AgustaWestland TRTO Suspended?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: worldwide
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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???!!
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???!!
Last edited by End of the Line; 2nd May 2011 at 04:58.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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!
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/certificat...OEB_Report.pdf
http://www.easa.europa.eu/certificat...OEB_Report.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
A quick question...
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?
Zulu
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?
Zulu
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need for a 10 day wait - just check out Standards Document 31. 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.
Really?
I thought it was all JAR land now.
To quote Lasors 2010 Section F -
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, really. You obviously don't understand the terminology -
The AW TRTO is approved by ENAC and its training is then accepted by all other member states, including the UK
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Yes, really. You obviously don't understand the terminology -
...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 , 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 - 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.
Whilst I realise (hope) that your
...note from your mum...
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,
JAA/EASA - Joint Operational Evaluation Board Agusta AB139 FCL and OPS Subgroup report
The above document (originally posted by 212man in this thread, 2nd May 2011) details, at page 14 sub para 3.2, that:
SECTION 1 JAR–FCL 2 01.09.03 1–G–1 Amendment 3 SUBPART G – AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT LICENCE (Helicopter) – ATPL(H)JAR-FCL 2,
...states the following:
...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
JAA/EASA - Joint Operational Evaluation Board Agusta AB139 FCL and OPS Subgroup report
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 - 2
...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...
(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...
Zulu
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
Last edited by PPI Zulu; 18th May 2011 at 09:47.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multi-Crew Concept
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://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.
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://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.