Another MU2 down...

[Peanut gallery]

So now what to do

The motivation to prevent this from happening to some other family is honest and healthy. Two accidents in 8 months is unacceptable. I personally do not blame a specific airplane type, but rather the process that led up to this accident trend.

I think Avbug is right on with what he is saying, his style is a little head on for me, but he said it himself he is not a touchy feelly type of guy.

In the process of improvement of our buisiness, common sense seems to reap the highest rewards. So taking what Avbug is saying, which I will take the liberty of incorporating into my style " How do we make a change in this particular company and 135 perhaps that makes sure the tools are placed in the hands of the employees to live up to Corporate values, PIC values, Mx values, that would negate some of the risk and ensure that our loved ones return after each flight "?

I would have to say that unless several changes were made after the first accident then chances are the avenue for change would be through regulating agencies.

So, what would I do?

I would get an attorney then I would have him draft a letter to the head of the Rocky Mountain Region FAA that supervises the Denver FSDO. I would express my concern regarding what appears to have become a trend in one their operators. I would ask very specific questions about what has been done to address the problem. Here is my shopping list:

1. Why did the engine fail, has there been an audit of the mx procedures and operating procedures that complies with all aspects of the 331, Mx procedures manual/ flight manual.

2. Has there been verification and checks that those procedures are in place and functioning.

3. Does the operators training manual barely meet the requirements of 8400.10 or does it go above and beyond to address the specific areas of concern.

4. Is the operators training curriculum a cut and paste generic turboprop curriculum or does it go into the specific areas of concern that have been generated by other training organizations that specializes in this specific aircraft.

5. Has the POI adequately observed operations and training and more specifically the product of that training.

6. Has the POI requested adequate changes to that program to increase the quality of the product of training.

7. Has the POI made an adequate review that accident history both for this company and aircraft have been incorporated into specific areas of interest in the curriculum segments.

8. Is there a safety audit procedure in place that ensures adequate change will take place prior to an actual incident through the process of self critique and employee recommendation.

9. Are there adequate staffing levels both at the FSDO and carrier to ensure that the proper process of training, checking is performed in such a way that the actual intent of the training is accomplished to a level of proficency commesurate with the intent of 135, 91.

This is where I would start if I felt that enough was enough. Answer these questions and several more that I am sure you could come with and then I think myself and a bunch of other folks could be happy with the improvement of our business of flying.

 

[Tadpoles]

sounds like it's a good time to let Denverdude take my place...you guys have been some wise, professional sounding people. I know you'll all succeed well in your careers. And just if these petitions, etc. goes through the FAA's tight a$$, I am sure all you MU-2 pilots will gets jobs right away with other companies. Good luck!!!!!


In One Ear And Out The Other
Don't You Get Criss-Crossed
I Recommend You Try A Little...
Mental Floss

 

[Flyin Tony]

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

 

[Xav8tor]

I for one am appalled at the insensitivity of some responses on this thread and just as befuddled at how many pilots are placing the entire burden of not only this accident, but ANY accident, on the PIC. The typical reaction I’ve seen post-accident from fellow pilots (and the unions without exception) is a concerted effort to blame anything and anyone BUT the pilots, even though we know historically about 80% of all accidents involve an element of pilot error. However, the trend, at least in scheduled operations, seems to be changing. A large number of relatively recent major crashes have in fact been caused primarily by factors other than pilot error.



Planes do fail and it is not always the pilot’s fault. He or she may not be in a position to effectively “deal with it” due to a manufacturer’s failure to warn, a failure to properly train, or, the aircraft might have been rendered completely unflyable because of a catastrophic system/structural failure. There may be a defect in the design itself or in the manufacturing process. For a classic example, think Comet. In the past few years, I’ve been involved in a number of major crash investigations in which pilot action was only a small part of the equation, if at all: US 427, US 5481, AS 261 are a few. UA 232 has also been mentioned. Capt. Haynes of course might understandably wish everyone had survived, but if you think he takes all of the blame for the accident and its outcome, you are mistaken. Some might say he and the other cockpit crewmembers simply did what they were paid to do, but in my book, they went far beyond that. They certainly had not practiced their situation in the sim. What if MacDoug knew, years before the accident, that an uncontained failure of #2 would very likely lead to a loss of all major flight controls and they consciously decided not to address the hazard? Is that not acceptance of the risk by the manufacturer? Should they not be held accountable? Of course. They EXPECT to be held liable in such a situation and account for it. The manufacturer in that type of case assumes the risk of the accident occurring and the resulting liability. The occupants of the aircraft, whether pilots or passengers, do not. To suggest otherwise is both absurd and contrary to law.



There are undeniable indications that the MU-2 carries an atypical operating risk under certain conditions. Adequate management of the risk may entail anything from a simple one line warning placard to extensive scenario specific training, perhaps a type rating requirement, on up to major design changes, and maybe (in very rare situations), grounding of a fleet. Were it not for the extreme economic hardship that would have occurred throughout the whole country, not just the airlines, the entire early series 73’s would have been (temporarily) grounded after US 427. There were some high up in the DC food chain that wanted to do so regardless of the consequences. Look at what the USMC did with the Osprey. Personally, I think there is a problem, or problems, with the MU-2 and I do not believe they have been adequately addressed. Otherwise, the accident history would be substantially different than what it is.



Exactly what needs to be done remains to this day unanswered, but I guarantee you the anticipated NTSB final report will not be the end of the story. It never is. There are both political and economic reasons for that. If you think that the FAA or NTSB can or will step in and FULLY address this, or similar situations, you’d be wrong, far more often than not. As noted above, the wheels (props) must keep on turning for the greater good of the nation. The individuals wronged are often left out in the cold. They must instead rely upon our civil justice system. This can be good for aviation safety too, if for no other reason than the fact that the concept of legal cause is much broader than the technical (probable) cause. In addition, their individual power to cause a change may actually be more effective than government action in improving safety. Regulation can only go so far. Finally, a truly comprehensive investigation to unearth all contributing factors takes much more time and money than the NTSB has to spend, especially on general aviation/135 accidents (unless of course one or more victims was powerful and/or famous).



I get the impression that a significant number of posters feel like the families of crash victims have some sort of objectionable agenda. There are people (including aviation attorneys) who are not only seeking just compensation for their (client’s) loss, but honestly want to try to prevent the same accident from ever happening again. The surviving families of crash victims receive monetary compensation for their loss because that is the only method we have. 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. This may explain to some extent the apparent disdain pilots have for post-accident litigants, and their defense of each other, or even their “rides.” It may also be a reason that, as a group, pilots (and virtually anyone professionally active in aviation) fail to understand that there is a monumental difference between JUST compensation for the family of an air crash victim and the aim of too many frivolous suits admittedly filed in the past that we have all heard about. I too detest the latter. I despise even mere suggestions that ignore where obvious fault may lie (e.g., the it is always the PIC and no one else line).



While it is true enough that pilots more often than not bear some/most of the blame, there is almost always something else, some additional factor, without which the accident would not have occurred. Shouldn’t ALL possible causes be considered, if not for the purpose of assigning blame, then in the interest of preventing, or at least reducing the risk of, a reoccurrence? Many times I have steadfastly refused to pursue theories of liability against aircraft builders, or any other potential party, including pilots. There must be something far more substantial than the bare possibility that someone, or something, played a role in bringing a plane down. The assertion of fault must be made in good faith with a reasonable basis. A finding of actual liability requires that one carry a heavy burden of proof. Even if that burden is carried, there are very specific limits on how much can be received in damages and sometimes severe limits on the types of damage that are compensable.



Before someone starts up with the greedy lawyer argument, allow me to say that I am personally familiar with virtually every single major aviation attorney/law firm in the USA. With the rarest of exceptions, I don’t know anyone who has “gotten rich” litigating plane crashes (especially GA and 135 cases). Air crash cases are long and arduous. The days of large contingency fees have gone the way of airline pilot salaries (i.e., down, in most cases, way down). A number of these aviation lawyers, their associates and consultants, are themselves ex-airline and former military pilots, or once worked as engineers for the manufacturers, and so on. An even larger number of them have a GA background as well, including everything from J-3’s to jets. The best, most successful of the lot do what they do because they believe in what they are doing. They should. Many of the aircraft design and ops procedure changes that make flying as safe as it now is were made in response to the investigations related to crash litigation, not an NTSB recommendation or FAA initiative. Every time you and I board an airplane, we are safer because of it – like it or not.



I sincerely hope that the families of those who needlessly died in these most recent MU-2 crashes sought and obtained adequate representation. They deserve compensation for their loss, closure, and certainly, more sympathy than that exhibited by those who would blindly defend a tarnished heap of metal over the life of a human being. Boards such as this one can be valuable sources of information, but I have to agree that the sort of answers sought will probably not be found here. Furthermore, certain types of posts may be harmful to the families, not just those replies directed at them, but potentially those made by them – if they intend to pursue legal action. However, there is a way for these post-accident threads to be productive for the aviation community as a whole. Generally speaking, the free exchange of ideas without fear of retaliation, coupled with thoughtful analysis, hazard identification and proposed solutions, is indeed one of the most effective methods known to improve aviation safety.

