Mooney drops into my backyard

[Dave Butler]

This has special interest for me because I own a Mooney (that should
take care of the on-topicness). I guess I could put this in
r.a.piloting, but i don't know anyone over there, and I just wanted to
share this with some friends...

About 3:00 this afternoon, a Mooney M20M dropped out of a low overcast,
hit a tree, and ended up in a pond in my back yard. There are
conflicting reports about whether there are 1 or 2 fatalities. My
interpretation is that they recovered 1 body, but the flight plan says
there were 2 aboard.

The crash site is about 100 yards from my deck. The plane is completely
submerged, but I can guess its position by the location of the police
raft and divers that were in the area. I arrived home from work about
6:00 to find news helicopters overhead and crime-scene tape stretched
across my yard.

From the news reports and the visible damage to the tree, I estimate
that the flight path must have been directly toward my house. If it
hadn't gone into the pond, it might have gone into the house. Nobody
would have been home.

Apparently the pilot reported some kind of trouble. Given the weather,
he would have had to be on an instrument flight plan. I think the
ceilings were something below 1000 ft., so when he broke out, he
wouldn't have had much time to select a landing spot. Unfortunately, he
was over a fairly densely populated suburban area.

As I write this (10 PM) there are generator light stands lighting up the
whole area, but most of the rescue/recovery people have left. I think
the remaining crew are just guarding the scene overnight. They don't
seem to be looking for the second body, if there is one. My belief is
that they have concluded there was only one person aboard. I guess I'll
be serving coffee to the NTSB folks in the morning.

Sorry for the downer. I'd much rather be relating a story about my most
recent $100 hamburger.

Here are some news stories:
WRAL story: http://www.wral.com/news/3263882/detail.html
WTVD story and pictures:
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/050304_APlocal_caryplanecrash.html
NBC 17 story: http://www.nbc17.com/news/3263998/detail.html
News & Observer story:
http://www.news-observer.com/front/story/3562401p-3165256c.html


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[BTIZ]

sorry to hear the news Dave... always hate when planes go down..

But make sure to collect or file with their insurance company for damage to
your lawn for all the heavy equipment that will be on it to lift the plane
out of the pond and fuel/oil contamination of the Farm Pond.. if it is
completely within your property line..

BT

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> This has special interest for me because I own a Mooney (that should
> take care of the on-topicness). I guess I could put this in
> r.a.piloting, but i don't know anyone over there, and I just wanted to
> share this with some friends...
>
> About 3:00 this afternoon, a Mooney M20M dropped out of a low overcast,
> hit a tree, and ended up in a pond in my back yard. There are
> conflicting reports about whether there are 1 or 2 fatalities. My
> interpretation is that they recovered 1 body, but the flight plan says
> there were 2 aboard.
>
> The crash site is about 100 yards from my deck. The plane is completely
> submerged, but I can guess its position by the location of the police
> raft and divers that were in the area. I arrived home from work about
> 6:00 to find news helicopters overhead and crime-scene tape stretched
> across my yard.
>
> From the news reports and the visible damage to the tree, I estimate
> that the flight path must have been directly toward my house. If it
> hadn't gone into the pond, it might have gone into the house. Nobody
> would have been home.
>
> Apparently the pilot reported some kind of trouble. Given the weather,
> he would have had to be on an instrument flight plan. I think the
> ceilings were something below 1000 ft., so when he broke out, he
> wouldn't have had much time to select a landing spot. Unfortunately, he
> was over a fairly densely populated suburban area.
>
> As I write this (10 PM) there are generator light stands lighting up the
> whole area, but most of the rescue/recovery people have left. I think
> the remaining crew are just guarding the scene overnight. They don't
> seem to be looking for the second body, if there is one. My belief is
> that they have concluded there was only one person aboard. I guess I'll
> be serving coffee to the NTSB folks in the morning.
>
> Sorry for the downer. I'd much rather be relating a story about my most
> recent $100 hamburger.
>
> Here are some news stories:
> WRAL story: http://www.wral.com/news/3263882/detail.html
> WTVD story and pictures:
> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/050304_APlocal_caryplanecrash.html
> NBC 17 story: http://www.nbc17.com/news/3263998/detail.html
> News & Observer story:
> http://www.news-observer.com/front/story/3562401p-3165256c.html
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Dave Butler]

BTIZ wrote:
> sorry to hear the news Dave... always hate when planes go down..
>
> But make sure to collect or file with their insurance company for damage to
> your lawn for all the heavy equipment that will be on it to lift the plane
> out of the pond and fuel/oil contamination of the Farm Pond.. if it is
> completely within your property line..

Thanks, BT, good advice. I think all the heavy lifting will be on community
property that belongs to the neighborhood association. Dave

>
> BT
>
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>This has special interest for me because I own a Mooney (that should
>>take care of the on-topicness). I guess I could put this in
>>r.a.piloting, but i don't know anyone over there, and I just wanted to
>>share this with some friends...
>>
>>About 3:00 this afternoon, a Mooney M20M dropped out of a low overcast,
>>hit a tree, and ended up in a pond in my back yard. There are
>>conflicting reports about whether there are 1 or 2 fatalities. My
>>interpretation is that they recovered 1 body, but the flight plan says
>>there were 2 aboard.
>>
>>The crash site is about 100 yards from my deck. The plane is completely
>>submerged, but I can guess its position by the location of the police
>>raft and divers that were in the area. I arrived home from work about
>>6:00 to find news helicopters overhead and crime-scene tape stretched
>>across my yard.
>>
>> From the news reports and the visible damage to the tree, I estimate
>>that the flight path must have been directly toward my house. If it
>>hadn't gone into the pond, it might have gone into the house. Nobody
>>would have been home.
>>
>>Apparently the pilot reported some kind of trouble. Given the weather,
>>he would have had to be on an instrument flight plan. I think the
>>ceilings were something below 1000 ft., so when he broke out, he
>>wouldn't have had much time to select a landing spot. Unfortunately, he
>>was over a fairly densely populated suburban area.
>>
>>As I write this (10 PM) there are generator light stands lighting up the
>>whole area, but most of the rescue/recovery people have left. I think
>>the remaining crew are just guarding the scene overnight. They don't
>>seem to be looking for the second body, if there is one. My belief is
>>that they have concluded there was only one person aboard. I guess I'll
>>be serving coffee to the NTSB folks in the morning.
>>
>>Sorry for the downer. I'd much rather be relating a story about my most
>>recent $100 hamburger.
>>
>>Here are some news stories:
>>WRAL story: http://www.wral.com/news/3263882/detail.html
>>WTVD story and pictures:
>>http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/050304_APlocal_caryplanecrash.html
>>NBC 17 story: http://www.nbc17.com/news/3263998/detail.html
>>News & Observer story:
>>http://www.news-observer.com/front/story/3562401p-3165256c.html
>>
>>
>>----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
>
> News==----
>
>>http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
>
> Newsgroups
>
>>---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
>
> =---
>
>


--
Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 04 May 2004 08:03:22 -0400, Dave Butler >
wrote:

>Thanks, BT, good advice. I think all the heavy lifting will be on community
>property that belongs to the neighborhood association. Dave

Then the Association as a group should probably due something to ensure
they are "made whole" after the recovery efforts are complete.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[David Megginson]

Dave Butler wrote:

> This has special interest for me because I own a Mooney (that should
> take care of the on-topicness). I guess I could put this in
> r.a.piloting, but i don't know anyone over there, and I just wanted to
> share this with some friends...

Are you OK, and your family? I don't know how badly it would shake me and
my family to witness a small plane crash, not to mention one on our own
property and of the type we fly in. Best wishes to all of you, and
sympathies to the families of the victims.


All the best,


David

[Dave Butler]

David Megginson wrote:
> Dave Butler wrote:
>
>> This has special interest for me because I own a Mooney (that should
>> take care of the on-topicness). I guess I could put this in
>> r.a.piloting, but i don't know anyone over there, and I just wanted to
>> share this with some friends...
>
>
> Are you OK, and your family? I don't know how badly it would shake me
> and my family to witness a small plane crash, not to mention one on our
> own property and of the type we fly in. Best wishes to all of you, and
> sympathies to the families of the victims.

Yes, thanks. There were no injuries on the ground. There are some neighbors who
were at home at the time who were understandably shaken. Nobody was home at my
house. My wife, an aerophobe, seems to be taking it rather well. As for me, it's
closer to a crash scene investigation than I really would like to be. Since the
aircraft is so similar to the one I fly, I think it enhances my tendency to
mentally play back probable scenarios.

It's got to be tough for the families of the victim(s). Last I knew, they had
still recovered only one body, although for some reason (flight plan?) they seem
to think there were 2 people aboard. I haven't seen any identification of the
plane or the people involved.

Dave

[David Megginson]

Dave Butler wrote:

> Yes, thanks. There were no injuries on the ground. There are some
> neighbors who were at home at the time who were understandably shaken.
> Nobody was home at my house. My wife, an aerophobe, seems to be taking
> it rather well. As for me, it's closer to a crash scene investigation
> than I really would like to be. Since the aircraft is so similar to the
> one I fly, I think it enhances my tendency to mentally play back
> probable scenarios.

I don't know if it will help the constant replaying or not, but here's the
prelim:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/B_0504_N.txt

Here's the accident description from the above:

ACFT ABORTED AN APPROACH AND CRASHED DURING VECTORS FOR THIRD ATTEMPT TO
LAND, TWO PERSONS ON BOARD WERE FATALLY INJURED, ACFT WAS DESTROYED,
RALEIGH-DURHAM, NC

Here's the reported weather at the time:

RDU METAR 031915Z 03009KT 2 1/2SM BKN008 OVC018 11/11 A2991

and here's the last clearance:

MAINTAIN 3000, TURN RIGHT HDG230

I am obviously forming my own conclusions from this information, as will any
other pilot reading it, but I'll keep them to myself until we have more
information. Take good care of your family, and give your kids some extra
hugs today.


