The End of SEIFR?

[Snowgoose]

And beer...don't forget beer!!

You must reside in a pretty sorry place to not know what Kilkenny is. I pity you.

[Doc]

Hey, I missed that. Not my fav though, I like something a little lighter. Cheers.

[Edo]

...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!

The Caravan has an emergency power lever that by-passes the FCU and directly controls the fuel metering valve.

The metering valve is part of the FCU.

Yes and if the p3 air fails the EPL, controls the fuel flow manually just like the MOR. no?

[Phaedrus]

At this point, I feel that I must add one more point that is not often talked about in the single vs. multi debate. That is: oil prices.

The thriving oil economy, that is the largest industry on the planet, kills at a rate far greater than the small number of deaths that could possibly be attributed to SEIFR accidents in this country, or worldwide. Think of all the murder, bribery, corruption, political manoeuvring, wars and destruction that result from the quest for oil-- to say nothing of the environmental costs. Essentially, our demand for safety is transferring risk to other parts of the world as the high price of fuel is borne out in one way or another.

Now, is a given twin safer than a comparable single? Unquestionably. Does this mean there will be any policy shift away from the use of singles? Not a chance.

I do of course realize that you can’t directly compare the fuel burn between the two, but that’s not important. No one would suggest that the typical single uses more fuel than a twin of equivalent capability. And the potential future for SE aircraft could save a lot of fuel. Remember too: this debate is all about the future of aviation, not just the battle of King Air vs. Pilatus, or Navajo vs. Caravan. So we must put aside our personal preferences and look honestly at the long term. What does future technology hold that might change the dynamic here? Well, I can’t say. But if you don’t like my argument when oil is $100 US a barrel, will you feel differently when it is $150 US a barrel 3 years from now?? Add to that the prospect carbon/emissions taxes and this argument could change further still.

On the other side of this debate, SEIFR pilots need to stop getting so defensive when this topic arises. Once you realize that no one is going to take your job, can you agree that some changes (whatever they might be) might be beneficial to the industry? We are not questioning your skills, and we love you all the same no matter what you fly. I realize that the PC-12 is an amazing aircraft. And there’s no way I would turn down an opportunity to fly that new tail-mounted single-engine Piper Jet. But would a slightly higher take-off min be the end of the world of SEIFR operators? We don’t seem to like change, but that’s how the industry advances. A few years down the road, and a couple monster lawsuits, we may all have come to accept those changes as positive-- and as history.


P.


[Full disclosure – I fly a twin turbine simply because Al Gore says it will warm the environment and it’s freezing here right now.]

[snaproll20]

somewhere on here a poster referred to the TC person who helped approve SEIFR as a "moron".
In this particular case, I would disagree with that label. I met and talked with that person and they are far from being a moron.
The idea was researched and approved on a statistical basis, with certain provisos. Certainly, SEIFR in the mountainous regions did not follow immediately.
Now, I hate the oxymoron "risk management" but cannot find a better phrase to describe the chance we take when we put our first foot out of bed in the morning. Everything we do is risky, we just sometimes are ignorant of the attendant risk in what we may opt to do. (ie. be a passenger).
The Industry was pushing for this, and TC basically did their job.
Let us not put blame where it is not due.
Anyone in aviation has to know there is higher safety risk with one engine than two, given a competent pilot at the controls. It would therefore be incumbent upon the operators to ensure that any risk attached be reduced as much as able. This would mean well trained pilots, engine monitoring and any other requirement to reduce risk.
Any operator who ignored this has some liability. Pinning it on them may be hard to do.

[Doc]

Snap, you can train the pilots. They all go to Flight Safety. I did. You can equip the aircraft with TAWS, GPS, TCAS, NG, and all the other warm and fuzzy creature comforts. Cross all the "T"s, dot all the "I"s. Set up a company SMS. Kiss all the babies. Pat all the puppies. Limbo under the lowest pole. Jump through all the hoops. But, the bottom line is. You only have one engine. So, if you're comfortable on a dark night, listening to the sounds of silence, fill yer boots. I just don't think the paying public should be up there with you in all that silence. And, I don't think the "regulators" have any "god given" right to put them in that position.

[Hot Fuel]

Doc why the change in attitude towards SEIFR? back in the day were you telling all the passengers that they should go home when the TAF painted an IFR picture. Are you going to try and tell us that you only operated the C208 VFR with passengers, never filed an IFR! Your position on this topic smacks me as extremely hypocritical. Seems you will compromise your safety standards when it involves your paycheck. Is this simply a case of do as I say, not as I do?

Perhaps another form of risk management, I won't tell them I think its an unacceptable risk and manage to get another paycheck!

[Doc]

Ah yes, but it was "back in the day" now, wasn't it? It's been quite a few years. I've done a hell of a lot of things I wouldn't suggest folks do. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It makes me educated? Perhaps a little "lucky"? But, a hypocrite? Methinks not. I don't fly singles IFR anymore. I never said I wouldn't. I have said I wouldn't for a commercial op. I could tell you some of the crap I've pulled over the years, that I would steer others clear of....but that would have to be over several beers. Cheers.

[Hot Fuel]

Thanks for the honest answer. Hypocrisy, older and wiser, more marketable, I think my statement is debateable because as I recall you didn't fit the profile commonly found flying the C208B. Meaning that you took the position at a point in your career that could hardly be called low time. Your been there, done that t-shirt was pretty faded and probably had holes in it. Uneducated or misinformed I think not...I tend to think its just an age/maturity thing. In your case you would have been well aware of the single vs twin issues but as all aviators you had mastered many of the skills and developed an attitude that it only happens to others, I'm on top of my game. As time passes and you get even longer in the tooth you start to reflect on more important things in life, family, freinds etc and with the experience you have put in your log book jobs become easier to get. You can be a little more patient in your choices. You used your previously accumulated knowledge to operate SEIFR in a manner that was safe and within your comfort zone, in one word you were the captain the buck stopped with you. To now stand on a soapbox and declare SEIFR as almost criminal...well I think its a little hypocritical. At any rate you survived and still have choices, to each his own.

[Cat Driver]

I am a firm believer that SEIFR should not be allowed for commercial passenger flying, at least not under the present rules.

And I am not being hypocritical because I have never flown single engine IFR.

[Snowgoose]

Doc,

You're a motorcycle rider, right? Ever had a passenger on the back? Wouldn't it have been safer to drive a car. Would an SUV be safer than a car? Would a tractor trailer be safer than an SUV? Would an M1 Abrams tank be safer than a tractor trailer? Where do you draw the line.

Seems like the same argument to me.

Cat, How many fatal accidents can be attributed to SEIFR? I can only think of Regency on the West Coast. Would they have all survived if it was screaming VFR? PC-12's haven't killed anyone in Canada (the one in the US was pilot error, two engines wouldn't have saved him). Only 1 PC-12 motor quit in Canada and they made changes to the system to give more warning of impending problems. All the other crashes I know of are because of icing or pilot error. (Don't know what happened in Summer Beaver) Do multi's have a better record?

Don't get me wrong, if PC-12's and Caravan's were falling out of the sky I would be standing next to you guys calling for a rehash of the SEIFR rules. But they're not, so why are you fellows so worked up?

I have 2500 hours SEIFR. Now I fly muti's. Not for the safety, but they pay more. I like 3 cheese KD rather than the lesser 1 cheese deal, have to afford it some how.

I know you two will never agree with me, so fire away

[Four1oh]

I doubt Doc could get a commercial license moving people around(for pay) on the back of his motorcycle...

[Doc]

Three cheese KD?? Where? Are my teeth long? Do these jeans make my ass look big?
Sno, funny you should mention bikes. The back seat stays empty.

My biggest problem with SEIFR, I think, is that it's being run the same as multi IFR. I would like to see the industry raise the limits. I wasn't too bad with it till I spent a couple of hours at Thunder Bay, waiting out weather, and watching PC12s blasting off with 100 feet and 3/4 of a mile. That got the "wheels" turning. I feel that's a risk not worth taking. I don't THINK TC will toss out SEIFR, no matter how much I rant about it, but, I would like to see some common sense enter into the equation. Like 800 and 2? Or, whatever, but 0 and a half....that's just stupid. It ain't the same, and it shouldn't pretend to be. And, as long as that's the mind set, I'm against it.
Thoughts?

[Snowgoose]

Sno, funny you should mention bikes. The back seat stays empty.

Is that because you are such an "agreeable" person?

[Cat Driver]

Snowgoose:

My comments re SEIFR are only my personal thoughts on the subject.

I am very much aware of the reliability of modern turbine single engine airplanes.

My opinion is formed partly from having been in the airline side of flying for many years and also having held management positions in that sector of aviation.

Therefore it is my opinion that the paying public has the right to an even level of safety when flying on airline aircraft.....

I am not trying to belittle the pilots nor the airplanes....just expressing my opinion.

By the way I'm a pussy when it comes to exposing myself to risk.

I do not fly single engine wheel airplanes over water beyond gliding distance of land.

I do not fly single engine airplanes at night X/Country.

I do not fly single engine airplanes IFR in IMC.

I'd rather be a live chicken than a dead duck.

[Snowgoose]

Snowgoose:

My comments re SEIFR are only my personal thoughts on the subject.

I am very much aware of the reliability of modern turbine single engine airplanes.

My opinion is formed partly from having been in the airline side of flying for many years and also having held management positions in that sector of aviation.

Therefore it is my opinion that the paying public has the right to an even level of safety when flying on airline aircraft.....

In the time since the last PC-12 crash an A340 and B777 have crashed with all the engines and automation in the world (there's probably more but these were big stories). My point is what is an even level of safety.

I am not trying to belittle the pilots nor the airplanes....just expressing my opinion.

By the way I'm a pussy when it comes to exposing myself to risk.

I do not fly single engine wheel airplanes over water beyond gliding distance of land.

Neither do any PC-12 pilots or Caravan pilots(minus the ones on floats) that I have ever met. The dudes who deliver PC-12's from Switzerland carry rafts with them, just in case, you know for safety.

I do not fly single engine airplanes at night X/Country.

I do not fly single engine airplanes IFR in IMC.

I'd rather be a live chicken than a dead duck.

You used to have a flight school, right? Don't you need night cross country to get a night rating? Everyone I ever met did that in a single.

[Widow]

If a majority of SEIFR accidents are attributable to pilot error, doesn't this underscore the neccessity to ensure adequate training? Not a should but a shall? How was training addressed in the position paper? Since SATOPS? After Clarenville? And since?

[Four1oh]

I am not trying to belittle the pilots nor the airplanes....just expressing my opinion.

By the way I'm a pussy when it comes to exposing myself to risk.

I do not fly single engine wheel airplanes over water beyond gliding distance of land.

Neither do any PC-12 pilots or Caravan pilots(minus the ones on floats) that I have ever met. The dudes who deliver PC-12's from Switzerland carry rafts with them, just in case, you know for safety.

OK, I'll call BS on this one. I have witnessed Keewatin pc12 drivers flying direct Coral harbour from Rankin Inlet countless times in the few years I flew in that neck of the woods. I even had a chance to query one of him on this practice. The answer was regarding the amazing gliding distance the pc12 has at fl220(even though it still would not have made land), and another lame rebuttal that there's a 15g seat on those planes. These idiots were(and maybe still are) flying out of sight of land in those planes in one of the most unsurvivable waters on earth(the Hudson Bay). If it's happening in a company I consider 'pretty good' I can only imagine the kind of practices going on elsewhere in the system.

[Hot Fuel]

I am a firm believer that SEIFR should not be allowed for commercial passenger flying, at least not under the present rules.

And I am not being hypocritical because I have never flown single engine IFR.

Cat Driver I don't think you are being hypocritical at all, you have never flown a type that fits the bill for hire. I agree with your comments about "under the present rules". I'm simply taking a polite jab at Doc and his present opinion. He had tons of time when he started doing the SEIFR thing on the Caravan.

Truth be told I don't think SEIFR should be allowed to happen under the present rules. It is beyond me that TC would allow the flight time limits to be signifigantly higher that 704/705 regs that require two crew yet the the guy bombing around all on his own can go 20 hrs more in hardball IFR and not be deemed to be fatigued. 1/2 mile and a 100 feet....weeee away we go! I understand how it came to be, the loophole was set-up to calm down the season operators but they didn't foresee the PC-12 or the C208 being used in the manner that it was. I believe there is a place for SEIFR but its in the cargo lane...the flight time rules need to be adjusted to fall in line with the 704/705 regs and the limits, particularly when hauling passengers limits should be something like 1000 & 3SM when IFR, a mile for take-off. Ops spec's available for lower when hauiling cargo only, provided the crew is trained to a higher standard.

[Snowgoose]

I am not trying to belittle the pilots nor the airplanes....just expressing my opinion.

By the way I'm a pussy when it comes to exposing myself to risk.

I do not fly single engine wheel airplanes over water beyond gliding distance of land.

Neither do any PC-12 pilots or Caravan pilots(minus the ones on floats) that I have ever met. The dudes who deliver PC-12's from Switzerland carry rafts with them, just in case, you know for safety.

OK, I'll call BS on this one. I have witnessed Keewatin pc12 drivers flying direct Coral harbour from Rankin Inlet countless times in the few years I flew in that neck of the woods. I even had a chance to query one of him on this practice. The answer was regarding the amazing gliding distance the pc12 has at fl220(even though it still would not have made land), and another lame rebuttal that there's a 15g seat on those planes. These idiots were(and maybe still are) flying out of sight of land in those planes in one of the most unsurvivable waters on earth(the Hudson Bay). If it's happening in a company I consider 'pretty good' I can only imagine the kind of practices going on elsewhere in the system.

Thanks for calling me an idiot, I can feel the love. On paper, you can glide to either shore, and that's with a wind. I don't know in practice because it never happened.

[Cat Driver]

The dudes who deliver PC-12's from Switzerland carry rafts with them, just in case, you know for safety.

Snowgoose I was trying to answer a question about commercial airline operations carrying passengers, why are you talking such nonesense as the above...for Christ sakes you think I don't know how over ocean ferry pilots live....I have been doing over ocean ferry flying since 1974, what were you flying then?

In the time since the last PC-12 crash an A340 and B777 have crashed with all the engines and automation in the world (there's probably more but these were big stories). My point is what is an even level of safety.

If single engine aircraft are so safe how come there are non flying passengers across the ocean, when they start doing that that will mean something.

You used to have a flight school, right? Don't you need night cross country to get a night rating? Everyone I ever met did that in a single

I was trying to respond in a professional manner Snowgoose and explain my thoughts on SEIFR carrying passengers...WTF does that last comment have to do with this subject?

So I will try and answer you...yes I did my night flying in a single engine airplane to get the night rating...in 1954...what were you flying then?

[Cat Driver]

Cat Driver I don't think you are being hypocritical at all, you have never flown a type that fits the bill for hire.

Hot fuel, I have never been ass gang raped either, but I feel fairly certain that I understand what it would be like well enough that I am not going to experience it just to prove a point.

No I have never flown a PC12 but I have flown the C208 VFR in Africa and found it to be a teriffic airplane ...for VFR.

As to turbines hell I cant even recall how many different types I have flown over the years in both fixed and rotary wing aircraft including heavy jets and heavy lift helicopters...by the way I have had two PT6's fail on me.....but there was another one bolted to the other wing that allowed me to continue flying.

[Doc]

Widow, I refuse to use the quote feature. I think you'll find most accidents are pilot error. Has nothing to do with SEIFR, or the number of engines, or pilots. And some are rolled up in a ball by the best trained pilots money can buy. One, or two pilots.....seems a difference not to make! That C208 in the mountains. You know the one. No pilot error there. No second engine, either.

[Widow]

I would still make the same point Doc. I have a problem with our training reqs period.

[Doc]

You can rewrite all the regs. As a matter of fact, please do. You can retrain all the pilots. Fill yer boots. MOST, the absolute majority, of ALL accidents, will ALWAYS be, pilot error. The machines ARE that good. Even the single engine ones.