Are single-engines safe over cities?
 

Could someone in New York, Tokyo and Paris let me know whether they can legally fly single-engine over the centre of these respective cities? If so, what altitude restrictions? Any other restrictions?
There is something of a controversy in London at the moment because one ENG operator, who has intelligently interpreted the rules as currently written, has established that it is legal to overfly the Central London restricted zone in an R44. The proviso is that in the event of an engine failure it can land clear of the area without endangering persons or property on the ground.
Personally, I'm not happy with this because it seems to me that it throws all the onus of compliance on the pilot who is subject to clear commercial pressures to over-estimate his own ability to land clear. It is my view that despite it being quite legal, it is not safe.
It is certainly not in keeping with the original intention of the establishing the restricted zone.
The first time it is put to the test, and that could be 10 years from now, or tomorrow, our entire London-based industry could be jeopardised by the already quite strong anti-helicopter lobby in the Capital excluding all helicopters from Central London.
Any views out there?

MY view - as someone talking to aircraft over London:

The ENG a/c and it's new sister ship probably (assuming we are talking about the same Denham based operator) SHOULD be allowed over the Specified Area (sorry - I meant EGR160) simply on probability/reliability alone.

How many R44s fall out of the sky into non built up areas.... IN THE WHOLE WORLD?

If the Organisation is "deemed" professional enough then why not.

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO FLY IN A C150 from Banstead direct to Alexandra Palace so why not a helicopter????

MBJ,

Flying a single engine helicopter over the city of London is unsafe? What do you predicate that statement upon? Is there something about the strength of gravity or something that makes London an unsafe area to fly over?

Someone will try to tell us that a safe landing due to an engine failure is not a certain thing. The same people ignore Lorry-Car crashes, forget buses run over pedestrians, bricks fall off facades and muggers will stab you.

Why is the risk of a helicopter landing in your back garden any more a risk than all the other things that can happen to you?

I can't comment on New York, but for places like Orlando and Miami it was considered acceptable - although it is of course paramount that the pilot fly "defensively" i.e. with a safe spot in reach and at an altitude to get the ship under control.

There was one notable forced landing in Orlando - H269 lost tail rotor drive and auto'd into a car park. Not considered big news and the school involved wasn't affected.

Bear in mind a helicopter lands in a very short distance during a (properly executed) forced landing.

Fixed wings....different parameters.

BG

Would that be a question you ask as you don't want the competition. Get off my land? Can we be bothered to dig up the stats on R44 engine failures (zero) and those of the twins you may be flying in from south of the River? No doubt somebody can save us the bother and send us the links to numerous other "Robby" bashing threads that have dragged on and on, all with the same conclusion. The "big" boys like to play in their big, expensive, sometimes unreliable machines, whilst the rest of us happily "risk our lives and the lives of thousands of others" by stepping into a single engined machine.

As has been said, as long as I can get to the helipad without having a car crash, or being shot (nothing in my house to find either), then I am happy that the odds are on my side for a safe return.

Course I may have the car crash on the way home....

One in the UK in February still subject to AAIB report.

It just seems to me the nausea that could result isn't worth the departure from long-time practice.

Very funny! - its the potential consequences of getting it wrong that make me wonder wether its worth it.

Rattle - you have a serious chip on your shoulder there... relax! Truly, competition isn't the issue and I like the R22. (Haven't flown the 44). If I could afford it I'd have one!

I suspect there is a bit of historical baggage here. In the 1970s the Met used Enstroms as an early experiment in police aviation. My aircraft was one of those, and after its second power failure, the powers that be, decided twins were the way to go, and that is the way it has stayed.

Neither emergency landing damaged aircraft or property, but did the reputation of singles over the city no good at all. The relevent problems have long since been solved but the antipathy to singles remains 30 years on.

In class G airspace (below 1200') in most places, as long as you can fly at a speed and height to avoid hitting anything you are legal. Also see FAR 91.119(d) where it says, "Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paras (b) and (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface". (b) refers to congested areas and 1,000' above the highest obstacle and 2,000' horizontally and (c) other than congested areas and 500' above person, vessels, vehicles or structures.

That is where the authority to fly single engined helicopters over congested areas comes from. I don't see a problem with it. The stats don't indicate to me that it is dangerous per se.

Regards,

Chopperpilot 47

The FAA adopts IMHO a more enlightened and more reasonable approach to flying single-engine helicopters over congested areas.

Extract from FAR Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General (In addition, there are provisions equivalent to the ANO relating to endangering the aircraft and people/property on the ground.)


Over Los Angeles 1997 - a week's break from the law. :)
http://www.aviationlaw.co.uk/images/...watchlarge.jpg


FL

Paris
 

OK for Paris if following specified routes.
Special routes are at 1500, rest very similar to the FAA rules that FL quotes.
Heli routes also have pre-defined emergency areas.

d3

I am glad that MBJ has acknowledged the fruits of our labours.
It is my organisation which did all the research on this matter and has seen it through to an excellent end result. He states that there is "controversy" - well if there is, it hasn't been brought to our attention. There is nothing controversial in merely reading and understanding the law.
I am surprised that MBJ is aware of what we have achieved - we haven't advertised the facts and have told very few people.
Why? Well because we haven't actually changed any regulations. We have simply proved that myths are greater than words. For some 40 years the UK aviation industry appears to have its head so far up its own body parts that it hasn't read the rules as they are written. MBJ - it's not down to "interpretation" it's down to good old black & white. I know - I did all the research from Cabinet Office down.
This obsession with single engine failures is so far out of proportion with the truth. There are many more reasons why a helicopter could hit your head, but none of them is surrounded by draconian, outdated legislation.
The last time a helicopter embedded itself in the roof of a house was about 6 years ago - the S Wales ASU AS355. (Two engines, one gearbox, one TR.......what's the bloody point ?) This inicident was put down to tail rotor failure. By now, I would have expected a load of new rules about having 2 tail rotor systems..........
MBJ - when I started my business nearly 3 years ago, you wrote a "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letter to a widely-read broadcasting trade magazine. Fortunately, they didn't print it because I was able to point out what a pile of cobblers it was. And you agreed. I've kept that letter and the emails we exchanged because, for me, they underline all that's wrong with the helicopter industry in the UK.
A lot less sniping at each other and a load more effort working as an industry together and we can move forward in large steps. Let's direct our energies into creating the industry we want.
To your comments on EGR160 single-engine operations : "It is certainly not in keeping with the original intention of the establishing the restricted zone." You must have a piece of paper that none of us has seen. In all my research talking to the various bodies involved, no one could come up with the original reason why "The Specified" was created. No one can find any official document with the history of why it was thought necessary. It is an anomoly in global airspace and it shouldn't be there. Hopefully the current London CTR Review will correct this and many other strange aspects of life in the London skies. The only reasons why the skies above London might be more dangerous than any other is because of the wierd web of myths and one-off "regulations" that have appeared over the years. It's an ATCO's nightmare and distracts them from their job.
One example: A N T. This is a chart that you will struggle to find published, yet it's a chart used by NATS to control your passage through London. It stands for All, Nothing, Twin. Even our most powerful regulatory body did not know of its existence. Why? Because in law it doesn't exist - it was just something that ATCOs were told to use. And it is about to be declared officially dead.
About the only credible argument I can see in your post is where you refer to commercial pressures on the pilot - you infer that he/she may overstretch the rules in order to make a successful flight. Not exactly a unique perspective is it ?
If we only employ pilots who really know and understand the rules, then that's the best we can do. We're not with them and we don't pay them any more or less for flying in accordance with the rules.
What are you suggesting - that some pilots get paid a bonus to break rules ? I don't know about yours, but mine are all CAA instructors and examiners as well as being self-funded CPL/ATPLs. Why would anyone in their right mind want to spend £50,000 getting trained, many more £000s hour-building - and then go and throw it all away by flying in the wrong place ?

From London CTR review group report:

2.12.4 Additionally, there was a strong opinion that some formal airspace restriction to prevent the operation of single-engined fixed wing aircraft over extensive built up areas might now be required. It was the opinion of the Group that the application and interpretation of the Rule 5 “alight clear” rules were being misused.

2.12.5 Detailed discussion on any proposals to modify or remove the Restricted Area R160 would be needed within the CAA and also with the DfT.

Away for a week now..will return to the thread i.d.c

Very interesting. :ok:


Headsethair

Have you had any input from the CAA?
In particular - Has the CAA conceded there's nothing in the Regs which makes it illegal for singles to fly in the restricted/specified area?
(Assuming the CAA was prepared to make any comment, either way. ;) )



MBJ

Who are the members of the London CTR review group?

Is there a fair balance between CAA people and commercial operators?
ie Between Regulators and operators?

What percentage of the group is made up of 'ordinary' commercial operators?
(ie Not MoD, Police, EMS etc)

Are private owners and operators represented?

Does the report say if the "strong opinion" was the opinion of the group as a whole or certain members of it?


Heliport



PS: I hope everyone can now put aside personal/professional rivalries and discuss this interesting topic without snipe and counter-snipe.

The London CTR Review report emerged last December. It does not reflect the progress made since that date and there will be a further report later this year. You can get the report here, together with all the names of the Group members. (I/we were not represented.) The report also contains the infamous A N T chart I referred to above - worth saving for history.

Heliport
Yes - we consulted heavily with CAA, DAP, AUS etc. As I said above, there's nothing new in the rules. Just remember these parameters:

1 The river does not form a part of R160, nor was it ever part of the old "Specified".

2 The rule for any helicopter operating over R160 is that it should remain able to alight clear of that area in the event of a power unit failure. This is the only place in the whole UK where the "alight clear" rules apply to helicopters. And of course we should not ignore the "without endangering" aspect of flying law.

3 Sit down with your POH for your helicopter and establish your glide ratio. Then look at the operating altitudes available over London.

However, all these flights would be subject to Special VFR. And in my opinion they should also have an NSF. As with all regulations, it only takes one cowboy incident and the whole pasture can be put off limits to all. (See the withdrawal of all NSFs for fixed wing since the Cessna 152 banner towing incident of a few Decembers ago......so now no SEP can get an NSF for London.)

And that's it. We simply drilled down to the base level of the law - the Statutory Instruments - and took our evidence forward.

This all happened in February. I've been waiting to see how long it would be before a twin operator took any notice. Not bad, MBJ, 4 months.

Singapore prohibits SE helicopters from CBD
 

Single-engine helicopters are restricted from operating over and within the city area of Singapore’s Central Business District. Interestingly, as I believe was the case with London until fairly recently, this is not given a Restricted Area or Prohibited Area designation and the only authority for its existence is an entry in the ENR section of the AIP.

Headsethair

Thank you.


Would you please stop sniping.
Heliport

As has been said many times singles are not inherently unsafe, and statistically safer than life on the streets. Any aircraft landing/crashing in the middle of a City will hit the news, unfairly compared to the daily road accidents that are rarely reported. Because of the high profile the regulations will err on the "safe" side.
If we all abide realistically to the safe landing principle then there should be no problems, the difficulty comes with commercial pressures. I flew City tours in both singles and twins, I set a higher cloudbase as a minimum for the single and stuck to certain routes to provide landing options. The trouble arises when competitors push their luck more and put pressure on you to do likewise. The odds are you will get away with it today...but one day...

Like "Whoa!" Heliport!
 

I think I know what you mean....but considering recorded history I suggest there is a small flaw in your logic on this issue.

The helicopter industry has always been very competitive...both in the UK and the USA. Some very valid issues have been raised in the discussion so far. The "sniping" detracts from the debate. The debate should be over what is the best for "all" of the private operators and owners.

Currently, it would appear, ATC is using the ANT rule to bar access to the airspace without basis of law. That should be addressed by all parties.

The basis used to restrict air traffic should be reviewed and sorted for "reality" vice purely subjective reasons. The Helicopter Industry as a whole should stand together on common issues which affect the industry and set aside competition concerns.

Why should the CAA not take a position on this....after all they hold themselves up as being the Rock of Aviation Safety throughout the world do they not? Surely they have reams of data to support their position re: engine failure rates and such. They monitor all aviation in the UK thus they know the flight hours performed and such. Surely they could come up with some exposure statistics to show the risks involved in helicopters flying over London. A bit of reseach using GIS techiques could determine the number of possible forced landing sites contained within the urban area surrounding London and thus calculate the availibility of landing areas as a percentage of the surface.

No reason peering into a tea cup has to be the research method that these rules are determined by.

Well as we all know, in a Twin Engine aircraft you have twice as much chance of an engine failure, but the good news is in most M/E helicopters the good engine should fly you to the crash site.

This is all very interesting, but what about the role issue of the specific machine.

News organisations are about putting words and pictures together, ideally first, ideally live and ideally for extended periods of time.

This I imagine is one reason why the Police and some organisations have gone down the Twin route....for a 1 minute shot they get 1 minute of the subject matter they are interested in, rather than 15 secs of that, and 45 secs of the back of a building that is of little interest while the aircraft keeps up an orbit at suitable speed.

As we know some of the most filmed tube stations in London are stuck down some pretty tight streets....

Rushes : a unique viewpoint (pardon the pun). So - you're saying that whilst a twin can hover, a single can't ?

Erm.

Are you a helicopter pilot ? Have you noticed that twins also orbit. Just as singles also hover.

The main difference is the endurance. Whilst your average AS355 fully-loaded with 3 people, the tv gear and all that lovely fuel + spare engine, flying to Grp A, can just about do 1.5hrs between refuels - a good piston single like the R44, carrying the same load of 3 people and all the tv gear, can be on task for 3.5-4 hrs.

In a developing story/incident, which machine would you consider is the most useful ?

Just wondering if an R44 newscopter is 1668 lb, max useful load is 832 lbs. 4.0 hours of fuel at 16 gals an hour = 430 lbs. Left with 400 lbs, the 3 crew must be very light and with no extras in the machine ! Intersting auto at this weight from less than 60 kt airspeed when filming. It is intersting to look at the POH to determine auto range. The table was done by a pilot expecting an engine failure in ideal conditions for the certification process, therefore from 60 kts filming at MAUW will the ac land clear ?

Your assumption and consumption need attention. You have assumed a weight which is not correct, and you have assumed standard fuel consumption. In reality we regularly achieve 3.5 - 4 hrs endurance depending on wind and power settings. The perfect filming speed (when not hovering) is also the max endurance speed.
One of the great advantages of the 360 nosemount is that we can spend more time with our nose into wind - we regularly get the shot by shooting at 180 rearwards and, so long as the downward angle is more than 30 degrees, no aerials or skids get in the way.
With regard to POH and glide capability - we have made substantial allowances for wind, airspeed and other variables. An R44 can easily glide for more than a statute mile from 1500-2000ft. And the helicopter configuration for certification is at MAUW producing a glide ratio of 4.7 : 1.

But previous posters were discussing hovering to get the shot, not flying at 60 knots.

Is it too simplistic a question to ask how much higher should a single engine heli hover to get same saftey margin as flying at 60 knots?


Creaser

Whilst we are on the topic of a certain R44, I have just bee looking at its website and the videos on it.

I am interested to find out how filming of the sailing was achieved on a CAT flight, or was it simply private? Just curious as my companies AOC clearly states that the R44 must remain within safe autorotational distance of a suitable landing site.

Thanks,

TiP:)

I'd been wondering how an R44 could legally film Wembley stadium from what seemed like quite close on the national news several weeks ago. Now I know (or think I know!!):)
2Sticks

Tip: not a CAT flight. See here.

2Sticks: that video is on the website, but probably too small to show altimeter reading - 1500. The "seemed quite close" is an interesting statement - what gave you that impression ? The camera with its 42X zoom ? Flying Special VFR at that part of London permits 500ft by the way - but we didn't use that advantage. Don't need to.

S/E V's M/E ENG
 

In Melbourne (Oz) at least one news agency has gone to an AS350 over their old AS355. Greater payload and good dependability.

Mind you, the only real engine 'failure' that I have ever witnessed is on an AS350 when a bolt cut loose in the compressor on start-up. Big bang, lots of smoke, no more noise. Good thing they were on the ground! :eek:

[QUOTE=headsethair]Tip: not a CAT flight. See here.

Only the CAA could produce that document that on the final page says "Page 8 of 7"!

[quote=headsethair]Rushes : a unique viewpoint (pardon the pun). So - you're saying that whilst a twin can hover, a single can't ?


Headsethair, thanks for pointing this out, its a great help!

However, I am suggesting that a single engined machine, depending where it is, may not be able to achieve an autorotation to a safe place outside R160 from a standing start.... ie; a hover!

So I guess you have three choices in some of these circumstances.... stay close to the river, keep moving... or ideally BOTH!

However, i'm sure that you have this eventuality covered.....

So i'm now wondering which I would prefer..... the endurance..... or A PICURE in the first place!

Rushes, you're losing me here. These Forum posts aren't much good at conveying irony. So - I'll have to use plain language and I hope you don't consider this to be patronising.

You earlier suggested that whilst a twin can hover, a single can't. That is not the truth. The hover performance (or any aspect of performance) has nothing to do with how many engines you carry.

You can ask many "scenario" questions that are more relevant than engine failure - and these come higher up the stats list.

Try "What happens when the tail rotor drive fails on a twin engine helicopter whilst operating low level over a congested area?" Then call the South Wales ASU for the answer. Or Mrs Jones who had an AS355 parked in her loft for a few days.

Try "What happened to the door handle of an AS355 when it fell off during a filming flight over south London ?" Answer - it's down there somewhere and hopefully it didn't injure anyone.

Getting preoccupied with engine failures doesn't reflect the real issues of flight safety. You only have to read the CAA quarterly Occurrence reports and you'll see what I mean.

Headsethair,

I'm still not clear exactly what you have gained permission to do. Can you fly within the Specified Area as long as you can land clear and, if so, how do you demonstrate that capability when the boys from the Belgrano would certainly disallow most open spaces (in central London) as they permit public access.

I have no axe to grind as I use both twin and singles in my own role. I am a bit mifffed, though, that it has taken a "personality" to sufficiently pressure our regulators to interpret the ANO correctly instead of making law which they seem to think is their proper role. I've been at odds with them for most of my professional flying career with absolutely no success whatever.

Incidentally, my current campaign with them is over age discrimination. Anyone out there in their late 50's NOT want to stop single pilot PT at 60 please contact me

The R44 is a wonderful helicopter with excellent engine off characteristics but an engine failure from a 1000' hover in still wind conditions will offer no glide distance. In fact you loose 300’ to 400' before you gain sufficient forward speed to develop enough potential energy to conduct a safe landing. The area directly below is where you will end up.

Most ENG work is conducted at heights between 750’ & 1000’ at slow speeds in and out of wind i.e. orbits. For built-up areas I believe this profile to be the domain of twin engine helicopters.

Despite contra belief, engines do stop. Emergency landings are also conducted for reasons other than engine malfunctions. If the river Thames offers the only law abiding place to land in the event of a single engine helicopter emergency one has to consider the consequences of alighting into water with or without floats. At best you will go from being a heli to a directionless boat hitting the nearest bridge or barge to at worst becoming an ineffective submarine!

The reduced operating margins of the R44 over a twin squirrel is of great benefit and they do have a place in the video world but personally I would be very uncomfortable flying an R44 in a low level build up area. AS355s undoubtedly offer more performance and safety for me, my cameraman, passengers and people below. On this basis cost should not be compromised.

OK. I have a feeling this is becoming more of a saga than necessary. First, let's take the celebrity factor out of it. Because I have. Then simply read the rules as they are currently written. Nothing's changed - except a myth has been kicked into touch.

With regard to "where to land" - well that too is obvious from the rules. The only requirement is to land without endangering etc. and to "remain able to alight clear of R160". Again, nothing has changed.

Our/my research was substantial and the docs alone would crash the pprune server. The critical piece of paper is Statutory Instrument 2005 964 available from the Cabinet Office website here.

This is the only "rule" that matters - it's the foundation for all connected rules issued by any other body. The only thing that changed was that SI 2005 1110 removed R160/Specified requirements from Rule 5 and placed them into 964.

Huskie: I disagree with you on the heights for ENG work. There is no need to go lower than 1000ft and most of what we do is around 1500-2000. Let the camera do the work. I also take issue (sorry) with your claim that the AS355 offers better performance - are you another one who believes that 2 engines give better performance than one ? I urge you to quickly do some W&B MAUW calcs and see the truth. Even Eurocopter say that the single AS350B3 has better performance than the twin AS355. Talk to the pilots.

And you're also wrong on your reading of the requirements for R160. It is only required that any helicopter suffering the failure of a power unit can alight clear of R160. No other emergency would preclude a landing inside R160 for any helicopter, whether single, twin or triple.

Headsethair,

I can't see where I actually said that single engined machines couldn't hover , please go back and read my initial post!:ugh:. I was simply trying to make the point that in order to achieve a safe forced landing from certain positions over a built up area, it would be beneficial to be moving in the first place, it's always nice to have some energy to convert. I do understand that the R44 glides well, you've read the POH so I know your well aware.

Hovering over the open countryside your options would tend to be greater.

So I make the assumption that a single engined machine is more limited than a twin over a congested area... Its that simple!!

There are some fantastic single engined platforms, but there is just a little more flexibility with the twin in certain circumstances.... is this so hard to understand.... or maybe just admit?

ps: I have no prejudice...single or twin, i just believe that everything has its place, and that we do not just have the legal issues to consider, but the moral ones as well.

MBJ is well aware of what we can achieve around Melbourne, so I'll pass on the main issue that he raised, but HSH appears under assault from some who don't seem to have had the pleasure of operating some of the better stabilised systems around. We operate two R44 Newscopters, and other than to change the dynamics of the shot, nearly all our work is around 1500ft or higher. This photo shows well the quality of the image from 1350'


http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/...raffic%203.jpg

Headsethair: Thank you for your response. Please don’t misunderstand me with regard to performance. I am suggesting that in challenging weather conditions the handling characteristics of the AS355F1 over an R44 are preferable. Sometimes the pilot has to work very hard to complement the cameraman. I agree 1500’ to 2000’ offer good pictures but the weather doesn’t always allow this.

OK. My last response I promise.

Huskie: . Hell - what a generalisation. As I've previously stated, the nose-mount on the R44 ENG allows us to keep the nose into wind whilst still getting the shot. What could be safer than that ? Sitting over Scotland in a 50mph wind is one of my favourite places to be - that's 50mph of airspeed if we need it.
What machine would I rather be in crosswind ? Not the AS355 for sure. And definitely not a 206, while we're at it.

If the cloudbase over a congested area doesn't allow 1000ft above the nearest highest object within 600m, then you can't go in any heli without an Exemption (unless flying under Special VFR and then you can use the 500ft rule - but why would you need to go that low if you've got a great camera with a professional operator?).
Rule 5 does not discriminate between numbers of power units.
And if the "weather" is pants, what pictures will you get in any case ?
And another aspect - the live link. We have the ability to get our pictures and sound over 100km. But to achieve this distance we need to watch our height - good as the new digital links are, even they can't defeat curvature of the earth to any great extent. In reality, getting our output live to W12 from, say, Milton Keynes needs 2000ft altitude.
That's it from me. This started as a simple response to MBJ and ended-up in the Cabinet Office. I love this place (pprune) - but I am not getting my work done.

John Eacott: we've never met, but thanks for your experienced support. It sometimes feels a bit cold in these parts, if you get my drift.

Here's a little more support, Heads-

It takes about 400' of vertical descent to get an R44 at MAUW up to recommended autorotational airspeed (and RRPM) after an engine failure in a zero-airspeed hover. Push the lever down, as soon as the horn stops, push the cyclic forward as rapidly as RRPM will allow. Since most ENG work has a little headwind, you can reduce that altitude figure slightly. So from 1,000' AGL, you have your airspeed with 600' left to go, or put another way, you can put your spot where you want it simply by how slowly or rapidly you accelerate your airspeed.

It's very easy to keep forced landing areas in reach (as long as the areas are available at all) while positioning your ship, as long as you put safety first, picture second. With the great equipment mounted on most ENG helicopters, the camera op will have no trouble getting a shot as long as the angle is right, giving the pilot a lot of choice about altitude and distance. (BTW, I work as back-up in a 206 in both positions, pilot or camera op.)

As far as an engine failure goes - as folks with a lot more experience and education have pointed out, it generally isn't an engine failure that causes ENG (or most) accidents (ignoring the air in the fuel lines problem, which affects you no matter how many engines you are swinging). For the slightly (and I mean slightly) increased risk a single engine might create, the R44 will give you back reduced risk via almost no chance of LTE, excellent cockpit visibility, very low pilot workload, excellent fuel endurance.

Now I will say personally it makes me nervous to have that much power going through that somewhat cheap Robinson belt-drive system - in fact, on the R-44, that fails at a much higher rate than the engine, and usually with more dramatic results (an piston engine will usually fail somewhat gracefully). So do I think the R44 is a perfect ENG ship? Nope. But it is no more likely to cause a problem than ANY eng ship, single or twin (for what that's worth).