Chute advocate says "Engine failure! Chute saved them!". This is listed as "save #31" on the COPA web site.

Reality is different.

They had an oil pressure problem and the pilot flew on FOR ALMOST 3 HOURS!!! The engine indications grew continually worse the entire time, oil pressure failing inexorably towards zero. THE PILOT CONTINUED TO NOT TAKE ACTION. WHY?

Finally the engine failed. Do you suppose that perhaps, if the pilot didn't have a chute, he might have LANDED SOONER like the manual said to do?

The other aspect about this flight was the field in which it landed. A very open field. Had they glided in, there would have been no injuries (the pilot received minor injuries when hitting the ground under chute), and the plane would not have been totaled, either.

Tim's right - there's thousands of em:

Is there anyone here besides mike and possibly david that thinks the chute is a bad idea and increases accidents?
It seems like we are having an intervention with someone that believes in Big Foot. No logical argument will ever change their mind. But makes for good entertainment.

This topic is labeled Twin Turboprop Safety, but it seems to have become a debate about Cirrus and its chute in particular.

I am not a Cirrus worshipper, have flown one. like some things about it like the visibilty out the canopy and dislike some things like the silly side controller and the amount of hot air that comes with their marketing.
BUT, any fair minded person must admit that their parachute system is a huge success. As for as I know it has worked virtually everytime and has saved numerous people. I wish my Bonanza had one.

And back to the subject of twin turbo safety: I am not up to date or any kind of expert on this, but I recall an Aviation Consumer report years ago the flound a high rate of fatal accidents in Mu 2. If you look at the plane it has very small wings for its weight, I have read the wing area is really the same as a Piper Cub which weigh perhaps 700 lbs, and one disadvantage is the high stall speed that results in this for the Mu 2, and should you lose an engine or engine you are coming down at a fast speed.

I don't think the MU-2 is an inherently dangerous airplane.... but it can suffer from poor pilotage.

Just like a student pilot could easily cause an accident walking into a 172 and trying to fly it, a non-type trained pilot could make a fatal flaw in the MU-2. The SFAR largely helps to mitigate the casual pilot and instill the training required to master the machine. It isn't unmanageable, but it does require training.

The MU-2 would be on my short list of airplanes to fly, if and only if, I could commit to the training required to stay current and I flew it every 5-10 days to stay on my game.

There was an interesting presentation along these lines last year at the NBAA single pilot safety standdown that really was explained well by the NTSB.

It would be interesting to see how the KA 300-350 stack up against the rest of the KA fleet. Those require a type rating and are subject to more stringent standards. The same can be said of the jet fleet. I don't care how you cut it, a type rating and a 61.58 are more demanding than a BFR, SFAR, or insurance mandated annual recurrent (at least in the newer jets). The MU-2 has proven that you can get close.....

The guy that buys a cheap turbine may not be as interested in spending the money on training as the guy that spends a lot. I'm not saying that is always true, but even if it is true 15% of the time, that can skew results pretty bad.

It's always the bad apple.

-jason

Okay, let me go on the record and say, I am okay with the chute concept on single engine recips. Except for the weight penalty and perhaps the maintenance costs, I see no other real negatives for me. To me, it would be a last resort emergency procedure, not a "pull early" "pull often" type of procedure which I have read on here that some of you recommend. Now, what I am curious about and have been since day 1 of the cirrus chute concept is the unintended consequence of having a chute on board. I hope that the chute does not give the inexperienced 200 hour pilot the confidence to go plowing into weather or across terrain he/she is not capable of handling. I don't have the data that proves it does or it does not, but in talking with some fresh instrument cirrus pilots, it seems they are eager to jump right in to serious weather rather than build their experience up. I am also curious as to what is going to happen when a few of these "pull early" dudes that's in over their head causes some personal injury or deaths to innocent bystanders on the ground? I know crashes cause deaths all the time to people on the ground, but this may not be viewed the same if it was caused by an emergency that could have been handled easily without the chute. I think when floating down, you are totally out of control, correct?

Regarding the Cirrus jet having a chute, I am okay with it but have the same questions for it as the above.

When I was younger, I had no problem flying singles at night in IMC. Over the years I have shifted to where I prefer to fly a twin unless it is daytime with decent ceilings (e.g.,>2000). But this is just me, you all can operate however you want to.

Jason, one other point I recall from the Aviation Consumer report was that unlike the Aerostar which also was high performance and had some fatals, was that the Mu 2 was most often flown by professional pilots. Now being "professional" can mean expert, but can also mean one is flying for money as much as loving it, and doesn't gurantee expertness or good judgement.

It is human nature that if a study or report finds fault with someone's type of plane, that someone who owns own will lay the blame on pilots, that is the plane must not be part of the problem.

It was certainly that way with Beech when there were repeated accidents involving V tail failures and many fatals from this. Beech and many others claimned nothing wrong with the plane, it was all the pilots fault. Noted author Barry Schiff even wrote a puff piece on this very idea.
Not too long after his article the FAA did reasearch and found that sure enough V tails, in certain circumstances, had weaknesses, and it was not just due to bad piloting, though of course the pilot could aggreavate the situation. So and AD resulted, and v tails were stenghted, and trim rechecked, and guees what suddenly the pilots all became expert since the tails pretty much stopped failing.

The info I gave from Av Con is very old, may not be updated and I certainly not a twin expert, but it stands to reason some planes are desinged so that they are more or less safe. Small wings with high wing loading may be one of the things that make a plane fast, but also have less safety margin.

Jason,

The stats show just what you hypothesized...the KA300/350 do have a better safety record than other King Airs and there is little doubt it is as a result of training. Same goes for King Airs flown by the US DOD. Despite more demanding missions (including in combat zones), they have a better safety record than Part 91 operations in the US? It's not that the pilots are inherently better...it is the value of rigorous, standardized, recurrent training.

The MU-2 mishap rate since implementation of the SFAR is far better than any other twin turboprop out there. The plane isn't inherently difficult to fly, but the design requires you to fly it like a jet. Far from being a bad thing, the high wing loading results in a more stable ride but...just like a jet, it means you manage speeds closely and don't just retract flaps to reduce drag...you retract flaps on a speed schedule. You also don't roll the plane into a dead engine with the yoke (as you do on almost any other twin prop plane, but rather you neutralize the controls, use rudder and aileron trim to establish the optimum flight profile upon loss of an engine...the same things you do in a jet!

Other than operating the engine, you can fly a King Air EXACTLY the same way you fly a Beech Duke, Queenair or the Piper Seneca or Diamond Twinstar you first got your multi rating in. The same cannot be said of an MU-2. It truly does require differences training and, once that training was required via the SFAR, the mishap rate plummeted to the low rate it has today.

As far as the whole discussion about the Cirrus chute, I won't get into the debate on it. There is no question that people are alive today who would likely be dead had they encountered the same situation in a non-chute equipped aircraft. There is also some evidence that at least some Cirrus pilots (especially early on) seemed to get into situations they were not prepared or trained for (i.e., VMC into IMC without an instrument rating) and viewed the chute as a "get out of jail free" card.

I'm not sure I would agree with treating the chute the same way I would treat an autopilot or GPS or Synthetic vision or satellite radar in the cockpit. The former (like a seat belt or airbag) helps a plane survive once a mishap occurs (be it engine failure, running out of fuel, loss of control, whatever). The others are tools which help a pilot avoid a mishap through enhanced situational awareness or an automated system which not only helps prevent loss of control but also allows the pilot to focus on other tasks without having a loss of control. True they are all safety devices, but the difference is that one category help you avoid the problem...the other category help minimize injuries/death once the problem has occurred.

It may be that's just the way my brain works....

Just my two cents' worth...I'll sit down now.

Dave

Jason,

The stats show just what you hypothesized...the KA300/350 do have a better safety record than other King Airs and there is little doubt it is as a result of training. Same goes for King Airs flown by the US DOD. Despite more demanding missions (including in combat zones), they have a better safety record than Part 91 operations in the US? It's not that the pilots are inherently better...it is the value of rigorous, standardized, recurrent training.

The MU-2 mishap rate since implementation of the SFAR is far better than any other twin turboprop out there. The plane isn't inherently difficult to fly, but the design requires you to fly it like a jet. Far from being a bad thing, the high wing loading results in a more stable ride but...just like a jet, it means you manage speeds closely and don't just retract flaps to reduce drag...you retract flaps on a speed schedule. You also don't roll the plane into a dead engine with the yoke (as you do on almost any other twin prop plane, but rather you neutralize the controls, use rudder and aileron trim to establish the optimum flight profile upon loss of an engine...the same things you do in a jet!

Other than operating the engine, you can fly a King Air EXACTLY the same way you fly a Beech Duke, Queenair or the Piper Seneca or Diamond Twinstar you first got your multi rating in. The same cannot be said of an MU-2. It truly does require differences training and, once that training was required via the SFAR, the mishap rate plummeted to the low rate it has today.

As far as the whole discussion about the Cirrus chute, I won't get into the debate on it. There is no question that people are alive today who would likely be dead had they encountered the same situation in a non-chute equipped aircraft. There is also some evidence that at least some Cirrus pilots (especially early on) seemed to get into situations they were not prepared or trained for (i.e., VMC into IMC without an instrument rating) and viewed the chute as a "get out of jail free" card.

I'm not sure I would agree with treating the chute the same way I would treat an autopilot or GPS or Synthetic vision or satellite radar in the cockpit. The former (like a seat belt or airbag) helps a plane survive once a mishap occurs (be it engine failure, running out of fuel, loss of control, whatever). The others are tools which help a pilot avoid a mishap through enhanced situational awareness or an automated system which not only helps prevent loss of control but also allows the pilot to focus on other tasks without having a loss of control. True they are all safety devices, but the difference is that one category help you avoid the problem...the other category help minimize injuries/death once the problem has occurred.

It may be that's just the way my brain works....

Just my two cents' worth...I'll sit down now.

Dave

I think you just did...

How many 350's out there compared to 90's and 200's? Not many according to FA.

How many MU-2's flying before the SFAR vs. After?

I really think the numbers you guys are seeing is because not many of these planes are flying compared to others.

Flying right now
PC12 - 46
KA200 - 49 (more than any GA plane)
KA350 - 27
MU2 - 4

It's hard to have accidents when only 4 of a type are flying at any given time. People buying MU2's at this stage really, really just want an MU2, known what they're getting into and are the type that are gonna take the plane seriously.

[/quote]
I really think the numbers you guys are seeing is because not many of these planes are flying compared to others.[/quote]

Doesn't that get normalized in an "accident rate"?

How is it possible when there are more than 10X the number of KA200's flying at any given time? Then more than double that number of 90's and 350's.

So 4 MU2's to over 100 KA's at any given time in the air.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

I think I get it. You are saying there is no way for the MU2 to ever accumulate the hours fast enough to compare to the King Air in order to be meaningful, correct? For example, when the MU2 reaches 100K hours the KA fleet will have hit 2M hours in the same time period. Am I tracking you?

It ain't rocket science.

Not only that but like I said earlier...... The only people buying MU2's at this stage of the game are people who really, really just want an MU2. MU2 is not on most people's radar. Don't give all the credit to the SFAR. There are several variables in the mix here.