Single Engine Flights Over Cities
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single Engine Flights Over Cities
A recent article in 4ROTORS contained the following text from the Chairman of the EHA:
Notwithstanding that the terminology might be slightly wrong (city centres without landing areas = congested hostile environment) it comes as quite a surprise that, in ICAO, the US and Canada, such flights are permitted without regulation.
Is this correct?
On a separate issue, you all know that with the present regulations, CAT flights with single engine turbine helicopters are restricted to flights over hostile non congested environments with certain conditions. We, the operators, have accepted so far the regulation, however, the principle of level playing field, currently promoted by the European Commission, concerning CAT operations of SET helicopters with 6 passengers or less over hostile congested areas in day VMC conditions, is not satisfied as current EU/EASA requirements, are more severe than many other major Regulations and Standards (ICAO, USA, Canada, ... ) for the same operations.
Is this correct?
Oh no! This will start AnFI off again.......
Maybe aircraft that rely on pilots, or visibility, or fuel, or gearboxes, or tail rotors, or main rotor blades should also be banned from flying over cities too. I think you'll find those are higher risk factors than only having one donk.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question was not designed to prompt a debate about SE v ME over city centres - that would result only in heat rather than light - but whether the quoted statement was correct about the 'level playing field'.
Are the regulations with respect to flight over city centres tighter in Europe than they are in ICAO, the USA or Canada?
Are the regulations with respect to flight over city centres tighter in Europe than they are in ICAO, the USA or Canada?
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last month heading into town I flew over the 'G' in a single where my football team happened to be playing. But it was perfectly safe because a DH82 has two sets of wings.
Love it: that would have been Col in Reg's machine!
I did the same for Essendon at Windy Hill, fortunately before the NIMBYs had enough clout to stop anything aviation
I did the same for Essendon at Windy Hill, fortunately before the NIMBYs had enough clout to stop anything aviation
"
Since you love pedantry AnFI, stalking implies following you and posting after you comment yet clearly I posted long before you - does that make you the stalker??
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No - I think stalking includes lying in wait and harrassing without invitation - any thread that is even likely to be of interest to me, you are there, insulting me before I even have a chance to express my views. De-railing it from the topic, which you almost never answer.
On topic: Yes of course it is right that singles should be allowed to fly over these areas.
If you take into account the extra risk for negligable yield of twins flying in non-hostile environments, just to be able to provide engine 'accountability', it is easily obviously ok.
In non-hostile locations the upside of the twin has gone and you are left with only the added risk and unreliability, and performance cost.
2 engines is an engineering solution to a 'problem' and it should be considered properly (along with the downsides (gearboxes for one)).
On topic: Yes of course it is right that singles should be allowed to fly over these areas.
If you take into account the extra risk for negligable yield of twins flying in non-hostile environments, just to be able to provide engine 'accountability', it is easily obviously ok.
In non-hostile locations the upside of the twin has gone and you are left with only the added risk and unreliability, and performance cost.
2 engines is an engineering solution to a 'problem' and it should be considered properly (along with the downsides (gearboxes for one)).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More to the point AnFI, have you an answer to the question posed at the start of this thread:
A recent article in 4ROTORS contained the following text from the Chairman of the EHA:
Notwithstanding that the terminology might be slightly wrong (city centres without landing areas = congested hostile environment) it comes as quite a surprise that, in ICAO, the US and Canada, such flights are permitted without regulation.
Is this correct?
On a separate issue, you all know that with the present regulations, CAT flights with single engine turbine helicopters are restricted to flights over hostile non congested environments with certain conditions. We, the operators, have accepted so far the regulation, however, the principle of level playing field, currently promoted by the European Commission, concerning CAT operations of SET helicopters with 6 passengers or less over hostile congested areas in day VMC conditions, is not satisfied as current EU/EASA requirements, are more severe than many other major Regulations and Standards (ICAO, USA, Canada, ... ) for the same operations.
Is this correct?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bigger erroneous use of terminology here is "level playing field".
The Commission promotes a level playing field within the single market. USA and Canadian are not part of that single market and furthermore ICAO SARPS are minimums.
The Commission promotes a level playing field within the single market. USA and Canadian are not part of that single market and furthermore ICAO SARPS are minimums.
With respect to flights over a ‘congested hostile environment’ (as defined in ICAO), it would appear that regulations world-wide tend to show an equivalence with ICAO Annex 2, Chapter 3.1.2:
For those areas mentioned in the article, the reference to the appropriate standard/regulations are:
ICAO:
Annex 2 Chapter 3.1.2
Annex 6 Chapter 3.1.4
Europe:
SERA.3105
CAT.POL.H.400(b)
USA:
FAR 91.119(a)
Canada:
CAR 602.12(2), (3)
CAR 602.14(2)(a)
CAR 602.15(1)
CAR 723.36(1)(g)
CAR 724.31(1)(g)
There are no apparent differences in the intent of these rules - which is to protect third parties.
3.1.2 Minimum heights
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the appropriate authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the appropriate authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
ICAO:
Annex 2 Chapter 3.1.2
Annex 6 Chapter 3.1.4
Europe:
SERA.3105
CAT.POL.H.400(b)
USA:
FAR 91.119(a)
Canada:
CAR 602.12(2), (3)
CAR 602.14(2)(a)
CAR 602.15(1)
CAR 723.36(1)(g)
CAR 724.31(1)(g)
There are no apparent differences in the intent of these rules - which is to protect third parties.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
So a hostile congested area is one without enough level playing fields to force land onto?
ShyTorque,
Essentially, it is no more nor less than that stated in the Annex 2 text:
ICAO on the other hand have attempted to put some flesh on the bones in their definitions of 'Congested hostile environment', and 'Non-hostile environment' - in sections a), d) and the note.
Jim
Essentially, it is no more nor less than that stated in the Annex 2 text:
"...a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface"
The FAA have shied away from making a determination of a 'congested area' for a number of years for their own good reasons. The US courts have ruled on those occasions when it was considered that regulations were broached and prosecution had taken place.ICAO on the other hand have attempted to put some flesh on the bones in their definitions of 'Congested hostile environment', and 'Non-hostile environment' - in sections a), d) and the note.
Congested hostile environment. A hostile environment within a congested area.
Non-hostile environment. An environment in which:
Non-hostile environment. An environment in which:
a) a safe forced landing can be accomplished because the surface and surrounding environment are
adequate;
b) the helicopter occupants can be adequately protected from the elements;
c) search and rescue response/capability is provided consistent with anticipated exposure; and
d) the assessed risk of endangering persons or property on the ground is acceptable.
Note.— Those parts of a congested area satisfying the above requirements are considered non-hostile.
adequate;
b) the helicopter occupants can be adequately protected from the elements;
c) search and rescue response/capability is provided consistent with anticipated exposure; and
d) the assessed risk of endangering persons or property on the ground is acceptable.
Note.— Those parts of a congested area satisfying the above requirements are considered non-hostile.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Jim, It was just a light-hearted play on the words "level playing field" as used before my post, but thanks anyway.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mars
The answer is "no" (they are permitted and there is regulation)
The problem with our gold plating is the flesh on the bones that will become an idiotic hypothetical navel inspection excuse to punish singles again.
"A safe forced landing can be accomplished..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4diLW_ogUk
The answer is "no" (they are permitted and there is regulation)
The problem with our gold plating is the flesh on the bones that will become an idiotic hypothetical navel inspection excuse to punish singles again.
"A safe forced landing can be accomplished..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4diLW_ogUk