Another MU2 down...

[WNRHD17]

Boy, you guys sure have been busy today...

The problem is that you are pursuing a resolution to your incredible loss.

That's a problem?

His interest in aviation was enthusiastic and his sense of humor was wonderfull.

Wonderful......only 1 "l", thank you.

We are all human and the final acceptance of that possibility is a step that you may need to make. This final acceptance is the true statement of love that is on the other side of the sudden loss trama that all of us unfortunately have felt through the years.
Maybe I am completely wrong but the odds are that you will ultimately have to accept that conclusion.

Yeah....pretty surre that won't make anyone feel any better...that's like saying "accept jesus as your savior and you will be granted entrance to heaven.....otherwise you're screwed!"I don't believe your ratings had a psychology degree listed...

J
Once again, i'll take a little poll (no one seemed to respond to it the last time, so i'll try again, a little more general this time): WHO HERE HAS LOST A FAMILY MEMBER TO A PLANE CRASH???? just simply answer, that's all i'd like. Once you can experience your flesh and blood dying in a plane, then you tell us to leave emotion out of all you're trying to say, mmk?

Don't everyone be brushing my sister off like that....she asked a question, the polite thing would be to answer.

We're keeping him alive by trying to keep others alive. I'm sure if you died tomorrow in a crash, your family would be doing the same thing--whether or not your mistake cost your own life.

I'm sure they would too...maybe you should ask them?

You people(you and family) need to get a life. You are not helping. You are only making it harder on yourself and everyone around you.

You think ignoring everything would be better? , didn't see a PHD next to your ratings either.

Can you state the problems with the MU2 you are trying to find a solution to?
Thanks

could you read this thread entirely? thanks.

If you don't agree with Sir Avgod then you are:
A) Too stupid for him to waste time on

I guess we're the smart ones then, b/c he keeps coming back...

Do something positive. The solution you are trying to find has nothing to do with the mu2. Its more about finding a solution for the pain you feel. And you are going about it all wrong.

Says you. Maybe if you were me you'd do something differently, but, lucky for me, you're not me.

Why do they crash? Because they hit the ground. If pilots don't let the airplane hit the ground, the problem is solved, don't you think?

we've got a rocket scientist here, folks!! If people didn't let drunk drivers hit them, problem solved, right? Just get an owl-head transplant and you'll never worry again!

Amen, I've given up trying to figure out who is who.

*pulls out box of 64 Crayola crayons and an 11x14 sheet of white construction paper*....ok, I'm going to draw me w/ my green crayon b/c green is my favorite color. My name is Miriam, I'm one of Paul's younger sisters, the older of the 2...I am posting under my username, WNRHD17. my birthday is next week and you better get me something good. The other sister, Veronica, is TAdpoles, I'll draw her in brown, no wait, burnt sienna, b/c she farts a lot and smells like poop. I'll draw my Dad, Skyking1976, in blue b/c he loooooooooves airplanes and flew them for tons and tons of years until someone gave him a big huge cake and said "way to go, you're done! Go play golf!" Would you like me to scan the picture in and post a link?

Dad, Sister and Sister.
Respectfully, let me recommend that you step away from boards such as these.

Respectfully, let me say no. We're not trying to change anything by posting on here. Merely conversing. You guys make us giggle beyond belief.

This is very good advise.

Advice, w/ a "c".

Planes dont fall out of the sky, pilots make them fall from the sky.

Idiots aren't born, they're made.

I get the impression that a significant number of posters feel like the families of crash victims have some sort of objectionable agenda. Their losses are real and they run deep. As has been said, the loss of a close family member is a far cry from the loss of a fellow aviator. Relatively few aviators of more than a couple of years experience have escaped knowing a fallen comrade. On the other hand, few aviators have faced the loss of their husband, wife, parent, etc. to a crash. I despise even mere suggestions that ignore where obvious fault may lie (e.g., the it is always the PIC and no one else).

seeeeee....we're not the only ones.

