Has the Metro had its Day in Oz?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has the Metro had its Day in Oz?
In light of devasting recent events, as well as others thoughout it's relative short history in Oz, has the Metro outlast it's use or purpose? I decided to put something here as I was pretty upset at the cruel & insensitive issues raised in the thread about the recent accident. I think here is the place. If not, then please modertators remove it as I desperately wish not to offend. I too had / have close links to Airtex.
I did my stint on the machine finishing with about 3500 hrs on type (Metro II's, III's and 23's). Freight and RPT. I learnt a lot and scared myself many times in those first 500 or so hrs doing the single pilot stuff. But hey, you can do that in any aircraft. The Metro is just "different" I suppose.
With this "pilot shortage" I know of training Capts with perhaps 100 hrs TT as PIC instructing others. Some of the guys who taught me were and are in my biassed opinion some of the best Metro guys going. I was lucky.
I know from experience (RAMP checks!) that CASA hate them. That also has a lot to do with some operators, I assume. And I've experience a few of them as well.... "Go on, you can take that extra 250 kgs"...."You don't need 60 mins, you always get in"...."Shut up and fly it. You can ground it when you get home", just to quote a few.... Having said that I've also had the priviledge to fly the Metro for some damn decent owners, CP's and engineers.
Passengers hate them already. But a 1900 costs so much more to run, apparently. (Anyone with facts & figures?)
Yes you can fly a Metro (> 5700kgs) with a CPL. There is an exemption.
Yes you can fly the Metro single pilot WITH a "serviceable" autopilot (refer to above point regarding some operators though who would pressure you otherwise.)
For passenger ops (charter & RPT) 2 x pilots are needed as per the regs and no autopilot is needed.
No flight attendant required due 19 seats max.
So, what now for Metro?
I did my stint on the machine finishing with about 3500 hrs on type (Metro II's, III's and 23's). Freight and RPT. I learnt a lot and scared myself many times in those first 500 or so hrs doing the single pilot stuff. But hey, you can do that in any aircraft. The Metro is just "different" I suppose.
With this "pilot shortage" I know of training Capts with perhaps 100 hrs TT as PIC instructing others. Some of the guys who taught me were and are in my biassed opinion some of the best Metro guys going. I was lucky.
I know from experience (RAMP checks!) that CASA hate them. That also has a lot to do with some operators, I assume. And I've experience a few of them as well.... "Go on, you can take that extra 250 kgs"...."You don't need 60 mins, you always get in"...."Shut up and fly it. You can ground it when you get home", just to quote a few.... Having said that I've also had the priviledge to fly the Metro for some damn decent owners, CP's and engineers.
Passengers hate them already. But a 1900 costs so much more to run, apparently. (Anyone with facts & figures?)
Yes you can fly a Metro (> 5700kgs) with a CPL. There is an exemption.
Yes you can fly the Metro single pilot WITH a "serviceable" autopilot (refer to above point regarding some operators though who would pressure you otherwise.)
For passenger ops (charter & RPT) 2 x pilots are needed as per the regs and no autopilot is needed.
No flight attendant required due 19 seats max.
So, what now for Metro?
In light of devasting recent events, as well as others thoughout it's relative short history in Oz
1) We don't know what happened to the aircraft that crashed this week.
2) You can hardly blame Lochart R on the aircraft.
3) Tamworth prang? Night assymetric training accident?
4) Emerald prang - can't remember the cause. Pilot error? Perhaps contributed to by "different" systems?
Other Metro prangs?
Dr
TopTup:
Mate, what a well said and thought out post.
I did 2000 hours on the beasts, and whilst I enjoyed my time, they certainly had their moments. I don't know if you recall some years ago that they were subject to a speed restriction due to a possible fault in the rear stabiliser. I'm not sure now whether it applied to all metro's or just the late model 23's that we flew.
Apparently the fault could cause the all moving stabiliser to go fully down under airloads! This would impart a severe upwards trim that elevator control alone may not be able to overcome. One such incident occured in China and resulted in the loss of the aircraft. Another happened to a North American operator "Bearskin Airlines" (gotta love the name) and the aircraft was recovered, but only with great skill and difficulty on the part of the crew.
CASA's fix to the problem was to limit the KIAS to no more than VMM! This speed was approximately 180 KIAS reducing to around 160 KIAS at lower weights! The theory being of course that if a severe pitch up occured, then the aircraft would stall before something broke. I wrote a letter to our fleet manager expressing my concern over the situation. I pointed out that if the fault occured on final approach (as in the case of the Bearskin incident), and the crew were not quick or skilled enough, then the wings would probably not come off as a result of a stall. They would most definately come off however after hitting the ground at the completion of the resultant loss of control. Nothing was done of course, and we continued to fly them in this manner for more than a year! If it was up to me I would have grounded the bloody things there and then.
Now I'm not saying that this latest tragedy had anything to do with the above scenerio, but there was also the fatal accident in NZ a few years ago. Again, Have the authorities done anything to address that problem.
IMHO, I reckon they have just about passed their use by date.
Mate, what a well said and thought out post.
I did 2000 hours on the beasts, and whilst I enjoyed my time, they certainly had their moments. I don't know if you recall some years ago that they were subject to a speed restriction due to a possible fault in the rear stabiliser. I'm not sure now whether it applied to all metro's or just the late model 23's that we flew.
Apparently the fault could cause the all moving stabiliser to go fully down under airloads! This would impart a severe upwards trim that elevator control alone may not be able to overcome. One such incident occured in China and resulted in the loss of the aircraft. Another happened to a North American operator "Bearskin Airlines" (gotta love the name) and the aircraft was recovered, but only with great skill and difficulty on the part of the crew.
CASA's fix to the problem was to limit the KIAS to no more than VMM! This speed was approximately 180 KIAS reducing to around 160 KIAS at lower weights! The theory being of course that if a severe pitch up occured, then the aircraft would stall before something broke. I wrote a letter to our fleet manager expressing my concern over the situation. I pointed out that if the fault occured on final approach (as in the case of the Bearskin incident), and the crew were not quick or skilled enough, then the wings would probably not come off as a result of a stall. They would most definately come off however after hitting the ground at the completion of the resultant loss of control. Nothing was done of course, and we continued to fly them in this manner for more than a year! If it was up to me I would have grounded the bloody things there and then.
Now I'm not saying that this latest tragedy had anything to do with the above scenerio, but there was also the fatal accident in NZ a few years ago. Again, Have the authorities done anything to address that problem.
IMHO, I reckon they have just about passed their use by date.
There is nothing wrong with the Metro ( other than it is a xxxxbox) - what is wrong is the segment of the industry in which it operates.
Crew experience levels
Lack of proper endorsment and recurrent training- TW, LHR
Crews move on at first progression opportunity
How many of the operators regularly utilise the sim in ML?
Poor maintenace control and experience levels on type
extreme commercial pressures to go outside the square etc etc etc
Note that this is NOT a comment on the unfortunate Sydney events.
Crew experience levels
Lack of proper endorsment and recurrent training- TW, LHR
Crews move on at first progression opportunity
How many of the operators regularly utilise the sim in ML?
Poor maintenace control and experience levels on type
extreme commercial pressures to go outside the square etc etc etc
Note that this is NOT a comment on the unfortunate Sydney events.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion!
The Department should never have allowed and should not continue to allow the Metro to be operated single pilot.
It is a mockery of all that is understood regarding checklists, action response etc. Of coarse it can be done but that doesn't make it right.
Much safer also to have new pilots spend some time in the right seat. Future Captains.
About the only thing we know about the Sydney accident so far is that the pilot had some sort of a situation that he was trying to cope with by himself.
The Department should never have allowed and should not continue to allow the Metro to be operated single pilot.
It is a mockery of all that is understood regarding checklists, action response etc. Of coarse it can be done but that doesn't make it right.
Much safer also to have new pilots spend some time in the right seat. Future Captains.
About the only thing we know about the Sydney accident so far is that the pilot had some sort of a situation that he was trying to cope with by himself.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also. A forgotten fact is that the reason the above 5700kg Metros's can be flown with a CPL came about because of a QLD operators cozy relationship at the time, with the local office.
Nothing to do with a shortage of qualified pilots. No, all about not paying the Award component for the senior licence.
Nothing to do with a shortage of qualified pilots. No, all about not paying the Award component for the senior licence.
There is nothing wrong with the Metro ( other than it is a xxxxbox) - what is wrong is the segment of the industry in which it operates.
Crew experience levels
Lack of proper endorsment and recurrent training- TW, LHR
Crews move on at first progression opportunity
How many of the operators regularly utilise the sim in ML?
Poor maintenace control and experience levels on type
extreme commercial pressures to go outside the square etc etc etc
Note that this is NOT a comment on the unfortunate Sydney events.
Crew experience levels
Lack of proper endorsment and recurrent training- TW, LHR
Crews move on at first progression opportunity
How many of the operators regularly utilise the sim in ML?
Poor maintenace control and experience levels on type
extreme commercial pressures to go outside the square etc etc etc
Note that this is NOT a comment on the unfortunate Sydney events.
The Department should never have allowed and should not continue to allow the Metro to be operated single pilot.
(and for those that know me, I'm doing it again from next month onwards. Quit the overseas job and the one in Sydney, and I'm back with Pel Air on the M3's ....)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing wrong with the machine, it has served many a pilot well for a long time. We don't know what happened in the latest accident and we would be foolish to has it a guess that the aircraft was responsible or any other circumstance. There is an industry wide problem that is arising no matter what type of aircraft is being flown and that is the dilution of training. When you have training captains that have little experience on the machine they are passing down their inexperience to the people they train who possibly will be become the next training captain. Without the aid of simulators on certain aircraft it is impossible to train properly for every scenario and that is where the experienced trainers come into their own as they have seen a lot of the scenarios in real life. Don't get me wrong their are a lot of experienced trainers out there and they do a great job and my hat goes off to them, however they will move on because of their experience leaving a big void in this industry.
Folks,
Nothing wrong with the aeroplane, just failed to maintain a positive ROC after takeoff at night. Pilot was an old mate of mine, with a quite incredible record of walking away from write-offs.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
What constitutes a "long" history, 20+ years, 30+ years, the Emerald prang was Bush Pilots Airways, that is a lot of years ago.
4) Emerald prang - can't remember the cause.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
thoughout it's relative short history in Oz
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Short time" was referring to since its initial introduction by a well known operator that by a previous name recently went bust.
In my initial post I deliberately did not mention accidents or incidents and their attributable blame. Pilot error coupled poorly maintained aircraft, and then add demanding and threatening pressures from your boss, plus poor training and this will lead to those Swiss cheese slices lining up pretty damn quick. The Metro is a very unforgiving aircraft, in my opinion. Some aircraft perform better than others assymetrically, as well as in other configs.....
The Metro served me well for years and after getting to grips with I actually also enjoyed flying it. But that is not what my point is for this thread.
It's single engine performance in a go-around is at best marginal. The amount of times I or the examiner took back the simulated failed engine in a base check are more than a few. Nearly torque rolled a few times as well. (Now lets not get into pilot technique, please.......Save it for another thread.) Some may say part of the job and a competent pilot should know the signs and recover. Again, I'm lucky to be taught from, in my opinion, some of the best. In today's environment I do not see that happening as much.
I'm a better pilot for flying it but would not want to go back to it. (I'm happy in an air conditioned cockpit and a button that makes coffee magically appear!)
Perception is reality for the traveling public and those who hire it / lease it for freight, etc. That is another main point of my thread. The amount of Metros I've seen with a shiney new paint job but bucket or rust and cr@p beneath the cowls astounds me. The pax / paying customer only sees the paint job.
(For the record I agree with 18 Wheeler and ForkTailedDrKiller, but those matters are not what I am getting at, that's all).
To answer the above question regarding why 2 x crew required for pax ops and 1 pilot for freight is simple: passengers. The 2nd pilot is there to also act as passenger support / assistance in normal and non-normal scenarios. Believe it or not. If I'm wrong, please correct me but that has always been my understanding.
In my initial post I deliberately did not mention accidents or incidents and their attributable blame. Pilot error coupled poorly maintained aircraft, and then add demanding and threatening pressures from your boss, plus poor training and this will lead to those Swiss cheese slices lining up pretty damn quick. The Metro is a very unforgiving aircraft, in my opinion. Some aircraft perform better than others assymetrically, as well as in other configs.....
The Metro served me well for years and after getting to grips with I actually also enjoyed flying it. But that is not what my point is for this thread.
It's single engine performance in a go-around is at best marginal. The amount of times I or the examiner took back the simulated failed engine in a base check are more than a few. Nearly torque rolled a few times as well. (Now lets not get into pilot technique, please.......Save it for another thread.) Some may say part of the job and a competent pilot should know the signs and recover. Again, I'm lucky to be taught from, in my opinion, some of the best. In today's environment I do not see that happening as much.
I'm a better pilot for flying it but would not want to go back to it. (I'm happy in an air conditioned cockpit and a button that makes coffee magically appear!)
Perception is reality for the traveling public and those who hire it / lease it for freight, etc. That is another main point of my thread. The amount of Metros I've seen with a shiney new paint job but bucket or rust and cr@p beneath the cowls astounds me. The pax / paying customer only sees the paint job.
(For the record I agree with 18 Wheeler and ForkTailedDrKiller, but those matters are not what I am getting at, that's all).
To answer the above question regarding why 2 x crew required for pax ops and 1 pilot for freight is simple: passengers. The 2nd pilot is there to also act as passenger support / assistance in normal and non-normal scenarios. Believe it or not. If I'm wrong, please correct me but that has always been my understanding.
Last edited by TopTup; 12th Apr 2008 at 09:12.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In Transit....
Age: 52
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember flying in a metro III from a northern operator, our transport went tech 18 guys with heavily laid bags in the back. It was tight, hot and stuffy and a terrible stench of BO.......... [4days in the bush doing survivial ops] **before anyone ask's I have a very varied background!Too that day I vowed to never fly in a metro is I can help it. I have the 1900D operating costs but even the lease costsMetro 23 AUD$27,500Beech 1900D AUD$37,500$10k monthly difference! already
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last Metro accident, from a world wide data base, was Feb 2006. Lots of hours flown since then by Metro operators world wide. I found the Metro a challenging aircraft to fly, but once mastered, there were few surprises. There appears to be a problem with recurrent training now, as the experience base is declining as people move on to larger aircraft. Low experience trainers means the overall proficiency level of an organisation is lower. I remember the ATSB report on a training incident in Canberra, where, through lack of knowledge of the systems, the aircraft was put into jeopardy.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what are the alternatives - who's building 19-seaters anymore?
What are you going to replace all the Metros with? Slightly younger but USED B1900Ds? USED J32s? Or maybe step up to USED Saab 340s or Brasilias? I hear they've restarted production of the Twotter...
I think I read in Australian Aviation a few months ago that none of the manufacturers (Embraer, Beech/Raytheon, ATR etc) want to develop a new 19-seater yet because the technology isn't there yet to give sufficient efficiency gains to justify buying new aircraft, and because there are no airlines worldwide operating a large enough legacy fleet to want to be a launch customer and thus underwrite its development.
What are you going to replace all the Metros with? Slightly younger but USED B1900Ds? USED J32s? Or maybe step up to USED Saab 340s or Brasilias? I hear they've restarted production of the Twotter...
I think I read in Australian Aviation a few months ago that none of the manufacturers (Embraer, Beech/Raytheon, ATR etc) want to develop a new 19-seater yet because the technology isn't there yet to give sufficient efficiency gains to justify buying new aircraft, and because there are no airlines worldwide operating a large enough legacy fleet to want to be a launch customer and thus underwrite its development.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cannibals?
The aviation industry is cannibalistic. Like many things in nature, the big ones eat up the little ones. The Metro operators have swallowed up many of the Chieftain operators, and the bigger ones will swallow up many of the Metro operators.
The Metro and the Chieftain will be here for quite a while yet.
Until a better machine comes along.
However the Chieftain, the Caravan, or PC12, or other aircraft with a crew door are more suitable for carrying freight. I have seen pilots in aeroplanes with a lot of freight loaded behind them that would make exit from the aeroplane almost impossible. And someone else has to close the door. I would feel most uncomfortable about that situation.
The Metro and the Chieftain will be here for quite a while yet.
Until a better machine comes along.
However the Chieftain, the Caravan, or PC12, or other aircraft with a crew door are more suitable for carrying freight. I have seen pilots in aeroplanes with a lot of freight loaded behind them that would make exit from the aeroplane almost impossible. And someone else has to close the door. I would feel most uncomfortable about that situation.
Pretty valid point about the crew door Bushy, not a nice feeling watching a Navajo/Conquest/Qieenair get loaded with freight while the pilot is strapped in and somebody else shuts the door.