MU-2 Study

[ClassG]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

4MYBRO,

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

 

[GIVDrvr]

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]

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]

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]

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 .......

 

[Big Duke Six]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[semperfido]

It's a wonderful airplane to fly and I would fly it again in a heartbeat.

who are you kidding?...no, it is not a wonderful airplane to fly and i seriously doubt you would fly it again in a heartbeat. i too went to fsi in houston at least a half dozen times and i was happy to say bye-bye to the mu2 and move on to bigger and better things. it was fun for a while, but i consider it as part of my dues paying years. that was when it was relatively new-- now it should be retired and nicknamed the WSCOD. not the legacy.

 

[VampyreGTX]

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.... 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. ...
EB

Sorry for snipping your post down!

That's why they aren't grouding the fleet until at least they uncover something that would require that to happen.

Also I don't buy the pilot error excuse that seems to be the cause of 95% of crashes (not a real stat, but you know what I mean). Yes, I think pilot error is responsible for possibly the majority of wrecks, but not even the investogators are perfect, things will be overlooked, problems may be hidden by other damage. (Some damage can be differentiated between impact forces and other kinds, but I still doubt this is 100%). If the NTSB can't find anything, they automatically lay the blame on the pilot.

I don't want to bad mouth the airplane, as your right, I haven't flown it. But there is a pattern. Some of the latest crashes involved people with plenty of experience and training in that plane, with full knowledge of the beast in can be if it gets away from you. I do think that needs to be looked at. If if does come down to pilot mis-training, inexperience, then the fleet will not be grounded, and MU-2 flights will continue. If this time, they do find something wrong that was overlooked previously, then it will be grounded as it should be if there truly is something wrong.

 

[wolf]

I would like to find out from those who fly the mu2, what are the difficulties when you have an engine out, is it any more difficult than any other twin?

 

[Donsa320]

I would like to find out from those who fly the mu2, what are the difficulties when you have an engine out, is it any more difficult than any other twin?

There is an old saying....."you can't lift a wing with a spoiler"....used by an equally old friend of mine. He was refering to the B-52, but it bears repeating.

~DC

 

[ACT700]

I love when people who have no clue, much less "experience", comment on certain, "in the spotlight", accidents.


VampyreGTX,
according to your logic, the Feds (FAA to you) need to ground the majority of the air traffic system-or at least reroute traffic over non populated areas.
Maybe Denver DIA will be the only commercial airport left in the US!

I mean, MDW, surely has to be criminal!!

Be careful pushing pencils-don't drop one, cause the loss of humanity could be gigantic...



I wish I was drunk; all this probably would make a lot more sense!

 

[VampyreGTX]

I love when people who have no clue, much less "experience", comment on certain, "in the spotlight", accidents.


VampyreGTX,
according to your logic, the Feds (FAA to you) need to ground the majority of the air traffic system-or at least reroute traffic over non populated areas.
Maybe Denver DIA will be the only commercial airport left in the US!

I mean, MDW, surely has to be criminal!!

Be careful pushing pencils-don't drop one, cause the loss of humanity could be gigantic...



I wish I was drunk; all this probably would make a lot more sense!

Actually, no that's not my logic. I think the general public (and us pilots) accepts the risk of aviation (and everything else we do in life); however, the FAA (Feds to the public) does need to ensure that there is no EXTRA risk (key word, EXTRA). If there is a KNOWN problem with an airplane that makes it excessively dangerous, than it SHOULD be grounded. If you knew the plane you were flying had a mechanical abnormality that increased your chance of crashing by 2, 5 or 10 times, could you really feel comfortable flying that airplane, with passengers on board?

What about the good 'ole Electra, would you feel comfortable flying that plane still if it happened been 'fixed', knowing that there was an inherent defect in the engine mounts and wings that led to the wings ripping off the airplane when excessive vibration was trasnfered to the wing via the mounts from the engines? Per YOUR logic, they shouldn't ground that plane then? They didn't ground the plane initially while a study (like in this case with the MU-2) was conducted that finally led to them determinng the stiffness of the engine mounts transfered propeler 'flutter' top the wing ina resonance that caused the wing to seperate. The fleet was grounded, the mounts were changed and the plane flew safely after that.

I hope I misread your reply. My comments refer to planes like this, the electra, where there is a KNOWN problem or issue or where there appears to be something beyond the regular risks involved with taking tons of steel (or composites, or aluminum )into the air.

With the MU-2, there is no KNOWN problem, not yet at least. That's why they will study it first. No one is GROUNDING the plane. The FAA stated that is something is descovered it will be grounded if NECESSARY. If something arrises that show there is a mechanical defect with the airplane, or something in the design, that significantly increases the chance of an accident, then are you seriously trying to say it shouldn't be grounded?

And as for Midway, I never said one thing about preventing flights over populated areas, I just added the point that what would the reaction have been like if either of these two planes killed a few people on the ground in each of the accidents? The news coverage and calls for grounding it would be MUCH louder. Though Midway did have it's share of planes crashing off airport into residential areas in the mid 1900's, but in my opinion, you live near an airport, you should expect a slight risk of an accident, but you should hope that the accident didn't result from the responsible parties turning a blind eye to a problem with the aircraft.

 

[TIGV]

( Sigh )

Listen folks, the MU-2 has already been the subject of two previous FAA recertification/evaluation flights...why?
Cos it had the misfortune to be piloted around and into the ground in it's early days by a bunch of rich folk with political sway who couldn't have given a hill of beans, or some of their inherited riches, about their own safety and training, God rest their souls.

In each case The FAA Found no apparent fault with the aircraft

Scooch forward to the present day, the majority of MU-2's flown now operate in the freighter capacity....1200 to 1500 hours a year a piece, versus 300 hours for a corporate machine, most of the freighters fly 5 legs a night single pilot IFR year round.

Unfortunate though it may seem, statistically I'm amazed their isn't MU-2 aluminum raining down over the 48 on a nightly basis.....speaks volumes for the skill level of the pilot gorup, speaks volumes for the aircraft design but does dog it's overall accident statistic.

I'm sorry but if you got two engines and a set of flight instruments the only way you're gonna bite it is if you run it out gas or you really f*&#$ something up.....Both are pilot error

So what will a third investigation reveal ???
I'm hoping nothing at all and we can merrily cruise on as before with maybe some increase in initial pilot training.

I would be devastated if that Waste of Skin Tancredo be permitted to ride the misfortune of my comrades for political gain.

Cheers.

 

[con-pilot]

I hate to say this to you MU-2 supporters but, the MU-2 is a total piece of absolute crap. I was fortunate enough to have survived over 800 hours flying these wingless wonders.


I have flown the J, L, M and K models. All of them where underpowered and as for high and hot airport performance, forget it.


Flying the MU-2 I have had:


Aft cabin in flight fire. (Due to improper wiring done at the factory.)


Split flaps.


Tip tank fuel cap structural failure. (Just after rotation on takeoff.)


Three emergency gear extensions due to frozen gear prox. switches.


Main cabin door frozen shut after landing.


Jammed throttles due to incorrect auto-pilot wiring. (This was on a brand new M model.)


In-flight engine failure on the right engine. (I realize that this is a vendor problem, however in over 40 years and 23,000 plus hours of flying turbine powered aircraft this was the only sudden failure of a turbine engine I have had.)


There were other problems that I had with the MU-2 that were more on the line of design induced pilot error problems that cause more than a few moments concern. Such as the blasted thing cannot carry any amount of ice.


Attend a NTSB accident investigation school as I have and study turbo-prop fixed aircraft accidents by type. I think you will be very surprised on the accident rate of fatal accidents of MU-2s as compared to other turbo-props.


Now there is no argument that King Air 200s and Turbo Commanders have had major accidents due to structural failures because of design errors, but those problems were addressed by the manufacturers and have been fixed by modifications. The problems of the MU-2 have not been fixed and can never be fixed because the entire design is bad.


I had more problems flying MU-2s in just 800 hours than in any other aircraft I have flown including 7,000 plus hours in Boeing 727s, 6,000 plus hours in Sabreliners 40, 80 and 65 series, 3,000 hours in Jet Commander/Westwinds, JetStars and etc. I have over 600 hours in King Air 200s with NO problems.


I realize that the false bravado of saying, “Boy, you really got to be a hotsh!t pilot to fly the MU-2!” sounds good in a bar to impress the ladies, but sorry that doesn’t work for me.

 

[TIGV]

23000 hours with that kinda luck ?
Don't gamble your retirement in Vegas, Jokes aside and as mentioned before:



I'm not really in a position to Judge, but I'm sure the Fed Flight Standards guys who flew the original recertification and icing test flights had a little more varied experience than you con-man, and found no fault.

However....

Interestingly....With all your MU-2 prblems, you are still here...
I would say that you actually PROVE the case FOR the aircraft wouldn't you? After all.....

Split flaps

Engine failure

Are pretty critical for this airplane....but ya muddled through and you're still around.



You gotta be a hotsh!t pilot to fly ANY turboprop one one engine. Want bragging rights at the bar ?
Try the F-27 !! hmm, that thing isn't underpowered on one engine, lifting 45,000 lbs with 1800 horsepower.

I digress, the ONLY certification fault I have found with the aircraft is that it takes a pilot with above average skill to control stuff when things go south.

Now on to more important things Con Man.....you guys hiring ???

Cheers.

 

[con-pilot]

TIGV, sorry no bragging rights asked for, the engine failed during cruise over DFW in the mid-teens altitude wise. I just made a right turn and landed at Love.

However, it was my experience on many occasions on the icing issue. Now this was on the long body models, I have been told that the short airframe aircraft handled ice much better. Remember the short body airframe was the one that went through icing flights. Those big old gear pods make a BIG difference.

ps. Not with the USMS any more, I am now semi-retired, and no, I do not want a job flying MU-2s again, ever!