Another MU2 down...

[Flyin Tony]

kalifornian fruitcakes.

Hey now!! Other then that AVBUG good read.

 

[WNRHD17]

and please stop calling us who are talking down the MU-2 idiots....this is part of our grieving process. what do you expect us to say, "we believe Paul and the latest pilot did make huge errors in the MU-2 and yes, they were the cause of their own demise." Of course not. I don't think anyone is jumping to conclusions because like previously stated, we don't know all the facts yet. That would be completely ignorant and we're all smart enough to know better, even when overcome emotionally by this whole thing. If we were to weed out all the so-called "idiots" posting on this board there might not be anyone left....flightinfo might cease to exist....and no one would enjoy that.

 

[350DRIVER]

have you been imbibing? that is pure unadulterated BS and spoken like a true BUFFOON

What part of avbug's response was "pure unadulterated BS"?. I obviously missed this so if you would care to shed some light on this I am somewhat certain that a few out there (myself included) would like to know where this was in his reply. Loss is sad, no one is walking out of this world alive so for you to intentionally condemn one make and model is outright insane.

 

[TIGV]

and please stop calling us who are talking down the MU-2 idiots....this is part of our grieving process. what do you expect us to say, "we believe Paul and the latest pilot did make huge errors in the MU-2 and yes, they were the cause of their own demise." Of course not. I don't think anyone is jumping to conclusions because like previously stated, we don't know all the facts yet. That would be completely ignorant and we're all smart enough to know better, even when overcome emotionally by this whole thing. If we were to weed out all the so-called "idiots" posting on this board there might not be anyone left....flightinfo might cease to exist....and no one would enjoy that.

Actually, mindless ramblings designed to imply some kind of knowledge on the subject matter are idiotic and disrespectful.

Grieve....and grieve with me, with us...we are all family and the loss of anyone is a horror we all live through and hope we never feel again.

We are however, in the type of flying we do, more exposed to weather, sleep deprivation, high workload, the list goes on....than most other kinds of flying. It is sometimes not always possibe to bring one's ' A ' game, choosing to fly in this condition is a gamble I myself used to take.....Till last December..........

 

[Wolfy]

All I know is that because of lawsuits by bereaved families, by 1986, industry production of single engine aircraft went down by 95%. Cessna was forced to stop their manufacturing of single engine aircraft because of this type of tort litigation. The Federal government was prompted to put a cap on this type of lawsuit because of the damaging effects on aviation as a whole. Over 100,000 aviation jobs were lost before the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) became a law, since that enactment, Cessna began manufacturing again.



I know of a pilot who at seventeen was pulled aside by his test pilot father, before he soloed. The father, rather than talking about the personal responsibility and risks that lay ahead simply said, “If you’re crossing the street and some drunk driver runs you over, then it’s your own fault for being there in the first place.” Most pilots I know epitomize this kind of mindset.



As a pilot you’re supposed to fly the airplane to the very end, the responsibility is yours whenever you climb into the left seat, regardless if the airplane is more or less unforgiving of any lapse on the pilot’s part or malfunction-or you shouldn’t be climbing in. Most pilots I’ve ever met and all of my aviation heroes that I’ve read about, typify this can-do attitude, and decide to firmly take their fate into their own hands, fate is the hunter, and it’s a known risk most every pilot accepts.



The people that find it hard to accept are those who are left without them after the fact, the loved ones, who perhaps never bought into the same dreams or were never fully identified with the risks of flying professionally. Often, loved ones deal with the grief of loss by getting angry and blaming, it is human nature, and we can be sympathetic to that as a community of caring people, who happen to fly. We tend to look at accidents unemotionally and chalk up the risk as part of the job, that is a perspective unitiated ones find hard to understand.



Nonetheless, I believe Avbug, 350, and others are right in their assessments of harder to handle or less forgiving airplanes, even insurance rates are higher for some, reflecting the added risk and skill level to accomplish the job.


Barring mechanicle malfunction and pilot error, I don't believe that there has ever been proof of a design flaw with this airplane, which begs the question, is it the airplane manufacturer's responsibility or the government's responsibility to protect us from violent death? Or do we assume this responsibility when we make the choice to be the Pilot in Command when flying inherently quick aircraft which can have cascading operational failures that can race out of control?


I think if we're flyin it, we've consiously made that decision already, whether we've announced it to anyone else or not.


Tough stuff, my condolences to all.

 

[Peanut gallery]

Avbug goes way too far on this one

While he makes some good points about the responsibility of the PIC and loss of life, his knowledge of some of these specific aircraft is extremely off base.
Since I am most familiar with the learjet I will use this as an example.

First my credentials regarding the learjet.

Check Airman and PPE Learjet, Consultant to the NTSB in several loss of control accidents, Consultant to the FAA on accident investigation and PIC on subsequent test flights to determine controllable issues. 5,000 hours PIC in the 23 series.

While all this was over 20 years ago I feel very comfortable talking about this aircraft type. First of all I really enjoyed the Learjet and feel that it has evolved into a very safe aircraft if operated by professional flight crews. The problem is that it was an evolution that took several years to get right. There were 100 23 series learjets built in the mid-60's. It was originally a CAR 23 certified aircraft. When learjet came out with the 24 and 25 series aircraft they were certified under part 25. It took substancial upgrades and changes to make them comply with part 25 standards. Of the original 100 23's built over 40 had been crashed in the first 12 years. That number now stands at 68 with many just parked due to lack of interest.
The 23 had a vref of 148 knots with the original wing at max landing weight, that wing has been modified by AD. The original wing operating during approach in light turbulence could actually get a shaker while still above the max extension speed of the flaps. The yaw damper was very ineffective and could cause yaw rather than dampen. The amount of aerodynamic bandaids that were put on learjets to correct it's weakness's were substancial. Pushers, Pullers, Nudgers and boundry layer energizers, numerous changes to flight manual, including such things as requiring certain types of foot wear. The list goes on and on. When training new Captains we would let them fly on of the 24's or 25's early in the game but the 23 required a bunch more OE.

While I agree with some of Avbugs points I strongly disagree that aircraft are all the same. Some have certain defeciencies in their basic design. This is why they were dumped by corporate flight departments fairly early in there lives and spend the rest of there time being operated by the 135 check haulers. They are cheap ( for a reason ) but have the performance to get the job done. The aspects of these aircraft that make them less controllable require additional vigilance in terms of training and supervision of flight crewmembers. The lack of supervision and dialog that exists in some of these small companies is what increases the potential for accidents.
These aircraft can and have been operated by folks for years without incident, but in the case of an operation that has had two incidents in less than a year the indication is quite clear that a review of who is running this company is in order.

 

[Wolfy]

Huh?

Peanut,


I think you skimmed over avbug's post too quickly, I read that he is saying what your sayin, that some planes are different but not dangerous, especially if your trained enough and skilled enough to handle them. I don't see where he ever said they were the same.

How about merely learning to fly it properly, or stepping aside to let someone else do so....All airplanes have personalities, strengths, weaknesses

It is obvious that some mechanicle failures cannot be overcome, whether it's a maintenance issue or due to loosing an engine or due to icing. There are plenty of incidences where a twin looses an engine and cannot overcome circumstances and maintain or even gain altitude. Aside from that, or even when that happens, we still are the one who made the choice to fly that airplane.

 

[skyking1976]

Hey Corpflunkie; Do me a big favor and stop pointing out what's "key" in your assessment of the MU2 and the people who fly them. You speak in historic generalizations that most people with your background do. There is a Japanese proverb that goes something like this: "If you understand everything--then you must be mistaken". Seems like a lot of posters on this subject understand everything. After all my years in the industry I still don't understand everything. And that includes the MU2. Try as I may, I still don't buy into the fact that "things just happen". That is simply a paraphrase the NTSB gives as a reason for aircraft accidents/incidents. It means they really don't know what happened and can't find out. You seem to have the whole matter canned in one neat little package and that's the end of it. Excellent! The FAA is looking for a few good men. Maybe you should take your expertise to them and help them out a bit. I'm sure they're going to need help with the MU2 situation in the near future. It occurs to me that you have the ability to ascertain causes of several accidents before all the facts are in. With this kind of gift you shouldn't have to fly airplanes for a living. Fortune telling is making a big comeback. Allow me another quote. Mark Twain said: Never make predictions -- especially about the future. So please stop this inane lecturing to me, my family and others as well. I've heard it hundreds of times before in crew rooms populated authoritarians like yourself who pontificate as to the causes of airplane accidents. Give it a rest. And get a new name to post with. Corpflunkie just doesn't conjure up a great image of an experienced and well versed pilot for me. As a matter of fact, do me another favor. Go to the bathroom, look in the mirror and whisper "Corpflunkie". Hugs, Dad

 

[semperfido]

What part of avbug's response was "pure unadulterated BS"?. I obviously missed this so if you would care to shed some light on this I am somewhat certain that a few out there (myself included) would like to know where this was in his reply. Loss is sad, no one is walking out of this world alive so for you to intentionally condemn one make and model is outright insane.

to start- this is BS;
"Any professional pilot who blames the airplane overhimself is no professional, but a kid with a lot of growing up to do. "

Accidents and incidents happens for many reasons and some of them are through no fault or deficiency in the pro pilot. Avbug is full of bravado, hence the BS meter is pegged. Do I really need to pick through his verbose essay line by line?

fido

 

[ACT700]

HEY CORPFLUNKIE,

here's a dare: take up skyking1976's advice and join the FAA. Then do me a favor; pull his effin' certificate!

Excellent! The FAA is looking for a few good men. Maybe you should take your expertise to them and help them out a bit.

Then join the Bush dictatorship, and have his a$$ arrested for rambling like a --

ahh screw this, I don't have the energy to comment on all you morons.

What a turd!



It occurs to me that you have the ability to ascertain causes of several accidents before all the facts are in.

None of us (Corpflunkie, Avbug, myself, and the other so called MU2 defenders) have stated anything as to what might have happened in these accidents.
On the contrary, we have all along been saying that "hold your horses everybody, we don't even know what happened yet!"



Corpflunkie just doesn't conjure up a great image of an experienced and well versed pilot for me.
Neither do you to me!!


As a matter of fact, do me another favor. Go to the bathroom, look in the mirror and whisper "Corpflunkie". Hugs, Dad

I don't get it?! WTF over?

You sir, are a turd.


Semperfido,

I don't understand your comment about avbug either. I mean, yes, he did make his statement loooong, but I agree with everything he said.

I'm going to have to seek out my local crack dealer, 'cause some of the stuff on here is just going right over my head.

But maybe I'm just a dumba$$. Afterall, I do fly an MU2 for a living....