SheriffPatGarrett wrote:When flown by properly trained pilots, the MU-2 is probably the best performing plane out there...however, just jumping in from a King Air or Twotter could get you in serious trouble if you get an engine loss on go around...There's no ailerons but spoilers...so unless you really, but really step in, the spoilers use just rob you of all lift on the critical wing and you crash the sim every time you practice the bad technique...Do it properly and the plane is perfectly safe.
So was the CF-104...
I happen to agree with you, but the MU-2 has a bad reputation exactly for that reason... a stubby-winged high-performance business turbo-prop. Essentially a freaky hybrid machine that is exhilarating to fly most of the time, but can be unforgiving in some specific conditions of weather, pilot technique and most assuredly very sensitive to any amount of contaminant.
Seems like the Canadian underwriters agreed with you too.
Very very sad accident (as they almost all are) and condolences to all who lost loved ones.
Funny, the MU-2 flown in commercial operations now has a better accident record per hour flown than the King Air. If this accident had involved a King Air, nobody would have questioned the airplane. As a 7000 hr MU-2 pilot and examiner on type, I have heard all the arguments.
One clarification about the spoiler vs aileron debate. Spoilers reduce lift, true. Ailerons create drag. Both destroy an equal amount of energy at a time it is most needed. I have learned never to speculate on the cause of an accident in the early days but I will say the wx didn't look good at the time for any airplane.
One other interesting point is the Altimeter setting that day. If they were at 29.92 and set their altimeters to 29.93 instead of 28.93 this would have them almost 1000 feet lower than they thought and looking at the relationship of the impact zone to the airport and if they were IMC at the time could be a possible scenario.
However it appears the accident happened on the missed approach side of the airport assuming he did an approach for runway 06. Either way its a huge loss for the remaining family.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by ehbuddy on Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
garfield wrote:I know the pilot, he lives in Montreal but wasn't able to insure the a/c in Canada so kept it registrated in the US. I flew with him two times.
It's being reported that this was a "chartered" aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Commentary on another blog aviation site relating to this accident indicated Jazz cancelled their ops going in to the Maggies which resulted in this charter.
Old fella wrote:Commentary on another blog aviation site relating to this accident indicated Jazz cancelled their ops going in to the Maggies which resulted in this charter.
What is the other blog aviation site you speak of? I have an interest in this accident from another safety perspective and am trying to get as much information as possible. (And no, I'm not a lawyer)
I met him on one occasion, a very professional and polite gentlemen.
Condolences to all involved.
RIP
That article indicates he was an ATP and the company business was aviation products. I don't see any indication that it was an OC holder.
The CBC reports the accident site is near Havre aux Maisons. That is four miles north east of the airport, i.e. on the departure/missed approach side. That's a long ways from the airport to be contacting terrain in what should be a climbout.
Anyways, a very sad tragedy.
---------- ADS -----------
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
The copilot was more like a safety pilot (twin ifr instructor). It was probably a way for him to build twin/ifr time.
I guess the plane was privately operated.
The MU-2 can handle icing just fine actually. Only plane to ever have 2 known icing certification reviews, and passed both times. I've got about 1,100 hours in the thing. I'm going to guess this was CFIT rather than contamination, but that's based on no actual information. So sorry for the friends and family of those affected, my heart goes out to them.
garfield wrote:I know the pilot, he lives in Montreal but wasn't able to insure the a/c in Canada so kept it registrated in the US. I flew with him two times.
It's being reported that this was a "chartered" aircraft.
If it was flying pt 135, and the ceiling was under approach mins they shouldn't have attempted it.
Of course we all know aviation reporting, you're lucky they didn't call it a single engine Boeing 172.
garfield wrote:I know the pilot, he lives in Montreal but wasn't able to insure the a/c in Canada so kept it registrated in the US. I flew with him two times.
It's being reported that this was a "chartered" aircraft.
If it was flying pt 135, and the ceiling was under approach mins they shouldn't have attempted it.
Of course we all know aviation reporting, you're lucky they didn't call it a single engine Boeing 172.
A part 135 carrier cannot operate point to point in Canada.
---------- ADS -----------
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Old fella wrote:Commentary on another blog aviation site relating to this accident indicated Jazz cancelled their ops going in to the Maggies which resulted in this charter.
What is the other blog aviation site you speak of? I have an interest in this accident from another safety perspective and am trying to get as much information as possible. (And no, I'm not a lawyer)
PPrune, I speakith.........as you probably been around there. Personally it doesn't bother me if you are a lawyer - but if I may be so bold, you drive for AC correct.
Old fella wrote:Commentary on another blog aviation site relating to this accident indicated Jazz cancelled their ops going in to the Maggies which resulted in this charter.
What is the other blog aviation site you speak of? I have an interest in this accident from another safety perspective and am trying to get as much information as possible. (And no, I'm not a lawyer)
PPrune, I speakith.........as you probably been around there. Personally it doesn't bother me if you are a lawyer - but if I may be so bold, you drive for AC correct.
Correct. My interest has nothing to do with AC though. I am involved with another airport that is similar to the one on Isle de la Madeleine. We are going through some safety issues right now and I just want to ensure that we can learn from this tragedy.
