Waypoints

What pilot hasn't at least secretly fancied himself an airline or charter pilot? "Ladies and gentlemen, this is Captain Jet Pilot speaking to you from the flight deck. [Did we expect he'd be calling us from the lavatory?] Today we'll be flying our Piper Warrior at an altitude of 3,500 feet. Those of you on the left side now have a nice view of the cement factory. Out the right side is a cornfield."

Well, now's your chance to be a real commercial operator ... sort of. Under a new rule published on August 6 by the FAA, you and your Warrior — or any other airplane, with a couple of equipment modifications — can fly fare-paying passengers even in instrument meteorological conditions. Of course, you could do that all along in VFR conditions. The new rule makes it possible to fly single-engine piston and turbine aircraft for hire in the IFR system.

Oh, if it were only that simple, though. The truth is, you must still operate under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the section that governs air taxis and some commuter airlines — a daunting task.

Still, after years of haggling and study, the FAA has finally blessed the idea of single-engine IFR for Part 135 operators. For charter and airline companies using single-engine aircraft in Alaska, for example, the new rule offers the chance to fly more safely in the IFR system when the weather is poor. Up until now those operators had to stay on the ground when the weather was IFR. Some of the bold (but not old) ones attempted to fly by the rules that restricted them to VFR. Those are the ones who too often ended up meeting a mountain at about 140 knots after straying into IMC while attempting to remain VFR.

What's most surprising is that the final rule doesn't limit the operations to just single-engine turbine aircraft, as many assumed that it would. Instead, the FAA cleared the way for piston singles to be used for commercial operations in IFR too. It would have been easy for the agency to permit singles to fly IFR under Part 135 and then load up the new reg with all sorts of aircraft requirements making it impractical to do so. But that's not the case — for the most part.

To operate under the new rules, the single-engine aircraft must have either two independent electrical generating sources or a standby battery capable of supplying 150 percent of the electrical loads of all required instruments and equipment necessary for "safe emergency operation" for at least an hour.

In addition, the aircraft must have two independent sources of power for the gyro instruments. A simple standby vacuum pump now common on many new aircraft should do the trick.

The operator must also use an engine trend monitoring program recommended by the engine manufacturer, if such a program exists. If not, the operator must use an FAA-approved program that includes oil analysis every 100 hours.

The single-engine aircraft must be operated by a crew of two, unless a three-axis autopilot is installed. With an autopilot, only one pilot is required. A three-axis autopilot is fairly rare in single-engine piston aircraft. Many aircraft have auto-pilots capable of controlling roll and pitch, although few incorporate a yaw damper on the rudder. In fact, of the dozens of piston singles I've flown, I can think of only a couple that have yaw dampers. However, Part 135 also requires a three-axis autopilot for twin-engine aircraft when only one pilot is onboard.

The real issue behind the new reg is safety. The FAA believes — correctly — that it is safer to allow the single-engine aircraft to participate in the IFR system than it is to shut them out when fare-paying passengers are on board, thereby exposing them to the risks of scud running at low altitude and with few options when things go wrong. In the IFR system, the aircraft will be flying higher and in communication with ATC — and often in a radar environment. If something does go wrong, the ATC system can be of great help. The altitude gives the pilot many more options.

AOPA, which commented in favor of the new rule, noted that single-engine accident data show that the incidence of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) under marginal visibility conditions greatly exceeds the rate of engine failure.

Until October 1978, Part 135 operators could fly single-engine aircraft IFR as long as they could safely descend to VFR conditions. A rule change in 1978 reversed that.Since then, a single-engine aircraft could be used for commercial passenger flights only in "limited IFR," which, in all practicality, meant only in VFR conditions. A pilot could take off into IMC if VFR conditions could be reached within 15 minutes. Or the flight could continue if unforecast IFRconditions were encountered. Those exceptions will be deleted from the regs once the new rule becomes effective. All along, single-engine aircraft could be used for commercial flights in IFR if only cargo was on board. In the FAA's mindset, aircraft, pilots, and packages apparently are expendable. Fare-paying passengers are not.

The new rule will take effect on May 3, 1998. However, in the next month or so the FAA is expected to adopt a special federal aviation regulation (SFAR) that will permit companies that have properly equipped aircraft to begin single-engine IFR operations right away.

On December 3, 1996, after looking at much accident data and hearing comments from several working groups and the National Transportation Safety Board, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that outlined the new rule. It then accepted public comments on the proposal. The August 6 final rule reflects a few changes based on the public comments.

In its summary of the rule, the FAA notes that VFR flight into IMC "is the most significant cause of fatal accidents in Alaska and is a serious problem for single-engine aircraft nationally." According to the NTSB, such flights in Alaska accounted for 67 percent of the fatal commuter airline accidents and 47 percent of the fatal air taxi accidents between 1988 and 1993. The NTSB encouraged the FAA to proceed with changing the regs to allow commercial operation of single-engine turbine aircraft in IFR and to consider extending it to piston-powered aircraft as well.

An FAA study concluded that between 1983 and 1996 there were 67 accidents in on-demand operations that involved VFR flight into IFR conditions; single-engine aircraft were involved in 75 percent of those accidents. The agency did not have the data to determine the accident rate.

Since 1993, Canada has permitted the use of single-engine turbine aircraft in IFR passenger flying, and several other countries are considering it, as well. However, the United States is the only one so far to permit the use of piston-powered aircraft in those conditions.

The FAA received more than 200 comments on the proposed rule. Only seven of those commenting opposed the rule. Among them were the Air Line Pilots Association, the union that represents many pilots for the major airlines, and Raytheon Aircraft. Raytheon produces the Beechcraft and Hawker lines of aircraft. Among its products, of course, are King Airs, the twin-engine turboprops that have been the mainstay of the charter fleet for years. According to the FAA, both organizations "oppose the rule as a whole, on the grounds that VFR flight into IMC is illegal and could be prevented by other means." They state that "the FAA's solution is inherently unsafe." The two propose that VFR flight in IMC can be prevented by increasing weather minimums or imposing penalties for illegal operations. In responding to those comments, the FAA notes that, in fact, it does have a quite extensive system in place to punish pilots who break the rules — at least those who survive the experience.

One commenter, according to the FAA, states that the proposal "would result in slower, single-engine aircraft at metropolitan airports, taxing the ATC system, and in more inexperienced pilots flying in hazardous conditions. To overcome these problems, they suggest that any aircraft that cannot maintain 140 knots on final approach should be excluded from Class B airspace and that pilot qualifications should include 2,000 hours of flight time."

Please take a moment now to roll your eyes and sigh. Can't we all just get along here? The FAA gives that comment a one-sentence rebuttal, noting that it has no evidence that the new rule would overburden the ATC system.

The FAA is to be congratulated for finally getting this new rule out. It will increase safety for pilots and passengers, improve air service to rural communities that can't support the use of larger twin-engine aircraft, and probably cause some operators to purchase some new single-engine airplanes such as the Piper Saratoga and Mirage, Cessna 206 and Caravan, Pilatus PC-XII, and the Socata TBM 700.

Save a few lives, sell some new airplanes. Maybe those guys from the FAA really are here to help us.