Deathtrap MU-2 BANNED

[A Squared]

heheh, not really, I'm just stirring the pot.


http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/717-full.html#193170

Congressman Wants MU-2 Banned

A Denver television station says Colorado Democratic Rep. Tom Tancredo plans to introduce a bill that would ban the Mitsubishi MU-2 from U.S. airspace until the FAA does a full safety review of the aircraft. Tancredo has also written the president suggesting that FAA Administrator Marion Blakey and NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker be fired over their "failure to act responsibly for hundreds of deaths." Tancredo became interested in the MU-2 after back-to-back crashes of the speedy twin at Centennial Airport, which is in his district. Two crashes in Florida in recent weeks prompted his latest tirade. In December 2005, the FAA performed a safety review of the aircraft, and earlier this year, the FAA said it would require enhanced training for MU-2 pilots but stopped short of requiring a type rating. A Mitsubishi official says the extra training will help. "We've seen overseas, when these training programs go into effect, the accident rates plummet," Scott Sobel told the Walton Sun. Sobel was commenting to reporters about a crash near DeFuniak Springs, Fla., which killed pilot Hardy "Buddy" Head, who family and friends say was a very experienced MU-2 pilot who had trained others on the airplane for Mitsubishi. His daughter, Alexus Purdy, told the Sun that no one in her family believes pilot error caused the crash. Sobel insisted the aircraft is safe but its widespread use as a cargo hauler might be increasing its accident rate because, according to the paper, "cargo pilots have a tendency to fly when they're tired -- at night or in bad weather."

Discuss........

 

[The_Russian]

They should at least apply aircraft specific training of some form (REQ) to the MU2!

 

[Fearless Tower]

My low-time thoughts are:

From everything I've ever read about the MU-2, it certainly seems like a widow maker....basically it sounds like an airplane that is very Japanese in that it is fine as long as everything is going as planned, but as soon as something happens out of the ordinary (like losing an engine), all hell breaks loose.

Now, every time I see an MU-2 on the ground or in the air, I wonder....who in their right mind would purchase such an airplane when there are so many alternatives???

I also wonder about the role of insurance companies in this whole situation. If the airplane is truly as dangerous as what we read, why do insurance companies still underwrite the thing? It would seem that if the accident rate is as bad as we think it is, that no one in their right mind would be able to afford to insure the bloody thing. In theory, the market should control itself.....but it hasn't. What gives?

 

[TimsKeeper]

have patience, the truth will come.....

All will be clear when you are >100!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WabiSabi]

It would seem that if the accident rate is as bad as we think it is, that no one in their right mind would be able to afford to insure the bloody thing. In theory, the market should control itself.....but it hasn't. What gives?

The idea of a purely "free market", like communism, only works in theory. History has shown that market forces alone cannot regulate or control itself. It must be regulated by government.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

All will be clear when you are >100!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wonderfull response! Arogance and totally thought free!
Well done!!

CE

 

[Learsforsale]

There is a very good write up about the MU-2 in this month's Twin & Turbine magazine. It talks a lot about how if you try and use light piston twin engine-out procedures in an MU-2, things can get real bad real fast.

I have sat right seat on a couple of MU-2 rides, and it was an absolute blast. But the one thing that amazed me was the fact that someone with a brand spankin' new multi ticket (me at the time) can just hop into the left seat and fly that beast.

 

[Rally]

Most of my right mind tells me that the MU-2 requires alternative procedures then any other twin engine aircraft when the ***t hits the fan.

The other side of mind says that maybe there is something wierd happening that we don't know about? There just seems to be way to many wierd crashes because of a simple engine failure. Many of these people did this EVERY day probably practiced it MANY times yes still a somewhat routine emergency causes the airplane to go out of control from even recoverable altitudes. I'm not saying its not a safe airplane, I don't know however maybe, just maybe the current training does'nt plan for the worst case scenerio.

 

[wrxpilot]

Here's an interesting article about the MU-2:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:42BXTOifwU4J:www.northernjetsales.com/mu2_news.htm+saab+business+aircraft+preview+centennial&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10

 

[sidesaddle]

My 2 cents is that Mitsubishi officials should not use the word "accident" and "plummet" in the same sentence when discussing the MU-2, although I imagine it is hard not to.

 

[CSY Mon]

cargo pilots have a tendency to fly when they're tired -- at night or in bad weather."

Yup, they got that one right: Seems all my flying is at night and in bad weather, Freightdoggiestyle tired.

 

[Fearless Tower]

But the one thing that amazed me was the fact that someone with a brand spankin' new multi ticket (me at the time) can just hop into the left seat and fly that beast.

That's exactly what I don't understand about insurance companies and the MU-2. Look at a plane like the Beech 18. The average pilot these days would have a hell of a time finding any company to insure the thing. If a guy like me (assuming I was multi) wanted to buy a BE18 and called up my insurance company, they'd probably hang up the phone laughing at me thinking it was a joke (I can't say that I would blame them). If someone with 1000-2000 hours and say 500 tailwheel called them, they'd probably tell them 'sorry, but we just can't insure you.' If a pilot with say 5000 hours and 1000 tailwheel calls 'em, they'll probably be able to get the insurance, but they best have DEEP pockets.

So why does it seem like they'll let just anybody with a wet ticket fly the MU-2? I agree that the free market doesn't always govern itself properly, but in this case it seems like the insurance companies must be taking a huge risk to insure these things.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

The article recomends a crack maintenance team, top notch training,
and sharp pilots. Will you find these in the cargo industry? You may
find one, MABIE 2 at a time. The MU-2 requires the pilot to be on the
top of his/her game 24/7.

Also, haven't there been a couple of wing seperation in the past year?

25% of the fleet has been in an accident.

Is it a good plane? I can be in its own way.

From a liability standpoint, Would I want it in my fleet?
Hell no!

When is someone going to put a couple of Williams jets on this thing?!
If it flys like a jet, why not MAKE it a jet.

CE

Just sayin'

 

[Swass]

The article recomends a crack maintenance team, top notch training,
and sharp pilots. Will you find these in the cargo industry? You may
find one, MABIE 2 at a time. The MU-2 requires the pilot to be on the
top of his/her game 24/7.

Also, haven't there been a couple of wing seperation in the past year?

25% of the fleet has been in an accident.

Is it a good plane? I can be in its own way.

From a liability standpoint, Would I want it in my fleet?
Hell no!

When is someone going to put a couple of Williams jets on this thing?!
If it flys like a jet, why not MAKE it a jet.

CE

Just sayin'

Very interesting idea about the jets, it would make a hella cool VLJ.

I was riding passenger in an MU2B at altitude in clear air and had a very loud bang and considerable shuddering. It was only momentary (2-3 seconds) but it felt alot longer. The pilots had no idea what it was, I thought we canned an engine at first but that was not it, no damage to the fuselage, leading edges or anything found. It was a weird experience to say the least. I had the chance to own one but chose the Conquest instead. Very quarky aircraft, those MU2's

 

[Lead Sled]

heheh, not really, I'm just stirring the pot.


http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/717-full.html#193170






Discuss........

What would this be... the 3rd or 4th certification review? The airplane has shown that it meets the certification requirements. It's not the airplane, it's the half-trained pilots flying them. What MU-2 pilots need is adequate and proper training. (Something that can be shown to be missing in the vast majority of MU-2 accidents.)

LS

 

[siucavflight]

The MU-2 seems fine to me, just pilots that are not trained properly.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

Oh, and a jet conversion would be easier since there would be no
sudden loss of induced lift (from the prop wash) from an engine
failure.

I haven't really researched the structural requirement yet.

It'd look like a mini-328Jet!!

CE

 

[agpilot34]

The MU-2 seems fine to me, just pilots that are not trained properly.

And... you've flown HOW MANY hours in the MU-2 to substantiate this claim??

 

[Lead Sled]

The MU-2 seems fine to me, just pilots that are not trained properly.

And... you've flown HOW MANY hours in the MU-2 to substantiate this claim??

I'll second his claim. It's been my contention since 1986 when I first flew the MU-2. It's what they told us back then at FlightSafety and it's what they're telling us now. Oh by the way, I don't have as much MU-2 time as many MU-2 guys lurking around here, but I do have 1,000 hours in it - single-pilot, air ambulance; 98% of it at night and in the mountains.

LS

 

[siucavflight]

And... you've flown HOW MANY hours in the MU-2 to substantiate this claim??

About 800 hrs, is that enough?