Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
J31
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:21 am

Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by J31 »

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... p0001.html

This guy had on heck of a ride. So lucky to have survived! :shock: :shock:


On 03 January 2021, the privately registered Mooney M20F aircraft (registration C-GYGN, serial number 221353) was conducting an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight from Airdrie Aerodrome (CEF4), Alberta, to Nelson Aerodrome (CZNL), British Columbia. The pilot was alone on board. The aircraft departed at 1120 in visual meteorological conditions and initially climbed to 14 000 feet above sea level (ASL). Shortly after levelling off, air traffic control (ATC) asked the pilot if he could maintain an altitude of 15 000 feet ASL for a portion of the flight. The pilot accepted and climbed the additional 1000 feet, levelling off at 15 000 feet ASL at 1157.

The pilot then requested a minor deviation from the route of flight to avoid entering clouds. However, during this deviation, the clouds could not be avoided, and the aircraft entered instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Shortly thereafter, the aircraft’s attitude direction indicator (ADI) displayed the “AHRS ALIGN” (attitude and heading reference system alignment) message, and indications of attitude (pitch and bank) were lost while indications of airspeed, altitude, and vertical speed were retained.

At the same time, the aircraft’s horizontal situation indicator (HSI) also indicated a failure, displaying a red X over the HDG (heading) annunciation. The pilot attempted to switch the HSI to the ADI page using the instrument’s touch screen function and selector knob, but was unsuccessful.

While the aircraft was still flying in IMC, its altitude began to fluctuate. It then began an unintentional left turn, eventually turning approximately 90° to the left of the assigned track. The pilot informed ATC of the instrument malfunction and requested to return to the Calgary, Alberta, area. At 1206, the pilot declared an emergency, reporting the loss of attitude and heading information from the aircraft’s instruments. Thirty seconds later, the pilot informed ATC that the aircraft’s HSI was functioning again. The pilot had briefly observed an image on the ADI at that time; however, the flight data recorded by the instrument indicate that AHRS data remained unavailable.

ATC provided the pilot with a heading that would turn the aircraft toward Calgary. During this turn, the pilot experienced spatial disorientation, the aircraft’s bank angle progressively increased and the aircraft began to descend. Over the next 5 minutes, control of the aircraft was lost multiple times; the aircraft entered a series of spiral dives, abrupt climbs, and at least 2 aerodynamic stalls. Flight data recovered from the ADI and HSI indicate that during these maneuvers, the aircraft’s climb rate increased to as much as 8500 fpm, and its descent rate increased to as much as 23 000 fpm. In addition, the aircraft’s airspeed varied from a low of 43 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS) to a high of 242 KIAS, exceeding the aircraft’s never exceed speed by approximately 70 knots. The aircraft descended to as low as 8100 feet ASL (approximately 700 feet above ground level [AGL]) before abruptly climbing again.

The pilot was able to see the terrain below as the aircraft descended through approximately 8500 feet ASL and control of the aircraft was regained at approximately 8100 feet ASL. At the time, the aircraft was in the Kananaskis Valley, where nearby mountain peaks extended up to 10 364 feet ASL. Flight visibility at the time was approximately 1 statute mile (SM), and improved to 2–3 SM as the pilot descended to approximately 7500 feet ASL, while flying toward Upper Kananaskis Lake.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attachments
Mooney upset.jpg
Mooney upset.jpg (187.1 KiB) Viewed 2166 times
User avatar
780Pilot
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:53 pm
Location: Edmonton

Re: Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by 780Pilot »

I remember hearing this guy on 121.5 as airlines going over were relaying info to ATC. Knowing the full story now is crazy.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by cncpc »

Jeebus, that is some story. Credit to the guy for getting it back on the ground in one piece.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
broken_slinky
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:48 am

Re: Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by broken_slinky »

8500FPM and 23000FPM in a Mooney. Roughly 84kts vertical climb and 223kts vertical decent. That's awesome.
What is the cruise speed on a M20F? Maybe 150kts?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
780Pilot
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:53 pm
Location: Edmonton

Re: Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by 780Pilot »

broken_slinky wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 5:14 am 8500FPM and 23000FPM in a Mooney. Roughly 84kts vertical climb and 223kts vertical decent. That's awesome.
What is the cruise speed on a M20F? Maybe 150kts?
I thought cruise was closer to 220 kts in those models.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Scout44
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:18 am

Re: Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by Scout44 »

780Pilot wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 5:40 am
broken_slinky wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 5:14 am 8500FPM and 23000FPM in a Mooney. Roughly 84kts vertical climb and 223kts vertical decent. That's awesome.
What is the cruise speed on a M20F? Maybe 150kts?
I thought cruise was closer to 220 kts in those models.
No, the M20F is still a 4-cyl model. You need to get up to the M20M 6-cyl models before you're getting well north of 200kts in cruise.
---------- ADS -----------
 
J31
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:21 am

Re: Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by J31 »

780Pilot wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 5:40 am
broken_slinky wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 5:14 am 8500FPM and 23000FPM in a Mooney. Roughly 84kts vertical climb and 223kts vertical decent. That's awesome.
What is the cruise speed on a M20F? Maybe 150kts?
I thought cruise was closer to 220 kts in those models.
The 1976 Mooney M20J has a 200 HP Lycoming IO-360 power plant. Also known as the 201 for potential to reach 201 MPH. However you have to run very high HP to get close to 201 MPH. More realistic cruse is 160 kts or 185 MPH.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by Eric Janson »

I wonder if the loss of instrumentation was related to icing of the Pitot/Static system.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
I WAS Pez
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:29 pm

Re: Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by I WAS Pez »

No special knowledge of this one, other than what's in the report, but there is now a mandatory Garmin SB for a new firmware version on dual GI 275 installations where there is no other attitude source:
From https://support.garmin.com/en-CA/?faq=j ... mU2C1BYqd5


https://s23634.pcdn.co/en-US/aviational ... /2182B.pdf

ISSUE
If the aircraft’s pitot tube becomes obstructed due to the pitot tube cover being left on, icing blockage,
and/or other debris obstruction, the GI 275 airspeed input can be interrupted. This interruption may cause
both GI 275 units to enter alignment mode during certain maneuvers. If this occurs, it will result in the
temporary loss of all attitude information from both GI 275 units.
PILOT ACTION
If the GI 275 dual-AHRS configuration is the only source of attitude in an aircraft without a redundant pitot
source, do not fly in instrument meteorological conditions.
If the GI 275 Attitude display enters alignment mode during flight, when appropriate, establish wings level
(stable flight with assumed bank angles less than 5 degrees) to allow the units to realign and recover
attitude display.
RESOLUTION
This issue will be resolved with the incorporation of STC Service Bulletin 22002, which authorizes the
installation of GI 275 Software Version 2.43. This service bulletin is available and is considered
mandatory for installations with no tertiary source of attitude information and no redundant source of pitot
pressur
---------- ADS -----------
 
inthomerker
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:36 am

Re: Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by inthomerker »

Interesting Garmin has that SB... but it doesn't appear to be consistent with the Alberta incident where where both airspeed and altitude were retained throughout. Garmin trying to mask something?
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by CpnCrunch »

inthomerker wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:55 am Interesting Garmin has that SB... but it doesn't appear to be consistent with the Alberta incident where where both airspeed and altitude were retained throughout. Garmin trying to mask something?
And if you look at the weather that day, it was around 0C on the ground, so icing seems unlikely at that altitude.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I WAS Pez
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:29 pm

Re: Jan 2021 Mooney loss of control

Post by I WAS Pez »

I think the point is that the SB refers to an FW update that is supposed to decrease the chances of a an in-flight AHRS (ADAHRS) alignment of redundant units being triggered.

Of note, all of the fancy digital, solid state AHRS units for the GA world that I'm aware of, require a speed input to their attitude calculation.... either pitot/static or GPS. Well, all the ones that actually work properly, at any rate.

Reading between the lines, it seems that pitot/static input anomalies with the earlier FW could trigger in-flight AHRS realignments in both units of a dual GI 275 installation - which is clearly not a desirable condition. It's not clear that the initiating event must persist....it's possible that an anomalous reading could trigger it.

Diversity for a backup might not be such a bad idea.... (different manufacturer, sensors, codebase, etc).
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”