Are you suggesting that you have access to data/info not available to the general public?

Most generally all findings and investigations by the NTSB is public domain at the conclusion of any given investigation. What is not readily available are the notes, written comments and other such types of details that is used to determine the final/probably cause of any given accident. However, even this type of information can be be accessed by the public if correct procedures are followed.

Only in certain accidents involving US military aircraft will finding sometimes be held from the public. Such as a midair between a military aircraft and a civil aircraft. Also it might interest you to know that accidents involving US government aircraft, such as the FAA, FBI, Forestry Service and US Marshal Service are not available for public view.

So in answer to your question, no.

None of which changes the fact that the NTSB called for the permanent grounding of all MU-2s.

What year did NTSB do that?

Here, rather than going back and forth, please read this.

http://www.mu-2aircraft.com/upload/news/MU2News_52.pdf

Thank you.

I'm looking for something that substantiates your "fact" that NTSB called for grounding the MU-2. The document you posted doesn't reference that "fact".

Perhaps you could draw on your NTSB certification status and post a document where NTSB calls for grounding the MU-2, or revoking the airworthiness certification.

We're now well off the previous trail and fast getting into tit for tat land.

May I suggest that we have a coffee or two, take ten deep breaths, and worry less about point scoring and more about the underlying technical concerns of the Type ? There is no (and has not been for many years) question that the Type is a little controversial and the basic thread is useful for discussing that point.

My regards to Graham Murphy if anyone speaks with him .. haven't seen him in years since he was with InterAir.

Might add, if Frank Borman thinks it is a "solid, honest" plane and you can fly as good as he can, maybe it is the plane for you. If you are a 24 yr-old check runner with 1600 hours in a C172 or a 45 yr-old doctor with 500 hours in a Arrow looking for an ego boost--maybe NOT!

GF

PS: I thought the NAA F-100 was a solid, honest plane, it could just barely kill me! 2200 built, less than 300 survived. A friend lost a quarter of his class in accidents---IN ONE WEEK!

GF

Capital idea! :ok:

I'll buy the first round if we should ever meet kind Sir.



(Besides that, I retired so I wouldn't have to be constantly looking up facts and stuff, I'm getting too old for that sh!t. :p)

Here are the facts;

NTSB never requested, or otherwise suggested that the MU-2 be grounded.


NTSB is on record as stating that the majority of MU-2 fatal accidents were as a result of pilot error.

FAA validated the original MU-2 certification during a special certification review. No issues.

In 2008, the FAA issued SFAR in addition to the type rating. Specifically, special waivers were required after satisfying training two potentially fatal flaws in the a/c's performance. Engine out, flaps are required to stay out, with a lowering of the nose. Additionally, an Auto-pilot was required for single pilot ops. Landings requirement for currency must be performed in the MUMU, no other type.

I couldn't find NTSB's recs. but would assume they had identified the weak spots, and suggested the a/c not fly w/o upgrades to training, and equipment. NTSB is a board, and submits advisories only. FAA for rules or ticket lifting.

bear

There is no type rating. Assuming again? The weak spots are in the training, not the aircraft.

NTSB Recommendation that led to a review of the original type certification.

(The one that validated no design "weak spots")

http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1986/A86_132_134.pdf

I think it's notable that the landings for currency must be done in the specific a/c. Likewise, It is unique to the MU to leave t/o flaps out OEI, and immediate full roll trim into the running engine. The a/p upgrade is merely an upgrade, though a needed one.

Short body or Long? needs some familiarity as well. I have always liked this a/c, it's a good lookin' all round hot rod. Haven't flown it. How do you like it?

I'm fond of it, as are most who can sort through the BS.

Aero-TV: Learning The Truth About The MU-2 SFAR on Yahoo! Video

I have to declare a vested philosophical interest.

Two aircraft I have not been endorsed on are the DC9 and MU-2 (but played with some engineering on both) .. and both are in first place as the most desirable aircraft I have ever laid eyes on ...

I'll go back into my dark little corner now ...

Even ahead of the (gasp)...Lockheed Electra?:ooh:

Which one? (The MU2 has Landing gear licensed from Lockheed, so....)

Lockheed rules.

Adapted off the F-104 I believe.

Okay, this is finally getting interesting. More info please.

Even ahead of the (gasp)...Lockheed Electra?

Loved the L188. Five years or so on freighter ops on the wee beastie.

I guess the DC9/MU2 thing is a bit like the typical young chap's slavering desire for an unattainably desirable woman of elegant ambience.

Haven't you heard? One of these desirable women is dangerous, will kill you and should be prohibited from consorting with males.:)