Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Sign in to follow this  
flee

Proposed merger of two airlines: Can everyone fly now?

Recommended Posts

Guest

A quick check online also reveals that back in 2008 paris airshow, hornbill was trying to move completely from SE single engined helicopters to twin engine helicopters due to engine reliability issues. It is now clear that even a GA company like hornbill do not want to risk flying a single engine machine into the jungles of sarawak.

The jungle is so dense US military assisted in the SAR mission. And it took 2 weeks for the search party to locate the missing bell206 long ranger. Further reinforcing twin engine operations over sarawak and sabah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Silverfly07 said:

A quick check online also reveals that back in 2008 paris airshow, hornbill was trying to move completely from SE single engined helicopters to twin engine helicopters due to engine reliability issues. It is now clear that even a GA company like hornbill do not want to risk flying a single engine machine into the jungles of sarawak.

The jungle is so dense US military assisted in the SAR mission. And it took 2 weeks for the search party to locate the missing bell206 long ranger. Further reinforcing twin engine operations over sarawak and sabah.

You mentioned GA can take the calculated risk of using single engine fixed wing aircraft. But as of today there are 0 single engine fixed wing aircrafts operating for GAs or commercial airliners in Malaysia and neither any of them are interested in ordering any. Not in Sabah Air, Layang-Layang, Hornbill, not in Westar. Sabah air is also keen in adding a new viking or dornier ng to the fleet but never mentioning anything on any single engine planes. The last time i heard Sabah air had issues claiming insurance the bell 206 crash that killed the pilot til today. Insurance does not want to payout cause they know the single engine is not reliable. We also have the bell 412 crash that was chartered by Petronas that also entered into insurance dispute and quite a few deceased occupants unable to claim full payout as well because they sign the indemnity form which is common in GA. Petronas charter nowadays are fully fixed on using Agusta Westland twin engine helicopters. Puma heli gearbox and engine reliability issue and few ga operators went a bust like MHS and Awan inspirasi as Petronas and Shell wont use the helicopters 

The only exception of single engine operator is flying schools and flying clubs where pilots must take the single engine syllabus or to fill up their single engine hours.

It further adds up to the issue where more funds is needed for RAS as usual. Unless somehow the risk of higher ocurances of crashing and the issue of tech crew to leaving the company due to pay dispute is removed, Twin engine fixed wing turboprop and helicopter is here to stay.

Edited by jahur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
12 minutes ago, jahur said:

You mentioned GA can take the calculated risk of using single engine fixed wing aircraft. But as of today there are 0 single engine fixed wing aircrafts operating for GAs or commercial airliners in Malaysia and neither any of them are interested in ordering any. Not in Sabah Air, Layang-Layang, Hornbill, not in Westar. Sabah air is also keen in adding a new viking or dornier ng to the fleet but never mentioning anything on any single engine planes.

The only exception of single engine operator is flying schools and flying clubs where pilots must take the single engine syllabus or to fill up their single engine hours.

It further adds up to the issue where more funds is needed for RAS as usual. Unless somehow the risk of higher ocurances of crashing and the issue of tech crew to leaving the company due to pay dispute is removed, Twin engine fixed wing turboprop and helicopter is here to stay.

In malaysia by large only flying clubs, flying schools and police air wing which is also part of GA are willing... other than that, you do have a few more GA companies with SE aircraft. Example, Prima Air... but take note PRIMA air only operates out of langkawi and coastal areas. And because they fly over water, it is a CAAM requirement for everyone on board to don life vest at all times. Thats a carefully calculated risk where you have many ditching spots. 

But in borneo its a different ball game. Yes twin engines are there to stay, especially if you have paying customers. 

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Jahur & Silverfly07 for the inputs ! I stand corrected on the Single vs Multi Engine pov for Borneo operations.

I guess my main  gripe with RAS is how inconvenient it is for the user, as a area with a ATR72 capable airport cannot be that "rural" (Except Mulu maybe?). Didn't know there was a study previously by DCA and State Govt for floaters, would have been interesting to know what was concluded there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Timothy said:

Thank you Jahur & Silverfly07 for the inputs ! I stand corrected on the Single vs Multi Engine pov for Borneo operations.

I guess my main  gripe with RAS is how inconvenient it is for the user, as a area with a ATR72 capable airport cannot be that "rural" (Except Mulu maybe?). Didn't know there was a study previously by DCA and State Govt for floaters, would have been interesting to know what was concluded there.

 

the "Rural" area with airport served by Twin Otter right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
11 hours ago, Timothy said:

Thank you Jahur & Silverfly07 for the inputs ! I stand corrected on the Single vs Multi Engine pov for Borneo operations.

I guess my main  gripe with RAS is how inconvenient it is for the user, as a area with a ATR72 capable airport cannot be that "rural" (Except Mulu maybe?). Didn't know there was a study previously by DCA and State Govt for floaters, would have been interesting to know what was concluded there.

 

Hi Timothy,

Rural here will be example, the routes served "mainly"  by the Vikings. They have Bario, long akah, long seridan, bakelalan, long lellang, long banga. These destinations, the airport itself is considered as very rural.

In the case of Mulu (as an example), asfaik they still need ATRs, pre covid19 the flights to mulu are mostly full of PRC & european tourist. And cargo was always 100% due to the fact that there is a Marriot resort there that requires daily replenishment. So a viking/single engine aircraft won't cut it. 

Mulu again, itself is not that rural/remote but the routing is considered as (Very Rural). Same goes to kudat - sandakan routes. Reason being if your are flying a Single Engine there, if the engine fails midway... there is literally almost no roads / paddy fields / any sort of clearing to ditch the plane. 

West malaysia in comparison, i have flown single engines from up north langkawi - perlis - kedah - ipoh - pulau pangkor pulau tioman all the way down south to johor and towards east coast of kota bharu & terrenganu. Everywhere is a potential ditching / crash landing site. There are plenty clearings / openings, we just got to calculate our rate of descent and plan our " dog legs " accordingly. In borneo like Mulu... there is none 🤐.  its all virgin forest trees down there with hilly and  mountainous / high terrain area troughout inland sarawak (Bario airfield itself is around 3500ft) plus the crocodile infested rivers. So a water ditching in sarawak is always a no.

 

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes, from my point of view Malaysian STOL ports or rural airports are generally better equipped nowadays compared to indonesia, brazil etc...

But Not the 1. Routing 2. Weather & 3.Terrain encountered during flight. That is what counts to determine the usage of single engine vs twin engines aircraft.

You can fly Single Engine in remote areas, provided ideally the crew and off station ground crew need to undergo a (3 days 2 nights jungle survival training every year.) Been there done that and got the certification. 😂 if Mw were to fly SE aircraft, their crew and technicians/off station ground staff's SEP syllabus will be interesting. Hahaha... 

It is just like those off shore oil rig helicopter crew & passengers. They need to undergo HUET egress, helicopter underwater escape training.

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note that they fly a lot of single engined aircraft in Alaska. I don't know what kind of standards the FAA imposes on those operations. However, Alaska also has hostile terrain and weather conditions, especially in winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flee said:

It is interesting to note that they fly a lot of single engined aircraft in Alaska. I don't know what kind of standards the FAA imposes on those operations. However, Alaska also has hostile terrain and weather conditions, especially in winter.

I think it could be something to do with the category / purpose of the flight.

If it's private purpose for personal use go ahead, fly single engine across the ocean.

If public transport where fare paying passengers are involved then definitely the law/requirements will be "upped"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, flee said:

It is interesting to note that they fly a lot of single engined aircraft in Alaska. I don't know what kind of standards the FAA imposes on those operations. However, Alaska also has hostile terrain and weather conditions, especially in winter.

Insurance is one of the main issue in Asean for aviation. Lot of the wreckage back in the hangar i used to work still up to today has not been settled. While a lot of people in developed countries have proper premium for catastrophic accidents. But even with that twin engine turboprops like otters and Dorniers are still the main pipeline used by commercial operators in Alaska unless its purely on call charter. Also note on winter heavy cancelation and service reduction usually occurs. 

Edited by jahur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 hours ago, shumway1976 said:

I think it could be something to do with the category / purpose of the flight.

If it's private purpose for personal use go ahead, fly single engine across the ocean.

If public transport where fare paying passengers are involved then definitely the law/requirements will be "upped"

Yes 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...