Having been a founding member of the original JAA SEIMC Working Group and attending many but not all meetings in NL I do perhaps have a good insight into the reasoning behind the safety issues.
At the first meeting the UK CAA, German LBA and many other NAAs stated that they were totally opposed to any form of Commercial SET operations as they were deemed to be unsafe. This was before the agenda and ground rules had been discussed. The CAA rep then retired from the Authority but left his stamp on the team. Many of the EU NAAs were scared stiff of the CAA and followed their opinions blindly. The very wise Graham Skillen from the CAA headed their contingent but was bound by instructions from above. We analysed every accident to an SET aircraft to determine whether or not it was engine related, The CAA wanted to classify one 'unexplained' accident as an engine failure until I pointed out that I knew that the pilot had taken his life. The experienced man from the French BEA who wrote the accident report stated that he thought that my comments were closer to the truth than their official report. Some days it was tough battle as many of the officials didn't want to introduce possible liabilities to their NAAs. The late Ronald Ashford ex CAA and JAA was a good Chairman.
At the subsequent meetings with 3 from the CAA we discussed and with difficulty set desired safety targets such as the all cause in flight shut down rates for the PT6 and aimed for a target of not more of 1 engine failure per 6 per million engine hours, the rate is now close to becoming less than 4 per mil. This includes ALL engines not those just maintained to Commercial standards but included engines in 3rd world operations and on extended tbo some up to 8000 Hr and some dodgy engine overhauls. No note was taken of the number of cycles run. As stated the accident with 17 fatalities was caused by water in the fuel it would have happened if the aircraft had 2,3 or 4 engines.
The reliability of the engines cover ALL engines and ALL types of operations, NOT just those maintained to commercial standards. Many of the Caravans are used for bush and para operations and often flown by low time hour building pilots who want turbine time and little or no ground school training. The maintenance standards required and initial and recurrent training for the pilots are much more rigorous than for private operations.
Comparing existing statistics with those likely under the proposed regulations is the equivalent of stating the safety standards of the London Black cabs but including the accident stats from UBER and minicabs. The new regulations are designed to improve the already good safety record, let the public make the decision.
The only engine under consideration was the PT 6 and the only aircraft The TBM 700, Pilatus PC12 and the C208 all of which have an emergency power lever so if there is a failure of the FCU then unlike in a King Air the pilot still has power available. New SET aircraft or modified older aircraft will have to provide safety substantiation for them to be considered for SET commercial operations.
The other criteria was the Fatal Accident rate (all causes). From the statistics available The rate is equal to that of MET aircraft but now trending to be better. The rate for MEP is unknown as the hours are not reported but off airport landings in avgas powered aircraft sadly often involve fire and most do not have a 4 point harness for the pilot. The SET aircraft being designed to later certification standards and having a lower impact and touchdown speed the passengers in SET aircraft are much more likely to survive an off airport landing. The stats confirm this. Sadly many of the pilots who did not survive such landings had failed to fasten their 4 point harnesses.
The QuinetiQ report is badly flawed and was not subjected to interested party comments and peer review as the JAA and the EASA had no experts or peers to review it. The CAA had NO experts in house as they didn't permit such operations so didn't know, they did have some enlightened people but the policy was Not in my backyard still prevailed from the top down? The staff at QuinetiQ did not even bother to accept an invitation to visit a local commercial operator of SET aircraft nor attempt to discover the standards to which the 'Commercial' operators of many PC12s and TBMs operated to I gave them the names of the contacts. Ill spent JAA money for a technically thin but well padded report.
The requirement for always being within 15 minutes out of gliding distance of a suitable landing site was introduced by the CAA when I was not at the meeting. The Spanish had permitted operations from the mainland to the Balearics. The rule was not thoroughly thought through from an operational point of view as in that they state that it can only be used once per flight. They assumed that the engine always gave no warning of failure, seized instantly and that the aircraft was then at best gliding speed. They said that on airways it was illegal to convert the energy you had to altitude and thus increase the distance one could then glide. When ETOPS was introduced there was the 90 min wet footprint rule that traveled with the aircraft along the route, then increased to 180 and I think now 270 min available or more as a continuous risk period. These extensions are based on the proven in service reliability of the engines. There has not been any increase in the risk period for SET aircraft that was set some 10 years ago, yet the hours flown has increased from probably 8 million to over 20. The EROPS risk is now surely not the failure of an engine or systems but the landing at a frozen airport where the aircraft has to be evacuated because of smoke or fire and the life threatening freezing and wind chill conditions for 350+ passengers. You cannot get them to climb back up the slides and most airports don't have heated buses available to transport them to the terminal. The UK CAA introduced this face saving, not life saving proposal 15 minute proposal, but then none of 'their experts' had actually flown a civilian SET and were not aware of commercial SET operations as they were not permitted.
Some 10 years ago there were more SET aircraft operating in Europe than there were piston twins in commercial operations circa 270. These SET aircraft were not falling out of the sky due to engine failures landing on schools or orphanages, no they just got on with their job of safely transporting passengers and freight from A - B in all weathers, just we can see everyday on FR24. The vast majority were flown by private pilots not by commercially trained pilots and nor were the aircraft maintained to the proposed rigorous standards.
Yes there have been accidents and fatalities but if you analyse them in depth you will often discover that the pilot was attempting to operate the aircraft outside of the approval status shown in the limitations section of the approved Flight Manual: Often too high, too fast, not checking that they are pressurised, not de-icing the frosty wings, grossly overloaded, out of C of G. Nothing new there they do the same in twins. If an engine fails on takeoff in in a King Air or a misjudged SE Go around sadly many of us have heard the thump and seen the sickening pall of black smoke. Pilatus have proven that a well trained current pilot suffering an EFATO can if prudent turn back at a height of 750ft. I believe that the TBM has a fatal accident rate due to engine failure of ZERO.
Modern flight information data such as Skydemon and others can show you the gliding distance at any point in flight and importantly in planning the flight. Later aircraft have EFIS with Flight Planning on the IPad.
Will the sky be full of Commercially operated SET aircraft and the older twins gone to the scrap heap? Not in my opinion, the market will find its own level, there will always be the place for light piston twins, cabin class twins as well as SET aircraft. So far as over-water operations are considered a PC 12 was successfully ditched in the Pacific and so have some Caravans for they have big doors. I would not like to be scrambling to escape underwater with 9 others from some of the newer small 9 seat high wing light twins coming on the market. Islanders and Commanders don't ditch well.
Commercial customers demand reliability, goods or people transported from A to B on time on a regular basis often over great distances and if you operate old turbine twins such as Commanders, LET, MU2 and Metros or piston twins such as Aztecs, Navajos or Cessnas then unless you have spare aircraft at least 5 for every 3 needed in service then you will go bust.
Please be open minded about the development of SET operations but unless you have thoroughly evaluated both the aircraft, the equipment, the training required and the proposed regulations please don't shoot from the hip and make unsubstantiated or emotional comments.
Last edited by gordon field; 15th Feb 2017 at 18:15.