Helicopter SE IFR
Thread Starter
Helicopter SE IFR
All :
In the UK, the ANO prohibits single engined helicopters from flying IFR.
My understanding is that this is partly a result of the legislation, but mostly because most SE light helicopters are not certified for flight in IMC. The only exception I can think of is the B206 at Bristow's at Norwich, but that's got SAS installed.
So then - the real questions :
1. Do any countries allow helicopter SE IFR, or are we back to the certification issue again ?
2. Anyone know of any SE helicopter which is certified for IMC flight ? If not, what would be required to certify them ? SAS, anti-ice, redundant systems ?
I think the UK military Gazelles are equipped with 3-axis SAS - are they certified IMC, albeit under different rules ?
In the UK, the ANO prohibits single engined helicopters from flying IFR.
My understanding is that this is partly a result of the legislation, but mostly because most SE light helicopters are not certified for flight in IMC. The only exception I can think of is the B206 at Bristow's at Norwich, but that's got SAS installed.
So then - the real questions :
1. Do any countries allow helicopter SE IFR, or are we back to the certification issue again ?
2. Anyone know of any SE helicopter which is certified for IMC flight ? If not, what would be required to certify them ? SAS, anti-ice, redundant systems ?
I think the UK military Gazelles are equipped with 3-axis SAS - are they certified IMC, albeit under different rules ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ok , the Bells that they use for US army training ( I was informed by Butch Grafton) are certified to fly IFR I am not sure how they are equipped but I would assume they have at least 2 axis autopilot. American Eurocopter obtained an STC for a single example of an AS350BA that was certified single pilot IFR , as well as 2 axis coupled autopilot with failure passivation ( avoids runaways I guess ) they had to install a second generator and a device to ease use of collective in case of hydraulic failure ( only single pump ). This ended up as a very expensive installation .
I do not think there are any 407's certified single pilot IFR although I think there were some 206's ( see s.n 51152 for sale in aeroads) . http://www.aeroads.ca/cgi-bin/heliad...opter_option=3
The biggest problem on most singles are Single hydraulic and single generator.
Usually it would be the manufacturer that certifies an aircraft for IFR use there will normally be an IFR section in the flight manual which also lists minimum equipment ( is it in the 206 manual ?) , main reason beeing the expense involved in showing compliance to the relevant authorities. Is the Koala certified IFR in the USA ?.
just checked stc dtabase and found:-
STCNumber SH4699SW (Click To Print Record)
Manufacturer BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON (A DIVISION OF TEXTRON CANADA)
MakeModel 206L-1, 206L-3
TCNumber H2SW
Description Installation of single pilot IFR kit.
Status Reissued 2/9/83
ACO SW
STCHolder Bell Helicopter Textron
P.O. Box 482
Dept 81, Mail Stop 1303
Fort Worth TEXAS 76101-0482 UNITED STATES
[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: widgeon ]
I do not think there are any 407's certified single pilot IFR although I think there were some 206's ( see s.n 51152 for sale in aeroads) . http://www.aeroads.ca/cgi-bin/heliad...opter_option=3
The biggest problem on most singles are Single hydraulic and single generator.
Usually it would be the manufacturer that certifies an aircraft for IFR use there will normally be an IFR section in the flight manual which also lists minimum equipment ( is it in the 206 manual ?) , main reason beeing the expense involved in showing compliance to the relevant authorities. Is the Koala certified IFR in the USA ?.
just checked stc dtabase and found:-
STCNumber SH4699SW (Click To Print Record)
Manufacturer BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON (A DIVISION OF TEXTRON CANADA)
MakeModel 206L-1, 206L-3
TCNumber H2SW
Description Installation of single pilot IFR kit.
Status Reissued 2/9/83
ACO SW
STCHolder Bell Helicopter Textron
P.O. Box 482
Dept 81, Mail Stop 1303
Fort Worth TEXAS 76101-0482 UNITED STATES
[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: widgeon ]
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anybody else see that it's not the number of engines you've got which counts but the actual chance of having a technical problem which forces you down (and how fast) and the work load and extent of your problems at the time.
Simple and reliable - like a single engined watch.
Simple and reliable - like a single engined watch.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think France has single engine IMC... Standby Artificial Horizon required.
Vested interest of big bucks mil contracts and excess ex mil types in legislature color the regs (IMHO)
Vested interest of big bucks mil contracts and excess ex mil types in legislature color the regs (IMHO)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: U.S.
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In U.S. we have all kinds of S.E. opns. Used to fly Hueys, IMC, no Auto-Pilot, 1 ADF, 1 OBS. The thing here is 2 generators. Although, I've flown Cessna 152's IMC, one alternator, no autopilot. In commercial opns here, need 2 pilots for IFR, or an auto-pilot and less than 10 pax aircraft, (I believe).
Guest
Posts: n/a
The number of engines is an operational issue that is backed into a certification issue by the CAA, because it has nothing to do with the instrument flying capabilities of a helicopter. As others have posted, many single engined helicopters have approval in the US, using the same basic handling and workload standards as twins.
Do British single engine airplanes have the same restrictions? How did they win the Battle of Britain?
Do British single engine airplanes have the same restrictions? How did they win the Battle of Britain?
In Aussie you can operate a single IFR helo' for "private Op's" only.(ie: Not for hire or reward) I'm aware of a B206 that was operated IFR "Privatly" (?) on marine pilot transfer op's 110 nm out to sea. As far as I'm aware, in addition to the instrumentation required for IFR, the only other requirement was for an auto-pilot.
In the US, Part 135 IFR is not allowed in single engine helicopters, nor is VFR over the top. ref.
FAR Part 135.181
Part 91 is a different story. As long as the aircraft is certified IFR, you're good to go.
FAR Part 135.181
Part 91 is a different story. As long as the aircraft is certified IFR, you're good to go.
The CAA have categorically confirmed they will not allow single engine IFR ops over the UK. The have exercised their veto to JAA to cater for this.
Have to say....I agree. One engine, simplex ancilliaries, doesn't matter how good/expensive your IF suite is.
I know that US stats refute this, but one can make stats do anything.
Have to say....I agree. One engine, simplex ancilliaries, doesn't matter how good/expensive your IF suite is.
I know that US stats refute this, but one can make stats do anything.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TomC:
This is a really important point you make and sadly fact and logic are not on your side.
You say:
"The CAA have categorically confirmed they will not allow single engine IFR ops over the UK. The have exercised their veto to JAA to cater for this.
Have to say....I agree. One engine, simplex ancilliaries, doesn't matter how good/expensive your IF suite is.
I know that US stats refute this, but one can make stats do anything."
The UK do not produce these stats because they do not support the dogma... It is a disgrace.
The decision for two engines and dual systems for helicopters in particular is bogus based on emotion and political factors.
The actual chance of having a helicopter fall on your head is the public's main concern.(of course there are other concerns)
Concerning two hypothetical Aircraft A&B:
Helicopter A has two of everything.
Helicopter B only has one of everything.
A: is complex and unreliable - often having major system failures and falls out of the sky often.
B: is simple and is exceptionally reliable only two cases ever of a powerplant failure over many examples the cause of which has been rectified. No known system failures.
A: If ONE of something fails it is possible that there will be no consequence.
B: If one of something fails it WILL fall on someone's head.
A: Will fall on someone's head (house roof etc) more often per hour.
B: Will not often fall on anyone's head. Less heads will be fallen upon per hour.
Political Problem:
If B falls on someone's head the arguement that 'had it had two of whatever critical component which failed it could have avoided falling upon the unfortunate head' will be politically victorious. - A beaurocratic head would probably be forced to roll.
Logic:
Many more A type helicopters will fall on people's heads than had they been B types.
B types would be preferable.
Stating the consequences two ways makes the problem clear (I hope).
TC: IMHView your ability to blatantly disregard the facts to support your emotional view is counter productive. It is understandable since you have been emmersed in a redundant systems culture in the Mil and in your work. Much more profit for vested intrests to sell a/c with more systems and more engines(four next perhaps).
It will be a painfull process but logic will eventually win and you will be one of the 'old guard' .... the type which perhaps desite the logic would still think pedestrians with RED FLAGS infront of cars should stay.
Anyone else think we should still have the red flags?
Incidentally are you one of the pilots which race around at night with your panel lights too bright, cocooned in the imagined saftey of your twin engined machine at 3-500ft between ops when you could be a 1500ft and not wake up my baby and not give helicopters a bad name on noise?
...no offence, afterall you do a great job really. And you are a fellow helicopter pilot.
This is a really important point you make and sadly fact and logic are not on your side.
You say:
"The CAA have categorically confirmed they will not allow single engine IFR ops over the UK. The have exercised their veto to JAA to cater for this.
