Off-Field landing

[Casey Wilson]

The pilot was on the way to IYK [Inyokern] CA.

===============================
On December 1, 2005, about 1720 Pacific standard time, a Mooney M20A,
N6004X, made a hard landing on a road near China Lake, California, following
a loss of engine power. The pilot was operating the airplane under the
provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The private pilot and one passenger sustained
minor injuries; the airplane sustained substantial damage. The cross-country
personal flight departed Albuquerque, New Mexico, about 1300, with a planned
destination of Inyokern, California. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed.

In a written statement to the National Transportation Safety Board, the
pilot stated that he departed Dodge City, Kansas, earlier in the day with a
planned refueling stop in Albuquerque. The pilot reported that he had 49
gallons of fuel on board when he departed Albuquerque. After departing
Albuquerque there were no discrepancies noted with the flight. About 1640,
the pilot noticed a problem with his fuel pressure, and readjusted the
throttle to attain best fuel efficiency. He contacted Joshua Approach
Control, and reported "low fuel." The controller recommended the Trona,
California, airport (L72) as an alternate landing site.

He stated that as he manuevered for landing at L72, he encountered "extreme
turbulence." The weather information the pilot had for L72 indicated to him
the crosswinds would exceed "the capabailities of the Mooney." The airplane
lost power about 1 minute after crossing over Highway 178. The pilot
switched fuel tanks and the engine restarted for about 20 seconds, then quit
again. He chose to land on the highway instead of trying to make L72. The
pilot stated that the section of highway 178 he was landing on was in Poison
Canyon, where the road was not flat or straight. The pilot stated that in
the darkness he was unable to see the rising road before he impacted the
terrain. The airplane hit the ground and came to rest in between the road
and a ditch. The pilot stated that the airplane and engine had no mechanical
failures or malfunctions during the flight.

==================== ed notes ==========

The winds were allegedly 20024G36.

A very lucky chap to walk away from this!

[Jose]

> The weather information the pilot had for L72 indicated to him
> the crosswinds would exceed "the capabailities of the Mooney."

Sounds like "exceeds the maximum demonstrated", which is not the same as
exceeding the capabilities. Many pilots fall for this.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

That wind is certainly nothing ot be concerned about in most Mooneys.
I've landed in 24G36 with a large cross wind portion in my F model
Mooney. It sounds more like wind sheer????

-Robert, CFI

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> That wind is certainly nothing ot be concerned about in most Mooneys.
> I've landed in 24G36 with a large cross wind portion in my F model
> Mooney. It sounds more like wind sheer????
>
> -Robert, CFI

It sounds like "too much air in the tanks."

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[John Gaquin]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message

> On December 1, 2005, about 1720 Pacific standard time, a Mooney M20A,
> N6004X, made a hard landing on a road near China Lake,

> .... The cross-country
> personal flight departed Albuquerque, New Mexico, about 1300,

So he flight planned a trip of some 550 nm without a fuel stop. I don't
know diddly about Mooneys, but iirc, 550 nm is pushing it pretty hard in
most singles, yes? He said he had 49 gallons leaving ABQ, and flew about
5:20. 9.2 gph. Is that about right for a Mooney?

[Morgans]

>
> So he flight planned a trip of some 550 nm without a fuel stop. I don't
> know diddly about Mooneys, but iirc, 550 nm is pushing it pretty hard in
> most singles, yes? He said he had 49 gallons leaving ABQ, and flew about
> 5:20. 9.2 gph. Is that about right for a Mooney?

If he would have had all the useable fuel on board, he could have done that
easily. I was able to google the capacity of a m20a at 64 useable gallons.
The
problem was that he left with more air in his tanks than he could have, or
tried to run with not enough reserve. Also, he must not have kept track of
his fuel burn, and time aloft. Short and sweet, he screwed up, in a number
of ways, and is lucky to be able to admit it, now.

Jim in NC

[Morgans]

> So he flight planned a trip of some 550 nm without a fuel stop. I don't
> know diddly about Mooneys, but iirc, 550 nm is pushing it pretty hard in
> most singles, yes? He said he had 49 gallons leaving ABQ, and flew about
> 5:20. 9.2 gph. Is that about right for a Mooney?

I was able to google the capacity of a m20a at 64 useable gallons. The
problem was that he left with more air in his tanks than he could have, or
tried to run with not enough reserve. Also, he must not have kept track of
his fuel burn, and time aloft. Short and sweet, he screwed up, in a number
of ways, and is lucky to be able to admit it, now.

Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

At least in most Mooneys 550nm is a pretty short trip. I can easily
make Albuquerque from Sacramento in my Mooney and that is over 800 nm.

