Rules for single engine commercial flying over water ?

[Just wondering]

Hi Folks,

Just been through EUOPS etc and can't find anything to prohibit singe engine land plane commercial operations over water - is it just me or is there nothing there. Appreciate any pointers - tks

[avgenie]

I think the Certification regulation (Part 25?) require assumption of one engine failure at take off ( and hence V1, VR), which would make two engines the minimum for commercial operations. You may want to investigate it further, hope this helps

[DERG]

A long time ago I suggested to my instructor we could hop over the Firth of Forth in Scotland. This was in a C172. Big NO NO. It was the same with high ground over 1500 feet. Maybe things have moved on? This was PPL training, maybe commercial is different with single engines?

[DC-ATE]

Just wondering -
.....can't find anything to prohibit singe engine land plane commercial operations over water.....

There is one rule: common sense. Always make sure IF you fly over any water that you're at an altitude that would permit gliding to the nearest suitable landing spot in case of engine failure. Preferably on land !

[DERG]

That was how I saw it. Instructor was a WUSS.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can't lay my hands on the regs at the moment, but whilst I don't think that there's a prohibition on SE PT over water (/mountains/ forest...), I think that there is a prohibition on SE PT in IFR; that'll pretty much prevent it happening with any reliability, in most of the world.

G

[Just wondering]

Thanks Genghis, that's my reading of the EASA law - no night or IFR but nothing else except equipment requirements.

UK Law a bit better in that it mentions, in the event of an engine failure, that the aircraft must be able to "reach a place at which it can safely land"

EASA doesn't seem to have the UK caveat.

I'll keep digging

Cheers

[selfin]

EU-OPS
1.240 - Routes and areas of operation

Subpara (a)6:

If single-engine aeroplanes are used, surfaces are available which permit a safe forced landing to be executed.

Noted separately by reference below OPS 1.525(a).

No exemption in respect of 1.240(a)6 is made under appendix 1 to 1.005(a).

[Just wondering]

Tks selfin,

"surfaces are available which permit a safe forced landing to be executed"

Had been through the above - found it an interesting difference from the UK caveat - the definition of a "safe forced landing" could be debatable as opposed to "safely land"

[selfin]

JW,

Overlooked including OPS 1.542 in my last post.

OPS 1.542 - En-route — Single-engine aeroplanes.

(a) An operator shall ensure that the aeroplane, in the meteorological conditions expected for the flight, and in the event of engine failure, is capable of reaching a place at which a safe forced landing can be made. For landplanes, a place on land is required, unless otherwise approved by the Authority.

(b) When showing compliance with subparagraph (a) above:

1. the aeroplane must not be assumed to be flying, with the engine operating within the maximum continuous power conditions specified, at an altitude exceeding that at which the rate of climb equals 300 ft per minute; and

2. the assumed en-route gradient shall be the gross gradient of descent increased by a gradient of 0,5 %.

Additionally two-engine aeroplanes unable to satisfy the climb requirements under appendix 1 to 1.525(b) shall be treated as single-engine aeroplanes (OPS 1.525(b)).

[Just wondering]

selfin, Big tks for your last, really apprecite it ..... the missing piece of the jigsaw !!!

Cheers

[172_driver]

There are (at least was) a few cargo operators of C208 in Norway & Sweden. Nord-Flyg flew Stockholm-Helsinki, a fair bit over water. Out of curiosity how the regs were interpreted I asked a JAA representative about it. They responded that some NAA's approve this type of operation, while others do not.