Hi,

Please can anybody tell me if the Cessna 208 is approved for IFR CAT purposes in the UK? If so, has it been approved in the 12 seat configuration? Do you know of any documentation to support this, and of any operators currently using these for IFR CAT purposes?

Thanks in advance.

Just to clarify, I'm referring to the C208B Grand Caravan.

No single engine aircraft is approved for public transport under EASA to my knowledge.

The 208 is used extensively for parachute operations.

There are exemptions for CARGO ONLY, in Sweden, Norway and Spain, but they have to prove some special routings/altituteds etc.

no pax transport at night-day/IFR in sinlge engine in EASA.

Thanks for the input guys. I know SE aircraft aren't usually allowed to fly CAT with pax, however the FAA made an exception for the C208B on the grounds that the PT6 engine is extremely reliable, and is probably safer than most light twins.

Do you know where I could find a list of aircraft approved for CAT in the UK/Europe? Trying to navigate the CAA and EASA websites is a nightmare :ugh:

I am not aware of such a list. The only rules that I know are as stated above, no single engine operations. After that it is what you choose to try and add to your AOC. What you intend to do with it will define the type of aircraft that is used.

I know of a DA42 piston twin operation that does small scale air taxi work. There are quite a lot of twin piston operators kicking around. We operate sub 5.7t twin turboprops.

You need to say what you are thinking of doing if you want more advice than that.

The Cessna Caravan is used all over the world in PT ops, but then the rest if the world is generality not EASA...

Hi there,

I do beleive Loch Lomond Seaplanes (t/a European Seaplanes) have a C208a Caravan Amphibian and a T206U Amphibian on an AOC out of Glasgow and Loch Lomond.

I do beleive their AOC though has limitations - as in its point A of departure back to Point A.

I would be interested into how you get on - as I have often wondered about the Caravan 675 for SE IFR/VFR Ops from EGBO to EGEO / EGHE - At the moment I am looking at the Atomising BN2 as my option.....

Alister,

A UK based AOC company I used to fly with operated C208B's as CAT for cargo operations.

The restrictions imposed by the authorities were for Day VFR conditions only.

The company had hoped that the single engine IFR restrictions would be removed but this never happened, so in the end the Caravans were sold off and replaced with more multi engine aircraft.

Personally I felt much safer with the one PT6 up front than with 2 piston engines but those are the rules..........

chinch can't see over the instruments in a caravan, don't believe a word he says

Tom, you're a cheeky blighter lol.

Now if you'd said about seeing out of a PA34 then that'd be fair comment, but thanks to the very low hours of use on the 208's the seats were still nice and firm with a good range of travel and I'll have you know I could see at least something over the top of the panel :p

Seriously though, I found the 208 to be a brilliant aeroplane to fly and the visibility is great from her. Not just in flight either as the tall undercarriage means you're sitting pretty high from the ground too (yes, especially if you're short Tom) and that makes it much easier to find your way around airports like LHR than in the old PA34's etc.

I think it's a real shame that they were never authorised for commercial air transport (other than day/vfr) back in Blighty as with the standard British weather I didn't get the opportunity to fly it as much as I'd have liked!

Single Engine IFR CAT
I think people are misinterpreting the rules. My very first A to B AOC in 1974 was for the Cessna 206. Day IFR was allowed with the proviso that a safe forced landing could be carried out in the event of an engine failure. This was interpretated and put in the ops manual that the whole route must have a cloud ceiling of at least 1000 agl and, I think, 5 km viz. Also within gliding distance of land. We often did charters to the near continent. Unless EASA rules are very different I would imagine the same applies now. I think it is IMC criteria not IFR rules that apply. We made it work and I am sure someone with imagination could make it work now.

EASA do not allow single engine IFR Public Transport work regardless of what conditions you apply to it. Its a different world from the 70's!!

There are may people who have put safety cases to them around using SET aircraft. All of it has fallen on deaf ears.

Interesting article particularly the conclusions and recommendations.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/research/Single%20Engine%20Operations%20in%20IMC%20and%20at%20Night%20Risk%20Assessment%20Issue%202.pdf

D

A pretty thorough report. Makes me wonder why EASA have still not taken the recommendations and approved the operations?

The operational reliability of the caravan just keeps on proving the point.

Makes me wonder why EASA have still not taken the recommendations and approved the operations?


I guess it all depends if you look it from the bottom up, or the top down.

It may well be safer than the lowest safety standard currently approved for CAT (MEP), but certainly not safer than twin jet, or twin turbo prop ops. On the basis that the percentage of CAT MEP in the market is falling every year, the manufacturers don't really produce many MEP aircraft, and AVGAS is so expensive, and difficult to obtain then you can only imagine that it will be almost obsolete in 5-10 years. It's clear that EASA don't like MEP CAT, and nor does the charter market. Once they're gone, the lowest standard will be MET, which is better than SET. At the end of the day, that single engine can still fail for a multitude of reasons.

Bose-x
Are you sure? I thought EASA will not allow single engine CAT in IMC, totally different, but I may be wrong

Hawker, sorry you have lost me! As far as I am aware there is no EASA approval to conduct SE operations in IMC or at night. This is what I said.

I know there are/were a couple of A to A Day VFR operations for sightseeing but nothing otherwise that I am aware off. The report referred to above was a feasability study recomending that it be approved but did not go anywhere.

The Q report is deeply flawed and though the author was an experienced flight test observer and flew SEP aircraft he did not seek input from those who had real world experience in operating SET aircraft under CAT operations.

The report was never circulated for comment though it did produce a strong reaction from those who had studied SET operations for 5+ years and knew the true facts.

The author did not contact the commercial operators in Scandinavia where two fleets of C208 we're operated year in year out. Had he done so then he would have seen the whole scenario and the care that they took in evaluating risk periods and calculating flight profiles over populated and remote areas. Safety was their key concern.

He did visit a local operator with 2 aircraft but as they were restricted to day VMC as the CAA did not approve night VMC though in fact the now do so for private aircraft operations.

He did not take into account the information and contact details that were provided such as those operating PC12s and TBM 700 for paasenger use many on the LX register.

Like the Head of CAA Flight OPs, or the CAA expert at the JAA he not accept the offer to fly in one of the SET aircraft offered to him.

As a result the flight profiles Q proposed were unrealistic and over restrictive.

The report did not take into account the 100+ responses that had been made to the NPA but rather adopted a typical Q stance that 'We are the experts and we know best.'

At the end of the JAA working group report the total hours flown in SET aircraft was about 6000, now this has increased to over 12000 and the shut down rate of the PT6 has significantly reduced. Importantly the FAR has reduced mainly due to tighter regulatory control in that an awareness of Flight Into Known Icing program was introduced and operators have hopefully stopped overloading the aircraft.

SET aircraft had proven to be equally as safe as MET aircraft and unlike MET they all have an emergency power lever to overcome the problem that many MET aircraft have when the FCU fails. Due to a lesser mass,lower VS and higher certification standards many of the accidents are usually more survivable.

One EU operator estimated that if forced to use MET aircraft instead of SET then they would use 400,000 more litres of AVTUR to carry the same payload. They have lower noise levels, both important considerations.

CAT with MEP aircraft is not in decline it is on the increase mainly due to the strong sales of the DA 42, Technam, P68 and other light twins many of which are used for FT operations during the day and freight at night. Personally I would not be happy flying some of these low powered aircraft with 100 hp a side in icing conditions over the North Sea.

I understand that in Germany the pilots of the DA 42 are told to shake the wings to get rid of the ice and likewise give the props a good gunning. However they are cheap to operate but slow for some freight runs.

You can Google the various safety sites and see just how many engine related accidents to SET there has been in Western World commercial operations and form your own opinions but unless the manufacturers coordinate their efforts then EASA have no inclination to approve such operations as they are out of their zone of comfort.

The findings of the JAA SE-IMC Working Group were that:

The fare paying public are being denied the choice of being able to fly in safe more fuel efficient aircraft.

One EU operator estimated that if forced to use MET aircraft instead of SET then they would use 400,000 more litres of AVTUR to carry the same payload. They have lower noise levels, both important considerations.


I doubt that very much. The C208 burns around 400Lbs per hour, whereas a metroliner say, burns around 600Lbs per hour. Now factor in the speed differential, and per mile the C208 is at about 2.5Lbs per nm, and the metroliner is 2.4Lbs per hour. The metro can also haul more cargo.

The C208 burns around 400Lbs per hour, whereas a metroliner say, burns around 600Lbs per hour. Now factor in the speed differential, and per mile the C208 is at about 2.5Lbs per nm, and the metroliner is 2.4Lbs per hour.

The C208Bs I fly burn between 300-350pph, depending on altitude and length of flight etc. It works out at a tad under 2lbs per NM. In the commuter configuration, we can carry 12 adults plus a shed load of baggage in the cargo pods.

Consider also that there is only one engine to fix, and replace parts for. The C208B is far more environmentally friendly and cost efficient than a MET aircraft. (Although from the sounds of things the Metro isn't too bad for a MET.)

When considering the safety case, is it wise to bring up the texas death tube?:E

Purple - fair enough, I fall on sword for that one.

I did a feasiblity on the C208 - Its simply a great machine mainly because it's so versatile. Cost wise though, when considering fuel burn, maintenance costs, overhaul costs etc there are MET aircraft that fair just as well on a per mile basis. OK they can't land on sand, mud, ice, water etc... but perhaps I'm just happy using airports with asphalt!

Question for all...If I consider that the engines on the C208 are that reliable that I don't need to factor in a failure for CAT, could I then, by that rationale, put 2 of them on a King Air 350, and increase the MTOW accordingly (subject to structural limits of course) as I don't need to calculate single engine performance?

Well, I was just browsing through ebay and found someone with an interesting way of avoiding the "red tape" of bothering with an AOC as he describes it.

If you don't fancy the idea of having to go to all the expense and trouble of holding an AOC to fly people for hire or reward then just sell them shares in the aeroplane and hey presto.

Using this method you'd be able to use a C208 just as easily ;)

Seems we've all been doing it wrong for years.

Go by plane and avoid congestion and delays - group ownership of your own light aircraft | gobyplane (http://www.gobyplane.co.uk/)

Professionally Flown Share in Four Seat Aircraft, East Midlands Area | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Professionally-Flown-Share-in-Four-Seat-Aircraft-East-Midlands-Area-/280928505719?pt=UK_CPV_Aviation_SM&hash=item4168a4cf77)

Discuss................

So - have the CAA altered their view on non AOC operated aircraft which are offered as "fractional ownership"? My understanding is that the operation can not be delegated to a Scheme manager UNLESS the aircraft is operated under an AOC. In short fractional ownership is OK if the individual owners have an active part in managing the aircraft.

Like the tiger moth gig, this sh1t has been going on for decades, and the CAA do nothing.

Do operators in the French Overseas Departments fall under EASA? Because there are some F registered Caravans operating in the Caribbean.

http://www.stbarthcommuter.com/cta-st-barth-commuter.pdf
http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Operations/OPS%20NAA/03%20AOC%20Register/France.pdf

So - have the CAA altered their view on non AOC operated aircraft which are offered as "fractional ownership"? My understanding is that the operation can not be delegated to a Scheme manager UNLESS the aircraft is operated under an AOC. In short fractional ownership is OK if the individual owners have an active part in managing the aircraft.

Hey, someone else to harass, and you thought you had nothing to do this week end. Have fun

FD1 - A simple question from me?? No attack on the person advertising the fractional ownership on Ebay or his website. Why so offensive?

To quote the persons own website:

This scheme is a truly unique opportunity as so few commercially qualified pilots choose to operate in the private sector. Your aircraft (http://www.gobyplane.co.uk/the-aircraft.html) will be flown, operated and administrated by a professional pilot with 35 years experience of flying light aircraft and 18 years of experience as a commercial airline pilot.

So to me a fair question about the current status of such operations. Its a great time of change with respect to Aviation in the UK.

I can see from a little research the stance of the CAA previously on this matter, however the most up todate information I could find is almost two years old, at that point the CAA had a very clear stance with respect to such operations.

It is reflected in the quote below:

this sh1t has been going on for decades, and the CAA do nothing

When were the CAA under the threat before of having to close departments or reduce size due to a European wide regulation coming into force? This is all ready evidenced by the published future down sizing of regional engineering offices and consilidation into Gatwick.

Human nature is that if your back is to the wall, then you fight. Do you honestly think that the CAA will continue to do nothing with respect to many details that have previously been ignored, or do you think there is perhaps a chance that people may try to justify their jobs by "appearing" now to be efficent?

I was not the person who first mentioned the operation and put the links to the persons website on the forum. If people don't want to poke the fire then its best not to mention any specific examples of the many grey areas in aviation in the UK.

Personally I think its unrealistic with EASA and the changes being forced on national authorities to poke heads in sand and think it will not affect anyone.

Who, me? Defensive? Where?

Hawker and Bose-X: you're both right. CAT with SET/SEP in IMC or at night is not allowed.

However, there are no rules prohibiting SET/SEP CAT ops under IFR, in daylight and in VMC.

IFR=instrument flight rules IMC=instrument meteorological conditions. It is perfectly possible to fly under IFR (flight rules) in VMC (weather conditions).

This is from EASA-OPS annex IV, part CAT:

CAT.POL.A.300 General
(a) The operator shall not operate a single-engined aeroplane:
(1) at night; or
(2) in IMC except under special VFR.