Best wishes,


David

[Otis Winslow]

I know no one wants to speculate, but 2 1/2 and 800 doesn't sound that
bad.



"David Megginson" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
> Dave Butler wrote:
>
> > Yes, thanks. There were no injuries on the ground. There are some
> > neighbors who were at home at the time who were understandably shaken.
> > Nobody was home at my house. My wife, an aerophobe, seems to be taking
> > it rather well. As for me, it's closer to a crash scene investigation
> > than I really would like to be. Since the aircraft is so similar to the
> > one I fly, I think it enhances my tendency to mentally play back
> > probable scenarios.
>
> I don't know if it will help the constant replaying or not, but here's the
> prelim:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/B_0504_N.txt
>
> Here's the accident description from the above:
>
> ACFT ABORTED AN APPROACH AND CRASHED DURING VECTORS FOR THIRD ATTEMPT
TO
> LAND, TWO PERSONS ON BOARD WERE FATALLY INJURED, ACFT WAS DESTROYED,
> RALEIGH-DURHAM, NC
>
> Here's the reported weather at the time:
>
> RDU METAR 031915Z 03009KT 2 1/2SM BKN008 OVC018 11/11 A2991
>
> and here's the last clearance:
>
> MAINTAIN 3000, TURN RIGHT HDG230
>
> I am obviously forming my own conclusions from this information, as will
any
> other pilot reading it, but I'll keep them to myself until we have more
> information. Take good care of your family, and give your kids some extra
> hugs today.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> David
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

It is if there were a mechanical problem causing loss of power. Pop out at
800 in the middle of a densely populated area and quick, find a place to put
it down. But we won't know until the investigation, if then.


"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
> I know no one wants to speculate, but 2 1/2 and 800 doesn't sound that
> bad.
>
>
>
> "David Megginson" > wrote in message
> ble.rogers.com...
> > Dave Butler wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, thanks. There were no injuries on the ground. There are some
> > > neighbors who were at home at the time who were understandably shaken.
> > > Nobody was home at my house. My wife, an aerophobe, seems to be taking
> > > it rather well. As for me, it's closer to a crash scene investigation
> > > than I really would like to be. Since the aircraft is so similar to
the
> > > one I fly, I think it enhances my tendency to mentally play back
> > > probable scenarios.
> >
> > I don't know if it will help the constant replaying or not, but here's
the
> > prelim:
> >
> > http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/B_0504_N.txt
> >
> > Here's the accident description from the above:
> >
> > ACFT ABORTED AN APPROACH AND CRASHED DURING VECTORS FOR THIRD ATTEMPT
> TO
> > LAND, TWO PERSONS ON BOARD WERE FATALLY INJURED, ACFT WAS DESTROYED,
> > RALEIGH-DURHAM, NC
> >
> > Here's the reported weather at the time:
> >
> > RDU METAR 031915Z 03009KT 2 1/2SM BKN008 OVC018 11/11 A2991
> >
> > and here's the last clearance:
> >
> > MAINTAIN 3000, TURN RIGHT HDG230
> >
> > I am obviously forming my own conclusions from this information, as will
> any
> > other pilot reading it, but I'll keep them to myself until we have more
> > information. Take good care of your family, and give your kids some
extra
> > hugs today.
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> > David
> >
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> It is if there were a mechanical problem causing loss of power. Pop
> out at 800 in the middle of a densely populated area and quick, find
> a place to put it down. But we won't know until the investigation, if
> then.
>

The prelim said it was his third attempt at the approach.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > It is if there were a mechanical problem causing loss of power. Pop
> > out at 800 in the middle of a densely populated area and quick, find
> > a place to put it down. But we won't know until the investigation, if
> > then.
> >
>
> The prelim said it was his third attempt at the approach.
>

It is hard to conclusively deduce much from that. Although, there are quite
a number of crashes after missing one or two approaches and perhaps fatigue
or missing something on the checklist may have played a part in this.

[Trent Moorehead]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
.net...
> It is hard to conclusively deduce much from that. Although, there are
quite
> a number of crashes after missing one or two approaches and perhaps
fatigue
> or missing something on the checklist may have played a part in this.

Fuel starvation?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> It is hard to conclusively deduce much from that. Although, there
> are quite a number of crashes after missing one or two approaches
> and perhaps fatigue or missing something on the checklist may have
> played a part in this.
>

It's hard to conclude anything at this point, but if he missed two
approaches with an 800' ceiling and 2 1/2 miles visibility a loss of engine
power wouldn't appear to be the primary cause.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> I know no one wants to speculate, but 2 1/2 and 800 doesn't
> sound that bad.
>

Speculation is about all we can do.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
...
>
> Fuel starvation?
>

That's of course possible, but it wouldn't explain missing two approaches.

