EASA.2012.OP.09 Study on single-engined helicopter operations
Thread Starter
EASA.2012.OP.09 Study on single-engined helicopter operations
EASA.2012.OP.09 | EASA
No more robbie ?! 
The Final Recommendations suggest measures to improve the suitability of single-engined
helicopters for Commercial Air Transport operations according to all previous analysis, especially the
Safety Risk Assessment.
First recommendations are referred to JAR-OPS 3.005(e) approvals. JAR-OPS 3.005(e) and the successor rule, CAT.POL.H.420, allow an exception to the rule for Commercial Air Transport operation of turbine single-engined helicopters to be conducted only along such routes or within such areas for which surfaces
are available which permit a safe forced landing.
The safety level to be maintained in these operations is
expressed as an engine failure rate being better than 1x10-5per flight hour.
The results of this study indicate that, whereas the rate for turbine-engined helicopters is significantly better at 0,36x10-5
per flight hour, the rate for piston-engined at 0,89x10-5
per flight hour is a factor of 2,5 higher and closer to the limit of 1x10-5 per flight hour.
It is therefore recommended to:
retain the alleviation, but not to expand it to piston-engined helicopters; and
take the adequate steps to ensure that all states apply the same standards in the same manner, ultimately when Implementing Rule 965/2012 takes effect on 28 October 2014, as a number of EASA member States appear to vary with the JAR-OPS standards.
The assess of limitation in seat capacity according to the Maximum Operational Passenger Seating Configuration (MOPSC) have concluded the recommendation to retain the limit of 6 passengers.
helicopters for Commercial Air Transport operations according to all previous analysis, especially the
Safety Risk Assessment.
First recommendations are referred to JAR-OPS 3.005(e) approvals. JAR-OPS 3.005(e) and the successor rule, CAT.POL.H.420, allow an exception to the rule for Commercial Air Transport operation of turbine single-engined helicopters to be conducted only along such routes or within such areas for which surfaces
are available which permit a safe forced landing.
The safety level to be maintained in these operations is
expressed as an engine failure rate being better than 1x10-5per flight hour.
The results of this study indicate that, whereas the rate for turbine-engined helicopters is significantly better at 0,36x10-5
per flight hour, the rate for piston-engined at 0,89x10-5
per flight hour is a factor of 2,5 higher and closer to the limit of 1x10-5 per flight hour.
It is therefore recommended to:
retain the alleviation, but not to expand it to piston-engined helicopters; and
take the adequate steps to ensure that all states apply the same standards in the same manner, ultimately when Implementing Rule 965/2012 takes effect on 28 October 2014, as a number of EASA member States appear to vary with the JAR-OPS standards.
The assess of limitation in seat capacity according to the Maximum Operational Passenger Seating Configuration (MOPSC) have concluded the recommendation to retain the limit of 6 passengers.
No More R22-44
There is an interesting article about Turbine reliability Vs Piston in Rotor and Wing March 2003--Perhaps its not unbiased as its written by Tim Tucker---statistics can be made to read whatever way the writer wants them to but its worth a read ----
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who has read the report upon which these figures are based will see that this represents fraudulent misuse of statistics. Even the swapping of turbine and piston figures half way through!
The figures used for hours in the denominator are sensitive and are dubious also.
Categorisation of the cause is also 'dirty work' performend by an individual.
Not to mention using totally non representative samples of piston types and disregarding those types that do use significant de-rating to acheive the most impressive reliability.
Moreover right there in that proposal even the fraudulently derived statistics are qualifying at better than the criteria stated. Thus making the point that even with dubious derivation there is not the stated basis upon which to draw the conclusion.
It is a nonsense.
This is nothing but an extension of a trade war being fought by obstructive legislation. This will not do anyone anygood. This smacks of French non-free trade tactics - the backlash will hurt everybody. The French sell a lot of their product in the US and this is shortsighted 'cleaverness'.
If we carry on using irrelevant and erroneous stats we are kidding ourselves.
This is nonsense and must not be allowed to succeed.
Govt agencies have an obligation to be 'fair' and not allow these shabby vested interests to prevail.
We have witnessed a disgrace already with the R66 certification and now this. The US govt maybe be forced to retaliate and this will be lousy for everyone.
They used to burn whiches on the basis that they didn't drown, haven't we moved on?
Every fair minded person should be repulsed by this.
(previous bogus statistics used for legislation have already been discredited here: 10^-10 not true! Maybe we could use some science rather than tea leaves?)
The figures used for hours in the denominator are sensitive and are dubious also.
Categorisation of the cause is also 'dirty work' performend by an individual.
Not to mention using totally non representative samples of piston types and disregarding those types that do use significant de-rating to acheive the most impressive reliability.
Moreover right there in that proposal even the fraudulently derived statistics are qualifying at better than the criteria stated. Thus making the point that even with dubious derivation there is not the stated basis upon which to draw the conclusion.
It is a nonsense.
This is nothing but an extension of a trade war being fought by obstructive legislation. This will not do anyone anygood. This smacks of French non-free trade tactics - the backlash will hurt everybody. The French sell a lot of their product in the US and this is shortsighted 'cleaverness'.
If we carry on using irrelevant and erroneous stats we are kidding ourselves.
This is nonsense and must not be allowed to succeed.
Govt agencies have an obligation to be 'fair' and not allow these shabby vested interests to prevail.
We have witnessed a disgrace already with the R66 certification and now this. The US govt maybe be forced to retaliate and this will be lousy for everyone.
They used to burn whiches on the basis that they didn't drown, haven't we moved on?
Every fair minded person should be repulsed by this.
(previous bogus statistics used for legislation have already been discredited here: 10^-10 not true! Maybe we could use some science rather than tea leaves?)
Anyone who has read the report upon which these figures are based will see that this represents fraudulent misuse of statistics. Even the swapping of turbine and piston figures half way through!
The figures used for hours in the denominator are sensitive and are dubious also.
Categorisation of the cause is also 'dirty work' performend by an individual.
Not to mention using totally non representative samples of piston types and disregarding those types that do use significant de-rating to acheive the most impressive reliability.
Moreover right there in that proposal even the fraudulently derived statistics are qualifying at better than the criteria stated. Thus making the point that even with dubious derivation there is not the stated basis upon which to draw the conclusion.
It is a nonsense.
This is nothing but an extension of a trade war being fought by obstructive legislation. This will not do anyone anygood. This smacks of French non-free trade tactics - the backlash will hurt everybody. The French sell a lot of their product in the US and this is shortsighted 'cleaverness'.
If we carry on using irrelevant and erroneous stats we are kidding ourselves.
This is nonsense and must not be allowed to succeed.
Govt agencies have an obligation to be 'fair' and not allow these shabby vested interests to prevail.
We have witnessed a disgrace already with the R66 certification and now this. The US govt maybe be forced to retaliate and this will be lousy for everyone.
They used to burn whiches on the basis that they didn't drown, haven't we moved on?
Every fair minded person should be repulsed by this.
(previous bogus statistics used for legislation have already been discredited here: 10^-10 not true! Maybe we could use some science rather than tea leaves?)
The figures used for hours in the denominator are sensitive and are dubious also.
Categorisation of the cause is also 'dirty work' performend by an individual.
Not to mention using totally non representative samples of piston types and disregarding those types that do use significant de-rating to acheive the most impressive reliability.
Moreover right there in that proposal even the fraudulently derived statistics are qualifying at better than the criteria stated. Thus making the point that even with dubious derivation there is not the stated basis upon which to draw the conclusion.
It is a nonsense.
This is nothing but an extension of a trade war being fought by obstructive legislation. This will not do anyone anygood. This smacks of French non-free trade tactics - the backlash will hurt everybody. The French sell a lot of their product in the US and this is shortsighted 'cleaverness'.
If we carry on using irrelevant and erroneous stats we are kidding ourselves.
This is nonsense and must not be allowed to succeed.
Govt agencies have an obligation to be 'fair' and not allow these shabby vested interests to prevail.
We have witnessed a disgrace already with the R66 certification and now this. The US govt maybe be forced to retaliate and this will be lousy for everyone.
They used to burn whiches on the basis that they didn't drown, haven't we moved on?
Every fair minded person should be repulsed by this.
(previous bogus statistics used for legislation have already been discredited here: 10^-10 not true! Maybe we could use some science rather than tea leaves?)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forrest !!!
Its you !
Seriously though this kind of dirty politics is disgusting and needs to be stopped - what's it all about? trying to make jobs for diplomats ?
It is BS - period!
Neither Bruno nor Bill Faury can't be stupid enough to think this does them any good - they should call off EASA and stop being a brunch of punts.
Its you !
Seriously though this kind of dirty politics is disgusting and needs to be stopped - what's it all about? trying to make jobs for diplomats ?
It is BS - period!
Neither Bruno nor Bill Faury can't be stupid enough to think this does them any good - they should call off EASA and stop being a brunch of punts.
Can't comment on the stats used to derive the figures, but presumably someone calculated that a failure rate of 1x10^-5 / hour is pretty darned safe, hence it was used for the study.
They really cannot then say "yup, piston engines fall within our pretty darned safe level, but not by far enough".
Tantamount to "We've placed a stop sign here, but you must stop 50m short of it or we'll ban you from driving".
Also, a nice statement in there: "apply the same standards in the same manner". Might be nice if they applied their own standards.
They really cannot then say "yup, piston engines fall within our pretty darned safe level, but not by far enough".
Tantamount to "We've placed a stop sign here, but you must stop 50m short of it or we'll ban you from driving".
Also, a nice statement in there: "apply the same standards in the same manner". Might be nice if they applied their own standards.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lunacy, lies, statistics and politics.
I would much rather fly a really well maintained 44 than a 30 year old jetty that had been overtorqued plenty of times (for example).
I have met Tim Tucker, I found him to be a straight shooter, and really good bloke with an encyclopaedic knowledge of helicopters. He also has a great interest in wine too...which in my book is a good thing ! I doubt he was lying when he gave the talk mentioned earlier.
I want to see the numbers on the following -
How many people have been hurt on the ground anywhere in the world due to engine failure in ANY type of single engine heli ? In Australia, it's none. I suspect that the numbers are similar elsewhere.
Unbelievable.
Watch out everyone, if you don't have a twin (and a good one) you won't be able to fly anywhere soon.
The older chaps reading this, who used to fly everywhere in singles, including around the world (hello Dick Smith etc), would be feeling ill reading this rubbish.
Arrrj
PS _ maybe we need two engines in our cars now too ? A long, long time ago, the car I was driving ceased to operate...
I would much rather fly a really well maintained 44 than a 30 year old jetty that had been overtorqued plenty of times (for example).
I have met Tim Tucker, I found him to be a straight shooter, and really good bloke with an encyclopaedic knowledge of helicopters. He also has a great interest in wine too...which in my book is a good thing ! I doubt he was lying when he gave the talk mentioned earlier.
I want to see the numbers on the following -
How many people have been hurt on the ground anywhere in the world due to engine failure in ANY type of single engine heli ? In Australia, it's none. I suspect that the numbers are similar elsewhere.
Unbelievable.
Watch out everyone, if you don't have a twin (and a good one) you won't be able to fly anywhere soon.
The older chaps reading this, who used to fly everywhere in singles, including around the world (hello Dick Smith etc), would be feeling ill reading this rubbish.
Arrrj
PS _ maybe we need two engines in our cars now too ? A long, long time ago, the car I was driving ceased to operate...
I am still completely unaware as to the actual effect of any change in rules . In fact i cannot even FIND the rule change !!! Oh well ...i fly a twin so who cares ...............................
I find this to be a very strange state of affairs when we are being flown across the Atlantic on aircraft with two engines when not many years ago airliners had four engines because there wasn't space for five.
How many people have been hurt on the ground anywhere in the world due to engine failure in ANY type of single engine heli ? In Australia, it's none. I suspect that the numbers are similar elsewhere.
But sadley a member of the public was killed this year when a news chopper toppled from a rooftop pad.
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One in BC, Canada from 2008.
4 killed in helicopter crash in southeastern B.C. - British Columbia - CBC News
4 killed in helicopter crash in southeastern B.C. - British Columbia - CBC News
Last edited by Aussierob; 20th Nov 2014 at 15:13. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow that's rare, but it doesn't say engine failed ("pilot might have closed the throttle", and they didn't give themselves much time from 120ft over a built up area. Also the old chestnut of putting the lever down to preserve RRPM crops up. (though also ideep in HVcurve too). Every possible thing will happen to some extent. there was (apparently) once a case of an engine failing on a twin whilst it was climbing upwards and backwards, doesn't make it a good idea tho
In UK we have far more twins embedded in roofs than singles.
If at all this twin (engine redundancy) concept should be limitted to aircraft above a mass threshold, if at all. It is just not justified nor justifiable for light helicopters.
Is it true about Paris? Anyone know?
In UK we have far more twins embedded in roofs than singles.
If at all this twin (engine redundancy) concept should be limitted to aircraft above a mass threshold, if at all. It is just not justified nor justifiable for light helicopters.
Is it true about Paris? Anyone know?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Oxford
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I believe wikipedia, there were 2175 road traffic deaths in the UK alone in 2012, and 1.2M worldwide in 2010.
Most if not all of those deaths would have involved a single piston engine vehicle, and a significant majority would have happened in densely populated areas.
Based on those statistics, I'd say we definitely need a ban on single piston engines vehicles in populated areas.
Matthew
Most if not all of those deaths would have involved a single piston engine vehicle, and a significant majority would have happened in densely populated areas.
Based on those statistics, I'd say we definitely need a ban on single piston engines vehicles in populated areas.
Matthew