Geoffersincornwall
13th Jun 2012, 20:58
COMPETENCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS – The next big thing? I hope so!
The drive to set and maintain higher standards of competency is an essential part of the way forward for the global helicopter industry if the target for reducing accidents is to be achieved. There is unfortunately a widening credibility gap that is threatening to prevent any reductions and it needs to be fully understood if a solution is to be developed.
The gap is between the standards required for ‘compliance’ and the standards required to be ‘competent’. To understand the argument it is necessary to understand what I mean when I use these two words in this context.
Compliance is the provision of training and testing in line with the national or international regulations, as appropriate. The training ‘complies’ with the minimum acceptable standards allowed by law.
Competence is the ability of a helicopter pilot to perform the daily tasks he or she is called upon to perform in the normal course of their employment and do so in a safe and efficient manner in accordance with all the rules and regulations that apply. In addition he or she should be able to safely execute any task they have been adequately trained to perform and cope with any malfunction or emergency situation appropriately and thereby ensure a safe outcome for all concerned. A competent pilot knows his aircraft inside and out, knows and understands all relevant SOPs and has adequate interpersonal skills that ensure CRM issues are always dealt with effectively.
IFR competency is worthy of a special note. The helicopter industry has a schizophrenic attitude to IFR operations. It rarely needs to use an IFR capability but when needed it is a vital ingredient in the service provided to the client. This is the worst of all situations for a fragile skill that dissipates quickly when not used regularly leads to incompetent IFR operations. The situation is exacerbated by factors that are in some cases outside the control of the operator such as the lack of affordable simulators or a lack of IFR facilities at nearby airports. The main problem therefore is the cost of staying current. For those that need the capability but rarely operate IFR a monthly refresher is needed but I have yet to find any operator prepared to fund this basic skill-maintenance so the pilots have to get by without. Whilst it is possible to get most IR holders (but not all) up to a recognisable internationally acceptable standard after some refresher training a snap-check of any IR rated pilot who has had no practice in the previous 28 days is likely to result in a failure rate in excess of 75% based on the sample seen by me over a 5-year period.
The training and testing I see on a daily basis is undoubtedly designed to be compliant but a compliant pilot is not necessarily a competent one. A close examination of the License Skills Test, the Licence Proficiency Check and the Operational Proficiency Checks reveals a totally inadequate process that has been overtaken by the increasing complex and technologically advanced cockpits and the degree of sophistication in many of the tasks helicopters are expected to be involved in.
The training undertaken by pilots in the course of their career must end in some kind of assessment. How many of these assessments are true representations of an individual’s competence? Well I have now seen 214 students from 43 different countries in the period referred to and I would estimate that less than 50% would meet my definition of competence when they leave me. They may be compliant – at some stage in the process – but they are not competent. Most could be competent if the mistakes made in their basic training were corrected and the training they need to operate their new helicopter and ALL its equipment was adequate.
I propose the setting up of a scheme that can be managed with the support of, but not necessarily the intervention of, the regulators. This is important for regulators see their role as setting the lowest acceptable standard for each element of the aviation industry. They do not seek or necessarily see an advantage in trying to continually raise the bar with ever more demanding rules and regulations. It therefore falls to industry to find a way of dealing with the problems associated with pilot competency.
About ten years ago the industry began to develop the concept of Safety Management Systems and these have been so successful that regulators have, in some cases, made their adoption compulsory. The Competency Management System – or CMS - is an idea I hope will follow the SMS and find its way into the daily management of all CAT operators FTOs and TRTOs.
The key element in the CMS is the voluntary nature of the scheme. The new EASA FCL regulations call for all those involved with the training and employment of professional pilots to have a ‘Continuous Improvement Programme’. The CMS would meet that requirement and each organization would be able to map-out an affordable scheme that will see the gradual adoption of the CMS programme.
CMS schemes can be substantial and complex making use of the simulator equivalent of FOQA and other advanced techniques but they can also be very very simple and in the most basic form can simply be making better use of the simulator time already being paid for.
The concept of 'passing' or 'failing' a check flight ought to be an alien concept for the professional helicopter pilot and should be replaced by a scheme that recognises that you are either:-
1. Up to the mark
2. Need a bit of extra help (bit more training focussed on the weak area)
3. Need quite a lot of extra help (more substantial training to correct poor technique or similar weaknesses)
4. Need help that is beyond the CMS to provide - seek specialist advice.
A CMS scheme needs credibility and this can achieved by using 'IOSA - style auditing'. The IOSA scheme is one in which airlines are audited by a team of Subject Matter Experts. The auditors are specialists trained at a small number of IATA approved schools and who audit their own area of expertise and nothing more. They audit against a very comprehensive audit plan that has been developed over the years. The significant reduction in accident rates amongst African airlines has been attributed to the activities of IOSA.
By using a similar system the CMS scheme can be given true credibility. Let us say for the sake of argument that a similar training school was set up by the IHST and they ‘licensed’ audit teams to conduct annual audits on participating CAT operators and schools involved in the training of pilots in particular and flight crews in general.
This is the germ of an idea I would like to share and see what constructive feedback can be generated amongst Pruners with an interest in the subject.
Thanks
G.
The drive to set and maintain higher standards of competency is an essential part of the way forward for the global helicopter industry if the target for reducing accidents is to be achieved. There is unfortunately a widening credibility gap that is threatening to prevent any reductions and it needs to be fully understood if a solution is to be developed.
The gap is between the standards required for ‘compliance’ and the standards required to be ‘competent’. To understand the argument it is necessary to understand what I mean when I use these two words in this context.
Compliance is the provision of training and testing in line with the national or international regulations, as appropriate. The training ‘complies’ with the minimum acceptable standards allowed by law.
Competence is the ability of a helicopter pilot to perform the daily tasks he or she is called upon to perform in the normal course of their employment and do so in a safe and efficient manner in accordance with all the rules and regulations that apply. In addition he or she should be able to safely execute any task they have been adequately trained to perform and cope with any malfunction or emergency situation appropriately and thereby ensure a safe outcome for all concerned. A competent pilot knows his aircraft inside and out, knows and understands all relevant SOPs and has adequate interpersonal skills that ensure CRM issues are always dealt with effectively.
IFR competency is worthy of a special note. The helicopter industry has a schizophrenic attitude to IFR operations. It rarely needs to use an IFR capability but when needed it is a vital ingredient in the service provided to the client. This is the worst of all situations for a fragile skill that dissipates quickly when not used regularly leads to incompetent IFR operations. The situation is exacerbated by factors that are in some cases outside the control of the operator such as the lack of affordable simulators or a lack of IFR facilities at nearby airports. The main problem therefore is the cost of staying current. For those that need the capability but rarely operate IFR a monthly refresher is needed but I have yet to find any operator prepared to fund this basic skill-maintenance so the pilots have to get by without. Whilst it is possible to get most IR holders (but not all) up to a recognisable internationally acceptable standard after some refresher training a snap-check of any IR rated pilot who has had no practice in the previous 28 days is likely to result in a failure rate in excess of 75% based on the sample seen by me over a 5-year period.
The training and testing I see on a daily basis is undoubtedly designed to be compliant but a compliant pilot is not necessarily a competent one. A close examination of the License Skills Test, the Licence Proficiency Check and the Operational Proficiency Checks reveals a totally inadequate process that has been overtaken by the increasing complex and technologically advanced cockpits and the degree of sophistication in many of the tasks helicopters are expected to be involved in.
The training undertaken by pilots in the course of their career must end in some kind of assessment. How many of these assessments are true representations of an individual’s competence? Well I have now seen 214 students from 43 different countries in the period referred to and I would estimate that less than 50% would meet my definition of competence when they leave me. They may be compliant – at some stage in the process – but they are not competent. Most could be competent if the mistakes made in their basic training were corrected and the training they need to operate their new helicopter and ALL its equipment was adequate.
I propose the setting up of a scheme that can be managed with the support of, but not necessarily the intervention of, the regulators. This is important for regulators see their role as setting the lowest acceptable standard for each element of the aviation industry. They do not seek or necessarily see an advantage in trying to continually raise the bar with ever more demanding rules and regulations. It therefore falls to industry to find a way of dealing with the problems associated with pilot competency.
About ten years ago the industry began to develop the concept of Safety Management Systems and these have been so successful that regulators have, in some cases, made their adoption compulsory. The Competency Management System – or CMS - is an idea I hope will follow the SMS and find its way into the daily management of all CAT operators FTOs and TRTOs.
The key element in the CMS is the voluntary nature of the scheme. The new EASA FCL regulations call for all those involved with the training and employment of professional pilots to have a ‘Continuous Improvement Programme’. The CMS would meet that requirement and each organization would be able to map-out an affordable scheme that will see the gradual adoption of the CMS programme.
CMS schemes can be substantial and complex making use of the simulator equivalent of FOQA and other advanced techniques but they can also be very very simple and in the most basic form can simply be making better use of the simulator time already being paid for.
The concept of 'passing' or 'failing' a check flight ought to be an alien concept for the professional helicopter pilot and should be replaced by a scheme that recognises that you are either:-
1. Up to the mark
2. Need a bit of extra help (bit more training focussed on the weak area)
3. Need quite a lot of extra help (more substantial training to correct poor technique or similar weaknesses)
4. Need help that is beyond the CMS to provide - seek specialist advice.
A CMS scheme needs credibility and this can achieved by using 'IOSA - style auditing'. The IOSA scheme is one in which airlines are audited by a team of Subject Matter Experts. The auditors are specialists trained at a small number of IATA approved schools and who audit their own area of expertise and nothing more. They audit against a very comprehensive audit plan that has been developed over the years. The significant reduction in accident rates amongst African airlines has been attributed to the activities of IOSA.
By using a similar system the CMS scheme can be given true credibility. Let us say for the sake of argument that a similar training school was set up by the IHST and they ‘licensed’ audit teams to conduct annual audits on participating CAT operators and schools involved in the training of pilots in particular and flight crews in general.
This is the germ of an idea I would like to share and see what constructive feedback can be generated amongst Pruners with an interest in the subject.
Thanks
G.