Aero-TV: Reinventing The MU-2 - A Reinvigorated Safety Culture Achieves Great Results
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2016
- Increasing The Safety And Reliability Of The MU-2...
While at NBAA 2015, ANN News Editor, Tom Patton, had an interesting discussion with Pat Cannon, who is the President of Turbine Aircraft Services. The discussion circled around the issue of safety and the Mitsubishi MU-2. Tom started the conversation by making the statement that the MU-2 has had a rather shady history as it relates to safety. However, something has changed as the airplane's safety record has now improved. Tom asks Cannon what he attributes this to.
Cannon responds that it's a number of things that have all come together to make this high performance corporate airplane safer, and he attributes this, in large part, to the owners of these aircraft themselves. He points to the creation of the special FAA regulation, SFAR-108, that requires a specific training program and recurrent training annually for the MU-2. Cannon says that owners are responding well to this.
Cannon goes into details about the training program, and as he discusses its effect on MU-2 safety and reliability, we find that many of the training issues with the MU-2 relate directly to issues that can be applied to almost any airplane. This discussion is a shining example of how training and recent experience work together to improve safety.
This video provides an interesting view of aviation safety as it relates to the MU-2, and to all of general aviation.
©2015 Aero-News Network, Inc., ALL Rights Reserved
FMI: www.airbornetv.net, www.aero-news.net, www.aero-tv.net, / aerotvnetwork , vimeo.com/aerotvnetwork, / aeronews , turbineair.com
My father was a test pilot for Mitsubishi in San Angelo. It’s cool to see them around.
I have 2500+ hours in it and loved flying it. My first landing in it was on a 2500' strip in the Poconos during a snow storm. With Mil-Spec engineering; zero dihedral wing; full span, double slotted fowler flaps; spoilerons; and inverted camber tail, this plane is unique. It has the same wing loading of a Lear with the flaps up and the same wing loading as a Cessna 172 with the flaps out.
if there's any mistaking what this airplane is, he's giving it away at the 4:00 mark - if you own one of these things, you're in pretty good military company there, yeesh. mu2 is amazing, and frankly it's amazing that civilians can buy it. wicked high performance, payload, range, in a compact package, comfortable in flight. the flaps and spoilers are outrageously good. they should revive production, this airplane has so much potential in a modern variant.
I love this discussion on the MU-2. Having just over 6,500 hours in the MU-2 I find it is a stable platform and with recurrent training it is a very safe airplane to own and fly.
As a former demonstration pilot for Mitsubishi Aircraft International in the 70's and early 80's this video is one of the best! Thank you.
I flew 5000 hrs the Mu2 Marquise ,Great plane ,great performance, safe plane
Two of my pilot friends were killed in Western Australia and more pilots on the other side of Australia in the late 1980's and 1990's. ..... Don't get me wrong I loved flying the MU-2, however I was the first and only one in Australia to survive a stall due to ice build up. After non-controlled decent from 18,000 feet too 12,000 feet where the aircraft began to fly normally again I landed at Cunderdin airfield just outside of Perth CTA. When this event occurred there had only been one fatality so far in Australia, after reporting this incident too my company and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority as it was called then. They said "I must have imagined it"...!! Sadly, two fatalities occurred in WA in the following 3years. After the second fatality I was called in by the CASA crash investigation team to explain exactly what happened to the aircraft and how I responded to this non-controlled decent of 6,000 feet.
Here's what took place.....after taking off at MTOW and cruising at FL180 with the auto pilot on, flying in and out of icing conditions, I was doing a flight plan amendment for my next leg. Suddenly the stick shaker went off, immediately I hit auto pilot off as I pushed the control column in to a position where we should have been doing an outside loop. During this immediate response my eyes had lifted from my flight plan amendment too the ASI which was showing 151kts and falling rapidly. By now I had received what felt like an electric shock on my tongue and I had my right hand on the throttles ready to do something. At the same time without thinking I pushed the control column hard against the forward stop. Now looking at ASI the airspeed is falling at a slower rate through 94 kts.... honestly I didn't know what to do....I just sat there with the control column at full forward position, keeping nose straight with rudder and hands on the throttles. I didn't move a muscle, I was packing myself. The only thought and action I had left was to pull the power off if a stall occurred.
By now we had lost several thousand feet and still falling or mushing would be a better word. Looking at the airspeed again I remember it was now slowing its rate of decrease. I can not remember the slowest airspeed it indicated but I do remember thinking we should have stalled at this speed with nil flaps. To my relief and joy as the airspeed started to increase I eased off from the full nose down position. With gaining airspeed and outside wind noise increasing I checked the altimeter which read FL120....we were flying again...!!! After the above event I told my passengers that I had a problem with the aircraft and would be landing at nearest airport which was Cunderdin. After shutdown my passengers asked me why are we stopping here, what was wrong with the aircraft. They hadn't even realised we nearly stalled, mushed down through 6,000 feet..... and nearly killed two families.
What I did wrong, or two things I could have done better.....
No.1 Push Throttles Up too Max Power /Temp
No.2. Select initially 5 degrees of flap
No.3 not allowed the two owners of this aircraft sit in the rear seats (they were big boys and the rest of the passengers were wives and children)...... as a result my CofG would have been on rear limits.
After this incident I continued to fly MU-2's until they were grounded in Australia and sent back too USA except for one which was privately owned and operated in NSW.
Hi Maximuspadus, not that i am aware of in australia...its over 27 years now since most MU-2's have vanished from this country, so contacts, knowledge and information also dried up.
Thanks for sharing your story. Here is a fresh investigation report on a MU-2 Crash here in Quebec, Canada www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2016/a16a0032/a16a0032.asp
Hi Skye, any remote chance you ever worked with someone called Graeme Murphy. Another MU2 pilot in Australia [Based out of Melbourne]
You were not at the aft CG limit you were well past it... In the long body with just the pilot up front you cannot put four full size adults in the club seating even with no baggage, one has to go on the couch seat or sit up front in the copilot seat..
1000 hrs MU2 pilot here. Reese Howell trained. He saved my life. Great airplane. Would love to fly it again.
Don't know what the manufacturer's checklist says now, but when I flew the plane it was the old "positive rate, gear up" deal. That would have killed me one dark night when I lost the left engine about two seconds after rotation and it didn't NTS. I ended up 45 degrees left of rwy heading in a steep bank, full right rudder, 10 knots below blue line, and indicating 50 feet on my baro alt. and heading off into a black void. Luckily I had the gear still down (fwd gear doors not open). I knew I was dead, but got really calm all of a sudden and went through the drill. Once I feathered the prop, I could accelerate and climb to a safe altitude for gear retraction. After that it was a cake walk, except for having to go between two hammerhead cranes on the Delaware river, which looked like AM radio antennas to me, being so low.
I told this story at an icing seminar put on by Flight Safety as I was questioning the whole positive rate/gear up thing. The FSI moderator ignored me, saying something like "Looks like you did some good flying that night."
Later on, during the lunch break, he came up to me and said "I understand your position, but OUR LAWYERS won't let us teach anything different than what is in the flight manual."
Reese Howell taught me not to pull the gear up until I had at least a couple of hundred feet AGL. Had I followed the book, I'd be a distant memory now.
Glad your alive. What would have been different if you put the gear up? are you saying the keel effect of the gear saved you?
@@Jolinator I think he was alluding to the gear doors opening to allow the gear to retract and that would add a lot more drag. I haven’t flown the Moo but there’s a lot of planes with that same issue, the gear doors would cause a lot of additional drag when they open. Maybe someone that knows for sure can chime in, I’d like to know too!
@thecard69 there's two schools of thought to selecting gear up on mu2. If you ask pat cannon, the mu2 guru and test pilot, he has debunked the forward gear doors causing an abundance more drag, when the gear doors are all the way open if you look at them they actually have a gull wing effect and add lift according to him. When they are in transit is the only time they create a little bit of drag. Now keep in mind the mu2 long body is the only one with the big forward doors so this does not really apply to short body. Also know that the gear cycle is about 15-17seconds to fly retract or extend the gear, so the fwd doors are open and extended at the very beginning till the very end of the cycle in the gull wing position creating lift but also some drag. I have done some personal testing at a simulated altitude, @100kts gear down flaps 20deg I aggressively pull an engine back and claw my way out of the situation to both a safer airspeed (120-130) and safe alt (500agl) (simulated but in plane). I don't notice much difference, I can say you start accelerating much quicker the sooner you get the gear retracting, but the transitory drag adds a little just at beginning and end of cycle. My marquise also has -10 engines and mt 5 blades which add a lot of out of the hole and climb thrust so what once may have been a more major event with the Hartzells is now a more tame event.
But yes if you had gear in transit (moving up/down) and last am engine and the most inopportune moment you would want to immediately level off regain any speed for control, secure engine etc...
It can be a sporting event but it's a very controllable aircraft but you have to use all available flight controls, perhaps, full rudder, full spoiler, trim ailerons if you have time, and possibly a slight power reduction on live engine. I have down down to about 80kts indicated with gear and flaps down at mid weight at safe altitude, and and been able to eventually recover speed and altitude. The thing is you don't know how it will happens when it does with no notice, and it would be a real experience if you go right into imc and deal with this scenario etc...
So yes gear does cause drag but not as bad as people think.
Back in its time, no other turboprop under the same category could catch it. Beautiful aircrfat
Ive never flown an MU2, but as an A&P Ive done some maintenance on one in Alaska. Always liked the look and concept of the MU2. In the 90s in Alaska a close friend of mine was flying this one particular Medivac MU2, he was a high time Alaskan bush pilot. one day they were climbing out after a departure from Anchorage, and the aircraft stalled and actually spun on them, I think he said it made about two turns before they got it back. Shortly after that, they went to a King Air 200. I asked my friend about the MU2, and he would only say, its definitely not a keeper, but I still think its a sexy machine.
Hate to say, but if he stalled and spun it, 💯 percent pilot error to get in that situation, but also a testament to mu2 control ability that he was able to recover it in only 2 turns, also his piloting saved him as well that he was able to recognize his mistake and recover it.
Nice lil plane love the look of it.
I flew MU2 aircraft for a 135 operator out of Ypsilanti, MI back int he 1980s. We also had Lears. Our policy was to only let Lear Captains fly the MU2 single pilot. ‘Nuff said. I liked the plane, but it took me a while to get used to it. If I win the lottery, I will have one, but I will get a serious check out in it this time. I can’t say what the first training I had, was, the statute of limitations is still haunting me.
Should’ve had more MU2 flying after interview in credits section,,, but awesome anyway !,,, Love MU2s
What exactly were the safety issues that an MU2 had? What were the problems that the MU2 faced?
Why isn’t anyone talking about WHY the airplane has a bad reputation? What’s the problem/behavior with the airplane requiring this specialized training? I mean, if it’s such a “pussycat” why did it receive a bad reputation or why was it any more prone to crash compared to any other twin? The fact that it has spoilerons shouldn’t make it any harder to fly than a standard aileron’d airplane, right? If it DOES fly differently, then it SHOULD require recurrent training. Can someone please provide the details about what it is about this airplane’s spoilerons that requires the additional annual costs to train on them?
I read the answer somewhere. The simple answer is FAA discovered that the plane had an accident rate and incident rate that was up to 2.5 times as much as comparable planes. FAA did an extensive investigation to discover why. The investigation included design, mechanical, maintenance and operational scope. They could not find any fault with the aircraft design or mechanicals. What they discovered is that the MU-2 had some unusual characteristics that made it respond differently to some generally assumed inputs. In other words, you could not treat it like a Beechcraft or a Piper under certain circumstances. MU-2 needed specific knowledge and training to avoid common errors. Once pilots understood this simple dynamics, it became a pussycat! The FAA recommended that owners and pilots undergo necessary training from time to time. Once this recommendation was adhered to, the high accident and incident rates disappeared.
Very good video 👏👏👏
Thank you very much
This is probably a right dumb ass question but can these be flown at low level (say 3,000-6000 ft) at medium power settings (sacrificing speed for economy)? and without any long term repercussions for the airframe or engines? I have a certain mission in mind. I know we'd be burning more fuel than a piston but I think that's false economy compared to the workshop costs associated with say a 421 or 414. Anyone?
I think it would be great if the MU-2 was brought back into production. Wouldn't it be great to be able to buy a brand new one with todays avionics and engines? Since the Garretts aren't made anymore, perhaps a Pratt & Whitney PT-6 or something equivalent. How about a version with a pair of small turbofans out there under the wings? Ohhoooo....
Repetition Builds Proficiency
This plane can be a killer. However, so can the cessna 150. Like guns, the plane doesn't kill, the pilot does. You have to keep training. Oh, and it's the sexiest plane out there.
Mike Stone Some airplanes kill a lot more than others. For example, a short wing bd-5. BTW a Cessna 150 has a very nasty power on stall with full flaps. Try it sometime.
Interesting that you say that; as a low-time student I was circling an airport (1K above the pattern) watching a Stearman use the grass runway that crossed the main runway. I was waiting for him to depart (he told me he wanted to do a couple of circuits). Infatuated by the lovely site (I love biplanes!) I slowed down, was in a steep circle, and added more flaps (which ended up being ALL of the flaps), and that thing stalled and went over the top so quickly I didn't know what happened! It raised the nose, which didn't feel like it due to the bank, and Bob's yer uncle. It did most of a turn, and then in true Cessna fashion, wanted to fly again. After that, I bought a 172 and learned to spin it, and then learned to stay away from stall regimes.