gaunty,

There are 4 Australian TCDS that are applicable to Metros :
the SA226-TC is certified in normal and transport category;
SA227-AC, SA227-BC in normal and SFAR41;
SA226-T, SA227-AT, SA227-TT in normal;
SA227-CC, -DC in commuter.

Even the respective models some of them have additional specific modifications which changes the certifed category.

So you dont know really unless you can see the flight manual.

As previously stated, CAO 40.1.0 appendix 3 requires engine out training.

AIP states that simulated engine failures below 1500ft at night are not permitted.

:ok:

swh quite so but NONE of those are Transport Category certifications and all the TCDS's in the world aint gunna change that.

The history of SFAR 23 and SFAR 41 is that they were never ever meant to be any more than attempts by the FAA, to provide in the then absence of a suitable FAR25 type, a "bridge" for a capacity gap in the "commuter airline" market that was too small for the available Transport Category types and too big for the small Navajo/C402-4 types until something better (smaller FAR25 types) came along OR the market grew to meet them.

You can't change the absolute performance available from any particular type, you can only mandate modification of TO weights to invoke a higher EFATO climb gradient than the minimum required by the certification rules under which it was originally designed.
Or increase the grunt and airspeeds for the same wing area, which leads us up another garden path altogether.

It goes round in circles, to meet the 1-2-3-4 segment Transport Cat gradients required you apply a quasi one say 1.9% requirement after the aircraft is cleaned up. Claytons Cat.

NOTE: there is no V1/2 as described in FAR25 beyond tricking up the TO charts to manufacture something that looks and works like it or fly the certification figures for those requirements. Don't want to do that coz it wont make it in economic or available strip lengths.

To achieve that in your std Navajo/C402-4 the TO weight reduction will often reduce the available payload beyond economic. Bigger engines means more weight, higher speeds for the same wing, more money = need more seats.

So you take an airframe with stretch potential and grow it by grandfathering to a commuter and, thank God for the turbine, we can install enough grunt to overcome the energy equations. To do that costs heaps and you might as well go straight to FAR25 if you can afford it as a manufacturer. Some chose not to go anywhere near it.

But you still can't overcome the fact that the airframe was never designed in the first place to be Transport Category certified. You could maybe put enough grunt on it to maybe give you the performance but then you'd have to beef everything up and increase the size of the vertical stab blah blah blah it all turns to poop.

Any road, the FAA never saw it as anything but a short term fix, the underlying requirement being that RPT pax must fly on Transport Cat types.
To ensure that, they put a sunset clause on the use of SFAR 23 and 41, currently if I recall correctly 2010.
Further and I think it was beyond 1997/8 they embargoed addition/replacement of SFAR23/41 aircraft in existing fleets with other than FAR25 types and prohibited startup airlines from using them at all.
The economics were so marginal that they even allowed no autopilot ops with an FO who also doubled as the FA requirement for safety briefs etc. :rolleyes:
There's been a fire sale going on with these types since and they only have any value as freighters or as long as there are third world countries that allow their use in RPT.
Hence the migration of these types out of the US fleets to many third world countries like Australia, the regulators of which seem most happy with, if not totally oblivious of what it all means.

That last comment is unfair to those in CASA who understand of which I speak, but are powerless amongst the political and other chaos of the recent past to generate a rational and informed debate with the Australian traveller on how they feel about it.

Yes it was the way then, but the 60's and 70' airframes are waaaaaaaay behind us, even 90's airframes are past it in the integration of the modern flight control and nav systems required for operations in the present environment.

One can only guess at the SIDS and CPCP programme costs for continued operations by them.

As for really dumb wannabe airline captains role playing Capt Queeg with pretend airliners in the dark.:yuk: :{ I seriously doubt that this fella could follow what we're talking about here. If he could then he wouldn't be.:sad:

gaunty,

The SA226-TC is classified for normal and transport category, that’s the Australian category, not the FAA design basis.

The terms category and certification are sometimes interchanged incorrectly, the certification basis (eg CAR 3, 4b, 23 SFAR 23/41, FAR 25, and category (e.g normal, commuter, transport) are not the same, confusing I know.

E.g. a C404 has a FAR Part 23, February 1, 1965 Certification Basis, and the Australian Type Certificate Acceptance Sheet has it suitable for airworthiness in normal or transport categories.

I am aware of SFAR 23/41, and I believe as a whole is was an improvement, and a good stepping stone from the previous basis.

Problem with them I see is that the training is most cases is done in the aircraft, ok worked for the F28, but there is a metro sim available in Melbourne at an hourly rate cheaper than the aircraft.

I also believe that the training in most cases in inadequate, as there is a false sense of security with turbine aircraft. The near loss of a metro on a training flight earlier near Canberra this year is a testament to that.

Doing assy fully loaded in any aircraft is putting too many of the holes in the swiss cheese in the same line, poor risk management if it is indeed happeneing.

We still have large aircraft flying around today that are pre FAR 25, like CAR 4b certification basis, we don’t say that they should stop flying, even if they are very noisy.

JetA_OK

I know of people are doing it, in the sim not the aircraft.

:ok:

swh

Yeah I know but;
is precisely my point.

I don't recall ever being asked by the regulator of the Governement of the day at the time whether I thought it was a good idea or the passengers being advised of the fundamental differences in design and certification rules. Simply declaring it Transport category without any qualification just doesn't make it so.

then why do we keep upping the ante on motor car compliance rules.

The new CAO 20.7.1b Commuter rules even refers to SFAR 41 which no longer exists in the pantheon of FAA regulation.

I happen to have a copy but I'll bet you wont find one easily on their site and certainly not on the CASA site unless they have have put it up recently.

Neither is there any explanation generally available anywhere in the Australian rules of the basis of their certification decisions save their reference to the original countries certification.

Last time I looked it was 2005 and we were First world country in most respects.

JetA_OK freight maybe, but what are they going to do with them in 2010.
I'm not disputing they were an aircraft for their time, that was then, this is now, it's been time to move on for too long. My advice is, if the market on the US is still hot for em, now is the time to unload and move up whilst you still have your teeth. ;)

The only thing that a passenger needs to know is[list=1][*]This aircraft is safe for the carriage of passenger[*]The aircraft is airworthy[/list=1]

That’s all I get when I hop on a bus, except I don’t have to go through security screening.

If I buy a 20 year old car or house, I don’t get a notification from the government that the car or house has not been assessed to meet current requirements, I believe people are intelligent to know that some difference exists.

What needs to be carefully stated, is that and aircraft that was CFAR41 certified, was done so because the certification process was cheaper. One cannot draw the conclusion that a CFAR 41 aircraft could not meet FAR 25 requirements.

What would need to be done is more testing, and production of more performance charts. That’s not going to happen as it costs money.

Its still about, just not current law. Other historic regulations are also kept.

Seen it in the CASA procedures manuals that is given to CASA and industry delegates for CoA issue.


:ok:

swh you seem particularly determined to miss the point, it's not about about how much you or I know or which iteration of what, it's about the passengers and what the Govet/regulator determine on their behalf

what you decide is acceptable????

close but no cigar.

You should know that FAR23/25 requirements and their ancestors aren't just about TO and EFATO performance otherwise why go to all the trouble and make the distinction.

this isn't about the way we used to do things but the way we do now. Otherwise why keep developing better technology and as suggested in another thread why those airlines who haven't kept up are at threat. Oh I know the Australain outback is different.

that may be so but it is one of the better kept secrets in Australia.
Ask my clients how they feel about it and why they are prepared to spend real money on the bruited alternatives.

Seems like we must defend the status quo at all costs and maintain Oz aviation in it's 60's mentality time warp.

I was in a lunch bar the other day talking to a CASA bloke I haven't seen for many many moons. The subject of a particular relatively new leading edge and very succesful and established type of aircraft came up.
I was treated to chapter and verse as to why he personally felt it was no good and could not possibly ever be a commercial success and if he was making the decisions blah blah blah.
Point is, he is not, it is not for him to make beyond his statutory obligations, the decisions have already been made by far more competent regulators than he, the market nationally and internationally has already made its thumbs up judgement in spades, but we expect it will be a rocky road with the locals. A gentle probe reveals little depth of knowledge beyond the application of local regs.

A wise man once asked me "is the person you are following following you"?

Thanks Jet A...

It seems I'm not the only one who is growing a little tired of Gaunty and swh showing the world just how knowledgeable they both are, and who can quote the most regs in a single post.

Impressive stuff guys nonetheless, but kind of detracts from the original reason behind the thread.

TL

Yeah, lets get back to the topic at hand.

I would like to defend TL in his accusations about V1 cuts at night and cuts before V1 with the expectation to continue the take off from 10 kts below v1.

I can say this is 100% fact as I currently work for said company. Something has to be done before we have another tragedy.

I dont like the idea of Sh*tting in my nest, but I feel this has to be known.

An annomynous report will be forwarded to the authorities.

Transition layer.

You would think that anybody competent enough to command a high performance turbo prop would also have the required CRM skills to be able to handle this situation in a professional manner.

A little chat to the CP himself about what is considered to be safe and in the confines of the operations manual is all that would be required. This is certainly what any competent pilot would do.
There are many good books on CRM and if you hold an Australian ATPL you might just find one in your collection.

If this does not help you then either-

A) You do not have the skills required to be in command (This takes more than just flying skills)

B) You are in need of a new CP and this will sort itself out very soon.

(I strongly believe option A is the case)

And lastly, your original post leaves two distinct possibilities as to the identity of this person. Do you not feel that you owe it to the CP you are not talking about, to make this clear. Again, very bad use of CRM and another reason that option A seems more likely.

OTT,

Seems you are playing the man and not the ball, but that's fine. You obviously didn't read my PM very closely.

By the way, I don't hold an ATPL nor do I command a "high performance turboprop".

I risk having this thread shutdown by doing this, but would it make things a little clearer if I said that the company in question IS NOT the company whose name gets censored on pprune? Surely everyone can figure it out from there.

TL
:confused:

OTT writes;
Wish that was true! Ex metro drivers are a bunch of know it alls. :hmm:

and awyamuppet; Hold on I’ll just take my ear plugs out. No I haven’t had the pleasure of flying those pieces of junk. I flew larger turbo’s before airlines. By the way I never criticised the plane in my previous post you muppet.

As far as I am aware, the bit in AIP that talks about no night assymetrics doesn't have head of power in the regulations - this means that is a bit of sage advice not a requirement.

This doesn't make it sensible or clever - but it does mean that it isn't illegal

Thanks for your valuable input BANK ANGLE 50..........

FYI I have flown four types of RTPS including the METRO..
They are the Dash 8, F27, and Andover... So what i am saying is. what the Metro was built for it has exceeded expectations. It was by far the most reliable TP I have ever driven. Like all planes it has it draw backs. But for speed, ease of operation,they are in a class of its own. How many TPS of that era can hold a S/L cabin to 15 000ft huh? All on 600lbs an hour..... given oil prices.. I bet most airlines wish they still had em at the moment

You sound like turbine. always whining. You seem to have a very narrow minded opinion on something you have never flown. I am sure you are one of these people who has an opinion on everything and has always been there and done that better than everyone else. And to say "all metro pilots are know it alls"... we could use you here in NZ to lead the Moari party or even better you could join the Green party, wear roman sandles with socks and have yours pants so far up your backside they would be around your head...

Happy Days:yuk:

How about the pilot under training actioning the takeoff brief and aborting, if given a failure under V1?

It's obviously the right action to take safety and performance-wise, and while you're taxiing back to the holding point it may help to show the CP there's a financial penalty to the idiocy of pulling an engine at night while training on a freight flight.

I assume the Metro has an NTS as a part of the Garrett fitting. Been years since I flew anything with Garretts but I have seen the NTS fail on a few occaisions. Hope those who insist on V1 cuts aren't hedging their bets that the NTS will work always as advertised cause it certainly doesn't.

NIght Watch. If what you say is true, then one could argue that instructors on this type of aircraft are displaying reckless airmanship by simulating an engine failure in the real aircraft anywhere near the runway. From reading your opinion of the Metro's single engine handling characteristics near lift-off (which sound positively frightening), it would appear that just one "mistake" by the pilot under test would be dangerous. If that is so, what the hell is any Metro instructor doing risking lives when the safer option is to conduct the dangerous stuff on this one bitch of an aircraft in the Ansett Simulator Centre which has a very good Metro simulator?

So who was in the other seat?
Someone who needs to grow some hairy balls perhaps? Doesn't it take two crew to continue an OEI takeoff beginning below V1? One to fly it, and one to sit there allowing it?

"ABORT ABORT" or said company's preferred reject takeoff callout springs to mind eh.... And yet below V1 the other guy still wanted to go flying, as evidenced by his complete lack of challenge.

Call assertively for a rejected takeoff, if it isn't actioned, slap the levers back to flight idle yourself fer fuxache!! Then stamp on the brakes so hard your butt leaves the chair. Assuming you got antiskid :ok: Take the whole screaming :mad: festival clear of the runway where it can be debated in safety. Your actions should be well protected by your SOPs and even crew incapacitation guidelines . All of which can be discussed in leisure at Vchocked while waiting for the brakes (and the CP..) to cool down.

It sounds to me like a few more questions need to be asked of the other willing participant(s) in this madness, if it is anything more than vicious rumours. Someone had to sit there with the assertiveness skills of a cabbage and continue a one engine takeoff.

DISCLAIMER: like all of these potentially cow dung conversations I wasnt there, dont know the characters, SOPs, aircraft type or operator involved, or the circumstances. The above is my opinion based on multiple assumptions, so feel free to correct me as required!

Night Watch... :rolleyes:

Granted I have forgotten the actual events of the Tamair accident, thank you for correcting me, it was a simulated failure once airborne, although I did say the only safe way was +ve rate of climb before simulating anything, including gear up, they left the gear down, proved a fatal mistake.

If you read what I said, I made no
distinction between day or night.

Surely you do understand what I was saying there and maybe you are playing devils advocate? An other regulator deems this procedure unsafe, thats the point.

I do not think you are listening! It is
dangerous in any aircraft.

That is a very stupid statement, how can anything be "valuable" that is so dangerous... weird logic. Also, your comments show that you do not really understand Vmca, so I think you are not who you say you are, but I just wanted to correct a few points in case anyone reading this thought what you were saying was correct, obviously it is far from correct or accurate. :rolleyes:

Thanks to the other posters, gaunty etc, for keeping this lunatic down in my absense... :p

Meeb

Remember the J31 that flipped on it's back and hit the runway at Prestwick after a V1 cut during training? Everybody on the aircraft died (two students and a TRI).

I was at Prestwick that day, doing a J31 conversion for Loganair. When we got to the aircraft training, we were told "relax guys, no V1 cuts below 500 feet now..." - a direct result of that accident.

None of that stuff should be done on the aircraft, it is way too dangerous.

Hi MOR, yes I remember that accident only too well. I knew the Captain, as I am sure you did as he was ex Loganair... very very sad.

It is also sad that Australia is still behind on safety issues, I just find it incredible that some people support such dangerous activity. :rolleyes: