Pilot Competency [Archive]

SASless

28th Aug 2011, 14:25

As long as it is done "In-House"....and particularly in the UK where the "Old Boy" network is at the helm.....(for Check Pilots checking Check Pilots)....at best the system is "incestuous" and we know how that turns out.

At least in the US FAA system....Check Pilots get checked by the FAA....which doesn't prevent bastardy...but it does help.

But then....there a few more pilots and helicopters in the USA than in the UK.

How many Operators insist upon a third party review of their Operation....and look for a really "Independent" review with a goal of seeking weaknesses and finding solutions or improvements?

How many are willing to admit they perhaps do not have the single unique path to salvation re Operational Procedures, Standards, Industry Best Practices, and Safety Environment?

Can you name just one?

Before you utter a single type written word.....SM...."Shell" by God sure ain't one of them?

Geoffersincornwall

28th Aug 2011, 15:25

Thanks SAS - no disputes with what you have to say but it would help a bunch if you can answer the questions. I need to get a feel for how healthy global competence management is. Very un-scientific I know but we have to start somewhere.
G. :)

Shawn Coyle

28th Aug 2011, 16:03

Geoffers:
A very good question - but what do you mean by competence?
A good definition is the start to understanding and solving the problem.
Competence at doing the same standard things over and over, or at solving new and never-before-seen problems?

Not trying to be difficult, but a good definition would help us all to think about this very vexing problem.

Horror box

28th Aug 2011, 16:35

How much confidence do you have in the system you work within to deliver genuine competency?

How many pilots where you work have ever failed a Licence Proficiency Check?

Are your Proficiency Checks a 'walk in the park' or a 'really good work-out'?

Do you have colleagues you consider need extra training if so what percentage of the pilot workforce would they represent?

Do you consider those who are given the responsibility for Proficiency Checks to themselves be top-notch and competent?

Very interesting topic, and something I have had many a discussion on. I look forward to seeing this one progress.

System here works fairly well most of the time, but incompetence has and does creep in and is not always addressed appropriately.
A select few have failed LPC, but not many. Those that have, could not argue it was wrong.
Generally our proficiency checks are a good balance and work most people.
Those responsible for the checks are generally pretty good, but here in lies the problem. They probably all have the ability, but perhaps not always the back-up to do the job completely. I suspect this is a common problem.
Extra training costs big-bucks at the end of the day. I know an accident cost more, but only in hindsight is it realized. If an instructor in starts failing people, the first person who will likely be called into question will be the instructor. Often companies do not have the time or resources to really standardize themselves with regards to established, clear, measurable guidelines for non-acceptable standards. I believe this is something that needs to be addressed form the start of a pilots career within a company. We should be hiring all co-pilots with a view to them being suitable for upgrade to commander within 3-5 years (emphasis on suitable, depending on requirement.). They may not become commanders in this time, but we must see a steady curve of improvement over that time to indicate he will one day be ready. If a guy is in a company after 2 or 3 years and is still no better than the day he arrived and will clearly never be suitable for command, still requires constant close supervision and is still struggling with capacity, procedures, techniques and division of attention, should we keep him on? He may just be up to standard of a brand new pilot, but a long way short of his peers. I would argue the answer is no, but reality is more difficult. This is where we have to try and define levels of competency and the "checkers" need the back-up to deal with the problem.
Companies may well also be very aware that in some cases the customer is looking over their shoulders. If the customer suddenly sees an increase in the number of people failing LPCs, this might have an adverse effect on confidence levels. Better just to paint a rosy picture and hope it will be alright and the problem will "sort itself out".
Finally we tend to be becoming more and more averse to conflict. This stems from multiple areas, but largely from the trends within modern western CRM/HF. The job of checking people in your own company will lead to elements of conflict and feelings must be left at the door on the way to the sim or planning room. The instructor has to work with the same guys on the line, but must be clear that he is not there to be friends with everybody. Again this is made far simpler by very clear training and competency standards that are crystal clear for all to see and adhere to. This needs importantly to identify areas that are NOT acceptable as well as what is required.
Sounds easy. But.........

Geoffersincornwall

28th Aug 2011, 16:47

Having consulted various dictionaries I find the following would be the relevant interpretation of competence in the context of a professional helicopter pilot:

Able to demonstrate the required* level of skill and knowledge to complete the assigned task.
* as set out by the appropriate regulatory authority in their Proficiency Check regulations. This to include the Line Check which is a well known weakness in the system as it permits the 'checker' to be other than a TRE/SFE and be part of the crew instead of an independent observer.

What I am particularly keen on is the 'demonstrate' part. It's no good looking at a CV or a log-book and saying "That's OK then". I want to see you do it and if you can't I want to see the proposed next step in the form of an appropriate training programme to raise the individual's performance to an acceptable standard.

G.

mfriskel

28th Aug 2011, 17:41

If your organization has a good training program you should have a ZERO or near ZERO check ride fail rate. Near ZERO allows for the guys who turn into a bundle of nerves on check rides, or the check pilots with an axe to grind.

If your company has no continual training program then you probably have a pretty small fail rate with internal check pilots, but if an outside source accomplished the checking it may or may not be higher.

Pilots who can not attain and maintain competancy should be mostly weeded out during initial training.

If the company has a good training program, the check rides should only be finding points that need additional emphasis in training, not really things to take a pilot out of the seat. That should happen well before he is to an evaluation event, either initial or recurrent.

You will always have the occasional dirt-bag that gets thru, but they should be few and far between. Usually these guys are brought to the company's attention by co-workers or customers before a check ride happens.

There are always exceptions to these points, but generally this is the world as I see it. The key to success is the training program, initial and recurrent. This recurrnet program should not be a short burst once a year either

----- Now how do we get training budgets and assets available?
HTAWS, GPS, NVG are all tangible and you can point to it as a step you took. Training is not so much easy to portray that way.

