The PINS System - pointless nonsense or a useful tool?

[BluntM8]

For those who don't know of the PINS system, it stands for Pipeline Inspection Notification System. It is designed to warn low-flying military aircraft of pipeline inspection helicopters operating in the UKLFS. It does so by notifying LFAs as either PINS active or inactive. In an active LFA you are warned that helicopters may be active between 100' and 2000' along certain (unspecified) pipelines.

Now, for my money I think it's a load of pointless twaddle. I tend to brief using the phrase "PINS active through the entire area" and move on. My specific concerns about the system are:

1. Lookout, or the see-and-avoid principle, is the primary lifesaver in the LFS. I strive to fly with the attitude that every valley has another aircraft in it, every stately home has a circling Cessna, every set of powerlines has a helicopter crossing it, every farmstrip has an aircraft just getting airborne, etc. Furthermore, until I get a wing-waggle I assume that the other guy hasn't seen us and will be thinking hard about staying out of their way.

So, why segregate one set of traffic and afford them extra notification? The PINS system doesn't give me any better deconfliction information than "they're out there...somewhere". I'll be needing the same amount of lookout in an active area as an inactive one.

2. If I brief an LFA as PINS active, and the next as PINS inactive, I've set up an unspoken expectation that one will be more dangerous than the other. Therefore in the inactive one there is a tendancy to relax a little which must be guarded against. To my mind, it is a negative reinforcement of the required level of vigillence. To draw a parallel, consider Millfield Glider Site. How comfortable would you be flying through it when it was cold according to the book/ops boards? I'll bet you'd give it a wide berth just to be on the safe side. Well, same thing with PINS!

I personally feel that the PINS system doesn't add anything to my SA. I would be happy to see it removed, and a note added to the LFS handbook to the effect that pipeline inspection helicopters may be active throughout the LFS and it behoves crews to keep a bl**dy good lookout for them, along with every other air user that may be out there!

But then I don't have anything like the experience of many posters in this forum. Am I utterly wrong? I'd welcome comments and counter arguments.

(But the recent spate of posts along the lines of "You're a kn*b. Because I said so." are throughly unwelcome.)

Blunty

[Tourist]

100% concur

[minigundiplomat]

I agree. Stuff like this can just prove a distraction, eating up planning and briefing time when it can be better spent on something more fundamental to FS. At the end of the day there is no substitute for good lookout and flying sensibly.

[Wader2]

To draw a parallel, consider Millfield Glider Site. How comfortable would you be flying through it when it was cold according to the book/ops boards? I'll bet you'd give it a wide berth just to be on the safe side.

Exactly. My theory for a long time, if it is red then avoid. Saves brain cells. Too easy to brief that something is active/inactive for a specific set of conditions, then have a crew-in snag, weather delay etc and then miss the change in conditions at a possibly hurried, delayed, outbrief.

[FFP]

The first recommendation that would be made by the BOI if a military aircraft was to hit a helicopter on an inspection if PINS was scrapped ?

It's all about liability. Surely checking PINS doesn't take too much time to do does it ?

[Monty77]

Well yes, but half the time the cab doing the inspecting doesn't stick to timings, and why should he?

So he happily bangs in a statement that he will be checking pipelines Mon-Fri, in this large part of Yorkshire. Exactly where or when is anybody's guess.

It is true that it's largely down to liability issues by people who don't understand what is going on.

The helicopter that spends an extra 20 minutes observing something had no intention of being struck by the Tornado that briefed as a four-ship, taxied as a pair etc.

I've been told that the the total faff we have of 'low-level returns' which includes crews, timings, planned routes, deviations, photocopies of maps etc were the result of some MP demanding answers in the House.

Result: bags of man hours fulfilling the Honourable Member's request and guaranteeing a world of pain, time and pointlessness. To continue ad infinitum.

Much better when C434 got you legal, and off you set into a world of A10s, F111s, the new Tornado thingy and much more.

Happy Days.

PINS is pointless and cannot achieve what it is attempting, by virtue of the flexible nature of all involved at low level in the LFA system as it exists.

Anyone read the Bandy Papers?

I wonder what he'd think.

[peterperfect]

BluntM8
To reach a 360 degree discussion I recommend you somehow link the thread to Rotorheads and the GA forum to obtain the other users perspective. I am sure you know that the UK PINS committee has a balance of the military angle and the helo survey boys up to the light twin (a Partenavia ?) that flies from Liverpool up to Scotland. You might be able to speak directly to the RAF member of the committee to voice your views ?

[Tiger_mate]

My understanding is that PINS was introduced after a Tornado wiped out a pipeline Jetranger several years ago. Like it or not, I doubt that anybody has the balls to remove it for fear of having a neck in the noose on the next near miss/collision. PINS is like a Flying Order Book: There to hang the guilty after the event.

[minigundiplomat]

If only the Telletubbies would NOTAM SAM/RPG firings!

[Monty77]

That's exactly right tigermate.

PINS: useless paperwork arse-covering after a fatal accident.

A Tucano clipped a police helicopter in the hover at low level down South a few years back. Luckily, nobody copped it. They then stuck a low level TCAS type bit of kit in Tucano. This is useful because it is kit that will warn you when to really look out. Haven't used it myself. Anyone care to comment?

I prepare to stand corrected, but that seems to me to be sensible, if it works, or even half works, so the Mk1 eyeball is fully deployed when told to.

[Audax]

Yes, TCAS is an extremely useful aid at low level BUT it is just an aid, it is not infallible and most definitely not a replacement for good lookout. That said, used properly it increases overall awareness and will alert you to potential traffic in plenty of time. Possibly one of the most useful aspects is that it will let you know about overtaking traffic well before you can see said overtaker.

Where it can be a pain is by showing non-Mode C traffic and will issue an alert simply based on closure when the threat can be 1000s of feet separated in height.

Overall, an excellent piece of kit that should be in every aircraft.:ok:

[Slow Roll]

At the risk of quite serious thread creep, I personally think that TCAS @ LL is a lifesaver; it's certainly warned me of impending doom in situations where look-out couldn't have several times (converging valleys, faster traffic at dead 6 in a flow etc). Also, it does rather ram home just how close some things have to be before you (well, me at least) can see them.

No, it doesn't replace lookout or airmanship, it won't help you for non-squawkers and I'm sure the bad men will turn mode 3c/s off when the time comes. It also might make you trust it just a bit too much, but no matter. To me, it's safer on the whole and therefore a good thing.

Also v.good in (dusty?) places where air traffic are either too bad or too busy and high volumes of mil traffic are doing their various jobs.

Sorry, back to the PINS system...

[tradewind]

Monty 77 said:

'PINS is pointless and cannot achieve what it is attempting, by virtue of the flexible nature of all involved at low level in the LFA system as it exists'


I would have agreed with you until a couple of years ago whilst shooting the Scampton - Humberside gap as a fast mover. Humberside ATC warned me of a PINS helo a few miles ahead of my track (working on another frequency) and as I couldn't see him I moved right and up to 800' (he was working at 500') to avoid him. With a constant commentary from ATC, I passed him about 1 mile away according to ATC radar and still couldn't see the bu%%er!

2 points arise from this:

1 ATC knew his profile including his working altitude and they told me he was PINS therefore advised me effectively.
2 If they or I hadn't known his profile who knows how close I would have got (one can only hope he would still have been two-way with Humberside).

So for me, I think the system worked and I am happy I'm not the statistic due to the system being scrapped because it takes soooo long to brief :)

[Monty77]

Agree again slow roll.

PINS achieves nothing. Feel sorry for the mates who introduced it, hoping to improve things, but in practice, it doesn't.

Mnice. Isn't it? Harsh.

[Monty77]

Tradewind

Yes mate. ATC were on the ball telling you a lurking rotary fellah was about in your band. PINS would not have given you the specific information you needed. I hate it when ATC tell me there's a contact in my 12 o'clock at three miles, converging. Eyeballs on stalks? You've been there!

All I'm saying is: it's pointless saying you may encounter a low flying civvy helicopter in an LFA. Unless there's some specific info (like massive quarry explosions at given times), then it's down to lookout and sound ATC mates (like in your case).

It's a bigger debate when we insist upon low level transponders for all aircraft below 2000ft. Sadly, it comes down to cost.

[HEDP]

I suspect that you have just hit the nail on the head, the key appears to be that you were both working the same ATC unit!

ATC will be just as poorly placed to give you traffic information based on a PINS activation in a fairly large geographic area as the notification will fail to get your eyes onto the conflicting traffic.

The only things that will work is where both parties are working an appropriate ATC unit and/or TCAS that unfortunatly we dont all have.

I believe this system should be withdrawn just as the horse riders helicopter training area notification has been withdrawn given that it had no appreciable increase in safety as a benefit.

It would be a brave person that admits his lookout is better or worse depending on whether there is a notification of helicopter activity somewhere within a fairly large geographic area.

Eyes out at all times remains my maxim!

HEDP

[BluntM8]

Tradewind I'm afraid I entirely disagree.

Compare this: I would have agreed with you until a couple of years ago whilst shooting the Scampton - Humberside gap as a fast mover. Humberside ATC warned me of a PINS helo a few miles ahead of my track (working on another frequency) and as I couldn't see him I moved right and up to 800' (he was working at 500') to avoid him. With a constant commentary from ATC, I passed him about 1 mile away according to ATC radar and still couldn't see the bu%%er!


With this: I would have agreed with you until a couple of years ago whilst shooting the Scampton - Humberside gap as a fast mover. Humberside ATC warned me of a helo a few miles ahead of my track (working on another frequency) and as I couldn't see him I moved right and up to 800' (he was working at 500') to avoid him. With a constant commentary from ATC, I passed him about 1 mile away according to ATC radar and still couldn't see the bu%%er!


I would strongly argue that the fact the helicopter was a PINS helicopter was entirely co-incidental to the fact you avoided collecting a helicopter at low level. In this case, I contend that the PINS system entirely failed: it was designed to raise your awareness of the helicopters at the planning and briefing stage such that you stood a better chance of detecting them whilst airborne. In this instance, you were alerted to the presence of a helicopter by a switched on ATCO practicing their version of see-and-avoid.

To address your points directly, I would like to play devils advocate, if I may.

1. ATC passed you details of the working altitude and profile of the other traffic. I believe that this is standard for most traffic calls and therefore cannot be attributed to the PINS system. Do you think they would have withheld the information had the helicopter not been PINS traffic?

2. If they, or you, had not known his profile, then you may have got very close. See and avoid is not infaliable. Supposing this incident had occured outwith the area of radar cover - would you have been able to avoid the traffic based on your knowledge of the PINS areas active for that day?

I suggest that in this case, you were the victim of some switched on air-traffiking, and I don't wish to demean your good fortune. Sorry, but I don't believe the fact that it was a PINS helicopter has any bearing on the outcome.

Blunty

Edited to add: Arse! Beaten to the post by two posters with better reactions than me!

[tradewind]

All valid points fellas, but my point was that the helo was not 'lurking' and due to ATC notifying me that it was PINS gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling that he was established on his route and not a random civvy helo out for a jaunt below 2000'( T'was a very nice day from what I remember).

I'm not hear to join any side to the debate as to whether PINS is a waste of time - just pointing out that FOR ME ON THAT DAY I felt it worked.

I Guess I'm your devils advocate eh?

[BluntM8]

If it worked for you on that day, then good. Not trying to run down your experience.

Blunty

[Wensleydale]

If the crew of the PINS helo are busy inspecting pipelines then THEY may not see YOU either! I am reminded of the Tornado that collided with a Cessna near Cottesmore while the pilot of the latter was taking photographs. The Tornado crew failed to see that Cessna either - I am sure that their families would rather that thay knew of a low flier possibly in the area.....

Its easy to knock a system until someone dies - better by far a little extra in the brief....

Old or Bold?

[BluntM8]

Wensleydale, I agree to a point but part of flying defensively is assuming the other guy hasn't seen you. Taken further, it's assuming that the other guy wants to kill you. You see, you avoid. The fact that the other guy didn't see you is immaterial. Indeed, good airmanship would have the PINS helos operating with somebody to lookout, lest they hit somebody who hasn't seen them.

---------

To add some clarity, my problem is not the time spent briefing PINS. It's the fact that the system doesn't seem to add anything to my awareness of l/l traffic in a meaningful way. All it's saying is lookout in certain LFAs.

The fact it has to be briefed is a minor bugbear.

Blunty

[peterperfect]

BluntM8
Why not contact some of these telephone numbers with feedback from your survey:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/ORA%2020071029.pdf

There's a whole shed full of people working hard to trying to prevent us all inadvertently occupying the same space at the same time with GA, aerial survey work and oil/gas support aircraft, PINS, CANP, UAVs etc etc. The Mk 1 eyeball is both the first and last factor in the mitigation of the risk, but not the only solution. Airspace is at a premium and has to be shared safely whichever way you look at it, whether you are a B206 surveying for JCBs inadvertently digging up a high pressure gas pipeline near Barrow or a GR9A preparing for deployment to Kandahar nipping over to LFA 7.

V sad to read Monty77 thinks it achieves nothing. One measure of PINS success is a daily series of non-events, whats the alternative ?

[BluntM8]

Peter, the trouble with non-occurences as a means of proving a system designed to prevent accidents work is that it's nigh on impossible to prove that the system caused something to not happen. You can't prove a negative. It makes it harder to demonstrate the benefits of the system, sadly!

Before I go spouting off to the CAA about this, I think I might widen the thread to include Rotorheads, etc. After all, I started the thread to see if those who have the hours thought I was wrong, not to start a campaign! I'm ever mindful that I may be crashingly wrong about something. I have much to learn.

Blunty

[Tourist]

The basic premis of pins is flawed, because it implies that if the pins is not active for a particular area on a particular day you do not have to keep such a good lookout.
PINs active does not change the way I fly or lookout one iota.
Always lookout as much as possible, not least because if you don't, it is easy to forget what a good job we have.

[HEDP]

CANPs is another subject. When I enquired of LFOS what the nature of the number they quoted was and its relevance to the flight I was booking was the reply suprised me in that it may not be relevant as it was merely the latest number that is issued. When I enquired as to how this assisted me there was something of a silent response.

There seems a misconception that everyone has access to ALFENS all the time and this is simply not the case! Why can LFOS not tell you what the activity is so that when you are in a field location......

[Monty77]

peterperfect:

Soz mate, but you can't claim PINS is working because a fast jet didn't crash into a pipeline inspecting helicopter today.

Similarly, we can't claim that extra briefing time to the effect that a helicopter may be 'somewhere' in the 3 LFAs you are planning to fly through will somehow be effective either, because it is so vague and woolly, you may as well be using that time saying a few 'Hail Mary's'. Which I would find offensive as I am a Jedi, and could probably get compensation for that or something, isn't it.

Now, I'm a 'glass half full' type, but the safest option, I reckon, is spending a bit of money, which goes straight over to the Ministry of Political Expediency (what's in it for us?).

I am merely a piloty-type chap, but there must be a way of introducing an audible jobber, based on transponders that tells you the Klingons are nearby. It doesn't need conflict resolution as descending is not an option, but gaffing off an IP to Target run certainly is when there's somebody sqwawking within 2 miles of you.

Any avionics experts care to pitch in with their views?

[BluntM8]

I'm no avionics expert but I've flown the Tucano with the new TCAS fit, which can be used in a manner as you describe (it can look up for l/l, down for m/l or up and down for ninjas, gives you traffic info but no conflict resolution, works at a bunch of ranges out to about 20 nm, IIRC). The pitfall is that you subconciously let your lookout degrade until you hear a friendly "traffic, traffic" call. Whereupon you hoover into the glider with no transponder whilst looking for the TCAS traffic.

It's a good system - it can be used to increase SA significantly, but should be taken alongside a good dose of lookout too.

Not to mention the fact that Ivan won't be squawking, will he?

Blunty

[MAD Boom]

Blunt M8

When you talked about the TCAS you quoted:

'It's a good system - it can be used to increase SA significantly, but should be taken alongside a good dose of lookout too.'

Doesn't the PINS system add an extra chunk of SA to the pile? Agree that it is a little vague, but wouldn't you rather be told something might be there than not told at all.

Knowing that the SWO might be hiding behind the bush at the end of the road may seem useless info, but I bet you'd make sure your zip was done up before you left the Sqn building.:)

Agree that Lookout is paramount though.

[Greenleader]

IMHO, the info given during a morning brief about PINS is so vague as to be utterly useless. It makes no difference to how we fly at low level, which has always been a see and avoid environment. I always expect to see a helo or light aircraft out there, so telling me that there might be one there is meaningless. Choke points have requirements to talk to ATC agencies, who provide traffic info - this is the best solution to avoiding other aircraft, and PINS should be discontinued. Waste of time.