EASA.2012.OP.09 Study on single-engined helicopter operations

[9Aplus]

EASA.2012.OP.09 | EASA (http://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/research-projects/easa2012op09)


The Final Recommendations suggest measures to improve the suitability of single-engined
helicopters for Commercial Air Transport operations according to all previous analysis, especially the
Safety Risk Assessment.

First recommendations are referred to JAR-OPS 3.005(e) approvals. JAR-OPS 3.005(e) and the successor rule, CAT.POL.H.420, allow an exception to the rule for Commercial Air Transport operation of turbine single-engined helicopters to be conducted only along such routes or within such areas for which surfaces
are available which permit a safe forced landing.
The safety level to be maintained in these operations is
expressed as an engine failure rate being better than 1x10-5per flight hour.
The results of this study indicate that, whereas the rate for turbine-engined helicopters is significantly better at 0,36x10-5
per flight hour, the rate for piston-engined at 0,89x10-5
per flight hour is a factor of 2,5 higher and closer to the limit of 1x10-5 per flight hour.
It is therefore recommended to:
 retain the alleviation, but not to expand it to piston-engined helicopters; and
 take the adequate steps to ensure that all states apply the same standards in the same manner, ultimately when Implementing Rule 965/2012 takes effect on 28 October 2014, as a number of EASA member States appear to vary with the JAR-OPS standards.
 The assess of limitation in seat capacity according to the Maximum Operational Passenger Seating Configuration (MOPSC) have concluded the recommendation to retain the limit of 6 passengers.
No more robbie ?! :}

[Dave Sharpe]

There is an interesting article about Turbine reliability Vs Piston in Rotor and Wing March 2003--Perhaps its not unbiased as its written by Tim Tucker---statistics can be made to read whatever way the writer wants them to but its worth a read ----

[AnFI]

Anyone who has read the report upon which these figures are based will see that this represents fraudulent misuse of statistics. Even the swapping of turbine and piston figures half way through!

The figures used for hours in the denominator are sensitive and are dubious also.

Categorisation of the cause is also 'dirty work' performend by an individual.

Not to mention using totally non representative samples of piston types and disregarding those types that do use significant de-rating to acheive the most impressive reliability.

Moreover right there in that proposal even the fraudulently derived statistics are qualifying at better than the criteria stated. Thus making the point that even with dubious derivation there is not the stated basis upon which to draw the conclusion.

It is a nonsense.

This is nothing but an extension of a trade war being fought by obstructive legislation. This will not do anyone anygood. This smacks of French non-free trade tactics - the backlash will hurt everybody. The French sell a lot of their product in the US and this is shortsighted 'cleaverness'.

If we carry on using irrelevant and erroneous stats we are kidding ourselves.

This is nonsense and must not be allowed to succeed.

Govt agencies have an obligation to be 'fair' and not allow these shabby vested interests to prevail.

We have witnessed a disgrace already with the R66 certification and now this. The US govt maybe be forced to retaliate and this will be lousy for everyone.

They used to burn whiches on the basis that they didn't drown, haven't we moved on?

Every fair minded person should be repulsed by this.

(previous bogus statistics used for legislation have already been discredited here: 10^-10 not true! Maybe we could use some science rather than tea leaves?)

[Freewheel]

It may be worth remembering that there is a French manufacturer that will be heavily stung by this as well.

[Bravo73]

Anyone who has read the report upon which these figures are based will see that this represents fraudulent misuse of statistics. Even the swapping of turbine and piston figures half way through!

The figures used for hours in the denominator are sensitive and are dubious also.

Categorisation of the cause is also 'dirty work' performend by an individual.

Not to mention using totally non representative samples of piston types and disregarding those types that do use significant de-rating to acheive the most impressive reliability.

Moreover right there in that proposal even the fraudulently derived statistics are qualifying at better than the criteria stated. Thus making the point that even with dubious derivation there is not the stated basis upon which to draw the conclusion.

It is a nonsense.

This is nothing but an extension of a trade war being fought by obstructive legislation. This will not do anyone anygood. This smacks of French non-free trade tactics - the backlash will hurt everybody. The French sell a lot of their product in the US and this is shortsighted 'cleaverness'.

If we carry on using irrelevant and erroneous stats we are kidding ourselves.

This is nonsense and must not be allowed to succeed.

Govt agencies have an obligation to be 'fair' and not allow these shabby vested interests to prevail.

We have witnessed a disgrace already with the R66 certification and now this. The US govt maybe be forced to retaliate and this will be lousy for everyone.

They used to burn whiches on the basis that they didn't drown, haven't we moved on?

Every fair minded person should be repulsed by this.

(previous bogus statistics used for legislation have already been discredited here: 10^-10 not true! Maybe we could use some science rather than tea leaves?)

Bubba, is that you? :suspect:

[AnFI]

Forrest !!!

Its you !


Seriously though this kind of dirty politics is disgusting and needs to be stopped - what's it all about? trying to make jobs for diplomats ?

It is BS - period!

Neither Bruno nor Bill Faury can't be stupid enough to think this does them any good - they should call off EASA and stop being a brunch of punts.

[Robbo Jock]

Can't comment on the stats used to derive the figures, but presumably someone calculated that a failure rate of 1x10^-5 / hour is pretty darned safe, hence it was used for the study.
They really cannot then say "yup, piston engines fall within our pretty darned safe level, but not by far enough".

Tantamount to "We've placed a stop sign here, but you must stop 50m short of it or we'll ban you from driving".

Also, a nice statement in there: "apply the same standards in the same manner". Might be nice if they applied their own standards.

[nigelh]

Are these new rules ?? If so , what do they mean ??!!!

[Arrrj]

Lunacy, lies, statistics and politics.

I would much rather fly a really well maintained 44 than a 30 year old jetty that had been overtorqued plenty of times (for example).

I have met Tim Tucker, I found him to be a straight shooter, and really good bloke with an encyclopaedic knowledge of helicopters. He also has a great interest in wine too...which in my book is a good thing ! I doubt he was lying when he gave the talk mentioned earlier.

I want to see the numbers on the following -

How many people have been hurt on the ground anywhere in the world due to engine failure in ANY type of single engine heli ? In Australia, it's none. I suspect that the numbers are similar elsewhere.

Unbelievable.

Watch out everyone, if you don't have a twin (and a good one) you won't be able to fly anywhere soon.

The older chaps reading this, who used to fly everywhere in singles, including around the world (hello Dick Smith etc), would be feeling ill reading this rubbish.

Arrrj

PS _ maybe we need two engines in our cars now too ? A long, long time ago, the car I was driving ceased to operate...:ugh:

[nigelh]

I am still completely unaware as to the actual effect of any change in rules . In fact i cannot even FIND the rule change !!! Oh well ...i fly a twin so who cares ...............................

[AnFI]

I think they just banned singles from Paris? Can it be true?

Anyone know what the situation is?

[jimf671]

I find this to be a very strange state of affairs when we are being flown across the Atlantic on aircraft with two engines when not many years ago airliners had four engines because there wasn't space for five.

[Helilog56]

Yeah Jim....not a lot of single engine trans-Atlantic jets though.....;)

[mickjoebill]

How many people have been hurt on the ground anywhere in the world due to engine failure in ANY type of single engine heli ? In Australia, it's none. I suspect that the numbers are similar elsewhere.

My research indicates that from 2000 to 2013 there were no reported injuries to the public in filming or photography related prangs. Worldwide, 150 incidents, twins and singles.

But sadley a member of the public was killed this year when a news chopper toppled from a rooftop pad.


Mickjoebill

[SuperF]

Pretty sure someone has been killed in London from a twin falling out of the sky onto them. Maybe we should ban twins and only fly singles??

[Arrrj]

SuperF,

:ok:

Arrrj

(PS - no popcorn here...).

[Aussierob]

One in BC, Canada from 2008.


4 killed in helicopter crash in southeastern B.C. - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/4-killed-in-helicopter-crash-in-southeastern-b-c-1.700541)

[AnFI]

wow that's rare, but it doesn't say engine failed ("pilot might have closed the throttle", and they didn't give themselves much time from 120ft over a built up area. Also the old chestnut of putting the lever down to preserve RRPM crops up. (though also ideep in HVcurve too). Every possible thing will happen to some extent. there was (apparently) once a case of an engine failing on a twin whilst it was climbing upwards and backwards, doesn't make it a good idea tho

In UK we have far more twins embedded in roofs than singles.

If at all this twin (engine redundancy) concept should be limitted to aircraft above a mass threshold, if at all. It is just not justified nor justifiable for light helicopters.

Is it true about Paris? Anyone know?

[Left_Pedal]

Better get rid of all those piston airplanes as well, especially the singles then....:rolleyes:

[mdovey]

If I believe wikipedia, there were 2175 road traffic deaths in the UK alone in 2012, and 1.2M worldwide in 2010.

Most if not all of those deaths would have involved a single piston engine vehicle, and a significant majority would have happened in densely populated areas.

Based on those statistics, I'd say we definitely need a ban on single piston engines vehicles in populated areas.

Matthew

[jayteeto]

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.

[AnFI]

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.

[Hughes500]

Think you will find Battersea will not be able to accept singles for Public transport as at low tide under EASA it is an elevated helipad and at high tide well !!!:confused:

[fairflyer]

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.

[AnFI]

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

[9Aplus]

:rolleyes: Please read again -> http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/538461-easa-2012-op-09-study-single-engined-helicopter-operations.html#post8447188

It is PROPORTIONATE REGULATION !?!?!
because
It is therefore recommended to:
 retain the alleviation, but not to expand it to piston-engined helicopters

[Robbo Jock]

Not really. The report says that
The safety level to be maintained in these operations is expressed as an engine failure rate being better than 1x10-5 per flight hour.

It then goes on to state that
the rate for piston-engined at 0,89x10-5 per flight hour
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?

[AnFI]

PROPORTIONATE !?!?!

because
Quote:
It is therefore recommended to:
 retain the alleviation, but not to expand it to piston-engined helicopters

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.

[AnFI]

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

[AnFI]

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/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.aerobuzz.fr/spip.php%3Farticle5453&prev=search

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.contrepoints.org/2014/10/30/186402-union-europeenne-nos-helicopteres-cloues-au-sol&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! "

[Arm out the window]

Slight thread drift here, perhaps, but:


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.

[AnFI]

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.

[puntosaurus]

Re. The London Battersea situation mentioned by Hughes above, This is what the CAA had to say:
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.

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.

[Hughes500]

Er post 23 Punto

[robsrich]

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

[AnFI]

Anything a bit more sensible (proportionate etc ) on the horizon yet?

[Torquetalk]

Well, not you that's for sure.

[[email protected]]

Made me snort and spill my coffee torquetalk:ok:

[AnFI]

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.

[nigelh]

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 .....)

[[email protected]]

evidently not crab either. Can't even laugh without spilling his cofee let alone saying anything sensible. that's actually your wittiest riposte to date - the therapy must be working:ok: