Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Canada
Reload this Page >

N246W MU-2B-60 crash Iles-de-la-Magdalin Airport March 29 2016

Canada The great white north. A BIG country with few people and LOTS of aviation.

N246W MU-2B-60 crash Iles-de-la-Magdalin Airport March 29 2016

Old 14th Jan 2018, 20:08
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 71
Posts: 454
N246W MU-2B-60 crash Iles-de-la-Magdalin Airport March 29 2016

Good Afternoon All:

Transportation Safety Board has released an excellent video presentation of the flight path of MU-2B-60 N246W that killed former politician Jean Lapierre and family members enroute to his father’s funeral.

As we can see the importance of flying a stabilised approach versus trying to recover from high energy in a short period of time. No further comments from myself as I have experienced this type of situation as well.



Last edited by a330pilotcanada; 15th Jan 2018 at 17:02. Reason: Named wrong agency thanks JO
a330pilotcanada is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2018, 20:16
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 857
The whole thing from pilot qualification to doing this flight on that day was an accident waiting to happen.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2018, 03:09
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 963
TSB actually
J.O. is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2018, 04:05
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under the sea
Posts: 488
100 knots too fast to a stall on an approach. Just wow.
extreme P is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2018, 20:02
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
A certain very experienced corporate pilot just quit his job in the same general area due to the owner of the aircraft trying to push the weather and also overloading the aircraft, said owner is still trying to replace the pilots two months later! A nice feature of the pilot shortage is that he just isn't having any luck with his search! Unfortunately someone will try to do it, lets hope they don't kill any more innocent folks!
clunckdriver is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2018, 16:09
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Originally Posted by extreme P View Post
100 knots too fast to a stall on an approach. Just wow.
Welcome to the MU2. It's got a very small wing with a very high wing loading. In other words, it's all engine. When you cut the power it will stop flying very quickly.

A useful attribute in certain situations but it means monitoring airspeed is even more critical than in more conventional aircraft in its class, i.e. King Airs etc.
nolimitholdem is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2018, 18:09
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under the sea
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by nolimitholdem View Post
Welcome to the MU2. It's got a very small wing with a very high wing loading. In other words, it's all engine. When you cut the power it will stop flying very quickly.

A useful attribute in certain situations but it means monitoring airspeed is even more critical than in more conventional aircraft in its class, i.e. King Airs etc.
Call it what you will. Small wing. High wing load. All engine.

Blame the airplane all you want.

+/-100 knots is an epic fail.
extreme P is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2018, 20:13
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
If you substantially increase power from idle in a twin, as the pilot did, would all twin aircraft roll to the right? I know the original PA-31 without counter rotating props would become inverted.
rotornut is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2018, 20:33
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Great White North
Posts: 194
I have a lot of time on the PA-31-300/310/325/350/P.... never has it been an issue to roll in any direction when adding power on both engines. IF, and only IF, you were below the red line on the airspeed indicator with the critical engine failed, would you see a roll toward the critical engine when power was added. But if both engines were running you went straight ahead.

Without more information than has been provided here, I cannot hypothesize why this aircraft, on this day, rolled right when power was added to both engines.
Mostly Harmless is online now  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 02:36
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,323
Lots of good information on:
10 January 2018 - Aviation news release - Transportation Safety Board of Canada

Basically insufficient airspeed to counteract torque roll at 300' when powering back up.

Why he didn't ask for & take a procedure turn is a question he is not with us to answer.

Perhaps he was always vectored to an approach and had to deal with energy management and tailwind on his own arriving at a remote airport.

TSB does not detail his instrument experience; so we don't know.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 03:10
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
The demanding nature of the MU2 is well known in the aviation community. Why the owner-operator did not go-around he cannot tell us.

It is fortunate the aircraft was fitted with combined voice and data recorder so well used in this investigation. We have an excellent lesson in this.
jack11111 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 19:14
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 55
Posts: 2,394
+/-100 knots is an epic fail.
If you know what and how to do, its not.
His dudeness is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 22:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Great White North
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by RatherBeFlying View Post
Lots of good information on:
10 January 2018 - Aviation news release - Transportation Safety Board of Canada

Basically insufficient airspeed to counteract torque roll at 300' when powering back up.
Now that is interesting. That would give a lot of merit to the earlier statement that
It's got a very small wing with a very high wing loading. In other words, it's all engine.
Mostly Harmless is online now  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 02:24
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 626
It doesn't really matter how you try to describe it, it was an example of absolutely woeful piloting resulting in the needless death of the poor people in the back. RIP :-(
Octane is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 03:24
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Not over the Rockies anymore.
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless View Post
Now that is interesting. That would give a lot of merit to the earlier statement that
That is correct...there's a reason why it's called a (rice) Rocket!!
act700 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2018, 15:13
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 59
The report indicates the first decision not to descend as normal was made in order to save fuel. How much fuel could have been saved, in comparison to the overall fuel expenditure for the two hour flight? Under what circumstances is that a valid reason?
2016parks is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.