"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