Geoffersincornwall

28th Aug 2011, 17:51

Very interesting comments but would appreciate it if you can answer the questions as the data collected can be used to justify a more scientific research into the issues raised. Thanks

G. :ok:

Horror box

28th Aug 2011, 18:13

Pilots who can not attain and maintain competancy should be mostly weeded out during initial training.

If the company has a good training program, the check rides should only be finding points that need additional emphasis in training, not really things to take a pilot out of the seat. That should happen well before he is to an evaluation event, either initial or recurrent.

Agree. But not always the case in the civil world. If they do make it through (and often they do) someone must make the hard decision to deal with it before the consequences are an accident. A good training program is costly and often just a training program will suffice. Just good enough is good enough when competing for big contracts in the eyes of the budget controllers and without contracts we don't have jobs. This is very operation dependent. A continuity training program in a offshore operation is difficult outside a 6 monthly OPC. It can be done though, and regular standards flights can help.

You will always have the occasional dirt-bag that gets thru, but they should be few and far between. Usually these guys are brought to the company's attention by co-workers or customers before a check ride happens.

Other factors also influence the mix, such as culture differences, motivation and selection processes, management style and ability. Thus my point about a conflict-averse leadership environment. Good up to a point, but poor at dealing with problems. A good selection procedure will largely weed out those who are going to be a risk, but a small percentage will ALWAYS get through. If you work for a large company with a couple of hundred pilots I guarantee at least 10 will have slipped through the initial selection. Combine this with perhaps slightly weak leadership and they probably will still be drawing a pay check, despite the fact everyone knows they are a liability and the leadership has been made aware. Ask yourself - "would I be happy that this guy could get us all home, if we have had some major failure, at night in poor weather and I am incapacitated, or would he lose it as soon as the master caution goes off?"

The key to success is the training program, initial and recurrent. This recurrnet program should not be a short burst once a year either

Totally agree. But in addition the company needs solid procedures and OMs with good clear set standards for all to adhere to and clearly defined levels of competency required and a procedure for dealing with the small percentage that slip through.

What Limits

28th Aug 2011, 19:21

Geoff,

Before we can get unscientific, three things need to be clearly defined

1. Knowledge
2. Understanding
3. Competency
4. Standard

Example. One of our pilots hurt himself badly doing something that he had been checked out on just 1 month prior. According to the ACP, he had no qualms writing him up as competent.

(ACPs are company examiners that are authorised to do the OPC equivalent (PPC) by Transport Canada)

Geoffersincornwall

28th Aug 2011, 20:22

Such things are defined by each NAA in some way and this is not an attempt to apply a global standard but to test the effectiveness, or perceived effectiveness, of each licensing/proficiency management system.

If it is shown that the real world experience indicates that despite a good-looking set of regulations the end product is not producing a satisfactory level of competency within a national grouping of pilots - even if some companies within that grouping have acceptable levels - then we must look for some other mechanism for ensuring sufficient competency. Maybe OGP and its affiliates can help? If customers are made aware of any systemic shortcomings (on what may be a global scale) then maybe they will have the clout to change some priorities that will allow sufficient training and proper screening based on competency.

More answers to my original questions are required to even begin to make some sort of assessment. One thing is for sure, helicopters are getting more sophisticated and complex and therefore ever less tolerant of incompetence.

G.

SASless

28th Aug 2011, 20:39

Geoffers.....lad you have been to the Pub it seems!

The Offshore Oil Operators are the problem themselves. They claim to adhere to the industry best practices....and in Europe and the UK....do pretty well. The very same Oil Companies when operating in places like Africa do far less in that regard.....and you want them to "Help" in this matter?

Any time a "customer" operates to a sliding scale based upon locale....there is no hope!

When the "customer" refuses to pay the helicopter operator a professional rate....who is at fault for the lack of Standards?

As long as the Risk Analysis is happy to consider loss of life a risk of doing business....there is faint hope for real standards.

Geoffersincornwall

28th Aug 2011, 21:18

Funnily enough I have just returned from supper at the New Inn at Mabe-Burnthouse but a solitary G & T is not the cause of my apparent delusion.

Should your assertion that double standards are rife be true (and I think it is) then we have a dilemma that can only be fixed if the folk in OGP companies get their act together. That unfortunately may bring conflict with the politics of those areas reluctant to embrace the principle of competence defined by universal standards.

There are other customers outside the OGP orbit that are probably totally ignorant of this problem and assume that any properly licensed pilot is going to be acceptable. Some companies (very few actually) do send their prospective employees for a simulator check-ride and a very telling experience it can be for those involved. These customers may possibly bring pressure to bear but maybe not.

One thing is for sure, if the industry does not get a grip the cumulative effects of more complex helicopters, expansion in markets where experience is weak, regulation oversight poor and understanding of the issues almost non-existent t will cause a spiral of decline. Globalisation of the pilot market will mean this spiral will infect all areas to a greater or lesser extent.

G.

[email protected]

29th Aug 2011, 06:58

The question is - where do you set your minimum standard required? Not all pilots are equal, even after identical training, anyone who has been in the military training system knows that.

In any outfit you will have a spread of ability, most will be the 'average', some will be above and some below and unless you have a training system and management culture that allows the below average to improve (extra training and incentives) to average and the average to above average then you will always have those guys/girls at the bottom of the pile who just make the standard required.

Your only option if they are not want you want in your firm is to fire them and raise the bar so that your 'below average' is above the minimum standard you require or throw money and extra training at them.

Passing a check ride every 6 months/year, even if that is an exhaustive check of exercises, does not give progression, especially to the below average guys who probably need mentoring and extra training but that is expensive.

If you are not satisfied with the product then look to the training, both initial and ongoing but you have to accept that not all pilots are equal.

Geoffersincornwall

29th Aug 2011, 07:31

I 100% accept your assertion but please, can you answer the questions I posed at the start of this thread. If we can show by the posts received that the systems in use are dysfunctional then we can justify digging deeper.

Are the rules enough?
Are the rules actually being applied in the way they were intended?
Do you see signs of a dysfunctional system?
Are the instructors/examiners up to the task?

These are the issues I want to put on the table.

I sit at a minor crossroad in the helicopter industry and what I see maybe a symptom of what is going on elsewhere as significant number of my students give cause for concern.

That said I believe the vast majority that are below par would achieve much more if they received remedial training from instructors that themselves had received a proper training. We can't afford to throw away any experienced pilot that has the capacity to do better.

I may get on to Instructor training on a future thread.

G.

[email protected]

29th Aug 2011, 07:36

Geoffers Are the rules enough?
Are the rules actually being applied in the way they were intended?
Do you see signs of a dysfunctional system?
Are the instructors/examiners up to the task?in my little world the answer to those questions are yes, yes, no and yes but you know how the military system works.

Training is expensive so who will pay for it? As long as the attitudes prevail that just good enough is good enough and profit is the all important driver of everything, nothing will change. More legislation might help but there are always loopholes and 'interpretations' in laws and rules - the only answer is to make the minimum standard hiogher than you actually need to do the job.

Geoffersincornwall

29th Aug 2011, 07:50

Again I agree 100% but the people who pay (our customers or in your case the tax payers) need to be aware of the issues.

30 years ago Shell Aircraft began to employ poachers (pilots)and turned them into gamekeepers (advisors). Many are uncomfortable when they have to deal with people who can read between every line of bovine excrement and know it for what it is. Shell wised-up as did the Royal Flight when they began their business. You would never catch the sovereign and her family being delivered to a function by a Joe Line-Pilot. No. They were specially selected because the Queen deserved the best. We should not throw rocks at Shell if they want the same thing for their people. He who pays the piper gets to call the tune.

If the customer sets out the specs and audits against them then there should be no hiding place. The big problem is that (as SAS pointed out earlier) that particular group of customers have a track record of chameleon-like behaviour when they rub up against political pressures. Even these can be handled effectively and sensitively by making a contribution to the training of local staff and adding it to the cost of doing business.

G.

RVDT

29th Aug 2011, 10:31

Geoffers,

Is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle) what you mean?

Geoffersincornwall

29th Aug 2011, 10:47

The Peter Principle - I have worked in enough organisations to know what you are getting at. Given my present situation I am sure you will appreciate that anything I say is open to misinterpretation so we can put the subject of hierarchiology to one side for the time being and move on.

G.

topendtorque

29th Aug 2011, 11:37

helicopters are getting more sophisticated and complex and therefore ever less tolerant of incompetence

That could be debated, some by their design make them p**s easy to fly.

However that is not the point I think you are getting at, neither is long winded discussions about pseudo interpretations of client's "feelings" or the world in general.

I think you are asking;-

1. if someone does not have the capacity to recognise even the most simple error or trap and correct it quickly, then what do you do about it?

2. The check pilots who don't encourage people outside the square, where the boundaries are not even prescribed, what do you do about that slow mover?

That sort of activity to me is the 'esse' of training and checking, and very satisfying to see someone to progress when shoved into something uphill.

For sure good in house training covers most of this, but eventually you may wish to vet newbies, even those with thousands of hours.

Who do you complain to or ask to put their house in order when the subject cannot correct a glaring error never before demonstrated to him or seen by him.

Without talking about specific tasks, I have found a couple of corkers, that I would love to go right back to the subject's instructor and strangle the son of a gun.

Every sector of our industry possibly needs a peer review panel that can handle such complaints, is that what you might be aiming for G?

It's been discussed in our neck of the woods for sure. A panel is important because no one single person is the font of all wisdom, and it needs to be separated from commercial pressures.
tet

SASless

29th Aug 2011, 12:09

Shell keeps popping up here....and if one "knows" Shell Aviation and the people it poaches from its contractors who know they might one day wind up back at their old home grounds...knows how it really works....well...one would not hold them up as a role model.

Far too many instances of seeing bamboo backed brown nosers nuzzling out a cozy gig....playing the game while at the Operator....then instantly becoming blind and deaf upon changing shirts after signing on with Shell.

Seeing folks who not only cannot think outside the box.....hell fire they don't care to do so as they are quite comfy inside the box.

Back Bones atrophy when the spectre of losing a fat pay check and excellent perks looms if one pushes on the cardboard.

Shell is not the only outfit that suffers from this malaise.....it is a matter of degree amongst all of them....except for those who just don't even pretend to be something they are not.

Bit caustic my attitude perhaps but formed over many years in the offshore market with more than one operator and a swoop of oil companies.

When I see the same standard maintained by an Oil Company no matter which country in the World it is operating....then I will sign on to what I consider mere propaganda at this point.

Geoffersincornwall

29th Aug 2011, 12:20

Peer Review - Interesting idea.

How about something along the lines of the Institute for Advanced Motorists - the IAM. Home (http://www.iam.org.uk)

This is a charitable organisation staffed by drivers with professionally recognised skills that invite all-comers to demonstrate their driving skills in a controlled environment against and well established model that involves up to a dozen trips. You only get to be a member if you pass the course and their are a string of financial benefits that go with membership.

How could it work for us? Maybe the charity arranges for access to a sim centre and the prospective member goes through a couple of LOFT exercises that tests flying skills and airmanship. The exercise is confidential and non-judgemental and when the right standard has been demonstrated the candidate gets his certificate and his membership. The scheme could be open to all-comers and be self financing. Candidates may justify the costs by the improved acceptability to employers. Employers may sponsor membership and maybe some employers will insist on membership for all applicants. Maybe a rich oil company could help us get it off the ground?

Well it's just an idea. I'll work on it if there is sufficient interest.

G.

Fareastdriver

29th Aug 2011, 12:24

Most of the oil companies I know will insist for the highest possible safety standards................................................... .......

As long as it doesn't cost them anything.

101BOY

29th Aug 2011, 12:50

Good thread.

I think the system could be better. During a recent type rating course, the standard of some of the guys who 'passed' was shocking from what I saw in groundschool and the sim, and from what I heard from the instructors. There was also little/no standardisation between instructors and sim/air.

