Helicopter SE IFR
 

All :

In the UK, the ANO prohibits single engined helicopters from flying IFR.

My understanding is that this is partly a result of the legislation, but mostly because most SE light helicopters are not certified for flight in IMC. The only exception I can think of is the B206 at Bristow's at Norwich, but that's got SAS installed.

So then - the real questions :

1. Do any countries allow helicopter SE IFR, or are we back to the certification issue again ?

2. Anyone know of any SE helicopter which is certified for IMC flight ? If not, what would be required to certify them ? SAS, anti-ice, redundant systems ?

I think the UK military Gazelles are equipped with 3-axis SAS - are they certified IMC, albeit under different rules ?

Ok , the Bells that they use for US army training ( I was informed by Butch Grafton) are certified to fly IFR I am not sure how they are equipped but I would assume they have at least 2 axis autopilot. American Eurocopter obtained an STC for a single example of an AS350BA that was certified single pilot IFR , as well as 2 axis coupled autopilot with failure passivation ( avoids runaways I guess ) they had to install a second generator and a device to ease use of collective in case of hydraulic failure ( only single pump ). This ended up as a very expensive installation .
I do not think there are any 407's certified single pilot IFR although I think there were some 206's ( see s.n 51152 for sale in aeroads) . http://www.aeroads.ca/cgi-bin/heliad...opter_option=3

The biggest problem on most singles are Single hydraulic and single generator.

Usually it would be the manufacturer that certifies an aircraft for IFR use there will normally be an IFR section in the flight manual which also lists minimum equipment ( is it in the 206 manual ?) , main reason beeing the expense involved in showing compliance to the relevant authorities. Is the Koala certified IFR in the USA ?.

just checked stc dtabase and found:-
STCNumber SH4699SW (Click To Print Record)
Manufacturer BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON (A DIVISION OF TEXTRON CANADA)
MakeModel 206L-1, 206L-3
TCNumber H2SW
Description Installation of single pilot IFR kit.
Status Reissued 2/9/83
ACO SW
STCHolder Bell Helicopter Textron
P.O. Box 482
Dept 81, Mail Stop 1303
Fort Worth TEXAS 76101-0482 UNITED STATES

[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: widgeon ]

Can anybody else see that it's not the number of engines you've got which counts but the actual chance of having a technical problem which forces you down (and how fast) and the work load and extent of your problems at the time.

Simple and reliable - like a single engined watch.

I think France has single engine IMC... Standby Artificial Horizon required.

Vested interest of big bucks mil contracts and excess ex mil types in legislature color the regs (IMHO)

In U.S. we have all kinds of S.E. opns. Used to fly Hueys, IMC, no Auto-Pilot, 1 ADF, 1 OBS. The thing here is 2 generators. Although, I've flown Cessna 152's IMC, one alternator, no autopilot. In commercial opns here, need 2 pilots for IFR, or an auto-pilot and less than 10 pax aircraft, (I believe).

The number of engines is an operational issue that is backed into a certification issue by the CAA, because it has nothing to do with the instrument flying capabilities of a helicopter. As others have posted, many single engined helicopters have approval in the US, using the same basic handling and workload standards as twins.

Do British single engine airplanes have the same restrictions? How did they win the Battle of Britain? ;)

In Aussie you can operate a single IFR helo' for "private Op's" only.(ie: Not for hire or reward) I'm aware of a B206 that was operated IFR "Privatly" (?) on marine pilot transfer op's 110 nm out to sea. As far as I'm aware, in addition to the instrumentation required for IFR, the only other requirement was for an auto-pilot.

In the US, Part 135 IFR is not allowed in single engine helicopters, nor is VFR over the top. ref.

FAR Part 135.181

Part 91 is a different story. As long as the aircraft is certified IFR, you're good to go.

The CAA have categorically confirmed they will not allow single engine IFR ops over the UK. The have exercised their veto to JAA to cater for this.
Have to say....I agree. One engine, simplex ancilliaries, doesn't matter how good/expensive your IF suite is.
I know that US stats refute this, but one can make stats do anything.

CAA rules prohibiting SE IFR in helis apparently does not apply to fixed wing aircraft - Is this because of lower pilot workload ?

TomC:
This is a really important point you make and sadly fact and logic are not on your side.
You say:
"The CAA have categorically confirmed they will not allow single engine IFR ops over the UK. The have exercised their veto to JAA to cater for this.
Have to say....I agree. One engine, simplex ancilliaries, doesn't matter how good/expensive your IF suite is.
I know that US stats refute this, but one can make stats do anything."

The UK do not produce these stats because they do not support the dogma... It is a disgrace.

The decision for two engines and dual systems for helicopters in particular is bogus based on emotion and political factors.

The actual chance of having a helicopter fall on your head is the public's main concern.(of course there are other concerns)

Concerning two hypothetical Aircraft A&B:
Helicopter A has two of everything.
Helicopter B only has one of everything.

A: is complex and unreliable - often having major system failures and falls out of the sky often.

B: is simple and is exceptionally reliable only two cases ever of a powerplant failure over many examples the cause of which has been rectified. No known system failures.

A: If ONE of something fails it is possible that there will be no consequence.
B: If one of something fails it WILL fall on someone's head.

A: Will fall on someone's head (house roof etc) more often per hour.
B: Will not often fall on anyone's head. Less heads will be fallen upon per hour.

Political Problem:
If B falls on someone's head the arguement that 'had it had two of whatever critical component which failed it could have avoided falling upon the unfortunate head' will be politically victorious. - A beaurocratic head would probably be forced to roll.

Logic:
Many more A type helicopters will fall on people's heads than had they been B types.
B types would be preferable.


Stating the consequences two ways makes the problem clear (I hope).

TC: IMHView your ability to blatantly disregard the facts to support your emotional view is counter productive. It is understandable since you have been emmersed in a redundant systems culture in the Mil and in your work. Much more profit for vested intrests to sell a/c with more systems and more engines(four next perhaps).

It will be a painfull process but logic will eventually win and you will be one of the 'old guard' .... the type which perhaps desite the logic would still think pedestrians with RED FLAGS infront of cars should stay.

Anyone else think we should still have the red flags?

Incidentally are you one of the pilots which race around at night with your panel lights too bright, cocooned in the imagined saftey of your twin engined machine at 3-500ft between ops when you could be a 1500ft and not wake up my baby and not give helicopters a bad name on noise?

...no offence, afterall you do a great job really. And you are a fellow helicopter pilot. ;)

Joe 90, sorry, pilot: well said. I'm sure that somewhere amongst all that you were countering my comments, but well said.
You seem to take great pride in denegrating my background too, interesting.
Do you suffer from road rage also? Perhaps a red flag in front of your car would be most suitable.

Anything constructive to say?

If we take engines out of the equation , what is the failure rate of hydraulic systems and generators independant of engine failures ?. I can't think of any autopilot that will still function after a hydraulic failure and landing lights radios and gyros probably would not last long after a generator failure .I think a distiction also has to be made between Single and Dual pilot IFR .PS i'm not a pilot so you can't insult my flying ability LOL.

TC
Sorry I've re-read that and it is a bit unecessarily agressive. Sorry.

(it's just that it makes Me MA....!!!) ;)

I think equipment reliability should only be a part of the equation.

For example, if you have an engine failure in a twin while IMC and have never trained for an engine failure, you could easily screw that up.

Similarly whould autos be at least entered while on the dials? How many here have tried to enter an auto on instruments?

Also, even though many with GPS's are ignoring this, but aren't we recommended to alter our course slightly to try and ensure a safe force landing area whenever possible? This couldn't happen if flying IFR.

I think SE IFR is safe enough to do, but if I could, I would always choose a twin to fly IFR. The only reason I could see for allowing SE IFR is to keep it cheap for the operator. That's reasonable, but aren't many of these rules in place to keep the customers safe from the operators?

Probability of technical occurance against probability of successful outcome is surely all that counts - no?
Entry to autorotation for a clean and unambiguous power failure on instruments is trivial. More complex failures however may well not be trivial in terms of workload.
Is anyone pretending that twin engined duplex systemed aircraft are not forced to land (relatively often perhaps - uncollected data)?
It's only good for safety (over cost) if it is actually safer?
How wrong are these points?
AND incidentally since most accidents are pilot error surely the major reason to have 'duplex' pilots is to reduce their combined error rate NOT just to spread the workload of an over-burdensome design?


(Edited to remove HTML jibberish (- how do you make format changes and include links/pictures etc?))

[ 03 December 2001: Message edited by: JoePilot ]

Widgeon so eloquently wrote.....Ok , the Bells that they use for US army training ( I was informed by Butch Grafton) are certified to fly IFR I am not sure how they are equipped but I would assume they have at least 2 axis autopilot.

Yes we are flying Bell TH-67's (206's) which are certified IFR. We do not however have any sort of autopilot or stabalization system. The aircraft is certified as a two pilot IFR aircraft, however, since we fly them for the Army we are allowed to conduct IMC operations with one pilot and a student.

Happy Holidays!!

Butch

Well at least I spelled your name right .LOL.
Seasons greetings to you as well .

To set the record straight.
1. In the military we fly both SE and twin types IFR.
2. If my memory serves me, i believe that the Gazelle was the first SE IFR certificated heli(It may only have been in France, with SAS/autopilot(simplex then I believe))way back in the late 70's early 80's.
3. The Gazelles in current military service, are in the main non stabilised aircraft.Those few that are stabilised only have a rudimentary SAS.
Personally if given the option I would always prefer to fly in a twin engine aircraft, I love redundancy.
The issue is I believe, not the aircraft's capability to fly in cloud, it's more to do with what is possible (given an engine or other critical failure) to do with the aircraft if the terra firma beneath the a/c at time of failure is also in cloud - recovery options may be limited.

Heedm,
Yes entering autos SE while on the dials is interesting, but once learnt and kept in practice are OK. As with everything, hovering is daunting at first but it all comes with time and experience.

The procedure I was taught was enter auto on the dials , establish 40 - 50 knot airspeed . Rad Alt set to 100 feet(preset), if you havent broken out at 100 feet gong start a flare and pull pitch, at least you will only fall from max 100 feet( if the Rad Alt is working????)LOL

All fine in theory and works Ok behind the screens/ under the hood, but for real??

Regards

Hover Bover

single engine ops at night
 

this bloke down the pub was telling me the other day (so it must be true !) that since late 2001, it is now permissable to operate commercial flights in a single engine helicopter at night in the UK.

this sounded suspect to me as my understanding is that it has been prohibited for years unless classified as a training or private flight.

so my question is 1) is this true?, 2) if true, what is the source for this. 3) if true, what are the conditions i.e IFR instrumentation? IR rated pilot? yada yada yada

theres a p.s. to this, he was also telling me that you could now fly an N reg on a UK licence in the UK (I presume you couldn't before I dont know)

1) is this true ?, 2) if true what is the source for this 3) if true is this private only or commercially as well?

any other big things I may have missed?

well....

My understanding is you cant do public transport flights in single engine heli at night,

but I think you can carry internal cargo. although not much use!

Also, N reg thing - ive heard the same. MD 600 driver may be able to help you on this.

Quite the contrary, methinks. It is still twin only, and unless the helicopter has a functioning autopilot, twin pilot as well even for night VMC. (unless flying in accordance with "arrangements approved by the CAA")

These "arrangements" basically allow a bit of latitude if the autopilot is found to be unserviceable either just before departure or during a series of night sectors, allowing the planned task to be undertaken.

There are various ifs and buts but I guess the idea is so that you are not left embarrassed with a heli full of punters at night in a field, for example.

As for the CAA / FAA query...cant help on that, I'm afraid!

You may fly a N reg aircraft in UK with any class of UK licence provided that you have a FAA validation certificate. This will normally give you only PRIVATE privileges, whatever class of Uk licence you hold. This is also the basis on which you may fly a N reg in USA. Of course, if you have a FAA licence, then no problems!
Apparently validations are hard to come by now, since 9/11.

My understanding is (and I don't have the books in front of me) is that single engine flights are permitted at night if they are A) Private and B) the Ac has two landing lights, one of which can rotate, plus flares which can be discharged in the event of an emergency (there is only one emergency I can think of in a single at night!!) plus the pilot has a night rating.

I seem to remember a press release a few years ago about a newspaper organisation who ferried thier papers to Scotland in a single engined fixed wing Ac who were descended on from a great height by the CAA because as a commercial flight the Ac should have been a twin?????

thanks for the responses guys,

it looks like nothing happened and he dreamed it all up down the pub (too much lime in his lager I'll bet)

Letsby:-

re private single ops eg training, R22's are typically used to do a night rating, which have a single landing light switch which turns on 2 bulbs right next to each other, but this are fixed both on the nose, at slightly different down angles.

so i think the rotating bit might be bogus, do you have a source?

The light kit is dependant on what was approved for the particular aircraft, it does not have to include a swivelling light but in some cases that is the only way that the CAA lighting requirements can be met ( It has something to do with being able to see th ground at around 400 feet and still being able to see it during the flare !, which is why the lights on the 22 are at 2 angles I would think.

And the flares are not a requirement , only if it was certified as part of the night kit( personally I could never understand the flares , either set fire to the grass before you get there or after youve bodged up the night time auto and fuel is everywhere they would float down and give a good ignition source LOL)

Could it be that in the UK one needs at least two to three engines. Its very dark and Night Air has No Lift.......

Bert,

One of the extra engines is to power all those extra lights we need!!

Generally, the "extra" lights requirement is for a steerable/azimuthing light OR flares. There are some special cases where those proposing lights convinced the Campaign AA that what was proposed was equivalent. So some R22/44s are fitted with 2 extra wide beam fixed lights to give them night certification. If you ever use them and the landing lights the alternator cannot cope, but it keeps the Feds happy!

(You also must have a gyro DI and an Artificial Horizon)

So what's the consensus?

Safe or unsafe?

Plank twin engine ocean crossings were considered unsafe for a very long time. Now we have ETOPS.
The PC12 is designed to reduce the number of fatal engine failures in relatively small commercial IFR operations.

Yes, I think that in future if a certain reliability can be proven, we'll see single engined helicopters flying IFR. The cost of training the pilot to operate them commercially might be prohibitive, though..
Meanwhile, I'm happy with my IFR twin which is underpowered anyway, so I keep my SE procedures well in mind..but at least it gives me options.

Bronx,

When you ask "safe or unsafe" you miss the whole point. Nothing is "safe." If you want "safe" stay in bed and wait for the dust mites to carry you off!

The question is always "Is it safe ENOUGH or is it not?" Earlier in this thread, Thomascoupling said that statistics told the story but he didn't believe them, nonetheless, it is in actual data that the story is told, and statistics are data!

Since we can see that even for singles, CFIT is the biggest accident cause (typically about 2 to 3 times more than engine failure). Therefore. it could be said that IFR/IMC flight prevents CFIT, because a large percentage of CFIT accidents occur when we duck under weather rather than bite the bullet and file and fly.

I think we could LOWER single engine accidents if we let them fly in IMC.

You always need to be careful in assessing statistics. Continuing Nick's train of thought, it is probably the case (certainly here in the UK) that twins will be much more likely to have autopilots, EFIS, even FMS-like devices. All of these are likely to reduce the sort of pilot error that gives rise to CFIT - but have nothing to do with the number of engines carried.

In places where hele Public Transport at night and IFR and overwater is required to be twin, I guess there is very little chance of persuading the regulators to "progress" to singles. However for non-public transport and, in particular IR training, I think there is a good case for allowing single engine ops.

Some strange repsonses here!
IFR in single engine helicopters is allowed in New Zealand as they do not differentiate between helicopters and aeroplanes, as in most countries they are after all aircraft. Two pilot S/E operations may be conducted as long as the aircraft has the required equipment for IFR and it meets the requirements for 2 pilot IFR. i.e. the required items may be reached and operated by each pilot and it is maintained as such etc.. S/E SP IFR may be conducted if the aircraft is equipped with an autopilot of which there is at least one certified I know of for AS350/355 and 407. SFIM PA 85 T31 for instance of which I think there is more than one fitted in NZ. The issue of course is the practicality of it all. If you get into IMC you need to be damn sure you can get out and there is the weight/payload range/cost issue. A second pilot weighs 80-90 kgs whereas the A/P is about 17. If you read the KIWI regs you can even operate SPIFR in a helicopter without an autopilot which the Bell 222 B/UT is certified and this may in fact be the case. The issue of IFR has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of engines. If it can be flown VFR it can be flown IFR if you have the necessary equipment. Now when you come to ask money for it from Joe Public that's a whole new story. Interestingly commercial SEIFR in the US does not differentiate between piston and turbine powerplants. A perfectly capable C208 was involved in a CFIT accident many years ago in New Zealand because it could not operate IFR under the regulations in force at the time because it had passengers in it. If it had been freight, that freight would have been delivered! What is an ETOPS airliner with one caged after all? How many AS 355's have become lawn darts in the UK due to ice?

In my humble opinion for IMC helicopter flying you need:

Auto Stabilisation
Practice
Anti Icing
Practice
Clear air below 500 feet if flying a single
Practice
More airfields with IF (GPS?) approach procedures (otherwise you might as well go by plane)
Did I mention practice?

two engines would be nice, but makes emergencies more complicated therefore requiring more Pilot CPU time that may not be available.

I'm surprised anti icing is not mentioned much in this thread. A decent anti icing system would be far more useful than another engine. How often can you get to MSA here in the UK in the winter and maintain positive temperature air? I suppose you need another engine to power a decent anti ice system.

The old Alton Towers LongRanger (then G-JLBI and letterly G-RASS) had a complete IFR fit, including Decca and autopilot. Another battery would have been a good idea, but I would have been quite happy to take it through Birmingham zone on the way to Battersea - it would certainly have been safer than trying to get down the motorway in bad weather.

I think it's a political thing more than anything else, similar to the old argument about s/e night flying. If it's dangerous, it should be banned completely. The fact that passengers are not present doesn't make the operation any safer.

I think s/e IFR could be allowed, on routes that avoid heavily builtup areas if need be, and with a reasonable cloudbase, but I see no real problem otherwise.

Phil

American Eurochopper some years ago got a one off cert for a AS350BA for IFR ops. Had 3 axis autopilot with nav coupling and a "fail safe " mode ( summat to do with actuator runaway If i recall correctly) dual navs coms and stdby gyro etc . It had an alternator running off the same power take off that the air conditioner used . I think in the end the market was not there . Are the BB's they use for training in the UK equippped for IFR conditions ?.

IFR B3
 

Australian Aerospace had an AS 350 B3 certified for IFR begining 2003 for a client in New Zealand.
:hmm:

This topic seems to have two threads in it. SE IFR and for some reason SP IFR. One needs an auto-pilot, the other doesn't. Where is the assumption it will be SP?

SP IFR/SE IFR
 

When I were a lad......

Australian Army used to (probably still does) fly Kiowa (B206) single pilot in IMC.

No SAS/Stab or auto anything but with force trim. Single AI/ADF/VOR/Alt/VSI/etc and backup compass in a way out of scan position.

Single VHF that had to be dialed up each change (no flip flop) and an ADF that was tuned, not selected to freq.

Looks a bit bl00dy silly now, but we did it quite a lot.

Oh, and we practised a fair bit. (I sweated a fair bit too!) ;)

Have the aircraft been updated, or the rules changed? (not subject to CAR etc, but under Army Flying Orders)