DXB Posted December 1 Report Posted December 1 I can't find a prior thread for this crash in 2023, from which both pilot and passenger thankfully walked away. The story sounds like a typical low altitude base to final stall-spin event, for which the outcome is usually lethal. https://generalaviationnews.com/2025/11/28/mooney-pilot-loses-control-while-landing/?utm_source=TPOA&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20251201 The pilot's description per the NTSB report is kinda interesting here if taken at face value: "The pilot reported that, while turning from the left base to the final approach leg of the traffic pattern at the airport in Meridianville, Alabama, the Mooney M20F’s stall warning horn sounded. He pitched the airplane’s nose down and increased engine power. The airplane then “violently” pitched up and to the left. He continued his attempt to regain control, but the airplane then pitched up and to the right, and eventually hit terrain about 200 feet short of the runway threshold." The description of the aircraft's behavior doesn't totally make sense to me if you take the pilot's description at face value. I'm curious what can be learned here about correct recovery technique if one ever hears the stall horn in this particular scenario (unless there was already a wing drop, the pilot's inputs sound correct). It doesnt sound like it was a fully developed spin - otherwise the airframe woundn't be in one piece and the occupants would not have survived.
midlifeflyer Posted December 1 Report Posted December 1 I think if there were indications of a spin, the report would say so. In the absence of anything else, the pilot's description sounds like an overreaction to o the stall warning. Perhaps way too much power applied, which could lead to a nose-up left turn trim stall type event. We don't practice stall recovery enough. I've seen even CFIs who do an extreme maneuver to recover when about a 1" change in pitch would suffice. 4
Ragsf15e Posted December 1 Report Posted December 1 In addition to what @midlifeflyer said, he never mentioned rolling wings level. I have to wonder if he added power, lowered the nose (as he described) and then tried to complete the pattern by increasing back pressure and bank as he was now likely nose low and overshooting. The description sounds vaguely like an accelerated stall to me. If you’re doing a stall recovery in the pattern, the pattern is over, recover fully from the stall. 1
201er Posted December 1 Report Posted December 1 1 hour ago, DXB said: I'm curious what can be learned here about correct recovery technique if one ever hears the stall horn in this particular scenario (unless there was already a wing drop, the pilot's inputs sound correct). Here’s what the NTSB suggested in the report:
Flyler Posted December 1 Report Posted December 1 I'm a new Mooney pilot, and what I have found is that the Mooney has a lot more pitch change in response to... most things... than the Pipers I learned on. Perhaps this was part of the problem. The reality is just that the trim wheel needs to spin more turns, and there is more pressure required on the yoke as compared to the Warrior II. The Pilot's reaction to those things (something is wrong, plane is arguing with me, etc.) may cause things to go south. I am not basing this on any information in the report, just think it could be a contributing factor.
DXB Posted December 1 Author Report Posted December 1 48 minutes ago, Flyler said: I'm a new Mooney pilot, and what I have found is that the Mooney has a lot more pitch change in response to... most things... than the Pipers I learned on. Perhaps this was part of the problem. The reality is just that the trim wheel needs to spin more turns, and there is more pressure required on the yoke as compared to the Warrior II. The Pilot's reaction to those things (something is wrong, plane is arguing with me, etc.) may cause things to go south. I am not basing this on any information in the report, just think it could be a contributing factor. Interestingly I also trained in a Warrior II for my PPL 11 years ago, just before getting my M20C. Biggest difference I recall is that the Warrior pitches up upon applying flaps whereas the Mooney pitches down. In either case its helpful to get it back in trim at a safe airspeed before entering a turn. Then one can not apply any back pressure and simply let the nose sink in the turn so that AOA, airspeed, and stall speed all stay constant.