In the military as a QHI I saw plenty fail, am yet to see one fail on the 'outside'. That includes one where I was in the jump seat and would have failed him on at least 6 things. Couldn't believe it in the debrief when he was told he had passed, but I guess that's commercial pressure for you.

Generally the LPCs have not been too bad either way, notwithstanding the above shocker.

When type rating courses (EASA approved) don't include any night flying, I find it odd that the authorities agree you are competent.

Geoffersincornwall

29th Aug 2011, 13:29

Sounds like a Shell-boy ran off with your first wife and another knocked over your mom on a pedestrian crossing then stole her handbag!

My Shell experience has not always been a good one but I will forever have respect for the very competent members of Shell Aircraft who taught me a lot about achieving safety by design instead of just mouthing off about it. Shell has put it's money where it's mouth is in this respect and funded much research in the bargain. They may not be perfect but by heck they are amongst the best in an industry that has many competing pressures. Better to have 10% of something than a 100% of nothing I say. We should be grateful for small mercies.

G.

Shawn Coyle

29th Aug 2011, 14:12

One of the things lacking in aviation training and checking appears (and I must stress appears) to be truly objective measurements. Not sure how to do this, but simulators appear to be the ideal starting point.
All we need to do now is agree on the objective (as opposed to subjective) criteria....

Geoffersincornwall

29th Aug 2011, 14:43

If you are talking about a first step - the sorting of wheat from chaff - then we can use very simple and indisputable criteria. There are probably a small number of categories that we are talking about:

1 - Those who sail through a combined VFR/IFR LPC/OPC using the excursion criteria specified in the regs

2 - Those that get a good partial pass - just failed to make it

3 - Those that get a poor partial pass - only just managed to pass

4 - Those who fail all sections

The first line I would draw would be under '3' above. Group 3 would remain 'under review' and require further training. Group 2 would be allowed to re-take the failed section(s).

Group 4 are problematic and each would require counselling depending on the specifics of their problems. Hopefully a way forward could be found for them with a bespoke training course recommended. If they went forward would depend on their resources and their sponsorship.

The above could form Level 1 - Level 2 would be a LOFT flight scored with marks out of 100 with marks awarded for the discrete elements in the LOFT design.

Courses can be recorded and open to analysis if required. Course instructors should hold a Level 2 pass at an agreed level as well as an SFI rating on the type.

It's hard luck for those that hate sims but that is the way things are going so we had better get used to it as have our FW colleagues.

G.

mikelimapapa

29th Aug 2011, 15:21

1. How much confidence do you have in the system you work within to deliver genuine competency?

Some, biggest problem is difference in standards between locals and expats. plus, once the company spends the time and money on recruiting, travel, accomodation, groundschool, etc seems they are ok with letting some slip thru rather than start over

2. How many pilots where you work have ever failed a Licence Proficiency Check or military equivalent?

A few, an experienced offshore captain that I did my initial training with failed and was sent home. Most that fail are given a second chance and pass. Problem is we are expected to be perfect every 6 months with no training or practice in between.

3. Are your Proficiency Checks a 'walk in the park' or a 'really good work-out'?

Depends on the instructor, some put you through the paces and tick every box. Others hold your hand and walk you through it. Personally, I think the IPC/OPCs are too easy.

4. Do you have colleagues you consider need extra training if so what percentage of the pilot workforce would they represent?

20 percent are below average and need additional training

5. Do you consider those who are given the responsibility for Proficiency Checks to be top-notch and competent?

Competent, yes. Are there line pilots that could do a better job? Also, yes. The training department is very political just like any other organization.

Geoffersincornwall

29th Aug 2011, 15:37

Thanks MLP your contribution noted. My PMs indicate that there are some out there unable to comment due to the nature of their current employment and a lack of anonymity. Those who haven't done so already are welcome to PM me with their answers.

G.

Manchester

29th Aug 2011, 15:45

1. It can’t and doesn’t produce across-the-board competency, only the achievement of minimum standards
2. A few
3. Generally the latter, but you have to ask the same question of the examiner after the same trip – he often sees it differently.
4. Occasionally, but they usually get it.
5. Generally, but too often they are either just good or senior pilots; they need to be good proficiency checkers, which is a different skill-set

If it’s competence you’re studying – then aside from the individual, it must lie between the NAA, the training organisation, the customer and the contractor.

NAAs are too small and get too little exposure to pick up individuals. And they are really only civil servants ensuring that the law is obeyed – achievement of the minima.

Training organisations can’t become known for failing most check rides – would you spend you money there? Can’t hope to place responsibility with them.

Customers can’t really be held responsible because there is no standard of competence which they can demand beyond hours totals. They can write a contract requiring training and testing processes, and usually rely on legal minima for guidance, the but they can’t keep their own pilots to test for competence. So they are stuck with auditing processes, which ensure sufficient exposure to training and testing to produce average pilots but don’t usually maximise potential.

Operators are the ones who know, but in my experience, their standards depend crucially on the standards and expectations of the accountable manger. If he doesn’t recognise or value competence, it rubs off; he simply won’t put the time and effort into testing for it, and won’t know when it’s falling short. It’s not a profit thing – it’s a belief. To implement it needs TRE/line trainers etc who understand that their role is to manage other pilot’s abilities, who can recognise competence, and who know how to act when they find it lacking. These TRE/line training roles are for pilots with great TRE/line-training skills, not great flying skills, and not necessarily seniority. I like Geoffers’ IAM kite, but I’m not sure those that need it will either bother or dare to risk a voluntary external assessment; it needs an incentive, like 10% off the insurance premium.

If taxis are an analogy, BSM will pass out all the students they can attract, the DoT won’t do more than check that the driver is licensed, and the fleet controller will know who’s good but has little incentive other than to sack drivers who dent his cars. The passenger has to take pot luck, and mitigate his risk by using a reputable company or pay less and take a chance which nine time out of ten pays off. Competence is down to the professionalism of the individual and is helped by a management that sees business growth through greater competence (ie careful recruiting and extra training and support). Perhaps superior competence in the majority of drivers is just a beautiful pipe dream; it certainly appears so!

Geoffersincornwall

29th Aug 2011, 17:13

I am amused by the BSM analogy but we have forgotten to emphasise one important thing and that is the 'duty of care' owed by our employers in Europe to their employees when selecting which 'bus' takes their employees to work,

The US does not embrace this concept hence the very second rate FAR 135 approach to Public Transport in which operations defined as 'spot charter' escape the true weight of responsibility for the safety of employees. The 'charterer' does not fly in the machine he has chartered so it is criminal in my mind that he can chose the lowest common denominator (cheapest) without facing the consequences if 'cheapest' means a standard that any other public transport passenger - nor the FAA - (Part 121) would not tolerate.

I remember flying the North Sea in my shirt-sleeves whilst my passengers wore immersion suits. Why? Because employers were obliged to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to provide appropriate levels of protection if this was available at reasonable cost. (edit - at that time the oil companies valued their people mare highly than the helicopter operators)

If employers can no longer disguise their ignorance of the parlous state of the competence management process then they may stand in danger of complacency in the face of an ever increasing avalanche of 'human error' accidents. There may also be parallels for the maintenance sector. Simply saying that it is not their responsibility will cut no ice if the ultimate responsibility for the worker's safety depends on decisions taken by the employer.

My PMs include one CP who admits that the last 6 pilots recruited would never have made interview 10 years ago and another from a FSO who complains that all pilot error incidents are hushed up in his Training Department which regularly 'dings' its aircraft.

If an external and independent assessment service can be provided then we should investigate how best to do it.

G.

Manchester

30th Aug 2011, 10:07

If you believe the customer needs to be able to demand a better class of bus driver Geoffers, the bus trade association and/or the bus drivers themselves have to do the spadework of defining superior competence; I don’t think you can expect those outside the trade to understand the detail.

Customers would then have options at tender time – say P1s with:
Level 1: 6-monthly and annual checks as now.
Level 2: gets four hours sim above the minima every year
Level 3: 1 + 2 + an extra annual line check with another company’s examiner

These are only examples, may be unworkable, don’t actually enhance competence, only exposure to more training, and will have a cost, but at least the customer would have different “pilot competence” options and prices when picking his supplier. Should he then face a duty of care action, his face may be red if he asked for Level 1 pilots instead of something better. After that, changes might follow.

Of course a single bus company may decide there is benefit in starting down this track unilaterally; I hope they do and that they profit from it; it’s commercially risky but if it succeeded, others would be dragged along in their wake.

But then I have to repeat that this would not directly increase competence, only the costs and the numbers of training hours; we have to define the trainable aspects of superior pilot competence before we can hope to develop it.

212man

30th Aug 2011, 10:42

This is an interesting topic, but I suspect the thread starter is posing it from the perspective of an instructor/examiner for a training provider conducting Type Rating courses to a prescribed and constrained timeline, and not a current operator (although, obviously a very experienced one.) If that makes sense? I can well imagine the frustration of trying to get very weak pilots through an intensive course, with pressure to pass them at the end, and with no additional resources to do more training. I know of at least one similar organisation that has two types of certificate they issue at the end of the course: "Fred Bloggs has successfully passed the Jellycopter123 Type Rating course" and the other is "Fred Bloggs has attended the Jellycopter123 course." Some Authorities accept the latter for the issuing of local type ratings, or military or paramilitary equivalents (not too many clues in that last category of operator....!)

How much confidence do you have in the system you work within to deliver genuine competency?

I think we try hard to, particularly given that IFR currency is hard to maintain, and so emphasis is given in this area.

How many pilots where you work have ever failed a Licence Proficiency Check or military equivalent?

Section failures are not unheard of, and are retested.

Are your Proficiency Checks a 'walk in the park' or a 'really good work-out'?

The aircraft checks tend to be easier as there are very few systems one can fail, plus the TRE is acting as a competent co-pilot and in a real world environment. Simulator checks are more difficult and, of course, are a normally constituted crew. That being said, they occur after recurrent training, so they are better prepared.

Do you have colleagues you consider need extra training if so what percentage of the pilot workforce would they represent?

I think all pilots could benefit from extra training :ok:

Do you consider those who are given the responsibility for Proficiency Checks to be top-notch and competent? I'm head of training, so can't really comment! ;)

Some additional comments. I notice the words subjective and objective being used - I think one has to be careful here as one of the essential qualities of an examiner is he has to be able to make a judgement based on what he sees, and not just tick boxes. Similarly, the quoted excursion values are meant to be used as guidance, not simple limits. That latter point is very much the CAA stance. Some training providers actually brief those limits to the candidate prior to the check - that really is not what they are for! The candidate should be flying as accurately and smoothly as he can and not be worrying about whether he has broken an assessable limit - that's the examiner's role. One could say that is subjective. However, breaking a DA or a level bust are objective limits.

'A good work out' is an interesting comment and seems to imply a kind of 'load them up till they break' approach, which I think we have moved away from. Most accidents are caused by people flying perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground, not by cracking under the strain of a cascade of multiple unrelated failures. I think the check flights/sessions should place greater emphasis on knowledgeable use of all the aircraft systems, the ability to maintain good situational awareness at all times, sound cockpit management and forward thinking, sensible decision making and CRM - both for normal and abnormal events - and the appropriate handling (in every sense) of reasonable and realistic malfunctions. At the end of all that the examiner should be able to apply the "wife and kids" test to determine the outcome, on top of any tick box exercise.

The multiple malfunction scenarios have some value as training exercises, and I don't discount them by any means. Being loaded up is a good experience and should improve spare capacity and prioritisation for less serious events, but I'm not sure it has a place in the actual check.

I think we are quite generous in the amount of training we provide, but it allows us to use it sensibly, to target areas that are obviously in need of additional training and to conduct tests without time constraints or the worry of there not being an opportunity to retest. Each pilot gets 20 hours per year - 10 in each seat - and in an aircraft such as the S-92 the Left seat time is almost as important as the Right seat. That's definitely one area to put emphasis on.

Geoffersincornwall

30th Aug 2011, 10:49

I may be making a judgement on a sample that is not representative but the more I speak with CPs and ODs around the globe and the more I witness personally the shortcomings of a significant minority the more I feel that even a fairly crude weeding out of the no-hopers from the twin-turbine sector would set us in the right direction.

I am a great believer in the restorative possibilities of effective sim training because I have seen it work but there are some who are simply not going to make it and they need a different kind of solution that should not include adding to the risk-management equation in a negative way. Maybe they can cope better in the single engine world and then 'grow into' the job over time.

G.

Manchester

30th Aug 2011, 11:20

I agree, especially that some are slow but sound learners, and I apologise for missing the point so far - I think your aim is to cut out the incompetent and the not-yet-competent from public transport, rather than enhance the competence of the majority which is what I thought you were after. Yours is a more achievable aim and I'll watch with interest.

Geoffersincornwall

30th Aug 2011, 11:58

Your initial analysis is correct and the perspective I have may or may not be a valid one but right now it is the one I have.

Having done your job (Chief Trainer in another life) I understand exactly where you are coming from and I am horrified to think that you can imagine I subscribe to the 'beat-them-up' school of sim-trainers. I am totally opposed to that approach. I should have been more selective with my hyperbole.

Let's say instead that a good workout is for example doing the IFR section with a means of ensuring that no part of the outside world is visible to the candidate and a walk-in-the-park is not doing anything of the kind. Do you get my drift?

Company TRIs and TREs have the benefit of knowing the people you are dealing with and understanding their strengths and weaknesses. You also have the need to see them as a long term investment and that makes a big difference to how you can view the way forward for the weaker ones.

Nonetheless I have been at this SFI lark since April 2007 and the sample size is large enough for me to feel comfortable about what I say in the context of overall pilot standards viewed from a global perspective and not confined to civilian pilots.

We could have an 'Emperor's New Clothes' situation here if we are not careful. In the first 30 years of my flying career I lost 30 colleagues, close friends, mostly in accidents of one sort or another although a couple were lost in the Falklands. In the 12 years since I haven't lost one in an accident although two have died of natural causes, and that is what I call progress. Progress that has been hard won. Let us not see that progress disappear for want of some plain speaking or innovative thinking.

G.

212man

30th Aug 2011, 12:25

Hi Geoff, I do know what you are saying, and apologies if my words were misunderstood - the written word can be like that sometimes! I do think the big training providers - including the OEMs are in a very unenviable position and is perhaps another reason why Operators should not be in such a hurry to divest themselves of training responsibilities - no names, no pack drill!

Good luck in your quest!

Shawn Coyle

30th Aug 2011, 14:33

A major operator's chief training pilot told me once that one of the major training providers was not doing him any favors (favours) because they never failed anyone, and he had to do the weeding out himself.
A lot could be done with simulation - things like smoothness vs. precision of control as an objective measure - the computer sees everything! We just need to know how to interpret the data.

Fareastdriver

30th Aug 2011, 15:27

Depends on the simulator. I, and others found that the Bristow 332 simulator required a different flying technique to the aircraft. You just motored it around the pattern on the coolie hat.

marcr

30th Aug 2011, 15:57

An excellent discussion.

I don't consider that my level of experience enables me to answer your survey questions with an appropriate degree of validity. However, I would like to add these observations.

It strikes me that an LPC/OPC competence assessment framework is only a very basic means of attempting to ensure operations are conducted in a safe manner. Yes, there are assessable objective parameters. Yes, there are upper and lower subjective levels of expectation that fall roughly in line with role and experience. And, yes, the system is capable of being utilised to weed out the dangerous and those who struggle to develop their skill and capacity within subjective and/or commercial timescales. However, the inherent weakness of the system, at least in addressing the requirements of an offshore OG role, is that your licence is endorsed for your individual performance level for operations that are conducted in a multi crew environment.

To further develop training and assessment, and hopefully thereby increase
safety, shouldn't more time be spent evaluating problem solving, risk management and decision making.....as a crew. Isn't that the point of LOFT? Aren't two heads supposed to be better than one? How many accidents are attributable to poor basic piloting skills versus those that reflect a chronic under (or mis)use of available resources, be that crew or technology?

How would we all fare if holding our licence privileges depended on our team performance? Some people detest the existence of recording and monitoring equipment but there are those who cannot see the short comings in their ability and behaviour even when the evidence is presented to them. Or is it really the case that what happens in the sim is an accurate reflection of what occurs operationally?I do recognise that I am essentialy addressing the problems associated with a minority. But before anyone gets too comfortable, I would also like to think that most (all?) of us accept that there is invariably some room for refinement in what we each do. How does the industry assess whether the voice of inexperience will ever be raised and, arguably more importantly, if it will be listened to?

If the aim is to improve safety via a checking system then maybe our licences should carry a "fit for purpose in role" as well as type and environment endorsements.

Geoffersincornwall

30th Aug 2011, 16:24

Add what you have read to my PMs and you get a picture that looks like this:

5% -10% of the current global professional helicopter pilot workforce should not be there and heaven knows how they got there in the first place. (these I can usually spot within one sim ride).

Another 10% or so are sufficiently below the minimum competence level to suggest that for everyone's sake they go away and do a VFR day-job until they have gained the necessary skills to move on.

Maybe 10% could be good enough if only they received more/better training opportunities.

70%-75% of the journeyman aviators in our business do the job well enough provided they have enough continuity training.

5% are seriously good and impress the hell out of me.

If you get more than 100% then don't worry about it - the margins for error will take care of that.

I see no geographical monopoly on the good guys, they come from unexpected quarters sometimes but the again so do those at the bottom of the pile. In the last year I have had a young 21 year old local Qatari who will be seriously good if he can keep his focus and not get too big-headed... and two young Brazilians who are a credit to their nation. Likewise a couple of young Japanese looked like they will do well. Some disappointments from Europe and elsewhere so the so-called 'developed' world under EASA and FAA cannot be complacent.

Nobody should take this as a scientific survey but the info so far is certainly telling a story.

G.

Snarlie

31st Aug 2011, 18:22

The criticism implied in your survey tends towards the patronising and condescending view of the so called jouneyman pilot so often adopted by the specialist simulator instructor out of touch with the real world. I have rarely encountered a candidate not anxious to show himself in the best possible light. Perhaps you mistake the ability to reel off endless numbers and to fly a simulator exactly to a profile for competence. What really counts is the ability to make it look easy on a dark and stormy night when the gremlins are ganging up on you - then you will find the complete rounded aviator and not someone who is good at computer games.
The CAA training system permits the retesting of some items where required, so while a candidate may have a couple of shots at a manoeuvre, this may not show up as a fail - thereby confusing your call for notices of failure.
I am sure we would all dearly love to spend all our time practising in the aircraft and simulators in order to perfect the finished article but something called commercial operations comes into the equation somewhere!

Geoffersincornwall

1st Sep 2011, 07:20

Given your handle I will try to bear in mind that your comments are more than likely a wind-up and if you knew me you would know that I am the personification of 'journeyman aviator' and not the ignorant 'specialist sim instructor' you allege. I have probably made more deck landings on dark and stormy nights than you have had hot dinners. Anyway, let's not get into a pissing contest.

Your comments arrived on the day the newspapers told the story of the 14 year old girl who is now paralysed from the waist down as a result of a mistake by a doctor during a routine surgical operation. Now, was that mistake the kind of 'error of omission' that can overtake all of us at some time, even the basically competent, or will this turn out to be one of those stories that end with colleagues saying things like "it was always going to happen one day, the guy is incompetent and should never have been allowed to practice". Such stories of incompetence arose after the wave of infant deaths during surgery at a Bristol hospital and that comment was a common one. There were doctors that knew that they had amongst them colleagues who would kill one day but no scheme existed at the time to monitor competence and remove/retrain the incompetent. I believe such a scheme exists now.

Our industry is supposed to benefit from annual proficiency checks and these have a dual purpose in my view. They provide the opportunity for training and they verify competency. If the system is functioning properly I don't believe the rough and ready survey would reveal that there are a significant number of incompetent pilots out there. Why is it not working???

We are talking about guys whose incompetence smacks you in the face very quickly when you are teaching them and despite a very sympathetic and gently-gently approach they are unable to achieve a decent standard.

I ask you, do you want to be the one offering comfort to your colleagues in the crew room when one of these guys contrives to take out your best chum by saying "it was always going to happen one day, the guy is incompetent and should never have been allowed a commercial license". .

I ask the question again - why is the competence management process of licensing and proficiency checks not working as it should?

G.

Non-PC Plod

1st Sep 2011, 12:02

Geoffers,

I'm pretty sure that its because the majority of checks are not as objective and independent as they should be.

I once went to a CRMI symposium at the CAA, attended by company LTCs across the spctrum of the industry - I guess about 150-200 of them. The question was asked whether any of them had EVER failed anyone from their company on a CRM assessment. Surprise surprise - not a single one, ever!

I would imagine that company line checks and OPCs go pretty much the same way.

Snarlie

1st Sep 2011, 12:17

Are you proposing that TRE/TRI`s be given a target number of failures to achieve in order to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling in your simulator classroom?

With regard to your comments about deck landings - I very much doubt it.

SASless

1st Sep 2011, 12:18

they go away and do a VFR day-job until they have gained the necessary skills to move on.

As you continue to mention a "Single Simulator Ride Screening Process"....and added to the comment above....pray tell what the hell you are talking about?
Are you IFR/Instrument-centric in your view of what constitutes "Minimum Ability"?

You seem to have fallen prey to thinking what is familiar is the standard.

IFR flight in helicopters is only a very small part of the spectrum of uses....and those that are damn good at IFR flight usually prove to be hopeless at Long Lining, Mustering, or any number of other very common utilizations of the helicopter.

Let's ask theses questions of those who responded to your survey.....

Are you fully competent?

Are you in need of remedial training?

Is it only others that fall short in your expectations?

Would you be in your current position if Minimum Standards were raised?

If you are a "Standards Pilot", "Training Captain", "Check Pilot".....do you fly to the same standards you insist upon while performing in that role when you fly the line as an Operational Pilot? If selected for Supervisory duties....do you continue to fly normal operations or are you purely a Management Pilot?

I'll ask you Geoffers.....what traits should those passing judgement on other's fitness to fly themselves possess? Should they pass the same checkrides their subordinates do....or should they actually have to maintain higher standards?

In my view....assuming the role of a "supervisory pilot" should also qualify as "Cross one has to bear!" as upon assuming that role....one has to lead by example and also remain current in field operations of all kinds....the whole time setting the example for anyone that shares the cockpit or work place with him.

Final question for you....have you failed anyone on a Check Ride?

I failed the Chief Pilot of an Oil Company owned helicopter operation....and later the owner of a helicopter being trained. Both later passed....one after an attitude check and a decision to comply with the training standards and the other with a bit more training to make up for a lack of overall experience.

The really interesting failure was when as a Company Check Airman I was being "checked" by the FAA while giving a Check ride one of our company pilots. I failed the guy.....the FAA guy said he would have passed him....I said I did not care as he did not meet our published company standards. A note....the FAA guy and the failed company pilot were friends and served in the same National Guard Helicopter Unit.

When you see these incompetent pilots....do you "fail" them? Do you put your customer in the position of acknowledging the situation such they have to consider the legal issues of continuing the employment of the individual without taking remedial action? If you have....how did the customer handle the situation....gracefully and with gratitude for ferreting out a potential problem?

Geoffersincornwall

1st Sep 2011, 13:20

I accept Snarlies assertion that he beats me on DLs but to both Snarlie and SAS I beg not to focus on anything more contentious than this simple question:

In each nation in the world there is in place a system designed to maintain competence - are they working? I do not design the check nor do I carry them out.

I am a simple soul sitting within a system that puts me in a position where I see people at work. Like any teacher worth his salt I care about the people I am teaching and want them all to succeed but there are some that I know from my heart of hearts should not be there. My rough and ready survey would seem to indicate a systemic problem so I ask what can we do better to ensure the integrity of our profession.

SAS - I don't care about your long-lining 206 pilot because until someone introduces an LPC that includes long lining it is not relevant to my argument. IFR is a required competency for any ATP and like being dead or pregnant you cannot be 'slightly' IFR rated.

I don't make the rules but I do ask of all my colleagues "are the rules fit for purpose?

G.

Snarlie

1st Sep 2011, 14:23

You started the pissing contest not me. In my experience, the system works perfectly well in a practical sense, in that, if a candidate is clearly not up to standard, the test is aborted and put down to `training`. Remedial training is then carried out prior to embarking on another test. This has the advantage of encouraging the candidate to buck up without the stigma of a failure and also avoids the piles of paperwork that go with an official failure.

Your survey question of have you ever failed a check is,therefore, likely to be answered in the negative. But that does not mean that a weak candidate has not been spotted and action taken to improve his standard.

As far as I can see, my original comments still apply.

Geoffersincornwall

1st Sep 2011, 17:24

Excellent handle - I can see you are working hard to live up to it. Forgive the semantics but if you abort a prof check due to poor performance then you have effectively failed the guy even if the paperwork was not completed that way. As you have 'ownership' of him it is a worthwhile gambit - unless he is earmarked for the boot.

It sounds like your experience is based on JAA and probably North Sea so forgive me once again if I point out that my assertions relate to the global workforce. The globalisation of the industry is causing a migration of many nationals into markets where their licenses may be new and this 'mix-and-match patchwork of skills is a real headache for those trying to maintain competency in their workforce.

At a guess I have taught about 200 students on various courses in 4 years and these originate from India, China, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Estonia, Russia, Brazil, USA, Mexico, Trinidad, South Africa, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Macau, Qatar, Oman, France, Turkey, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland and UK, and probably some others I have forgotten. It's simply not possible for a flight instructor to see close-up that many people from that many places and not form an opinion of the overall well-being of the global industry. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish but I would rather speak up and at least seek a consensus about the scale of the problem. Albeit in a very unscientific way I think we may have it. The situation is either:-

a. The regulatory processes that manages pilot competency in inadequate - or
b. The processes are not being applied in the manner expected by the regulators.

If any CP out their is hiring I suggest you send the guy for a check-ride before you sign him up. At least he will be a known rather than an unknown quantity. It will be worth the costs believe me.

G.

SASless

1st Sep 2011, 18:47

I do believe definitions are going to be your down fall Geoffers.....as there is plenty of work for commercial licensed pilots....or for ATPL's that have gone "Bush" and do not maintain instrument currency as it is not needed and/or is not possible.

So...from your additional response....all you really care about is ATPL with Instrument Ratings....and relegate any other professional pilot ratings/qualifications/utilizations as being not germane to your interest.

Am I right in that perception?

It would seem you are taking at least a Euro-centric view of the Helicopter Industry world-wide.

I think what you are really trying to say is...."Are non-UK...Non-JAA licensed pilots competent?"

Are you going to pull out the coloured pencils and start giving lessons here?

Geoffersincornwall

1st Sep 2011, 19:30

I am not saying anything of the sort. Whatever your jurisdiction, whatever your license, whatever sub section of the industry you work in I am just saying that I get to see a small part of it doing my little bit in my little (ATP) corner of the world.

Let me ask you. If you had just spent 4 years doing essentially the same thing with a variety of people and you noticed a definite characteristic amongst a significant minority then would you comment or not? Would you keep your politically correct head below the parapet, whistle 'Dixie' and tell yourself it was nothing to do with you (actually I can't imagine SAS being politically correct but I rather like the image it conjures up).

Don't forget to read the posts that indicate that other people out there in the big wide world also think that not all is so wonderful.

G.

PS. Don't forget that any ATP check-ride I am aware of requires an IR section and once you have that ticket you have right to fly into some of the busiest airports in the world. It is only right and proper that that fragile skill is kept in good shape and NOT doing so can be counted as part of the problem.

SASless

2nd Sep 2011, 13:06

"Whistling Dixie" to some of us is a matter of pride, heritage, and patriotism and most will stand firmly erect while heeding that clarion call.

There has never been a system yet that produces the "perfect" pilot....and never shall be as it is a human endeavour fraught with all the weaknesses our species brings with us to anything we do.

I submit it is up to each and everyone of us to strive for that Gold Ring we call "Professionalism"....not to the Government, Operator, or anyone else.

I would think your poll here confirms this....it matters not on one's Nationality, status in life, education, military service, or source of training that determines the "better" pilot....but rather how all of that is affected by the individual's drive and determination.

Political Correctness is part and parcel of what is wrong with our society today....one should meet muster with no passes given. The Law of Supply and Demand works in the interest of "professionalism"....the fewer qualified pilots out there the higher wages shall be, the better work conditions will be, and the higher the cost to the customer.

See a problem in that?

170'

2nd Sep 2011, 15:21

Geoffers said:

PS. Don't forget that any ATP check-ride I am aware of requires an IR section and once you have that ticket you have right to fly into some of the busiest airports in the world. It is only right and proper that that fragile skill is kept in good shape and NOT doing so can be counted as part of the problem.

An ATP is a Certificate or Licence depending on where you are and an Instrument Rating is a rating. The ATP is good for operating anywhere anytime (non IMC) without a current instrument checkride.

I routinely take ATP OPC's, LPC's and 135 checkrides in various jurisdictions with no IR portion, along with many heavy helicopter pilots who fly the machines in predominantly external load work, and we operate into some pretty busy airfields from time to time.

Further; the comment ' Go away and get a VFR job until ...........Yada yada!

Many of the ' B206 with a longline' guys have extensive offshore experience, and simply moved on to something more challenging...:eek: