MU-2 Flat Spin from USA

pickleswitch · Post by **pickleswitch** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:19 am

MU-2 Fell 12,000 Feet In Spin, NTSB Says
A Mitsubishi MU-2 turboprop that crashed near Pittsfield, Mass., about 5:30 a.m. on March 25, fell nearly 12,000 feet in less than a minute, the NTSB reported in its preliminary findings, released on Saturday. Several witnesses said they watched the cargo aircraft descend in a flat spin, making grinding, whining or howling sounds. It impacted the ground intact, in an upright position, with both engines turning. The ATP-rated pilot, who was alone on board, was killed. The conditions at the time were VMC, and the pilot had filed an IFR flight plan. The pilot's last communication was routine, about nine minutes before the crash. He was told by New York Center to switch to Boston, but he never called them. The aircraft, operated by Royal Air Freight of Michigan, had departed from Pontiac the night before, at about 11:30 p.m. local time. The pilot, Brian Templeton, 33, of Michigan, flew from Pontiac to Rockford, Ill., picked up cargo, and then flew to Hagerstown, Md. He dropped off a portion of the cargo at Hagerstown, and was en route to Bangor, Maine, at about 17,000 feet, when the accident occurred. Two AIRMETs were issued for occasional moderate rime to mixed icing conditions, the NTSB said. One of the AIRMETs was valid between the freezing level and 18,000 feet, and the other was for the southern section of the area, from the freezing level to 22,000 feet. A PIREP was also issued indicating icing and low-altitude turbulence. Investigators examined the cockpit overhead switch panel and found the right pitot/static heat was "on" and the stall heat was "on." The remainder of the overhead switches, which included: propeller de-ice, engine intake heat, windshield anti-ice, and wing de-ice, were all in the "off" position. Both tip tanks were ruptured; however, a substantial amount of fuel was observed on the ground, in the area of both tip tanks. The outboard and inboard fuel tanks on each wing remained intact, and approximately 60 gallons of jet fuel were drained from the tanks. The NTSB did not state a probable cause for the crash, which remains under investigation pending a final report.

just another pilot · Post by **just another pilot** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:46 am

Anyone remember the MU2 double engine failure over Mabel Lake B.C. years ago? Was that ice related as well?

pickleswitch · Post by **pickleswitch** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:21 am

Yes the Mable Lake MU-2 was ice related as well. Except they got both engines re-lit and landed safely in CYLW. I have heard that audio tape with the crew talking to YVR ATC, it gives you goosebumps.

cedarjet · Post by **cedarjet** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:46 am

any chance you can share that file with us, or post the link.

gracias

Sulako · Post by **Sulako** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 6:16 am

Investigators examined the cockpit overhead switch panel and found the right pitot/static heat was "on" and the stall heat was "on." The remainder of the overhead switches, which included: propeller de-ice, engine intake heat, windshield anti-ice, and wing de-ice, were all in the "off" position

All the deice equipment in the world won't help if you don't turn it on. I'll armchair quarterback this one and theorize that he flew into icing, iced up and fell outta the sky eventually.

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:40 am

Scary.

Not to be nitpicking, but how does an aircraft lose 12,000 in LESS than a minute? A 'flat' spin could not produce this rate of descent. 12000fpm is over 120mph strait down, and an aircraft in a 'flat' spin certainly isn't going strait down.

Any thoughts?

Caracrane · Post by **Caracrane** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:40 pm

Too Bad.... but a MU-2 is just a piece of shit

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:50 pm

I don't know how an airplane can loose that much altitude so quickly but I have read other accident reports and the rates of descent can be incredable. I don't know if the accident can be blamed as much on the airplane as on the engines. My guess is that the engines flamed out. Garrett TPE 3-31"s are susceptable to flame-out if they ingest too much ice and/or water. Most early Metros had an ignition system that had a very short duty cycle. I must assume the MU-2 had or has the same. If the ignition is either in AUTO or better yet, on, then a flame-out is less of a danger. Damn poor system that has been fixed in later models but there were a lot of other engines that had the same proplem. We had a short duty cycle on the ignitors in the RR Darts and they did not like ice.

Even our CARS addresses this problem. Do not kill a crowd. If you are going to crash off the end of the runway because the airplane won't fly on one, make sure you have only 9 or less people on board or better yet, only the crew on board.

Sulako · Post by **Sulako** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:10 pm

Caracrane wrote:Too Bad.... but a MU-2 is just a piece of shit

Not up to the challenge, eh?

When properly flown and respected, they are a thing of beauty. Or so I hear

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:18 pm

Caracrane :

What a facinating opinion.

Care to elaborate and tell us about your experiences with the Rice Rocket and what exactly makes them a piece of shit?

Cat

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 4:30 pm

Cat Driver - have you ever flown a Moo Too? I never have but I think Sulako is right, when properly flown, they can be a good airplane. Certainly are fast airplanes. I read an artical in Aviation International News on the MU-2 a few years ago and I know some of the guys who flew the MU-2 that STARS in Alberta operated and they all said it is not a piece of shit, but rather a very demanding airplane that has to be flown the way an MU-2 has to be flown which can be quite different than the way you think an airplane should be flown. That in itself can be a problem. The Garratt TPE 3-31 engine is a fine piece of shi-- I mean, machinery but for one thing - it does not like water or ice in the throat. There has never been an accident or flame-out in a Metro when the auto ignition is on. Same engine as a MU-2. Can an airplane develop a horrendously high rate of descent? you bet it can. just get too slow with some ice. I have to chuckle over some armchair quarterbacks when it comes to accidents. I have done the same thing. Made assumptions, only to be proven wrong when the actual accident report comes out. Most think right away about either weather or pilot error and never about the poor slob in the bag run or cargo airplane that has to fly old junkers or are poorly trained. It's too bad but at least there is a bit of a bright spot and that is large air carriers like ACE, Kelowna Flightcraft, Morningstar, Fedex and UPS that are proving that air cargo can be a safe and reliable occupation. Just have to move the idea into smaller airplanes.

bezerker · Post by **bezerker** » Sat Apr 10, 2004 11:52 am

If you jump from an airplane you can do about 120 mph straight down, I don't see why an brick with wings can't match that.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Sat Apr 10, 2004 5:43 pm

Ok, so you flew an MU-2 and it scared you. It's ok, really. It scares most people at first, but then grows on you like a very bad flesh eating desease. It's ok to say that you quit. Most people i've talked to love the damn thing.

They think it's the best thing since stinky sliced cheese. HMMM, stinky cheese.. Anyway, we wont laugh at you cause you couldnt fly it YOUR way. As for duty cycles on the ignitions, well, I hear from some of my loud neighbours, that some, if not most of them have been modified as to totally erase the duty cycles. WOW, that's right. They can be used indefinately if you want them to. Just dont let the boss hear you say that.

I SAID, GET ME ANOTHER BEERA!

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Sat Apr 10, 2004 5:45 pm

That's the continuous ignitions of course. Wouldnt want any of you newbies to go to ground school saying that Carl told you that you could run the ignitors on the start as long as you wanted too...

bezerker · Post by **bezerker** » Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:13 am

There are lots of people who believe that the Sea King is also a great aircraft. It seems to be good enough for the american prez, so it must just be our pilots who can't lean to fly it properly.

There is a reason why they don't build more MU2's.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:18 am

If 250 hour pilots stopped buying the damn things, they wouldnt have stoped making them. They are fast, and cheap to buy, the perfect recipe for the rich with a dangerous side.

Intentional Left Bank · Sun Apr 11, 2004 7:47 pm

bezerker wrote:...it must just be our pilots who can't lean to fly it properly.

Are you serious, or are you being facetious?

bcflyer · Post by **bcflyer** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:49 pm

I've flown the MU-2 in alot of nasty ice and never had any problems at all. Its a great airplane when flown with some respect. Stay on top of things and it will do just about anything you ask it to do.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:00 pm

bcflyer must have worked for Nav Air and as mentioned previously, the MU2 is a very demanding airplane to fly and has to be flown properly. That is just what Nav Air does. They train experienced pilots to fly a MU2 the way an MU 2 has to be flown and have had good sucess with it. At least that is what my friends tell me. Its the wannabe's that have the problems, but that can be said of anlmost any high performance airplane.

bcflyer · Post by **bcflyer** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:50 pm

Actually I flew it with Thunder Air in Ont. We used it for medivacs. Comes out of a 3500ft gravel strip with ease and cruised at close to 300kts. Great machine!!

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:31 pm

I was wondering about the 12 000'/min rate of descent too Jiggly. No way a true flat spin could produce that type of descent rate as far as I know. Admittedly I am not an aerobatic expert but that sounds more like a deep stall than a flat spin. Splitting hairs I guess. Those spoilerons shure would make for a nasty stall I bet.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:02 pm

Spoilers are great for stalls in the mu-2... Still get roll control throughout the stall....An added bonus if u tell me...

RampJock · Post by **RampJock** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:12 pm

I once made a Simulator crash at 15,000Fpm from 4000' "now that takes talent" the instructor said.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:43 pm

I am not an aerobatic pilot by any streach of the imagination but I do believe, from what I have read about the airplane, that those horrendous rates of descent are possible in a stalled or spin/spiral situation, especially in a reasonable heavy airplane with high wing loading such as the Rice Rocket. How you would end up in such a situation, I would not want to hazard a guess, but I would bet it can be done.

FSS · Post by **FSS** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:12 am

Approx 1977 or so, there was a MU2 crash west of YWG in the Delta. The investigation,s air photos showed the crash scene of the a/c splatted on the ground, no slide marks, or debris trail. Only details I remember there was thunderstorms in the area, when a/c went off radar, no radio calls. Never heard the official accident report.