Mooney M20J FATAL CRASH at Sky Manor/Pittstown [2017]

[WannFly]

I have seen this before, gives me the creeps every time

official NTSB report: https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20160926X05905&key=1

this part bothers the heck out of me:

"Although the pilot had 36 hours of flight experience in the accident airplane make and model, his most recent flight in this make and model was 10 months before the accident. Further, his most recent flight before the accident flight was in an airplane of lesser performance equipped with fixed landing gear and a fixed pitch propeller, and was about 8 months before the accident. According to his logbook, he did not meet the Federal Aviation Administration recent experience requirements to act as a pilot in command of an airplane carrying passengers. "

 

[TFulwider]

He definitely sounded rusty and a bit frustrated. Sad chain of events

 

[TFulwider]

Postaccident examination of the runway revealed propeller strike marks and a nosewheel tire mark about 1,747 ft from the threshold of the 2,900-ft-long runway, indicating that the pilot touched down past midfield in an improper nose-low attitude.

How could he not be aware that he bounced bad enough the prop hit the runway? I've never had a prop strike but I would imagine the sound and sensation would be pretty violent.

 

[Bill]

I didn’t even have to go to the end of the narrative, Mooneys give you two bounces for free, the third is a prop strike. Always.

Leaving the runway with a bent prop and possibly damaged engine isn’t a good thing.

 

[zaitcev]

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20160926X05905&key=1
...
According to his logbook, he did not meet the Federal Aviation Administration recent experience requirements to act as a pilot in command of an airplane carrying passengers."

Personally, I'm inclined to consider other factors in these cases. The FAA likes to present it as if lacking a certain piece of paper makes pilot to come to grief, and NTSB provides them the material with the remarks like the one quoted above. An experienced pilot with a large menu of experience may find it easy to fly that M20J even after a 10 month break. But in this case it clearly was a lack of piloting skill, so they may be right.

Many novices tend to land too fast. They are afraid to stall and feel that increased speed provides them a safety margin. Doing so may be acceptable in a Cherokee, but doing it in a Mooney causes landing long and running out of runway.

 

[zaitcev]

How could he not be aware that he bounced bad enough the prop hit the runway?

When I porpoised enough to hit the prop, I didn't realize it either. There was no RPM drop. I was lucky that performance of the engine and propeller didn't degrade enough to cause me any trouble, so I made a couple more circuits with no issue. I only noticed that I ruined the prop when I parked the airplane and passed my hand along the prop blade.

 

[Tommar98]

Just amazing that the Operations person kept asking if they should call for ambulance and then decided to leave it up to people at the scene. A plane just went down. What’s the harm in a 911 call? Ugh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[N1120A]

All airplanes are airspeed critical, but some much more than others. A rusty pilot shouldn't be flying a Mooney or Grumman, especially a small tailed Grumman, because they require a level of airspeed precision that isn't required in a Cessna, Piper or even Bonanza. It was clear from the number of go arounds that he made that he was having a hard time getting his airspeed right. His issues were exacerbated by the fact that he was using a 2900' runway. Yes, that is way more than enough for a proficient pilot to land a Mooney, but not enough to absorb a massive amount of float caused by lack of airspeed discipline. I'm sure he was trying to force the aircraft down and prop struck it, then probably tried to go around and didn't clean up. A similar fatal accident happened at MYF in a Mooney that struck the prop and didn't clean up right away. They probably would have made it back if they'd pulled the gear up and let the airplane fly.

Just amazing that the Operations person kept asking if they should call for ambulance and then decided to leave it up to people at the scene. A plane just went down. What’s the harm in a 911 call? Ugh

Honestly, they probably had no idea how bad it was.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Just amazing that the Operations person kept asking if they should call for ambulance and then decided to leave it up to people at the scene. A plane just went down. What’s the harm in a 911 call? Ugh

But she is getting information second hand, generally 911 calls should come for those that have firsthand knowledge, so they can accurately describe the scene and location.


Tom

 

[172andyou]

Honestly, they probably had no idea how bad it was.

But she is getting information second hand, generally 911 calls should come for those that have firsthand knowledge, so they can accurately describe the scene and location.

Hey guys, if I'm ever in a wreck and you're not sure what's up. Call 911, please. If you are *certain* I'm fine, then skip it. But if you aren't sure, roll the trucks. Thanks.

 

[zaitcev]

A rusty pilot shouldn't be flying a Mooney or Grumman, especially a small tailed Grumman, because they require a level of airspeed precision that isn't required in a Cessna, Piper or even Bonanza.

I disagree. They keep the airspeed to a good enough precision, they just keep it too high, and Mooney does not like that. If they pre-computed Vref before landing and stuck to it, the rusty pilots would be fine (in most cases). Come to think of it, landing a 172 with a few more knots makes it float more too. Here's a video of a fellow student in my school where I did my basic training, with Mr. Dan Powell, CFI, taking the controls before she could do the prop strike:

I think that among the basic GA airplanes, the one that required the most attention was Cessna 150. If that thing started losing speed, I had to shove the yoke forward right away. Literally in 3 seconds it starts hanging onto the edge of a stall and sinks like a stone. The good old N2966V had 40 degree flaps, so perhaps it was a contributing factor. My Mooney is actually more forgiving of a gawking pilot.

 

[Hank S]

I disagree. They keep the airspeed to a good enough precision, they just keep it too high, and Mooney does not like that. If they pre-computed Vref before landing and stuck to it, the rusty pilots would be fine (in most cases). Come to think of it, landing a 172 with a few more knots makes it float more too. Here's a video of a fellow student in my school where I did my basic training, with Mr. Dan Powell, CFI, taking the controls before she could do the prop strike.

Those weren't bounces! The tires didn't even threaten to touch the pavement . . . .

 

[Kenny Phillips]

How could he not be aware that he bounced bad enough the prop hit the runway? I've never had a prop strike but I would imagine the sound and sensation would be pretty violent.

When I bent the tips of my prop, it just made a ringing sound. Nothing violent at all. Perfectly smooth all the way. However, thrust was greatly diminished, and I was shocked at how much they were bent when I shut down.

 

[apr911]

How could he not be aware that he bounced bad enough the prop hit the runway? I've never had a prop strike but I would imagine the sound and sensation would be pretty violent.

Was on the ground preflighting at an airport where a tailwheel airplane had a prop strike. It made this odd scraping noise that I couldn't identify and made me look. You could see the kick up of dust from where the prop struck. The airplane went around and landed normally on the next pass but the pilot wasn't aware they had a prop strike, they were advised by someone else on the ground that they might want to land immediately and check their prop while upwind. They didn't experience any loss of power and honestly, the noise I heard wasn't all that loud so I imagine it might not have been heard in the cockpit.

When the plane came to a stop and the prop inspected, the prop wasn't missing any major piece though it was a bit chewed up and only about the first 1-2" were curled back. The engine tear down found no major issues either so it seems the prop likely only grazed the runway.

It was clear from the number of go arounds that he made that he was having a hard time getting his airspeed right. His issues were exacerbated by the fact that he was using a 2900' runway. Yes, that is way more than enough for a proficient pilot to land a Mooney, but not enough to absorb a massive amount of float caused by lack of airspeed discipline.

Yes airspeed discipline was determined to be causal but I think you read too much into "the number of go-arounds." 1 go-around and crashing on the second isn't all that many to start with and really with the 2,900' runway, at least a 3rd before calling it and finding somewhere else to land wouldn't be all that out of place. Frankly, sounds like the guy would have benefited from more go arounds... It sounds like he didn't want to be going around at all as the first one he was too fast but still forced it onto the runway and only went around on the bounce. The second one it sounds like he was not only fast but probably high as he didnt touch down until past mid-field and it seems he probably had to wrestle the plane to the ground to achieve even that. He probably should have rejected and gone around the 2nd time sooner rather than force the plane onto the ground.

Had he rejected sooner, gone around the 2nd time and had to make a 3rd go-around for the same reasons (high and fast) then maybe I would comment on the number of go-arounds, especially if he rejected a 4th approach and still kept trying to get down instead of finding somewhere with a longer runway.

Short of never landing and eventually reaching fuel exhaustion, there's no such thing as "too many" go arounds in my book. I try not to put a number limit on the go-arounds as having a specific number only creates more pressure to land but I do generally recommend not trying to get into an airport more than 4 or 5 times before deciding to go find some place else to land and the only time a 5th approach is acceptable is if you had to reject a landing for factors outside your control (i.e. traffic on the runway, a sudden wind gust that lifts a wing, etc) and/or your previous attempts were rejected for differing factors. I find it's difficult though to maintain the patience beyond 4 or 5 though as with each aborted landing, the pressure to land builds which is why I carefully suggest 4 or 5 as a number where it might be a better idea to go find someplace else to land. I try not to call it a limit though as that would then increase the pressure to land on number 4 or 5 having the same negative effect.

 

[IK04]

I had a friend almost land his 210 gear up until he heard that ringing sound...

He did a go-around, put the gear down and landed normally. Prop tips were curled about three inches.

 

[Fallsrider]

I had a friend almost land his 210 gear up until he heard that ringing sound...

He did a go-around, put the gear down and landed normally. Prop tips were curled about three inches.

That's cutting it a little close!

 

[N1120A]

I disagree. They keep the airspeed to a good enough precision, they just keep it too high, and Mooney does not like that. If they pre-computed Vref before landing and stuck to it, the rusty pilots would be fine (in most cases). Come to think of it, landing a 172 with a few more knots makes it float more too. Here's a video of a fellow student in my school where I did my basic training, with Mr. Dan Powell, CFI, taking the controls before she could do the prop strike:

I think that among the basic GA airplanes, the one that required the most attention was Cessna 150. If that thing started losing speed, I had to shove the yoke forward right away. Literally in 3 seconds it starts hanging onto the edge of a stall and sinks like a stone. The good old N2966V had 40 degree flaps, so perhaps it was a contributing factor. My Mooney is actually more forgiving of a gawking pilot.

I mean, forget what 50+ years of information regarding the operation of Mooneys and accident data says, right?

Yes airspeed discipline was determined to be causal but I think you read too much into "the number of go-arounds." 1 go-around and crashing on the second isn't all that many to start with and really with the 2,900' runway, at least a 3rd before calling it and finding somewhere else to land wouldn't be all that out of place. Frankly, sounds like the guy would have benefited from more go arounds... It sounds like he didn't want to be going around at all as the first one he was too fast but still forced it onto the runway and only went around on the bounce. The second one it sounds like he was not only fast but probably high as he didnt touch down until past mid-field and it seems he probably had to wrestle the plane to the ground to achieve even that. He probably should have rejected and gone around the 2nd time sooner rather than force the plane onto the ground.

Had he rejected sooner, gone around the 2nd time and had to make a 3rd go-around for the same reasons (high and fast) then maybe I would comment on the number of go-arounds, especially if he rejected a 4th approach and still kept trying to get down instead of finding somewhere with a longer runway.

Short of never landing and eventually reaching fuel exhaustion, there's no such thing as "too many" go arounds in my book. I try not to put a number limit on the go-arounds as having a specific number only creates more pressure to land but I do generally recommend not trying to get into an airport more than 4 or 5 times before deciding to go find some place else to land and the only time a 5th approach is acceptable is if you had to reject a landing for factors outside your control (i.e. traffic on the runway, a sudden wind gust that lifts a wing, etc) and/or your previous attempts were rejected for differing factors. I find it's difficult though to maintain the patience beyond 4 or 5 though as with each aborted landing, the pressure to land builds which is why I carefully suggest 4 or 5 as a number where it might be a better idea to go find someplace else to land. I try not to call it a limit though as that would then increase the pressure to land on number 4 or 5 having the same negative effect.

Of course I didn't mean he went around too many times. What I meant was that the go arounds suggested he was not correctly maintaining airspeed on final and ended up trying to force it down.

 

[Bill]

I mean, forget what 50+ years of information regarding the operation of Mooneys and accident data says, right?



Of course I didn't mean he went around too many times. What I meant was that the go arounds suggested he was not correctly maintaining airspeed on final and ended up trying to force it down.

You can lead a Mooney to the runway but you can't make it land.

It lands when it's ready.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

How could he not be aware that he bounced bad enough the prop hit the runway? I've never had a prop strike but I would imagine the sound and sensation would be pretty violent.

I think you'd be surprised. I know a guy that lives near Atlantic City who has a Mooney prop and governor sitting in his junk collection because both tips are curled up like the lid of a tuna can. It belonged to a guy who was flying in one night to do some gambling. He stopped at an unattended airport on the way in for something. He taxied out for takeoff and there was another plane taking off in the other direction so he taxied into the grass to clear the runway. The other plane takes off and he taxies back onto the runway. Felt his gear doors scrape the edge of the pavement a bit as he got back on the pavement. Or so he thought. He took off, flew to Atlantic City and then discovered his curled up prop after he landed. It doesn't take much to curl the tips.