Are single-engines safe over cities?

[MBJ]

Could someone in New York, Tokyo and Paris let me know whether they can legally fly single-engine over the centre of these respective cities? If so, what altitude restrictions? Any other restrictions?
There is something of a controversy in London at the moment because one ENG operator, who has intelligently interpreted the rules as currently written, has established that it is legal to overfly the Central London restricted zone in an R44. The proviso is that in the event of an engine failure it can land clear of the area without endangering persons or property on the ground.
Personally, I'm not happy with this because it seems to me that it throws all the onus of compliance on the pilot who is subject to clear commercial pressures to over-estimate his own ability to land clear. It is my view that despite it being quite legal, it is not safe.
It is certainly not in keeping with the original intention of the establishing the restricted zone.
The first time it is put to the test, and that could be 10 years from now, or tomorrow, our entire London-based industry could be jeopardised by the already quite strong anti-helicopter lobby in the Capital excluding all helicopters from Central London.
Any views out there?

[AlanM]

MY view - as someone talking to aircraft over London:

The ENG a/c and it's new sister ship probably (assuming we are talking about the same Denham based operator) SHOULD be allowed over the Specified Area (sorry - I meant EGR160) simply on probability/reliability alone.

How many R44s fall out of the sky into non built up areas.... IN THE WHOLE WORLD?

If the Organisation is "deemed" professional enough then why not.

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO FLY IN A C150 from Banstead direct to Alexandra Palace so why not a helicopter????

[SASless]

MBJ,

Flying a single engine helicopter over the city of London is unsafe? What do you predicate that statement upon? Is there something about the strength of gravity or something that makes London an unsafe area to fly over?

Someone will try to tell us that a safe landing due to an engine failure is not a certain thing. The same people ignore Lorry-Car crashes, forget buses run over pedestrians, bricks fall off facades and muggers will stab you.

Why is the risk of a helicopter landing in your back garden any more a risk than all the other things that can happen to you?

[BaronG]

I can't comment on New York, but for places like Orlando and Miami it was considered acceptable - although it is of course paramount that the pilot fly "defensively" i.e. with a safe spot in reach and at an altitude to get the ship under control.

There was one notable forced landing in Orlando - H269 lost tail rotor drive and auto'd into a car park. Not considered big news and the school involved wasn't affected.

Bear in mind a helicopter lands in a very short distance during a (properly executed) forced landing.

Fixed wings....different parameters.

BG

[rattle]

Would that be a question you ask as you don't want the competition. Get off my land? Can we be bothered to dig up the stats on R44 engine failures (zero) and those of the twins you may be flying in from south of the River? No doubt somebody can save us the bother and send us the links to numerous other "Robby" bashing threads that have dragged on and on, all with the same conclusion. The "big" boys like to play in their big, expensive, sometimes unreliable machines, whilst the rest of us happily "risk our lives and the lives of thousands of others" by stepping into a single engined machine.

As has been said, as long as I can get to the helipad without having a car crash, or being shot (nothing in my house to find either), then I am happy that the odds are on my side for a safe return.

Course I may have the car crash on the way home....

[MBJ]

How many R44s fall out of the sky into non built up areas.... IN THE WHOLE WORLD?


One in the UK in February still subject to AAIB report.

It just seems to me the nausea that could result isn't worth the departure from long-time practice.

[MBJ]

MBJ,
Flying a single engine helicopter over the city of London is unsafe? What do you predicate that statement upon? Is there something about the strength of gravity or something that makes London an unsafe area to fly over?

Very funny! - its the potential consequences of getting it wrong that make me wonder wether its worth it.

Rattle - you have a serious chip on your shoulder there... relax! Truly, competition isn't the issue and I like the R22. (Haven't flown the 44). If I could afford it I'd have one!

[Gaseous]

I suspect there is a bit of historical baggage here. In the 1970s the Met used Enstroms as an early experiment in police aviation. My aircraft was one of those, and after its second power failure, the powers that be, decided twins were the way to go, and that is the way it has stayed.

Neither emergency landing damaged aircraft or property, but did the reputation of singles over the city no good at all. The relevent problems have long since been solved but the antipathy to singles remains 30 years on.

[chopperpilot47]

In class G airspace (below 1200') in most places, as long as you can fly at a speed and height to avoid hitting anything you are legal. Also see FAR 91.119(d) where it says, "Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paras (b) and (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface". (b) refers to congested areas and 1,000' above the highest obstacle and 2,000' horizontally and (c) other than congested areas and 500' above person, vessels, vehicles or structures.

That is where the authority to fly single engined helicopters over congested areas comes from. I don't see a problem with it. The stats don't indicate to me that it is dangerous per se.

Regards,

Chopperpilot 47

[Flying Lawyer]

The FAA adopts IMHO a more enlightened and more reasonable approach to flying single-engine helicopters over congested areas.

Extract from FAR Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c)

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.
In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator. (In addition, there are provisions equivalent to the ANO relating to endangering the aircraft and people/property on the ground.)


Over Los Angeles 1997 - a week's break from the law. :)
http://www.aviationlaw.co.uk/images/trafficwatchlarge.jpg


FL

[delta3]

OK for Paris if following specified routes.
Special routes are at 1500, rest very similar to the FAA rules that FL quotes.
Heli routes also have pre-defined emergency areas.

d3

[headsethair]

I am glad that MBJ has acknowledged the fruits of our labours.
It is my organisation which did all the research on this matter and has seen it through to an excellent end result. He states that there is "controversy" - well if there is, it hasn't been brought to our attention. There is nothing controversial in merely reading and understanding the law.
I am surprised that MBJ is aware of what we have achieved - we haven't advertised the facts and have told very few people.
Why? Well because we haven't actually changed any regulations. We have simply proved that myths are greater than words. For some 40 years the UK aviation industry appears to have its head so far up its own body parts that it hasn't read the rules as they are written. MBJ - it's not down to "interpretation" it's down to good old black & white. I know - I did all the research from Cabinet Office down.
This obsession with single engine failures is so far out of proportion with the truth. There are many more reasons why a helicopter could hit your head, but none of them is surrounded by draconian, outdated legislation.
The last time a helicopter embedded itself in the roof of a house was about 6 years ago - the S Wales ASU AS355. (Two engines, one gearbox, one TR.......what's the bloody point ?) This inicident was put down to tail rotor failure. By now, I would have expected a load of new rules about having 2 tail rotor systems..........
MBJ - when I started my business nearly 3 years ago, you wrote a "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letter to a widely-read broadcasting trade magazine. Fortunately, they didn't print it because I was able to point out what a pile of cobblers it was. And you agreed. I've kept that letter and the emails we exchanged because, for me, they underline all that's wrong with the helicopter industry in the UK.
A lot less sniping at each other and a load more effort working as an industry together and we can move forward in large steps. Let's direct our energies into creating the industry we want.
To your comments on EGR160 single-engine operations : "It is certainly not in keeping with the original intention of the establishing the restricted zone." You must have a piece of paper that none of us has seen. In all my research talking to the various bodies involved, no one could come up with the original reason why "The Specified" was created. No one can find any official document with the history of why it was thought necessary. It is an anomoly in global airspace and it shouldn't be there. Hopefully the current London CTR Review will correct this and many other strange aspects of life in the London skies. The only reasons why the skies above London might be more dangerous than any other is because of the wierd web of myths and one-off "regulations" that have appeared over the years. It's an ATCO's nightmare and distracts them from their job.
One example: A N T. This is a chart that you will struggle to find published, yet it's a chart used by NATS to control your passage through London. It stands for All, Nothing, Twin. Even our most powerful regulatory body did not know of its existence. Why? Because in law it doesn't exist - it was just something that ATCOs were told to use. And it is about to be declared officially dead.
About the only credible argument I can see in your post is where you refer to commercial pressures on the pilot - you infer that he/she may overstretch the rules in order to make a successful flight. Not exactly a unique perspective is it ?
If we only employ pilots who really know and understand the rules, then that's the best we can do. We're not with them and we don't pay them any more or less for flying in accordance with the rules.
What are you suggesting - that some pilots get paid a bonus to break rules ? I don't know about yours, but mine are all CAA instructors and examiners as well as being self-funded CPL/ATPLs. Why would anyone in their right mind want to spend £50,000 getting trained, many more £000s hour-building - and then go and throw it all away by flying in the wrong place ?

[MBJ]

From London CTR review group report:

2.12.4 Additionally, there was a strong opinion that some formal airspace restriction to prevent the operation of single-engined fixed wing aircraft over extensive built up areas might now be required. It was the opinion of the Group that the application and interpretation of the Rule 5 “alight clear” rules were being misused.

2.12.5 Detailed discussion on any proposals to modify or remove the Restricted Area R160 would be needed within the CAA and also with the DfT.

Away for a week now..will return to the thread i.d.c

[Heliport]

Very interesting. :ok:


Headsethair

Have you had any input from the CAA?
In particular - Has the CAA conceded there's nothing in the Regs which makes it illegal for singles to fly in the restricted/specified area?
(Assuming the CAA was prepared to make any comment, either way. ;) )



MBJ

Who are the members of the London CTR review group?

Is there a fair balance between CAA people and commercial operators?
ie Between Regulators and operators?

What percentage of the group is made up of 'ordinary' commercial operators?
(ie Not MoD, Police, EMS etc)

Are private owners and operators represented?

Does the report say if the "strong opinion" was the opinion of the group as a whole or certain members of it?


Heliport



PS: I hope everyone can now put aside personal/professional rivalries and discuss this interesting topic without snipe and counter-snipe.

[headsethair]

The London CTR Review report emerged last December. It does not reflect the progress made since that date and there will be a further report later this year. You can get the report here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/London_CTR_Review_Group_Report.pdf), together with all the names of the Group members. (I/we were not represented.) The report also contains the infamous A N T chart I referred to above - worth saving for history.

Heliport
Yes - we consulted heavily with CAA, DAP, AUS etc. As I said above, there's nothing new in the rules. Just remember these parameters:

1 The river does not form a part of R160, nor was it ever part of the old "Specified".

2 The rule for any helicopter operating over R160 is that it should remain able to alight clear of that area in the event of a power unit failure. This is the only place in the whole UK where the "alight clear" rules apply to helicopters. And of course we should not ignore the "without endangering" aspect of flying law.

3 Sit down with your POH for your helicopter and establish your glide ratio. Then look at the operating altitudes available over London.

However, all these flights would be subject to Special VFR. And in my opinion they should also have an NSF. As with all regulations, it only takes one cowboy incident and the whole pasture can be put off limits to all. (See the withdrawal of all NSFs for fixed wing since the Cessna 152 banner towing incident of a few Decembers ago......so now no SEP can get an NSF for London.)

And that's it. We simply drilled down to the base level of the law - the Statutory Instruments - and took our evidence forward.

This all happened in February. I've been waiting to see how long it would be before a twin operator took any notice. Not bad, MBJ, 4 months.

[Hidden Agenda]

Single-engine helicopters are restricted from operating over and within the city area of Singapore’s Central Business District. Interestingly, as I believe was the case with London until fairly recently, this is not given a Restricted Area or Prohibited Area designation and the only authority for its existence is an entry in the ENR section of the AIP.

[Heliport]

Headsethair

Thank you.


Would you please stop sniping.
Heliport

[DeltaFree]

As has been said many times singles are not inherently unsafe, and statistically safer than life on the streets. Any aircraft landing/crashing in the middle of a City will hit the news, unfairly compared to the daily road accidents that are rarely reported. Because of the high profile the regulations will err on the "safe" side.
If we all abide realistically to the safe landing principle then there should be no problems, the difficulty comes with commercial pressures. I flew City tours in both singles and twins, I set a higher cloudbase as a minimum for the single and stuck to certain routes to provide landing options. The trouble arises when competitors push their luck more and put pressure on you to do likewise. The odds are you will get away with it today...but one day...

[SASless]

Is there a fair balance between CAA people and commercial operators?
ie Between Regulators and operators?

I think I know what you mean....but considering recorded history I suggest there is a small flaw in your logic on this issue.

The helicopter industry has always been very competitive...both in the UK and the USA. Some very valid issues have been raised in the discussion so far. The "sniping" detracts from the debate. The debate should be over what is the best for "all" of the private operators and owners.

Currently, it would appear, ATC is using the ANT rule to bar access to the airspace without basis of law. That should be addressed by all parties.

The basis used to restrict air traffic should be reviewed and sorted for "reality" vice purely subjective reasons. The Helicopter Industry as a whole should stand together on common issues which affect the industry and set aside competition concerns.

Why should the CAA not take a position on this....after all they hold themselves up as being the Rock of Aviation Safety throughout the world do they not? Surely they have reams of data to support their position re: engine failure rates and such. They monitor all aviation in the UK thus they know the flight hours performed and such. Surely they could come up with some exposure statistics to show the risks involved in helicopters flying over London. A bit of reseach using GIS techiques could determine the number of possible forced landing sites contained within the urban area surrounding London and thus calculate the availibility of landing areas as a percentage of the surface.

