Plane Crash in YTH?

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:12 pm

hella_bright wrote: Actually the pilot was a "she".

Actually, who gives a shit?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:21 pm

hella_bright wrote:

Actually the pilot was a "she".

Actually, who gives a shit?

Exactly my feelings, what possible difference does it make whether or not the pilot was a female or a male?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:56 pm

S&J....

I'm suprised you missed this rather strange description of a female by Capt. Crunch.

It has been my experience that female pilots, as a general rule, aren't complete dickheads.
CC

I was hoping you would have pounced on that one.

God, I don't know what I would do without Avcanada......

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:34 pm

Cat Driver wrote: God, I don't know what I would do without Avcanada......

Neither would I....

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:40 pm

Used to run the Hawker in and out of there. Don't remember it being a bad strip. Did the crew know they'd hit something on departure? And the remark about the aircraft rotating fine, but no wanting to fly....just questions. Seems strange. Don't think the gender would mean squat though. That's just a wonky idea. I've flown Metros, and you can rotate to a positive deck angle, and fly off quite easily. And, God's is long enough...wonder what happened? An improperly set nose down trim would do it? Another thing that could do it would be leaving the flaps down after landing...but that would have been caught during rotation....otherwise, it would not have become airborne? But then, with some flap down, the plane might have become airborne even earlier? Thoughts?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:47 pm

Thoughts?

Is it just me thinking there seem to be a lot of airplanes getting wrecked lately?

Sooner or later the cost of insurance will be crippling.

Daart · Post by **Daart** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:14 pm

You are correct Cat, there has been a lot of bent metal lately. While I do not mean to criticize anyone, I think it is obvious that the experience level in the industry is at the lowest level witnessed in quite some time. The majors have been soaking up experienced people . I know we all have to start somewhere, but when I was green,there were many experienced people to lean on. I don't think it is that way today. I know at my place of work, we cannot find experienced people to hire. Frankly, we are cutting people loose, who five years ago perhaps would have received more seasoning. All talented people, just very green. For years the industry was stagnant, jobs were hard to come by, and upwards movement almost nil. I think the industry is feeling the pain of that today. To all those starting in the industry or receiving their first command I wish you well, experience can be a mean teacher at times.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:05 am

Well put Daart. At least the experience level isn't a problem with our op. But there are some pretty low time captains out there. No idea of the experience level on this Metro, but in general, it's getting pretty low.
Not to say a high time guy can't have his moments....they just have fewer of them?

Flychicka · Post by **Flychicka** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:48 am

Taking off with the flaps in the fully extended position actually will make it almost impossible to hold the plane on the ground until rotation speed on the metro (as everyone who has either done this by accident or had it done to them by an fo knows

). The plane doesn't climb normally, but it will still climb, I think you might be on the right track with the trim though Doc (from what I've heard possible full nose down runaway). I don't think experience level was really a factor here, nor the fact that the captain was a woman.

What's really important is that everyone walked off the plane. As an added bonus, the plane isn't even written off.

P.S. I hope the video does make it on youtube or something similar, it's an excellent example of terrific piloting to put it lightly considering what the crew had to work with.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:22 am

Doubt the "runaway" trim. More likely, just set wrong. But, you are correct, the important thing is that everyone walked away....

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:31 am

....................or had it done to them by an fo knows

How can this happen if the pilot reading the check list is confirming that the other pilot has performed the last item correctly?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:34 am

I've left them down after a landing...but flaps should be part of a "flow" check before take off...it can be one of the "kill" items.
There are these certain items that can "kill" you. If a dog eats your checklist, some items must be "automatic" or part of a ritual "flow" before each take off and landing. I find the things most often missed, are things on a written check list, used as a crutch by some pilots. Witness LEX?
That's why we're still here, Cat. We just "know" the stuff we really "need" to know...even when our old brains fart!

yycflyguy · Post by **yycflyguy** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:50 am

Cat Driver wrote:
Thoughts?
Is it just me thinking there seem to be a lot of airplanes getting wrecked lately?

The statistics for 2006 are out and the "occurance" per 100 000 hours flown is the same as it was in 2005 and down from the period of 2001 - 2005.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/stats/air/2006/prelim_2006.asp

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:52 am

Yes Doc, some pilots have become recording machines where SOP's turn them into " fundamentalists " like religious zelots, unable to accept anything outside of their beliefe system.

When something unusual occurs they are prone to either miss it because the motions have become automatic, or are unable to come up with another way to solve the problem.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:20 am

yycflyguy wrote:
Cat Driver wrote:
Thoughts?
Is it just me thinking there seem to be a lot of airplanes getting wrecked lately?
The statistics for 2006 are out and the "occurance" per 100 000 hours flown is the same as it was in 2005 and down from the period of 2001 - 2005.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/stats/air/2006/prelim_2006.asp

I don't put much stock in the preliminary statistics. The prelim's for 2005 did not include CGAQW and it's five fatalities. If that one wasn't included, what else wasn't? How do they compile these statistics? Are they based only on completed investigations?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:36 am

" I don't put much stock in the preliminary statistics. The prelim's for 2005 did not include CGAQW and it's five fatalities. If that one wasn't included, what else wasn't? How do they compile these statistics? Are they based only on completed investigations? "

widow, what concerns me is the culture of " shit happens " and the number of aircraft that are wreckted and far to often the cause is hidden and no one has the chance to learn from these accidents.

