I instructed the right seater (niece) to not talk during the approach, which she did mostly. She hasn't flown that much with me.

My wife knows when to talk or not, she's got 1000+ hours in the air with me and is quite helpful. I expect her to mention ground contact.

Mother in law generally doesn't say much. She's got 80+ hours in the air with me.


Given it was near minimums, calling the runway and the MAP are basically the same point. I only call the runway when I feel it is clear I can land, and this was the case here.


That is a pilot who probably should adopt personal minimums that would have precluded attempting this approach in the first place.

If they would crash a fully functional airplane from a slight passenger utterance, then they got no chance handling any sort of failure or other non routine situation in these conditions. You have to have mental headroom to handle the unexpected. So they need to operate under less load than this approach. There was definitely a time I was that kind of pilot, so this isn't a slight against them. As Clint would say, "a pilot has got to know their limitations".

Mike C.

Stayed on glideslope until I called runway in sight, then switched to visual approach.

Runway 19 has an overrun (prerun?) of ~700 ft and a displaced threshold of ~800 ft, making the threshold appear to be ~1500 ft after the pavement starts. In the rain and not being familiar, I put it down on the numbers, 250 ft past the threshold, which seemed pretty far down the runway at the time (1750 ft from pavement start).

I never saw the PAPI, perhaps due to the rain, perhaps it was not on. Playing the video, I can't see them either.

Mike C.

I was surprised at the slow speeds -- essentially how I flew the P-Baron in LIFR. Flew higher ceilings at 140 kts or 160 if asked to keep the speed up. I guess I was expecting 250 kts at the beginning of the video, slowing through to 160 at GS intercept based upon other posts.

Nothing wrong, just different than my expectation.

That was a sweet video

Don't forget the speed display is ground speed derived from the GPS in the camera.

Indicated airspeed was significantly higher as the winds at 2000 ft were pretty strong as is typical for winds blowing in off the ocean heavy with rain. As I descend on the glideslope, the winds die off and the ground speed increases. During this time, the indicated airspeed is pretty stable at about 135 KIAS.

Mike C.

The video starts after I received ATIS, loaded the approach, and brief it. I had already been cleared direct ZOSAB, the IAF, though not cleared for the approach. I decided to cut the video at the moment I got cleared for the approach. I was thinking about cutting it even shorter, it already over 10 minutes.

Even so, I usually recheck the missed before intercept one more time.


You quoted the number for runway 14, not runway 19.

Runway 19 has 4727 ft LDA. That would be ~3700 ft from touchdown marker to runway end. Still not a concern in a turboprop even with the water everywhere. With a jet, and the very real potential for hydroplaning, I'd seriously consider putting it on the numbers to give me as much runway as I can get.


I thought I did that reasonably well.

Unlike a jet, I have to slow down from about 135 KIAS to around 110 KIAS by runway threshold, so there's things changing in the final bit of the approach. In this case, the speed reading at runway sighting was 138 knots, at threshold 109 knots, about right.


Again, you are using the wrong distances for this runway.

There are 1500 ft of paved surface before the threshold. There will be no obstructions or risks to fly over that part, so not an issue. On this runway, landing "short" is FAR better than longer long.


Seems weird to me. Are you guys so fight director fixated you can't compare heading to course on the compass? Noting my wind correction angle is something I always do to prepare myself for the runway sighting. You have to look where the runway will be to see it and it helps set my expectations for the crosswind technique I will need.

In my video, a pretty decent crosswind from the left, and my heading in approach was held into the the visual segment.


This flight departed KCEF. The runway is 300 ft wide and over 11,000 ft long. That is the widest runway I have ever seen. If I ever need to do a zero/zero landing in that area, that's the runway to choose. Can't hardly miss it.

Mike C.

The Sundstrand in the Commanders are not very reliable. I'm assuming it's the same in the MU-2?

On one 840 I went with my mechanic to do an inspection on, the Sundstrand had been overhauled 13 times in 15 years! I kid you not. That's an extreme example, but it can happen. They don't like Max Flow and you have to change oil in them religiously. If you do that I hear they're pretty reliable.

Mine has been quite reliable. Only problem ever was with the electrical controls, mostly from faulty temperature sensors (thermistors). The core turbine is very simple and has worked all the time.


That's very atypical in my experience. This suggests poor debugging (overhaul at first fault) and/or something in the airframe that is breaking it, or a bad mechanic.

My ACM was last overhauled about 20 years ago.


The oil change interval is 500 hours.

Mike C.

I think Adam meant to say you need to check the oil often in the old style ACM that were put in the Commanders, not change the oil.

Not much of an issue any more as most Commanders have been changed to a different system. The newer system has been very reliable and includes a Freon AC unit which works great in the hot weather.

The third option is a Peter Schiff unit. It eliminates bleed air in the cabin and actually claims to improve aircraft performance. It is pricey.

Are there options to change to a better system on the MU-2 that would provide better AC?

The video starts after I received ATIS, loaded the approach, and brief it. I had already been cleared direct ZOSAB, the IAF, though not cleared for the approach. I decided to cut the video at the moment I got cleared for the approach. I was thinking about cutting it even shorter, it already over 10 minutes.

Even so, I usually recheck the missed before intercept one more time.


You quoted the number for runway 14, not runway 19.

Runway 19 has 4727 ft LDA. That would be ~3700 ft from touchdown marker to runway end. Still not a concern in a turboprop even with the water everywhere. With a jet, and the very real potential for hydroplaning, I'd seriously consider putting it on the numbers to give me as much runway as I can get.


I thought I did that reasonably well.

Unlike a jet, I have to slow down from about 135 KIAS to around 110 KIAS by runway threshold, so there's things changing in the final bit of the approach. In this case, the speed reading at runway sighting was 138 knots, at threshold 109 knots, about right.


Again, you are using the wrong distances for this runway.

There are 1500 ft of paved surface before the threshold. There will be no obstructions or risks to fly over that part, so not an issue. On this runway, landing "short" is FAR better than longer long.


Seems weird to me. Are you guys so fight director fixated you can't compare heading to course on the compass? Noting my wind correction angle is something I always do to prepare myself for the runway sighting. You have to look where the runway will be to see it and it helps set my expectations for the crosswind technique I will need.

In my video, a pretty decent crosswind from the left, and my heading in approach was held into the the visual segment.


This flight departed KCEF. The runway is 300 ft wide and over 11,000 ft long. That is the widest runway I have ever seen. If I ever need to do a zero/zero landing in that area, that's the runway to choose. Can't hardly miss it.

Mike C.

The approach is flown at about 135 KIAS. At MDA, with runway in sight, you slow to Vref over the threshold.

This is typical turboprop profile, not a jet profile.


"Dive" is being a bit dramatic.

From the MAP on this approach, the 3.2 degree GS to runway is 4,776 ft away. I touched down 4,000 ft away with 1750 ft of pavement behind me. The GS TCH is 60 ft, I crossed at 15 ft, so a 45 ft altitude difference. The PAPI is setup to cross the threshold at 39 ft, BTW, for a 3 degree visual slope, so not coincident with the approach.


Thank you. I was getting worried you expected me to fit within your perceptions of how I should fly my plane.

Mike C.

It was previously verified with that controller at check in. The entire flight is not on the video.

To receive that particular question at that time is unusual in my experience suggesting that maybe there's an issue with my mode C, or his scope, or something else.

Mike C.

I've never personally checked it, maintenance does that.

Operates from a cup of oil and uses wicks to carry that to the bearings. Seems to work.


A few MU2s have vapor cycle, nice to use for cabin precool. There is a weight penalty. Not very common.


Neat idea in concept, all electric pressurization and cooling. It would be interesting to see how it works in real life, what the cost/weight penalties are.

Mike C.

Peter Schiff is my father's younger brother's son. I would love to be a fly on the wall of the two of you sitting down for a chat. You both would realize that you are long lost identical twins. Electrical, mechanical geniuses who are clever to boot.

The approach is flown at about 135 KIAS. At MDA, with runway in sight, you slow to Vref over the threshold.

This is typical turboprop profile, not a jet profile.


"Dive" is being a bit dramatic.

From the MAP on this approach, the 3.2 degree GS to runway is 4,776 ft away. I touched down 4,000 ft away with 1750 ft of pavement behind me. The GS TCH is 60 ft, I crossed at 15 ft, so a 45 ft altitude difference. The PAPI is setup to cross the threshold at 39 ft, BTW, for a 3 degree visual slope, so not coincident with the approach.


Thank you. I was getting worried you expected me to fit within your perceptions of how I should fly my plane.

Mike C.