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
MU-2 Study
- Thread starter ClassG
- Start date
- Watchers 21
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
Nevermind about recording it--thanks, though. You can watch it on that link posted above.
Could we even exist without the internet these days???!!!
Ok, let the commentary start:
There is a lot I could say, but I wont. All I will say is that until I just watched this video, I did not know that the MU2 does not turn "smooth". Thank GOD for that genius professor for explaining to me that airplanes with ailerons turn smooth, and the MU2 doesn't, presumably because it has spoilers.
What a tool...
Also, they (the TV investigators) neglegt to mention that numerous accidents that were classified "pilot error", really were so.
I don't care what plane your flying, if you do not turn on Ice Protection in icing conditions, you (probably) will have trouble.
Here's the text version of the video:
7NEWS Investigates Troubling Trend Concerning Aircraft's Safety
More Than 10 Percent Of Mitsubishi MU-2 Has Been Involved In Fatal Crashes
POSTED: 3:14 pm MDT October 4, 2005
UPDATED: 1:24 pm MDT October 5, 2005
DENVER -- The Mitsubishi MU-2 has been involved in 11 accidents in the last 18 months, killing 12 people. Two of those accidents happened in Colorado. Yet, as 7NEWS Investigator John Ferrugia has found, the MU-2 continues to fly with no restrictions and no required special training for pilots.
Neither aviation experts that 7NEWS talked to, nor Mitsubishi, could cite another airplane where more than 10 percent of the entire fleet has been involved in fatal accidents and the plane remains in service.
Federal records show a pattern of MU-2 crashes where pilots report engine problems and a loss of control before going down. That is exactly what happened to Paul Krysiak and Tuck Presba last December as they left Centennial Airport.
And now, Presba's parents want to know why.
His parents tell 7NEWS that Presba was a good pilot and had a good reputation and had always wanted to start his own charter service. Tuck Presba wanted to make sure he had all the prerequisite knowledge, training and skills to be the very best pilot he could be, his father said. That meant he needed to compile many hours of twin-engine flight time. So he began flying the MU-2 cargo planes for Flightline, Inc.
The MU-2, manufactured by Mitsubishi and first imported into the Unites States in the mid-1960s, is now primarily used in Colorado to haul checks and other time-sensitive cargo overnight to destinations around the country.
Presba was satisfying requirements that would allow him to eventually captain an MU-2 on his own.
"He only needed around 200 hours more, which he could have accomplished in just a few short weeks. So they allowed him to fly with them in a right seat or co-pilot capacity," said Jim Presba, Tuck's father. "He flew five nights a week and it was round trip."
Tuck Presba was flying with an experienced MU-2 pilot, Krysiak, last December when Krysiak reported an engine problem on takeoff from Centennial Airport.
Radio traffic indicates the two struggled with the plane trying to get it back to the runway. They never made it. Presba and Krysiak died when the plane crashed and burned.
"You're heartsick. You want to know what there is to know about the circumstances involving the death of your child," said Jim Presba.
For the Presbas, it was an odyssey that began with a simple Google search. What they found after months of inquiry stunned them.
"There are certain times and circumstances in which you can get this aircraft, where it's like trying to fly a brick. It will crash," said Jim Presba.
The Presbas' research led them to Dr. Don Kennedy, a former University of Colorado professor and Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering. Kennedy has studied a number of MU-2 crashes and has testified in several court cases involving the plane.
Kennedy said the MU-2 is different than any other twin-engine aircraft of its type because it uses spoilers rather than ailerons.
"The only airplanes I know of that use spoilers for roll control alone are some military aircraft," said Kennedy.
"With ailerons, you have one aileron goes down and one goes up and what that does is redistribute the lift on the wing," Kennedy said. "The downgoing aileron increases the lift, the upgoing decreases the lift but the overall lift of the airplane is unchanged."
That means, with ailerons, the aircraft turns smoothly, holding its altitude. But it's different with spoilers, he said.
"(The spoiler) just kills the lift on one side -- period. It does not increase the lift on the other side," Kennedy said. "(The airplane with ailerons) is constant, this one (the MU-2) loses lift and as it loses lift, the airplane sinks," Kennedy said.
That means, an engine problem at low speed, fully loaded, will likely doom the plane, as in Presba's crash, Kennedy said. Kennedy said on one engine, the MU-2 has to be traveling almost 150 knots to stay airborne.
"But the problem is, if you lose an engine on takeoff, you cannot get to 150 knots without descending. And if you do it at takeoff, there's no place to descend ... So you're going to crash," Kennedy said.
"It's a dangerous airplane. Aerodynamically, it's a very unusual airplane," Kennedy said.
Kennedy and other aviation experts claim that the fact it is dangerous is evident in these statistics:
According to both Mitsubishi and government records, more than 10 percent of all MU-2s ever built have been involved in fatal crashes.
Federal accident records show many crashes occurred after an engine problem at low altitude -- on take off or landing.
Mitsubishi sent 7NEWS a report showing that the MU-2 safety record was no worse than other twin-engine turboprops. But that's not what 7NEWS' investigation found.
Robert Breiling, a leading expert in aviation accident statistics, compiles information directly from manufacturers, including Mitsubishi, not from the estimates used by the Federal Aviation Administration.
In a five-year period between 2000 to 2004, Breiling found the average fatal accident rate for the MU-2 in North America was more than triple the average of other turboprop models in its class.
And Breiling found the overall accident rate of MU-2 about 78 percent higher.
These numbers don't include the three MU-2 accidents so far this year that have killed six people, including one in Arkansas just two weeks ago.
"I think if Tuck had known. he wouldn't have had been in this airplane. He's so extremely safety conscious, that we just have no doubt he wouldn't have put himself in that situation," said Tuck's father, Jim Presba.
Officials from Mitsubishi declined an on-camera interview but they say the MU-2 is a safe airplane. They claim the major cause of crashes is poorly trained pilots, so Mitsubishi is offering special training classes for pilots and owners at no cost. And as a 1991 letter shows, for the past 14 years Mitsubishi has pressured the FAA for more mandatory flight training for the MU-2, called a type rating.
The FAA rejected the proposal.
But Jim and Linda Presba, and other families who have lost loved ones in crashes, say more training isn't going to solve the problem because when they look at the government's MU-2 crash reports, they see a dangerous airplane.
"Engine failure on takeoff. Crashed on approach to destination airport. Crashed on approach to destination airport. Dual engine failure. Flame-out on approach to destination airport. Engine failure on take-off. There's a consistency there that's disturbing," said Linda Presba, reading from several crash reports.
"It's abysmal safety record is there for anyone to see. We just don't know why it's been ignored and overlooked by all the federal agencies that are supposed to protect us," said Jim Presba.
For the past three weeks, 7NEWS has been pressing the FAA for an on-camera interview to talk about the MU-2. The FAA has refused. But late Monday, it released a statement saying it is now conducting an in-depth safety evaluation of the aircraft.
The statement also warns pilots to be aware that the MU-2 flies like no other similar airplane and to put "special emphasis on operations should an engine fail."
On Wednesday night. find out why NTSB investigations determine nearly all MU-2 crashes are "pilot error." Are investigators too close to the airplane's manufacturer? And Thursday, 7NEWS will have an exclusive interview with the Colorado company that lost two MU-2s in crashes. They, like Mitsubishi, insist it is a good and safe aircraft.
Could we even exist without the internet these days???!!!
Ok, let the commentary start:
There is a lot I could say, but I wont. All I will say is that until I just watched this video, I did not know that the MU2 does not turn "smooth". Thank GOD for that genius professor for explaining to me that airplanes with ailerons turn smooth, and the MU2 doesn't, presumably because it has spoilers.
What a tool...
Also, they (the TV investigators) neglegt to mention that numerous accidents that were classified "pilot error", really were so.
I don't care what plane your flying, if you do not turn on Ice Protection in icing conditions, you (probably) will have trouble.
Here's the text version of the video:
7NEWS Investigates Troubling Trend Concerning Aircraft's Safety
More Than 10 Percent Of Mitsubishi MU-2 Has Been Involved In Fatal Crashes
POSTED: 3:14 pm MDT October 4, 2005
UPDATED: 1:24 pm MDT October 5, 2005
DENVER -- The Mitsubishi MU-2 has been involved in 11 accidents in the last 18 months, killing 12 people. Two of those accidents happened in Colorado. Yet, as 7NEWS Investigator John Ferrugia has found, the MU-2 continues to fly with no restrictions and no required special training for pilots.
Neither aviation experts that 7NEWS talked to, nor Mitsubishi, could cite another airplane where more than 10 percent of the entire fleet has been involved in fatal accidents and the plane remains in service.
Federal records show a pattern of MU-2 crashes where pilots report engine problems and a loss of control before going down. That is exactly what happened to Paul Krysiak and Tuck Presba last December as they left Centennial Airport.
And now, Presba's parents want to know why.
His parents tell 7NEWS that Presba was a good pilot and had a good reputation and had always wanted to start his own charter service. Tuck Presba wanted to make sure he had all the prerequisite knowledge, training and skills to be the very best pilot he could be, his father said. That meant he needed to compile many hours of twin-engine flight time. So he began flying the MU-2 cargo planes for Flightline, Inc.
The MU-2, manufactured by Mitsubishi and first imported into the Unites States in the mid-1960s, is now primarily used in Colorado to haul checks and other time-sensitive cargo overnight to destinations around the country.
Presba was satisfying requirements that would allow him to eventually captain an MU-2 on his own.
"He only needed around 200 hours more, which he could have accomplished in just a few short weeks. So they allowed him to fly with them in a right seat or co-pilot capacity," said Jim Presba, Tuck's father. "He flew five nights a week and it was round trip."
Tuck Presba was flying with an experienced MU-2 pilot, Krysiak, last December when Krysiak reported an engine problem on takeoff from Centennial Airport.
Radio traffic indicates the two struggled with the plane trying to get it back to the runway. They never made it. Presba and Krysiak died when the plane crashed and burned.
"You're heartsick. You want to know what there is to know about the circumstances involving the death of your child," said Jim Presba.
For the Presbas, it was an odyssey that began with a simple Google search. What they found after months of inquiry stunned them.
"There are certain times and circumstances in which you can get this aircraft, where it's like trying to fly a brick. It will crash," said Jim Presba.
The Presbas' research led them to Dr. Don Kennedy, a former University of Colorado professor and Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering. Kennedy has studied a number of MU-2 crashes and has testified in several court cases involving the plane.
Kennedy said the MU-2 is different than any other twin-engine aircraft of its type because it uses spoilers rather than ailerons.
"The only airplanes I know of that use spoilers for roll control alone are some military aircraft," said Kennedy.
"With ailerons, you have one aileron goes down and one goes up and what that does is redistribute the lift on the wing," Kennedy said. "The downgoing aileron increases the lift, the upgoing decreases the lift but the overall lift of the airplane is unchanged."
That means, with ailerons, the aircraft turns smoothly, holding its altitude. But it's different with spoilers, he said.
"(The spoiler) just kills the lift on one side -- period. It does not increase the lift on the other side," Kennedy said. "(The airplane with ailerons) is constant, this one (the MU-2) loses lift and as it loses lift, the airplane sinks," Kennedy said.
That means, an engine problem at low speed, fully loaded, will likely doom the plane, as in Presba's crash, Kennedy said. Kennedy said on one engine, the MU-2 has to be traveling almost 150 knots to stay airborne.
"But the problem is, if you lose an engine on takeoff, you cannot get to 150 knots without descending. And if you do it at takeoff, there's no place to descend ... So you're going to crash," Kennedy said.
"It's a dangerous airplane. Aerodynamically, it's a very unusual airplane," Kennedy said.
Kennedy and other aviation experts claim that the fact it is dangerous is evident in these statistics:
According to both Mitsubishi and government records, more than 10 percent of all MU-2s ever built have been involved in fatal crashes.
Federal accident records show many crashes occurred after an engine problem at low altitude -- on take off or landing.
Mitsubishi sent 7NEWS a report showing that the MU-2 safety record was no worse than other twin-engine turboprops. But that's not what 7NEWS' investigation found.
Robert Breiling, a leading expert in aviation accident statistics, compiles information directly from manufacturers, including Mitsubishi, not from the estimates used by the Federal Aviation Administration.
In a five-year period between 2000 to 2004, Breiling found the average fatal accident rate for the MU-2 in North America was more than triple the average of other turboprop models in its class.
And Breiling found the overall accident rate of MU-2 about 78 percent higher.
These numbers don't include the three MU-2 accidents so far this year that have killed six people, including one in Arkansas just two weeks ago.
"I think if Tuck had known. he wouldn't have had been in this airplane. He's so extremely safety conscious, that we just have no doubt he wouldn't have put himself in that situation," said Tuck's father, Jim Presba.
Officials from Mitsubishi declined an on-camera interview but they say the MU-2 is a safe airplane. They claim the major cause of crashes is poorly trained pilots, so Mitsubishi is offering special training classes for pilots and owners at no cost. And as a 1991 letter shows, for the past 14 years Mitsubishi has pressured the FAA for more mandatory flight training for the MU-2, called a type rating.
The FAA rejected the proposal.
But Jim and Linda Presba, and other families who have lost loved ones in crashes, say more training isn't going to solve the problem because when they look at the government's MU-2 crash reports, they see a dangerous airplane.
"Engine failure on takeoff. Crashed on approach to destination airport. Crashed on approach to destination airport. Dual engine failure. Flame-out on approach to destination airport. Engine failure on take-off. There's a consistency there that's disturbing," said Linda Presba, reading from several crash reports.
"It's abysmal safety record is there for anyone to see. We just don't know why it's been ignored and overlooked by all the federal agencies that are supposed to protect us," said Jim Presba.
For the past three weeks, 7NEWS has been pressing the FAA for an on-camera interview to talk about the MU-2. The FAA has refused. But late Monday, it released a statement saying it is now conducting an in-depth safety evaluation of the aircraft.
The statement also warns pilots to be aware that the MU-2 flies like no other similar airplane and to put "special emphasis on operations should an engine fail."
On Wednesday night. find out why NTSB investigations determine nearly all MU-2 crashes are "pilot error." Are investigators too close to the airplane's manufacturer? And Thursday, 7NEWS will have an exclusive interview with the Colorado company that lost two MU-2s in crashes. They, like Mitsubishi, insist it is a good and safe aircraft.
TIGV
Age Quod Agis
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Posts
- 377
The ' expert ' is indeed a tool, first thing you do after an engine failure on takeoff is dial in 7 seconds of ' aileron ' trim. ( These are in fact trim tabs attached to the trailing edge of the flaps ) This serves to aerodynamically provide lift to the wing with the failed engine and results in zero spoiler input, after having done that the rest is fairly conventional with regard to acceleration and drag reduction configuration changes.
The MU-2 sngle engine characteristics are no worse than any other twin and in fact are a LOT better than any Cessna cabin class twin, but fly the aircraft outside it's design envelope and you're asking for trouble ie overgross takeoffs at high elevation airfields, configuration changes ie flap retractions in the turn at low speed after takeoff etc.
The aircraft has the wing loading of a jet and should be trained to be flown in exactly the same manner, a lot of the MU-2's ' unique ' systems made the transition to the Mitsubishi Diamond jet, including spoiler roll control, without any adverse effects, the only difference being the ' left seat ' experience requirement is substantially higher and the level of required training for the Diamond Jet far exceeds that required for the MU-2.
The aircraft is simply too high performance for low time or inconsistently trained pilots. That unfortunately makes itself known only when an aircraft critical system fails and the required workload potentially exceeds the current training level of the flightcrew(s).
Is the aicraft at fault ??
Absolutely not !
Is the current certification criteria for the aircraft and pilots at fault?
ABSOLUTELY ! No doubt in my mind.
Should something have changed in that criteria as a result of previous CFR's?
ABSOLUTELY !
Should something change now ?
Not to do so for the sake of some political face-saving would be outrageous!!
Let the MU-2 fly and if it's going to be flown single pilot require an autopilot, require the best training available, including but not limited to type specific training. Nobody wants to see anyone else get hurt, Denver base you reading me ??????
The MU-2 sngle engine characteristics are no worse than any other twin and in fact are a LOT better than any Cessna cabin class twin, but fly the aircraft outside it's design envelope and you're asking for trouble ie overgross takeoffs at high elevation airfields, configuration changes ie flap retractions in the turn at low speed after takeoff etc.
The aircraft has the wing loading of a jet and should be trained to be flown in exactly the same manner, a lot of the MU-2's ' unique ' systems made the transition to the Mitsubishi Diamond jet, including spoiler roll control, without any adverse effects, the only difference being the ' left seat ' experience requirement is substantially higher and the level of required training for the Diamond Jet far exceeds that required for the MU-2.
The aircraft is simply too high performance for low time or inconsistently trained pilots. That unfortunately makes itself known only when an aircraft critical system fails and the required workload potentially exceeds the current training level of the flightcrew(s).
Is the aicraft at fault ??
Absolutely not !
Is the current certification criteria for the aircraft and pilots at fault?
ABSOLUTELY ! No doubt in my mind.
Should something have changed in that criteria as a result of previous CFR's?
ABSOLUTELY !
Should something change now ?
Not to do so for the sake of some political face-saving would be outrageous!!
Let the MU-2 fly and if it's going to be flown single pilot require an autopilot, require the best training available, including but not limited to type specific training. Nobody wants to see anyone else get hurt, Denver base you reading me ??????
ePilot22
BuyTheTicket~TakeTheRide
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Posts
- 903
Preface
"This is not a war story-and yet it is. Any tale in which the protagonists are so seriously threatened they may lose their lives demands an ememy capable of destruction. The difference bewteen what is told here and familiar war is that the designated adversary always remains inhuman, frequently marches in mystery, and rarely takes prisoners. Furthermore armistice is inconceivable and so is complete victory for either side. This war continues as you read these words and must prevail so long as man insists on striving for progress. None of the warroirs here involved were forced into battle, a circumstance which removes a certain amount of ugliness and the saddening, hopeless sense of futility normally created when the soldiery is impressed. Here the human combatants have engaged themselves willingly, knowing full well that their blood might stain the field. Therefore this is the only kind of war which might be considered inspiring."
