Originally Posted by
geosynchronous
Excerpts from the FAA MU-2B Series FAA Airplane Safety Evaluation Report, December, 2005.
When compared to similar turboprops...
- Accident rate is about twice as high as with the fatal rate- about 2.5 times higher
- Fatal accident rates in icing conditions are four times higher
- Fatal accidents involving loss of control on initial climb is 3.5 times higher
- Fatal accidents involving loss of control while in flight is 3.5 times higher
- Fatal accidents involving loss of control during emergencies is seven times higher.
The FAA has acknowledged that the MU2 necessitates a unique skill set when it pertains to pilot certification, training, and experience. The FAA has never been particularly proactive. They are historically reactive, and this is the reaction that the FAA has published after they noticed the history of the MU2 aircraft "killing" people.
Anyone can make a subjective argument on the MU2. The statistics are the proof in the pudding.
SUV's, guns, water, etc... kill people too, but is it really the fault of that object?
My thing is the MU-2 is a special craft that bites hard when provoked. On another note, look what it's purpose has been in the last 10yrs, night-freight. Some of the hardest flying most pilots will never experience. I don't know what the best route would be as far as training, but definately a thorough and periodic check-ride wouldn't hurt anyone. There's always nay-sayers, so I'll just leave it that you can't please everyone!