Mooney down In Ocoee National Forest, Reliance TN

[201er]

9 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Agreed.  I found the 29 kts increase in speed (Over the span of 42 seconds) while remaining at constant altitude very strange.  How can a Mooney go from a steady 153 kts cruise speed (likely wide open cruise for an M20F with 201 mods) to 183 kts in such a short time?  Was he in a massive updraft?...And his autopilot lowered the nose/AOA to maintain altitude?  (essentially diving in the relative wind?)  Or just a massive localized tail wind?

 

Autopilot or not, I don’t think you can gain 30 knots of ground speed with no change in altitude. Even a few hundred feet. Nobody is perfect at anticipating it so usually you go up first and then you push to go back down which brings the speed up. The other aspect is you ride it out to a degree cause if you push hard enough to hold altitude, you’ll make everyone sick. Split the difference with some speed gain and some altitude gain. Plus, what goes up must come down. Be ready for the drop.

This was near Chattanooga. Perhaps mountain wave rather than convection? I thought winds were pretty strong.

[201er]

9 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

We don't know that to be the case.  But it would not be the first time.   Here is one, actually a Mooney pilot, whose bone headed illegal IFR flight made an AVweb write-up.

Probable Cause #61: Illegal IFR Flight - AVweb

That’s the thing though, non-instrument rated pilots that do illegal cloud flying usually don’t have the guts to file it. That’s going on record and showing intentionality. It seems like they are more likely to go through clouds quietly or take a pop up from ATC if offered. It’s a bit more hush hush that way and they rationalize to themselves that it’s just them getting out of a pickle than intentionally going out to do that.

[Echo]

Very sad.  So instrument rated pilots.  Instrumented rated.  Pilots that were nstrument rated.  Not VFR pilots.  Instrument rated pilots.  Got it.

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, Blueskiez said:

One was a highly accomplished career pilot who still probably flys around 300 hours a year I bet with an ATP/CFI and another private pilot along with someone else.  The news article says they were traveling to visit the grandson so just 2 generations.

This article says father and grandparents.  So correct - two (2) generations.

MTSU golfer’s father, grandparents killed in TN plane crash

His father, Jeffry Blane Maneth (owner of the LLC that registered N7026V) held a Private SEL only.

They have not released the names of which grandparents, but Jeff's father is Marion L. Maneth, age 74, a retired ATP and current CFII.

[1980Mooney]

17 hours ago, Nico1 said:

Looks like Autopilot was on up to the first turn at least (looking at track/altitude). Maybe trying to deviate around a cell?Having a look at the wx data for yesterday, the area looked dreadful: icing with bases 070/040, convective activity and TS. 

 

12 hours ago, kortopates said:

Agreed, but if he didn’t get a rather complete briefing i suspect he would be too busy after departure to see airmets. But he could have been doing that before he landed at Chattanooga.   The thing that makes we question LOC from icing is that the aircraft never got slow before losing control. Once level it sped up to 183 kts grnd speed before what appears to be LOC. So Now i am wondering if it was severe turbulence as in convective clouds.

 

11 hours ago, Schllc said:

Adsb is merely a reporting of the airplanes data. 
if a pitot and or static port iced over the data it was reporting could be inaccurate. 
and icing could take a plane down it under a minute quite easily, it would have to be severe, but absolutely possible. I have seen it with my own two eyes. 
instruments not affected by icing like gps and engine data would be ok, anything relying on pitot-static system could be suspect for accuracy.  I’m pretty sure Adsb uses gps for speed, not ias or tas. 
this is a sad story, and I certainly hope the pilot was not flying ifr illegally…

 

12 hours ago, 201er said:

Why would a non-instrument rated pilot file IFR? Or go into clouds? Especially with passengers?

Maybe the better question is why would you file to fly into a Known Icing G-Airmet in a non-FIKI plane with passengers, regardless of whether you are not Instrument rated or you have a CFII in the right seat or not?  And is it technically "legal".   The POH says it is not.  

Flying Into Known Icing - Is It Legal? - AVweb

F POH

J POH

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

This article says father and grandparents.  So correct - two (2) generations.

MTSU golfer’s father, grandparents killed in TN plane crash

His father, Jeffry Blane Maneth (owner of the LLC that registered N7026V) held a Private SEL only.

They have not released the names of which grandparents, but Jeff's father is Marion L. Maneth, age 74, a retired ATP and current CFII.

Was all of that ATC chatter about getting to an airport near Augusta for the Masters associated with 26V?  That made me cringe, especially if the weather was poor and folks needed access to comms with ATC.  A case of "get there itis" and poor decision making?  For me any time passengers are involved it's very sad.  BTW, I know there are a lot of pilots here far more experienced than me, but I did see 225 KTS level over the ground once in my little F going over ABQ.  The speed ramped up very quickly and diminished just as quickly (as expected).  I don't remember fighting altitude.  

[kortopates]

All true but airmets for icing don’t constitute known icing.
“Known icing conditions" involve circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice
formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot.

I prefer the FAA Legal interpretation from Bell 2009 https://www.faa.gov/media/14431

For some pilots it just takes freezing temps and clouds but in this case it sure looks like a reasonable pilot would conclude icing conditions were very likely.

I am more and more of the opinion this was due to convection, first with an updraft so common in cumulus with significant vertical development.

The final report is going to be an interesting read if they cover this in depth. But not very timely 2 years from now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

All true but airmets for icing don’t constitute known icing.
“Known icing conditions" involve circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice
formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot.  I prefer the FAA Legal interpretation from Bell 2009 https://www.faa.gov/media/14431

For some pilots it just takes freezing temps and clouds but in this case it sure looks like a reasonable pilot would conclude icing conditions were very likely. I am more and more of the opinion this was due to convection, first with an updraft so common in cumulus with significant vertical development.

The final report is going to be an interesting read if they cover this in depth. But not very timely 2 years from now.

Yes the Final will be interesting.  There are a few issues, some that you have raised, that are troubling.

• "Did they brief the weather?"
  • It may be that there were two (2) pilots, one a CFII, who could have been staying aware of the weather
  • The plane has the latest fully integrated Garmin flat panel feeding them WX along the way
• If there were two (2) pilots, then that can really reduce workload.  I think the owner/dad (non-Instrument) was 46 and the grand-dad/CFII/ATP (if on the plane) was 74. Who was PF and who was PIC? The voice on ATC talking for N7036V sounded older - granddad may have been working the radio.
  • If there were two (2) pilots on board, why didn't one, especially an experienced ATP/CFII, ask ATC for more WX briefs or for PIREPS on the route?
  • If there were two (2) pilots on board, why didn't one talk to ATC when things started deteriorating?
  • There is an interesting CRM issue when a pilot flies with his father who is also a pilot/ATP/CFII.  Does the son naturally tend to defer to the father in times of stress for better or worse?
• This plane had a fully integrated up to date Garmin flat panel with all the bells and whistles expect "AutoLand"..
  • "New Custom Garmin Panel by JA Air Center including: Garmin GMA345 audio panel Garmin G3X 10” PFD/MFD Garmin GTN650TXI Garmin Safe Glide Garmin EIS system CiES Fuel Senders Garmin G5 Garmin GFC500 – autopilot w/ R,P,T Garmin GTX345ADSB Garmin GNC255A Nav/Com Garmin GAE12 Encoder Garmin USB"
  • The listing mentioned "Safe Glide" but I think they meant Smart Glide.  
  • It had Electronic Stability and Protection (Garmin ESP™) to help prevent loss of control
    • https://www.garmin.com/en-US/newsroom/press-release/aviation/garmin-smart-glide-now-available-for-the-g3x-touch-flight-display-and-g5-electronic-flight-instrument-for-certified-aircraft/
    • https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/#esp
  • So why would they fly into a cell and why would it lose control due to convection if not in a cell?

I wouldn't be surprised if an ambulance chasing aviation lawyer gets to the family before the Final and slaps Garmin and JA Air Center with huge lawsuits.

Edited April 13 by 1980Mooney

[Nico1]

They likey had NEXRAD onboard. Because of the delay in data, it's a bad tool to threading the needle between CBs, especially if in IMC (potentially).  Even if they had sirius wx not much better in terms of the delay. 

[kortopates]

As for who was actually flying, given the grand father is an ATP/CFI, assuming he was a current CFII, it shouldn’t matter. I’ll bet since he was operating the radio, he was in the right seat.
As very current CFII and plane owner about the only time i am in the right seat is if I am solo, otherwise my wife is in the left seat regardless of who’s flying.

Of course absolutely nobody intentionally flys into a thunderstorm nor even a large growing cumulus with large vertical development.
It would be no surprise when that the aircraft encountered severe turbulence penetrating convection and the pilot then disconnected the autopilot and then lost control.

In the past with my BK KFC-150 AP, one could definitely fly the plane better in turbulence without it. With the new digital GFC-500 with yaw damper perhaps it could do better job if just trying to maintain heading without altitude hold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[redbaron1982]

17 minutes ago, kortopates said:

As for who was actually flying, given the grand father is an ATP/CFI, assuming he was a current CFII, it shouldn’t matter. I’ll bet since he was operating the radio, he was in the right seat.
As very current CFII and plane owner about the only time i am in the right seat is if I am solo, otherwise my wife is in the left seat regardless of who’s flying.

Of course absolutely nobody intentionally flys into a thunderstorm nor even a large growing cumulus with large vertical development.
It would be no surprise when that the aircraft encountered severe turbulence penetrating convection and the pilot then disconnected the autopilot and then lost control.

In the past with my BK KFC-150 AP, one could definitely fly the plane better in turbulence without it. With the new digital GFC-500 with yaw damper perhaps it could do better job if just trying to maintain heading without altitude hold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kind of a side question, what would be a large growing cumulus? One of the few times I flew solo IMC I was flying on and out of cumulus clouds extending to 10kft. I was flying at 8k and each time I transitioned through one of these cells I could feel and see how speed increased while the output was holding altitude. I didn't feel comfortable so I asked ATC to fly around the cells. 

But I'm still not sure what's big enough to warrant flying around and what's on to fly through. 

[kortopates]

Kind of a side question, what would be a large growing cumulus? One of the few times I flew solo IMC I was flying on and out of cumulus clouds extending to 10kft. I was flying at 8k and each time I transitioned through one of these cells I could feel and see how speed increased while the output was holding altitude. I didn't feel comfortable so I asked ATC to fly around the cells. 
But I'm still not sure what's big enough to warrant flying around and what's on to fly through. 

The taller the vertical development the stronger the elevator ride. The updraft is strongest in the upper portion as well. Although it varies I am personally deviating for anything more than 5K and often smaller. Just a week ago i deviated for about 4-5k and so did an airliner right behind me - we were both descending to different airports in the Vegas area.
IMO deviate when any doubt, ATC is always helpful and understanding.

Further if in strong updraft/downdraft i’ll let ATC know i am unable to hold altitude temporarily- sometimes i’ll get a block altitude but mostly not, (probably from flying in the teens with little traffic).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[201er]

50 minutes ago, kortopates said:

IMO deviate when any doubt, ATC is always helpful and understanding.

Something easier said than done if it’s scattered Cumulus like a mine field. If you can’t get over, sometimes you gotta go through. If they top out below 10k, they may be uncomfortable but should be doable. Coming back from Florida I was in and out of cumulus topping out between 8-10k and they were a nuisance but not worth zig zagging every little cloud in a wide field.

Anything that goes over 15k or is looking dark (or showing up on radar), I want to go around.

Most life-saving word in a pilot’s vocabulary: “unable”

Edited April 14 by 201er

[donkaye, MCFI]

7 hours ago, redbaron1982 said:

Kind of a side question, what would be a large growing cumulus? One of the few times I flew solo IMC I was flying on and out of cumulus clouds extending to 10kft. I was flying at 8k and each time I transitioned through one of these cells I could feel and see how speed increased while the output was holding altitude. I didn't feel comfortable so I asked ATC to fly around the cells. 

But I'm still not sure what's big enough to warrant flying around and what's on to fly through. 

Asking the question for me is enough to deviate.  The better question is. "Should I go?"  Asking that question means a definite "NO!"  I've never been through a cumulus cloud where I didn't get bumped around to some extent.  Not really a lot of fun.  

When I first got my airplane, if the storm scope didn't show any activity I felt comfortable going.  Big mistake.  I didn't know what I didn't know at the time.  I learned fast after a couple of simple flights from Stockton to San Jose in clouds and turbulence so bad that I couldn't read the instrument panel.  Putting the gear down and using the speed brakes stabilized things a little.  Looking at the actual weather from Stockton to the Bay area those days, it looked dark.  I can now attest to the fact that if weather looks bad, stormscope or not, it IS bad.

With all the weather tools available today the decision making process is considerably easier.  In the end, though,  if you have to ask yourself the question, "Should I go?" the answer should be no.  Abide by that rule and there will always be another day.  Don't abide by it and maybe not.

[Hank]

15 minutes ago, donkaye said:

With all the weather tools available today the decision making process is considerably easier.  In the end, though,  if you have to ask yourself the question, "Should I go?" the answer should be no.  Abide by that rule and there will always be another day.  Don't abide by it and maybe not.

It's better to be down here, wishing you were up there, than to be up there, wishing you were down here.

Fortunately that's how it has worked out for me all but one or two flights. Looking out the windows in quick glances, seeing the gray cloud surfaces tinted greenish-yellow while bouncing around is bad; just because you're on a departure vector doesn't mean the clouds are benign, the worst turbulence and heaviest rain I've experienced was on a vector leaving the Tampa Bravo headed north to Alabam--my wife insists there was no hail, but I think there was small hail mixed in with the heaviest rain. As soon as I broke out, I asked to deviate and said I'd rather not go through another cloud like that one, filled with hail. 

[1980Mooney]

13 hours ago, 201er said:

If you can’t get over, sometimes you gotta go through. If they top out below 10k, they may be uncomfortable but should be doable. Coming back from Florida I was in and out of cumulus topping out between 8-10k and they were a nuisance but not worth zig zagging every little cloud in a wide field.

Simple question: If you were flying cross country where WX briefing showed the cells top out at 8 - 10K , why would you plan to fly through them?  Why couldn’t you get on top?  

[donkaye, MCFI]

4 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Simple question: If you were flying cross country where WX briefing showed the cells top out at 8 - 10K , why would you plan to fly through them?  Why couldn’t you get on top?  

Interesting question.  Many years ago we were coming back from a flyin in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.  Bases were reported to be 11,000 with tops at 15,000.  Clouds seemed benign stratus.  I decided that it would be a simple matter to just climb the 4,000 feet through them.  After all, I have a turbocharged airplane.  I entered the clouds at 11,000 and began the climb.  12,000, 13000, 14,000, 15,000, 16,000, 17,000.  Light rime had begun to form.  I thought about going back down, but knew more ice would continue to  form. 18,000, 19,000.  Looking up, the view was beginning to get lighter.  I broke out at 20,000 feet.  After accelerating, I tried to move the rudder with the trim switch, but it wouldn't move.  It broke loose about an hour later with a bang.  Sublimation of the ¼" of ice accumulation in the bright sunlight?  Not a bit.  So much for the idea of sublimation.  The ice didn't come off until the descent over Redding.  Lesson learned.

[exM20K]

24 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Simple question: If you were flying cross country where WX briefing showed the cells top out at 8 - 10K , why would you plan to fly through them?  Why couldn’t you get on top?  

Nope.  When I looked at the weather while contemplating an unimportant trip north from the eastern Florida panhandle, the weather looked very unusual and very unsettled to me. It was a wide-spread area of densely packed, but isolated convection.  I didn’t even bother to check the tops.
-dan

[201er]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Simple question: If you were flying cross country where WX briefing showed the cells top out at 8 - 10K , why would you plan to fly through them?  Why couldn’t you get on top?  

It’s not always an option. Oxygen, passenger comfort, winds, speed, distance to go… or you’re already on top but need to descend through for arrival. Or if it’s early enough in the day 8k tops turn to 10 and 10 turns to 12, etc. Normally aspirated, out climbing isn’t usually an option. Or you have an area of some 20 or 50 miles of cumulus and then clear the rest of the way. There are countless reasons why you might choose to or need to put up with nuisance level cumulus. Hardly enough to invoke 91.3