OPC/LPC(I) requirements

[jonseagull]

I am new to the SPIFR world and am trying to get the recurrent training/checking requirements straight. Reading Doc 28, it suggests that the autopilot can be used for approaches on the LPC/OPC(I) if it is integral to the aircraft and that all the avionics suite may be used.

I think this applies to sophisticated EFIS/FMS machines but what I would like to know is what the requirements are for a steam driven AS355F2. Is the autopilot available to fly coupled approaches and automatic non-precision approaches or is there a requirement to hand fly the ILS/NPA during every OPC/LPC(I). In the fixed wing world the ILS and G/A is hand flown for the LPC but A/P can be used during the OPC. Is there a similar system in the rotary world?

Any JAR TRE(I)s out there that could give me the benefit of their experience?
Thanks in advance,

J Seagull

[Curtis E Carr]

Para 3 to Appendix H to Standards Document 28 states, inter alia, that "all instrument approaches on an LPC/OPC may be flown using the full suite of avionics available to the pilot". This would seem to suggest that all approaches flown during the LPC/OPC may be coupled. However, if you look at the examiner's record on the form SRG\1174, you will note that it is mandatory to carry out an OEI, hand-flown ILS (see item 5.4.4). There is nothing to stop you, however, from carrying out an additional, coupled ILS (see item 5.4.3) should you so wish or if your OPC(I) schedule requires it.

[HeliComparator]

I think this is a bit of a grey area. As CEC points out Stds doc 28 allows automation to be used, whereas the 1174 specifies "manually flown" without actually defining what that means. There is a reference to "note iii" in item 5.4.1 which refers to Stds Doc 28 but it looks like that reference is to an older version of Stds Doc 28 - in other words the 2 docs are not really in sync with each other.

The way we play this on the EC225 is to allow use of the FMS and automation for most of the check, but give a partial failure once established on the ILS -eg losing collective or cyclic coupling (but not both). This is a valuable excercise because it makes the candidate consider what is lost, what the aircraft is still flying and therefore what he/she must now fly. We consider this to be "manually flown" because the pilot is manually flying some elements of it, but a purist could take a different view!

On the 225, to have a fully serviceable basic autopilot but to not allow coupling is a totally unrealistic scenario since its all 1 thing. There is so much redundancy that its not realistic to totally disengage the autopilot either.

Training/checking should be useful and realisitic, and emphasis should be given to areas that are likely to be a problem. We have 28,000 hours on our EC225 fleet, in that time there has been one event where the pilots had to fly the ILS manually. So with an average of less than one such event per pilot's lifetime, how much training do you want to dedicate to doing that perfectly? If you can stagger down the ILS without crashing that is probably good enough!

IMHO its better to spend the training time in the use and management of all the systems (and I would say MCC but you are SPIFR). Although the aircraft can fly itself, it can only do that if you press the right buttons and set everything up correctly, so I don't think that using the automation during checking and training is a cop-out. Far from it, trust me there are plenty of mistakes made during checks done using the automation!

However if you fly an older generation aircraft where single point failures (eg loss of AC power) can cause the autopilot to stop working, or where the coupling is analogue and flaky, then clearly more emphasis has to be placed on manual flying.

The above is my personal view and the CAA might or might not go along with it according to who you speak to. But the CAA does allow the TRE reasonable latitude to do what he thinks is appropriate, so I think from your point of view the most important thing is to be clear during the briefing before the test what he will and will not allow you to use.

If you fly a steam driven aircraft, I think you can expect more emphasis on manual flying than if you flew an EC155 etc, especially during the LPC.

HC

[ShyTorque]

During my last LPC (SPIFR) I was required to fly mainly manually (for the homing, an NDB and an ILS to OEI) but also to demonstrate a fully coupled ILS, iaw with normal procedures.

I agree that it is just as important to be tested in the latter, if only to demonstrate competency in correctly setting up the automatics. This can be less than intuitive on some types, especially those with multi-function "glass cockpit" displays.

[212man]

I think HC has explained the situation well, and it reflects the enlightened position the CAA FOTIs have now, compared to only a few years ago. In part, this is due to lobbying of the Flight Ops Department from industry (by people such as HC) but also in large measure due to the exposure the FOTIs themselves have had to the 'new' types, as they fly the line with operators. They have also had plenty of experience observing LPC/OPCs of candidates, during TRE assessments (for example) and seen first hand the types of errors that HC alludes to.

Sadly, the S-92 does have some single point failures that requires hand flying - a yaw trim failure puts you into SAS mode! - so we do hand fly one approach routinely on each check.

I believe Version 3 of DOC 28 is in production, and this will expand further on the CAA viewpoint. I gather there was some discussion, also, about this at the recent training seminar the CAA held in November.