Another MU2 down...

[BoilerUP]

I know a guy that has flown both the Jetstream 31 and MU-2, with a couple grand in each. He absolutely LOVED the MU, but said you had to be absolutely on-top of your game each and every time you flew. Its not forgiving like a King Air, because its not a King Air! This discussion is like pilots who fly Barons and Senecas whining about how the Aerostar is a dangerous airplane. Both are only dangerous if you get complacient and/or don't know WTF you are doing.

I feel bad anytime we lose a colleague in an accident, but quit making a pariah of the plane. There are reasons companies like Howell Enterprises specialize in aircraft-specific training for planes like the MU.

 

[Spooky 1]

Tragic though losses may be, that one should condemn the airplane as a result makes nearly as much sense as attempting to dehorn all the cows when the chicken coop burns down. It won't save the coop, and holds no logic.

I flew for the company that lost the coke execs, and can only say that those who know it all about that event probably don't, and shouldn't comment on it without ground upon which to stand.

I was also hired by the company in question to fly the subject airplane at one time, but will refrain from speculation or comment on this loss, presently. It's sad, it's unfortunate, and that's about all that should be said on the matter until real information is forthcoming.

As far as the airplane, and those that condemn it, a poor carpenter blames his tools. It's not the airplane. The airplane is what it is, and it's a known quantity. Those who elect to fly this airplane do so willingly, and knowingly, and trust in their ability to do so enough that they are willing to bet their life on the fact, just as we all do, every hour, every day.

A bet need not be a gamble; a prudent man bets only on a sure thing. Those who are not sure, then, gamble, and for this, there is loss. For the loss, we can only offer condolence, but in no wise should one condemn the airplane, for it's not the airplane. It's the pilot.

Always the pilot.

Any one who doesn't believe that in his heart has no place calling himself a pilot or taking the responsibility as pilot in command. Responsibility always rests with the pilot, and it's the pilot who pays for this responsibility, often with his certificate, often with his wallet, and forever with his life.

Today is no different.

your coments would appear to be right on. I know nothing about the MU2 other than the thing makes alot of noise on the ground. Thank you Mr. Garrett.
I seem to recall that there was some question about the validity of the Part 135 certificate in the case of the CC/Swire Group accident? Did that company in fact have a valid certificate at the time of the accident? Also seem to recall that contrary to previous post here, icing was not a factor in that accident. Can you share some information?

 

[Publishers]

These things are often the case in an aircraft that is sophisticated to the point that when anything goes wrong, it ends up fatally. The MU2 is one of those no wing aircraft that flies great as long as the horsepower overcoming it is working. When things go sour, you better be quick on seeing the problem or you will be dead.

 

[avbug]

I seem to recall that there was some question about the validity of the Part 135 certificate in the case of the CC/Swire Group accident? Did that company in fact have a valid certificate at the time of the accident? Also seem to recall that contrary to previous post here, icing was not a factor in that accident. Can you share some information?

This was a case of a managed aircraft on a certificate, where the lines often get blurred. I don't think there was any question about the airplane or the certificate, but to those outside (especially the media), or the executives and the families of those lost, the lines do look blurred.

The FAA is pushing right now for greater clarification in general on managed aircraft and leasebacks, and companies that piggyback on someone else's certificate. The catalyst, I believe, was the recent Challenger-meets-warehouse affair at TEB.

 

[Lead Sled]

As one who has spent his fair share of time in the left front seat of MU-2s, I can only add my endorsement and total and complete agreement to what Avbug and 350Driver posted.

Is the MU-2 a dangerous aircraft? Dang right it is and so is a Lear, Gulfstream and ANY other aircraft - piston, turboprop or turbojet. Please don't place blame on the airplane. If blame must be assessed place it on operators that don't provide adequate initial and recurrent training. Place it on eager pilots that, in their enthusiasm to fly anything with wings, are willing to jump in just about anything, anytime, and go anywhere - whether or not they have the proper training and background.

I have a framed photo of an old biplane hung up in the limbs of a tree. (You’ve probably seen the one I’m talking about, they’re in just about every pilot shop in the country.) The photo’s caption reads, “Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.” As we have seen, when it comes to the MU-2, proper and adequate (not merely something that meets the minimum "legal" standards) training is an absolute must when it comes to operating aircraft, like the MU-2, safely. Up until just a few years ago, in spite of all of the MU-2 accident history, there had never been a FlightSafety trained pilot involved in a MU-2 fatal accident. Although this is no longer true, the accident rate for properly trained pilots is on par with nearly any other comparable aircraft.

I have lost several friends and acquaintences in aircraft accidents over the past 39 years. Each and every time it's as though I've been punched in the gut. My heart goes out to those who have lost family,friends, and loved ones.

'Sled

 

[Tram]

My heart goes out to those who lost loved ones in this crash..

I've got very little (30 hours or so) in an Mu2 and the first time you hop in that thing, you have to respect them.. Tons of fun to fly, but you have got to bring your A game..

 

[corpflunkie]

Lead Sled hit the nail square on the head. Any plane can kill you if it is NOT operated properly. Is the MU2 more dangerous than most? Depends on the scenario. If everything is operating and rigged properly, anyone with a few hundred hours and some training can handle it. Unfortunately, when something goes wrong in this plane (ie; eng out, mech malfunction etc), people that fit in this first category most likely will not survive the outcome in the MU2 or any plane in it's class (complex systems, high workload a/c). This plane needs to be flown by experienced pilots, not ink still wet on my ticket, just reached 135pic mins pilots. Pilots with real tighten your belts and hang on experience. But, that isn't enough either. They have to be trained (and continuously retrained) by knowledgeable people who know this bird inside and out. The best out there is Howell Enterprises. They do all the training in the plane, not a sim. Expensive, but worth it. The next part of the equation is MX. The MU2 must be maintained properly. End of discussion.

Lets examine some of the accidents. We'll start with one that hit close to home:

1. Epps 101 KPHL-KBWI. 4MyBro, I'm not saying this to slam Tom, because we all still miss him terribly, and don't want to accept it. They couldn't find anything wrong mechanically during the investigation, so it was probably pilot error.

2. ACT- KAPA. eng fail after takeoff attempted come back and land, and rolled it in base to final. A properly maintained mits will fly all day long on one engine w/gear and flaps hangin'. Hell you can even do steep turns (seen it demonstrated). (Skygirl and dad, those underlined words are key) But, you have to maintain airspeed. Too low and too slow, all bets are off. I'm not trying to slander anyone here.

3. Royal Air over Mass. Flat spun in from 17k radar had him doing 180kts across the ground east bound in winter, with widespread icing forecasted and reported all across the area on the night in question. The min ice speed for the mu2 is 180kts indicated. We have to watch a video on icing for the mu every year so that we are able to operate in known icing. With such a small wing, that speed is critical. This also applies to several other mu crashes.

I guess what took me so many words to point out is that no, the MU2 is not the easiest plane to fly. However, all the blame cannot be placed on the plane. Pilot error, and poor maint. play a big part.

For Tom, Paul, and now Sam, my brother freight dogs, In making that final flight west, I pray you found peace, warmth, tranquility and love on the other side with the big man.

Jeff.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Anyone who flies a plane with no ailerons needs a new medical.

 

[avbug]

Anyone who flies a plane with no ailerons needs a new medical.

Would that include the Wright brothers?

 

[corpflunkie]

What about all the pilots flying the diamond jet or the beechjet?

 

[WNRHD17]

Both are only dangerous if you get complacient and/or don't know WTF you are doing.

I feel bad anytime we lose a colleague in an accident, but quit making a pariah of the plane. There are reasons companies like Howell Enterprises specialize in aircraft-specific training for planes like the MU.

I'd like to hear you say the same thing after losing a brother, son, wife/husband, dad, in one....If my brother didn't know WTF he was doing he wouldn't have been flying that fvcking plane.

 

[WNRHD17]

"Last I heard, this was still a free country--so if you don't like flying the MU2, or don't want your husband, bf, brother, sister-you get the idea-flying it, then DON'T!" You ever try to talk someone that you love out of doing thier dream job of flying? You can't, its impossible. Paul was totally aware of the fact that I hated that plane, but I couldn't stop him from flying. He would have died inside. So are you saying that I deserve to be a widow since I couldn't talk him out of it????

"If you want to make it a safer airplane, proper training and mx are key, as stated before. Also, instructors and check airmen MUST weed out weak pilots, as this is not an a/c to learn to fly (IFR) in" For the record...my husband was a properly trained pilot and had flown countless times in IFR conditions. He had also walked away from emergency landings and engine failures in other types of a/c...he knew what he was up against. Like I said, the plane is a beast under less than ideal conditions. Send along a HIGH time MU2 pilot, that's been thru engine failures and landed safely, that STILL loves this plane and sings it praises. I'd really like to talk to him.

Right on, sista! Krysiaks UNITE!

 

[klingon67]

I am sorry to hear of another loss of life in the rice rocket. Someone once told me that the Japanese are trying to get back at us for WW2.The airplane is quite a handful with an engine out after takeoff especially with full tiptanks. I was curious if any of you who are familar with the circumstances of the accidents knew if the tips were full or not. I believe that looking into this one area is quite important. The company in which I flew them for would not allow us to depart even at sea level with the tips full and we never lost one.The only one we lost was when a pilot had a heart attack at FL250. I do believe that we can insist in better help from the feds in this area. waiting until they all are crashed is crazy logic in dealing with the problem. Once again Im sorry to hear about your losses, I can only imagine the way you must feel about this aircraft.

 

[Lead Sled]

Anyone who flies a plane with no ailerons needs a new medical.

Note to Johnson: It's not the lack of ailerons, it's the wing loading. You can't fly it like a Seneca, Duchess, or King Air - you've got to fly it like a jet. If you don't or if you slip back into your old "piston habits" when something happens, well that's when bad things happen to good people. It is absolutely no different than in any other high-performance turbine powered airplane. Period.

'Sled

 

[Tadpoles]

some people out there are defending this plane...okay, go ahead, but please stop defending it like you have some emotional attachment to it and that "most" of the mu-2 crashes were because of pilot error. We're all aviation people here...all kinds of planes crash...we get it, we know. These planes will obviously keep flying...our loved ones won't. Try our shoes on for a day....we dare you.

 

[TIGV]

I am sorry to hear of another loss of life in the rice rocket. Someone once told me that the Japanese are trying to get back at us for WW2.The airplane is quite a handful with an engine out after takeoff especially with full tiptanks. I was curious if any of you who are familar with the circumstances of the accidents knew if the tips were full or not. I believe that looking into this one area is quite important. The company in which I flew them for would not allow us to depart even at sea level with the tips full and we never lost one.The only one we lost was when a pilot had a heart attack at FL250. I do believe that we can insist in better help from the feds in this area. waiting until they all are crashed is crazy logic in dealing with the problem. Once again Im sorry to hear about your losses, I can only imagine the way you must feel about this aircraft.

U are an idiot, I don't want to see your face on this forum again....
400 lbs per side on the tips for takeoff, company and manufacturer policy because max landing fuel weight in the tips is 400 pounds a side, my buddy had already flown off over an hour of gas from Salt Lake, man these forums really bring out some #iing wankers. Why don't you folks without a f#$%^ clue about anything never mind this thread just shut the fu#$ up ?????????????????

 

[starchkr]

Just to shed some light on this last accident... we came in about 30 minutes after it happened and we were the only a/c allowed to use the ILS after it happened for many hours(although we found out afterwards that ATC was not supposed to let us). The weather while we were holding to get permission to go into APA was not too bad. At 12000 we had light ice, with intermittent ground contact while between layers. During the approach we broke out at 1400' AGL with great forward visibility, i would say 10 miles+. However, there was a report of rain at the time the mu-2 was shooting the approach.


Some reports i have heard about the airport say that sometimes during heavy rain the ILS Glideslope becomes INOP and can read false signals(Not saying this was the case at the time however). The a/c collided with trees first and continued a short distance before impacting the ground.


Some personal feelings about what happened...I was very disheartened to hear that it was another ACT a/c, less than 2 miles from where the last one went down in APA. When we were given permission to shoot the approach we were asked by ATC to pay close attention for wreckage or fires to help locate the wreckage...of course at 2 am, there was not much to see after we broke out but black ground, and there was NO fire. It is always nerve wracking being asked by ATC to shoot the same approach that a downed a/c just used so that they could see if it was working correctly(of course they stressed that if anything out of the ordinary happened that we should discontinue immediately).

God bless everyone...

 

[GravityHater]

most people who fly it are aware of the risks involved. At least I am. Last I heard, this was still a free country--so if you don't like flying the MU2, .............. then DON'T!

So true. Where is such activity going to lead?

Let's say we are the FAA and we are faced with the job of working towards zero accidents. We lline up all aircraft types flying today in order of accidents per thousand hours. Now we start lopping off the ones at the bottom - the ones that have the worst records. Where do we stop? Do we just take off the bottom 10%? 20%? How can we say when we are 'done'?
If we take off a few in 2005 when the overall accident rate is 0.0002, what's to say in 2010 the av community or public won't be 'outraged' by the accident rate of 0.0001, and demand 'something be done'? Then we are lopping off more from the bottom. Soon we are left with only ONE TYPE LEFT TO FLY (I exaggerate, but you see my point).

My feeling is, as ACT says, there is risk to flying. Its a free country (although burgeoning regulatory powers is gradually making that less and less true each day) and if you don't like a particular type.... make it your personal choice as a pilot or pax to NOT fly that type. But please don't try to force your personal decision down the entire rest of the country's throat!

 

[NoPax]

My deepest sympathies go to the family and friends of those lost, persuing their dream.

I googled 'MU-2 crash statistics' and found this:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic..._18/ai_n6265059
makes for an interesting read - the pros and cons of the MU-2.


Unfortunately, you'll have to read it, as I couldn't cut and paste it successfully.

 

[U of I Tweak]

From the article posted above:

Kennedy argued that the MU-2 has "marginal controllability on one engine at low airspeed and low altitude."

Doesn't that describe most twins?

 

[ACT700]

U are an idiot, I don't want to see your face on this forum again....
...
Why don't you folks without a f#$%^ clue about anything never mind this thread just shut the fu#$ up ?????????????????

Very nice, TIGV....sweet, you tell'em.


I totally sympathize and understand what the loved ones are going through. But DON'T EVER forget, that it is hard on the FRIENDS too--every time I have to "toast" a fallen comrade, whether a very close friend, or just an aquaintance (Sam was a friend), it brings tears to my eyes.
Have you ever seen a grown man cry...?

If you read these comments in this thread, you can quickly figure out who has intimate experience with the Deuce, and the others.

And like I said before, (and Corpflunkie, too, I think): Both ACT accidents are still under investigation. No one knows what happenend yet.

What if it was a bad GS signal; what if there was a physiological event involved (like a heartattack), and the list goes on.

I'd like to see you yeahoos run your mouthes then!!! Until then, shut the puck up, cause it's disrespectful to us, the collegues and friends of the deceased.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[WNRHD17]

Have you ever seen a grown man cry...?

I'd like to see you yeahoos run your mouthes then!!! Until then, shut the puck up, cause it's disrespectful to us, the collegues and friends of the deceased.

Yes....and thank you...if any of you blaming the pilots for everything should happen to ever be in the same situation (god forbid) and happen to not walk away....we can talk about it on the other side, I'll be waiting for you to say "Yeah, it was all my fault, I'm an idiot." Until then, don't be so sure you're so right, if you're ever proven wrong, you'll feel like a dumba$$.

 

[ACT700]

don't take my comments as a personal insult to you, or anyone for that matter.

that is not my intent. i don't know what happened in December, i don't know what happened in BWI, i don't know what happened over Mass., nor do i know what happened thursday, so i can't and won't make any comments on that.
at least not until the ntsb comes up with something official.

all i can comment on are my personal experiences with the deuce: it is by far the most challanging, demanding, but on the other hand also rewarding a/c to fly. and that last part is what makes me stick with flying it. i tuly do enjoy it, for the most part. if i didn't, i wouldn't be flying it.

i don't know if my fellow mu2 honkys (term used without permission!) feel the same way?

like someone said before, in this bird you have to bring your "a" game. anything less, and you're just plain lucky--and that's a fact.

i have caught myself doing stupid things in the plane, but i know that, and have incorporated the lesson(s) learned, in my future (how to put this?) handling, or flying of the aircraft.

people, the mu2 is not a 172, or seneca, or navajo, or 727--it is less forgiving and will bite you faster than you can say "doh"!

i've said it before, and i'll say it again: this is not an a/c to learn to fly single pilot 135 ifr in!!!

oh, and if i do bite the dust in the deuce (of this possibility i am very well aware!) and it is determined that i fukt up, then by all means do post away... and i'll be happy to discuss it on the "other" side.
although personally i don't think we'll see each other on the other side, as i'm gonna be on the "down" elevator!

but until that day, i'm gonna enjoy flying this magnificent, yet weird flying machine.

to my fallen comrades: i salute you, godspeed.
ps: too tired to capitalize properly.

 

[FN FAL]

Yes....and thank you...if any of you blaming the pilots for everything should happen to ever be in the same situation (god forbid) and happen to not walk away....we can talk about it on the other side, I'll be waiting for you to say "Yeah, it was all my fault, I'm an idiot." Until then, don't be so sure you're so right, if you're ever proven wrong, you'll feel like a dumba$$.

I hope when I go, that it's not with a stupid look on my face...but then again, thank genetics for that.

Some of you may have miss cued (or even ignored) on my "mentos fresh maker" reply to ailerongirl regarding the comment about which plane is or should be called a "widow maker".

Lots of planes have an adjective to describe them..."doctor killer" comes to mind. Remember the spate of Malibu crashes back in the early 90's? Then, the ATR came into the limelight with the Roselawn crash. I also seem to remember the moniker, "Piper Death Star" (Aerostar). What about the Piper "Trauma Hawk"?

Currently NASA is looking into why the Caravan has such a bad accident history regarding flight into icing conditions...so far the only recomended bandaid cure all, is an ICE DETECTOR system. Good gawd man, an ice detector on a Caravan? How about a better anti/deice system? This ice detector set up is redundant and ultimately places more emphasis on the pilot...which is what the FAA is going to do should they investigate the MU2 and "discover" that it has it's "quirks". Those quirks will result in a required airplane manual update about the quirk and after that, emphasis will be put on the pilots after any crash, where said quirk was a causal factor in the crash.

I think all planes have their nuances, the one I fly is slow, climbs slow and accumulates ice fairly well. I like to think of it as an "ice maker" not a "widow maker". But then again, I'm an optimist.

The MU2 is fast plane and from what I have heard from posters on this board, is that it can be a handfull, even when both are turning. Since I have no operating experience in the MU2, just friends that have flown them...all I can say is that as pilots, please use caution when flying any aircraft, because they can all reach up and bite you, pointy front end or not.

 

[semperfido]

the only reason those freight companies have them is because no one that flys people wanted them anymore, so they were very cheap. it is time to send them to the boneyard.

 

[TIGV]

the only reason those freight companies have them is because no one that flys people wanted them anymore, so they were very cheap. it is time to send them to the boneyard.

Thought I told idiots to stay off this thread, for a similar year and equip an MU-2 is more expensive than a Kingair C-90..... I digress, the MU-2 was specifically designed to not require a type rating, the result? A load of very rich low time private pilots ratcheting up the aircraft type's accident statistics.

The MU 2 now services two requirements: Corporate and freight,
Corporate Pilots in the MU-2 will seldom fly over 300 hours a year, that is not sufficient currency in ANY aircraft never mind a high performance turboprop, if things start to go awry, once more feeding fuel to the MU-2's accident data.

On the other end of the scale:

Freighters fly around 1200 to 1500 hours a year, if an outfit has 10 aircraft the approximate utilization per year, fleet wide, will be around 15 thousand hours of operational flight time and anywhere between 9 and 10 thousand operational cycles ( takeoffs and landings )
Take this data and multiply it by all the MU-2's currently flying in the freight capacity and I think you will find that no matter how tragic and upsetting each loss has been, they fall right in line with the statistical accident data for not just the MU-2 but a WHOLE load of other aircraft also.

As mentioned previously, idiots keep yourselves to yourselves, I'm sick of hearing about how bad the aircraft is, especially from complete morons. The intent of this thread is to pay honor and respect to those unfortunate aviators in our family who are no longer with us.

 

[Spooky 1]

Wow, Semperfido, I guess you have told, now go to your corner and stop with this drible. After all WTF can you possibly contribute to this forum? eyes roll! Can't anybody have a civil conversation on this board anymore?

 

[Peanut gallery]

Where there is smoke there is fire

Sorry to hear about this again. Having spent about 6 years in the check business back in the late 70's and early 80's, I can truely feel sad for the families and friends of those lost.
Flying the check business in aircraft that have basically been discarded by corporate aviation has it's inherent liabilities. Back in the early days we mostly flew lear 23's that had the same reputation as the MU-2. I lost a few very close friends during that time. It is the combination of old aircraft, mx on an as needed basis due to cost controls, and the pressure not only to get there regardless of the wx but also do it on time that really stacks the ball against the pilots over the years. Cancelled check pilots with a few years experience are by far the most skilled aviators that I have ever flown with.
The unfortunate part of any trend in analysis is that when the numbers of incidents start to increase then it becomes apparent that something is wrong. While the MU-2 certainly has a reputation it is still the same airplane that hopefully everyone gets trained to handle. Lear 23 same thing or any 20 series lear for that matter.
My personal belief is that it is the environment in which they are operated that creates the situations that lead to accidents. The we have to get in the first time and quickly thing has it's obvious risk as does the we have to get airborne quickly and headed for the next Fed Res down the line regardless of certain risk.
The people actually running these companies put an incredable amount of pressure on there organizations to get the job done every night. There is either an adequate structure to support the troops or there is not. My experience has been that the companies that embrace a get the job done attitude but at the same time support the troops with stability in terms of mx and maybe even simple dialog about the limits of the game seem to have a better safety record.
The main person behind this company in CO also lost a crew in a lear at EWR back in 1983. Once again he did not have a certificate and was somehow flying on somebody elses ticket.

Where there is smoke there is fire.

Just my .02

 

[semperfido]

Wow, Semperfido, I guess you have told, now go to your corner and stop with this drible. After all WTF can you possibly contribute to this forum? eyes roll! Can't anybody have a civil conversation on this board anymore?

not to worry. doesn't change a thing.the bravado from some doesn't impress me much. the mu2 is a flying relic. it is pretty evident.

 

[Tadpoles]

Let Everyone Have Their Say...

But please don't try to force your personal decision down the entire rest of the country's throat!

In case some of you didn't know who WNRHD and I are, we're the younger sisters of Paul "Skyking". The reason why were are defending our views on the mu-2 being a piece of junk airplane is because part of our FLESH AND BLOOD DIED IN ONE. we're trying to get others to realize that IN OUR EYES, that plane was the vehicle for his death. we don't really care what its record is, bad or not, because of our pain we go through every day knowing we'll never hear that laugh again, it hurts us to know that someone had to go through a very familiar experience thursday. we're all VERY aware that none of us has flown an mu-2, so we dont' know how it handles specifically or how well it may feel to fly it. But either way, when we hear people say "you can only fly this plane with you 'a-game'", we do take that personally...b/c Paul wouldn't have brought anything less than his 'a-game' when flying, and it's a slap in our face.
if something happened to your wife/ husband/ son/ daughter/ sibling in the car they were driving and he died...and the only thing you know is that it was most likely something wrong with the car (say a wheel fell off, whatever) and it happened to many other of the exact type of car. could you honestly tell me you wouldn't question the mechanics, the dealer, the maker of the car, the actual car itself???? That's all we're doing...we're questioning...why? b/c it's OUR WAY TO GRIEVE. PLEASE DON'T TAKE AWAY OUR CHANCE TO QUESTION...LET THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE AN OPINION SAY IT. don't just tell them to sit in a corner. this is supposed to be a discussion, not a 3 year old bickering contest.

and to take a little poll...from the people who back the mu-2 up 100%, have you ever lost a close, blood relative in that plane? b/c i know what it feels like to lose friends, and compared to losing a brother--it's a lot less difficult. but i'm just curious...WHO HERE HAS LOST A FAMILY MEMBER TO AN MU-2???? or any other plane, and let me know your thoughts on that credability of that plane.