Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Single Engine IFR Charter - The History

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Single Engine IFR Charter - The History

Old 8th Jul 2021, 00:57
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 651
In the USA at least legal 135 ops in twins require loading so that you have single engine climb. Part 91, not so much.
Australian regulations IFR charter AND IFR airwork aircraft (below 5700kg) must be able to climb at 1% gradient to 5000ft in ISA (not ambient) on one engine (critical engine failed and feathered, clean etc). For VFR and all private operations just the ability to maintain any height up to 5000ft in ISA is required on one engine.

An airwork (training) PA-44 for instance to comply with the IFR 1% rule needs to be loaded about 2 POB and 2/3 - 3/4 fuel. For VFR operations it can achieve MTOW. I can say that under these rules the aircraft easily flew on one engine at blue line and climbed if flown correctly. I've also flown PA-31 at high weight with the engine feathered and it performed more or less to book, climbed and was able to circle to land. If your twin is not able to climb on one engine and the book says it should, I would be asking your engineers some serious questions. Not saying you should go out there and pull engines to test this, get an experienced instructor and play around at a safe altitude over safe terrain, as there is also the chance of other things going wrong.

I'll add that there is also the requirement that all aircraft must be able to climb at 6% gradient after take-off on the day with the gear down.

Last edited by 43Inches; 8th Jul 2021 at 01:08.
43Inches is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 05:07
  #22 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 6,713
Australian regulations IFR ...

One needs to keep in mind that the OEI operational requirements in 20.7.4 hark back to the now-defunct airworthiness requirements of 101.22. Beware that, with the rubber stamping of foreign certifications, post Yates Report (from around 1990 or so), you just might see the foreign POH providing something less than the 20.7.4 operational requirement. Likewise the 6% AEO takeoff climb WAT requirement ....

Responsibility, I guess, lies with the PIC to do some sums and, where necessary, reduce the POH gross weight to satisfy 20.7.4 ?
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 07:44
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,283
The FAA has approved single-engine IFR for Part 135 passenger-carrying on demand operations for the last three years or so, but the requirements are onerous.

You need an engine monitoring programme, dual electric sources, dual vacuum sources for the gyroscopic instruments and two pilots or a three axis autopilot.

Its difficult to get dual dual electric and dual vacuum sources onto one engine. Lycomings have limited space available on the accessory case-the actual spots where things like vacuum, fuel or hydraulic pumps might be bolted. To add one item, youll sacrifice another. The bigger continentals can just about handle it though.

The game changer has been the new avionics. With solid state electric attitude sensors in the new Garmins you can do away with the vacuum requirements, they come with three axis autopilot and the engine cylinder monitors allow for downloadable engine monitoring in conjunction with an oil sampling program.


It’s opened up the idea of Cirrus “taxis” popping up and down the West Coast, avoiding the traffic.

Last edited by Checkboard; 9th Jul 2021 at 15:51.
Checkboard is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 06:12
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,514
FMD...how did that ADI get certified! Looked at this video and I cannot see the logic of Sperry to build such a thing.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 10:53
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 651
It’s opened up the idea of Cirrus “taxis” popping up and down the West Coast, avoiding the traffic.
Is this actually feasible though? I would have thought the operational cost would be prohibitive and airport to airport not really that convenient to make it worth it. You could charter a helicopter for not much more and have more direct access around major cities. Then you still have to get the public to accept getting in a small single engine aircraft on a regular basis. You won't get the big corporates as their charter insurance requirement usually stipulate twin-turbine multi crew.

In Australia it would be even less likely with airport fees and such eating away any chance of profitability.
43Inches is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 13:42
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Aust
Posts: 170
Originally Posted by Anti Skid On View Post
Of course there was the recent Emiliano Sala incident in the UK, where Cardiff City FC players agent chartered a single-engined aircraft to return him to Cardiff from France after saying bye to his former team mates, rather than sticking him on a scheduled flight. In that incident, the club hired an 'N'' registered aircraft to get around the CAA regulations, but were in fact in breach of them. The pilot didn't hold a current type rating and only held a PPL, but was operating single IFR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_E...er_PA-46_crash
Interesting story, but what does it have to do with the aircraft having one engine or two?
rcoight is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 15:40
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,283
Is this actually feasible though? I would have thought the operational cost would be prohibitive and airport to airport not really that convenient to make it worth it. You could charter a helicopter for not much more and have more direct access around major cities. Then you still have to get the public to accept getting in a small single engine aircraft on a regular basis. You won't get the big corporates as their charter insurance requirement usually stipulate twin-turbine multi crew.


The second video discusses the single engine 135 certification at the 11:15 point, if you want to skip to that.

Last edited by Checkboard; 9th Jul 2021 at 15:54.
Checkboard is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 01:00
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 651
The angle I'm coming from is the cost factor, simple truth is fixed wing is just too expensive to operate vs what regular income you can generate at the low end. As long as your 300hp Cirrus engine costs $50k USD for 1950s tech, while similar modern marine engines are 1/3rd that and car engines 1/10th it will never make commercial sense. Aviation will always be stifled by the ridiculous cost of compliance and litigation. Most of what I read says the FAA basically makes it close to impossible to get the SE piston IFR 135 anyway (more cost), and you will always be haunted by the fact that they could change their minds and shut it down if there are 1 or 2 accidents.

Face it governments just don't want mass light aviation, they want it expensive to regulate the numbers and control flow of people and goods, only made worse by the misplaced specter of security issues with aviation. They will bend over backwards for the drones to happen as this keeps those nasty aircraft out of the hands of the general public, and in the hands of large corporations.

Single or Multi engine, the only profit is had at high end contracts with corporations, otherwise you just don't get the flow of income to make it worth it.

I'd love for this to take off en-masse, I'd even get involved my self with a Saratoga or something, but I just see it consuming cash into an endless pit.
43Inches is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 10:22
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,283
It not the cost of the purchase. It’s the cost difference between part 135 and part 91 certification and maintenance that is the only real consideration.

Rich people buy buy expensive toys all of the time, and some of those put the aircraft on line to pick up some hire work. When I was instructing at Moorabbin the school had half a dozen Warriors, but there was always a privately owned Lance or Cherokee 6 on line for hire.

The bulk of that work was instructing, but I also did a few single engine charter out to places like Bendigo and Merimbula for businessmen (we’re not talking the CEO of CocaCola here, but builders and carpet store owners) because getting out and back in a day made more sense for them than driving four or five hours each way and spending a night. Being able to do that IFR would have been nice, and with a Cirrus that is possible, because of the avionics setup (in the USA at least).
Checkboard is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 11:27
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 651
I know what you are referring to, but the days of rich guys leaving large aircraft on line at flying schools went ages ago. Maybe the odd lance or something still floating around now, but ever since the gov changed the rules regarding tax write offs for aircraft most of the big stuff has dwindled.

Back in the day we had 2-3 PA-31 on line, Barons, Senecas, Saratoga, Lance, Bonanzas and the rest. The owners didn't care if they flew, cause they claimed any cost on tax against some business interest, in fact I doubt they ever wanted to make money. Then the ATO changed the rules and that was that. All happened about the same time they introduced GST, user pays, extra maintenance and increased the fuel excises. About that same time, the stock of used parts started to dry up world-wide and the great GA Armageddon started. I could even go on about how bad the new parts are that you pay over the moon for, but its just one more thing.

Now the only real incentive to have an aircraft is you love it or you can seriously make money from it, the later becoming harder and harder by the minute.

What GA really needs is some government intervention in the way of Indemnity for manufacturers and some sort of kick in the guts to make parts and engines realistic prices. Drop the cost of aircraft by at least half of current cost and you can start seeing things turnaround. Then Air Taxi services become more viable and in line with what customers would pay. I mean look at the cheapest Piper Warrior, now called an 100i, $300k USD, shouldn't be a dime over $100k. Why is it so expensive? overpriced TSO avionics, engine and parts. Interesting to note the Archer TX, which is the same airplane with same engine, but a bench seat and an extra screen costs $100k USD more!

Then, both SE and ME air taxi would become viable for the low end, not just some token work as a side gig.

Last edited by 43Inches; 10th Jul 2021 at 11:42.
43Inches is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2021, 02:12
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 152
The other factor: 2 x engines = 2 x vacuum pumps and 2 x alternators
Ted D Bear is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2021, 06:58
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Ted D Bear View Post
The other factor: 2 x engines = 2 x vacuum pumps and 2 x alternators
Or a fairly standard caravan: one generator, standby alternator and a battery. With G1000 (as an example, other avionics setups also have redundancy equivalent to 2 vac pumps), 2 x ADC, 2 x AHRS. Pretty safe from an electrical/instrument point of view, if not far safer than the flogged out vac system of a 40+yr old twin. PC12s are a similar deal, modern with plenty of redundancy.
Dawn Patrol is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.