Shadrach Posted December 1 Report Posted December 1 This report could have been more precisely written. Here is my guess after 25 years of flying an M20F. With two up front, little in the baggage compartment and a few hours of fuel on board, the trim would likely be near full nose up if not at the limit. My F will hit the nose up limit when light with nothing aft of the front seats. If one goes from power off, full nose up trim to full power, full nose up trim, it's conceivable that they could be overwhelmed by the control forces and depart controlled flight if already at the ragged edge of a stall. 3
Yetti Posted December 1 Report Posted December 1 The 2 pictures appear to be of a Mooney that was stalled spun in. You can look at other mooney's that stall spun in left wing damaged, right wing mostly OK. The engine moved to the port says spin also. also the bent tail section. In the two pictures it does not look like flaps are deployed. The manual says no turns under 90 mph in the pattern. the pilot's description is not consistent with pictures. I fly the mooney because it crashes well. Hope to never test that feature. pics below From 2022. Got slow in the dark hole that is the night approach to West Houston. See the tail bent The "recovery" is to never get slow in the pattern. You should never hear the stall horn in the pattern. 1
Mooney in Oz Posted December 1 Report Posted December 1 Re the N9339M accident, if it's true it pitched up and rolled right the second time, it sounds like the pilot got himself into a secondary stall. Usually the result of over controlling. 2
Shadrach Posted December 2 Report Posted December 2 7 hours ago, Yetti said: The 2 pictures appear to be of a Mooney that was stalled spun in. You can look at other mooney's that stall spun in left wing damaged, right wing mostly OK. The engine moved to the port says spin also. also the bent tail section. In the two pictures it does not look like flaps are deployed. The manual says no turns under 90 mph in the pattern. the pilot's description is not consistent with pictures. I fly the mooney because it crashes well. Hope to never test that feature. pics below From 2022. Got slow in the dark hole that is the night approach to West Houston. See the tail bent The "recovery" is to never get slow in the pattern. You should never hear the stall horn in the pattern. The 67 F has hydraulic flaps. It’s conceivable that the impact caused the system to lose pressure, I appreciate te intent of what you’re saying about the stall horn in the pattern. However. I have flown in turbulence severe enough to sound the stall horn in cruise. On really gusty days, the stall horn will bleat well north of safe patten speeds. To be clear, all evidence suggests that this pilot simply to sow and lost control. It’s a dubious accomplishment running a Mooney out of energy short of the runway. Mooney pilots are typically more adept at screeching off the departure end in a cloud of tire smoke…
Yetti Posted December 2 Report Posted December 2 12 hours ago, Shadrach said: The 67 F has hydraulic flaps. It’s conceivable that the impact caused the system to lose pressure, I appreciate te intent of what you’re saying about the stall horn in the pattern. However. I have flown in turbulence severe enough to sound the stall horn in cruise. On really gusty days, the stall horn will bleat well north of safe patten speeds. To be clear, all evidence suggests that this pilot simply to sow and lost control. It’s a dubious accomplishment running a Mooney out of energy short of the runway. Mooney pilots are typically more adept at screeching off the departure end in a cloud of tire smoke… yep a gust will flip the vane up and beep the horn, blaring the stall horn is what I was talking about. been there done that, the beep is so short there is no time to react. The reference in the manual about not going under 90 mph in the pattern without flaps deployed is a great indicator of how the pattern speeds should be followed.
Shadrach Posted December 2 Report Posted December 2 2 hours ago, Yetti said: yep a gust will flip the vane up and beep the horn, blaring the stall horn is what I was talking about. been there done that, the beep is so short there is no time to react. The reference in the manual about not going under 90 mph in the pattern without flaps deployed is a great indicator of how the pattern speeds should be followed. That is indeed sound advice. Those old books are vague though. Does flaps deployed mean partial flaps, full flaps? Interestingly, if one runs the numbers for a M20F/J, 1.3 x clean stall at max gross is 90mph...so the number makes good general sense. What does 90mias look like if it's just me and half tanks (~2100lbs)? In that case, 90mias is 1.66 X clean stall speed. No big deal but certainly leaves extra energy to bleed off during the approach. The manual also says to trim for 80MIAS hands off, full flaps on final. That is almost precisely 1.3Vso at MGW. What about with just me and half tanks? In that case, 80MIAS works out to 1.47Vso. Arriving at the threshold at nearly 1.5Vso in a Mooney or any sleek, low wing, single, presents some challenges. General numbers are a good initial guideline, but it's good to know how and when those guidelines should be adjusted. As a community we have had many, many RLOC incidents from aircraft arriving at the threshold with excessive speed 2
Yetti Posted December 2 Report Posted December 2 I don't have the manual anymore, but it was a very specific statement. I always took it as If below 90 mph and doing a turn then at least half flaps should be out. As long as I followed the manual, should not become a statistic. The 75 F only had 3 positions for flaps. The 75 manual also said "flaps as required" for landing. I usually was at half flaps on touch down unless I flubbed the pattern and was high. All your Vso numbers will work out depending on the distance away on downwind and how far you fly till base. and throttle settings. The F was 2/3 a wing away from the runway on down wind. The S model is a full wing and a little bit further till turn to base. The S model Landing performance chart is based on Full Flaps, so that is the way.
Shadrach Posted December 2 Report Posted December 2 12 minutes ago, Yetti said: I don't have the manual anymore, but it was a very specific statement. I always took it as If below 90 mph and doing a turn then at least half flaps should be out. As long as I followed the manual, should not become a statistic. The 75 F only had 3 positions for flaps. The 75 manual also said "flaps as required" for landing. I usually was at half flaps on touch down unless I flubbed the pattern and was high. All your Vso numbers will work out depending on the distance away on downwind and how far you fly till base. and throttle settings. The F was 2/3 a wing away from the runway on down wind. The S model is a full wing and a little bit further till turn to base. The S model Landing performance chart is based on Full Flaps, so that is the way. I think full flaps is the way for all of them if you want to use the published data as a guideline. I don't know of any Mooney POH that provides landing data for configurations other than full flaps, but I could be wrong.
Hank Posted December 2 Report Posted December 2 1 hour ago, Yetti said: I don't have the manual anymore, but it was a very specific statement. I always took it as If below 90 mph and doing a turn then at least half flaps should be out. As long as I followed the manual, should not become a statistic. You mean this? 1 hour ago, Shadrach said: I don't know of any Mooney POH that provides landing data for configurations other than full flaps, but I could be wrong. See above, "extend flaps as required on final approach," etc., etc.
Shadrach Posted December 2 Report Posted December 2 41 minutes ago, Hank said: You mean this? See above, "extend flaps as required on final approach," etc., etc. That's not lading data. This is landing data: Note that I do not believe for a minute that the test pilot generated the published landing distances for 2300lbs by flying the approach at 80MIAS. 1
skykrawler Posted December 2 Report Posted December 2 Recorded statements of pilots that walked away from their crashed airplanes are always believable.
kortopates Posted December 3 Report Posted December 3 (edited) A lot of good comments above but I just wanted to add another to emphasize the correct recovery technique when ever getting so slow in the pattern. The pilot began with the correct recovery in lowering the nose and the NTSB report has it as well but its a bit buried in the many bullets: Its critical to recognize pitch is immediate and lowering the nose will instantly regain flying speed, it doesn't matter whether the wings are level either at this point Notice as well that power isn't even mentioned as that may not even be necessary. The plane supposedly making its base to final turn when this happened and ideally it would have been at ~500 AGL - plenty of altitude not to yet panic. But once the pilot realizes they won't make the runway then certainly adding power is necessary, but it shouldn't need full power after lowering the nose, not even a lot of power, and there is no evidence that recovery was delayed to the point of a wing drop - quite the opposite. But what the pilot reported after he lowered the nose and after adding power is that: "The airplane then “violently” pitched up and to the left." Any increase in power needs to be matched with right rudder otherwise the plane will roll to the left uncoordinated from all of 5 turning tendencies we all learned as Private Pilots (Torque, P-Factor, Gyroscopic Precession, Spiraling Slipstream and Adverse Yaw - or lack of rudder while turning). It pretty much requires full or near full power to get the aircraft to pitch up like that violently when trimmed for landing as we're all familiar with when doing a go around and advancing full power. So plain and simple the pilot had to over react with the power and wasn't prepared for the out of trim forces that ensued. Over use of power has been mentioned a couple times above but I just wanted to emphasize the correct reaction is to lower the nose immediately; power is a secondary consideration not the immediate one; especially at 500' AGL I wasn't able to review the ADS-B ground track data to see if he might of been really low on that base to final turn but might have spawned adding so much power but in the narrative the pilot stated he thought he was about 500 AGL (per his handheld GPS) in the turn that shows excellent situational awareness IMO. But he also stated that on the down wind he had gear down, 1 notch of flaps, prop forward at 70 mph which we all know couldn't be true. The pilot was not a new pilot, but a VFR Private pilot with near 1500 TT and 376 hrs in type, flying with his wife passengers. I am thankful and amazed that both he and his wife survived with only minor injuries with only a Lap Belts!! It a testament that he never gave up. I hope if he fly's again, and I hope he does, that he never does so again without shoulder harnesses. I personally do not fly in any aircraft without them because most aren't so lucky. Edited December 3 by kortopates 6
midlifeflyer Posted December 3 Report Posted December 3 1 hour ago, kortopates said: I just wanted to emphasize the correct reaction is to lower the nose immediately; power is a secondary consideration not the immediate one; especially at 500' AGL I try to emphasize this every time I include stall recoveries in a training session.Sometimes I’ll include delaying power to make the point. 1
kortopates Posted December 3 Report Posted December 3 7 hours ago, Hank said: You mean this? See above, "extend flaps as required on final approach," etc., etc. But it doesn't say to land with flaps anything less than full flaps. As Ross pointed out so well, Mooney only published data for landing with full flaps. That is the definition of a Normal Landing and the only kind of landing we have POH numbers for. Note even the latest POH's form the Acclaim and Ultras provide a lot more details on performance for landings including Density altitude, proper approach speed based on weight, landing distance based on weight, plus both head winds and tail winds and both positive and negative runway slope and sometimes grass runways. But the one thing they still don't provide numbers for is less than full flaps. Its also kinder and gentler on the airframe to land full flaps since it represents as slower landing. I am sure most of us would agree that landing in a strong xwind; especially one that exceeds the maximum demonstrated xwind component may not not merit full flaps, but its also not a normal landing either. 2
Hank Posted December 3 Report Posted December 3 59 minutes ago, kortopates said: But it doesn't say to land with flaps anything less than full flaps. Looks to me like it does. My Owners Manual says "Extend flaps as required on final approach". On the checklist section, it says "9. Flaps--As required". Thus is not "Flaps--DOWN" no matter how you look at it. And yes, I'm aware that your POH is probably different, but my Owners Manual preceeded your POH by a bunch of years.
midlifeflyer Posted December 3 Report Posted December 3 I’m not sure I understand the full vs partial flaps discussion. There may be some light singles that publish landing distance data for various flap settings but I don’t recall if I’ve seen any except for full flaps. That kind of makes sense to me. If available runway is critical, that’s the information you need. But I’ve never taken it as a limitation requiring full flaps for landing or a caution against landing with partial or no flaps. 1
Hank Posted December 3 Report Posted December 3 1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said: I’m not sure I understand the full vs partial flaps discussion. There may be some light singles that publish landing distance data for various flap settings but I don’t recall if I’ve seen any except for full flaps. That kind of makes sense to me. If available runway is critical, that’s the information you need. But I’ve never taken it as a limitation requiring full flaps for landing or a caution against landing with partial or no flaps. I've never been to a field where that was important; the shortest I've ever landed at is a 2000' grass strip, exact landing distance just didn't matter. I've been based at a 3000' paved strip for 7 years and 3200' for 3 years; a MAPA PPP took me to one 2400 x 40. The difference between Takeoff Flaps and Full Flaps just doesn't matter. But the handful of landings I made in an F were better when I used Full Flaps, the midbody handles surprisingly different from my short body at low airspeeds.
Shadrach Posted December 3 Report Posted December 3 4 hours ago, midlifeflyer said: I’m not sure I understand the full vs partial flaps discussion. There may be some light singles that publish landing distance data for various flap settings but I don’t recall if I’ve seen any except for full flaps. That kind of makes sense to me. If available runway is critical, that’s the information you need. But I’ve never taken it as a limitation requiring full flaps for landing or a caution against landing with partial or no flaps. It’s not a limitation. As you know, the only limitations in the AFM/POH/OM are in the limitations section. In my view, the genesis of the discussion was born out of the recommendation in an Mooney Owners Manual that certain pattern speeds be used without any consideration given to weight. The real-world operating weight of my aircraft can vary by more than 800lbs. That represents an 11mph difference in stall speed. Approach speeds are up stream of stall speed. It’s a good idea to be well-versed in calculating the appropriate V speeds for a given weight. Overtime, one gain the ability to interpolate the appropriate approach, speed without having to use calculator. The full flap vs partial flap discussion was born out of this previous discussion as there is no data in any of the manuals that I have seen for partial/no flap landings. While a pilot can easily calculate stall speed and the associated approach speeds from Vso at MGW, I know of no simple method for calculating partial flap landing numbers, though I’m sure with enough effort, I could derive something based on calculated landing speed and weight. One would think that interpolating would be sufficient. I suppose it is for most of the people most of the time. But some of the time… I lean towards full flap landings because they typically yield the best result and I have data for them. That being said, I recently started flying a C model and I am quite surprised by how differently it behaves in the flare. I have flown both it and my F model in the same day and I can grease the F model on smoothly, but the C seems to have an extreme deck angle before the wing pays off and it plunks on with a thud. I’m going to try some different landing configurations to see if I can prove my touchdowns.
Recommended Posts