Conduct of IRR and Base Check on Modern Twin Engine Helicopters (like EC 225)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conduct of IRR and Base Check on Modern Twin Engine Helicopters (like EC 225)
I had just had my base check done and was amazed that the authorities still require the aircraft to be hand flown in both the VMC base check and the Instrument Rating Renewal. Only in one precision approach the candidate is allowed to fly fully coupled. Management of engine failures were the old fashioned " hands on " type of flying. The super auto pilot in the EC 225 would do a good job if it is properly managed (and you have to be sharp to know how to properly manage the upper modes). The candidate is stilled lumbered with radio calls, call for checks, briefs etc and the examiner is just acting "competent without any initiative". It looks like being asked to fly a super twin engined 206! I wonder how the other parts of the world both FAA and JAR Ops authorities conduct the base checks.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teaching for the Test
It's a difficult call isn't it? You set up a test regime designed to focus on the basic skills but in doing so the risk is that schools and training departments will focus on the needs of the test and not on the needs of the candidate.
Ignoring the need to demonstrate a full understanding of AP functions that are used in your daily routine, sometimes in demanding night and bad weather situations, carries a risk that I thought we were at least aware of.
Mishandling of AP functions in a two crew environment is a problem I encounter regularly and it's disappointing to see the lack of adequate SOPs in that respect. I would like to see the test focus on the effective use and management of AP systems for as they become a more significant part of our strategy for coping in high workload, bad weather situations so their correct use will be not just important but critical.
If the test cannot deliver a true picture of competency then the training staff owe it to their guys and gals to be aware of where weaknesses exist and ensure they make adequate use of their recurrent training to focus on those weaknesses with remedial work. Don't be satisfied with any old LOFT exercise that amounts to ticking boxes - get the best value you can with a bit of analysis, thought and planning.
G.
Ignoring the need to demonstrate a full understanding of AP functions that are used in your daily routine, sometimes in demanding night and bad weather situations, carries a risk that I thought we were at least aware of.
Mishandling of AP functions in a two crew environment is a problem I encounter regularly and it's disappointing to see the lack of adequate SOPs in that respect. I would like to see the test focus on the effective use and management of AP systems for as they become a more significant part of our strategy for coping in high workload, bad weather situations so their correct use will be not just important but critical.
If the test cannot deliver a true picture of competency then the training staff owe it to their guys and gals to be aware of where weaknesses exist and ensure they make adequate use of their recurrent training to focus on those weaknesses with remedial work. Don't be satisfied with any old LOFT exercise that amounts to ticking boxes - get the best value you can with a bit of analysis, thought and planning.
G.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my training at Eurocopters and Helisim, I was told that they had to fail very experienced pilots who can fly very well but it was only on hands on flying. Absolutely no knowledge of the upper modes and automation provided! If this same pilot goes for the "conventional" base check he will get an A grade but will not be able to utilise his machine to the maximum.
On the same context, I have had some not so pleasant experiences with pilots not conversant with the uper modes and got to bad situations
On the same context, I have had some not so pleasant experiences with pilots not conversant with the uper modes and got to bad situations
We now do nearly all of our flying 'coupled up'. The company places great importance on being able to use AP rather than hands flying. In the past we used to have to hand fly a lot of the OPC and LPC but that has now changed. The IR test was all hand flown because that was the way it always was done.!!!
If you're doing a test in IMC, best to let the machine do what it does best I think, but definitely no harm in being able to 'hand fly' the aircraft. One aircraft I know had to be hand flown, no AP's, back from a rig. No big deal really in a 76 if you have at least had a little practice in it.
If you're doing a test in IMC, best to let the machine do what it does best I think, but definitely no harm in being able to 'hand fly' the aircraft. One aircraft I know had to be hand flown, no AP's, back from a rig. No big deal really in a 76 if you have at least had a little practice in it.
Our policy is to use the automation to the fullest extent on OPCs etc until it stops working normally - ie we might have a partial automation failure, eg fail the collective trim actuator or whatever. If you know what you are doing, to identify what the machine is still flying, and what you now have to fly manually, is quite easy. If you don't know what you are doing it can all end in tears!
But to just say "the autopilot is working normally but you are not allowed to press the couple buttons" is an unfeasible state of affairs and quite pointless.
In the Bristow fleet of EC225s we now have in excess of 60,000 hrs and there has been one event where the crew were unable to fly a fully coupled ILS. That was down to a software bug in the AHRS which has since been fixed.
So how much training effort should be put into an event that will happen much less than once in a pilot's career? Far better from a safety point of view to concentrate on best use of automation for bad weather etc.
Look at some recent accidents where pilots crashed, when proper use of the automation would have prevented it. When was the last time someone crashed because they could not fly a manual ILS, on one engine etc?
Unfortunately not all operators nor authorities think like that - some are stuck in the last century!
HC
But to just say "the autopilot is working normally but you are not allowed to press the couple buttons" is an unfeasible state of affairs and quite pointless.
In the Bristow fleet of EC225s we now have in excess of 60,000 hrs and there has been one event where the crew were unable to fly a fully coupled ILS. That was down to a software bug in the AHRS which has since been fixed.
So how much training effort should be put into an event that will happen much less than once in a pilot's career? Far better from a safety point of view to concentrate on best use of automation for bad weather etc.
Look at some recent accidents where pilots crashed, when proper use of the automation would have prevented it. When was the last time someone crashed because they could not fly a manual ILS, on one engine etc?
Unfortunately not all operators nor authorities think like that - some are stuck in the last century!
HC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agreed with all the comments.It goes to the point of being a little unrealistic and there are people going about to train for the base check during their normal flights eventually and the multimillion dollars piece of automation is pushed aside.
Another point that I am not too happy with is the lack of CRM being practised during a base check. For example if in Instrument departure procedure you are supposed to turn at 5 DME after passing 3000 ft and the candidate turns at maybe 4 DME after passing 3000 ft the other pilot ( The examiner) does nothing and notes it as a point for debrief. Isnt the competent co pilot supposed to be monitoring the flight profile? If it is single pilot IFR then it is fine but we are practising Multi Crew operation.
Another point that I am not too happy with is the lack of CRM being practised during a base check. For example if in Instrument departure procedure you are supposed to turn at 5 DME after passing 3000 ft and the candidate turns at maybe 4 DME after passing 3000 ft the other pilot ( The examiner) does nothing and notes it as a point for debrief. Isnt the competent co pilot supposed to be monitoring the flight profile? If it is single pilot IFR then it is fine but we are practising Multi Crew operation.
This is the trouble with carrying out checks where the examiner is acting as the copilot. I can sympathise with the examiner here because you really should know when to turn during the SID and if he behaves as an exemplary copilot he would talk you out of making any mistakes even though you might not really be competent ( I don't mean you personally).
The only answer is to conduct the check under realistic conditions, ie with a real copilot. Really the only way to do this is in a simulator.
The only answer is to conduct the check under realistic conditions, ie with a real copilot. Really the only way to do this is in a simulator.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sim is the way forward
At last we get there....... the sim is the right tool for the job. No weather delays yet you can dial in any kind of bad weather should you feel the need. You can choose the time and place and monitor the candidate under realistic CRM conditions.
When we get enough simulators (in the right places) there will be no excuse for not doing it properly. By all means check-out the handing skills in the aircraft but any kind of night or IMC training will benefit from this artificial by highly realistic environment.
G.
When we get enough simulators (in the right places) there will be no excuse for not doing it properly. By all means check-out the handing skills in the aircraft but any kind of night or IMC training will benefit from this artificial by highly realistic environment.
G.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that simulators are an invaluable training tool and that realistic training and testing in the use of modern `automatics` is probably best covered in the sim. However, before we all line up behind Geoffers crying, `Lead us, Messiah` as in Life of Brian, it should be pointed out that simulators for the modern types are not necessarily readily available to all at the times needed.
Most operators will confirm the problems in sourcing courses in S76,S92 and 139 at present. Until simulators are more prolific we should guard against any attempt to limit testing and training to sim only. Operators have been stung in the past by inclusion of the word must in the Ops Manual where Should, wherever possible` infers the same without the finality.
Most operators will confirm the problems in sourcing courses in S76,S92 and 139 at present. Until simulators are more prolific we should guard against any attempt to limit testing and training to sim only. Operators have been stung in the past by inclusion of the word must in the Ops Manual where Should, wherever possible` infers the same without the finality.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Phuket
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I partially agree the point that the check should include the use of the equipment flown and in accordance to the operations and operator. However additionally the approaches should also be hand flown. We have had this argument in the FW side. The argument was many pilots now are great at pushing buttons however the actual flying skills suck. They are good when the automation is functioning as advertized but lack basic flying ability. A checkride should cover everything. It has been said that a checkride should be like a China girls skirt; long enough to cover everything but short enough to keep it interesting.
blcl - when I learnt to fly on a "real" helicopter (Bell 47) I recall that during early attempts at flying, something like 95% of my attention was on controlling the engine rpm with the twistgrip throttle so as to keep it between 2950 (bottom red line) and 3050 (top red line) - though really it had to be kept between 3000 and 3050. This was a significant part of learning to fly the helicopter, but now that skill is completely redundant since I fly a heli that doesn't have a throttle of any description.
However there are plenty of new skills I had to learn relating to it such as optimal use of the automation etc.
It's true that one has to maintain basic skills to some extent, but as the automation becomes more reliable / has greater redundancy it becomes less important.
I think fixed wing world is slightly different because you do fly your stable planks manually from time to time. With our unstable helis, you never fly without the autopilot with pax (they would be sick!) and just have to demonstrate that you can fly without the quadruplexed autopilot in cruise / transition to hover and landing since even with the redundancy, you are only one wrong button press from dumping the autopilot.
However, there has never been a requirement to fly an ILS without the autopilot engaged and as far as I know no operator of large IFR helis requires this (the CAA certainly don't). The requirement is to fly an ILS "manually" ie with the basic autopilot engaged but without the upper mode coupling. In older aircraft, there was a separate coupler box so it was quite feasible to be able to have the basic autopilot functioning with the coupler box not working. In the 225 there is no separate hardware that is used when the approach is coupled vs manually flown with basic autopilot, so the condition where the autopilot is working normally but you can't couple is just not a realistic one, so why take up valuable training time in practising it?
HC
However there are plenty of new skills I had to learn relating to it such as optimal use of the automation etc.
It's true that one has to maintain basic skills to some extent, but as the automation becomes more reliable / has greater redundancy it becomes less important.
I think fixed wing world is slightly different because you do fly your stable planks manually from time to time. With our unstable helis, you never fly without the autopilot with pax (they would be sick!) and just have to demonstrate that you can fly without the quadruplexed autopilot in cruise / transition to hover and landing since even with the redundancy, you are only one wrong button press from dumping the autopilot.
However, there has never been a requirement to fly an ILS without the autopilot engaged and as far as I know no operator of large IFR helis requires this (the CAA certainly don't). The requirement is to fly an ILS "manually" ie with the basic autopilot engaged but without the upper mode coupling. In older aircraft, there was a separate coupler box so it was quite feasible to be able to have the basic autopilot functioning with the coupler box not working. In the 225 there is no separate hardware that is used when the approach is coupled vs manually flown with basic autopilot, so the condition where the autopilot is working normally but you can't couple is just not a realistic one, so why take up valuable training time in practising it?
HC
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Phuket
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC I agree with you, the equipment that is available now is very reliable. I have never flown anything as nice as the 225, the 412 I fly now flies crappy without the basic AP engaged. I am just concerned about younger pilots now are more equipment operation oriented (I suppose as it should be) and they appear to have less hands on flying ability. When the FMS does something weird their first response is "WTF is it doing now" and they spend the next 10-15 minutes with both heads down and pushing buttons. I see this in 139 pilots. They rely on the automation to bring the aircraft on a typical SAR approach and really have no idea how to hand fly it. I am not exaggerating here at all. I do believe all pilots have to be intimate with the operation of all equipment and automation however at the same time the basic hands on skill needs to be there. I really don't know how this should be checked because much of it at this point a matter of perception. Maybe I am just getting old and I should quit calling todays generation of pilots the X Box generation.
Last edited by before landing check list; 1st Mar 2012 at 09:17.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
In OZ, the CIR (IRR) requires you to hand fly one approach in the test. Doesn't say which one, just one so could be ILS, VOR, NDB or GNSS. I personally think the CIR is okay as it concentrates on the handling of the AP in all the other apps but makes sure you can at least fly one approach with the correct techniques by hand.
For the base cx, the operator can make it as hard, or easy, as they like, as long as CASA (CAA) approve it. I think a portion has to be hand flown with basic AP functions to prove that you can actually fly the darn thing using the correct techniques. Had someone the other day unable to fly an accurate speed on downwind because the power setting wasn't working!
Simulators are the best if available and affordable so you can give the person a jolly good rogering in safety. With all of today's fantastic technology, the pilot must still be able to fly the aircraft safely and correctly in the basic mode, and must be able to get the most out of the technology. So you must test both.
My two cents worth.
In OZ, the CIR (IRR) requires you to hand fly one approach in the test. Doesn't say which one, just one so could be ILS, VOR, NDB or GNSS. I personally think the CIR is okay as it concentrates on the handling of the AP in all the other apps but makes sure you can at least fly one approach with the correct techniques by hand.
For the base cx, the operator can make it as hard, or easy, as they like, as long as CASA (CAA) approve it. I think a portion has to be hand flown with basic AP functions to prove that you can actually fly the darn thing using the correct techniques. Had someone the other day unable to fly an accurate speed on downwind because the power setting wasn't working!
Simulators are the best if available and affordable so you can give the person a jolly good rogering in safety
. With all of today's fantastic technology, the pilot must still be able to fly the aircraft safely and correctly in the basic mode, and must be able to get the most out of the technology. So you must test both.My two cents worth.
They rely on the automation to bring the aircraft on a typical SAR approach and really have no idea how to hand fly it.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manually flying a helicopter is a refined art in which all the senses of the body are involved . It is still something in which I love to do esp on a good weather day . We use to tell the plank drivers that to fly is heavenly But to be able to hover is divine . However modern helicopters with its superior automation does not req so much superior handling skills but rather req superior KNOWLEDGE to safely fly it. That is why I feel base checks should not only be on handling skills only . More emphasis should be placed on use of automatics . Even the FMS usage is quite often overlooked in checks.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Phuket
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TS, I am with you on the automation on crappy weather night approach, HOWEVER in day VFR with references the ability to hand fly better be there. Along with that ability the knowledge of what is happening and why it is happening is deeper ingrained if the hands know how to move the sticks. Would you feel safer riding in the back with a automation heavy and very little actually flying ability pilots up front OR a very rounded and experienced crew up there? I know what my answer will be. I still feel a check ride should cover everything, the ability to use the automation, the ability to hand fly and the wisdom to choose when and where to use either. There is no software in the automation yet that has been proven idiot proof. I want experience who can see what is happening, what should be happening and why. There is only one way to have that, experience in actually flying, nothing else will do.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 3 Degrees North
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnow, I see you are indicating Orient in your profile. I guess you must be flying offshore around the South China Sea 
Now I started my IR on S76C and it had to be damn spot on to pass the test, hand flying it most of time.. Moved to the AS332 and it was hell easier with the automation but the IRR still required one hand flown approach
Never had a problem with CRM and the examiner, just simply asked him to perform some tasks like radio calls, check list, etc. Of course I make little mistakes like we all do under examination stress...
I now fly onshore, SPIFR and the training I got offshore IR has been invaluable, specially if I have to fly hands on, and no one to talk or get help from next to you
What I am trying to say, automation is great, but you better remember how to fly hands on when you lose it. New guys are too busy pushing buttons and reading FM when it does not perform as they expect
Now I started my IR on S76C and it had to be damn spot on to pass the test, hand flying it most of time.. Moved to the AS332 and it was hell easier with the automation but the IRR still required one hand flown approach
Never had a problem with CRM and the examiner, just simply asked him to perform some tasks like radio calls, check list, etc. Of course I make little mistakes like we all do under examination stress...
I now fly onshore, SPIFR and the training I got offshore IR has been invaluable, specially if I have to fly hands on, and no one to talk or get help from next to you
What I am trying to say, automation is great, but you better remember how to fly hands on when you lose it. New guys are too busy pushing buttons and reading FM when it does not perform as they expect
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello WLM ,
The forum was to see how other operators conduct the test. Bristows has indicated that the use of automation is of great importance. In a modern helicopter like the 225 (world apart from the L2 that you flew!) not having enough understanding of the optimum use of the upper modes will get you into trouble and that is why I stress its importance in base checks. I have had some bad experiences with bad inputs to the Upper Modes by some pilots but luckily it was all in perfect weather.
Anyway you have gone through the BEST flying school in the world when you were with us and possibly had the best ocean view resort stay with a fantastic gym!
Cheers Mate!
The forum was to see how other operators conduct the test. Bristows has indicated that the use of automation is of great importance. In a modern helicopter like the 225 (world apart from the L2 that you flew!) not having enough understanding of the optimum use of the upper modes will get you into trouble and that is why I stress its importance in base checks. I have had some bad experiences with bad inputs to the Upper Modes by some pilots but luckily it was all in perfect weather.
Anyway you have gone through the BEST flying school in the world when you were with us and possibly had the best ocean view resort stay with a fantastic gym!
Cheers Mate!
