Incident in YXT

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:12 pm

CatDriver....a company will purchase an airplane that is difficult to handle because the aircraft is much cheaper to purchase, therefore making the company more profitable. I flew a Merlin II that was so unmanageable on landing that they only built 20 of them, and most of them are now destroyed. In fact, the one I last flew was written off 1 month later in Churchill due to the fact that there is no steering on landing....only rudder. In fact, the nosewheel is not even coupled to the rudder pedals and is fully castering. It is an incredibly flawed design from the early '60s and has been somewhat corrected in later Metro versions. Landing at night in a crosswind when the engines spooled up evenly was pretty touchy.

The only reason companies run Metros instead of 1900s is because it makes them more money. Sure, a 1900 is far safer but the public and the cargo companies only care about price. There's only 1 reason why Georgian and CMA are not running Metros and that is because AC prohibited them due to marketing considerations.

Brown Bear · Post by **Brown Bear** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:19 pm

Anonymous1 wrote:CatDriver....a company will purchase an airplane that is difficult to handle because the aircraft is much cheaper to purchase, therefore making the company more profitable. I flew a Merlin II that was so unmanageable on landing that they only built 20 of them, and most of them are now destroyed. In fact, the one I last flew was written off 1 month later in Churchill due to the fact that there is no steering on landing....only rudder. In fact, the nosewheel is not even coupled to the rudder pedals and is fully castering. It is an incredibly flawed design from the early '60s and has been somewhat corrected in later Metro versions. Landing at night in a crosswind when the engines spooled up evenly was pretty touchy.

The only reason companies run Metros instead of 1900s is because it makes them more money. Sure, a 1900 is far safer but the public and the cargo companies only care about price. There's only 1 reason why Georgian and CMA are not running Metros and that is because AC prohibited them due to marketing considerations.

Then you not only risked your life, but the lives of your passengers. I would have snagged the living shit out of that airplane. I doubt very strongly that this is a trait of all SW2's. If you can;t fly it, park it.

Why would you say 1900's are safer than Metros? I'll call BULL SHIT on that load of manure!

mattedfred · Post by **mattedfred** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:20 pm

georgian flew 1900s before they started flying for AC and even before they started flying for Canadian

i think the onboard lav and cabin height was what they wanted

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:27 pm

In fact, the one I last flew was written off 1 month later in Churchill due to the fact that there is no steering on landing....only rudder.

Jesus they certified an airplane that was that difficult to land?

Are the throttles wired together so you can't use differential power?

Do these things not have brakes that are independentally operated or are they like a Piper Tri Pacer with a brake handle that applies both brakes together?

How do you make money buying an airplane that is prone to being wrecked, are they that cheap to buy?

I guess if I ever decide to get back into running a 703 / 704 operation buying a Turbo Goose would be totally out of the question?

Because it doesn't have nose wheel steering either.

Brown Bear · Post by **Brown Bear** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:36 pm

Cat, if they were that bad, don't you think we'd have heard something about this before now? There are Metro 2's all over the place. This is the first time I've ever heard of them refereed to as "unflyable"?

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:39 pm

Cat, the brakes were so weak that they faded into nothing after a few seconds of hard braking. The planes are very cheap to buy...around the price of a decent Chieftain. They made a lot of money with them as they only wrecked one a year and then either used the insurance money as a downpayment on a KingAir or rebuilt the Merlin. After the 4th crash and 3 deaths over 6 years (and about 25 runway excursions), they were done with them. Its not so much the fact that there is no steering..its more that the reverse spools up unevenly and when you engage the electric steering as you run out of rudder authority, you have to quickly centre the steering before activating it. Swearingen later switched to the tiller method which is now on the Metro.

You can't snag an inherently flawed design if its working according to manufacturer's specs. Yes, there is always the option of walking away from a job but my greed for multi turbine hours and a fat paycheque over rode any responsibility I felt towards the other crew and passengers. Remember though, I wasn't the one that crashed the plane...I was no longer employed there when it happened and I told the chief pilot before I left that the plane was going to crash. He laughed at me. After the wreck, it was replaced with a KingAir.

And yes, 1900s are far safer than Metros, mechanically speaking. Just compare Bearskin's accident stats to Georgian's over the last 3 years.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:45 pm

Thanks for the answers Anonymous1, I guess I am just a little curious about the number of airplanes that are being smashed up in the 703 /704 sector of aviation in Canada. At least having a Metro fly you might be an excuse due to it being a demanding design but they are smashing up all types of airplanes.

Brown Bear · Post by **Brown Bear** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:49 pm

Anonymous1 wrote: And yes, 1900s are far safer than Metros, mechanically speaking. Just compare Bearskin's accident stats to Georgian's over the last 3 years.

Not a big enough control group to make that statement. You'd have to go farther afield.

flying4dollars · Post by **flying4dollars** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:52 pm

altiplano wrote:Glad to hear everyone's OK.

flying4dollars wrote:Terrace cap vis advisory for the ILS is 1mile.
For what it's worth RCAP advisory vis for ILS/DME 2 in YXT is 3/4 mile.

flying4dollars wrote:the fact is, if the vis was less than 75% of the plate advisory vis, then PMA has to be used.
Not that I am totally disagreeing, but - going by your 1 mile vis a PMA would have been the requirement unless they had an autopilot or HUD... since it is 3/4 they would be good with 5/8 before it became a necessity under CARS 704.37. Looks like the reported vis was varying 1/2-5/8...

Anyway - I didn't see anything in the CADOR about PMA or lack of... just wanted to clear up your "facts"...

I was basing that on the ILS/DME 1, which is still 1 mile (looking at an old plate, still have yet to go to Terrace). In which case PMA needs to be used below 75%. So below 3/4 PMA is required. If they had the RCAP for Terrace to do the 2 approach then yes it would be lower. Basically anything below 75% requires PMA is the point I was getting it.

flying4dollars · Post by **flying4dollars** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:54 pm

flyinthebug wrote:Donald.. I misread PMA as another acronym. My bad. Im not even sure what PMA stands for?

Brown Bear..??

Flying4dollars.. I wasnt suggesting it was an actual, scheduled, training flight. I suggested that perhaps the Skipper having to reposition back to YXT, thought it was a good opportunity to let the First Officer experience some real life conditions. I think we all can remember our first approach to mins?. I know I can. Either way, its just speculation on all our parts. I agree it wouldnt have likely been an actual "training flight" though.

Fly safe all. Im going to ride my harley in Jan

FTB, my post was referring to Anonymous' post. Not yours mate

flying4dollars · Post by **flying4dollars** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:55 pm

flying4dollars wrote:
altiplano wrote:Glad to hear everyone's OK.

flying4dollars wrote:Terrace cap vis advisory for the ILS is 1mile.
For what it's worth RCAP advisory vis for ILS/DME 2 in YXT is 3/4 mile.

flying4dollars wrote:the fact is, if the vis was less than 75% of the plate advisory vis, then PMA has to be used.
Not that I am totally disagreeing, but - going by your 1 mile vis a PMA would have been the requirement unless they had an autopilot or HUD... since it is 3/4 they would be good with 5/8 before it became a necessity under CARS 704.37. Looks like the reported vis was varying 1/2-5/8...

Anyway - I didn't see anything in the CADOR about PMA or lack of... just wanted to clear up your "facts"...

I was basing that on the ILS/DME 1, which is still 1 mile (looking at an old plate, still have yet to go to Terrace). In which case PMA needs to be used below 75%. So below 3/4 PMA is required. If they had the RCAP for Terrace to do the 2 approach then yes it would be lower. Basically anything below 75% requires PMA is the point I was getting it but yes if it was the RCAP then you're correct

duckfoot · Post by **duckfoot** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:04 pm

The "flaw" in the Metro steering system is when you arm the nws above a slow taxi speed. It has been known to fail to full scale deflection and at a higher speed you don't have time to react. I've done hundreds of take-offs and landing in the metro and never had an issue. Unless there was a very strong crosswind, I didn't even arm the nws until in the turn to exit the runway. The nose wheel castering freely isn't a problem. The nws is even an MEL item. It takes some braking and differential power to get the job done but its not a problem. If the turns are planned, noone in the back will even know.

Its like saying landing gear is flawed because there is a potential to land gear up. If the system is used correctly, it works great.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:19 pm

Its like saying landing gear is flawed because there is a potential to land gear up. If the system is used correctly, it works great.

Finally an answer that makes sense.

flying4dollars · Post by **flying4dollars** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:26 pm

Anonymous1 wrote: The only reason companies run Metros instead of 1900s is because it makes them more money. Sure, a 1900 is far safer but the public and the cargo companies only care about price. There's only 1 reason why Georgian and CMA are not running Metros and that is because AC prohibited them due to marketing considerations.

Hmm I don't know. Cheaper to purchase maybe, but I don't know about cheaper to run. PT6's are cheaper than Garrets to maintain (correct?). Especially when it comes to hot sections. Also I think it burns less fuel, especially on the ground. I don't know what payload capabilities the Metro 3 has, I think around 4500, but the 1900D can do 4400 lbs and the C can do close to 5000. So given comparable payload capabilities and maintenance/fuel costs I'd think the 1900's would be cheaper no?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:53 pm

Think of it like trying to steer a Twin Otter at 60 knots with the tiller. It's a "no touch" item, once you start to accelerate. And leave it alone till you're almost stopped. It's for taxi and line up. That's as simple as I can explain it.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:19 pm

I can't read these completely mis-informed Metro posts anymore.

We've owned some Metros since brand new from the factory (not so new anymore....) and I've never seen one with a tiller. Maybe at some point one of the 24-ish we own did, but not anymore.

Metro II and III fuel burns in cruise are never more than 700lbs an hour total. Usually in the 550 to 640 range. We block 600 an hour. I believe on a comparable route a 1900 will block 800 an hour.

A Metro II won't haul as much as a 1900 but on short routes with short strips, it really doesn't matter. The 1900 has to meet balanced field requirements and will be restricted (especially in the summer). This is also the case with Metro IIIs and 23s. The 23 has a great payload but it is too restricted by short northern strips therefor not cost effective. A Metro III however, if properly dispatched to appropriate destinations, is a great money maker. Same low fuel burns but up to 4500 lbs of payload.

As for the nose steering, yes there are reports of un-commanded steering. Through proper training and crew awareness, these steering issues are largely preventable and can be effectively dealt with when they happen. Scary nonetheless but manageable. As was previously stated, the nose steering can be turned off and the plane taxied with brakes and differential thrust.

Is a Metro a bit of a handful? Sure but once you've been trained and know the plane's limits, I believe it to be one of the most exciting planes from a 100 feet until touchdown.

Sorry to hear about Carson. I hope positive information surfaces in this forum.

Owe

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:20 pm

Except to point out that some of us are still paying our dues with bag runs there doesn't seem to be anything sinister here. The report says the snow got deeper off the centreline so perhaps they merely caught a wheel in deeper snow, the aircraft hung a left and headed west before anyone could or had the authority to respond.

Happens in my car a lot.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:22 pm

A "shotgun upgrade" is when you show up at the airport, and you're IT. Either the captain phoned in sick, quit, or was eaten by sharks.

Brown Bear, just shows how out of the loop the old Cat really is, to me a shotgun upgrade means you knocked up someones daughter and got upgraded to married.

Now back to these poor pilots that are the subject here, I hope it ends up that something unusual happened because they must really feel bad about it.

It is never nice reading about these things.

duckfoot · Post by **duckfoot** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:38 pm

Cat Driver wrote:to me a shotgun upgrade means you knocked up someones daughter and got upgraded to married.

I would call that a shotgun wedding. What I meant by shotgun upgrade was what Brown bear said, you show up and someone tells you your the captain now. Its nice to have had a few months as an FO in the left seat with a training captain in the right.

BTD · Post by **BTD** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:05 pm

ei ei owe wrote:I can't read these completely mis-informed Metro posts anymore.

We've owned some Metros since brand new from the factory (not so new anymore....) and I've never seen one with a tiller. Maybe at some point one of the 24-ish we own did, but not anymore.

Metro II and III fuel burns in cruise are never more than 700lbs an hour total. Usually in the 550 to 640 range. We block 600 an hour. I believe on a comparable route a 1900 will block 800 an hour.

A Metro II won't haul as much as a 1900 but on short routes with short strips, it really doesn't matter. The 1900 has to meet balanced field requirements and will be restricted (especially in the summer). This is also the case with Metro IIIs and 23s. The 23 has a great payload but it is too restricted by short northern strips therefor not cost effective. A Metro III however, if properly dispatched to appropriate destinations, is a great money maker. Same low fuel burns but up to 4500 lbs of payload.

As for the nose steering, yes there are reports of un-commanded steering. Through proper training and crew awareness, these steering issues are largely preventable and can be effectively dealt with when they happen. Scary nonetheless but manageable. As was previously stated, the nose steering can be turned off and the plane taxied with brakes and differential thrust.

Is a Metro a bit of a handful? Sure but once you've been trained and know the plane's limits, I believe it to be one of the most exciting planes from a 100 feet until touchdown.

Sorry to hear about Carson. I hope positive information surfaces in this forum.

Owe

+1

Never flown a II but none of the 3s and 23s I've flown have a tiller. They do have a "park" button on the captains side for more nosewheel steering authority.

The engaging the nosewheel steering on landing takes a bit of getting used to, but nothing out of this world. A quick centreing of the rudder pedals and hit the button and your good to go. If you've got a big crosswind use differential brake while centreing to keep it straight.

I've been on the aircraft for almost a year and I still sit up straight when on short final. It doesn't forgive complacency.

BTD

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:11 pm

What I meant by shotgun upgrade was what Brown bear said, you show up and someone tells you your the captain now. Its nice to have had a few months as an FO in the left seat with a training captain in the right.

Thanks, I'm more familiar with how it is done in Europe and that expression is new to me.

In Europe it is known as line indoctrination and unless you have gone through same you will not be flying as Captain on someones whim.

We have less accidents that way.

BTD · Post by **BTD** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:22 pm

If you are flying a metro with passengers in Canada you would almost certainly be doing it 704 which also means no "shotgun" upgrades.

(15) Upgrade Training and Checking

(a) Upgrade training and checking for pilots who are qualified as a second-in-command on that aeroplane type shall include the following:

(i) successfully complete training as a pilot-in-command in all areas of aeroplane handling and operation as outlined in the air operator's approved initial course;

(ii) command and decision making;

(iii) successfully complete specialized operations qualification training; (e.g. lower take-off limits etc.)

(iv) successfully complete on that type of aeroplane the initial pilot proficiency check outlined in Schedule I or Schedule II to section 724.108, conducted by a Transport Canada inspector or an approved Company Check Pilot; and

(v) initial line indoctrination for a pilot-in-command.

(b) Upgrade training and checking for pilots whose PPC as second-in-command on that aeroplane type has expired within the previous 24 months shall consist of completion of all regaining qualifications requirements specified in paragraphs 14(a) or (b), as applicable, as well as the requirements of paragraph (15)(a) above.

(c) Pilots who have not held a valid PPC on that aeroplane type as second-in-command for a period greater than 24 months shall be given a complete initial aeroplane type training course as well as the requirements of paragraph (15)(a) above.

(A) each pilot shall perform or show knowledge of, as applicable, a mandatory list of operating manoeuvres and procedures as detailed in subsection 724.115(27) and complete 20 flying hours and 4 mandatory sectors, 2 sectors to be performed as pilot flying and 2 sectors as pilot not flying; and

No shotgun upgrades

BTD

Editted to correct line indoc times for turbo prop not jet.

flying4dollars · Post by **flying4dollars** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:57 pm

ei ei owe wrote:I can't read these completely mis-informed Metro posts anymore.

Metro II and III fuel burns in cruise are never more than 700lbs an hour total. Usually in the 550 to 640 range. We block 600 an hour. I believe on a comparable route a 1900 will block 800 an hour.

A Metro II won't haul as much as a 1900 but on short routes with short strips, it really doesn't matter. The 1900 has to meet balanced field requirements and will be restricted (especially in the summer). This is also the case with Metro IIIs and 23s. The 23 has a great payload but it is too restricted by short northern strips therefor not cost effective. A Metro III however, if properly dispatched to appropriate destinations, is a great money maker. Same low fuel burns but up to 4500 lbs of payload.

Really? Burns 600 (ish)? That's decent! I thought it was in the 900 range. For the 1900's, the numbers are 800pph in the D's and 700 for the C's. Now this is also altitude dependent. No airplane will burn economically at 16,000ft on normal cruise power settings.

You are correct about balanced field with the 1900's, however this only applies to the D models. C models get away without having to balance the field. In the summers it does of course affect numbers, but the C's and D's will still meet requirements on a hot day on a 4000ft gravel strip at altitude.

duckfoot · Post by **duckfoot** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:24 pm

BTD, Would those requirements be for a 703 operator as well? I ask because all Carson Air metros fall under 703.

BTD · Post by **BTD** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 am

No. Thats why I specified passengers.

723.98

(15) Upgrade Training and Checking

(a) Upgrade training and checking for pilots who are qualified as a second-in-command on that aeroplane type shall include the following:

(i) successfully complete training as a pilot-in-command in all areas of aeroplane handling and operation as outlined in the air operator's approved initial course;

(ii) command and decision making;

(iii) successfully complete specialized operations qualification training (e.g. lower take-off limits etc.); and

(iv) successfully complete on that type of aeroplane the initial pilot proficiency check outlined in Schedule I or Schedule II, conducted by a Transport Canada inspector or an approved Company Check Pilot.

(b) Upgrade training and checking for pilots whose PPC as second-in-command on that aeroplane type has expired within the previous 24 months shall consist of completion of regaining qualifications requirements specified in paragraphs 723.98(12)(a) and (b) as well as the requirements of paragraph 723.98(15)(a).

(c) Pilots who have not held a valid PPC on that aeroplane type as second-in-command for a period greater than 24 months shall be given a complete initial aeroplane type training course as well as the requirements of paragraph (a) above.

Thats what I can find for 703.

Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT