Regulatory restrictions, costs, and operator and pilot mentality all have combined to serve as a disincentive for IFR flight in single-engine helicopters despite the increasing incidence of inadvertent flight into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and controlled flight into terrain (CFIT).
Helicopter Association International (HAI) president and CEO James Viola recently noted that 33 percent of U.S. accidents and 21 fatalities have been attributed to unintended IMC in 2019 alone.
Most single-engine helicopters are certified as FAR Part 27 normal category rotorcraft, which generally have less stringent certification standards than Part 29 transport category rotorcraft. However, for IFR certification of Part 27 rotorcraft, the FAA applies the same reliability requirements as Part 29, which means that additional backup systems that are standard on transport category were needed on normal category rotorcraft.
The costs associated with additional equipment such as a stability augmentation system (SAS) and a backup electrical power system were the main driving forces behind single-engine helicopters not being IFR approved. Until recently, the costs of such systems were prohibitive, but new low-cost but capable SAS from Garmin, Genesys Aerosystems, and Thales are changing that paradigm. Obviously, retrofitting an older single-engine helicopter with the same redundant systems found on transport-category helicopters—including dual hydraulics, dual stability augmentation systems, and dual pitot-static systems, among others, would be a significant engineering and manufacturing challenge.
Because a change in FAA policy made in 1999 imposed the stricter reliability requirements—based on numerical safety analysis (Advisory Circular 27-1B)— no new single-engine rotorcraft have been approved in decades to fly IFR until the Leonardo TH-119 (U.S. Navy TH-73A) received approval in July 2019, and after that Bell 407GXi.
The TH-119 and the 407GXi marked a positive step forward; however, these were both seeking U.S. Navy training approvals that specified single-engine IFR capability, which spurred the IFR development. Also, the TH-119 had the advantage of being derived from the AW109, which aided the certification process.
Although new SAS and backup power technologies are now available for single-engine helicopters, cost is still an issue. Nick Mayhew, industry co-chair of the U.S. Helicopter Safety Team, noted, “Because it costs more money to require the IFR equipment, the FAA is reluctant to make [mandatory] an amendment that they would regard as imposing a public burden and subsequently get pushback on [from the operators].”
From the pilot standpoint, IFR training requirements continue to serve as a deterrent, and there are questions about the validity of the training. Gary Glover, who works for a helicopter air ambulance operator, observed that to obtain an instrument rating under FAA regulations, a pilot never has to experience actual IFR. Because so few helicopter pilots have much actual IFR experience, trainee pilots are inevitably taught to stay clear of weather less than “clear blue and 22” from the start, instead of being taught how to deal with actual IMC and inadvertent IMC when flying VFR
Training in flight simulators and training devices, while helpful from a cost standpoint and also for inadvertent IMC and IFR operations, sometimes doesn’t reflect real-world scenarios, Glover explained.
Glover said he knows of many pilots who refuse an IFR job because they do not want to keep up with the IFR training requirements imposed by the regulator and organization. In any case, there are few opportunities for an IFR-rated pilot to take advantage of those skills because many operators are hesitant to install IFR equipment when the majority of flights are VFR.