Single Engine Ops: Who's Responsibility?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Linköping, Sweden
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single Engine Ops: Who's Responsibility?
Oil and gas companies, some large corporations and most government departments either have policy or guidelines addressing flight in single engine aircraft. Presumably the insurers of celebrities also issue terms covering the use of charter flights by their policy holders?
What obligation do you think charter companies have to ensure their passengers understand that they are chartering a single engine aircraft?
Mrs Cruise (Katie Holmes) boards an Astar at Wall Street Heliport with daughter Suri Cruise in arms.
What obligation do you think charter companies have to ensure their passengers understand that they are chartering a single engine aircraft?
Mrs Cruise (Katie Holmes) boards an Astar at Wall Street Heliport with daughter Suri Cruise in arms.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: US
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In America's litigous society charter operators might do well to check that their client's understand this, especially given that they have the resources to take action in the event of an incident but then the firm would have to make sure that such information was equally shared with non-celebrity pax.
Small firms running only single engine ships just want the money and publicity so they probably don't mind.
Two questions if anyone can respond!
1. Can anyone provide me with a first hand incident of a total engine loss in a twin as a result of mechanical failure (no external influences such as water/foreign object ingestion)ie: a 100% pure mechanical failure.
2. Does anyone know where US helo pilots hang out online? There are a few on pprune but not as many as I'd like. Any info welcome.
Hasta la vista!
Small firms running only single engine ships just want the money and publicity so they probably don't mind.
Two questions if anyone can respond!
1. Can anyone provide me with a first hand incident of a total engine loss in a twin as a result of mechanical failure (no external influences such as water/foreign object ingestion)ie: a 100% pure mechanical failure.
2. Does anyone know where US helo pilots hang out online? There are a few on pprune but not as many as I'd like. Any info welcome.
Hasta la vista!
Yellow and Blue...
Why do you care? Or are you just stirring the proverbial sh1t. You are by your own admission a military pilot in Sweden.
And you are wrong---the GOM is full of single engine helicopters. Most government contracted helicopters are also single engine, certainly for DOI, USFS, BLM etc....
You will find that the vast majority of celebrities know what they are flying in---a fair bunch of them own their own aircraft.
Hell man:
Not so---I work for one of the "small firms" that does a fair amount of celebrity charters, and we are extremely discrete...due to their privacy concerns, we never disclose who, when, or where we fly. So no publicity there....
Most US helicopter pilots hang out on JH.
Oil and gas companies, some large corporations and most government departments either have policy or guidelines addressing flight in single engine aircraft.
And you are wrong---the GOM is full of single engine helicopters. Most government contracted helicopters are also single engine, certainly for DOI, USFS, BLM etc....
You will find that the vast majority of celebrities know what they are flying in---a fair bunch of them own their own aircraft.
Hell man:
Small firms running only single engine ships just want the money and publicity so they probably don't mind.
Most US helicopter pilots hang out on JH.
Last edited by Gordy; 27th Jun 2010 at 18:54. Reason: Added more info
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical pig-headed US attitude there Gordy that nicely explains the poor US safety record.
Too often people who can afford to fly safely don't due to their igonrance of the risks (including the hostile environment risks).
I'm glad to see that BP are sticking to their principles and limiting SE helicopters to shore patrols in the GOM.
Too often people who can afford to fly safely don't due to their igonrance of the risks (including the hostile environment risks).
I'm glad to see that BP are sticking to their principles and limiting SE helicopters to shore patrols in the GOM.
Sorry, I read the UK CAA reports & MORs - have I missed a load of failures in the donkey dept of SEHs ?
I see a lot of chip lights, hydraulics and other bits failing in twins - which leads to a forced landing and the inevitable report - but I see far great reliability and less stress in SEH.
Insurance companies would prefer that we all stay on the ground in a cottonball and never go anywhere - hence some of the ridiculous "keyman" requirements which sometimes include mandatory multi-engines for any flying.
As ever, it's a way to ramp the premium by creating a risk far greater than it really is.
I see a lot of chip lights, hydraulics and other bits failing in twins - which leads to a forced landing and the inevitable report - but I see far great reliability and less stress in SEH.
Insurance companies would prefer that we all stay on the ground in a cottonball and never go anywhere - hence some of the ridiculous "keyman" requirements which sometimes include mandatory multi-engines for any flying.
As ever, it's a way to ramp the premium by creating a risk far greater than it really is.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: US
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was actually wanting to know about first hand 100% mechanical engine failures because I've never actually met anyone who's had one!
The stats show than singles are pretty much as safe (if not safer) but I guess its the 'what if factor'.
Here is something I've always wanted to know ... In a fixed wing you have (to a larger extent) seperate systems as a result of individually mounted engines but in helos (aside from the engines) the majority of other systems are shared.
Does this represent a lower safety threashold for twin helos vs. twin fixed wings?
The stats show than singles are pretty much as safe (if not safer) but I guess its the 'what if factor'.
Here is something I've always wanted to know ... In a fixed wing you have (to a larger extent) seperate systems as a result of individually mounted engines but in helos (aside from the engines) the majority of other systems are shared.
Does this represent a lower safety threashold for twin helos vs. twin fixed wings?
Shell Management
I did not state an opinion as to which is better...I merely stated that the GOM is full of single engine aircraft. Therefore, no comment to you.
Typical pig-headed US attitude there Gordy that nicely explains the poor US safety record.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Linköping, Sweden
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish to publicly apologize to Gordy (and anyone else) if I am causing the cr*p to curdle! It is not my intention.
I am genuinely interested because one day I expect I will leave the Swedish Defence Forces and maybe I will have to join a small company which is operating single engine aircraft and these issue will become relevant to me.
I feel that singles are perfectly safe because of the helicopter's ability to auto-rotate. If the aircraft is flown along safe single engine routes (open spaces below) and at the right height with the right visibility then it is perfectly safe.
I am genuinely interested because one day I expect I will leave the Swedish Defence Forces and maybe I will have to join a small company which is operating single engine aircraft and these issue will become relevant to me.
I feel that singles are perfectly safe because of the helicopter's ability to auto-rotate. If the aircraft is flown along safe single engine routes (open spaces below) and at the right height with the right visibility then it is perfectly safe.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Age: 58
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice to go and look long term records of accidents and compare them between singles and twins. What I would like say is that helicopters have a lot of single parts, which will broke also. Major parts are at least: tail rotor, Gearbox(es), rotor system itself etc.
First thing is go and look where to work and how the company manage all services. Also pilots have a responsibility to operate aircraft's by the manuals as well. All limit exceeds are bad news and if you do not have any kind of flight monitoring systems (like most older single engine helicopters don't have) will reduce your safety. That's why you need to be honest, if it happened accidentally. I don't believe anybody exceed limits for in purpose anyways. Single engines are very reliable nowadays, if you look flight time records. That's imaze me, but it is true. All big sight-seeing companies basically use singles and they flies a lot. Offshore is the other operation for singles. Reason for using singles in some part of areas are small platforms where you cannot build a big helideck for twins. Well' you can use EC135's or other same size aircrafts, but operational costs are total different then. Money might be the only reason to use singles, but they can be safe.
Hostile
First thing is go and look where to work and how the company manage all services. Also pilots have a responsibility to operate aircraft's by the manuals as well. All limit exceeds are bad news and if you do not have any kind of flight monitoring systems (like most older single engine helicopters don't have) will reduce your safety. That's why you need to be honest, if it happened accidentally. I don't believe anybody exceed limits for in purpose anyways. Single engines are very reliable nowadays, if you look flight time records. That's imaze me, but it is true. All big sight-seeing companies basically use singles and they flies a lot. Offshore is the other operation for singles. Reason for using singles in some part of areas are small platforms where you cannot build a big helideck for twins. Well' you can use EC135's or other same size aircrafts, but operational costs are total different then. Money might be the only reason to use singles, but they can be safe.
Hostile
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: US
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do feel that there are some very important factors relating to twin engine helo ops, especially the shared dynamic systems. I realize its very similar for fixed wings but multi engine fw do have the advantage of largely separate propulsion/thrust units and which I believe offers an added level of safety.
One solution, from a cost perspective, would be an engine technology which allows for very high short term power demands of say up to 10-20 mins (for emergency single engine operations) from smaller engines which would offer more economic operating costs for twins.
But, the way things are going in the H&S world we live in I am sure singles will end up as trainers and private use only.
Here's a single op that recently had the hangar door closed on them: Rescue copter loses out | Stuff.co.nz
One solution, from a cost perspective, would be an engine technology which allows for very high short term power demands of say up to 10-20 mins (for emergency single engine operations) from smaller engines which would offer more economic operating costs for twins.
