MU-2 icing emergency

Wow, nice job by the pilot and ATC. We occasionally go into Kelowna which for people who are unfamiliar is a little ways across the border from Washington State. It's a beautiful area but there is lots of terrain. You can see here why they concerned about being below 5,000' north of the airport.

20111018-kcwm4dmhrmiixyw2njr2np8ib3.jpg
 
Makes my toes curl to listen to that! I have a DVD called 121.5. That has that exchange on it so I've heard it before made my toes curl and my insides squinch then too
 
Scary and inspiring. A CVR would have been fascinating to listen to. If the flight had been a single pilot op, who thinks this would have had the same positive outcome?
 
Wow. I don't know how to express what I felt hearing them decending like that.

I am a bit disconcerted over the nonstandard phraseology. A garbled mic (terrain or P static) and it could be frustrating.
 
My wife and I just watched this. Excellent job by the pilots and ATC. The worst icing I've encountered was in Canada, uncontrolled airspace (no ATC, no nobody to talk to). I wouldn't want to have been in their shoes. As the pilots said, someone liked them.

Lance F said:
Scary and inspiring. A CVR would have been fascinating to listen to. If the flight had been a single pilot op, who thinks this would have had the same positive outcome?
Click to expand...

It would depend entirely upon the pilot, but I would wager that the reason they survived at all was because they had two pilots who knew their machine and had their **** together. In a single pilot op, it would require a pilot who really knew the machine and really had his/her **** together. I probably would've ended up a smoking hole in the ground single pilot. This is primarily due to the double engine failure and then in-air restart, with OEI ops on an MU-2, which isn't forgiving for screwing up OEI.

Anyone else notice after they got the engines going you could hear the Garrets screaming in the background? They were going flat out... I would've been, too. I'd like to hear more about the engine restart as well.
 
Last edited:
Never flown an MU-2, but spent many years in other turboprops, 690 Commanders, Metroliners and SF-340s. The largest model of MU-2 weighs 10,000lbs and has the wing area of a 172, but in this case, it sounds like prop ice was the problem. The 331 powered airplanes have prop heat and of course running the condition levers to high RPM is encouraged with any vibration. Vibration is quite common, though, (until centrifical force slings the ice away - often hitting the fuselage. In fact the fuselages of most airplanes of this genre are reinforced to protect against ice.) But I've never diverted for it. They must have ad a very extreme case, or what can happen if they had been flying in icing for awhile - without engine anti ice, (bleed air heated inlets to the engine) and THEN turned it on after substantial ice had formed on the inlet, thereby ingesting said ice and damaging the engine. Wasn't there, don't know. Glad they got on the ground safely.
 
Lance F said:
Scary and inspiring. A CVR would have been fascinating to listen to. If the flight had been a single pilot op, who thinks this would have had the same positive outcome?
Click to expand...
I do. IMO, it most likely would have had the same outcome for single pilot ops _because_ the pilots did the most important thing right: They stayed calm. That's really the #1 thing that distinguishes successful from non-successful emergencies.
 
I believe they changed the recurrent training requirements after two went down in sucsession for exactly these reasons near where I lived in Colorado. Both were based at my home airport, KFTG, and belonged to the same company if memory serves. Mari will remember those. :(
 
Those regulations are pretty ridiculous. I have heard that they are a different airplane and require more training... Why exactly? From what i remember they are a high wing and they have the funky spoiler aileron thing. Can anyone enlighten me.
 
dell30rb said:
Those regulations are pretty ridiculous. I have heard that they are a different airplane and require more training... Why exactly? From what i remember they are a high wing and they have the funky spoiler aileron thing. Can anyone enlighten me.
Click to expand...

What it came down to was that a lot of people were buying these aircraft and killing themselves because they were cheap to buy, and people would cheap out on the training. The regulation is not ridiculous, the fact that it is the only one of its kind is indicative of the fact that there was a special problem surrounding these planes in training (or lack thereof). The turbine Commander, Cheyenne, King Air 90/100/200, Conquest, etc. do not have special regulations surrounding them, because they don't have the accident rate.

The biggest thing (as I understand it) is that the wing is a very "hot" design that is very unforgiving, and also requires that you use flaps appropriately at speed. People would use the standard "mixture, prop, throttle, flaps, gear" mantra they were taught in multi engine training on an engine failure, pull up the flaps, and the wing would stop flying. Someone with MU-2 experience can go into more detail on some of its unforgiving tendencies.

The MU-2 is a really neat aircraft, and I do want one. Its performance is hard to beat, and it is shown safe when in the hands of a competent pilot. But I would also not go into one with the expectation that, despite my ~1400 hours of multi engine time in a variety of piston twins, I could simply "Hop in and fly." I would expect to spend time sitting down and reading the books first, just as I do with any new aircraft that doesn't have significant similarity to aircraft that I've flown previously. Fly it like a PA-28 or a Cessna 152 and, well, there's a hole in the ground with your name on it.
 
Turboprops like the MU2 are airplanes the almost always flown by professionals, with an ATP and a serious systems/simulator course behind them. If you have the peso-nality, (money) airplanes at this level are truly industrial tough well equipt machines. Cruise at 260-320kts. Real man's deice and pressurized cabin. Downside is that they require an experienced pilot - particularly if flown solo. I love the turbo Commander, the Merlin 3B, and the MU. Go VFR at 17,500ft at 300kts on 60 gals/hr. with 6-8 people aboard.
 
60 gallons an hour. Whew. My wallet jumped out of my pocket and his whimpering under the chair.
 
dell30rb said:
Those regulations are pretty ridiculous. I have heard that they are a different airplane and require more training... Why exactly? From what i remember they are a high wing and they have the funky spoiler aileron thing. Can anyone enlighten me.
Click to expand...


While Ted is absolutely correct about them being killers of people with more money than training, the two that went down in Colorado were flown by professional, commercial pilots. Their operation was hangared across from me. That is one reason for the training reg. So its not just CEO's with more ego than flying skill that get killed in MU-2's.
 
Yeah, professional pilots screw up, too - big suprise. As for fuel burn, it all depends on what you're used to...the 737 I fly burns 200 gals/hr at IDLE!
 
denverpilot said:
60 gallons an hour. Whew. My wallet jumped out of my pocket and his whimpering under the chair.
Click to expand...

It's really not bad. About the same MPG as a Navajo, with a lot more speed.

Anthony said:
While Ted is absolutely correct about them being killers of people with more money than training, the two that went down in Colorado were flown by professional, commercial pilots. Their operation was hangared across from me. That is one reason for the training reg. So its not just CEO's with more ego than flying skill that get killed in MU-2's.
Click to expand...

I figured there were other incidents that I wasn't aware of.

Professionals aren't free from making errors. It seems that most of the high-hour, high-experience pilots that I come across appreciate the value of recurrent training. I know that I certainly have come to appreciate it with more hours.
 
Anthony said:
While Ted is absolutely correct about them being killers of people with more money than training, the two that went down in Colorado were flown by professional, commercial pilots. Their operation was hangared across from me. That is one reason for the training reg.
Click to expand...
The other one is politics.
 
Earlier in this thread, a comment about the outcome of this situation were it single-pilot, might have been different. I heartily agree...dual engine flameout in IMC at low altitude in icing...Help me Mr. Wizard! Can you say busy?
 
j1b3h0 said:
Earlier in this thread, a comment about the outcome of this situation were it single-pilot, might have been different. I heartily agree...dual engine flameout in IMC at low altitude in icing...Help me Mr. Wizard! Can you say busy?
Click to expand...

Curious, and someone with MU-2 experience can answer this for us perhaps - what exactly do you do? And was it necessarily something they did, or is it possible they just got to an altitude where it warmed up enough that the engines started working?

I know what I do if I have an engine issue in the piston twins I fly, but turbines are new to me.
 
The interesting thing here is that those who have not flown as a two person crew think the outcome would be the same. Those who are used to having two pilots aren't so sure. (Kind of has shades of the debate by those who think that as a single pilot they could have saved AF447.)

Nobody likes flying single pilot more than me. And I have handled real emergencies single pilot. However, also having worked situations as part of a two pilot crew I can say it's a whole lot better. Believe me Sully was really happy to have Skiles there.
 
Lance F said:
The interesting thing here is that those who have not flown as a two person crew think the outcome would be the same. Those who are used to having two pilots aren't so sure. (Kind of has shades of the debate by those who think that as a single pilot they could have saved AF447.)

