Mooney Aircraft Accident Nampa, ID

[EricJ]

1 minute ago, DCarlton said:

A bit of a tangent... if you're at a very high DA airport, and you richen full at takeoff, are you making significantly less power (enough to effect take off performance) than you would if you were at the proper fuel / air ratio?  Obviously you're wasting fuel.  

Yes, this is possible, but does not appear to be the issue in the case in point, since the airport was only ~2500 ft elevation and DA would not likely have been high enough to degrade performance as much as seems to have been necessary for the evidently extended takeoff.    For higher DAs this can be a serious issue, though.    There was a Bonanza crash several summers ago for a transient aircraft that came through and stopped at Flagstaff, where DA in the summer can be 10000 ft.   There was no definitive cause of the crash determined but general opinion was that it looked very much like they didn't lean for takeoff and climbout   The aircraft failed to climb and went into the trees west of the airport.

[Jackk]

37 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Yuup. I used the J POH graphs and came up with a bit under 1500 feet ground roll. You're showing 1,353 feet, so pretty consistent.  With a 5000 foot runway and lift off not until 2500...something was wrong.  I think it's more than just density altitude (which I think is around 5100 feet)...failing to lean shouldn't have been THAT bad. Maybe too lean? (Failing to enrich after taxi as @EricJ implied)

Maybe over gross, but even with full fuel a wife and baby should not have been close.  Maybe carrying a ton of baggage?

 Think even if he was significantly over gross with good technique that’s still a very doable takeoff.

Massively fouled plugs, didn’t re set mixture to T/O (I like a full power static run to adjust for max power, just don’t do it over rocks), or other mx issue

Ether way RIP 

 

 

[1980Mooney]

Looks like "Kathryn's Report" as become "Adam's Report"

Interesting

Adam's Report: Mooney M20J, N5764H, fatal accident occurred on July 27, 2025, near Nampa Municipal Airport (MAN/KMAN), Nampa, Idaho

 

[Vance Harral]

21 hours ago, Schllc said:

Wow, if you couldn’t top 69 knots on/over the runway, why would you even try to take off ?

I don't understand the comments here about speed.

First, except in very unusual circumstances, data from ADS-B tracking sites shows ground speed, not indicated airspeed.  I don't have the historical METAR from the airport in question on the day/time in question, but the departure likely involved at least a few knots of headwind, meaning indicated airspeed on/over the runway was higher than 69 knots (unless the DA was very high such that true airspeed was substantially higher than indicated airspeed, and it's been pointed out that DA wasn't particularly egregious).

Second, the M20J POH charts for max performance takeoff at gross weight spec a liftoff speed of 62 KIAS and a "speed at 50 ft" (Vx) of 66 KIAS.  Even if there was no wind and the actual airspeed was 69 KIAS just off the runway, this doesn't necessarily indicate pilot error.  It may indicate nothing other than the use of short field technique, though it's worth noting that the high AoA an deck angle you get with short field technique makes you more vulnerable in the event of an engine failure.

None of this is to say the pilot didn't commit errors in observation, technique, or judgment.  But I don't think there's any evidence they were obviously, egregiously, "too slow".

 

 

[Vance Harral]

4 hours ago, Jackk said:

I like a full power static run to adjust for max power

Several POHs specify this, and I'm loathe advise going against the book.  But I think it's largely a waste of heat, noise, and wear & tear,

You can perform your own experiment on your own airplane to determine where the red knob winds up after a full-power runup vs. one performed at normal mag-check RPM.  I've yet to find a normally-aspirated airplane where the difference is more than "a smidge", and it's often indistinguishable.

Compare then with the Lycoming graph of power developed vs. mixture setting below.  The shape of the mixture/power curve near peak power is very flat - you have to miss the optimum by a country mile before the power developed drops by more than about one percent.  If one percent is the difference between going into the trees or not, your real failure was poor judgement rather than poor leaning technique.

You will miss best power mixture by a country mile if you set full rich mixture at 8000' density altitude, because you're a flat-lander who is afraid to touch the red knob.  So don't do that.  But one result of the well-intentioned effort to teach people about leaning for takeoff at high-DA airports seems to be far too much agonizing over trivial differences; while annoying the neighbors, tearing up props and paint jobs, and basically guaranteeing you're getting the cylinders as hot as possible prior to takeoff.  25 years or so of operating at high DAs has led me to believe some temperance and common sense is in order.

This advice is, of course, worth what you're paying for it.  Just some food for thought if you've never seen the graph below.

[Jackk]

1 hour ago, Vance Harral said:

Several POHs specify this, and I'm loathe advise going against the book.  But I think it's largely a waste of heat, noise, and wear & tear,

You can perform your own experiment on your own airplane to determine where the red knob winds up after a full-power runup vs. one performed at normal mag-check RPM.  I've yet to find a normally-aspirated airplane where the difference is more than "a smidge", and it's often indistinguishable.

Compare then with the Lycoming graph of power developed vs. mixture setting below.  The shape of the mixture/power curve near peak power is very flat - you have to miss the optimum by a country mile before the power developed drops by more than about one percent.  If one percent is the difference between going into the trees or not, your real failure was poor judgement rather than poor leaning technique.

You will miss best power mixture by a country mile if you set full rich mixture at 8000' density altitude, because you're a flat-lander who is afraid to touch the red knob.  So don't do that.  But one result of the well-intentioned effort to teach people about leaning for takeoff at high-DA airports seems to be far too much agonizing over trivial differences; while annoying the neighbors, tearing up props and paint jobs, and basically guaranteeing you're getting the cylinders as hot as possible prior to takeoff.  25 years or so of operating at high DAs has led me to believe some temperance and common sense is in order.

This advice is, of course, worth what you're paying for it.  Just some food for thought if you've never seen the graph below.

 Depending on strip length, dexterity, conditions and ability, this can also be done on the roll.

 

But the safe option is the static.

 

if it’s a home drome and you operate there all the time there, you probable know the exact mixture position before you even open the hangar, experience and all, however I still see many a rote pilot go “mixture rich for takeoff”  nahhhh

 

 

Edited July 29 by Jackk

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

I don't understand the comments here about speed.

First, except in very unusual circumstances, data from ADS-B tracking sites shows ground speed, not indicated airspeed.  I don't have the historical METAR from the airport in question on the day/time in question, but the departure likely involved at least a few knots of headwind, meaning indicated airspeed on/over the runway was higher than 69 knots (unless the DA was very high such that true airspeed was substantially higher than indicated airspeed, and it's been pointed out that DA wasn't particularly egregious).

Second, the M20J POH charts for max performance takeoff at gross weight spec a liftoff speed of 62 KIAS and a "speed at 50 ft" (Vx) of 66 KIAS.  Even if there was no wind and the actual airspeed was 69 KIAS just off the runway, this doesn't necessarily indicate pilot error.  It may indicate nothing other than the use of short field technique, though it's worth noting that the high AoA an deck angle you get with short field technique makes you more vulnerable in the event of an engine failure.

None of this is to say the pilot didn't commit errors in observation, technique, or judgment.  But I don't think there's any evidence they were obviously, egregiously, "too slow".

Per Adam’s Report- no wind

Weather:

METAR KMAN 272335Z AUTO 00000KT 9SM CLR 32/11 A2993 RMK A01

METAR KMAN 272355Z AUTO 00000KT 9SM CLR 32/11 A2993 RMK A01

[EricJ]

Some airports that experience high DAs have these signs.   I know of at least two in AZ, this one is at Springerville, which has a field elevation of 7055 feet.   This was in October of last year.    I was by myself and the tanks weren't full, and it was a relatively uneventful takeoff.   Climbout was kinda slow, but other than that it wasn't a big deal.

I don't think a Mooney should have any trouble taking off from a field at 2500' elevation due to DA.   I suspect there was something preventing the engine from making full power, which could have been operator error, or a misfueling, or a maintenance issue or something else.   

[DCarlton]

6 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

Several POHs specify this, and I'm loathe advise going against the book.  But I think it's largely a waste of heat, noise, and wear & tear,

You can perform your own experiment on your own airplane to determine where the red knob winds up after a full-power runup vs. one performed at normal mag-check RPM.  I've yet to find a normally-aspirated airplane where the difference is more than "a smidge", and it's often indistinguishable.

Compare then with the Lycoming graph of power developed vs. mixture setting below.  The shape of the mixture/power curve near peak power is very flat - you have to miss the optimum by a country mile before the power developed drops by more than about one percent.  If one percent is the difference between going into the trees or not, your real failure was poor judgement rather than poor leaning technique.

You will miss best power mixture by a country mile if you set full rich mixture at 8000' density altitude, because you're a flat-lander who is afraid to touch the red knob.  So don't do that.  But one result of the well-intentioned effort to teach people about leaning for takeoff at high-DA airports seems to be far too much agonizing over trivial differences; while annoying the neighbors, tearing up props and paint jobs, and basically guaranteeing you're getting the cylinders as hot as possible prior to takeoff.  25 years or so of operating at high DAs has led me to believe some temperance and common sense is in order.

This advice is, of course, worth what you're paying for it.  Just some food for thought if you've never seen the graph below.

Find peak EGT at mag check rpm then richen -200 deg and your in the peak power ballpark with plenty of margin?  

[1980Mooney]

24 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Some airports that experience high DAs have these signs.   I know of at least two in AZ, this one is at Springerville, which has a field elevation of 7055 feet.   This was in October of last year.    I was by myself and the tanks weren't full, and it was a relatively uneventful takeoff.   Climbout was kinda slow, but other than that it wasn't a big deal.

I don't think a Mooney should have any trouble taking off from a field at 2500' elevation due to DA.   I suspect there was something preventing the engine from making full power, which could have been operator error, or a misfueling, or a maintenance issue or something else.   

Agreed.  2,500 ft elevation and 5,000 ft DA should not be a problem.  I would fly my J (pre Missile conversion) out of Albuquerque at 5,355 ft elevation all the time - many times at max gross with seats filled.  It has a long runways but still a non event.  Same with Santa Fe.  You just focus on a nice steady climb.

[Vance Harral]

10 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

Find peak EGT at mag check rpm then richen -200 deg and your in the peak power ballpark with plenty of margin?

Sure.  But that will not give you a meaningfully different final mixture setting than leaning until the engine runs a bit rough, then enrichening "a smidge".

I find the latter technique faster, and therefore less noisy with less wear and tear.  But it would probably be a wash if I consistently leaned by EGT during runup, so as to get more efficient at doing so.  No criticism from me on the EGT technique.

Reminder: all this discussion is relative to normally aspirated engines.  Turbocharged airplanes should be set full rich for takeoff at any density altitude.

[Pinecone]

You could also use the technique used in the climb and lean to the desired EGT.  Somewhere in the 1400 - 1500 range.

 

I am thinking maybe not leaned for takeoff, then pulled it off slow, backside of the power curve.  If slow and gear stayed down, airplane is not going to climb.

[Echo]

I completed a flight review yesterday and Reviewer had me out of my "comfort" zone doing landings on a nearby runway that was 2500'.  I am hangered at a Class C airport and usually land on paved runways at least 3500' long.  It definately made me sloppy on my final indicated airspeed. (I would land longer with higher speed on final because I could).  What surprised me was that when we checked airspeed on a hot Iowa day (85F dewpoint over 75%) the clean stall horn was 85mph and dirty was 80mph indicated at 3500'.  I am NOT used to hearing stall horn on short final, but full flaps all was fine on landing.  He had me really pull yoke and bring flaps up immediately after landing.  I do NOT normally keep yoke aggressively pulled to chest.  The braking action from doing this on a short field was impressive.  On takeoff did short field and plane with 530lbs in pilots weight and 40ish gallons was slow, but uneventful.

I am curious about the weight of the accident aircraft.  We were 2484lbs takeoff weight.  The added altitude and weight are significant potential factors.  This was an extremely sad story to read about.  

[1980Mooney]

51 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

You could also use the technique used in the climb and lean to the desired EGT.  Somewhere in the 1400 - 1500 range.

 

I am thinking maybe not leaned for takeoff, then pulled it off slow, backside of the power curve.  If slow and gear stayed down, airplane is not going to climb.

I have a hard time believing that.  2,500 ft, badly leaned or not, gear down or up, flaps takeoff, full or not, a Mooney with 2 adults on board will climb. Ham fisted Mooney owners take off all the time, poorly leaned - and I wager many at 5,000 DA. 

If Mooney's were that sensitive they would be falling out of the sky every day in the mountain west, especially in the summer.  They would be labeled a "death trap".  As they say "It just ain't so"....

[Schllc]

18 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

I don't understand the comments here about speed.

First, except in very unusual circumstances, data from ADS-B tracking sites shows ground speed, not indicated airspeed.  I don't have the historical METAR from the airport in question on the day/time in question, but the departure likely involved at least a few knots of headwind, meaning indicated airspeed on/over the runway was higher than 69 knots (unless the DA was very high such that true airspeed was substantially higher than indicated airspeed, and it's been pointed out that DA wasn't particularly egregious).

Second, the M20J POH charts for max performance takeoff at gross weight spec a liftoff speed of 62 KIAS and a "speed at 50 ft" (Vx) of 66 KIAS.  Even if there was no wind and the actual airspeed was 69 KIAS just off the runway, this doesn't necessarily indicate pilot error.  It may indicate nothing other than the use of short field technique, though it's worth noting that the high AoA an deck angle you get with short field technique makes you more vulnerable in the event of an engine failure.

None of this is to say the pilot didn't commit errors in observation, technique, or judgment.  But I don't think there's any evidence they were obviously, egregiously, "too slow".

 

 

Probably should have given more consideration to the model plane....My experience is only with ovations and acclaims and if i was at the end of the runway and was still only seeing 69 (or even 80 knots for big headwind), i would know something was very wrong.

[Skates97]

16 hours ago, Jackk said:

 Depending on strip length, dexterity, conditions and ability, this can also be done on the roll.

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

You could also use the technique used in the climb and lean to the desired EGT.  Somewhere in the 1400 - 1500 range.

We fly out of some high DA airports in our D with it's whopping 180hp. I have found it's never a problem leaning on the roll. I know where my EGT's are taking off at 100' MSL from home base and lean to "about" that number on the roll. Even out of KPSO with DA's above 10k we don't have a problem, it doesn't climb fast but it is safely doable. You have to know that the deck angle is going to be different that what you're used to seeing, it's going to climb slower, and you just let the plane give you what it can. Pulling back to climb faster doesn't work as others have mentioned.

The DA in this instance shouldn't have caused issues. 

[MooneyMitch]

My heart aches over this loss of such a young beautiful family.  Such incredible sadness for the families left behind. 

[Echo]

I am a VFR pilot. The smoke from Canada was a major concern today on a flight to cottages. MVFR was due to smoke. I could not see ground to front or to right. Of course there were planes at destination that made pucker high. A Cessna 172 didn’t have his ADSB on as he had an alternator issue. Uneventful landing but damn…See and avoid?  Tough today…

[Hank]

That's why VFR has minimum visibility requirements. It can be tough in the Deep South simply from humidity and the haze layer.

[Dick Denenny]

On 7/28/2025 at 5:08 PM, Ragsf15e said:

I know you should go ~straight if you loose power low, but some places there is a lot of pressure to turn.  I haven’t flown into Nampa but I’ve seen it, and I don’t think there’s many fields off at least one end.  Mostly light industrial and housing.  My home airport is like that too (ksff). I hope I never have to deal with that.

Best spot out of Felts, into the river. North or south

[DCarlton]

Anybody else troubled by the rash of recently publicized GA crashes.  I’d throw another $200K at an unknown new to me airplane if it would make me and my passengers safer but I don’t think it would.  Problem with getting older is the joy and thrill of flying doesn’t offset safety concerns to the same degree it did 20-30 years ago…. I don’t worry about me but the thought of hurting a non pilot passenger ….  Sigh.  

[toto]

1 hour ago, DCarlton said:

Anybody else troubled by the rash of recently publicized GA crashes.  I’d throw another $200K at an unknown new to me airplane if it would make me and my passengers safer but I don’t think it would.  Problem with getting older is the joy and thrill of flying doesn’t offset safety concerns to the same degree it did 20-30 years ago…. I don’t worry about me but the thought of hurting a non pilot passenger ….  Sigh.  

A turn back at 200 feet wouldn’t benefit from a BRS, but I suspect that a Hooker harness or Amsafe airbags would make a difference in survivability. Either one is an easy retrofit, but most of us don’t have them. 

[DCarlton]

46 minutes ago, toto said:

A turn back at 200 feet wouldn’t benefit from a BRS, but I suspect that a Hooker harness or Amsafe airbags would make a difference in survivability. Either one is an easy retrofit, but most of us don’t have them. 

We sit so close to the yoke and panel it would have to be a well designed system.  To be honest I don’t have shoulder belts.  They’ve been on my wish list.  Thanks for the reminder.  

[hazek]

3 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Anybody else troubled by the rash of recently publicized GA crashes.

Yes. And I ate a humble pie myself recently. I tended to judge these accidents harshly since "pilots should have known better not to do X". Typically the accidents that happen are repeats of the same old mistakes. But I made one of such mistakes recently. Despite being aware not to make it. Despite having SOPs so I wouldn't make it. Despite being well aware of the grave consequences possible if one makes it. Despite thinking about it and briefing it moments before takeoff not to make it. And I did it anyways. I don't understand why I made it. I have explanations but ultimately I don't know. This bothers me. Our fable mind is not a machine, it short-circuits and does stupid shit all the time. The more accidents I see the more I'm asking myself when will I make a fateful mistake. Sometimes the thought does cross my mind that this isn't worth it. But then I have a flight on a perfect VFR day through the Alps and I want more of it!

[Echo]

16 hours ago, Hank said:

That's why VFR has minimum visibility requirements. It can be tough in the Deep South simply from humidity and the haze layer.

I know Hank. I was legal VFR during entire flight. That said, actual ability to see forward and right was compromised. I could see ground to left, but see and avoid?  Nope. If they were not broadcasting position they were invisible in smoke…NOT doing that flight again if there is south wind. I don’t like 11mph headwind anyway.