The End of SEIFR?

[Go Guns]

So honest operators who have followed the rules .Done their maintenance to the manufactures standards .Trained their pilots .Operate their aircraft By the book get painted by the same brush as those who do not ???
Why should the honest operators have to suffer because of people who do not fix or operate their planes to the applicable standards ???

The engine didn't fail because of poor maintenance. It failed because of a manufacturing defect.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If you have ever flown a 208 though you would know it handles quite a bit of ice.

What do you consider " Quite a bit? "

Its not the plane that scares me. Its the guy at the controls.

True an idiot can kill you in any airplane.

[Go Guns]

At 9000ft with 1000ft ceiling, you know your going to break out

Not where I flew the Caravan. You might break out.... if you managed to blindly find a valley, which had the same elevation and weather as the airport you departed from.

And really, if you think it's only safe if there is a 1000' buffer, then why isn't that the rule? Cause I'm telling you, I think you would be hard pressed to find a large group of Caravan operators that would be willing to abide by that rule on their own.

[KAG]

KAG how would you feel about your friends and family getting in an SUV? I hear they have a higher rollover
rate than cars. Or do you tell WestJet that you refuse to go to Washington because they have a higher murder
rate than Calgary and you're scared of being murdered?

.

If you blow your engine in a SUV you pull over, you don't have that option in a plane. Also planes have a much higher roll rate then any SUV.
Also we don't fly to Washington...yet.

[Mustard]

I didn't measure, ., but it was about an inch and a half.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I didn't measure, ., but it was about an inch and a half.

Yeh, that is quite a bit.....

I won't ask how you got it because anyone can can inadvertently fly into icing without any warning.

[Four1oh]

"We are studying their conclusion and we will have a response within the next 90 days."

Typical response.....stonewall.

But what else do you expect from wankers?

Actually, I think 90 days is 'light speed' for a beauracracy...

[Doc]

I'm totally with KAG on this issue. I don't allow any of my family to fly on either a PC12 or a Caravan. I strongly urge my friends to follow the same line of thinking.
It has NOTHING to do with the roll over rates of SUV's. Or, if the price of eggs in China is worth the wear and tear on a chicken's ass.
I don't like to see statements like "A caravan will carry a lot of ice." I'm not going to argue this point. I just don't like to see this kind of statement. Why? Because some kid will take it as gospel.
I know as well as most of you, just how reliable a PT6 is. I don't think that's the issue. If an engine failure will result in the deaths of passengers, then one is not enough.
The traveling public is made up mostly of morons, who will board pretty much anything with wings. This shouldn't be a death sentence. Departing with 100 foot ceilings on one engine, can be just that.

[Four1oh]

So honest operators who have followed the rules .Done their maintenance to the manufactures standards .Trained their pilots .Operate their aircraft By the book get painted by the same brush as those who do not ???
Why should the honest operators have to suffer because of people who do not fix or operate their planes to the applicable standards ???


Is Transport Canada going to ban automobiles because someone drives beyond thier cababilty on bald tires in a vehicle that has not been maintained ???

The short answer to your first question is : Yes. The system is flawed, IMHO, and it doesn't matter how outstanding an operator is, it's still only one engine being flown IFR with passengers.

The short answer to your second question: Why should people die because of one engine failing, regardless of how 'nice' the operator or manufacturer is? Ask the politician or bureaucrat that approved SEIFR in the first place why they approved it!

The short answer to your third question is: It is already illegal, and you can be fined for driving with bald tires, what's your point?

[Dog]

I'm totally with KAG on this issue. I don't allow any of my family to fly on either a PC12 or a Caravan. I strongly urge my friends to follow the same line of thinking.
It has NOTHING to do with the roll over rates of SUV's. Or, if the price of eggs in China is worth the wear and tear on a chicken's ass.
I don't like to see statements like "A caravan will carry a lot of ice." I'm not going to argue this point. I just don't like to see this kind of statement. Why? Because some kid will take it as gospel.
I know as well as most of you, just how reliable a PT6 is. I don't think that's the issue. If an engine failure will result in the deaths of passengers, then one is not enough.
The traveling public is made up mostly of morons, who will board pretty much anything with wings. This shouldn't be a death sentence. Departing with 100 foot ceilings on one engine, can be just that.

What do you fly Doc? Are there any single points of failure on it? EVERY aircraft has potential single points of failure. I don't buy a purely emotional response as a valid one. Your reply reminds me of a I won't fly in helicopters because there are so many moving parts argument. Do you directly compete with SEIFR machines in your job?

Flying will alway be inherently dangerous. Therefor it'll always be a game of risk management. I think that one failure of an engine per 100 000 flight hours to acceptable when you consider how few time that would actually mean it would kill everyone. You would be far more likely to be killed by human error in that case. 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.

The bottom line here is that, once again, TC made a rule and failed to enforce it. They got spoon fed bad data and ate it up without question. That's really nothing new and it wont change until there is some personal accountability in TC.

[Doc]

That's the best question yet. Who was the absolute moron who approved SEIFR with passengers to the same limits as multi engine IFR if the first place? Can you say "Wrongful death suits."? It was the government who put the flying public in this position in the first place. The public was never educated as to the risk involved. If I wouldn't, as an "informed" consumer, set foot on a PC12 as a passenger, why would you expect the paying, uneducated public to take the risk? Were the same (of very similar criteria) stringent tests used to establish the suitability of an aircraft for ETOPS not used for SEIFR?
I'm betting, that if all the guys that are flying PC12's today, were told.."Okay kids, tomorrow we're getting King Airs......", we wouldn't be getting all the PC12 drivers on here telling us how bloody wonderful their PC12's are?

[FL_CH]

It all adds up. Surely there is enough risk as it is (human factors, weather, other traffic, single points of failure etc), and then you add even more by having one engine.

The only point of SEIFR is money saving, isn't it? And YOU are paying for it each time you're going flying it, by exposing your life to greater risk just so that somebody has more cash in the pocket

[Four1oh]

bingo!

Once again, I'd like to ask this question:

If it's so safe, why aren't there a pile of 705 operators out there flying single engine airplanes? Then why is it ok for 703/704 but not 705?

This argument is friggin retarded, and i'm mostly pissed that it was ever approved in the first place.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

That's really nothing new and it wont change until there is some personal accountability in TC.

Which will never happen.

[Doc]

Dog. What is a acceptable level of risk for you may not be an acceptable level of risk for someone else. Do you see government employees flying in single engine aircraft? I don't mean contract workers. Actual government employees?
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. The fact they could fall and die in the shower is out of my control. The fact they could die in the first PC12 engine failure in modern memory isn't.

[Red Line]

Need advice!

I just started flying and am hearing a lot of bad things about single-engine airplanes flying in cloud. Should I be weary of operators that only fly single-engine airplanes? I want a job, but more importantly want to make sure it's a safe one.

Thanks!

[PopnChipper]

The RCMP, and I think the OPP, fly brass around in PC-12's all the time. They even do their SEIFR as SPIFR.

From the perspective of somebody who has primarily operated in North Manitoba and North Western Ontario, what is the difference between a PC-12 or a Caravan gliding into trees/muskeg/a lake when compared to, say, a 206/207 or 210 or any of those airplanes on wheels? As a matter of fact, when I am 60 n.m from any airport out there on a crappy weather day, I would much rather be up in the flight levels single engine in a PC-12,then 500 ft, at most, off the trees as "VFR". At least with with altitude to play with you can attempt restarts, with those single pistons, 60 miles or more from anywhere at 500 ft, you are really up the creek without a paddle, yet nobody seems to have a problem with that.

Don't get my wrong if you put a PA-31 and a PC-12 in front of me and say "you're going to Shamattawa. Which one?" I'll take the 'ho, but if the choices are between a PC-12 and a C-206, and FL 240, IFR, compared to 1500 ASL, "VFR", I'll take the PC-12. I have already scared myself enough at retardedly low alts in single piston environments.

[Unusual Attitude]

Do you see government employees flying in single engine aircraft? I don't mean contract workers. Actual government employees?

Does the RCMP count? Government workers certainly spend a lot of time in Single Otters between Victoria and Vancouver. I know that's not IFR but on a lot of days over the Georgia Strait an engine failure would have the same consequences.
Having said that, the older I get, the more of a chicken I become and the more I like sitting between two engines as opposed to behind one.

[Mustard]

The RCMP fly in Pc12s up north even!

They must be crazy hey Doc?

[Mustard]

And as you know Doc the lawyers fly PC12s all the time.

[Dog]

Dog. What is a acceptable level of risk for you may not be an acceptable level of risk for someone else. Do you see government employees flying in single engine aircraft? I don't mean contract workers. Actual government employees?
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. The fact they could fall and die in the shower is out of my control. The fact they could die in the first PC12 engine failure in modern memory isn't.

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?

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. Don't forget that there are people deciding what is reasonable risk in just about everything aviation related. Setting the bar is one thing, letting people slip under it is another.

[rd1331]

This is retarded. You are all upset saying 1 engine failure in a Caravan is a death sentence. Well 1 engine failure at V1 off a short runway in a metro is a death sentence too. Frig i'm horrible at spelling. If you are all so upset about that, why are you not fighting for Balance Fields with the metro's and other stuff out there. Without balanced fields requirements all you metro drivers will probably be doing 110kts into trees. Hmmmm. I can figure it out pretty easily. At least in the van it will be at about 60kts or so if done right, and the van has crash bulkheads built into the airframe. As far as i know there is nothing on the metro.

You fly the airplane smart and you don't get hurt. I would be fine with TC requiring 1000ft ceilings for flying IFR. As someone said I would rather be at 9000ft or FL240 than at 500ft running the ...

[Grey_Wolf]

Any thoughts on getting rid of VFR OTT along with SEIFR while we're at it?

If you can't see below you, as to where your going to put it, with an engine out ... it's not going to matter

[KAG]

Any thoughts on getting rid of VFR OTT along with SEIFR while we're at it?

If you can't see below you, as to where your going to put it, with an engine out ... it's not going to matter

I am, also it's my opinion that night VFR flying in a black hole (Again S.S.A) is IFR and should also be restricted to those with a valid IFR.

[Doc]

The RCMP and the OPP actually "own" the aircraft. They're kind of stuck with it.
Bottom line. SEIRF with passengers is circling the drain. And, I for one, will be happy to see it go.
I don't know why everybody jumps on me over this issue. I have an opinion. So do you. I'm not the only one who thinks it should come to an end. If there was to be a high profile engine failure tonight in a Caravan, or a PC12, I suspect a few of you would cross over to my way of thinking?
Still haven't seen a list of government employees (who don't actually "own" one) who fly on single engine aircraft.....

You see, if I want to rent a 150 and file IFR, say from YWG and OSH, that's my business. I'm willing to accept the risk. I ride a motorcycle. I'm willing to accept the risk. But nobody is riding as a paying passenger. Well, Okay, maybe ass, grass or gas....nobody rides free..

rd1331, I think higher limits for SEIFR would be a great idea. Last time I mentioned that, the children jumped down my throat. VFR at both ends with a thousand feet enroute? I'd buy that. I still wouldn't be on board. But it would be a huge step in the right direction. But you will never see it. To much of an "all or nothing" mentality.

I'm with KAG on the night VFR thing as well. Night VFR with passengers should be treated as IFR. Maybe even without passengers.