Mouse


This has been done to death before.

In the UK (and Guy is ex UK) it relates to the LEVEL of response that ATC will expect from the RFFS.

For example if you declare 50% or more of a power plant failure to ATC we will declare a "full emergency"

This will inevitably have the Fire services(possibly from outside the airfield also) rolling to the RVP's. The local hospitals and police will activate a disaster plan (already planned for and in place) .

If you steely eyed sky gods avoid the school and bus full of nuns and disabled kids and land safely;)(ie most of the time),everyone goes home. If you don't...they've gotten there a wee bit quicker.

As someone above said the cost is the same no matter what!.

Pan Pan is probably not as well recognised outside the UK. Mayday WILL concentrate the controllers mind. In the UK (at least in my little bit) it would not be unreasonable for the controller to offload other traffic to a colleague and thus keep the frequency clear for the aircraft with the problem.

Years ago I remember an old ex RAF controller/ Lanc pilot reffering to a Pan call as "ashtray full in flight".

Hope this helps.:)

Dont think much of ETOPS??? What are you on about? Operate ETOPS regularly.... The discussion is Pan vs Mayday....seems to vary between operators...either way it's land at nearest suitable airport in point of time

Back to the original topic, the SA226, short wing smaller engine was a bit dicey at V1 power loss, but the SA227 version was a decent performer during engine out ops, leave the power lever as is, when time permits pull the appropriate stop/feather control...

I know it spoils the dabate here but..

Anyone know why they shut the engine down?

And as for the comfy NG driver question. I haven't flown one but do fly something similar. They don't have autopilot but its not that bad at altitude. Unless the bull gear has gone and then your into whole different ball game. The prop stops in under one turn.

Our main issue is with drift down which is usually an unknown concept to commercial deptments and ops.

While I've never flown a Metroliner, I've friends who have. After listening to their stories about flying the San Antonio sewerpipe, the decision to declare a 'Mayday' after the loss of an engine is 100% justified.

Recent replies are getting closer to what I was originally after.

From what I heard they said they had an engine failure....not so sure it was a case of 'choosing' to shut it down - at least from what I could make out.

FAO Ironbutt, while you're most recent reply on here was a good one, the one prior saying this is a discussion about Mayday vs Pan is actually not what I initially asked what so ever when creating the thread. It was in fact something you started by your first reply to this thread, which was completely off topic on first reply.

It's no "dire" emergency in any series of Metroliner on one engine, the aircraft is easily managed and performs just as well as any other turboprop in an engine out scenario, the airplane has a bit of an undeserved reputation, so people who fly it like to bolster their ego by making it look like a beast to fly.

Spent many hours in the aircraft, and teaching in the sim as well, enjoyed it all...

Mayday vs Pan....

My employer calls for a Mayday with engine out..by definition it's a "Pan", by SOP it's a "mayday"..

Maybe the fellow in the Metroliner had other issues as well which caused him to make a "Mayday" call, or maybe it was his company's SOP...

in the kind of twins I have flown an engine failure definetely a mayday, because one will be descending until altitude and earth surface elevation become co-incident!:ok:

Okay, as I said, never flew one, that was just what some pilots that I know told me. I did fly a Merlin IIIB once, it was very nice.

Oh, one question, the ones you flew, where they the extended wing aircraft or the original short wing? I was told it made a lot of difference in the handling.

Thank you.

It performs the same as any other TP from that era ie just inside pref A limits. They are certainly not in the same league as the Saab2000 which will quite happily overspeed on one sub FL200.

And from memory Lotee is in the Bay of Biscay about 70miles to the north of Spain and it will be interesting to see if they had a life raft on board for crossing it. Which is another bone of contention with ops and commercial.

MAybe the metro pilots can confirm but I would suspect that single engine speed will be about 150knts and a drift down to to about 6-9k ft so they will have had 30mins plus feet wet to get back to safety. They will be cruising at about 180-210 knts and it doesn't take long for the speed to wash back to drift down speeds. So you will need to let folk know you are decending reasonably soon after securing the engine.

So I think the crew were quite within there rights to declare.

Mad Jock

Dont need a life raft unless 400nm from land

Or 120mins at cruise speed, some take that as single engine, others with both donks working. They will have needed to check both Spanish and French regulations to see which interpretation they have used.

If you use 150knts single engine there is a chunk in the middle that you can't manage.

Appart from which

400NM is way over 2 hours on a single engine anyway and your only allowed 60mins none ETOPS. So realistically they could only be 160NM away from land.

Also as well your fuel burn at 6-10 K on a Garrette is over double what it is at FL 200 plus although they were proberly filed below 200 due to 8.33 requirments.

