The PINS System - pointless nonsense or a useful tool?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PINS System - pointless nonsense or a useful tool?
For those who don't know of the PINS system, it stands for Pipeline Inspection Notification System. It is designed to warn low-flying military aircraft of pipeline inspection helicopters operating in the UKLFS. It does so by notifying LFAs as either PINS active or inactive. In an active LFA you are warned that helicopters may be active between 100' and 2000' along certain (unspecified) pipelines.
Now, for my money I think it's a load of pointless twaddle. I tend to brief using the phrase "PINS active through the entire area" and move on. My specific concerns about the system are:
1. Lookout, or the see-and-avoid principle, is the primary lifesaver in the LFS. I strive to fly with the attitude that every valley has another aircraft in it, every stately home has a circling Cessna, every set of powerlines has a helicopter crossing it, every farmstrip has an aircraft just getting airborne, etc. Furthermore, until I get a wing-waggle I assume that the other guy hasn't seen us and will be thinking hard about staying out of their way.
So, why segregate one set of traffic and afford them extra notification? The PINS system doesn't give me any better deconfliction information than "they're out there...somewhere". I'll be needing the same amount of lookout in an active area as an inactive one.
2. If I brief an LFA as PINS active, and the next as PINS inactive, I've set up an unspoken expectation that one will be more dangerous than the other. Therefore in the inactive one there is a tendancy to relax a little which must be guarded against. To my mind, it is a negative reinforcement of the required level of vigillence. To draw a parallel, consider Millfield Glider Site. How comfortable would you be flying through it when it was cold according to the book/ops boards? I'll bet you'd give it a wide berth just to be on the safe side. Well, same thing with PINS!
I personally feel that the PINS system doesn't add anything to my SA. I would be happy to see it removed, and a note added to the LFS handbook to the effect that pipeline inspection helicopters may be active throughout the LFS and it behoves crews to keep a bl**dy good lookout for them, along with every other air user that may be out there!
But then I don't have anything like the experience of many posters in this forum. Am I utterly wrong? I'd welcome comments and counter arguments.
(But the recent spate of posts along the lines of "You're a kn*b. Because I said so." are throughly unwelcome.)
Blunty
Now, for my money I think it's a load of pointless twaddle. I tend to brief using the phrase "PINS active through the entire area" and move on. My specific concerns about the system are:
1. Lookout, or the see-and-avoid principle, is the primary lifesaver in the LFS. I strive to fly with the attitude that every valley has another aircraft in it, every stately home has a circling Cessna, every set of powerlines has a helicopter crossing it, every farmstrip has an aircraft just getting airborne, etc. Furthermore, until I get a wing-waggle I assume that the other guy hasn't seen us and will be thinking hard about staying out of their way.
So, why segregate one set of traffic and afford them extra notification? The PINS system doesn't give me any better deconfliction information than "they're out there...somewhere". I'll be needing the same amount of lookout in an active area as an inactive one.
2. If I brief an LFA as PINS active, and the next as PINS inactive, I've set up an unspoken expectation that one will be more dangerous than the other. Therefore in the inactive one there is a tendancy to relax a little which must be guarded against. To my mind, it is a negative reinforcement of the required level of vigillence. To draw a parallel, consider Millfield Glider Site. How comfortable would you be flying through it when it was cold according to the book/ops boards? I'll bet you'd give it a wide berth just to be on the safe side. Well, same thing with PINS!
I personally feel that the PINS system doesn't add anything to my SA. I would be happy to see it removed, and a note added to the LFS handbook to the effect that pipeline inspection helicopters may be active throughout the LFS and it behoves crews to keep a bl**dy good lookout for them, along with every other air user that may be out there!
But then I don't have anything like the experience of many posters in this forum. Am I utterly wrong? I'd welcome comments and counter arguments.
(But the recent spate of posts along the lines of "You're a kn*b. Because I said so." are throughly unwelcome.)
Blunty
I agree. Stuff like this can just prove a distraction, eating up planning and briefing time when it can be better spent on something more fundamental to FS. At the end of the day there is no substitute for good lookout and flying sensibly.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To draw a parallel, consider Millfield Glider Site. How comfortable would you be flying through it when it was cold according to the book/ops boards? I'll bet you'd give it a wide berth just to be on the safe side.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first recommendation that would be made by the BOI if a military aircraft was to hit a helicopter on an inspection if PINS was scrapped ?
It's all about liability. Surely checking PINS doesn't take too much time to do does it ?
It's all about liability. Surely checking PINS doesn't take too much time to do does it ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well yes, but half the time the cab doing the inspecting doesn't stick to timings, and why should he?
So he happily bangs in a statement that he will be checking pipelines Mon-Fri, in this large part of Yorkshire. Exactly where or when is anybody's guess.
It is true that it's largely down to liability issues by people who don't understand what is going on.
The helicopter that spends an extra 20 minutes observing something had no intention of being struck by the Tornado that briefed as a four-ship, taxied as a pair etc.
I've been told that the the total faff we have of 'low-level returns' which includes crews, timings, planned routes, deviations, photocopies of maps etc were the result of some MP demanding answers in the House.
Result: bags of man hours fulfilling the Honourable Member's request and guaranteeing a world of pain, time and pointlessness. To continue ad infinitum.
Much better when C434 got you legal, and off you set into a world of A10s, F111s, the new Tornado thingy and much more.
Happy Days.
PINS is pointless and cannot achieve what it is attempting, by virtue of the flexible nature of all involved at low level in the LFA system as it exists.
Anyone read the Bandy Papers?
I wonder what he'd think.
So he happily bangs in a statement that he will be checking pipelines Mon-Fri, in this large part of Yorkshire. Exactly where or when is anybody's guess.
It is true that it's largely down to liability issues by people who don't understand what is going on.
The helicopter that spends an extra 20 minutes observing something had no intention of being struck by the Tornado that briefed as a four-ship, taxied as a pair etc.
I've been told that the the total faff we have of 'low-level returns' which includes crews, timings, planned routes, deviations, photocopies of maps etc were the result of some MP demanding answers in the House.
Result: bags of man hours fulfilling the Honourable Member's request and guaranteeing a world of pain, time and pointlessness. To continue ad infinitum.
Much better when C434 got you legal, and off you set into a world of A10s, F111s, the new Tornado thingy and much more.
Happy Days.
PINS is pointless and cannot achieve what it is attempting, by virtue of the flexible nature of all involved at low level in the LFA system as it exists.
Anyone read the Bandy Papers?
I wonder what he'd think.
BluntM8
To reach a 360 degree discussion I recommend you somehow link the thread to Rotorheads and the GA forum to obtain the other users perspective. I am sure you know that the UK PINS committee has a balance of the military angle and the helo survey boys up to the light twin (a Partenavia ?) that flies from Liverpool up to Scotland. You might be able to speak directly to the RAF member of the committee to voice your views ?
To reach a 360 degree discussion I recommend you somehow link the thread to Rotorheads and the GA forum to obtain the other users perspective. I am sure you know that the UK PINS committee has a balance of the military angle and the helo survey boys up to the light twin (a Partenavia ?) that flies from Liverpool up to Scotland. You might be able to speak directly to the RAF member of the committee to voice your views ?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that PINS was introduced after a Tornado wiped out a pipeline Jetranger several years ago. Like it or not, I doubt that anybody has the balls to remove it for fear of having a neck in the noose on the next near miss/collision. PINS is like a Flying Order Book: There to hang the guilty after the event.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's exactly right tigermate.
PINS: useless paperwork arse-covering after a fatal accident.
A Tucano clipped a police helicopter in the hover at low level down South a few years back. Luckily, nobody copped it. They then stuck a low level TCAS type bit of kit in Tucano. This is useful because it is kit that will warn you when to really look out. Haven't used it myself. Anyone care to comment?
I prepare to stand corrected, but that seems to me to be sensible, if it works, or even half works, so the Mk1 eyeball is fully deployed when told to.
PINS: useless paperwork arse-covering after a fatal accident.
A Tucano clipped a police helicopter in the hover at low level down South a few years back. Luckily, nobody copped it. They then stuck a low level TCAS type bit of kit in Tucano. This is useful because it is kit that will warn you when to really look out. Haven't used it myself. Anyone care to comment?
I prepare to stand corrected, but that seems to me to be sensible, if it works, or even half works, so the Mk1 eyeball is fully deployed when told to.
Yes, TCAS is an extremely useful aid at low level BUT it is just an aid, it is not infallible and most definitely not a replacement for good lookout. That said, used properly it increases overall awareness and will alert you to potential traffic in plenty of time. Possibly one of the most useful aspects is that it will let you know about overtaking traffic well before you can see said overtaker.
Where it can be a pain is by showing non-Mode C traffic and will issue an alert simply based on closure when the threat can be 1000s of feet separated in height.
Overall, an excellent piece of kit that should be in every aircraft.
Where it can be a pain is by showing non-Mode C traffic and will issue an alert simply based on closure when the threat can be 1000s of feet separated in height.
Overall, an excellent piece of kit that should be in every aircraft.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ask petf
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of quite serious thread creep, I personally think that TCAS @ LL is a lifesaver; it's certainly warned me of impending doom in situations where look-out couldn't have several times (converging valleys, faster traffic at dead 6 in a flow etc). Also, it does rather ram home just how close some things have to be before you (well, me at least) can see them.
No, it doesn't replace lookout or airmanship, it won't help you for non-squawkers and I'm sure the bad men will turn mode 3c/s off when the time comes. It also might make you trust it just a bit too much, but no matter. To me, it's safer on the whole and therefore a good thing.
Also v.good in (dusty?) places where air traffic are either too bad or too busy and high volumes of mil traffic are doing their various jobs.
Sorry, back to the PINS system...
No, it doesn't replace lookout or airmanship, it won't help you for non-squawkers and I'm sure the bad men will turn mode 3c/s off when the time comes. It also might make you trust it just a bit too much, but no matter. To me, it's safer on the whole and therefore a good thing.
Also v.good in (dusty?) places where air traffic are either too bad or too busy and high volumes of mil traffic are doing their various jobs.
Sorry, back to the PINS system...
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monty 77 said:
'PINS is pointless and cannot achieve what it is attempting, by virtue of the flexible nature of all involved at low level in the LFA system as it exists'
I would have agreed with you until a couple of years ago whilst shooting the Scampton - Humberside gap as a fast mover. Humberside ATC warned me of a PINS helo a few miles ahead of my track (working on another frequency) and as I couldn't see him I moved right and up to 800' (he was working at 500') to avoid him. With a constant commentary from ATC, I passed him about 1 mile away according to ATC radar and still couldn't see the bu%%er!
2 points arise from this:
1 ATC knew his profile including his working altitude and they told me he was PINS therefore advised me effectively.
2 If they or I hadn't known his profile who knows how close I would have got (one can only hope he would still have been two-way with Humberside).
So for me, I think the system worked and I am happy I'm not the statistic due to the system being scrapped because it takes soooo long to brief
'PINS is pointless and cannot achieve what it is attempting, by virtue of the flexible nature of all involved at low level in the LFA system as it exists'
I would have agreed with you until a couple of years ago whilst shooting the Scampton - Humberside gap as a fast mover. Humberside ATC warned me of a PINS helo a few miles ahead of my track (working on another frequency) and as I couldn't see him I moved right and up to 800' (he was working at 500') to avoid him. With a constant commentary from ATC, I passed him about 1 mile away according to ATC radar and still couldn't see the bu%%er!
2 points arise from this:
1 ATC knew his profile including his working altitude and they told me he was PINS therefore advised me effectively.
2 If they or I hadn't known his profile who knows how close I would have got (one can only hope he would still have been two-way with Humberside).
So for me, I think the system worked and I am happy I'm not the statistic due to the system being scrapped because it takes soooo long to brief
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tradewind
Yes mate. ATC were on the ball telling you a lurking rotary fellah was about in your band. PINS would not have given you the specific information you needed. I hate it when ATC tell me there's a contact in my 12 o'clock at three miles, converging. Eyeballs on stalks? You've been there!
All I'm saying is: it's pointless saying you may encounter a low flying civvy helicopter in an LFA. Unless there's some specific info (like massive quarry explosions at given times), then it's down to lookout and sound ATC mates (like in your case).
It's a bigger debate when we insist upon low level transponders for all aircraft below 2000ft. Sadly, it comes down to cost.
Yes mate. ATC were on the ball telling you a lurking rotary fellah was about in your band. PINS would not have given you the specific information you needed. I hate it when ATC tell me there's a contact in my 12 o'clock at three miles, converging. Eyeballs on stalks? You've been there!
All I'm saying is: it's pointless saying you may encounter a low flying civvy helicopter in an LFA. Unless there's some specific info (like massive quarry explosions at given times), then it's down to lookout and sound ATC mates (like in your case).
It's a bigger debate when we insist upon low level transponders for all aircraft below 2000ft. Sadly, it comes down to cost.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that you have just hit the nail on the head, the key appears to be that you were both working the same ATC unit!
ATC will be just as poorly placed to give you traffic information based on a PINS activation in a fairly large geographic area as the notification will fail to get your eyes onto the conflicting traffic.
The only things that will work is where both parties are working an appropriate ATC unit and/or TCAS that unfortunatly we dont all have.
I believe this system should be withdrawn just as the horse riders helicopter training area notification has been withdrawn given that it had no appreciable increase in safety as a benefit.
It would be a brave person that admits his lookout is better or worse depending on whether there is a notification of helicopter activity somewhere within a fairly large geographic area.
Eyes out at all times remains my maxim!
HEDP
ATC will be just as poorly placed to give you traffic information based on a PINS activation in a fairly large geographic area as the notification will fail to get your eyes onto the conflicting traffic.
The only things that will work is where both parties are working an appropriate ATC unit and/or TCAS that unfortunatly we dont all have.
I believe this system should be withdrawn just as the horse riders helicopter training area notification has been withdrawn given that it had no appreciable increase in safety as a benefit.
It would be a brave person that admits his lookout is better or worse depending on whether there is a notification of helicopter activity somewhere within a fairly large geographic area.
Eyes out at all times remains my maxim!
HEDP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tradewind I'm afraid I entirely disagree.
Compare this:
With this:
I would strongly argue that the fact the helicopter was a PINS helicopter was entirely co-incidental to the fact you avoided collecting a helicopter at low level. In this case, I contend that the PINS system entirely failed: it was designed to raise your awareness of the helicopters at the planning and briefing stage such that you stood a better chance of detecting them whilst airborne. In this instance, you were alerted to the presence of a helicopter by a switched on ATCO practicing their version of see-and-avoid.
To address your points directly, I would like to play devils advocate, if I may.
1. ATC passed you details of the working altitude and profile of the other traffic. I believe that this is standard for most traffic calls and therefore cannot be attributed to the PINS system. Do you think they would have withheld the information had the helicopter not been PINS traffic?
2. If they, or you, had not known his profile, then you may have got very close. See and avoid is not infaliable. Supposing this incident had occured outwith the area of radar cover - would you have been able to avoid the traffic based on your knowledge of the PINS areas active for that day?
I suggest that in this case, you were the victim of some switched on air-traffiking, and I don't wish to demean your good fortune. Sorry, but I don't believe the fact that it was a PINS helicopter has any bearing on the outcome.
Blunty
Edited to add: Arse! Beaten to the post by two posters with better reactions than me!
Compare this:
I would have agreed with you until a couple of years ago whilst shooting the Scampton - Humberside gap as a fast mover. Humberside ATC warned me of a PINS helo a few miles ahead of my track (working on another frequency) and as I couldn't see him I moved right and up to 800' (he was working at 500') to avoid him. With a constant commentary from ATC, I passed him about 1 mile away according to ATC radar and still couldn't see the bu%%er!
I would have agreed with you until a couple of years ago whilst shooting the Scampton - Humberside gap as a fast mover. Humberside ATC warned me of a helo a few miles ahead of my track (working on another frequency) and as I couldn't see him I moved right and up to 800' (he was working at 500') to avoid him. With a constant commentary from ATC, I passed him about 1 mile away according to ATC radar and still couldn't see the bu%%er!
To address your points directly, I would like to play devils advocate, if I may.
1. ATC passed you details of the working altitude and profile of the other traffic. I believe that this is standard for most traffic calls and therefore cannot be attributed to the PINS system. Do you think they would have withheld the information had the helicopter not been PINS traffic?
2. If they, or you, had not known his profile, then you may have got very close. See and avoid is not infaliable. Supposing this incident had occured outwith the area of radar cover - would you have been able to avoid the traffic based on your knowledge of the PINS areas active for that day?
I suggest that in this case, you were the victim of some switched on air-traffiking, and I don't wish to demean your good fortune. Sorry, but I don't believe the fact that it was a PINS helicopter has any bearing on the outcome.
Blunty
Edited to add: Arse! Beaten to the post by two posters with better reactions than me!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All valid points fellas, but my point was that the helo was not 'lurking' and due to ATC notifying me that it was PINS gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling that he was established on his route and not a random civvy helo out for a jaunt below 2000'( T'was a very nice day from what I remember).
I'm not hear to join any side to the debate as to whether PINS is a waste of time - just pointing out that FOR ME ON THAT DAY I felt it worked.
I Guess I'm your devils advocate eh?
I'm not hear to join any side to the debate as to whether PINS is a waste of time - just pointing out that FOR ME ON THAT DAY I felt it worked.
I Guess I'm your devils advocate eh?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,566
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
If the crew of the PINS helo are busy inspecting pipelines then THEY may not see YOU either! I am reminded of the Tornado that collided with a Cessna near Cottesmore while the pilot of the latter was taking photographs. The Tornado crew failed to see that Cessna either - I am sure that their families would rather that thay knew of a low flier possibly in the area.....
Its easy to knock a system until someone dies - better by far a little extra in the brief....
Old or Bold?
Its easy to knock a system until someone dies - better by far a little extra in the brief....
Old or Bold?