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.
Last edited by marcr; 30th Aug 2011 at 16:02.
Reason: Removing graphic unintended symbol.