FDM

[taxying]

What is FDM ? FDM stands for Flight Data Management. It takes information (flight data) , on a regular , often daily basis, from the on board Fight Data Recorder and transfers it into a desk top computer. This is done in conjunction with an FDM software program. It is then displayed in various formats and analyzed . That analysis is used as a management tool.

The analysis can be very positive in the training and trouble shooting role and its application in accident investigation is undisputed.

Most airlines have had FDM programs for many years. Bristow has one tied in with their HUMS. Most airlines , Bristow and CHC Europe have independent controls in place to protect the pilots from abuse of information which covers every second of every minute of every hour pilots are at the controls. That protection is in the form of various protocols and agreements negotiated between a union representative and management prior to the launch of the FDM program. The ongoing FDM committee also has that self same union representative on its board to act in the interests of the pilot community and to ensure protective measures are adhered to.

CHC Europe pilots union negotiated for some considerable time before they accepted the protocols that were to be used by management and this agreement was only reached 2 years ago.

CHC GO does not have independent unbiased protective controls in place.

CHC GO S76C++ are equipped with and are currently utilizing FDR/FDM programs.

Comments ?

[SASless]

What's yer question?

[nicknorman]

taxying

Where is your FDM programme run from? Maybe its run from Aberdeen, in which case the same protocols that are used on European pilots would apply to you. Of course there needs to be pilot buy-in to these systems, and consultation and agreements are part of that, but on the other hand, if its a global programme there needs to be 1 global set of protocols, not a different set for each bunch of pilots / local union.

Certainly the OGP / Oil Company requirement for FDM includes the requirement for the system to be confidential and non-punitive.

So it might just be that CHC GO knew it was going to be difficult to get agreement from all corners of the earth and decided to apply the existing protocols that took 2 years to negotiate. Perhaps not ideal but I can see their problem.

You should raise your concerns with Greg Wyght in Vancouver - there is probably an easy answer.

[Aser]

that FDM is what I remember reading here as HOMP, isn't it?

A google search shows:

With the introduction of HUM systems, the number of incidents relating to technical malfunctions decreased and as a consequence the proportion of incidents relating to aircrew error increased. Interest therefore turned to implementing an operations-based monitoring programme, like the fixed wing FDM, but tailored for helicopter operations. As a result, the concept of a helicopter Operations Monitoring Programme, HOMP, was developed and trials, sponsored by the UK CAA and Shell Aircraft, started on the North Sea in 2001.

and this interesting document for people like me that know nothing about it:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2002_02.PDF

Regards
Aser

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

I have had some considerable experience with FDM as a customer. Our Man at CHC ABZ sends us a little note to get a book down the back of our pants and report to him to view the "Nasty" that he has found on our flight.

The "Interview" can be sobering for the recipeint and enlightning for the FDM MAN, as the system beds in and he gets to understand and interpret what the data means.

I can tell you:

THERE IS NO HIDING PLACE the system will see most of our iniquities.

THERE IS NO WITCH HUNT the FDM MAN simply wants you to see the results of what you have done.

IT IS A PRETTY SOBERING EXPERIENCE even when you have not done anything wrong - but just to see HOW LOW or HOW SLOW you actually were at the time.

I have used the system when I have had a whoopsie just to get my head around what actually has happened.

For those of you looking at the SUPER PUMA DOWN thread much of my inspiration for the STABILISED APPROACH PROCEDURES has come from looking at my own FDM data.

For those of you about to be inflicted with FDM...there is nothing to fear and everything to gain...PROVIDED YOU ARE NOT THE SORT OF AR***HOLE that like to mess about with the Companies expensive helicopters.

There is much to learn from the FDM..about ourselves and our performance and when applied sympathetically and sensibly it is a very very GOOD THING.

Having said all that...getting the right FDM MAN in place I think is crucial to the success of the system from the Pilots point of view.

Our man at ABZ is top notch. (He now owes me a beer) He makes you feel at ease and explains what he has seen and asks if there is anything that happened at the time the would have caused you to have recorded and apparent "Exceedance" of a parameter.

He fully accepts that the "Exceedance" his system has detected does not automatically mean you have done something wrong and is constantly prepared to adjust his "Filters" to capture more appropriate data.

An example:

Coming off a rig at night in the turbulent sector (Brae A) I elect to fly up and sideways to get out of the turbulance. FDM recorded that I reached 500 feet BARALT with little or no airspeed. Could not believe it at first...and then I though a bit harder.

Sure the deck is above 200 feet, clearing the crane and derrick and west flare boom , yeah I am gooner keep going till I hit clear air, sure 500 feet easily possible.

I really like FDM. If nothing else it gives us a second glance at what we did and a chance to evaluate if we did it right.

There is nothing to fear...PROVIDED YOU DON'T MISBEHAVE!!!!

DB

[SICKorSKI]

taxying,,

This statement: "CHC GO does not have independent unbiased protective controls in place. "

Is completely false ,inaccurate and misleading.

CHC GO and CHC EO both have independent, unbiased protective controls in place.

[taxying]

Sasless.The answers to the unasked question are above.

SIKorSKI. Care to quote me an FSI or similiar that would put my mind at ease. That would also indicate what protocols are in place.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

TAXIING.

What are you concerned about. The FDM simply sees what the FDR is already looking at. Better than that you can see in graphic detail on a simulated computer generated instrument panel what you did.

Also displays the horizontal and vertical flight paths that you flew.

The aim of FDM is to improve our safety by having to come to terms with our performance during certain flights.

HERES AN EXAMPLE:

Our FDM at ABZ began very early on to pick up potential Roll-Over events whilst taxxing out and back from the runway.

Lots of warnings and even a diagram showing where the "Roll-over Hotspots" were occuring on the airfield. BRILLIANT.

Whilst talking with our venerable FDM man one day I mentioned that I did not think I was ever at risk of rolling over cos I made sure I completely lowered the lever when turning.

He said...Ah...Actually that is not the correct technique. Our FDM data had shown that pulling power WITH THE DISC OFFSET INTO THE TURN and therefore some of the thrust vector in my favour...was the best technique. Obvious really...well to the FDM computer and the man that looks at the data...but not obvious to me for the previous 10 years I had happily steered my pissed shopping trolley (PUMA) around ABZ and various other airfields.

FDM works. To be honest, the protocols in place do not allow the FDM to "Report" you to management. Usually the interview, backed up with some humbling graphics, does the trick to curb even the most ambitious Evel Knievels out there.

Embrace FDM....It is there to help us.

DB

[flyer43]

When FDM was first introduced into BHL, there were many sceptics who believed that it was simply a tool for management to use when they wanted a head to roll for something or other. Agreements were thrashed out and signed by management and pilot representatives to ensure that the sytem would not be used other than to improve flight safety, particularly by increasing pilot awareness of what acctually occured as opposed to what was perceived to have happened by the pilot(s). The only exception to this agreement would be if anybody deliberately and repeatedly puts lives at risk by "doing their own thing".
CHC should have a similar agreement in place. It will not be in any FSI, but you should be able to find out about it by talking to your pilot representative, chief pilot or union representative (if you are unionised, the agreement is generally signed by management and the union,)
The men running both the major systems in use in the Rotary world are exceptionally dedicated and trustworthy, and continue to provide a most valuable service to their companies.
As DB, and others have said, FDM is here to help you - embrace it and learn from it.

[taxying]

the below , extracted from Aser's CAA document on HOMP.

It is important that the objectives of, and procedures for, an FDM programme are
defined in a protocol which is accepted by aircrew before FDM is implemented.Agreements must be reached with aircrew, and there must be a good consensus
between all parties if a programme is to succeed.
An FDM programme must be seen to be non-punitive, and operated in a manner
which ensures the trust and co-operation of aircrew.

So why has FDM been introduced so furtively ie virtually un announced into CHC GO. I am happy to embrace it wholeheartedly but some sort of announcement would have been , if nothing else , a common courtesy. I am not speaking from ignorance. I have attended a presentation of the Bristow version (HUMS) as well as Mike Pilgrim's version.(FDM) I was impressed. But I ask again. Why has this system been introduced without anything so much as a memo. Zip . Zilch. Nada. Pretty poor show and no , CHC GO pilots do not (yet) have the luxury that our colleagues do in CHC EO ie a union.

your serve

[nicknorman]

taxying

I still don't understand why you are not asking these questions of your company, eg Mike Pilgrim or Greg. I hope you are not one who just likes to moan, without any real desire to fix the issue? If so you may not get much sympathy here!

Contact Mike then get back to us with his reply if you are still unsatisfied.

[taxying]

Nicknorman. Take your point. The last thing I want is to be called a whinging pom (or should that be pohm?)

Will contact both gentlemen but if nothing else , the info in this thread has helped towards my own enlightenment. Thank you.

:cool:

[Variable Load]

Hi Nick,

I can't help but think that Tayxing has been given something of a hard time with this thread. You, me and many others know of the fantastic benefit that HFDM can bring to an operation if handled well.

It is somewhat unfortunate the CHC GO have no union representation, have no pilot representation and the management have had no interface with the pilots at all. About 6 months ago we where informed that some S. African chap was in charge, Since then nothing! I'm not usually the cynical one, but it is not being handled well!

Can someone help CHC GO get out of the mess they have created?

Please read the UK CAA CAP, how not to do it is where CHC GO are heading.

Double Bogey gave some great comments about "FDM MAN", I know he is the same guy looking after the GO data. I do not doubt his integrity for one second, it's the "interface" in YVR that is being questioned. As someone who cares I wish I could give an answer but I can't... That is not right!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Hi Guys, sorry to be a bit thick but what does the "GO" in CHC GO stand for?

[nicknorman]

DB I am a Bristow person, but doesn't GO stand for Global Operations?

VL No intention to give taxying a hard time, except that surely the first port of call with such an issue is to contact those within your company who are running the programme? MP is far from unapproachable in my opinion.

As I am sure you know, I run our FDM programme in Europe, but we do have an offshoot in Nigeria. When first introduced we gave some effort to "educating" the Nigerian operation into what FDM was all about, including the obvious reassurances. We created (and trained up) local reps who would handle any interventions. However, sitting in our Ivory Tower in Aberdeen, it is difficult to keep track of personnel in remote bases on another continent. Now, a year later, with the inevitable staff turnover, in no way could I be sure that everyone on that Nigerian base has had the pep-talk / reassurance on how the FDM programme is run. Just as CHC GO is separate from CHC Europe, so BHL West Africa is separate from BHL Europe, and I can imagine that sometimes communications either break down or are not adequate in the first place. But there can be no doubt that the same ideals and protections that apply to European pilots, also apply to the Nigerian pilots, even though they may not realise it.

I cannot say anything about CHC GO's local management, but I can be confident in the way their FDM programme is run from Aberdeen - it will be without any input or control by GO local management.

Therefore I can sympathise with taxyings initial concerns, but I maintain that the best way to address a failure of communications is by communicating - with those directly concerned rather than the wider world.

I am confident that the outcome will be an admission that communications could have been better, but also an absolute commitment and guarantee by MP that the same protocols and protections that apply to the European pilots, will also apply to the GO pilots. If not, then you have a justification for grievance.

CHC has a Q & S summit in Vancouver, with an extra day for solely for FDM on April 2nd. GW, MP and I will be there. A good chunk of the day will be questions from the floor. If there is a real issue, and bearing in mind the domicile of a poster on this thread, why not attend and take the opportunity to address your concerns to those running the show?

Thanks taxying for starting this thread - if nothing else it reminds me that the task of communicating with pilots in remote bases is a never-ending one.

[Outwest]

GO = Global Operations


Agreements were thrashed out and signed by management and pilot representatives

This is what Taxying is trying to point out........this never happened within GO as we don't have a pilot representative (yet) :)

[Shawn Coyle]

I spoke to the rep of a Gulf of Mexico operation that had FDM in place - he's an ex-union guy, now retired, and he's the only one who knows who is flying. Keeps everybody happy. They love the program and everyone fully supports it.
And DD's constructive use of the info is exactly why this is a great thing. But it must be done right.

[peter manktelow]

Yep FDM is great but have to agree with TAXIING.......on my base it has also arrived almost unannounced.....methinks the FDM team had better check their bilges. I think the boat has sprung a wee leak. Staying with the nautical terminology.....FDM works best when everyone is onboard with it. That means clear communication and that we have not (unfortunately) had. Hopefully TAXIING's comms with Greg and Mike will remedy.

[Variable Load]

Hi Nick,

Thanks for the comments. I have discussed the perceptions and fears of the guys on the front line with MP on a number of occasions. He has also witnessed it for himself. My understanding is that he has, unfortunately, limited input into the management of the GO FDM program.

I have absolutely no doubt that MPs data analysis role in the program is rock solid and professionally handled.

It is the next part of the process that might have it's weaknesses. And I fully accept that this might simply be down to poor communication. The bottom line is that there is nothing that the CHC GO line pilot can refer to that explains how the data is going to be used and who is going to use it. The fact that operations are geographically diverse makes effective communication even more crucial.

There is a lot of scepticism at a local level. One major issue is that they feel they do not have any protection. As you have been at the cutting edge of HFDM for a long time I know that you will agree that a positive perception of how the program is run is probably the most fundamental part of it working correctly.

I am a big HFDM fan. As such I believe the Company should be shouting about it's great program from the rooftops so that every pilot knows what it is all about and how it works. All we see is not so much 'shouting', but something more akin to 'Chinese whispers'. :sad:

The Q & S Summit in Vancouver would be an ideal opportunity to have the issues discussed. Unfortunately I am on tour at the moment, so personal involvement would be difficult, although I will use email to put my concerns across to GW.

This thread is very Company specific, so I apologise to the wider audience for continuing the thread. However it is a great medium to reach other GO pilots and get some feedback on an important topic.

[chc&proud]

Gentlemen
The goal of Flight Data Monitoring is to improve quality of operations and ultimately improve safety levels for passengers and crews. It is meant to be a statistical tool. It is not meant to be an investigative tool. It is definetely intended to be non-punitive.

Keep in mind that the system works from "...battery on till battery off...." For all practical purposes the system monitors your every move.

Even without FDM available, CVR and FDR is available to dig into all the minute details of a particual accident and even incidents, if of a serious nature. In many instances, the crew, passengers, ATC or customer representatives will also submit incident reports leading to investigation and clarification.

CHC EO & CHC-PA
CHC-PA established a working group back in 2005. We spent conciderable time and effort to draft a standardized FDM agreement.

In the end, BALPA signed an agreement separate to the operations of Scotia, more than 90% based on this draft.

The same happened in Norway, but in June 2008.

In the Netherlands, a limited agreement was in place from 2007, if I remember correctly.

I do not believe Ireland and Denmark has active agreements in place, for various reasons.

TRUST IN BUSINESS MATTERS
Trust is always important, but should never be the only factor when doing business between parties. A legally binding and complete agreement should be established to protect from management personell changes, changes to management policies, demands from customers etc.

There is always a risk that the man you trust is replaced with someone who has not earned an equal level of trust and confidence.

The agreement should aim to make the system independent of a "good guy" being in charge of managing the system and having access to the names of the pilots.

For HSF in Norway, we did and still do not feel comfortable with transferring FDM-data to entities outside the legal boundaries of the company with which we have a legally binding Collective Labour Agreement.

We feel comfortable working within the framework of Norwegian legislation and the Labour Court system of Norway. This is due to having the necessary degree of trust in the integrity and national understanding of the rights of employees.

In the end, we did sign an agreement which allows data in a de-identified format to be transferred to a server located in egpd.

CHC Global
Taxying raises pertinent and relevant questions relating to the introduction of FDM into CHC GO.

Global Helicopter Pilots Association (GHPA) organizes many of the pilots employed by CHC in Vancouver to operate outside Europe. GHPA has not been recognized by CHC, even though several rulings in Canada has confirmed that GHPA is a legitimate labour union. As I write this, CHC is still appealing several rulings in favour of the pilots, including the initial ruling by the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB).

In a system managed from Vancouver through different operations in 25-30 countries control mechanisms can easily get warped.

Reading some comments above it seems like Scotia is managing the FDM system of GO? GO is a separate legal business from Scotia, with a UK AOC, whilst GO operate on various national AOC's on 5(?) continents.

Keeping in mind all the good intentions of FDM, the system would lend itself to keeping a close eye on union reps., "bad guys", "marginal pilots" etc. if management acted in a disloyal manner to the good intentions.

Joint agreements signed and sealed in a legal and binding format keeps all stake holders from loosing sleep. I hope that GO management gets in touch with representatives for the pilots sooner rather than later to make the best of the experience gathered by the operators in Europe.

In closing, all pilot unions within CHC-PA are committed to continously improving quality and safety of operations. We see FDM as one of several useful tools to get closer to achieving the safety Goals set by the Oil and Gas Producers Association (OGP) by 2012.

Regards,

Olav Bastiansen
Executive Chairman
CHC-PA