![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for the feedback.
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... "Peter MacPherson" wrote in message news ![]() 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." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|