No reason peering into a tea cup has to be the research method that these rules are determined by.

[206av8]

Well as we all know, in a Twin Engine aircraft you have twice as much chance of an engine failure, but the good news is in most M/E helicopters the good engine should fly you to the crash site.

[Rushes]

This is all very interesting, but what about the role issue of the specific machine.

News organisations are about putting words and pictures together, ideally first, ideally live and ideally for extended periods of time.

This I imagine is one reason why the Police and some organisations have gone down the Twin route....for a 1 minute shot they get 1 minute of the subject matter they are interested in, rather than 15 secs of that, and 45 secs of the back of a building that is of little interest while the aircraft keeps up an orbit at suitable speed.

As we know some of the most filmed tube stations in London are stuck down some pretty tight streets....

[headsethair]

Rushes : a unique viewpoint (pardon the pun). So - you're saying that whilst a twin can hover, a single can't ?

Erm.

for a 1 minute shot they get 1 minute of the subject matter they are interested in, rather than 15 secs of that, and 45 secs of the back of a building that is of little interest while the aircraft keeps up an orbit at suitable speed.

Are you a helicopter pilot ? Have you noticed that twins also orbit. Just as singles also hover.

The main difference is the endurance. Whilst your average AS355 fully-loaded with 3 people, the tv gear and all that lovely fuel + spare engine, flying to Grp A, can just about do 1.5hrs between refuels - a good piston single like the R44, carrying the same load of 3 people and all the tv gear, can be on task for 3.5-4 hrs.

In a developing story/incident, which machine would you consider is the most useful ?

[Hughes500]

Just wondering if an R44 newscopter is 1668 lb, max useful load is 832 lbs. 4.0 hours of fuel at 16 gals an hour = 430 lbs. Left with 400 lbs, the 3 crew must be very light and with no extras in the machine ! Intersting auto at this weight from less than 60 kt airspeed when filming. It is intersting to look at the POH to determine auto range. The table was done by a pilot expecting an engine failure in ideal conditions for the certification process, therefore from 60 kts filming at MAUW will the ac land clear ?

[headsethair]

Your assumption and consumption need attention. You have assumed a weight which is not correct, and you have assumed standard fuel consumption. In reality we regularly achieve 3.5 - 4 hrs endurance depending on wind and power settings. The perfect filming speed (when not hovering) is also the max endurance speed.
One of the great advantages of the 360 nosemount is that we can spend more time with our nose into wind - we regularly get the shot by shooting at 180 rearwards and, so long as the downward angle is more than 30 degrees, no aerials or skids get in the way.
With regard to POH and glide capability - we have made substantial allowances for wind, airspeed and other variables. An R44 can easily glide for more than a statute mile from 1500-2000ft. And the helicopter configuration for certification is at MAUW producing a glide ratio of 4.7 : 1.

[Creaser]

.... therefore from 60 kts filming at MAUW will the ac land clear ?


But previous posters were discussing hovering to get the shot, not flying at 60 knots.

Is it too simplistic a question to ask how much higher should a single engine heli hover to get same saftey margin as flying at 60 knots?


Creaser

[TiPwEiGhT]

Whilst we are on the topic of a certain R44, I have just bee looking at its website and the videos on it.

I am interested to find out how filming of the sailing was achieved on a CAT flight, or was it simply private? Just curious as my companies AOC clearly states that the R44 must remain within safe autorotational distance of a suitable landing site.

Thanks,

TiP:)

[2Sticks]

I'd been wondering how an R44 could legally film Wembley stadium from what seemed like quite close on the national news several weeks ago. Now I know (or think I know!!):)
2Sticks

[headsethair]

Tip: not a CAT flight. See here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=50&pagetype=90&pageid=5586).

2Sticks: that video is on the website, but probably too small to show altimeter reading - 1500. The "seemed quite close" is an interesting statement - what gave you that impression ? The camera with its 42X zoom ? Flying Special VFR at that part of London permits 500ft by the way - but we didn't use that advantage. Don't need to.

[CYHeli]

In Melbourne (Oz) at least one news agency has gone to an AS350 over their old AS355. Greater payload and good dependability.

Mind you, the only real engine 'failure' that I have ever witnessed is on an AS350 when a bolt cut loose in the compressor on start-up. Big bang, lots of smoke, no more noise. Good thing they were on the ground! :eek:

[rattle]

[QUOTE=headsethair]Tip: not a CAT flight. See here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=50&pagetype=90&pageid=5586).

