AgustaWestland TRTO Suspended? [Archive]

irishhelipilot

28th Apr 2011, 11:52

New JAA MCC adds 20 hrs FTD/SIM time plus 25 groundschool to any type conversion for non-mcc individuals. Helisim France have an MCC Course approved, dunno about Agusta.

JAR FCL 2.261(D) refers: The MCC course shall comprise at least 25 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction and exercises and 20 hours of MCC training. Students attending an ATP integrated course may have the practical training reduced by 5 hours. Wherever possible, the MCC training should be combined with the initial type rating course on multi-pilot helicopters.

griffothefog

28th Apr 2011, 12:41

What a load of borocrapic ****e.... How difficult can it be for 2 monkeys to steer a heliplopter :{

Next the CIA will be measuring dick size to see who should rightfully be the Captain..:E

Where did all the fun go chaps???

Aser

28th Apr 2011, 13:26

But they dry lease the sim and use their own TRE/TRI's

Where did the TRE/I obtain the mp ratings???
The CAA are not worrying about it, OK that's fine for me.

You can't find a jaa aw139 multi-pilot course in Agusta, as far as I know. no?

Regards
Aser

End of the Line

29th Apr 2011, 12:53

That was my understanding...Agusta are not in the position to offer MP training....reasons being all too obvious...no suitably qualified MP Instructors....no SOP's...no syllabus of training MP...no reference to MCC...no reference to behavioural markers.....no checklist operation....the list goes on..!

Although two operators - one German and one French operator sought and received MP ratings on AW139....

Go Figure..??.....:=

Fanda_2007

29th Apr 2011, 13:43

As an innocent (honest M'lud) bystander, I am more than a little confused. You have a pilot who is qualified to fly by himself. He is joined by another pilot, also qualified to fly by himself, for safety reasons. Since either of them can legally operate the aircraft alone why do they need a licence to say they can do it together?

Alan

Torquetalk

29th Apr 2011, 19:51

So an MPH MCC trained pilot goes for a type rating on the AW139. Their licence is not restricted as per some fixed wing brethern to mulit-pilot aircraft. Is the AW139 exclusively an MPH? Do the FCLs say a [further] MCC course is required? Are the JAR-FCLs law? Are all countries recommended for mutual recognition at the same level of compliance in all areas?

This thread is like a piece of string.

eivissa

29th Apr 2011, 20:27

MINIMUM FLIGHT CREW
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Day - One pilot unless otherwise required by
operating rules. Single pilot operation not permitted from left seat.
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Night and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
Day/Night - Two pilots.
For VFR Night Single Pilot Operation see Supplement 24.
For IFR Single Pilot Operation see Supplement 22.

Supplement 22:
MINIMUM FLIGHT CREW
— Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Day/Night - One pilot unless otherwise
required by operating rules.
— Single pilot operation not permitted from left hand seat.

Supplement 24:
MINIMUM FLIGHT CREW
— Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Night - One pilot unless otherwise
required by operating rules.
— Single pilot operation not permitted from left hand seat.

rotarywise

29th Apr 2011, 20:38

This demonstrates the crass stupidity of the JAA LSST(H) in developing the definition of a multi-pilot helicopter and the the equallly crass incompetence of EASA in not correcting the original error. If a helicopter is certified for operation by one pilot and the type rating course and, more importantly, the LST is performed single pilot then the UK, at least, issues a single-pilot helicopter type rating without restriction. The privileges of this type rating, according to JAR-FCL 2, are 'to act as pilot of the type of aircraft specified in the rating'. There is no mention of single-pilot or multi-pilot operations, simply 'to act as a pilot'.

Now, consider a scenario - I hold a type rating on the S76, which is certified as a single pilot helicopter. The course and LST were conducted in a single-pilot environment and, consequently, I have not received nor did I require any MCC training prior to the type rating course. My type rating, issued by the UK CAA, entitles me to act as a pilot (in any capacity) on the S76. Consequently, I can operate an S76, either as PIC or Co-pilot in a multi-pilot environment (subject to completing an approved Operator Conversion Course and meeting any experience requirements in accordance with JAR-OPS 3 if it is a public transport operation) without completing MCC training despite the fact that JAR-FCL 2 defines the S76 as a multi-pilot helicopter in those circumstances.

The AW139 is in exactly the same situation, being certified for single pilot operation in VFR. There is no provision in either JAR-FCL 2 or EASA Part-FCL for retrospective MCC training in the event that a pilot changes roles and so the requirement for MCC (except in the case of helicopters certified for more than one pilot) is entirely unenforceable and, therefore, utterly pointless. It stands as a monument to the ineptitude of those formulating the rules that will strangle our industry.

This situation may not endure, however, as it is rumoured that EASA intends, through its JOEB structure, to mandate specific training requirements type by type, irrespective of the certification status of the individual aircraft and the requirements of Part-FCL. I suppose that's one way to give European manufacturers an edge - make it cheaper and easier to train on a Eurocopter than a Sikorsky or Bell product.

cpt

29th Apr 2011, 22:23

The point is that JAA considers "Multi pilot" or "Single pilot" as 2 distinct qualifications for a same type of helicopter, even if this helicopter is single pilot certified.

When operating in a multipilot context (operational rules) pilots must be "MP" qualified (even on a "SP" certified helicopter)

To get a "MP" edorsement on your licence, you must have followed an approved MCC "generic" course, and an MP check ride on the type, or prove to your licensing Authority a previous level of experience with MP ops.

Now, you are not automatically "SP" (single pilot) qualified with a "MP" endorsement, you'll need for this a "SP" check-ride, of course done by a "type- SP" qualified TRE....(he must not only be MP qualified)

Validity of "MP" and "SP" matches the validity of the attached type qualification.

For instance, I'll not be allowed to fly with an engineer on the left seat, a S76 for a track and balance air test if I am not holding a valid "SP" endorsement. (even if I've flown hundred hours as a 76 "SP" in the past)....

Basically to keep SP and MP current, we need within the current type validity period ( 12 months) one SP check ride and one MP check ride....OK I'm stopping here, time for my sleep injection....:(

Non-PC Plod

30th Apr 2011, 16:20

CPT is quite correct. Its not just the certification that matters, is how you are using the aircraft, and what your Ops manual and the authority require. If your Ops manual states that you operate multi-crew, then you need a multi-crew rating, even on an aircraft which may also be operated single-crew for other jobs. I have forgotten the exact wording but if you look at the definitions in JAR-FCL2 for "Multi pilot helicopter" it tells you that it is a helicopter which is required to be operated by more than one pilot, either because of certification, or by the authority, or by the ops manual. So, if your ops manual says so, it is de facto a multi-pilot helicopter and you must have MCC qualification and a multi-pilot rating.

End of the line - I dont know where you get all your information from. There is an MCC course available at A-W. There is also an SOP. I know, 'cos I wrote them both 2 years ago, although I have not yet been asked to deliver a course. There are also people who are perfectly capable, experienced and qualified to teach multi-crew on the simulator. There are also checklists, and we have a behavioural marker scheme. We have UK-qualified CRMIs and CRMIEs (there is no Italian equivalent). There are some obstacles still to be overcome particularly with regards to introducing multi-crew instruction on the real aircraft, but it is inaccurate to suggest there is no capability.

heliski22

30th Apr 2011, 19:04

What I don't get is why it has to be a separate qualification - SP/MP?

Surely the purpose of Type Rating training is to complete the necessary conversion so you can fly the damn thing while MCC training is to ensure proper inter-action on the flight-deck between two already type-rated pilots (it doesn't alter one's ability to physically fly the aircraft, does it?) - at least in broad brush-strokes?

Why is it not that the the Type Rating is a regulatory requirement, regardless of single or multi-crew operation (assuming the aircraft is certified for SP ops in the first place) while the MCC training is an operator requirement/obligation in order for the operator to meet certain regulatory requirements, such as those for PT operations?

Not being well versed in all of this, I assume I'm missing something really obvious here?

22

griffothefog

1st May 2011, 02:07

The British CIA need to be relocated to Tripoli......:E

Are there any heliploppy people in Gatwick?

Non-PC Plod

1st May 2011, 10:46

Heliski,

If you leave the MCC training to the operator, assuming you have a check ride afterwards to validate that the training has worked, you might call that a multi-pilot check ride or LST, which is pretty well the way it works. If there is no check ride, the training could be a load of cack, and the crew unsafe to work in that environment.
A large part of the problem which I have come up against in the environment where I work is the following mentality:

" If you teach people to fly the aircraft single-pilot, flying single pilot is harder than flying multi-crew, therefore the single-pilot training is more than sufficient to fulfil the requirement for any type of operation."

