Where does the UK/JAR "twin only" mentality come from?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
All these years, wasting time, fuel and money, flying round with two engines rather than one, which is now deemed to be safer!
If only the industry would listen to the experts here!
Who have probably never flown a twin.....
If only the industry would listen to the experts here!
Who have probably never flown a twin.....
So right Shy and so wrong Ornis! The second engine took me 75 minutes from literally the middle of the northern North Sea to safety onshore on a black, snowy, windy, winter's Sunday night. I almost certainly wouldn't be here now if I'd only had the one, but of course I wouldn't have been in that location if I'd only had the one anyway!
Odd.....having had several engine failures over the decades....not one resulted in a crash......not even in a Single.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
"AnFi - why am I reminded of hen's teeth? What do YOU think 'OEI' stands for?"
It stands for One Engine Inoperative - I would have thought you would know that!
and I don't know; why are YOU reminded of hen's teeth? (of all strange things)
I would have thought it a matter of fairly elementary arithmetic that if you are OEI in a single, things become very simple, you are landing. Like North Sea Helicopters are also going to need to be able to do, nowdays!
Carrying floats in NS is an admission that two engines do not deliver imunity from immediate forced landing.
Just curious Democritus but ref "The second engine took me 75 minutes from literally the middle of the northern North Sea to safety onshore on a black, snowy, windy, winter's Sunday night." did the first engine in your OEI become Inoperative due to catastrophic failure, or was it shut down due chip light or some such other reason?
Do you think your forced water landing (that was averted by having a spare engine on board) would have been fatal or just severely inconvenient?
Of course just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean that there will not have been some successes from it, but there are failures of the theory also (see thread topic). And anyway I am all in favour of NS helicopters using the twin principle ( it certainly extracts more money from the oil companies) but it has got to stop becoming rampant mania onshore where it is almost pointless if not obviously counterproductive. It certainly seems to NEVER have worked during the 'CAT A TakeOff Phase' according to polls I have carried out on PPrune...
(please forgive thread creep to NS, but it is clear that twins do not deliver the upside claimed, and that is 'on topic', 1x10-9 is not true)
"AnFi - why am I reminded of hen's teeth? What do YOU think 'OEI' stands for?"
It stands for One Engine Inoperative - I would have thought you would know that!
and I don't know; why are YOU reminded of hen's teeth? (of all strange things)I would have thought it a matter of fairly elementary arithmetic that if you are OEI in a single, things become very simple, you are landing. Like North Sea Helicopters are also going to need to be able to do, nowdays!
Carrying floats in NS is an admission that two engines do not deliver imunity from immediate forced landing.
Just curious Democritus but ref "The second engine took me 75 minutes from literally the middle of the northern North Sea to safety onshore on a black, snowy, windy, winter's Sunday night." did the first engine in your OEI become Inoperative due to catastrophic failure, or was it shut down due chip light or some such other reason?
Do you think your forced water landing (that was averted by having a spare engine on board) would have been fatal or just severely inconvenient?
Of course just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean that there will not have been some successes from it, but there are failures of the theory also (see thread topic). And anyway I am all in favour of NS helicopters using the twin principle ( it certainly extracts more money from the oil companies) but it has got to stop becoming rampant mania onshore where it is almost pointless if not obviously counterproductive. It certainly seems to NEVER have worked during the 'CAT A TakeOff Phase' according to polls I have carried out on PPrune...
(please forgive thread creep to NS, but it is clear that twins do not deliver the upside claimed, and that is 'on topic', 1x10-9 is not true)
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
AnFI;
Carrying floats in NS is an admission that two engines do not deliver imunity from immediate forced landing.
Carrying floats in NS is an admission that two engines do not deliver imunity from immediate forced landing.
Last edited by SilsoeSid; 16th Mar 2014 at 23:08. Reason: Grammer!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
but it has got to stop becoming rampant mania onshore where it is almost pointless if not obviously counterproductive.
Only to those single engine VFR only pilots who have never yet flown a twin but claim to know more about them than those who have flown both types...
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS "Surely there are emergencies that require immediate landing that don't involve the engines failing" Yes, exactly that's the point, and furthermore some of those reasons are even because they are twins.
The maths is (self evidently) wrong
The maths is (self evidently) wrong
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Nice try, however your statement about floats doesn't back up the point you think you're trying to make!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MG - yup One AND Only !
SS Sure it does: carrying two engines is justified by the unacceptability of having to land immediately and supposed to render it remote. If it works then you don't need floats, since it does not work because other factors require immediate landing, then immediate landing needs to be made safe by the carriage of floats, severely reducing the justification of avoiding immediate landing due engine failure. (not to mention that some (gearboxes, tail booms, free wheel units, fuel systems, pilot confusion, engine explosions and fires) causes have actually been due to having two engines)
SS Sure it does: carrying two engines is justified by the unacceptability of having to land immediately and supposed to render it remote. If it works then you don't need floats, since it does not work because other factors require immediate landing, then immediate landing needs to be made safe by the carriage of floats, severely reducing the justification of avoiding immediate landing due engine failure. (not to mention that some (gearboxes, tail booms, free wheel units, fuel systems, pilot confusion, engine explosions and fires) causes have actually been due to having two engines)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AnFI
I have no idea what your experience is/was. You choose not to share that in your profile. If your point was that twins are more difficult to handle than singles after an engine failure - as many asymmetric light aeroplanes can be for the untrained - then I might agree with you. However, that's not what you are saying.
For my part, I have suffered a real engine failure (not precautionary shutdown!) on police ops, and in the hover, at night over one of the largest UK cities it is possible to imagine. Had I been flying a single that night, I'm far from certain I would be making this contribution now.
Twin engines are not only mandated (in the UK) for the necessary exemptions to Rule 5. They are the very, very least the public deserve, and it would be idiotic for anyone (particularly with no relevant experience?) to suggest otherwise.
As for the NS point. There are a hundred reasons why an aircraft might end up in the sea. Even jumbo jets carry life rafts! But that doesn't mean we should be carrying passenger in singles across the Atlantic!
I have no idea what your experience is/was. You choose not to share that in your profile. If your point was that twins are more difficult to handle than singles after an engine failure - as many asymmetric light aeroplanes can be for the untrained - then I might agree with you. However, that's not what you are saying.
For my part, I have suffered a real engine failure (not precautionary shutdown!) on police ops, and in the hover, at night over one of the largest UK cities it is possible to imagine. Had I been flying a single that night, I'm far from certain I would be making this contribution now.
Twin engines are not only mandated (in the UK) for the necessary exemptions to Rule 5. They are the very, very least the public deserve, and it would be idiotic for anyone (particularly with no relevant experience?) to suggest otherwise.
As for the NS point. There are a hundred reasons why an aircraft might end up in the sea. Even jumbo jets carry life rafts! But that doesn't mean we should be carrying passenger in singles across the Atlantic!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandem: "Had I been flying a single that night, I'm far from certain I would be making this contribution now." because you think you would have been killed? or because the (probable) successful autrotation would have failed to result in your death thereby undermining your twin mindset? (a bit like seeing if witches float
)
(If a 400hr pilot can pull it off at night then surely you can?)
and anyway the inevitable rare successes have to be weighed against the failures.
) (If a 400hr pilot can pull it off at night then surely you can?)
and anyway the inevitable rare successes have to be weighed against the failures.
Last edited by AnFI; 17th Mar 2014 at 00:04. Reason: grama and spellink
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AnFI
Having reviewed your posting history, it's clear you have a problem with twins, and quite likely have limited, if any, experience on them.
Care to share your background?
No?
Having reviewed your posting history, it's clear you have a problem with twins, and quite likely have limited, if any, experience on them.
Care to share your background?
No?
TR,
A question came to mind after reading your posts and those of Anfi's.
I have far more twin time than single....have done the Police thing in both single and twins (if you accept Nuclear Security to be much the same as Police work)....and have had engine failures in both kinds of helicopter.
Very few Police Forces in the USA operate Twins......most rely upon Singles.
Our Police forces also generally promote Police Officers from the Squad Car to the Helicopter job....thus they have experienced Police Officers but in-experienced Pilots. Perhaps that is why the Single Engine helicopter is so common...along with the cost issue.
So...to the question.....Why do you suggest.... "Twins are the very, very least the Public deserve?".
Singles are pretty reliable these days.....and as we have seen....Twins land on top of the "Public" too.
Is there some empirical data somewhere that supports the benefit of the Twin over the Single in Police work?
Understand....I would fly a four engined helicopter if one was made as I like the idea of lots of engines so I am not trying to argue against your view.....just wondering if you are aware of any reliable studies that show the accident rates for Singles are worse than for Twins in Police work?
I will search the ALEA web site to see if they have anything.
The UK Law requires Twins....but the American FAA does not.
That will play a role in what types of aircraft are represented in the studies.
A question came to mind after reading your posts and those of Anfi's.
I have far more twin time than single....have done the Police thing in both single and twins (if you accept Nuclear Security to be much the same as Police work)....and have had engine failures in both kinds of helicopter.
Very few Police Forces in the USA operate Twins......most rely upon Singles.
Our Police forces also generally promote Police Officers from the Squad Car to the Helicopter job....thus they have experienced Police Officers but in-experienced Pilots. Perhaps that is why the Single Engine helicopter is so common...along with the cost issue.
So...to the question.....Why do you suggest.... "Twins are the very, very least the Public deserve?".
Singles are pretty reliable these days.....and as we have seen....Twins land on top of the "Public" too.
Is there some empirical data somewhere that supports the benefit of the Twin over the Single in Police work?
Understand....I would fly a four engined helicopter if one was made as I like the idea of lots of engines so I am not trying to argue against your view.....just wondering if you are aware of any reliable studies that show the accident rates for Singles are worse than for Twins in Police work?
I will search the ALEA web site to see if they have anything.
The UK Law requires Twins....but the American FAA does not.
That will play a role in what types of aircraft are represented in the studies.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
I too. Have flown police ops in both singles and twins. the single type was SA341G Gazelle. (Though of course I also have the ubiquitous B206 Jetdanger on my licence too.) The twins were BO105 and AS355. I have also flown precisely the same job in both piston and turbine twin engined fixed wing. Though I believe the Optica, in the right hands, would also have been a superb platform.
I too will be absolutely intrigued to see any comparison of accident statistics between FAA regulated police ops, and UK police ops.
Over to you.
I too. Have flown police ops in both singles and twins. the single type was SA341G Gazelle. (Though of course I also have the ubiquitous B206 Jetdanger on my licence too.) The twins were BO105 and AS355. I have also flown precisely the same job in both piston and turbine twin engined fixed wing. Though I believe the Optica, in the right hands, would also have been a superb platform.
I too will be absolutely intrigued to see any comparison of accident statistics between FAA regulated police ops, and UK police ops.
Over to you.
The ALEA requires one to be a Member to examine their secret stuff.....but I did find this study done by Bell Helicopters.
Measuring Safety in Single- and Twin-engine Helicopters.pdf - Helicopters
The basic question I think shall be whether Engine Failures in Singles combined with all other causes.....is greater than Twins despite Engine Failure related Crashes being less frequent but other Non-Engine Failure related causes generate a higher number of accidents.
Part of that might be the likelihood of IFR Operations by the Twins that the Singles do not experience.
Measuring Safety in Single- and Twin-engine Helicopters.pdf - Helicopters
The basic question I think shall be whether Engine Failures in Singles combined with all other causes.....is greater than Twins despite Engine Failure related Crashes being less frequent but other Non-Engine Failure related causes generate a higher number of accidents.
Part of that might be the likelihood of IFR Operations by the Twins that the Singles do not experience.