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

Something needs to be done about the MU-2

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
Not open for further replies.


Active member
Mar 8, 2005
After much buffoonery, I decided to start a new, useful thread.

This one won't tolerate speculation, theories, or guesses as to what happened in specific MU-2 crashes, keep that for the other thread. This thread is for information about what can be done to reduce MU-2 accidents, or for some even rid it.

Helpful info would be things such as addresses, phone numbers of people to contact about changes for MU-2 training, things in training that could be different, representatives to help petitions, ways to possibly get the FAA to look these cases in the face and realize there is something that needs to be done, and general information about what could be done with the actual plane itself.

Like I said, this is not to debate whether or not to blame the plane, point fingers at anyone/ thing specific, or criticize anyone about their personal feeling about the plane. Strictly here to bounce ideas off of each other. And please don't think that we're trying to "restrict" the pilots from flying...we WANT you to fly, that's why we're striving to make flying safer!

Last edited:
Back in the early to mid 80's, there was a rash of MU-2 accidents and the Feds picked apart the type certificate data for a couple of years. They found that the aircraft met the data, and the design wasn't flawed. It was about the time that Raytheon bought the Mitsubishi Aircraft rights to get the Mu-300 type certificate.
Perhaps petition the feds to require a type rating for the plane?

Not sure how far that would go or how well that would work, but it's the best I got. However, having never flown one...I'm not really an authority on whether or not the aircraft needs a type rating.


I have been reading your posts over the past few days, and I do feel terrible about your loss.

I'm just a little worried that you will use this incident to start a small campaign against the MU2. No doubt you are still grieving and want answers as to why what happened did happed. As shown in the past, it takes time for an investigation to be completed. As has been stated, this airplane has been under scrutiny and found to be capable over many years of being in service. If something truly needs to be done about the aircraft itself, then I'm all for it. But in the meantime, using a "shotgun approach" to find "answers" is unproductive IMHO. It is because of this mentality that insurance, healthcare, etc, etc, is so costly in this country. If there is definitely someone who holds the blame - without a doubt, then they should be held accountable. I have dealt with loss before, and sometimes you have to accept the fact that things just happen sometimes, and that blaming someone/something incidental to the situation just won't do any good.

Please be patient and take care of yourself and the people around you first while you go through this time.
MU-2 is a great airplane, we just need better pilots. The pilot of today is a 1% of what they were 30 years ago.
Thanks for your post Doc,
but this is not about retaliation against the plane in order to find justice. this is to look into having the plane looked at again to see if there is something wrong, again. i am very aware that the specifics of Paul's crash are still pending. i am just merely a voice of (many) others, pilots or not, that want to see changes made to the MU-2 or how it is trained in. as my first post said, just to bounce ideas off of the "professionals" about what could be done. i'm not (nor am i necessarily asking others) pointing fingers here.
don't worry, i am taking care of myself.
i wanted to start another post where people won't bring their torches and bayonettes. i'm interested in hearing civil, INFORMATIONAL thoughts about the plane...not the people who fly them, or just that it's good, or just that it's bad.
Last edited:
You already know how I feel about Paul's crash, something weird happened that we haven't figured out yet, only Paul knows and I know he wishes he could let us know. Most MU-2 operators fly with the pilots a little bit give them a pat on the back and away you go. It is a diffrent airplane that requires diffrent techniques but with the right training it is no diffrent than any other. Helio Courier comes to my mind, a lot of pilots have crashed in them but with the right training it is an awesome airplane.
Last edited:
There is nothing inherently wrong with the MU-2. It is simply a demanding aircraft which has no margin for error when the poop hits the fan. What needs to be addressed is the way training is handled by the operator. As someone who flies a Metro single-pilot under Part 135 I can tell you first hand that the recurrent training req'd by the feds is a joke at best. Any company (mine included) who simply trains to the minimum req'd in order to "check the boxes" in these airplanes is asking for trouble. Without req'd recurrent sim training I'll probably never see another eng failure at V1 with an NTS failure unless it happens in real life. Problem is adequate training is expensive, and most freight operators operate on a shoestring budget as it is. This places more emphasis on the pilots to stay fresh when it comes to emergency procedures, and I can tell you complacency sets in pretty quick when you get in a routine. I don't have any solutions off the top of my head except more in-depth recurrent training and better oversight by the FAA to ensure training standards are being met and these aircraft are receiving proper maintenance.
TurboS7 said:
MU-2 is a great airplane, we just need better pilots. The pilot of today is a 1% of what they were 30 years ago.

Let me guess...you were from the pool of 30 yrs ago :)
The MU-2 is a good airplane, just not a forgiving airplane. It is no more difficult to fly than many jets, the difference being that most jets have two pilots, and often both have had extensive training. (Type rating). As the others said, it's already been through an extensive review by the FAA many years ago.

Those who are scared of the airplane shouldn't fly it. Those that do fly it need to respect the airplane and their own limitations. (Nothing intended towards Paul, we don't know what happened.) Of the two best MU-2 pilots I ever knew/saw, one got himself killed in a Christian Eagle doing acro, and the other flew a perfectly good and functioning airplane into a ridge at night. The MU-2 never hurt either one of them.
Not open for further replies.

Latest resources