Bearskin Metro 3 CYRL accident - Speculation thread

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
CD
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by CD »

YWGGuy wrote:
CID wrote:Metro is NOT transport category. Commuter category. And some are normal category with SFAR41 which makes them pretty much commuter category.
You're confusing this. You're right in the fact a Metro flies under 704 (commuter) regulations. The aircraft however (being above 12,500lbs) is certified as a transport category aircraft.
Actually, CID is quite correct:

Aircraft registration C-FFZN
SA-227AC Metro III
Canadian Type Certificate - A158
Model SA227-AC (Metro III) (Normal Category, SFAR 41C) Approved November 21,1988

Certification Basis: SA227-AC

1. FAR 23, effective February I, 1965, through Amendments 23-6, Special Conditions outlined in FAA letters of November 19, 1965; August 22,1967; February 5, 1968; and April 4, 1968.

2. Amendment C of SFAR 41, including paragraph 4(c), and the compartment interior requirements of 25.853(a), (b), (b-l), (b-2), and (b-3), in effect on September 26, 1978; FAR 23.175(d) of Amendment 23-14.

Compliance with the following optional requirement has been established: Ice Protection - FAR 25.1419,25 Appendix C.

Compliance has been demonstrated with ICAO Annex 16, Chapter 6 (equivalent to FAR 36, Appendix F through Amendment 36-6).
---------- ADS -----------
 
WD40
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:08 am

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by WD40 »

YWGGUY

Wrong. Depending on the FIN # the aircraft in question was either a Metro 3 or 23.

Metro 3 Cert. under SFAR41C. Metro 23 certified under Part 23 (Hence the name) Part 23 is commuter. (Exactly like 1900C vs D)

Part 25 is transport category turbo prop +19 seats or turbo jet +10 pax.

My guess it was a Metro 23 because it had an FDR ,Metro 3 didn't require it due to regs. ie type cert. issued before 1991. The FDR could have been optional (they have a few aircraft from Europe I believe)

Anyway this really sucks.

Some older aircraft ie LR35 are certified part 25 because that is all that existed at the time of cert.

WD
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by CID »

The TSB says that the crew declared some sort of emergency about 10 minutes back.

The survivor says that there was some sort of engine problem.

The crew were not able to maintain altitude, assuming that the final moments of the flight were with a failed/shutdown engine.

Those are three facts.
The first and second statements may be "fact" although they don't establish much. The third statement is not a fact, it's conjecture which is not based on anything that has been learned about the accident as yet. In "fact" you actually used the word "assuming" in a statement you declared as "fact". Another tell-tale sign.

This could very well be a CFIT accident and not a matter of the aircraft not being able to maintain altitude.

Speculation is fine. Wild conjecture being presented as "fact" doesn't help anyone.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1619
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by pdw »

CID wrote:The third statement ....
It's news evidence (verified) that they were descending on a beeline course to the Airport, while still on the exact same course as en-route and not even attempting any other approach procedure yet not quite reaching it on that 'shortest trajectory possible'.

This supports the assumption (the "assuming" is kind-of supported by the 'corollary' of these facts)

EDIT:
That idea needs a bit more clarification though, .. some proof that the good engine power was not enough, ie on account of excess drag being produced by the other/hurting (if "not feathering") engine ... etc
---------- ADS -----------
 
Been_there
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:07 am

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by Been_there »

Ruptured plenums -- reason #455 not to choose a Garrett over a PT6.

By the way, why on earth would Doc suggest flying an extra 150 miles single-engine when you've got a perfectly good airport underneath you? That is silly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Been_there on Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
ODA
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:31 pm

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by ODA »

CID wrote:
The TSB says that the crew declared some sort of emergency about 10 minutes back.

The survivor says that there was some sort of engine problem.

The crew were not able to maintain altitude, assuming that the final moments of the flight were with a failed/shutdown engine.

Those are three facts.
The first and second statements may be "fact" although they don't establish much. The third statement is not a fact, it's conjecture which is not based on anything that has been learned about the accident as yet. In "fact" you actually used the word "assuming" in a statement you declared as "fact". Another tell-tale sign.