Only the CAA could produce that document that on the final page says "Page 8 of 7"!

[Rushes]

[quote=headsethair]Rushes : a unique viewpoint (pardon the pun). So - you're saying that whilst a twin can hover, a single can't ?


Headsethair, thanks for pointing this out, its a great help!

However, I am suggesting that a single engined machine, depending where it is, may not be able to achieve an autorotation to a safe place outside R160 from a standing start.... ie; a hover!

So I guess you have three choices in some of these circumstances.... stay close to the river, keep moving... or ideally BOTH!

However, i'm sure that you have this eventuality covered.....

So i'm now wondering which I would prefer..... the endurance..... or A PICURE in the first place!

[headsethair]

Rushes, you're losing me here. These Forum posts aren't much good at conveying irony. So - I'll have to use plain language and I hope you don't consider this to be patronising.

You earlier suggested that whilst a twin can hover, a single can't. That is not the truth. The hover performance (or any aspect of performance) has nothing to do with how many engines you carry.

You can ask many "scenario" questions that are more relevant than engine failure - and these come higher up the stats list.

Try "What happens when the tail rotor drive fails on a twin engine helicopter whilst operating low level over a congested area?" Then call the South Wales ASU for the answer. Or Mrs Jones who had an AS355 parked in her loft for a few days.

Try "What happened to the door handle of an AS355 when it fell off during a filming flight over south London ?" Answer - it's down there somewhere and hopefully it didn't injure anyone.

Getting preoccupied with engine failures doesn't reflect the real issues of flight safety. You only have to read the CAA quarterly Occurrence reports and you'll see what I mean.

[uncle ian]

Headsethair,

I'm still not clear exactly what you have gained permission to do. Can you fly within the Specified Area as long as you can land clear and, if so, how do you demonstrate that capability when the boys from the Belgrano would certainly disallow most open spaces (in central London) as they permit public access.

I have no axe to grind as I use both twin and singles in my own role. I am a bit mifffed, though, that it has taken a "personality" to sufficiently pressure our regulators to interpret the ANO correctly instead of making law which they seem to think is their proper role. I've been at odds with them for most of my professional flying career with absolutely no success whatever.

Incidentally, my current campaign with them is over age discrimination. Anyone out there in their late 50's NOT want to stop single pilot PT at 60 please contact me

[Huskie]

The R44 is a wonderful helicopter with excellent engine off characteristics but an engine failure from a 1000' hover in still wind conditions will offer no glide distance. In fact you loose 300’ to 400' before you gain sufficient forward speed to develop enough potential energy to conduct a safe landing. The area directly below is where you will end up.

Most ENG work is conducted at heights between 750’ & 1000’ at slow speeds in and out of wind i.e. orbits. For built-up areas I believe this profile to be the domain of twin engine helicopters.

Despite contra belief, engines do stop. Emergency landings are also conducted for reasons other than engine malfunctions. If the river Thames offers the only law abiding place to land in the event of a single engine helicopter emergency one has to consider the consequences of alighting into water with or without floats. At best you will go from being a heli to a directionless boat hitting the nearest bridge or barge to at worst becoming an ineffective submarine!

The reduced operating margins of the R44 over a twin squirrel is of great benefit and they do have a place in the video world but personally I would be very uncomfortable flying an R44 in a low level build up area. AS355s undoubtedly offer more performance and safety for me, my cameraman, passengers and people below. On this basis cost should not be compromised.

[headsethair]

I'm still not clear exactly what you have gained permission to do. Can you fly within the Specified Area as long as you can land clear and, if so, how do you demonstrate that capability when the boys from the Belgrano would certainly disallow most open spaces (in central London) as they permit public access.
OK. I have a feeling this is becoming more of a saga than necessary. First, let's take the celebrity factor out of it. Because I have. Then simply read the rules as they are currently written. Nothing's changed - except a myth has been kicked into touch.

With regard to "where to land" - well that too is obvious from the rules. The only requirement is to land without endangering etc. and to "remain able to alight clear of R160". Again, nothing has changed.

Our/my research was substantial and the docs alone would crash the pprune server. The critical piece of paper is Statutory Instrument 2005 964 available from the Cabinet Office website here (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050964.htm).

