Big Brother watching or welcome safety measure

[Nigd3]

To all you pro pilots

I am currently working for a firm that is installing a FDR onto several military trainer aircraft of a new customer.
This flight data will be downloaded every week and the data analysed for engine and airframe stress management purposes and a report sent to the customer every six months, unless there is a problem identified.
This will obviously enable them to rotate aircraft and ensure one aircraft is not being "hammered" to death in aeros whilst another is being used just for circuit training. There will also be monitoring of the engines to pre-empt any problems and hot section inspections etc.
Another aspect of this data analysis will be that "Exceedance monitoring" programs will be run on the data to pick up any unreported stresses, engine or airframe. There will also be the normal use for incidents to help stop any p*ssing contests between pilots, customer and manufacturer should it be unclear as to what exactly happened.
Ive included some examples of what is being recorded and would like viewpoints of the profesional or private pilots as to whether you think it is a welcome safety feature and be glad someone is looking after your interests or do you consider it to be big brother looking over your shoulder??

Airspeed
Pressure Altitude
Heading
RadALt
ILS Deviations
Accelerations (Normal, lateral and longitudinal)
GPS Present Position
Engine parameters
Pitch
Roll
Control Surface Position/Pilot Input
GPS UTC
Flap position
WoW
Gear position

Would it bother you Ppruners that all this info could be analysed by engineers on a weekly basis and if you were a little heavy on the stick or throttle (or worse), an exceedance flag would be reported back to your employer or CO??

Merry Xmas!!!!

:D

PS sorry its plank wing biased but I'm sure you get the general point

[flyer43]

Nigd3
This kind of information has been logged by some of the major airlines for decades and is becoming a requirement for the future. In recent years, this has also been applied to helicopters flying over the North Sea. Initial concerns regarding "big brother" soon gave way to acceptance and great interest in what the system is able to provide in terms of actual as opposed to percevied data.

In addition to simply the general operation of the aircraft, the system can help develop profiles for various phases of flight. Some companies have modified climb trim as a result of using the system and have saved significant amounts on fuel burn as a consequence. You can also map the environment - in the fixed plank world this helps identify problem runways while in the rotating plank world you can map the turbulence sectors for an offshore installation. These are just a few of the ways in which these systems can help improve flight safety.

You expressed concerns that the system would report the occasional transgression. Although this is essentially true, the way in which the system is managed is the key to its success.

A robust agreement has to be set up between pilots and management to ensure annonymity is guaranteed. This usually requires an intermediary such as a trusted pilots representative and/or pilots union internvention. Only in extreme cases would a crew be identified for further investigation, and then only with the full agreement of the nominated pilots rep or union rep etc. Only basic "trend" information is passed on to management i.e a general flavour of the type of exceedences which have occured over the period. Management leaves the system to be managed by the small team of personnel who are trusted by the pilots to maintain annonymity. I'm not sure how this would be handled in the military of course......!

Lastly, but possibly not least. The system also indicates when an aircraft has been operated outside its design envelope as well as the "normal" operating regime. Wouldn't you feel happier and safer flying a fixed or rotating plank which you know hasn't been unduly stressed?

[Mars]

For those who have not been exposed to these programs (which are widely used in the airplane world), here is a report that will: (a) explain its use and (b) give an indication of the cost (about $10,000 per aircraft when the aircraft is already equipped with FDR).

The report may be found here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2002_02.pdf).

More than 50% of accidents have human factors as a primary cause: this is the only tool that monitors operations (i.e. the human in the loop). It has been used in helicopters now for several years and all who have been exposed to its use have been astounded at the effectiveness of the tool to expose and eliminate those incidents that may not merit reporting but, when occurring (in specific combinations) in a chain, lead to accidents.

The systematic arguments, which are discussed in the referenced paper, have been well addressed by the airline community where these systems have been in use for more than 30 years (see FAA and FOQA).

It is interesting to find that line pilots, when exposed to the concept, are vocal supporters of these cheap but effective systems.

[Shawn Coyle]

The only knowledge I have of such a system is from one of our fixed-wing students who works for a major European carrier. He identified a problem with one model of their aircraft doing visual approaches where there was a consistent (15% of the time) problem with getting the aircraft configured early and then not applying power and getting close to the stall as the aircraft was turning to final.
They instituted a training change, and the problem went away.
They had a system where the pilots were happy with the system not being used as a Big Brother.

I wish that we could come up with something for the RW world that was cheap and easy enough to fit to the light helicopter market - think of the things we could do to improve safety!

[HughMartin]

I am not quite sure why this thread has been initiated on a rotary forum when the subject relates to fixed wing. Having said that, the principles are no different to either type of aircraft.

Recording the data is one thing but what you do with it is the important issue. Exactly what is your client wanting? Is it a health and usage monitoring system from which you can analyse potential airworthiness problems in the airframe and systems or are you looking for a system which monitors the pilots’ performance and adherence to published SOPs?

