• This site moved from forums.flightinfo.com to flightinfo.com. Please update your bookmarks.

MU-2 Study

ClassG

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
210
Total Time
1.5K+
Found this on AvFlash:

CONGRESSMEN PUSH FAA TO EVALUATE MU-2
The FAA has agreed to evaluate the safety of the Mitsubishi MU-2B-60 twin turboprop, after several members of Congress from Colorado asked for the airplane to be grounded. Two MU-2s have crashed in Colorado in the last year, killing three people. The FAA will not ground the aircraft, but will examine its record and check operational procedures and pilot training, The Washington Times reported on Thursday. Further, the FAA "won't hesitate to do that [ground the fleet] if we have the data to support it," FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette told the Times. Mitsubishi disputes claims that the aircraft is unsafe, the Times said.




Guess somebody got their wish.

ClassG
 

MDAutry

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Posts
100
Total Time
750
In Smyrna, TN. (KMQY) there is an incredeible MU-2 Training facility "Howell Enterprises Inc." If Mr. Howell Trains you, you will be one of the best MU-2 Pilots in the world. There is nothing wrong with the MU-2... Much respect to all those involved in the accidents with this craft. However, the pilots who are not bad people or bad pilots are almost always insufficiently trained for the systems of an incredibly unique and fast aircraft.

Check Out:

http://www.mu2b.com
 

4MyBro

New member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Posts
4
My brother trained at Howell on the MU-2.

And as a matter of fact, according to his employer and fellow pilots he was not simply "one of the best MU-2 pilots," he was THE best they had.

He's dead now. Died in an MU-2 crash last year.

Oh, and Reece Howell even came to his memorial service.
 

PolarTwins55

Heart Attack Hall
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Posts
100
Total Time
14:59
please excuse my ignorance, but what is so inherently dangerous about the MU-2? I have a limited understanding of it, other than it's a 2 engined turboprob that i believe only used spoiler(ons?) for roll control.
 

minitour

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Posts
3,249
PolarTwins55 said:
please excuse my ignorance, but what is so inherently dangerous about the MU-2? I have a limited understanding of it, other than it's a 2 engined turboprob that i believe only used spoiler(ons?) for roll control.
Pretty short distance from the CG to the rudder too, no? Sh*tty SE rudder performance/help?

No experience...just an observation/slightly educated guess.

-mini
 

VNugget

suck squeeze bang blow
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Posts
809
Total Time
1700
PolarTwins55 said:
please excuse my ignorance, but what is so inherently dangerous about the MU-2? I have a limited understanding of it, other than it's a 2 engined turboprob that i believe only used spoiler(ons?) for roll control.
http://www.mu2b.com/overview.htm
 

wolf

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Posts
17
Total Time
:)
4MYBRO,

How many hours did he have in the MU2 and what had he flown previously?
 

GIVDrvr

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Posts
166
Total Time
10000+
I flew extensively with 4mybro's brother. He was an excellent pilot. He was proficient in the MU2 and a conservative professional airman. He had thousands of hours in the MU2, was a furloughed USAir B737 pilot and a type rated contract CL601 pilot. He was also a great guy.

I dont buy the NTSB probable cause in this accident for one second. I recall one night one of our MU2's took off and developed jammed roll control spoilers. The pilot managed to nurse it back in. On the ramp it was discovered that loose part left behind after maintainance work had lodged itself under the spoiler. Had this aircraft crashed I am quite sure the probable cause would not have reflected the reality because the impact would have displaced the culprit.
The investigative process is not as definitive as some believe.

Having said the above I loved flying the MU2 and would fly it again anytime.
 

wolf

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Posts
17
Total Time
:)
I can imagine maintenance is a problem area with many operators trying to squeeze a buck as far as they can get away with. I bet with some accidents it is hard to trace. Kind of a stretch to pin all accidents on the pilot or the airplane's design. The mu2 sounds like a brick or quite a handful on one engine.
 

$$$4nothin

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2004
Posts
815
Total Time
9000+
I wonder if any of these peices of sh!t that got this ground the MU-2 kick started ever thought about those people that pay there bills and feed there families flying the MU-2. When aviation started guys died everyday flying airplanes, but you didnt see anyone grounded every airplane out there. Yes the MU-2 is more dangerous to fly than many others, but the people who fly it do so knowingly. I would be willing to bet that quite a few actually fly this aircraft because of this reason. As far as I am concerened if you fly the most dangerous airplane out there, in the worst conditions you are the best of the best. So back up off the airplane and let people make there own decisions. That is what being an American is all about anyway isnt it.
 

VampyreGTX

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Posts
232
Total Time
250
$$$4nothin said:
I wonder if any of these peices of sh!t that got this ground the MU-2 kick started ever thought about those people that pay there bills and feed there families flying the MU-2. When aviation started guys died everyday flying airplanes, but you didnt see anyone grounded every airplane out there. Yes the MU-2 is more dangerous to fly than many others, but the people who fly it do so knowingly. I would be willing to bet that quite a few actually fly this aircraft because of this reason. As far as I am concerened if you fly the most dangerous airplane out there, in the worst conditions you are the best of the best. So back up off the airplane and let people make there own decisions. That is what being an American is all about anyway isnt it.
Yes, I understand the idea of these people needing to fly to pay the bills, but this is no longer the risky air-mail flying that was around in the early part of the 20th century. If there is something inherently wrong with the airplane, it should be grounded. How many people have to die? Granted, most of the MU-2 pilots know of the dangers, but what about when the MU-2 curse (plane, lack of training or whatever the culprit is) strikes again and this time it crashes into a grade school killing dozens of kids? Chances are small, but seriously, if there is something inherently wrong with the plane, then it should be grounded before it claims more lives. Airplane crashes don't only involve people on the plane, they can also involve the people on the ground as well.

There is already a case of cost effecting the decisions to 'correct' problems. Cost to retrofit or correct the 'fuel-tank' problem on 747's that took down TWA800 is deemed to outweigh the loss of life expected from future explosions. In my opinion, that's not acceptable. Ford was held accountable for this same exact thought process with the famous Pinto fireballs, yet it's acceptable with the airlines?

The paycheck idea doesn't fly. I work at an investment firm, guess what, if some employees started doing unethical stuff and causing problems, we'd be shut down and I'd be out a job and paycheck. Investors know the risks, yet steps are taken to protect the investors from risks outside of the market, like bad brokers. Same with flying, if there is a known problem that is outside the regular risks of flying, one that can be corrected or remedied to prevent future problems, than it should be addressed.

Oh, and please remove the pieces of s*** reference to the people who started this. Some of them have most likely lost family members and loved ones to the plane. I think that's innappopriate given that there are family members of MU2 victims on this board that do support the plane being looked at. If this was being done solely for political or economical purposes, than yes, but with it being done over lives lost and saving future lives, I highly doubt that person is a piece of .......
 
Last edited:

Big Duke Six

Not-too-Junior
Joined
Feb 12, 2003
Posts
544
Total Time
7000+
I think part of the problem here is that many of the "best of the best", like 4MyBro's brother, have been killed in the airplane when according to everything known, they shouldn't have crashed. My point is that I feel there is something unknown causing at least some of the crashes. Without FDR's and CVR's, we are left to speculate. Paul's crash last year and the more recent one here near APA are still, AFAIK, not solved. That is the reason people feel the plane should be grounded. While some say the airplane is safe when flown in a sim under all sorts of catastrophic events, there is apparently something in real life that is killing people in this airplane. I know the design has been reviewed ad nauseum, yet some of the most talented pilots around still get killed in it. There may be a design or MX flaw that is yet undiscovered. What else can we conclude?


As an aside, according to news reports last night, the more recent MU-2 crash here may have been the fault of spurious GS signals on the ILS 35R at APA. There was another crash several days ago where a Cessna 425 just flew into the ground while executing the same ILS that claimed the MU-2 several weeks ago, similar to what happened to the MU-2. This crash, combined with recent PIREPS of false signals on the ILS, has prompted the FAA to flight test the approach in recent days. Of course, it ops-checked normal during the tests. Yet, they feel there may be something/someone using some device nearby that unbeknownst to anyone is causing problems with the ILS. Who knows, but in the meantime, cross-check your altitudes during the approach!
 

semperfido

Keep Humpin
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,873
Total Time
11K+
$$$4nothin said:
I wonder if any of these peices of sh!t that got this ground the MU-2 kick started ever thought about those people that pay there bills and feed there families flying the MU-2. .
that is a classy statement. very well thought out and grammatically correct (not). there are usually at least two sides to any argument and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. the mu2 is a problem child, there is no doubt about that.:)
 

4MyBro

New member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Posts
4
VampyreGTX said:
Granted, most of the MU-2 pilots know of the dangers, but what about when the MU-2 curse (plane, lack of training or whatever the culprit is) strikes again and this time it crashes into a grade school killing dozens of kids? Chances are small, but seriously, if there is something inherently wrong with the plane, then it should be grounded before it claims more lives. Airplane crashes don't only involve people on the plane, they can also involve the people on the ground as well.
A very prescient point, VampyreGTX. In fact, my brother crashed right in between two houses in a dense residential neighborhood at 7:30 on a Friday morning. Children were being dropped off at school nearby, people were heading off to work. The fuselage came to rest in someone's driveway, literally less than 10 feet from the front door of the house. Lots and lots of people could have died and an entire neighborhood could have been devastated.

See the photos for yourselves: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.crash15may15,1,7881671.story?page=1

Everybody wants pilots to be able to earn a living and feed their families. That's exactly what Tom was doing. He had a wife, and a home, and bills to pay, too. But the safety of this or any other aircraft is not and cannot be just about the pilots.
 

VampyreGTX

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Posts
232
Total Time
250
4MyBro said:
Everybody wants pilots to be able to earn a living and feed their families. That's exactly what Tom was doing. He had a wife, and a home, and bills to pay, too. But the safety of this or any other aircraft is not and cannot be just about the pilots.
And, to add to that, how will your death help pay the bills?
 

Ill Mitch

I like my oatmeal lumpy
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Posts
675
Total Time
31Raps
VampyreGTX said:
And, to add to that, how will your death help pay the bills?
Life Insurance. I gotta ton for my wife, just in case.
 

VampyreGTX

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Posts
232
Total Time
250
Ill Mitch said:
Life Insurance. I gotta ton for my wife, just in case.
Good point, if you have enough. However, most people I know, don't. What I get from work (1.5X my salary) will do nothing in the event of my death unless I fork over the money myself for a seperate policy. I think the majority of younger pilots most likely don't have adequate life insurance, but this is getting a little off track of the main topic.
 

El Bucho

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2002
Posts
175
Total Time
5000+
Most of the people that bad-mouth the airplane have never flown one. It's not your daddy's baron, and has to be flown by the book and by the numbers. I have gone through MU2 training with Flight Safety before they ditched the program, Simcomm after they picked up the program, and Reese Howell in between. It's a wonderful airplane to fly and I would fly it again in a heartbeat. Mitsubishi along with a few partners puts on a traveling safety conference every 2 years which is very well put together. There are very few accidents where it was the airplanes fault. Most of the accidents were people doing something stupid, flying the airplane without training, etc. I'm not saying anything about the two recent crashes because I haven't honestly looked into them at all. The only interesting thing to me is that they were both cargo haulers which are road hard and put up wet. So who knows. I sure don't. Ramblin' out...


EB
 

Donsa320

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Posts
521
Total Time
32,000
VampyreGTX said:
Yes, I understand the idea of these people needing to fly to pay the bills, but this is no longer the risky air-mail flying that was around in the early part of the 19th century. Quote]

Just to keep things correct the 19th Century would be the 1800's.
 

VampyreGTX

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Posts
232
Total Time
250
Donsa320 said:
VampyreGTX said:
Yes, I understand the idea of these people needing to fly to pay the bills, but this is no longer the risky air-mail flying that was around in the early part of the 19th century. Quote]

Just to keep things correct the 19th Century would be the 1800's.
oh man, I can't believe I typed that! edited! lol I was thinking of typing 1900's and then decided to use a century reference and must have typed a mix of the two! LOL.
 
Top