Single Pilot IFR

[Capt W E Johns]

To pick up where another thread is leaving off:

single pilot IFR is not inherently dangerous. There is no reason solo pilots can't do the job if you give them the same training, equipment, and organisational support that the bigger outifts have. Unfortunately that's not always the case, and will never be possible for some operators. Single pilot operators are more likely to be in a small company, in a small aircraft, on a small budget, with all the attendant pressures and cost-saving measures that entails.

Yes the accident rate single pilot IFR is higher - but if you look at the causes of the accidents, I think you'll find that one of the three ingredients above is missing. Again, it doesn't mean that just because an aeroplane is flying single pilot it will eventually have an accident.

On another thread there is mention of some NZ approaches (AP and PM in particular) being 'dangerous'. Those approaches comply with the same design criteria as all the other approaches in New Zealand, so what they're really trying to say is that the design criteria for all those approaches is not prohibitive enough... yes?

[prospector]

SPIFR is not inherently dangerous relative to what??

Certainly not as dangerous as bloodshot VFR, having worked for a number of years where it was quite legal, carrying out an air transport operation, to blat across Cook Strait at 500ft in crappy weather sitting behind one engine, piston and turbine, then SPIFR and single engine IFR at 5,000ft was certainly a lot safer.

Compared to a Part 91 operation where it is quite legal to do two return trips to the Chathams from Wellington, SPIFR no Auto Pilot required, in a day, some 10 hours flying and then an ILS
to minimums at Wellington, not quite so safe, the chances of error slipping in and not being corrected is quite high.

Compared to a well trained two pilot crew in a well equipped aircraft it certainly is more dangerous, or to put it better more exposed to risk.

If an operator cannot provide themselves with modern equipment to carry out an air transport operation, with the minimum of risk to the punters, then they should not be granted an AOC. In this day and age to grant an AOC to a company to carry out scheduled air transport operations in FAR part 23 aircraft, VFR only is beyond belief, but it has happened.

The object of the exercise is to provide Pax with least risk transport, not a game for enthusiastic amateurs.

Prospector

[Chimbu chuckles]

Capt WE Johns I agree.

I and a huge number of peers flew SP IFR RPT in everything from Cessna 402s, Twin Otters and Bandierantes for years and years...the accidents we had, as a company, were more to do with the extreme flying conditions of PNG than anything else...those sort of accidents continue in PNG even though Twotters and bandits are no longer flown SP...and have not been for years.

But then Talair was a big company with all the positive things you attribute to that sort of structure. In her day Talair was the largest 3rd level (Reg 203) airline in the Southern Hemisphere...the average levels of multi engine experience of all the pilots but particularly the Check and Training staff was huge.

Whether SP is safe or not is down to training, experience and the maturity of the pilot concerned...without that you'd just kill an extra person, the F/O.

Chuck.

[tinpis]

Wasnt the FO in PNG there as food for the Captain in the event of ditching in the jungle?

I reckon its all a matter of training and equipment.
SPIFR is going to be bloody dangerous in any GA company that provides bugger all .

Ive already related the story in the 70s of coming down from PNG and starting work for a GA company flying a stuffed 402 at night with only a fixed card ADF working if you made station passage no A/P no VHF nav or DME one stuffed engine doing a nightly freight run to Melbourne.
Needless to say I only did that once , but the job was happily picked up by someone else.

[Continental-520]

I would've thought that the safety of this would hinge a lot on the experience of the pilot in IFR operations. Obviously a pilot who has 2 or 3K hours experience in single pilot IFR ops will be more accustomed to one who's fresh out of an initial issue, confronting some real trashy weather for the first time, rather than the hood and in an aircraft which he/she has relatively low time on type...and most probably a fairly complex one at that.

Fair call?

520.

[tinpis]

So what do you do about initial issue pilots ?
Keep them home when the weathers crook or half the kit in the planes not working?(Ops normal)

[QSK?]

As a relatively low-time (but current) ME IFR private pilot, I'm very interested in this debate.

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue with the point, that, on a straight comparison basis and all things being equal, multi-crew IFR will still always be safer than SPIFR. Simply put, two brains, four eyes, two mouths and four hands will always triumph in the end,

However, I firmly believe that SPIFR should be, and can be, a very safe operation PROVIDED A PILOT IS AWARE OF ALL THEIR PERSONAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND EQUIPMENT LIMITATIONS AT THE TIME THE FLIGHT IS BEING CONDUCTED - and undertakes appropriate risk management over their flight.

Unfortunately, in my view, IFR risk management and decision making is an aspect that is either sadly lacking altogether, or not emphasised strongly enough, in the training syllabus of almost all GA IFR training institutions that I've encountered.

For example, many IFR pilots feel an increase in apprehension or a slight loss of confidence if they havn't flown in serious IMC for some time, even though they may be technically IFR current. The slight increase in apprehension or lack of confidence also raises the level of risk for the pilot flying under this scenario, even though the pilot may not think so. So how does the pilot recognise and manage this increased risk effectively? Apart from holding, diverting or cancelling the flight altogether, what other (maybe more practical) options are available to the pilot to ensure their flight progresses safely?

This is where I consider most IFR training falls down. I believe IFR schools should be emphasisng the practical aspects of IFR flying a lot more to their students and educate students about other possible decision options available to the pilot to cover this, and many other, IFR scenarios. In other words how does a pilot "use the system" to manage flight risk effectively?

Of course the pilot has been trained to consider the standard diversion or holding tactic, but very rarely has the pilot been trained to think about other tactical decision options that may be more practical under the circumstances eg raising the MDA/DA by a 100 feet, doing the flight in daylight rather than night, selecting another airport that may have enhanced facilities (eg radar or an ILS) or making greater use of ATC assistance etc etc. To many experienced IFR (airline/charter) pilots, these options are both obvious and logical. But to many IFR pilots (particularly private pilots who don't fly as regularly as airline/charter pilots) such options may not be as obvious BECAUSE THEY HAVN'T BEEN TRAINED TO THINK OF THEM in the first place.

Every year CASA runs Safety Seminars around Australia for pilots, which mainly focus on VFR flying aspects - and this is a good thing. However. to my knowledge, CASA have never run a seminar covering SPIFR ops to further educate the inexperienced (or experienced) SPIFR pilot on the latest trends or issues applicable to IFR flight safety, resource management or pilot health.

With the advent of SE/ME PIFR ratings in Oz, it can be expected that a lot more private pilots will be seeking IFR ratings and, if this is the case, then these pilots will certainly need to have more training and exposure to correct IFR risk management and decision making. In fact, I believe all SPIFR pilots could benefit from a solid grounding in effective risk management and decision making for IFR ops because I don't believe we have received the required training in the first place. I'm sure that there are many old and experienced IFR pilots who would be more than happy to share their experiences with other IFR pilots through a Safety Seminar and I, for one, would pay to learn from them.

Over to you, CASA!

[Wheeler]

SPIFR is an absolute doddle - with say a nice modern Garmin/STEC setup, all working and up to date. But when its not and you lose an engine or a vac pump and the weather goes to poo - then it gets bloody dangerous and one cannot help wishing at least Bloggs was along!

Trouble is most of those 30 year old 20,000 hr hacks we fly just don't have that gear - and half of what they do have is often U/S.

In theory SPIFR is fine - in practice?

[MOR]

Exactly.

I have over 10K hours of ATO time (many here would have a lot more, I'm sure), and I feel very comfortable banging around the place with an F/O fresh from the sim and with precisely no commercial experience. You virtually are single pilot (by virtue of being a trainer).

However, the lesson of training and experience is never more apparent than in the simulator. On occasion, we have had some cocky 25 year old SPIFR guy come into the airline who thinks he knows everything. In the second or third sim detail, we would "fail" the captain with a simulated heart attack and see how he coped. Fine, initially, as he has an autopilot and most modern jet aircraft are pretty easy to fly single pilot.

