SEIFR risk factors are what??

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:22 am

Aside from the obvious, ice, what are the contributing factors to SEIFR accidents? It seems that TC is hell bent to stop it. The PT6 on the front of a van, as far as I know, has never had an in flight fire and they very rarely quit running. Most of the time it's a higher time pilot driving, take for example the tragedy in YWG. What's the deal?

tailgunner · Post by **tailgunner** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:22 am

OK, I'll bite.
As I see it, SEIFR allows pilots the opportunity to plan and fly on IFR routes that may be a direct route between two points. This may take the SE AC away from any , or most of an emergency diversion landing spot.
While I agree that Multi - AC also face the same factors, having the second engine does allow for a reasonable chance of diverting safely. Take a flight from Prince George BC to say Vancouver, any IFR AC which has the capability of flying at the enroute altitudes may fly this route. However, the twin may be able to divert to another Airport safely , fly an approach and land , whilst the SEIFR does not have that option. I know that the PC12 Harem will jump up and down saying that they can glide for 80 miles etc... but if the valleys are IMC I still contend that they are SOL, whereas a twin, say BE 200 , could divert all the way east to CYYC, CYQF, CYYJ, CYXX, CYVR, etc.... If the SEIFR AC were required to follow vfr routes , ie highways etc. through the mountains the risk difference has been narrowed.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:57 am

It seems that TC is hell bent to stop it.

Really? What is your source?

bugspray · Post by **bugspray** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:25 am

It would be one of the only smart things TC has ever done if they would finally stop/eliminate SEIFR. I just don't understand how many people have to die to prove a point.

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:34 am

I guess I am referring to SEIFR turbine ops. These days it is pretty hard to get piston SE ops so let's forget about that. My contention is that turbine engines so rarely quit that there is no issue. Are there more engine out accidents with SE airplanes per capita? If so why?

CID, it is well known that TC is considering offing SEIFR ops. What is my source? Transport Canada is my source.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:50 am

I guess I am referring to SEIFR turbine ops. These days it is pretty hard to get piston SE ops so let's forget about that.

There is no such thing as SEIFR piston ops. As far as non IFR SE ops, there are plenty of such operators in Canada.

CID, it is well known that TC is considering offing SEIFR ops. What is my source? Transport Canada is my source.

So your source is yourself. OK everyone, TC hates SEIFR because marktheone says so. Not a very authoritative source in my opinion.

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:59 am

Ahh CID, good to have you back. I am trying to keep this thread sane, help me out will you please.

Our POI, and other people in TC, like the regional superintendant, that I have spoken to, off the record have said this.

The point of this thread is why. It is entirely possible that I am not up on the subject as I have never been employed flying SEIFR. Always twin. Are there a lot of crashes due to engine failure? I would think that a PT6 on a BE10 would be no more likely to fail than one on C208.

So CID, if you can keep it in your pants, you seem to be fairly educated on the topic. I am curious.

ramp_monkey · Post by **ramp_monkey** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:27 am

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/02 ... rfrm05.htm

http://www.aero-excel.com/safety.htm

Just some cool links on the topic. I would not fly over mountains IMC in a single unless it was turbine and I believe thats Transports stand on this matter as well because the only approved singles are turbine. I have not seen any indication that this will change in the future as these planes will just improve in reliability as time passes.

Just my two cents

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:19 pm

A PC12 can glide eighty miles? That would be a lonely eighty miles. An eighty mile glide...followed by a dead stick landing? Gee, that sounds like a hoot! Of course, your seat would be gone.....because your ass would have eaten it!

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:26 pm

Just ask Captain Piche of Transat. How long was that glide?

ramp_monkey, are you saying you would feel comfortable flying over the rocks IMC in a single turbine?

Wasn't Me · Post by **Wasn't Me** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:42 pm

I think your missing the point, SEIFR - the problem is not ice but the lack of a second engine if One fails. Any body read the SE engine failure procedures lately. It starts with "our Father " and ends with " leave controlled airspace horizontaly if you can and crash".

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:00 pm

CID wrote:
There is no such thing as SEIFR piston ops. As far as non IFR SE ops, there are plenty of such operators in Canada.

CID, it is well known that TC is considering offing SEIFR ops. What is my source? Transport Canada is my source.
So your source is yourself. OK everyone, TC hates SEIFR because marktheone says so. Not a very authoritative source in my opinion.

There is such a thing SEIFR as piston ops. Anyone in Canada who is rated to do so may pilot an IFR certified single piston in IMC. I've done it. Most people who have an IFR rating have done it. If it were illegal, why can you certify a 172 for IFR??? The restriction is for commercial flights. I realise this is nit-picking, but you started it. If you're going to harp on technicallities, don't make blanket statements yourself.

As for your opinion of the source... COMMON KNOWLEGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's legitimate in University papers, it's legitmate in a court of law, it's legitimate in this discussion. What is invalid is your 'opinion.'

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:36 pm

Can't Choppers go IFR???

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:47 pm

Can't Choppers go IFR???

Not single engine ones.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:54 pm

Other than the obvious fact that there only is one engine, what's the cause of the sudden rash of anti-single engine ops sentiment comming from? Other than the possible engine failure in the Texas Caravan, what other accidents have been caused by the fact there is only one engine? Summer Beaver.....engine was running...black hole? Low time pilot? Company pressure? I dont know.
Pellie Island.....freezing rain...overweight...pilot made repeated attempts to become airbourne....engine was running....poor decision making? Perhaps?
YWG Caravan.....engine was running...ice, or wing contamination? Or a combination? Nothing to do with the number of engines. I dont know?
I think NAS lost one....about a year ago....contaminated wing? Engine was running. I dont know.
The fact that these were single engine airplanes has nothing to do with the fact that they had accidents. If these accidents had occured with Travel Airs, or Barons, would we be singing the "Lets ban the twin piston IFR" blues? Caravans fly more miles than any piston twin...every year, but there are a lot of piston twins out there...in the bush....with two engines![/list]

arctic navigator · Post by **arctic navigator** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:59 pm

but you can go SE IFR in a piston commercially as well... you just cant carry passengers doing so.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:01 pm

Night as well...with no pax?

stef · Post by **stef** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:48 pm

NAS did not lose one about a year ago.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:21 pm

Nakina Air Service did not have a misshap? With a Caravan? Okay, was it more than a year ago? Am I thinking of another?

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:05 pm

If these accidents had occured with Travel Airs, or Barons, would we be singing the "Lets ban the twin piston IFR" blues?

We don't have to. Travel Aires can't maintain on one so they aren't eligible for commercial passenger carrying Air Taxi ops.

Barons are much the same story. They can maintain on one but not with any useful load. Not a bad bag run airplane though.

There is such a thing SEIFR as piston ops.

Thanks for the clarification Mellow_pilot. That is correct as long as you are either non-commercial or not carrying passengers. I should have been clearer.

As for your opinion of the source... COMMON KNOWLEGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's legitimate in University papers, it's legitmate in a court of law, it's legitimate in this discussion. What is invalid is
your 'opinion.'

I don't think I used the word "invalid". I said it wasn't authoritative in my opinion. Common knowledge means that everyone is aware of it. I question whether that is the case. I would consider it hearsay rather than common knowledge. In other words, unverified information or a rumour.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:20 pm

At the risk of bing acussed of "baiting" you CID, the whole point I was TRYING to make was that all these airplanes went down two engines! And all two of these engines were running at the time.....as was the case with the Caravans, with the exception of the Texas accident?
Therefore....Caravans have crashed due to no fault of the fact they are singles, and the Aztecs, Barons, DC3's, Beech18's, Islanders have also crashed due to no fault of the engines.......and....there are a hell of a lot more pranged light twins littering the countryside than there are Caravans. Funny thing is.....there are far more Caravans flying than light twins......
And, CID....I hadn't realized the Texas Fed-Ex machine, or for that matter, the Fed-EX Winnipeg machine were involved in hauling passengers, IFR??

The Old Fogducker · Post by **The Old Fogducker** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:25 pm

Doc:

I fear that emotions are getting the better of you on the last post. I'd sure need to see some independent stats that show Caravans fly more miles in Canada than all of the Navajos, 402's, Barons, etc. put together.

Fog

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:27 pm

Boy oh boy, I wonder if Doc and CID end up living together after all this togetherness.?

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:32 pm

Doc has the grasp of what I was asking here. When SEIFR airplanes crash it seems that the engine is almost always running. Therefore if he had six engines, or eight, it still would have crashed. One would assume that TC must have some kind of hard evidence in the push to ban SEIFR ops. Does anyone know what this is?

Mellow pilot i was referring to 702-703 ops of course. If you want to take people up IFR in a 172 IFR that's perfectly legal, non commercial of course.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:43 pm

Marktheone....that's my point.