Sen. Inhofe (OK) son dies in plane crash.

ClimbnSink said:
It is all about denial. Weak pilots have to trash the dead as being stupid or they wouldn't have the courage to fly. He was one of us but after his fatal crash we mentally toss him out of the ingroup so his accident doesn't apply to anything we do. Must have been a drunk or a rich brat with no skills.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not everyone does this. We discussed it in another thread recently.

The thought that came to my mind was,,,

"That airplane has killed better pilots, and will again."

It's about a mind-set. That airplane has to be respected and flown at a professional quality level. And it's killed pros.

I'm fact, all airplanes have. Let's not kid ourselves.
 
And just to stir the pot lets hear again from those who in a recent engine thread smugly stated that turbines don't fail.

denny-o
very old, non bold pilot
 
Not universal for all pilots, just the ones trashing the dead. It is a mental defense for pilots that cannot accept reality of risk. Funny that you slip into the same old platitudes. Either you say 'yup I could do that' or you are deluding yourself. Inhofe was a pro commercial and cfi, we don't know how much respect he had for the plane, it is more comfortable to believe he was an arrogant senator's son playing make believe big boy pilot. Reality is he is the same as the rest of us and we can all pile in in situations the poh has a solution.
denverpilot said:
Not everyone does this. We discussed it in another thread recently.

The thought that came to my mind was,,,

"That airplane has killed better pilots, and will again."

It's about a mind-set. That airplane has to be respected and flown at a professional quality level. And it's killed pros.

I'm fact, all airplanes have. Let's not kid ourselves.
Click to expand...
 
Jimmy cooper said:
" if you are a rather low time multi engine pilot and have an engine out in this airplane, you will have your hands full" . This is Frank Boarmans view of the MU2. He owned three and had over 3500 hours in them. Borman trained on them yearly, etc. I personally was facinated when I flew in one. When it starts down the runway I immed. Knew it was the major leagues. To me, Totally different from a commander 1000. I can certainly see why anyone would want one.
Click to expand...

We'll see what the report says, but I don't think he was a low time multi pilot. He may have been a low time MU2 pilot, though.

One guy on the Twin Cessna group knew him and said he was very well-liked at his home field.

Dr. O said:
And just to stir the pot lets hear again from those who in a recent engine thread smugly stated that turbines don't fail.

denny-o
very old, non bold pilot
Click to expand...

Turbine engines fail, just like anything else. But they do fail much less regularly than pistons.
 
JimNtexas said:
IMHO the MU-2 and the Lear 35 (the two airplanes I worked with) need to be flown by pilots trained and capable of working at a professional level.
Click to expand...

My sentiment exactly. Even though I can afford a higher performing and complex airplane, I choose to own a more forgiving and less complex aircraft simply because I do not have the time to devote to maintaining the proficiency required to fly something more demanding. Somewhere between the C150 and the F16 is a point at which only a professional pilot should try to operate. The existence of the MU2 SFAR is a clue that this airplane might be in that professional category.
 
Agreed. I don't see anyone condemning this fellow or making it a"rich boy" or a class situation. The pilot was obviously a very bright doctor, a grad. Of Duke Univ. A respected surgeon and probably a very nice person. How all that negative talk got in here is beyond me. I do think that most pilots who have flown in or talked about an MU2' know that it's a high performance, demanding aircraft. I have 4000 hours but very few in twins but have ridden many times in the stretch version of the MU2 in the right seat. I sure would have been in BIG trouble if my pal the pilot had been incapacitated! He flew it for a living and flew it constantly. It's a damn shame about this fellow! I think most think this way and have no malice towards this man.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Turbine engines fail, just like anything else. But they do fail much less regularly than pistons.
Click to expand...

And often have more advanced systems to automate some of the needed responses to those failures, i.e. auto-feather, auto-rudder inputs, etc.
 
LDJones said:
And often have more advanced systems to automate some of the needed responses to those failures, i.e. auto-feather, auto-rudder inputs, etc.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the Mu2 has neither autofeather nor rudder-boost. They have a 'negative torque sensing' system (NTS) that feathers the prop part-way, you are still required to identify and feather the correct engine as the NTS will only go part-way.
The pictures of the wreckage seem to show the left engine feathered.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
My understanding is that the Mu2 has neither autofeather nor rudder-boost. They have a 'negative torque sensing' system (NTS) that feathers the prop part-way, you are still required to identify and feather the correct engine as the NTS will only go part-way.
The pictures of the wreckage seem to show the left engine feathered.
Click to expand...

IIRC from my old Merlin days, the NTS will feather to about 90%. Pulling the feather knob essentially stops the prop by placing it into full feather.
 
LDJones said:
And often have more advanced systems to automate some of the needed responses to those failures, i.e. auto-feather, auto-rudder inputs, etc.
Click to expand...

Correct. As has been stated, the NTS on TPEs is a mostly auto-feather, but it's not 100%. Still, it gets it most of the way. Otherwise, that big prop causes some ridiculous amount of drag. I forget the exact number, but I had to know it when I did my SIC ride in the Commander (also TPE-powered).

My general thought is that if you could get auto feather in piston twins, you'd probably get a decent amount of the safety improvement.
 
From the muti-pilots here:
Several witnesses observed the airplane in a shallow left turn; the reported altitudes ranged from 400 to 800 feet above ground level. During the turn, the landing gear was in the extended position, and one engine propeller appeared not to be rotating. The airplane continued in a left turn and the wings began to rock back and forth at a 10- to 15-degree bank angle. The airplane was observed to then make a right turn, followed by a left turn, and then a steep spiral to the left. The airplane disappeared from the witnesses' view as it descended.
Click to expand...

Does that sound like a Vmc issue?
 
JeffDG said:
From the muti-pilots here:


Does that sound like a Vmc issue?
Click to expand...
Almost sounds to me like a stall spin. As if he he reduced power on the good engine to avoid a VMC roll and got too slow/stalled it. But I know almost nothing about flying an airplane with spoilers instead of ailerons.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Almost sounds to me like a stall spin. As if he he reduced power on the good engine to avoid a VMC roll and got too slow/stalled it. But I know almost nothing about flying an airplane with spoilers instead of ailerons.
Click to expand...

Right... usually a Vmc "issue" is a pretty quick and decisive roll, not a wallowing stall followed by a spin.

The air traffic control tower controller asked the pilot about the deviation, and the pilot reported that he had a control problem. The left turn continued, and the controller then cleared the pilot to maneuver to the west and asked if he needed assistance. The pilot informed the controller that the left engine was shut down.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like he didn't recognize the engine failure in time?
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
My general thought is that if you could get auto feather in piston twins, you'd probably get a decent amount of the safety improvement.
Click to expand...

That's one thing I found impressive in the DA-42. I shut one down and before I could glance out the window it was in feather.
 
I'm shocked. A politician blaming everyone else for someone else's screw up.
 
That makes no sense, especially since the pilot is deceased. But not surprising, reality never mattered.
 
Ironic in how strong his dad is about tort reform.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Well... the family is now suing Honeywell International Inc., Standard Aero, Standard Aero (Alliance) Inc. and Intercontinenal Jet Service. The Inhofe family claims the crash was due to the negligence of aircraft manufacturers that allegedly failed to provide proper maintenance on the aircraft’s engine and its parts.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/cour...cle_01e191a9-ec29-5c8e-bea6-f7a868331547.html
Click to expand...
Also from the article:
According to USA Today, the NTSB used the Perry Inhofe crash to advocate for safety upgrades in the aircraft model he was flying, which had been scrutinized before by both the NTSB and FAA because of its crash history.
Click to expand...
If true, that suggests the NTSB and FAA at least thought there was something the manufactures could have been doing differently.

The Petition is lacking on any details, but the engine was overhauled by the defendants at some time prior to the crash. And it failed. So a jury will get to decide if anyone's negligence caused that failure.
 
Lindberg said:
Also from the article:
If true, that suggests the NTSB and FAA at least thought there was something the manufactures could have been doing differently.

The Petition is lacking on any details, but the engine was overhauled by the defendants at some time prior to the crash. And it failed. So a jury will get to decide if anyone's negligence caused that failure.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the MU2 is so singularly difficult to fly that it has its own section in the FARs.
 
Bobanna said:
Absolutely true; there is a Special FAR (SFAR) for MU-2 pilots. It would be interesting to know if these requirements were satisfied in the unfortunate accident proceeding to litigation.
Click to expand...

He was on the flight home from his initial SFAR training.
 
What was louder, the crash or the operating engines?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top