Mooney down in WA state, 1 Fatality.

This sucks. RIP to the one hope the others recover quick!
 
Pictures show shoulder harnesses for all seats as well. A real tragedy. They just came back from a fishing trip, so how much gear and fish is an unknown as well at this point.
 
RIP. From the article it sounds like couldn't get of ground effect. The layout around that airport is not emergency friendly. I was getting a BFR, or maybe it was rental checkout out of VUO a few years ago. CFI pulls the throttle. We're over W27 and I say I'm going there. He says don't even think about it, pick another spot.
 
Bill Jennings said:
A K with three aboard should be able to get out of 1950ft.
Click to expand...
Theoretically, yes. Taking off on 32, though, things happen fast, and rising terrain and obstacles (buildings, tall signs, poles, etc.) north of the airport might create a temptation to haul back on the wheel before it's ready to climb -- not a good strategy for a slick laminar wing that builds up drag at higher AOA.

Here's the approach to 32:
IMG_2261.JPG


And here's the north end of the runway. The airplane went through the chain link fence at the base of that 12' berm then came to rest at the top of the berm. The chain link fence is 360' from the north end of the runway pavement.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
FlySince9 said:
The airframe doesn't look like that of a fatal accident... RIP:(
Click to expand...

From the ground marks it looks like the mains did not touch until they were already through the fence; the deceleration looks to have been very rapid because of the berm.
 
From the recent article, 'each of the three occupants weighed above 250 lbs'. Then they had luggage and fuel. Sounds a bit heavy to me, for 192x' of runway.
 
sourdough44 said:
From the recent article, 'each of the three occupants weighed above 250 lbs'. Then they had luggage and fuel. Sounds a bit heavy to me, for 192x' of runway.
Click to expand...

Damn, didn't notice how big those guys were. I don't know about the useful load on the K, but on my J that would leave only 106# for fuel and luggage. IOW, no go.
 
NoHeat said:
Can you you extend the runway by starting your takeoff roll on the grass?
Click to expand...

A strip of nice green grass --- when the rest of the field is brownish --- is usually an indicator of a ditch or significant low spot/swale.

Look at that nice green strip of grass just off the end of the runway and perpendicular to it.
 
sourdough44 said:
From the recent article, 'each of the three occupants weighed above 250 lbs'. Then they had luggage and fuel. Sounds a bit heavy to me, for 192x' of runway.
Click to expand...
I agree. The three were heavyweights. How much gas on board?! As someone else mentioned how much baggage? Sounds like overloaded airplane. They hit real hard and if it's true the rear passenger did not have a seat belt, he became a missle. If it had been flat at the end of the runway for a bit, he might have pulled it off.
 
There have been a few accidents with shorter runways already this Spring. Often the talk involves mention of 'they would of made it IF the pilot did everything correctly'? That way of thinking should seldom factor in. What I mean is, if it's that tight, fly solo to a more suitable runway just a short distance away and pick the others up there.

In many cases you have passengers who know very little about flying, don't have a clue about important details. Just a small inconvenience is an easy choice when dealing with the very edge of the operating envelope and potential consequences. Never fall into the trap of sticking to an original plan when adjustments are called for.

No rant intended, just hate thinking about the human and family tragedy with some of these. Of course it will be two years before 'probable cause' is listed.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top