AWCASOs

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Rules and Regulation... where will it all end?

Just like everything else in society there has to be rules to govern how we might best regulate the way in which we do business. However, when "the rules" were written (some time ago) they were written by people who had much experience within the world of T&E and that they were written with "best intent".

No-one has yet stood up to "question" many of those rules which wear the benchmark of "best intent", but that many of those rules are being misinterpreted to the extent that we're "welding the wheels to the ground" because of sheer stupidity and misinterpretation of what the original intent was meant to address in the first place!

AWCASOs are in dire need of refinement; else we will continue to prevent people (pilots) from committing to aviation without fear of retribution from missing the dot above the "I" or crossing the boundary of the "T".

Aviation Safety is the first priority; however, let's not get bogged-down with the trivia of, "I'm now one day overdue from my SS Dinghy Drill and I therefore I cannot fly my Hawk (overland)?" Or, "My Cat 2 Handling Check is overdue by a week or so; hence, I cannot fly as Captain!" Or, "I'm a couple of weeks overdue a Sim sortie and that I've therefore not completed 2 Sims with the previous 12 months and I therefore cannot fly the type that I'm well qualified to do so!" Utter nonsense! Have we lost the ability to be pragmatic?

The truth of the matter is... it's all about the audit trail; i.e. it must be obvious that the accident happened because the authoriser didn't stop the pilot from flying because of the fact that, the pilot, was overdue a dinghy drill by one day! God forbid that the authoriser might get the chop for missing the fact that the pilot, who flew into a mountainside, should not have flown because his Dinghy Drill was a couple of days out of date!

Fear and retribution... it's all about "Not on my watch"! Responsibility plays no part in this whatsoever! So much for rules and regulation!

TCF

Is it Friday yet?

[alfred_the_great]

It depends - you going to stop your wife (and the coroner) from blaming the RAF for letting you be 'out of date' for training when you fly into the hillside when you've not completed your dinghy training? And if so, can you put that in writing, so when the Sun and the Times say 'our brave boys' are being let down by a system that doesn't care for them, MoD PR can throw that back in their face.

[Wensleydale]

God forbid that the authoriser might get the chop for missing the fact that
the pilot, who flew into a mountainside, should not have flown because his
Dinghy Drill was a couple of days out of date!



The problem is that all these regulations come under the umbrella of "Health & Safety" (which is a euphemism for anti-litigation) and the people in charge have a "Duty of Care". If the authoriser does not apply the rule and you are involved in an accident then the "Let's make money for us" lawyers will start calling. If you are an authoriser, and you are willing to take the risk, then authorise someone out of date - otherwise, say goodbye to your financial future.

[seadrills]

The authoriser cannot take the risk as he is not the risk owner. The impact is too high therefore he MUST comply with the rules & regs

[dallas]

It may also be a reflection of standards and discipline; do we really want crews/auths deciding which are the important ticks are which aren't? Dinghy today, something more important tomorrow. I'm all for 'guidance of wisemen...' but flying qualifications aren't interpretive as far as I remember.

[VinRouge]

Never had a boss sign off on secondary currencies? It's ultimately his risk, if he doesn't want to take it, you don't fly. It's his train set.

Personally, being ground down by tasking, currency requirements are no bad thing. "What's that, you want to me do that by when? Better get more people then because I have a million currency requirements on top of the day job".

Better to get rid of the nonsense like 6 monthly pdrb, 6 monthly fitness testing, "essential" infortmation management training and in theatre Ccs training first before they start getting rid of flying BCRs. But then, I'm a stuck in the mud miserable old sod.

[Red Line Entry]

The periodicity for any currency is meant to be longest acceptable safe period for normal ops. In an ideal world, we'd have the time and equipment to refresh on a far more frequent basis than the maximum time specified in the rules. However, human nature and resources being what they are, by default we tend to work to the currency period. All the more reason why we need to then stick to them.

If you're not happy, then the answer is to challenge the periodicities. It's not to ignore them!

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Certainly, I don't disagree with many of the added comments to the thread, but there are some areas within our regulatory system which deserve some form of pragmatism.

For example... Pilot Bloggs (a multi-type pilot) becomes overdue for a simulator ride and, through no fault of his/her own, he/she finally completes the sim refresher on that particular type. Let's say that he/she was three months overdue and couldn't get to the sim because of other overriding (priority) commitments. Pilot Bloggs has maintained his simulator checks on the other two types that he fly's and has also exceeded his flying currency hours. Bloggs then, finally, achieves a sim check on the type that he's overdue... three months later, he/she's now overdue a sim ride because he/she hasn't completed two sims within the previous twelve months. So, pilot Bloggs maintains excellent flying currency and is competent in all respects; except that he/she must return to the sim for a further sim ride in order to keep the numbers correct. In point of fact, pilot Bloggs is perfectly safe to operate the aeroplane in question, except that he/she hasn't flown two sim sorties within the previous twelve months and cannot fly as captain until the numbers are rectified!

You're all correct, because we now live within an "elf and safety" driven culture and that, in the event of an accident/incident, any lawyer worth his salt would fight for compensation... despite the rules, in this instance, not recognising the fact that pilot Bloggs was entirely competent, it wasn't the lack of a simulator-time that caused his/her sad demise (God forbid), but some other cause that had nothing to do with... two sims within the preceding twelve-months!

I'm simply saying that "rules" should not override good common sense and pragmatism. Local commanders should be able to give some latitude to a "hard deck" line of this sort of nature.

Be safe up there.

[Uncle Ginsters]

As with so many areas of military life these days, our Lords and Masters seem to have forgotten the 'P' in ALARP. :ugh:

Whether that's just society now, or whether that's what constitutes acceptable risk in our current climate, it just hinders those trying to get the job done (with safety in mind!) on way too many occasions.

[Wensleydale]

It may also be a reflection of standards and discipline; do we really want
crews/auths deciding which are the important ticks are which aren't? Dinghy
today, something more important tomorrow. I'm all for 'guidance of wisemen...'
but flying qualifications aren't interpretive as far as I remember.



When I was a Squadron instructor, I was written up in my ACR as being "overly rule bound" by my flight commander. I asked him which rules I should ignore with my students, but he fobbed the question off. The fact that I had commented upon his non-adherence to some of procedures in the FOB/RTS during a previous training sortie may have had something to do with it.

[Pontius Navigator]

I think you need to draw a distinction between currency and rules.

"Thou shall not do this unless thou has first done that" is probably good.

"Thou is out of night currency as you haven't flown at night for XX days" is probably bad. The XX figure is either the shortest period for the least capable pilot, in which case it is overly restrictive of the rest.

If the XX figure is an empirical average then it is still restrictive of the best pilot and too generous for the less capable.

To be sensible currency should be related to ability in the same way as instrument ratings. Before Basic Training Requirements were introduced - BTR being a financial minimum rather than a practical minimum, we had a system of graduated training goals. The most experienced crews were expected to get the best results with least hours. As an example, a new sqn crew was allocated some 320 hours per year with the most experienced getting less than 280.

You should look at rules to see whether they can be sensibly relaxed based on experience. The relaxation should be authorised rather than self-assessed.

[Biggus]

Experience or competence? From what I've seen one doesn't necessarily equate to the other.....

[Pontius Navigator]

Wordsmith.

But do you see what I was getting at?