EASA.2012.OP.09 Study on single-engined helicopter operations
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Damn statistics. In the UK we have more twins embedded in roofs than singles.
Could this be because more twins fly over those roofs?
Winning the argument is all about making the decision makers believe your side of the story. A statement like that is open to an answer like mine and the regulators immediately smell bull$$$$. It doesn't even matter if you are right or wrong. Politicians have this sorted with spin doctors.
Could this be because more twins fly over those roofs?
Winning the argument is all about making the decision makers believe your side of the story. A statement like that is open to an answer like mine and the regulators immediately smell bull$$$$. It doesn't even matter if you are right or wrong. Politicians have this sorted with spin doctors.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twins are also lousy in bad weather.
you cant see out of them, inadvertent IMC is considered normal.
they have less performance margin.
UK has twins littering the countryside also.
there are more singles flying more hours with less 'capability' and less qualified pilots crashing less in the UK. (leaving the NS out of it)
Engine duplication is a dim solution, attractive to people who know nothing at all about helicopters (fact)
THERE IS SIMPLY NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE ENGINE DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION.
it would be like legislation that people must make decisions according to horoscopes. Science! we are supposed to have moved forward.
you cant see out of them, inadvertent IMC is considered normal.
they have less performance margin.
UK has twins littering the countryside also.
there are more singles flying more hours with less 'capability' and less qualified pilots crashing less in the UK. (leaving the NS out of it)
Engine duplication is a dim solution, attractive to people who know nothing at all about helicopters (fact)
THERE IS SIMPLY NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE ENGINE DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION.
it would be like legislation that people must make decisions according to horoscopes. Science! we are supposed to have moved forward.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chobham
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The irony is that EASA are slowly moving towards permitting commercial single-engine operations in IMC after about 15 years of campaigning by the likes of the Cessna Caravan and Pilatus PC XII crowd. There will be caveats of course, but it will at last allow commercial ops by say 2016/17 I think in a Cessna Caravan wizzing around the UK which ought to be cheaper than our hideously expensive trains per pax if you fill the seats.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SE IMC CAT is fantastic, re-invigorating aviation as competitve transport.
PC12 and Cessna caravan are fantasticaly economical and provide an excellent customer proposition.
The arguement for SE is even more powerful in helicopters than aeroplanes.
Target Zero is dangerous, target 1x10^-6 is realistic acceptable and stops people making daft rules in the (bogus) pursuit of 1^10-9.
The A109 (Fuel Starvation, Swash Plates, Tail Rotor Failures, Crane. EC135 LOC IMC, Fuel Starvation, S76 LOC IMC, AS355 T/rR fail (x2, one into a roof, LOC IMCx2), AW139 LOC IMC, Tail Boom etc highlight this. High barrier to entry suits some, but legislators should resist that motivation.
The report quoted shows that SE reliability DOES meet the standard required, so that the conclusion that they should be banned DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
PROPORTIONATE REGULATION !?!?!
EASA.2012.OP.09 Study on single-engined helicopter operations
PC12 and Cessna caravan are fantasticaly economical and provide an excellent customer proposition.
The arguement for SE is even more powerful in helicopters than aeroplanes.
Target Zero is dangerous, target 1x10^-6 is realistic acceptable and stops people making daft rules in the (bogus) pursuit of 1^10-9.
The A109 (Fuel Starvation, Swash Plates, Tail Rotor Failures, Crane. EC135 LOC IMC, Fuel Starvation, S76 LOC IMC, AS355 T/rR fail (x2, one into a roof, LOC IMCx2), AW139 LOC IMC, Tail Boom etc highlight this. High barrier to entry suits some, but legislators should resist that motivation.
The report quoted shows that SE reliability DOES meet the standard required, so that the conclusion that they should be banned DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
PROPORTIONATE REGULATION !?!?!
EASA.2012.OP.09 Study on single-engined helicopter operations
Thread Starter
Please read again -> http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/538...ml#post8447188It is
PROPORTIONATE REGULATION !?!?!
It is therefore recommended to:
retain the alleviation, but not to expand it to piston-engined helicopters
retain the alleviation, but not to expand it to piston-engined helicopters
Not really. The report says that
It then goes on to state that
I.e., they are within the stated safety level to be maintained. It then goes on to say what you quote.
So, it sets a safety target, determines that piston engines satisfy that target and then goes on to ignore the target and ban them anyway. How is that proportionate?
The safety level to be maintained in these operations is expressed as an engine failure rate being better than 1x10-5 per flight hour.
the rate for piston-engined at 0,89x10-5 per flight hour
So, it sets a safety target, determines that piston engines satisfy that target and then goes on to ignore the target and ban them anyway. How is that proportionate?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PROPORTIONATE !?!?!
Not expand it to Piston Helicopters? Why not ? The study that EASA commissioned shows that Piston Helicopters meet the reliability performance that is required?
That's not a reason to leave them out. that's DIS-PROPORTIONATE
Robbies, for example, are particularly reliable in the engine department, being so de-rated.
For wealthy individual taxpayers who can only afford to fly rational helicopters it is quite galling to have legislation support the expensive helicopter types that their tax dollar pays for in the police and military. Private flying needs 'protection' from high-cost bretherens' vested interests.
By all means choose a twin if it floats your boat but don't bias unfounded legislation against rational singles.
because
Quote:
It is therefore recommended to:
retain the alleviation, but not to expand it to piston-engined helicopters
Quote:
It is therefore recommended to:
retain the alleviation, but not to expand it to piston-engined helicopters
That's not a reason to leave them out. that's DIS-PROPORTIONATE
Robbies, for example, are particularly reliable in the engine department, being so de-rated.
For wealthy individual taxpayers who can only afford to fly rational helicopters it is quite galling to have legislation support the expensive helicopter types that their tax dollar pays for in the police and military. Private flying needs 'protection' from high-cost bretherens' vested interests.
By all means choose a twin if it floats your boat but don't bias unfounded legislation against rational singles.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have a figure for the success rate of autorotation following (the very rare) failure of an engine? I know of succesful ones but don't know the ratio, I would guess better than 1Fail:100Forced Autos ??
So 0.9x10^-5 x 10^-2 = <1x10^-7
doesn't justify this disgraceful treatment of private helicopter flyers
So 0.9x10^-5 x 10^-2 = <1x10^-7
doesn't justify this disgraceful treatment of private helicopter flyers
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the DGCA employees soon look out of their expensive office windows at a dead heliport and proudly say "we did that" ?
http://translate.google.com/translat...53&prev=search
http://translate.google.com/translat...ol&prev=search
2 google translate quotes that caught my eye:
" For entrepreneurs, the European bureaucracy is a far greater danger that some biblical plague. "
" Ah, the beautiful aridity of insured employees to touch their pay at the end of the month pasting fines! "
http://translate.google.com/translat...53&prev=search
http://translate.google.com/translat...ol&prev=search
2 google translate quotes that caught my eye:
" For entrepreneurs, the European bureaucracy is a far greater danger that some biblical plague. "
" Ah, the beautiful aridity of insured employees to touch their pay at the end of the month pasting fines! "
Slight thread drift here, perhaps, but:
Why is this an 'old chestnut'? It works a treat in something with a bit of rotor inertia. I've practiced these in the Bell 205 from a high hover (say 60-70 ft) and you're not going to sit there with the lever up waiting for the rotor to stop, you'd put it down as far as feels good (to balance ROD vs Nr as per your good judgement) and then cushion at the pucker point.
Also the old chestnut of putting the lever down to preserve RRPM crops up. (though also ideep in HVcurve too).
Why is this an 'old chestnut'? It works a treat in something with a bit of rotor inertia. I've practiced these in the Bell 205 from a high hover (say 60-70 ft) and you're not going to sit there with the lever up waiting for the rotor to stop, you'd put it down as far as feels good (to balance ROD vs Nr as per your good judgement) and then cushion at the pucker point.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's an old chestnut because, just as you say, it works great. no need for another engine just put the lever down and up and probably no-one will die.
regulation if used should solve problems that exist rather than ones that don't exist.
regulation if used should solve problems that exist rather than ones that don't exist.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re. The London Battersea situation mentioned by Hughes above, This is what the CAA had to say:
Attached was a large spreadsheet checklist indicating exactly the hoops you would have to jump through. It's pretty clear that the R44 could never comply, and even EC120/130s will have their work cut out.
On the introduction of JAR OPS 3 the CAA decided to implement a number of ‘non-compliances’ against the new rule set. Unlike JAR OPS 1 which was eventually adopted in European law as EU OPS, JAR OPS 3 was left to be managed at a national level. Most helicopter AOCs transitioned to this new framework but a national AOC, issued in accordance with the ANO requirements, continued to be acceptable, with the result that a small number of helicopter AOCs opted not to transition to JAR OPS.
