Metro 3 ( dangerous as they say it is )

[J31]

The table in the accident report doesn't show any bank until they were at/below VMC. Would it not be correct to assume they wouldn't have started to roll if they kept the speed up?

I knew the FO. Armchair quarterback is a shitty way to analyze things.

Yeah, and you also don’t tend to die in a simulator, and you know an engine failure is coming, too.

Sorry for your loss CaptDukeNukem. I am not judging the actions of the Bearskin crew. The crew did not have much time or altitude to analyse the failure that they had. I'm sure they did the best they could but sadly the crew and several passengers lost their lives.

We can not stick our head in the sand carry on as normal and hope for the best. We need to learn from this crash and realize that the TPE331 has failure modes that are very different from a piston or PT6A engine.

The Bearskin crew had about 30 seconds to analyse the failure they were dealing with. That is why pilots operating the TPE331 need to know the engine failure modes and memory drills cold and with instant recall.

The TPE331 is a single shaft engine with the propellor directly connected to the power turbine and gas turbine. It DOES NOT have autofeather! It does have Negative Torque Sensing (NTS) system that can activate with a total engine failure by increasing propellor pitch to reduce drag. But NTS only gives you a few extra moments to react and feather the failed engine.

When a TPE331 suffers internal damage, the engine may continue to run but at a reduced speed. If this happens the propellor is driven towards 0 pitch in an effort by the governor to increase to selected engine speed. The NTS most likely will not be active and the result is you have a 9+ ft spinning propeller at 0 pitch causing massive drag.

The only way out of this is to quickly identify the failing engine and immediately pull the STOP/FEATHER lever on the affected engine. This action shuts off fuel to the engine, dumps oil pressure from the propellor allowing the spring in the propellor dome to drive the prop to feather.

If the gas turbine stops producing power, then the Negative Torque Sensing system should dump oil pressure from the propellor and partially feather the propellor. This gives you a few seconds more time to react but you still need to identify the failed engine, pull the STOP/FEATHER lever to complete the engine shutdown and feather the prop.

I'm not sure what your point is rockiepilot? That is why we train in simulators, to experience what could kill us in the real airplane. The simulator allows us to train for events like this.

Unfortunately, I do not think there are any TPE331 full motion simulators operational anymore.

So operators of the TPE331 need to know the engine failure modes and memory drills cold. They need to train these critical items in the airplane but are limited to what can safely be accomplished.

[rookiepilot]

J31, point is I agree with you and others.

They had zero time to identify the problem and minimal instrument indications it seems.

Shitty and classless to dunk on them in any way shape or form. Sad outcome.

[J31]

Double post

[godsrcrazy]

I spoke with a young guy years back that was an RCAF pilot. He left the military and went to the commercial side. He said there is one thing that compares the Metro to a fighter jet. You CANNOT let the plane get ahead of you it will kill you. The beauty of the F18 is you can eject. You have to ride the Metro to the ground.

[SpyPilot]

You have to ride the Metro to the ground.

Or push the nose over into a dive and spear it into the ground taking your co-pilot with you.

Carson Air Flight 66 out of YVR on April 13, 2015.

https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports- ... p0081.html

[propstojets]

With the left engine running at 98% N1 there is so much drag on the propeller that the only way out is to feather. It is not about VMC, it is about the massive drag.

I have experienced this event several times in a full motion Jetstream simulator. It is a violent departure for controlled flight if you not not get the STOP/FEATHER lever pulled.

The table in the accident report doesn't show any bank until they were at/below VMC. Would it not be correct to assume they wouldn't have started to roll if they kept the speed up?

They were about to hit the trees... How do you keep the speed up without increasing the power on the operating engine to attempt to stop the descent? That massive amount of asymmetric thrust of a high-drag unfeathered left engine plus adding power on the right engine to not hit the trees in a last ditch effort to save the airplane would surely roll the aircraft, even if they are above VMC. Remember, a windmilling non-feathered prop greatly increases your Vmc speed compared to a feathered prop.

