PPRuNe Forums - I never knew God flew Metros

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)

- - I never knew God flew Metros (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/187923-i-never-knew-god-flew-metros.html)

I never knew God flew Metros

It seems a certain Chief Pilot of a large freight company thinks he is invincible.

Why would anyone think this? Maybe because of the following...

* V1 cuts at night in a metro, with a full load of freight

* Single engine go rounds at night, once again with a full load

* Continuing with takeoffs after a simulated engine failure at 90kts (V1 up around 105kts)

Didn't anyone learn after Tamair?

By the way, this is more than just rumour, this is substantiated and many people are genuinely concerned that this sort of behaviour is going to end in tragedy.

:ugh:
TL

OK TL.

If you have proof of this and can substantiate your claims then it is clear this individual is a danger to not only himself but others.

Report this guy by CAIR or any other recognised system whereby these claims can be investigated and substantiated so that the authorities can do their job properly.

TL

You obviously haven't learnt. Put it in writing ( not here ).

The previous post told you how.

Come back and tell us that the report has been submitted.

Maybe then we can follow its progress.

You should know that if it is not documented then its only rumour.
But then this is a rumour / wind up site.

The CAIR system was discontinued a couple of years back.
You'll have to go to CASA & the ATSB direct!

Who is to say that a safety report hasn't been submitted?

What's the matter then with highlighting these practices to the wider aviation community so that other's don't make the same mistake?

TL

P.S. Capt Fathom I believe the CAIR system is in the process of being re-instated, and will be known as REPCON

Tamair ...

Need I say more?

If you are quite certain of your facts, you have a moral duty to contact CASA asap. If it's too close to home then ring ATSB confidential reporting line. A fatal accident near Sydney a few years back may have been prevented if that particular pilot had been reported for cowboy flying by those that had experienced him in action under remarkably similar circumstances to that which you described.

Metro Pilots...
Current or Ex; need i say more?:hmm:

well bank angle 50...... obviously a machine a wee bit beyond your talents I would say. As an ex metro driver... they are an excellent steppping platform into the jets. Put it this way... most metro drivers that I have had something to do with have no trouble converting onto jets than others who have flown other RTP's.....

Have you ever flown a Metro???, And these days most metro drivers fly at all hours of the night when most are tucked up in bed with there hot water bottles and dummy in their mouth..

So back off on the Metro drivers.... And whoever the idiot is doing v1 cuts for real at night at MAUW will sadly one day kill the guy in the right seat next to him. If this is true, some one please pot this idiot.:yuk: :}

Quote:

Chief Pilot of a large freight company

Well there are really only two large operators that operate the Metro in the freight configuration. I must say that as I have flown for one of them, and have many friends who have flown for the other, I would really like to know where and by who

Quote:

this is substantiated

.

Let me tell you that these two companies Do Not do "V1 cuts at night". I have experienced many simulated engine failures between V1 and VR while under going base training every 6 months. This is done during the day and with no freight! Let me also tell you that while I did not always see eye to eye with my old chief pilot, he was never compromised safety in any way. In fact just the opposite...... he demanded good training and safe line flying.

Quote:

* Continuing with takeoffs after a simulated engine failure at 90kts (V1 up around 105kts)

Well if you flew Metro's you would realise that this statement is just plain stupid...... Not only wouldn't happen, it couldn't happen!

The more i type the more I realise that Transition Layer is either winding everyone up, or he is just a jaded turkey with nothing better to do.

I stand corrected if you can provide proof! Though i doubt you will.

What speed is Vmcg in a Metro?

Night Watch,

I don't work for the company in question, and never have. By starting this topic I risked my "pprune credibility" and would not have done it unless I thought the person who told me was telling the truth. He wasn't keen to "sh1t in his own nest" so to speak, so asked me to draw people's attention to it. I see nothing wrong with that. As I said he and others are genuinely concerned they are going to lose a mate one day real soon.

Quote:

Well if you flew Metro's

Sorry, never flown the type. Maybe I shouldn't be posting about a type I've never set foot in, but then again this sort of stuff like V1 cuts at night isn't type specific.

Quote:

The more i type the more I realise that Transition Layer is either winding everyone up, or he is just a jaded turkey with nothing better to do.

Neither of the above. I explained at the beginning of this post why I posted. Plenty of people who read PPrune know who I am and are probably thinking "Why the hell is he writing about this stuff" but I felt obliged to do so.

TL

P.S. How the hell can anyone prove it unless they take a video camera with them somewhere?

Transition Layer

Quote:

How the hell can anyone prove it unless they take a video camera with them somewhere?

Point taken.... I guess it would be hard to prove, although (as mentioned by others) a report to CASA would put the matter to rest. Let them investigate the matter, as both of the large Metro opperators have a good working relationship with CASA.

P.S Sorry about the Turkey comment ;)

Quote:

I have experienced many simulated engine failures between V1 and VR while under going base training every 6 months. This is done during the day and with no freight!

Are you for real? Was it not deemed after the Tamair incident that no "V1 cuts" would be performed on an actual aircraft? If you are still doing this in Australia, on any weight aircraft, it is just plain downright dangerous, no two ways about it, it is insane... :mad:

It is not permitted under JAR ops, I have done many checks on actual aircraft, heavier types than a metro granted, but simulated engine failures always take place after rotation with +ve climb rate on two engines first.

