Single Engine Flights Over Cities
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim it is always frustrating when someone will not allow you free rain to try and impose your world view on free conciencious resectable honourable people.
It's part of why people want to escape excessive bureacratic slavery.
Crab thinks that you have said that singles are banned from flight over cities.
Crab quotes YOU
"The exclusion of singles over the congested area of cities is almost as old as the regulations themselves"
Then he goes on to say
" it would appear that those complaining about those rules are doing so purely from a selfish standpoint - 'I want to fly my single over the city but the authorities won't let me'.
No consideration for the safety of those living and working in those congested areas who might suddenly find themselves wearing a helicopter (yes I know it happened in London but that was CFIT not and engine failure).
Since great deliberation has gone into protecting the passengers, crews and the population before deciding these rules, why should they be changed to suit a few selfish individuals? "
Perhaps you could set him straight? Or are you less unbiased than you think you are?
Perhaps you could explain to Crab why the Glasgow accident would have been very much more unlikely in a single?
JimL
"Your indignation over proposals for changes to the rules is misplaced; there is no suggestion of tightening them up, attention is merely being drawn to the erroneous assumption that they are different world-wide and using that as an reason to call for changes in Europe."
I don't think that is true Jim.
I think the UK CAA interpretation of the new EUROPEAN REGULATIONS that are about to hit the unsuspecting public in AUGUST will result in SINGLES not being allowed to fly where they previously were. Am I wrong?
IMAGINE singles not being allowed to land at Battersea!!!
50 years of no problem, and suddenly some idiot has decided it's an elevated helipad and so it has to be a twin. 'Regulation against singles not being tightened up' you say? RUBBISH. and be honest and explain to our sheltered Nautical Crustacian why his narrow and incorrect world view, based on his interpretation of what you say, is wrong.
Crab gather your own stats if you want to trample the rights of the civilian private individuals who are apologetically grovelling in the mud below your high judgment.
It's part of why people want to escape excessive bureacratic slavery.
Crab thinks that you have said that singles are banned from flight over cities.
Crab quotes YOU
"The exclusion of singles over the congested area of cities is almost as old as the regulations themselves"
Then he goes on to say
" it would appear that those complaining about those rules are doing so purely from a selfish standpoint - 'I want to fly my single over the city but the authorities won't let me'.
No consideration for the safety of those living and working in those congested areas who might suddenly find themselves wearing a helicopter (yes I know it happened in London but that was CFIT not and engine failure).
Since great deliberation has gone into protecting the passengers, crews and the population before deciding these rules, why should they be changed to suit a few selfish individuals? "
Perhaps you could set him straight? Or are you less unbiased than you think you are?
Perhaps you could explain to Crab why the Glasgow accident would have been very much more unlikely in a single?
JimL
"Your indignation over proposals for changes to the rules is misplaced; there is no suggestion of tightening them up, attention is merely being drawn to the erroneous assumption that they are different world-wide and using that as an reason to call for changes in Europe."
I don't think that is true Jim.
I think the UK CAA interpretation of the new EUROPEAN REGULATIONS that are about to hit the unsuspecting public in AUGUST will result in SINGLES not being allowed to fly where they previously were. Am I wrong?
IMAGINE singles not being allowed to land at Battersea!!!
50 years of no problem, and suddenly some idiot has decided it's an elevated helipad and so it has to be a twin. 'Regulation against singles not being tightened up' you say? RUBBISH. and be honest and explain to our sheltered Nautical Crustacian why his narrow and incorrect world view, based on his interpretation of what you say, is wrong.
Crab gather your own stats if you want to trample the rights of the civilian private individuals who are apologetically grovelling in the mud below your high judgment.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singles are allowed to fly into Battersea under the new rules. I only ever owned singles, still used for charters into / out of Battersea.
The CAA ruling is that singles must have downloadable engine data for each flight. The engineering screen which the Airbus (Ex-Eurocopter) machines display at shut-down has the necessary data.
The CAA ruling is that singles must have downloadable engine data for each flight. The engineering screen which the Airbus (Ex-Eurocopter) machines display at shut-down has the necessary data.
Interestingly everyone compares The FAA to EASA when it comes to flying in general. What people forget is the US is the most litigious society in the world. So if there was a problem with singles over cities the amount of suing that would have taken place in the US would have forced the FAA to change their laws if there was such a huge problem !
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say as an end user of the services of City Flight AAC in Belfast, there were advantages of a single over multi-engined aircraft.
Each aircraft has a different blade/engine noise signature and the Gaz was less intrusive. On one occasion when we had Puma as top cover it was so noisy that it made ground based communication very difficult, which actually interfered with the operation we were trying to conduct.
Always considered the runt of the rotary wing litter, over the years the Gaz did pretty much what was asked of it.
EG
Each aircraft has a different blade/engine noise signature and the Gaz was less intrusive. On one occasion when we had Puma as top cover it was so noisy that it made ground based communication very difficult, which actually interfered with the operation we were trying to conduct.
Always considered the runt of the rotary wing litter, over the years the Gaz did pretty much what was asked of it.
EG
AnFI - is this what you are banging on about? https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ercial-set-imc
It seems to propose more freedom for SE turbine IMC CAT ops so what is the problem?
No I don't (it is congested areas) but you never read people's posts properly anyway.
so, despite your assertion that there are 50 years of stats - you can't actually find any yourself.
It seems to propose more freedom for SE turbine IMC CAT ops so what is the problem?
Crab thinks that you have said that singles are banned from flight over cities.
Crab gather your own stats
I try not to dabble in politics on the InterWeb Hughes 500; however -
A bit like US gun laws then?
Regards
TeeS
Interestingly everyone compares The FAA to EASA when it comes to flying in general. What people forget is the US is the most litigious society in the world. So if there was a problem with singles over cities the amount of suing that would have taken place in the US would have forced the FAA to change their laws if there was such a huge problem !
Regards
TeeS
I seem to recall Shropshire wasn't party to the seven articles of the constitution TeesS
Absolutely nothing in common. The costitution doesn't specify the right to fly singles over cities. Hughes500 made a perfectly valid observation.
Absolutely nothing in common. The costitution doesn't specify the right to fly singles over cities. Hughes500 made a perfectly valid observation.
Hi Homunculus
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make or what point you thought I was trying to make. You won't find any statements from me about the rights or wrongs of flying over a built up area in single engine helicopters (I don't think!) the only comments I have made on the subject have been -
1) to suggest that a successful forced landing with no injury to occupants or third parties can not be used, after the event, to define a safe forced landing (whilst I could also argue that a forced landing, with injuries, could have commenced from a place where a safe forced landing could reasonably be expected);
2) the absence of laws to further enforce the requirement for 'reasonable expectation of a safe forced landing, in the event of failure of a power unit', over a built up area, can't be used to demonstrate the safety of such operations. My logic is that the USA appear to have a significant problem with mass shootings, often with military spec semi-automatic weapons; however, legislation has not been introduced to restrict or limit the possession or purchase of such weapons. A comparison of the two doesn't seem entirely irrelevant!
Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with the operation of single engine helicopters over built up areas, so long as I've got a reasonable expectation of being able to carry out a safe forced landing (I recognise that this has to be an objective assessment); however, given the choice, I would use a helicopter with two power units on the basis that out of all the failures that might ruin my day, a single engine failure is one that I can easily mitigate by putting a second engine in.
Cheers
TeeS
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make or what point you thought I was trying to make. You won't find any statements from me about the rights or wrongs of flying over a built up area in single engine helicopters (I don't think!) the only comments I have made on the subject have been -
1) to suggest that a successful forced landing with no injury to occupants or third parties can not be used, after the event, to define a safe forced landing (whilst I could also argue that a forced landing, with injuries, could have commenced from a place where a safe forced landing could reasonably be expected);
2) the absence of laws to further enforce the requirement for 'reasonable expectation of a safe forced landing, in the event of failure of a power unit', over a built up area, can't be used to demonstrate the safety of such operations. My logic is that the USA appear to have a significant problem with mass shootings, often with military spec semi-automatic weapons; however, legislation has not been introduced to restrict or limit the possession or purchase of such weapons. A comparison of the two doesn't seem entirely irrelevant!
Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with the operation of single engine helicopters over built up areas, so long as I've got a reasonable expectation of being able to carry out a safe forced landing (I recognise that this has to be an objective assessment); however, given the choice, I would use a helicopter with two power units on the basis that out of all the failures that might ruin my day, a single engine failure is one that I can easily mitigate by putting a second engine in.
Cheers
TeeS
The costitution doesn't specify the right to fly singles over cities
The point has been made that in such a litigious country as the US, if there was a real threat to public safety from SE helis then surely something would have been done about it - Tees just highlights a counter to that where a clear and obvious threat to public safety is continually ignored because of political lobbying.
TeeS The point I was making is that the constitution gives ALL Americans the right to bear arms so legislators cannot stop US citizens carrying guns even though some, plus the President, would like to do so, The shootings reflect the consequences of a document drawn up over 250 years ago on modern society.
No such restriction or historical process relates to flying singles over cities. If the US President or lawmakers thought there were a danger, they could promote or enact restrictive legislation. They have not.
So Hughes500 was correct in drawing attention to the fact that a litigious society has not seen fit to restrict singles. It appears lawmakers do not see it as a risk needing proscription, whereas many have the opposite view over gun control. Your comment drawing parallels to gunlaw was therefore incorrect
No such restriction or historical process relates to flying singles over cities. If the US President or lawmakers thought there were a danger, they could promote or enact restrictive legislation. They have not.
So Hughes500 was correct in drawing attention to the fact that a litigious society has not seen fit to restrict singles. It appears lawmakers do not see it as a risk needing proscription, whereas many have the opposite view over gun control. Your comment drawing parallels to gunlaw was therefore incorrect
2nd amendment
That doesn't mean everyone buy guns and shoot each other which is what seems to be happening on a regular basis.
Various rulings and judicial interpretations have led from a practical way to defend your country (but that is what you have armed forces for) to the carnage that shows no signs of diminishing so long as any nut job can buy an assault rifle - but its OK, it keeps the American gun industry going
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Various rulings and judicial interpretations have led from a practical way to defend your country (but that is what you have armed forces for) to the carnage that shows no signs of diminishing so long as any nut job can buy an assault rifle - but its OK, it keeps the American gun industry going
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I have to say as an end user of the services of City Flight AAC in Belfast, there were advantages of a single over multi-engined aircraft.
Each aircraft has a different blade/engine noise signature and the Gaz was less intrusive. On one occasion when we had Puma as top cover it was so noisy that it made ground based communication very difficult, which actually interfered with the operation we were trying to conduct.
Always considered the runt of the rotary wing litter, over the years the Gaz did pretty much what was asked of it.
EG
Each aircraft has a different blade/engine noise signature and the Gaz was less intrusive. On one occasion when we had Puma as top cover it was so noisy that it made ground based communication very difficult, which actually interfered with the operation we were trying to conduct.
Always considered the runt of the rotary wing litter, over the years the Gaz did pretty much what was asked of it.
EG
However, as you found, sometimes circumstances meant that it wasn't able to be operated covertly. It was relatively noisy not because it was a twin engined type, but because it weighed much more than the Gazelle (almost four times as much) and naturally had a much bigger noise signature.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Himalayas
Age: 62
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approaching Dhaka today on a ferry flight from Singapore to Bhutan in a single H130 T2 and joining at 90 degrees to the runway at 1500' cleared height. Controller say descend to 1000' and report downwind. Not a problem but will need to take a safe line through the ever increasing buildings. Then with a mile to run to join downwind they say, descend and maintain 500'. I check the clearance due very large buildings and they confirm 500'. Now about 200' above the rooftops of large blocks of flats etc and feeling a little concerned. Turn base now and approach for the taxiway due traffic on the runway. Easy I thought and very good awareness as it was busy with both civilian and milatry aircraft. On very short finals I say to my colleague, watch that 737 taxiing out directly onto the taxiway we have been cleared to land on. Quick check with the tower who say, avoid the 737 and go right to the grass next to the runway which is also in use! Thankfully we avoided everyone and found the parking stand - tomorrow's departure to the north should be interesting.
Crab
Way off topic but both Israel and Switzerland both allow their citizens ( providing part of armed forces ) to keep their assult rifles at home. Doesn't appear to be mass homicide in these countries ?
Way off topic but both Israel and Switzerland both allow their citizens ( providing part of armed forces ) to keep their assult rifles at home. Doesn't appear to be mass homicide in these countries ?
@peely: great post illustrating the challenges.
I find it sad that ax grinding on an unrelated topic has infiltrated a discussion of flying. Request the obsession with folks on the east side of the pond over the rules on the west side of the pond return to JB where it fits nicely.
About lawyers and the FAA: just because the litigation hasn't become unbearable may or may not coincide with "how the FAA does it" being a good template to cut and paste on the east side of the pond. The general risk level accepted as "normal" on the west side of the pond may not be the same on the east.
I had an epiphany: this thread, regarding very built up areas and singles, seems an interesting companion to the long running Yank basher thread regarding single engine helicopters operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Same number of engines, completely different operating environment.
Only flew single engine Helicopters in training (twins after). Due to my training I was paranoid of built up areas. As a student, you almost got spring loaded to "there goes your engine" on training flights, and so developed the attitude of mentally flying from one emergency field/spot to the next as one flew various VFR training routes. Built up Urban areas had few to none. Where we were most roads in areas like that had wires a-plenty near to the roads. What's different now from then is that engine reliability has, in general, improved. Likelihood of an event is less, even though severity of an event remains similar. (Referring to risk assessment matrix).
I find it sad that ax grinding on an unrelated topic has infiltrated a discussion of flying. Request the obsession with folks on the east side of the pond over the rules on the west side of the pond return to JB where it fits nicely.
About lawyers and the FAA: just because the litigation hasn't become unbearable may or may not coincide with "how the FAA does it" being a good template to cut and paste on the east side of the pond. The general risk level accepted as "normal" on the west side of the pond may not be the same on the east.
I had an epiphany: this thread, regarding very built up areas and singles, seems an interesting companion to the long running Yank basher thread regarding single engine helicopters operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Same number of engines, completely different operating environment.
Only flew single engine Helicopters in training (twins after). Due to my training I was paranoid of built up areas. As a student, you almost got spring loaded to "there goes your engine" on training flights, and so developed the attitude of mentally flying from one emergency field/spot to the next as one flew various VFR training routes. Built up Urban areas had few to none. Where we were most roads in areas like that had wires a-plenty near to the roads. What's different now from then is that engine reliability has, in general, improved. Likelihood of an event is less, even though severity of an event remains similar. (Referring to risk assessment matrix).
Lone
I don't see there is anything wrong with being prepared for an engine failure. Any good pilot should be thinking of what if ,everywhere one flies doesn't need to be confined to engine failure, could be gearbox issues, chip light etc.
I don't see there is anything wrong with being prepared for an engine failure. Any good pilot should be thinking of what if ,everywhere one flies doesn't need to be confined to engine failure, could be gearbox issues, chip light etc.
When I was instructing in FW single engine aircraft, my old habit of thinking "where can I put this down?" was reactivated. Tried to pass it along to my students as best I could.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the FAA didn't mean for helicopters to gad about over cities, they probably wouldn't have published charts for the purpose. I have, on a couple of occasions, been in a naval single engine helicopter over the Windy City... with students at the controls even.
Helicopter Route Charts
Helicopter Route Charts