Where does the UK/JAR "twin only" mentality come from?

[Boudreaux Bob]

States have operational requirements that also have to be met - these describe instruments and additional equipment for flight in IMC.

JimL, perhaps that vague mention of States may have suggested the UK to me. But if the UK does not require anything beyond that of the USA then I shall gladly stand corrected.

Does the CAA, for instance, allow for the use of Single Engine Airplanes such as the Cessna Caravan or other Singles for Instrument Flight for Public Transport flying as does the US FAA?

[Bravo73]

Originally Posted by Boudreaux Bob

Does the CAA, for instance, allow for the use of Single Engine Airplanes such as the Cessna Caravan or other Singles for Instrument Flight for Public Transport flying as does the US FAA?

No. (Unless the rules have changed recently/under EASA. That's why there aren't many Caravans in the UK market*).





*Unless you're on the A303 in summer. But that's another story.

[AnFI]

Do the UK still ask for different equipment to that required by EASA, for example at night?

[Boudreaux Bob]

Accident Reports for Caravans.

They do not like Ice or running into Mountains, Airplanes, or IMC weather with Non-IF capable pilots.

Caravan Cessna 208 NTSB Reports

[AnFI]

"He has told the jury at an inquest in Leicester he had battled to keep the Lynx helicopter under control after it had suffered catastrophic engine failure.

The accident happened near the village of Tilton on the Hill in Leicestershire in May 1999.

A board of inquiry was set up to investigate the accident which found that the pilot acted "competently and professionally" in trying to get the aircraft down.

But it added: "Tragically, despite their best efforts, the crew were unable to prevent this accident."

Lt Col Whiteside told the inquest there had been a problem with the engine oil pressure gauge, but the instrument was renown for being "notoriously unreliable."

He said during the flight, which left from the men's base at Dishforth, North Yorkshire, to RAF Odiham, Hampshire, the needle on the gauge had moved into the amber zone but then flicked back into the green area.

Fifty minutes into the flight the crew heard a loud bang and one of the aircraft's two gas-turbine engines failed."

[Grumpyasever]

IFR/IMc

Seems to me a lot of folk don't recognise the difference between flying in IMC and flying under the IFR.
For how long would anyone really wish to fly an unstablised B206 in actual IMC?
GAVII had a pretty good stab system and had severe height restrictions when flying in IMC.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Grumpy,

The US Army has flown unstabliized Bell 47's, Jet Rangers and Hueys IMC/IFR for many decades.

Nine posts prior to yours I commented on that.

So you either did not catch up on what has been posted recently or did not understand what was said.

Others have reminded readers the British Military have done the same in other Single Engine un-stabilized Helicopters as well

I do wonder how folks can think IMC and IFR are mutually exclusive concepts.

I know the UK has some very odd notions about a lot of things Aeronautical and flying IMC seems to be one of them.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Bob, I flew Gazelles in IMC in the British Army. I was young and a bit dumb. We certainly could not have made a commercial venture out of it. The only Navaids we had was a Doppler mini-TANs which, as I recall, did not like clouds very much proving to be very inconvenient.

The fact you keep bleating on about it suggests that is all you know OR you have remained a little bit dumb!

MEHs support systems redundancy which translates to operability in DVE and options during simplex failures. If you do not understand this Bob then we are wasting our breath and you and ANFI are forever bonded by the same limited vision which is normally the domain of the inexperienced or the truly dumb.

Q. Why does every airliner have more than one engine.

A. For ANFI and Bob. When you figure that out you can drop the transatlantic jingoistic BS that has crept into this thread.

[SilsoeSid]

AnFI;
I lost 3 friends that day, what's your point?

[Tandemrotor]

Sid

My sincere condolences. I know precisely how that feels. I hope AnFI does not.

BB you make much of what occurs in military aviation, yet demand to know how civil aviation is managed in the UK. (I have no idea why you are interested, because I couldn't care less about the good ol US of A. When I fly there I fly UK registered machines, and we obey our rules, with one or two ADDITIONAL requirements from yours) I have extremely good reasons to support my belief that in the military (young) life is cheap. Risks can be taken as the end can, at some point, be justified by war. However when one accepts payment from someone who wishes to be transported safely from A to B with the virtual elimination of predictable risk, the rules change very considerably. Which even protects the pilot for heaven's sake!

DOUBLE BOGEY made an excellent contribution covering the same point.

So would you like to discuss military OR civilian?

Or just mix them up in your very poor argument?

[Boudreaux Bob]

DB,

There is a great difference between pointing out reality, the law, regulations, and the like, rather than "endorsing", "favoring", or "advocating".

Read back and see where I did any thing but note the facts and remark upon the variances of Rules, Regulations, and Air Law amongst the various Authorities.

One cannot ignore the fact the USA and UK (picking the two most common Authorities discussed here) have very different views on Single Engined aircraft operating in IFR/IMC.

That both Nation's Military's operate Single Engined Aircraft IMC/IFR is a fact.

I very much prefer Twins to Singles.

That preference has nothing to do with the situation re Rules, Regulations, and the Reality we have to deal with.

As to every "Airliner" having two engines, we have to remember the purpose of Airlines and at some point even that argument would lost by you if we considered American and Canadian Air Taxi Operators who operate "Scheduled" flights to remote Arctic Villages using single engined airplanes. But that would be a stretch perhaps as your frame of reference is large passenger airplanes.

Even in those we have seen a move back from four engined aircraft to Twins.

I don't know about you but Winter Crossings of the North Atlantic always seemed far more comfy in four engined airplanes than in ETOPS Twins. Granted that is mere psychology at play and not engineering statistics.

I submit it is much the same about Singles vs Twins for IFR and my stated preference is a Twin over a Single but for the same reason I would have that preference for VFR operations like Underslung Loads, Fire Fighting, or other similar work. That being said, Singles for IFR/IMC work fine for me too but I would put in place a requirement on Vis and Ceiling such that an EOL would have some good chance of working out. The rub with that is such a weather limit would actually provide for VFR or Special VFR flight to begin with.

The "Jingoism" is see on display is the reaction from you Brits when it is pointed out how your CAA Rules differ from other Authorities. Some of you always see it as an attack or provides for a knee jerk reaction defending what absolutely must be the most enlightened thinking on any topic Aeronautical.

Cannot you (plural usage) just admit that you folks see things differently for different reasons? We are all creatures of our environment and we on this side of the Atlantic tend to do things unless it is prohibited while you over there appear to do things only if it is clearly spelled out and approved.

I used the Cessna Caravan as a perfect example. One Reply admitted Caravans were not very common in the UK and EASA land because of the Rules yet the USA and other Authorities commonly allow their use in Air Taxi Operations in IMC/IFR flight. It took a real effort to get that approved by the FAA but in time they saw the Safety Statistics supported such change.


TR,

The discussion was about Singles vs Twins performing IFR/IMC flight.

It was not a Civil vs Military issue.

But as you want to make it separate issue then how do you parcel out the UH-H from a Bell 205A1, a Bell UH-1B and a Bell 204, a Bell UH-1N and a Bell 212, or a Bell 206 and a Bell TH-57 for a few examples. They are for all intents and purposes the same machines no matter what color of their clothes. Yet as a National Guardsman who was doing my Weekend Drills,I would pull my Pickle Suit over my Jeans and Tee-shirt and walk over to the Huey from my 205 and go Instrument Flying. The two aircraft were equipped to a similar standard except for the Huey having less capable avionics. Same pilot, same aircraft, but one Military and the other Civilian.

It is not about Military and Civilian, it is about aircraft capability and REGULATIONS either Military or Civilian.

My point is it is REGULATION that is the real issue.

The thread is about the UK Mentality and I submit it is reflected in the REGULATIONS you have to comply with.

I also submit the Regulations oft times are not based upon effective analysis of Safety Statistics.

Is the Military that callous towards Human Life in Training?

Is it the elimination of all predictable risk that is the goal or achieving an acceptable level of risk?

Elimination of Predictable Risks would end Helicopter Flying over the North Sea I would submit but we do it today as we consider the Risks Acceptable.

Though currently, those concepts are being reconsidered for several reasons aren't they?

[Art of flight]

Nail on the head...

"Cannot you (plural usage) just admit that you folks see things differently for different reasons? We are all creatures of our environment and we on this side of the Atlantic tend to do things unless it is prohibited while you over there appear to do things only if it is clearly spelled out and approved."

Think you've got it there Bob. The UK has more than a few hundreds of years of being ruled, by Kings and Queens, by politicians, and now by the European Community......we expect restrictions and permissions, we thrive on commitees as we're conditioned from birth to avoid risk. Over there you start with a declaration of rights for the individual and fight against restrictions (the right to bear arms springs to mind). Just because we speak a similar language we often get sucked into thinking we're the same.

[ShyTorque]

Is it the elimination of all predictable risk that is the goal or achieving an acceptable level of risk?

It is the latter, which should be obvious. Hence the requirement for Category A/Class 1 operations for public transport. It is about mitigating the risk from a single engine failure at all stages of flight. Nothing more.

But (as some seem insistent on ignoring) is that having two starter generators allows two independent electrical systems as a side benefit, and of course that allows two fully independent gyro instrument and stabilisation systems. So losing one engine does not mean losing other system at the same time.

Today was a good flying day, but only for twin engined aircraft. I would not have wanted to fly in cloud in a single engined helicopter over extensive fog, even if I were allowed to do it. The problem comes if you are allowed to do it, some "brave warrior" will do it. Then everyone expects everyone to do it.

The UK market suffered some high profile losses that were attributed to unsuitably equipped single engined helicopters. Some of them were flown by military trained pilots. Rules came in over time, in an effort to prevent further accidents of this nature happening again. Surely only the inexperienced, the overconfident, the ignorant or the careless amongst us would want to turn back the clock and make the industry learn the same fatal lessons all over again.

Now that this thread is going around in circles, I will leave it to be discussed amongst those who think they know better than the regulators. But I rest assured that the regulations won't be changing back, nor will there be a petition to change them back, at least, not from the more experienced, professional pilots on this side of the Atlantic.

[Boudreaux Bob]

So one legislates in reaction to bad judgement?

That is the Nanny State defined!

[ShyTorque]

Bob, if there was no bad judgement, there would be no need for legislation.

Bringing in these rules levelled the playing field. Some operators would do in unstabilised singles what others preferred to do in twins, because they could do it cheaper, with simpler aircraft and less qualified pilots. As I, and others have pointed out, there were fatal but preventable accidents.

Unfortunately your helicopter public transport industry still hasn't learned the same lessons from experience and can only be described as twenty years behind in this respect.

If you don't like that, no matter, throw as many sticks and stones as you like, you aren't part of this industry. But if you and/or your loved ones came here, you won't be flown in IMC or by night in a single engined, unstabilised helicopter as a fare paying passenger by a non-instrument rated pilot. Maybe you would refuse to pay the extra for it, so be it but that is the choice you get.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Shy,

The Accident stats for the UK and USA are not much dis-similar.

How do you account for that similarity?

As it is not the Rules and the Aircraft themselves are the same then it has to revolve around something else.

Your Licensing system certainly doesn't make a difference.

Could it be the Human element, decision making, and judgement are the issues and cannot be altered much by Regulation and Law?

No amount of Regulation shall ever control a Pilot's poor decision making abilities.

There is an on-going thread here that is debating that very issue as you recall.

There is an on-going Review of UK Offshore Helicopter Flying that points out how "Decision Making" at multiple levels has not been very effective in promoting safety.

Why the UK/EASA/JAR, whatever system you want to call it, reliance upon yet more Regulations when it is quite apparent that even the current Regulations do not prevent the exercise of bad decision making?

You have helicopters running into Cranes, Trees, and the Ocean despite your "enlightened" thinking (as evidenced by all your Regulations, Rules, Orders, and the like).

Is it possible it is time to take a different approach to all this?

In a Free Market Economy, the Buyer controls his choice of products. If he reckons riding in a two pilot, fully IFR, helicopter and that a single engined, single pilot helicopter is too dangerous then the Market will determine the winners and losers.

Again, if the Consumer makes a poor decision then he will suffer the consequences of that decision. In time, the Customer will choose the "cheaper" source of the service he wants especially if he factors into the decision his chances of making it to the destination in one piece.

There was a Utah based Operator that crashed themselves out of business when they were no longer able to "Insure" their aircraft and be able to meet Contract Terms. It cost some Lives but in the end they left the business. If Pilots had decided to look elsewhere and not take the Risks then the company would have had to change much sooner.

Again it all gets back to Decision Making.

I submit you cannot legislate that problem out of existence and not put the Operators out of business at the same time.

Training and Pre-Employment Screening is the way to do that.

Weed out the unfit early and ensure Management provides the training and supervision necessary to control the operational environment to prevent those lapses from being able to occur.

[ShyTorque]

Bob, Please read again my response here.

It is the latter, which should be obvious. Hence the requirement for Category A/Class 1 operations for public transport. It is about mitigating the risk from a single engine failure at all stages of flight. Nothing more.

There really is little more to be said, I don't intend to explain any more. I didn't make the rules, I was and am obliged to comply and I do, as we do here. Having argued against the introduction of the "twin engined only" rules at the time, as you and a few others do now, I do, in the benefit of hindsight, see them in a more favourable light.

Obviously there are many other risks which still exist, many of them human limitations and failings of one type or another. Look closely at your own EMS industry to understand some of them. However, I really don't intend to keep going round in circles any more because I do have a life (and a job) other than in this forum. Good afternoon and good bye.

[Mars]

Glasshouses and stones comes to mind:

From 2001 through 2005, the worldwide accident rate was 9.4 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. The attendees’ goal for 2016 was 1.9 accidents worldwide per 100,000 flight hours. As of December 31, 2012, the rate was estimated to be 5.2 accidents worldwide per 100,000 flight hours. In the United States, the numbers looked particularly promising. Helicopter accidents had been gradually decreasing from a high of 222 crashes reported in 1990.

Sadly, that trend ended during the past fiscal year. Helicopter accidents were up 19 percent between 2011 and 2012 nationwide, increasing from 129 to 154. Of the 154 accidents, 23 involved fatal accidents, up from 18 in fiscal year 2011.

Most accidents - 87 percent - occur during the day. And most of the accidents - 84 percent - can be attributed to pilot judgment and actions, according to the IHST’s U.S. Joint Helicopter Safety Analysis Team, which studied 523 accidents in 2000, 2001, and 2006.

Mars

[Boudreaux Bob]

Mars,

What was the UK Accident Rates? Care to compare them to the US Rates for us?

In the past this same argument took place and it was found that the rates were not all that different.

Of course you realize there are approximately 800 EMS Helicopters in the USA as compared to how many in the UK? The vast majority of the EMS Operations are 24/7/365 Operations.

Numbers of accidents don't matter but rather the RATE per some unit of measurement is the way to compare.

I will bet you that the results are that for all the Rules and Tribulations you endure in the UK, you still don't cure the problem of bad/poor judgement.

It is not the as you suggest as I am taking the position of the root cause of most accidents is bad decisions and poor judgement NO MATTER WHERE ONE WORKS.

Where we differ probably is I suggest Legislation/Rules/Regulations are not the cure for the problem.

So, please do get back with the rest of the information and provide us with your analysis.

[Mars]

Isn't it the convention that he who makes the assertion, provides the proof; how else can your statements be justified?

Mars