Slow death of airmanship.

[unlikevice]

For my entire career I have found myself surrounded by professional helicopter pilots. Initially they collectively appeared to be a very capable engaged and professional group.
My previously high impression of professional helicopter pilots has been wavering of late.
At first I thought my descending impression was unfairly influenced by the individuals I currently work with, but maybe not. I think maybe there is a broader trend.
I too easily fell into the trap of blaming restrictive safety and fatigue management systems and subsequently began to feel some sympathy for the pilots doing their best to function in a restrictive work environment. However when I looked more dispassionately at my current work place, I concluded that this is not the cause of an observed decline in airmanship.
It seems to me that there is a broad cultural problem. This cultural problem is leading the restrictions pilots place on their selves rather than the pilots being restricted by systems and procedures imposed on them by their employer.
I have seen Professional Pilots unable to interpret a flight manual and a minimum equipment list. Leading to phone calls to the flight standards department whilst operationally deployed.
I have seen pilots certify for ‘Pilot approved maintenance’ without ever carrying out that maintenance.
I consistently see pilots skip a pre- flight check of the aircraft. (The first thing you learn when learning to fly)
Airmanship is in decline. Pilots no longer deserve the respect and trust once earned by their predecessors.
Please reply and tell me why I am wrong! It might improve my bleak view of the world. PPrune might start a new category for counselling jaded aviators.

[before landing check list]

Unlikevice, you may have noticed your lack of responses. There has been over 141 views. Though your topic is good and deserves some attention you have to forgive for our lack of motivation. This website in general has been the victim of more then one "reporter" or such that will come here under the guise of a person in the industry, give baiting questions, assimilate the responses and then have the gall to report it as news. You have only 1 post, nothing in your profile so you may have to work a bit harder to blend in. If I am wrong I will be the 1st to apologize to you.

regards,

BLCL

[ShyTorque]

Slow death of airmanship.

Not at my workplace. I fully intend to reach my retirement safely. Sounds like a few backsides need kicking round yours.

[212man]

I don't believe any of those failings you list fall under the banner of 'airmanship,' more like low calibre pilots with poor personal standards!

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

....Not at my workplace. ....

Nor mine ... and my plan for retirement mirrors ShyTorque's .... :ok:

[SilsoeSid]

Big words from someone not even in the job.

For example, "I have seen Professional Pilots unable to interpret a flight manual and a minimum equipment list. Leading to phone calls to the flight standards department whilst operationally deployed."
More details please, do you really know what was said to the department or just interpreted things wrongly? Weren't they just calling up to inform someone of the problem? Why is there something wrong with calling someone to clear things up or for further advice?

Also, "I consistently see pilots skip a pre- flight check of the aircraft" could simply mean that he doesn't actually see these people do a pre-flight, not that they haven't done one! Is he on the shoulder of these pilots, following their every move and action?


"For my entire career I have found myself surrounded by professional helicopter pilots"
I suspect unlikevice is the sort of person that has been doing their job too long and has the opinion he knows someone elses job job better than they do. In his view, S.O.P. stands for 'Statement of the Oldest Person'!

[Bertie Thruster]

What ShyTorque said, +1.

[Just another Trick]

Maybe there are a few issues here.
Maybe the jaded unlikevice is having a bad day and is imagining things.
OR
Maybe the pilots he has been exposed to in the dark past were ex-military, well trained and handpicked from the finest stock.
Nowadays any drip that has a daddy who can pay for flying lessons gets a job.
Why do you think we need such robust systems and procedures? It is to compensate for the standard of pilot we see today.
Pilots are no longer beyond reproach. The crew that unlikevice refer need a kick in the pants and some further education.

[SASless]

Perhaps only one hind end needs kicking, Shy!

If one performs in a truly professional manner and demonstrates excellent "airmanship"....perhaps it will rub off on others.

Just as in religion...don't tell me you are a Christian....show me by the way you live your life. I will figure it out for myself by observation and perhaps decide to follow your lead.

[John R81]

I suspect the robust systems & procedures are in part due to a desire to learn lessons from past errors, not repeat them, and in very large part due to the blaim/claim culture in which we now live. It is not just pilots who are "no longer trusted" to make the right decisions. Police, medical staff, lawyers, accountants, etc all have their equivalent "operations manuals" which grow daily in volume and decrease daily in relevance and clarity. You can't be fired, sued or jailed for sticking to the rules; you can for interpreting them and being judged with the benefit of 20:20 hindesight.

[unlikevice]

You can write what you like in the company operations manual. The only thing that is good for is hanging someone out to dry when required.
It is the Company culture that mainly determines the action and behaviour and attitudes of the staff.
If it becomes normal for the pilot to delegate certain tasks that the pilot is clearly expected to personally carry out as directed by the operations manual, then that is what will and does happen.
If it becomes normal for pilots to skip certain tasks, then that is what will happen.
SASless is onto it. Good leadership is the answer. We are missing that. The senior pilot is a baby that thinks he knows, makes all the right noises, but is still just a pup. He has huge potential but I don’t know how he is going to reach his personal best without a good mentor. Our company does not seem to have such a mentor. We seem to have chosen staff that will fit in, rather than bring experience and standards of airmanship. We even psychologically test prospective employees to make sure they are ready to follow rather than lead.

[ShyTorque]

We even psychologically test prospective employees to make sure they are ready to follow rather than lead.

"We?" By that, do you mean the company HR department?

[Epiphany]

Unvicelike. Welcome to Rororheads. I agree with your observations.

You only have to read some of the threads here that involve incidents clearly caused by lack of airmanship. Unfortunately there are also apologists here who will always disagree with observations such as yours. Just be warned that I have been ridiculed (as will you be) for suggesting that some recent examples of bad airmanship were simply that - bad airmanship.

I think part of the problem is that training today just not emphasise airmanship. A big part of airmanship is simply consideration for others and when society does not consider that important it is hardly surprising that it is a value that is disappearing generally.

[topendtorque]

unlikevice,
you could easily be an australian cricketer, if there is such a thing at the moment, describing something comprehensively short of mentors, leadership, fitness but this bit especially tickled me.


The senior pilot is a baby that thinks he knows, makes all the right noises, but is still just a pup.


they're not short on body jewelry, ego or slothfulness, the other side have fitness, professionalism, some humility, team spirit and dedication aplenty, they deserve all the credit they have earnt.

what our /your guys need is a bit of Barassi and a few laps of the SCG every morning, why don't you suggest that to your bosses, get out there and lead 'em around.
cheers tet

[ShyTorque]

Epiphany, it appears that without knowing anything about me, you refer to myself as an "apologist"?

I run a single pilot, single man flying operation. As in I do everything, from the initial flight request telephone call. I do all the aircraft inspections, I tow it out, do all the flying, put it back in the hangar after the job is done and do all the paperwork. I have no ops setup and no local engineering backup. The aircraft does not get looked at by an engineer in between 50 hour/3 monthly checks. No-one except me opens a cowling.

I am very much aware that if my personal standards slip, I have no safety net either in front or behind me. As I said, I intend to make my retirement (not too far over the horizon) safely, so I cannot let them slip.

I apologise for no-one else because I have no-one else to apologise for.

And you? Do you fly, or have a licence?

[Epiphany]

I don't believe that I mentioned your name old boy but if you believe that the cap fits...

And you? Do you fly, or have a licence?

I do actually but don't tell my parents as they would be devastated - they think that I am a pianist in a whore house.

[ShyTorque]

if you believe that the cap fits...

If you read my post properly, even a pianist in a whorehouse would know my answer to that.

[Epiphany]

Earl - one of the reasons that I feel qualified to comment is that I have travelled. In fact I have flown helicopters on every continent over the past 30 odd years and in my opinion standards have generally dropped markedly over that time.

