Story on Mitsu MU2 on CNBC tonight..
- Thread starter av8sean
- Start date
AlexF
Well-Known Member
It's called "Business Nation" and is on today 7pm PST or 10pm EST on CNBC. According to it's website, this is the premier episode.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16586545
triplec76
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I like how the host states in the middle of the segment that the FAA reversed their course on the training required in 2005, but at the end of the segment he makes the claim that this new training was because of their "investigation". It just looked to me like a crock on the side of CNBC. I will agree though that something about training or type ratings for the MU-2 should have been dealt with long before now.
Timbuff10
Well-Known Member
I think they were talking about a percentage that would equal to.
A lot of those planes have gone down. If the same percentage of 747s bit the dust you better believe they wouldnt allow 747s to fly.
This is where the FAA drops the ball, same thing as allowing pilots to be on duty for ungodly hours and letting companies like Mesa take advantage of it. Cargo companies like the MU2 for its speed and they could care less about how dangerous it is as long as it is profitable for them.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
You guys are reading more (or not enough) into this. First, they said that the FAA came out with a new rule "after" their report. They did not say it was a result of the report. These things are taped weeks in advance and they footnote the program when it is aired.
Second: The family members stated that it was a number of airframes lost (and that they were not comparing total passengers) which was alarming. And I totally agree. Do a quick NTSB search and you will find 41 fatal MU2s accidents in the USA since 1985 compared with 5 737 (airborne) fatals. Their point was, could you imagine the outrage if (30) 737s crashed in this time period? The FAA/public outcry would be HUGE!!!! But 41 MU2s have been lost since 1985 and the response is........crickets.
If you dig a bit further, you will notice that the accident to fatal ratio is extremely high for the MU2.
PS....Make a note, this is probably the ONLY time I have agreed with the media.
flyhigh
Well-Known Member
i believe they said the aircraft is difficult to control at low speeds, such as final approach and turning while at a slow airspeeds.
anybody know if this is true and has been confirmed as why these mishaps have happened?
what i did like though was when the host went up in the MU2 and asked the pilot a couple of times if he's surprised that "high time" pilots went down. he didnt ask again when the answer was- high time pilots make mistakes too.
Van_Hoolio
Well-Known Member
The segment just re-aired and I was able to catch it. They did bash the MU-2 but at least the reporter actually went on a flight in one. I didn't realize that a hundred plus of the seven hundred some MU-2s made have been involved in crashes. The pilots who fly them are proud of them, and I think training is the answer to flying them safely.
fishrichard
Well-Known Member
The company I fly for operates 2 Mu-2s. We have 2 captains that have 7000+ hours in the Mits. If you fly an Mu-2 by the numbers you WILL NOT DIE. The previous poster was right, roll is controlled by spoilerons. Due to this the single engine procedures are a little different. I believe a good percentage of fatal crashes are caused because JOe Blow with a fresh multi ticket can buy one, relatively cheap.
ananoman
New Member
Aviation International News recently had a lengthy article about the MU-2. Paraphrased from that article:
It is true that it has a high accident rate, but it is hard to compare with other airplanes, as the number of hours flown is hard to pin down for the different types. Breiling did a study that came up with a 1.68 (accidents per 100,000 flight hours) for the MU-2 and 1.08 for the entire fleet of US registered turbo-props from 2000-2004.
The MU-2 also ranks higher than almost all jets when looking at data from 1964 to 2000. Only the Lear 23 with a rate of 1.89 toped the MU-2's rate of 1.88, with the IAI 1121 (Westwind) being next on the list. Except for the rest of the 20 series Lears with a rate of 1.04, all the jets have a rate below 1.0.
From the article, one of the biggest factors they came up with in the MU-2 accidents is a lack of simulator training. In fact, no pilot in any accident from 1996 through 2005 had successfully completed sim training. All the accident pilots had either received 'in-house' training or had used an independent instructor.
Most of the charter operators and cargo companies who use a MU-2 want to lower their cost as much as possible. So, you can see the problem. Sim training is expensive and the cost of the MU-2 is rather low. So it is possible to buy the airplane relatively cheap, then not have the money to get the proper training. Most of the companies who would use a MU-2 probably don't really pay that well either, so you will have lower time pilots with less experience overall flying a turbo-prop that is unlike anything else out there.
Although the accident rate for the MU-2 is higher than other types, from 2001 to 2005 three times as many people died in Cessna Caravan accidents (which has more than 3x the fleet size and flies over 3x the hours of the MU-2).
So, it looks like the MU-2 is not really the death trap that some portray it as. But, you better get the proper training in a sim. Mitsubishi has lobbied the FAA to mandate a type rating, but they have resisted. A SFAR mandating stricter training has been proposed (don't know if it has been implemented yet), and it has the requirement of recurrent training. This is actually somewhat more strict requiring a type rating, as those don't mandate recurrent training. The rule also has strict requirements for instructors, who have to have significant time in type.
It is true that it has a high accident rate, but it is hard to compare with other airplanes, as the number of hours flown is hard to pin down for the different types. Breiling did a study that came up with a 1.68 (accidents per 100,000 flight hours) for the MU-2 and 1.08 for the entire fleet of US registered turbo-props from 2000-2004.
The MU-2 also ranks higher than almost all jets when looking at data from 1964 to 2000. Only the Lear 23 with a rate of 1.89 toped the MU-2's rate of 1.88, with the IAI 1121 (Westwind) being next on the list. Except for the rest of the 20 series Lears with a rate of 1.04, all the jets have a rate below 1.0.
From the article, one of the biggest factors they came up with in the MU-2 accidents is a lack of simulator training. In fact, no pilot in any accident from 1996 through 2005 had successfully completed sim training. All the accident pilots had either received 'in-house' training or had used an independent instructor.
Most of the charter operators and cargo companies who use a MU-2 want to lower their cost as much as possible. So, you can see the problem. Sim training is expensive and the cost of the MU-2 is rather low. So it is possible to buy the airplane relatively cheap, then not have the money to get the proper training. Most of the companies who would use a MU-2 probably don't really pay that well either, so you will have lower time pilots with less experience overall flying a turbo-prop that is unlike anything else out there.
Although the accident rate for the MU-2 is higher than other types, from 2001 to 2005 three times as many people died in Cessna Caravan accidents (which has more than 3x the fleet size and flies over 3x the hours of the MU-2).
So, it looks like the MU-2 is not really the death trap that some portray it as. But, you better get the proper training in a sim. Mitsubishi has lobbied the FAA to mandate a type rating, but they have resisted. A SFAR mandating stricter training has been proposed (don't know if it has been implemented yet), and it has the requirement of recurrent training. This is actually somewhat more strict requiring a type rating, as those don't mandate recurrent training. The rule also has strict requirements for instructors, who have to have significant time in type.