[EDR]

What type approach was in use?
800 and 2 miles is pretty good for an ILS.
If he missed twice, what were the actual conditions at the DH?

[Maule Driver]

Thanks for the update Dave. I heard about this third hand (funny how fast
crash info circulates to local light plane pilots) but didn't watch the news
or anything. Glad you and yours were safe. Frankly, you represent one less
household that requires mental disaster relief - even if you are shaken.

Those are my home approaches for IFR arrivals when I can't get into
Lakeridge. Always makes you think when it's close to home.


"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> This has special interest for me because I own a Mooney (that should
> take care of the on-topicness). I guess I could put this in
> r.a.piloting, but i don't know anyone over there, and I just wanted to
> share this with some friends...
>
> About 3:00 this afternoon, a Mooney M20M dropped out of a low overcast,
> hit a tree, and ended up in a pond in my back yard. There are
> conflicting reports about whether there are 1 or 2 fatalities. My
> interpretation is that they recovered 1 body, but the flight plan says
> there were 2 aboard.
>
> The crash site is about 100 yards from my deck. The plane is completely
> submerged, but I can guess its position by the location of the police
> raft and divers that were in the area. I arrived home from work about
> 6:00 to find news helicopters overhead and crime-scene tape stretched
> across my yard.
>
> From the news reports and the visible damage to the tree, I estimate
> that the flight path must have been directly toward my house. If it
> hadn't gone into the pond, it might have gone into the house. Nobody
> would have been home.
>
> Apparently the pilot reported some kind of trouble. Given the weather,
> he would have had to be on an instrument flight plan. I think the
> ceilings were something below 1000 ft., so when he broke out, he
> wouldn't have had much time to select a landing spot. Unfortunately, he
> was over a fairly densely populated suburban area.
>
> As I write this (10 PM) there are generator light stands lighting up the
> whole area, but most of the rescue/recovery people have left. I think
> the remaining crew are just guarding the scene overnight. They don't
> seem to be looking for the second body, if there is one. My belief is
> that they have concluded there was only one person aboard. I guess I'll
> be serving coffee to the NTSB folks in the morning.
>
> Sorry for the downer. I'd much rather be relating a story about my most
> recent $100 hamburger.
>
> Here are some news stories:
> WRAL story: http://www.wral.com/news/3263882/detail.html
> WTVD story and pictures:
> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/050304_APlocal_caryplanecrash.html
> NBC 17 story: http://www.nbc17.com/news/3263998/detail.html
> News & Observer story:
> http://www.news-observer.com/front/story/3562401p-3165256c.html
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Maule Driver]

We had very changeable conditions here at that time. I was 10 miles north
of the accident site. 800 and 2 seems like about the worse we had during
that period. No fog from what I could see. Some rain and it looked a bit
turbulent/convective. But that is real speculation.

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> What type approach was in use?
> 800 and 2 miles is pretty good for an ILS.
> If he missed twice, what were the actual conditions at the DH?

[Jeff]

also the news report said
"Mindy Hamlin, an airport spokeswoman, said the tower was aware of that the
plane "was having trouble getting to RDU" "

not engine trouble, just trouble getting to the airport.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > It is if there were a mechanical problem causing loss of power. Pop
> > out at 800 in the middle of a densely populated area and quick, find
> > a place to put it down. But we won't know until the investigation, if
> > then.
> >
>
> The prelim said it was his third attempt at the approach.

[Dave Butler]

I saw them carting away the pieces they had pulled out of the pond. The whole
pile of aluminum would have fit in the back of a pickup truck. There was that
pile, plus the engine, that was it. One of the news reports said they had not
found the fuselage, for whatever that's worth. Of course, the Mooney has that
steel cage around the cabin, so either that broke up along with everything else,
or else they haven't found it yet. They are continuing to drain the pond.

I wondered why I couldn't see any of the airplane in the pond, I know the pond
is not that deep. The answer, of course, is that there wasn't an airplane in
there, just a bunch of pieces.

They snapped off a couple of pretty substantial pine trees at about the 50 foot
high mark, then hit another tree at the edge of the pond at about 10 feet. My
guess is they must have been pretty much out of control after hitting the first
trees, otherwise they surely would have steered around the tree at the water's edge.

News reports that the occupants were a couple from Arizona. You probably don't
get much practice at 800 and 2 in Arizona, I don't know. I assume an ILS
approach was in use. The aircraft was being vectored for its third attempted
approach when it veered off the assigned heading and descended. So far I haven't
seen any info from the audio tapes.

Like Maule Driver, I'll be haunted while flying this approach for a while.

Dave

Jeff wrote:
> also the news report said
> "Mindy Hamlin, an airport spokeswoman, said the tower was aware of that the
> plane "was having trouble getting to RDU" "
>
> not engine trouble, just trouble getting to the airport.
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>
>>"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
.net...
>>
>>>It is if there were a mechanical problem causing loss of power. Pop
>>>out at 800 in the middle of a densely populated area and quick, find
>>>a place to put it down. But we won't know until the investigation, if
>>>then.
>>>
>>
>>The prelim said it was his third attempt at the approach.
>
>


--
Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367

[Dave Butler]

Here's the story from today's local paper. They quote AOPA accident statistics.
Guess AOPA got the word out that they are the source of expertise for GA stories...

"Crashes of small planes are infrequent, considering how many take to the skies,
said Warren Morningstar of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a
national group of more than 400,000 pilots.

Of the 40 million general aviation aircraft flights per year, there are about
1,800 accidents, he said.

About 75 percent of the accidents are attributed to errors in judgment by
pilots, he said."


http://www.news-observer.com/front/story/3565373p-3167666c.html

Dave

[Robert M. Gary]

Dave Butler > wrote in message >...
> Here's the story from today's local paper. They quote AOPA accident statistics.
> Guess AOPA got the word out that they are the source of expertise for GA stories...
>
> "Crashes of small planes are infrequent, considering how many take to the skies,
> said Warren Morningstar of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a
> national group of more than 400,000 pilots.
>
> Of the 40 million general aviation aircraft flights per year, there are about
> 1,800 accidents, he said.
>
> About 75 percent of the accidents are attributed to errors in judgment by
> pilots, he said."

Its good to see AOPA letting everyone know we're idiots. I can't see
what value there is in telling the press that most accidents are a
result of sunday flyers. Gee, we could probably get more favorable
comments from these guys..

www.stopthenoise.org

-Robert

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> Gee, we could probably get more favorable
> comments from these guys..

And if some reporter asks *you* what the major cause of GA accidents is, what would
you say?

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Bob Miller]

Mostly accidents due to human error, bad planning, and omissions, just
as in commercial aviation and automobiles

>
> And if some reporter asks *you* what the major cause of GA accidents is, what would
> you say?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bob Miller wrote:
>
> Mostly accidents due to human error, bad planning, and omissions, just
> as in commercial aviation and automobiles

Which is probably just what AOPA said. And the reporter cut out the last clause, just
as they would for you.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 07 May 2004 01:39:59 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>> Mostly accidents due to human error, bad planning, and omissions, just
>> as in commercial aviation and automobiles
>
>Which is probably just what AOPA said. And the reporter cut out the last clause, just
>as they would for you.

The rule is that you do not have to answer the question as if you were
on a quiz show. Answers of the form: "Let me show you the
regulations that must be met by pilots and their planes before they
can take to the air" (holding up a copy of the FARs), is permissible.
The reporter needs some information to write a story with by a certain
deadlline. What goes into the story is the result between a
collaboration between you and the reporter. Save confession for your
priest.

Another rule: If you want to be quoted, speak with animation in
short, simple sentences. If you don't want to be quoted, never say
"no comment." Instead, speak in a monotone and ramble.

And another: If you don't like a question, ask one of your own. R:
"What do you think is behind all these light plane crashes?" You:
"Have there been that many? How many auto wrecks have you seen in the
same period of time? Have you any idea how many pilots have made that
exact instrument approach in the last year?"

Don

[Michael]

EDR > wrote
> What type approach was in use?
> 800 and 2 miles is pretty good for an ILS.
> If he missed twice, what were the actual conditions at the DH?

Well, the problem is you don't know.

Yesterday I took a short businees trip in my plane. Conditions were
forecast/reported as marginal VFR, so I filed. I got to the airport,
and while it was slightly hazy, there was not a cloud in the sky and
stuff 5+ miles away was clearly visible. Rather than messing with a
void time, I took off VFR.

My destination was GTU, only 115 nm away. (For those playing along on
the home game, the approach there is available at:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0404/05724N18.PDF). So I'm cruising
along at 2000 ft to stay out of the winds, enjoying the day, and I
decide to give Flgh****ch a call to see if maybe the conditions over
there have not improved. Well, they're still MVFR - 1000 SCT, 1600
NKN, 2200 OVC, vis 10+. OK, it's MVFR, and I can see the cloud deck
in the distance so I climb and activate, but I'm expecting a total no
brainer approach, or maybe even a visual.

So I'm over the top, and I get switched to Austin. Austing asks if I
have the weather, and I do - the latest is 900 SCT, 2300 BKN, vis 10+,
which really means I can get in on the visual - but something doesn't
smell right so I ask for the NDB. The controller clearly isn't happy,
but I really don't like the fact that every time I check, the weather
is something a little different.

So I get PD to 3000, slide into the soup at about 4500, and at 3000 I
can see down to the ground most of the time. I figure as soon as I
drop down to 2600 after crossing the NDB, I'll be out of it and just
ask for the visual. Well, I cross the NDB and drop to 2600, but now
I'm in solid soup. So I figure it's just a bad patch, and as soon as
I do the procedure turn and drop down, I'll be out. I'm still not
really in hard IFR mode - not really in the game. My mindset is still
in the "penetrate a cloud layer" rather than "shoot approach to
minimums" mode.

Well, I intercept inbound, drop to MDA - and I'm in and out of soup,
and the only stuff I can see is straight down or nearly so. Visual
aircraft control is impossible - I'm on instruments and diverting
attention to look out. Now I realize I haven't briefed the miss
because it never occurred to me I might have to miss from this
approach - until now. I'm 3 miles from the airport and I can't see
anything I recognize. So I quickly glance at the missed, and
fortunately it starts with a straight climb to 2600 so I figure I'll
have time to sort it out. NOW I'm in the game. I also realize it has
been over eight months since my last recurrent training - I'm getting
rusty. I should have snapped to this a lot quicker. My scan tightens
up, and I concentrate on keeping the altitude dead on. I don't dare
go below mins, and even 30 ft above makes a noticeable difference in
the vis.

Finally, about a mile from the airport, I spot the North hangars
through the haze and mist. That tells me where the runways is, and I
spot the REILs so now I'm golden. I make a descending right turn
(still partially on instruments) and then a descending left turn (now
visual), and fortunately I have a stiff headwind on final so I don't
have to do anything really ugly to make the runway.

On the ground, the visibility is 10+ miles. A CFI in a Cessna asks me
where the bases are. I tell him right at mins, and I wasn't sure
until the last minute whether I would get in or not, so he takes off
for some VFR pattern work with a student. Automated weather claims
900 SCT, 2000 OVC, vis 10+. I look to the South of the airport. The
clouds there are clearly higher and less solid, so I guess the weather
station isn't broken. That's just the way it goes.

What did that pilot see on the approach? How long had it been since
his last recurrent training? All we can do is speculate. I once made
an ILS approach that was advertised at 900 and 3 - and it was right at
minimums, no ****, couldn't even see the approach lights until I was
below 250 ft. An airliner came in behind me and reported the approach
at mins. This wasn't some little podunk place, either - this was SHV,
a major Class C regional like RDU. My guess is that the Mooney pilot
encountered some conditions that were probably landable but more
demanding than what he was expecting, and he never got his head back
in the game.

Michael

[Kyle Boatright]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> Dave Butler > wrote in message
>...
> > Here's the story from today's local paper. They quote AOPA accident
statistics.
> > Guess AOPA got the word out that they are the source of expertise for GA
stories...
> >
> > "Crashes of small planes are infrequent, considering how many take to
the skies,
> > said Warren Morningstar of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,
a
> > national group of more than 400,000 pilots.
> >
> > Of the 40 million general aviation aircraft flights per year, there
are about
> > 1,800 accidents, he said.
> >
> > About 75 percent of the accidents are attributed to errors in judgment
by
> > pilots, he said."
>
> Its good to see AOPA letting everyone know we're idiots. I can't see
> what value there is in telling the press that most accidents are a
> result of sunday flyers. Gee, we could probably get more favorable
> comments from these guys..
>
> www.stopthenoise.org
>
> -Robert

What I take from the AOPA comment is that you should be careful who you fly
with. There are idiots out there, and at your home field, you probably know
who most of 'em are. So, don't fly with 'em and make sure your friends think
carefully before riding with someone they don't know particularly well.

KB

[David Megginson]

The NTSB now has its own preliminary report on the accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20040506X00564

Here's the key paragraph:

A preliminary review of radar data shows the pilot was conducting an ILS
approach, and was attempting to land on runway 5R. The pilot reported that
he was not familiar with the area and needed some assistance. RDU tower
controller provided the pilot with radar vectors to runway 5R. After the
two attempts to land, the Raleigh Durham tower offered to divert the pilot
to Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport. The pilot refused and
stated he needed to land at RDU. On the third attempt the tower controller
lost radio and radar contact with the airplane.

The report does not yet state why the pilot aborted the landings: it may
have been because of lower-than-reported visibility at the runway (such as a
small fog bank), or simply difficulty flying the approaches (such as
drifting too far off the LOC or GS and deciding to go around each time).
There is no mention of mechanical problems or fuel exhaustion, but that
might still be under investigation.


All the best, and fly safe,


David

[David Megginson]

[apologies if this has gone out twice]

The NTSB now has its own preliminary report on the accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20040506X00564

Here's the key paragraph:

A preliminary review of radar data shows the pilot was conducting an ILS
approach, and was attempting to land on runway 5R. The pilot reported that
he was not familiar with the area and needed some assistance. RDU tower
controller provided the pilot with radar vectors to runway 5R. After the
two attempts to land, the Raleigh Durham tower offered to divert the pilot
to Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport. The pilot refused and
stated he needed to land at RDU. On the third attempt the tower controller
lost radio and radar contact with the airplane.

The report does not yet state why the pilot aborted the landings: it may
have been because of lower-than-reported visibility at the runway (such as a
small fog bank), or simply difficulty flying the approaches (such as
drifting too far off the LOC or GS and deciding to go around each time).
There is no mention of mechanical problems or fuel exhaustion, but that
might still be under investigation.


All the best, and fly safe,


David

[David Megginson]

David Megginson wrote:

> The report does not yet state why the pilot aborted the landings: it may
> have been because of lower-than-reported visibility at the runway (such
> as a small fog bank), or simply difficulty flying the approaches (such as
> drifting too far off the LOC or GS and deciding to go around each time).
> There is no mention of mechanical problems or fuel exhaustion, but that
> might still be under investigation.

One more point -- the FAA report that I posted earlier stated that the last
clearance issued was to fly heading 230 and maintain 3000, so the plane was
likely being vectored downwind to rejoin the ILS 5R approach for the third
pass. Given that the ceiling was 800 BKN, 1800 OVC, the plane was probably
in IMC at 3000 ft when it suddenly dove under the radar.


All the best, and fly safe,


David

[Dave Butler]

David Megginson wrote:
> The NTSB now has its own preliminary report on the accident:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20040506X00564
>
> Here's the key paragraph:
>
> A preliminary review of radar data shows the pilot was conducting an ILS
> approach, and was attempting to land on runway 5R. The pilot reported
> that
> he was not familiar with the area and needed some assistance. RDU tower
> controller provided the pilot with radar vectors to runway 5R. After the
> two attempts to land, the Raleigh Durham tower offered to divert the
> pilot
> to Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport. The pilot refused and
> stated he needed to land at RDU. On the third attempt the tower
> controller
> lost radio and radar contact with the airplane.
>
> The report does not yet state why the pilot aborted the landings: it may
> have been because of lower-than-reported visibility at the runway (such
> as a small fog bank), or simply difficulty flying the approaches (such
> as drifting too far off the LOC or GS and deciding to go around each
> time). There is no mention of mechanical problems or fuel exhaustion,
> but that might still be under investigation.

It also says the visibility at the time of the accident was "0.05 sm" which has
to be a typo.

I guess we'll know more when they release the approach control tapes.

I walked over and took a closer look at the impact site this weekend and it gave
me a new perspective. There is an impact gouge about 10 feet long, a foot deep,
and 2 feet wide. Since the tree by the waters edge is broken off about 10 feet
or so off the ground, I had thought the flight path was:
break off some trees
break off some more trees
break off tree by waters edge
cartwheel into the pond

After looking at the scene more closely, I realize it must have been:
break off some trees
break off some more trees
hit the ground, dig a big trench and bounce
break off tree by waters edge
cartwheel into the pond.

Even after hitting the ground and digging a big trench, it still had enough
momentum to tip the tree by the pond by 30 degrees or so and break off the roots.

NTSB (or someone) had done a pretty good job of cleaning up the site. There were
bits of insulation stuck in the trees, miscellaneous bits of material that
looked like they might have come from an airplane interior floating in the pond
near the outflows from the pond. My wife found a 6 inch piece of a front panel
at the trench including the <-> switch with the Bendix/King logo and "KY196" on
it. It all just confirmed my initial impression that there were few big pieces
left after the initial impact.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[David Megginson]

Dave Butler wrote:

> After looking at the scene more closely, I realize it must have been:
> break off some trees
> break off some more trees
> hit the ground, dig a big trench and bounce
> break off tree by waters edge
> cartwheel into the pond.
>
> Even after hitting the ground and digging a big trench, it still had
> enough momentum to tip the tree by the pond by 30 degrees or so and
> break off the roots.

That's what I gathered from the report itself -- it sounded like the plane
hit the trees at a fairly high speed. That makes it seem unlikely that it
was a forced landing, but as you mentioned in a part of your posting I
didn't quote, we'll know more when the tapes come out.

Have you had your own plane up since the accident? I know that it would
probably be hard for me to get back in the first time if I'd seen the
aftermath of something like that.


All the best,


David

[Dave Butler]

David Megginson wrote:

> Have you had your own plane up since the accident? I know that it would
> probably be hard for me to get back in the first time if I'd seen the
> aftermath of something like that.

My plane is in the paint shop, should be out any day now, but I took the
opportunity to go get some training in another Mooney, and I found the images of
the crash colored that experience.

The instructor took me deep into a stall, something I've never tried in a
Mooney. Now in my Cherokee, I could hold the yoke full back in my lap for as
long as I wanted to (or until I hit the ground, I suppose) and keep the wings
level using rudder, descending at a pretty good clip, but completely under
control. Not so with the Mooney: the wing drop in the stall was too fast to
correct for with rudder and I found myself oscillating left-right in roll and
unable to synchronize the corrections with the diversions. If we had continued,
I'm sure we would have been on our backs in short order.

I couldn't help thinking about the folks that crashed, probably (IMO) after loss
of control of some kind.

[David Megginson]

Dave Butler wrote:

> The instructor took me deep into a stall, something I've never tried in
> a Mooney. Now in my Cherokee, I could hold the yoke full back in my lap
> for as long as I wanted to (or until I hit the ground, I suppose) and
> keep the wings level using rudder, descending at a pretty good clip, but
> completely under control.

Yes, that's been my experience in both the 172's I trained in and my
Warrior. It's probably because they're trainers: the manufacturers designed
the controls so that you just cannot pull the yoke back far enough for a
full stall, unless you enter from a steep turn or whip the yoke back very
quickly into an accelerated stall.

> Not so with the Mooney: the wing drop in the
> stall was too fast to correct for with rudder and I found myself
> oscillating left-right in roll and unable to synchronize the corrections
> with the diversions. If we had continued, I'm sure we would have been on
> our backs in short order.

That may just be the cost of the Mooney's speed, though I'm just guessing --
less wing twist would mean less drag, but also less control around the
stall; more elevator travel is probably necessary for a plane with a bigger
speed range.


All the best,


David

[Dale]

In article ers.com>,
David Megginson > wrote:



> It's probably because they're trainers: the manufacturers designed
> the controls so that you just cannot pull the yoke back far enough for a
> full stall, unless you enter from a steep turn or whip the yoke back very
> quickly into an accelerated stall.

Don't believe that. Have you ever done stalls with someone in the rear
seat? Stall practice is normally done solo or with you and a CFI...CG
is well forward. Move the CG back (still well within limits) and you'll
find you have plenty of elevator to stall the airplane.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[David Megginson]

Dale wrote:

> Don't believe that. Have you ever done stalls with someone in the rear
> seat? Stall practice is normally done solo or with you and a CFI...CG
> is well forward. Move the CG back (still well within limits) and you'll
> find you have plenty of elevator to stall the airplane.

That makes sense -- unfortunately, there's no way for me to try it legally
(or, I presume, safely).


All the best,


David

[PaulaJay1]

In article ers.com>, David
Megginson > writes:

>Yes, that's been my experience in both the 172's I trained in and my
>Warrior. It's probably because they're trainers: the manufacturers designed
>the controls so that you just cannot pull the yoke back far enough for a
>full stall, unless you enter from a steep turn or whip the yoke back very
>quickly into an accelerated stall.
>

Peoblem (or solution) is not in pulling the yoke back far enough. The wing has
enough wash out (twist) that the inboard part stalls before the out board part
and you lose enough lift to start the mush down.

Chuck

[David Megginson]

PaulaJay1 wrote:

> Peoblem (or solution) is not in pulling the yoke back far enough. The wing has
> enough wash out (twist) that the inboard part stalls before the out board part
> and you lose enough lift to start the mush down.

It's a combination of the two: you limit elevator or stabilator travel, and
then use wing twist to make it more likely that the plane will be
controllable on the edge of stall. I'm pretty sure that that twist adds
drag, though.


All the best,


David

[Dale]

In article rs.com>,
David Megginson > wrote:


>
> That makes sense -- unfortunately, there's no way for me to try it legally
> (or, I presume, safely).

There is nothing illegal or unsafe about doing stalls with pax in the
rear seats. The airplane was certified doing stalls at the aft CG limit.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Ray Andraka]

Provided you don't exceed the bank and pitch limits for normal flight putting
you in the acrobatic category. IIRC, it is 60 deg bank and 30 deg pitch.

Dale wrote:

> In article rs.com>,
> David Megginson > wrote:
>
> >
> > That makes sense -- unfortunately, there's no way for me to try it legally
> > (or, I presume, safely).
>
> There is nothing illegal or unsafe about doing stalls with pax in the
> rear seats. The airplane was certified doing stalls at the aft CG limit.
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
>
> There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
> as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
> http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[David Megginson]

Ray Andraka wrote:

> Dale wrote:

>>There is nothing illegal or unsafe about doing stalls with pax in the
>>rear seats. The airplane was certified doing stalls at the aft CG limit.

> Provided you don't exceed the bank and pitch limits for normal flight putting
> you in the acrobatic category. IIRC, it is 60 deg bank and 30 deg pitch.

You'd have to make sure you stay out of the utility category, since only
normal category in my Warrior allows backseat passengers or baggage.

Actually, I had remembered that intentional stalls were in the utility
category, but a quick glance at my POH showed me that I was mistaken.
Thanks to Dale for the clarification and to Ray for the extra comment.


All the best,


David