All right, I said I wouldn't post anymore on this thread, but, I couldn't help myself.
None of you know the details of any of the investigations--you have no clue, you just guess, and speculate.
I can't really say what I think, or feel, cause it'll just misteriously disappear!

You people need to get a life. You have no idea!

You said you wouldn't post and you did...jesus doesn't like liars...no one knows any details!! We're all guessing and speculating. It mYsteriously disappears? can't help you there....control your anger, you may have issues. I have a life, I like it most of the time. Especially right now

See? Now you've gone and made me be long-winded....

 

[WNRHD17]

What would deceased pilots, those who died in crashes have to say?

I think it would be rare to hear "Beloved family, find a lawyer and hunt down those responsible for making me fly that POS airplane which took my life."

It is my personal belief that most would be more likely to say,

"Family and friends, you know I loved flying. Let me tell you if I have not before: I knew the risks. Whether they were because of the machinery itself, or because the human interaction was risky; but I knew and accepted those risks beforehand. Please honor my memory by not pursuing any action that will further restrict or regulate aviation. Such action, to me, would be shameful.
Now, I realize that you have experienced a loss; my presence on this earth. And you feel cheated because you did not have any say in accepting those risks; and as such my death is an unacceptable shock to you. But please remember that it was my life, my choice, my risk to accept, no one else's.
Consider that any action you undertake that restricts aviation in any way will prevent future pilots from experiencing the joy that is flight, the same joy that you know aviation gave me. Please let others chose for themselves as I did for myself."

LMAO!!!! If only you'd known my brother....that would be the FARTHEST thing from what he would say.

 

[350DRIVER]

I couldnt believe it when i heard it. with no internet/TV until friday in the new place, I didnt even hear about it for a few days ago. I really hope this crash sends a message to the FAA to ground the MU2 and do something to prevent this from happening again. How many more pilots have to be killed in thie d**m plane before action is taken.

You truly have got to be smoking crack or something else a long those lines?. Ground the entire MU-2 fleet?. Hmmm.... Sure that is gonna fly (right). I guess we should also ground the Metro, C421, etc, aircraft that have also had quite a few fatal accidents... Oh yeah, that sure makes a lot of sense. (much sarcasm intended). The loss of human life is always difficult to accept and to cope with but your post was truly ridiculous to put it mildly. Have you flown the aircraft? Have you lost anyone in one?. I didn't think so, it is easy to be naive and to jump on a bandwagon but rest assured that the FAA surely ain't gonna do it whether you like it or not. It is a fact whether you decide to accept it or not.

 

[GravityHater]

You can line up all the airplanes, from experimentals - to private singles & twins - RJs to the 747 right up to the Space Shuttle and compare their accident rates all you want. (the space shuttle is 1 per 62.5 right now and the 747 is around 1 per million, the MU 2 obviously somewhere in-between)

Yes, work towards improving safety though training and design, but please do not try to 'ground all of a model' because they fall somewhere on the list that does not suit you. Do not deny anyone the right/privilege to fly regardless of its accident rate.


Maybe this is more direct: It is OK if we die in an airplane, this is our choice. We accept the risk.

Even if the accident rate of an airplane is known to be 100%, (every flight ends in a fatal crash and we WILL DIE) it is OUR CHOICE, we do not need the government protecting us with more regulations!

 

[skyking1976]

GravityHater; I certainly hope you don't assume you speak for all of us. It is not OK for me to die in an airplane. It was never, isn't now and never will be OK. I fear you romanticize the occupation too much. And if it's less regulatin you want, I fear you are already too late. The FAR/AIM isn't getting any thinner. Hugs, Dad

 

[bizijet]

The answer to this question is simple. More training period. To highlight this I submit that Frank Robinson, the creator of the R22 and R44 line of helicopters experienced a high number of accidents ( some fatal ) with his helicopter. Frank knew that the problem was from lack of training for a specific type, not the helicopter. Frank worked with the FAA and proposed a self induced SFAR for his chopper.

