The End of SEIFR?

[2R]

Does anyone know any Buddy Holly songs ???

[Dog]

Wow, glad I have a coffee in me.

Dog, out of all the posts on this thread, I think yours contain the most inaccuracies.

What do you fly Doc? Are there any single points of failure on it? EVERY aircraft has potential single points of failure.

The design standards for twin engine aircraft don’t allow for any single points of failure that would prevent continued safe flight and landing. The standards make an exception for single engine aircraft but declare them as meeting a lower level of safety. So why don’t the operating rules follow accordingly?

Any time there is a single bolt that can cause a catastrophic failure there is a single point of failure. In the Twin Otter for example there is the down elevator cable, or in the DC-9 the stabilator jack etcetera. These parts are engineered to have a much higher than working load to make up of the lack of redundancy. It is, none the less, a single point of failure.

Your reply reminds me of a I won't fly in helicopters because there are so many moving parts argument.

The vast majority of rotorcraft in Canada do not meet IFR requirements for much the same reasons single engine aircraft don’t.

[/quote]

Many helicopters do. And in those cases there are many parts of the main drive system that are not redundant. That, however was not my point. My point was that there are a lot of people who won't fly in a small helicopter over a small airplane despite the formers superior safety record.

Flying will alway be inherently dangerous.

Wrong. That statement isn’t supported by statistics or any risk assessment. I’m surprised how often that statement is uttered on this forum. If flying is inherently dangerous then so is walking or taking a shower.

[/quote]

When you are flying you are up in the sky going fast. I said it was inherently dangerous; not statistically dangerous.

How many twins have fatal accidents after an engine failure? You might as well ban human pilots if that is the logic you're using.

Lots. Now check out how many commercially operated twins have fatal accidents after an engine failure. Very very few. The accident rate of twin engine airplanes is seriously skewed by the large amount of private morons with too much money that buy an intermediate performance twin and don’t invest in training. Commercial operators are not only forced to train flgihtcrews but the guy flying the airplane typically has more experience than the average private pilot.

[/quote]

You're correct! But the average time of a caravan pilot is pretty low, isn't it? So let's compare apples to apples: Caravans vs Navajos, not Caravans vs things guys do v1 cuts in sims before they fly.

So then you would let them fly on a piston twin vs. turbine single? Risk management is a complex animal. I'm personally more comfortable in a single turbine than a light twin. There is the whole argument about flying singles in the mountains but I don't know a propeller twin that will maintain MEAs out here with one caged and any ice on it... where do we draw the line?

The standard already draws the line. If you’re in a twin and can’t maintain MEA on one, you are breaking the rules.

Enroute Limitations
703.32 No person shall operate a multi-engined aircraft with passengers on board in IFR flight or in night VFR flight if the weight of the aircraft is greater than the weight that will allow the aircraft to maintain, with any engine inoperative, the MOCA of the route to be flown.

If you read what I wrote you see that I qualified it by saying "in ice". I'm sure it's possible in a few machines but in the vast majority of cases, airplanes will not maintain the MEAs in BC on one engine with ice on the airframe.

I feel that with one engine failure every 100 000 hours is roughly less than the other factors (CFIT, Structural failure, pilot error, etc.) that we readily accept.

Not even close. As a matter of fact, the design standard for any failure that prevents the aircraft from continued safe flight and landing requires no more than one failure per billion flight hours.

Applying your logic, airplanes would be falling out of the sky at a horrendous rate.

For example, if you say CFIT happens every 100,000 fight hours and structural failure happens every 100,000 hours and pilot error (etc) that means that the airplane will have a fatal crash no later than 33,000 hours. Add in your engine failure and you have a crash every 25,000 hours. If that were the case, I wouldn’t step on any airplane.

[/quote]

I don't know that stats on those failures. My point was that if an engine fails infrequently the chances are low that it will be in IMC in a position where a off strip landing is impossible.

I need lessons in making the quotes work properly.

[2R]

Do you know where the Jesus nut is on your aircraft .The nut that if it comes loose in flight makes godless heathens shout "Jesus"

[Dog]

One more small point: singles are required to be more crash worthy (seats, lower stall speed, etc) than twins. I don't think that has been brought up so far.

[CID]

One more small point: singles are required to be more crash worthy (seats, lower stall speed, etc) than twins. I don't think that has been brought up so far.

Do you have a source or anything to back up that statement? And how exactly does having a lower stall speed make and airplane more "crashworthy"?

With respect to the "single point failure" issue, aircraft structures aren't designed to meet a particular failure rate. They are designed to maintain integrity within prescribed loads with an added margin of safety. If your "jesus" nut falls off, its usually the result of the airframe being overstressed or poor maintenance.

[bobcaygeon]

Certification standards require 61 kt stall speed for single engine aircraft even VLJ's. I'd rather hit the ground at 60 mph than 100 mph.

That being said, I'd rather be riding in a twin with one shutdown than gliding into nunavut in January at 61 kts. I may only come up 5 miles short of town but in a blow, if I survive ,I'll be frozen b4 help comes.

PS In case you haven't noticed "because the RCMP does it" is isn't a very good arguement as of late. Issues include SEIFR, incomplete newhire training, no backup in remote areas cause it costs 2 much, difficulty recruiting staff. Sound familiar???

[Doc]

Boy, you guys sure do have the "quote" feature down cold. CID has it pretty well bang on. Either way, I'm still not putting any of my family members on an IFR single engine flight. The pressure to allow SEIFR in the first place, I strongly suspect DID NOT come from the flying public, but rater operators looking for a "cheap" alternative to buying and maintaining a fleet of twin turbines?
The remarks that few airplanes will maintain MEA with ice on the airframe over BC, on one engine is interesting.......how long will a PC12, or a Caravan maintain MEA over the Rockies with "one" of their engines shut down?
Yes, a wing can fall off....that's not the single point failure that CID is talking about, and anybody with even half a brain, knows it.
Okay Dog, let's compare Navajos and Caravans. I can't think of a single Navajo that has "rolled" on it's back after an engine failure. I can think of one or two that were lost to CFIT (Gawd, I hate these warm fuzzy terms) and one or two Caravans lost to the same thing. Summer Beaver. Red Lake. Both Wasaya. Both "pushing" weather. Navajos, I believe have a pretty good record, of late. I can think of many more Caravan mishaps than Navajos. And, while I enjoyed my flying time in the 'van, I'd far rather have an engine calf on a 'ho.
I'd like to see SEIFR in commercial operations go the way of the dinosaur.

[Cat Driver]

Those odds don't change much whether you're IFR or VFR.

That is pure B.S.

[CID]

Certification standards require 61 kt stall speed for single engine aircraft even VLJ's. I'd rather hit the ground at 60 mph than 100 mph.

The stall speed of an airplane doesn't neccessarily determine the "crash" speed. Either way, if you're stalling you lost control of the airplane. Stating that an airplane is more "crashworthy" because its stall speed is lower is pretty shortsighted in my opinion. "Crashworthiness" standards for transport category airplanes are much greater defined and stringent.

[Cat Driver]

Either way, if you're stalling you lost control of the airplane.

That is also pure B.S.

If the circumstances are such that you wish to contact whatever you are going to end your flight on you have the choice of contact at the lowest speed possible ( stall airspeed ).....you have total control of the machine up to and at the point of stall / contact with the surface. After that of course you may lose control.

[quickflight]

Doc I am really suprised that you of all people continue to lump all SE aircraft into the same category. I can only assume that it is to prop up the relatively weak arguments and of inflamatory comments that you make concerning this type of flight.

Before people get too excited about the end of SEIFR remember that the PT6-114 is significantly different than the -67. The reliability of the -67 is much better than the -114, and has proven itself over and over again. I have great confidence in the PC 12 and the powerplant she is paired with. So much so that I have taken my kids flying with me and would take them or anyone else's without hesitation. After all everytime I go flying I do so with my kids father.

[Cat Driver]

It is interesting reading all the different opinions regarding single engine IFR flight.

What we have here is mostly pilots expressing their own personal thoughts and sometimes from a position that is defensive based on their own bias formed by their own personal experience.

However the general public who buy a ticket to travel by airline from A to B should be guaranteed the same level of safety regardless of what size airplane they buy a ticket on.

To argue that any single engine airplane is as safe as a multi engine airliner is just plain wrong.

Therefore the traveling public is paying for a two tiered level of safety for a monetary decision by the operators of some airplanes.

[DragEraser]

Doc wrote:

The fact I don't allow my family members to fly single engine has no bearing on anything, except I consider myself "educated" enough to make that decision.

You're gettin' on in age right? So if you slipped and broke a hip, or had a heart attack and needed to be flown to YWG and a PC12 showed up, you'd wait until a twin showed up? (All your planes are out and the heli is down too)

[Red Line]

Befrore people get too excited about the end of SEIFR remeber that the PT6-114 is significantly different than the -67. The reliability of the -67 is mush better than the -114, and has proven itself over and over again.

Agreed! The engine is never actually used to more than 75% of it's rated horsepower, the automatic trend monitoring ensures early detection of any abnormalities, devices such as the torque limiter to protect the engine, and let's not forget in the unlikely event of a Py pressure leak or any other issue with the FCU, the MOR lever is there to manually control the FCU and restore engine power (again, something of which the public is never going to be informed). You can't even compare the Pilatus to a Caravan!

Is it as safe as a King Air? If you only look at the engine failure case scenario, I guess not. But when flown in a safety-conscious manner eg. not departing with weather is below approach minimums, planing departure and approach profiles to ensure gliding distance, etc., it's certainly not all that UNSAFE now is it?

BTW, grouping all PC-12 pilots as low-time wonders just looking to build time is not accurate either. Those guys/gals are usually swayed away from the PC-12 because it only has one engine (there's a moment of irony ). Why do so many high time pilots choose to retire on the Pilatus?

[ScudRunner]

Does anyone know any Buddy Holly songs ???

Well I know one! As for banning SEIFR ...............That will be the Day, Buddy Holly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pribHw93OPc

[2R]

Him and the big bopper flew off into a snow storm never to be seen alive again ,In a single engine piston with no radar or known icing equip or standby gyro system with a 400 hour pilot that did not have access to the wonderful weather forecasting we enjoy now.A lot was learned from that accident that has prevented a lot of other young people knowing grief.

If they had of been in a C208 or PC 12 they would have stood a chance against the elements .

Don Maclean wrote a song about the day the music died .American Pie

Whenever someone asked me to push weather that i thought was unsafe i always ask in a surreal way "Do you know any Buddy Holly songs ??? He died in weather like this "
The clients usually will wisely ask to delay until the weather improves or they can find a sober pilot now where did i put my beer ???

[Dog]

Yes, a wing can fall off....that's not the single point failure that CID is talking about, and anybody with even half a brain, knows it.
Okay Dog, let's compare Navajos and Caravans. I can't think of a single Navajo that has "rolled" on it's back after an engine failure. I can think of one or two that were lost to CFIT (Gawd, I hate these warm fuzzy terms) and one or two Caravans lost to the same thing. Summer Beaver. Red Lake. Both Wasaya. Both "pushing" weather. Navajos, I believe have a pretty good record, of late. I can think of many more Caravan mishaps than Navajos. And, while I enjoyed my flying time in the 'van, I'd far rather have an engine calf on a 'ho.
I'd like to see SEIFR in commercial operations go the way of the dinosaur.

There have been only two SEIFR accidents and one fatal night VFR accident involving aircraft being operated under Ops Spec 001-703. In the night VFR accident, the cause was not determined, but there is no evidence that single-engine operation was a factor.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publi ... eature.htm

For the record: I fly twins for a living.

I'm neither for nor against the SEIFR provided it can have a fatal accident rate equal to or better than the mean.

Cheers!

[Dog]

I strongly suspect DID NOT come from the flying public, but rater operators looking for a "cheap" alternative to buying and maintaining a fleet of twin turbines?

Wouldn't you say that the flying public is the motivating force in commercial aviation? TC is the body that is supposed to protect them from themselves.

[Cat Driver]

Quote:
Those odds don't change much whether you're IFR or VFR.


That is pure B.S.


Care to elaborate?

IFR is when you have no outside visual reference by which to choose the best touch down point. Therefore it stands to reason that your time to plan where you are going to land can be limited or zero.

[Dog]

One more small point: singles are required to be more crash worthy (seats, lower stall speed, etc) than twins. I don't think that has been brought up so far.

Do you have a source or anything to back up that statement? And how exactly does having a lower stall speed make and airplane more "crashworthy"?

I would say that it's physics. At 100 mph a body has x energy; at a slower speed it has less. To survive an accident we need to have that energy dispersed at a rate the human body can take and a survivable space to do it in. Energy increases exponentially with velocity: The slower you're going the less punishment the airframe will have to take to dissipate that energy.

E = 0.5 • m • v2
In SI units, mass m is in kilograms and velocity v is in metres per second, giving kinetic energy E in joules.

If I remember correctly, the seats and belts in these airplanes are required to pass more stringent crash ratings (higher g). Indeed, at the company I worked for there was a Caravan crash with no fatalities. Had it been in another aircraft I don't think that would have been the case.

[Rockie]

I strongly suspect DID NOT come from the flying public, but rater operators looking for a "cheap" alternative to buying and maintaining a fleet of twin turbines?

Wouldn't you say that the flying public is the motivating force in commercial aviation? TC is the body that is supposed to protect them from themselves.

In general any regulation that makes operating airplanes cheaper for the companies is initiated by the companies. They say what they want to do and the regulators figure out a way to make it legal. ETOPS for example was not the FAA's idea, they just rewrote the regulations allowing companies to do it. Transport Canada is subject to lobbying just like any other government department and operators are very good at lobbying. In fact it is the companies that have the loudest voice at CARAC where regulations are created. If you need proof of that all you have to do is consider the medieval flight and duty time regulations in this country.

[Dog]

Yeah, I guess what I meant by that was the public will generally go with the cheapest option. The onus is on the regulating body to ensure an acceptable level of safety. I think ETOPs is an example of one that has worked very well.

[Rockie]

Yeah, ETOPS is great I agree and I wasn't referring to it as an example where the regulator didn't make a good decision, just pointing out who was driving the program. I also think you're right about the public always going for the cheapest option but it is generally out of ignorance. Take Jetsgo for example. Folks just loved those $1 fares but TC was blatantly ignoring their responsibility to protect the travelling public by letting them operate the way they did. The power of political influence.

[CID]

I would say that it's physics. At 100 mph a body has x energy; at a slower speed it has less. To survive an accident we need to have that energy dispersed at a rate the human body can take and a survivable space to do it in. Energy increases exponentially with velocity: The slower you're going the less punishment the airframe will have to take to dissipate that energy.

E = 0.5 • m • v2
In SI units, mass m is in kilograms and velocity v is in metres per second, giving kinetic energy E in joules.

That was a lovely physics lesson. Now tell me all about how airplanes only hit the ground at their stall speed. Slower stall speeds don't make an airplane more "crashworthy".

If I remember correctly, the seats and belts in these airplanes are required to pass more stringent crash ratings (higher g). Indeed, at the company I worked for there was a Caravan crash with no fatalities. Had it been in another aircraft I don't think that would have been the case.

That has nothing to do with "singles" being more crashworthy and everything to do with newer standards.

[twotter]

And slower impact speeds. Anyone with half a brain would know that you will delay the inevitable as long as possible by pulling back (that will raise the nose and slow the airplane for you non pilot types like CID) before impact. I'm thinking a lot will crash at close to the stall speed.