But, the way things are going in the H&S world we live in I am sure singles will end up as trainers and private use only.
Here's a single op that recently had the hangar door closed on them: Rescue copter loses out | Stuff.co.nz
The letter claims that since January 1999 there have been 17 incidents in which helicopters either needed to shut down engines due to warnings, or made precautionary landings because of mechanical failures or warnings. All these incidents were during air ambulance operations.
Do others think this is a high No, of problems ? for Air ambulance work
Do others think this is a high No, of problems ? for Air ambulance work
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500e Heli Man
Some of those 17 reports will have been filled by myself, both in singles and twins. This is a sad case of the Civil Aviation Authority using "incident" reporting to try and justify their stance - many of those reports (I'm assuming) will have been for "chip lights", 'fluctuating oil pressure" etc, pilots responded to the "warnings" and carried out a precautionary landing, or shut a second engine down. Many of these reports, most probably, where cleared quickly by an engineer, then an incident report was generated. This is good practice, but now our CAA are trying to suggest that these 17 reports indicate that engines are not reliable, and this is how the media will take it! Yes I accept, engine failures do happen, but the overall risk needs to be assessed against the added cost of operating 2 engines.
Some of those 17 reports will have been filled by myself, both in singles and twins. This is a sad case of the Civil Aviation Authority using "incident" reporting to try and justify their stance - many of those reports (I'm assuming) will have been for "chip lights", 'fluctuating oil pressure" etc, pilots responded to the "warnings" and carried out a precautionary landing, or shut a second engine down. Many of these reports, most probably, where cleared quickly by an engineer, then an incident report was generated. This is good practice, but now our CAA are trying to suggest that these 17 reports indicate that engines are not reliable, and this is how the media will take it! Yes I accept, engine failures do happen, but the overall risk needs to be assessed against the added cost of operating 2 engines.
Hell Man
I had the Compressor Drive shaft shear in an Agusta A109C, total power loss from that engine with TOT off the clock.
That said, I also had the turbine let go in an AB205, total and instant power loss.
No pre-determined cause in either instance, just the 'sh1t happens' category.
So that's one all in the single / twin argument in my personal experience.
JJ
I had the Compressor Drive shaft shear in an Agusta A109C, total power loss from that engine with TOT off the clock.
That said, I also had the turbine let go in an AB205, total and instant power loss.
No pre-determined cause in either instance, just the 'sh1t happens' category.
So that's one all in the single / twin argument in my personal experience.
JJ
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: swansea, wales
Age: 66
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last year I lost a friend in a single engine eurocopter, he was inspecting electricity lines somewhere on the west coast of Ireland when the chopper (EI-IHL) sufferred a mechanical failure, main gear wheel disintegrated. Pilot survived the resulting crash but he did'nt.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculating :
Perhaps the most likely cause of a double engine failure would not be a mechanical fault with the engines,
but loss of fuel - i.e running out of ( useable ) fuel, causing them go very quiet.
This could be attributed to pilot error, poor maintenance, or possibly even mechanical failure of some sort,
perhaps even a multiple bird strike in the right ( wrong ) place, but none of these are restricted to twin engine aircraft,
and are just as likely / unlikely in a single - probably even more so in some cases.
I can ony think of a couple of examples of twin failures -
The Dyfed-Powys 109 G-DPPH that ran out of useable fuel in 2001 following maintenance to fuel pumps,
and I seem to recall there was an incident back in the '80's / 90's ( I think ) where a Police twin squirrel
( or maybe even a 902 ) lost fuel supply because of detached fuel line(s) -
resulting in an auto and run on landing into a field. Can't find any details on that one though.
Perhaps the most likely cause of a double engine failure would not be a mechanical fault with the engines,
but loss of fuel - i.e running out of ( useable ) fuel, causing them go very quiet.
This could be attributed to pilot error, poor maintenance, or possibly even mechanical failure of some sort,
perhaps even a multiple bird strike in the right ( wrong ) place, but none of these are restricted to twin engine aircraft,
and are just as likely / unlikely in a single - probably even more so in some cases.
I can ony think of a couple of examples of twin failures -
The Dyfed-Powys 109 G-DPPH that ran out of useable fuel in 2001 following maintenance to fuel pumps,
and I seem to recall there was an incident back in the '80's / 90's ( I think ) where a Police twin squirrel
( or maybe even a 902 ) lost fuel supply because of detached fuel line(s) -
resulting in an auto and run on landing into a field. Can't find any details on that one though.
Last edited by Coconutty; 28th Jun 2010 at 08:42. Reason: Typo's
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 52
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rick.
Unfortunately, the rule is the rule, and the current director of CAA is going to the letter of the law, rather than the intent, and churing through all the laws to see what we are doing wrong. Apart from the BK running into trees a few years ago, i'm struggling to think of any serious incidents that have been on EMS ops in NZ... somehow there are 17 in 10 yrs. Last major one was a JR flying into a white out, and the army wrecking an Iroquois on Mt Cook, both in the 80's.
like you said chip lights and pressure fluctuations, which wouldn't have been reported 20 yrs ago, just talked to the engineers, check it out, watch it, fix it...
Unfortunately, the rule is the rule, and the current director of CAA is going to the letter of the law, rather than the intent, and churing through all the laws to see what we are doing wrong. Apart from the BK running into trees a few years ago, i'm struggling to think of any serious incidents that have been on EMS ops in NZ... somehow there are 17 in 10 yrs. Last major one was a JR flying into a white out, and the army wrecking an Iroquois on Mt Cook, both in the 80's.
like you said chip lights and pressure fluctuations, which wouldn't have been reported 20 yrs ago, just talked to the engineers, check it out, watch it, fix it...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: US
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was not asking about engine failure in singles (even I had a flame out in an Iroquois in Nam) nor about 'double' engine failure in twins but ... a single engine failure in a twin.
Jellycopter has had it in a 109C. Congrats! You're the flirst helo jock I've 'met' to whom this has happened!
The thing is, and the reason for my asking, is that these incidents of mechanical engine failure must be very rare. I'm trying to establish how frequently a second engine keeps an aircraft from calamity vs. single engine. I guess Jelly landed pretty smartly after the failure but some twin ops (over water at night) etc. may require sustained flight.
What are the stats? Are twins statistically safer than singles?
Jellycopter has had it in a 109C. Congrats! You're the flirst helo jock I've 'met' to whom this has happened!
The thing is, and the reason for my asking, is that these incidents of mechanical engine failure must be very rare. I'm trying to establish how frequently a second engine keeps an aircraft from calamity vs. single engine. I guess Jelly landed pretty smartly after the failure but some twin ops (over water at night) etc. may require sustained flight.
What are the stats? Are twins statistically safer than singles?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are twins statistically safer than singles?
The unanswerable question. You seem to have strayed from "engine failures" to a wider view of incidents. Even "bolkow" above hasn't stuck to engine failure as a cause - but was the gear failure caused by too much torque from 2 engines ?
The only facts I know are that 2 engines cause more stress for related systems, and that the advances made in engine reliability over the past 40 years have still not made it through the system with a decent set of regulations for SEH. (In the UK & Europe). There is still a heavy bias against SEH when the stats and the reality don't demand it.
Can all twins at all weights operating at, say, 750ft AGL safely depart the area when a power unit fails ? No. Can the same machines safely auto to the ground from that height ? No.
The unanswerable question. You seem to have strayed from "engine failures" to a wider view of incidents. Even "bolkow" above hasn't stuck to engine failure as a cause - but was the gear failure caused by too much torque from 2 engines ?
The only facts I know are that 2 engines cause more stress for related systems, and that the advances made in engine reliability over the past 40 years have still not made it through the system with a decent set of regulations for SEH. (In the UK & Europe). There is still a heavy bias against SEH when the stats and the reality don't demand it.
Can all twins at all weights operating at, say, 750ft AGL safely depart the area when a power unit fails ? No. Can the same machines safely auto to the ground from that height ? No.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: US
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read thru the thread posted by thecontroller and it is interesting.
I can understand the reg bodies pushing for better safety (that's good) but don't know whether twins = better safety period?
I seem to remember the UK going through a period of fatal TwinStar crashes flying VIP/Corporates - the extra engines didn't help then!
I think the answer in the long run may simply be to produce really reliable, well powered and highly fuel efficient turbines so that twin safety, performance and economy is beyond question.
I can understand the reg bodies pushing for better safety (that's good) but don't know whether twins = better safety period?
I seem to remember the UK going through a period of fatal TwinStar crashes flying VIP/Corporates - the extra engines didn't help then!
I think the answer in the long run may simply be to produce really reliable, well powered and highly fuel efficient turbines so that twin safety, performance and economy is beyond question.