Given that some JAR requirements were not mirrored in the ANO, and to assure a level playing field, it was regarded as acceptable to introduce the use of JAR OPS non compliances into JAR AOC certification. Two of these non-compliances enabled single and twin engine helicopters to operate [in Performance Class 3 or Performance Class 2, respectively] at Battersea Heliport without having to comply with Appendix 1 to JAR OPS 3.540(a) and 3.517(a) respectively. This enabled the continued operation of helicopters to take off and land without an assured safe forced landing capability whilst not meeting the requirements for a risk assessment and the implementation of a Useage Monitoring System.
The transition to EASA Part Ops on 28 October 2014 carried forward the previous JAR requirements into CAT.POL.H.305 which must now be fully complied with. This process carries a CAA approval which your assigned FOI will manage on receipt of the aforementioned safety case and compliance document detailing the UMS fit.
Given that some JAR requirements were not mirrored in the ANO, and to assure a level playing field, it was regarded as acceptable to introduce the use of JAR OPS non compliances into JAR AOC certification. Two of these non-compliances enabled single and twin engine helicopters to operate [in Performance Class 3 or Performance Class 2, respectively] at Battersea Heliport without having to comply with Appendix 1 to JAR OPS 3.540(a) and 3.517(a) respectively. This enabled the continued operation of helicopters to take off and land without an assured safe forced landing capability whilst not meeting the requirements for a risk assessment and the implementation of a Useage Monitoring System.
The transition to EASA Part Ops on 28 October 2014 carried forward the previous JAR requirements into CAT.POL.H.305 which must now be fully complied with. This process carries a CAA approval which your assigned FOI will manage on receipt of the aforementioned safety case and compliance document detailing the UMS fit.
Last edited by puntosaurus; 1st Dec 2014 at 07:01. Reason: Context
Where are the case studies for down under?
The Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) reports the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will launch the restricted helicopter performance standards over the next eighteen months or so.
AHIA has been advised by CASA that we are "harmonising with EASA rules".
But as the AHIA research is beginning to show; some of the EASA rules are may not be based on any reliable safety verses cost study. In fact, those we have discovered to date do not even have Australia listed as contributor to the often inconclusive reports upon which rules were developed.
Why is the AHIA concerned for its members? The Australian helicopter fleet is around 2,100 machines which makes us the second largest fleet in the Western World. (Russia has a few more).
The CASA Register is made up of 241 multi-engine (11%), 552 single engine turbine (26%) and 1,314 single engine piston (63%) helicopters. In fact, Robinsons make up around 56% of the total fleet.
Can anyone provide information on any studies by any agency which ban pistons and most turbines from urban areas?
Oh - and another matter? What does latest EASA Press Release mean when EASA is giving extra time for trainers in Europe to sort out the new training rules; due to difficulties in implementation. Does this reflect upon our problems with CASR Part 61 - Flight Crew Licensing??
Help .....
l
The Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) reports the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will launch the restricted helicopter performance standards over the next eighteen months or so.
AHIA has been advised by CASA that we are "harmonising with EASA rules".
But as the AHIA research is beginning to show; some of the EASA rules are may not be based on any reliable safety verses cost study. In fact, those we have discovered to date do not even have Australia listed as contributor to the often inconclusive reports upon which rules were developed.
Why is the AHIA concerned for its members? The Australian helicopter fleet is around 2,100 machines which makes us the second largest fleet in the Western World. (Russia has a few more).
The CASA Register is made up of 241 multi-engine (11%), 552 single engine turbine (26%) and 1,314 single engine piston (63%) helicopters. In fact, Robinsons make up around 56% of the total fleet.
Can anyone provide information on any studies by any agency which ban pistons and most turbines from urban areas?
Oh - and another matter? What does latest EASA Press Release mean when EASA is giving extra time for trainers in Europe to sort out the new training rules; due to difficulties in implementation. Does this reflect upon our problems with CASR Part 61 - Flight Crew Licensing??
Help .....
l
Last edited by robsrich; 30th Nov 2014 at 23:18.
Made me snort and spill my coffee torquetalk
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TT - that'll be a no then, evidently not crab either. Can't even laugh without spilling his cofee let alone saying anything sensible.
this regulatory ambush is bad for helicopters, unjustified, illogical and ultimately bad for helicopters.
this regulatory ambush is bad for helicopters, unjustified, illogical and ultimately bad for helicopters.
We , as an industry , have never stood up and been counted when it comes to terrible legislation so why bother start now ?? We have got exactly what we deserve I'm afraid . Just get a twin or pack up !!! ( or just ignore it all and carry on regardless .....)