Mitsu MU-2 Down in Tulsa - Sen. Inhofe's Son Aboard?

tomokc said:
I think he had 3,000 hours TT, so you'd assume that he was proficient in twins. Also, it was daytime severe clear VMC. He was on a straight-in visual inside the OM (5.6 NM from the threshold at 1,668' AGL if on G/S), so all he had to do was secure the dead engine (which he did) and continue the approach, not touching anything except the throttles.

He apparently didn't go into full engine-out mode (mixture, props, throttles, flaps up, gear up, etc.) because flaps were 20 and the gear were down.

Damn.
Click to expand...
There's no mixture, prop or throttle controls on an MU-2... so that'd be difficult. Inside the OM/FAF and configured... he should have been able to secure the dead engine(condition lever to fuel shutoff/emergency feather) and just land. Aside from in cruise, I can't think of another place I'd like to have an engine quit while in the air.
 
At flaps 10 with the gear down and the dead engine just NTSing, not even caged, I wouldn't think you'd have to touch anything but the good power lever to land safely. Esp. in a shortbody. Although I admit I have about ten seconds of short body time...

Now, OTOH, if he left everything where it was and tried to climb out from a low airspeed...
 
Last edited:
MikeD said:
I don't know if I'd say that, in fact, I wouldn't. Because the implication is that the MU2 has some kind of hand in the whole deal or malintent, when it's just a piece of machinery; it's just an airplane. Albeit, it's a more unforgiving airplane than other types, with reduced tolerances for a pilot who doesn't give it the proper respect, but it's still just an airplane. And when flown within it's tolerances, by a pilot who flies the MU2, and never lets the MU2 fly him; it's a fine machine. I would venture to say that even turns made into the dead engine when single engine can be done, at varying speeds/altitudes, and when kept coordinated, especially turns made into the non-critical engine.

Many thought he F-104 was dangerous, due to its high accident rate in the Luftwaffe, when really, it was simply a plane that didn't tolerate low experience pilots or those pilots who either didn't know, didn't understand, or didn't respect, its particular tolerances that it needed to be kept within, and how unforgiving it was if said pilot didn't keep it there.

That's on the pilot. That's not the fault of the plane.
Click to expand...

^ THIS
 
tomokc said:
I think he had 3,000 hours TT, so you'd assume that he was proficient in twins. Also, it was daytime severe clear VMC. He was on a straight-in visual inside the OM (5.6 NM from the threshold at 1,668' AGL if on G/S), so all he had to do was secure the dead engine (which he did) and continue the approach, not touching anything except the throttles.

He apparently didn't go into full engine-out mode (mixture, props, throttles, flaps up, gear up, etc.) because flaps were 20 and the gear were down.

Damn.
Click to expand...
Apparently this was his first flight out of training as his departure airport was the MU2 training center, and his destination airport has a MU-2 maintenance facility.

Ive been sitting right seat in a MU-2 for about 6 months now. The instructor for Inhofe was this aircraft owner's instructor as well.

The guy I have been flying with disagreed (vocally) to his instructor about how far out to extend the gear, for this very reason. The aircraft does not perform with the gear down, and if consumed with other tasks (identify, verify, feather) the drag will bleed speed dangerously low.

This is the very first fatal crash since the SFAR came out. The MU-2 is the only aircraft to have gone through certification, twice. MikeD said it best. Its just not forgiving.
 
Boris Badenov said:
At flaps 10 with the gear down and the dead engine just NTSing, not even caged, I wouldn't think you'd have to touch anything but the good power lever to land safely. Esp. in a shortbody. Although I admit I have about ten seconds of short body time...

Now, OTOH, if he left everything where it was and tried to climb out from a low airspeed...
Click to expand...

Available flap settings are UP, 5, 20, 40. Ideal flaps engine out (if not UP) are 5 as they provide more lift than drag. With the short thin wing the fowler flaps at 5 increases wing area around 30%, a dramatic improvement when you need it most. Full span trailing edge flaps at 20 produces a whole lot of drag.

Even with both engines operating, as the MU2 pilot i fly with says, it flys like a bathtub full of water. Combine that with an engine out, gear out, and getting slow. I can see why initially he thought he had a control problem.
 
The NTSB Probable Cause is out and it states that " the pilot did not appropriately manage a one-engine-inoperative condition, leading to a loss of control from which he did not recover." http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

What I found most interesting was the end of the report, two lengthy paragraphs on the lack of recording equipment (CVR/FDR):

The airplane was not equipped, and was not required to be equipped, with any type of crash-resistant recorder. Although radar data and air
traffic control voice communications were available during the investigation to determine the airplane's altitude and flightpath and
estimate its motions (pitch, bank, yaw attitudes), the exact movements and trim state of the airplane are unknown, and other details of the
airplane's performance (such as power settings) can only be estimated. In addition, because the airplane was not equipped with any type of
recording device, the pilot's control and system inputs and other actions are unknown.

The lack of available data significantly increased the difficulty of determining the specific causes that led to this accident, and it was
not possible to determine the reasons for the left engine shutdown or evaluate the pilot's recognition of and response to an engine
problem. Recorded video images from the accident flight would possibly have shown where the pilot's attention was directed during the
reported problems, his interaction with the airplane controls and systems, and the status of many cockpit switches and instruments.
Recorded flight data would have provided information about the engines' operating parameters and the airplane's motions. Previous NTSB
recommendations have addressed the need for recording information on airplane types such as the one involved in this accident. Recorders
can help investigators identify safety issues that might otherwise be undetectable, which is critical to the prevention of future
accidents.
Updated at Oct 23 2014 10:10AM

Why would NTSB include such language at the conclusion of an accident investigation? Could this be in any way directed towards Sen. Jim Inhofe, the deceased pilot's father?
 
tomokc said:
The NTSB Probable Cause is out and it states that " the pilot did not appropriately manage a one-engine-inoperative condition, leading to a loss of control from which he did not recover." http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

What I found most interesting was the end of the report, two lengthy paragraphs on the lack of recording equipment (CVR/FDR):
The airplane was not equipped, and was not required to be equipped, with any type of crash-resistant recorder. Although radar data and air
traffic control voice communications were available during the investigation to determine the airplane's altitude and flightpath and
estimate its motions (pitch, bank, yaw attitudes), the exact movements and trim state of the airplane are unknown, and other details of the
airplane's performance (such as power settings) can only be estimated. In addition, because the airplane was not equipped with any type of
recording device, the pilot's control and system inputs and other actions are unknown.

The lack of available data significantly increased the difficulty of determining the specific causes that led to this accident, and it was
not possible to determine the reasons for the left engine shutdown or evaluate the pilot's recognition of and response to an engine
problem. Recorded video images from the accident flight would possibly have shown where the pilot's attention was directed during the
reported problems, his interaction with the airplane controls and systems, and the status of many cockpit switches and instruments.
Recorded flight data would have provided information about the engines' operating parameters and the airplane's motions. Previous NTSB
recommendations have addressed the need for recording information on airplane types such as the one involved in this accident. Recorders
can help investigators identify safety issues that might otherwise be undetectable, which is critical to the prevention of future
accidents.
Updated at Oct 23 2014 10:10AM

Why would NTSB include such language at the conclusion of an accident investigation? Could this be in any way directed towards Sen. Jim Inhofe, the deceased pilot's father?
Click to expand...

If I'm writing that report I expend as much space as possible explaining every culpability factor given the deceased's father's history of blaming the FAA for gross pilot negligence.
 
^ Without a doubt that's a part of it. It's also worth remembering that they've been trying to get cameras in to aircraft for a while now...perfect political cover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top