Perimeter Shamattawa

[digits_]

I'd like an explanation as to why the plane doesn't belong up north? Other than a personal opinion...

-not certified for anti ice fluid
-unreliable nosewheel steering system
-very nose heavy. if the nosewheelsteering craps out on a narrow gravel strip, you end up in the ditch
-relatively hard to start with weak or cold batteries
-low prop clearance which is terrible for gravel ops
-things break all the time
-stupid high doors for loading

All these things can be managed, and perimeter does so, but that doesnt mean the plane belongs up north. It is a great plane from an accounting point of view, but that is about the only plus.

I would take a B200 over a metro any day for northern ops.

[piperdriver]

^Well said, could not agree more.

[Meatservo]

Is the Metroliner such a masterpiece of an airplane that there is nothing else that could do the job?

It is a masterpiece when guided by a master. It is a dangerous piece of shit when guided by a dangerous piece of shit. I hope this helps

This is true of any aeroplane. Smartest thing I've read all week.

[Maynard]

I'd like an explanation as to why the plane doesn't belong up north? Other than a personal opinion...

-not certified for anti ice fluid De ice fluid can be applied an airborne within minutes on a res
-unreliable nosewheel steering system 9 Years and I never had a problem. Flew multiple pairings with it in-op, no biggie if you have a feel for it
-very nose heavy. if the nosewheelsteering craps out on a narrow gravel strip, you end up in the ditch Again, not likely. Maybe winter with no rfi
-relatively hard to start with weak or cold batteries yep agree here, although the MT props fire up fast and cold
-low prop clearance which is terrible for gravel ops Agree
-things break all the time Yep
-stupid high doors for loading sure

All these things can be managed, and perimeter does so, but that doesnt mean the plane belongs up north. It is a great plane from an accounting point of view, but that is about the only plus.

I would take a B200 over a metro any day for northern ops. A B200 will never carry the same load

[goingnowherefast]

The balanced field length problem was "solved" by doctoring the numbers. The rumour I heard was using the 200' clearways on both ends to turn a 3500' runway into a "3900' runway". Then also take credit for a static take-off on gravel as well.

The 1900 doesn't belong in the north either. The Metro is the square peg in the round hole problem. The 1900 is the same square peg, but a hammer (more power) to at least get somewhere. The 1900 is certified for anti-ice fluid as well, but suffers from the same low prop problem.

I compare the 1900 in the north to driving a robertson screw with a philips driver. Yeah it kinda works, but not well. Metro would be using a slotted driver. Can be done, but you'll wreck something.

[pelmet]

The balanced field length problem was "solved" by doctoring the numbers. The rumour I heard was using the 200' clearways on both ends to turn a 3500' runway into a "3900' runway".

Have seen that done with larger turboprops as well.

[digits_]

-not certified for anti ice fluid De ice fluid can be applied an airborne within minutes on a res

Sounds good, doesn't work (properly).

Timing starts when you start applying. The time you save because you are close to the runway (if you don't need to deice), you lose again because of the, generally, improvised way the plane is sprayed. It is often less efficient than a spray with a proper truck. Type 4 would solve this issue completely. Type 1, sort of works in some situations. If everybody used the type 1 times as hard limits, a whole lot less flights would take off...

[Maynard]

-not certified for anti ice fluid De ice fluid can be applied an airborne within minutes on a res

Sounds good, doesn't work (properly).

Timing starts when you start applying. The time you save because you are close to the runway (if you don't need to deice), you lose again because of the, generally, improvised way the plane is sprayed. It is often less efficient than a spray with a proper truck. Type 4 would solve this issue completely. Type 1, sort of works in some situations. If everybody used the type 1 times as hard limits, a whole lot less flights would take off...

If it’s snowing and cold enough, you don’t need to spray. If it’s snowing and warm enough you need to, you have lots of time. If it’s freezing precip, you shouldn’t be there anyways. If it was costing them a large amount cancelling flights because they can’t have a longer HOT, companies would have splurged and paid to get it approved. It’s not worth it for the small amount of days/situations they’d need it.

[valleyboy]

I'm have no idea how many here have actually experienced the metro as either a passenger or a pilot. I have been riding them for years and I must say likely the worst passenger experience one could endure and most of the issues are caused by the guy driving. I have survived landing where things are "violent" in the back. It seems that directional control is as twitchy and pilot induced worse than most tail draggers I have experienced. Once it is wrestled to a stop the taxi abuse starts and experiencing "Tokyo drift" is almost a reality. I could never understand the need for speed during a taxi, especially not 50 kts.

