Docs & Regs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Docs & Regs
Just testing the opinion on the new rules/regs/docs that are being produced that we all refer to for flying ops. It appears to me thta they are designed to protect the duty holder and not for ease of use by operators. A couple of examples - we now have a new order book that refers to about 9 other order books and you have to go to them to get the information. I assume they don't want to put the information in the order book itself in case the reference changes. Another example if you look at the RTSs there are tens of pages in the front that the operator doesn't use. The air crew manuals have had the limitations sections removed and you have to refer to the RTS - again caused by concerns that the RTS changes and the ACM lags behind. I would be interested in other peoples views, and if anyone can explain to me what a just culture is can you let me know.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just Culture
A definition that has been put forward in the healthcare profession for 'Just Culture':
"Just Culture: A culture that recognizes that competent professionals make mistakes and acknowledges that even competent professionals will develop unhealthy norms (shortcuts, "routine rule violations"), but has zero tolerance for reckless behaviour."
I can see the merit of an attitude like that in Flight Safety.
Sun
"Just Culture: A culture that recognizes that competent professionals make mistakes and acknowledges that even competent professionals will develop unhealthy norms (shortcuts, "routine rule violations"), but has zero tolerance for reckless behaviour."
I can see the merit of an attitude like that in Flight Safety.
Sun
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I think Puma's point is more and more regulations mean you read and digest less and less (as a percentage of the whole).
In years of yore, AMFOs, or Air Ministry Flying Orders was a very slim volume that weighed less than the cover of one of the current JSP. based on AMFOs, Commands would write ASI or Air Staff Instructions. In turn Groups would right orders or GASOs.
One advantage was the orders could become increasingly focused on one gruop or type. The disadvantage was that an order written for 1 Gp might have had application in 3 Gp but never put in 3 Gp GASO.
The really important orders were in the Flying Order Book. This could be browsed in a few minutes.
As AMFOs were for the RAF the RN and AAC went their own ways which was why JSP 501 had Joint orders and single user exceptions etc.
As the OP says, may FOs etc now are so cross referenced for CYA purposes as to become meaningless. Some 30 years ago a sqn cdr on 201 tried to stem the tide but soon got swallowed up in niff naff and trivia.
In years of yore, AMFOs, or Air Ministry Flying Orders was a very slim volume that weighed less than the cover of one of the current JSP. based on AMFOs, Commands would write ASI or Air Staff Instructions. In turn Groups would right orders or GASOs.
One advantage was the orders could become increasingly focused on one gruop or type. The disadvantage was that an order written for 1 Gp might have had application in 3 Gp but never put in 3 Gp GASO.
The really important orders were in the Flying Order Book. This could be browsed in a few minutes.
As AMFOs were for the RAF the RN and AAC went their own ways which was why JSP 501 had Joint orders and single user exceptions etc.
As the OP says, may FOs etc now are so cross referenced for CYA purposes as to become meaningless. Some 30 years ago a sqn cdr on 201 tried to stem the tide but soon got swallowed up in niff naff and trivia.
We all know that in the techie world aircraft would never get off the ground if rules and regs were taken as read! Even if we did there would never be enough manuals to go around!
Raise an Unsatisfactory Feature Report, ask the question and/or propose an alternative.
The whole point of the MAA (if only they knew) is to reverse the decision to withdraw funding for such mandatory processes. The answer you get will give you the official line, whether you agree with it or not. But it must be valid and verifiable. It must be retained for all time, and forms part of the evidence underpinning (or undermining) the Safety Case. If they don't answer, or give you a lot of waffle, then you know the MAA aren't on top of their brief yet. Best of luck.
The whole point of the MAA (if only they knew) is to reverse the decision to withdraw funding for such mandatory processes. The answer you get will give you the official line, whether you agree with it or not. But it must be valid and verifiable. It must be retained for all time, and forms part of the evidence underpinning (or undermining) the Safety Case. If they don't answer, or give you a lot of waffle, then you know the MAA aren't on top of their brief yet. Best of luck.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
tuc, while true the main stumbling block is the pressure on staff officers.
Whatever one throught of General Melchett and Captain Darling they had time (perhaps too much then) to do staff work. Staffs did the enabling works to allow the men to do the work.
Now many layers of staff have been stripped, streamlined, and sent on op tours with posts gapped. From being above and detached, able to take a more relaxed and dispasionate view with proper oversight and review they are often reduced to day-to-day fire fighting the same as the frontline.
You can do with out staff for a short period but soon get bitten.
As an example, at one point not that long ago our chain of command at Strike was a flt lt with the next above being the AOC. All intermediate layers were posted/detached/gapped.
Whatever one throught of General Melchett and Captain Darling they had time (perhaps too much then) to do staff work. Staffs did the enabling works to allow the men to do the work.
Now many layers of staff have been stripped, streamlined, and sent on op tours with posts gapped. From being above and detached, able to take a more relaxed and dispasionate view with proper oversight and review they are often reduced to day-to-day fire fighting the same as the frontline.
You can do with out staff for a short period but soon get bitten.
As an example, at one point not that long ago our chain of command at Strike was a flt lt with the next above being the AOC. All intermediate layers were posted/detached/gapped.
PN I see that we are of the same vintage, assuming neither of us is lying about their age. I fully concur about the slimness and potency of the FOB in our day. But that's the point isn't it? In our day VSOs were heavily beribboned and much respected exWWII veterans. My AOC was Mickey Martin of 617 fame. He and his compatriots knew the necessity of doing one's duty and looking after your subordinates. When they retired they gave way often to ambitious bureaucrats, bare chested and often anxious to correct that anomaly. When promoted to the level of their own incompetence their gross negligence soon cost much precious treasure, and because aviation does not tolerate incompetance it wasn't long before it cost lives as well. To compound this sorry saga, the Star Chamber that protects all of 2* rank and above has set about covering up this scandal for a quarter of a century. The classic case is of course the Mull tragedy, whereby the pilots were the scape goats selected by the Star Chamber. There are many more cases though, accidents whose inquiries were compromised so that they could not be linked back to the systemic airworthiness failings that have beset UK Military Aviation in that time period. Indeed "Stovepiping" has become an art form in the corridors of power and make up a lot of the work of the hard pressed Staffs of which you speak.
What the RAF wishes to do about these corrupt practises is up to it, but if it doesn't do something soon it will have no aircraft left to fly, as the MAA in its floundering way shuts down fleet after fleet. The bullet needs to be bitten, the MAA and the MAAIB turned loose, with absolute independence from the MOD and each other. The Star Chamber has to decide what are its priorities, the well-being of the Royal Air Force, or of its own members. The two presently are incompatible.
What the RAF wishes to do about these corrupt practises is up to it, but if it doesn't do something soon it will have no aircraft left to fly, as the MAA in its floundering way shuts down fleet after fleet. The bullet needs to be bitten, the MAA and the MAAIB turned loose, with absolute independence from the MOD and each other. The Star Chamber has to decide what are its priorities, the well-being of the Royal Air Force, or of its own members. The two presently are incompatible.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 13th May 2012 at 10:59.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Chug, moi, lie? Never. No 1 ITS, 167 course and then the number 42 which seemed like a magic carpet with course after course following with no holds but the same course number.
PN
-re staff posts, I agree. The last one I held (TORs included ensuring sufficient provision was made to implement airworthiness regs) was disbanded in 1988 because it was no longer required, which rather proves the point!
I was thinking that, as the MAA are in the early throes of actively reinventing this particular wheel, the sponsors/committees overseeing the new publications should still be sitting regularly and in a position to consider quickly any comment from front line. Leave it too late and experience shows the reply will be “You’re the only one who has commented, therefore you must be wrong”.
-re staff posts, I agree. The last one I held (TORs included ensuring sufficient provision was made to implement airworthiness regs) was disbanded in 1988 because it was no longer required, which rather proves the point!
I was thinking that, as the MAA are in the early throes of actively reinventing this particular wheel, the sponsors/committees overseeing the new publications should still be sitting regularly and in a position to consider quickly any comment from front line. Leave it too late and experience shows the reply will be “You’re the only one who has commented, therefore you must be wrong”.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USAF has been battling this for nigh on 20 years now. In the mid '90s, there was a push away from AF Regulations to something called AF Instructions (complete with a little phrase on the front that 'compliance with these instructions is mandatory' - as if to remind you).
At first, it sounded like a good idea. On Hercules, as other types, we had our 55-series regulation. AFR 55-130 (the last three digits were typically your airframe) and it was all in one place - everything from basic flying rules to how to employ the aircraft in various tactical operations. It was a hefty volume, but the information was organised well and each chapter specialised in a specific area.
We moved to AFI 11-2C-130 Vol 1, Vol 2, & Vol 3. Additionally, our basic flying regulation (like JSP 318) was divided/combined and added to going from AFR 60-16 to AFI 11-202 Vol1, Vol 2, & Vol 3. We then subdivided our tactics manuals and took out the Hercules specific chapter from 55-130 (that lived in the safe) and made two ginormous volumes called AFTTP 3-3 (unclassified) and 3-1 (classified).
On the surface, this seemed a good idea. Tailored information specific to the operation at hand. In practise, it's a dismal failure. Each publication points to the other one, they are owned by different offices and updated on different cycles. Additionally, they commands no longer "own" them and they must go all the way to HQ AF for approval - a process that takes about 2 years. It's horrible.
General knowledge at the crew level has suffered immensely. It is difficult to study anything without breaking out three books, at minimum. And the content changes at the whim of the latest staff officer. We've had a lot of stuff just fall out because one pub thought it should be in the other pub and the other pub thought it should be in the first pub. Sad, really.
We've corrected some of the deficiencies by writing local SOP guidance, but now we're adding yet another book to an already four foot high stack of books for our crews to be knowledgeable on.
Our books are so poor, they were cited as a CAUSAL factor in a mishap just a few years ago.
It really is a sad state of affairs. Sorry to see the RAF going down this same road...
At first, it sounded like a good idea. On Hercules, as other types, we had our 55-series regulation. AFR 55-130 (the last three digits were typically your airframe) and it was all in one place - everything from basic flying rules to how to employ the aircraft in various tactical operations. It was a hefty volume, but the information was organised well and each chapter specialised in a specific area.
We moved to AFI 11-2C-130 Vol 1, Vol 2, & Vol 3. Additionally, our basic flying regulation (like JSP 318) was divided/combined and added to going from AFR 60-16 to AFI 11-202 Vol1, Vol 2, & Vol 3. We then subdivided our tactics manuals and took out the Hercules specific chapter from 55-130 (that lived in the safe) and made two ginormous volumes called AFTTP 3-3 (unclassified) and 3-1 (classified).
On the surface, this seemed a good idea. Tailored information specific to the operation at hand. In practise, it's a dismal failure. Each publication points to the other one, they are owned by different offices and updated on different cycles. Additionally, they commands no longer "own" them and they must go all the way to HQ AF for approval - a process that takes about 2 years. It's horrible.
General knowledge at the crew level has suffered immensely. It is difficult to study anything without breaking out three books, at minimum. And the content changes at the whim of the latest staff officer. We've had a lot of stuff just fall out because one pub thought it should be in the other pub and the other pub thought it should be in the first pub. Sad, really.
We've corrected some of the deficiencies by writing local SOP guidance, but now we're adding yet another book to an already four foot high stack of books for our crews to be knowledgeable on.
Our books are so poor, they were cited as a CAUSAL factor in a mishap just a few years ago.
It really is a sad state of affairs. Sorry to see the RAF going down this same road...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
US Herk,
Document ownership is the elephant in the room. When we abolished our separate ministrys and several organisations lots of arcade documents that were extant lost, as a stroke, their sponsors. Of course initially this did not matter. The ship maintained a steady course and things evolved more or less as intended. You can imagine what happens next . . .
Many years later I, and my colleagues, were required to write two short entries, one for the public and one for a wider service customer, which would be produced as pamphlets.
I asked who would have ownership of the pamphlets - a lemon. I then acquired a copy of the pamphlets and was dismayed to see that 5 similar units had produced wildly differing entries and no one had edited them for conformity and uniformity. A few years later, after the inevitable changes, the pamphlets were still in their original form, orphaned and ignored.
Document ownership is the elephant in the room. When we abolished our separate ministrys and several organisations lots of arcade documents that were extant lost, as a stroke, their sponsors. Of course initially this did not matter. The ship maintained a steady course and things evolved more or less as intended. You can imagine what happens next . . .
Many years later I, and my colleagues, were required to write two short entries, one for the public and one for a wider service customer, which would be produced as pamphlets.
I asked who would have ownership of the pamphlets - a lemon. I then acquired a copy of the pamphlets and was dismayed to see that 5 similar units had produced wildly differing entries and no one had edited them for conformity and uniformity. A few years later, after the inevitable changes, the pamphlets were still in their original form, orphaned and ignored.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A galloping goatf@ck in the making......
US Herk..........well said mate. If the RAF doesn't takes this WARNING then it deserves all it gets. I feel sorry for the poor buggers on OCU courses who have will not be able to have personal copies of these Regs and inevitably are more likely to miss out important bits and then inadvertantly drop themselves and their crew in the dwang at best. It is shortsighted economy and will further serve to stress out the student at a time that he has enough bloody stress.
These arse covering tactics are sickening.
Once again well said US Herk. We'll await with baited breath to see what happens.
These arse covering tactics are sickening.
Once again well said US Herk. We'll await with baited breath to see what happens.
Last edited by Dundiggin'; 13th May 2012 at 16:07.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Think yourself lucky... When the CAA went over to EASA, loads of books were withdrawn and cancelled....... However they put in a clause that you still had comply with them
Last edited by NutLoose; 13th May 2012 at 17:19.
Seems to me like you have 2 choices with how you arrange your regulations. You can group everything by aircraft type, as per the old system that US Herk liked, where you have one huge manual that covers all rules, regulations, SOPs, tactics, etc etc. Or, you can group by type of regulations; so the tactics for all types are in the 3-3/3-1 series, and all the rules for operating aircraft are in a central document with chapters for all types, like the old 550/new MMA series documents, or GASOs.
There's merit in both and I don't think it's as one-sided as people here seem to be saying. Sure, the majority of posters here are operators, and therefore we'd like one big book that has everything in it, but things would absolutely still get missed if that was the case. A change to the way we regulate something that could just go in 550 (or whatever the new one's called) would have to be reliably inserted in every type's manual instead.
The current system seems to work. I'd quite like to see a simpler naming convention for some documents so I know what reference I'm meant to be looking for, but I didn't think there was much of a problem in moving from the ACM to the RTS to look up something for a particular fit.
Nowadays, most things seem to be stored electronically anyway, so looking at US documents wasn't too tricky. Rather than having to look at 10 different books, you just need 4 different PDFs open; which have the convenience of being searchable!
There's merit in both and I don't think it's as one-sided as people here seem to be saying. Sure, the majority of posters here are operators, and therefore we'd like one big book that has everything in it, but things would absolutely still get missed if that was the case. A change to the way we regulate something that could just go in 550 (or whatever the new one's called) would have to be reliably inserted in every type's manual instead.
The current system seems to work. I'd quite like to see a simpler naming convention for some documents so I know what reference I'm meant to be looking for, but I didn't think there was much of a problem in moving from the ACM to the RTS to look up something for a particular fit.
Nowadays, most things seem to be stored electronically anyway, so looking at US documents wasn't too tricky. Rather than having to look at 10 different books, you just need 4 different PDFs open; which have the convenience of being searchable!
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It always seemed to me that after the dear old Pilot's Notes expanded from the small paperback format into the hard covered ring bound jobbie and then burgeoned into the heavyweight ACM that someone, somewhere in the bureaucracy was bullet proofing their own rear end, and sod the airframe driver and his crew. I also wondered whether or not lawyers had an input into the resultant screed. Do I hold a jaundiced impression of the whole shooting match? Yes, I freely admit.
Some might say that the increasing complexity of Pilot's Notes, and their change into ACMs etc mirrored the increasing complexity of the aircraft, rather than being a cynical attempt in arse covering by anyone.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5F6B - you are giving the correct Directing Staff solution. Aircraft are vastly more complex than they were, but reliability of engines and components have improved beyond recognition. No simulators in my day either (the first 'simulators' that I saw would now be called primitive procedure trainers). I still think the best solution is to have experienced people from Handling Sqn or the type OTU be responsible both for the writing of and currency of the book of words. The manufacturers manual could be a good place to start from. The publication must be written by pilots for pilots. It must not be riddled with legal jargon or become a bureaucrats plaything.