The only way to prevent a roll might have been to leave both levers at idle and mush it into the trees, but with the only prospect being crashing into the trees short of the runway, it's reasonable to see why they added power, which caused the roll.

At 500' AGL when the engine malfunctioned, combined with almost near normal engine parameters, idle power on the right engine (thereby no yawing moment to alert the crew of an issue, etc), they might have not even known they had a major issue until they brought the power up. The left engine windmilled, and the asymmetric thrust from the right engine rolled them. They really had no chance, aside from feathering the left engine. Which, by all accounts, aside from one engine gauge showing the torque, they would have had no reason to even think about shutting it down so close to the ground.

Didn’t they attempt a go around with full flaps and forgot to bring the gear up single engine (besides not having feathered the prop)?

[BTD]

No.

Maximum power was applied to one or both engines, and the landing gear was initially selected up and then re-selected down before it could fully retract. The crew declared an emergency with Kenora FSS and unsuccessfully attempted to initiate a climb.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-rep ... c0150.html

[‘Bob’]

Metros are shitty planes operated by shitty companies in shitty conditions with shitty pilots.

The holes in each layer of Swiss Cheese go from scattered to broken in comparison to a typical 703/704 running King Airs or 1900s.

[goingnowherefast]

Metros are shitty planes operated by shitty companies in shitty conditions with shitty pilots.

Bit of an insult to say shitty pilots. Maybe pilots with shitty training due to working for shitty companies and a lack of good Metro sims.

Lots of excellent pilots have flown Metros.

The only reason King Airs have a higher accident rate is because they're common with rich private pilots in the US with almost no training. Private pilots have a nasty habit of letting it roll over after an engine quits. Professional pilots, even with poor training tend to hang onto a twin with an engine failed.

Flown by comparatively well trained pilots, the King Air/1900 is a far superior airplane.

[digits_]

The only people that truly love metros are the accountants. The weight and volume those planes can move for their fuel burn is very impressive.

[shamrock104]

Currently going through a Metro ground school. I have not been at it or here long enough to make detrimental statements

[‘Bob’]

Metros are shitty planes operated by shitty companies in shitty conditions with shitty pilots.

Bit of an insult to say shitty pilots. Maybe pilots with shitty training due to working for shitty companies and a lack of good Metro sims.

I mean to say that they lack experience. What does a typical Metro FO have today? 250 hours? Not even enough PIC to get PICUS. What does a typical Metro captain have? 1500 hours? Maybe less if it's run 703 or cargo?

So an FO that doesn't know what he doesn't know and is mostly along for the ride; and a captain who's just getting into the overconfident/complacent phase of his career; rocketing around in an aging sportscar of a plane and unable to say no to perceived or actual pressure in some of the most remote and underserviced airports in the world with a hostile winter climate.

Lots of excellent pilots have flown Metros.

Lot's of excellent pilots were produced by Metros. Like how many comedic greats were products of child abuse.

[godsrcrazy]

I mean to say that they lack experience. What does a typical Metro FO have today? 250 hours? Not even enough PIC to get PICUS. What does a typical Metro captain have? 1500 hours? Maybe less if it's run 703 or cargo?

So an FO that doesn't know what he doesn't know and is mostly along for the ride; and a captain who's just getting into the overconfident/complacent phase of his career; rocketing around in an aging sportscar of a plane and unable to say no to perceived or actual pressure in some of the most remote and underserviced airports in the world with a hostile winter climate.

Lots of excellent pilots have flown Metros.

When is the last time you looked at some of the Pilot hours at Jazz and Encore. The only thing that keeps these things in the air is the training.

[Blowin' In The Wind]

Metros are shitty planes operated by shitty companies in shitty conditions with shitty pilots.

Bit of an insult to say shitty pilots. Maybe pilots with shitty training due to working for shitty companies and a lack of good Metro sims.

I mean to say that they lack experience. What does a typical Metro FO have today? 250 hours? Not even enough PIC to get PICUS. What does a typical Metro captain have? 1500 hours? Maybe less if it's run 703 or cargo?

So an FO that doesn't know what he doesn't know and is mostly along for the ride; and a captain who's just getting into the overconfident/complacent phase of his career; rocketing around in an aging sportscar of a plane and unable to say no to perceived or actual pressure in some of the most remote and underserviced airports in the world with a hostile winter climate.

Lots of excellent pilots have flown Metros.

Lot's of excellent pilots were produced by Metros. Like how many comedic greats were products of child abuse.

I never felt in danger like I did during that part of my career!

[bobcaygeon]

Bit of an insult to say shitty pilots. Maybe pilots with shitty training due to working for shitty companies and a lack of good Metro sims.

I mean to say that they lack experience. What does a typical Metro FO have today? 250 hours? Not even enough PIC to get PICUS. What does a typical Metro captain have? 1500 hours? Maybe less if it's run 703 or cargo?

So an FO that doesn't know what he doesn't know and is mostly along for the ride; and a captain who's just getting into the overconfident/complacent phase of his career; rocketing around in an aging sportscar of a plane and unable to say no to perceived or actual pressure in some of the most remote and underserviced airports in the world with a hostile winter climate.

Lots of excellent pilots have flown Metros.

Lot's of excellent pilots were produced by Metros. Like how many comedic greats were products of child abuse.

I never felt in danger like I did during that part of my career!

"Danger is a bit of an overstatement" for 703/704 Ops regardless of the plane type. 705 is just boring and non-memorable.

Reality ys a King Air 200 is a terrible sked machine. Burns way too much gas down low even with -41's.

1900's didn't start showing up in the north until they were older due to the costs. It's still a fuel pig.

"High risk" is more appropriate to describe twin otter/single otter ops on floats, eskers, skis, etc.

[goingnowherefast]

I dunno, some of the things I've watched Metros do (or try to do) can be described as dangerous.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/195679
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/312796
* Merlins, but same shit, different pile.

These accidents are more indicative of management pressure and company culture than a slam on Metros/Merlins directly. If a company is going to fly the cheapest airplanes they can find, you know they're gonna be cheap and squeeze everywhere else too


There is a mind-boggling number of runway excursions on Metros due to prop start locks or the silly nosewheel steering system. Some of these excursions find snow banks or drainage ditches and prop blades enter the fuselage. Beechcraft aren't immune from runway excursions, but there's a lot less of them because of far superior nosewheel steering design and much better engines.

[cpt sweet'njuicy]

There are legions of Metro pilots in this country that have their own story about their time on this plane. If you go to the Sunwest or Perimeter school of Metro, you should receive a good solid education on the plane. I can’t speak to the other operators in this land. The best pilot I ever was was when I flew the Metro 2 on medevac. The worst was in the early days of being captain on it into the short runways. The issues were either of my own making or that of maintenance in some way. Either the plane was broken, or it wasn’t fixed right and needed another bit of loving.

The other pilots issues that I was aware of were mostly the same.

I would be more concerned about how the maintenance is at the company offering you the job, not the plane itself. I would worry about that and my own personal preparation. The Metro 3 is the long wing and higher powered version of the two common Metro types in Canada. I liked to say that the shit pilots flew the Metro 3 because they needed the extra wing and power. Then I flew it, and it was pretty nice. It toned down my rhetoric and joking. I never really flew it in anger but did put some time on it doing steep turns.

The Metro 3 is protected by the performance certification built into it. You have no worries. The Metro 2 is not as capable. The Metro 2 is protected by the skills of the person holding the controls at the magic time. There is a wonderful video out there in the ether of a test pilot feathering the prop during the takeoff on a Metro 3 in the desert somewhere. The plane almost seems like it was trapped in ground effect. That is the safer of the two. I don’t know the conditions or circumstances at the time of the test flight, but it sure looked exciting.

