Replies to post #31733 on IAHL Corporation (IAHL)

[gold fingers]

I had previously read the opening statement that Mr. Watson made on 8 May 2003 to the Australian Government committee on Regional Air Service in which he stated that he had a patent on Integrity, but I had not read his entire testimony until today.

Below is a verbatim portion of his testimony in which Lance Watson explains why the single engine Integrity is safer than a twin engine airplane. It is very obvious that the U. S. FAA, European Union CAA, or for that matter all other aircraft certifying agencies in developed countries strongly disagree with Watson’s logic of single engine safety as expressed below.

These agencies know that engine failures in single engine airplanes routinely result in death and severe injury to the passengers and crew. That is the reason all of these agencies restrict the number of passengers in single engine aircraft and will likely continue doing so.

LANCE WATSON’S LOGIC:

CHAIR—What are the safety aspects of this, for example, with only one engine?

Mr. Watson—“They claim that you have more chance of the wing falling off the airplane than the engine stopping. That is what they say”.

CHAIR---But if it does? I have been on an aircraft where an engine has stopped.

Mr. Watson---“So have I”.

CHAIR---Has it got a good glide path?

Mr. Watson---“You have to look at the statistics. The engine life in the airplane is between 8,000 and 9,000 hours. An ordinary standard piston engine airplane has 2,000 hours. Some of them have less. At mid-time, you have to do what is called a “top overhaul”, which is extensive, so you do not have the reliability in a piston engine that you have in a jet. Immediately you are four or five times safer.

“WITH THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ONE ENGINE AS OPPOSED TO TWIN ENGINES, YOU HAVE REDUCED THE CHANCES OF HAVING ENGINE FAILURE BY FIFTY PERCENT BECAUSE YOU HAVE DELETED THAT ONE ENGINE, SO YOU DO NOT HAVE WHAT IS CALLLED “DOUBLE TROUBLE”.

MR WATSON WENT ON TO SAY “AS TO THE QUESTION OF RELIABILITY OF THE AIRPLANE, IF IT HAPPENS – AND I MUST SAY IT IS EXTREMELY REMOTE – THEN THE REGULATIONS HAVE ALLOWED FOR THAT. THEY MUST COMPLY WITH THE AVIONIC REQUIREMENTS. [Note that avionics relates only to radios!] THEY HAVE GOT TO BE WITHING GLIDING DISTANCE OF AN AIRFIELD. THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MET. YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO FUEL PUMPS AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOUBLE BACKUP ON MOST SYSTEMS, SO THE CHANCES ARE PRETTY GOOD”.
x-x-x-x-x-x

The complete testimony of Lance Watson can be read, (page 16-24) in the 102 pages of testimony before that committee. I could make a number of very pointed comments about his testimony, but it would just take on the air of “Beating a dead Horse”.

So, the reader, after paying close attention to what Watson is saying, should make his own judgment as to the safety of the single engine Integrity and the possibility of it ever being certified as a twenty-passenger commuter airplane.

[gold fingers]

I had previously read the opening statement that Mr. Watson made on 8 May 2003 to the Australian Government committee on Regional Air Service in which he stated that he had a patent on Integrity, but I had not read his entire testimony until today.

Below is a verbatim portion of his testimony in which Lance Watson explains why the single engine Integrity is safer than a twin engine airplane. It is very obvious that the U. S. FAA, European Union CAA, or for that matter all other aircraft certifying agencies in developed countries strongly disagree with Watson’s logic of single engine safety as expressed below.

These agencies know that engine failures in single engine airplanes routinely result in death and severe injury to the passengers and crew. That is the reason all of these agencies restrict the number of passengers in single engine aircraft and will likely continue doing so.

LANCE WATSON’S LOGIC:

CHAIR—What are the safety aspects of this, for example, with only one engine?

Mr. Watson—“They claim that you have more chance of the wing falling off the airplane than the engine stopping. That is what they say”.

CHAIR---But if it does? I have been on an aircraft where an engine has stopped.

Mr. Watson---“So have I”.

CHAIR---Has it got a good glide path?

Mr. Watson---“You have to look at the statistics. The engine life in the airplane is between 8,000 and 9,000 hours. An ordinary standard piston engine airplane has 2,000 hours. Some of them have less. At mid-time, you have to do what is called a “top overhaul”, which is extensive, so you do not have the reliability in a piston engine that you have in a jet. Immediately you are four or five times safer.

“WITH THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ONE ENGINE AS OPPOSED TO TWIN ENGINES, YOU HAVE REDUCED THE CHANCES OF HAVING ENGINE FAILURE BY FIFTY PERCENT BECAUSE YOU HAVE DELETED THAT ONE ENGINE, SO YOU DO NOT HAVE WHAT IS CALLLED “DOUBLE TROUBLE”.

MR WATSON WENT ON TO SAY “AS TO THE QUESTION OF RELIABILITY OF THE AIRPLANE, IF IT HAPPENS – AND I MUST SAY IT IS EXTREMELY REMOTE – THEN THE REGULATIONS HAVE ALLOWED FOR THAT. THEY MUST COMPLY WITH THE AVIONIC REQUIREMENTS. [Note that avionics relates only to radios!] THEY HAVE GOT TO BE WITHING GLIDING DISTANCE OF AN AIRFIELD. THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MET. YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO FUEL PUMPS AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOUBLE BACKUP ON MOST SYSTEMS, SO THE CHANCES ARE PRETTY GOOD”.
x-x-x-x-x-x

The complete testimony of Lance Watson can be read, (page 16-24) in the 102 pages of testimony before that committee. I could make a number of very pointed comments about his testimony, but it would just take on the air of “Beating a dead Horse”.

So, the reader, after paying close attention to what Watson is saying, should make his own judgment as to the safety of the single engine Integrity and the possibility of it ever being certified as a twenty-passenger commuter airplane.