Another MU2 down...

[Tadpoles]

BUT: Honestly, I am lost. I do not know who is who, skyking is Paul, whr...something is somebody else, it seems the whole family is on this board, and using different usernames all the time.

You are all turds; big f.cking turds!!! Because if you had any f.cking common sense and respect for Paul, you would have retired his username.

Actually, we each have only 1 username....it's not rocket science. I could draw you a picture w/ my box of 64 crayons if you'd like. Also, when Paul died tons of people encouraged my dad to use his s/n. Please see the following information, any questions can be directed to my secretary. Apparently lots of other people on this forum lack common sense as well....I'm glad you won't be posting here anymore.

Tony,

I can't speak for everyone, but with regards to Paul's User ID, I think most (including Paul) would be honored if you continued to post using it. I don't think anyone would feel weird about it, especially if it helps you in any way.

Please continue to use his screenname. I think you'll find this is a pretty disfunctional family here but if there is anything we can do please let us know.

D

"Dad", I think Paul would be honored if you continue to keep skyking1976 alive and well in this forum.

Tony we're glad to have you aboard, but if you're gonna continue to post under Paul's SN...you need to out a " " at the end of every post...

just letting you know...

DAD!!!!!!!!

I think keeping the skyking in the room...is very VERY GOOD!
Paul must have gotten some of his humor and flaming ability from you...Achip off the ol block...so in my opinion...Post and flame the camel fixersall you want
Kevin
just my 2cents

"Dad",

Keep the Skyking1976 username, great way to keep his spirit and memory alive and well. It is completely "appropriate" and "welcomed" by most including myself.

3 5 0

 

[Tadpoles]

whew.

 

[Lead Sled]

I understand where the family, friends and loved ones are coming from; however, I also agree with Avbug. In my mind, I have come to rationalize these types of events not as inevitable, but as consequential.

The MU-2 has been a controversial airplane from almost day one. I flew the MU-2B-60 (Marquise) single-pilot for 3 years for an air ambulance outfit. I liked the airplane, but it definitely demands a professional approach and proper initial and recurrent training. Its wing loading gives it flight characteristics more akin to a turbojet aircraft than a propeller-driven aircraft and it demands to be flown like a jet.

These “quirks” aren’t dangerous, but they need to be fully understood and considered in the day-to-day operation of the aircraft. For example, in practically every other propeller-driven aircraft you go for "blue line" in the event of an engine failure. In the MU-2 you fly a profile and clean up the aircraft sequentially as you accelerate - just as you would in a jet. If you attempt to handle an engine failure in the MU-2 they way you were taught in a King Air or light twin and you'll turn yourself into a lawn dart.

The MU-2 doesn’t handle ice particularly well, but neither do a lot of other airplanes. As I remember, it did have a minimum recommended ice speed of 160 TIAS. The minimum recommended speed in a King Air is 140 KIAS (As I remember, but it’s been a long time.) Let an MU-2 (or King Air) get slow while you’re packing ice and you will probably end up creating some memories for yourself. Keep the speed up and you'll have no problems.

As far as the safety record goes, a lot of it has to do with their low price on the used market. In years past, wealthy individuals could choose between a new single, used light twin, or an early MU-2. Let's see, a 170 knot Bonanza, a 200 knot twin or a 270+ knot MU-2 for the same price. Aircraft salesmen would tout turbine reliability and safety and make the sale. The insurance companies would ask for proper training, but there were enough guys out there that would fly without insurance and with out anything more than a rudimentary checkout. The airplane ate those kind of pilots for lunch. Nowadays, it’s the check hauling and freight outfits that have discovered the virtues of the MU-2. Fortunately, these are also the very same companies that are so well known for their thorough and extensive initial and recurrent training programs. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.) Like I said at the beginning, the resulting safety record is something that is to be expected.

I believe that the airplane is a good one, you absolutely need to get proper training and fly it according to the AFM. The Marquise had a 10% larger cabin, was 10% faster and burned 10% less fuel than the KA200. In order to get that kind of performance, Mitsubishi had to use a lot of aeronautical tricks. After all, the total wing area isn't that much greater than say a Cessna 210. As I remember, it had the same wing loading as the T-38, the B-727, and a Learjet. You have to fly it as you would any other highly wing loaded aircraft, a King Air it ain't.

It takes a little to get used to flying a wing with spoilers instead of ailerons; but once you do it handles pretty nice - no adverse aileron yaw since there are no ailerons. The spoilers induce roll by destroying lift as opposed to creating it. Control "feel" is created by springs attached to the system and is constant throughout the aircraft speed range. The spoilers are very effective at approach speeds; but, as you would imagine, they are more effective at higher speeds. From a pilot's point of view, it just means that, at approach speeds, you need more control movement to get the same response from the airplane that you would at cruise speed. It doesn't take much to get used to, but as others have mentioned, the airplane like to be flown fast.

Finally, proper trim is very critical in the MU-2, especially when operating on a single engine. The trim ailerons are employed to keep the wings level without having a spoiler raised. This keeps the wing doing what it was designed to do - fly. You use the autopilot a lot in the MU-2. It's important to monitor the control wheel position frequently and adjust the trim as necessary during flight to make sure that it's level - indicating that the spoilers are flush. Other wise you're going to be cruising around with a spoiler up and a resultant loss of lift. (That’s why you don’t bank an MU-2 into the dead engine – you want to keep those spoilers down and the wing doing its thing.) These “quirks” don’t make it dangerous, just different. The differences, if not understood, are dangerous. An experienced MU-2 old timer told me that flying an MU-2 was like having a pet Doberman…

“You’ll really like it, and it will nuzzle you and eat out of your hand, but don’t do anything stupid around it or it will bite you.”

But that’s true in any airplane.

The MU-2 doesn't stand alone in this regard, other airplanes come to mind. I can remember, as a young kid back in the mid-1960’s, watching the smoke rise from the airport - a new United 727 had just landed short and burst into flames. Many people were killed in that accident. The captain, a highly experienced airline and military pilot, had misjudged the spool-up time of the engines. People died. That wasn't the only 727 lost under those particular circumstances. There were other examples where good, competent, experienced pilots weren't adequately trained when they transitioned into the new type. Coming from the big piston Douglas and Boeing transports they were used to having the practically instantaneous effect of power when they moved the throttles. They forgot about the response lag of turbine engines and many people died.

Was it the airplane’s fault that people died? Was it the fault of the engines? Personally, I don't buy it. It was a training issue. The crews that were flying those early jets weren't adequately trained. Sure they had all of the boxes check off on their training record, but like I said in an earlier post - "what is legal isn't always safe."

In my mind, the big issue here is one of proper and adequate training. I was fortunate enough to go to initial MU-2 training at FlightSafety. There the instructors were very upfront about the airplane and it's "quirks". We practiced the various scenarios "ad nausium" in the simulators. Later on, during my employment with that company, they decided to switch to "in-house" training because "it costs too much money to send you guys to FlightSafety". After going through both programs I understand how critical the proper training is. According to my way of thinking, there is absolutely no way that an in-house program will properly prepare a pilot, any pilot, to handle a high-performance aircraft like an MU-2. You need the no holds barred experience like you get at places like FlightSafety or Howell, not the carefully choreographed and rehearsed training typically provided by 135 operators who are scared to death to do any serious training. At that point I resigned. I didn’t fear the MU-2, I respected it and realized that, for me individually, if I couldn’t get proper recurrent training then my MU-2 days were over. Would I fly one today? Yes, and I wouldn’t hesitate to put my family in one either, but with the understanding that there would be ample amounts of proper training. But that’s the same criteria that I have for any airplane that I fly and any airplane that my family flies in.

‘Sled

 

[enigma]

I would submit that without banking, the rudder force is pulling you through the air sideways, and thats a lot of drag. You need the horizontal component of lift to balance the rudder force (rudder moment offsets asym thrust). Get rid of that drag and performance increases, even though you need a little more lift.

five-alive, I stand guilty of puffery in order to make a point. I'll agree that some small angle of bank can be used to balance the yaw produced by a dead engine. However, analysis and experimentation have shown that the required angle of bank is so small as to be negligible. ERAU produced a study about sixteen years ago that showed the mathematical derivation of the optimum bank angle, and it was under two degrees for every airplane that they worked on (save the Duke if memory serves).

The reason that aircraft flight manuals show Vmc at 5degrees of bank is that the FAA limits them to that amount. If not so limited, the manufacturer would use even more bank and publish a ridiculously low Vmc. The trade off is that the more bank that you use to counter yaw, the more sideways your lift vector becomes and the more performance you LOSE.

Again, my first post was a little overdone, but I did so in an attempt to gain attention to this subject. The ERAU study showed that more accidents after an engine failure in twins were caused by lack of performance (climb) than were caused by lack of control. Yet pilot training is almost exclusively aimed at maintaining heading after an engine failure. All too many pilots attempt to maintain exact heading and in doing so they sacrific their climb/sink prevention ability. If I can access the study, I'll do so and post it.

enigma

BTW, this topic was discussed here at length a few years ago. I'll search when I have time.

 

[klingon67]

tigv now that your let everyone on this board know what kind of fool you are didnt you even read my post it had nothing to do about your friend(who obviously didnt know how to fly the plane properly) You probably have never flown the plane yourself so why dont you shut your mouth .

 

[avbug]

Avbug,
Glad I don't work for you buddy. Too many shades of grey out there. Doubt you play very well in the sandbox we call a cockpit. Nothing wrong with taking resposibility for one's own action, but you are extreme. I am not disputing the reg you quoted- just your attitude!

Don't feel too bad. Given the lack of responsibility you have displayed here, I don't think I'd permit you on board, anyway. Seems odd...you come on board my airplane, I take full responsibility for anything you do, and you don't like my attitude. There is no pleasing you.

Employers think I play extremely well in the cockpit...perhaps you might educate them to the contrary. I just came back off a drop, and the ground crews thought I played quite well for them, with them. You might give them a hollar and tell them they're all wrong.

AvBug is absolutely correct. I remember reading a story about how Captain Al Hayes burst into tears upon learning how many deaths there were in the Sioux City, Iowa. His tears were not for how many deaths the aircraft caused but for how many lives he couldn't save.

It would have been easy for him to blame the aircraft and with good reason. But he didn't.

I met with Captain Haynes and spent quite a bit of time listening to him, and talking with him. I have nothing but profound respect both for what he accomplished, and the person he is. There lies an example of a man in a crew environment with other like men of honor who understood responsibility, teamwork, and purpose. Today he doesn't cry about what a bad little airplane it was, but lauds the need for teamwork, gives open thanks for all who contributed to make the outcome as successful as it was, and takes on the full responsibility for his actions.

Many could take a lesson from that man.

 

[Tadpoles]

AVBug; I haven't operated under Part 91 for 33 years. Is it the same as 121? Hugs, Dad

 

[BoilerUP]

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.

Settle down, take some emotion out of the discussion, and reread what I posted. I'll post it again for you:

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

Did I post or insinuate anywhere that your brother didn't know WTF he was doing? No, I did not. Take a breath, remove some of the (understandable) emotion from this debate, and quit making assumptions and assuming I am blaming your brother for his death.

I truly am sorry for your tragic loss, but blaming the airplane is unprofessional until the Final Report comes out, just as blaming the pilot would be.

 

[skyking1976]

AVBug; Disregard the reply from Tadpoles. She went home. It's from me, the Dad, the Turd. Hugs, Dad

 

[skyking1976]

I just LOVE poop storms! Hugs, Dad.

 

[TIGV]

tigv now that your let everyone on this board know what kind of fool you are didnt you even read my post it had nothing to do about your friend(who obviously didnt know how to fly the plane properly) You probably have never flown the plane yourself so why dont you shut your mouth .

I called you and idiot for a reason, I also responded to your rude and ill informed PM mainly because I like to keep turd slinging off the public forums and wanted to save you a little embarassment.

Unfortunatly in addition to you being an idiot you also had the bad grace to slander me publicly so I will respond publicly.

I have over 8000 hours total, a couple of type ratings and more turbine PIC than you have total time, I have flown over 2500 hours in the MU-2 under 135.

Once again, you are not just an idiot but you crossed the moron boundary at warp 8 and gave me a good laugh, thanks man.

 

[Squanto]

MU-2 was tougher than T-38

I've got 1000 hours or so in the MU-2....and it took more concentration to fly than the T-38. You need expert (Reese Howell in MQY) training in order to be safe. Most of the time people are coming from piston twins into the MU and not getting enough real training at the onset.

I once flew into FSM and talked with a guy that flew Cobra Gunships in Vietnam, he said he was more spooked in the MU-2 than he was flying combat. That will open your eyes.

 

[FN FAL]

You guys got me thinking of the Wrightstown annual fireman's picnick...where it's not a party untill there's two more squad cars dispatched than the previous year.

Summer is not over, lets all get together and reserve a city park somewhere on the outskirts of some rural metropolis. We can grill out, drink some beers, dance, listen to some music...then after all the homer simpsons go home, we can flip picnick tables over and beat each other over the head with beer bottles.

To simply things, we'll all sign waivers not to sue each other before we can get to the tap beer?

Who's in?

 

[WNRHD17]

Wrightstown picnic? As in Wrightstown take the Hwy U exit off 41? We live about 5 miles from there

 

[avbug]

AVBug; I haven't operated under Part 91 for 33 years. Is it the same as 121? Hugs, Dad

91 is not the same as 121, though operations under 121 are still beholden to most of Part 91, as you should well know, if indeed you fly Part 121. What is the point of that question, other than to assert our experience on the one hand, and then withdraw it by asking such a ridiculous question?

You are not my dad, and I'm not a huggy touchy feely sort of person. Perhaps you folks might manage logging on independently in order that one might have some idea of whom might be speaking.

 

[FN FAL]

Wrightstown picnic? As in Wrightstown take the Hwy U exit off 41? We live about 5 miles from there

Then you know what I'm talkin bout! Hahaha...howdy neighbor!

They may have toned down the firemans picniks...but I remember not too long ago that those things turned into riots.

 

[WNRHD17]

we always clarify who is speaking if, inadvertently, happened to be logged on using someone else's name....is it really that difficult to understand? I thought we were all adults? this is simple grade school knowledge...read and comprehend.

I don't have to worry about being professional in my statements, as pilot is not my chosen career....thank goodness my career allows me to not be a, well, I think I've made enough comments for tonight....tomorrow will be another lovely Wisconsin day

howdy to you too, neighbor...we may be moving to wrightstown or somewhere nearby next spring due to my husband's employment requirements.

Reading and writing some of these posts just cracks me up sometimes. After searching for some of skyking1976's earlier posts (pre-Dad), some of the comments he'd make would purely be to get a rise out of people, which it usually did. I can understand why he did so....it's pretty humorous watching everyone get so worked up.

 

[WNRHD17]

You are not my dad, and I'm not a huggy touchy feely sort of person.

I think you're more touchy feely than you think if you felt that "Hugs, Dad" through the computer...My Dad is "THE DAD"...the universal Dad, if you will...but that's ok, I don't want to share him with you anyway. Wouldn't want to waste any of his "Dadness."

 

[ackattacker]

Personally, I have nothing but sick contempt for those who live to find blame...but if you want to lay blame in an airplane, lay it at the feet of the pilot in command.

Any pilot who doesn't accept it is a spinless fool. Dead or alive, we all know the score before we introduce fuel or spark, before we ever cross the dark tarmac and open a door, before we ever get out of bed. We know.

Knowing, and failing to accept full responsibility for loose foam, bad safety wire, thunderstorms, or two passengers far in the back who get into a fight...is cowardice and failure to uphold ones duty as PIC. In that aircraft, no authority short of God is greater than that of the PIC, and no soul can or should attempt to take away that responsibility. It's supreme, it's heavy, and it belongs on the shoulders of the PIC, pure and simple.

Avbug, I think I understand the point you are trying to make here... but you take it too far. In flight, the PIC has ultimate responsibility to ensure the safe outcome of the flight to the best of his/her ability. ALL crewmembers have responsibility to be mentally and physically prepared for mechanical failures, unforecast weather, etc. And mentally it is probably a good idea to be ready to accept responsibility even for things which are truly outside of our control. But ensuring safe outcome of the flight takes many forms. For example, what if the PIC has a medical situation and becomes confused and nonresponsive? In a crew environment, he can continue to do his job by having created an environment where the SIC feels empowered to take control. But perhaps this is a digression.

"those who live to find blame".... I also have contempt for those who live to point fingers at people other than themselves, or profit from misfortune. But it is very important to identify the factors that lead to accidents so that safety can be improved in the future. I have a lot of respect for NTSB investigators. They have a tough and thankless job, and frankly all of us probably OWE OUR LIVES to the lessons learned from past accident investigations. Much of the training we receive and regulations we follow are written in blood. You have a lot of experience, but you weren't born with aviation knowledge. Nor did you teach yourself. If you did, you wouldn't still be here. If the training you received was shoddy then you would be dead. If the airplanes you flew were designed so that the wings fell off in flight then you would be dead. If the mechanics who serviced your planes were incompetent or used shoddy parts then you would be dead. The PIC authority is not so "god-like" that a proper mental attitude can unexplode an exploded fuel tank or magically add 500 fpm to a single-engine climb rate.

In an accident, to simply say "it was pilot error" and leave it at that is a cop-out. It's the easy way out. Lay the blame at the feet of the pilot, who's already dead... so problem solved, right? No need to do any further work to ensure it doesn't happen again. If he had had the "right stuff" then everything would have been OK. This is an old-school attitude that might have been mentally necessary to strap yourself into an F104 the day after you buddy augered in, but I think we have a responsibility to do better. One of the ways we can do better is to say "if a large majority of the pilots out there can't seem to fly a F104 safely, maybe we should start looking at other factors. It's irresonsible to continue with the status quo."

Substitute MU2 for F104.

Also on the subject of PIC reponsiblity - "no authority short of God is greater than that of the PIC, and no soul can or should attempt to take away that responsibility. It's supreme, it's heavy, and it belongs on the shoulders of the PIC, pure and simple."

Well in 121 I share many responsibilities. The dispatcher has a joint responsibility that is clearly codified in regulation. And the safety of the flight relies on the professionalism and compentence of a great many people. A short list:

Aircraft designers
Aircraft builders
Mechanics
Fuelers
TSA
Dispatchers
Weather forecasters
ATC
Flight Attendants
Baggage handlers
SIC

and lets not forget the training department. Experience has shown that in an emergency the pilot will perform within the confines of his/her training. I don't care how "god-like" you are.

 

[350DRIVER]

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

Again, you have failed to point out what was asked, nice out though. Pegged on what?. It is much wiser to keep emotion out when trying or in your case "attempting" to prove a point. Avbug is full of experience whether you like him or not, somewhat of a known fact, do you know him?. I kind of thought so. I can understand the emotion from the loss of human life that these families are experiencing present day but to jump on a bandwagon to condemn one specific aircraft?. A 152 can kill someone just as easily as the deuce. The MU-2 is not going away anytime soon, whether you like it or not.