Missing MU-2 Found In California

Aero-News ^ | 032204 | N/A

[Archangelsk]

Authorities in California have found what appears to be the wreckage of a Mitsubishi MU-2 at the bottom of the Napa River, not far from where it was headed more than a week ago. The bodies of Ronald and Peggy Scott, both 62 years old, were found inside the wreckage.

The discovery of the downed aircraft ended a search that began on Monday, after the Scotts were reported missing by concerned family members. They had taken off from Imperial County Airport in Southern California March 11 and weren't heard from since.

Officials said the Scotts didn't file a flight plan for the trip and weren't using flight following. It was last tracked on radar that night between the Napa County Airport and San Pablo Bay, according to a Napa County Sheriff's report.

Using sonar, deputies located the aircraft in about 20 feet of water. It apparently rested there without anyone's knowledge for several days.

"He (Ronald Scott) didn't show up for his meeting on Friday, and nobody did anything or said anything until ... Monday," said airport administrative assistant Winona Boyer. She said Scott was a frequent visitor to the Napa County Airport.

"He has been a regular transient at the airport since 1999," the employee said, adding that Ronald Scott worked with a cancer research institute in San Diego and made several trips a month to Napa County for meetings. He had one place he usually parked, and no one paid much attention," she said.

[blackdog]

I used to fly my Cherokee to work at the Charlotte airport. I would keep pace on final with MD-80's and DC-9's. You'd be on slope, middle marker at full power, nose down, and doing 140KTS. It was pretty funny to have the heavy iron on the paralell arrival checking out the GA bird on sprint with them. I used to make the first turnoff at about 60KTS, holding the thing on the ground.

On departing to fly home, I'd of course never-ever use a landing light on the taxiways(the dead give-away of a GA pilot), and I'd make my turnout as soon as my wheels left terra firma.

The only problem I ever encountered was on Guard unit operations I'd be sandwiched between on taxiways. The C-130's had a prop wash that had me dancing like the plane was having an epileptic fit. I hated to think what a pullback on the yoke might have accomplished.

If you can keep pace with their operations and sequencing, they are more than happy to have you. But yeah, lots of GA pilots are using the old approach plate tables on final and doing 80KTS. When you are asked to expedite your approach, they mean it.

[blackdog]

The FAA airworthiness department would have you think everything was fatally flawed. Of all the AD staffers I had to talk to, none were pilots, or engineers for that matter. They would issue the same AD's changed slightly four times in four years. They had no clue and cost me a fortune.

You then go to some other country and you find they are flying all the best planes that were AD'd to death in this country and were sold off to elsewhere to enjoy a productive, less expensive life(sans lawyers too).

[blackdog]

If you're a flight sim geek, I've been told that my airport is on the latest version of Microsoft's flight simulator 2000 or whatever release. Blackdog Airport(WS76)

[dalereed]

"But I will concur that it seems like you get routed in very strange directions sometimes."

Prefile at least an hour before departure and you will get a lot better routing.

The only time I got really bad routing was a bad storm over the rockies and I sat in Santa Fe for 3 hours to get a clearance and then it was Taos, over the top because everyone was filing for up the valley. Taking on ice @ 140 in a Saratoga is a little unnerving.

[Reeses]

Too bad for the family. One does wonder how many such follies that "cancer research" money affords however......

On the plus side, they didn't die from cancer, it was over quick and together, and they spent their last moments doing something they liked. Rather than blame the victims for their misfortune we should admire their lives well spent.

[Criminal Number 18F]

What are the reasons a person would ignore filing a flight plan?

It's not required when flying under visual flight rules. You might not, especially if you thought you might change plans while airborne. Most people who just go and stooge around their home airport don't bother; but an Mu-2 is not a plane for flying for fun. It's for going places, and as Archangelsk says, it's a very demanding machine to fly. There is a Canadian Mu-2 that comes into Hanscom (KBED) several times a week that is flown with such elan and precision that everybody stops and watches the guy.

A flight plan doesn't really do anything to make the flight safer, and doesn't help you if you are in trouble aloft. It really only helps them find you if you go missing -- they know where to look. Mind you, instrument flights must be under a flight plan (and clearance). All airliners operate under instrument flight rules regardless of the weather. Airliners haven't been allowed to operate visual for almost 50 years.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Criminal Number 18F]

I've had ATC refuse flight following on a number of occasions.