Nobody likes flying single pilot more than me. And I have handled real emergencies single pilot. However, also having worked situations as part of a two pilot crew I can say it's a whole lot better. Believe me Sully was really happy to have Skiles there.
Click to expand...
I agree with Lance. After flying single-pilot for a long time I was a little resistant to the crew idea at first but I have changed my mind. The thing is that it take some training and practice to fly as a crew as there are roles to play. You can't just jump in there with another pilot and expect it to work.
 
Lance F said:
The interesting thing here is that those who have not flown as a two person crew think the outcome would be the same. Those who are used to having two pilots aren't so sure. (Kind of has shades of the debate by those who think that as a single pilot they could have saved AF447.)
Click to expand...

I notice that those in the "I'm a super-pilot" camp fly pretty simple aircraft that don't benefit as much from multiple pilots. Multiple pilots get to be a bigger deal as you move up to more complex aircraft. In a Cherokee it still has its benefits, but not as much so as in an MU-2, Lear, etc.

So basically, the people who are completely unqualified to make a statement one way or the other with no relevant experience are the ones who are the first to think they could handle anything. Hey, I used to think that way, too. Now I know better.

Nobody likes flying single pilot more than me. And I have handled real emergencies single pilot. However, also having worked situations as part of a two pilot crew I can say it's a whole lot better. Believe me Sully was really happy to have Skiles there.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with this. The key to a good two-pilot crew is having a CRM that works for the crew. A lot of the time, having someone else in the plane is more work for me than anything, because the person doesn't work well as a crew. A good co-pilot will know the plane, know how to fly, and both pilots need to have the procedures figured out ahead of time.

It worked out well when I used to fly the Mooney with its owner. He and I had a good CRM worked out. Even in a simple aircraft like that that didn't need two pilots by any stretch, it was very nice. These days, I'm pretty well engrained in the single-pilot mentality since it's most of what I do and a 310/Aztec/Navajo isn't a very complex aircraft, but it would benefit me to do some more crew work.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Hey, I used to think that way, too. Now I know better.
Click to expand...
What a great name for a book.
Can you imagine how much shorter a lot of our threads would be if more people realized this concept.
 
Lance F said:
What a great name for a book.
Click to expand...

I had a few other names in mind for when I write one, but that'd be a good one to add to the list. :)

Can you imagine how much shorter a lot of our threads would be if more people realized this concept.
Click to expand...
I think the trap that a lot of people fall into as low-time pilots is they don't realize how much they don't know. They also probably will find out that certain things actually are a bit more unnerving in real life than they are on the internet, and don't realize that they, themselves may be unable to handle it.

Things like watching ice build up on your wings at night over a wilderness area with the nearest airport >50 nm away with 5 passengers, one of which has never been on an airplane before and none of whom have ever met you prior to boarding the plane. They can see the ice. You just hope that they don't understand its significance or don't notice it, and that your face paints the picture of calm. They trust you with their lives. Not only do they have this trust, but also their spouses, children, and parents. You, the pilot, should be worthy of such trust.

Yes, a good pilot remains calm (and, even more importantly, makes sure the passengers believe it). A good pilot evaluates options, and figures out the safest course of action, executes it, and has a safe outcome. A good pilot had much of this figured out prior to departure. But the NTSB reports are riddled with good pilots who, one day, ran out of luck, not just bad pilots who ran out of skill. I'd rather be lucky than good any day.
 
A couple of things, first, turbine engines aren't like piston engines, insofar as if they flameout, they don't just start running again. When I flew mail in an Aztec, I would routinely run the outboard fuel tanks to exhaustion before I switched tanks - the theory being that one can only be really certain of your fuel quanity when the tanks are either full or completely empty. But one would never do that in turbine powered airlpane (or turbocharged airplane, for that matter.)

Normal engine start in a 331 powered aircraft takes several seconds (like 30). The prop is locked in flat pitch (by a pin in the hub) to facilitate rapid spool up. Once the engine(s) are running, the pins are retracted by putting the props in reverse, slightly. Inflight airstart is abbreviated, but still, if the prop thinks the engine failed,the Negative Torque Sensing (poor man's auto feather) -drives it toward feather. Igniters automatically come when NTS activates, but restarting from complete feather has to be done quite deliberately. Very entertaining while falling out of the sky like a set of car keys, IMC, looking for an airport, in the mountains...just sayin.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Normal engine start in a 331 powered aircraft takes several seconds (like 30). The prop is locked in flat pitch (by a pin in the hub) to facilitate rapid spool up. Once the engine(s) are running, the pins are retracted by putting the props in reverse, slightly. Inflight airstart is abbreviated, but still, if the prop thinks the engine failed,the Negative Torque Sensing (poor man's auto feather) -drives it toward feather. Igniters automatically come when NTS activates, but restarting from complete feather has to be done quite deliberately. Very entertaining while falling out of the sky like a set of car keys, IMC, looking for an airport, in the mountains...just sayin.
Click to expand...

Excellent information, thank you. Makes sense, also. My background at this point is all in piston engines still. These turbine things I'm just starting to learn.
 
An airplane like an MU2 or Merlin 3B requires about 10 times more systems knowlege than, say, a Navajo. In many ways they're much more challenging to fly (especially single-pilot) than most jets.
 
Doug is dead on. Engaging in a restart while flying a dual flameout is a huge multiple distraction effort.....and it's gotta be done quickly.....and that assumes the throttles were in a position so that you did or did not get NTS to work....
 
Full caveat - I'm not an MU-2 pilot...

BUT - I have run around with a group of guys for the last 20 years that operate them, and have quite a few hours up front and an awful lot of knowledge I have picked up from the corporate guys that fly them. The MU-2's have a nasty habit of picking up ice quickly on the engine inlets in incing conditions if the anti-ice is not on, and when descending into warmer temps or suddenly turning on the anti-ice after they are already loaded up, they tend to shed that ice quickly, ingest it and flame-out. A mid-air restart is indeed a rather interesting event and not nearly as simple as a piston.

This group of people I know did extensive icing demonstrations and testing here in the domestic US for the FAA and NTSB many years ago, a lot of good knowledge about the bird resulted from that program. Some aircraft changes and many training syllabus changes resulted from that. Some of the pictures from that program are amazing - it was really surprising how much ice load the airplane can carry and still fly well.

The MU-2 is indeed a "hot" airplane as another previous poster wrote, it's a "pilots airplane" not a trainer. Anyone can fly it but they had better be paying attention to detail and not get complacent. You simply cannot get in, takeoff, hit the AP and wait for your destination to roll up on the GPS. She is unforgiving of those who are not vigilant.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
The biggest thing (as I understand it) is that the wing is a very "hot" design that is very unforgiving, and also requires that you use flaps appropriately at speed. People would use the standard "mixture, prop, throttle, flaps, gear" mantra they were taught in multi engine training on an engine failure, pull up the flaps, and the wing would stop flying. Someone with MU-2 experience can go into more detail on some of its unforgiving tendencies.
Click to expand...

Mitsubishi let Mooney market the Mu2 which contributed to a lot of the issues in training, etc. a piston prop company pushing a jet like twin just didn't sync up. Not to mention you only survive 50% of the V1 cuts you KNOW are coming. ;)

The Moo is an awesome plane and a blast to fly. The wing was designed to be able to have jet engines dropped off it, but they stuck with the turboprops.

It's not a hard plane to fly, what kills people is lack of training and a "I can fly a Cheyenne, give me the Moo!"

It is flown like a jet more than a turboprop, especially in single engine situations.

It's a great plane, built like a tank and will blow most other small tprops out of the water in terms of economy and performance.

It's a shame Beech bought the tooling and destroyed it all.
 
Lance F said:
(Kind of has shades of the debate by those who think that as a single pilot they could have saved AF447.)
Click to expand...

True but a stall recovery, even in a big jet should be a simple as "down elevator, takeoff power, use rudder to help level wings"

I know its not that simple however, and the first step in solving a problem is identifying the problem. The MU guys definitely knew what their problem was.

I can definitely see how two pilots is a major plus in this icing situation. Having one pilot fly the severely iced up plane while the other concentrates on running the restart checklist on two turbines... very likely saved their lives.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Curious, and someone with MU-2 experience can answer this for us perhaps - what exactly do you do?
Click to expand...

Low with a dual failure in IMC?

Depends;

Outta fuel? Secure engines, flaps 20, pray for a soft spot.

Due to ice? Continuous ignition on and hope for a real quick relight.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top