Health and usage monitoring systems (HUMS) have been fitted to larger helicopters for some time now with limited success taking into account the cost and weight penalties. I suggest you speak to the North Sea helicopter operators’ HUMS people who will be able to give you very useful information particularly in relation to false alarms and sorting out the wood from the trees. The last ten to fifteen years or so has been a steep learning curve with lots of lessons learnt. The systems are by no means perfect yet but are getting better. The involvement with the aircraft manufacturer from initial design phase is essential.

As to “Operations monitoring” or more correctly “ flight data analysis programmes”, this is a much more sensitive subject as far as the pilots are concerned. In my view, if it is done responsibly in a non blame culture it can pay dividends way beyond any other safety initiative I have ever experienced. It is a straight forward technical issue to get the data into a readable format but the method of using the data is by far the most difficult problem which requires strict adherence to procedures agreed by the management and the pilot workforce. Again, I would suggest a visit to one of the experts in this field of which British Airways must be one of the world leaders.

To answer your final question, your system will be doomed if you rely on engineers to interpret the flight data info. No disrespect to engineers but you wouldn’t expect pilots to interpret the technical data relating to airworthiness issues. You MUST ensure the flight data is read by an independent, experienced pilot who is trusted by line pilots and management alike. Any data must be dis-identified before being made available to management. It can then be used to refine SOPs as necessary in a constructive manner without the pilots thinking that they are about to be pounced upon by big brother. Only in cases of serious non adherence to SOPs will the system allow the individual to be given appropriate advice by the “trusted pilot” and closer monitoring of the individual in question be established.

[Nigd3]

Hi HughMartin

Reason for FW biased thread on RW forum is because I fly helis privately but have the misfortune to have to work and mix with the "plankies". They arent that bad really!!

Using the FDR that we are is primarily for an accident investigation tool but with the dual use as a weekly download tool to gather data and use manufacturers engine trend condition monitoring programes to predict problems with the engines, or not, so to speak. The engine data that is being recorded is far above the requirements for this class of aircraft (in fact it doesnt even need a FDR). ITT, Np, Ng, EOT, EOP, fuel flow etc.
The stresses that are recorded are direct from the IRS to assist with any over-G and accumalative G stress calculations. There is a fleet of these aircraft and the customer wishes to maintain similar airframe wear across them.
Airspeed, gear position and flap position are recorded for any overspeed situations. Plus all the rest of the parameters listed.

I disagree that the system is doomed if engineers are used to analyse the data. Would pilots be aware of the various scenarios that could require a hot section inspection on the engine or if one is not necessary. To be honest neither would I fully, but my background is avionics not engines, so I will leave those decisions to the specialists. Same again for all the stresses involved during 6 months of flying, including aerobatics, would a pilot be able to analyse the acceleration data and determine if an aircraft is being overly strained by accumulative G forces. Again neither would I.

I agree a long chat with some experienced operators is a good idea and will be pushing this thinking forward to the upper echelons of management, unless it means a trip to Aberdeen in January.

[helmet fire]

These are a fantastic idea. I have operated with a monitoring device since 1997, and no one whom I have flown with has has a bad word to say about it. We all appreciate the fact that over torques, over speeds, over temps, etc are pickup and analysedso that the machine stays as reliable as possible for the next pilot. Especially if you have a mature organisation that can deal with the occasional, and very human tendancy to make an error once in a while.

I often wonder just how many over torques/temps/speeds go totally unoticed by the pilot with his head out the door lifting a load.

I would like to see engine trend monitors fitted as a non tamper proof, mandatory item as I am sure that more reliable recording of events will eventually lead to a greater service life of components and thus a much reduced running cost for the machine.

Wouldnt we all like to see that? :ok:

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

Got to agree with Helmet Fire and everyone else here who posted words of support for such a system. What pilot would object? There might be some exceedences noted...so what? If they are within the transient limits, fine. If they are over or beyond the transients, wouldn't we all really rather know about them? I know I would, whether they were mine or not.

Reviewing CVR data would be another issue, and I would have another opinion on that.

[Nigd3]

Helmet fire

The recordings for engine info comes straight from the unit that passes on the data to the EIS and the pilot sees, unless his head is out of the window!!!

The flight data is not erasable and due to the units we are using being capable of recording several hundred more parameters than the ones we require, it will record around 120 hours before overwriting occurs. Units that meet the relevant ED for flight data recorders, must record a minimum of 25 hours before the data is overwritten. Sorry if you know all this crap already!!!!

PF#1 - CVRs and the access to the recordings is always a contentious issue with pilots and this unit is actually a CVFDR that will record both pilots and the CAM, which is in the main pretty useless due to mask mics. There are privacy laws that state the cockpit voice data cannot be downloaded with the unit in situ on the aircraft. It must be removed and powered on the bench. Whether that is enough privacy protection is another issue. There is also cause for concern that the aircraft wiring can be tampered with to allow instant playback on the ramp by any technician with the portable download device.

I have always thought that the FDR is an excellent tool for recording any excesses that could be dangerous. It seems to occur quite regularly in accident reports that lines read "several days/weeks/months prior to the incident, there was a XXXX that was not acted on and this contributed to the accident by YYYY.......etc"

I also realise that they could be misused and abused by bad management and that was why I wanted to hear pilots views who have been under the watchful eye of such devices.

[HughMartin]

Nigd3,

I disagree that the system is doomed if engineers are used to analyse the data. .

Sorry Nigd3, my last para wasn't clear. My comment about not using engineers for data analysis refered to flight data and not to HUMS type data. Of course engineers should analyse technical data (which would include engine/systems exceedences) but flight profile data should be left to people experienced and knowledgeable about piloting.

[Gaseous]

Shawn,

There are several companies making what are marketed as 'CHT and EGT monitors' for light aircraft. These instruments weigh a couple of pounds and cost $1500 to $2k. Sensors for RPM, fuel flow,and practically anything else you want to monitor can be added. Limits are programmable on all parameters and all data can be stored and downloaded to PC. All overlimit warnings are saved in gory detail. I am considering hiring out my aircraft and have one of these things on order. I want to know if overlimit conditions occur cos me and my family fly in this thing.

[Helibelly]

Our company has installed intellistart on it's fleet of B206's, it monitors engine parameters etc You can chose when it records events by setting the limits yourself or just use the standard limits. Anyone who's intrested in this system should send me a message.

[wish2bflying]

From http://rrp.casa.gov.au/download/nprm/nprm0211c09.pdf -

17.6.1. The purpose of LOSA is to identify threats to safety, minimise the risks that such threats may generate and implement measures to manage human error in operational contexts.

This is usually done using a human observer, but there are more and more cases where FDR's are being used to achieve the same result.

People are less likely to make a mistake when they are conscious their actions are likely to be analysed later. Building this awareness into a formal FDR program will achieve a better performance picture of both machine and pilot.

I would love to see this sort of data collected and compared over time, and see if there are any patterns of behaviour that I personally show.

[Flytest]

Just a quick word, being one of the "HUMS type Engineer guys"..

I work with a system daily which is an Integrated FDR and HUMS, (yeah I know the shortcomings.. don't bombard me with gripes please, we are working on it:cool: )

I analyse data for the HUMS, occasionally referring to FDR data to perhaps explain certain readings, but I do not pass judgement on FDR info, nor does anyone else.

My point is that yes we record exceedances, overtemps, overtorques etc, and no the system does not afford the pilot annonymity, however, it also does not invoke witch hunts. Surely its better to detect these things and take corrective action in the name of safety. So if somebody makes a glaring goof, and gets a spanking.. big deal, so long as the world still turns and no lives are lost:ok:

As I said, to the best of my knowledge, the info is not used to beat people with, and we are not too far up our own ar*es to think our system is perfect, if we have a pilot or engineer question the data validity, then we investigate it and report and justify everything.

It ain't a perfect world, but its getting better rapidly.

Gaseous, Shawn,

I hear you guys, but the compromise between technology and price is a tough one, in a full blown HUMS, invariably the Groundstation is the real wizardry, and most exceedances have to fulfill several criteria before an exceedance is flagged, e.g. you can't just flag an exceedance when you hit a line on a gauge, you have to look at control positions, rpm's, temps, durations etc... all of a sudden it gets complicated and the $ start to increase.. that said, If I couldn't justify a full or Mini HUMS I'd certainly fit whatever was appropriate to my type / budget / role fit. Anything is better than nothing surely?

Merry Xmas Guys.

[400 Hertz]

You may be interested in going to this Helicopter Operational Monitoring Programme (http://www.shl.co.uk/Technologies/Pages/homp.htm) website. I can't recall anybody getting fired over FDR or HOMP data, it's usually first treated with suspicion by all engineering.

One chap is no longer employed with us after attempting a CVFDR erase following some creative pole jerking. I think that he was trying to remove the data, DOH! (Should have read the manual)

[Flytest]

400

There I am spouting on about what we do / don't do with FDR data, and you give credence to the old addage "There's always one.."

OK, apart from your stunt flying, FDR erasing, desperado muppet, we don't do witch hunts.;)

Whats your take on the original question?

[400 Hertz]

Ah yes, back to the question.

If it was my aircraft, I'd like to know if the last guy had bent it at all. The erase guy above might have been better off leaving the switches alone.

I think that all this data stuff will become more prominent during 2004/5 as the UK CAA have noticed the improvements to heli safety rates over the past few years. HUMS (or VHM if you want) has proved itself on med/large aircraft, mainly in the N Sea, stand by for its introduction on all those smaller twin helis.

Also, the introduction of tighter monitoring of helicopter tail rotor drives will probably come about. Drive shaft bearing temperature monitoring and other sensors. All this and HOMP too. Don't forget about the battery-powered crash data recorders coming in that will still record even when you pull the CB. I wonder what data we'll get from those?

If I was a HUMS/VHM designer, I would latch on to the CAA info and get into a cheap/simple modular system on my website. Even better if it also handled all those wobbly blade problems automatically as well. I'd be making a mint by end of 2004, Ferrari, bigger pool etc. etc....

Costs on small single engined helis are too high for a full blown system, how about a small version using new faster processors? While we are there, we could get into the fixed wing monitoring systems as well.

Oh well, back to the grindstone for me, after the holidays. Seasons Greetings.