As a result of this SFAR, Frank requires that you have a minimum of 100 hrs before you can be PIC of his helicopter. The MU2 needs a SFAR, which should help reducing the accidents in the Mu2. Training has always been the answer. I have flown the Mu2 once for 1.3 hours. I hand flew the plane up to 17,000 feet and I can tell you that this plane is awsome. What I didn't like is rotating at 100 knots and being vulnerable from 100 knots to 150 knots while climbing. This speed is where the Mu2 problems occur. Lose an engine between those speeds and you had better be on your game.

I flew the plane on two engines and have flown it with a Cheif Pilot for a Cargo outfit that uses Mu2's exclusively. I flew a passenger version of the MU2 with him and I learned a lot about the plane. He has had numerous engine failures in his thousands of hours in Mu2's and he must know what he is talking about and how to fly the plane because he is still here. These guys are the ones the FAA needs to talk to and come up with scenario based training with them.

 

[WNRHD17]

Maybe this is more direct: It is OK if we die in an airplane, this is our choice. We accept the risk.

It is most certainly not OK if I die in an airplane either!!! Perhaps what you meant to say was "If I should die in an airplane, I accept that risk." It is not OK if anyone dies in an airplane. I'm sure there are tons of people who would comletely disagree w/ what you have just said. Maybe it's OK for you, but make sure you tell your family that it's OK for you to die in an airplane before they start "speculating."

 

[bizijet]

It is most certainly not OK if I die in an airplane either!!! Perhaps what you meant to say was "If I should die in an airplane, I accept that risk." It is not OK if anyone dies in an airplane. I'm sure there are tons of people who would comletely disagree w/ what you have just said. Maybe it's OK for you, but make sure you tell your family that it's OK for you to die in an airplane before they start "speculating."

I think what the poster is saying is what difference does it make if we die in a MU2 or an ultralight. The point is your dead. He is not saying that he would rather die in a plane crash then any other way. He is saying that the type of aircraft doesn't make a difference, you are still dead. Me personally, I wouldn't be caught dead in an ultralight. Unless I have a midair with one, then it's not my choice.

 

[WNRHD17]

No no, he was definitely saying it was OK to die in an airplane....because you've all made the conscious decision to make it your careers to fly them.
I know he didn't mean it opposed to any other means of death... correct me if I'm wrong, gravityhater.

 

[enigma]

Originally Posted by enigma
Dad, Sister and Sister.
Respectfully, let me recommend that you step away from boards such as these.

Respectfully, let me say no. We're not trying to change anything by posting on here. Merely conversing. You guys make us giggle beyond belief.

WNRHD17, I guess that I was mistaken. It now appears that you are just enjoying the attention; or maybe just stirring the pot. You still have my condolences.

You've obviously seen how some of these anonymous posters treat "conversing". Continue at your own risk.

enigma

 

[skyking1976]

Bizijet; Thanks for your refreshing, concise comment on the SFAR requirement and the FAA seeking out those with the broadest background in the airplane. If there is any thrust to this whole bruhaha it is exactly that. Let's get the Feds to really look at the training requirement in the MU2 and admit that what one learns flying a conventionally controlled ME aircraft does not transfer to the MU2. This seems to me that this would be the logical place to start to improve the safety record of the airplane. But, the Feds first have to conclude that there is a basic differece with the MU2 and take a positive approach to identifying training deficiencies of the operators. As we all know too well, the Feds do not like to rethink a lot of the things they have stood on historically. This is one of those things and the upshot of all of this (I hope) will be for them to look more closely at the things that can be corrected and implement procedures to do just that. Happy Day and Hugs, Dad

 

[skyking1976]

Xav8tor; Loved you post. Lets you and me get together and judge a micro-brew contest. Best Regards, Dad

 

[Tadpoles]

Originally Posted by avbug:
"I have absolutely no problem with dying in an airplane, so long as it's not my fault."


poor carpenter blames his tools???

 

[apttmab]

you missed his point!!!!thats OK you'll get it next time

 

[Flyin Tony]

training requirement in the MU2

I think thats the best idea, theres no way they are going to can all the MU2's. The only way you can make it a safer plane for some people is to mandate (sp) a training req. I would start by sending them to www.mu2b.com

 

[WNRHD17]

Once again, i'll take a little poll (no one seemed to respond to it the last time, so i'll try again, a little more general this time): WHO HERE HAS LOST A FAMILY MEMBER TO A PLANE CRASH???? just simply answer, that's all i'd like.

Still....no answers...

 

[Lead Sled]

The answer to this question is simple. More training period. To highlight this I submit that Frank Robinson, the creator of the R22 and R44 line of helicopters experienced a high number of accidents ( some fatal ) with his helicopter. Frank knew that the problem was from lack of training for a specific type, not the helicopter. Frank worked with the FAA and proposed a self induced SFAR for his chopper.

As a result of this SFAR, Frank requires that you have a minimum of 100 hrs before you can be PIC of his helicopter. The MU2 needs a SFAR, which should help reducing the accidents in the Mu2. Training has always been the answer. I have flown the Mu2 once for 1.3 hours. I hand flew the plane up to 17,000 feet and I can tell you that this plane is awsome. What I didn't like is rotating at 100 knots and being vulnerable from 100 knots to 150 knots while climbing. This speed is where the Mu2 problems occur. Lose an engine between those speeds and you had better be on your game.

I flew the plane on two engines and have flown it with a Cheif Pilot for a Cargo outfit that uses Mu2's exclusively. I flew a passenger version of the MU2 with him and I learned a lot about the plane. He has had numerous engine failures in his thousands of hours in Mu2's and he must know what he is talking about and how to fly the plane because he is still here. These guys are the ones the FAA needs to talk to and come up with scenario based training with them.

Alas...
The light of reason and understanding! Thank you.

'Sled

 

[KigAir]

.I am posting under my username, WNRHD17. my birthday is next week and you better get me something good.

How about a free flight in a MU2?

 

[Flechas]

How about a free flight in a MU2?

Ouch!! That was uncalled for!

 

[GravityHater]

It is not OK for me to die in an airplane.

OK I think we are getting closer to you understanding me. No I don't speak for everyone; when I say 'we' I mean those who agree with my philosophies of less government involvement and more freedoms. Yes this means more risk and I am willing to accept this as I think a lot of pilots are.

Our main differences are this:
You want to impose your wishes (more regulations, the withdrawl of an airplane from service, aviation restrictions, loss of freedoms) on all who might fly.
My wishes impose NOTHING on you or anyone else.

I swear, that over the years - if this kind of pressure by well-meaning people continues, by the year 2025 we will have only the one 'government-approved' airplane left to fly in this country, and you will have to fly it in very tightly controlled circumstances. Aviation will be not a bit of fun (we have shades of this already!) and will have no attraction for people like Paul, myself, and many people here.

The goal of zero accidents and no fatalities in aviation is honorable but comes (to me) at the intolerable cost of our freedoms. It all originates in the public's unreasonable fear of aviation accidents. Why does no one take such actions regarding the insane THIRTY THOUSAND PLUS DEATHS due to road wrecks each year? Its an over-reaction; Im afraid.

 

[RJones]

I think this thread has gotten a bit out of control.

 

[DenverDude2002]

Yah, more and more after seeing what type of people are around here makes me glad Im choosing a different career. At least theres a few good pilots out there who still give the industry a good reputation. Skyking, WNRHD17, Tadpoles, dont take anything personally on here, because quite frankly i could care less if i get shot down, Im only here 5 mins a day anyways.

 

[WNRHD17]

How about a free flight in a MU2?

Completely uncalled for under the circumstances. You are not a nice person.

 

[WNRHD17]

Very low blow. I'm not even going to retaliate b/c that was so over the line.

 

[ackattacker]

Maybe this is more direct: It is OK if we die in an airplane, this is our choice. We accept the risk.

Even if the accident rate of an airplane is known to be 100%, (every flight ends in a fatal crash and we WILL DIE) it is OUR CHOICE, we do not need the government protecting us with more regulations!

This statement is ludicrous on its face.

It is not OK for me to die in an airplane.

I accept the risks, but I know that the risks are small, and I learn to manage them. If the risk was great I would not go. If I had been deceived about the risk then I would be justifiably upset. If the risks had been hidden from me, covered up, or caused by gross negligence then I think a lawsuit would be justifiable.

I ride a motorcycle, which has a higher risk than driving a car. But I manage the risk by wearing a helmet and driving defensively. It is not OK for me to die in a motorcycle accident either. And its not OK for my motorcycle to come apart at 75mph. If it did, I hope my family sues the manufacturer.

If someone was to take off in an airplane knowing that it had a 100% accident rate, he would be criminally negligent for putting other people's lives and property in jeopardy. Personal freedoms don't apply when they infringe on the rights of others.

 

[enigma]

OK I think we are getting closer to you understanding me. No I don't speak for everyone; when I say 'we' I mean those who agree with my philosophies of less government involvement and more freedoms. Yes this means more risk and I am willing to accept this as I think a lot of pilots are.

Our main differences are this:
You want to impose your wishes (more regulations, the withdrawl of an airplane from service, aviation restrictions, loss of freedoms) on all who might fly.
My wishes impose NOTHING on you or anyone else.

I swear, that over the years - if this kind of pressure by well-meaning people continues, by the year 2025 we will have only the one 'government-approved' airplane left to fly in this country, and you will have to fly it in very tightly controlled circumstances. Aviation will be not a bit of fun (we have shades of this already!) and will have no attraction for people like Paul, myself, and many people here.

The goal of zero accidents and no fatalities in aviation is honorable but comes (to me) at the intolerable cost of our freedoms. It all originates in the public's unreasonable fear of aviation accidents. Why does no one take such actions regarding the insane THIRTY THOUSAND PLUS DEATHS due to road wrecks each year? Its an over-reaction; Im afraid.

gravityhater, I agree with you, but...I see nothing wrong with attempting to effect some regulatory change in Mitsu training/qualification. I've never even sat in an MU2, and I'm not qualified to say how it flys; but if you take MU2 pilots at their word, you soon realize that the airplane does require type specific reactions to abnormalities. Considering that, it seems reasonable for the FAA to require something along the lines of a type rating before one can fly an MU2. If the FAA can require a type rating for a straight wing Citation, I see no reason that they can't require such a rating for an airplane who's admirers even admit that it flys like a jet.

At the risk of insulting the survivors, I predict that the eventual cause will be determined to be pilot error. The Feds will come up with something like "the pilot neglected to maintain control after an engine failure", blame the dead guy and move on. If these Ladies (and Dad) want to try and force the Feds to require more intensive training, I say that they should go for it. If the airplane in question was killing pax at the rate it kills crew, the Feds would have acted long ago.

regards,
enigma

 

[bizijet]

Alas...
The light of reason and understanding! Thank you.

'Sled

Your welcome sled. I know a few people who operate the Mu2 and having just one flight of 1.3 hours in the plane doesn't make me an expert. However, As I rotated at 100 knots the Cheif Pilot told me to accelerate as quickly as possible to above 150 and resume a normal climb. Hand flying this plane to 17,000 feet was a hoot. The kick from the acceleration was a blast. I for one don't believe that removing the plane from the skies is an option. It really is a great plane, but as I was told you need to be on top of the plane if and when the engine fails.

 

[bizijet]

Requiring a type rating is an OK suggestion, but a SFAR requiring more training than is called for a type rating is a better solution. Maybe something like 25 hours in a sim with scenario based training and 100 hours of dual with an experienced MU2 pilot would help as well. I feel the operators of the MU2 would balk at this because of the increased training cost. However, the SFAR would make it a requirement or risk having the plane removed from the 135 certificate. Of course this is all in a perfect world. We will have to see what action if any the FAA takes.

