Mitsubishi MU-2 Marquise

Dynamic Spine Solutions

Northshore Group

On May 4, 2021, about 2305 central daylight time, a Mitsubishi MU-2B-60 airplane, N322TA, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The pilot and two passengers were fatally injured. The airplane collided with a private residence; one occupant was fatally injured, and two other occupants sustained minor injuries. The airplane was operated under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. According to Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the flight departed Wichita Falls Municipal Airport (SPS), Wichita Falls, Texas, about 2057 and was en route to the Bobby L Chain Municipal Airport (HBG), Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The pilot had filed and activated an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan. The pilot requested and received clearance to fly the RNAV 13 approach to HBG. The airplane flew to the initial approach fix, performed the procedure turn, and flew a portion of the final approach course. The last ADS-B point was recorded at 2300 about 1.6 miles northwest from the accident site, at an altitude of 1,475 ft mean sea level (msl). An Alert Notification (ALNOT) was issued by air traffic control when the pilot did not provide a cancellation radio call as required after the instrument approach to a non-towered airport. At 2320, law enforcement received a 911 call reporting the accident. There were no radio distress calls recorded from the pilot. The airplane impacted the front section of an occupied residence about 2.2 miles from the approach end of runway 13. A post impact fire ensued and consumed a majority of the airplane and the residential structure. Cockpit instrumentation was mostly consumed by the post-impact fire. The flaps were found at 20° down, and landing gear was extended at the time of impact. According to FAA records, the pilot held a private pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single engine land, multiengine land, and instrument airplane. Documents provided by his MU-2 training facility revealed the pilot completed a flight review in the accident airplane on November 13, 2020, and completed Advisory Circular 91-89 approved MU-2 recurrent training on November 14, 2020. The pilot had purchased the airplane in February 2012. An associate of the pilot reported that the pilot owned a MU-2F model before he acquired the B model. On June 24, 2020, the pilot was issued a second-class medical certificate. On the medical certificate application, the pilot reported having accrued 7,834 total hours. The airplane was not equipped, and was not required to be equipped, with any type of crashresistant recorder device.

McNeely Charter Service

On June 7, 2020, about 0425 central daylight time, a Mitsubishi MU-2B airplane, N44MX, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The pilot was fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 cargo flight. The flight originated at Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field)(PAE), Everett, Washington, about 2115, and was originally destined for Huron Regional Airport (HON), Huron, South Dakota, for a fuel stop. However, preliminary air traffic control information and weather data was consistent with the pilot diverting to Joe Foss Field Airport (FSD), Sioux Falls, South Dakota, due to weather at HON at the time of intended arrival. The flight landed at FSD at 0140. The final destination was Kokomo Municipal Airport (OKK), Kokomo, Indiana.

RA Aircraft Management

The instrument-rated private pilot departed on a cross-country flight in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) with an overcast cloud layer at 500 ft above ground level (agl) and visibility restricted to 1 ¾ miles in mist, without receiving an instrument clearance or opening his filed instrument flight rules flight plan. There was an outage of the ground communications system at the airport and there was no evidence that the pilot attempted to open his flight plan via his cellular telephone. In addition, there was a low-level outage of the radar services in the vicinity of the accident site and investigators were unable to determine the airplane's route of flight before impact. The airport manager observed the accident airplane depart from runway 35 and enter the clouds. Witnesses located to the north of the accident site did not see the airplane but reported hearing an airplane depart about the time of the accident. One witness reported hearing a lowflying airplane and commented that the engines sounded as if they were operating at full power. The witness heard a thud as he was walking into his home but attributed it to a thunderstorm in the area. The airplane impacted a field about 3.5 miles to the northeast of the departure end of the runway and off the track for the intended route of flight. The airplane was massively fragmented during the impact and debris was scattered for about 300 ft. The damage to the airplane and ground scars at the accident site were consistent with the airplane impacting in a left wing low, nose low attitude with relatively high energy. A postaccident examination of the engines and propeller assemblies did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Signatures were consistent with both engines producing power and both propellers developing thrust at the time of impact. While the massive fragmentation precluded functional testing of the equipment, there was no damage or failure that suggested preimpact anomalies with the airframe or flight controls.Several days before the accident flight, the pilot encountered a "transient flag" on the air data attitude heading reference system. The pilot reported the flag to both the co-owner of the airplane and an avionics shop; however, exact details of the flag are not known. The unit was destroyed by impact forces and could not be functionally tested. If the flag affecting the display of attitude information had occurred with the unit after takeoff, the instrument panel had adequate stand-by instrumentation from which the pilot could have continued the flight. It is not known if this unit failed during the takeoff and investigators were unable to determine what role, if any, this transient issue may have played in the accident. Based upon the reported weather conditions, the location of the wreckage, and the attitude of the airplane at the time of impact with the ground, it is likely that the pilot experienced spatial disorientation shortly after takeoff which resulted in a loss of control and descent into terrain.

Aibal

Shortly after takeoff from San Fernando Airport in Buenos Aires, while in initial climb, the pilot was contacted by ATC about an apparent transponder issue. The crew did not respond when, few seconds later, the twin engine airplane entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed in a marshy area located in the delta of Paraná de la Palmas. The wreckage was found on August 19 about 17 km north of San Fernando Airport. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and all three occupants were killed. Crew: Matías Ronzano, Passengers: Emanuel Vega, Matías Aristi.

Ithaca Consulting

The commercial pilot and three passengers were making a personal cross-country flight over ocean waters in the MU-2B airplane. During cruise flight at flight level (FL) 240, the airplane maintained the same relative heading, airspeed, and altitude for about 2.5 hours before radar contact was lost. While the airplane was in flight, a significant meteorological information notice was issued that warned of frequent thunderstorms with tops to FL440 in the accident area at the accident time. Satellite imagery showed cloud tops in the area were up to FL400. Moderate or greater icing conditions and super cooled large drops (SLD) were likely near or over the accident area at the accident time. Although the wreckage was not located for examination, the loss of the airplane's radar target followed by the identification of debris and a fuel sheen on the water below the last radar target location suggests that the airplane entered an uncontrolled descent after encountering adverse weather and impacted the water. Before beginning training in the airplane about 4 months before the accident, the pilot had 21 hours of multi engine experience accumulated during sporadic flights over 9 years. Per a special federal aviation regulation, a pilot must complete specific ground and flight training and log a minimum of 100 flight hours as pilot-in-command (PIC) in multi engine airplanes before acting as PIC of a MU-2B airplane. Once the pilot began training in the airplane, he appeared to attempt to reach the 100-hour threshold quickly, flying about 50 hours in 1 month. These 50 hours included about 40 hours of long, cross-country flights that the flight instructor who was flying with the pilot described as "familiarization flights" for the pilot and "demonstration flights" for the airplane's owner. The pilot successfully completed the training required for the MU-2B, and at the time of the accident, he had accumulated an estimated 120 hours of multi engine flight experience of which 100 hours were in the MU-2B. Although an MU-2B instructor described the pilot as a good, attentive student, it cannot be determined if his training was ingrained enough for him to effectively apply it in an operational environment without an instructor present. Although available evidence about the pilot's activities suggested he may not have obtained adequate restorative sleep during the night before the accident, there was insufficient evidence to determine the extent to which fatigue played a role in his decision making or the sequence of events.The pilot's last known weather briefing occurred about 8 hours before the airplane departed, and it is not known if the pilot obtained any updated weather information before or during the flight. Sufficient weather information (including a hazardous weather advisory provided by an air traffic control broadcast message about 25 minutes before the accident) was available for the pilot to expect convective activity and the potential for icing along the accident flight's route; however, there is no evidence from the airplane's radar track or the pilot's communications with air traffic controllers that he recognized or attempted to avoid the convective conditions or exit icing conditions.

Aéro Teknic

The twin engine aircraft left Montreal-Saint-Hubert Airport at 0930LT for a two hours flight to Le Havre-aux-Maisons, on Magdalen Islands. Upon arrival, weather conditions were marginal with low ceiling, visibility up to two miles, rain and wind gusting to 30 knots. During the final approach to Runway 07, when the aircraft was 1.4 nautical miles west-southwest of the airport, it deviated south of the approach path. At approximately 1230 Atlantic Daylight Time, aircraft control was lost, resulting in the aircraft striking the ground in a near-level attitude. The aircraft was destroyed and all seven occupants were killed, among them Jean Lapierre, political commentator and former Liberal federal cabinet minister of Transport. All passengers were flying to Magdalen Islands to the funeral of Lapierre's father, who died last Friday. The captain, Pascal Gosselin, was the founder and owner of Aéro Teknic. Crew: Pascal Gosselin, pilot. Passengers: Fabrice Labourel, acting as a copilot, Jean Lapierre, Nicole Beaulieu, Jean Lapierre's wife, Martine Lapierre, Jean Lapierre's sister, Marc Lapierre, Jean Lapierre's brother, Louis Lapierre, Jean Lapierre's brother.

Laurel Mountain Aviation

The pilot stated that after landing, the nose landing gear collapsed. Examination of the airplane nose strut down-lock installation revealed that the strut on the right side of the nose landing gear trunnion was installed incorrectly; the strut installed on the right was a left-sided strut. Incorrect installation of the strut could result in the bearing pulling loose from the pin on the right side of the trunnion, which could allow the nose landing gear to collapse. A review of maintenance records revealed recent maintenance activity on the nose gear involving the strut. The design of the strut is common for the left and right. Both struts have the same base part number, and a distinguishing numerical suffix is added for left side and right side strut determination. If correctly installed, the numbers should be oriented facing outboard. The original MU-2 Maintenance Manual did not address the installation or correct orientation of the strut. The manufacturer issued MU-2 Service Bulletin (SB) No. 200B, dated June 24, 1994, to address the orientation and adjustment. Service Bulletin 200B states on page 8 of 10 that the “Part Number may be visible in this (the) area from the out board sides (Inked P/N may be faded out).”

Mitts Corporation

On his first Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach, the pilot initially flew through the localizer course. The pilot then reestablished the airplane on the final approach course, but the airplane’s altitude at the decision height was about 500 feet too high. He executed a missed approach and received radar vectors for another approach. The airplane was flying inbound on the second ILS approach when a witness reported that he saw the airplane about 150 feet above the ground in about a 60-degree nose-low attitude with about an 80-degree right bank angle. The initial ground impact point was about 2,150 feet west of the runway threshold and about 720 feet north (left) of the extended centerline. The cloud tops were about 3,000 feet with light rime or mixed icing. The flap jack screws and flap indicator were found in the 5-degree flap position. The inspection of the airplane revealed no preimpact anomalies to the airframe, engines, or propellers. A radar study performed on the flight indicated that the calibrated airspeed was about 130 knots on the final approach, but subsequently decreased to about 95–100 knots during the 20-second period prior to loss of radar contact. According to the airplane’s flight manual, the wings-level power-off stall speed at the accident aircraft’s weight is about 91 knots. The ILS approach flight profile indicates that 20 degrees of flaps should be used at the glide slope intercept while maintaining 120 knots minimum airspeed. At least 20 degrees of flaps should be maintained until touchdown. The “No Flap” or “5 Degrees Flap Landing” flight profile indicates that the NO FLAP Vref airspeed is 115 knots calibrated airspeed minimum.