People who are not familiar with multi-crew operations do not realise that this is total b******s. There is a different mindset and a different skill set required. If you chuck 2 pilots in a complex aircraft who have only ever worked alone and do not have a common understanding of an SOP, and then you give them a complex job to do, you can light the blue touch-paper and wait. It is more dangerous by far than just having one guy up front. It can be the opposite of synergy, and it is so clear and apparent when you watch it in the simulator that it is an accident waiting to happen. I have seen people who are perfectly competent to operate single pilot completely screw up relatively simple operations (especially IFR) when you put them in a multi-crew environment. This is simply because one guy will do something such as entering data in the FMS without communicating what he has done to the other guy. Each one makes his own assumptions based on his own understanding of the situation, and you can end up very quickly with bewilderment or arguments in the cockpit.

It is perfectly appropriate to mandate multi-crew training and testing for crews involved in these operations. You only have to look at recent helicopter accidents where crew training may have ben a factor to see why.

check

1st May 2011, 16:04

Perhaps some of the problems are logistical. I know from experience that KLM, Schreiner, now CHC plus Bristow send two crew at a time and use their own instructors for conversions and checks. Smaller operators may not be able to send two pilots or have approval to use their own instructors thus making multi crew training difficult.
The rest of the world may be different to Europe for 30 odd years ago when I added the Puma 330J to my Indonesian licence there was no such thing as two crew concept,it was read the book, on the job training (helirig), written exam and soon as the papers were back captain on type.
On returning to the UK and put on the S61 it was ground school, training in the aircraft, written exams, line training etc. Starting to drift so back to sleep!

End of the Line

1st May 2011, 20:17

In order to prevent thread creep, Agusta are issuing Multi-Pilot (MP) ratings on the AW139 despite the fact that the training is Single Pilot.

This is a fundamental breach of JAR FCL 2. ENAC have oversight of Agusta and ultimately the book stops with them. Agusta are leaving themselves wide open and exposed to scrutiny from Air Accident Investigation Units should any incident or accidents occur- especially now that they are issuing MP ratings.

Any Multi-Pilot Type Rating must provide the necessary level of competence to acquire a type rating on the relevant helicopter and operate in a multi-pilot role. Crew training must be integral to that rating.

Cockpit Resource Management and a crew member management policy must form an integral part of any MP type rating.

ENAC are asleep on the job.....!

Non PC plod – I should have been more explicit-my comments are specific to the AW139 TR....no checklists, no MCC...no behavioural markers...because to training is SP..!...I don’t doubt that Agusta retain many fine Instructors capable of delivering MP training - however the AW139 syllabus of training is oriented towards SP operation and even more fundamental the TRI’s are SPH only.....as you know there is a world of difference between both type of operations.....
So how can AW issue MP ratings?? Please enlighten us???!!

Non-PC Plod

2nd May 2011, 07:42

End of the line - I am not denying that there are some issues to resolve, and MP TRI qualifications are not a quick fix. There remains, however, the capability, experience and tools to train MP particularly on the simulator, including for the AW139. There are checklists - you are out of date!

212man

2nd May 2011, 08:55

sadly, none of the JOEB documents that would shed further light on tis topic are available! The final JOEB report refers to the various appendicies, but they are all contained within the EASA restricted access area! Pity....

http://www.easa.europa.eu/certification/flight-standards/doc/oeb-final-report/agusta/Agusta_AB139_JOEB_Report.pdf

rotarywise

2nd May 2011, 09:02

There are two considerations here; licensing requirements and operational requirements. In the UK these are dealt with by two separate departments within the CAA, each with its own agenda. Consequently, the UK's interpretation of the requirements may not be the same elsewhere in Europe. Bear in mind also that, since the UK has implemented JAR-FCL 2 only to amendment 3, the definition of a multi-pilot helicopter depends solely on its certification - the inclusion of operating status in the definition happened at amendment 4.

Licensing Requirements (JAR-FCL 2) - There is only one type rating per helicopter type - i.e. there is no such thing as a MP type rating or an SP type rating. If a type rating course and LST is conducted in a single-pilot environment, an unrestricted type rating is issued, if training and testing is conducted in a multi-pilot environment, the same type rating is issued but restricted to multi-pilot operations. This restriction may subsequently be removed by undergoing a SP LPC. If, subsequent to the issue of an unrestricted type rating, the holder undertakes a MP LPC, the rating becomes restricted to multi-pilot operations. No rating is restricted to SP operations (i.e. an unrestricted type rating allows the holder to act in any capacity in either SP or MP environments).

Operational Requirements (JAR-OPS 3) - Flight crew operating under JAR-OPS 3 must undertake an Operator Conversion Course, which may be combined with type rating training; however, if a type rating is already held, only the OCC is required. This conversion course syllabus includes elements of CRM training but not MCC. Assuming that the conversion course and, subsequently, a combined OPC/LPC is conducted MP then the type rating is restricted to MP operations only. An unrestricted type rating may, however, be maintained by completing certain extra items in the LPC as SP.

MCC training is a pre-requisite only for the first multi-pilot type rating. Since, in the UK, this currently depends only upon the aircraft's certification, it is a requirement only for aircraft such as the S92. So far as the UK is concerned, the AW139, S76, SA365, etc. are, at present, for licensing purposes at least, single pilot helicopters, irrespective of the role in which they are employed and MCC is, therefore, not a pre-requisite. Neither is MCC training a requirement of JAR-OPS 3 and so it is perfectly possible for a pilot to operate in a MP environment, either as PIC or co-pilot, without ever having completed MCC training, although he will have completed the Company's CRM training.

Non-PC Plod

2nd May 2011, 10:24

I stand corrected re the UK. I have been working to amendment 6.

cpt

2nd May 2011, 11:53

Once again, the UK CAA interpretation of JAA texts, has a more logic and pragmatic approach....It is to the operator's responsability to train and keep it's personal to the required level of proficiency.

PPI Zulu

12th May 2011, 10:14

Hi all,

I'm formulating some documentary evidence for this thread as I've had to do extensive research into the posibility of gaining an ATPL(H) upgrade from an AW TRTO's AW139 course (which includes [a] VFR and IFR check[s]).

A quick question (which I realise might seem stupid/obvious - I would ask the CAA to confirm my assumptions but I guess one of you will easily beat their 10-day turn-around):
Can someone confirm that the AW TRTO is approved by the CAA? :confused:

Zulu

rotarywise

12th May 2011, 14:13

No need for a 10 day wait - just check out Standards Document 31 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=2854). The answer is no, the AW TRTO is not approved by the UK CAA. As a wild guess, I would think an Italian TRTO, based in Italy might just be approved by ENAC.

RVDT

12th May 2011, 14:56

Really?

I thought it was all JAR land now.

To quote Lasors 2010 Section F - Type/Class Rating Training conducted in Other JAA States
Training conducted in other JAA states for type/class ratings is acceptable to the CAA provided the relevant state has been accepted by JAA as having fully implemented JAR-FCL and is approved to issue JAR-FCL licences and ratings.
Applicants must ensure all the necessary information is presented to the CAA, with particular attention to the following:
a. Course Completion Certificate;
b. MCC certificate (if required);
c. evidence of ATPL examination knowledge (if required);
d. proof that training organisation has JAR-FCL approval for the type required;
e. proof that the examiner who conducted the LST has JAR-FCL approval for the type required.
f. copy of JAR-FSTD simulator approval.

rotarywise

12th May 2011, 15:52

Yes, really. You obviously don't understand the terminology -

JAR-FCL 2.055(b)(1)
Type rating training organisations (TRTOs) located in a JAA Member State, wishing to offer training for type ratings will be granted approval when in compliance with JAR-FCL and the approval will be given by that State.JAR-FCL 2.015(a)(1)
Where a person, an organisation or a service has been licensed, issued with a rating, authorisation, approval or certificate by the Authority of a JAA Member State in accordance with the requirements of JAR–FCL and associated procedures, such licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates shall be accepted without formality by other JAA Member States.The AW TRTO is approved by ENAC and its training is then accepted by all other member states, including the UK

hihover

12th May 2011, 23:03

Zulu,

Sadly, the UK CAA will not issue you a JAA ATPL(H) based on the AW 139. They do not recognise the 139 as a multi-pilot helicopter. They will only issue you an ATPL(H) if you have a multi-pilot helicopter type rating. If, however, your company ops require that the 139 is flown multi-pilot then a note from your mum should do the trick.

With all the other documentation required, they will, however, add the type to your licence.

PPI Zulu

14th May 2011, 08:36

Yes, really. You obviously don't understand the terminology -rotarywise,

...yes, maybe I should have explained myself [slightly] more comprehensively and been more careful with my 'Approved(s)' and my 'Accepted(s)'. I was using the word 'approved' rather than 'accepted' as it appears in SRG/1173 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG1173FF.pdf) , in the title of page 4, to indicate a course that was not approved by the CAA but would be accepted through the JAR/JAA references [et al] you listed. Thanks for the link to Standards Document 31 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=2854) - most informative.
Yours, in mutually appreciative pedantry...Zulu

hihover,

Thanks for spotting that my lexicon was out of sorts and substituting more suitable terminology as required!
Sadly, the UK CAA will not issue you a JAA ATPL(H) based on the AW 139.This is dissapointing/annoying/means Lidl (http://www.lidl.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/lidl_uk/hs.xsl/index.htm) shopping for a while (couldn't resist a link - Arc Welders are on special this week!).
Whilst I realise (hope) that your ...note from your mum... was tongue-in-cheek and that I might be clutching at straws here, is there any milage in the Ops Manual ref?

I have a few more references that I'd like to throw back at this to see how I am mis-interpreting them.

Zulu

hihover

14th May 2011, 14:12

Zulu,

Yes it was tongue-in-cheek and a copy of the relevant paragraph from the ops manual should do the trick.

Good luck.

PPI Zulu

17th May 2011, 13:46

hihover,

JAA/EASA - Joint Operational Evaluation Board Agusta AB139 FCL and OPS Subgroup report (http://www.easa.europa.eu/certification/flight-standards/doc/oeb-final-report/agusta/Agusta_AB139_JOEB_Report.pdf)

The above document (originally posted by 212man in this thread, 2nd May 2011) details, at page 14 sub para 3.2, that: The currently EASA approved AB139 Rotorcraft Flight Manual includes the following limitations to Category B operations:...blah...blah...Minimum flight Crew - IFR - 2SECTION 1 JAR–FCL 2 01.09.03 1–G–1 Amendment 3 SUBPART G – AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT LICENCE (Helicopter) – ATPL(H)JAR-FCL 2 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Section%201%20Subpart%20G%20-%20Amdt%203%20%28JAR-FCL%202%29.pdf),
...states the following:

JAR–FCL 2.295 Skill
(a) An applicant for an ATPL(H) shall have demonstrated the ability to perform as pilot-in-command of a helicopter type certificated for a minimum crew of two pilots under IFR in accordance with FAR/JAR 27 and 29 helicopter category, or equivalent code; or helicopter required to be operated by two pilots under JAR–OPS, the procedures and manoeuvres described...blah...blah......so why would the CAA not issue a JAA ATPL(H) based on the AW 139 if a TR & IR were completed at the AW TRTO?

Zulu

hihover

17th May 2011, 23:52

Zulu,

All valid points and a valid question at the end, unfortunately, as far as the UK CAA are concerned it is a single pilot helicopter. I spent several hours there a few weeks ago trying to convince them otherwise, but to no avail......as yet.

If you find a way, please let me know.

Tam

PPI Zulu

18th May 2011, 06:59

Rgr, rgr, wilco.

Do you happen to know where the mythical list of 'multi pilot' helicopters that are recognised by the CAA resides?

Secondly - just how would I go about using the Ops Manual route?

Thanks,

Zulu

hihover

19th May 2011, 00:27

Zulu,

You would simply copy the part in the ops manual that dictates that your company's 139s will be flown multi-pilot. Attach that to the licence application form with all other supporting documents required, and, of course the fee.

I will pm you the contact details of the lady I wrote to and subsequently met in the CAA office, she will remember me and the outcome of the discussion and should be able to clarify.

Geoffersincornwall

19th May 2011, 05:30

Those who doubt the need for MCC training or who have flown 'two-pilot' and consider that a suitable qualification to teach MCC I would suggest that they don't know what they don't know - somebody famous said that I seem to remember! Anyway, I dusted off my logbook and checked and sure enough 17 years ago when I joined KLM-ERA there was the entry that proved I had done 20 hours simulator training on the S61 most of which was indoctrination in their 'Crew Concept' - which was a formalised MCC system with written SOPs backed up by training. At the time I was S61 current, an ex-S61 TRE and Authorised Examiner - in other words 20 hours wasn't to get me up to speed, it was to show me, and test me on the correct procedures as per the SOP.

Subsequently, and with the same company, I did a 32 hour S76 type transition despite being S76 rated, again, most of that was indoctrination on how the SOPs were to be used. Everyone went through the same routine when they joined.

In the intervening years others have realised that two crew operations require written SOPs and that these can only be applied via a suitable (simulator) training session. Now, many years later it seems it has become an issue with the regulators.

Search - Transport Canada (http://search-recherche.tc.gc.ca/search.aspx?q=SOPs&help=Go)

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/jr/2007/6203_en.pdf

I would venture to suggest that anyone who has himself not been formally indoctrinated into the use of a set of MCC SOPs is in a difficult position when it comes to teaching them. It's a bit like a blind man trying to teach the correct use of colours. He can read about colours in the special blind-man's book and then pass that information on, but without personal experience of colours he will always struggle to really understand them and the nuances of life in a coloured world.

G. :ok: