Engine failure-report or not

[jet_noseover]

So I know it was a cargo plane but regardless, should have reported the failure. :(
Someone is going to be in the big doo doo. Now, had it been a commercial flight...


CHICAGO -- Authorities said a small piece of metal that crashed through the roof of a home located near Midway Airport Friday fell off an airplane that experienced engine failure on a flight from Milwaukee.
The engine piece came to rest 2 feet from the foot of a bed where homeowner Dorothy Gohn was sleeping. She was not injured.
The Federal Aviation Administration said the multi-engine aircraft, apparently being used as a cargo plane, landed safely without any indication of distress to air traffic control.
But the FAA spokesman Tony Molinaro said the pilot should have reported the engine failure to authorities.
Instead, FAA inspectors found the plane themselves, with significant engine damage and some wing damage, in a hangar at Midway Airport.
The plane arrived at Midway en route from Milwaukee.
It is a Mitsubishi MU-2B-36, registered to a firm called American Check Transport, which also does business as Flight Line Inc.


http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/10736037/detail.html


The local radio had the woman saying that the fallen (metal) piece was very hot. It burned a hole in her carpet.
She is the one who alerted the authorities. :rolleyes:
"The part that crashed through Gohn's roof was the engine's turbine wheel, a disc 12 inches in diameter that holds the turbine blades in the engine. The blades broke off from disc and have yet to be found, Molinaro said."


http://wfrv.com/topstories/local_story_012201428.html

[N1 Vibes]

Interesting this one, the text say's 12 inches in dia, but the TV newscast says 16 inches. Yet when you look at the shots of the ceiling fan and compare the hole to the fan rotor it looks to be only about 8 inches or so. unless Mr Gohn has a Chinook roto to keep hiim cool at night!

But, to go off thread for a second. On the same new page there is a link for "'Virgin Mary' Seen In Texas Grocery Store Freezer", how can these people keep a straight face when reporting this, I nearly p!ssed myself.

http://wfrv.com/topstories/topstories_story_012222605.html

To get back on thread, look at the reporting time, 10.23pm US Central time, most of the FAA type chappees are tucked up in bed with their cuddly bear. So although said broken aeroplane is nosed into the shed looking shamefaced, the airline may not report it until the morning? :confused:

[ABX]

Anyone got pix of the plane in the hangar or the busted engine?

My guess is that the engine or whats left of it is a heck of a mess.

Any tech guys able to say what normally (not specifically this case) causes an engine failure of this type?

Very much interested in any replies.

Cheers,

ABX

[jet_noseover]

... look at the reporting time, 10.23pm US Central time, most of the FAA type chappees are tucked up in bed with their cuddly bear. So although said broken aeroplane is nosed into the shed looking shamefaced, the airline may not report it until the morning? :confused:
It is irrelevant what time the journos aired it. The fact remains the plane did have in flight engine failure and the crew failed to report it.
Grandma did it for the pilot(s). She did it in the wee hours of Friday morning and the FAA did find/tracked the suspect. By the afternoon. Let them rest for the night.
The air(line)crew should have reported it before "hiding" the handicapped monster in the shed. They screwed up.......

[N1 Vibes]

The air(line)crew should have reported it before "hiding" the handicapped monster in the shed. They screwed up.......

1. I'm guessing that the flight crew were fully aware that they had lost a turbine from an engine during their flight

2. I also guess they reported it to their engineering team

3. Usually it will be the engineering team who put the a/c into the hangar, unless the flight crew had offered to roll up their sleeves and join in the fun of an engine change

4. In this part of the world a flight crew have up to 72 hours to make a report of any serious in-flight event in writing via an Air Safety report, that goes to the authorities, like the FAA

5. You will probably find that in the US and in a lot of other countries around the world that it is the airline who are responsible for highlighting to the authorities that one of ther a/c has lost a turbine disk in flight

6. When the a/c arrived at it's destination the engineer after shouting a few expletives etc and peering into the vacant hole in his engine. May have presumed that what was missing, in this case a turbine disk, actually came out in several thousand tiny pieces

7. These people aren't phsycic, they don't know how the engine failed. Look at the Sioux City DC10 engine failure, it took months to find that the fan disc, a 300lb monster, had actually come out in 2 or 3 pieces and was found in a field when the farmer was ploughing or somesuch.

8. Nor do the flight crew look out of the window when they experience a serious engine failure and say "Goodness me we're passing over Mrs Gohn's house/built up area, better make a note of that."

Nough Said.

[N1 Vibes]

ABX

to answer you from a technical point of view, not having seen any of the rest of the engine and only seeing the disk I can make the following observations:

1. The disk is in one piece

2. It appears to be a bladed disk also known as a 'blisk', or alternatively it is a more convetional disk with blade slots and all the turbine blades remained in place during the failure

It may be that the bolts holding the disk to it's adjacent shaft failed, a beraing compartment fire could have overheated the shaft/disck bolts. But of course this is pure summising here.

Let's wait and see

PS If you want to see pictures of what happens when other engines have similar failures see the following:

Edelweiss A330 Trent 700 failure out of Miaimi

http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/belfast/031103/031103.html

American Airlines 767 HPT Dick Failure on Ground (In this case they knew where the disk went as it passed through the fuselage and buried itself in the other engine)

http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/AAEngine/

[ABX]

Hey thanks for a quality reply, your posts and the pix are much appreciated.

Very informative pix and, as they say on the website, thank God the 767 was only testing and not on a revenue flight, I imagine the repair bill was massive.

Cheers Mate,:ok:

ABX

[ironbutt57]

Hopefully he reported it to ATC but the above posts are correct, the company would report it to the FAA, who might then ask for a statement from the pilot ...but not necessarily so if all procedures were applied correctly, and the flight landed at the nearest suitable airport...glad to see a successful eng-out event in an MU-2...sure he/she cracked a few tinnies after that one!!:ok:

[jet_noseover]

N1 Vibes,

Do not be so patronising, bud. :)


But do tell, please, what would you do in the same circumstance?


Ya hide her?? :=

[ironbutt57]

1) control the airplane
2) send out a mayday call..
3) request rff services on stby at the nearest suitable airport
4) land at that same nearest suitable airport
5)hope the responder's truck breaks down so the thing burns to the ground
6) reposition plane to mx hangar if it so happens yours is at that same nearest suitable airport
7) proceed directly to the nearest suitable pub bar tavern, whatever you call it
8) Get hammered, wall hugging drunk
9) count your blessings you survived a catastrophic engine failure in an MU-2

[Lon More]

Hopefully he reported it to ATC
who would simply note it in the log book and pass the info on down the line. No further requirement unless an emergency is required

[ironbutt57]

An engine failure in a two engine airplane requires an emergency to be declared...so as Lon mentioned, the ATC facility would have followed their procedures, but it would be the operator's (not pilot) responsibility to file the required reports to their FAA ops inspector..so who knows exactly what "FAA" the journo's are referring to....I can't imagine any pilot who blew a turbine disk out the side of the engine not reporting it to ATC:= ...but then stranger things have happened...:confused:

well...looks like he may have been a naughty boy...if this report is accurate: http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2007/01/13/wi/5wis.txt

[lomapaseo]

Anyone got pix of the plane in the hangar or the busted engine?

My guess is that the engine or whats left of it is a heck of a mess.

Any tech guys able to say what normally (not specifically this case) causes an engine failure of this type?

Very much interested in any replies.

Cheers,

ABX


One piece disk, all blades broken, and disk ejected whole from aircraft, typically through a hole in the engine punched out by blades that have been oversped.

seen before where the drive shaft failed, for a variety of reasons including a bearing compartment fire.

[ManaAdaSystem]

An engine failure in a two engine airplane requires an emergency to be declared...

I don't know the US rules, but I have never seen any regulations telling you to declare an emergency if you suffer an engine failure in a twin. Land at nearest suitable airport, but emergency?

It would be unusual not to inform ATC as the performance of the aircraft is affected.

In my world, I'm required to file a report and the company will pass it on to the authorities, and that's pretty much it.

[jet_noseover]

I don't know the US rules, but I have never seen any regulations telling you to declare an emergency if you suffer an engine failure in a twin. Land at nearest suitable airport, but emergency?
It would be unusual not to inform ATC as the performance of the aircraft is affected.
In my world, I'm required to file a report and the company will pass it on to the authorities, and that's pretty much it.


FAA mandates engine failure(s) to be reported.

[ironbutt57]

ManaAdaSystem...you dont report to atc...pan or anything else...how nice...

[jshg]

Under Jarops in the UK an engine failure on a twin IS an emergency and an emergency must be declared.

[Roffa]

One very good reason for reporting to ATC is that it should guarantee a runway inspection after the a/c lands.

Be a bit of a shame if something fell off the damaged engine during the landing roll causing the next unfortunate arrival or departure to have a not very good day :(

Don't just think of yourself, think of the bigger picture...

[ironbutt57]

Never worked anywhere where an engine faulire in a twin be it turboprop or jet, wasnt an emergency...not saying it is true everywhere..in any event it would be prudent

[fmgc]

Where in JAR Ops does it say that an Eng failure in a twin is an emergency and should be reported? I was not aware of this. (Mind you I am probably not aware of alot of things that I should be!)

Would certainly settle a "discussion" that I had with a trainer in the sim recently.

Personally I would declare an emergency as I would like a reasonably expeditious approach.

[ABX]

Thanks for the pix sir.pratt they are - along with those from N1 Vibes - very interesting.

Remembering N1's reply to me earlier:

It may be that the bolts holding the disk to it's adjacent shaft failed, a beraing compartment fire could have overheated the shaft/disck bolts. But of course this is pure summising here.


Would over speeding the turb cause this? (How do you over speed a turbine engine anyway?)

Cheers all.:ok:

ABX

[ironbutt57]

All turbine engines I am familiar with one being the TPE-331 installed on the MU-2 do indeed have rpm limits..a prop governor failure could cause the eng to exceed it's 100% limit..at this value the inner rotating group is turning at 41,730rpm so any component failure would tend to be exciting,,the prop is driven through a bull gear/planetary gear reduction system, the ratio for that particular installation I am unfamiliar with...but we diverge...from the original thread anyway good thing nobody got hurt, and let the FAA do their bit...good reading though:ok:

[ABX]

ironbutt57 - thanks, I could probably listen to (or read) a lot more of that type of explanation, however, as you say, thread drift.

Apologies to all, especially jet_noseover.:8

Cheers all,

ABX

[TIGV]

I'm a little too close to this to report much more than the local news has already covered. I can tell you that the failure occured on a 1/4 to 1/2 mile final, fully configured and in a low power state, there was not sufficient time to declare a full emergency as the pilot involved deemed control of the aircraft at that time to be more important ( single pilot operator ) However... the tower was informed by the pilot that he was now: " a single engine " and a normal approach to landing was made after which authorities were informed using the official and appropriate channels available to the pilot at that time.
I examined the engine, the reservoir still contained the nominal level of oil.
My opinion only to follow: Based on what I saw and the low power state in which the engine suffered what can only be described as a catastrophic failure, I am of the opinion that the 'worn' lubrication system was unable to supply a sufficient amount of oil to the aft turbine bearing, which seized, as the failure progressed this force was transmitted from the rear to the front of the engine stopping at the centrifugal high pressure compressor.
I am basing this on the nature of the damage I saw while inspecting the engine and my knowledge of Rolls Royce Dart type engines whos type used to suffer similar failures, as I recall the RR fix for this was to limit minimum torque pressure on approach to 40 psi ( our company was 60 psi ) thus ensuring sufficient oil feed to the aft turbine bearings. This is not currently a limitation on the TPE 331 -6 or -10.

Once the dust settles and official statements and press releases have been made I will be able to provide more information specific to the failure.

[barit1]

...Would over speeding the turb cause this? (How do you over speed a turbine engine anyway?)

You overspeed a turboprop by disconnecting the gas turbine engine from its load (gearbox or shaft breakage, or prop control failure to fine pitch). Either a disc rupture (BAD news) or blade failure (most likely contained) will result, unless the redundant overspeed trip is fast enough.
But this episode is a whole disc escaping, no apparent relation to the above. Failed tie bolt(s) is my vote, but I won't speculate on the root cause of that.

