SASless,
5-Year Moving Window:
Sudden Power Loss per 100,000 Engine Flight Hours (Engine): 0.30
Sudden Power Loss per 100,000 Engine Flight Hours (Engine & Helicopter): 0.60
I agree with you. But we are having problems with our regulatory agency, which does not allow us to operate in performance classes, and obliges us to operate in CAT A for all take-offs and landings, land and sea. There are no code of performance here.
This greatly restricts the viability of the operation, increasing costs enormously. For us, as pilots, it would be great to always operate in PC1, but it is not always an option. Especially with older helicopters, short runways and high OAT.
As Simon Harlow states on his presantation: "Twin engine operations using 9 second exposure is 0.141% of the current accident risk. Are we looking in the right place?"
In the last 10 years I have been seen pilots approaching to helidecks in an "aggressive" way simply because of the fear of exposing themselves to an engine failure...
In my view, new rotorcrafts are having their engines dimensioned to reduce this risk and increase the capability to operate PC1. Is this really happening?
Best regards,
Vidual