Metro/B1900

[Flysher]

Hey guys, just curious what it is like to fly either of these two airplanes single pilot. seems like it would be hard, and to be honest I didnt realize people flew them single pilot until recently. thanks

 

[TransMach]

SA227/BE1900 Single Pilot

Ameriflight has been flying these types in single pilot ops since 1993, operates more than 48 Metros and 15 1900s. They have inducted and qualified more than 750 guys in these types in this time. In what would amount to more than some 850,000 flight hours in the two types, they have had one injury accident and that was CFIT (the single pilot industry's historic favorite!) ...

Not a bad record, not bad at all ... generally the industry racks up one injury accident per 100,000 flight hours, going 8X that is a real tribute. Thanks to the likes of Geddes, Orr, Cook, Besch, Corbin, Schaper and Love they are very successful with the large (FAR Part 1 Definition), single pilot airplanes. Congratuations!

To answer your question, it does take a solid pilot to do it, it is not for the faint of heart ... but nothing "superior" or "special" is required ... just your average joe who can actually fly an airplane IFR.

TransMach

 

[DirtyBeech]

Nothing too special about it. King air and 99 experience would tell me that the 1900 is a solid airplane, and a Metro is a sweet bird too. It's a bit heavy on the controls and requires your "A game" for a V1 cut, but then a lot of planes do. To be honest, I don't think that much of it anymore. It's probably death on wheels for a 1200 hour pilot, but if you have some experience and a decent scan it's no big deal.

Personally, from a relative experience point of view, I think the PA31 is a much harder plane to fly for those transitioning up to it than a Metro is from a 99, Bandit, or the like.

 

[Big Duke Six]

I flew the Metro II's/III's for about 1800 hours in nearly three years single pilot. It is a kick in the ass really, once you get up to speed. The III's handling was heavier than the II's, largely due to the increased wingspan which was done without moving the ailerons further outboard. They both fly like tanks, but the II is more like a Sherman and the III more like a Panther.

If given a choice, I would take any turbine twin over a piston twin. The workload is much less and the performance gives you more options in weather. Some of our III's could go to 310, but even having the ability to go to 250 is a huge advantage over what you could do in a 'Ho. Flying at those altitudes, with ice everywhere, being able to use the vertical is possibly more important than maneuvering in the horizontal.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Transmach,

I agree whole heartedly that Amf has a great safety record. However, I attribute that to route familiarity. Most of the pilots in this company fly to the same airport 4 or 5 days a week and know the route better than they know the back of their own hand. It is not a mistake that the 1900 and Metro do not have a single pilot rating for pax ops.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Hey guys, just curious what it is like to fly either of these two airplanes single pilot. seems like it would be hard, and to be honest I didnt realize people flew them single pilot until recently. thanks

To more directly answer your question, it depends on your level of experience and quality of training. I flew a JS 31 as a crew prior to this. That experience made that transition to fly a similar a/c (metro) single pilot much easier. I noticed that very experienced and highly qualified pilots that flew the 99's at AMF had difficulties transitioning to the Metro. They just had not experienced the different mindset that is envolved in flying an aircraft that is more of a transport category aircraft and not a glorified Baron (no offense to 99 pilots).

In any case, once each pilot is trained to proficiency the flying isn't all that difficult. Planning and anticipation is key. As long as you have thought far enough ahead you won't become overwhelmed. If you wait until you are given a descent (for example) to an airport to look at the approach or get ATIS, well then you might have some issues with feeling behind.

 

[V2plus25]

The Metro III was a blast to fly SP and as a crew. And although the Merlins leave alot of things to be desired in their ground handling, once in the air they're a real pleasure to fly (with a good yaw damp of course).

 

[DirtyBeech]

I flew the Metro II's/III's for about 1800 hours in nearly three years single pilot. It is a kick in the ass really, once you get up to speed. The III's handling was heavier than the II's, largely due to the increased wingspan which was done without moving the ailerons further outboard. They both fly like tanks, but the II is more like a Sherman and the III more like a Panther.

If given a choice, I would take any turbine twin over a piston twin. The workload is much less and the performance gives you more options in weather. Some of our III's could go to 310, but even having the ability to go to 250 is a huge advantage over what you could do in a 'Ho. Flying at those altitudes, with ice everywhere, being able to use the vertical is possibly more important than maneuvering in the horizontal.

Not sure how you implied that I'd prefer to fly the Navajo over the Metro. I've got 1300 +hours now in the III and love it. I was merely saying that I think the 'Jo is a harder plane to fly based on relative experience.

I'd second what KSU has to say, but his constant appearance in Thundercat gear makes it hard for me to take him seriously.

 

[Flysher]

cool thanks for the replies guys. I just think it would be bad ass to fly something that big by yourself.:uzi:

 

[DirtyBeech]

Like anything else, it feels small after awhile.