New Safety Rules for Mitsubishi MU-2B

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has finalized a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) that creates new pilot training and operating requirements to increase the safety of the widely used Mitsubishi MU-2B aircraft. The final rule mandates a new comprehensive standardized pilot training program...

For immediate service; more information; and multi-user access (site license), non-profit organization, educational institute pricing, contact Karen Garner kgarner@accessintel.com at (301) 354-1612.

This story is only available to paid subscribers. Please login below with your username and password if you are a subscriber.

Username:
Password:
	What is my password?

Subscribe     Trial

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has finalized a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) that creates new pilot training and operating requirements to increase the safety of the widely used Mitsubishi MU-2B aircraft.

The final rule mandates a new comprehensive standardized pilot training program for the MU-2B. The regulation requires use of a standardized cockpit checklist and the latest revision of the Airplane Flight Manual. MU-2B operators also must have a working autopilot onboard except in certain limited circumstances. Owners and operators must comply with the SFAR within a year.

FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Nick Sabatini said "we decided to take appropriate actions to bring the plane up to an acceptable level of safety" after noticing a rising accident rate for the MU-2B over the past four years.

The turboprop is a complex aircraft that has unique flight characteristics. Fully understanding the aircraft's complexity is much more critical during an emergency situation.

Noting the alarming increase in MU-2B accidents and incidents, an FAA safety evaluation of the aircraft found that changes in training and operating requirements were needed. The safety evaluation produced a number of recommendations, including proposal of an SFAR. The SFAR, originally proposed in September 2006 and now made final, is part of a larger program to improve MU-2B safety.

The SFAR reflects a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in September 2006, the work of an FAA Flight Standardization Board (FSB) and a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) released in January 2007.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed new requirements for ground and flight training that would apply to all persons who manipulate the controls or act as pilot-in-command (PIC) of the MU-2B. The proposed SFAR also would apply to those persons who provide pilot training for the Mitsubishi MU-2B.

Operational requirements, such as a requirement for a functioning autopilot for single pilot instrument flight rules (IFR) and night visual flight rules (VFR) operations, a requirement to obtain and carry a copy of the latest available revision of the airplane flight manual, and a requirement to use a new pilot checklist were part of the proposal.

The FAA proposed that all training conducted in the Mitsubishi MU-2B be done using the standardized MHI training program and a checklist accepted by the FAA's MU-2B FSB.

The FAA had been monitoring implementation of the MHI MU-2B training program and determined that some pilots with little or no experience flying the MU-2B were requesting training at the re-qualification level when it was the FAA's intention that these pilots receive training at the initial/transition level. The FAA said it needed to clarify its intent with regard to the phrase "operating experience" as used in the training program. It said lack of specificity led to the public not being properly advised as to the circumstances under which the FAA expected a pilot to undergo initial/transition training, re-qualification training, or recurrent training. In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed experience qualifications for initial/transition training, re-qualification training, and recurrent training.

The FAA received over 90 comments on the proposed SFAR. Commenters included commercial operators, general aviation pilots, organizations representing owners and operators of the MU-2B, and the manufacturer. Most commenters applauded the FAA's requirement for additional pilot training in the MU-2B airplane, but also took issue with the total number of program hours required for pilot training or qualification as a flight instructor.

Several commenters noted that the MU-2B, by the FAA's own admission, is a safe airplane and questioned why pilots of other makes and models of airplanes are not required to receive additional training. In general, commenters noted that the MU-2B airplane is safe if "flown by the book."

Several commenters stated that the SFAR is well thought out and will address the majority of MU-2B accidents that have arisen out of the lack of pilot training or inadequate pilot training.

Other commenters stated that the additional training will not address accidents that occur from bad pilot judgment, such as the two recent accidents involving pilots who flew into severe thunderstorms. Others commented that the SFAR enhanced the regulatory environment and will improve safety within the population of MU-2B operators.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association (AOPA) supported the idea of an SFAR to address the special challenges of flying an MU-2B, but stated that the proposed requirements are burdensome and go beyond what is reasonable for safety.

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) commended the FAA for the course of action the agency took in developing the NPRM, but expressed concern that the narrow compliance window and burdensome aeronautical experience requirements would reduce available instructors.

The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) praised the FAA for maintaining a data-driven safety focus. After reviewing the FAA's proposal, NBAA concluded that the issuance of an SFAR is the most appropriate regulatory solution in light of a number of possible options.

The Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA) applauded the FAA's efforts to take a measured approach involving the manufacturer, the operators, and the FAA in developing means to address perceived safety issues with the aircraft.

There was a general consensus among many of the commenters that the rulemaking effort benefited from the collaborative process prior to the NPRM that involved the airplane's users, manufacturer, and regulators.

The FAA said the new rule has widespread support from owners and operators of the MU-2B, the manufacturer and safety groups.