You need only review Avcanada for the past few years to see how often this happens.....

.....some very expensive airplane gets flown into the ground and all you get is " shit happens "

That is not good enough as a determination of cause in my opinion.

Flychicka · Post by **Flychicka** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:41 am

I've personally done it to a captain after I made the switch from the 99 to the metro (99 has preselect flap positions, metro does not for those that do not know). Set a 1/4 flap for take-off, moved the handle into what i thought was neutral and we kept going with the checks. I am by no means perfect, I make mistakes as everyone does... I was just throwing it out there to point out in the first place what effect flaps have on takeoff charateristics with the metro.
On a side note, why do you doubt runaway trim as plausible. I've had trim runaway twice on me so far... and I am by no means a high time metro driver (less than 2000hrs on type). It could very easily happen on a take-off roll, though I agree chances are slim. I just don't understand why people are so quick to jump to the conclusion that it's the crews fault. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but I for one would like to believe what the crew said took place. Try and put some stock in your fellow aviators.

ELP · Post by **ELP** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:17 pm

Flychicka

The Metro II is ONLY certified to takeoff with flaps UP. Swearingen has provided 1/4 flap takeoff numbers in the MANUFACTURES DATA located in the AFM for reference only. This performance data has NOT been certified by the FAA and is NOT certified by Transport Canada. If you takeoff with 1/4 you are throwing your C of A out the window.

If you think the runway is a little soft, lower your takeoff weight, ensure you do not have a C of G outside the forward limits and then maybe go. The Metro performance data is based on a dry hard surface. If you have any doubt, do not takeoff.

The only people that should takeoff with 1/4 flap on the Metro II are test pilots.

Guest295 · Post by **Guest295** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:31 pm

You are correct the Metro II is not certified for ¼ flap takeoffs. I know many guys using it thinking it is part of a soft field or short field technique. They are wrong.

Also your chances of continuing with an engine failure on takeoff on a short runway are slim. With the extra drag of ¼ flap setting your chances are nil.

And yes I do fly the Metro II.

Localizer · Post by **Localizer** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:44 pm

Interesting points ....

I have flown tubes but not the Metro II so I don't have any ideas about its has and hasn't. But the Metro's i've flown have an audible trim, so if you had a trim runaway you should know it before you take off, no? Also the other Metro's are rated for 1/4 flap TO. As far as I know there the exact same tube, slightly different wing, but all in all if they did TO with 1/4 flap I would like to think that wouldn't be the cause. (but who knows)

As much as I like to rage on the green pilots (mostly to get Doc, and Cats back up), I don't think there are many differences between today and the past. If you throw a guy in the seat he's going to perform, and he's going to do well for the most part. So have faith in them and give them there shot ... someone gave us ours ... and now its there turn.

Cheers,

Loc

Lyle Lanley · Post by **Lyle Lanley** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:03 pm

I heard she took off with a 8 kt tailwind. Believable, because I have seen lots of downwind takeoffs up north.

mum · Post by **mum** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:30 pm

oldtimer wrote:With more hours than I care to think about in the old Texas Tampon, I sometimes think gender of the pilot MAY have a slight bearing on this incident. It was in all likelyhood a Metro 2. Those airplanes normally take-off with the flaps up but a flaps 1/4 take-off is in the AFM. The pitch trim indicator is in a sort of awkward spot, as is most of the instrument panel in that airplane. That is why they are called a piece of shit.
It has been my experience that female pilots as a general rule are be a bit less aggressive on the flight controls, opting for smoothness and finess. The same can be said of pilots of any gender but females are in the majority in this case. That works very well for most operations and gives the paying passengers a nice smooth ride. Except, during take-off in a Turbo Dildo, you generally do not rotate those airplanes to the take-off attitude, you heave them in to the air, usually with both hands on the control pole. Have the pitch trim set just a wee bit nose down, a smooth finess pilot coupled with piss poor visibility over the nose, I can see where this can bite you.

I respect your length of experience, but I as well have been around a while.....and I have flown a metro........without any problems. I loved it because it was quick, and I could utilize my aggressiveness, paired with some of that "finesse". It was the perfect airplane for a woman like myself because I am aggressive enough.......just ask my husband

cheers

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:16 pm

I reread my post and I did not mean to lump all females together and say they all fly the same way but that is the way it came out and I am willing to retract most of that statement if I am wrong but it has been my experience that a large number of the fair sex have a habit of being gentle with the airplane. But that is something that is not totallly a female thing, I have encountered this with both sexes. If you are at all familiar with the Metro, you know it can be a beast if it is not properly trimmed. I have found the flap selector on the Meto 11 to be a total piece of shit. It is very easy to set it wrong. I did it just the other day but recognised the mistake and corrected before anything serious happened. It must not be a safety of flight issue or it would/should have been fixed. They fixed that problem in the Metro 111 and 23. Visibility out of the windshield is the worst I have ever encountered in an airplane. If you yank it off the ground the way you have to, you basically are almost on instruments. When Fairchild were planning the "new" Metro 4, the first thing FAA told them is that they would have to fix the window problem. Then they were going to have to extend the ailerons out to the wingtip the way it is with most airplanes.
There are two things you have to remember about Metro's. Everyone who who has ever operated them has made money with them and every operator has had at least one go off the runway, usually off the side.

Plane Crash in YTH?

1/4 takeoff with the Metro II?