Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Another MU2 problem in Canada?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

ACT700

What's it doing now?
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Posts
280
I just heard that an MU2 with 2 people on board went down in northern Canada.

This is totally unconfirmed; I haven't seen anything online/news yet.

Just wondering if anybody knows if this is true, and/or what happened?

Thanks.
 
Thanks for the info Bongo.

That is very sad, condolences to the people involved.

Unfortunatlely, the last 5 or so MU2 crashes have been flown by professional crews.
 
ACT700 said:
Unfortunatlely, the last 5 or so MU2 crashes have been flown by professional crews.

:confused: Soooooo, if these aircraft had been flown by non-professional crews, the five accidents would be okay?

No big deal, just reminds me of reporters, when they say something like: "Today a KAL 747 crashed killing all 497 on board. "Unfortunately, 2 were Americans."
 
I'm pretty sure the Japenese sent the MU-2's to the US as revenge for Hiroshima. Take us out a little at a time.

God speed to the pilots & pax.
 
GoingHot said:
:confused: Soooooo, if these aircraft had been flown by non-professional crews, the five accidents would be okay?

No big deal, just reminds me of reporters, when they say something like: "Today a KAL 747 crashed killing all 497 on board. "Unfortunately, 2 were Americans."


No, you tool!


Obviously you are completely uninformed about what has been going on with the entire MU2 accident situation over the past year +.
 
ACT700 said:
No, you tool!


Obviously you are completely uninformed about what has been going on with the entire MU2 accident situation over the past year +.

You might want to switch to decaf. I didn't mean to get your panties in a wad, and I didn't mean to make light of a serious matter. And yes I am very aware of the MU2 accident situation. The first MU2 accident report I read was in 1976, (crash in NY) and I have read every one since. Like others, I'm concerned, because most of these aircraft ARE flown by well-trained professional pilots with thousands of hours. It's certainly not anything like the Malibu situation many years ago, (believe it or not, I heard some fool make that comparison).

And yes I know some pilots on this board are a little sensitive, (no matter what the subject). Sorry ACT, I'll try to respect your MU2 sensitivity.
 
Act700

Please do us a favor and bring us up to date with the MU2, I know the FAA wanted to make you get a type rating years back, angle of attack indicators at one point in time, then de-icing recertification. What has happened in the last seven years?:confused:
 
There were many ideas being thrown around at the recent meeting between FAA and MU-2 operators held at Washington, DC. They ranged from requiring SIC to implementing a type rating. From what I heard, requiring a type specific training and endorsement (similar to R-22/44) seems to be the most likely outcome. There will be more meetings in the future and it will be awhile before we see anything new, if any, in place.
 
Say Again Over said:
Please do us a favor and bring us up to date with the MU2, I know the FAA wanted to make you get a type rating years back, angle of attack indicators at one point in time, then de-icing recertification. What has happened in the last seven years?:confused:

aerodromebum is correct, for the most part.

Most likely a "type endorsement" will be required. In house training is history-it will have to be conducted at a manufacturer approved school, ie. SimCom or Howell Enterprises. (I doubt anyone else will want to pick up MU2 training).

The SIC thing, I believe, will be required when no autopilot; meaning, either an autopilot or an SIC will be required, irregardless of type of operation. For now, you do not need an autopilot for single pilot freight ops, which pretty much all of us full time drivers think is "crap"!

Again, these and other ideas were all tossed around at the (first) FAA/MU2 Operator meeting in DC a short while back.
Nothing is final as of yet, and I'm sure there will be more additions/changes; especially in light of the recent accident.
I think all, or most, of us line pilots think these ideas are very good ones.

My earlier remark reference crashes-pro pilot flown, was meant that, up until now, it was rich folks buying a very high performance aircraft and then killing themselves in it.
So the freight operators were arguing, "that those guys are giving us a bad rep, since our, profesionally operated airplanes aren't involved"--boy did we prove that statement wrong.

Either way, I still think the Deuce is a great airplane, however, these accidents need to be dealt with, somehow!? I don't know,..., how do you make airplanes stop crashing???

Just my view of what's happening.
 
GoingHot said:
You might want to switch to decaf. I didn't mean to get your panties in a wad, and I didn't mean to make light of a serious matter. And yes I am very aware of the MU2 accident situation. The first MU2 accident report I read was in 1976, (crash in NY) and I have read every one since. Like others, I'm concerned, because most of these aircraft ARE flown by well-trained professional pilots with thousands of hours. It's certainly not anything like the Malibu situation many years ago, (believe it or not, I heard some fool make that comparison).

And yes I know some pilots on this board are a little sensitive, (no matter what the subject). Sorry ACT, I'll try to respect your MU2 sensitivity.



I hate coffee, and I don't wear panties with my skirt. Sorry for the tool ref.

I think, maybe, the NTSB needs to change their approach as to how they investigate these accidents. Maybe pilot error isn't good enough on this issue.
If you read the finals on alot of these accidents, they're clear as mud, in my opinion.
 
ACT700 said:
aerodromebum is correct, for the most part.

Most likely a "type endorsement" will be required. In house training is history-it will have to be conducted at a manufacturer approved school, ie. SimCom or Howell Enterprises. (I doubt anyone else will want to pick up MU2 training).

The SIC thing, I believe, will be required when no autopilot; meaning, either an autopilot or an SIC will be required, irregardless of type of operation. For now, you do not need an autopilot for single pilot freight ops, which pretty much all of us full time drivers think is "crap"!

Again, these and other ideas were all tossed around at the (first) FAA/MU2 Operator meeting in DC a short while back.
Nothing is final as of yet, and I'm sure there will be more additions/changes; especially in light of the recent accident.
I think all, or most, of us line pilots think these ideas are very good ones.

My earlier remark reference crashes-pro pilot flown, was meant that, up until now, it was rich folks buying a very high performance aircraft and then killing themselves in it.
So the freight operators were arguing, "that those guys are giving us a bad rep, since our, profesionally operated airplanes aren't involved"--boy did we prove that statement wrong.

Either way, I still think the Deuce is a great airplane, however, these accidents need to be dealt with, somehow!? I don't know,..., how do you make airplanes stop crashing???

Just my view of what's happening.



In-house training SHOULD be history when it comes to an airplane like MU-2.

I, too, think that MU-2 is a great airplane. Especially in rough weather. I'd much rather be in an MU-2 than in, say, a King Air when flying through something like a Nor'easter. This thing is built like a tank!

I'm not sold on the idea of SIC. A competent, properly trained pilot can handle an MU-2 with relative ease. However, autopilot is a great asset and is almost a necessity when the WX is crappy. Maybe autopilot should not be an MELable item in an MU-2. And if I had my way, I'd like to see all MU-2 autopilots to be SPZ-500's. The M-4's sometimes are more trouble than they're worth!

And on the topic of professional crews being involved in many MU-2 accidents, I wonder if that's the case BECAUSE they were professional crews. Those of us who fly for a living full time knows how routine things can get and sometimes we get into the mindset of "just kick the tires and light the fires and go". I'm certainly guilty of that just as all of us are. And as we all know, complacency can and do kill!
 
Last edited:
aerodromebum said:
Especially in rough weather. I'd much rather be in an MU-2 than in, say, a King Air when flying through something like a Nor'easter. This thing is built like a tank!



I second that.



Maybe autopilot should not be an MELable item in an MU-2. And if I had my way, I'd like to see all MU-2 autopilots to be SPZ-500's. The M-4's sometimes are more trouble than they're worth!



It is invaluable, when you're doing five-seven legs, on the backside of the clock, with an approach at each end!



And on the topic of professional crews being involved in many MU-2 accidents, I wonder if that's the case BECAUSE they were professional crews. Those of us who fly for a living full time knows how routine things can get and sometimes we get into the mindset of "just kick the tires and light the fires and go". I'm certainly guilty of that just as all of us are. And as we all know, complacency can and do kill!


All I'm trying to say is, that until about a year ago it was, "the weekend flyers vs. the guys who do it for a living".
I am not saying that that is relevant or true in any form, shape, or way.
 
Looking back, my opinion is this aircraft needs a good autopilot, not too many MU2's I've flown had a real good autopilot, servos all shot, owner can't afford to fix, otherwise the airplane is bullet proof.:beer:
 
Say Again Over said:
Looking back, my opinion is this aircraft needs a good autopilot, not too many MU2's I've flown had a real good autopilot, servos all shot, owner can't afford to fix, otherwise the airplane is bullet proof.:beer:



The SPZ-500's are about as good as anything else out there. I've never had any trouble with one so far. The M-4's, however, are completely different story. Half of the time those things never work 100% right. Also not too many shops know how to work on one these days.
 
Knob said:
I'm pretty sure the Japenese sent the MU-2's to the US as revenge for Hiroshima. Take us out a little at a time.

God speed to the pilots & pax.

Good thing is that the aircraft themselves are going out one by one as well. I'll rest easy when ALL MU-2's are finally out of the sky. (no flaming intended, just my opinion)

My thoughts are with the families.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top