Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Another MU-2 Fatality

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
con-pilot said:
On every MU-2 thread I have expressed my feeling on that piece of crap. If the blasted thing had been grounded as I have stated before a good pilot would be alive today.

Yeah, using that very same logic the numerous friends and associates I have known and lost over the years would still be around today if they just grounded the C421/Metro/B100. Flawed logic in my opinion, many "good pilots" have been lost in all different types and make and models over the years and many more will be lost in the future. It isn't about the equipment in all cases, it is about the training, experience factor(s), and most importantly in my opinion the MX and upkeep of the equipment being flown. You can throw a "very good" pilot in a plane that knows his stuff but throw into the mix poor mx to save costs, cut corners, lackluster training, etc, then the outcome likely isn't going to be a pretty one. When it is man against machine....... Any plane can kill you just as quick as the MU-2 given unfavorable added variables thrown into the equation. A pilot can only minimize so much risk and vulnerability, many factors are beyond one's control and it is an accepted risk when one takes a position. Grounding all MU-2's just does not make much sense at all, actually it makes none as far as I am concerned.
 
One of the murderers was a Chicago cop that killed his drug dealing business partner with an ATF registered MAC and the other was a doctor.
I'm betting there is a good story behind that last one. :D

Minhtronix
 
con-pilot said:
If the blasted thing had been grounded as I have stated before a good pilot would be alive today.

And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin'.

Do you know how many people would be alive today if those infernal Wright brothers had kept building bicycles in Dayton like they should have? The temerity of those mustachioed dealers of death!
 
ACFT DEPARTED WEST MEMPHIS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, AWM, GOING TO LEE GILMER MEMORIAL AIRPORT, GVL. PILOT ADVISED ZME APPROX. 55M EAST OF MEMPHIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, MEM, HE WANTED TO RETURN TO AWM. MEM APPROACH TERMINATED RADAR SERVICES 8M EAST OF AWM. THE ACFT IS REPORTED DESTROYED BY FIRE AND THE PILOT, SOLE OCCUPANT IS FATAL. WEST MEMPHIS, AR

So he was east of KMEM, turned around and went past KMEM with its 11000 foot runways, to return to an uncontrolled field with no ARFF service? And with terminated radar service?

Sure sounds like the airplane could have planned itself a little better. Damned MU-2s.
 
No disrespect at all to the families of the deceased. I have flown the MU2 and lots of other "dangerous" airplanes. I do not consider it the most dangerous airplane that I have flown. Every airplane is dangerous in the wrong situation. It has some peculiarities that must be managed carefully. If everyone thinks that the airplane is so dangerous, I suggest that those people don't fly it anymore. No one is forcing you into the airplane. We all take the risks into account every time we strap into an airplane. In the end it is the choice of the pilot.
 
No disrespect to your opinion.....but I have done much homework since losing my son in one a little over a year ago....and since then eleven more have crashed....I would say that's a bit alarming....If you check out the facts you will see that 25-30% (conservative estimate) of the MU-2's made have crashed......there are nineteen pages of them on the NTSB web site True the MU-2 is a challenging airplane.....but even those trained by the best in that field.....(Howell Enterprises) which my son was, cannot recover from any loss of power, torque, stall etc. in some "low and slow" situations. Upon doing my research I found that most of these crashes occur in this "low and slow" timeframe.... either just after takeoff or just prior to landing when situations require maximum lift and deflecting a spolier causes drag. I have read documentation from very knowledgable people that say it is impossible to recover under these situations....the plane just flips upside down and nose dives to the ground. I am sure that this airplane is just fine if it does not encounter any problems....but if it does....the pilot doesn't have a chance. In my son's case....he was cleared to land for the third time and 40 seconds later he was dead.....just fell off the radar screen. With all do respect I am entitled to my opinion and the evidence is compelling. Eleven in a little over 1 year is just unacceptable in my book.
 
ATRedneck, I second your first comment, the one about the frog's a$$ and the Wright bros.

Amen.
 
Courkyle said:
Eleven in a little over 1 year is just unacceptable in my book.

can we ask where you arrived at 'eleven'?

I did a search on the NTSB site
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
using 'MU' as the make/model and it shows five in the last year, one was a forgotten gear(Ca), the other a ground incident with a tug(Pa) - leaving 3 fatals.

The Parker Co accident resulted in three ground scars 'similar in dimension to the landing gear' - suggesting; to me, a cfit.

The Hillsboro Or accident was reported by witnesses as a spin-in on take-off with possibly an excessively nose high attitude.

The Centennial Co accident had an engine failure and suggests a vmc rollover.

Unless I missed something (this is possible), none of these sound out of the ordinary, the ntsb files are rife with such accidents in all types of aircraft. In any case, it does not smack of a type that has some type of repetetive mechanical failure.
 
Courkyle said:
No disrespect to your opinion.....but I have done much homework since losing my son in one a little over a year ago....and since then eleven more have crashed....I would say that's a bit alarming....If you check out the facts you will see that 25-30% (conservative estimate) of the MU-2's made have crashed......there are nineteen pages of them on the NTSB web site True the MU-2 is a challenging airplane.....but even those trained by the best in that field.....(Howell Enterprises) which my son was, cannot recover from any loss of power, torque, stall etc. in some "low and slow" situations. Upon doing my research I found that most of these crashes occur in this "low and slow" timeframe.... either just after takeoff or just prior to landing when situations require maximum lift and deflecting a spolier causes drag. I have read documentation from very knowledgable people that say it is impossible to recover under these situations....the plane just flips upside down and nose dives to the ground. I am sure that this airplane is just fine if it does not encounter any problems....but if it does....the pilot doesn't have a chance. In my son's case....he was cleared to land for the third time and 40 seconds later he was dead.....just fell off the radar screen. With all do respect I am entitled to my opinion and the evidence is compelling. Eleven in a little over 1 year is just unacceptable in my book.

All I can say is that every time I see MooToo parked on the ramp, I have to scratch my head and wonder how in the hell they thing ever gets in the air? I guess you put enough amperage in a cattle prod and jam it up the ass, you can make a horse deal cards... I know I never want to fly one for pay (for any amount of money) or otherwise. Same goes for the Space Shuttle. Both are designed to bite you in the ass, hard.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top