I trained in the Army and my instructor was a stickler for airmanship. He also carried a metal ruler in his nav bag which came out when I demonstrated a lack of airmanship so I learned quickly. He would probably find himself in big trouble in todays nanny state (he is probably turning in his grave) but he taught me some valuable lessons and I know bad airmanship when I see it.

Shyte talk - then why on earth do you think that I was referring to you?

[SASless]

Followers rather than leaders???

Now that is a concept designed to fail from the git go!

I assume those that pass jump straight to management rank.

[ShyTorque]

Shyte talk - then why on earth do you think that I was referring to you?

Because when you posted:

Unfortunately there are also apologists here who will always disagree with observations such as yours.

myself, Spinwing and Bertie Thruster had disagreed with the observation here on this thread.

[Epiphany]

My you are a sensitive soul Shyte.

Unlikevice could have questioned the slow death many aspects of society - good manners, chivalry, good TV, tolerance, national identity, the media, self-responsibility - the list is endless - sadly.

Or perhaps my two score years and ten is simply turning me into a 'grumpy old man'? :*

[Brian Abraham]

You can write what you like in the company operations manual. The only thing that is good for is hanging someone out to dry when required.
It is the Company culture that mainly determines the action and behaviour and attitudes of the staff.
If it becomes normal for the pilot to delegate certain tasks that the pilot is clearly expected to personally carry out as directed by the operations manual, then that is what will and does happen.
If it becomes normal for pilots to skip certain tasks, then that is what will happen.
SASless is onto it. Good leadership is the answer. We are missing that. The senior pilot is a baby that thinks he knows, makes all the right noises, but is still just a pup. He has huge potential but I don’t know how he is going to reach his personal best without a good mentor. Our company does not seem to have such a mentor. We seem to have chosen staff that will fit in, rather than bring experience and standards of airmanship. We even psychologically test prospective employees to make sure they are ready to follow rather than lead.One of the more insightful posts that will be found here in Pprune land.

What you refer to unlikevice is/was to be found in some very large organisations, and I've worked under those very conditions.

I don't believe any of those failings you list fall under the banner of 'airmanship,' more like low calibre pilots with poor personal standards!While I fully understand where you are coming from 212man when you lack the all important leadership who have the willingness to loosen the purse strings and spend cash on training and the provision of the necessary to do your job effectively (and legally I might add) then the lowly pilot is up against it. Particularly when they have a yearly assessment process to keep you in your place.

[ShyTorque]

My you are a sensitive soul Shyte.

Unlikevice could have questioned the slow death many aspects of society - good manners, chivalry, good TV, tolerance, national identity, the media, self-responsibility - the list is endless - sadly.

Or perhaps my two score years and ten is simply turning me into a 'grumpy old man'?

You called professional pilots "apologists" for challenging the OP's personal observation on a basic lack of airmanship. I regarded that post as inflammatory. No-one here apologised for the actions of other pilots, but three of us (four if you count SAS who I believe is now enjoying his retirement) merely disagreed with the observation, as far as we were concerned. In my case, I explained why.

What else the OP could have written is immaterial.

Maybe it is - perhaps you'll become even more grumpy when you get to my age. :*

;)

[Fly_For_Fun]

This has got to be a wind-up :D

[ShyTorque]

Sometimes the whole website is total wind-up. :E

[gowaz]

fogs got thicker and snow deeper. might go flying!

[Fly_For_Fun]

Shy boy, what are you suggesting? :E

[ShyTorque]

I only bite so deep.

[Gymble]

I know of a company where the pilots don’t do pre flight inspections. The Pilots are happy to sign the aircraft acceptance sight unseen. Someone else does a daily inspection and this is accepted by all as equivalent.
I know of another organization where the crewman does the preflight inspection every other day. If the Pilot was to then go and have another look before takeoff the crew would be very offended.
Equivalent safety maybe?? But from my point of view it shows a broad reduction in the standard of airmanship as unlikevice suggests.

[Just another Trick]

We have a pilot that maintains it is his prerogative to do as much or as little of the preflight inspection as he sees fit on the day. The flight manual preflight check is a guide only.
If an individuals standards have never been high, I doubt they would know when their personal standards of airmanship have reached an all time low!!
Training, Training, Training. But where to find a trainer?

[SASless]

Having obtained the desired end result....retired and enjoying life after almost four decades flying helicopters accident/incident free.....I like to think I tripped upon the right combination of judgement, skill, training, mentoring, practice, professionalism, effort, and LUCK! Despite thinking myself a decent airman....I will freely admit LUCK trumps all the rest.

Perhaps one can fabricate a large portion of your LUCK....but that bit left out is the ultimate key ingredient to a successful career flying helicopters.

[rotorfan]

Perhaps one can fabricate a large portion of your LUCK....Well said. If you regularly put yourself in bad situations, then bad outcomes should not be called "bad luck". I've seen many such people in my life, complaining about their bad luck, when it should be expected, since they act the idiot part so well.

Conversely, if you preflight the aircraft, fly conservatively, mind the Ts and Ps, noises, and vibrations, it's not good luck when you catch a problem before it turns catastrophic. It's a result of doing your job properly.

I attend many pilot safety seminars in my area. I've come to recognize many of the same people over and over, and they seem to have pretty good "luck". On the other hand, there are many pilots that I never see at such a meeting, and they are the one who could use the most help. I think for the most part, we make our own "luck".

[unlikevice]

Sasless, how many times in your career did you find something amiss on your pre-flight??
I don’t mean” Maybe a bit more oil would be nice” I mean an engineering error, a crack or some overnight damage that was a complete mistery?

[SASless]

More than a few....some could have been killers!

On an ERA 212 in Alaska.....tail rotor p/c link dangling loose at one end after the tail rotor had been replaced, tracked, balanced, inspected and signed off, preflighted and flown by the Lead Pilot. (as duly noted in the logbook mind you!)

Bristow 212....a full complete bed sheet in the forward end of the tail rotor drive shaft.

Bristow S-58T.....Engineer's rubber torch found lying on the main drive shaft resulting in the drive shaft being scored almost in two. Later on found a very nice Torque Wrench which was duly donated to Mssr Davey Jones.

Chinook....US Army....control linkage missing a nutter and cotter pin.
Chinook....US Army....complete number two engine gone from the aircraft
Chinook....US Army....a full roll of locking wire, wire twisting pliers, various rags, and a can of lubriplate.

Those wee things still stand out in my mind.

[unlikevice]

Before-landing-check-list. I can see how my post may have seemed suspicious. But sorry no, nothing as interesting as a reporter on the prowl. Just a jaded old man disappointed by the observed changers to my beloved industry.

It’s all about training. Pilots need to have enough confidence in there own knowledge to be able to carry out certain tasks fully. It is complete lunacy for a Pilot to trust his preflight inspection to an Engineer, which he may not have even met. When asked, the Pilot replied, “well you know what you are looking at better than me”.

Is the Pilot being a nice guy by trusting the Engineer?
Is the Pilot lazy?
Is the Pilot loaded up with so much other procedural and reporting rubbish that some thing has to give somewhere?

There are no brownie points for doing a preflight inspection, it is a base requirement. There is no excuse. It is expected. It is standard good airmanship. It cannot be delegated!

Pilots in the company I work for routinely certify for inspections they either have not carried out at all or have carried out in some amended fashion that has become culturally normal. They don’t refer to technical documentation; they will ask another Pilot what he does.

Our pilots do some of the most sophisticated full motion flight simulator training at great expense but avoid doing a preflight inspection of their aircraft at every opportunity. Are we serious about safety? Or are we more interested in superficial progression and qualifications.

To do a job safely you must be able to do that job easily. In order to be able to complicated tasks easily you need your ducks in a row.
- Good training
- Required equipment.
- Continual practice at task.
- Be physically fit for task (Rested and well).
- The company culture must be supportive of the task being done well. It cannot be considered beneath an IFR Captains standing to spend the time to do a preflight inspection to the depth required by the flight manual.
- The Pilot must want it.
The Pilots I work with are all good men. The company culture is shot.
From my point of view my observations are clear. What is not clear to me is how to fix it!

[PerAsperaAdAstra]

You can't learn airmanship out of a book. When I grew up in the military, There was a basic framework of rules, big ones, which were good guidance and non negotiable and were there to hopefully stop you killing yourself. You then flew with an experienced commander or were well mentored by senior squadron members, who provided guidance and you learnt to make decisions when operating your aircraft, within that rule framework. This allowed you to use initiative, gain confidence in yourself, accept reponsibility for your actions and learn sound airmanship.

A few years ago I flew for an organisation where control was severe, so much so that I wouldn't have been surprised if an instruction came out telling you how to breathe in the cockpit. This was sadly driven by the litigeous world we live in, it was so Senior Officer Top Rung could claim no responsibility, it was Junior Officer Tooslow, who broke rule 4b,sub para 3d, footnote 1b, so it's all his fault. As such in a system like this you don't think, you have to follow the the million rules rule book to the letter. No wonder airmanship is gasping for air.

[Thomas coupling]

Hmmmm: Unlikevice - you waited 3 years before responding to a previous poster.....without blinking....or did you not notice?

[unlikevice]

Your patients develops as you age!

[Davey Emcee]

Ah! a Doctor.

[tony 1969]

Who cares what the OPS manual or company culture dictates, or what the last pilot did or didn't do.

Its an aircraft, you are about to get into it and send it skywards, preflight the bloody thing.

[tistisnot]

Aussies can never spell but .... in my experience age leads to greater intolerance, not patience.

Quite astounding that the tool-control system, walk-around / pre-flight by at least two others is not seen as anything other than the barriers put in place by the safety case / risk assessment to allow for human error and prevent repetition of previous incidents ........

[unlikevice]

Tistisnot Before I dive into a detailed response, May I have some clarification of you point of view?
Is it your view that if there are robust systems and procedures including tool control in place and at least two people have inspected the aircraft before you fly it, then there is no practical need for a Captain to carry out a preflight in accordance with the Flight Manual?

[Fantome]

Chinook....US Army....complete number two engine gone from the aircraft


SASless . . . . rip van winkle arises from his slumber . . . .. were you telling us that you went out to fly this machine? Fair dinkum?

chiefy .. the number four engine is missing

well I come out and check it and give it a run up

no chiefy . .. I mean the engine is not there!


in the NSW Air Ambulance hangar back in the Queenair days
it was a cold frosty morning at 5 am. The patients were loaded
by the flight sister in the slightly warmer hangar as sometimes was the practice. Only on that morning our blonde beauty loaded two stretchers and two walkers into the plane before the engineer came out of his warm office to tell her that not only was the Queenair on jacks but the right
engine had yet to be reinstalled.

Pardon the drift here

It is good that Mr Unlikevice has come aboard again (his only postings being to this thread, curiously enough) For if nothing else its a subject that needs to be aired and revisited as often as mere mortals ponder the traps and snares potentially awaiting a moment's inattention, a lapse in mindfulness.

How ever many safeguards there are in place, how ever often the book is rewritten, nothing is a substitute for plane shrewd old eternal vigilance.
All the OH & S in the world will not prevent the blunder that slips past
every check point. It also has something to do with the syndrome
loosely called 'The nanny state'. The cure that worsens the malaise.

[obnoxio f*ckwit]

I have seen Professional Pilots unable to interpret a flight manual and a minimum equipment list. Leading to phone calls to the flight standards department whilst operationally deployed.

I have seen pilots certify for ‘Pilot approved maintenance’ without ever carrying out that maintenance.

I consistently see pilots skip a pre- flight check of the aircraft. (The first thing you learn when learning to fly)


Perhaps your company culture is such that the pressure on your pilots to get away on time is so intense they would rather skip a pre-flight than risk the roasting they will get if they depart late.

Perhaps your pilots are so in fear of their management that they are afraid of making any decision at all, so call back for top cover on the slightest matter?

[tistisnot]

Impulsive, leaping to conclusions .... I resemble those remarks

No, the pilot is one of the "at least two others" - pre-flight inspection by maintenance, and a walk-round by one of the men with stripes (or whatever it happens to be named) .....

[MightyGem]

SASless . . . . rip van winkle arises from his slumber
Nope. That post was back in 2011.

[Thomas coupling]

Where is sasless these days? I need to rib him some more......

[212man]

Oh, he's not that hard to find...;)

[unlikevice]

The aircraft lands. It’s late at night, cold and the entire crew has had enough for the day.
The Captain elects to skip his post flight inspection, secure in the knowledge that a maintainer will be preforming a daily inspection in just a few hours time. And besides, no body else does a post flight inspection.
The maintainer arrives on the seen unfit for duty. He has been up all night with sick kids. Does not feel he can take the day off because he had a day off last week.
The Maintainer elects to skip the daily inspection. What could have changed in a day anyway? Secure in the Knowledge that the Pilot will do a preflight shortly anyway.
Along comes tistisnot with clean hands and a clean uniform. He has been busy briefing his crew for the day and looking at the weather, airman’s notes and the latest staff instructions.
Before starting the aircraft tistisnot preforms a ”walk around”. The walk around is carried out in accordance with what ever has become normal for the company he works for. Three wheels, four blades, ne dents, good to go! Secure in the knowledge that at lease two other people have inspected the aircraft before him.
Now there is an inflight emergency that could have been picked up before the commencement of the flight. Tistitnot’s Widow has a couple of people to sue.

Who is at fault?

The previous Pilot for certifying for an inspection he has not carried out?
The maintainer for certifying for an inspection he has not carried out?
The Captain for certifying for an inspection he has not carried out? ( A “walk around” is not a pre flight inspection in accordance with the flight manual).

[MightyGem]

Oh, he's not that hard to find.
Well, he hasn't posted since March. :confused:

[alouette3]

Unlikevice,
I am joining this discussion late because I really wanted to get your drift. I must say,I have not quite got it, yet.
Please understand I am NOT advocating skipping a preflight or a post flight inspection.I think that is a given.If it is required by your company it has to be done.
What I am wondering is , by your logic, every airline pilot is a poor airman?
I have flown extensively domestically and internationally as self loading baggage.I have yet to see an airline pilot open a cowling or climb the tail to check for cracks.He/she does do a walk around to make sure that the big pieces are glued together.Beyond that,I am sure, they trust their engineers or mechanics or technicians to have done their part to make sure that the bird is airworthy.
Are they wrong? Or is it only the helicopter industry that hires untrustworthy pilots and technicians.
By the way, I have some time on single engine jets and I have never seen a fighter pilot do a "preflight". Again, call it a walk around, externals, preflight,it still is an activity that simply involves something less than a full preflight, as we helicopter types are familiar with. So, by your statements, airmanship is dead in the military as well?
Help me out here unlikevice.I am struggling to understand.
Alt3.

[212man]

Well, he hasn't posted since March.

Depends how you define 'he' I guess....can't see the wood for the trees....

[ShyTorque]

The style of writing and strong opinions in the same vein easily gave it away after just a couple of days......

[tistisnot]

unlikevice

You are talking crap .... you are putting words in my mouth .... if the Captain comes in and notices that the Pre-Flight Inspection has not been done, then he should act accordingly, not simply dismiss it and carry on regardless. I am advocating full compliance by all .............

Crikey, all I did was spot another Aussie spelling mistake ..... that's all! :ugh:

[topendtorque]

shy yep. ten characters.

[unlikevice]

I truly do not wish to put words in your mouth but, it sounds like you saying that if you show up on shift and there is some indication that some other person may have carried out a preflight inspection at some time in the last 24 hours then it is ok to jump in, kick it in the guts and go?
How can you choose to ignore that part of the flight manual?? What other items in the flight manual does your company culture choose to ignore?

[tistisnot]

unlikevice ..... are you just spoiling for a fight?!

Is it your view that if there are robust systems and procedures including tool control in place and at least two people have inspected the aircraft before you fly it, then there is no practical need for a Captain to carry out a preflight in accordance with the Flight Manual?

Erm, in my mind, the engineer is probably the first person, and the pilot .... the second? And to repeat:

I am advocating full compliance by all .............

[charliegolf]

Not at my workplace. I fully intend to reach my retirement safely. Sounds like a few backsides need kicking round yours.

One's training will out.

CG

Can I come to the party? (You must be 65 by now:ok:)

[MightyGem]

The style of writing and strong opinions in the same vein easily gave it away after just a couple of days.....
I'm obviously missing something then. Which is not unusual. :O

[Malfunction Junction]

AIRMANSHIP
CASA Definition
The consistent use of sound judgement and well-*‐developed flight skills to
achieve flight objectives.

History
No longer merely “common sense” nor an undefined skill that is passively infused through exposure leading to a “mystical state of heightened knowledge/awareness”.

Airmanship is now trained (and assessed)! It is an active pursuit through training and study (professionalism and accountability) in which we constantly develop our knowledge base, seek out information before/during/after flight and process that information in order to make sound decisions.

A Modern Day Definition
Therefore, modern day AIRMANSHIP is about professionalism (pursuit of knowledge/information) and flight discipline (application of Rules/Maintenance of Standards) and accountability (play your role in safety).
:ok:

[ShyTorque]

Can I come to the party? (You must be 65 by now)

CG, I'm beginning to wish I was! I'll probably be having a BBQ party but quite a few years away yet. Bring your own sheep! ;)

[unlikevice]

I am advocating full compliance by all ???

Well that is an admirable motherhood statement!
How do you reconcile that statement with your practice of not pre-fighting your aircraft?
The hierarchy of manuals has the flight manual at the top. You cannot pick and choose the parts of this manual you have the energy to comply with or not!
If you are truly satisfied that the pre-flight as described in the flight manual has been made redundant by robust systems and procedures put in place by your company, then you should have the flight manual amended. Good luck with that! Then you will be in compliance as you advocate.

[Gymble]

That’s an interesting idea.
Re-write the flight manual to conform to the operating company’s culture to enable all pilots to comply without even leaving the office.
Brilliant! Can you cancel gravity and do something about drag while you have your typewriter out?

[Agaricus bisporus]

You cannot pick and choose the parts of this manual you have the energy to comply with or not!

Once had cause to decline a task and ended up on the phone to the Chief Exec, quoting the Ops manual reference that clearly said I was correct. His reply?

"Ah, I see! We do not apply that paragraph in our Operations manual".
I kid you not.


(Irish airline no longer trading)

[pilot and apprentice]

I truly do not wish to put words in your mouth but, it sounds like you saying that if you show up on shift and there is some indication that some other person may have carried out a preflight inspection at some time in the last 24 hours then it is ok to jump in, kick it in the guts and go?
How can you choose to ignore that part of the flight manual?? What other items in the flight manual does your company culture choose to ignore?

You truly do seem to be spoiling for a fight, and I have watched with some interest but now I'll bite. The SK76C+ RFM is what I have handy. It states:

EXTERIOR CHECK

The pilot will determine that the following exterior preflight check has been done before the first flight of the day or before the next flight after extended maintenance. Those items marked with an asterisk (*) should be checked just prior to each flight. Following removal and proper stowage of protective plugs, tie downs, and other associated supplementary equipment, the following check is performed beginning at the pilot's door and proceeding clockwise around the helicopter.

The starred items are pretty limited. If the engineer has signed out his daily, then yes you have determined it was completed. If you send out the copilot to do it and he says he did, same again. I do not see a post-flight in the RFM. ??

I agree, good airmanship means we perform more than the minimum. There must be a walk around prior to each flight.

Who is at fault?

The previous Pilot for certifying for an inspection he has not carried out?not in the RFM
The maintainer for certifying for an inspection he has not carried out?really, you have to ask?
The Captain for certifying for an inspection he has not carried out? ( A “walk around” is not a pre flight inspection in accordance with the flight manual).

Actually, it is the starred items. The engineer's daily inspection is the full list. If there is no engineer then yes, I do it, provided the MCM permits me. Otherwise I wait for the engineer to sign it off.

I agree on some of your earlier points about the importance of all of us involved in a flight doing what we say we are doing. Never sign for something that wasn't done. It just appears to me that we are drifting beyond that to drive home a point, and losing the integrity of the argument.

[tistisnot]

this is getting tedious, unlikevice .......

Please state where I have said for the pilot NOT to do a walk-around prior to flight???

I simply stated that the safety culture / whatever places at least two barriers one probably by the engineer and the second probably by the pilot to give the best chance of finding something wrong with the aircraft.

And I could not understand anyone not realizing that is why we as pilots do a walk-around (minimum) ....... durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :mad:

[unlikevice]

I will keep this short. Now concentrate.

A walk around is not a pre-flight IAW the RFM. You are not compliant with the RFM.

[tistisnot]

Same here .... read pilot and apprentice ..... "pilot will determine that pre-flight has been completed" .... does not state he himself should do that ....... you are being pernickety ..... depends also what your company states for you to do .... and still I am compliant .....

[ShyTorque]

hnTmBjk-M0c

[unlikevice]

pilot-and-apprentice, Are you sure you don’t have an after flight inspection? It may not be in the RFM but as an S76 is an A class machine the system of maintenance should have picked up the engine after flight requirements. If you don’t have an after flight requirement in you system of maintenance, you should.
Do you do it? Or do you delegate it?

[Gymble]

What I would really like to know is.
If the daily inspection is carried out by the maintainers and I then do my preflight inspection knowing that somebody else has certified for all the same (plus some) of what I am required to do IAW the flight manual. I then certify for that inspection by accepting the aircraft.
Who carries the can if something is missed?
The last person who certified or both? In either case I fully realize who has to cope with the inflight emergency!!!!!!

[SuperF]

Gymble, if u die, the lawyers will say it's all the engineers responsibility, if you live, they will go for whoever has the most money.

Regarding preflights, our ops manual states that pilot must ensure a preflight has been carried out and signed off, doesn't say who has to do it. I check to see who has done it, then decide how much I will do...

[unlikevice]

Seems to me the holes in the Swiss cheese are beginning to line up!
If the maintainer does as much or as little as he sees fit and the Captain then does the same. How are we to know if the entire pre-flight IAW the flight manual has been carried out?
When we sign and accept an aircraft, we are responsible or irresponsible, what ever the case for the pre-flight inspection and the aircraft.

SuperF, You make my point for me! Airmanship is dead. You had to go look at your operation manual to find out if you needed to pre-flight your aircraft!

[tistisnot]

Cannot resist ...... title is "slow death" first paragraph mentions "decline" and, lo and behold it is now suddenly "dead"!!

Most would say airmanship is not written, simply a learned prudent or defensive flying action / decision ...... SuperF was surely right to check his ops manual as it may differ from the RFM - as many would argue only section 1 Limitations MUST be obeyed!!

Now where was I ......

[spinwing]

Mmmmm .....

...... please protect me/us from Pedants.

:eek:


pedant |ˈpɛd(ə)nt|
noun
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

:ugh:

[unlikevice]

I rest my case.
Compliance is about details. Not a general understanding of what you think every one else does!

Back in a couple of years.

[SuperF]

Sorry unvicelike, but i said "our ops manual states", not "i went and looked".

i still haven't looked, but will guarantee that our ops manual states that it must be carried out.

looks like Airmanship is alive and well down here, maybe its just your organisation where its dead. Don't tar us all with the same brush.