Have to say....I agree. One engine, simplex ancilliaries, doesn't matter how good/expensive your IF suite is.
I know that US stats refute this, but one can make stats do anything."
The UK do not produce these stats because they do not support the dogma... It is a disgrace.
The decision for two engines and dual systems for helicopters in particular is bogus based on emotion and political factors.
The actual chance of having a helicopter fall on your head is the public's main concern.(of course there are other concerns)
Concerning two hypothetical Aircraft A&B:
Helicopter A has two of everything.
Helicopter B only has one of everything.
A: is complex and unreliable - often having major system failures and falls out of the sky often.
B: is simple and is exceptionally reliable only two cases ever of a powerplant failure over many examples the cause of which has been rectified. No known system failures.
A: If ONE of something fails it is possible that there will be no consequence.
B: If one of something fails it WILL fall on someone's head.
A: Will fall on someone's head (house roof etc) more often per hour.
B: Will not often fall on anyone's head. Less heads will be fallen upon per hour.
Political Problem:
If B falls on someone's head the arguement that 'had it had two of whatever critical component which failed it could have avoided falling upon the unfortunate head' will be politically victorious. - A beaurocratic head would probably be forced to roll.
Logic:
Many more A type helicopters will fall on people's heads than had they been B types.
B types would be preferable.
Stating the consequences two ways makes the problem clear (I hope).
TC: IMHView your ability to blatantly disregard the facts to support your emotional view is counter productive. It is understandable since you have been emmersed in a redundant systems culture in the Mil and in your work. Much more profit for vested intrests to sell a/c with more systems and more engines(four next perhaps).
It will be a painfull process but logic will eventually win and you will be one of the 'old guard' .... the type which perhaps desite the logic would still think pedestrians with RED FLAGS infront of cars should stay.
Anyone else think we should still have the red flags?
Incidentally are you one of the pilots which race around at night with your panel lights too bright, cocooned in the imagined saftey of your twin engined machine at 3-500ft between ops when you could be a 1500ft and not wake up my baby and not give helicopters a bad name on noise?
...no offence, afterall you do a great job really. And you are a fellow helicopter pilot.
Joe 90, sorry, pilot: well said. I'm sure that somewhere amongst all that you were countering my comments, but well said.
You seem to take great pride in denegrating my background too, interesting.
Do you suffer from road rage also? Perhaps a red flag in front of your car would be most suitable.
Anything constructive to say?
You seem to take great pride in denegrating my background too, interesting.
Do you suffer from road rage also? Perhaps a red flag in front of your car would be most suitable.
Anything constructive to say?
Guest
Posts: n/a
If we take engines out of the equation , what is the failure rate of hydraulic systems and generators independant of engine failures ?. I can't think of any autopilot that will still function after a hydraulic failure and landing lights radios and gyros probably would not last long after a generator failure .I think a distiction also has to be made between Single and Dual pilot IFR .PS i'm not a pilot so you can't insult my flying ability LOL.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: AB, Canada
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think equipment reliability should only be a part of the equation.
For example, if you have an engine failure in a twin while IMC and have never trained for an engine failure, you could easily screw that up.
Similarly whould autos be at least entered while on the dials? How many here have tried to enter an auto on instruments?
Also, even though many with GPS's are ignoring this, but aren't we recommended to alter our course slightly to try and ensure a safe force landing area whenever possible? This couldn't happen if flying IFR.
I think SE IFR is safe enough to do, but if I could, I would always choose a twin to fly IFR. The only reason I could see for allowing SE IFR is to keep it cheap for the operator. That's reasonable, but aren't many of these rules in place to keep the customers safe from the operators?
For example, if you have an engine failure in a twin while IMC and have never trained for an engine failure, you could easily screw that up.
Similarly whould autos be at least entered while on the dials? How many here have tried to enter an auto on instruments?
Also, even though many with GPS's are ignoring this, but aren't we recommended to alter our course slightly to try and ensure a safe force landing area whenever possible? This couldn't happen if flying IFR.
I think SE IFR is safe enough to do, but if I could, I would always choose a twin to fly IFR. The only reason I could see for allowing SE IFR is to keep it cheap for the operator. That's reasonable, but aren't many of these rules in place to keep the customers safe from the operators?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probability of technical occurance against probability of successful outcome is surely all that counts - no?
Entry to autorotation for a clean and unambiguous power failure on instruments is trivial. More complex failures however may well not be trivial in terms of workload.
Is anyone pretending that twin engined duplex systemed aircraft are not forced to land (relatively often perhaps - uncollected data)?
It's only good for safety (over cost) if it is actually safer?
How wrong are these points?
AND incidentally since most accidents are pilot error surely the major reason to have 'duplex' pilots is to reduce their combined error rate NOT just to spread the workload of an over-burdensome design?
(Edited to remove HTML jibberish (- how do you make format changes and include links/pictures etc?))
[ 03 December 2001: Message edited by: JoePilot ]
Entry to autorotation for a clean and unambiguous power failure on instruments is trivial. More complex failures however may well not be trivial in terms of workload.
Is anyone pretending that twin engined duplex systemed aircraft are not forced to land (relatively often perhaps - uncollected data)?
It's only good for safety (over cost) if it is actually safer?
How wrong are these points?
AND incidentally since most accidents are pilot error surely the major reason to have 'duplex' pilots is to reduce their combined error rate NOT just to spread the workload of an over-burdensome design?
(Edited to remove HTML jibberish (- how do you make format changes and include links/pictures etc?))
[ 03 December 2001: Message edited by: JoePilot ]
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Newton, AL
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widgeon so eloquently wrote.....Ok , the Bells that they use for US army training ( I was informed by Butch Grafton) are certified to fly IFR I am not sure how they are equipped but I would assume they have at least 2 axis autopilot.
Yes we are flying Bell TH-67's (206's) which are certified IFR. We do not however have any sort of autopilot or stabalization system. The aircraft is certified as a two pilot IFR aircraft, however, since we fly them for the Army we are allowed to conduct IMC operations with one pilot and a student.
Happy Holidays!!
Butch
Yes we are flying Bell TH-67's (206's) which are certified IFR. We do not however have any sort of autopilot or stabalization system. The aircraft is certified as a two pilot IFR aircraft, however, since we fly them for the Army we are allowed to conduct IMC operations with one pilot and a student.
Happy Holidays!!
Butch
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Cone County
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To set the record straight.
1. In the military we fly both SE and twin types IFR.
2. If my memory serves me, i believe that the Gazelle was the first SE IFR certificated heli(It may only have been in France, with SAS/autopilot(simplex then I believe))way back in the late 70's early 80's.
3. The Gazelles in current military service, are in the main non stabilised aircraft.Those few that are stabilised only have a rudimentary SAS.
Personally if given the option I would always prefer to fly in a twin engine aircraft, I love redundancy.
The issue is I believe, not the aircraft's capability to fly in cloud, it's more to do with what is possible (given an engine or other critical failure) to do with the aircraft if the terra firma beneath the a/c at time of failure is also in cloud - recovery options may be limited.
1. In the military we fly both SE and twin types IFR.
2. If my memory serves me, i believe that the Gazelle was the first SE IFR certificated heli(It may only have been in France, with SAS/autopilot(simplex then I believe))way back in the late 70's early 80's.
3. The Gazelles in current military service, are in the main non stabilised aircraft.Those few that are stabilised only have a rudimentary SAS.
Personally if given the option I would always prefer to fly in a twin engine aircraft, I love redundancy.
The issue is I believe, not the aircraft's capability to fly in cloud, it's more to do with what is possible (given an engine or other critical failure) to do with the aircraft if the terra firma beneath the a/c at time of failure is also in cloud - recovery options may be limited.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heedm,
Yes entering autos SE while on the dials is interesting, but once learnt and kept in practice are OK. As with everything, hovering is daunting at first but it all comes with time and experience.
The procedure I was taught was enter auto on the dials , establish 40 - 50 knot airspeed . Rad Alt set to 100 feet(preset), if you havent broken out at 100 feet gong start a flare and pull pitch, at least you will only fall from max 100 feet( if the Rad Alt is working????)LOL
All fine in theory and works Ok behind the screens/ under the hood, but for real??
Regards
Hover Bover
Yes entering autos SE while on the dials is interesting, but once learnt and kept in practice are OK. As with everything, hovering is daunting at first but it all comes with time and experience.
The procedure I was taught was enter auto on the dials , establish 40 - 50 knot airspeed . Rad Alt set to 100 feet(preset), if you havent broken out at 100 feet gong start a flare and pull pitch, at least you will only fall from max 100 feet( if the Rad Alt is working????)LOL
All fine in theory and works Ok behind the screens/ under the hood, but for real??
Regards
Hover Bover