 

[DenverDude2002]

It doesnt matter about how inexperienced the pilot was, just look at the statistics at the MU-2. There is a definite pattern, you dont see 172s going down at the rates MU-2s are. The 172 doesnt comapre to the MU-2, a 172 is a trainer and the MU-2 is a high performance plane with a horrible design thats not pilot friendly in engine out ops. The fact is there is a major issue with the MU-2 that the FAA is to ignorant to do anything about. If it was a Kingair or Learjet they would be going head over heels grounding them right and left until the issue was resolved.There is a reason why insurance costs are so high and the reason they can only be insured to carry freight. Yes Im not denying some of the MU-2 crashes we're due to inexperienced pilots, but I get if you look closer Im recall noticing more than one crash had some exeperienced flight crew as well. Not everything can be blamed on pilot error. I dont see anyone blaming the pilots lack of experience for US Air flight 427 or the United 737 that crashed in Colorado Springs. And I have no doubt that the crash involving skyking was not pilot error, rather a design flaw which has caused so many of the MU-2 crashes. From the few times I talked to him on AIM he sounded like a very competent pilot who knew what he was doing, and i have no doubt that if it had been a better designed aircraft he would have been able to bring it down safely.

 

[Flyin Tony]

The 172 doesnt become an unstable uncontrollable brick if it losses an engine like the MU-2 does

If its soooo unstable like you say then why are there pilots that do get it on the ground when a engine fails? And how do you know its a unstable brick when a engine takes a dump? Ever had it happen? The one I get to fly around in is a bada$$ plane. I know they did a few things to the engines and had to go up with the FAA and shutdown the left engine. Now did it fall out of the sky? NO its still flying. The guy that owns it showed me a few pics they took. Put 2 turns of rudder trim in and it did just fine.

 

[ACT700]

All right, I said I wouldn't post anymore on this thread, but, I couldn't help myself.

You guys are so quick to criticize "the company"! And then skyking1976 has the nerve to rag on corpflunkie for stating facts!

None of you know the details of any of the investigations--you have no clue, you just guess, and speculate.

These pretzels are making me thirsty!!!!

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!

Posting on flightinfo sucks, since the goddamn moderators censor your $hit!!!

Go W admin!!!

Screw you guys, I going home.

 

[DenverDude2002]

Hmm found a good article with some good quotes, here they are:

"The BWI crash marked the 184th MU-2 accident in the United States over the last 38 years. The latest crash brought the number of fatal accidents to 77, in which 246 pilots and passengers have been killed, according to the National Transportation Safety Board"

"Sanger compared the accident rate of the MU-2 to the Beech Super King Air 200, another twin-turboprop of comparable size, in terms of accidents per 100,000 hours flown. By this measure, the MU-2 accident rate over a 38 year period, 1964-2002, is nearly five times higher than the King Air, and about seven times higher in terms of fatal accidents."

Accident Rates Compared 1964-2002 Accidents per 100,000 flight hours
Airplane Overall accident rate Fatal accident rate
MU-2 4.62 1.95
King Air 200 0.97 0.26

 

[GravityHater]

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."

 

[Flyin Tony]

Screw you guys, I going home.

WoW that was from the heart too!

 

[DenverDude2002]

I think the deceased pilots would not have an issue if it could prevent further lives from being taken. Yes you know the risks when you go flying but if something can be avoided then do something about it. I know the risk everything i go on the road driving, but yet i have to wear a seatbelt? why? because people who lost family members and close ones who died because they werent wearing one pushed for it to be a law so other people wouldnt have to go through the same pain of loosing someone.

 

[semperfido]

23 years ago I spent 3 years flying an MU2 exclusively. We went to FSI every six months and took it to Garrett in Springfield, IL for Mx regularly.
With the luxury of hindsight I would say that this acft has too many shortcomings to make it a good choice when deciding on a job or an acft. It is as has been described here. There are other alternatives. It isn't a plane I would defend the way some have always been compelled to do. Some things never change. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. The MU2 is one noisy duck.

 

[avbug]

"Sanger compared the accident rate of the MU-2 to the Beech Super King Air 200, another twin-turboprop of comparable size, in terms of accidents per 100,000 hours flown. By this measure, the MU-2 accident rate over a 38 year period, 1964-2002, is nearly five times higher than the King Air, and about seven times higher in terms of fatal accidents."

One can make statistics paint anything you want to see if one uses such a ridiculous comparison as shown above. Compare the MU-2 to the King Air? Apples to Mangoes. Such ridiculous comparisons only cloud the issue, when meaningful discussion could take place...if one is going to make such comparisons, then compare the experience, training, background of each pilot involved, too. Compare the type of mission, conditions of occurence, etc.

In my line of work, we see a very high fatality rate for the number of pilots involved, and the number of aircraft, and hours flown. Does that mean the aircraft are unsafe? No. It happens to be the mission. One could bend the statistics to make any point appear valid, but it still doesn't make it the truth.

 

[TIGV]

AAAh...America....Blame someone...everyone else, it's the only way !
An entire structure of law is based on this premise !

" My Mcdonalds coffee was too hot and I burned the sh!t out of my crotch, gimme my money"

Hmm frying the heck out of that particular crotch was nature's application of survival of the fittest in that case, but hey...they won the lawsuit !
Now I gotta have a label telling me my coffee is hot, no-one cares if I roast myself on some Miccy -D's coffee now, cos you know what? If I do, then hey, I shoulda read the frickin label !!!!

These forums are really something, just when I thought the only good thing about aviation were the cool cats involved in it I am proved wrong.

No, not just a little bit, I am appalled that for 15 plus years I have been so blind to that, fooled myself into believing I was part of something unique, special, part of an elite.....I've upheld that belief, hugged it to my chest, dedicated my life...sacrificed EVERYTHING !!! Except myself, in the endless quest for the perfection and steel exemplified by those who blazed their way through the infancy of aviation to today.

Know what? It's gone........ The bubble has burst, how I feel about what I read here and what I see breaking through my wall of denial one brick at a time on a daily basis is depressing beyond measure.

Some guy with 56 hours feels he actually has something of value to add ??

Some other guy with 3000 hours post insults, the list goes on and on.

I mean we're almost to the point where the forums need to be locked with access granted to only those for whom a particular thread holds some relevance.

Ya know....I think I'm just going get out, I'll leave it to the silver spooners like, oh yeah, Klingon-whatever to pick up the torch and ride it into the ground at 300 plus knots because he and a bunch of other posters here are part of the clueless, won't take responsibility for anything, have had everything handed to them, wave of the future.

Yep, I'm drunk..the numbness feels good and I pity the pax of tomorrow....unless......they automate the idiots I have seen here right out of commercial aviation.

Post away.......

 

[Xav8tor]

GH, Your guess and last wishes would, based upon my experience, be in the company of a very small minority. This is one of those situations that actually is one you cannot "feel" until you've been there, or at least close.

If someone other than you (OPS, Mx, ATC, another A/C, the manufacturer) caused the accident, my belief, and actual knowledge, is that you would more likely be hoping your family would be compensated for their loss. The post accident "restrictions" you fear are not put in place without merit. They are there to protect you from yourself and others. They are one of the reasons aviation is the safest mode of transportation there is...period. It wasn't always that way. Tombstone regulation does stink, but only because it is usually too little, too late.

You ignore the fact that after you are gone, while a component of the compensation might be for your pain and suffering, more is for your family. If you think insurance or workers comp has the bases covered for your survivors, especially at the regional level and below, much less night freight, think again.

I've met dozens and dozens of people who lost their loved ones in crashes. Some were the families of the crew. I've also known people, including pilots, some 121 pilots at that, who survived serious crashes...ones where they did not think they would live to tell about. Not a single one felt all "mushy" about their choice, or their loved one's choice, to fly. When the cause was not pilot error, not a single one said they accepted the risk. Just the opposite. When the grieving process is over, they want to be compensated for their pain, suffering, physical, psychological, and emotional damages which may get worse, not better with the passage of time. The ones I really admire are those who want to prevent the same thing from happening to someone else. That is something to be proud of.

Taking responsibility for something you had no hand in is false pride at best. You cannot agree to the unknown. Most pilots I've flown with all have at least one instance they can recall where something occurred in flight beyond their control, that, had they known it was going to happen, they never would have left the ground. In other words, they did NOT assume the risk. I may leave the ground knowing an engine could sling a blade that slices right through me, but you can bet the overhaul shop that skipped the inspection is going to be hearing from somebody about it, and they will pay my dear widow dearly.

The assumption of PIC responsibilities does not mean giving everyone else whose actions touch and concern the safety of your aircraft a license to kill.


PS- I was waiting for someone to bring up the McD hot coffee case. The media has created more misconceptions about that case than they do each time they open their collective mouths to speak about an airplane.