 

[skygirl1968]

here we go again...

ok...i have just spent the last hour and a half reading thru this thread that i started. i started this thread to send my coldolences to Sam's family and friends, it has gotten way out of hand. as has been mentioned here COUNTLESS times, everyone has an opinion, just that an OPINION! of course this is an aviation forum and this is where we discuss aviation issues....but just like with a tv program or radio station, if you don't like it...DON'T COME HERE! if you want to express your opinion then do so. we all have opinions, we're all free to express them, even here. lets stop all the personal bashing, especially towards the family.

since i am paul's widow, i will take the position of being the person that says i knew him best, and try to speak on his behalf. we spent the last 8yrs devoted to each other, and i watched him become the aviator that he was. he LOVED everything about flying and aviation. he lived it, breathed, ate, drank, slept it. i even encouraged it...its wonderful to see someone that you love live thier dreams. i will say that paul did not die doing what he loved. he LIVED doing what he loved, he died trying to save his life and get home to his family.

paul was a professsional from beginning to end. he would never fly if he wasn't on top of his game. how do i know? i was there on the occasions that he called in sick, fatigued, etc and refused to fly becuase he didn't think it was safe. did he know the risks? absolutely...he flew anyway because not flying would have been like amputating his leg...he would have felt that life was pointless.

avbug, you keep saying that its always the PIC's resp. for everything and that we should stop blaming the plane...well since paul is not here we can't ask him if he takes resposibility for the crash. since he flew almost an entire pattern and crashed on his turn to final, i can only assume that he was confident in his ability to land that plane. I have to believe that, and i will go on believing that until the day i die (hopefully NOT in a plane). since NONE of us were up there with him, we will NEVER know what really happened on that last turn. we have nothing but specualtion. i don't think that any pilot's family memebr would jump right up and say "it was all his fault, he would take total resposnibility for killing himself. no, really, he would" is that what your family would say??

i would like to give some of you a glimpse into what kind of man/pilot/aviator paul was...i recently found a letter that he wrote to me on our 2nd anniversary. the anniversary was in april and i had just earned my private certificate in january of that year. i'm not going to type the entire text but there are some parts of it that shine light on just how he felt about being a pilot...

"you are part of an elite group and you should be proud of your performance and the skills that you have learned. although the only thing that you receive for your accomplishment is a piece of paper, you are entitled to much, much more."

"it is my wish that you continue with your learning and become a master of aviation like many of us have and some, including myself, are still trying to do. you are not just a person with a pilot's certificate, you are an aviator."

"always be proud, always learn, always be safe, always take a little extra time to embrace what you are and what you are doing."


if paul were here, i know that he would have been enough of a man and a pilot to take responsibility if the accident is determined to have been his fault. since he is not, NONE of us are in the position to speak for him...only on his behalf. would he tell me to run out and get a lawyer, prob not...he detested law suits. but if there is something REALLY wrong, he would expect me to find some answers. i can't just sit here and digest that paul successfully flew a crippled plane for a crosswind, downwind, and base leg, and then suddenly became a sh*tty pilot. something went wrong and i, to the best extent possible, am going to try and find out what. if it is determined that its 100% pilot error then i have no choice but to accpet it. will i love paul any less or think any less of him? HELL NO!

we (the family) DO feel like there is something inherently wrong with the MU2, is that a problem? (btw - for the record, the MU2 NEVER went thru FAA certification for the US, its certification just transferred from Japan. i'd be real interested to see if it could pass thru an FAA certification...)

this is our avenue for expressing our thoughts, feelings, and opinions. after all, this is a forum where we are all free to talk about anything aviation related. correct me if i'm wrong, but this is the GENERAL section -
"General
General aviation related discussion that doesn't fall into a sub-category below"

is my interpretation of the above description incorrect? aren't we all (including the families/friends/co-workers/etc) free to express our opinions here? good, i'm glad that we got that settled. perhaps my non-pilot sisters have become a bit emotional, but they do mean well and are venting the only way they know how at this point.

as far as telling us to "get a life"...you sir, have the wordiest, most frequent posts on here...perhaps you should practice what you preach.


p.s. skygirl1968 = paul's wife (in paul's honor i'm still flying, still learning, and still being safe)

Can we please end this thread now?

 

[WNRHD17]

Purple and green look lovely together! we're just one big happy crayola family