Single Engine IFR Charter - The History
 

Does anyone know the history behind the prohibition of conducting Single Engine Charter in IFR or Night VFR?

I imagine there must have been accidents which led to a legislative decision at some point.

Cheers.

Maybe Buddy Holly had something to do with it?

Quite possibly. The A/C concerned was a Bonanza if I'm not mistaken.
Not that it was a problem with the A/C though. If I remember correctly from when I read the report, the Pilot was not IFR rated and the Meteorological conditions were not the best.

oh yeah,

”the day the music died.....” ❄️ ✝️😢

Yup, but who remembers Roger Peterson?

Single Engine Charter
 

CASA and most regulators ban S/E charter, wanting to give the paid customer a better chance of survival if the engine fails.
There are exceptions. The prop turbine PC12, the C208 and the TBM but only if they have been specifically approved by CASA for S/E charter ops.
In Australia one Cirrus sales guy was keen to get Cirrus singles approved working on the basis that the emergency parachute gives the customers a safe ride. The Cirrus is not approved at this time. Thus Cirrus singles are not approved for charter as far as I am aware.

It's only SE IFR or night charter that's banned, and yes its the survival aspects of having an engine failure at night or IMC that is the issue. SE Day VMC Charter is still allowable as far as I know, been a while since I've done one, so have not looked at the rules recently (pretty sure a lot of activity up north fits under that category).

I do remember AD-ENG-4, put an end to a lot of casually used SE charter aircraft. The additional requirement that charter aircraft had to have all components within time limits or a specific maintenance program made most our ad hoc charter planes drop back to airwork category to remain "on condition".

Out of touch these days, but are single engine turboprops exempt from these restrictions?

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

Single Engine IFR charter.
 

Further to my earlier comment Cirrus aircraft are not approved for S/E IFR charter.
As I recall three turbo prop types can be approved by the regulator for IFR charter. They are the TBM, the C208 and the PC12. All individual approvals I understand. The aspect of S/E charter also has another twist in that the piston engine must be within a 12 year limit. That means that while an aircraft engine can have say a TBO of 2000 hours it may have only reached 1000 hours by the 12 year limit. OK, the aircraft can continue to fly up to and beyond 'on condition' but only on non pax charter ops. The 12 year limit also applies to twin pistons.
Some people have been pushing for the Cirrus brand to be approved for IFR charter based on having an emergency parachute but I have not heard of a CASA approval to date.

That is because Lycoming Service Instruction No. 1009BE says this;

And under AD-ENG-4 you have to adhere to all stated manufacturer overhaul periods for charter endorsed aircraft. Unless you can show your own system of maintenance, which Lycoming also allows for.

Continental has the same 12 year limit for most of its models as far as i can see. Rotax seems to be the most complicated with 5-15 years dependent on model, not sure how many of those would be in a "charter" aircraft though.

BTW, the AD only specifies "For aircraft in Charter operations", it does not consider passengers.

“… and yes its the survival aspects of having an engine failure at night or IMC that is the issue.”

I am not current with the Regs but, to bolster my briefings with Multi-engine students, I obtained some EFATO stats from whatever DCA was called at the time (back in the early eighties) just to let them know what they were in for.

Over a five-year period, there were 7 engine failures in twins and 47 in singles.

In the twins, four were fatal; in the singles, it was one.

So, I know which aircraft that I’d rather have an EFATO in (and the real answer is not at all).

An engine failure in a loaded up 402 off 10 or 04 at Archerfield would have been life-ending with no chance of survival (and this is also inclusive of people on the ground and in the way).

And what was the point of that laughable certification requirement to be able to maintain altitude up to 5,000 when, in my opinion, all light twins that I flew wouldn’t maintain height at any altitude. Yeah right, the words in the regulation makes it safe.

So, whoever thought up the requirement of twins only for IFR charter just wasn’t thinking hard enough.

Stats can be misleading as we don't have the rundown of why each was fatal or survivable. A quick run through the ATSB I can find some instances where a loaded PA31 has circled due weather on one engine and landed safely vs another where the same type having some mishandled (overweight, questionable serviceability, loss of control) factor leading to its demise. How many of the the single failures were in IMC, night or over rough terrain? I've personally lost power in a piston twin twice and returned to land with full loads, in a single, one of those i'd be swimming with 8 other people.

Simple truth is that a twin is more dangerous if not handled correctly. But lose an engine in a single in cloud at night... what are you going to do then? Pull the chute and hope you don't land on something bad, it still sounds like a dice roll on whether you survive.

I'd also ask that if you know this risk, why would you do it. As the pilot always think what your excuse will be if you are the sole survivor afterwards.

Why would I do it?

I wanted to fly. What else was I supposed to do?

I never lost sight of the fact that flying is hazardous. I made sure (or at least tried to ensure & that must have worked as i am still here) that I didn’t get killed by stupidity (mine) or someone else’s negligence. But how much is someone else’s f’up hidden and only discoverable when it goes wrong? Is that a reason to never take-off, because I could be killed by something that I have no control over?

I didn’t design nor make those aircraft. It was what it was.

An engine failure in a single from those two runways would not have been an amusing event either. But I would still do it.

It is a risk that I accepted. I was trained for and briefed myself on what actions I would take with an EFATO, every time, without fail.

Even flying around the Archerfield circuit in those days (the triple runway system) was a life-threatening event. But I still did it.

Driving a car, parachuting, crossing the road, going for a surf can all end up fatal. But I did them. A risk is a risk. You either take the risk or stay at home and die in bed.

It all comes down to my opinion of the odds of it happening.

P.S. Those stats were given to me by BASI. The point of quoting them was to demonstrate my belief that the odds of killing yourself increase dramatically in a twin versus a single in an EFATO scenairo.

I spent a lot of years bashing the circuit at various GAAPs, not once was i worried about the risk of engine failure. From day dot I was taught to have escape options for engine failure, not to fly wide circuits, keep an eye on possible landing sites en-route etc etc. Which streets had less powerlines or school ovals, golf courses etc. It's part of being situation aware. With a twin you have the extra option of staying aloft, you risk manage this by staying within the environmental limits, keeping weight in check,knowing the aircraft so you can tell when something might be about to let go and most of all keeping current.

Now what you might be alluding to is commercial pressure made you take off in a situation you "knew" it would be bad if an engine failed, well again this needs to be managed as well. Saying "NO" is what pilots are paid for, if your boss don't respect that, report em and move on.

Seem to remember back in the 80s and 90s it was a ban on SE pax charter at night/IMC. Cargo was ok. We had a few C210s flying around on bank runs back then.

You are correct.

I do.:sad:

From an earlier post re something along the lines of during tkof piston twins 1inop will only lead you to the scene of the crash…

I would like to say that in the two twin engine piston engine failures that I’ve experienced at or near abouts after takeoff, both have performed by the law. One of them was (by memory) at full all up weight.

however it’s always good IMHO to errrrrr on the cautious side

In the USA at least legal 135 ops in twins require loading so that you have single engine climb. Part 91, not so much. Leaving KDEN on a hot day in a Duchess we figured the single-engine service ceiling was about 1500 feet underground :eek: