N80HH MU-2 fatal crash in Ohio . . .

[robbreid]

FlightAware Flight Tracker N80HH

Washington Post News

MU-2 crashed today on approach to Lorain County Regional Airport in Ohio today. I'm sure they'll be more info tomorrow - especially being a holiday in the US today.

[The Old Fogducker]

Quite sad.

I really enjoyed my time dealing with the MU-2, but I was lucky enough to get to Flight Safety in Houston for recurrent sim and gs training every 6 months.

Heck of a strong airplane.

I recall being told at my initial GS class, the typical MU-2 accident happens on approach, hitting the ground about 1 to 2 miles short of the runway with a high sink rate.

My thoughts are with the families and those left to piece together the events so others can learn from them.

OFD

[Tim]

what led to those typical high-sink rates?

[hz2p]

.

[robbreid]

Aircraft had a missed approach, in drizzle and fog, and was coming in for a 2nd approach
when the accident occurred.

News Update.

[The Old Fogducker]

Too low a power setting with gear and flap extended, not flying the numbers, ..... like all Garretts there is little or no sound change with power changes, there is no change in discernible airframe noise, the "ride" feels just as solid at full stall as it does at VMO.

On my initial night training, maybe a mile outside the FAF, the training pilot had me decrease the power to about 10 or 15% less torque than normal after configuring for a visual approach, ... then look at the floor for a bit while he kept the wings level. I couldn't tell a thing different by sound or feel. He told me to look up and out the window, the runway lights appeared to be in the right spot in the windshield, but the VSI was pinned at around 6,00 FPM down.....and it felt as solid as if you were sitting at your kitchen table. We would have flown it into the ground, about 2 miles short.

That was a pretty graphic demonstration.

Make no mistake, I found it to be a superb airplane, but you had to be properly trained on type, and have a healthy respect for it. Unfortunately, its bad reputation has depressed its purchase price, and brought it into a class of buyer that perhaps shouldn't be flying the airplane.

OFD

[Woxof38]

Flying magazine February 2010 issue talks about MU-2 page 8 (Left Seat, by J. Mac Mclellan)

[55+]

A BE-200 is a far superior airplane as you really would have to work at it in order to put yourself in a sticky situation......

Never been in MU-2 but there is plenty of info around about it's characteristics.......

[bcflyer]

A BE-200 is a far superior airplane as you really would have to work at it in order to put yourself in a sticky situation......

Never been in MU-2 but there is plenty of info around about it's characteristics.......

I flew the MU-2 for about a year in all kinds of weather into all kinds of airports (High density airports to 3000' gravel) and never had any problems. It's a high performance airplane that must be flown as such. Do something stupid and it will bite you. That doesn't mean its a bad airplane it just means you need to sit up and pay attention. (isn't that what we're supposed to be doing?)
The King Air is much easier to fly, no doubt about it, but the MU-2 is alot more fun. Far more responsive, 20-30 kts faster and better pressurization. If you read the accident reports you'll find that 90% of them were pilot error made by inexperienced pilots. I once met a private owner who decended his Solitaire well above the redline because Mitsubishi published a "demonstrated dive speed" that happened to be about 70 kts higher than VMO! Gives you an idea of the mentality of some of the private owners..

[xsbank]

There's a lot to be said for flying an aircraft that demands respect and makes you think seriously about it as you walk up to it, thinking about the procedures and the numbers and how you are going to pay particular attention to it as you fly it about. I flew a few Trackers that demanded that type of attention and I think it made me a better pilot than if I had just been flying around in Cessna-type aircraft all the time. There is a strong argument that making an a/c too easy to fly, too automated, too comfortable that you become complacent and forget how bl**dy dangerous flying for a living can be.

I consider the MU-2 one of the most desirable a/c to fly, high on my list of wannas.

Then again, looking at that sad wreck, I wonder if that pilot felt the same way.

[55+]

There's a lot to be said for flying an aircraft that demands respect and makes you think seriously about it as you walk up to it, thinking about the procedures and the numbers and how you are going to pay particular attention to it as you fly it about. I flew a few Trackers that demanded that type of attention and I think it made me a better pilot than if I had just been flying around in Cessna-type aircraft all the time. There is a strong argument that making an a/c too easy to fly, too automated, too comfortable that you become complacent and forget how bl**dy dangerous flying for a living can be.

I consider the MU-2 one of the most desirable a/c to fly, high on my list of wannas.

Then again, looking at that sad wreck, I wonder if that pilot felt the same way.

Agree with your points but on "automation" there are distinct safe advantages with FMS data loaded IAPs, calculated VPAs on final instead of the old drive/dive associated with non-precision procedures, flexibility of RNAV(GNSS) designs and soon to be WAAS LPV.

[xsbank]

The thing I've been flying has all that, plus HGS and soon EVS and WAAS but I think having "juggled with Jesus" in a bunch of unstable, scary, high-performance stuff has made me a much better pilot.

[55+]

The thing I've been flying has all that, plus HGS and soon EVS and WAAS but I think having "juggled with Jesus" in a bunch of unstable, scary, high-performance stuff has made me a much better pilot.

Couldn't agree more. A combination of good" stick and rudder" skills and knowledge/adaptability of automation makes the better pilot.

[Coast-dog]

Regardless of a/c type, always sad to see this situation.

I too have spent some time in the MU2, but not long enough to have it bite back at me; I fondly remember by time at the controls. I remember feeling my eyebrows rise up at the reading of the demonstrated dive speed; 330KTS IIRC.

It's one hot machine, by no means is it a lax machine. I remember asking one of my managers why he didn't just hop in to an MU2 like he was hoping into his Cherokee Six - his reply was 'no', and that one has to fly it everyday (the MU2) to be proficient.

Later on at another employer I had the pleasure & privilege to work with a colleague who unfortunately lost a very good friend in a MU2 accident that crashed in the YEG area some years ago. He didn't have one good thing to say about the aircraft.

[mrhelio]

The MU-2 flies like a jet and you have to think in those terms, even though it is "jet-prop" in nature, they require complete attention to detail, and when you consider the advantages of flying one you soon realize the performance parameters ever present. Very sad to see this happen. I've always thought the MU-2 gets a bad rap, but the fact remains inexperience in high performance aircraft is where things can go wrong in short order..

[The Old Fogducker]

Coast Dog ... did your friend of a friend have factory approved simulator training and ground school, or was it an internal training program which met the minimum standard in the Ops Manual? Was he a step-up from a Navajo or maybe King Air without proper training?

If so, I expect he was not sufficiently familiar with the aircraft before being sent out alone into the big wide world.

OFD

[Coast-dog]

I can only guess answers to your questions because all we're doing here is armchairing, but I wouldn't be surprised if...

I expect he was not sufficiently familiar with the aircraft before being sent out alone into the big wide world.

OFD