This could very well be a CFIT accident and not a matter of the aircraft not being able to maintain altitude.

Speculation is fine. Wild conjecture being presented as "fact" doesn't help anyone.
Well said. To speak in absolutes is a bit much at this point. The "facts" will be in the report.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by CID »

It's news evidence (verified) that they were descending on a beeline course to the Airport, while still on the exact same course as en-route and not even attempting any other approach procedure yet not quite reaching it on that 'shortest trajectory possible'.
According to additional information released, the airplane appears to have been on an IFR approach and the crew reported passing ULOTU which is 3 DME east for the approach to 26. Not on a beeline course to the airport and on an approach contrary to what is stated above.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by Doc »

CID wrote:
It's news evidence (verified) that they were descending on a beeline course to the Airport, while still on the exact same course as en-route and not even attempting any other approach procedure yet not quite reaching it on that 'shortest trajectory possible'.
According to additional information released, the airplane appears to have been on an IFR approach and the crew reported passing ULOTU which is 3 DME east for the approach to 26. Not on a beeline course to the airport and on an approach contrary to what is stated above.

It'd would be nice, if just once, we waited for a fact or two, before letting this thread turn into just another "pissing" match.

Not this post specifically, but the whole "flavour" of this thread has become distasteful.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by Doc »

Perhaps, after a few days we can open a "Speculation" thread? Until then, this could have been any of you. I happen to have respect for the way the BEAR operates, and I'd like to see some semblance of respect shown. These small operations are "families", so unless you actually "know" something, let's try to keep the hissing and spitting to a minimum.

I tried this tack once before and it didn't work then. I don't expect it to work now. Respect people. If you want any from me, show some here.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Maynard
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:33 am

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by Maynard »

+1 ^
---------- ADS -----------
 
bobm
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:27 am

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by bobm »

Agreed.

I have a little experience on the engines, been on the Mitsubishi Safety Board for two decades for the Mu2. It is way too early to speculate about different failures.
Let the investigators do what they do best.

My thoughts are with everyone involved.
---------- ADS -----------
 
triplese7en
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:08 pm
Location: Halifax

Bearskin Metro 3 CYRL accident - Speculation thread

Post by triplese7en »

Can we please have thoughful posts in this thread? Getting mad because you don't agree with someone's speculation is not helping anyone. Please provide some sort of reference or background to support your speculation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
olddirtyloud
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:59 pm

Re: Bearskin Metro 3 CYRL accident - Speculation thread

Post by olddirtyloud »

This is an interesting read:
http://flightsafety.org/amb/amb_jul-aug05.pdf , as the pilot in the back heard a bang.
---------- ADS -----------
 
triplese7en
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:08 pm
Location: Halifax

Re: Bearskin Metro 3 CYRL accident - Speculation thread

Post by triplese7en »

tcas... this is a speculation thread. Humans have a natural tendency to wonder. Whether or not you will openly admit it, you yourself have wondered what might have happened in this instance. If you don't care to join in the discussion then please don't. If you want to offer your condolences I recommend this thread: viewtopic.php?f=118&t=92718

And no, this is not like the 5 o'clock news. This forum has industry people who are familiar in one way or another with airplanes. The news crew at your local station isn't made up of aviation industry workers.
---------- ADS -----------
 
HighBypass
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:36 am
Location: YZF

Re: Tpe 331

Post by HighBypass »

So can some Garrett geeks help me out:

I have a few thousand hrs on the 331-2 and -5 which are smaller then the ones on the metro IIIs. Are the metros using -12's?

I always understood when the NTS system senses negative TQ (ie prop driving engine) then the helical gears that revolve around the sun gear in the gear box do some magic and release oil to the gearbox allowing the prop to go to a safe coarse pitch, (not full feather) the prop then needs to be feathered by the crew as per the memory drill. When the condition lever is selected to "shutoff" (or whatever its called on the metro) the oil dump valve it's opened and oil is released to the gearbox via the beta tube.

My question is how could the prop not fx wen told to do so, regardless of what mechanical issues were going on in engine??

Also: do those models have a beta backup like the -2's where the power lever is moved full forward to let oil escape through the little holes in the beta tube incase of a blockage in the main passage?
---------- ADS -----------
 
2.5milefinal
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:39 am

Re: Bearskin Metro 3 CYRL accident - Speculation thread

Post by 2.5milefinal »

If there is a serious discussion/speculation on any accident even if later we find out it was completely out in left field I say its worth it. If it gets pilots back into the books and thinking about how they can do things safer its worth it... that's what makes forums a good thing.
For example I just finished reading an article about 'Plenum Failure'. It may have nothing to do with this crash. But now I remember what it is and what it is all about.
---------- ADS -----------
 
triplese7en
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:08 pm
Location: Halifax

Re: Bearskin Metro 3 CYRL accident - Speculation thread

Post by triplese7en »

2.5milefinal wrote:If there is a serious discussion/speculation on any accident even if later we find out it was completely out in left field I say its worth it. If it gets pilots back into the books and thinking about how they can do things safer its worth it... that's what makes forums a good thing.
For example I just finished reading an article about 'Plenum Failure'. It may have nothing to do with this crash. But now I remember what it is and what it is all about.
+1
---------- ADS -----------
 
triplese7en
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:08 pm
Location: Halifax

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by triplese7en »

Highbypass... I started a speculation thread here: viewtopic.php?f=118&t=92793

The Metro III uses the -11 engines. 1000 SHP continuous, 1100 SHP for 5 minutes only when using CAWI.

Here are a couple quotes from the AFM:

"The propeller blades are driven toward feather if the NTS system ports some of the governing oil to the gear case, and they are driven all the way to feather if all of the oil is dumped through the beta tube to the gear case by use of the stop and feather control."

"Commanding high propeller blade angle by keeping the power lever of the inoperative engine well forward will reduce windmilling propeller drag in the event that NTS failure accompanies engine failure."

It's from that quote that I have an SOP of using both power levers together with a failure. In piston multi training you're usually taught to put the failed engine throttle to the idle position and leave it there.
When the condition lever is selected to "shutoff" (or whatever its called on the metro) the oil dump valve it's opened and oil is released to the gearbox via the beta tube.
On the Garretts there is no condition lever; there is only a power lever and a speed lever. The speed lever controls engine RPM from 70% to 100%. The fuel solenoid valve is closed mechanically (it can be closed electrically by pushing the stop button which is beneath the start button) by pulling the Stop and Feather Control to the first detent. Pulling all the way will feather the prop as explained above. The fuel shutoff is electrically actuated by a switch beneath the Stop and Feather knob.

The fuel shutoff is behind the firewall; the fuel solenoid valve is immediately prior to the manifold and flow dividers, right before being sprayed through the nozzles.
My question is how could the prop not fx wen told to do so, regardless of what mechanical issues were going on in engine??
I'm not sure but if the AFM has a note about an engine failure in combo with a NTS failure, you'd think it would be possible.
Also: do those models have a beta backup like the -2's where the power lever is moved full forward to let oil escape through the little holes in the beta tube incase of a blockage in the main passage?
I'm guessing that's what the note about keeping the power levers forward was about. So I assume the -11 does have something like that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
switchflicker
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:25 am

Re: Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

Post by switchflicker »

"I'm guessing that's what the note about keeping the power levers forward was about. So I assume the -11 does have something like that."

That is correct. The -11 and -12 for that matter have the same beta tube arrangement as the lower horsepower 331 TPE

Sw
---------- ADS -----------
 
flyinthebug
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1684
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
Location: CYPA

Re: Bearskin Metro 3 CYRL accident - Speculation thread

Post by flyinthebug »

tcas wrote:All you people who speculate are no better than the 5 o clock news! Doc your the worst just saying! Your 200 landed in red lake many times, worked with guys like yu who hwave trained many guys, it shows! condolances to all involved
Comparing professional pilots speculation to that of a news reader, is one of the most ignorant statements yet on this forum. Then you attack "Doc" who hasn't even commented on this thread? Go away tcas, the adults want to discuss possible events that led up to this tragic accident.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”