DanWEC wrote:Bad wx, likely icing too. I won't speculate since information is limited and it's generally in poor taste to do so, but I wonder how they ended up 2km north of the field, coming from the west for (likely) 07?
Just tragic for the family. RIP.
TSB says 2km north, however the news reports are saying it was near Chemin Richard, about 3km SW of the threshold of runway 08.
Anything north of the airport appears to be either water or open land; no houses as shown in the photo backgrounds.
magdalen-islands.jpg (139.87 KiB) Viewed 6881 times
Interesting how the TSB investigation is headed and done by their Atlantic Regional office, and not from the Quebec regional office. A Quebec-based crew, to and from two Quebec airports, all French speaking including all 7 victims. I get it that Iles-de-la-Madeleine are physically close to the Atlantic Region, but there must be a reason why the Quebec Region was not given the nod on this high profile accident.
armchair wrote:all French speaking including all 7 victims.
Are you in insinuating that there was a linguistical issue? Complications perhaps arising from the crew flying an American reg aircraft with a potentially bilingual crew? (And perhaps even passengers?).
armchair wrote:Interesting how the TSB investigation is headed and done by their Atlantic Regional office, and not from the Quebec regional office. A Quebec-based crew, to and from two Quebec airports, all French speaking including all 7 victims. I get it that Iles-de-la-Madeleine are physically close to the Atlantic Region, but there must be a reason why the Quebec Region was not given the nod on this high profile accident.
The reason is the accident occurred in the Atlantic Region.
schnitzel2k3 wrote:I'm in agreement with the altimeter theory.
Very easy to listen to an ATIS, and accidentally set 29.93 vs. 28.93 and end up very low on an approach, which seems to be the case (striking the hill). When I saw the METAR this afternoon, that was the first item that caught my eye. People were talking about Icing this and low clouds that...but the MU2 is solid (yes its a squirrelly bird).
I have no idea what equipment was onboard or what an MU2 comes with standard, but it's too bad it wasn't able to help them out in this scenario.
I guess first things first, pull the altimeter and check the setting.
Sigh. Shame.
S.
Very possible with the altimeter set wrong. However with no ATIS in CYGR (Iles-de-la-Madeleine) you talk to Madeleine Radio or Mont-joli on the MF. In this case they would have been working Monction center and then handed off to Madeleine Radio. Both ATC and Madeleine Radio would have given the altimeter twice as per NavCan procedures with the low setting.
"Rumours" have it some claim to have seen it fly UNDER power wires...Either he was loaded with ice or/and lost an engine...clearly a controlled crash...Keep in mind this design has no ailerons but spoilers...so if you use them instead exclusively of rudder for single engine control, guaranteed crash...(loss of lift)
Also, he was perfectly legal as long as it was a non revenue flight. This outfit has a good reputation, so bad maintenance is out of question.
Examination of the propellers will tell the cause of the crash.
Some MU-2 icing emergencies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbm8xzL ... e=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lAu-Hp ... e=youtu.be
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...
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.
contactapproved wrote: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.
---------- ADS -----------
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
schnitzel2k3 wrote: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.
---------- ADS -----------
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
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.
Sulako wrote: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.
---------- ADS -----------
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
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
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.
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!
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_mtl wrote: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?
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.
