Unpressurised scheduled passenger transport?

[IO540]

Maybe this is the wrong forum but I rarely visit the others...

I am curious how does this work out in practice. I am talking about the Islander/Trilander type business. They can't go much above 10k feet, obviously don't have oxygen, yet they fly under IFR which means Eurocontrol routes, most of those are above FL070 and many above FL130, and such an aircraft is bound to spend much of its time in IMC and turbulence.

[conflict alert]

In my land, there are plenty of routes that allow for lower MSA's for the unpressurised aircraft. My guess is that they, like over here, would flight plan via routes with MSA's that are 10000 and below.

[Droopystop]

As far as I know alot of the Orkney Islander stuff is done "VFR". The Advisory routes are used by the Shorts 360s, Twotters, Jet Streams and SAABs (no oxygen but I am not sure if they are pressurised) in Northern Scotland. Most operations seem to stay below FL150.


As a helicopter pilot, we never go airways (too high) so its class G IFR, very often routing direct (airspace and terrain permitting). But then again, we are not scheduled.

IO540, I am intrigued by your comment that IFR means Eurocontrol. Perhaps I have been lucky in that all my IFR has been in the North Sea system, or in areas where traffic densities are so low, we have always been able to file IFR over the radio (VFR - IFR flights). I have only ever filled out one IFR flight plan!

[Chilli Monster]

IO

If there are airways they fly them - if not they fly IFR in class 'G'. Why do you think N866 between SAM and ORTAC had that ridiculously low base level. They are not restricted to Airways in the UK, and outside the UK nobody's stupid enough to use them for that sort of flying ;)

Droopy

Jetstreams and Saab 340s are pressurised - the others are not.

[IO540]

OK, I know the UK is a free for all in Class G (VFR or IFR, nobody cares), and it sounds like the real answer to my Q is that people don't operate those types under IFR in Europe outside the UK.

With a 20k ceiling, my TB20 has a much greater IFR mission capability than a Trilander yet I would scrap many flights into other parts of Europe because I would be in solid IMC, heavy turbulence, and collecting ice for several hours. The Trilander has rubber boots but they would run out of sickbags if they were doing this.

Presumably the Jersey run is scud run below the TCU/CB bases if the weather is bad.

[Johnm]

IO

If there are airways they fly them - if not they fly IFR in class 'G'. Why do you think N866 between SAM and ORTAC had that ridiculously low base level. They are not restricted to Airways in the UK, and outside the UK nobody's stupid enough to use them for that sort of flying

Droopy

Jetstreams and Saab 340s are pressurised - the others are not.

N866 is now R41 isn't it?????

[Chilli Monster]

Johnm - please note word "had" meaning past tense, as in "what it used to be called".

Only the name has changed.

[CapCon]

Not a particularly helpful post but something I found quite shocking.

A few weeks ago I was grounded for a couple of days at a certain French airport on the West coast due to very low cloud. A UK based Islander operating on a scheduled pax flight arrives and I promptly start a conversation about the weather over the channel, assuming that he was flying IFR. Turns out he had just crossed the channel at 800' :eek: Must have been a fun flight for the pax onboard!

Does this happen often?

Cheers,

CapCon

[BEagle]

Sounds like a most enjoyable way to fly! Hardly 'shocking' at all!

Don't forget that the Do-X went most of the way across the Atlantic in ground effect years ago with a full passenger load. By definition, at < 0.8 x (wing span)!!

[Dunc]

Yes they are single pliot AND they have no autopilots (or weather radar or HSI's or RMI's or GPS, only a vac DI and some VOR's) but they have an allowance due to the type of shorthaul flights. In fact even the Jetstreams used by blueislands don't have autopilots. Another fun issue with all this work load is a passenger sitting in the right hand seat with working controls in front of them:eek:

A buddy of mine has been flying the Channel Islands for some years and I think has only canceled one flight due weather (and that was crosswind limits). They scud run and come accross the water I think down to 500'. Thing is when loaded in a Tri you are coming down with an engine failure so all you have achieved is a 200% increase in the chances of having one. If I remember you need 1500 hrs to even be considered for them.

[eyeinthesky]

A standard clearance between Jersey and Guernsey is 'not above 1000ft SVFR'. Provided you comply with Rule 5, there is no problem. Passengers generally seem to love it.

Single pilot IFR public transport is normally only allowed with a functioning autopilot. The Trislanders and Islanders operated by Blue Islands and another channel islands operation have an exemption from the CAA to fly without one, but they are not allowed into the major TMA airfields of the UK unless a second pilot is carried.

Just to clarify Dunc's post: TheJetstreams of BI have no autopilot, but they are twin-crew. It is the Trislanders which occasionally have pax sitting next to the pilot, but only under certain conditions. The Trislanders do all have HSI and GPS (VFR standard only). They are fully IFR equipped to CAA standards.

[High Wing Drifter]

Isn't it just an incredible irony, that the most challenging flying, as described, above is considered the bottom rung of the ladder. When the seemingly apparent reality is that the job gets exponentially easier with a linear improvement in Ts&Cs :hmm:

[Dunc]

Sorry I lumped the Islanders with the Trilanders - The Islanders don't have an HSI or a slaved DI or a panel GPS. Does not get any harder. Its not cargo its pax and your landing at night into a coastal windy field with only an NDB IAP (Alderney) no slaved DI, no HSI, no RMI, no GPS, no autopilot and no co-pilot. What is tougher?

[Say again s l o w l y]

I've seen a few Islanders with all the toys such as RMI's and HSI's.

Operating unpressurised is no problem apart from when you go down to the mountainous bits of Europe. We had lots of problems with a route between Marseille and Paris because of the Massif Central. Whichever genius management pilot had put the route together had forgotten that the single engine drift down alt for a shed was usually around 4-5,000' but had planned the flight going over ground where MSA was 8,700'. You didn't really notice at night, but on a daylight trip, it was pretty startling!

Cue lots of swearing when we first started flying it and lot's of poring over charts to find a way around. This was the only time we stuck to the flight planned route rather than just taking a direct routing when offered. French ATC sounded very surprised when we said NON every night! Until we explained why.

[Life's a Beech]

Are single-pilot IFR public transport operations permitted? (I thought not.)I hope so as I have been doing them for some time now!

The only things we have on the piston aircraft that the Islanders/Trislanders don't are autopilot and turbochargers (and I suppose sound proofing!). These do solve a few of the issues. I spend most of my time at FL90 or FL100 rather than FL50 to FL70 typical of a normally-aspirated aircraft, so am above the weather during the cruise on 95% of flights. The autopilot helps an awful lot, especially in busy airspace, and some of them can even fly coupled approaches.

However I will not only do everything Aurigny, Blue Islands and Lydd Air will do with those aircraft, and have been into all the airfields they operate from, but also I have also been all over Europe, from Spain to Norway, Ireland to Poland. I have flown into the busiest 4 airports in Europe as well as small strips with no approach aids. None of this is too hard - as long as you have the experience and the training, with the support of a good operations department (lacking in some light-charter companies).

I tend to fly in controlled airspace. Routing can be more complicated because I am restricted to FL100, but that is an issue for our ops. I just fly where ATC tell me to. Some routes I will fly outside controlled airspace, usually still IFR, just because it is quicker. That's my choice. Other companies make their pilots fly VFR all around Europe, which depite WR's reasonable preference for being flown VFR on a short, familiar trip, is far harder for the pilot and far less safe when they are flying for a couple of hours on an unfamiliar route. IFR flying is always the easiest way once you are used to it.

One advantage to our operations is that there is no-one else there. Except in terminal areas with airliners in climb or decent the only people at FL100 are unpressurised turbo-charged aircraft. There are not that many of those about! I suppose the Is and Tris are generally lower, but it's still pretty quiet at FL60

HWD

Quite right. However this is also the most fun flying, so I am not about to fight to swap with an airline pilot!

[LateFinals]

One of the reasons I got my PPL was because I have been flying with Aurigny to Alderney for the last 12 years and know many of the Aurigny pilots. I have been lucky enough to sit up front for many sectors, and have even got 7 trilander hours hours logged (following a private charter).

This is what flying is about ! Single pilot, multiple sectors, up to 6 IFR approaches daily down to minimas is not uncommon, the
Aurigny pilots have to be amongst the most skilled in the world. To clear up a thread misconception the Aurigny Trilanders do have autopilots, and when low visibility procedures are in operation at Alderney they are vectored by Guernsey onto the inbound NDB track rather than doing the full approach. As has been said SVFR clearances between the Islands are "not above 1,000 (or 2,000) feet" which gives amazing views.

Aurigny fly airways, where as Blue Islands tend not to, the local island gossip being so BlueIslands can save money from Eurocontrol costs. There's always been friendly rivalry between Aurigny and Blue Islands, set to increase as Blue Islands have now got the JetStreams.

(Anybody wanting IFR training couldn't do better than Guernsey, the ATC are so helpful and friendly)

Cheers,

LF

[eyeinthesky]

QUOTE
the local island gossip being so BlueIslands can save money from Eurocontrol costs
UNQUOTE

The only regular routes which go outside airways are Alderney-Bournemouth and Alderney-Shoreham. A quick glance at a chart will show that there is a lack of suitable airways for the whole of these routes, unlike Alderney-Southampton, which has its own airway with a specially low base level to accommodate the BN2 performance issues. Cost is only a very small part of the equation and would never be allowed to compromise safety.

As for the Trislander autopilot issue, I have never been in an Aurigny one, but 700hrs in Trislanders leads me to believe that there is no CAA approved autopilot made for them. That of course may only be the case for fitting a new one. If it's always been there that may be different.

[IO540]

I find it suprising that 1500hrs TT is regarded by some as some kind of compensation for not having an autopilot.

Having seen these people do engine tests while taxiing (i.e. against the brakes) I reckon not a few rules get bent on these operations.

The CAA bans SE turbine PT ops (regardless of how modern the aircraft might be) while allowing this sort of thing - they clearly have no idea where risk resides.

[Life's a Beech]

IO540

What rules are being bent? Were they even doing full engine checks, or just checking out a suspected problem? I would think they only do full checks once a day.

Why would 1500 hours TT not go a great way to compensate for lack of autopilot? I find it surprising, even astonishing, that you don't think it does. The experience transforms a pilot who has the right attitude to flying. It helps me when my autopilot fails, as inevitably it has done. Workload increases, but I can cope without problem where I would have struggled a lot more at 300 hours when I had a shiny new CPL/IR.

Why would an autopilot be necessary on a short, familiar route anyway? In practice the main reason I need it is so I can find information in Jeppesens or my flight briefing papers that they will have memorised or have close to hand, and to relieve the fatigue of flying the long sectors under IFR that they don't experience. I suspect that is the reason for the CAA's concession, but I have no problem flying entire legs to position the aircraft after autopilot failure.

Where exactly are those extra-high risks in this operation? If operations are correctly overseen by the national aviation authorities, with experienced, current crews with semiannual flight checks, working restricted hours with good training and sound maintenance then very high standards of safety are now being achieved.

Risk statistics for single turbines as compared to light twins are not always presented honestly. However the main reason that the former will not be allowed to fly until engines are infallible is the matter of responsibility. If a single-engined aircraft has an engine failure in IMC and then fails to make a safe forced landing the responibility immediately falls to one man: the man that signed the piece of paper saying that single-engined public-transport operations would be allowed in IMC. Rightly or wrongly no-one in their right mind would sign that piece of paper in today's culture.

I am sorry, but until you have flown regularly under these or similar conditions you cannot really understand the job. It is different from anything else in aviation, but is still a skill that only needs to be learnt, consolidated and kept in currrent practice. What exactly is your aviation experience? How do you know about commerial IFR operations?

[Life's a Beech]

eyeinthesky

Most IFR traffic between Bournemouth and the channel islands flies in the airway, joining or leaving in the vicinity of THRED.

[IO540]

Life's a Beech

I have a CPL/IR but am not a commercial pilot ... but this is a pilot forum so no harm in asking!

I agree that 1500+hrs (all done on the type and with high currency) makes you a much better pilot than the same individual with 300hrs done mostly on a Cessna 152, but if you think this compensates for the lack of an autopilot then we just have to disagree.

I would agree that if you do short legs, often scud running at 700ft or whatever, then some cr*ppy knackered old AP (I have seen the insides of these old dogs and those I have seen really did look ready for the scrapyard) with no redundancy is probably more of a liability than an asset during normal operations. A pitch servo failure would have you heading for the water in seconds. But if there is an emergency or some other high workload situation one is always glad to have one.

[Life's a Beech]

I disagree. In the few emergencies I have had in all sorts of situations the only thing I need are my training and experience and the help of ATC. This is largely the basis of some of the training you will not have had if you are not a commercial pilot, the CRM course. I use autopilot for the cruise to avoid fatigue and leave me free to shuffle paper.

In fact in many really urgent emergencies I would switch the autopilot off until the situation stabilised, for various reasons depending on the emergency, for example in case control loads get beyond it and it suddenly trips, leaving me with an uncontrollable aircraft all of a sudden. Can you suggest an emergency in which an autopilot is really that helpful?

An autopilot is not vital to normal operations to an experienced pilot even on a long cruise at altitude. You should know this if you have an IR, as you are trained to fly like that! My point is that on the sectors flown in Islanders and Trislanders I would not even miss it, and will often fly without using it when I fly such short legs. Anyone operating longer legs commercially would have an autopilot.

[Say again s l o w l y]

This is going way off topic, but I can think of many emergencies where I would keep the autopilot in and manage the situation first, rather than trying to fly the machine and deal with the problem identification and then solution at the same time.

Dealing with emergencies is about using all resources at your disposal and there are many that would include using the AP. There are some where your first action would be to kick the AP out immediately. Not capturing a level for instance (though I'd hardly call that an emergency!).

Basic autopilots can't handle much, but the sophisticated ones of the last few years are pretty good and really help you out when the workload gets high.

Not as much as having someone else sitting next to you though!

[Life's a Beech]

Yes I can think of emergencies where I would leave the autopilot on, but that is not the point. I cannot think of any where lack of AP is important to the outcome of the emergency in the hands of an experienced, current pilot who correctly use the resources available (e.g. he trims the aircraft and tells ATC what is happening so they keep him clear of other traffic and help him with navigation and diversion if required, as we are taught in the CRM course). Hence I would say that the experience overcomes the need for the autopilot, which is the discussion.

I think it is on topic, because it relates directly to IO540's contention that single-crew IFR flying is not safe.

As far as I can see from experience in the job the autopilot requirements for single-crew IFR are for normal operations, not for emergencies. A lot of the help the AP gives you, such as relief from fatigue and the ability to take time to navigate, goes out of the window in most emergencies.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Single crew IFR is more dangerous than multi-crew. That is obvious and well proven and unfortunately even highly experienced pilots continue to kill themselves whilst flying this way.

I have done flown single crew and multi crew and I know which I prefer. Multi crew flying has so many safety advantages over single pilot ops.

In airline flying you are often told to think of the autopilot as another member of the crew (A cranky and occasionally obstinate member sometimes it seems!). In fact it frees up the PNF to do other duties when it goes in. ie when the PF is handflying, the PNF is monitoring them, but when the AP is in, the PF is monitoring the AP and the PNF whilst keeping a watching brief can get on with paperwork or dealing with the cabin etc.etc. That's CRM, using all the resources available to ensure the flight goes smoothly.

I think single crew IFR should always be done with a serviceable autopilot and I really wouldn't want to do it myself without one. If a 1500hr pilot is seen in this example as experienced, then I must be an old salt by now and I would be very loath to go off on a crappy night in a light twin without some form of back up other than my experience. Too many AAIB reports prove that to me.

Most CRM courses are just about how to work with your fellow crew members, rather than telling you how to operate the machine. Stuff all use to the average air taxi pilot really.

[Life's a Beech]

Of course multi-crew flying, correctly organised and trained, is safer, and I like it when I do fly with another pilot. However that really is off topic, as the discussion here is about single-crew IFR as a safe form of transport in itself, not as a comparrison with multi-crew. That multi-crew is even safer does not mean that single-crew IFR is inherently unsafe!

I would agree also that I want an autopilot, of course I cannot fly public-transport without it, but again that is off-topic because I don't just fly familiar, short routes. If I was doing then the autopilot becomes a lot less relevant. The CAA recognises this.

[IO540]

Can you suggest an emergency in which an autopilot is really that helpful?

Any high workload situation where the autopilot is functional and safe to use, e.g

- heavy ATC workload
- sudden procedure change e.g. a new STAR/approach given at last minute due to wind/rwy change
- flying a complicated vert/hor route
- attending a sick or distressed passenger
- attending any other cockpit issue e.g. tangled oxygen pipes, or (you will like this one) changing over the oxygen bottle
- having a wee
- having a wee, and the bottle cap has fallen on the floor
- flying a 7hr leg?
- not being a macho man with a hairy chest
- etc etc etc

To state the converse is saying that a higher workload is more safe, which is utterly wrong. Which is not to say I have never come across that attitude among many pilots, but I am trying to keep this technical. Shedding excess workload is a vital safety measure.

I would not use the AP:

- if it has failed (obviously)
- in heavy turbulence (it will likely disconnect anyway)
- with a vac failure (mine uses the #1 horizon which is vac driven)
- in heavy icing (control surfaces could freeze up & not be obvious)
- any control surface problem

However, re #2 above, the objective is to keep wings level and maintain pitch attitude (only), and mine does have that mode.

I don't for a moment have a problem with not having one on a short scud run but to say they are a liability generally ????

[Life's a Beech]

Most of those are not relevant to emergencies. They are either a normal part of everyday flying where I would often use an autopilot, but mostly not relevant at all to BN-2 operations.

Heavy ATC workload is normal in southe-east England, but it is remarkable how it suddenly clears with the words "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday", if you are considering an emergency situation.

Sudden changes of routing are part of my daily work, although less so for the short-hop scheduled boys. They also seem to give multi-crew as much trouble as any pilot I would sign a line check on if the radio is anything to go by. If necessary direction can be requested from ATC, and they are sympathetic when reminded we are single-crew. Good CRM.

Flying complicated vertical and horizontal routes is again routine in England. Nothing special, just keep the plog up-to-date and if given an unexpected waypoint ask for vectors (as I have heard multi-crew pilots with full FMS do!). Hard work, but hardly an emergency.

Sick and distressed passengers cannot easily be helped on a short route more than being landed ASAP. Emergency call if necessary, but autopilot no help.

Oxygen pipes in an Islander? Have you seen one (http://www.imcat.com/images/newzealand/A_BN2_1.jpg)? Does it look like it is worth flying above FL100, remembering that unlike me it doesn't even have turbo-charged engines?

Having a wee and 7-hour legs fall to the same objection: not only can no BN2 fly long enough to require this (even our longest-range aircraft cannot fly for 7 hours with reserves for public transport) it is never used for long legs, as no-one would get on one again after experiencing more than 45 minutes in one. Oh, and last time I had to have a wee in the air I had to fly the aircraft, due to turbulence.

I am not saying that a high workload is more safe. I am saying that in some circumstances the pilot should be flying the aircraft, so he knows what is happening to it. I never said APs were a liability, I said I will usually use one, I simply said that the reason I do is not to do with emergencies, and in many emergencies (I would include anything that affects handling, including an engine failure) I would want to be flying the aircraft until I have stabilised the situation. In the case of a BN2 I would be pretty much on the ground by then: they don't go far from the nearest suitable.