MU-2B accident in New York

Acadia

Acadia

Well-Known Member
Went missed. ADSB track screams spatial d. Straight and level then starts a turn and dives into a turning 13000fpm descent. Autopilot kicked off on them?
 
Of course this would be the one I saw when I was in Boston last fall. I looked up the owner, think a medical firm of some sort. Damn.
 

Attachments

  • 05087086-AEAB-4C55-8AE8-83146A50732F.jpeg
    05087086-AEAB-4C55-8AE8-83146A50732F.jpeg
    500.4 KB · Views: 41
  • 1A302381-7E42-4969-A69C-7A8733247F51.jpeg
    1A302381-7E42-4969-A69C-7A8733247F51.jpeg
    510.6 KB · Views: 41
Lot of big brains on that little plane.
knot4u said:
It was a Solitaire that appeared to well equipped and maintained, the owner just recently took possession but had gone through all of the extra training required for PIC in an MU-2B. @Boris Badenov any thoughts?
Click to expand...
I think (more like suspect, subject to further information, as always) that he bought a really nice airplane, and, well, his reach exceeded his grasp. It's tricky because I drove one of these things around in circumstances I had no choice about when I was firmly in my 20s and came out unscathed. Part of that is maybe luck (never had an engine failure at 90 knots, etc.) But I think a lot more of it is about currency and focus. When I was flying Mitsis, that was what I *did*. I was not then, nor have I ever been the Ace of the Base (just ask anyone who has flown with me), but flying the thing was second-nature because that was where the food came from.

Now, that said, this Solitaire didn't have a lot in common with the -Js I normally operated. Full EFIS (from the pictures, at least), etc.. Very well-equipped airplane, and I would put good money that it was very well-maintained, as well. I suspect this would have happened if he'd been in a TBM or PC-12. The larger take-away for me is that if you're really good at a very specific and highly technical job, you might be best-served to stay in your lane and just hire some kid to fly your airplane around. Because that will be *his* job. His *whole* job. This analysis would not apply to former airline pilots who are proficient and know the airplane (waves to everyone's favorite MU-2 owner/operator, he knows who he is).
 
Boris Badenov said:
Lot of big brains on that little plane.

I think (more like suspect, subject to further information, as always) that he bought a really nice airplane, and, well, his reach exceeded his grasp. It's tricky because I drove one of these things around in circumstances I had no choice about when I was firmly in my 20s and came out unscathed. Part of that is maybe luck (never had an engine failure at 90 knots, etc.) But I think a lot more of it is about currency and focus. When I was flying Mitsis, that was what I *did*. I was not then, nor have I ever been the Ace of the Base (just ask anyone who has flown with me), but flying the thing was second-nature because that was where the food came from.

Now, that said, this Solitaire didn't have a lot in common with the -Js I normally operated. Full EFIS (from the pictures, at least), etc.. Very well-equipped airplane, and I would put good money that it was very well-maintained, as well. I suspect this would have happened if he'd been in a TBM or PC-12. The larger take-away for me is that if you're really good at a very specific and highly technical job, you might be best-served to stay in your lane and just hire some kid to fly your airplane around. Because that will be *his* job. His *whole* job. This analysis would not apply to former airline pilots who are proficient and know the airplane (waves to everyone's favorite MU-2 owner/operator, he knows who he is).
Click to expand...
It's unfortunate that every accident perpetuates the myth that the MU-2 is the problem.
 
DropTank said:
NOT an MU-2
Click to expand...
How much time do you have in one, operating one, or managing one for a specific mission?

EDIT - initial post argumentative - sorry.

I’m just really wondering where those comments are coming from because when one looks at the data after the (unfortunate) teething and initial training issues with the airplane it’s a remarkably solid and safe platform.
 
Last edited:
Boris Badenov said:
Lot of big brains on that little plane.

I think (more like suspect, subject to further information, as always) that he bought a really nice airplane, and, well, his reach exceeded his grasp. It's tricky because I drove one of these things around in circumstances I had no choice about when I was firmly in my 20s and came out unscathed. Part of that is maybe luck (never had an engine failure at 90 knots, etc.) But I think a lot more of it is about currency and focus. When I was flying Mitsis, that was what I *did*. I was not then, nor have I ever been the Ace of the Base (just ask anyone who has flown with me), but flying the thing was second-nature because that was where the food came from.

Now, that said, this Solitaire didn't have a lot in common with the -Js I normally operated. Full EFIS (from the pictures, at least), etc.. Very well-equipped airplane, and I would put good money that it was very well-maintained, as well. I suspect this would have happened if he'd been in a TBM or PC-12. The larger take-away for me is that if you're really good at a very specific and highly technical job, you might be best-served to stay in your lane and just hire some kid to fly your airplane around. Because that will be *his* job. His *whole* job. This analysis would not apply to former airline pilots who are proficient and know the airplane (waves to everyone's favorite MU-2 owner/operator, he knows who he is).
Click to expand...

1744809672188.png
 
Boris Badenov said:
Lot of big brains on that little plane.

I think (more like suspect, subject to further information, as always) that he bought a really nice airplane, and, well, his reach exceeded his grasp. It's tricky because I drove one of these things around in circumstances I had no choice about when I was firmly in my 20s and came out unscathed. Part of that is maybe luck (never had an engine failure at 90 knots, etc.) But I think a lot more of it is about currency and focus. When I was flying Mitsis, that was what I *did*. I was not then, nor have I ever been the Ace of the Base (just ask anyone who has flown with me), but flying the thing was second-nature because that was where the food came from.

Now, that said, this Solitaire didn't have a lot in common with the -Js I normally operated. Full EFIS (from the pictures, at least), etc.. Very well-equipped airplane, and I would put good money that it was very well-maintained, as well. I suspect this would have happened if he'd been in a TBM or PC-12. The larger take-away for me is that if you're really good at a very specific and highly technical job, you might be best-served to stay in your lane and just hire some kid to fly your airplane around. Because that will be *his* job. His *whole* job. This analysis would not apply to former airline pilots who are proficient and know the airplane (waves to everyone's favorite MU-2 owner/operator, he knows who he is).
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said. I never flew the the MU but did fly another hot little turboprop (Metroliner) to the tune of 4000 hrs that many considered a handful. The difference was it was my one and only job and I was averaging 100hrs/month hand flying it. You became very comfortable and very proficient with it and all its quirks. I suspect, from what I have read, the MU..much like the Metro, is not an aircraft you want to fly “recreationally” just a few hours a month/year especially in the soup or at night when things start going wrong and also doing it single pilot. A qualified pilot (f/o) in the right seat is huge when the work load is high...and the work load is always high! They are several aircraft I flew that required my A-game more so than others (Metro, MD11..) and could be very unforgiving to even minor mistakes or lack in judgement. Unless you fly the MU2 as your primary job, you fly it a lot and you have good amount of experience, your best bet is to hire a qualified pilot in the right seat while you gain that experience. I’ve never been a fan of single pilot ops for turbo props and corporate size jets but I’m a dinosaur and times are changing.

The Dr/owner, while good intentioned, probably was in over his head and experience level relying on all the fancy avionics and unfortunately he and his family unnecessarily paid the ultimate price. This is a common story with Dr’s buying and flying above their experience level and getting into situations they just can’t get out of. The aircraft had a beautiful avionics upgraded panel that would’ve made any of us drool and appears to have been well taken care of but that doesn’t replace good basic airmanship. You become too reliant on a good avionics/autopilot package and think you and the airplane can handle anything….right up to the point you find out you can’t.

I feel bad for the family and especially the one who wasn’t on the flight. I can’t even imagine the pain of the remaining family member. RIP..
 
Boris Badenov said:
I had no choice about when I was firmly in my 20s and came out unscathed. Part of that is maybe luck (never had an engine failure at 90 knots, etc.) But I think a lot more of it is about currency and focus.
Click to expand...
Makes me think of the hundreds of guys that flew freight SA-227 Metro's for Amflight, ect. That thing reminds me of an F-104. Just dangerous to look at it.
 
A300Capt said:
I agree with everything you said. I never flew the the MU but did fly another hot little turboprop (Metroliner) to the tune of 4000 hrs that many considered a handful. The difference was it was my one and only job and I was averaging 100hrs/month hand flying it. You became very comfortable and very proficient with it and all its quirks. I suspect, from what I have read, the MU..much like the Metro, is not an aircraft you want to fly “recreationally” just a few hours a month/year especially in the soup or at night when things start going wrong and also doing it single pilot. A qualified pilot (f/o) in the right seat is huge when the work load is high...and the work load is always high! They are several aircraft I flew that required my A-game more so than others (Metro, MD11..) and could be very unforgiving to even minor mistakes or lack in judgement. Unless you fly the MU2 as your primary job, you fly it a lot and you have good amount of experience, your best bet is to hire a qualified pilot in the right seat while you gain that experience. I’ve never been a fan of single pilot ops for turbo props and corporate size jets but I’m a dinosaur and times are changing.

The Dr/owner, while good intentioned, probably was in over his head and experience level relying on all the fancy avionics and unfortunately he and his family unnecessarily paid the ultimate price. This is a common story with Dr’s buying and flying above their experience level and getting into situations they just can’t get out of. The aircraft had a beautiful avionics upgraded panel that would’ve made any of us drool and appears to have been well taken care of but that doesn’t replace good basic airmanship. You become too reliant on a good avionics/autopilot package and think you and the airplane can handle anything….right up to the point you find out you can’t.

I feel bad for the family and especially the one who wasn’t on the flight. I can’t even imagine the pain of the remaining family member. RIP..
Click to expand...
Not to be argumentative, but I'd happily make the case that a high performance piston twin is a higher workload than most turboprops since you don't have to deal with mixtures, props, cowl flaps, managing CHT's etc when you're burning jet A. You also have more power on hand to escape conditions like icing or manage a single engine scenario. Things may happen slightly faster in the turbine world, but that's just a matter of proficiency and staying ahead of the plane and situation. If we're going to say that a King Air shouldn't be operated single pilot then I'd argue the same should hold true for a Baron since it's equally capable of getting the pilot into trouble.
 
A300Capt said:
I agree with everything you said. I never flew the the MU but did fly another hot little turboprop (Metroliner) to the tune of 4000 hrs that many considered a handful. The difference was it was my one and only job and I was averaging 100hrs/month hand flying it. You became very comfortable and very proficient with it and all its quirks. I suspect, from what I have read, the MU..much like the Metro, is not an aircraft you want to fly “recreationally” just a few hours a month/year especially in the soup or at night when things start going wrong and also doing it single pilot. A qualified pilot (f/o) in the right seat is huge when the work load is high...and the work load is always high! They are several aircraft I flew that required my A-game more so than others (Metro, MD11..) and could be very unforgiving to even minor mistakes or lack in judgement. Unless you fly the MU2 as your primary job, you fly it a lot and you have good amount of experience, your best bet is to hire a qualified pilot in the right seat while you gain that experience. I’ve never been a fan of single pilot ops for turbo props and corporate size jets but I’m a dinosaur and times are changing.

The Dr/owner, while good intentioned, probably was in over his head and experience level relying on all the fancy avionics and unfortunately he and his family unnecessarily paid the ultimate price. This is a common story with Dr’s buying and flying above their experience level and getting into situations they just can’t get out of. The aircraft had a beautiful avionics upgraded panel that would’ve made any of us drool and appears to have been well taken care of but that doesn’t replace good basic airmanship. You become too reliant on a good avionics/autopilot package and think you and the airplane can handle anything….right up to the point you find out you can’t.

I feel bad for the family and especially the one who wasn’t on the flight. I can’t even imagine the pain of the remaining family member. RIP..
Click to expand...
I thought I read he'd decided to go around on his first approach at like 2500', I'm not sure why he decided to go around, but apparently he was risk adverse enough to cancel the approach and try again. Apparently he lost control as he was vectoring during the missed approach. One of the officials said there's video of the accident and it appears the airplane was intact but they're not going to release that video anytime soon. So I guess the question is why would a pilot that was cautious enough to cancel an approach that far out get into to trouble doing the missed procedure? Or was he relying on the autopilot to execute the missed approach for him and when he started getting vectored he became overloaded and missed something important? I don't know, but I agree with what some here have said about flying these sorts of airplanes and how it should be what puts food on the table to stay proficient. It's one thing to own some high performance aerial contraption and only take it out on the weekends when the weather is nice (hello warbird owners) but actually utilizing them to the extent of their capabilities in bad weather should be your full time job, especially if you have a cabin full of people behind you. Not to mention young pilots need somewhere to build hours, otherwise the whole industry is going to collapse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top