-Robert

[John Theune]

Morgans wrote:
>>So he flight planned a trip of some 550 nm without a fuel stop. I don't
>>know diddly about Mooneys, but iirc, 550 nm is pushing it pretty hard in
>>most singles, yes? He said he had 49 gallons leaving ABQ, and flew about
>>5:20. 9.2 gph. Is that about right for a Mooney?
>
>
> I was able to google the capacity of a m20a at 64 useable gallons. The
> problem was that he left with more air in his tanks than he could have, or
> tried to run with not enough reserve. Also, he must not have kept track of
> his fuel burn, and time aloft. Short and sweet, he screwed up, in a number
> of ways, and is lucky to be able to admit it, now.
>
> Jim in NC
>
>
>
Jim;
I'm not sure where you googled a fuel cap of 64 gallons for a m20A. The
specs I found were 35 stand and 52 extended range or another site that
said 48 gallons, which agrees with what I had thought. 75% cruise is
156 knots so it would seem that the flight would have been well within
range. As I recall from the ntsb report the pilot said he had 49 usable
on board at takeoff which would match with the full fuel numbers. I
don't recall what the winds aloft where on the flight but it would seem
reasonable that the flight should have been doable. Also the flight
departed around 1300 and ended at 1720 which is 4:20 by my math. ( I
know you did not supply the 5:20 number )

John

[Michael]

> So he flight planned a trip of some 550 nm without a fuel stop. I don't
> know diddly about Mooneys, but iirc, 550 nm is pushing it pretty hard in
> most singles, yes?

Trainers, yes. IFR cruisers, no. A Mooney is generally good for a
little over 5 hours endurance at 75% power, and you can expect to make
140-150 kts. If you pull it back to 60-65% and lean it, you can get 6+
hours at 130+ kts. 550 nm is easily doable unless the headwinds are
vicious.

> He said he had 49 gallons leaving ABQ, and flew about
> 5:20. 9.2 gph. Is that about right for a Mooney?

Depends what power setting he was running. Many people run their
Mooneys around 8 gph for endurance. That would make sense given the
length of the trip, since making an extra fuel stop would erase any
time savings from going faster.

Before we jump all over this guy and make snide comments about too much
air in the tanks, I seem to recall not too long ago we had a pilot run
out of gas - only it turned out later than when his carburetor was
rebuilt, most of the parts used were for the wrong model or out of
tolerance, and the fuel leaked away. The NTSB still called it pilot
error.

Michael

[George Patterson]

Michael wrote:

> The NTSB still called it pilot error.

And they're right. Coming back from Oshkosh last time, my left fuel gauge stayed
on full. I did not assume that something was wrong with the gauge and that I had
plenty of gas.

Turned out that some little insect had plugged the vents at my last fuel stop
and it was pulling from the right tank only, even when the left tank was selected.

When the gauges get close to empty, land. Especially if they shouldn't be
getting close to empty.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Morgans]

"John Theune" > wrote

> Jim;
> I'm not sure where you googled a fuel cap of 64 gallons for a m20A.

Well, if it was on the internet, it must be right, correct? <g>

The site I was at was definitely talking about the m20a, and as I recall, it
was 112 liters per side, useable. That worked out to 64 gallons. If that
does not figure, my memory about the liters was wrong.

> The specs I found were 35 stand and 52 extended range or another site that
> said 48 gallons, which agrees with what I had thought. 75% cruise is 156
> knots so it would seem that the flight would have been well within range.
> As I recall from the ntsb report the pilot said he had 49 usable on board
> at takeoff which would match with the full fuel numbers. I don't recall
> what the winds aloft where on the flight but it would seem reasonable that
> the flight should have been doable. Also the flight departed around 1300
> and ended at 1720 which is 4:20 by my math. ( I know you did not supply
> the 5:20 number )

I would be surprised if your site was right, only based on the fact that
Moonies usually have very long legs; usually somewhere at least around 750NM
with reserves.

Who knows, and really, at this point, who cares. The pilot should have know
what his time aloft with reserves was, and landed *before* the fan stopped,
when the timer reached zero and the fuel was all gone.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Michael" > wrote

> Before we jump all over this guy and make snide comments about too much
> air in the tanks, I seem to recall not too long ago we had a pilot run
> out of gas - only it turned out later than when his carburetor was
> rebuilt, most of the parts used were for the wrong model or out of
> tolerance, and the fuel leaked away. The NTSB still called it pilot
> error.

True. The facts are not in, yet. We can wait to jump on him, until then.
<g>

It does make you wonder if he had fuel gauges that worked. Seeing them both
down almost down at the empty line would have made me want to stop, before
all the reserve was used up, right?
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

> as I recall, it was 112 liters per side, useable. That worked out to 64 gallons. If that does not figure, my memory about the liters was wrong.

1.1 quarts per liter, 4 quarts per gallon. To the nearest one...
112 liters * 1.1 = 123 quarts
123 qquarts / 4 = 31 gallons
per side = 62 gallons total usable. Close enough.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Gaquin]

"John Theune" > wrote in message news:q6txf.10798

> ..... Also the flight departed around 1300 and ended at 1720 which is 4:20
> by my math. ( I know you did not supply the 5:20 number )

The report specified that the flight ended at 1720 PST, which was local
time, so I am presuming that when they referenced the take off time as 1300
they used local time for that also. The departure point was ABQ, which is
in MST. If that's the case, he would have been in the air for 5:20.