It was meant in the context that the regulator was, for decades, of the opinion, that it’s no problem to allow CAT AOC ops in twin pistons, however, not in single turbines.
Snoopy wrote:
It was meant in the context that the regulator was, for decades, of the opinion, that it’s no problem to allow CAT AOC ops in twin pistons, however, not in single turbines.
And I agree with them. Single point of failure (SPoF). Yes, you could fly commercial passenger on the MEP that can’t really sustain an engine failure as well (which should be regulated by a xAA), but my problem with SETs is that if there was any manufacturing defect, you are screwed. Should be OK for NCO/NCC, but for CAT – I’m not sure it is adequate. In the end, if you (as a customer) know what you want, you just hire a PC12 and two pilots, and all is good. Multi-Engine requirement for CAT appears to be not such an unreasonable ask, so that the unsuspecting customers would always have no SPoF (as they could not be pressured into a SE flight via “that aircraft is down, but we have a BETTER one, although single-engine” route), and more knowledgeable would just go for PC12+crew.
I get that, but its a bit strong to be calling aircraft like the BN Islander , death traps. They still serve and have served around the world perfectly safely as passenger carriers especially to out of the way places with grass or sand runways.
But at the same time the Cessna Grand Caravan for instance is great at carrying passengers into short, hard runway Island airports like Ouessant LFEA and in the past Isle d’Yeu LFEY.
Finistair carry about 4000 passengers a year in its Grand Caravan.
So the DGAC don’t appear to have a problem with SET passenger service as the Ouessant/Brest route has been going many years now. I can’t remember how many.
So the problem you refer to must be individual NAAs.
None of the things that frustrates me about GA here are solvable with tech. They are all people problems. My main frustrations are:
@alioth all the things you describe are country specific. The big difference between the US and Europe is that the USA is a collection of states coming together as one country whereas Europe is a collection of independant nations coming together as one union.
All the things you list are the same, for the most part, in France as they are in the USA.
alioth wrote:
None of the things that frustrates me about GA here are solvable with tech. They are all people problems. My main frustrations are:
alioth, I think that is the reality of NIMBYs around – opening hours and weird procedures reflect the environment, and the PPR requirment is a safety measure that allows the airfield to brief the visitors on the procedures. Annoying like hell, but not sure if this ever changes.
arj1 wrote:
alioth, I think that is the reality of NIMBYs around – opening hours and weird procedures reflect the environment, and the PPR requirment is a safety measure that allows the airfield to brief the visitors on the procedures. Annoying like hell, but not sure if this ever changes.
That’s very true. The strange thing is that people apparently worry less about “safety measures” in the USA, while litigation is (generally speaking) much more of an issue there compared to Europe.
One of the first things I did after becoming “aeroclub president” was doing away with the general PPR requirement at my home airfield. Motivated, of course, by safety and environmental concerns, but in reality pointless. (Of course, the chairman of a democratic aeroclub can’t decide these things him/herself, but you can set the agenda…)
The strange thing is that people apparently worry less about “safety measures” in the USA, while litigation is (generally speaking) much more of an issue there compared to Europe
It’s not so strange. Responsibility is a personal issue in the US. It is either individually accepted or it is expected of another individual/entity on an ad hoc common sense basis. It is less so considered a function of a regulatory ‘safety system’, except in the sense that the court system functions to apportion responsibility between individuals according to rule of law.
In other words if you operate on the basis that the most effective balance between a systematic approach and individuality is closer to the individual side, with only the basics covered by a ‘safety system’ you need the court system to work out individual cases more often, not less often.
Silvaire wrote:
Responsibility is a personal issue in the US. It is either individually accepted or it is expected of another individual/entity on an ad hoc common sense basis. It is less so considered a function of a regulatory ‘safety system’, except in the sense that the court system functions to apportion responsibility between individuals according to rule of law.
Hmmm… The history of American consumer product liability regulations seems to show a trend clearly opposite to what you say. But at least you are right in not putting the word “litigation” in the same sentence with “common sense”.
but my problem with SETs is that if there was any manufacturing defect, you are screwed. Should be OK for NCO/NCC, but for CAT – I’m not sure it is adequate. In the end, if you (as a customer) know what you want, you just hire a PC12 and two pilots, and all is good. Multi-Engine requirement for CAT appears to be not such an unreasonable ask, so that the unsuspecting customers would always have no SPoF (as they could not be pressured into a SE flight via “that aircraft is down, but we have a BETTER one, although single-engine” route), and more knowledgeable would just go for PC12+crew.
So a mep at MTOW on a hot day does a take off and enters low IMC and a manufacturing defect takes out an engine right then. What happens? Flight to the crash site.
What’s the failure rate of a piston engine vs turbine again?
Just for completeness, theoretically SET IMC AOC CAT ops can be done single pilot.
