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:

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.

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 ?

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.

FMD...how did that ADI get certified! Looked at this video and I cannot see the logic of Sperry to build such a thing.

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.

Interesting story, but what does it have to do with the aircraft having one engine or two?

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

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.

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).

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.

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.