Doing the old. "let's fly out and see the tall ships come in" in the Arrow, I was PF and my dad PNF. We were both watching lots of traffic when Cape Approach called us and said, "Sorry, I have to discontinue flight following. I have too many targets squawking VFR in your immediate vicinity for the radar to track!"

The flight got very unpleasant very fast, although our pax didn't, I think, catch on that the guys up front had stopped the guided tour and were swivelling around a lot.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Criminal Number 18F]

I assumed they had motion-limiting stops to keep the blades from going into a reverse-thrust configuration.

The prop levers are usually set up so that you can't inadvertently put it into reverse thrust. Kind of like you can't put a stick shift in reverse while going forward, because you have to lift an interlock, or whatever.

There was a Twin Otter guy who used to use beta thrust on descents to show off. One day only one prop went beta. That's a bad thing.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[LeGrande]

Better yet, no aviator (private, commercial, whathaveyou) should fly cross country without filing a flight plan or using flight following, regardless of what kind of aircraft you're piloting.

Why? I fly all the time without filing or requesting flight following. I always make sure someone knows when and where I am going though : )

My wife enjoys flying low, so flight following isn't really an option even if I wanted it. We also enjoy sightseeing along the way and making unscheduled stops. I have discovered some great fishing streams that way : )

Flying is meant to be enjoyable and fun. At least for some of us. I do prepare for the worst though, EPIRB, backup radio, survival kit, first aid kit, etc.

[Criminal Number 18F]

I remember buying an Aerocommander for $72,000 when the fuselage straps to the wings were corroding and becoming unsafe.

Getting a $300,000 plane for under $100,000 is a good deal -- as long as one is prepared to maintain a $300k plane. There's a lot of twins out there that were bought cheap, and then, or necessity, maintained cheap. They are accidents seeking venues at this point.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Criminal Number 18F]

a Ranger pilot lost pitch control and reached up thru the interior panels

You may be thinking of the incident where a Forest Service Hiller lost the control linkage, and a passenger climbed out and used the marlinspike on his Leatherman tool to hold the linkage together.

http://www.helis.com/stories/impsit.php

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[sirshackleton]

Just my way of thinking, and probably has a lot to do with the way I learned to fly. Frankly, I maybe request flight following 50% of the time...I usually just file a plan. What I was trying to say was that it's a pretty good idea to have a safety net, whether it's a filed flight plan, flight following, or both.

[LeGrande]

I agree that having a safety net is a great idea : ) But would filing a flight plan or using flight following have helped the people flying the MU-2? They were probably dead on impact or shortly thereafter.

In fact filing a flight plan is mostly a waste of time. I really can't think of a single instance where someone saved their life because they filed a flight plan. Flight following is good for peace of mind, but I know quite a few pilots that use flight following, set the autopilot and then just sit back and listen to tunes. They might just as well fly commercial, it would be saferr.

Personally my rules are no mechanical problems what so ever, good weather, plenty of fuel, plenty of time, a rested and relaxed pilot (me) competent and current in the plane. I may bend 1 of those rules at a time but that is it. I think it was Chuck Yeager who said that it is the third problem that kills you. So my fly, no fly decisions depend limiting the chances of three problems occurring : ) Filing a flight plan or using flight following is of very little importance when I fly. It also seems that when I need flight following the most, like at Oshkosh, it isn't available.

[SevenDaysInMay]

No one should land even high-wing aircraft in 20 feet of river water without floats and on an adequate river.

Accidents happen, especially with GA pilots who train much less than they fly. Besides the MU-2 just looks cooler than it flies, like an Aero-Commander 5xx series on meth.

[sirshackleton]

I agree that having a safety net is a great idea : ) But would filing a flight plan or using flight following have helped the people flying the MU-2? They were probably dead on impact or shortly thereafter.

You're probably right that they perished quickly. I don't think that discounts the usefulness of a flight plan. Not every crash kills its victims on impact. Plus, didn't it take a week to find these folks? What if one of them managed to live for even two or three hours afterward?

In fact filing a flight plan is mostly a waste of time. I really can't think of a single instance where someone saved their life because they filed a flight plan.