Now start loading him up with failures. Start with the autopilot, then maybe an engine or a hydraulic system. Not long before our hero is sweating.

To cut a long story short, they all crashed in the sim, and often it didn't take many failures before they lost the plot.

The same held true of ex-military fast jet people, who have a similarly high opinion of themselves and who also proved remarkably fallable in the sim.

Sure, in theory, SPIFR shouldn't be unsafe. But in a world where money is everything, safety is often secondary, and young wannabe airline pilots will do anything to get some multi time, there will continue to be disproportionally more SPIFR accidents.

[OzExpat]

I'm sure that I'm not the first bloke to have scared himself sh!tless while using a brand new Class 1 (as it used to be called) instrument rating. I survived it, obviously, and gained a valuable new perspective on my (in)abilities. I feel sure that most of us, who started SPIFR ops will have a similar experience or two and this is how we got a real handle on the job.

I'd learned morse code, I reached the standard required for flying IFR and it was instilled in me to abide by the rules. My situation arose from my failure to completely abide by all the rules so, clearly, I hadn't absorbed the full ramifications of the rules. It was just as well that my standard of flying kept me and my pax safe, but it could have ended differently if anything had gone wrong with the aeroplane!

It was one helluva way to start building real IFR experience while I was a lot younger than I am now. I believe that the school and the particular instructor gave me a solid basis on which to build experience. I think that most schools and instructors take their IFR training tasks quite seriously and impart the same level of knowledge and skill that I acquired during my training.

When you come right down to it, the rules are based on a concept of risk management. Especially those related to weather and diversion options. As I've built my experience level over the years, I've also developed a sense of "rat-cunning" that has allowed me to see most of the usual problems in time to be able to avoid them. Liken it to being a rat and avoiding a carefully laid trap, if you like.

So, while I agree that risk management is important, it is most usually catered for in abiding by the rules. IMO, the "rat cunning" is what takes care of most of the unforeseen eventualities that manage to eventuate sooner or later. And, of course, if one should ever find the need to ignore a rule (for whatever reason :uhoh: ), then one had better have a very highly developed sense of rat-cunning to help keep the operation safe.

[QSK?]

OzExpat: "When you come right down to it, the rules are based on a concept of risk management" and "So, while I agree that risk management is important, it is most usually catered for in abiding by the rules" I totally concur and just wish to state for the record that it should not be construed from my earlier post that I am (or intend) operating contrary to any published regulations or rules. In fact, I'm very much a stickler for abiding by the rules. All I'm advocating for is more training emphasis to be placed on developing that "rat cunning" you are referring to.

[tinpis]

MOR bet you would get the same outcome with lot of Captains if you made the FO dead.
The difference is most Capts in a sim adopt some of Ozexs rat-cunning and keep their bloody mouths shut and their heads down and out of sight.

:p

[swh]

MOR

However, the lesson of training and experience is never more apparent than in the simulator. On occasion, we have had some cocky 25 year old SPIFR guy come into the airline who thinks he knows everything. In the second or third sim detail, we would "fail" the captain with a simulated heart attack and see how he coped. Fine, initially, as he has an autopilot and most modern jet aircraft are pretty easy to fly single pilot.

Now start loading him up with failures. Start with the autopilot, then maybe an engine or a hydraulic system. Not long before our hero is sweating.

To cut a long story short, they all crashed in the sim, and often it didn't take many failures before they lost the plot.

The same held true of ex-military fast jet people, who have a similarly high opinion of themselves and who also proved remarkably fallable in the sim.

Demoralising trainees has no place in training pilots.

As training pilot your are there to training people, not to show everyone that you are the master of all. To build their skills up, to arm them with techniques on how to get through situations.

Its people who think training regimes like the one you have quoted which CASA is trying to get rid of, numerous accidents have happened when check & training captains try and show how smart they are. One of the reasons why future C&T pilots will have to have done an instructors course prior to get a C&T delegation.