[mad_jock]

I don't know if this report helps. And in no way am I suggesting this is what happened. The picture on page 20 gives quite a good layout. The -12 is slightly different but not by much.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-BYRA_07-05.pdf

[Clandestino]

The air(line)crew should have reported it before "hiding" the handicapped monster in the shed. They screwed up.......

Airline crew? So what kind of airliner is this MU-2 anyway? Also what good is declaring emergency when you´re on short final? Ah yes - you get priority handling from ATC. Very useful at 200´ AGL indeed.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

Magnificent first post TIGV. If all you report is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) it highlights the utter futility of this sort of debate. What is the point of analysing the crap out of every word in a media report and judging it against the regulations when you just can't rely on much in that report reflecting what actually happened?

If I had a broken aircraft and a shed to put it in I'd put it in the shed, what else would I do?

[jet_noseover]

Airline crew? So what kind of airliner is this MU-2 anyway? Also what good is declaring emergency when you´re on short final? Ah yes - you get priority handling from ATC. Very useful at 200´ AGL indeed.

Might want to re-read my post again Clandestino

I did not say the crew should have declared emergency, I said - they should have reported it to the autorities (FAA) before parking it in the hangar. As mandated.

[ABX]

Thanks barit1, your explanation was informative and interesting, thanks for taking the time.:ok:

I must say, it is nice to be part of a thread where people who ask (the dumb?:8 ) questions are not flamed just because they don't know as much as the rest of the folks contributing. Some other threads are not so kind.

All in all, an interesting topic and - to get it back to the original question - it seems that the incident (incident or accident?) should have been reported and dealt with in much better way - this conclusion based on the posts above.

Does anyone know what sort of penalties or discipline the pilot and or company may face for their actions or lack thereof?

Cheers all,

ABX

[act700]

Never worked anywhere where an engine faulire in a twin be it turboprop or jet, wasnt an emergency...not saying it is true everywhere..in any event it would be prudent


Ironbutt, you're a complete moron, along with most everyone else's posts I've read here.
Why, you ask? How can I make such a ludicrous statement?
Surely, everyone in aviation knows that these forums are frequented by top notch professionals with impecable references.

Anyway, back to why you all are flamin' idiots.
First of all, you base your expert opinion on ..., uhh, ..., ah yes, a news media report. How stupid of me to undermine your expertise.
And how insulting of me to call you idiots; after all, they (paper) quoted an FAA official. That, of course, must be taken at face value. As we all know, only the most competent of the bunch work for the FAA.
Oops, now I've done it: ironbutt is a fed! Double-insult, doh!
I'll be surrendering my licenses in the morning. Or would that be too late?

Anyway, for those of you who are interested in facts, there's a lot to this story that the Chicago (sensationalist) media has not put in print. But than again it wouldn't be sensational at all.
I will not comment on the details, I'll probably get $h1tcanned if I do, but say to wait for an NTSB statement, or the initial report from them to come out.
At least they're not gung ho on making statements, just to show off to their buddies their names got quoted in a paper.
You guys can hang in there for 7 days, can you?

PS:
Could it be at all conceivable (-now, stay with me on this, I know this is just some a$$hole speculating here-) that the airplane was put in the hangar by someone other than the pilot or the company? I hope I don't get persecuted for saying ***** like this, like the guy who thought up the whole "the earth is round crap"!

The pilot handled the incident exactly as he should have-textbook. Just like trained in the sim. (<-don't tell the Brits, though! They think we Yanks don't know WTF we're doing up there, being that our US training is so inferior to theirs)

And to all the MU2 nay-sayers, this just shows that this airplane can/will fly on one motor, if flown properly and as per the training manual/AFM.
In fact, it is built like a brick ***** house. This motor didn't just quit, it disintegrated, shredded itself (yes, I do have pictures).

[act700]

You overspeed a turboprop by disconnecting the gas turbine engine from its load (gearbox or shaft breakage, or prop control failure to fine pitch). Either a disc rupture (BAD news) or blade failure (most likely contained) will result, unless the redundant overspeed trip is fast enough.
But this episode is a whole disc escaping, no apparent relation to the above. Failed tie bolt(s) is my vote, but I won't speculate on the root cause of that.


