The report (from the principal conference organiser) was intended to summarise - and put into context - the presentations, distil out the main points and set out a list of issues to be discussed/addressed outside of the conference - as we are now doing in PPRune and on other bulletin boards.
The conference was funded by operators (including PHI) and Shell – approval coming from the CEOs who personally endorsed it (this was coordinated by the European Helicopter Operators Committee (EHOC)). The video replays were supplied by a Cougar who agreed not to hold back on detail (the Operations Director and I spent more than a month discussing and shaping the videos to get the best effect from them). We did not shrink from the ‘reveal’ which was hard-hitting and to the point.
No-one refused to present, even though the invitations were addressed at individuals and not organisations. Almost all presenters were open in their approach to the conference; messages came from the experience of individuals or from research undertaken prior to the day. Presenters were encouraged to provide their own views – most were not pre-aligned with the operator.
What I am trying to say is that this was a genuine attempt by all to get to the bottom of the automation problem and not to hide facts or blame someone/something. Reading the summary and the list of issues raised should confirm that.
There is a Joint Operators Committee (JOC); they are working together to address the issues but a number are deep-seated and difficult: the somewhat dysfunctional training regulations, the lack of appropriate rules in certification (which are already in the fixed-wing code) and the out-of-date nature of simulator approval are three that require appropriate movement from EASA.
The JOC have had extensive discussions with the manufacturers on the provision of FCOMs addressing the automation issues and procedures – there is already movement in this area and it is likely to lead to output similar to that provide by Boeing and Airbus for their communities.
That EASA did not attend the conference was something of a disappointment; the same is true for North Sea Fringe State operators (with the exception of Norway). PHI flew a number of attendees over from the US. There were line pilots at the conference – I talked to one-or-two.
It did not take the EC155 report to start this dialogue; the debate had started in three other threads: firstly the EC332 accident in Sumburgh (it should have been Bond ETAP but we had not really thought about it then and confined our discussions to approach profiles); the second with respect to CAP 1145; and the other, the UK Parliamentary Committee.
What is really important is what we now do about the issues raised in the conference; the RAeS have already agreed to provide a position paper - distilling the findings from the conference and turning them into a series of follow-up actions addressed at the relevant parties (it is difficult for them to do more than that).
I have discussed making the presentations/audio feed/papers more widely available but it is unlikely to happen; like most of you, I question this policy because it inhibits the informing of the debate on a matter of public safety. The policy (probably) stems from a period more than a decade ago when ‘proceedings’ were published and sold. It appears less relevant now that we no longer have proceedings.
In committee we constantly debate the amount that is charged to attendees – it is set at a level to ensure that the RAeS (a charity) can wipe its face. Even though the fees are high (and above a level that can be afforded by an interested party) we still have to find outside sponsorship for catering.
Anyway, enough of the background – on with the debate!