Stratford Metro Crash Report
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Stratford Metro Crash Report
I've done a quick search, and couldnt find anything posted on this.
The Report in PDF Format
Having read the report..and had a bit of time to digest it, it shows some frightening oversights, perhaps even negligence. Is this attitude currently prevelant in NZ? If so have we learnt nothing???
Im not trying to finger point, but Im still a bit flabbergasted
P.S. I knew the F/O quite well
Anyones thoughts?
The Report in PDF Format
Having read the report..and had a bit of time to digest it, it shows some frightening oversights, perhaps even negligence. Is this attitude currently prevelant in NZ? If so have we learnt nothing???
Im not trying to finger point, but Im still a bit flabbergasted
P.S. I knew the F/O quite well
Anyones thoughts?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H1.....well mate,that does make for some interesting reading and a little confusing also.....have over 6,500hrs in the Metro,(was offered a postion with Airwork to fly there M3,S).....
Whats confusing is the use of a"sideslip"to transfer fuel(and Ive seen blokes do it)with the AP off,but the tolerances for the AP to kickoff in a sideslip were very slight.I have flown both and with out AP,S and have never had a situation where a sideslip was required to transfer fuel....The worst Ive ever had was a "severe turbulence,loss of control ....and the stick-shaker aid in the recovery....
Seems like a vvery short report for such a major accident(maybe I didnt get it all)...PB......(had me shampoo taken this morning
)
Whats confusing is the use of a"sideslip"to transfer fuel(and Ive seen blokes do it)with the AP off,but the tolerances for the AP to kickoff in a sideslip were very slight.I have flown both and with out AP,S and have never had a situation where a sideslip was required to transfer fuel....The worst Ive ever had was a "severe turbulence,loss of control ....and the stick-shaker aid in the recovery....
Seems like a vvery short report for such a major accident(maybe I didnt get it all)...PB......(had me shampoo taken this morning
)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What The.....????
I know zip all about the Metro, but I thought fuel pumps and valves were used for transferring fuel around, not punnishing the little black ball out the end of its tube!
Surely this is not the case!
J
Surely this is not the case!
J
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J430,
Unfortunatley it is very much the case. In a perfect world, in a metro that fly's true and in balance (there are a few around) the opening of the crossflow would on it's own, in balanced and unaccelerated flight, rectify a fuel imbalance situation. However, and I'm sure many metro drivers will agree, the most efficient method of balancing the fuel load is to introduce some slip and expedite the transfer. On it's own and without auto-pilot not an eventful scenario. With the use of A/P.....dunno....never done it.
We used to operate a very low time M23 that would in fact transfer the fuel from the low side to the high side if no slip was introduced. And yes, engineering confirmed on several occasions that the aircraft controls were rigged correctly and that it did fly in a balanced condition if trimmed correctly. We never worked out why and to this day I assume it still behaves in this manner. There were others that by simply opening the crossflow valve with no sideslip the imbalance would be rectified very quickly. I can offer no reasons for these anomolies but will say this. I have several thousands of hours on type and although never once bitten by the beast, always operated within the limitations and treated it with great respect. Indeed I loved flying the metro. Albeit a relatively simple turbo-prop to operate I would never throw caution to the wind whilst flying her. I am sure the lads that payed the ultimate price did not throw caution to the wind either. The old girl just bit very hard on that fateful night. A very sad event.
Fly Safe
Onya
Unfortunatley it is very much the case. In a perfect world, in a metro that fly's true and in balance (there are a few around) the opening of the crossflow would on it's own, in balanced and unaccelerated flight, rectify a fuel imbalance situation. However, and I'm sure many metro drivers will agree, the most efficient method of balancing the fuel load is to introduce some slip and expedite the transfer. On it's own and without auto-pilot not an eventful scenario. With the use of A/P.....dunno....never done it.
We used to operate a very low time M23 that would in fact transfer the fuel from the low side to the high side if no slip was introduced. And yes, engineering confirmed on several occasions that the aircraft controls were rigged correctly and that it did fly in a balanced condition if trimmed correctly. We never worked out why and to this day I assume it still behaves in this manner. There were others that by simply opening the crossflow valve with no sideslip the imbalance would be rectified very quickly. I can offer no reasons for these anomolies but will say this. I have several thousands of hours on type and although never once bitten by the beast, always operated within the limitations and treated it with great respect. Indeed I loved flying the metro. Albeit a relatively simple turbo-prop to operate I would never throw caution to the wind whilst flying her. I am sure the lads that payed the ultimate price did not throw caution to the wind either. The old girl just bit very hard on that fateful night. A very sad event.
Fly Safe
Onya
Last edited by onya; 11th Aug 2006 at 08:12.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Neiu Zeeeeland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J430.
The metro utilises a gravity feed crossflow system, primarily for use during single-engine operations. There is no specificed procedure for balancing the fuel inflight in the flight manual and the practice of "sideslipping" was common in Eagle, Air Nelson and Airwork (even if management are not prepared to admit it) albeit somewhat unorthodox. It is not fitted with a crossfeed system as is known in more modren aircraft.
A problem that would occur is that the fuel caps, and the seals around the base of the cap, would become loose with age and wear - the result being to create a slight venturi effect when inflight. If this venturi effect were to occur on the "high side" (i.e the tank with the higher imbalance) then there was the possibility of the fuel feeding into the wrong tank creating an even greater imbalance.
This was explained by an engineer when we defected an aircraft during a similar procedure as we were were unable to "crossfeed" correctly with anything less than an initial 20 degree angle of bank on the aircraft.
The metro utilises a gravity feed crossflow system, primarily for use during single-engine operations. There is no specificed procedure for balancing the fuel inflight in the flight manual and the practice of "sideslipping" was common in Eagle, Air Nelson and Airwork (even if management are not prepared to admit it) albeit somewhat unorthodox. It is not fitted with a crossfeed system as is known in more modren aircraft.
A problem that would occur is that the fuel caps, and the seals around the base of the cap, would become loose with age and wear - the result being to create a slight venturi effect when inflight. If this venturi effect were to occur on the "high side" (i.e the tank with the higher imbalance) then there was the possibility of the fuel feeding into the wrong tank creating an even greater imbalance.
This was explained by an engineer when we defected an aircraft during a similar procedure as we were were unable to "crossfeed" correctly with anything less than an initial 20 degree angle of bank on the aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have flown a metro where the fuel would often flow from the low tank, apparently it had somthing to do with the flapper valves coupled with a bit of hockery pickery pressure imbalance between tanks.
I think on this night these lads just had too many things conspiring against them; the difference between the given result and one of "scratching it up too experiance" was probably about 1 second.
It certainly makes one reasses your own mortality
I think on this night these lads just had too many things conspiring against them; the difference between the given result and one of "scratching it up too experiance" was probably about 1 second.
It certainly makes one reasses your own mortality
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The center of the earths surface
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Front page Taranaki Daily News
Chaps The above edition of the 10th: was not very nice reading and utilizing a lot journalistic licence?
I have the actual TAIC report in front of me.
So I wonder if I can ask a couple of questions of those familure with the type.
Am I correct in in assuming that the "normal" cruise altitude for this type in NZ is circa FL 180?
The reason I ask is that section 1.6.29 of the report states that a test pilot reported a pre- stall buffett at FL 250 when the A/C was turned using the A/P.and that the "I.A.S" at FL 250 at full power was 120kts.
Now my Q: could someone tell me what would you bee expecting to see on the A.S.I. @ FL 220, and minus circa 25 deg's C, what would be the T.A.S, and what would be the cruise configuration Stall speed, @ say 65-70% power?
Also if the type has a problem with fuel balancing, due flapper valves? ( I want to be carful here) and it is lets say operational norms to lift a wing, then one could say a precident has been set to get around a maintainance issue?.
Also if normally operating at around FL 180, and the same procedure was done , what would be the margins at FL 180 compared with the above?.
One could also ask if C & Tng made the pilots aware of the margins when operating at higher levels?
Chr's
HSnort.
I have the actual TAIC report in front of me.
So I wonder if I can ask a couple of questions of those familure with the type.
Am I correct in in assuming that the "normal" cruise altitude for this type in NZ is circa FL 180?
The reason I ask is that section 1.6.29 of the report states that a test pilot reported a pre- stall buffett at FL 250 when the A/C was turned using the A/P.and that the "I.A.S" at FL 250 at full power was 120kts.
Now my Q: could someone tell me what would you bee expecting to see on the A.S.I. @ FL 220, and minus circa 25 deg's C, what would be the T.A.S, and what would be the cruise configuration Stall speed, @ say 65-70% power?
Also if the type has a problem with fuel balancing, due flapper valves? ( I want to be carful here) and it is lets say operational norms to lift a wing, then one could say a precident has been set to get around a maintainance issue?.
Also if normally operating at around FL 180, and the same procedure was done , what would be the margins at FL 180 compared with the above?.
One could also ask if C & Tng made the pilots aware of the margins when operating at higher levels?
Chr's
HSnort.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Ok there has been a lot of very usefull tech info bandied about, I wonder though...have we missed the point?
According to the report, the Captain was quite happy to operate the aircraft "outside" the autopilot envelope, and there was no company SOP relating to fuel balancing..even though this is a well known condition on the Metro series of a/c.
Is it just me..or isnt this a bit frightening? A reasonably experienced Training Captain was left to his own devices, with a new part-time F/O, performing essentially unapproved procedures that led to the upset and inflight breakup.
What does this say about aviation safety oversight in NZ? What does it say about the company culture? What does it say about the training and CRM of both the Captain and the F/O and their attitudes to SOP's?
Im still flabbergasted
According to the report, the Captain was quite happy to operate the aircraft "outside" the autopilot envelope, and there was no company SOP relating to fuel balancing..even though this is a well known condition on the Metro series of a/c.
Is it just me..or isnt this a bit frightening? A reasonably experienced Training Captain was left to his own devices, with a new part-time F/O, performing essentially unapproved procedures that led to the upset and inflight breakup.
What does this say about aviation safety oversight in NZ? What does it say about the company culture? What does it say about the training and CRM of both the Captain and the F/O and their attitudes to SOP's?
Im still flabbergasted
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-duck....seems hard to believe mate,that there wasnt "a procedure" for fuel transfer.....Sweringer,s metro flight manual(which I have)....has a specific procedure for this very problem(standard practise,I mean,t)......the company for which I flew for ...metro 2,s and 3s specifcally prohibited sideslips during fuel transfer.....and the procedure,being very simple worked just fine....like H1 just absolutley amazed that it was "common practice".......
If it was common practice,was it condoned by the company and check pilots?
If it was common practice,was it condoned by the company and check pilots?
Last edited by pakeha-boy; 13th Aug 2006 at 21:30.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 10c worth
In my humble experience flying Metro 11 & 111s.
Fuel balancing is a procedure best left to the refueller, or if the fuel order has been stuffed up, done while taxiing. A swift turn on the ground with the high tank on the inside of the turn and the fuel Xflow valve open will shift a few hundred pounds quite quickly (it is a 2" pipe).
If you have read the manual, take off or landing is prohibited with an imbalance of > 500lbs (varying between S/N & weight). This may have prompted the NZ boyz to conduct the procedure in th first place. Though conducting a maneuvre such as a side slip with crossed controls was perhaps not wisest of decisions at 25000'. The Metros I flew didnt have a flight manual procedure for fuel balancing or auto pilot limitations, I guess as most of the auto pilots in Metros are retrofits.
I heard a story of a Merlin being flown with the cross flow open and the auto pilot on. Apparently, it ended up losing six thousand feet in a barrel roll before regaining control
One Metro I flew always transfered fuel to the left regardless of the fuel levels. Fuel could only be transfered the other way with the TB a whole ball to the right! No ammount of time in the workshop with the engineers could fix the problem. The condition was probably due to unbalanced efficiency of the fuel tank vents.
I dare say the best advice if you intend to fly a Metro or currently fly one is to:
1.Do the fuel balancing on the ground
2.Practice transfering fuel on a base check with your C&T capt or endorser (without the auto pilot engaged)
Blue skies
Jarule
In my humble experience flying Metro 11 & 111s.
Fuel balancing is a procedure best left to the refueller, or if the fuel order has been stuffed up, done while taxiing. A swift turn on the ground with the high tank on the inside of the turn and the fuel Xflow valve open will shift a few hundred pounds quite quickly (it is a 2" pipe).
If you have read the manual, take off or landing is prohibited with an imbalance of > 500lbs (varying between S/N & weight). This may have prompted the NZ boyz to conduct the procedure in th first place. Though conducting a maneuvre such as a side slip with crossed controls was perhaps not wisest of decisions at 25000'. The Metros I flew didnt have a flight manual procedure for fuel balancing or auto pilot limitations, I guess as most of the auto pilots in Metros are retrofits.
I heard a story of a Merlin being flown with the cross flow open and the auto pilot on. Apparently, it ended up losing six thousand feet in a barrel roll before regaining control
One Metro I flew always transfered fuel to the left regardless of the fuel levels. Fuel could only be transfered the other way with the TB a whole ball to the right! No ammount of time in the workshop with the engineers could fix the problem. The condition was probably due to unbalanced efficiency of the fuel tank vents.
I dare say the best advice if you intend to fly a Metro or currently fly one is to:
1.Do the fuel balancing on the ground
2.Practice transfering fuel on a base check with your C&T capt or endorser (without the auto pilot engaged)
Blue skies
Jarule