:ok:Good call, cause there are no tie bolt on this engine.

[act700]

Thanks barit1, your explanation was informative and interesting, thanks for taking the time.:ok:

I must say, it is nice to be part of a thread where people who ask (the dumb?:8 ) questions are not flamed just because they don't know as much as the rest of the folks contributing. Some other threads are not so kind.

All in all, an interesting topic and - to get it back to the original question - it seems that the incident (incident or accident?) should have been reported and dealt with in much better way - this conclusion based on the posts above.

Does anyone know what sort of penalties or discipline the pilot and or company may face for their actions or lack thereof?

Cheers all,

ABX


None, as there were no violations.

I better quit posting, as it is obviously unfair that I know 100% more than everyone else here about the incident, but won't share.
What a prick of me!

[act700]

Airline crew? So what kind of airliner is this MU-2 anyway? Also what good is declaring emergency when you´re on short final? Ah yes - you get priority handling from ATC. Very useful at 200´ AGL indeed.

Ok, one last one, I promise.

Clandestino, let me be the first to exclude you from the statement about all being idiots and such.


Must shut up now, ...... , hard, ...., but must try...

[ABX]

act700,

Did you notice that this is a Rumour Network?:}

Now come on, be a good bloke and post the pix you've got!:ok:

ABX

[act700]

act700,

Did you notice that this is a Rumour Network?:}

Now come on, be a good bloke and post the pix you've got!:ok:

ABX


OK, but then I must shut up for good.

Wait, it won't work.
... little help, how do I paste pics on here?

[ABX]

You need to upload them onto a third party photo hosting site - such as photo bucket - then use the 'Insert Image' tab above the text box as you type your posts here into this thread, it will ask you for the URL, then your pix will appear.

[jet_noseover]

Ironbutt, you're a complete moron, along with most everyone else's posts I've read here.
Why, you ask? How can I make such a ludicrous statement?
Surely, everyone in aviation knows that these forums are frequented by top notch professionals with impecable references.

Anyway, back to why you all are flamin' idiots.
First of all, you base your expert opinion on ..., uhh, ..., ah yes, a news media report. How stupid of me to undermine your expertise.
And how insulting of me to call you idiots; after all, they (paper) quoted an FAA official. That, of course, must be taken at face value. As we all know, only the most competent of the bunch work for the FAA.
Oops, now I've done it: ironbutt is a fed! Double-insult, doh!
I'll be surrendering my licenses in the morning. Or would that be too late?

Anyway, for those of you who are interested in facts, there's a lot to this story that the Chicago (sensationalist) media has not put in print. But than again it wouldn't be sensational at all.
I will not comment on the details, I'll probably get $h1tcanned if I do, but say to wait for an NTSB statement, or the initial report from them to come out.
At least they're not gung ho on making statements, just to show off to their buddies their names got quoted in a paper.
You guys can hang in there for 7 days, can you?

PS:
Could it be at all conceivable (-now, stay with me on this, I know this is just some a$$hole speculating here-) that the airplane was put in the hangar by someone other than the pilot or the company? I hope I don't get persecuted for saying ***** like this, like the guy who thought up the whole "the earth is round crap"!

The pilot handled the incident exactly as he should have-textbook. Just like trained in the sim. (<-don't tell the Brits, though! They think we Yanks don't know WTF we're doing up there, being that our US training is so inferior to theirs)

And to all the MU2 nay-sayers, this just shows that this airplane can/will fly on one motor, if flown properly and as per the training manual/AFM.
In fact, it is built like a brick ***** house. This motor didn't just quit, it disintegrated, shredded itself (yes, I do have pictures).

act700,
Do post the pictures. Please.
Then tell us all (Brits included) why the pilot did not report the engine failure as he was supposed to do.
No one is questioning his skills or that the engine failed.. It's the "hide away" what is in question.

So, relax and put a muzzle on before you insult the folks in the know.

[ABX]

act700,

As it is jet_noseover's thread, perhaps you could post the pix in photo bucket them simply post the link here and those who are interested (which will be all) can look them up for themselves?

I hope that is alright with you jet, as I for one would be fascinated to see the results of the eng failure.:8

[act700]

act700,
Do post the pictures. Please.
Then tell us all (Brits included) why the pilot did not report the engine failure as he was supposed to do.
No one is questioning his skills or that the engine failed.. It's the "hide away" what is in question.

So, relax and put a muzzle on before you insult the folks in the know.


Gladly:

You are the ones saying he did not report the engine failure!
Clear as mud; need I say more?


ABX,
being a "steam gauge guy", could you tell me how to post in the photo bucket, please.

[jet_noseover]

None, as there were no violations.

Wrong...

I better quit posting, as it is obviously unfair that I know 100% more than everyone else here about the incident, but won't share.
What a prick of me!"

you're kidding yourself.

Last statement is right on the money though. :p

[act700]

Wrong...


you're kidding yourself.

Last statement is right on the money though. :p



Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get your point.

[ABX]

act700;

click here (http://photobucket.com/);

join up free of charge;

click on 'share your videos & images';

follow the instructions given therein

Cheers,

ABX

[jet_noseover]

act700,
As it is jet_noseover's thread, perhaps you could post the pix in photo bucket them simply post the link here and those who are interested (which will be all) can look them up for themselves?
I hope that is alright with you jet, as I for one would be fascinated to see the results of the eng failure.:8
I have no pix of the suspect. yet.
Maybe the one that knows 100% more than anyone else can prove how hot s/he is and post them.
By the way, ,, This not my thread. Just because one starts it does not mean one owns it... :)

[ABX]

This not my thread. Just because one starts it does not mean one owns it... :)

Ahhh, yes jet, but you are the only one - mods notwithstanding - who can delete the thread!

Here's hoping that you don't exercise that freedom as I've been enjoying the thread and can't wait to see further pix.

act700, do you have any information that the pilot/company did in fact report the incident as required? Or do you believe that they were not required to?:confused:

Hope all is going well at photo bucket.

Cheers,

ABX

[ironbutt57]

My airline post partum in the states as I'm sure most are
Pilot reports event declaring emergency to atc (NOT FAA ops inspectors office) (2-eng airplane)
pilot files rquired report to company after event usually within 24 hrs after sobering up
company notifies FAA (NOT ATC) office within required time frame
do not confuse FAA air traffic control services(reported by the pilot workload permitting..aviate navigate and last..communicate) with FAA airline surviellance/certificate management personnel(company report)

[lomapaseo]

You overspeed a turboprop by disconnecting the gas turbine engine from its load (gearbox or shaft breakage, or prop control failure to fine pitch). Either a disc rupture (BAD news) or blade failure (most likely contained) will result, unless the redundant overspeed trip is fast enough.
But this episode is a whole disc escaping, no apparent relation to the above. Failed tie bolt(s) is my vote, but I won't speculate on the root cause of that.

OK if we generalize the word tie-bolts to words like attachment to its drive shaft.

But these attachments just don't break on their own very often and even if they do the generally balanced rotating disk just spins down or walks out the rear of the engine frame.

A more probable sequence is that the blades were partially lost before the disk separated and that this left the rotor so badly unbalanced that it broke loose from its attachment under transverse shear loading.

Once somebody posts some pictures we may see if it simply fell out the rear end or punched through the case wall. About the only way a complete disk could get through its casing is if the blades had shed in an overspeed first and punched an escape hole. All this would be obvious in photos.

I still suspect a mechanical caused overspeed due to loss of load was an early ingredient, but I await the photos

(pretty please somebody, even via PM exchange of E-mails) :)

[jet_noseover]

... (pretty please somebody, even via PM exchange of E-mails) :)

I doubt any pix be available for a time lomapaseo. Maybe act700 can deliver them...:zzz: :zzz:

Interesting write-up here on the MU's...........

"It simply doesn't matter how good a pilot is -- if he loses power at low altitude [in an MU-2] he is going to crash," Cadwalader asserted in a recent issue of Atlantic Flyer. "An MU-2 with one engine out is a very, very dangerous airplane and it can go out of control without the pilot being able to stop it."

Much more at:
http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_bca_story.jsp?id=news/mu2_0206.xml


And this:

FAA Asks Why Owner Did Not Report Incident
"The FAA is investigating why a Mitsubishi MU-2 freight plane suffered engine failure, and threw a turbine disk while on approach to Chicago's Midway Airport early Friday morning. The agency is also curious why the company apparently did not report the incident"

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?contentBlockId=1f8e46d0-1f65-4cf9-9361-3db5993d143a


My question exactly...

[TIGV]

Typical that this thread begins to slam the MU-2, the fact that in this case the aircraft and its competent pilot made it back to the runway after suffering a catastrophic failure of a powerplant speaks volumes in favor of its design.

The best analogy I can think of to accurately describe the MU-2 is as follows:

The MU-2 is a tool, built for a specific purpose, a function it performs magnificently.

It is not unlike a racecar, everybody here can take a Mini metro for a cruise around the block without harm, not everybody here, however, can jump into a formula 1 racecar and take it over 130mph without feeling uncomfortable, never mind making into the top 10 at the finish line.

What we have is an unfortunately large amount of Mini metro drivers extolling the dangers of formula 1 racing without ever having sat in a racecar never mind taking it for a spin.

There is no substitute for the correct training and experience.

In the freight function these aircraft currently fly 1200 to 1500 hours and 6000 cycles per year per plane, in a fleet of ten Mu-2's that equates to 15,000 hours per year and 60,000 cycles fleetwide, dispatch reliability, departures to completed arrivals for this aircraft type are about 95%

All this flying is conducted on the back side of the clock, single pilot, all weather.

Let's stop knocking the aircraft, if you have some time in MU-2's I encourage you to post your opinion. Let's stop cutting and pasting uninformed nonsense from unverified and dubious sources.

As a footnote and as I have stated CLEARLY in my previous post, the authorities were informed by the pilot using accepted channels of communication required by regulation at the time of the incident.

Millionair Chicago Midway, on who's real estate this particular MU-2 happened to be resting, quite rightly decided to move the aircraft into a hangar both to free up ramp space and to provide a heated area for it's inspection/repair.

In an unusual move never before witnessed by this humble aviator the FAA appeared to trample on it's tool by issuing an unsubstantiated press release hinting intentional cover up etc.

So....when the dust settles, ACT 700 or myself, with approval, may provide pictures of the engine damage for your perusal, until that time...

[jet_noseover]

Pilot's skills are not in question,TIGV
Machine design is not either. (Though I found the write-up interesting).

As you say, the incident was reported through the "accepted channels of communication required by regulation", then I ask why did the FAA spokesman made this comment to the press:

"[ ] the pilot should have reported the engine failure to authorities".

Also, you say:

"In an unusual move never before witnessed by this humble aviator the FAA appeared to trample on it's tool by issuing an unsubstantiated press release hinting intentional cover up etc."

Makes you wonder - why the press release..... Is the organization for you or against you?


"when the dust settles, ACT 700 or myself, with approval, may provide pictures of the engine damage for your perusal"


The dust has settled, how about them pictures! :ok:

[ABX]

TIGV, you wouldn't happen to be a MU-2 freight dog who had a little engine trouble recently would you?

A brand new Prooner who knows an awful lot about the issue of the day ... :E

How are the pix coming along?

[TIGV]

Of course none of you could have known.

I have not been a regular here for quite some time. Those of you who have, may remember me as:

Capt. Horatio Slappy!! ( Joined about 5 years or so ago )

The reason behind the TIGV is for easy remembering of my Logon...It is the same one I use over at Clear and a ........... another aviation related message board.

I would have thought it obvious that until Honeywell and the NTSB have had an opportunity to tear down the engine and publish a factual finding of this incident that the dust has most definately NOT settled.

I would also have thought it obvious that the level of detail provided suggests a reasonably close relationship to the party or parties involved.

I can tell you without hesitation that those who have the knowledge you seek were absolutely not involved in this incident.

I can tell you also, without hesitation, that information specific to the incident was communicated correctly and in a timely manner.
The representative who issued the press release was in error.

This is the third time that this fact has been mentioned...

Perhaps you are a slow reader ?

In my first posting, I wanted to clarify some points made by the media that perhaps did not cast the Pilot or Company in the best light.

Apparently I made a mistake posting at all.

Sorry Chaps, Chappesses.

There will be no more posts on this subject by TIGV or Horatio.

For more on this check the NTSB database about 12 months from now.

[ironbutt57]

TIGV cant imagine there will be a lot left for Honeywell to teardown from the sound of things,,,:} :}

[ABX]

Settle down TIGV, can you spell V-a-l-i-u-m?:E

Mate, really, I'd like to thank you for your posts, and yes, myself and the rest of us have got the message about the reporting of the incident and the subsequent false report by a third party in error.

I for one have no hesitation believing you.:ok:

The reason there is still continued activity on this thread is that people are interested in the topic in general and this incident in particular.

Yeah, originally the 'sensational' false report caused a stir, however more recent posts have revealed that the pilot suffered a catastrophic engine failure in landing config, low speed, low alt etc., and still made it to the ground in something like the recommended manner. He is to be congratulated for doing so.:D

This thread has been an informative and thought provoking discussion, so please TIGs, bring your bat and ball and come back and play with us?:}

I'd really like to hear things as they develop and see pix when they become available, I couldn't care less about sensationalism, my interested in the tech aspects of the engine failure and the successful landing after the failure.:8

Cheers,

ABX

[Ag2A320]

Gents,
I as ex freight-dog thats has flown in-excess of 2000Hrs in the Mits. The company i worked with had a couple incidents with inflight shutdowns and the last inflight blade seperation on MU-2. The Pilot in Commmand in each case reported it to the ATC and landed without further incident and reported the occurance to company ops/mgmt.

I myself had an FCU fail in cruise with the Mits; the engine failed to respond to the powerlever input, shut it down, discussed the options with ATC, elected to continue 45 mins to my destination as wx at all other suitable airports below minimum reported w/ freezing rain on desc/app. I wrote a report to my chief pilot who met with the Owner/Mgmt team & DOM who then reported to the FAA /(PMI )Primary Maintenance Inspector for our operations.

TIGV & ACT700 , Cheers from a EX-Centralstage/Checkmate Driver

[jet_noseover]

I would have thought it obvious that until Honeywell and the NTSB have had an opportunity to tear down the engine and publish a factual finding of this incident that the dust has most definately NOT settled.

You are probably right on this one, TIGV.

I would also have thought it obvious that the level of detail provided suggests a reasonably close relationship to the party or parties involved.
I can tell you without hesitation that those who have the knowledge you seek were absolutely not involved in this incident.
I can tell you also, without hesitation, that information specific to the incident was communicated correctly and in a timely manner.
The representative who issued the press release was in error.
This is the third time that this fact has been mentioned...
Perhaps you are a slow reader ?
In my first posting, I wanted to clarify some points made by the media that perhaps did not cast the Pilot or Company in the best light.


The details provided by you or the ATC700 were the same as what was provided via press/press release. The only difference I notice is that you claim: "that information specific to the incident was communicated correctly and in a timely manner.
The representative who issued the press release was in error."

FAA stated otherwise and therefore my original post/question(s). If they were in error, I have not hear they "jumped the gun", yet.

I am not a slow reader. It should be obvious that not all trust the information from posters on a web site-no matter how reputable the site is.
So why should anyone believe you more than what the FAA said?

Perhaps, you are right. Maybe the media did not put the company or it's employee in the good light. But,,, if the event was reported in timely matter, as you said it was , why should you be on such a defense? :suspect:

Apparently I made a mistake posting at all.
I do not think you made a mistake..., but your friend ACT700 did.

[ABX]

Hello one and all,

A bit of water has passed under the bridge since the last post in this thread, I'm sure there have been some developments since then.

Has anyone got an update?

A couple of things I'd love to know:

I presume the a/c is re-engined/repaired and back in revenue service. Right?

I am still quite interested to see those photos of the damaged engine, ACT700 or anyone else who may have them would you care to post them now?

Have there been any more developments in the 'shake down' after the incident?

Cheers all,

ABX