Bearskin Metro 3 CYRL accident - Speculation thread

[ODA]

The TSB says that the crew declared some sort of emergency about 10 minutes back.

The survivor says that there was some sort of engine problem.

The crew were not able to maintain altitude, assuming that the final moments of the flight were with a failed/shutdown engine.

Those are three facts.

The first and second statements may be "fact" although they don't establish much. The third statement is not a fact, it's conjecture which is not based on anything that has been learned about the accident as yet. In "fact" you actually used the word "assuming" in a statement you declared as "fact". Another tell-tale sign.

This could very well be a CFIT accident and not a matter of the aircraft not being able to maintain altitude.

Speculation is fine. Wild conjecture being presented as "fact" doesn't help anyone.

Well said. To speak in absolutes is a bit much at this point. The "facts" will be in the report.

[CID]

It's news evidence (verified) that they were descending on a beeline course to the Airport, while still on the exact same course as en-route and not even attempting any other approach procedure yet not quite reaching it on that 'shortest trajectory possible'.

According to additional information released, the airplane appears to have been on an IFR approach and the crew reported passing ULOTU which is 3 DME east for the approach to 26. Not on a beeline course to the airport and on an approach contrary to what is stated above.

[Doc]

It's news evidence (verified) that they were descending on a beeline course to the Airport, while still on the exact same course as en-route and not even attempting any other approach procedure yet not quite reaching it on that 'shortest trajectory possible'.

According to additional information released, the airplane appears to have been on an IFR approach and the crew reported passing ULOTU which is 3 DME east for the approach to 26. Not on a beeline course to the airport and on an approach contrary to what is stated above.

It'd would be nice, if just once, we waited for a fact or two, before letting this thread turn into just another "pissing" match.

Not this post specifically, but the whole "flavour" of this thread has become distasteful.

[Doc]

Perhaps, after a few days we can open a "Speculation" thread? Until then, this could have been any of you. I happen to have respect for the way the BEAR operates, and I'd like to see some semblance of respect shown. These small operations are "families", so unless you actually "know" something, let's try to keep the hissing and spitting to a minimum.

I tried this tack once before and it didn't work then. I don't expect it to work now. Respect people. If you want any from me, show some here.

[Maynard]

+1 ^

[bobm]

Agreed.

I have a little experience on the engines, been on the Mitsubishi Safety Board for two decades for the Mu2. It is way too early to speculate about different failures.
Let the investigators do what they do best.

My thoughts are with everyone involved.

[triplese7en]

Can we please have thoughful posts in this thread? Getting mad because you don't agree with someone's speculation is not helping anyone. Please provide some sort of reference or background to support your speculation.

[olddirtyloud]

This is an interesting read:
http://flightsafety.org/amb/amb_jul-aug05.pdf , as the pilot in the back heard a bang.

[triplese7en]

tcas... this is a speculation thread. Humans have a natural tendency to wonder. Whether or not you will openly admit it, you yourself have wondered what might have happened in this instance. If you don't care to join in the discussion then please don't. If you want to offer your condolences I recommend this thread: viewtopic.php?f=118&t=92718

And no, this is not like the 5 o'clock news. This forum has industry people who are familiar in one way or another with airplanes. The news crew at your local station isn't made up of aviation industry workers.

[HighBypass]

So can some Garrett geeks help me out:

I have a few thousand hrs on the 331-2 and -5 which are smaller then the ones on the metro IIIs. Are the metros using -12's?

I always understood when the NTS system senses negative TQ (ie prop driving engine) then the helical gears that revolve around the sun gear in the gear box do some magic and release oil to the gearbox allowing the prop to go to a safe coarse pitch, (not full feather) the prop then needs to be feathered by the crew as per the memory drill. When the condition lever is selected to "shutoff" (or whatever its called on the metro) the oil dump valve it's opened and oil is released to the gearbox via the beta tube.

My question is how could the prop not fx wen told to do so, regardless of what mechanical issues were going on in engine??

Also: do those models have a beta backup like the -2's where the power lever is moved full forward to let oil escape through the little holes in the beta tube incase of a blockage in the main passage?

