AW139 - SPIFR

[overtorqued]

Looks like the boss would like a little more headroom than our current 76 can offer and a 139 has made the short list.

Wondering, can an N-registered 139 operate SPVFR/SPIFR under Part135 operations? Or under Part 91 ?
Assuming FMS Supp 22 is in play...

Thanks

[Sir Korsky]

Originally Posted by overtorqued

Looks like the boss would like a little more headroom than our current 76 can offer and a 139 has made the short list.

Wondering, can an N-registered 139 operate SPVFR/SPIFR under Part135 operations? Or under Part 91 ?
Assuming FMS Supp 22 is in play...

Thanks

You may have trouble with the insurers with a 139 part 135. Part 91, maybe not so much. Getting the SPIFR sign off is easily done at the SIM. I don't see any issues flying it single driver, as long as the boss doesn't mind waiting for the 2 minute cool down before you can let him/her/they out.

[gulliBell]

Originally Posted by Sir Korsky

... I don't see any issues flying it single driver...

Exactly. Especially when two pilots are perfectly capable of dropping a perfectly good 139 into the sea....

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by gulliBell

Exactly. Especially when two pilots are perfectly capable of dropping a perfectly good 139 into the sea....

Sadly, history has shown that there’s nothing different about the A139 in that respect.

[Northernstar]

Originally Posted by overtorqued

Looks like the boss would like a little more headroom than our current 76 can offer and a 139 has made the short list.

Wondering, can an N-registered 139 operate SPVFR/SPIFR under Part135 operations? Or under Part 91 ?
Assuming FMS Supp 22 is in play...

Thanks

Check PM's

[donut king]

Originally Posted by overtorqued

Looks like the boss would like a little more headroom than our current 76 can offer and a 139 has made the short list.

Wondering, can an N-registered 139 operate SPVFR/SPIFR under Part135 operations? Or under Part 91 ?
Assuming FMS Supp 22 is in play...

Thanks

if one is new on type......DO NOT ATTEMPT! Especially SPIFR. I've done SPVFR for maintenance and ferry flights (1500hrs on type). always dual pilot with night/IFR/Offshore/HEMS.

What's your insurance company think?

IMHO.

[havick]

Originally Posted by donut king

if one is new on type......DO NOT ATTEMPT! Especially SPIFR. I've done SPVFR for maintenance and ferry flights (1500hrs on type). always dual pilot with night/IFR/Offshore/HEMS.

What's your insurance company think?

IMHO.

Plenty of 139’s being flown SPIFR around the world on EMS ops without being plowed into the ground.

[noooby]

Originally Posted by overtorqued

Looks like the boss would like a little more headroom than our current 76 can offer and a 139 has made the short list.

Wondering, can an N-registered 139 operate SPVFR/SPIFR under Part135 operations? Or under Part 91 ?
Assuming FMS Supp 22 is in play...

Thanks

Last time I checked, the AW139 is not SPIFR certified by FAA. Only EASA and nations that follow EASA.

Section 1, Limitations. Minimum crew for IFR in FAA land is two.

Section 5, Supplement 22, IFR Single Pilot Operations. In nice big letters. NOT FAA APPROVED.

Single Pilot VFR in FAA land, yes. But only if Supplement 32 is followed.

[Outwest]

I've always said SPIFR is fine...until something goes wrong. In all the years I did training and checking on the 139 ( and others) when faced with an unexpected emergency/failure of a critical system at a critical flight stage the work load increases to a level that goes beyond what most SP's can deal with.
I'm with the FAA on this one.....

[Aucky]

Originally Posted by Outwest

I've always said SPIFR is fine...until something goes wrong. In all the years I did training and checking on the 139 ( and others) when faced with an unexpected emergency/failure of a critical system at a critical flight stage the work load increases to a level that goes beyond what most SP's can deal with.
I'm with the FAA on this one.....

Presumably one of the reasons the FAA don’t allow it is that you aren’t required to undertake the same level of training & checking prior to operating the type. One of the mitigation’s under EASA is that the pilots are annually required to demonstrate their competence in handling emergencies, on type, in the single pilot role if SP qualified. I don’t disagree that it may be asking a lot of someone to handle an emergency SP at a critical phase of flight in any complex type, but I can say that it would be all the more difficult if you didn’t have the regular requirement for training and checking in that capacity, and on that type.

[Outwest]

FAA licensed pilots are required to demonstrate SP competency to have their licences not have a SIC only restriction on initial endorsement, but I can't say for certain if thats required annually.