Approved single engine in IMC? [Archive]

Aesir

17th Jun 2006, 20:11

The twin IFR requirement in Europe is an JAR-OPS requirement so all commercial passenger operations (public transport) in JAA land is twin if IFR and this of course also includes fixed wing.

However JAR-FCL only specifies a IFR approved helicopter so single engine helicopters can be used for training, just like in the fixed wing world.

But the problem that makes it all so expensive is that the manufacturers have only, until now, got turbine aircraft approved for IFR.

I feel the added risk factor is acceptable for training but a fare paying passenger can not be subject to single engine IFR in my opinion.

spinwing

18th Jun 2006, 08:57

Mmmmm BOLLOCKS!

1. I dont believe Bristows BH206 trainer is allowed into IMC. It can operate under IFR only (i.e.training) in VMC .... and yes there IS a difference!

2. In Australia you can not go IMC without being IFR (except inadvertantly)... especially 115 nmls out to sea. And to be IFR you MUST be able to remain above LSALT with a powerplant failed. LSALT offshore is 1500' and the B206 will NOT do that even with a "dodgy AFCS"!!!!!

3. Anybody who has any real HELI IFR experience WILL NOT WANT TO FLY S/E IFR (in IMC) in anything other than a REAL twin, ie decent sized engines AFCS with decent OEI performance at the LSALT !

Cheers :ok:

John Eacott

18th Jun 2006, 10:54

Spinwing,

I suspect Mr S was trying a tad of sarcasm, but:

1. ISTR spending a bit of time IMC in Bristow's 206 IFR trainer, but that was a long time ago so things may have changed

2. CASR 1988 175A, here (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/act_regs/1988.pdf) gives you the allowable Single Engine IFR rules for Australia:

175A Restriction on I.F.R. flights by single engine aircraft
(1) The pilot in command of a single engine aircraft must not fly the aircraft under the I.F.R. if the flight is not in one of the following operations:
(a) private operations;
(b) aerial work operations;
(c) charter operations that do not involve the carrying of passengers for hire or reward;
(d) charter or regular public transport operations that involve the carrying of passengers for hire or reward, if:
(i) the operator is approved in writing by CASA to conduct the operations; and
(ii) the operations are conducted in a turbine powered aeroplane approved in writing by CASA for those operations.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) CASA may issue directions to an operator to ensure that any of the following matters do not affect the safety of a regular public transport operation to which paragraph (1) (d) refers:
(a) seasonal influences;
(b) the conduct of operations by night;
(c) adverse weather patterns;
(d) the terrain below, or in the proximity of, the route used in the operation.

Creaser

18th Jun 2006, 14:55

Will the 2 axis autopilot being developed for the R44 have an impact use of singles for IFR or IMC flight?

Creaser

Aesir

18th Jun 2006, 16:20

Will the 2 axis autopilot being developed for the R44 have an impact use of singles for IFR or IMC flight?

If Frank certifies it for IFR then it should be usable for IFR+IMC under JAR-FCL but not JAR-OPS!

r44driver

18th Jun 2006, 16:35

mickjoebill

18th Jun 2006, 18:54

but to suggest flying the R44 under IFR in IMC sends shivers down my spine.

With the concept of single engine over London not being dismissed out of hand (see other thread) what is the problem with single engine IFR?

I'm a back seat driver so keep it simple :)

IFR would help news choppers get to the story through the usual patchey UK weather. An IFR R44 news would be that much more versatile in UK.

Is there much difference in performance stability ect, between a two axis autopilot planned for R44 versus whatever is fitted to an IFR twin squirrel?

Mickjoebill

SASless

18th Jun 2006, 19:16

Spinwing,

The US Army has flown single engine helicopters IFR for decades. Jetrangers are the primary instrument trainer at the Fort Rucker Army Aviation School. I did my IF training in the Huey while lots of pilots flew the TH-13T Sioux (Bell 47).

http://www.rotorhead.org/military/th67.asp

I fully agree about having the second engine....and would not object to three or four even.

Bravo73

18th Jun 2006, 19:23

mickjoebill,

A single engine heli will fly fine in IMC (icing conditions excepted). See SAS's post above.

However, when things start going wrong, it's not very nice place to be. Remember, a single doesn't just have one engine, it's also invariably only got one alternator/generator, one hydraulic system, one pitot/static system ie no system redundancy. If anything breaks, things start getting hairy PDQ.

The bottom line though is that if the engine were to stop in a single whilst over a city/built up area, you might have a chance to auto to a clear area. If the engine were to stop when you're IMC, who knows what's underneath you? :eek: :sad:

HTH,

B73

Run-on Landing

18th Jun 2006, 19:26

To clarify, the Bristow 206 at Norwich is allowed into IMC but only with a cloud base of at least 1500ft.

Shawn Coyle

18th Jun 2006, 19:46

There is significantly more to IFR approval than just the engines issue.
For starters, you need to have a trim system of some sort for the cyclic in order to satisfy the requirement for self-centering.
There are a whole host of single-point failures on a single engine helicopter that needs serious thought before we start to advocate it whole heartedly.
Personally, I wouldn't think of going IFR without a second attitude indicator - a turn and slip needle isn't really good enough (even though that's permitted under FAA regulations).
A autopilot system, not just a stabilization system should be necessary, if not mandatory for single pilot- (and how do you cope if it fails, one might ask???)

SASless

18th Jun 2006, 19:53

Ah there is the rub between laws, rules, and reality. With a 1500 foot cloud base...why go IMC/IFR. Hover Mosey works fine.:rolleyes:

ShyTorque

18th Jun 2006, 20:25

Hopefully commonsense will prevail regarding this.
IMC is not the place for single engine helicopters.
The Private category IFR thing has been exploited a bit in Australia with the B206 and amazingly without major incident but to suggest flying the R44 under IFR in IMC sends shivers down my spine.

Totally agree. However, about three weeks ago, having climbed into a solid overcast about 1500 feet, we were IMC at 2400 feet under the London TMA and obtaining a RIS from Heathrow. We got a TCAS target off to our left simultaneous with a warning of traffic in that position from ATC. As there was no mode C and he was not talking to Radar we assumed the aircraft would be VMC below cloud.

In the event, my co-pilot saw an R-44 pass close by in cloud, an estimated 200 feet below. Someone out there is already pushing his luck.

rotorspeed

19th Jun 2006, 07:38

What is the legal situation in the US? I sometimes see 206Bs & Ls advertised as IFR in the US, and seem to recall both aircraft and ops can be IFR approved for S/E helos. Is this right, given suitable equipment?

So far from responses it seems that IFR ops in S/E are permitted for private operations in Australia. Is that the only country or is this legal in the US too? Mexico - Blender? South America?

mickjoebill

19th Jun 2006, 08:30

Would 2 axis autopilot on R44 be safe enough/legal to transit low cloud/rising ground for a few minutes in UK?

Anyone know if it is being designed for serious IMC or just "cruise control" for weekend pilots?

Mickjoebill

rotorspeed

19th Jun 2006, 10:48

Mickjoebill

No way will a 2 axis autopilot be suitable for serious IMC flight in a R44. As has been said before, regardless of number of engines, there is a substantial list of equipment required for IMC flight, including a duplex 3 axis autopilot.

Helipolarbear

19th Jun 2006, 10:50

:) Would 2 axis autopilot on R44 be safe enough/legal to transit low cloud/rising ground for a few minutes in UK?
Anyone know if it is being designed for serious IMC or just "cruise control" for weekend pilots?
Mickjoebill

I sincerely doubt it, as it would open a whole can of worms regarding compliance with JAR OPS-3 even though the JAR OPS is for Commercial Helicopters!! Having said that, it is very important that all Helipilots experiance IMC in a controlled and training situation. The ability to recover and know what to do when inadvertant IMC is encountered is worth
more than all the extra engines or equipment available!!!
However, if flight in IMC is a regular occurance then twin engines are the only way to go! And that includes night flying!!!!!!!!! Unaided, of course!!:p

Say again s l o w l y

19th Jun 2006, 11:19

Why do people want to fly Heli's in IMC? A small machine like an R22 or 44 is totally unsuitable for it, being far too pilot intensive.

A good IMC machine (Be it fixed wing or rotary) needs to as stable as possible, something an R22 isn't particularily good at.....

This is more important than any arguments about single engine worries.

With a Heli, if the weather turns to cr*p, then land. That's the beauty of a helicopter, it's ability to land anywhere.
Don't press on into IMC just to get somewhere. If a meeting is that important, get an IR and a fixed wing machine, or spend millions on a suitable helicopter.

Bravo73

19th Jun 2006, 14:51

In the event, my co-pilot saw an R-44 pass close by in cloud, an estimated 200 feet below. Someone out there is already pushing his luck.

ShyT,

This might be the same R44 that was over the Welsh hills at 3000ft last winter. The cloud layer was from about 500ft agl up to 10000ftish. It was on it's way to Wellesbourne. :yuk: :ugh:

London Info passed the traffic info to my boss, who was in a 109E at a similar level.

mickjoebill

19th Jun 2006, 15:05

The scenerio where it would be useful is in a R44news, where in the UK local weather can stop a flight but weather a few miles away is OK.

In the hands of a IFR commercial pilot would 2 axis autopilot make any difference to his ability to transit through poor vis? (that would otherwise prevent the R44news getting to the job)

Mickjoebill

ShyTorque

19th Jun 2006, 15:13

The scenerio where it would be useful is in a R44news, where in the UK local weather can stop a flight but weather a few miles away is OK.
In the hands of a IFR commercial pilot would 2 axis autopilot make any difference to his ability to transit through poor vis? (that would otherwise prevent the R44news getting to the job)
Mickjoebill

I think the point is - irrespective of the pilot's ability, or lack of - it is illegal :rolleyes:

Bravo73

19th Jun 2006, 15:16

The scenerio where it would be useful is in a R44news, where in the UK local weather can stop a flight but weather a few miles away is OK.
In the hands of a IFR commercial pilot would 2 axis autopilot make any difference to his ability to transit through poor vis? (that would otherwise prevent the R44news getting to the job)
Mickjoebill

Mjb,

Poor viz (say <5km) is very different to NO viz (IMC).

But essentially (if the flight is to be legal AND safe), no.

B73

mikerc

19th Jun 2006, 15:40

Mjb,

Poor viz (say <5km) is very different to NO viz (IMC).

But essentially (if the flight is to be legal AND safe), no.

B73

I think thats a good point. Helicopters can already operate in very poor conditions. In class F and G airspace it's clear of cloud, in sight of the surface, and with no minimum visibility as long as you're travelling at an appropriate speed. If that, in the R44 News scenario given above, doesn't allow you to fly a few miles away to better conditions, surely it's time to stay on the ground? Essentially you're flying in low cloud, making it full IMC, not some 'just NEAR IMC for a little bit'... have an autopilot failure or any other problem whilst in that, combined with the R22 / R44's inherent lack of stability, and you have a fairly high chance of going down. Is that something which you really think should be made legal?

mickjoebill

19th Jun 2006, 18:40

So the (planned) R44 autopilot shouldn't have any affect on making a decision to go-no-go in marginal weather in UK.

Pity, an AS355 with all the IFR kit and camera has such short endurance.

Thanks for the input and keeping it simple :}

Mickjoebill

Mustapha Cuppa

19th Jun 2006, 21:48

Gomer Pylot

19th Jun 2006, 22:52

In the US, single-engine IFR is legal under Part 91 (non-commercial operations).

As for the military doing it, there is nothing the FAA can do about it in any case. The FAA has no jurisdiction over any public-use aircraft, be it military or civilian, as long as some government entity is doing the flying. No license, registration, or certification is required.

rotorspeed

20th Jun 2006, 06:19

Thanks Gomer. So you can fly S/E IFR in the US privately. What equipment do you need?

OverTq

20th Jun 2006, 06:56

The military registered single Squirrels used for training in the UK routinely fly IMC - I more than doubled my actual time while there. Much of it done with the AP off as well! No worries.

spinwing

20th Jun 2006, 09:05

Over Tq,

So U had an Autopilot in the Squirrell eh ???

:rolleyes:

OverTq

20th Jun 2006, 09:39

yup - two axis, plus hdg and height/airspeed hold.

scooter boy

20th Jun 2006, 13:23

In my humble opinion all this talk of IFR in a single engined robbo is utterly nuts. When I did my type conversion in the R44 we did some cloud flying and even though I hold a fixed wing IR I was glad I had chosen my brown underpants that day.

Even with a stabilisation device the R44 is far too unstable for anyone with an ounce of sanity to ever begin to contemplate entering cloud.

Single-engined fixed wing IFR however is a whole different ball game with its own inherent risks but in a robinson - no way.

:bored:

Gomer Pylot

20th Jun 2006, 16:06

§ 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.

(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:

(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:

(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in §121.305(j) of this chapter; and

(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of ±80 degrees of pitch and ±120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with §29.1303(g) of this chapter.

(4) Slip-skid indicator.

(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.

(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation.

(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.

(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).

(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).

rotorspeed

21st Jun 2006, 05:30

Gomer; thanks.

Just so I'm clear, in the US then for private flying you can fly say a 206, IFR, (assuming complying with the MEL), enter controlled airspace and make an approach to an ILS just as if you were in an IFR twin, can you? From the MEL it appears you do not even need an autopilot?

Licence wise, presumably you just need to be Instrument Rated to do this?

So does quite a bit of such IMC flying in SE helos go on, or not really? If it does, I can't actually even remember seeing an accident on the NTSB site relating to SE LOC in IMC when flying IFR, which seems surprising.

widgeon

21st Jun 2006, 08:20

Correct me if I am wrong , but to be legal you must operate the aircraft within the flight manual limitations . If the aircraft does not have a flight manual supplement for IFR ops ( including the manufacturers MEL ) then can you operate in IFR conditions ?. There was a AS350BA that was IFR equipped in the USA as I recall on addition to the equipment in the FAR it had a coupled autopilot , second alternator and some gizmo that would give emergency hydraulic power past the limit of the accumulators. There was an STC for this I think. I was told that FAA would not certify an IFR machine now without a second hydraulic system ( I think the EC130 may have one ). From what I was told the mods required to install the kit were substantial .

scooter boy

21st Jun 2006, 08:36

"I can't actually even remember seeing an accident on the NTSB site relating to SE LOC in IMC when flying IFR, which seems surprising."

In the UK we lose 1 or 2 helicopters a year through inadvertent VFR to IMC and subsequent LOC. Almost always VFR single engined aircraft with non instrument rated pilots pushing on through "a little bit of low cloud".

The people who hold a current IR and are flying in an IFR equiped aircraft on an instrument flight plans in big expensive helicopters (mostly equiped with autopilots and lots of systems redundancy) are in a different league as far as managing the risk is concerned.

Personally I quite like being alive and freely abandon my little robbo as soon as the sky gets cloudy for a less scary means of transport. Better to be a warm safe coward...:)

spinwing

21st Jun 2006, 08:42

How very, very wise ....... :eek:

Gomer Pylot

22nd Jun 2006, 01:43

AFAIK there are few single-engine IFR helicopter operations being done. Legal and sane are not the same. I believe the requirements for autopilots, second generators, etc are for commercial ops, not for Part 91 ops. I do know that the US Army does a lot of actual IFR in 206s at Ft Rucker, the Army Aviation School. Butch Grafton, president of PHPA, is one of the instructors who does this. Of course, this is unregulated by the FAA.

MBJ

24th Jun 2006, 14:16

[QUOTE=Bravo73]ShyT,
This might be the same R44 that was over the Welsh hills at 3000ft last winter. The cloud layer was from about 500ft agl up to 10000ftish. It was on it's way to Wellesbourne. :yuk: :ugh:
QUOTE]

Darwin award material.

widgeon

24th Jun 2006, 18:42

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/168B4FAD7328F8FF86256DF300686DD5?OpenDocument&Highlight=single%20pilot%20ifr

as 350 ba

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/3265FA683F2582E386256D5E006A6B34?OpenDocument&Highlight=single%20pilot%20ifr

bell 407

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/B0640213E91E694B85256CC2005C3278?OpenDocument&Highlight=single%20pilot%20ifr

bell 206

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/B6DEDB50B1A334C885256CC2005C31E7?OpenDocument&Highlight=single%20pilot%20ifr

bell 206 sextant

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/3B22E7AF92D2BC8685256CC2005C3205?OpenDocument&Highlight=single%20pilot%20ifr

as350 honeywell.

A few STC's I wonder how many are actually installed ?. Interesting that 407 and as350BA are limited to specific serial numbers .

Supplemental Type Certificate

STC Number:
SR09244RC

This certificate issued to:
Heritage Aviation Ltd

STC Holder's Address:
2617 Aviation Parkway
Grand Prairie TX 75052
United States

Description of the Type Design Change:
Installation of a Single Pilot IFR Configuration, Silver Crown or Golf Crown on Bell 407 helicopter serial numbers 53019 and 53358.

Application Date:
03/13/1996

Status:
Reissued, 04/30/2003

Responsible Office:
ASW-170 Ft. Worth Rotorcraft Certification Office Tel: (817) 222-5170

TC Number -- Make -- Model:
H2SW -- Bell Helicopter Textron (Canada) -- 407

Full Text of STC:

Comments
Comments
Comments:Supplemental Type Certificate

STC Number:
SH8780SW-D

This certificate issued to:
American Eurocopter Corporation

STC Holder's Address:
2701 Forum Drive
Grand Prairie TX 75052-7099
United States

Description of the Type Design Change:
Installation of single pilot IFR systems. Limited to installation on serial number 2726 ONLY.

Application Date:
11/08/1993

Status:
Reissued, 06/30/2003

Responsible Office:
ASW-170 Ft. Worth Rotorcraft Certification Office Tel: (817) 222-5170

TC Number -- Make -- Model:
H9EU -- Eurocopter France -- AS-350BA

Full Text of STC:

Comments
Comments
Comments: