Go-around gets ugly

Aircraft: Mooney M20K. Injuries: None. Location: Anderson, S.C. Aircraft damage: Substantial.

What reportedly happened: According to the pilot, the landing was normal but during the rollout, when the airplane was about halfway down the runway, the wind shifted to a strong tailwind, which lifted up the tail.

The airplane veered to the left. The pilot applied full power to perform a go-around. The plane became airborne, but settled back to the runway. The left wing hit the ground and the left main landing gear collapsed. The airplane came to rest in a grassy area on the left side of the runway.

Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain directional control during an attempted go-around.

NTSB Identification: ERA11CA494

This September 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it isintended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

uuu

Comments

  1. Mooney 9242V says:

    Another case of additional flight training in lieu of a valueless medical certification could have reduced the cost of flying. We do pay for aircraft insurance so all of assumed some of the cost of this accident. Vote your pocketbook and tell the FAA to start soemthing useful, drop the Third Class and go for some real in flight training to reduce the GA accident rate.

    • That sounds like a good Idea. How many real medical problems are actually found in third class exams? Most with real problems probably quit flying on their own or don’t tell the examiner.
      A one hour extra flight with an instructor probably would be money better spent.
      Bob

      • Anyone who is placed in a financial bind by an $80 third class medical AND an additional couple of hours of lessons can’t afford to be flying anyway. Third class medicals DO catch some medical problems. I had a friend who had a heart problem caught on a flight physical for which he was most grateful. If one plane crash a year is prevented by the medical it is worth it to that individual, to us as insured pilots and anyone on the ground who might have been in harms way.

        • This idea that “…if ONLY ONE crash is prevented” is simply a liberal philosophy that has caused this country great harm. It’s the same bogus philosophy that says gun controls are necessary “…if ONLY ONE person is saved from being shot”. Sorry, FREEDOM dictates that the government doesn’t need to protect us from ourselves. Would you force all people to wear pads in the bathroom to keep from getting hurt if they fell in the bath tub or cut themselves with a sharp knife in the kitchen? After all “…IF ONLY ONE person is saved from falling in the bath tub, etc. etc. etc.”. Your liberalism is VERY SHOWING and it’s your attitude that can’t get enough of big government.

        • Mooney 9242V says:

          BJS, you have missed the point, it is one of opportunity cost. Would you prefer everyone to spend $80 a for a medical and eliminate one accident or spend $80 a year and eliminate 100 accidents? If it is that good, then get two hours of dual and forgo the medical. Yes, at some point the flight instruction will run into diminishing return to the variable input, but by that time you will eb due for an engine overhaul! It is not a question of affordability, it is a question of getting the biggest bank for the buck. A basic course in economics will show you the cost of the misguided policy of the FAA. I for one would love the opportunity to get an additional hour of dual instruction in lieu of the medical certificate. I and my passengers will feel much more at ease with a proficient policy. Finally. a good friend of mine died from a heart attck, and guess what, he had a current third class medical. So much for the predicive capabilities of the OK City guys!

Speak Your Mind

*