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?

Oh no! This will start AnFI off again.......:ugh:

My gawd how about all those single engine piston fixed wings flying over cities?
Have they gone nuts over there?

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.

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?

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.

And having done the first ever landing in the G in a B206 with two (rotating) wings 30-odd years ago, how did we survive the possible horrors mooted by todays risk-averse society? ;)

Speaking of Melbourne sports grounds....

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 :ok:

I see my stalker troll is back:

Crab: "Oh no! This will start AnFI off again.......http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/.../eusa_wall.gif"

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??:E

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)).

More to the point AnFI, have you an answer to the question posed at the start of this thread:

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.

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.

So a hostile congested area is one without enough level playing fields to force land onto?

I thought it was one where you get shot at.

Like Bradford.

ShyTorque,

Essentially, it is no more nor less than that stated in the Annex 2 text:
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.

Jim

Jim, It was just a light-hearted play on the words "level playing field" as used before my post, but thanks anyway.

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