I read that as a software application and customer interface that helps to coordinate various aspects of aircraft ownership and operation. It is not entirely a simple thing to build and can create some challenge for mixed fleet operators who use tools like CAMP or Traxxall to manage some data and tools like Appareo or similar for other data. I do not think it implies anything about the actual ownership of the aircraft.

DKshredder - No they are talking about a Safety Management System that monitors and records all manner of data from the aircraft but also keeps an eye on the pilot's licence, medical etc - just a database for those sorts of things.

yes, I think someone doesn't see we are discussing a turbine not a piston - nice graph though:)

RVDT - so it seems the heated intake (oil tank at the front or similar) is a more elegant solution since it gives automatic protection rather than requiring the pilot to select it:ok:

But it does rob you of some performance by heating intake air when it is not needed?

Turmo and Makila (330/332) are the same I recall.

What you're missing I think crab is the visibility requirements for VFR, ours is 800metres, what is it that reduces visibility, not moisture per chance?

Possibly more coincidence than purposeful design - case would be the Safran Arriel which does not have a gearbox in the nose to heat things but also does not have a static front support or IGV at the front of the compressor for ice to form on so has no anti-ice. The first support is behind the first axial stage which I am sure has been demonstrated to not form ice by testing.

"Visible moisture" means if you can see any visible moisture anywhere not just nearby as it can occur with an RH of > 65%. Of course this only applicable with an OAT of < 4.4 C. At an OAT of < 4.4 C anti-ice is hardly going to be a performance issue.

As an aside having worked on a few RR A250's I have my thoughts on erosion of the compressor case half lining at the first stage (which is plastic BTW) is attributable to insufficient use of the anti-ice due to misinterpretation of the conditions required rather than dust.

The restriction is oversimplified to cover a broad range of conditions which you possibly could never test for - pilots after all, who don't need to endure the Combined Gas Laws?

Megan - ours is 1500m. If you have visibility less than 1000m due to water vapour you are technically in fog/cloud.

Should / could be a good thing - I have suggested to some manufacturers that they should provide a maintenance and airworthiness tracking system so that at least they have some idea what the fleet in the field is up WRT planning of what they need to produce to support the aircraft - seems like a no-brainer to me but hard to get across.

Pretty sure Bell has or had a system similar.

Ours is "operated at a speed that you can see obstructions and avoid hitting them" even special VFR in controlled airspace with at least a radio and subject to clearance.

Uncontrolled airfields with NORDO helicopters can be a bit fruity!

According to this https://regulatorylibrary.caa.co.uk/...trol_zones.htm
the UK limit for (S)VFR for helicopters is 800m

Do you have a link for the cloud definition? The 800 metres is for uncontrolled airspace and you have to be clear of cloud. Controlled airspace is 5,000metres, but special VFR may be available.

The "Handbook of Aviation Meteorology" defines fog as visibility being less than 1,006 metres, haze a visibility between 1,006 metres and 6.25 miles, so technically you're not in cloud at 800 metres, but in fog, and the regs say "clear of cloud", not "clear of fog". Bush lawyers we is. ;)

Megan - there is no difference between fog and cloud - https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather...20dense%20fog)

Far South - SVFR is only available in controlled airspace subject to ATC approval - it is not the normal VFR minimum.

Megan - https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...like%20clouds.

If you are operating regularly in 800m/half SM visibility you would have to ask yourself why.

The Bush lawyer approach to flying in poor weather because you can convince yourself it is legal is exactly how so many end up IIMC or is a smoking hole. Or both, see Kobe Bryant accident for details.

When I have flown in that sort of vis it was because I had to not because I wanted to and the has to was not to earn a few dollars, it was to save lives.

Standard practice in our oil company owned operation crab, mind you it was interspersed with moments of IMC, we didn't bother with weather reports so it was suck it and see, at one time weather reports had to be paid for and the company couldn't afford the expense, I tried and the company relented to permitting one report per day, so much for updated TAF's etc on which to plan the ops manual and regulatory mandated land based alternates, which by the way we never planned for anyway, that being the company imposed actual operating standard. Given to believe the North Sea was no different in the old days.Because it's legal, otherwise why would it be in the regs.

It does raise the question though, the 800 metres is UK approved for special VFR, what would reduce the vis to 800 in the UK, dust storms I doubt feature. :p

Megan - GOM perchance? Sounds like a very risky operation with very light touch or non-existent oversight from authorities.

Yes, over water is different as there a fewer things to bump into but the risk of IIMC flying in goldfish bowl conditions is high.

Was the N Sea like that back in the day? I wasn't there but it certainly isn't nowadays and hasn't been for a long while - if your operators are still working like this they are being exploited by the oil companies.


800m in UK would be snow, heavy rain/sleet and perhaps thick haze with a low sun but you would still be required to maintain above 500' agl so that would discount fog because you have to be in sight of the surface.

https://regulatorylibrary.caa.co.uk/...trol_zones.htm

Don't confuse legal with safe - just because it says you can doesn't mean you should - that's where so many accidents start, with pilots saying 'It's within limits' without thinking about their own limits or the reasons for the flight.

Crab, surely 500 ft away not agl

it is a ceiling of 600 ft when under a SVR, but that is for the issue of SVFR . then it will be 500 ft away for the ac concerned