Are single-engines safe over cities?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are single-engines safe over cities?
Could someone in New York, Tokyo and Paris let me know whether they can legally fly single-engine over the centre of these respective cities? If so, what altitude restrictions? Any other restrictions?
There is something of a controversy in London at the moment because one ENG operator, who has intelligently interpreted the rules as currently written, has established that it is legal to overfly the Central London restricted zone in an R44. The proviso is that in the event of an engine failure it can land clear of the area without endangering persons or property on the ground.
Personally, I'm not happy with this because it seems to me that it throws all the onus of compliance on the pilot who is subject to clear commercial pressures to over-estimate his own ability to land clear. It is my view that despite it being quite legal, it is not safe.
It is certainly not in keeping with the original intention of the establishing the restricted zone.
The first time it is put to the test, and that could be 10 years from now, or tomorrow, our entire London-based industry could be jeopardised by the already quite strong anti-helicopter lobby in the Capital excluding all helicopters from Central London.
Any views out there?
There is something of a controversy in London at the moment because one ENG operator, who has intelligently interpreted the rules as currently written, has established that it is legal to overfly the Central London restricted zone in an R44. The proviso is that in the event of an engine failure it can land clear of the area without endangering persons or property on the ground.
Personally, I'm not happy with this because it seems to me that it throws all the onus of compliance on the pilot who is subject to clear commercial pressures to over-estimate his own ability to land clear. It is my view that despite it being quite legal, it is not safe.
It is certainly not in keeping with the original intention of the establishing the restricted zone.
The first time it is put to the test, and that could be 10 years from now, or tomorrow, our entire London-based industry could be jeopardised by the already quite strong anti-helicopter lobby in the Capital excluding all helicopters from Central London.
Any views out there?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MY view - as someone talking to aircraft over London:
The ENG a/c and it's new sister ship probably (assuming we are talking about the same Denham based operator) SHOULD be allowed over the Specified Area (sorry - I meant EGR160) simply on probability/reliability alone.
How many R44s fall out of the sky into non built up areas.... IN THE WHOLE WORLD?
If the Organisation is "deemed" professional enough then why not.
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO FLY IN A C150 from Banstead direct to Alexandra Palace so why not a helicopter????
The ENG a/c and it's new sister ship probably (assuming we are talking about the same Denham based operator) SHOULD be allowed over the Specified Area (sorry - I meant EGR160) simply on probability/reliability alone.
How many R44s fall out of the sky into non built up areas.... IN THE WHOLE WORLD?
If the Organisation is "deemed" professional enough then why not.
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO FLY IN A C150 from Banstead direct to Alexandra Palace so why not a helicopter????
MBJ,
Flying a single engine helicopter over the city of London is unsafe? What do you predicate that statement upon? Is there something about the strength of gravity or something that makes London an unsafe area to fly over?
Someone will try to tell us that a safe landing due to an engine failure is not a certain thing. The same people ignore Lorry-Car crashes, forget buses run over pedestrians, bricks fall off facades and muggers will stab you.
Why is the risk of a helicopter landing in your back garden any more a risk than all the other things that can happen to you?
Flying a single engine helicopter over the city of London is unsafe? What do you predicate that statement upon? Is there something about the strength of gravity or something that makes London an unsafe area to fly over?
Someone will try to tell us that a safe landing due to an engine failure is not a certain thing. The same people ignore Lorry-Car crashes, forget buses run over pedestrians, bricks fall off facades and muggers will stab you.
Why is the risk of a helicopter landing in your back garden any more a risk than all the other things that can happen to you?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't comment on New York, but for places like Orlando and Miami it was considered acceptable - although it is of course paramount that the pilot fly "defensively" i.e. with a safe spot in reach and at an altitude to get the ship under control.
There was one notable forced landing in Orlando - H269 lost tail rotor drive and auto'd into a car park. Not considered big news and the school involved wasn't affected.
Bear in mind a helicopter lands in a very short distance during a (properly executed) forced landing.
Fixed wings....different parameters.
BG
There was one notable forced landing in Orlando - H269 lost tail rotor drive and auto'd into a car park. Not considered big news and the school involved wasn't affected.
Bear in mind a helicopter lands in a very short distance during a (properly executed) forced landing.
Fixed wings....different parameters.
