Several questions spring to mind reading of this....beginning with the choice being a 76 to begin with....much less one ex-Caverton....the single pilot in Public Transport does raise a question in the UK Nanny State.....although we see them flying EMS single pilot in the USA.

In years past the 76 was flown offshore single pilot.

It is not like the operation is in a particularly high traffic location is it?

Also fly SP HEMS in UK

Same operator

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-sikorsky-s-92a-g-lawx

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/627996-g-lawx-s92-incident-aaib.html

It’s my understanding that the Leicester City 169 crash was the same operator as well. Although I believe that this was an NCC flight rather an AOC.

no, but the sea and ground are still pretty hard if you fly into them

Unlikely to be IMC since there is no let down at Penzance and a poor one at St Mary's. Only IMC will be due to diversion which will be tricky with fuel.

So when it's marginal VFR...is single pilot a good idea?

I suppose that depends what you’re trained for and used to.

Not to forget

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_B...sky_S-61_crash

From the operators website ‘Safety and the management of risk is the starting point, the middle and the end of all we do. Starspeed has developed a mature safety management system over the last 12 years, not just because the regulations require it but because we firmly believe that it is an effective route to being ever better at what we offer.’
I would be interested to see the risk assessment for this operation and how single pilot in an S76 (which has more than its fair share of issues with rotors running pax transfers) compares with MP in an AW139. Seems odd that it was deemed to be safer and ‘better’. There can be do doubt that it is cheaper though. Mind you, I would agree that MP done in a manner as demonstrated in the recent S92 incident with the same operator is less safe than a competent SP operation.

I find the talk here of unsafe S76 operations a bit unfair. The S76 has a fabulous safety record. Fuel loads are not an issue for that run. Ive flown them with 2 crew and 12 pax + bags for over 1.5 hours at a time in some pretty high temps. This is basically a VFR trip with the option of a divert if wx deteriorates. All you need to do to make it a safe SP operation is only fly when the wx is good enough. Just don't take any risks. No it may not please everyone but at least it removes the main risk for that job. Yes I've flown that route in a 109 too. Id happily fly it SP in a 76. Actually id take a 76 over a 109 any day of the week.
IF they allowed an RNAV/GPS approach then even better.

Prices are £300+ for a return.

How does that compare with prices in the past?

There is not much to disagree with in your post but there in lies the problem. Nothing wrong with the S76 but it is older technology replacing newer technology and on a commercial operation that relies on quick rotors running passenger changes why would you chose a helicopter with a lower disc height?
And why would you chose a SP operation where, as you recommend, the safest thing to do is ‘you only fly when the weather is good enough’? I can’t see the operator increasing their weather limits above and beyond the national limits as this is a scheduled service. The reality it this a coastal area whether the weather changes very quickly and there are few of us that have operated in that area on a regular basis that haven’t been caught out by the rapidly changing weather all year round. I have read the detailed AAIB report on the Starspeed S92 incident and it appears that the Accountable Manager, on that occasion at least, didn’t fully adhere to the rules and getting the job done was more important than strict adherence to regulation. One assumes that the pilots on this operation will be faced with some difficult decisions. I don’t envy them.
Surely a fundamental of Safety Management is that the risk should be as low as reasonably practical? The previous operator on this service achieved this by MP operations in a modern helicopter and strict adherence to the rules. Perhaps someone with a PHD in Aviation Safety Management can explain to me how an older technology helicopter operated SP can be deemed to be the same or lessor risk?

In a perfect world I'd always use properly trained Multi crew ops with a machine which is suitable. There is nothing wrong with an S76C++ and I wouldn't call it outdated by any stretch. Older tech? maybe. Reliable ? Yes. Refuelling can always be done with no-one else on the pad, or shut-down, as per offshore ops, and then you need strict loading of pax. It's been done for decades with no passenger accidents being hit by blades that I'm aware of?? Could you point me to any? (I'm not talking about crew incidents where they became complacent)

There is the issue of exit if you ditch offshore, one of the reasons the S76 died a death offshore in the North Sea was the passenger emergency exit size restriction. Im sure we all know of 30+ year old airframes still flying regularly so I don't believe age of aircraft is part of this debate. If every old aircraft was dangerous, they wouldn't be allowed to fly.

My personal view is that this operation has so many requirements to operate at a profit, that a new airframe just wouldn't be part of that equation. You can prob buy 5 s76c++ for less than the cost of a new airframe like the 169 etc. The first people I'd speak to if I had to cost this op would be the engineers. Then ask the pilots opinion. Then see what ticks the boxes. Good luck to Starspeed but I get the feeling this Penzance thing is a poisoned chalice.

This situation begs a Low Altitude IFR route structure with a GPS Approach at each end using the latest technology, with automated weather reporting at each end.

Add modern lighting aids and equip and train for SPIFR operations and I would see safety be very much improved.

What is going to be done today is not that much different than back in the 1980's....when it was a two pilot S-61 doing the job.

Let's think back to some notable crashes that give us a hint at the pitfalls of doing a VFR flight in marginal VMC conditions...day and night.

One thing that does argue for a new way of doing things is that the Pilots flying this operation would become very familiar with the Approaches at each end if they did them every time...every flight...every day..

If those approaches and missed approach procedures were pre-programmed....and the FD and Autopilot was working and flying those approaches.....combined with the other required equipment.....why would it be a problem for a single Pilot to fly the flight?

The fuel requirement for an IFR Diversion would the largest hurtle.

The revenue provided by additional flights in marginal weather should begin to pay for the extra costs I am thinking but it would take a detailed study to make that determination.


My personal opinion is it should be Two Pilot crew.....as I am old fashioned and learned the hard way that all that fancy Gucci Kit doesn't not always work and when it doesn't the workload on a single Pilot ramps up very quickly.

Was a bit cheaper last year but everything has gone up in price.
If you look what renting a place in Tresco for the week during the high season cost £300 isn't the end of the world for people who able to afford that kind of cash. Also the alternative is either the vomit comet ferry (around 3 hrs each way, not cheap in peak season either) or a flight to St Mary's from Lands end for about £100 ish cheaper.

Couldn't agree more, but I can't see the CAA doing anything productive about it (creating helicopter-specific RNP procedures / routes) for many years to come, if ever. I don't know of a single PinS approach or helicopter low flight network throughout the UK - I would enjoy being enlightened if anyone does. Not having LPV level-of-service anymore also won't do the CAA any favours when it comes to it.

Might be a while SAS - "Brexit" negotiations did not elect to continue with EGNOS contributions so LPV no longer exists "legally" in the UK as of June 2021.

I remember doing GPS approaches in the USA 17 years ago.

I can't believe the CAA haven't sorted this out yet. The technology exists, and has done for years.

There is a problem with relying upon GPS alone.....as in doing so on any single source of navigation or approach.....what do you do if that sole Aid goes the way of the Buffalo on you?

We used that wonderful thing called Decca...with the scroll type paper map....in a Single Pilot S-58T or Wessex with only a SAS system if it was working and no RadAlt....at night over the sea flying out of some very hostile areas with few Diversions near by.

I certainly am not suggesting that is the best way of going about business.....but do use that as an indicator of far technology and safety standards have advanced.

Some of you UK Helicopter Pilots might offer up some ideas of what could be done to create a Low Altitude Airway system and approaches for the operation....should the CAA awake from its after Lunch nap and find a way to legalize such a thing.

If you had a magic wand .....how would you do such a thing using GPS?


A Thread I started back in April.....

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/64...copters-2.html

One Research Study Report on the topic......

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.D0210

I did my first DECCA TANS letdown to a field in 1979, before we had GPS. Unfortunately things haven’t moved on very much since then, or at least we’re not officially allowed to.

I don't understand the attraction of helicopter flight when if you go 15 miles down the road you can get a cheaper fixed wing flight

Well its 15 miles closer and a much cooler way to travel??? :)

Unfortunately, Land’s End airport is often sitting in low cloud when 15 miles up the road there’s a helicopter sitting in VMC.

http://penzanceheliport.co.uk/wp-con...RS-3632425.pdf

discussed here

The linked Report noted pending approval of a GPS approach at Penzance with an estimated approval date of early 2018.

Did the CAA approve that approach....if not what is the status of the Request?

There's no mention of PinS approaches at either Penzance or Tresco in the UK AIP so I'm assuming it hasn't been approved yet.

Four and a half years.....is this another example of the stellar performance by the CAA or did the application be cancelled for other reasons?

Other reasons.

They shut the heliport……and built a Tesco supermarket on it. ;)

Also....a gem of information appeared in this article.....where it states in the UK there is a requirement for ATC where an Instrument Approach is to be approved.

The article notes many European Nations are embracing this new technology as is the United States and Canada.

Perhaps that has a bearing on this as well.

We have IFR Approaches to Un-controlled Airports and Heliport....even to Hospitals.


https://www.euroga.org/articles/tech...h-approval-faa

That was the previous BIH operation.

The letter above refers to the ‘new’ Sloane (now Starspeed) operation.

Original PZ heliport
 

The original site was more valuable to the owners as a retail outlet (Sainsbury) and it was suggested that a Heliport could go down the road to St Erth (not a popular suggestion to the locals). The original location was nearer the coast and only overflew the British Rail yard (which was not unhelpful in poor weather as they had a blaze of lighting which showed up from miles away) PZ also had an NDB and a sea level elevation. The new heliport is only a couple of hundred yards away but the area has had increased development with consequent implications for an approach profile. However the basic facts are that PZ is open usually when Lands End is clamped, and therefore able to offer a more reliable service. There is no doubt that the S61 service really did open up the Scillies as far as an 'air service', but it probably never really covered the actual costs. The ability to carry our rapid turnarounds due to EB having a 'through hull' luggage option was a considerable benefit. I remember a consultants report regarding 'any air service' highlighted that it was unlikely that they were truly sustainable for the future and would prove to costly to maintain. The problem was that having got use to a flying bus that was both reliable and affordable for the users, the reality of 'paying what it really cost' for the locals was a real spoiler.
Sloane were rather hit by covid, but the ability to make a small helicopter both pay its way and provide a regular service (with no back up) is more than challenging for anything other than a semi 'first class' Tresco transport facility where the cost MAY not be that important. A fortune has been spent on Lands End (St Just) including GPS approaches, however the FOG is not impressed by that, and continues to close the airfield when it suits.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9fb87c163.jpeg
Not a good start going tech for over a week

Tbf global spares supply chains are horrendous

But surely this was known when a high hour ex O&G machine was purchased from West Africa? Shouldn't an experienced operator such as Starspeed have invested in a spares holding prior to commencement of a scheduled service? Seems that the statement is the usual 'the dog ate my homework' from the good Dr but I guess we are all use to that now.

On the plus side, when does the 2 crew 139 arrive? :}

Joking aside, im sure there's a backup clause in the contract...

Out of interest, does anyone have any information with regards the nature of the ‘technical problem’ that is referred to in the press release?

Crikey - bad weather - let’s hope they have found a crew that listens to each other and acts accordingly ;-)
starpseed’s business model has always been ‘the owner pays’ so investing in a big bag of ‘proactive’ spares would not have been on the table - imho

When I was Shanghai’d into PBN qualification or else by the authorities, with the threat of losing my IR privilege after 30 odd years, I at least expected the arseholes who dictated the rules to be doing their bit and seamlessly approve most forwarded GPS/PIN/HELI approach plates.
Compared to the USA we are a throw back to the 60’s…….. Shameful for a safe offshore to onshore approach like PZE.

Perhaps it's their revenge for having failed to block civvy NVS ops after trying for so long - "thanks", Porky - not!!