As to the start lock and or steering situations you have heard about, I can say with great confidence that the issues are mostly the pilot failing to check that both propellers came off the locks and confirming positive torque as the power is coming up. I can think of possibly five times I failed to check. The cool pilots would look for the oil pressure dip at the moment to help them confirm it.

The steering is incredibly reliable. Mud, water, ice, snow, the steering just keeps working. If you have terrible maintenance, then that just can’t be factored in. I once MEL’d the steering and continued to operate into the gravel runways for the day. This included tight gravel runway turns. If you learned to operate the plane, then it was ok. If you didn’t have the experience, then you didn’t do it.

It really is the environment that can take an ordinary pilot and, over time shape and prepare them for the Metro or any other plane. Where I worked likely had the most Metro movements in the history of the type so if the Metro was a pile of shit I would have seen it. I didn’t. If it was prone to this or that, I would have seen it. I didn’t.

I hope you decide to take the job and I hope you choose to buy in to trying to master the plane and its systems. Not an easy task.

[goingnowherefast]

As to the start lock and or steering situations you have heard about, I can say with great confidence that the issues are mostly the pilot failing to check that both propellers came off the locks and confirming positive torque as the power is coming up. I can think of possibly five times I failed to check. The cool pilots would look for the oil pressure dip at the moment to help them confirm it.

My point is the start lock system doesn't exist on Beechcraft (except the B100, but they're rare). If the system wasn't necessary and didn't exist, it can't be be mismanaged by pilots. It's additional complexity that adds risk to this aircraft type and is evidenced by the additional runway excursions.

Is the Metro/Merlin dangerous? No, it's safer than a Navajo, but isn't as good as others.

Is it typically flown by cheap and sketchy operators, with some exceptions? Yes. Both accidents I linked above are the same operator.

I'd put my family on a Bearskin Metro without concern. But, given the choice, I'd rather put them on a PASCO 1900. However, I'd rather walk than go on a Skyscare Metro.

[cpt sweet'njuicy]

I think that the start lock system is really the only way to run a fixed shaft turboprop but my experience is limited.
You arent wrong about complexity but simply having the complexity of retractable landing gear has caused innumerable incidents and cost.
In your line of thinking I can say that the AWI system and the auto ignition systems are interesting. The way the landing gear actually works compared to how I thought it works is interesting. It is not an easy plane to figure out at least for me.

So poor was the original Metro 2's performance single engine that they put auto ignition and and NTS system and Armed alcohol water injection on it to absolutely guarantee a relight immediately...assuming it would relight and to help carry you to a safe altitude if you were stuck with only one engine. Autofeather could be argued to be a death sentence in the early Metro 2 on takeoff. They just had to try to automatically get that failed engine to restart or else. I suspected they knew it was going to be bad after test flying it originally.
For the pilots it certainly is a bunch of complexity that many others dont need to worry about. I dont know anything else at the moment as the majority of flying I have done is on that type.

I hope the guy takes the job and then we can all get their feedback after their first runway incursion trying to takeoff with one on the locks.

Now for the trolling part of the show.

Why are you so hard on ole Skycare? You mad Bro? Skycare meets all the same safety targets and follows all the same rules that every other operator in Canada has to follow. If they didnt, Transport Canada would swoop in a turn them off. Just because you couldn't get a job there doesn't mean you need to beat up on Skycare. They care. Its in the name. Sky............Care. Learn to read Bro!

[goingnowherefast]

Maybe they shouldn't run a straight shaft engine then. It's great for APUs, but there are better designs for airplane power plants.

Every PT6 and every PW1xx I've flown all have auto-ignition, or its simply run continuously for certain conditions. It's not a feature unique to Garrett engines.

Your description of the consequences for a engine failure in a Metro 2 kinda makes my point.

I'm hard on Skycare because of their safety record, reputation and things I've witnessed them do. Ever heard of why Skyward doesn't exist anymore? (I'm dating myself with that remark). They write off more Metros/Merlins than Perimeter, despite having a significantly smaller fleet. If they were a good company, they'd have a comparable safety record.