This is the only "rule" that matters - it's the foundation for all connected rules issued by any other body. The only thing that changed was that SI 2005 1110 removed R160/Specified requirements from Rule 5 and placed them into 964.

Huskie: I disagree with you on the heights for ENG work. There is no need to go lower than 1000ft and most of what we do is around 1500-2000. Let the camera do the work. I also take issue (sorry) with your claim that the AS355 offers better performance - are you another one who believes that 2 engines give better performance than one ? I urge you to quickly do some W&B MAUW calcs and see the truth. Even Eurocopter say that the single AS350B3 has better performance than the twin AS355. Talk to the pilots.

And you're also wrong on your reading of the requirements for R160. It is only required that any helicopter suffering the failure of a power unit can alight clear of R160. No other emergency would preclude a landing inside R160 for any helicopter, whether single, twin or triple.

[Rushes]

Headsethair,

I can't see where I actually said that single engined machines couldn't hover , please go back and read my initial post!:ugh:. I was simply trying to make the point that in order to achieve a safe forced landing from certain positions over a built up area, it would be beneficial to be moving in the first place, it's always nice to have some energy to convert. I do understand that the R44 glides well, you've read the POH so I know your well aware.

Hovering over the open countryside your options would tend to be greater.

So I make the assumption that a single engined machine is more limited than a twin over a congested area... Its that simple!!

There are some fantastic single engined platforms, but there is just a little more flexibility with the twin in certain circumstances.... is this so hard to understand.... or maybe just admit?

ps: I have no prejudice...single or twin, i just believe that everything has its place, and that we do not just have the legal issues to consider, but the moral ones as well.

[John Eacott]

MBJ is well aware of what we can achieve around Melbourne, so I'll pass on the main issue that he raised, but HSH appears under assault from some who don't seem to have had the pleasure of operating some of the better stabilised systems around. We operate two R44 Newscopters, and other than to change the dynamics of the shot, nearly all our work is around 1500ft or higher. This photo shows well the quality of the image from 1350'


http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/Traffic%203.jpg

[Huskie]

Headsethair: Thank you for your response. Please don’t misunderstand me with regard to performance. I am suggesting that in challenging weather conditions the handling characteristics of the AS355F1 over an R44 are preferable. Sometimes the pilot has to work very hard to complement the cameraman. I agree 1500’ to 2000’ offer good pictures but the weather doesn’t always allow this.

[headsethair]

OK. My last response I promise.

I am suggesting that in challenging weather conditions the handling characteristics of the AS355F1 over an R44 are preferable. Sometimes the pilot has to work very hard to complement the cameraman.

Huskie: in challenging weather conditions. Hell - what a generalisation. As I've previously stated, the nose-mount on the R44 ENG allows us to keep the nose into wind whilst still getting the shot. What could be safer than that ? Sitting over Scotland in a 50mph wind is one of my favourite places to be - that's 50mph of airspeed if we need it.
What machine would I rather be in crosswind ? Not the AS355 for sure. And definitely not a 206, while we're at it.

I agree 1500’ to 2000’ offer good pictures but the weather doesn’t always allow this.
If the cloudbase over a congested area doesn't allow 1000ft above the nearest highest object within 600m, then you can't go in any heli without an Exemption (unless flying under Special VFR and then you can use the 500ft rule - but why would you need to go that low if you've got a great camera with a professional operator?).
Rule 5 does not discriminate between numbers of power units.
And if the "weather" is pants, what pictures will you get in any case ?
And another aspect - the live link. We have the ability to get our pictures and sound over 100km. But to achieve this distance we need to watch our height - good as the new digital links are, even they can't defeat curvature of the earth to any great extent. In reality, getting our output live to W12 from, say, Milton Keynes needs 2000ft altitude.
That's it from me. This started as a simple response to MBJ and ended-up in the Cabinet Office. I love this place (pprune) - but I am not getting my work done.

John Eacott: we've never met, but thanks for your experienced support. It sometimes feels a bit cold in these parts, if you get my drift.

[Flingwing207]

Here's a little more support, Heads-

It takes about 400' of vertical descent to get an R44 at MAUW up to recommended autorotational airspeed (and RRPM) after an engine failure in a zero-airspeed hover. Push the lever down, as soon as the horn stops, push the cyclic forward as rapidly as RRPM will allow. Since most ENG work has a little headwind, you can reduce that altitude figure slightly. So from 1,000' AGL, you have your airspeed with 600' left to go, or put another way, you can put your spot where you want it simply by how slowly or rapidly you accelerate your airspeed.

It's very easy to keep forced landing areas in reach (as long as the areas are available at all) while positioning your ship, as long as you put safety first, picture second. With the great equipment mounted on most ENG helicopters, the camera op will have no trouble getting a shot as long as the angle is right, giving the pilot a lot of choice about altitude and distance. (BTW, I work as back-up in a 206 in both positions, pilot or camera op.)

As far as an engine failure goes - as folks with a lot more experience and education have pointed out, it generally isn't an engine failure that causes ENG (or most) accidents (ignoring the air in the fuel lines problem, which affects you no matter how many engines you are swinging). For the slightly (and I mean slightly) increased risk a single engine might create, the R44 will give you back reduced risk via almost no chance of LTE, excellent cockpit visibility, very low pilot workload, excellent fuel endurance.

Now I will say personally it makes me nervous to have that much power going through that somewhat cheap Robinson belt-drive system - in fact, on the R-44, that fails at a much higher rate than the engine, and usually with more dramatic results (an piston engine will usually fail somewhat gracefully). So do I think the R44 is a perfect ENG ship? Nope. But it is no more likely to cause a problem than ANY eng ship, single or twin (for what that's worth).

[Hughes500]

Headsethair

The weight of an R44 newscopter came straight from Robinsons web site, or is that wrong ?
As for never had an engine failure, I thought Q had one in the Antartic or was that running out of fuel ! Gosh as I get older my memory dims

[John Eacott]

Hughes,

Expect about 760 - 775kg for a Newscopter, depending on the operator's kit. Fuel burn is significantly reduced as much of the work is done loafing around at 18-20" MAP (at least for our filming/traffic work). Obviously a judgement thing, if you're transitting to/from a location the fuel burn would be 'normal', against the reduced burn 'on task'.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Apparently European air affects performance of all single engined helicopters, making then much more dangerous than anywhere else in the world.

Or was it global warming?:eek:

[Frisky Bunny]

Is anyone ging to answer the origional question?
Could someone in New York, Tokyo and Paris let me know whether they can legally fly single-engine over the centre of these respective cities? If so, what altitude restrictions? Any other restrictions?

[Flingwing207]

New York has no specific rules regarding single-engine helicopters.

[BlenderPilot]

I fly single engine over what could be considered the most densely populated city in the world, and if you go by habitants it's larger than Tokyo, NY, and Paris by a bunch, check this out:

http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PhotoAlbum31.html

As you will see there would be almost nowhere you could go in case the engine decided to quit, and so far there is nothing from keeping singles fly over the city.

[007helicopter]

Blender - enjoyed the pics, would not like to get lost after a few beers trying to find which house I was staying in on that estate.

[vaqueroaero]

Some more fuel for the fire. Here are some shots flying microwave relay for the Los Angeles marathon. Perfectly legal to fly around downtown in a single engine. It's not even in controlled airspace.


What wires? - staging post in the Metro Transit bus depot near downtown.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e81/Vaqueroaero/CIMG0313.jpg


Looking for my motorbike. The building in the top right of the picture is the US Bank building. It gets blown up in 'Independence Day'.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e81/Vaqueroaero/CIMG0352.jpg


Runners.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e81/Vaqueroaero/CIMG0357.jpg


Dowtown LA in the distance. Not too many landing spots.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e81/Vaqueroaero/CIMG0364.jpg

[mickjoebill]

May I relate the cameramans point of view in respect of shooting news over London,(for both Sky and BBC in AS355s) and also using the R44 news.

News values and cityscapes are different in London to other parts of the world.
Unlike LA or Melbourne, London has a law that excludes a large area for an emergency landing in the event of power failure of one engine, if the pilot is not to be prosecuted.

I often need to hover at 750ft to get best shots. Move as little as 100ft and you lose the subject behind a tree or building. So often orbits are out of the question. Worldwide most pilots dont want to hover at 750ft in a builtup area in a single on a regular basis.


The R44 is a great machine, but compromised at shooting closeups from height with its 42x zoom, when compared to a larger heli that can carry a long 72x or even a 84x zoom.
This equates to 2x to 3x bigger picture! Put the R44 news 100% higher to 1500 feet and then its is more like 4x to 6x difference in subject size!

If you are going to fly day in day out where the River Thames is meant to be an emergency landing site then floats would be prudent, but R44 news can't be fitted with floats.

