Max Clark Posted November 9 Report Posted November 9 5 hours ago, hazek said: And this damn idea to turn back just refuses to die. Thanks to all the youtubers making videos about the "impossible" turn, despite the many craters it creates, it just keeps on taking and it seems to me it has claimed another victim. Before every take off I remind myself that if anything happens insurance owns the plane and my only job is to land it straight ahead so they can collect the parts. 2 3
EricJ Posted November 9 Report Posted November 9 47 minutes ago, AndreiC said: My understanding was that the issue would be if the crud got into the servo but not left it -- that it could clog things up there. Isn't it the case that silicon that would show up in oil would be from whatever crap the plane picked up that did make its way out of the servo? I am not that concerned about that stuff, more about the stuff that is stuck in the servo. Elevated silicon in the oil analysis suggests that silicon (dust) is getting past the air filter. Ideally, the ram air door isn't open in the presence of dust, so silicon in the oil analysis may suggest that silicon is getting in the intake. If there is dust getting in the intake, some of it is probably getting in the fuel servo.
Shadrach Posted November 9 Report Posted November 9 On 11/8/2025 at 11:52 AM, DXB said: I'm curious if there are any SOPs to guide exactly how far to go with such inspection and decontamination in Mr. Baber's fuel system contamination scenario. One adds some risk with all invasive maintenance, particularly that performed without a clear diagnosis up front, which may more than offset likelihood any safety dividend of an intervention not directed at a clearly identified problem in a component. I admittedly know little about these fuel injection systems, which my plane lacks, and so my comment may be completely off the mark in this particular case. However, if there is a more rational, systematic process for dealing with Fred Baber's fuel system contamination issue than what he did, it's certainly worth highlighting here so that others can learn from this tragedy. Perhaps some of the sentiment in my post can be attributed to my regret over the last few days, that I was not more adamant when I mentioned both the fuel servo and that I thought he and his mechanic were “way upstream” of where where they needed to be. An intermittent power plant failure is a challenge. If the failure is determined to be fuel related, it would seem natural to start at the point of failure (the power plant) and work your way back. However, I fully understand that the fuel tanks are low hanging fruit and easy to inspect. I’ve posted pictures of the tank pick up screen before but Ive included a close-up below to make the point. Only fairly large particulate is going to be stopped by the fuel tank pick up screens. The fuel system on our Mooneys starts with a course screen, and the largest diameter tube in the system. As fuel progresses from the tank toward the fuel injector nozzles, the fuel will encounter finer screens (at the gascalator and fuel servo) and the inside diameter of the fuel system plumbing gets smaller and smaller. Now, I think it’s highly unlikely that sediment and debris blocked fuel flow through the pick up screen of both tanks. However, if I did see evidence that contamination was the issue, then I would absolutely assume that everything downstream had also been contaminated. The simplest way for me to put this is that I can envision no scenario where debris in both of the tanks would cause repeated engine failures yet leave the rest of the fuel system airworthy. I wish I had said as much to Fred. 5 1
mikey757 Posted November 9 Report Posted November 9 I'm wondering who bought this airplane from "Conrad" back in Sept of '24. Is it the same guy that sold it to Fred? It sure sounded like it had a lot of issues back then when he was trying to unload it.
Max Clark Posted November 9 Report Posted November 9 9 hours ago, Shadrach said: However, if I did see evidence that contamination was an issue, then I would absolutely assume that everything downstream had also been contaminated. FWIW after no turn, this is my main takeaway from this. 1
LANCECASPER Posted November 9 Author Report Posted November 9 1 hour ago, mikey757 said: I'm wondering who bought this airplane from "Conrad" back in Sept of '24. Is it the same guy that sold it to Fred? It sure sounded like it had a lot of issues back then when he was trying to unload it. Thomas Boardman was the one who bought it in 2024 and sold it to @Freddb34.
DXB Posted November 9 Report Posted November 9 13 hours ago, Shadrach said: Perhaps some of the sentiment in my post can be attributed to my regret over the last few days that I was not more adamant when I mentioned the fuel servo and that he and his mechanic were “way upstream” of where where they needed to be. An intermittent power plant failure is a challenge. If the failure is determined to be fuel related, it would seem natural to start at the point of failure (the power plant) and work your way back. However, I fully understand that the fuel tanks are low hanging fruit and easy to inspect. I’ve posted pictures of the tank pick up screen before but Ive included a close-up below to make the point. Only fairly large particulate is going to be stopped by the fuel tank pick up screens. The fuel system on our Mooneys starts with a course screen, and the largest diameter tube in the system. As fuel progresses from the tank toward the fuel injector nozzles, the fuel will encounter finer screens (at the gascalator and fuel servo) and the inside diameter of the fuel system plumbing gets smaller and smaller. Now, I think it’s highly unlikely that sediment and debris blocked fuel flow through the pick up screen of both tanks. However, if I did see evidence that contamination was an issue, then I would absolutely assume that everything downstream had also been contaminated. The simplest way for me to put this is that I can envision no scenario where debris in both of the tanks would cause repeated engine failures yet leave the rest of the fuel system airworthy. I wish I had said as much to Fred. This seems like sound guidance that may help keep others safe in the future, regardless of what caused this tragedy. Looking back now at the old thread, you did write "both the gascolator screen and the servo screen need to be removed and inspected for debris. You’re way upstream of where you need to be until you verify that the fuel system has not been contaminated." That seems like reasonable advice back then and is a bit chilling to read now. I think there's boost pump screen in the series also. It's not at all clear the A&P looked at all the screens downstream of the one you picture here. 1
Yetti Posted November 11 Report Posted November 11 On 11/9/2025 at 11:16 AM, DXB said: This seems like sound guidance that may help keep others safe in the future, regardless of what caused this tragedy. Looking back now at the old thread, you did write "both the gascolator screen and the servo screen need to be removed and inspected for debris. You’re way upstream of where you need to be until you verify that the fuel system has not been contaminated." That seems like reasonable advice back then and is a bit chilling to read now. I think there's boost pump screen in the series also. It's not at all clear the A&P looked at all the screens downstream of the one you picture here. There were several people telling him to check all Three screens. I mentioned the boost pump screen which would have been the first one past the inlet screen. The whole fuel delivery system should have been gone over. Leakdown test performed, Fuel pressure monitored. Several things that the average pilot can and should do. Fuel servo rebuild could have been on condition after inspecting the screens. But the engine had already quit once due to fuel, so the whole fuel system should have been inspected and refreshed. 2
LANCECASPER Posted November 11 Author Report Posted November 11 1 hour ago, Yetti said: But the engine had already quit once due to fuel, so the whole fuel system should have been inspected and refreshed. At least twice that we know of. Once when the previous owner (since 2024) flew it the week before the new owner came to pick it up, on or around October 4. And another time the day (October 9) the new owner picked it up in early October. I hope that the NTSB interviews the previous owner and asks him how many times this has happened since he bought it in 2024. My gut feeling is that he had been fighting with this and maybe a few other things and just lost patience and wanted to hand off his problem to someone else. One other thing I keep thinking about is that he had a CFI there with him on October 9 when they made it back to the airport safely. The CFI that was with him on October 31 that survived the crash had just met him the night before. I wonder if the first CFI tried talking him out of going ahead with the airplane or didn't want any part in getting it back to FL. I hope they interview him also. 2
Will.iam Posted November 17 Report Posted November 17 One interesting note is the flaps were up, i understand when stretching a glide you want the flaps up but when you realize you are not going to make it or a tree is in the way, still put the flaps full down and slow up! The slower you go in hitting trees or objects the higher the chance of survivability. Just something to keep in the back of your mind if everything is going wrong.
201Steve Posted November 17 Report Posted November 17 This is sad. Props to @LANCECASPER and @donkaye, MCFI for being very cautious with him in the original first flight thread. Yall were spot on. I think, as a whole, people flying vintage airplanes, we become a little desensitized to mechanical problems bc they are so frequent. Whether it’s a pesky problem or a serious one, sometimes they are difficult to differentiate for most pilots. That’s why I stick around here. I’ve got to be in the drivers seat of knowledge and information bc too much is on the line for the hobby I love. It’s not without risk and every tiny detail could be the difference of home for dinner or an NTSB report. 5
skykrawler Posted November 17 Report Posted November 17 "All four fuel injection nozzles were removed and oil was present in the No. 2 and No. 4 nozzles (oil likely from the orientation of the engine after the accident). The oil was blown out and no contamination was observed in any of the fuel injection nozzles. " I suppose if a fuel injector was blown out with air any loose contamination would be gone. Nice work.
EricJ Posted November 17 Report Posted November 17 21 minutes ago, skykrawler said: "All four fuel injection nozzles were removed and oil was present in the No. 2 and No. 4 nozzles (oil likely from the orientation of the engine after the accident). The oil was blown out and no contamination was observed in any of the fuel injection nozzles. " I suppose if a fuel injector was blown out with air any loose contamination would be gone. Nice work. Typically you blow it out with low pressure over a catch cloth and see what comes out. If only oil splatter comes out, then there probably wasn't anything in it. If it was really clogged it'll hold several psi, because the fuel pressure is higher than that when it's making power. 2
Hank Posted November 17 Report Posted November 17 2 minutes ago, EricJ said: If it was really clogged it'll hold several psi, because the fuel pressure is higher than that when it's making power. Isn't fuel pressure ~30 psi? My little C runs ~2 psi into the carb.
