The End of SEIFR?

[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.

[Dog]

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".

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

It was specifically to do with singles. I can't remember where I read it but I seem to remember reading that the singles required a 40g seat while everyone else met the normal 16g rule.... I might be out to lunch though; that was a few years ago.

Due to a loss of power and not loss of control an aircraft should be touching down in an emergency landing at close to it stall speed (10% above range).

http://www.thejimmychiushow.com/Are%20you%20dumb.html

[Doc]

Due to a loss of power, I simply head home on the other engine, thereby not having to worry about such things. It's still not sinking in, is it?

[quickflight]

Actually, Dog makes a good point about the mean average. I wonder what the mean accident rate would be compared with twins of similar scope. That of course would have to be adjusted per capita as I'm sure there are more twins than singles in the ifr world.

I personally see all flight as a calculated risk. I have seen how my company deals with safety knowing there is just the one spinny thing, and I also have looked at the record of the PC12 itself. I gives me confidence in the machine and the process. I see it just as likely for a newer pilot to screw up an engine out at take off as a failure in a single. Time and experience always play the largest part. For me I'm not a newbie but certainly not an old timer either(although some of my fo's say I'm crusty enough to be an old timer) balance what you have got to do.

Is the PC 12 best for any passenger service, that would depend on the publics perception. I have flown places that it wouldn't make it, but for this area(NWO) it seems to be well accepted. For what I fly it for I wouldn't trade it for anything out there.

Cheers

[Dog]

Due to a loss of power, I simply head home on the other engine, thereby not having to worry about such things. It's still not sinking in, is it?

Twins have dual engine failures... maybe we shouldn't fly anything with less than eight engines. Then we would be really safe!

Sorry for the sarcasm. But honestly are you saying you'd never fly in a single engine aircraft even if it was statistically as safe as a twin? I'm not arguing that you're better off having and engine failure on a twin nine times out of ten. But if through other means some singles are able to have a safety record equal to a twin would you still refuse to fly in it? I don't get it.

[CID]

Sorry for the sarcasm. But honestly are you saying you'd never fly in a single engine aircraft even if it was statistically as safe as a twin?

We need to be careful with statistics and concentrate on commercial ops under 703. With respect to engine failure I would certainly feel safer in a van than a Beech Travelaire but the Travelaire doesn't mee the 703 IFR ops standard. Neither does a Twin Comanche or similar "all or nothing" twins.

To put it simply, I think in commercial operations, it's safer to fly any twin that can maintain MOCA on one than any single regardless if it's a turbine or piston machine.

Twins have dual engine failures...

I'd like to see the stats that provide the probability of that happening. I would hazard a guess that fuel starvation would be the overwhelming factor in that kind of accident.

[Doc]

C'mon Dog, where have I ever said I wouldn't fly in a single engine airplane?? If that is the impression you got, sorry. Single engine airplanes should not be used in commercial operations, IFR. I'd take a Caravan anywhere. VFR. Or IFR as a private operator. On my terms. Not with "hard" IFR limits. Not with paying passengers. Never. I'd take a 172 or a 182 pretty much anywhere. Again, on my terms.
I wouldn't board a commercial flight on a single, operated under instrument flight rules. Maybe I can be clearer, but I don't know how? I'm up to speed on the operational mind set of the companies who operate these machines. I think anybody who departs in a single engine aircraft with half a mile, and a hundred feet and feels it's a "calculated risk" has NO right to be subjecting the paying public to his own personal level of risk. And for all the flack I've taken for my opinion on this.....it's MY CHOICE.....I AM an educated consumer. TWO engines ARE better than ONE!

And CID, you would feel safer after an engine failure in a Caravan than a Travel Air? I can bring you home in a Travel Air, Aztec, Twin Comanche, or for that matter a lightly loaded Apache. In the mountains, the operating engine would at least give us a choice about where we park the thing. It may well not meet ops specs for IFR flights, but c'mon, you can't feel safer in a "glider", can you? But, since these aircraft are not operated in the same manner as the PC12, or a 'van, it should be a non-issue. Still, even operated VFR, I'd WAY rather have s second engine....we are talking about after the other one quit here....

[Dog]

Ok, so we hijacked this thread about three pages ago.

I was surprised that people were so emotional about the single vs twin thing. Like CID said we need to watch the statistics. If the collection of stats is done properly it should be a window of truth.

I only believe that if the single kills less people than it's competitors then there is no logical reason to not do it. To know that you only need to divide lives lost by flight hours by category. It shouldn't be that hard to do.

There should be further restrictions on them to increase safety. Like Doc said taking off in a half mile shouldn't be allowed. But with a little thought I'm sure there could be some regulatory changes that would make up for stupidity and accountants. We've got so much technology available to us it shouldn't be a hard thing to do. Of course it might end up being that twins would suddenly become the more economical choice...

This all started because TC failed to enforce the requirements they set forward in 703-001. Mainly engine reliability. The way I read the report is that if they had done their jobs the Caravan shouldn't have been flying IFR commercially with passengers.

[Doc]

To have any credibility, you have to use an entire quote. To lazy? Read it again.
You don't know much about VMC either, do you. You can easily "park" that twin in the aforementioned farmers field at well below 80. But, the real point here is....YOU get some say as to where you "park".......and, it just might find a way to get you all the way home. But, if you'd rather "glide"....fill yer boots.

[airplane rider]

Not to wade too deeply into the argument, I only have one comment to make from my point of view. I "threw" a cylinder in a Navajo coming home to Grand Cayman from Cuba on takeoff. The flight is entirely over the ocean. Because it was a twin I was able to reduce the sick engine to near idle, keeping it in reserve, and flew home on the good engine (repairs in Cuba are a nightmare). It was a long flight watching the gauges and hoping for the best, but had it been in a single, my options would have been greatly reduced. I should add that I had no pax as it was a drop-off or I would likely have made a different decision.

I know this really doesn't illustrate the twin over single argument, but under certain flying conditions (mountains, ocean, rocks and trees) I would take a twin ANY day.

[CID]

I can bring you home in a Travel Air, Aztec, Twin Comanche, or for that matter a lightly loaded Apache.

Generally speaking, when you have one of the engines fail on either of those airplanes, the only thing the remaining engine is good for is taking you to the scene of the accident.

[Rockie]

Not to wade too deeply into the argument, I only have one comment to make from my point of view. I "threw" a cylinder in a Navajo coming home to Grand Cayman from Cuba on takeoff. The flight is entirely over the ocean. Because it was a twin I was able to reduce the sick engine to near idle, keeping it in reserve, and flew home on the good engine (repairs in Cuba are a nightmare). It was a long flight watching the gauges and hoping for the best, but had it been in a single, my options would have been greatly reduced. I should add that I had no pax as it was a drop-off or I would likely have made a different decision.

I know this really doesn't illustrate the twin over single argument, but under certain flying conditions (mountains, ocean, rocks and trees) I would take a twin ANY day.

It's 131 nautical miles of water between Cuba and Grand Caymen. Were they shooting at you in Cuba or something?

[Doc]

CID, that's just not true. You could certainly load them up to make it more difficult on yourself, but properly loaded, in the right hands, they'll bring you home. Even with a slight descent, you can still go a long way on a single engine Twin Comanche. It'll level off and easily maintain 6,000 feet or so.
I've only had one engine failure with a flat engine. That was a carb ice problem on a 150. That ended safely on a highway. Even the engines in light twins are pretty bullet proof.

airplane rider.....the rum is good in Cuba. Cigars are cheap. Some of the women are hot hot hot! I would have been tempted to beat the company credit card to death in a good hotel. That would be a long swim! Glad it worked out.

[quickflight]

airplane rider was that, vp-cdl or vp-cmj from cuba.

[airplane rider]

I'm sure you can guess...LOL

Yeah, it was CDL, and the left side. I think maybe you were still there actually. The mighty Swede was with me coming back from Cienfuegos after dropping engineers to do boat repairs after Hurricane Denis or Emily.

[gup_69]

So...is it safe to say we're better off flying SE VFR in the clag with no air below us? Sorry boys...I'll take the altitude above the weather and a good TAWS system anyday. And I will make sure I know where I am so if things to go south I have my options. At least I'll be sitting in something that's going to get into pretty well any hole I find and walk away from it.

Cheers!