Ernest K. Gann - Fate Is The Hunter.
If the MU2 is the safe plane that some claim it to be, then shouldn't they be the first to demand a review, a third or forth review, because it would stand that they have the most to gain. The MU2 is found to be safe and continues to fly, nothing lost; the MU2 is found deficient, improvements made, something gained! The MU2 is grounded for good, your life saved?
SkyKing1976, SkyGirl1968 - I hope all is going well for you both! You and Paul are in my thoughts everyday, in the air and on the ground!
4MYBRO, Courkyle - I am sorry for your loss. I wish your family the best.
Tom
"This is not a war story-and yet it is. Any tale in which the protagonists are so seriously threatened they may lose their lives demands an ememy capable of destruction. The difference bewteen what is told here and familiar war is that the designated adversary always remains inhuman, frequently marches in mystery, and rarely takes prisoners. Furthermore armistice is inconceivable and so is complete victory for either side. This war continues as you read these words and must prevail so long as man insists on striving for progress. None of the warroirs here involved were forced into battle, a circumstance which removes a certain amount of ugliness and the saddening, hopeless sense of futility normally created when the soldiery is impressed. Here the human combatants have engaged themselves willingly, knowing full well that their blood might stain the field. Therefore this is the only kind of war which might be considered inspiring."
Ernest K. Gann - Fate Is The Hunter.
If the MU2 is the safe plane that some claim it to be, then shouldn't they be the first to demand a review, a third or forth review, because it would stand that they have the most to gain. The MU2 is found to be safe and continues to fly, nothing lost; the MU2 is found deficient, improvements made, something gained! The MU2 is grounded for good, your life saved?
SkyKing1976, SkyGirl1968 - I hope all is going well for you both! You and Paul are in my thoughts everyday, in the air and on the ground!
4MYBRO, Courkyle - I am sorry for your loss. I wish your family the best.
Tom
Last edited:
ACT700
What's it doing now?
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2004
- Posts
- 280
Quote:
"If the MU2 is the safe plane that some claim it to be, then shouldn't they be the first to demand a review, a third or forth review, because it would stand that they have the most to gain. The MU2 is found to be safe and continues to fly, nothing lost; the MU2 is found deficient, improvements made, something gained! The MU2 is grounded for good, your life saved?"
I find your quote of Ernest Gann's Fate Is The Hunter very appropriate and fitting to this whole MU2 debate or situation, or whatever you want to call it.
However, Gann's quote does not really support your reasoning at all. In fact, Gann's quote underlines what we, the Pro-MU2'ers, have been saying all along.
Furthermore, we are not at all opposed to another MU2 review--hell, we're hoping that the Fed's will finally get off their arses and do institute some rules. Such as, mandatory autopilot or SIC, irregardless of type of operation; maybe even a type rating, as that, in (only) my opinion, will raise the level of training and (hopefully) weed out the weeker pilots, who have no business in this airplane; and maybe a few more.
Like Gann wrote, " None of the warroirs here involved were forced into battle,... Here the human combatants have engaged themselves willingly, knowing full well that their blood might stain the field."
That's what I've been saying all along.
"If the MU2 is the safe plane that some claim it to be, then shouldn't they be the first to demand a review, a third or forth review, because it would stand that they have the most to gain. The MU2 is found to be safe and continues to fly, nothing lost; the MU2 is found deficient, improvements made, something gained! The MU2 is grounded for good, your life saved?"
I find your quote of Ernest Gann's Fate Is The Hunter very appropriate and fitting to this whole MU2 debate or situation, or whatever you want to call it.
However, Gann's quote does not really support your reasoning at all. In fact, Gann's quote underlines what we, the Pro-MU2'ers, have been saying all along.
Furthermore, we are not at all opposed to another MU2 review--hell, we're hoping that the Fed's will finally get off their arses and do institute some rules. Such as, mandatory autopilot or SIC, irregardless of type of operation; maybe even a type rating, as that, in (only) my opinion, will raise the level of training and (hopefully) weed out the weeker pilots, who have no business in this airplane; and maybe a few more.
Like Gann wrote, " None of the warroirs here involved were forced into battle,... Here the human combatants have engaged themselves willingly, knowing full well that their blood might stain the field."
That's what I've been saying all along.
ePilot22
BuyTheTicket~TakeTheRide
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Posts
- 903
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