Unfortunately, this is the norm and not the exception. It is such a treat when, as a passenger, you actually catch a flight where the guy upfront can drive the bird and has consideration for passenger ride.

To me this incident is just a natural outcome. I'm surprised there aren't more.

[skybluetrek]

I'm have no idea how many here have actually experienced the metro as either a passenger or a pilot. I have been riding them for years and I must say likely the worst passenger experience one could endure and most of the issues are caused by the guy driving. I have survived landing where things are "violent" in the back. It seems that directional control is as twitchy and pilot induced worse than most tail draggers I have experienced. Once it is wrestled to a stop the taxi abuse starts and experiencing "Tokyo drift" is almost a reality. I could never understand the need for speed during a taxi, especially not 50 kts.

Unfortunately, this is the norm and not the exception. It is such a treat when, as a passenger, you actually catch a flight where the guy upfront can drive the bird and has consideration for passenger ride.

To me this incident is just a natural outcome. I'm surprised there aren't more.

To better understand your comment: Are you a Metro pilot as well, or just a passenger?

[digits_]

-not certified for anti ice fluid De ice fluid can be applied an airborne within minutes on a res

Sounds good, doesn't work (properly).

Timing starts when you start applying. The time you save because you are close to the runway (if you don't need to deice), you lose again because of the, generally, improvised way the plane is sprayed. It is often less efficient than a spray with a proper truck. Type 4 would solve this issue completely. Type 1, sort of works in some situations. If everybody used the type 1 times as hard limits, a whole lot less flights would take off...

If it’s snowing and cold enough, you don’t need to spray. If it’s snowing and warm enough you need to, you have lots of time. If it’s freezing precip, you shouldn’t be there anyways. If it was costing them a large amount cancelling flights because they can’t have a longer HOT, companies would have splurged and paid to get it approved. It’s not worth it for the small amount of days/situations they’d need it.

Lot's of time with type I fluid? Not really...

I found this chart online for type I. It might be off by a couple of minutes, but it gives a good idea.



I'm assuming that most northern operators have something in their COM that says you can only use the lowest value in those charts unless a tactile inspection is performed right before take off. Since the door is right in front of the prop, we'll have to use the lowest value, as a tactile inspection is not possible. Timing starts when the final (only) application of fluid starts, so right when the deice starts.

As a reminder, snowfall intensity is not determined by the metar, but by combination of temperature and visibility.



With these definitions, I've rarely seen very light snow. That leaves 11 minutes in -3 and warmer, or 8 minutes between -6 and -3.

The deicing process would take at least 8 minutes with homebrewed solutions. Even a CDF can take 6 or more minutes. Then you have to start the engines, can easily take another 3 minutes on a metro. 1 minute for an engine start, 1 minute to let the amps come down, 1 minute for the other one. With a GPU you'll save some time for the amps, but you'll lose it again because the GPU has to be disconnected. So you'll be right at the 11 minute mark before you even start moving. Time to shut down and spray again...

What happens in reality? Pilots look outside, judge the wing is ok, and leave. They are breaking procedures. Is it unsafe? You can debate that. In lots of conditions the holdovertimes are pretty generous. If pilot would stick to their company procedures to the letter, way more flights would get cancelled.

This is not just aimed at perimeter by the way, pretty sure the majority of northern operators runs into issues like this. But if we compare this to the king air, you can (and it happens) walk outside right before line up, because the door is behind the engines, and do the actual inspection which gives you extra time.

[bobcaygeon]

Type 4 approval (like a Dash 8, 1900, ATR) would be nice but please where up north is Type 4 even available????? Ummmmm. Nowhere

Good luck getting a truck up north that can do it and maintain the quality and environmental control needed for Type 4 fluid but you knew that right? The sampling (shear tests), etc compared to Type 1 are huge.

1900's north of 60 (maybe a total of 10, clearly resounding) simply because the Pratt starts better in cold weather, nothing else. It's not a fan of the cold either. The 1900C performs no better than a Metro. The plane has just as many faults. A B200 as comparison? It legally carries 9 pax and a small tooth brush if you are trying to go anywhere because it burns lots of gas and has a small door. There is essentially no one that operates a B200 for sked ops for a reason. It's useless and costs a lot of money to run especially if you are low and doing lots of cycles.

[digits_]

Type 4 approval (like a Dash 8, 1900, ATR) would be nice but please where up north is Type 4 even available????? Ummmmm. Nowhere

Good luck getting a truck up north that can do it and maintain the quality and environmental control needed for Type 4 fluid but you knew that right? The sampling (shear tests), etc compared to Type 1 are huge.

1900's north of 60 (maybe a total of 10, clearly resounding) simply because the Pratt starts better in cold weather, nothing else. It's not a fan of the cold either. The 1900C performs no better than a Metro. The plane has just as many faults. A B200 as comparison? It legally carries 9 pax and a small tooth brush if you are trying to go anywhere because it burns lots of gas and has a small door. There is essentially no one that operates a B200 for sked ops for a reason. It's useless and costs a lot of money to run especially if you are low and doing lots of cycles.

Just because it is hard or expensive to get type 4 up there, doesn't mean that type 1 is an acceptable alternative to anti ice or fly in icing conditions. That's my point: if *all* flights in ground icing conditions would get cancelled because you can't make the hold over times with type 1 fluid, maybe the extra cost would be worth it to organize it.

Just because the B200 might be more expensive to operate, doesn't mean that the metro is a suitable airplane for the north.

[valleyboy]

To better understand your comment: Are you a Metro pilot as well, or just a passenger?

I am not a metro driver but have many years of flying under my belt with time on light turbo props and 11 types on my license. The passenger perspective is through professional eyes and all I can say a very twitchy aircraft which is usually exacerbated by either attitude, skills or both.

[cpt sweet'njuicy]

Ooooo I like when people argue.....

[plausiblyannonymous]

Ooooo I like when people argue.....

The you sir have come to the right place.

[A Regulator]

As an FYI a paragraph in CASS changed 622.11 on 2019/09/20 to say.....(aircraft manufacturer has identified representative surface). Not like before where the air operator did and at times got approval from TC.

7.1.1.3 Examination of one or more representative aircraft surfaces may be used for the Pre-take-off Contamination Inspection, which does not require a tactile examination. This technique may be used when the aircraft manufacturer has identified representative aircraft surfaces that can be readily and clearly observed by flight crew during day and night operations and that are suitable for judging whether critical surfaces are contaminated or not.

[pelmet]

As an FYI a paragraph in CASS changed 622.11 on 2019/09/20 to say.....(aircraft manufacturer has identified representative surface). Not like before where the air operator did and at times got approval from TC.

Maybe because there was an approval of a top surface of a flap on a high wing aircraft being used.

[gimmepars]

When the height of the snowbank exceeds the height of your wings, it might be time to start refusing to land there until better snow removal infrastructure is put in place.

I know that at certain airports, there are strict rules governing snowbanks(perhaps someone could give the details). I wonder if these northern airports fall into that category of requirements.

If anyone has a best practice or company guidelines/standards on cleared width between high snowbanks I'd be all eyes. I fly 704 but I'd be interested in 705 rules too.It's a major challenge getting the width I want at a couple airports I'm into regularly, and it sure looks like it caught up with the passengers and crew in this situation. Glad everyone is ok!

Thanks in advance!

[pelmet]

C-GWVH, a Fairchild SA227-AC operated by Perimeter Aviation LP as flight PAG415, departed
Thompson (CYTH) MB for Shamattawa (CZTM) MB with 12 passengers and 2 crew members.
During the landing rollout on Runway 19 at approximately 60 knots, aircraft directional control was
lost and the aircraft encountered a runway excursion to the right and collided with a snow berm at
a groundspeed of less than 20 knots. The right hand propeller (MT Propeller MTV-27-1) made
contact with a snow berm and shattered upon impact. RCMP responded to the scene. The ELT did
not activate and there were no injuries. A NOTAM was issued closing the airport until the aircraft
was removed from the runway.
The aircraft sustained damage to the left engine nacelle, nose gear doors, and right propeller. The
reported runway condition at the time of occurrence was 100% compacted snow. Data retrieved
from the aircraft's navigation system indicated the winds were 255 degrees at 18 knots on short
final prior to touchdown.

Class 5 investigation so not much detail will ever come out. Too bad if there really is some sort of performance issue that perhaps should be investigated.