I haven't argued that filing flight plans saved peoples lives. Frankly, I don't think there's anything you can do to guarantee 100% that you're not going to have an accident while flying. But we do these things...preflight checks, careful flight planning, etc....because it's one more thing you can do to help yourself.

Flight following is good for peace of mind, but I know quite a few pilots that use flight following, set the autopilot and then just sit back and listen to tunes. They might just as well fly commercial, it would be saferr.

Yeah, I definitely would not feel comfortable flying with those who would take that sort of attitude. But that's not the fault of flight following....

Personally my rules are no mechanical problems what so ever, good weather, plenty of fuel, plenty of time, a rested and relaxed pilot (me) competent and current in the plane. I may bend 1 of those rules at a time but that is it.

Which rule of the above do you occasionally bend?

I think it was Chuck Yeager who said that it is the third problem that kills you. So my fly, no fly decisions depend limiting the chances of three problems occurring : ) Filing a flight plan or using flight following is of very little importance when I fly. It also seems that when I need flight following the most, like at Oshkosh, it isn't available.

We just have different ways of thinking on this, which I can completely accept. I just don't think filing a flight plan or requesting flight following is that much of hassle. Then again, we filed flight plans for everything cross country in flight school, and I could pretty much have one filed in about 45 seconds and get a weather brief. Yeah, it'll give you a little more radio work early in your flight, but even that is still negligible. And I agree with you 1000% that flying is fun, and should be. I always have fun flying.

In fact, I owe one of my most favorite times to flight following. It's pretty cool to hear over the radio "Cessna 8-Fox-Romeo, traffic is two F-16s your 10 o'clock, three miles.....would you like a fly-by?" (thanks to Luke AFB).

[LeGrande]

Personally my rules are no mechanical problems what so ever, good weather, plenty of fuel, plenty of time, a rested and relaxed pilot (me) competent and current in the plane. I may bend 1 of those rules at a time but that is it.

Which rule of the above do you occasionally bend?

Sadly, I have broken all of those rules at one time or another : ( Mostly I bend the plenty of time rule.

I think the pilot of the MU-2 broke a couple of the rules. 1. He was flying at night ( I consider that one problem, like weather). 2. He may have been tired (I don't know how late he was flying). 3. He might not have been absolutely competent in the plane ( I am just guessing, of course). So if you add in one more problem, a fight with the wife, an electrical failure, etc. and you have a recipe for disaster.

Just like Kennedy - night, weather, time, pressure from passengers. Three or more problems and you will die.

I was once cleared through a MOA in western Utah and I became the "football." My instructions were to fly straight and level through the restricted area. I had fighter cover and bad guys trying to break through and get to me. Sadly I couldn't hear or talk to the pilots but it was kind of fun watching planes appear and disappear.

[sirshackleton]

Three or more problems and you will die.

I know Chuck Yeager said it, but I have a big problem with that too, because it can easily be the first mistake that kills you.

[LeGrande]

You are certainly correct, one mistake can kill, but if you look at the statistics it is rarely one single mistake, It is much more common to see a chain of events that results in death.

[falcon6]

A little information so you know what you are talking about:

The pilot was a cancer doctor but he did not do cancer research. He treated ordinary people for cancer in the a desert area near Mexican border in California. He and his wife built the center because he recognized a community in need. The majority of his patients were hispanic and fairly poor. He did as much pro bono work as he did work for money - he never denied a patient for lack of money or insurance. He was much loved in the community. It is shameful to take pot shots at a man you know nothing about.

He was also a brilliant pilot who never took risks. He flew his MU-2 at least twice a week for 8 years. He flew into the Napa area about 1-2 a month. He knew his plane well. He knew it was a hot rod and flew it with the respect it deserved. He was not an inexperienced pilot who was in over his head.

Further, he did file a flight plan. He filed it in the air and then closed it when he had the Napa runway in sight. He switched to VFR and and that effectively closed his flight plan.

I find many of the glib comments I read here extremely thoughtless and offensive. Many of the replies insult a man and his wife who have done more service and more good in their lives than you can possibly imagine. The pilot usually worked 15-18 hour days to make sure his patients got the best care. He and his wife deserved every luxury in life they enjoyed.