What's more important Public or Flight Safety?
 

An interesting and thought provoking comment made on the 'Night Auto video' thread was that the use of single engine helicopters in the US by Police Authorities led to better Public Safety as more, financially efficient, helicopters can be used. Also, that provides better employment prospects for new starters.

The case of Flight Safety would argue that Twins should be used to prevent incidents like the 'Night Auto' happening in the first place, but is more expensive and would lead to less helicopters.

What do you think?

Let's wheel this old baby out again - Eurocopter did a study that basically said - a twin will cost you twice as much to operate yet only give a 3% increase in "safety". Two engines only addresses one reason for your possible demise. Look at this case of the "Night Auto" - would the outcome have been any better if it was daylight?

GCN.........of course the outcome would have been different in daylight. The pilot would have had clear depth perception and the selection of the landing area would have been considerably "easier" therefore the choice of technique to use would have been "easier", the wires would have been apparent and the flare height would have been more evident.

Personally I am a great believer in legislating a "twin or more" engined helicopter for use over densly populated areas, day or night.

Thankfully the "night auto" did not result in any fatalities, to crew or to innocent by-standers, but it certainly could have.

Hm,
So what about the case of the police Twin Squirrell which crashed onto the roof of a house at night in South Wales a few years ago? It could so easily have been a major disaster and the number of engines would have made no difference. I have no access to the statistics, but I seem to remember that at least 3 twin-engined police helicopters in UK in the last 20 years have suffered tail rotor failures of one sort or another. How many have suffered a single failure during that time? I'm sure one of you PPRuNers will have the answer:D

KENNYR: If this incident had occurred during the day, the chances are that there would have been a restricted choice of safe landing sites. He's put it down in a virtually empty parking lot - which in daytime would more likely be seething with traffic and people. And I'm not at all certain that the wires strung across (presumably) black macadam would be anymore obvious in daylight.

Twin v single in this incident? Don't know - don't know enough stats. For a twin to safely fly with one engine out we need to know more about weight etc. Chances are he would be heavy because he had only lifted off in the last few minutes.

So - you're in a fat twin with full tanks etc etc over a suburb at night at less than 500' and one donk goes. What next ?? Something tells me it would be an auto like a single.......certainly wouldn't be a steep descent with little airspeed and a "controlled" landing would it ?

Maybe I need educatin' - but someone tell me about this type of scenario in a twin if I've got it wrong. My understanding is that coming to a hover at full weight with one engine isn't possible. Is it ? Would have to be a run-on wouldn't it ?

I've just reviewed this before posting so I apologise for it's long-windedness.

The single versus twin argument in this instant would depend on what performance was required - the whole point of "twin engine safety" is that you operate to a certain weight limit in order to acheive a certain performance. Simply put, if you want to fly away from an engine failure you load the aircraft to no more than a certain weight, and that determines the excess of single engine power. This means, hedsethair, that if the crew required safe fly-away performance, they wouldn't - or shouldn't - have the weight problems you suggest.

That opens up the rest of the argument, which is the difficult to quantify question of what is acceptable safety versus cost. Yes, twin engine operation is safer and of course it's more expensive. So is extra training, better equipped aircraft, employing pilots with much more experience, operating to higher weather/level limits. Apart from the last they all make small, cumulative, hard to quantify improvements to safety at extra cost.

As regards the UK record, there have been IIRC two major tail rotor problems, one due to human error during a daily inspection and one due to human error in a maintenance procedure. There have been the same - low - rate of engine shutdowns due to chips, overspeeds etc as in any other branch of the industry. Only a couple have gone Suddentwang and stopped, which again is about the norm. Pretty much all of these engine problems have gone unremarked because the aircraft has flown away on, err, the other engine. A preponderance of single engine aircraft would have resulted in most of these being precautionary landings, with the consequent risks especially at night. You pays your money and takes your choice... or rather the government does it for you, which IMHO is fine in this case.

The problem with the single/twin argument is that failure rates are quantifiable and can be legislated for- so they are, regardless of their frequency. The far more difficult problem is that human error causes most of the accidents, and that also costs, especially in training. There is a law of diminishing returns where more and more money results in smaller and smaller increases in safety; peronally I feel that the UK has gone as far as is necessary [for now] down the technical side but that the required training could be expanded.

The experience in Old South Wales is different from New South Wales - their police unit has had one B206 go for a swim from an engine running down to idle (bleed air leak) during the day. One 206 chopped off its tail during training for night touchdown autos. One BK 117 went swimming from an engine cowl going through some of the blades, and a Twin Squirrel swimming because of a pilot error - all daylight.

Sum total - around 40,000 hours of operation of single-engine machines, day and night, over populous and non-populous areas, for one real accident and one training accident.

They had done only 300 hours in the BK and a similar number in the 355, for two prangs.

The only trouble at night was night training.

You tell me the statistics.

I can only speak from my experiences:

IF a UK police (single engined) helo stoofed into a town centre because its one and only engine stopped / ran down / caught fire, etc etc, it would set the industry back decades to say the least.
Now that we have proven that 90% of the police forces in the UK can afford to run twins effectively, there will / can never be an argument to fly singles over built up areas.
We have a duty of care to the public - twins are available, we have proven that they are viable, end of story.

I have had an engine surge on me, and on another occasion, one of the compressor blades decided to depart the scene. Both resulted in me having to shut an engine down very quickly. Both situations involved me being over the city centre (once by day and the other by night). Was I glad I had 2 engines!!

How in the name of faith the yanks think they could not afford twins - confuses me? If the politicians demanded air support they'd get them 2 or even 3 engined!!!!

How many hours do UK ASU fly a day/month? There are units in the US that have 24hr programs ( a helicopter in the air 24/7). Some smaller departments are able to fly 10hr per shift because they use single engine helicopters. This, they would never be able to do if they had to operate twins.

To add fuel to this nicely burning conflagration - what about single piston engine helicopters?
I know of several US police forces that use single piston engine helicopters quite nicely, and have excellent safety records. Also never have any problems with budgets, so they get to keep the public safety going. Flight safety appears to be satisfied as well.

I think it is a bit of a culture thing which is a difference between UK and USA helicopter flying period. A few years ago, I spent a very useful period of a month or two flying a JetRanger over LA for a radio traffic patrol. I flew with an experienced pilot who did all the radio reports and left me to do the flying. We flew over massive congested areas at low level way below nearby skyscrapers. When we discussed what to do in the event of an engine failure, I was told to pick a parking lot, or if you had to land on a freeway, land with the traffic direction! If I flew once like that in the UK, I would have lost my licence and never got it back, as well as probably having gone to jail.

The precious way that we do things in the UK almostt always involves the expenditure of more money and less flying. I think if we were to compare the area covered by a UK and US police helicopter, we would find that there were many more US helicopters per unit area.

With the likely loss of the only London heliport, and the NIMBY view of noise, it won't be long before we all get banned from flying over London totally.

The US seems to lead the way in terms of legal liability - yet somehow it has accepted the use of S/E police heles - can anyone explain this apparent contradiction?

I am not sure that TC is right about the sensitivity of the UK to a police helicopter crash in a built-up area. I was sure that we would have all sorts of repercussions following the S Wales crash (mentioned above), but in fact it past almost without comment.

When Shawn Coyle speaks, we should listen. Many thousands of hours are conducted low level by single engine machines without problems - not just in the USA.
The archaic ruling we have in the UK (which is of course ICAO-based) stems from the time when SEH were regarded as being unreliable - and when twins came along, everyone thought they were the magic bullet.
We have to change this perception - it is badly flawed and is restricting the overall growth of helicopter ops in the UK and elsewhere.
The stats do the job - there is no great problem with singles anymore. And I agree with Shawn - piston engines are super reliable and cheap to operate.
The California forest fires last November - one entire evacuation/observation area was handled by a Police-spec R44. It could stay aloft for 3 hrs and co-ordinate all the stuff on the ground.
Problem is (in the UK) our heli rules and our police/HEMS aviation are all run by ex-services people who just don't have the piston experience. They joined up, put on the suit and were immediately handed a Gaz or some other turbine toy.
Why doesn't the mil in the UK go for low cost training with a fleet of 44s ?? How come they can ignore this in such cash-strapped times ?

You're a sad person headsethair.................

UK military used to train on pistons - Bell 47G.4As, and Hiller 12Bs and Es before that. Those dusky blue aircraft at Wallop with the dayglo corners. Sure some ppruners must have first solo'd on them

So, what made the UK military change from them to Gazelles?

Are pistons any more reliable now than 30 years ago?

TC
headsethair was merely developing the line of thought introduced by Shawn Coyle. Why on earth does this make him a sad person? Maybe you're the sad person if you're unable to accept an alternative argument.
Although many of the police forces in the UK do manage to operate twins effectively now, I would argue that this is necessarily the most cost-effective option as much of the time the helicopters are sitting on the ground because of cost restraints. If those forces with large rural areas and/or less densely populated suburban areas had available a single piston helicopter such as the R44 or Schweizer (as are used quite safely and effectively by many forces in America), they would probably have the ability to patrol for a much larger number of hours per day. The (expensive) twins could then be used for those areas and times when singles were not appropriate. This would also, of course, lead to more job opportunities.

ppheli
I think the change from pistons to turbines coincided with the phasing out from Army/RM service of the Sioux and its replacement by the Gazelle. Once no piston helicopters were being flown operationally the piston was completely phased out. This led to a number of problems for ex-military instructors leaving and getting civil instructor jobs as some of them had to get the minimum requisite piston hours before they could start instructing! Most civil students have no great problem in transitioning from soemthing as small as a Robinson to soemthing as large and complex as the AS332L so it's interesting that the military persists in the greater expense of carrying out all basic training on turbine machines.

TC: I hope we get to meet one day. I am not at all sad - just a happy little logical thinker. I want to see helicopter aviation grow in the UK. And the only sector where this is happening right now is in the private single engine area - it is going to be record-breaking year for UK sales. (In which, I might add, I have no business.)

There is no reason on earth why the UK military couldn't use the R44 as an ab initio machine. Then they could train more pilots and address some of the horrendous shortages. What IS the point in having a fleet of Apaches and no one to fly them for 2 years, as has been the case ??

In the emergency services the R44 Police version can do 95% of the stuff that a twin can do, given a better regulatory environment. And at less than half the cost of running. This wouldn't get rid of the twins. It would be in addition to. And the funding can come from the savings in the approximately 4 police cars each 44 can replace.

This all = more employment for more pilots, engineers and other support. A more effective spend than having to debate whether you can actually afford to have that £3m twin launched.

If you have to comb the countryside for a lost person, a £400k Police 44 can do the job just as well as a £3m twin.For about £500 an hour, manned.

The police have just announced new rapid-reaction dedicated M25 patrols - which will cost a fortune. Why not use a couple of 44s as motorway controllers ?

The incremental cost to operate the two R-44's for the one small community that I was told of was very low. This was the direct operating cost, and represented about 20% of the total cost for all the communities in the consortium that operated the machines. The communities did not include the cost of the officer's salaries, as they would have been employed anyway.
The annual cost for this small city was $65,000 (sixty five thousand, in case anyone thought I was missing some zeros).
It was a no-brain decision.

The thread has gone on a bit since I first tried to post this (bl**dy btyahoo) however...

bramv22
There are no units in the UK that will keep an aircraft in the air 24/7. Although a few of us are available 24/7
(not TC's lot, they're just part timers!!). We would love to be able to keep one up 24 hours a day (snigger here).
But we can't. As an example, our unit will do anything from 0 to about 7.5 hours a day, but the annual average is
about 3.5 a day.

The reason we can't fly any more than that is of course the reason you (and now others) have already stated.

"This, they would never be able to do if they had to operate twins"

For all the talk of safety, if UK regs permitted the use of singles over the cities then I think a few units would choose to operate them. However, UK regs don't allow that (and probably never will!!). This suits most of us because given the choice (especially at night) we would rather be up there in a twin.
Personally, if the only way I could do this and earn beer coupons was to fly a single, then I'd still do it.

Headstheair, I appreciate your aspiration for a helicopter pilots job creation scheme.

"This all = more employment for more pilots, engineers and other support. A more effective spend than having to debate whether you can actually afford to have that £3m twin launched."

Given that you accept that in the current regulatory environment it can't happen do you consider the 3 million pound helicopter is too expensive?

"In the emergency services the R44 Police version can do 95% of the stuff that a twin can do"
However as a lot of police units are providing an air ambulance service as well I would say that is incorrect.

handy:

Given that you accept that in the current regulatory environment it can't happen do you consider the 3 million pound helicopter is too expensive?

The problem is this - single engine helis can overfly congested areas at 1500 ft - possibly soon to be 1000. Why is this any safer than 500 ? However, given the high quality camera systems now available (as fitted to the R44 Police) there isn't really a reason for an observation helicopter to be much lower. (I am someone who has seen the tapes from the R44 Police......believe me the camera is very good.)
Yes - I do believe that the £3m machine (and its Fixed and DOCs) is too expensive on a county by county basis. Surely a Police resource should be able to be used whatever the reason - there shouldn't be a meeting to decide if the emergency is affordable.

"In the emergency services the R44 Police version can do 95% of the stuff that a twin can do"
However as a lot of police units are providing an air ambulance service as well I would say that is incorrect.

Accepted. It is stating the blindingly obvious - there ain't no way a 44 will ever be a HEMS or evacuation beast. I'm talking observation - which is most of the police work. And yes - they do use the R44 Police at night - it has an infra red light and camera. But - single engine at night in the UK ? It's OK if it's a Private flight - but for some reason best known to the CAA, the same machine becomes more dangerous once it is declared a Public Transport flight and the only thing that's changed is that it has paying passengers!

Bit like the overwater argument. I can fly myself & non-payers down the Thames through London without floats. But as soon as I charge for a seat, I have to have floats.........no sense. No stats to explain this rule.

Well, to answer your second point first you should have specified police work and not emergency services work. ( I was being particularly pedantic!)

For the first .

I do not think that the R44 has the payload to carry what we conside is our primary role equipment. the latest generation of cameras, and a pilot and two observers would challenge that and a lot of other light singles. Or do you believe we have our manning levels wrong as well?

Excuse me, I had to stop for brekkie...

Two other points quickly then, how is the robbo going to cope with our requirement to operate at night or when the cloudbase precludes1500 ft?


I take it that when you said you were interested in "more employment for pilots etc. " you meant as long as that employment was carried out on your terms. Because you are implying that using the current aircraft it is too expensive and that would seem to mean that you would like those existing pilots (ie me for one!) removed from their jobs...

Handy:hmm: