MU-2 Study

[crosscut]

Vector, I don't think the statistics are proportional. On a percentage basis, there is only 700 or 800 (is that right?) MU-2s ever built & 200 of them (for one reason or another) have been totaled (don't quote me on the #s but it sounds right). So, that’s… what … 25% of them? Compare the accident rate of Cessna’s & Piper’s to those ever built & you’ll, probably, have a much smaller percentage number. Just some thoughts here.. Not defending anybody, just trying to be objective.

 

[Vector4fun]

I'm sure you're probably close. On the other hand, the typical MU-2 fliys a lot more miles/hours in a lot worse weather than your typical Cessna or Piper Single or piston twin. So it's difficult to make accurate comparisons. A very large number of Cessnas and Pipers are still on the registry, but haven't been flown or airworthy for years. The little airport I'm based at has maybe 20 airworthy aircraft, plus at least 7 Cessnas and two Pipers that I know of that haven't flown in more than a decade.

 

[GravityHater]

you’ll, probably, have a much smaller percentage number. Just some thoughts here.. Not defending anybody, just trying to be objective.

I agree. And to add further to any available objectivity though, most of those cessnas are low wing-loading, simple aircraft.

So I think we should expect many more accidents in a high-wing loaded complex twin.

I posted similar ntsb search-facts in another thread in which 11 mu accidents were reported and was ignored.

 

[Snakum]

Talk about coincidences ... I just spoke with a friend and mentor who got a sick engine on climbout in a corporate MU2, and who had to bring it back around for an ILS to minimums. As I understand it, it was a bit of a butt-puckering experience, as it would be in any airplane. However, he did what he is paid to do and put it back on the ground without a scratch.

I dunno what this means in the larger debate of 'MU2 as Automatic Deathtrap', and I know my friend Paul (also a mentor and friend) had troubles that were evidently worse. But I wanted to mention it because it was such a coinkydink.

Good job bro!

Minhommad

 

[Snakum]

the typical MU-2 fliys a lot more miles/hours in a lot worse weather than your typical Cessna or Piper Single or piston twin

And the MU2 is evidently flown by way too many cheap-ass freight outfits who'll pinch a penny till it sqeaks.

And that's what burns my ass more than anything else about losing Paul. His employer already had a bit of a rep when it came to spending the $$$ for proper maintenance, I am told.

Minh

 

[GravityHater]

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050915mu2.html


Sept 15, 2005

The MU-2B turboprop does not need yet another certification review. edit - boldface mine. (GH)
The FAA, reacting to congressional pressure, is "rushing to fix a problem that has not even been quantified," according to AOPA.

"This issue has implications for other aircraft as well, because we've encountered other cases where the FAA has tried to address training or operations problems through airworthiness directives," said Luis Gutierrez, AOPA director of regulatory and certification policy. "It's somewhat like using a hammer to turn a screw."

The issue stems from two recent accidents involving MU-2Bs at Colorado's Centennial Airport. That led to a demand from the Colorado delegation that the FAA investigate the safety of the aircraft.

The FAA plans to have its Small Airplane Directorate, which is responsible for aircraft certification, lead a "Safety Evaluation Investigation."

But in AOPA's opinion, that's not the appropriate FAA office to review the possible causes of accidents that might be attributed to pilot error or other causes. The association believes that the Office of Accident Investigation or Flight Standards Service should take the lead. "Operational safety and training initiatives should be conducted by the FAA offices responsible for those matters," said AOPA.

"In addition to the original, extensive certification process for the MU-2B, the FAA thoroughly reevaluated the aircraft in at least two separate reviews," AOPA said. "In all of these examinations the airplane was determined to be safe and airworthy." edit - boldface mine. (GH)

AOPA distributed an Airworthiness Concern Sheet to appropriate MU-2 operators, and the response strongly suggested that MU-2B accidents are largely caused by pilot error, not aircraft deficiencies.
edit - boldface &underline mine. (GH)

The association also volunteered to host a forum for FAA officials, the MU2 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and others knowledgeable on MU-2B operations and training to "properly identify the true causal factors associated with the recent accidents and to explore possible solutions."

 

[ACT700]

Here's some food for thought:


Could it be in any way possible, that the best pilot in the world could crash because he/she, say for example, fell asleep at an inopportune time, ran out of gas, was hot-dogging, or maybe, just maybe, wasn't as good/profficient as he/she (and maybe his friends, family, etc...) thought he/she was?

I mean, let's be honest, a lot of accidents that fall into the "unsolved" category, could one of the above not be a valid reason?

And if you're going to comment on my statement, please keep it OBJECTIVE!
Just like your feelings toward me, I, too, could care less about your emotion(s)--for this discussion's sake at least.

 

[WNRHD17]

I posted similar ntsb search-facts in another thread in which 11 mu accidents were reported and was ignored.

That would be 11 deaths.....you don't have read too much between the lines on the NTSB search page to figure that out, pretty much black and white. Your search-facts were seeking out the wrong facts!

 

[DC8 Flyer]

Here's some food for thought:


Could it be in any way possible, that the best pilot in the world could crash because he/she, say for example, fell asleep at an inopportune time, ran out of gas, was hot-dogging, or maybe, just maybe, wasn't as good/profficient as he/she (and maybe his friends, family, etc...) thought he/she was?

I mean, let's be honest, a lot of accidents that fall into the "unsolved" category, could one of the above not be a valid reason?

And if you're going to comment on my statement, please keep it OBJECTIVE!
Just like your feelings toward me, I, too, could care less about your emotion(s)--for this discussion's sake at least.

I think you, oh how do you say, hit the nail sqaurely on the head. I know my wife thinks I am the worlds best pilot and never make mistakes and I have to always correct her and tell her about the time I almost dragged both engines on one side, when I landed on a closed, snow covered runway, etc etc.

The point is simple, none of us are as good as we think, or would like to be, BUT most of us try to do better every day and be just that much more proficient the next day. He!! my hands still get a little sweaty when I come in for a landing or an approach that is little tight or is down to low vis.

Pilots are human, we are going to make mistakes all the training, all the knowledge and even all the skill in the world won't save your 55% polyester wearing butt, if you get into an airplane, any airplane, and think you have this thing mastered and it has no surprises for you.

I have never flown a Mits, would love to, and I won't comment on these past few crashes. But lets not all kid ourselves and think that just because these guys/gals were/are excellent professionals and skilled pilots that this airplane was simply too much to handle when things went south. Does that mean you ground the whole fleet, maybe, 737s were grounded after two or three rudder problems, the Concorde was grounded after one crash, etc. On the same coin though, airplanes fall out of the sky almost everyday and there is no mad rush to ground them. Level heads prevail, work together people and found out what is really the problem.

 

[GravityHater]

That would be 11 deaths.....you don't have read too much between the lines on the NTSB search page to figure that out, pretty much black and white. Your search-facts were seeking out the wrong facts!

And it looks to me like someone is trying to bolster their position on the topic by presenting misleading and perhaps false information.

Your honor, I offer into evidence:

Post #36 said:
"....yet another one went down on Thursday evening in Arkansas......that makes Eleven I believe in a little over a year....."

Post #42 said
"There's nineteen pages of MU-2 crashes on the NTSB website....eleven in the past year or so alone...."