[2.5milefinal]

If there is a serious discussion/speculation on any accident even if later we find out it was completely out in left field I say its worth it. If it gets pilots back into the books and thinking about how they can do things safer its worth it... that's what makes forums a good thing.
For example I just finished reading an article about 'Plenum Failure'. It may have nothing to do with this crash. But now I remember what it is and what it is all about.

[triplese7en]

If there is a serious discussion/speculation on any accident even if later we find out it was completely out in left field I say its worth it. If it gets pilots back into the books and thinking about how they can do things safer its worth it... that's what makes forums a good thing.
For example I just finished reading an article about 'Plenum Failure'. It may have nothing to do with this crash. But now I remember what it is and what it is all about.

+1

[triplese7en]

Highbypass... I started a speculation thread here: viewtopic.php?f=118&t=92793

The Metro III uses the -11 engines. 1000 SHP continuous, 1100 SHP for 5 minutes only when using CAWI.

Here are a couple quotes from the AFM:

"The propeller blades are driven toward feather if the NTS system ports some of the governing oil to the gear case, and they are driven all the way to feather if all of the oil is dumped through the beta tube to the gear case by use of the stop and feather control."

"Commanding high propeller blade angle by keeping the power lever of the inoperative engine well forward will reduce windmilling propeller drag in the event that NTS failure accompanies engine failure."

It's from that quote that I have an SOP of using both power levers together with a failure. In piston multi training you're usually taught to put the failed engine throttle to the idle position and leave it there.

When the condition lever is selected to "shutoff" (or whatever its called on the metro) the oil dump valve it's opened and oil is released to the gearbox via the beta tube.

On the Garretts there is no condition lever; there is only a power lever and a speed lever. The speed lever controls engine RPM from 70% to 100%. The fuel solenoid valve is closed mechanically (it can be closed electrically by pushing the stop button which is beneath the start button) by pulling the Stop and Feather Control to the first detent. Pulling all the way will feather the prop as explained above. The fuel shutoff is electrically actuated by a switch beneath the Stop and Feather knob.

The fuel shutoff is behind the firewall; the fuel solenoid valve is immediately prior to the manifold and flow dividers, right before being sprayed through the nozzles.

My question is how could the prop not fx wen told to do so, regardless of what mechanical issues were going on in engine??

I'm not sure but if the AFM has a note about an engine failure in combo with a NTS failure, you'd think it would be possible.

Also: do those models have a beta backup like the -2's where the power lever is moved full forward to let oil escape through the little holes in the beta tube incase of a blockage in the main passage?

I'm guessing that's what the note about keeping the power levers forward was about. So I assume the -11 does have something like that.

[switchflicker]

"I'm guessing that's what the note about keeping the power levers forward was about. So I assume the -11 does have something like that."

That is correct. The -11 and -12 for that matter have the same beta tube arrangement as the lower horsepower 331 TPE

Sw

[flyinthebug]

All you people who speculate are no better than the 5 o clock news! Doc your the worst just saying! Your 200 landed in red lake many times, worked with guys like yu who hwave trained many guys, it shows! condolances to all involved

Comparing professional pilots speculation to that of a news reader, is one of the most ignorant statements yet on this forum. Then you attack "Doc" who hasn't even commented on this thread? Go away tcas, the adults want to discuss possible events that led up to this tragic accident.

[pdw]

The track from CYXL to CYRL is a northwest heading and the surface winds were NW (W X history reference Nov 10/2013/7-8pm), a headwind for the inbound track and looks like somewhere 70-80-degrees right crosswind for rwy 26. In an early news source it was suggested the direction of forced approach was the same as the inbound track. Yet if an aircraft is navigating an approach procedure there are turns ... and likely one was required in the last seconds of being airborne to face that stronger component again, who knows. (The gas station owner also noted the WX turned bad at that same time.) Was an easy mistake to observe it must-have descended on the same/unchanged track ... when actually not.

[raven54]

I just have to ask, pdw...what is with your fascination with winds? Variable this and that/unexpected this or that...In all seriousness I am wondering.

[Beach 200]

Only thing I have to add is Bearskin doesn't have working autopilot in most of there fleet. When a situation arises it may have been possible that both guys had there head down looking at a checklist or one guy doing a checklist and the pilot flying reading the plates. When situational awareness just went out the window. CFIT

[Ki-ll]

What happens to the blade angle once the TPE331 engine flames out and NTS system fails to work? My understanding is that it will go towards lower angle as the compressor and accessories still want to be spun at 40,000 rpm. Is there anything to stop it from going to 0/flat in a matter of seconds?

[HighBypass]

Thanks for the link triples7en and the info. Sorry my terminology was wrong, it is "speed lever" not condition lever.

That's interesting to know there is that beta backup on those -11,-12's. mind you it isn't designed to be a fast way to fx the prop. The holes on the end of the beta tube are very small so the prop gradually moves to fx.

Is it std proc on the metro to do an NTS feather check on the first flight or whenever? I forget how you do it now, something like running the unfeathering pump and moving the pwr lever to full reverse and the beta light should come on.

Regardless my heart aches for the families.

[Doc]

Only thing I have to add is Bearskin doesn't have working autopilot in most of there fleet. When a situation arises it may have been possible that both guys had there head down looking at a checklist or one guy doing a checklist and the pilot flying reading the plates. When situational awareness just went out the window. CFIT

Pretty much my thoughts. One guy has to "just fly the airplane".

[Colonel Sanders]

There is a certain kind of person that insists on telling
you what to say, and what you should think.

I thought this was predominantly a Canadian problem,
but Pelosi and Obama proved me wrong.

[kev994]

From Winnipeg Free Press: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/ ... 25741.html

The other survivor of the crash, a 29-year-old man, who was an off duty co-pilot with Bearskin, and who pulled Dayholos out of the plane’s wreckage before it burst into flames, has told the HSC he is not interested in speaking publicly at this time.

Wikipedia tells me they only have one aircraft type, so IMHO the fact that he is qualified on type gives significant legitimacy to his witness statement.

[Gorgons]

Speculation? Try this on for size.

We have heard that radio calls indicate they were planning 26, perhaps as close as 3 miles from 26. Lots of talk about an engine problem occurring at least 10 minutes back. If they were heading for 26 and ended up to the south and west of the button for 08 they were considerably long and left for a successful landing on 26.

Arguably a landing with one feathered in a lightly loaded metro in marginal VFR weather onto a 5000 foot paved runway is typically a non event for a trained and experienced crew, most guys I've meet continue to sip on their coffee after they got the checklists and things squared away. However what happens if you inadvertently shutdown the good one? Dead stick... could the end result be overshooting the intended landing zone because you wanted to make sure you made the field? Find yourself long and left and now out of altitude to do anything but end up where you did?

[oldtimer]

To answer HighByass question, the unfeather pump is used prior to and during engine start to test the NTS system on the TPE 331-10 engine used in the SA 226TC Metro 2 only (and possibly others). The later model SA 227AC Metro 3 and the SA 227 DC Metro 23 uses either a TPE 331 -11 engine of 1000 shp dry or 1100 shp wet or the -12 engine of 1100 shp wet or dry.
The -11/12 engines use a different NTS system using electronic strain gauges in the engine reduction gear boxes. The complete NTS test is done mostly by maintenance on a 250 hour scheduled basis but the pilots do a (partial) NTS test, usually on first flight of the day, by simply advancing the power levers forward with the Speeds Low and the engine RPM should remain stable at 94.5%. If it exceeds that RPM, it indicates a propeller governor low setting is missrigged or the oil supply to the NTS system is malfunctioning. The NTS system recognises lack of power by the lack of strain on the gearsets and blocks the flow of oil from the NTS system which allows the increase in oil pressure to push the feather valve to the feather position until increased torque causes the NTS stain gauge to open the NTS valve and the propeller begins to unfeather and the process keeps repeating until the pilot pulls the Engine Stop and Feather control which mechanically closes the fuel solenoid and fully feathers the propeller. In NTS, the engine should slow quite rapidly to between 30 to 35% until the Engine Stop and Feather control is pulled out which will feather the propeller and stop all rotation. I know this because a flight test complete with an engine shut down and airstart is required after an engine or propeller change so I have done a couple. The airplane performs quite well on one engine. But also keep n ming visibility out of the windshields could stand to be improved, even with the electrically heated DV windows. (Info courtesy Fight Safety training manuals)