That training sequence on face value shows total ignorance for the principle and methods of instruction. How did you brief the student before the event, what techniques did you provide the student to deal with the event? What did you tell the student you were assessing? How where you taking to the student from the known parts of the operation to the unknown?

For example, did you provide a plan for them, e.g. first aid, cabin crew assistance, secure the pilot, seek assistance from other crew members/ATC etc?

Could be a good CRM training scenario if instructors went in there with the attitude or providing the student sills, and the practice the skills. The tone of your post is that you are setting them up for only one outcome...failure which is unacceptable.


:hmm:

[prospector]

MOR,
I dont believe using "Cocky SPIFR" of ex Air Force fast jet pilots as examples for failures in a Sim is really relevant. I would like to suggest that you can fail anyone in a Sim ride if that is your intention. I would like to suggest that people with the experience in operations that you mention would last longer before making embarrassing stuff ups than most.

Is it not a fact that the failure rate of the major equipment in modern aircraft is so low that one can complete a career without one significant failure. Is this not the reason that it is now common practice to have first officers commence on line operations in jet aircraft with some 250 hours total. 30 or 40 years back this would have been unheard of, what has changed that has now made this common practice. Dont believe it would be that the youth of today are that much brighter than yesteryear, must be that the aircraft are easier to fly surely???

Prospector

[MOR]

tinpis

bet you would get the same outcome with lot of Captains if you made the FO dead.

Absolutely right, in fact the fast jet people I referred to were Direct Entry Captains.

swh

As training pilot your are there to training people, not to show everyone that you are the master of all. To build their skills up, to arm them with techniques on how to get through situations.

Sorry, you have missed the point and that is due to not enough info from me!

Under the JAA system, CRM is assessable on every recurrent check - so you can fail your check on CRM alone in Europe. We therefore have to assess CRM throughout training, and all our check and training staff hold a qualification for that.

Now in the case of the pilots I was referring to, we were presented, in the early stages of their training, with an "I can do anything, I'm an experienced SPIFR guy, I am more skilled than any of you and I can handle anything" attitude. That could not be allowed to continue, so we had to demonstrate to these guys that not only weren't they as all-powerful as they thought, but that their attitude had no place in a multi-crew airline environment.

The demonstration was purely to show them how easily they could lose the plot, not unlike the demonstration of how quickly a pilot, robbed of a horizon, will lose control.

The object of the exercise was not to belittle them, but to educate them.

The only other alternative was to chop them from the course as unsuitable for two-crew ops. We simply don't have the time, or the training budget, for large egos.

Yes, we were setting them up for one outcome, and that was realising that they couldn't do it all themselves. You sometimes have to apply a harsh lesson to get the rest of the stuff to stick - but the intention is that the trainee will always learn, move on, and become a better pilot. There is no room for the idea that you set a student up to fail per se - that should never happen in this age.

They had, at that point, had several weeks of training in two-crew ops, emergency procedures, checklists, memory drills, etc etc. They had all the equipment they needed if they chose to use it.

One of the interesting things is that very few of the "cocky" ones ever asked for help from ATC, or from their cabin crew - SOP in most airlines and something we train into them from day one.

prospector

I would like to suggest that you can fail anyone in a Sim ride if that is your intention.

Yes you can, and it is never our intention.

I would like to suggest that people with the experience in operations that you mention would last longer before making embarrassing stuff ups than most.

Not at all. For a start, it is not about making "stuff ups", it is about handling a deteriorating situation in the safest possible manner, using ALL the resources available to you. The Standard Operating Procedures that we work to require a certain set of responses in these situations, and we found that pilots who had been trained to be self-reliant (such as SPIFR and ex-military fast jet pilots), lost the plot very quickly indeed. The ones who knew how to act as part of a crew, would usually extend the scenario a lot longer.

For example in the case of one guy - a 20-year fast jet pilot who had flown Lightnings, Phantoms and Tornados in the RAF - once he was "single pilot" with a sick F/O, he went quiet. He never asked for help from ATC or his cabin crew, and just kept trying to "handle" a deteriorating situation. In the end it overwhelmed him. His fellow trainees called Mayday, had the cabin crew read the checklists, asked for medical advice from the "ground" for the sick F/O, and so on. In fact, I was the busiest guy in the simulator, trying to be ATC, ATIS, company ops etc all at the same time. We used to include a cabin crew member in all our sim checks, so our trainee had access to a real one if they wanted.

Is it not a fact that the failure rate of the major equipment in modern aircraft is so low that one can complete a career without one significant failure.

It is the case, but you can never repeat never train pilots with that as a guiding principle. You have to ensure that they are always ready for the worst possible combination of failures, which is what six-monthly airline recurrent training is all about (notice I didn't use the term "checking").

Actually, looking at what I have just written, there is point here about the difference between SPIFR and multi-crew airline ops - which is that your SPIFR guy has virtually no access to this level or intensity of training. Another reason SPIFR has a bad safety record.

Is this not the reason that it is now common practice to have first officers commence on line operations in jet aircraft with some 250 hours total.

It isn't common practice in this part of the world! Even in countries where it is - and my employer did it - the biggest advantage to it is that you get a blank piece of canvas - you don't have to spend a lot of time and money getting people to un-learn old habits!

30 or 40 years back this would have been unheard of

No, it wasn't - I have met many people over my career who have found themselves in an airline cockpit with 250-300 hours. They taught me a lot when I was a First Officer. Most of them are retired now. They used to have great stories.

[OzExpat]

QSK?... I don't believe it's possible to teach "rat cunning" to anyone during training for the basic qualification. It's a survival instinct that one develops as experience increases. Or at least, hopefully so anyway!

I believe that any school that teaches the basics of instrument flying plus the rules and procedures is doing the right thing. From there on, the newly rated IFR pilot is qualified to learn about it all by himself - or herself. That's the way it's been for everyone I know and is, IMO, the ONLY way that a pilot can develop the instict for self preservation, for survival... the so-called rat cunning.

[john_tullamarine]

Which is why we use LOFT sequences and ad hoc extension exercises (the latter adjusted to suit the crew's experience and reasonable capabilities) to give them an opportunity to see how they perform in a higher workload scenario and to give them the opportunity to experiment with techniques and strategies in a physically safe environment. A matter of reading up on the theory and giving it a go to see how it all works in the heat of the moment ...

My fondest recollections are of those crews who started really ragged and ended up reasonably polished .. prime test, as always, is whether I would be happy to have them take my precious cargoes for a ride.

The aim, I suggest always, should be to keep the heat up, but never so much that a silly overload situation arises - unless it be necessary to bring a "know-it-all" to heel and, even then, the early exercises usually can do that in a gentler way.

I've been away from sim training for a couple of years now but I can recall numerous sessions where we all came out more than a bit damp with sweat ... grins all round ... and chewed the fat over a few coffees to revisit what went well and what went not so well ...

Two instances come to mind ..

(a) the experienced captain having a refresher and check on a model not flown for a number of years and wanting to go to an interview sim check with some polish .. we both worked our little tails off (I was both F/O and panel player).. but had a ball .. he polished himself up very well, indeed.

(b) an upgrade crew (initial command and SO to FO), both new to Type. We had spent much of the spare time working on initially very poor I/F skills. Around session 7 or so, there were a few hours free available after the programmed session so, naturally, we put the hard word on the techs for the nod to use them.

Eventually, I had to call it quits on their behalf as they were into the signs of fatigue stage. However, by the end of the session, they were handling extremely critical failures with a requirement to backtrack the localiser during the takeoff and could land raw data hand flown in 0/0 conditions .. talk about two guys walking tall on the way home that night ...

The sim instructor should be there to facilitate, encourage, cajole, assist .. and do whatever it takes to push the student as reasonably hard as he/she is capable of going. The box costs a heap of dollars and, in this age of the student often paying, the instructor owes him/her value for the dollars .. not to mention the relevant airline.

.. or am I just a dinosaur in this sort of attitude ?