Basic flying skills vs flight control augmentation: where is the rotary world?

[gnow]

Just a thought. The FMS is classified as a Client's Optional Equipment and as such a defered defect on the FMS is allowable for despatching the aircraft offshore. However, the FMS is the heart and soul of the navigation system esp for offshore work. Has anyone flown offshore with an unserviceable FMS? As for me I am from the old S61 N school where I was brought up with "nothing" so it is no big deal to go offshore using the VOR, NDB and radar for navigation. However, I will only do it in good weather. What about the rest of us?

[Garfs]

I've flown the 225 offshore without an FMS on numerous
Occasions.

Pretty simple we just flew off the VOR and did manual calculations for time to go, ground speed etc. Just had to make sure an ARA wasn't called for at the installation as were not allowed to shoot ARA's without the FMS otherwise we are good to go.

[HeliComparator]

The FMS is not "Client's operational equipment", it is part of the basic aircraft and thus must be serviceable unless allowed to be U/S in the MMEL/MEL. Which it is, but with the caveat "provided procedures do not require their use". And for the GPS "as required" (by operational regulations).


So taking the bureaucratic view, if the FMS forms part of the SOPs and procedures in the OM Part B and it does not make provision for when the FMS is inoperative, you can't depart. If the Operational Regulations require you to have GPS, you can't depart.


From a common sense point of view, it depends on the intended flight. Presuming the above criteria were satisfied I would look at the flight, the availability of other navaids / visual nav, the need to navigate accurately (traffic density, risk of "missing" the offshore installation, terrain etc), the weather, the tightness of fuel planning and make a judgement call. If it was "out in the bay" 20 miles offshore, then probably yes. If it was 280 miles out to sea with no navaids after 80 miles, then no.


In the case of Bristow, the FMS/GPS forms a basic part of operating offshore as far as the Operations Manual goes, so the answer would always be No.

[Boudreaux Bob]

However did we do flights without all that Gucci Kit?

[HeliComparator]

However did we do flights without all that Gucci Kit?

With a good dose of bravado and lack of self preservation! However, most of the time some sort of Area Nav was in use even if only Decca or loran.

[JohnDixson]

Here is a short little book that describes how some of our forbears did it:

The Long Way Home (http://www.longwayhome.com/)

" The Long Way Home " about a PAA Boeing 314 return to LaGuardia after hostilities commenced in the Pacific.


Couple of bucks, marvelous story.

[terminus mos]

HC wrote

The FMS is not "Client's operational equipment", it is part of the basic aircraft and thus must be serviceable unless allowed to be U/S in the MMEL/MEL. Which it is, but with the caveat "provided procedures do not require their use". And for the GPS "as required" (by operational regulations).


My company (one of those ignorant interfering clients you like so much) requires 2x FMS. I think we can depart with 1 unserviceable in certain weather conditions.

[HeliComparator]

Jolly good. Dual FMS is standard for SAR machines, optional for crew change. Our Australian machines have dual FMS - that was required by CASA for GNSS approaches at an IFR alternate without any land-based navaids.


So do your helicopters have dual FMS installed out of the goodness of your heart, or to meet an operational requirement (ie no choice)?

With dual FMS no probs departing with one inop provided it is not required for the above, nor configured to do the radio tuning - although in the latter case it is allowable if configured to do the radio tuning but you have the emergency radio tuning head.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Ah yes, Decca. :{

[John Eacott]

Here is a short little book that describes how some of our forbears did it


Not so much of the 'forbears', Mr Dixson! We managed quite well with a plotting board (when the looker had to go emcon silent) in order to go and play for four hours then find the carrier. Last I looked, offshore facilities didn't move nearly as much; are we so totally dependent on GPS and other aids these days? Have we lost the basics of navigating around the sky?

http://www.rekeninstrumenten.nl/pages%20and%20pictures/05701.jpg

[Boudreaux Bob]

Ask the GOM old timers about having just a Magnetic compass and a watch.:eek:

[John Eacott]

Watch?

Eeh lad, tha' were lucky; sundial had to do us with the special mod for night ops :p

[terminus mos]

HC

So do your helicopters have dual FMS installed out of the goodness of your heart, or to meet an operational requirement (ie no choice)?

They are not our helicopters, although we are now thinking about leasing ourselves and conducting our own operations for various reasons.

Dual FMS is a requirement under our Minimum Equipment Standards designed to meet an operational requirement as you mentioned, however, we rarely ever see a cloud so we rarely have the requirement. Perhaps that makes it out of the goodness of our hearts!

[JohnDixson]

Messrs. Eacot and Boudreaux: It appears that you two would especially enjoy that read! John, your remarks brought back the first time one of the SA pilots took me ( Army pilot just back from VN ) out to do night dipping. I thought it was like joining another religion.

Best,
John

[HeliComparator]

HC

They are not our helicopters, although we are now thinking about leasing ourselves and conducting our own operations for various reasons.




I meant "your" helicopters in the same way as one might say "your" hotel room. Not owned, but rented/chartered or whatever.


Anyway it will be interesting to see you start up a new operator. Even more interesting to find out if you can do if for the same cost as you pay your contractors, or whether you will have to throw more money at it to put on a good show!

[terminus mos]

Anyway it will be interesting to see you start up a new operator. Even more interesting to find out if you can do if for the same cost as you pay your contractors, or whether you will have to throw more money at it to put on a good show!

No more than a question asked at a recent management meeting so can be considered a thought bubble until the evaluation is complete. It would be for Company use only, not for charter.

It's all very predictable these days, we can lease 225s from the same lessors at fleet rates (due to their buying power) as the helicopter companies do, we can get the same PBH rates, we already lease the base facilities that our operator occupies, we can buy fuel at our bulk rates we use for boats and rigs, we can insure for competitive premiums, we can employ good people at the same union rates + a little. Importantly, we could more closely control the standard of the product and have transparency with safety issues.

Unless our contractor is providing the services for love, we shouldn't have to throw money at it to put on a good show.

[HeliComparator]

No more than a question asked at a recent management meeting so can be considered a thought bubble until the evaluation is complete. It would be for Company use only, not for charter.
.



So (not really knowing anything about the world of twilight aviation aka corporate) does that mean you don't need an AOC (or equivalent)? If so, can you still carry contractors?


Do you receive oversight from the Authority (CASA or whatever) at the same level as a helicopter charter company, and if not, is it not perhaps a little "dangerous" in terms of reputation, to be totally responsible for everything - it's fine until the unthinkable happens (and it will eventually, it is just a matter of time)!

[Boudreaux Bob]

Brother John, reading up on the Imperial Flying boats and other early long distance flyers has always been amazing stuff. Remembering there was a time when it was Needle, Ball, and Airspeed that was considered State of the art, is just mind boggling.

That spry young fellow that flew a Tiger Moth between the UK and OZ is also a good story.

One of my favorite hunting spots outside La Grande, Oregon still had one of the old Airway Beacons that has replaced the Bonfire that was maintained at that site during the early Air Mail Days.

It does not hurt us to look back to the old days to begin to appreciate how good we have it now. That is a concept that applies to Helicopter flying as well.

Instrument flying on the old LF Airways, stepping on the Ball, using a coffee grinder ADF receiver with a manual Loop, with no directional Gyro and only a Mag Compass, definitely required some Airmanship.

[HeliComparator]

Yes some of the record breaking stuff was impressive (obviously) but let's not get too carried away. Aviators in those days had a different skill set and narrower safety margins - and crashed a lot as a consequence. Modern pilots have a perfectly valid but different skill set - and the equipment to maintain higher safety margins. Put either the pioneer pilot or the modern pilot into the other's role and they would each be incompetent.

Or to put it another way, get those rosey shades back in their case!

[212man]

HC, true but I still particularly like this incident - a definite case of 'resilience'! Cessna 188 Pacific rescue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_188_Pacific_rescue)

[JohnDixson]

'Evening, HC;

Lets beam the Pan AM Clipper Captain miraculously in the cockpit of the Asiana 214 machine. Think he might be able to keep the machine on speed?

( After someone showed him where the airspeed was indicated, naturally )

I'm cheating a bit here: that particular PanAm Capt Ford had a reputation for being a good stick and technically astute )

[HeliComparator]

'Evening, HC;

Lets beam the Pan AM Clipper Captain miraculously in the cockpit of the Asiana 214 machine. Think he might be able to keep the machine on speed?

( After someone showed him where the airspeed was indicated, naturally )

I'm cheating a bit here: that particular PanAm Capt Ford had a reputation for being a good stick and technically astute )



Yes, but then probably any other captain could, even me!


Required skill sets change over time. I learnt on a Bell 47 and when trying to hover, 99% of my attention was on the tacho - I had to keep it between 3000 and 3100 rpm using the twistgrip throttle, and in reality, nearer 3100rpm due to knackered engines. Every control input had some bearing on the power required so constant adjustment was required. Fast forward to 2005 and now I am flying an EC225 with no manual throttles at all. So that basic skill I learnt is completely redundant.


I trained long hours for an IR - (and long hours after that before I became proficient!) and had to fly endless ILSs manually - since the AS332L didn't have a satisfactory coupler. Eventually I was fairly good at it.


Then, having been on the EC225 whilst 100,000 fleet hours were clocked up in Bristow with only one event that required a manual ILS to be flown, and that was a software bug now fixed (one event in the 100,000 hrs I mean), I realised that an ability to fly an accurate and smooth manual ILS was a redundant skill. Well not totally redundant, I suppose I would need to be able to make a rough stab at it, but no need for perfection for an event that will only occur once in 10 lifetimes or more.


So times move on, skills change and so I have replaced the manual ILS skill with another one that allows me to be comfortable with the automation and know what it is going to do, and know how to make it do what I want, including flying an entire IF approach and missed approach without having to touch the controls. And fly it much better than I ever could!

[terminus mos]

Do you receive oversight from the Authority (CASA or whatever) at the same level as a helicopter charter company, and if not, is it not perhaps a little "dangerous" in terms of reputation, to be totally responsible for everything - it's fine until the unthinkable happens (and it will eventually, it is just a matter of time)!

No difference in regulation or oversight HC, I was referring to you earlier use of the term "operator" ie there would not be an intent to compete with operators for other business.

[Boudreaux Bob]

HC,

Mssrs Sod and Murphy can sometimes conspire to thwart the best calculations and assumptions and when that happens the best Statistical Analysis will not provide the least bit of cushion of a sudden meeting between Metal and the Earth.:=

As "meticulous" as Pan Am's first Chief Pilot was, Those two Gentleman ganged up on him.

http://www.clipperflyingboats.com/pan-am-pilots/edwin-musick

[JohnDixson]

HC,

Did you mean to write:

"Yes, but then probably any other OLDER captain could, even me! "?

Getting far afield of the EC-225 thread, but then this and several other threads in both the Rotorheads and Rumors forums are onto the point behind my rejoinder. That point being that, while flight control augmentation and automation have indeed improved the piloting safety and mission performance areas, we are not yet in a Starship Enterprise environment, thus possession of basic piloting skills, at a very high level, in less augmented modes of current vehicles ( in fact, the least augmented mode which is possible, given the system design ) is still an absolute necessity.

Not at all disagreeing with the points you made: they are valid.

[BOBAKAT]

flashback: in 1994, When I was flying in the South Pacific, I was flying 140 nautical mile above the water between the islands NTTA/NTTB : single-engine, single radio, no VOR, NO NDB , NO GPS ..... and Some Time No good weather .... But, with a raft on the left seat as copilot ....:ok:

So, lucky my FMS was myself and never shut down....;)

Please, use the best of the technology for lfying, but time to time return to the basics !

[Arm out the window]

Then, having been on the EC225 whilst 100,000 fleet hours were clocked up in Bristow with only one event that required a manual ILS to be flown

Maybe so, but the skills you learnt in manually flying approaches (or even carefully monitoring with the ability to quickly spot errors and take positive action to prevent ****-ups), are the edge which can't be replaced with any amount of technology.

Basic attitude/power/airspeed awareness; basic time speed/distance/ heading/fuel burn nav awareness - only when you're ready to sit in an aircraft that has no pilots up front should you be ready to accept a reduction in skills that need to be well learnt, surely?

[ShyTorque]

We have to adapt to new ways in all walks of life. In the process, some skills that were a necessity in a bygone era become less so in the future.

Put an "old and bold, traditional map and compass only" pilot in a modern cockpit and he would be lost even before he got off the ground - he probably couldn't even switch it on!

As one of the previous category I've had to adapt as things become invented. Some of my skills from "my" bygone era are now far less polished, if they ever were.....but navigating at 50 feet agl in a tactical situation using map and compass and stopwatch in an aircraft with no navaids (not even a heading bug) and being able to consistently arrive at an LS within 15 seconds of the required ETA certainly took some doing.

These days I put in the ALT and NAV modes, look at the GPS kit and adjust my IAS until the ETA is the same as the booked slot time... much simpler but I'm glad of the respite; I reckon I earned it.

Even so, it only gives the ETA to the nearest minute...I must have been four times as good!

[Boudreaux Bob]

Nothing has changed since Mr. Wright made this observation!

What is chiefly needed is skill rather than machinery.

— Wilbur Wright, letter to Octave Chanute, 13 May 1900

[HeliComparator]

Maybe so, but the skills you learnt in manually flying approaches (or even carefully monitoring with the ability to quickly spot errors and take positive action to prevent ****-ups), are the edge which can't be replaced with any amount of technology.

Basic attitude/power/airspeed awareness; basic time speed/distance/ heading/fuel burn nav awareness - only when you're ready to sit in an aircraft that has no pilots up front should you be ready to accept a reduction in skills that need to be well learnt, surely?



I think this is an important point: What tends to happen at the moment is that pilots are trained and checked on some of the older skills such as manual ILS, and yes you are right there is a carry-forward from manual flight to monitoring and situational awareness (on its many levels). However it is not a perfect carry-forward. Surely it would be much better to have the training optimised to the current skill set (including of course monitoring and situational awareness), rather than the outdated one and just hope the carry-forward is adequate. Training time is a limited resource, it should be optimised to the current role and not one from 30 years ago.

[Boudreaux Bob]

HC,

How do we arrive a a definition of "Minimum Acceptable Handling Skills"?

How should we test for that Standard (whatever it might be)?

How much "in-service" or "recurrent" training do we devote to maintaining those handling skills (whatever we define them to be)?

[HeliComparator]

HC,

How do we arrive a a definition of "Minimum Acceptable Handling Skills"?

How should we test for that Standard (whatever it might be)?

How much "in-service" or "recurrent" training do we devote to maintaining those handling skills (whatever we define them to be)?



It should of course be risk-based. As I said, we have a limited amount of training resource, and so that training should, to some extent at least, be directed towards preventing the next accident. Such accidents don't occur due to an inability to keep the needles bang on the middle during an ILS, and neither of course do they occur due to an engine failure at critical decision point. And yet we spend lots of time training for both these things, whilst not really addressing the things that actually do cause us to crash.


On your specific questions, there is no absolute "right answer" of course. However if we are concerned about retaining manual flying skills, boring down an ILS with minimal control inputs so as to keep everything hunky dory, is not the way to do it. The better and smoother you are, the less you get a feel for the control response and the less confidence you are likely to attain in your ability to recover from an upset or other unexpected event. Resilience is not built by repeating the same old exercise-by-numbers over and over again to perfection.

[Fareastdriver]

The better and smoother you are, the less you get a feel for the control response and the less confidence you are likely to attain in your ability to recover from an upset or other unexpected event

I don't believe anybody actually wrote that.

[Boudreaux Bob]

I would suggest the opposite is the case. "Smooth" is the pure essence of "flying" no matter the maneuver or state of flight extant.

[FC80]

Bob, I seem to remember someone (might have been HC) pointing out that in the Sumburgh crash, a yank (not that kind ;)) on the lever would have been better than the smooth application of power that actually happened.

Would you disagree?

[Boudreaux Bob]

I believe using an example of poor piloting to yank some advantage out of the air is inappropriate in its own right.:=

[HeliComparator]

I don't believe anybody actually wrote that.

Correct, it was all in your imagination.

Anyway, would you care to add something then, rather than just dis my point and run?

[HeliComparator]

I would suggest the opposite is the case. "Smooth" is the pure essence of "flying" no matter the maneuver or state of flight extant.

Clearly a few folk don't get it so I'll try again.

Manual ILS on an AS332L for example. So, you glance at the GPS track and adjust the heading to the final approach track as the loc is intercepted. Unless the wind changes significantly as you descend, only tiny changes of heading are now required, and a slight poke of the pedals was the normal way of doing that. You know the expected rate of descent and set it by reducing power as the GS is intercepted - experience tells you what collective pitch you need for the conditions. Now, to maintain the GS you just need tiny adjustments (best done on cyclic pitch trim on the 332L, but that is an argument for another day).

So to fly this magical ILS that is going to give me superhuman manual handling skills, I just need the odd prod on the pedals to change the heading by a degree or two, and a bit of action on the pitch beep trim. At the end of all that, it was super smooth, needles were pretty much in the middle and I am a hero for being able to do it so well.

BUT HOW ON EARTH DOES THAT HELP ME IN AN UPSET, or other unexpected situation where bold and confident control movements are required? (Clue: it doesn't!)

I haven't even moved the cyclic!

Sorry sceptical folks, but you really need to think this through. The better I am, the smaller my flight envelope is. That is fine until the unexpected happens, and due to the usual chain of improbable events I find myself in a flight condition I haven't experienced for years, and requiring control inputs much more severe that a prod of the pedals and a bit of beep trim. I freeze.

[Boudreaux Bob]

There once was a very famous Eket Pilot who had a control touch that John Brume from having his flightly Kip. There was nothing about his technique that involved finesse or smoothness and until One developed an immunity to thinking the Rotorhead had come unglued, it made for a long day of work.

I guess hollering that infamous departure call of "We're outta here!" and yanking the sticks to accomplish what was intended worked in the end, but there was something to be said for adding some "Smooth" to his technique.

I suppose there is some confusion about making large movements of the controls abruptly and doing so "smoothly". I suggest abrupt and smooth can have some commonality.

But, if you are down to "Abrupt" and are forced to abandon "Smooth", you have diddled the Pooch somehow.

[Prawn2king4]

Don't be tempted FED!

I can't quite believe it either .....

[Arm out the window]

Whatever the benefits or otherwise of being rough or smooth on the controls, hand flying without too much help keeps your scan quick, plus you quickly know what to do when performance isn't as expected.

By all means embrace all help given by automation, but even with extremely reliable equipment, crashes still happen because the pilot(s) monitoring don't take positive, appropriate action.

Why not? I suggest because they get too used to expecting the gear to work, as it almost always does, and are naturally surprised, confused and slow to react when things go wrong.

It's fixed wing, but an airliner crash on an investigation show I watched the other night is a great but tragic example - 3 pilots on the flight deck, coming down the ILS, captain's U/S radalt tells the autothrottle they're about to land (although they're nowhere near it), autothrottle pulls the power and they stall in from a few hundred feet.

The question I immediately asked myself was, where was their basic instrument scan? Why didn't at least one of them wake up to the looming power / attitude / performance disaster and jump in with a manual go-around?

Hindsight is great and I've stuffed up as many times as most people, but that fast connection between eyes, brain and manual control movements engendered by hand flying should always be maintained - IMHO!

However it is not a perfect carry-forward. Surely it would be much better to have the training optimised to the current skill set (including of course monitoring and situational awareness), rather than the outdated one and just hope the carry-forward is adequate. Training time is a limited resource, it should be optimised to the current role and not one from 30 years ago.

Yes, fully agree here - we must also move with the times, not get caught saying it was better in my day all the time.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Yes, fully agree here - we must also move with the times, not get caught saying it was better in my day all the time.


Very few if any are saying it was "better in my Day".

Different perhaps but not necessarily "better", in fact I would suggest a careful reading of most comments about "yesterday" really are a commentary on the fact modern Flight Control Systems are very much an improvement over the "old" stuff.

That piloting skills (hands on Monkey Skills) were better was a necessity as in some cases that is all there was to choose from.

With the advent of all this new Gee Whiz Kit where "Hands On" really means mere Button Pushing and Knob Turning then certainly that makes for fertile ground for bad things to grow if the Corn doesn't get Hoe'd to keep the Weeds away.

At least the thinking going on in the old days was being cued by the direct link between the thing manipulating the controls and the indications being used by the Monkey doing the driving.

Now we are one branch or more down the Tree from where that thinking is going on and have to not only see what the deviation is and make a correction but now we have to wait to see the deviation and figure out why it is there to begin with, decide if it is normal or a problem, then not only make the correction but figure out how to stop the interference.

In the old days, if the needles deviated on an ILS, we knew the immediate cause and cure. It was Us and not the AFCS, FMS, or any of the many things that make up the system today.