Another MU2 down...

[TIGV]

Folks it's easy to localize one's grief on the most apparent source of pain, fact is the Merlin has about twice the statistical accident numbers as the MU-2.
135 aviation folks, single pilot, on the backside of the clock, sh!tty weather, max duty and flight time, inadequate rest, in a very high workload aircraft is inherently dangerous, couple that with inadequate training, maintenance etc etc the standard for most 135 operators and as an aviator you better always ALWAYS leave yourself a backdoor and even then the odds are stacked against you.

Today was bloody horrible, I was sad, sick and angry as he!!, same as I was in December and I feel equal blame should be placed on the Federal Agency responsible for the oversite of 135 operators that allow the above to take place and put all of us in compromising positions in regards to maintaining our employment, professionalism and personal safety...........All, I might add, for minimum pay, no benefits and horrible tragedies like today.

Blue Skies Sam, I'll be seeing you soon.

 

[Flydaplane]

Am Check lost another plane back in 99 or 00

I think the guy was headed to Lewiston, ID, if I remember correctly he was a retired Delta Capt. flying single pilot in the MU-2, went down in some freezing rain or something like that.

 

[FN FAL]

Oh really? So why aren't they called the 'Widow Maker' then? Sheesh Tony.....

Thank goodness the Caravan is called the "fresh maker"...no, that's a mentos sales thing. Never mind.

 

[WNRHD17]

Today was bloody horrible, I was sad, sick and angry as he!!, same as I was in December and I feel equal blame should be placed on the Federal Agency responsible for the oversite of 135 operators that allow the above to take place and put all of us in compromising positions in regards to maintaining our employment, professionalism and personal safety...........All, I might add, for minimum pay, no benefits and horrible tragedies like today.

I agree....like Dad said, it reopened wounds....my thoughts are with the family and friends of today's accident....

Hi Phil...meant to PM you a couple days ago, but I've been busy...

 

[WNRHD17]

Its not the plane. Cessna 172 crash all the time. When will they take that out of the sky?

If you do a search for the Cessna the majority of accidents are non-fatal...when you search for MU-2 accidents, just about every other one is a fatal.

 

[avbug]

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.

 

[350DRIVER]

avbug hit the nail on the head on this one. The airplane does indeed have a pretty questionable safety record with regards to accidents/incidents. The airplane will bite you (most know this), proper training by seasoned MU-2 folks can go a long way. No airplane is a mind reader, this one is no exception. Two fatal crashes coming from the same company in such a short period of time does raise a red flag and I would only hope their mx issues/policies will now be in the spotlight and if they have been found to cut corners, knowingly compromised safety, put crews at risk(s), to keep costs low then this company should be no longer and shut down.

Its not the plane. Cessna 172 crash all the time. When will they take that out of the sky?

You likely won't be seeing the MU-2s' going away anytime soon. Good mx + good training is key. The majority of negative comments I have heard over the years were from folks who have never even stepped foot in any MU2 let alone having ever flown one.

May God bless the family and help them get through these hard times.

 

[ACT700]

Before you people run your mouthes about accidents and/or companies, make sure you have the facts. Both ACT accidents are still under investigation.
(and no, I'm not management!, just another poor bastard trying to make a living)

avbug and 350Driver are right in their comments: most people who condemn this a/c have only seen it in pictures and in writing;
and 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, or don't want your husband, bf, brother, sister-you get the idea-flying it, then DON'T!

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.

Neither is the Metro.

 

[semperfido]

they should weld a pipe on the bottom of them and make a wind tees out of them- a white elephant if there ever was one.

 

[skygirl1968]

White elephant indeed!!! That plane has inherent design flaws that make it nearly impossible to fly under less than perfect conditions. And I HAVE talked with pilots that have over 10k in that plane. They all say that the plane is great until you run into trouble. A quote from a pilot that flew the plane for quite a number of years..."Like your son I started out in the Mu-2 with about 2800tt and when all said and done I gathered some 6500 hours in the type flying all the models currently in the U.S… During that time in the plane I suffered three engine failures, one crew hatch window failure, and a dual inverter failure during IMC conditions and the list continues...I just happened to be quick to get the plane under control and get it back on the ground. The final straw that got me out of the plane was when I lost an engine with ¾’s of a load of canceled check and simply couldn’t maintain altitude until the plane descended to thicker air and I was able to get it to an airport … I did pee my pants."

"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.

 

[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?