EricJ Posted November 17 Report Posted November 17 12 minutes ago, Hank said: Isn't fuel pressure ~30 psi? My little C runs ~2 psi into the carb. Yes, somewhere around there, 20-30 psi or whatever it winds up being depending on settings. So an actual clog won't come out super easy, but if somebody just puts 90 psi of shop air into a line it's likely just going to just blow everything out. If you creep the pressure up it's pretty easy to tell whether a line/nozzle is actually clogged or not, and then try to catch the material that's clogging it. 3
Yetti Posted November 18 Report Posted November 18 As it was explained to me the Fuel servo has several small passages. 1
Bartman Posted November 22 Report Posted November 22 I have followed this thread and the original “right out of the gate” thread closely. Other than liking posts by @EricJ @Yetti and @donkaye, MCFI that focused on contamination and cleaning the filters and screens, I did not participate in either discussion. I also very much appreciated what @LANCECASPER and many many others brought to the discussion. Mooneyspace members tried to help. This is the most tragic outcome possible, but beyond agreeing with much that has been stated in these two threads and given the outcome I will not comment on what I would or would it have done. I do pose one question to those with more knowledge than me. In reading the history of this aircraft it does not appear to have flown very much since about 2022. I understand that the plane was filled with fuel prior to engine stoppage. If the tank is full and not much airspace, the engine should not have to draw much fuel from the tank before it created such a vacuum that no more fuel would flow. Is it possible that the fuel tank vent was clogged and played a role in fuel starvation ? 1
Slick Nick Posted November 22 Report Posted November 22 It’s very possible. In fact it’s been the cause of Mooney engine failures before.
TangoTango Posted November 22 Report Posted November 22 3 hours ago, Bartman said: Is it possible that the fuel tank vent was clogged and played a role in fuel starvation ? I wondered the same thing. In fact, it sounded plausible enough that I made some fuel vent covers in response with "Remove Before Flight" tags to use next dirt dauber season. 1
redbaron1982 Posted November 22 Report Posted November 22 1 hour ago, Slick Nick said: It’s very possible. In fact it’s been the cause of Mooney engine failures before. How y'all preflight the fuel tank vents? I usually just look to see that there is nothing clogging them at the tip, but doesn't make me feel good that there could be a bug or something that crawl inside and I can't see. I thought about using a small bulb syringe, not to blow buck suck air and check that there is good air flow. Not sure if this would generate any unwanted side effects.
DCarlton Posted November 22 Report Posted November 22 3 hours ago, Bartman said: I have followed this thread and the original “right out of the gate” thread closely. Other than liking posts by @EricJ @Yetti and @donkaye, MCFI that focused on contamination and cleaning the filters and screens, I did not participate in either discussion. I also very much appreciated what @LANCECASPER and many many others brought to the discussion. Mooneyspace members tried to help. This is the most tragic outcome possible, but beyond agreeing with much that has been stated in these two threads and given the outcome I will not comment on what I would or would it have done. I do pose one question to those with more knowledge than me. In reading the history of this aircraft it does not appear to have flown very much since about 2022. I understand that the plane was filled with fuel prior to engine stoppage. If the tank is full and not much airspace, the engine should not have to draw much fuel from the tank before it created such a vacuum that no more fuel would flow. Is it possible that the fuel tank vent was clogged and played a role in fuel starvation ? Interesting question. I believe I have my old original fuel vents in a box if folks are interested in what they look like internal to the tank and what it may take to clean them.
Yetti Posted November 22 Report Posted November 22 it could be possible. spring is more the time of dirt dobbers. Someone smarter than me can chime in, but pulling a vacuum on a half full tank vs a full tank is about the same thing.
redbaron1982 Posted November 22 Report Posted November 22 30 minutes ago, Yetti said: it could be possible. spring is more the time of dirt dobbers. Someone smarter than me can chime in, but pulling a vacuum on a half full tank vs a full tank is about the same thing. AFAIK the larger the air volume in the tank, the more fuel you can pull before the internal vacuum gets so high that the fuel pump can not longer pump fuel out of the tank. 2
DCarlton Posted November 22 Report Posted November 22 For reference, here's a pic of my original '67 fuel vents. For the experts; any reason to not stick a pipe cleaner in there from time to time just to make sure they're clean and clear? Yes you could push something into the tank but what are the options? Haven't looked but I'm guessing you can't go at it easily from the inside. 1
takair Posted November 23 Report Posted November 23 I would be careful pushing inward with pipe cleaner. So it is limited what one can do. Visual inspection with a light is important. Lightly pushing with light safety wire might tell you of an obstruction. In theory, one can open the caps and see if you can blow air through the vents. There are other hints of obstructed vents, hearing a hiss when releasing the cap. In some cases the wing skin actually cavitates or bladders collapse.
Recommended Posts