Thanks for the feedback.


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Peter MacPherson" wrote in message
newsXCxd.227260$V41.31999@attbi_s52...
Mike,

What are the issues that make the transition from a piston twin to the
MU-2
so difficult. Are they separate issues than if I were transitioning from
a piston
twin to a Cheyenne or other twin turbo prop? Just curious since I've
always
heard the MU-2 was difficult twin turbo prop to transition to.


Thanks,
Pete

I don't think that it is all that difficult. The issues are the same
except perhaps that the MU-2 has a bigger performance delta from a piston
twin than a Cheyenne (unless it is a 400LS) or King Air. The difference
is that there are a lot more guys buying an old MU-2 and not getting
training than are buying Piaggio's and not getting training just because
of the price. It is interesting to note that the older cheaper MU-2s seem
to have a higher accident rate than the Marquise and Solitaire, perhaps
this is because the owners of the more expensive airplanes are more likely
to go to expensive training? The training isn't particularly difficult to
complete, it just has to be done. I don't think it is much different from
a pilot transitioning from a Apache to an pressurized Aerostar or a
CitationJet to a Citation X. In each case there are more tasks to be
accomplished in less time and there are more emergency procedures to learn
because there are more systems to fail. I suspect that the same guys who
won't spend the money for specilized training also doesn't go for
specialized maitenance and are more likely to have an emergency in the
first place or an airplane that is harder to fly because of engine or
airframe (mis)rigging.

Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another
MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini
and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator
training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us?

Mike
MU-2



"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other
year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every
year minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a
Baron without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston
airline pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.

Mike
MU-2



"John" wrote in message
ups.com...
This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
thought about it?

MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."