the cadre of other CFIIs with their never-program-VTF!

Personally, I never program VTF. I don't even change to it when receiving vectors. But when I do post-rating training, so long as the pilot who does program VTF takes care of it when I create the situation where they need to change (one of my "tasks pilot don't know"), I don't care if they do.

[Vance Harral]

2 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

but each took 13 seconds. 

Not surprised you accomplished it quickly.   But I don't think this sort of thing is really about how fast you can work.  Rather, it's about the confidence to get the job done methodically, even if you're interrupted during the process to correct a small attitude deviation, backspace after a bump of turbulence causes you to hit the wrong key, etc.  It's just not a crisis if it takes a full minute to load a new approach, or re-load the current approach with a different transition.

A skill that's important in establishing that confidence, is having enough situational awareness to understand whether you're actually short on time and space.  Assigning a new approach or transition when you're 30 seconds away from a no-longer-relevant fix is kind of a jerk move by the controller; but doing so when you're several minutes away is not.  So what if it takes you a couple of minutes to bring up the new plate and re-load the approach?  You've got that time.  But you only know that if you have enough SA.  It's hard to argue that SA is a Herculean task in the modern era of moving maps and geo-referenced approach plates, but you still have to be ahead of the airplane.

On a related note, one of the things I teach my IFR students is the importance of this tool in the tool bag: XXX Approach, can I get a vector while I re-program my GPS?  This is unlikely to piss off the controller, but even if it does, you're the PIC.  And that vector request might help a new controller understand what's a reasonable expectation, though that's rare.  Experienced controllers already know when they're giving you a late/high workload assignment, and will be unsurprised by the vector request.  That's not to say you shouldn't bring your "A" game in a busy metropolitan area.  But in the end, the person with their fingers on the GPS, and the folks in front of the scope, are all on the same team.