3 ms·

Reading the comments provides more information. One commenter even called the plane a widow maker.

• drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  According to wikipedia the risk is that this plane doesn't handle like other planes its size in stalled or low speed scenarios. So you have this very unique fail state at work here. Now comes the question of liability. Should pilots just have known better? Who to blame? I think if you build something that's easy to crash for even the most experienced pilots, then the design is to blame. Reminds of UI arguments devs get into end users with. "Oh they should have know to click on that box here and there and to scroll over here! Stupid users!" Uh, no. I think litigation and payouts here are a very, very good thing. It'll make future designers worry about building in unique fail states that most pilots can't handle. If it means extra cost to avoid it, fine, now you have an incentive and a way to sell it to management, "Hey guys, we don't want to sued to death like Mitsubishi was or get the stigma of a MU-2 here."