Single Turbine IFR Ops

[haughtney1]

Hi everyone,

Anyone who has seen a few of my posts will know that I am a proponent of SE IFR in the UK..initially freight me thinks. I have a question to ask.....Given the overwhelming evidence that a Single engine turbine a/c is at the very LEAST as safe as the older piston twins that are currently buzzing about...and not to forget about the many dozens of SET that fly around europe each day on private ops happily and safely...can anyone honestly say..(and lets try and leave emotion out of the argument) that the time has come to relax the two engine rule and approve this mode of air transport.

Your thoughts and opinions would greatly be appreciated...along with experiences and perhaps some sound and concise reasoning.



Cheers


H
:ok:

[Daysleeper]

OK I'll have a go.

initially freight me thinks

1) Why do you value freight pilots lives lower than passenger pilots? Either the aeroplane is safe for "public transport" or its not.
2) When the aeroplane lands on your head it matters not to you whether its full of people or feathers.

so

3) Although I dont have the statistics to hand I am happy to conceede that at max weight on T/O a SET has the same capability to fly after an engine failure as the majority of piston twins. (ie none)

however

4) on positioning sectors, in cruise and at below max weight the twin pistons I have flown (8 types) all have the ability to continue flight to a point of the pilots choosing.

5) The cost of a C208 about $1.8 million means that it is not competing with twin pistons. It is going to replace twin TURBOPROPS like the c406. / do 228 And nobody is saying that SET are safer than TET.

6) Even if we ignore 5 the caravans safety record is not great in commercal service in the USA. A significant number have been lost to airframe icing which it is particularly suseptable to.

7) A change in the rules would require a substantial lead time as companies which have equiped with twin turboprops would be at an immediate and devastating financial loss.

I'll come back when i can think of some more.:8

[haughtney1]

Some very salient points...a little emotive as well.....but thanks Day sleeper.

I would however take issue with one small point, from a business perspective (and I include flight safety as part of this perspective) I disagree with your point about a/c like the caravan not being targetted at piston twins. Certainly if your operation was a Seneca or similar...you are right..there is no comparison, however if your operating 404's..PA31's...or anything else in the 6500Lbs-8000Lbs range which encompasses a fair proportion of air taxi companies across the UK..then the cost benefit is certainly in favour of an aircraft like a caravan.

In the case of airfreight...in plenty of other ICAO countries around the world airfreight in anything other than a transport catagory aircraft has a different set of rules and regulations to comply with, for the very reason that the a/c is not transporting the public. Which is why in many countries the SET was initially certified for non air-transport IFR only.


Thanks once again Daysleeper...anyone one else with thoughts or opinions?

H:ok:

[readbackcorrect]

Yeah think about etops quite legal to operate upto 3 hours from a strip on a single. Economically the same arguement suffices, cheaper and more efficient ops with less engines. 777vs 747. Seneca vs Caravan. It is now commonly accepted that turbine reliability is no longer a problem, its more likely fires, or electrical problems.

Heck i beleive that the day is near where by there isnt a restriction time on an aircraft to fly on to its destination on a single engine.

Only problem i can see is convincing the public and their perception, the old hand pilots who have never had to deal with flying a viable single as opposed to a light twin , and the regulators. The regulators are under huge pressure from boeing and American's in general as to accept these twin engine aircraft or face finanical ruin.

I cant see cessna having much weight to their argument to allow further changes to the rules.

[haughtney1]

Nicely made points readback.....I tend to agree with you on most points..ETOPS was a hot potato..(e) a few years back, and now its all gone a bit quiet, although Virgin Atlantic are using their marketing arm to stir things up again..aka..A340-500..four are better than two.

Thanks readback......come on people more input please:ok:

H

[Daysleeper]

The thing about ETOPS is its statistics.
If one engine fails on a twin jet the statistical chance of a second engine failing on that aeroplane during the 180mins 240mins or whatever, are so remote as to be an acceptable risk.
You cannot use ETOPS to justify single engine public transport.
As for reliability, I have never had a core engine failure on a turboprop. I only know of one that happened in my previous company (20+ twin and 4 engined tps) was when the turbine exited the rear of the engine at FL180.
However. I have shut turbo prop engines down for - gear box failure, generator break up, auxiliary drive failure, high oil pressure due oil cooler flap failure, electrical prop control failure etc etc.
Again the reliability of the core engine is not in doubt. The accessories are another matter.

Another point about changing the rules in Europe. The caravan etc MAY have a sufficient MTBF now, but if you change the rules these aircraft will still be flying in 40 years by which time they will be so worn out that the loss rate would grow to unacceptable levels.

[haughtney1]

More good points daysleeper..I think the 40 year comment is perhaps a bit wide of the mark, given that there are piston twins flying around that are nearly 30 yrs old..and we are talking about their replacement or at least an option for replacement. Also I think age/cycle related issues come back to airworthiness requirements that are type specific and based on the best knowledge at the time that the regulators stipulate.

I must say I agree with your ETOPS comments...but I think ETOPS rather than justify single engine Ops, highlights the process of development and culture change, Im sure if you asked aircrew hopping the pond 20 or so years ago if operating with just 2 engines was safe, you would get laughed out of the room..and yet today its the norm.

In my limited aviation experience, I see this issue as one of those devisive..us and them..issues that come along now and then. However if we use a statistical rather than emotive or traditional basis for the arguement..the case is abundantly clear that given the correct amount of regulation, single turbine Ops represent the next logical step for GA Ops in this country. (still no comfort to any injured or killed if that single engine fails...but thats the point isnt it.....in a comparible light twin...one engine is by a factor of 5 more likely to fail..and if that happens....you are by a factor of 10 more likely to be injured or killed). Stats thanks to the FAA..and CASA (Oz FAA)

If nothing else the statistics are food for thought.


Thanks once again for your views....I think im starting to sound preachy



:ok:

cheers

H