So I suspect that the routing was illegal anyway if it was a public transport flight. As I said lots of bones of contention with ops and commercial. I wouldn't accept it even if none public transport its not worth the risk.

Depending on where they had originated from and fuel load another hour on route when this occured could have been a fatal ditching thread.

Who was the operator anyway? It wasn't those clowns who had the metro on the books in the Cork crash is it?

I Agree With Iron 57
 

With one out, even on a 3 holer (i.e.-727), what's going to happen next...

Hydraulics, Driftdown, Lack of Crew Coord, and God forbid if the second one lets go...

Gear Down...Crank, Crank, Crank...Landing Data Card, Flaps...How???...Checkiist, Witch one???...


Lots of "what if's"...Better safe than sorry...

I've lost an engine twice on the 727, both at cruise, and after heading to the nearest "suitable" airport, when in contact with locaql ATC, you bet I had the equipment standing by...

Way to go Ironbutt...Not many of us left...

Flew it solo without a/p in the usa...if i managed it , couldnt be so hard:8
The night flying gets you after a few years though along with charters at 2 am...
Back to engine out,,,,never had one on it but my boss did just after i told him i wouldnt fly this aircraft unless the engine got fixed..he flee it for repairs when the engine failed..he survived ...

I got in it from the CP for my routing last year as the single engine driftdown profile would have put me squarely in the rocks. Sorry but I don't like Garrett powered garbage.

3K Metro command time, all models. The 226 with -10s performs as well as the 227 with -11s. The 227s with -12s are a bit better. The 226s with -3s had a 2-engine service ceiling of about 15K on a good day; that's why they put JATO on them.

I lost one in a -10 226 at FL200, -20C, with about 300 lbs cargo and 2 hours fuel. I was a bit surprised to find that it almost maintained altitude. I was at cruise A/S, so control was not an issue. I expect an actual V1 cut would be plenty exciting. Sure was in the sim.

And yes, any engine failure in a twin is an automatic emergency.

it's so funny how some people are always commenting in areas that they have no clue, why don't you leave it to people like Cabocio that are the real deal. No one here wants to hear how a friend of a friend you know who once saw a Metroliner bla bla. :ugh:

Dflyer, not second guessing you for a minute but just curious as to why you could not continue on to destination with only one out of three engines shut down.


This is not an emergency for us, was there other damage or performance issues that demanded you land as soon as possible ?

Aye but there is a huge difference flying one of these crappy TP's in hot Texas and somewhere cold like Alaska.

I should imagine in the heat of texas it really was on the limits all the time.

From experence flying garretts in southern europe +30 and north scandanavia -20deg its like flying a different aircraft. That 50degs gives you another 25% torque in cruise for a start at the same level at max egt.

And 2 hours of fuel would be 1800lbs max plus 300lbs. We would need the 250 as ballast anyway for take off trim. That is very light. The drift dowm performance gets pretty horrible pretty quickly as you increase aircraft weight. On LPC's we can hold FL150 with one shut down. 1000lbs below max landing weight I struggled to hold FL50.

According to the ICAO Standard Phraseology Guide, MAYDAY indicates the need for immediate assistance, while PAN PAN means an urgent communication not requiring immediate assistance. Following a simple engine failure, the need for immediate assistance would, at the very least, be predicated on whether you are going to use your emergency authority to deviate from a clearance. If you can continue at the assigned altitude and routing until re-cleared, perhaps a MAYDAY call is not needed. Otherwise, it seems to me that it is.

Back in my more daring years, I flew all of the test flights on our fleet of Metro II's following the engine upgrade from the -3 to the -10UA. This involved an inflight shutdown and airstart, and certainly did not require an emergency declaration as I was bobbing around within an assigned block altitude in an otherwise empty airplane.

The difference in performance between the two engines on the Metro II was remarkable, however the airplane was still a Part 23 airplane with no genuine certification requirement for single engine performance. The Metro III was a "commuter" category airplane certificated to a nearly identical to Part 25, and did meet a much better performance standard with one engine inoperative. In fact, the III arrived with AFM data for single engine climb gradient, and it was apparent that an IFR departure from the mountainous Roanoke Valley in Virginia would be rather problematic without serious weight restrictions, which left one with a very chilly feeling toward the Metro II, which provided no such data.

Previous to the Metros I flew Convair 240's, and I recall the control forces with an engine inoperative on the Metro were similar to the Convair...heavy. However, I don't remember any of our numerous 110 pound female pilots having any difficulty, while some of our more brutish fellows broke a sweat now and then. :cool: