Single engine public transport IFR
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne, Australia
The real problem is not in coming up with rules and practices, that can and has been done. The real problem is in convincing the punters that one is "as safe" as two. Given what the single engine turbines will replace, this is likely the case. But the person who can convince the punters of that will be the real winner here.
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
From: UK
In NZ ther is (used to be?) a caravan operator going between Nelson in the S.Island and Wellington in the N. Island.
Carrying pax SE IFR was a no go, so when the wx was cr@p as it often is along the strait, they used to bounce along at 1500' VFR, out of gliding range of land, pax puking up all the way.
Once at the other end, they could take out the seats, fill it full of cargo, and as no pax on board, go SE IFR. Up to FL70, out of the wind, in the sunshine, and within gliding distance of the shore - a nice flight was had by all the bags.
Which makes more sense?
Carrying pax SE IFR was a no go, so when the wx was cr@p as it often is along the strait, they used to bounce along at 1500' VFR, out of gliding range of land, pax puking up all the way.
Once at the other end, they could take out the seats, fill it full of cargo, and as no pax on board, go SE IFR. Up to FL70, out of the wind, in the sunshine, and within gliding distance of the shore - a nice flight was had by all the bags.
Which makes more sense?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Very Civil's post reminded me of Scare West, and their harbour to harbour service between Vancouver and Victoria with Twatters on floats back in the 70s. TC declared float IFR pax operations as unsafe, so the Scare West boys would go to great lengths to "remain" VFR.
I remember many crappy winter days sitting in the hangar in Victoria, monitoring tower on the radio. Scare West would always be flying, they would always be denied SVFR into the control zone, and they would always reply "Really? The weather's OK where we are."
Safer, eh?
I remember many crappy winter days sitting in the hangar in Victoria, monitoring tower on the radio. Scare West would always be flying, they would always be denied SVFR into the control zone, and they would always reply "Really? The weather's OK where we are."
Safer, eh?
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,444
Likes: 21
From: Beyond the black stump!
Always a pleasure to see a reasoned and considered range of viewpoints on PPRuNe, rather than some self perpetuated uninformed bias!
I have operated the Caravan for 5 years now. It is the single most reliable aircraft of any type I have ever operated. It is well designed and manufactured, it has excellent flight characteristics and performance, enjoys unrivalled support from the factory, has parts and services that are readily available and perhaps most significantly, it does EVERYTHING the manufacturer claims, at the PRICE they claim! It is predictable, capable and SAFE.
That individuals might decline to fly in the aircraft if it were available for service in their market, is indeed their personal decision. No-one would ever be made to fly in them, nor indeed travel by road or rail! The ability for the Caravan (and other single engine aircraft) to draw an economically sound customer base is well proven, and passenger acceptance of the type is very positive.
No operation can succeed without adequate attention to safety and economics. That these modern aircraft can achieve both is not something to be overlooked. They have no rivals for thin regional routes, and in many cases can succesfully succeed were no other aircraft can. The upside of this, is the ability to expand routes (and business) into progressively larger sectors by offering the services and pricing that the consumer wants. Combined with the expansion of low-cost airlines into airports outside the major hubs, and the combination is an extremely attractive proposition. The number of regional airports in the UK without any viable air service is increasing, as the regionals have been absorbed, or simply gone out of business. The Caravan offers the ability to offer exceptional pax and freight service were none currently exists, or alternately to expand upon existing service.
I fail to see how the Caravan cannot enhance the overall aviation business in the UK. It will provide a needed service and offer employment in a sector that is currently unfullfilled.
Considering the options for other aircraft in this sector, the only modern products that meets the demand are leagues ahead of their twin engined counterparts, many of which have nothing to offer in terms of safety, passenger appeal or economics.
One final thought. In my experience the vast majority of operators of these types, having made the financial commitment to the product, are also the same operators that have made the neccesary commitment to safety, training and maintenance that are reflected in the safety statistics that demonstrate the integrity of the product and type of operation. There are specific issues and areas of concern for these types, but they are largely unrelated to the fact that the aircraft has a single engine.
In many instances the final contribution to safety produced by these modern capable aircraft is that the consumer has shown that this product is their transportation of choice, leaving the operators with lesser levels of equipment and operating practices to find some other line of business.
Some interesting reading (and facts)!
I have operated the Caravan for 5 years now. It is the single most reliable aircraft of any type I have ever operated. It is well designed and manufactured, it has excellent flight characteristics and performance, enjoys unrivalled support from the factory, has parts and services that are readily available and perhaps most significantly, it does EVERYTHING the manufacturer claims, at the PRICE they claim! It is predictable, capable and SAFE.
That individuals might decline to fly in the aircraft if it were available for service in their market, is indeed their personal decision. No-one would ever be made to fly in them, nor indeed travel by road or rail! The ability for the Caravan (and other single engine aircraft) to draw an economically sound customer base is well proven, and passenger acceptance of the type is very positive.
No operation can succeed without adequate attention to safety and economics. That these modern aircraft can achieve both is not something to be overlooked. They have no rivals for thin regional routes, and in many cases can succesfully succeed were no other aircraft can. The upside of this, is the ability to expand routes (and business) into progressively larger sectors by offering the services and pricing that the consumer wants. Combined with the expansion of low-cost airlines into airports outside the major hubs, and the combination is an extremely attractive proposition. The number of regional airports in the UK without any viable air service is increasing, as the regionals have been absorbed, or simply gone out of business. The Caravan offers the ability to offer exceptional pax and freight service were none currently exists, or alternately to expand upon existing service.
I fail to see how the Caravan cannot enhance the overall aviation business in the UK. It will provide a needed service and offer employment in a sector that is currently unfullfilled.
Considering the options for other aircraft in this sector, the only modern products that meets the demand are leagues ahead of their twin engined counterparts, many of which have nothing to offer in terms of safety, passenger appeal or economics.
One final thought. In my experience the vast majority of operators of these types, having made the financial commitment to the product, are also the same operators that have made the neccesary commitment to safety, training and maintenance that are reflected in the safety statistics that demonstrate the integrity of the product and type of operation. There are specific issues and areas of concern for these types, but they are largely unrelated to the fact that the aircraft has a single engine.
In many instances the final contribution to safety produced by these modern capable aircraft is that the consumer has shown that this product is their transportation of choice, leaving the operators with lesser levels of equipment and operating practices to find some other line of business.
Some interesting reading (and facts)!
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
From: Rochester
In my humble opinion I would love to see SE IFR. I am a lowly PPL wannabe. We have all these under utilised airfields, under utilised pilots. What a waste.
I went to Aerofair 2002 and saw the Pilatus demo.
WOW
G-EELS was on show, so I clambered on board. Incredible machine.
REX
I went to Aerofair 2002 and saw the Pilatus demo.
WOW
G-EELS was on show, so I clambered on board. Incredible machine.
REX
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
From: London FIR
I would like to endorse Cyclic Hotlines remarks about the caravan without reservation.
I have a litte less time on type than he does, and never felt the slightest qualm about operatng SE IFR on sectors up to 550 miles over some of the most inhospitable (and unpopulated) terrain in Africa where SAR are only letters in the alphabet and we carried goolie-chits as insurance.
SE IFR would open the UK and European commercial aviation wide at a level it has never seen before, huge, huge opportunities are available for market expansion if this is allowed and as others have said itseems there is little if any evidence to suggest this would be more hazardous than any other form of aerial operations.
My one caveat would be this; SE IFR is no place for brand new inexperienced pilots. I would hate to see this innovative way of bumpstarting entry-level commercial aviation (from a commercial aspect) hamstrung by a requirement for an utterly unnecessary second pilot - SP is as critical to this as is SE, but this will never be a job for new CPLs. This, I guess, will be the challenge to the new SE operators - finding pilots with sufficient experience to do the job on the low rates of pay likely at this level of the business.
I sure hope they get this right. The Caravan was the best start to a siezed wing career that I could have wished for! I'd wish that luck on scores of others too.
I have a litte less time on type than he does, and never felt the slightest qualm about operatng SE IFR on sectors up to 550 miles over some of the most inhospitable (and unpopulated) terrain in Africa where SAR are only letters in the alphabet and we carried goolie-chits as insurance.
SE IFR would open the UK and European commercial aviation wide at a level it has never seen before, huge, huge opportunities are available for market expansion if this is allowed and as others have said itseems there is little if any evidence to suggest this would be more hazardous than any other form of aerial operations.
My one caveat would be this; SE IFR is no place for brand new inexperienced pilots. I would hate to see this innovative way of bumpstarting entry-level commercial aviation (from a commercial aspect) hamstrung by a requirement for an utterly unnecessary second pilot - SP is as critical to this as is SE, but this will never be a job for new CPLs. This, I guess, will be the challenge to the new SE operators - finding pilots with sufficient experience to do the job on the low rates of pay likely at this level of the business.
I sure hope they get this right. The Caravan was the best start to a siezed wing career that I could have wished for! I'd wish that luck on scores of others too.
