PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Questions
Forgotten your Username/Password?


Questions If you are a professional pilot or your work involves professional aviation please use this forum for questions. Enthusiasts, please use the 'Spectators Balcony' forum.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 7th Mar 2010, 21:28   #1 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26
SE IFR with Commercial Passengers

I know this is an old question but does anyone know the CAA's latest stance on Single Turboprop IFR/Night with commercial passengers? I'm aware of JAR-OPS 1.542, 1.525 and 1.240(a)(6) but I also know that some countries (for example Oz and Canada) permit commercial IFR for aircraft such as the Pilatus PC-12 NG with well proven engine reliability. Having stumbled around in underpowered twins with no anti-ice or radar, I know which I would prefer!

I have trawled the almost impenetrable CAA and JAR web sites to no avail. There is also some poorly informed debate on SE IFR on various fora. But what is the CAA's position? Sorry if this has been covered before.
67Wing is offline   Reply
Old 8th Mar 2010, 05:17   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 366
Sweden and Norway both has some cargo operators flying Caravans. Thinking BenAir, Nord Flyg.
172_driver is offline   Reply
Old 8th Mar 2010, 10:08   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 283
Some years ago, the UK CAA stance was that single-engine IFR was not supported by them because of the high poulation density in the UK, and the perceived risk to people on the ground in the event of engine failure. I'm not aware of any change of outlook.

Worth noting that the countiries quoted above that do approve it are fairly sparsely populated.
kenparry is offline   Reply
Old 8th Mar 2010, 16:24   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26
Thanks, for the reply. That will save me a lot of nugatory searching. I'd forgotten how impenetrable JAR/CAA documentation had become!
67Wing is offline   Reply
Old 12th Mar 2010, 04:19   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 3,687
The US allows SE IFR public transport and many parts of the US are decidedly not sparsely populated.

Last edited by Tinstaafl; 12th Mar 2010 at 20:38.
Tinstaafl is online now   Reply
Old 21st Mar 2010, 12:43   #6 (permalink)


PPRuNeaholic
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,265
That's certainly true Tinny but you'd have to admit that there's a bunch of aerodromes all over the country - many are often within 5-10 miles of just about any IFR route. On that basis, the risk to public safety on the ground is fairly minimal - in fact, the biggest problem is the bloke who runs out of fuel or VFR conditions, or both, and ends up on a freeway...
OzExpat is offline   Reply
 
 
This ad will disappear if you login
Reply
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 00:36.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".