When it comes to getting the news shot the R44 news over London is third best option ahead of a twin with long zoom, then single with long zoom and floats.

But no question it is the lowest cost option, the local guys charging £3800 for an 8 hour day.

So for non news shots/jobs ie scenic shots of London from 1500ft the R44 news is a good deal. Ditto countryside locations where its wider lens gives interesting perspectives and transit costs are lower. I enjoy working in it.

Most major broadcasters in Capital cites worldwide see the benifit of the long zoom lens for news. R44 news has been around for 4 years and is finding its niche. That Channel Nine in Australia recently went for three B3s with long zooms and yet others are choosing R44 News is an indicator that different markets have different environments and priorities.


Mickjoebill

[MBJ]

Back from a week flying a single around for 25 hours..and enjoying it!

Regarding the Composition of the CTR review body it was a bit light on Operators. From memory BHAB and GA did have a representative each.

Engine failure stats are interesting and I think its clear (IMHO) that the R44 is better than say, the Bell 206, in this respect. However, when an R44 has an engine failure in UK (..and we still don't know much more about the one in February) I hope it does it somewhere with plenty of green spaces.

My view, personally, is that opening R160 to whoever wants to be there in a single is not, ultimately, very bright and any of the authorities party to it are making brave career choices.

..and finally, Gaseous, I hope you bought David Voy a couple of beers after those Enstrom incidents!

[Gaseous]

MJB,
Hi, I was 14 years old then. David Voy was indeed the pilot for the first incident which was a transmission failure. This incident is fully documented. I'd love to buy him a pint.
The second is much less clear, appears to have been another transmission failure and I dont know who the pilot was. The log book pages are missing.
Edit to add link to report of above incident.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/avenuedentistry/BDKDHackney.bmp

[AlanM]

I hear that the "Specifoed Area" or EGR160 as it is now known is to get bigger, but the A/N/T (CTR W/C/E) bit may go, as well as the "020-140 degrees T" bit.

Fingers crossed.

As an ATCO - I really don't care. I just hope it becomes easier for us and our customers.

[MBJ]

As an ATCO - I really don't care. I just hope it becomes easier for us and our customers.

Just by the way, I think you guys do a great job for us "customers" and it is much appreciated.

[davidvoy]

This train was brought to my attention at a recent gathering so I thought I should add my bit.
I was flying the police Enstroms over London in the 1970's that suffered clutch failures on two occations. The first has been metioned by "Gaseous" when I was over Clapham Junction and did an engine off onto Battersea Heliport. The second was close to Stratford Railway Goods Yard in East London and involved another engine off under some pylon wires.
Both were achieved succesfully, in my view, because we constantly practiced autorotations - sometimes 5 or more per day. When the emergency occured I was completely confident that I could execute the engine off with total accuracy. That only comes with practive and training.

I was not aware that either of these incidents was the cause of the present restrictions as they were always present - we flew under a CAA exemption.

Flying over highly built up areas in singles, by definition, is not dangerous. It is the pilots ability to deal with an emergency that is critical. It appears that MBJ's comments were initially aimed at that question.
I have just come back from Sao Paulo were they fly singles all the time over the 3rd biggest city in the world. This includes landings on roof top helipads of which there are approximately 240!
The biggest problem in the UK is that if there ever was a serious accident in London then I can forsee all helicopters being banned which will do none of us any good. (I have now given up singles - 2 out of 2 may have used up my good fortune!)

[AlanM]

MBJ - you are too kind........ I am going to have to buy you another beer!!!

Pics of you on the website from last week BTW! :ok:

[Gaseous]

Hello David.
Just to let you know that the aircraft BDKD is still flying and still registered as BDKD after all these years. The way it was told to me is that the mechanical failures of BDKD featured in the Mets decision to move to twins. There was also some CAA pressure and threats of withdrawl of the exemption. Maybe they thought 2 succesful forced landings had used up the good fortune too. The fact they were clutch, rather than engine failures appears irrelevant to the people who make such decisions. Those people involved at the time, post on this forum so there may be more information out there.
Regards,
Phil Price, current owner of G-BDKD.

[mickjoebill]

Has a forced/emergency landing occured in London since the 70s?


Mickjoebill

[AlanM]

I have had a couple of forced landings in Twins over London ironically enough - mostly chip warnings and engine shutdowns on traffic departing Battersea that couldn't get back in. Never experienced any singles.....

But then, as a completely rough estimate I would say that 70% of traffic are twins........