Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

[schnitzel2k3]

Lots of N registered birds operating this side of the border semi-permanently.

My understanding of cabotage is operating point to point full revenue within Canada is forbidden for US birds (reverse applies to us). But operating from Canada to another international point with passengers is perfectly legal. Its obviously more complex running an N registered commercial aircraft this side of the border and may lead to some big fines if the t's and i's aren't dotted and crossed, but I would surprised if this was the case (bilingual crew or not).

I really hope it's not something as simple as an altimetry error but it sure would be simple to figure out.

S.

[cncpc]

I'm not familiar with the approach path here in relation to where the aircraft ended up but this situation/weather kinda has the ingredients to a frozen P2T2 sensor perhaps??? Might have been high on decent/approach with the power pulled way back allowing insufficient anti icing of the senor? Just a guess, but if they crashed short on the approach it might indicate insufficient power to stay on profile if they went to add some juice and the levers had little to no response. Maybe totally off but I do know of this happening elsewhere with Metros, etc...

If that first one is a while back, I think that's Murray from NavAir and it was a sensor issue on the power loss. Great teamwork with ATC, and a good bit of luck.

Like 30 years back.

[cncpc]

Lots of N registered birds operating this side of the border semi-permanently.

My understanding of cabotage is operating point to point full revenue within Canada is forbidden for US birds (reverse applies to us). But operating from Canada to another international point with passengers is perfectly legal. Its obviously more complex running an N registered commercial aircraft this side of the border and may lead to some big fines if the t's and i's aren't dotted and crossed, but I would surprised if this was the case (bilingual crew or not).

I really hope it's not something as simple as an altimetry error but it sure would be simple to figure out.

S.

I'd say that it was just a friend donating his aircraft to another friend in a sad situation that got sadder.

[Sulako]

A really easy cabotage rule of thumb for a Canadian operator is that for us to operate in the USA on charters, all our pax must either start or finish their journey in Canada. We can't pick up in the USA and then drop those pax off in the USA, they gotta come to Canada on the same trip.
Same applies for USA operators.
For them to operate in Canada, all their pax must either start or finish the trip in the USA.

[cncpc]

A really easy cabotage rule of thumb for a Canadian operator is that for us to operate in the USA on charters, all our pax must either start or finish their journey in Canada. We can't pick up in the USA and then drop those pax off in the USA, they gotta come to Canada on the same trip.
Same applies for USA operators.
For them to operate in Canada, all their pax must either start or finish the trip in the USA.

I think we can only pick up passengers down there that we dropped off, but not fully sure on that.

[schnitzel2k3]

Thanks Sulako,

That's a great way to put it.

S.

[Sulako]

I'm fully sure on it; I kinda run a corporate charter company. You can pick up pax you haven't dropped off, as long as they end up in Canada.

Every pax has to start or end (or both) in Canada, and then it's legal.

I think we can only pick up passengers down there that we dropped off, but not fully sure on that.

[rigpiggy]

The tsb has released some aerial photos of the site. The props are both bent back, and look to be out of feather, indicating normal operation. The debris trail and fuselage damage is consistent with forward movement, and a fairly slow descent rate. Just my observations

[ehbuddy]

Interesting set of photos on the TSB webpage. If the aircraft flew into the ground at a slight nose up attitude and lower airspeed in my mind the ground 'run' should have been longer and it was only 91 meters.

To me its almost like the aircraft may have been on a higher rate of descent with a more nose down attitude and then abruptly changed attitude and a secondary stall occured causing a high rate of descent nose up fuselage impact. It would then answer the short ground run, wing separation and fuselage breakup contained in such a small area. Just my thoughts. Nothing scientific.

[CpnCrunch]

Here is the initial report:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/c ... 160401.asp

I assume they were doing the LOC/DME 07 approach, as it has lower minimums than the RNAV. Here is a map showing the crash location:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.3510975

Looks like they might have miscalculated the glidepath and descended way below minimums. Either that or severe icing.

Wouldn't an expensive plane like this at least have a radar altimeter, synthetic vision or something?

[rigpiggy]

Here is the initial report:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/c ... 160401.asp

Wouldn't an expensive plane like this at least have a radar altimeter, synthetic vision or something?

Actually the MU2 is one of the cheaper hi perf tp. One of the reasons for its record was that you didnt need a type rating. So a lot of low time guys got into it. A number of accidents were caused by the pilots, forget an inverter launching into imc etc..... How do you justify 100-150 k on an aircraft that cost 300k. Cheaper than a used cirrus!

[Heliian]

A rather scathing look:

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n ... e-happened

[andy_mtl]

Ok folks lets have a look at the flight from the beginning.

This was a marquise carrying 7 people, and fuel to get to la madeleine. First question that comes to mind is:
How did they put 7 people , fuel there plus ifr alternate in it?
Having flight planned mu2 flights very often at my previous job, i m having a hard time believing they were not complying with MTOW. Again i just tried running the numbers with the empty weight of one of the mu2 i used to fly.

Flying into icing:

True everyone flying an mu2 will tell you:
Ohhh they spent so much money for certification and part of being able to fly the mu2 in ice, pilots must watch this video of an mu2 flown above 200knots behind a tanker getting covered in ice.....
Fine
It wasnt untill my last week at my previous job that i experienced what a bit of moderate icing will do to an mu2.
And it aint pretty.

Thinking of lowering the flaps iced up ... well how about finding a longer runway instead!?

What gets me thinking, is, probably they must have initiated a go around , however, anyone that has done one in an mu2 can say so.
It becomes very confusing!
You do a go around in a king air in a dash ? Pull up and thats it.
You do one in a mu2, you pull up, you need to turn your control to the left substantially to keep your wings leveled and that, for someone that isnt used or just isnt very current could cause alot of confusion .
As you go around and retract flaps from 20 to 5, you need a relatively steep AOA to keep climbing, and that could throw you off as well if you re someone that just doesnt fly the plane alot.

Now i m not here judging anyone , incident acciedents can happen to anyone, i m just throwing out there some facts that come to mind when an mu2 is involved in an accident.

I loved the plane, had a blast going from reserve to reserve last summer, it performs extremely well.
But when s***t hits the fan ( or the prop) in a mu2 things could go bad and very fast.


Andy

[Antique Pilot]

Ok folks lets have a look at the flight from the beginning.

This was a marquise carrying 7 people, and fuel to get to la madeleine. First question that comes to mind is:
How did they put 7 people , fuel there plus ifr alternate in it?
Having flight planned mu2 flights very often at my previous job, i m having a hard time believing they were not complying with MTOW. Again i just tried running the numbers with the empty weight of one of the mu2 i used to fly.

Flying into icing:

True everyone flying an mu2 will tell you:
Ohhh they spent so much money for certification and part of being able to fly the mu2 in ice, pilots must watch this video of an mu2 flown above 200knots behind a tanker getting covered in ice.....
Fine
It wasnt untill my last week at my previous job that i experienced what a bit of moderate icing will do to an mu2.
And it aint pretty.

Thinking of lowering the flaps iced up ... well how about finding a longer runway instead!?

What gets me thinking, is, probably they must have initiated a go around , however, anyone that has done one in an mu2 can say so.
It becomes very confusing!
You do a go around in a king air in a dash ? Pull up and thats it.
You do one in a mu2, you pull up, you need to turn your control to the left substantially to keep your wings leveled and that, for someone that isnt used or just isnt very current could cause alot of confusion .
As you go around and retract flaps from 20 to 5, you need a relatively steep AOA to keep climbing, and that could throw you off as well if you re someone that just doesnt fly the plane alot.

Now i m not here judging anyone , incident acciedents can happen to anyone, i m just throwing out there some facts that come to mind when an mu2 is involved in an accident.

I loved the plane, had a blast going from reserve to reserve last summer, it performs extremely well.
But when s***t hits the fan ( or the prop) in a mu2 things could go bad and very fast.


Andy

What are some of the basic differences between a regular MU2 and the Marquise version? Like performance, SE handling, etc?

Thanks
AP

[andy_mtl]

I ve only ever flew the marquise.

however the first difference that comes to mind between a short mu2 and the marquise is that on a short you cann add an extra fuel tank in the back. so that would increase your range. And also help with weight and balance issues.

Andy

[rigpiggy]

The big thing with the marquise if i recall is that it has-10s in it so lots more jam up top
http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Air ... bishi-MU-2

[AOW]

Wouldn't an expensive plane like this at least have a radar altimeter, synthetic vision or something?

This mu2 likely left the factory with one radio altimeter. Whether it was still installed/functional/or properly used is another question. (Arguably not properly used in this case!). This plane was built in the early 80s, so things like Synthetic or Enhanced vision were not original equipment, although there are some aftermarket option to add this technology. I somehow doubt this particular airframe had that upgrade. Interestingly, the fact that this flight only carried 5 passengers means that it did not require a TAWS-B system by both TC and FAA rules.
Speaking of rules, under TC this airplane requires the pilot to have a type rating (as it falls in the high performance category). Under FAA rules, the pilot requires special training under SFAR 108. Does anybody know if the accident pilot met either of these requirements?
This brings up a conundrum for someone with more knowledge of the CARs/FARs: since the aircraft was operated in Canada, did the crew have to meet the FAA requirements (it was still a US registered aircraft). But if it had been a Canadian registered aircraft of this type, it would have had to have been operated under a 604 POC or 703 AOC.

A rather scathing look:

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n ... e-happened

I think we can all agree on most of what was said here.

[NotDirty!]

Ok folks lets have a look at the flight from the beginning.

This was a marquise carrying 7 people, and fuel to get to la madeleine. First question that comes to mind is:
How did they put 7 people , fuel there plus ifr alternate in it?
Having flight planned mu2 flights very often at my previous job, i m having a hard time believing they were not complying with MTOW. Again i just tried running the numbers with the empty weight of one of the mu2 i used to fly.

That part isn't too hard. Figure on about 7700 lbs BEW, add 1400 lbs of passengers and crew, 300 lbs of baggage, you're up to 9400 lbs ZFW; 11625 max ramp weight means you've got room for 2225 lbs of fuel.

YHU-YGR is 494 NM, at 300 kts groundspeed takes about 1:45. At 700 lbs for the first hour, and 600pph for the second, that gives you 1150 lbs of burn to destination. Add 50 lbs for start/taxi, and 500 lbs for IFR reserve, you have 525 lbs of fuel left for alternate/contingency. YQM is only about a 30 minute flight from YGR, so 350 lbs of alternate fuel, and 175 lbs of contingency fuel seems pretty reasonable.

What are some of the basic differences between a regular MU2 and the Marquise version? Like performance, SE handling, etc?

Thanks
AP

The Marquise is simply the last version of the long body MU-2 built. There were 2 basic MU2 body styles, long and short, and each revised mark included both a long and a short version. As mentioned, the MU-2B-60 (Marquise) featured TPE 331-10 engines, which are essentially 1000 hp engines derated to 715 SHP. It also has SRL computers to simplify engine management, whereas earlier models had ITT or compensated EGT indicators. Most Marquise were delivered with Sperry SPZ-500 autopilots, although the earliest ones had slightly less advanced Bendix M4D autopilots.

[Midnight Sun]

Airport served only by NPA which according to the winds would have been RWY 07 with a MDA of 480 (458). Why even bother attempting the approach when the reported ceiling is 200' ?...


TAF CYGR 291341Z 2914/3002 05030G40KT 11/2SM -RASN BR OVC003 TEMPO 2914/2917 3SM -RA BR OVC008 PROB30 2916/2917 3/4SM -SN BLSN VV006 FM291700 01040G55KT 3/4SM -SN BLSN VV006 TEMPO 2917/2923 21/2SM -SN BLSN OVC010 BECMG 2919/2921 35045G60KT FM292300 34040G50KT 11/2SM -SN BLSN BKN025 RMK NXT FCST BY 292000Z

I'm guessing they were really counting on that 800' TEMPO possibly coming through? For a more experienced pilot, and a different A/C, I would say there's nothing wrong with giving it a try, as long as someone is willing to foot the bill given the high chance you'll end up at your alternate. I'm not sure about his experience (and especially on type), but it doesn't sound like a situation someone without a lot of time on the MU-2 would want to be in.

[timel]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.3517938


...

Shortly before 12:30 p.m. AT, either Gosselin or his co-pilot Fabrice Labourel radioed air traffic control in Moncton, N.B. Their plane was cleared for an instrument approach to Runway 07 at Îles-de-la-Madeleine Airport.

It was raining lightly on the archipelago. There was mist. Gosselin wasn't likely able to see more than four kilometres in front of him.

His MU-2B approached the runway from the southwest, but at some it began to lose altitude, enough to alarm those who live nearby.

"I heard the sound of a plane flying low, low, low," said Diane Vigneault. "I said to myself, 'That plane is so low.' I cried, I didn't know what else to do."

Eyewitnesses say the plane's nose was pointed downward, though the preliminary evidence gathered by the TSB suggests its wings were roughly horizontal to the ground.

"We know that the plane wasn't in a serious nose-dive," said André Turenne, a senior investigator with the TSB.

"It was relatively horizontal. It was rolling slightly to the left."

Around 12:30 p.m. AT the plane's left wing and engine struck ground some two kilometres from the runway. The plane skidded the length of a football field before coming to rest near a cluster of homes.

..