BG
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the right seat
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would that be a question you ask as you don't want the competition. Get off my land? Can we be bothered to dig up the stats on R44 engine failures (zero) and those of the twins you may be flying in from south of the River? No doubt somebody can save us the bother and send us the links to numerous other "Robby" bashing threads that have dragged on and on, all with the same conclusion. The "big" boys like to play in their big, expensive, sometimes unreliable machines, whilst the rest of us happily "risk our lives and the lives of thousands of others" by stepping into a single engined machine.
As has been said, as long as I can get to the helipad without having a car crash, or being shot (nothing in my house to find either), then I am happy that the odds are on my side for a safe return.
Course I may have the car crash on the way home....
As has been said, as long as I can get to the helipad without having a car crash, or being shot (nothing in my house to find either), then I am happy that the odds are on my side for a safe return.
Course I may have the car crash on the way home....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AlanM
How many R44s fall out of the sky into non built up areas.... IN THE WHOLE WORLD?
It just seems to me the nausea that could result isn't worth the departure from long-time practice.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
MBJ,
Flying a single engine helicopter over the city of London is unsafe? What do you predicate that statement upon? Is there something about the strength of gravity or something that makes London an unsafe area to fly over?
Flying a single engine helicopter over the city of London is unsafe? What do you predicate that statement upon? Is there something about the strength of gravity or something that makes London an unsafe area to fly over?
Rattle - you have a serious chip on your shoulder there... relax! Truly, competition isn't the issue and I like the R22. (Haven't flown the 44). If I could afford it I'd have one!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect there is a bit of historical baggage here. In the 1970s the Met used Enstroms as an early experiment in police aviation. My aircraft was one of those, and after its second power failure, the powers that be, decided twins were the way to go, and that is the way it has stayed.
Neither emergency landing damaged aircraft or property, but did the reputation of singles over the city no good at all. The relevent problems have long since been solved but the antipathy to singles remains 30 years on.
Neither emergency landing damaged aircraft or property, but did the reputation of singles over the city no good at all. The relevent problems have long since been solved but the antipathy to singles remains 30 years on.
Last edited by Gaseous; 13th Jun 2006 at 18:54.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In class G airspace (below 1200') in most places, as long as you can fly at a speed and height to avoid hitting anything you are legal. Also see FAR 91.119(d) where it says, "Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paras (b) and (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface". (b) refers to congested areas and 1,000' above the highest obstacle and 2,000' horizontally and (c) other than congested areas and 500' above person, vessels, vehicles or structures.
That is where the authority to fly single engined helicopters over congested areas comes from. I don't see a problem with it. The stats don't indicate to me that it is dangerous per se.
Regards,
Chopperpilot 47
That is where the authority to fly single engined helicopters over congested areas comes from. I don't see a problem with it. The stats don't indicate to me that it is dangerous per se.
Regards,
Chopperpilot 47
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA adopts IMHO a more enlightened and more reasonable approach to flying single-engine helicopters over congested areas.
Extract from FAR Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General
(In addition, there are provisions equivalent to the ANO relating to endangering the aircraft and people/property on the ground.)
Over Los Angeles 1997 - a week's break from the law.
FL
Extract from FAR Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c)
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.
In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c)
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.
In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
Over Los Angeles 1997 - a week's break from the law.
FL
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paris
OK for Paris if following specified routes.
Special routes are at 1500, rest very similar to the FAA rules that FL quotes.
Heli routes also have pre-defined emergency areas.
d3
Special routes are at 1500, rest very similar to the FAA rules that FL quotes.
Heli routes also have pre-defined emergency areas.
d3
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad that MBJ has acknowledged the fruits of our labours.
It is my organisation which did all the research on this matter and has seen it through to an excellent end result. He states that there is "controversy" - well if there is, it hasn't been brought to our attention. There is nothing controversial in merely reading and understanding the law.
I am surprised that MBJ is aware of what we have achieved - we haven't advertised the facts and have told very few people.
Why? Well because we haven't actually changed any regulations. We have simply proved that myths are greater than words. For some 40 years the UK aviation industry appears to have its head so far up its own body parts that it hasn't read the rules as they are written. MBJ - it's not down to "interpretation" it's down to good old black & white. I know - I did all the research from Cabinet Office down.
This obsession with single engine failures is so far out of proportion with the truth. There are many more reasons why a helicopter could hit your head, but none of them is surrounded by draconian, outdated legislation.
The last time a helicopter embedded itself in the roof of a house was about 6 years ago - the S Wales ASU AS355. (Two engines, one gearbox, one TR.......what's the bloody point ?) This inicident was put down to tail rotor failure. By now, I would have expected a load of new rules about having 2 tail rotor systems..........
MBJ - when I started my business nearly 3 years ago, you wrote a "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letter to a widely-read broadcasting trade magazine. Fortunately, they didn't print it because I was able to point out what a pile of cobblers it was. And you agreed. I've kept that letter and the emails we exchanged because, for me, they underline all that's wrong with the helicopter industry in the UK.
A lot less sniping at each other and a load more effort working as an industry together and we can move forward in large steps. Let's direct our energies into creating the industry we want.
To your comments on EGR160 single-engine operations : "It is certainly not in keeping with the original intention of the establishing the restricted zone." You must have a piece of paper that none of us has seen. In all my research talking to the various bodies involved, no one could come up with the original reason why "The Specified" was created. No one can find any official document with the history of why it was thought necessary. It is an anomoly in global airspace and it shouldn't be there. Hopefully the current London CTR Review will correct this and many other strange aspects of life in the London skies. The only reasons why the skies above London might be more dangerous than any other is because of the wierd web of myths and one-off "regulations" that have appeared over the years. It's an ATCO's nightmare and distracts them from their job.
One example: A N T. This is a chart that you will struggle to find published, yet it's a chart used by NATS to control your passage through London. It stands for All, Nothing, Twin. Even our most powerful regulatory body did not know of its existence. Why? Because in law it doesn't exist - it was just something that ATCOs were told to use. And it is about to be declared officially dead.
About the only credible argument I can see in your post is where you refer to commercial pressures on the pilot - you infer that he/she may overstretch the rules in order to make a successful flight. Not exactly a unique perspective is it ?
If we only employ pilots who really know and understand the rules, then that's the best we can do. We're not with them and we don't pay them any more or less for flying in accordance with the rules.
What are you suggesting - that some pilots get paid a bonus to break rules ? I don't know about yours, but mine are all CAA instructors and examiners as well as being self-funded CPL/ATPLs. Why would anyone in their right mind want to spend £50,000 getting trained, many more £000s hour-building - and then go and throw it all away by flying in the wrong place ?
It is my organisation which did all the research on this matter and has seen it through to an excellent end result. He states that there is "controversy" - well if there is, it hasn't been brought to our attention. There is nothing controversial in merely reading and understanding the law.
I am surprised that MBJ is aware of what we have achieved - we haven't advertised the facts and have told very few people.
Why? Well because we haven't actually changed any regulations. We have simply proved that myths are greater than words. For some 40 years the UK aviation industry appears to have its head so far up its own body parts that it hasn't read the rules as they are written. MBJ - it's not down to "interpretation" it's down to good old black & white. I know - I did all the research from Cabinet Office down.
This obsession with single engine failures is so far out of proportion with the truth. There are many more reasons why a helicopter could hit your head, but none of them is surrounded by draconian, outdated legislation.
The last time a helicopter embedded itself in the roof of a house was about 6 years ago - the S Wales ASU AS355. (Two engines, one gearbox, one TR.......what's the bloody point ?) This inicident was put down to tail rotor failure. By now, I would have expected a load of new rules about having 2 tail rotor systems..........
MBJ - when I started my business nearly 3 years ago, you wrote a "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letter to a widely-read broadcasting trade magazine. Fortunately, they didn't print it because I was able to point out what a pile of cobblers it was. And you agreed. I've kept that letter and the emails we exchanged because, for me, they underline all that's wrong with the helicopter industry in the UK.
A lot less sniping at each other and a load more effort working as an industry together and we can move forward in large steps. Let's direct our energies into creating the industry we want.
To your comments on EGR160 single-engine operations : "It is certainly not in keeping with the original intention of the establishing the restricted zone." You must have a piece of paper that none of us has seen. In all my research talking to the various bodies involved, no one could come up with the original reason why "The Specified" was created. No one can find any official document with the history of why it was thought necessary. It is an anomoly in global airspace and it shouldn't be there. Hopefully the current London CTR Review will correct this and many other strange aspects of life in the London skies. The only reasons why the skies above London might be more dangerous than any other is because of the wierd web of myths and one-off "regulations" that have appeared over the years. It's an ATCO's nightmare and distracts them from their job.
One example: A N T. This is a chart that you will struggle to find published, yet it's a chart used by NATS to control your passage through London. It stands for All, Nothing, Twin. Even our most powerful regulatory body did not know of its existence. Why? Because in law it doesn't exist - it was just something that ATCOs were told to use. And it is about to be declared officially dead.
About the only credible argument I can see in your post is where you refer to commercial pressures on the pilot - you infer that he/she may overstretch the rules in order to make a successful flight. Not exactly a unique perspective is it ?
If we only employ pilots who really know and understand the rules, then that's the best we can do. We're not with them and we don't pay them any more or less for flying in accordance with the rules.
What are you suggesting - that some pilots get paid a bonus to break rules ? I don't know about yours, but mine are all CAA instructors and examiners as well as being self-funded CPL/ATPLs. Why would anyone in their right mind want to spend £50,000 getting trained, many more £000s hour-building - and then go and throw it all away by flying in the wrong place ?
Last edited by headsethair; 13th Jun 2006 at 05:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From London CTR review group report:
2.12.4 Additionally, there was a strong opinion that some formal airspace restriction to prevent the operation of single-engined fixed wing aircraft over extensive built up areas might now be required. It was the opinion of the Group that the application and interpretation of the Rule 5 “alight clear” rules were being misused.
2.12.5 Detailed discussion on any proposals to modify or remove the Restricted Area R160 would be needed within the CAA and also with the DfT.
Away for a week now..will return to the thread i.d.c
2.12.4 Additionally, there was a strong opinion that some formal airspace restriction to prevent the operation of single-engined fixed wing aircraft over extensive built up areas might now be required. It was the opinion of the Group that the application and interpretation of the Rule 5 “alight clear” rules were being misused.
2.12.5 Detailed discussion on any proposals to modify or remove the Restricted Area R160 would be needed within the CAA and also with the DfT.
Away for a week now..will return to the thread i.d.c
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting. 
Headsethair
Have you had any input from the CAA?
In particular - Has the CAA conceded there's nothing in the Regs which makes it illegal for singles to fly in the restricted/specified area?
(Assuming the CAA was prepared to make any comment, either way.
)
MBJ
Who are the members of the London CTR review group?
Is there a fair balance between CAA people and commercial operators?
ie Between Regulators and operators?
What percentage of the group is made up of 'ordinary' commercial operators?
(ie Not MoD, Police, EMS etc)
Are private owners and operators represented?
Does the report say if the "strong opinion" was the opinion of the group as a whole or certain members of it?
Heliport
PS: I hope everyone can now put aside personal/professional rivalries and discuss this interesting topic without snipe and counter-snipe.
Headsethair
Have you had any input from the CAA?
In particular - Has the CAA conceded there's nothing in the Regs which makes it illegal for singles to fly in the restricted/specified area?
(Assuming the CAA was prepared to make any comment, either way.
)MBJ
Who are the members of the London CTR review group?
Is there a fair balance between CAA people and commercial operators?
ie Between Regulators and operators?
What percentage of the group is made up of 'ordinary' commercial operators?
(ie Not MoD, Police, EMS etc)
Are private owners and operators represented?
Does the report say if the "strong opinion" was the opinion of the group as a whole or certain members of it?
Heliport
PS: I hope everyone can now put aside personal/professional rivalries and discuss this interesting topic without snipe and counter-snipe.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The London CTR Review report emerged last December. It does not reflect the progress made since that date and there will be a further report later this year. You can get the report here, together with all the names of the Group members. (I/we were not represented.) The report also contains the infamous A N T chart I referred to above - worth saving for history.
Heliport
Yes - we consulted heavily with CAA, DAP, AUS etc. As I said above, there's nothing new in the rules. Just remember these parameters:
1 The river does not form a part of R160, nor was it ever part of the old "Specified".
2 The rule for any helicopter operating over R160 is that it should remain able to alight clear of that area in the event of a power unit failure. This is the only place in the whole UK where the "alight clear" rules apply to helicopters. And of course we should not ignore the "without endangering" aspect of flying law.
3 Sit down with your POH for your helicopter and establish your glide ratio. Then look at the operating altitudes available over London.
However, all these flights would be subject to Special VFR. And in my opinion they should also have an NSF. As with all regulations, it only takes one cowboy incident and the whole pasture can be put off limits to all. (See the withdrawal of all NSFs for fixed wing since the Cessna 152 banner towing incident of a few Decembers ago......so now no SEP can get an NSF for London.)
And that's it. We simply drilled down to the base level of the law - the Statutory Instruments - and took our evidence forward.
This all happened in February. I've been waiting to see how long it would be before a twin operator took any notice. Not bad, MBJ, 4 months.
Heliport
Yes - we consulted heavily with CAA, DAP, AUS etc. As I said above, there's nothing new in the rules. Just remember these parameters:
1 The river does not form a part of R160, nor was it ever part of the old "Specified".
2 The rule for any helicopter operating over R160 is that it should remain able to alight clear of that area in the event of a power unit failure. This is the only place in the whole UK where the "alight clear" rules apply to helicopters. And of course we should not ignore the "without endangering" aspect of flying law.
3 Sit down with your POH for your helicopter and establish your glide ratio. Then look at the operating altitudes available over London.
However, all these flights would be subject to Special VFR. And in my opinion they should also have an NSF. As with all regulations, it only takes one cowboy incident and the whole pasture can be put off limits to all. (See the withdrawal of all NSFs for fixed wing since the Cessna 152 banner towing incident of a few Decembers ago......so now no SEP can get an NSF for London.)
And that's it. We simply drilled down to the base level of the law - the Statutory Instruments - and took our evidence forward.
This all happened in February. I've been waiting to see how long it would be before a twin operator took any notice. Not bad, MBJ, 4 months.
Last edited by headsethair; 13th Jun 2006 at 07:32.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: North of Eq
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore prohibits SE helicopters from CBD
Single-engine helicopters are restricted from operating over and within the city area of Singapore’s Central Business District. Interestingly, as I believe was the case with London until fairly recently, this is not given a Restricted Area or Prohibited Area designation and the only authority for its existence is an entry in the ENR section of the AIP.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been said many times singles are not inherently unsafe, and statistically safer than life on the streets. Any aircraft landing/crashing in the middle of a City will hit the news, unfairly compared to the daily road accidents that are rarely reported. Because of the high profile the regulations will err on the "safe" side.
If we all abide realistically to the safe landing principle then there should be no problems, the difficulty comes with commercial pressures. I flew City tours in both singles and twins, I set a higher cloudbase as a minimum for the single and stuck to certain routes to provide landing options. The trouble arises when competitors push their luck more and put pressure on you to do likewise. The odds are you will get away with it today...but one day...
If we all abide realistically to the safe landing principle then there should be no problems, the difficulty comes with commercial pressures. I flew City tours in both singles and twins, I set a higher cloudbase as a minimum for the single and stuck to certain routes to provide landing options. The trouble arises when competitors push their luck more and put pressure on you to do likewise. The odds are you will get away with it today...but one day...
Like "Whoa!" Heliport!
Is there a fair balance between CAA people and commercial operators?
ie Between Regulators and operators?
ie Between Regulators and operators?
The helicopter industry has always been very competitive...both in the UK and the USA. Some very valid issues have been raised in the discussion so far. The "sniping" detracts from the debate. The debate should be over what is the best for "all" of the private operators and owners.
Currently, it would appear, ATC is using the ANT rule to bar access to the airspace without basis of law. That should be addressed by all parties.
The basis used to restrict air traffic should be reviewed and sorted for "reality" vice purely subjective reasons. The Helicopter Industry as a whole should stand together on common issues which affect the industry and set aside competition concerns.
Why should the CAA not take a position on this....after all they hold themselves up as being the Rock of Aviation Safety throughout the world do they not? Surely they have reams of data to support their position re: engine failure rates and such. They monitor all aviation in the UK thus they know the flight hours performed and such. Surely they could come up with some exposure statistics to show the risks involved in helicopters flying over London. A bit of reseach using GIS techiques could determine the number of possible forced landing sites contained within the urban area surrounding London and thus calculate the availibility of landing areas as a percentage of the surface.
No reason peering into a tea cup has to be the research method that these rules are determined by.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as we all know, in a Twin Engine aircraft you have twice as much chance of an engine failure, but the good news is in most M/E helicopters the good engine should fly you to the crash site.