Mooney Aircraft Accident Nampa, ID

[Vance Harral]

38 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

If there can be significant EGT variations across different airplanes at sea level, how do you know your engine is making full power?

The main cause of EGT variation across aircraft is placement of the EGT probes, which will vary a little from airplane to airplane in factory installations, and quite a lot in aftermarket installations.  As an example, I present my own airplane, in which the EGT probes are installed almost 8" down the exhaust pipes from the cylinder flange.  That's considerably lower than most other installations, with commensurate differences in absolute EGT numbers when I compare with others.

The best way I know of to ensure your engine is making full power at takeoff is to compare takeoff performance against published performance numbers in the POH (no, the POH numbers are not marketing lies and you don't need a brand new airplane with Chuck Yeager in the left seat to match them).  Once you've established that, you know the MP, RPM, and EGT numbers that are normal for your airplane, and can check them on future takeoffs.  The catch is that some performance degradations won't show up as MP/RPM/EGT changes.  For example, a major nick in the propeller can reduce thrust without changing MP, RPM or EGT.  A worn camshaft that allows a smaller volume and mass of air to enter the cylinders for combustion will not produce a perceptible change in MP, and the governor will likely still allow the prop to reach max RPM.  It might change observed EGT a little, but my guess is the difference would be so small that most pilots wouldn't notice.  But both of those things would result in delayed acceleration and increased ground roll vs. book numbers.  This is one reason I try to check takeoff performance against POH numbers every few months or so.

[DCarlton]

23 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Difference in power between 200 ° and 300° ROP is minuscule.

I'm thinking I should get up to 9K feet, go full rich, and see what low EGT temps look like when the mixture is extreme rich.  Then I'll have the range from a smidge / minuscule difference between a safe max power operating point ROP, and worse case stupid rich which degrades output power? 

[MikeOH]

@Vance Harral

How do you accurately measure take-off performance?

I just don't trust the GPS plots from FF or even FlightAware...especially the altitude which would be used to determine when the plane became airborne.

Yeah, I can look out the window and try and estimate position along the runway when I lift off but that doesn't seem too accurate, either.  Plus, the wind is tough to judge, as well.

I'd really like to verify I'm making full power but with a constant speed prop it is a challenge.

[redbaron1982]

3 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

The main cause of EGT variation across aircraft is placement of the EGT probes, which will vary a little from airplane to airplane in factory installations, and quite a lot in aftermarket installations.  As an example, I present my own airplane, in which the EGT probes are installed almost 8" down the exhaust pipes from the cylinder flange.  That's considerably lower than most other installations, with commensurate differences in absolute EGT numbers when I compare with others.

The best way I know of to ensure your engine is making full power at takeoff is to compare takeoff performance against published performance numbers in the POH (no, the POH numbers are not marketing lies and you don't need a brand new airplane with Chuck Yeager in the left seat to match them).  Once you've established that, you know the MP, RPM, and EGT numbers that are normal for your airplane, and can check them on future takeoffs.  The catch is that some performance degradations won't show up as MP/RPM/EGT changes.  For example, a major nick in the propeller can reduce thrust without changing MP, RPM or EGT.  A worn camshaft that allows a smaller volume and mass of air to enter the cylinders for combustion will not produce a perceptible change in MP, and the governor will likely still allow the prop to reach max RPM.  It might change observed EGT a little, but my guess is the difference would be so small that most pilots wouldn't notice.  But both of those things would result in delayed acceleration and increased ground roll vs. book numbers.  This is one reason I try to check takeoff performance against POH numbers every few months or so.

Next time I will try to do a "by the book" take off and see what numbers do I get. My last take off was 2500ft the takeoff roll for what I can see in FF. I was a bit over max gross I think and the DA was 2600ft.

I never stop when I roll into the runway. Next time I will align, get to a stop, brakes, full throttle, break release, and see how fast I get airbone. I always have the feeling that my engine is not producing full rated power, but everything is fine with the engine (borescope, oil analysis, compression, Savvy's inflight mag check)
 

[PT20J]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

@Vance Harral

How do you accurately measure take-off performance?

I just don't trust the GPS plots from FF or even FlightAware...especially the altitude which would be used to determine when the plane became airborne.

Yeah, I can look out the window and try and estimate position along the runway when I lift off but that doesn't seem too accurate, either.  Plus, the wind is tough to judge, as well.

I'd really like to verify I'm making full power but with a constant speed prop it is a challenge.

Runway lights are usually spaced at 200' intervals. Centerline stripes are 120' long with 80' gaps so they are also 200' from the beginning of each stripe to the beginning of the next stripe.

[Vance Harral]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

How do you accurately measure take-off performance?

For ground roll, I just count runway stripes.  Standard runway striping is 120' stripes with 80' spaces, i.e. a periodicity of 200'.  Roll to the beginning of the first runway stripe, hold the brakes, launch, and count each stripe as it rolls underneath the airplane.  A little estimation is involved in noting exact liftoff point, but you'll get it within 50' or so, which is good enough.

Things get more challenging once airborne.  But if you've got two in the airplane, one can look toward the ground on climbout while the other flies the airplane and calls out 50' or 100' or whatever.  The guy looking toward the ground can try to estimate how many more runway stripes pass below.

 

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Plus, the wind is tough to judge, as well.

It is if you're trying to make an observation accurate to within 1 knot, but I don't think that's necessary.  Look at the windsock when you roll onto the runway.  Each segment of it extends fully for each additional 3 knots of wind, see https://www.surfertoday.com/windsurfing/how-to-read-a-windsock.  A direct headwind is, well, direct; 30 degrees off is 50% headwind component, 45 degrees is 30%, and anything more is essentially zero.

Using these techniques on an actually level, dry runway (most runways are not quite level) I essentially always match takeoff performance numbers in the POH within 10% or so, for any common production GA airplane.  I did see significant variation recently in a flight school 172, which I chalked up to mis-reading the wind at the time.  But that airplane turned up with a bunch of metal in the filter at the next oil change!

[Vance Harral]

21 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

Next time I will try to do a "by the book" take off and see what numbers do I get.

Excellent idea.  Take several data points over the next several takeoffs and average them for even better data.

I do, of course, hear frequent peals that "the book is written by the marketing team", and claims that you can't meet book numbers in a real airplane.  But when I ask for details, I essentially always find that the person making the claim has either never actually measured performance, or that they've made critical errors interpreting charts.

On the latter note, there are plenty of gotchas.  Of course you have to use the current weather report to estimate wind, but where I live it's virtually guaranteed that the wind sock will show something different on the takeoff roll (including a tailwind, since we have the "calm wind runway" thing going on here).  If you're serious about it, calculate expected performance for several scenarios, then you can compare against the one that best matched actual takeoff conditions.

On a more disturbing note, there are a disconcerting number of pilots out there who can tell you in general terms that density altitude is a thing, but who then pick the row/column/line from the performance chart that is based on standard conditions, and subsequently see much worse performance than they calculated.  Most of this crowd also assumes that any runway without an absurd gradient must be level.

Finally, when I say a lot of pilots don't lift off at the prescribed Vlof speed, I don't mean a minor error of 1-2 knots; but often 5-10 knots faster, "for the wife and kids" or whatever.  Again, you don't have to be Yeager to get this right, but you do have to apply the techniques and conditions specified in the chart.

[kortopates]

The more accurate way to determine if your engine is still producing full power is in measuring your time to climb from liftoff to some altitude such as 8, 9 or 10K’ as compared to your POH time to climb table. It’s critical to follow the POH listed conditions such as Vy and will need to still have the same prop. e.g. a 3 bladed prop will climb better than the original 2 bladed.
Modern POH’s make this pretty straight forward yet done older POH’s (as well as some STC’s) can make this more difficult and may only give climb rates at different altitudes rather than provide a time to climb table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MikeOH]

Yeah, all I have is a rate of climb table

[Hank]

[Pinecone]

For my home field, I expect a certain speed by the end of the touchdown zone marker.  
 

 

[tigers2007]

Reports indicated that the PIC had a pilot certificate dated in 2024. Does the FAA database actually indicate when an individual initially received a certificate or rating? I'm devastated that the pilot attempted the impossible turn. Maybe the FAA needs to refine their PTS to hinder this all too common event? 30-years ago my CFI's made it quite clear that, on takeoff, anything in my field of view is all I have if "it" were to happen.

[Pinecone]

1)  No, FAA only reports latest issuance of certificate.

2)  How do you figure he tried the impossible turn when he was level or climbing for most of the turn?

[bonal]

On 8/4/2025 at 9:38 AM, DCarlton said:

I could see where that could be offensive to some.  People process these accidents differently.  I was saddened with the loss of a young wife and child to the point of giving up flying.  The thought of killing a passenger in my airplane is almost enough to induce me to stop flying.  There have been too many of these publicized accidents lately.  I'll probably cancel the aviation safety forum I follow on Facebook; I've seen enough crumpled airplanes.  After considering all of this, I concluded that the best thing we can do, if we plan to continue flying, is to have an all hands on deck safety stand down; or in the case of Mooneyspace, a safety discussion.  I say bring it on and bring it on in this thread.  The more we can learn from each other and these incidents, the better.  If I were to become a statistic, I would hope some pilot far younger than me would learn from my mistakes.  

Not sure how my comment would be offensive I merely pointed out that the J had shoulder harness and I would hope they were being used.  As for EGT being the possible cause for poor performance well that’s certainly a possibility and no one wants to know what causes accidents more than this pilot.  As much but not more it’s how we learn and fly safely.  Hopefully we will get an answer to what caused this terrible accident resulting in such a tragic loss.  As for this pilot I can tell if something is amiss when I start when I taxi when I run up and especially when I am making my takeoff role.  But then I’ve been flying this same airplane for twelve years and have become very familiar with it.  Possibly the pilot just didn’t have enough time to gain that feeling for his plane.  Anyway I just hate it when we hear these stories.  I know it’s a reality that we all accept when we take to the skies.  There is a great line in Lonesome Dove when Augustus says to call I ain’t talking about dying I’m talking about living.  God bless us aviators with safe skies.

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, bonal said:

Not sure how my comment would be offensive I merely pointed out that the J had shoulder harness and I would hope they were being used.  As for EGT being the possible cause for poor performance well that’s certainly a possibility and no one wants to know what causes accidents more than this pilot.  As much but not more it’s how we learn and fly safely.  Hopefully we will get an answer to what caused this terrible accident resulting in such a tragic loss.  As for this pilot I can tell if something is amiss when I start when I taxi when I run up and especially when I am making my takeoff role.  But then I’ve been flying this same airplane for twelve years and have become very familiar with it.  Possibly the pilot just didn’t have enough time to gain that feeling for his plane.  Anyway I just hate it when we hear these stories.  I know it’s a reality that we all accept when we take to the skies.  There is a great line in Lonesome Dove when Augustus says to call I ain’t talking about dying I’m talking about living.  God bless us aviators with safe skies.

We're talking past each other.  Your comment wasn't offensive.  I thought you thought my non-sympathetic safety related chatter was insensitive and potentially offensive.  The downside of trying to have a discussion via a forum that's only slightly better than a text chat.   

[bonal]

Not at all,  definitely points out how verbal communication is superior to text.  I think we are all impacted greatly by this accident as fellow pilots and I understand the desire to find out what  caused this tragedy.  Sadly sometimes we never get the answer.

[Jackk]

11 hours ago, tigers2007 said:

Reports indicated that the PIC had a pilot certificate dated in 2024. Does the FAA database actually indicate when an individual initially received a certificate or rating? I'm devastated that the pilot attempted the impossible turn. Maybe the FAA needs to refine their PTS to hinder this all too common event? 30-years ago my CFI's made it quite clear that, on takeoff, anything in my field of view is all I have if "it" were to happen.

The most recent date on the airman website is just for the certificate itself

If he even requested a new card due to new address, it will reset the date, sites like aviationdb can help figure when one got their initial cert.

 

 The “impossible turn” is a old wives tails, it ranges from the “turn or die turn” to “good idea turn” to “maybe turn based on wind/alt”  to “danger turn” to “impossible turn”

I would question the experience of any CFI who tells a student to fly a departure emergency with default straight ahead blinders on. 

[Shadrach]

On 8/4/2025 at 12:56 PM, DCarlton said:

Now I'm scratching my head.  If there can be significant EGT variations across different airplanes at sea level, how do you know your engine is making full power?  Do you base it on RPMs?  If you are taking off at redline, you are making full power?  I'm thinking full power for one engine set up might not be full power for another engine setup...  still scratching. 

I’m not very scientific about it. I assume that if my draggy, box stock, F model, will break 150kts, LOP into a headwind…in July…in the mid Atlantic, then the engine is healthy.

 

 

[DCarlton]

On 8/2/2025 at 8:34 AM, kortopates said:

There are many ways to set mixture for high DA departures for a NA engine, but none are as easy and accurate as using your engine analyzer! Almost all Mooney's have engine analyzer in them right? Well all the trainers in the local flying club have approved for primary analyzers so that they could ditch those inop and inaccurate 40-50 yr old factory instruments. All it takes is basic EGT monitor to set mixture using the Target EGT method.
Basically you simply observe what your EGTs are departing from a near sea level airport. And if you haven't been able to do that in a long time or rarely I suggest you use 1350F for your target.
Then for any high DA airport, set up to do a short field takeoff where you hold the brakes while you watch power to come up to full power, except now lean the full power mixture to your target EGT or 1350F. Then release the brakes and start the takeoff run. Its going to change a bit on the take off run but you'll be pretty close. Then in climb just keep slowly leaning in climb to maintain that target egt or 1350F all the way up from sea level till the engine can't produce max cruise power of 75% or less; e.g. ~8K DA and higher. When power has dropped off to below your max cruise power or 75% you are free to lean as aggressively as you want subject to keeping your CHTs in check.
Don't have at least a basic engine analyzer? You really should considering the value of your engine not to mention your precious cargo. An engine analyzer in the hands of a smart pilot provides critical safety of flight information on the health of the engine and has saved this pilots butt more times than I can recall. 

Gathered some data yesterday.  I'm seeing 1320 deg from 330 feet at CRQ although I failed to record the OAT.  It was definitely hotter than a standard 59 degrees.  Not sure if that makes much difference.  Will gather a few more data points; then likely target EGTs between 1220 and 1320 in high DA conditions.  I'm now curious if 1220-1320 will correspond well to a smidge of a turn ROP from rough (the ole school way).  

[Hank]

2 hours ago, DCarlton said:

. . . a smidge of a turn ROP from rough (the ole school way).  

I've heard of this for leaning in cruise, but never for high power like a high DA takeoff. In thise situations, I lean for max RPM at WOT / Full Prop. But I haven't had to do it often, or even in the last 10-12 years. Best practices may well have improved since my last time.

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Gathered some data yesterday.  I'm seeing 1320 deg from 330 feet at CRQ although I failed to record the OAT.  It was definitely hotter than a standard 59 degrees.  Not sure if that makes much difference.  Will gather a few more data points; then likely target EGTs between 1220 and 1320 in high DA conditions.  I'm now curious if 1220-1320 will correspond well to a smidge of a turn ROP from rough (the ole school way).  

It would be interesting to see where it peaks. To my way of thinking, full rich mixture at max power should be ~250° ROP. It seems unlikely to me that your peak EGT is in the high 1500s but I could be wrong.  You’re not going to hurt anything leaning to peak at low altitude for a brief period. It would be good to know how rich your engine is at high power with the mixture firewalled. I’m not suggesting that you need to change anything if it turns out that it’s only 200° ROP, only that it’s good to know what it’s doing so you can act accordingly.

[Vance Harral]

36 minutes ago, Hank said:

In thise situations, I lean for max RPM at WOT / Full Prop.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to work in an airplane with a constant speed propeller, which all Mooney M20 models have.  Wide open throttle will generate enough power for the prop governor to come online and hold RPM constant at 2700 (or whatever is the max RPM for your prop/governor combination), at essentially any density altitude on earth.

If you're going to lean for best takeoff power using RPM as the primary indicator of power, you either have to have a fixed pitch prop, or you have to limit the amount of power you apply to stay outside the range at which the governor comes online.

[Shadrach]

13 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

I'm not sure how this is supposed to work in an airplane with a constant speed propeller, which all Mooney M20 models have.  Wide open throttle will generate enough power for the prop governor to come online and hold RPM constant at 2700 (or whatever is the max RPM for your prop/governor combination), at essentially any density altitude on earth.

If you're going to lean for best takeoff power using RPM as the primary indicator of power, you either have to have a fixed pitch prop, or you have to limit the amount of power you apply to stay outside the range at which the governor comes online.

Governor should be against the low pitch stop with the prop control full forward. Most aircraft will not make red line while stationary.

[Vance Harral]

2 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

It seems unlikely to me that your peak EGT is in the high 1500s but I could be wrong.

Peak indicated EGT in our M20F with an EI UBG-16 monitor and P-110F probes located about 8" down form the header runs between 1550 and 1575.  I've been in other airplanes where peak EGT is well over 1500, I don't think it's particularly unusual.  But lots of other airplanes I've flown peak in the 1400s.  My experience is there's a lot of variation, but I don't have thousands of data points, only dozens.

[Vance Harral]

21 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Most aircraft will not make red line while stationary.

Noted, thanks for the additional info.  This is not what I recall from the few times I've actually tried a full-power runup in a constant-speed-prop airplane, but entirely possible I'm mis-remembering.