I still cant beieve I am reading this after everything that has happened in the past... :uhoh:

Meeb have you even read the report..... here is a link. ATSB report

Maybe you should have a read of it before commenting! There is a VERY big difference between doing a simulated engine failure (zero thrust 10-12% torque) during the day and at night, one is legal and the other is not!

I have also flown heaver types then the Metro in Australia and have had no problems with this procedure in those as well. Granted I have not flown in Australia for quite some years, so things may have changed, however I'm positive JAR ops mean jack **** there.

Who are you to deem this proceeder "dangerous" when you haven't flown the type...... just plane ignorant! The training of engine failures close to the ground in a controlled manner in the Metro is extremely valuable. This is one bitch of an Aircraft that will not tolerate inaccurate flying when it hits the fan. You will run out of controls long before the published Vmca.

FACT 1
The company has definitely got aircraft that are getting older and older and breaking down more regularly too.... Is there less maintenance budget????? or are the Engineers getting slacker???

FACT 2
An new recruit fails almost every base check...
1 being 1st FO check to line,
2nd and 3rd being CAPT check to line...(passed 3rd time)
4th Training CAPT....but passed anyway as they ran out of time..

Oh and the person was an FO for 3 months, then a line Captain for 3 months till becoming Training CAPT......

Would YOU want to be trained by this person????????

I am not having a dig at this person as its the companies fault for adapting this NEW safety culture!!....Or is this what GA has to do these days to survive??????????

Night Watch

Quote:

Who are you to deem this proceeder "dangerous" when you haven't flown the type...... just plane ignorant!

most professional pilots that I know would in ANY type.

V1 cuts belong to Transport Category aircraft there is no such requirement Normal or Commuter types;

Quote:

PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart B—Flight
Performance

§ 23.53 Takeoff performance.
(a) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes, the takeoff distance must be determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, using speeds determined in accordance with §23.51 (a) and (b).

(b) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes, the distance required to takeoff and climb to a height of 50 feet above the takeoff surface must be determined for each weight, altitude, and temperature within the operational limits established for takeoff with—

(1) Takeoff power on each engine;

(2) Wing flaps in the takeoff position(s); and

(3) Landing gear extended.

(c) For commuter category airplanes, takeoff performance, as required by §§23.55 through 23.59, must be determined with the operating engine(s) within approved operating limitations.

[Doc. No. 27807, 61 FR 5185, Feb. 9, 1996]

§ 23.66 Takeoff climb: One-engine inoperative.
For normal, utility, and acrobatic category reciprocating engine-powered airplanes of more than 6,000 pounds maximum weight, and turbine engine-powered airplanes in the normal, utility, and acrobatic category, the steady gradient of climb or descent must be determined at each weight, altitude, and ambient temperature within the operational limits established by the applicant with—

(a) The critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the position it rapidly and automatically assumes;

(b) The remaining engine(s) at takeoff power;

(c) The landing gear extended, except that if the landing gear can be retracted in not more than seven seconds, the test may be conducted with the gear retracted;

(d) The wing flaps in the takeoff position(s):

(e) The wings level; and

(f) A climb speed equal to that achieved at 50 feet in the demonstration of §23.53.

[Doc. No. 27807, 61 FR 5186, Feb. 9, 1996]

If the silly dumb bugger wants to play airlines then I'll lend him my FlightSim 2005 and he can go polish his ego there and play with crashing his computer.

Quote:

You will run out of controls long before the published Vmca.

Eeeerm not quite sure where you're coming from there old chap?:confused: Mutually exclusive is a term we learnt at school.:rolleyes:

So if you are saying this is one serioulsy dangerous dude of an aircraft which it would be under those circs, then how did it get a certified Vmca with those characteristics.

Most properly designed aircraft have a Vs above Vmca. If it;s not so then it's because the design has been stretched beyond reason, which in this case IMHO it has.

TL

if correct how, how apt is the thread title.

In a turbo prop, a simulated failure before wheels in the well is just crazy.

And

Not sure of the company you speak but I am told (first hand ) of a Metro frieght company, - East Coast- , that the Chief Pilot/Manager won't give a tax recept for the several thousand dollars he charges for the endorsement.

Apparently this is done so Bloggs doesn't have to pay GST.

Hope the TAX OFFICE is reading.

And the endorsement is in the most part is conducted in actual charter (read already paid) time and within its contract constraint. Wow, how good is that type of endorsement.

Night is the issue here!

As found in CAO 40.1.0 APP iii
(which covers Metro 3)

Syllabus: a.b.c. not important to argument
d. Asymmetric flight:The attainment of optimal performance following a simulated engine failure on take-off (at least twice). The speed at which the failure is simulated must be as follows:
(i) in the case of an aeroplane for which the take-off performance is predicted on the establishment of a v1 __ failure of the engine must be simulated at a speed greater than v1;
(ii) not important(unless a Metroii)

e. Night Flying 4 ccts and 1 go around.

*please note that it is an abrieviated quote*

The above tells me that a simulated engine failure 1 knot above v1 is okay, during the day... Definately not at night...

AND as (in the metro v1 = vr) v1 + 1 knot engine cuts are not an issue. (I am able to be educated too)

The original post said EFATO at 90 kias when v1 was around 105 knots... That goes against what is above!!! :mad:

That says danger to me...

A little off topic, but why was CAIR (anonymous dodgy air operating) ever dis-banded?

I know that there must have been some sour grape reports submitted but I am sure that many ‘tips’ for next OPS inspection where passed on here to be looked at.

Any tips to my first Q?

CF
:ok: :ok: :ok: