Mooney down at ORF

RotorDude said:
Here is the track. The approaches don't seem perfect, but not vastly off the final approach courses afaict (at least the final one).
Click to expand...

He commented on the first approach attempt afterwards that below 1200 it is a "washing machine" so very bad chop I assume, especially with a 70kt headwind and 20G30 on the ground.

The second approach track looks much better and straighter.
But I too wonder why they need to recheck the VASI, he did not report it malfunctioning, nor did the previous pilot.

R.I.P. all involved. :(
 
BigBadLou said:
He commented on the first approach attempt afterwards that below 1200 it is a "washing machine" so very bad chop I assume, especially with a 70kt headwind and 20G30 on the ground.

The second approach track looks much better and straighter.
But I too wonder why they need to recheck the VASI, he did not report it malfunctioning, nor did the previous pilot.

R.I.P. all involved. :(
Click to expand...

Well, with that 70kt headwind the <50kt groundspeed on final (at both airports) now makes sense!
Regarding the PAPI/VASI check, maybe it's now standard procedure for such CFIT accidents, when the final approach track seems to be on centerline.
Did he shoot the ILS or RNAV? I ask because if it was the ILS, I'd expect them to check the GS also, temporarily notam'ing it until that's done.
 
Last edited:
Just watched the Va. State Police press conf. Man, talk about some dumb questions from the press...:hairraise:
 
Man, I'll tell you what, I'm having trouble finding any feeling of sympathy on this one. This flight had nothing going for it, especially if it actually had 4 onboard. When I evaluate the preflight conditions for departure, there is not one thing I can see about this flight that makes think "go" in a Mooney is viable.:nonod: I don't think I would have got in the plane as a passenger.
 
BigBadLou said:
Lots of trees, I'd expect those to absorb the kinetic energy, slow the plane down and allow the occupants to hopefully survive the crash. Too bad. :(
Click to expand...

That's why it's important to be as close to stall as possible when you go into them. Carry enough energy and even an airbag isn't going to save you.:(
 
Henning said:
I don't think I would have got in the plane as a passenger.
Click to expand...

Non-pilot passengers usually have no access to weather and flight planning information, nor do they usually have the need. They often trust the pilot because he is an EDUCATED and TRAINED individual.
My wife always ask about the weather and flight plan, even on a sunny day. I don't mind, it helps me review the conditions. Afterall, I want her to be involved in the go-nogo decision as well.
 
BigBadLou said:
Non-pilot passengers usually have no access to weather and flight planning information, nor do they usually have the need. They often trust the pilot because he is an EDUCATED and TRAINED individual.
My wife always ask about the weather and flight plan, even on a sunny day. I don't mind, it helps me review the conditions. Afterall, I want her to be involved in the go-nogo decision as well.
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand, I wasn't refering to his passengers, they I have some sympathy for. I was more commenting with regards to knowing what I do.
 
Per some of the comments on the other site the pilot allegedly has had multiple previous accidents after running out of fuel in flight then here appears to have been flying into bad weather in the middle of the night. The NTSB needs to do their thing, but if the comments about previous accidents are correct then that would be a history of poor decision making as PIC.

It wasn't exactly a secret that the weather in that areas was nasty last night and plane like that had absolutely no business being in the air. In fact, I had checked the winds on ForeFlight last night just watching the storm move in after seeing the evening news reports about the mess on the East Coast (wasn't in the area and had no interest in flying, just use ForeFlight to get more detail on what's happening with a storm). I noted that winds at 3,000 on the I-95 corridor were 50+ kts. Don't know what someone was thinking flying into that mess.

This is a very unfortunate accident, especially for the passengers.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I'm always surprised when people choose to fly in conditions like this.:(
Click to expand...

Never got too excited about minimums if I had enough fuel for a good alternate until I got iced up on approach with a low temperature inversion and 300' ceilings with fog and no way to go missed. :sad: Now I think about it hard.

But the bigger surprise to me is the planned fatigue of someone trying to land with close to planned fuel minimums LIFR after coming off 6-1/2 hours of flying. They left key west at 8:30pm and planned landing around 3:30 am.

Seems like a lot of strikes against the flight during the planning stages, leaving not much room for more. :confused:
 
Last edited:
rocketflyer84 said:
Per some of the comments on the other site the pilot allegedly has had multiple previous accidents after running out of fuel in flight then here appears to have been flying into bad weather in the middle of the night. The NTSB needs to do there thing, but seems like a history of poor decision making.
Click to expand...
Yes, but from what I have heard from local sources, it sounds like the owner (pilot associated with previous accidents) was not flying.

I have no idea who was flying, but fortunately, it was not the guy I know.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes, but from what I have heard from local sources, it sounds like the owner (pilot associated with previous accidents) was not flying.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

Still don't understand why they were flying into that mess though. Wasn't exactly a freak storm that came out of nowhere.
 
MyassisDragon said:
Never got too excited about minimums if I had enough fuel for a good alternate until I got iced up with a low temperature inversion with 300' ceilings and fog and no way to go missed. :dunno: Now I think about it hard.

But the bigger surprise to me is the planned fatigue of someone trying to land with close to planned fuel minimums LIFR after coming off 6-1/2 hours of flying. They left key west at 8:30pm and planned landing around 3:30 am.

Seems like a lot of strikes against the flight during the planning stages, leaving not much room for more. :confused:
Click to expand...

That's all part of the conditions, late night, IMC, long trip, heading into bad and deteriorating conditions, single engine. That is 4 links in a 6 link accident chain built before the plane leaves the ground, and we haven't looked at airplane condition or pilot condition yet.
 
Last edited:
MyassisDragon said:
Seems like a lot of strikes against the flight during the planning stages, leaving not much room for more. :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes. No idea why they couldn't make a stop along the way and wait it out until the weather improved. Right now ORF is 1200 ovcst and 9 kts on the ground and temps in the 60's.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Per some of the comments on the other site the pilot allegedly has had multiple previous accidents after running out of fuel in flight then here appears to have been flying into bad weather in the middle of the night. The NTSB needs to do their thing, but if the comments about previous accidents are correct then that would be a history of poor decision making as PIC.

It wasn't exactly a secret that the weather in that areas was nasty last night and plane like that had absolutely no business being in the air. In fact, I had checked the winds on ForeFlight last night just watching the storm move in after seeing the evening news reports about the mess on the East Coast (wasn't in the area and had no interest in flying, just use ForeFlight to get more detail on what's happening with a storm). I noted that winds at 3,000 on the I-95 corridor were 50+ kts. Don't know what someone was thinking flying into that mess.

This is a very unfortunate accident, especially for the passengers.
Click to expand...

I'll reserve judgement on that as well. Many bad "go" decisions have been made in acquiescence to passenger pleas, requests, demands, & threats.
 
Henning said:
That's why it's important to be as close to stall as possible when you go into them. Carry enough energy and even an airbag isn't going to save you.:(
Click to expand...

This is one area where Mooneys might have an advantage. That nice CrMo steel tube cage around the passenger compartment can maintain some semblance of survival space while the rest of the fuse carries energy away.
 
Bill Jennings said:
This is one area where Mooneys might have an advantage. That nice CrMo steel tube cage around the passenger compartment can maintain some semblance of survival space while the rest of the fuse carries energy away.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the Mooney is very well built for crash survival, but even so, there are limits to what anything can do. 50-100 is the human G limit.
 
From LiveATC :
- Low fuel, < 30 minutes (pilot estimates 30 min fuel remaining about 8 mins prior to crash)
- Ceiling 200' during final approach
- "Real bad precessing" gyro, executing no-gyro ASR ILS approach
- Pilot apparently called the field in sight moments before impact, got "cleared to land" from TWR (this was last comm from pilot)
- Aircraft apparently made a hard right turn to the NW just prior to impact (per TWR describing it to rescue personnel)
 
Last edited:
I was kinda wondering if he ran out of fuel. The only reason I can think that someone would chose to make that flight is riding a killer tailwind that would disappear by morning. I don't know what his wind were, just me trying to figure out why he would launch, and sadly, "saving gas money" and "skipping a fuel stop" are high on the list of reasons pilots kill themselves.
 
Last edited:
RotorDude said:
Is this common? Don't recall hearing it before.


Edit: FA radar track does seem to show him right on the centerline, though their airspeed plot seems buggy/erroneous (for the other approaches too).
Click to expand...

Don't know about PAPI. Do know about AWOS. After a serious accident/incident that might implicate the AWOS, the procedure is to NOTAM it out of service and perform a witnessed, full calibration test with all of the uncorrected performance data logged.
 
RotorDude said:
From LiveATC :
- Low fuel, < 30 minutes (pilot estimates 30 min fuel remaining about 8 mins prior to crash)
- Ceiling 200' during final approach
- "Real bad precessing" gyro, executing no-gyro ASR ILS approach
- Just prior to crash, sounds like he might have had the field in sight, got "clear to land", then apparent crash
Click to expand...

Just listened to the recording too. Pilot states to the approach controller that in fact that they have only 30 min of estimated fuel and not the 1.5 hours told to the controller previously.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Just listened to the recording too. Pilot states to the approach controller that in fact that they have only 30 min of estimated fuel and not the 1.5 hours told to the controller previously.
Click to expand...

Be interesting to know how he derived that information. Did he have a totalizer?
 
Henning said:
Many bad "go" decisions have been made in acquiescence to passenger pleas, requests, demands, & threats.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I know more than one pilot who refused to land at an airport due to bad weather conditions and got fired by a pizzed-off boss. Better to be fired than dead but the boss still won't get it. "I paid 5 million for the airplane and am paying you $500 to tell me that I cannot go where I want to go?!?" Yeah, even rich people can be dumb.
 
BigBadLou said:
Absolutely.

I know more than one pilot who refused to land at an airport due to bad weather conditions and got fired by a pizzed-off boss. Better to be fired than dead but the boss still won't get it. "I paid 5 million for the airplane and am paying you $500 to tell me that I cannot go where I want to go?!?" Yeah, even rich people can be dumb.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I deal with it in yachts as well. Luckily I can safely get away with a lot more conditions than they can stand. Normally when I tell people the conditions aren't conducive for running, they accept that as the nature of boating, when competing with the weather, the weather wins.

Some people though, they get all ****y, "We have that berth paid for tonight and reservations...". On a charter boat, I have the owner of the vessel and the charter contract backing me. I know when the conditions are going to be too rough to run with a floating townhouse with all the accoutrements. Private owners though, they I get to have some fun with. "You want to go? Ok sir, we'll go, but we have to secure for sea, and it's going to be rough."

Usually after an hour or two of throwing up and the interior of this trailer house in a hull has sustained has sustained $250,000 of interior damage, they ask to turn around, "Well, we're half way there now, no sense in turning back, you're just gonna have to puke a few more hours." Usually that's the last time they insist on running in weather I say no to.:lol:
 
RotorDude said:
From LiveATC :
- Low fuel, < 30 minutes (pilot estimates 30 min fuel remaining about 8 mins prior to crash)
- Ceiling 200' during final approach
- "Real bad precessing" gyro, executing no-gyro ASR ILS approach
- Pilot apparently called the field in sight moments before impact, got "cleared to land" from TWR (this was last comm from pilot)
- Aircraft apparently made a hard right turn to the NW just prior to impact (per TWR describing it to rescue personnel)
Click to expand...

I just had a chance to listen to this part of Live ATC. The pilot may have made some poor decisions that brought him to this point but he was not a green horn.
Makes me wonder what happened after he had field in sight with the plane making a hard right? If he ran out of fuel you think he would have at least kept heading down the ILS toward the airport.

Maybe airspeed got slow and he had a wing stall from wind shear or shift:dunno:
 
Henning said:
I'll reserve judgement on that as well. Many bad "go" decisions have been made in acquiescence to passenger pleas, requests, demands, & threats.
Click to expand...

Yep. Getthereitis by proxy. Im glad I don't fly for compensation. My wife, family and friends learned quickly...if I say we don't go, WE DONT GO and it's not up for discussion. They'll get over it and we'll all be together for the next holiday.:yesnod:
 
Don't know if anyone else mentioned it yet but the FAA Ariman database doesn't show an instrument rating for the pilot.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Don't know if anyone else mentioned it yet but the FAA Ariman database doesn't show an instrument rating for the pilot.
Click to expand...

The pilot was apparently not the owner, who as you say has no IR listed.
 
MyassisDragon said:
I just had a chance to listen to this part of Live ATC. The pilot may have made some poor decisions that brought him to this point but he was not a green horn.
Makes me wonder what happened after he had field in sight with the plane making a hard right? If he ran out of fuel you think he would have at least kept heading down the ILS toward the airport.

Maybe airspeed got slow and he had a wing stall from wind shear or shift:dunno:
Click to expand...

Could have lost the engine and then turned right to avoid obstacles (e.g. the approach lights). Bear in mind that there was quite a headwind, and on a 3-degree glide slope and slow airspeed you won't make the runway after power loss against a headwind in most aircraft. The fact he called the runway in sight seems to rule out a bungled approach.
If you look at the approach plate, there is water until just before the runway.
 
The reported flying does nothing to convince me the PF had an IR.
Click to expand...

According the the airman database a pilot with the same name and from the same city as that described in the article obtained his PPL in October 2010 and has:

AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
 
Last edited:
TAF for the area around the time of the incident:
FM040800 22014KT 4SM -DZ BR OVC004

METAR for the area around the time of the incident:
KORF 040930Z AUTO 22018KT 3SM BR OVC002 08/07 A2992 RMK AO2 PK WND 22027/0920 T00830072 TSNO

+ Reporting to ATC having only 30 min of fuel on board well before landing (as heard on the ATC recording)

+ Apparent instrumentation issues in dealing with IMC (as heard on the ATC recording)

I will wait for the NTSB report and see what they say, but based on the above it sounds like there were a lot of entirely preventible things that went wrong on that flight.
 
I haven't read the reports, but based on the factual data in this thread (which is far better than dumb reports anyway), it seems the pilot's decision to push it on fuel is a critical factor, albeit possibly not directly causal.

I don't know if his engine quit, but the pilot certainly knew and reported that he was low on fuel. Subsequent poor decisions probably stemmed from that.

Everyone with an IR trains and demonstrates their ability to do approaches with a partial panel - often simulating a vac failure. It need not cause death, but it sure helps to have plenty of time (fuel) to get yourself set up and have the option to divert to an alternate. This unfortunate pilot had multiple emergencies going on and at least one of them (fuel/inability to divert) was created by his own decisions. Bad joojoo.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
TAF for the area around the time of the incident:

FM040800 22014KT 4SM -DZ BR OVC004



METAR for the area around the time of the incident:

KORF 040930Z AUTO 22018KT 3SM BR OVC002 08/07 A2992 RMK AO2 PK WND 22027/0920 T00830072 TSNO



+ Reporting to ATC having only 30 min of fuel on board well before landing (as heard on the ATC recording)



+ Apparent instrumentation issues in dealing with IMC (as heard on the ATC recording)



I will wait for the NTSB report and see what they say, but based on the above it sounds like there were a lot of entirely preventible things that went wrong on that flight.
Click to expand...

I suspect this wasn't even a legal flight....ie did not have legal alternate mins.
 
I am not going back to read all 4 pages of 80 messages but when did we decide that fuel was a problem? Did I miss something about running out of fuel?

The flight was originally planned for Suffolk Executive (KSFQ) and they made an attempt and missed approach there, decided to go to their alternate which was Norfolk.
They were on the second attempt at the alternate (KORF)

The transcript clearly shows they were in moderate to severe turbulence (by mention of stuff flying around in the cockpit and the gyro's precessing so bad the pilot couldn't read them) he was given a no-gyro approach. He missed. The pilot mentions the LOC needle was all over the place and questioned if there was a problem with the equipment. (in the plane or on the ground is not clear)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top