A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots

This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
thought about it?

MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."

Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD
on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none
of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of
compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training
instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training
is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can
conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA
should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in
compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each
accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot.

You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other year
and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year
minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron
without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline
pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.

Mike
MU-2



"John" wrote in message
ups.com...
This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
thought about it?

MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."

In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD
on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none
of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of
compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training
instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training
is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can
conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA
should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in
compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each
accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot.


What does the AD require? what do they do? how does training replace it?

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Training as alternate compliance to an AD? I've never heard of that before.
What's the AD #?

Juan

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that
none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of
compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training
instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training
is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can
conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA
should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in
compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each
accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot.

You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other
year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year
minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron
without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline
pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.

Mike
MU-2



"John" wrote in message
ups.com...
This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
thought about it?

MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."

Mike,

What are the issues that make the transition from a piston twin to the MU-2
so difficult. Are they separate issues than if I were transitioning from a
piston
twin to a Cheyenne or other twin turbo prop? Just curious since I've always
heard the MU-2 was difficult twin turbo prop to transition to.


Thanks,
Pete


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that
none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of
compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training
instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training
is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can
conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA
should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in
compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each
accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot.

You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other
year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year
minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron
without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline
pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.

Mike
MU-2



"John" wrote in message
ups.com...
This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
thought about it?

MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."

"Dale" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
AD
on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that
none
of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of
compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training
instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved
training
is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you
can
conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The
FAA
should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in
compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each
accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot.


What does the AD require? what do they do? how does training replace it?


It actually make no sense at all. The AD requires auto ignition, tail boot
drain line, an ice detector, a trim in motion sensor and a system that
disconnects the autopilot if the airspeed goes below 140ktias in cruies
flight. I lieu of the ice detector, trim in motion sensor and the autopilot
disconnect you can get approved training once a year. The AD stems from an
accident where a pilot flew though ice for a long time, presumably with the
deicing equipment off and the autopilot holding altitude. They think that
he was reading a newspaper. Anyway, as the ice built up, the airplane
slowed until the autopilot exceeded its limits and diconnected. The FAA
decided to do *something* so they came out with this AD even though you
can't see the ice detector warning light if you are reading a newspaper.
The whole AD was going to cost about $30K so the owners fought it and the
AMOC was worked out. It is unclear to me how either the equipment or the
training would have saved the pilot reading a newspaper, but perhaps that is
just me. It is also unclear to me that if these things are needed in MU-2s
to save pilots reading newspapers why they aren't needed in other airplanes
as well?

There was another accident which caused the FAA to conduct a review of the
MU-2 in icing. A MU-2 took off *over gross weight* into *known severe icing
conditions* with *know inoperative deice boots* (the air lines were
disconnected). The plane crashed but since it had a politician on board
they had to do *something* and hundreds of thousands of dollars later they
concluded that if the deice boots are connected and working, that they work
just as well as they did when the airpalne was certified...surprise. I
suspect that if the muffler fell off a FAA car that they would spend $20K on
a really powerful stereo that got louder as you pushed on the accelerator
pedal.

You can make things foolproof but only idiot resistant.

Mike
MU-2

"Peter MacPherson" wrote in message
newsXCxd.227260$V41.31999@attbi_s52...
Mike,

What are the issues that make the transition from a piston twin to the
MU-2
so difficult. Are they separate issues than if I were transitioning from a
piston
twin to a Cheyenne or other twin turbo prop? Just curious since I've
always
heard the MU-2 was difficult twin turbo prop to transition to.


Thanks,
Pete

I don't think that it is all that difficult. The issues are the same except
perhaps that the MU-2 has a bigger performance delta from a piston twin than
a Cheyenne (unless it is a 400LS) or King Air. The difference is that there
are a lot more guys buying an old MU-2 and not getting training than are
buying Piaggio's and not getting training just because of the price. It is
interesting to note that the older cheaper MU-2s seem to have a higher
accident rate than the Marquise and Solitaire, perhaps this is because the
owners of the more expensive airplanes are more likely to go to expensive
training? The training isn't particularly difficult to complete, it just
has to be done. I don't think it is much different from a pilot
transitioning from a Apache to an pressurized Aerostar or a CitationJet to a
Citation X. In each case there are more tasks to be accomplished in less
time and there are more emergency procedures to learn because there are more
systems to fail. I suspect that the same guys who won't spend the money for
specilized training also doesn't go for specialized maitenance and are more
likely to have an emergency in the first place or an airplane that is harder
to fly because of engine or airframe (mis)rigging.

Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another
MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini
and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator
training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us?

Mike
MU-2



"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane
that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate
method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved"
training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only
approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their
enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are
undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding
the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess
they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or
compliance pilot.

You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other
year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year
minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron
without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline
pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.

Mike
MU-2



"John" wrote in message
ups.com...
This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
thought about it?

MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."

I don't have it handy, you can look it up. It is the one requiring the ice
detector, auto ignition, trim in motion sensor and autopilot disconnect.

Mike
MU-2

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
...
Training as alternate compliance to an AD? I've never heard of that
before. What's the AD #?

Juan

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane
that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate
method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved"
training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only
approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their
enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are
undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding
the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess
they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or
compliance pilot.

You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other
year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year
minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron
without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline
pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.

Mike
MU-2



"John" wrote in message
ups.com...
This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
thought about it?

MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."

Thanks for the feedback.


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Peter MacPherson" wrote in message
newsXCxd.227260$V41.31999@attbi_s52...
Mike,

What are the issues that make the transition from a piston twin to the
MU-2
so difficult. Are they separate issues than if I were transitioning from
a piston
twin to a Cheyenne or other twin turbo prop? Just curious since I've
always
heard the MU-2 was difficult twin turbo prop to transition to.


Thanks,
Pete

I don't think that it is all that difficult. The issues are the same
except perhaps that the MU-2 has a bigger performance delta from a piston
twin than a Cheyenne (unless it is a 400LS) or King Air. The difference
is that there are a lot more guys buying an old MU-2 and not getting
training than are buying Piaggio's and not getting training just because
of the price. It is interesting to note that the older cheaper MU-2s seem
to have a higher accident rate than the Marquise and Solitaire, perhaps
this is because the owners of the more expensive airplanes are more likely
to go to expensive training? The training isn't particularly difficult to
complete, it just has to be done. I don't think it is much different from
a pilot transitioning from a Apache to an pressurized Aerostar or a
CitationJet to a Citation X. In each case there are more tasks to be
accomplished in less time and there are more emergency procedures to learn
because there are more systems to fail. I suspect that the same guys who
won't spend the money for specilized training also doesn't go for
specialized maitenance and are more likely to have an emergency in the
first place or an airplane that is harder to fly because of engine or
airframe (mis)rigging.

Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another
MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini
and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator
training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us?

Mike
MU-2



"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane
that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate
method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved"
training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only
approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their
enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are
undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding
the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I
guess they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out
or compliance pilot.

You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other
year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every
year minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a
Baron without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston
airline pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.

Mike
MU-2



"John" wrote in message
ups.com...
This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
thought about it?

MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another
MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini
and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator
training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us?

Maybe he didn't -- his insurance could have made that decision for him.