Airplane Flight Manual

FAA Small Airplane Directoratu By FAX: 818-325-4090 Dear Mr. Rudolph, This reply is in response be a request for safety Information dated 3/2/2005 regarding the MU-23 aircraft. Included with this fax is an aviation resume to give you a better understanding of my qualifications. I currently own and fly an MU2B serial number Frior to purchasing this aircraft, I thoroughly researched the accident rats and types of MU2 accidents from the records of the MTSB. Like all plots, I had heard stories about the MU2. After purchase in 2000, I took my initial training at Howell Enterprises, Inc. In Brwyrna, TN, and I have continued recurrent training with Reese anxusly since then As seen from may resume, I was chief plot for a Part 135 Air Taxi operation for twelve years that operated Lear 20 series, Citation, and Beech King Air 90/200. In my opinion, the MU2 does not have any operational faults that might relate to loss of control. In fact, I find the airplane to be a stable Instrument platform. The airplanes are exceptionally well built and the factory, MNIA, provides excellent support and a continued interest in safety. Considering that the price of these aircraft has put them in the hands of masy non professional pilots, and in operations like check haning that stretch the limits of human and operational control, I am amazed at their safety record. DATA CENTER 9 WED SEPT 2005 16:09/ST.16:09/NO. 6316706977 P 2 I am coscemed that the MU2 seams to be under adverse scrutiny even though Ita accident rate does not appear to be any better or worse than other turboprops in its class. This airplans, like any other turboprop requires continued training from those companies that are familiar with the MU2. It is different than conventional airplanes in its speller rather than alleron controls so it does not lead itse to In house training from Inexperienced MU2 Instructor pliots. I can be reached at any time if you require more information. Sincerely, 34.34 GULDLEAF_DEVELOPMENT PAGE Goldleaf Development, LLC Doug Rudolph FAA Small Airplane Directorate Fax: 816-329-4090 Dear Mr. Rudolph, My name is and I own a MU2-B-40. I have put about 800 hours on this plane in the last five years. I live in Wisconsin and I get to deal with all kinds of weather. It is an extremely capable aircraft. Every year I go to flight training for the MU2 and every year we would joke about how only MU2 drivers needed to watch the icing video even though the MU2 handles ice as well as any aircraft I ever flown. Now some check runners crash and four politicians (who I'm sure have logged hours of flying, especially in MU2's) start irrational calls in grounding the aircraft. If this aircraft has one fault it is that it's economical and fast. Therefore, two types of pilots get in trouble 1) the inexperienced and 2) check runners that usually fly aircrafts long hours in any and all conditions, usually in the dark, with aircrafts that are not the best maintained; believe me I've been in class with enough of them to know. I would hope the FAA would not give in to emotional politicians looking for votes. The MU2 is a fine aircraft with a better safety record that the Cessna 421. I believe in the 1980's the FAA did a through review of the MU2 and found no problems with the aircraft. Therefore, I ask to leave this aircraft alone. If you would like to talk to me I can be reached at Sincerely, 2302 University Avenue • Madison, WI 53705 ⚫ (608) 233-4423 ⚫ (608) 233-4424 • Fax (608) 232-0529 08/05 12:55 FAA 810 767 7323 PIPER-MCCREDIE AGENCY 002 P PIPER MCCREDIE AGENCY, INC. September 8, 2005 Doug Rudolph Small Airplane Directorate Dept. ACE-112 901 Locust Street Room 301. Kansas City, MO 64106 Re: Safety Evaluation Investigation MU-2 Dear Mr. Rudolph I am alarmed that the MU-2 is being considered for a Certifcation review. Let me explain my position. I have flown the short body and the long body Marquise for the last fifteen and half years. I have accumulated over 2,200 hours in the aircraft. My first purchase was a 1967 MU-2B and currently own and operate a Marquise. I currently hold a commerical license with multi-engine and instrument ratings. I have been able to fly King Air and Cheyenne aircraft to compare the difference-in the MU-2. The MU-2's flying characteristics are above reproach. In my opinion the MU-2 is a better handling and more stable aircraft particularly in adverse= weather conditions. It's tail response and elevator contol are superior. In my 2,200 hours of experience there has not been one instance of control adequacy or safety of flight. I would like to state that I have attended ground and flight school once a year. Of course, the insurance industry requires this of everyone flying a turbo prop. I would hope that the FAA does not pursue this and incur costs that are not warranted. Sincerely 5454 Gateway Centre Sulte A Flint, MI 48507-3900 (810) 767-6050 (800) 333-0983 September 8, 2005 Doug Rudolph Small Airplane Directorate Dept. ACE-112- 901 Locust Street Room 301 Kansas City, MO 64106 P PIPER-MCCREDIE AGENCY. INC. Re: Safety Evaluation Investigation MU-2 Dear Mr. Rudolph, I am writing in concern to the evaluation of the MU-2B. Our company owns and operates an MU-2B for the past 15 years. We have owned a 1967 MU-2B serial I-attend annual- and we currently own a 1979 MU-2B-60 serial # flight training in the aircraft. I have accumulated 1,600 total hours and 500 hours in the MU2's. I hold a Commerical Multi- Engine Instrument rating. I have never found the aircraft to be unsafe inflight or in ground-operations. Annual flight. training seems to be the most critical factor in operating the MU-2 safely. This situation on safety has always plagued the MU-2, the general public and government officials think they know best about the safety of an aircraft but most have very little or no experience in the MU-2 Sincerely, --5454 Gateway Centre Suite A Flint, MI 48507-3900 -- (810) 767-6050 (800)-333-0983 09/08/2005 03:33 17164843738 PAIGE DEV PAGE 01 Date: September 8, 2005 To: FAA Small Airplane Directorate attn: Mr. Doug Rudolph Re: Comments on Mitsubishi Aircraft Greetings Mr. Rudolph, Transmission by Fax: 816 329-4090 I am a pilot/owner of a Mitsubishi aircraft commonly referred to as a MU2-40. Over a span of years, this is my second MU2 turbo-prop and respectively, I have pertinent expertise to address safety and operation specific to the MU2 aircraft. For the record, I fly 100-150 hours per year in and out of Jamestown, New York (50 miles south of Buffalo) in weather and visibility --conditions considered some of the worst in the country. JHW has an ILS but no airport tower and icing is a way of life here. From a position of ownership, I have owned many aircraft to include a Skyhawk Cessna, a B-55 Beechcraft, a 601P Aerostar and others. My experience with Mitsubishi aircraft is the aircraft was very well built with parts and support remaining second to none. Thousands of knowledgeable people throughout the US support their families by servicing Mitsubishi aircraft. This guarantees a great logistical support for the Mitsubishi aircraft for years to come. A part 91 operator with 5,000 hrs total time with some 650+/-hours in MU2s, my experience is that the MU2 aircraft is one of the most stable airplanes flying, especially in IMC conditions. The MU2 was designed to handle this task as any competent pilot afforded familiarity with the MU2 can attest. Our family feels no better airplane fits our need. I chose to attend Howell Enterprises flight school on an annual basis for MU2 training as well as the bi-annual "Props" seminars conducted by Mitsubishi & Turbine Services. I've had no accidents nor incidents. The facts are indisputable, for decades Mitsubishi Industries has done a superb job on making sure an out of production MU2 remains a viable and safe aircraft. The FAA has not had the time to ascertain all operator and/or pilot error(s) resulting in the Colorado crashes. Neither certainty nor expertise supports laying the blame for such tragedy on the MU2 aircraft. It's obvious that such is of no value or concern for the Colorado Congressmen. Occasionally, I see freight hauling MU2 aircraft and speak with their pilots. The consensus: "any manufactured aircraft inadequately serviced, unsecured payloads or an oblivious pilot is an accident waiting to happen". I trust the Mitsubishi aircraft. I own and operate for both personal and business necessities will not be sacrificed. Thank you for allowing me to comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, MR.DOUG RUDOLPH FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY DEAR MR RUDOLPH: 09-08-05 THIS LETTER IS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INQUIRY CONCERNING LOSS OF CONTROL OF THE MU 2 AIRCRAFT. WITH SEVERAL I HOLD A AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT CERTIFICATE RATINGS.MY TOTAL TIME IS IN THE 5000 + HR RANGE WITH MOST TIME IN TURBO PROP AND TURBO JET AIRCRAFT. I HAVE 225 HRS IN THE MU 2 AIRCRAFT WHICH I HAVE FLOWN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH EAST OF THE US,99% OF MY FLIGHTS WERE CONDUCTED UNDER IFR FLIGHT PLANS AND A LARGE PERCENTAGE ABOVE FL 180. MY HIGH PERFORMANCE TRAINING EXPERIENCE STARTED WITH FLIGHT SAFETY AT LA GUARDIA AIRPORT NY.I RECEIVED TRAINING IN KING AIRS GULFSTREAM 1 FALCON JET AND DH 125 TO NAME A FEW. MY MU 2 TRAINING WAS CONDUCTED WITH SHAUN MC DONNELL PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT TRAINING LC. SALINA KS.THE TRAINING COVERED ALL TWO ENGINE T/OFFS&LANDINGS,STALLS WINGS LEVEL, LEFT AND RIGHT TURN DEPATURE STALLS IN ADDITION RIGHT AND LEFT APPROACH STALLS, SLOW FLIGHT LEFT AND RIGHT TURNS SHALLOW AND STEEP 360/720 TURNS. SINGLE ENGINE APPROACHES LEFT AND RIGHT SINGLE ENGINE 360/720 TURNS LEFT AND RIGHT. I DID NOT EXPERIENCE ANY MORE LOSS OF CONTROL THEN ANY OTHER AIRCRAFT I TRAINED IN RECOVERY IN THE STALL CONFIGURATION WAS EASY WITH PLENTY OF RUDDER CONTROL,ALTITUDE LOSS WAS NO MORE THEN NORMAL. MANY OF MY BUSINESS TRIPS WERE INTO SINGLE RUNWAY 3000/3500 MOUNTAIN STRIPS WITH AS MUCH AS 90 DEGREE CROSS WINDS AND TURBULENCE.I USED BOTH CRAB AND CROSS CONTROL APPROACH TECHNIQE WITH GUST FACTORS ADDED TO MY AIR SPEED AGAIN I NEVER EXPERIENCED OR NOTICED ANY LOSS OF CONTROL OR CONTROL RESPONSE EITHER IN THE AIR OR GROUND. IN CONCLUSION I FOUND THE MU 2 PERFORMS AS STATED IN THE FLIGHT MANUALS PERFORMANCE AND RECOMENDED PROCEDURES. IN MY OPINION THE MU 2 HANDLES MUCH LIKE A LEAR 24. POWER MANAGEMENT AND RESPONSE IS VERY IMPORTANT IN THE MU 2 AND SIMILAR HIGHLY LOADED WING AREA AIRCRAFT. EXPERIENCE IN HIGH PERFORMANCE AIRCRAFT AND GOOD TRAINING CAN NOT BE OVER EMPHASIZED. SINCERLY FROM : TOM BATCHELOR PRO PILOT PHONE NO. : 936 856 4045 SEP. 08 2005 04:12PM P1 AOM Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer Sept. 08, 2005 FAA Small Airplane Directorate Department - ACE 112 901 Locust Street, Room 301 Kansas City, MO 64306 Dear Sir, This is in response to the request for information regarding loss of control at any time while flying the Mitsubishi MU-2B series of aircraft. I will first establish my qualifications. I hold an ATP, multi-engine with Commercial privileges, single-engine land and sea, including glider. I am a CFI and CFII, including AGI and IGI. I am typed in Gulfstreams II and III. I first flew an MU-2 in 1967 and have flown every model made since that time. 1 have over 17,000 hours PIC time in all models of the MU-2. I have instructed in the MU- 2, including familiarization and orientation for insurance purposes for pilots transitioning into the MU-2. Over the past 38 years, I have flown MU-2's from the jungles of Central America to the snows of Canada. I have operated into muddy jungle airstrips and into snow up north that was inches deep and icy. I have landed on sandy beaches and Texas ranches. I have broken nose wheels during takeoff on rocky West Texas ranches and still landed safely upon returning back to Houston. I have landed with flat tires and without brakes, safely. I have flown with engine failures, both real and simulated. I was the contract pilot for the icing test flights, both real and solid shape. I have stalled the MU-2 in all configurations of flap and gear with icing contamination up to 2 inches thick. I flew the icing tanker tests at Edwards Air Force Base. I flew the solid shape icing tests in all configurations including negative "G" pushovers, with no control reversal. Nothing unexpected regarding flight control was ever experienced. I was the contract test pilot for Hartzell Propeller for flight testing the instrumented propeller during the propeller hub failure investigation. I flew all flight regimes for instrumented testing at Hartzell including, but not limited to, max weight with aft CG and maximum cross control of spoiler and rudder, including landing at 120 knots with reverse. At no time during all this testing was aircraft flight control lost, furthermore, flight control was never in doubt during any testing or normal operations. The MU-2 is defined in the AFM/POM as a high performance airplane and as such, in my opinion, demands formal training in type. I have, and always will, encourage pilots transitioning into the MU-2, to attend simulator-based training. There are failures that can occur on any aircraft that can only be demonstrated safely using a simulator. Merely talking about these emergencies in a classroom or while flying the airplane is not adequate to impress upon a pilot the potential consequences of mishandling and/or non- handling an NTS failure, asymmetrical flap, certain electrical failures, extreme usual FRUM: TOM BATCHELUR PRU PILUT PHUNE NU. : 936 856 4045 SEP. 082005 04. ISP P2 attitudes, or any other dangerous condition. These are just a few examples of events that cannot be trained for properly or safely in a real aircraft. Repetitive training in the simulator develops the "muscle memory" required to properly react to these or any other emergencies. I also suggest to pilots that an MU-2 is a jet with propellers and should be flown with a professional attitude. I have trained private pilots to fly the MU-2 who even though they do not fly for a living, display the professional attitude to perform well. Therefore, I believe that training is the primary issue in this case and simulator-based training should be mandated. The industry has apparently relied on the insurance companies to mandate training, but this is only applicable if the person finances the aircraft. There have been several cases whereby a person was wealthy enough to purchase an aircraft and not get insurance, therefore attempting to fly a complex high performance aircraft with little or no formal training, which resulted in an accident. I have been following the latest news regarding the request from Colorado politicians to ground the MU-2. It appears that they are reacting as poorly informed politicians do when requested by constituents. They put pressure on the FAA to do something so as to appear that they, the politicians, are doing something about the issue. I only wish that the FAA could resist or refuse to succumb to this pressure, but I understand that is not political reality. This pressure is only further increased by plaintiff attorneys with their obvious agenda. The MU-2 has undergone some focused reviews in the past, resulting in a clean bill of health. I have observed and/or participated in some of these and have always come away with the thought that there is "no dark comer or hidden secret", regarding operating the MU-2. I have never found any flight characteristic on the MU-2 that gave me cause for concern. It is as safe or safer than any other aircraft, if flown by a well trained competent pilot. The outstanding product support for the Mitsubishi MU-2 has won several awards in recent years for being the best. This is for an airplane that hasn't been built since 1986! The ongoing Pilot Review of Proficiency program sponsered by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America and Turbine Aircraft Services has been a success story and is well regarded in the industry. It should never be suggested that any of the recent publicity is due to support issues. I say all this to substantiate my opinion that the MU-2 has been one of the finest aircraft that I have been privileged to fly. Recently, I added up the number of different types of aircraft that I have flown in my career and it numbers approximately fifty. The dispatch reliability of the MU-2 and its systems has been the best of all the aircraft that I have flown. Having said this, I teach students that airplanes are built by man, not by gods, and as with any mechanical object built by man, it is subject to failure at any moment. Even a qualified and experienced pilot must train regularly to remain proficient and safe. I have never considered myself, by any stretch of the imagination, "God's gift to aviation". In fact, I am just a one-eyed airplane driver who lost his right eye to cancer in 1975 and have continued to fly to this day. I have worked and trained diligently over these years to maintain my skills as a journeyman pilot, much as I would expect of any other professional or conscientious pilot. I am well into 65 years of living and have lost many pilot friends and acquaintences in aircraft accidents over these many years. I am saddened to admit that they were doing something that was in very poor judgement, resulting in an accident. Sincerely, 08 SEP 05 09-08-2005 15:22 GUINN AVIATION 817 279 7186 GUINN AVIATION PERSONAL HANGAR 6405 Secretariat Ct. Granbury, Texas 76049 PAGE2 Mr. Doug Rudolph FAA Small Airplane Directorate Email: Doug.Rudolph@faa.gov Fax: 816.329.4090 Dear Mr. Rudolph: This is to address safety concerns regarding the MU-2B aircraft currently being considered in a FAA Safety Review. I am an experienced ATP pilot with 35,000 hrs. and fifty years as a commercial pilot. For over three years now I have been flying a MU-2 for an independent oil and gas company in Texas. My initial and recurrent training has been done at the Orlando, Fla. Simcom facility. In addition I attended two "Prop 2004" presentations made by Mitsubishi last year. I consider the MU-2 a strong safe aircraft when properly maintained and flown. There have been no instances of any control problems either in flight or on the ground in my experience with the airplane. Like all twin engine turboprops it is sensitive to asymmetric thrust, but this is most manageable with timely and correct control inputs. The Solitaire model that I fly has excellent power/weight ratio that makes it a delight to fly. The role of the airplane in freight Part 135 operations puts it in a more hazardous category than other operations. There is a combination of night, all weather, operations flown by less experienced pilots in agcing aircraft maintained to minimal standards. In my opinion this has more to do with recent accidents than an unsafe aircraft. I hope your review will reveal the same. Very truly yours, Street Address Address 2 Phone: 555.555.0125 E-mail address P 02 23 บง.UJK September 8, 2005 Tahoe Helicopters, Inc. 451 Lakeshore Blvd. Incline Village, Nv. 89451 Ph 775-831-6429; Fax 775-833-1615 FAA Small Airplane Directorate Mr. Doug Rudolph Sent by Fax To 816-329-4090 Dear Mr. Rudolph, and I am writing you to express my concern regarding the recent criticism of the Mitsubishi MU-2B Aircraft. I have owned and flown two Mitsubishi aircraft from 1997 to 2005. They are S/N I have previously owned, and flown Beechcraft Bonanzas, Barons, and five different Helicopters, including the Astar 350, Hughes 500 and Bell Jetranger. In addition I have flown Cessna and Piper aircraft. I want to tell you, the Mitsubishi is the best aircraft I have ever owned. In all the time of ownership I have had only one instance of unscheduled maintenance and that was a failed igniter box, which only took a couple of hours to locate the part and replace. I receive recurrent training every year and I think this type of training is essential in all sophisticated turboprop and jet aircraft. In my experience, the MU-2 has equal or better handling qualities than any other airplane I have flown. It is my understanding the same MU-2 operator at Centennial Airport had both MU-2 accidents in a short period of time. This would seem to point to investigating the operator more than the aircraft. I understand that one accident occurred due to a VMC stall while turning from base to final after overshooting the runway centerline. I recently read an article about a fatal crash of a Bonanza due to this same problem. As well trained pilots we should know that a VMC stall can occur with slow approach speed and a steep turn. This is not unique to the Mitsubishi aircraft, this is a pilot error. 312 132