Ambeo

[Phil Brockwell]

733Driver,

It's funny how nearly all of these sweeping "facts" start from "I have no personal experience but a close personal freind who is very high up in the CAA told me..........." Of course there are no guarantees for safe and sound ops.


From my memory the last time a flight on public transport caused a fatality in the UK was approx 10 years ago....with so many alleged corners being cut you would have thought it would be a regular occurence?

On another note, I would be really interested if anyone has an stats to support the overall assumption that a new type is safer than a 15 year old type that is fully maintained. Try and keep it to facts rather than assumptions and second hand horror stories from your close personal friends in the CAA.


Phil

[kotofeus]

Wyvern???

isn't worth the paper it's written on.

[kotofeus]

coming back to the original topic...

just to cut it should - I met Ambeo folks once... and I was not convinced.
it doesn't mean they are not safe to fly with, it's just my personal feeling about them.

Sorry, I can't really say more.

[733driver]

Hi Phil,

I did not refer to a "close friend high up in the CAA". But I did speak to a colleague who was a former CAA inspector (if that's the right term).

What he said confirmed whatI have heard from several colleagues that have previously worked for a variety of charter operators.

I am not saying Ambeo or your company ar unsafe at all. I am just saying that an AOC does not mean all that much. Even if all the paperwork is in order there is very little oversight over the actual day to day operation.

I don't think we are doing the industry any favours by kidding ourselves by saying all is well everywhere. I am absolutely convinced that there is a significant number of operators that are not as safe as they should be either because they don't know any better or intentionally.

Why aren't there more accidents? Because the system is quite safe. ATC look out for us and the fact that there is normally two pilots means that a cowboy may not get away with what he intends to do. A strong captain will also say no when pushed by the boss to do something unsafe but that doesn't mean that the "boss" doesn't have the wrong attitude when it comes to safety.

I am sure you are familiar with the "swiss cheese" model when it comes to accidents where all the holes of the cheese slices have to line up for something to go seriously wrong.

If airlines like BA or LH operated to a similar standard as some of the charter operators in their country they would have accidents every year. The reason that doesn't happen is statistics. GA charter companies don't operate nearly as many flights as the airlines.

I think that aircraft age is not a major problem although modern equipment such as EGPWS and TCAS II no doubt increases safety.

EFIS cockpits have the potential to reduce workload and increase situational awareness if used by a properly trained crew. That does not mean that older aircraft cannot be operated safely.

Nowadays 20 year-old aircraft are likely to be equipped with all of the above.

[Phil Brockwell]

So what your saying is that the "system" makes flying 99.999999999999% safe and good or bad Ops / crewing can make a 10% improvement to the remaining percentage. So the difference between a good and a bad Op is so infinitessimally small that it does not matter.

The facts are that no-one ever dies!!!

I know I'm being flippant about this subject, and believe me, we take safety and compliance very seriously, but let's not be guilty of Lording it over the poor li'l SLF with your big gold bars and telling him he is safer on one operation than another, when it is obvious that you have no idea if it's based on fact or statistic.

I'm guessing your CAA guy had been out of the FOI game for a while, the old CAP360 game of cat and mouse has changed massively. Can you imagine under CAP360 anyone ever getting an audit with zero findings? We have managed that on 2 consecutive audits - I think you will hard pushed to find an airline that can boast that level of compliance!

[733driver]

Phil,

I never mentioned any numbers like 99.9999999% or 10% because I don't have them.

I think the operator does make a difference. If only one fatal accident can be avoided by trying to improve how we operate then it has been worth it, don't you think.

You are right, people don't die left right and center but there are plenty of incidents and close calls that never get reported. We better learn from them rather than pretend all is great.

I am not having a go at you or the company you represent. I am sure you run a fine operation. But please let's not assume that all operators are the same and please don't let the low number of accidets let us become complacent.

We all need to work constantly on being the safest we possibly can. He who says he has achieved everything that can be achieved in that regard is at best kidding himself.

One example: Western airlines have developed a pretty good system of dealing with safety isues fairly openly within the organisation. They even share info on incidents and accidents with the competition to make the industry safer. Safety reporting often follows a no-blame culture. How many charter operators have adopted that mindset?

Again, nothing against you or your company but a general statement which is worth making I think.

[Phil Brockwell]

733,

Have you ever worked in GA, certainly not for many years if ever?

The systems you are describing are widely used in all operations, GA and airline. In the UK if you didn't have a reporting / non-blame / open discussion culture you would be hard pushed to maintain compliance.

I think you have completely the wrong impression about what we are all working towards. Certainly your observations would have been occasionally correct 4-5 years ago, but not now, not in the UK anyway.

"How many charter operators have adopted that mindset?" uhhhmmmm......all of them?

Phil

[733driver]

Phil,

I have been in GA on various types from light to large jets in many roles for more than a decade.

I have never worked for a UK AOC company but have many colleagues who have and as such I have quite good insight.

I think you may confuse compliance on paper with compliance in real life hence my question about mindset.

I am sure on paper all companies look great but you have to be a pilot to appreciate what really goes on. Often those that "only" drive desks think they do everything right due to a lack of appreciation for some of the more subtle dangers inherent in operating an aircraft. Are you an active pilot? Have you worked as a pilot in other organisations such as established airlines or outside of the UK to be able to compare?

I believe you when you say things have gotten better and I am glad to hear that. However, I cannot believe that the mindset of an entire industry can change within 4-5 years. But if the effort is being made, so much the better.

I suggest we continue this discussion via PM if you wish as we have gotten a bit off topic and this has turned into a dialogue between just the two of us.

I will gladly tell you via PM a bit more about my background and involvement in flight ops and flight safety in a large organsiation as captain, trainer, manager and safety rep at various stages over the last few years

[Phil Brockwell]

You have pm

[Opsbeatch]

Well done chaps, keep the handbags to yourselves.

Ambeo - Not a bad bunch, just new that's all...don't hold that against them.

OB

[OutsideCAS]

The only well balanced posts are by Phil.

Whilst i agree Phil's posts in the main are always a good read, i think to be fair 733driver also has some very valid points suitcaseman......and yes, i do fly in the business jet world for an AOC operation so i speak with a smidgeon of experience before anyone asks.

In line with the thread, i believe Ambeo are a good operator, certainly hear nothing bad (other than the EGSC incident) and from what i've seen and heard they are doing very well and do everything properly and by the book.....i hope they do very well now and in the future personally, the more success stories the better as far as im concerned.

[james brown]

The only well balanced posts are by Phil.

Disagree. I get very bored reading comments such as:

I would feel perfectly safe flying on any UK AOC holder

Phil is banging away on his drum crusading against anyone he percieves to be infringing on his territory - rightly or wrongly. Therefore if we all have a magical UK AOC we must all be super safe, musn't we?!?!

X933

i'd venture that their safety record was better than Netjets based soely on the fact that netjets have a bigger fleet and have been going longer therefore must have had more reportable accidents!

Not sure I agree with that either. What fact are you basing this on may I ask? How many gear up landings have netjets had?

My humble opinion. Any established AOC holder should do the mission with no problem.
BUT ask about experience levels of both pilots - on type not just TT. Ask if both pilots are remunerated and type rated. Ask if the operator completes initial training in simulator or aircraft. The sim is a much much more complete training experience. Ask if the pilots complete full recurrent training, not just an hour in the aircraft at their home base with the instructor beside them. Also on older types ensure that if the operator is using a modern variant, the pilot has undergone simulator training on that variant, not trained on an older, round dial version then been shown the ropes on the ground before they go flying.

[james brown]

Fair point suitcaseman. It's just that the original poster asked a more involved question than normal so I responded with issues that are current and relevant. Apologies if the list is extensive.
The issuance of an AOC doesn't guarantee that the operator carries out full recurrent training, only that they pay lip service to it. Similarly a type rating on say a B200 covers both a 30yr old one and a brand new full EFIS one. One only has to search for accidents relevant to that type to see that relevant simulator training is far safer than 8 hours in a completely different aircraft that just happens to share the same basic design. I use this type as there is a well documented case relating to exactly this.

[flynowpaylater]

The issuance of an AOC doesn't guarantee that the operator carries out full recurrent training, only that they pay lip service to it.

And what does the "non AOC" corporate operator do then?

I think that you would offend a lot of TRE/TRI's out there with sweeping statements like that, as that is indeed a slight on their professionalism. You clearly have little knowledge on how AOC's are run these days.

Be in no doubt that Ambeo are a professionally run operation, with an accreditation from the UK CAA, in the form of an AOC certificate. The operation will be both internally and externally (CAA) audited and their crews will be duly trained, but moreover have completed assessment flights for the initial type rating, and also recurrent training and assessments within the company. They will also have been given related emergency training for things like fire and smoke, first aid, wet drills.

So should be VERY safe....unless of course, all the various trainers and examiners, the CAA FOI, the Cheif Pilot, Accountable Manager etc...all just pay lip service to it all!

[Phil Brockwell]

James,

Our TRTO generally does the airborne training on the actual aircraft the crews are going to fly, it seems to make more sense than using a generic Sim.

Phil

[OutsideCAS]

Our TRTO generally does the airborne training on the actual aircraft the crews are going to fly, it seems to make more sense than using a generic Sim

I'll agree that certain things done in the aircraft environment "live" so to speak do add benefit, although IMHO (and i say this is only MY opinion lol) i think more benefit perhaps is gained by using a simulator for initial/recurrent training - the reason i say this is because in the actual a/c for example, in certain simulated failures your not going to get the realism of lights/bells to distract etc. - i am sure my peers will disagree, and of course that is welcomed as discussion in my eyes is good, always nice to view things from a different perspective.

Just as an aside, i'm presuming when you refer to "generic" sim Phil, your referring to the B200 etc. and not the CJ's ??

[bingofuel]

Would it not be fair to say that any rule or requirement is based upon a 'minimum' standard below which the standard would be unacceptable. But having systems, training or procedures of a higher standard should increase the quality of the final product.
Yes, type training can be conducted in an aircraft in 8 hours for small jets, king airs etc and recurrent training can be a flight with a CRE/TRE .
Or it could be a longer intensive course, and much lengthier simulator training in a dedicated sim, and recurrents can also be several hours in a sim where you can practice things way beyond those done in the aircraft.. I know which I think is the better way.
As for audits/quality, as long as the paperwork is correct the CAA seem happy. Unfortunately sometimes the paperwork and reality are somewhat different.
i.e. Put a tick in the training file, make sure the duty records concur and hey presto dangerous goods training done!

I am not saying all companies/operators are like that,but some are.

[OutsideCAS]

Fair points bingofuel - i agree on various points you make.

I will also say that i do have a somewhat sceptical view of audits and relevant findings, i think sometimes whilst the paperwork and environment they are conducted in (operators' premises etc.) means that nothing is found or of minor interest, in certain cases there are AOC operations that might benefit from a more thorough examination than just whats detailed on the check(s) they have in mind - all that said, i'm not an inspector and i do accept i may well be off the mark with my comments. Sometimes maybe an "off the record" chat with crews and staff more directly involved in day-to-day operations of said company might be a worthy addition to inspection items for audit as this may open up other areas of interest, or equally will serve to confirm that the organisation is as most i'm sure, truly excellent and warrants a clean bill of health. Just ideas mind.

Any views anyone ??

[flynowpaylater]

Outside CAS. Basically, regarding the Audit and quality systems, I do agree with the spirit of the points made. The bottom line is though that an operator could only get away with it for a short amount of time. The paper trail, although sometimes a bit tedious, is difficult to fiddle. ie, you may tick the box for the DG training - job done, but if your FOI and the quality ferret that usually comes with him dig deeper, they will see quite quickly that it wasn't done. The technique they use is sampling, and the more concerned they are, the more sampling they do.

The amount of effort required to ensure every document (load sheets, plogs, fuel receipts, ATC logs, Tech logs, personal log books etc...) matched, is much better spent doing it right in the first place! I guess thats the way the CAA think too. Death by a thousand audits for those who try and dodge.

[james brown]

Flynow: I haven't once insinuated that Ambeo aren't up to the job.

Any established AOC holder should do the mission with no problem

was what I said. There may be aspects of their operation I don't agree with, primarily the auctioning off of the RHS, but I'm certain they would do the job to a high standard.
I have a lot of knowledge on AOC's and how they run. Maybe more insightful than you which is the point I am trying to make.
There are many ways to skin a cat, and some operators do a better job of it than others. Fact.
Lets take recurrent training as an example. Some operators send their crew to a TRTO such as Flightsafety. They will receive three full days classroom and two or three sim sessions. They will cover stuff they may not have seen since their initial Type training, simulate all types of emergency, most of which CANNOT be replicated in the aircraft but are discussion items only. They can freeze sims for discussion, reset to practice weak items and practice engine failures at much more critical phases of flight. They can see windshear and its effects, can realistically simulate CFIT avoidance manoevres and can diagnose problems form the checklist, resetting systems as necessary.
Other operators may spend a day in the classroom at home base with a management pilot, then an LPC in the aircraft lasting an hour tops. With said management pilot in the RHS, not another line pilot who would benefit from seeing these issues as the NHP and the different work that this involves. At their home base where they know the procedures by heart.
Both of these are acceptable to the authority, but which do you think is more of an effective training tool?

Phil

Our TRTO generally does the airborne training on the actual aircraft the crews are going to fly, it seems to make more sense than using a generic Sim.

Rubbish, for all the reasons above. Our FOI has clearly stated he would prefer all training to be completed in the sim, and would look very favourably on operators using the aircraft moving to using the sim for at least every second check. If you honestly believe your own statement I would be very surprised.

This is dragging on a bit. All I'm trying to get across is that out of all AOC holders there are ones who pay more attention to training and standards than others.