AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy T
Yes - that's the one the quote came from. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing but I look back and see that as the day the alarm bells were rung.,, and were not answered.
When a helicopter is designed to be flown using the automation then we should not be surprised to find that they are!!! If Joe Pilot is expected to conduct daily operations using the automation then his skills and his understanding MUST be verified.
Our mindset is to teach to the exam. We are like Pavlov's dogs in the way we respond to the LST. The TR course is built around the LST. If it's not in the LST then it will not be given much room in the course. Instead of tackling the new and the difficult we are forced to go on and on with OEI training despite the probability of an engine failing during a critical flight phase being in the order of 5 x 10 to the power of -8.
We desperately need new thinking.
G.
When a helicopter is designed to be flown using the automation then we should not be surprised to find that they are!!! If Joe Pilot is expected to conduct daily operations using the automation then his skills and his understanding MUST be verified.
Our mindset is to teach to the exam. We are like Pavlov's dogs in the way we respond to the LST. The TR course is built around the LST. If it's not in the LST then it will not be given much room in the course. Instead of tackling the new and the difficult we are forced to go on and on with OEI training despite the probability of an engine failing during a critical flight phase being in the order of 5 x 10 to the power of -8.
We desperately need new thinking.
G.
It doesn't have to be like that, even now. When I developed the EC225 TR course there was a whole 2 hr FAM session per pilot (so 4 hrs total) early in the course specifically going through all the automation behaviour step by step. And that automation is subsequently the "normal" way of driving the helicopter around in the subsequent FAMs, especially the IF stuff but also during those (unnecessarily long, as you say) OEI procedures and much of the rest of it. In many ways its the manual bit that is the afterthought!
This was because I built the course around what I thought was needed, rather than specifically aimed at content of the LST.
So, despite the lack of "lead" from the authority in this area, it is possible for an operator to have an automation-focussed course.
This was because I built the course around what I thought was needed, rather than specifically aimed at content of the LST.
So, despite the lack of "lead" from the authority in this area, it is possible for an operator to have an automation-focussed course.
Our mindset is to teach to the exam.
I was told that was "THE" way to do it.
I was also told the "Training" was to bring up to a "Satisfactory" standard any soft spots in the Pilot's performance on the Check Ride.
My position is Recurrent Training should require Classroom, Systems Trainers, Simulators and Flight Training or some combination of all possible sources with a view to far exceed the "Minimum" Standard alone.
Am I wrong in thinking that?
SAS, we do the ground and refresher training (required by JAR-Ops 3) before the Sim sessions for LPC/OPC. This generally covers technical systems, anything new in Ops Manual, CRM, recent incidents etc. What we try to avoid doing is coaching for the LPC/OPC. If a pilot needs intensive coaching prior to his test, that means that he couldn't reach the minimum standard without it. That means that in the days running up to his test, he is incompetent in the role. Not too good for the passengers!
Its a fine balance to combine training and testing, but one must be careful not to coach an incompetent pilot through his checks.
Its a fine balance to combine training and testing, but one must be careful not to coach an incompetent pilot through his checks.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OEM's role
Such is the complexity of the new generation of helicopters that for all but the largest company the provision of a 'post TR course' upgrade is impossible. There are also operational aspects of the training that are beyond most OEM instructors because rightly or wrongly they are not paired with the customer's pilots because they have the right experience. You are just as likely to draw a guy who has only ever operated a twin turbine in an unrelated role and hasn't a clue about the job you do.
There is therefore a conundrum that means that 9 times out of 10 the customer's pilots are taught the basics and only the basics. The wicked thing is that the guy teaching them has also only received an education on the basics. Ergo - the blind leading the blind. 99% of OEM instructors that I have met have never operated in a world where Cat A ops are mandated but that does not prevent them from being tasked to teach them. Many have only passing notion of multi-crew ops and do not teach it well.
Just to make matters worse the authorities will allow complex types to be used for TR conversions without ever using a Level D Simulator. The pilots are then qualified on type despite never having observed ANY system failure in the way it would be seen for real.
It should be the case that helicopters that have sophisticated automation are designated as COMPLEX TYPES and training in the aircraft forbidden. I believe the Australian CAA were considering such a move.
G.
There is therefore a conundrum that means that 9 times out of 10 the customer's pilots are taught the basics and only the basics. The wicked thing is that the guy teaching them has also only received an education on the basics. Ergo - the blind leading the blind. 99% of OEM instructors that I have met have never operated in a world where Cat A ops are mandated but that does not prevent them from being tasked to teach them. Many have only passing notion of multi-crew ops and do not teach it well.
Just to make matters worse the authorities will allow complex types to be used for TR conversions without ever using a Level D Simulator. The pilots are then qualified on type despite never having observed ANY system failure in the way it would be seen for real.
It should be the case that helicopters that have sophisticated automation are designated as COMPLEX TYPES and training in the aircraft forbidden. I believe the Australian CAA were considering such a move.
G.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
At least some do have the protection of SOPs, however, now working as I mostly do for non-AOC operators, recurrent training is mainly a thing of the past.
We are obliged to fly multi-crew because the pax require it. We do so, using challenge and response checklists. However, because the aircraft is certified for SPIFR, folks in my position are tested annually on a single pilot only basis, sometimes this is the only time I will have flown without a co-pilot for months. Obviously, I'm also expected to know the checks without reference to the checklists....
I use the autopilot to its full advantage on a routine basis, after all it's been paid for and can fly an ILS more accurately than I ever will. But when I carry out a check ride I have to fly most of the sortie without it! Until fairly recently we were not allowed to use the autopilot at all during checkrides.
Thankfully recent personnel changes at the CAA have resulted in a more sensible and practical approach being taken wrt use of the autopilot. So it seems there is light at the end of the tunnel.
We are obliged to fly multi-crew because the pax require it. We do so, using challenge and response checklists. However, because the aircraft is certified for SPIFR, folks in my position are tested annually on a single pilot only basis, sometimes this is the only time I will have flown without a co-pilot for months. Obviously, I'm also expected to know the checks without reference to the checklists....
I use the autopilot to its full advantage on a routine basis, after all it's been paid for and can fly an ILS more accurately than I ever will. But when I carry out a check ride I have to fly most of the sortie without it! Until fairly recently we were not allowed to use the autopilot at all during checkrides.
Thankfully recent personnel changes at the CAA have resulted in a more sensible and practical approach being taken wrt use of the autopilot. So it seems there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Just to make matters worse the authorities will allow complex types to be used for TR conversions without ever using a Level D Simulator. The pilots are then qualified on type despite never having observed ANY system failure in the way it would be seen for real.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 7th Nov 2013 at 23:40.
Feathering our nest a bit are we Geoffers?
Sounds like a Vendor/Customer interface issue to me.
Factory Training is about the aircraft and its systems and is part of the Type Rating Training....not how you are going to use the aircraft....that is Operational Training and should be done by the Operator and its Training Department (including Contracted Training Services).
Add in the Contract Terms between the Operator and Customer.....thinking Offshore Oil Contracts....and that brings the Customer into the mix.
Finding the right solution to the Training side of things is a very complex and constantly changing bit of witchcraft.....as it is very complex and full of contradictory issues.
The Rub in what you preach is the cost of the Level D Simulator for each of the various Aircraft Types....and Models that are in use today, along with where to position the Sims and how to man the things with properly licensed training staff, obtaining all the various approvals and such. Which I am sure you are well familiar with.
I first got involved in that circus back in 1980 when American Airlines Training Corporation had the S-76 Contract at West Palm Beach. When returning from a Training Trip to Jordan, I was tasked to take a wander through Aberdeen, Redhill, and a few other places to look into the feasibility of locating a Sim in the UK.
Senior Staff in Texas did not much care for what I had to say about things....as they had a facility near Gatwick and were not about to consider Aberdeen and were not too keen to man it with Brits. The NIH Theorem at work!
Until we see even more consolidation amongst the World's Operators....which would afford better Economy in Scale....it will be a very tough nut to crack. Bristow is getting large....but still would find it very hard to enlarge its training facilities to incorporate Level D Sims for all of its "complex" types it will be operating.
How would you go about it if you had a Magic Wand to wave over it?
Sounds like a Vendor/Customer interface issue to me.
Factory Training is about the aircraft and its systems and is part of the Type Rating Training....not how you are going to use the aircraft....that is Operational Training and should be done by the Operator and its Training Department (including Contracted Training Services).
Add in the Contract Terms between the Operator and Customer.....thinking Offshore Oil Contracts....and that brings the Customer into the mix.
Finding the right solution to the Training side of things is a very complex and constantly changing bit of witchcraft.....as it is very complex and full of contradictory issues.
The Rub in what you preach is the cost of the Level D Simulator for each of the various Aircraft Types....and Models that are in use today, along with where to position the Sims and how to man the things with properly licensed training staff, obtaining all the various approvals and such. Which I am sure you are well familiar with.
I first got involved in that circus back in 1980 when American Airlines Training Corporation had the S-76 Contract at West Palm Beach. When returning from a Training Trip to Jordan, I was tasked to take a wander through Aberdeen, Redhill, and a few other places to look into the feasibility of locating a Sim in the UK.
Senior Staff in Texas did not much care for what I had to say about things....as they had a facility near Gatwick and were not about to consider Aberdeen and were not too keen to man it with Brits. The NIH Theorem at work!
Until we see even more consolidation amongst the World's Operators....which would afford better Economy in Scale....it will be a very tough nut to crack. Bristow is getting large....but still would find it very hard to enlarge its training facilities to incorporate Level D Sims for all of its "complex" types it will be operating.
How would you go about it if you had a Magic Wand to wave over it?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
What I am in effect saying is that when you decide what is required by way of training you can't then turn your back on it and accept something a great deal less. Level D or acceptable alternatives are the way so let's not pretend that the inconvenient truth that they are expensive and few and far between get in the way. By all means step up to the plate and confess that we have to accept second rate training because we can't afford the real McCoy but please don't pretend that it's OK. Folk that missed out on the initial sim training could if we admitted the shortcoming, be programmed for Recurrent (sim) Training at the earliest opportunity and the licensing authorities could mandate that.
It is not amusing to encounter those with years of experience on the aircraft who do not know how the systems work and cannot handle simple system failures. Turns out they were trained on the real aircraft and have never seen the inside of a sim before that day. Not acceptable.
By the way SAS I am no longer at the AWTA and have 'semi-retired' so I make a living doing a bit of freelance SFI work and am available for any related work if required. Time to relax a bit and enjoy the grandkids. No axe to grind any more, just want to lift the lid on the fact that we are not currently heading in the right direction as far as training is concerned. Too many bean counters driving aviation companies and not enough 'sharp-end' people who really understand the issues.
G.
It is not amusing to encounter those with years of experience on the aircraft who do not know how the systems work and cannot handle simple system failures. Turns out they were trained on the real aircraft and have never seen the inside of a sim before that day. Not acceptable.
By the way SAS I am no longer at the AWTA and have 'semi-retired' so I make a living doing a bit of freelance SFI work and am available for any related work if required. Time to relax a bit and enjoy the grandkids. No axe to grind any more, just want to lift the lid on the fact that we are not currently heading in the right direction as far as training is concerned. Too many bean counters driving aviation companies and not enough 'sharp-end' people who really understand the issues.
G.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Geoffers - OEM INSTRUCTORS!! I hear you. However, in Eurocopter we are addressing this. We now have, for example, 3 EC225 Instructors with extensive offshore experience married to the in depth systems and design operation concept training provided by the OEM.
This is great for new TRs or Recurrent Training. However, the larger Operators continue to favour this training being delivered by their own, or indeed external Instructors, some of whom have never flown the type or ever offshore.
We believe that real progress can be made in the first instance by formally releasing our knowledge to the Industry TRIs and TREs. We are working on a method of offering this service. However, it will require us all to open our minds, (to borrow the words of SAS), "Drop our Shields" and see what progress we can make.
Make no mistake, the divergence between what the aircraft is designed to do and how its is actually used is real, and growing with the introduction of each new type. There are several reasons for this. Not all of them to do with training.
It is easy to blame the CAA. However, there are only 8 FOIs covering the full range of helicopter operations. We must work closely together with CAA to ensure the playing field remains level.......set at the appropriate level.
Some organisations suffer from a lack of intelligent thought. For instance "A manually flown ILS" on an LPC translates to me as an approach in SEMA mode (EC225), and not in ATT. We have to guide and educate the CAA not isolate and castigate. The CAA are not hitting the sea. We are.
DB
This is great for new TRs or Recurrent Training. However, the larger Operators continue to favour this training being delivered by their own, or indeed external Instructors, some of whom have never flown the type or ever offshore.
We believe that real progress can be made in the first instance by formally releasing our knowledge to the Industry TRIs and TREs. We are working on a method of offering this service. However, it will require us all to open our minds, (to borrow the words of SAS), "Drop our Shields" and see what progress we can make.
Make no mistake, the divergence between what the aircraft is designed to do and how its is actually used is real, and growing with the introduction of each new type. There are several reasons for this. Not all of them to do with training.
It is easy to blame the CAA. However, there are only 8 FOIs covering the full range of helicopter operations. We must work closely together with CAA to ensure the playing field remains level.......set at the appropriate level.
Some organisations suffer from a lack of intelligent thought. For instance "A manually flown ILS" on an LPC translates to me as an approach in SEMA mode (EC225), and not in ATT. We have to guide and educate the CAA not isolate and castigate. The CAA are not hitting the sea. We are.
DB
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB
I think it's possible that the problem exists higher up the CAA rather than with the FOIs who generally have a lot of experience and tend to agree with our philosophies. It's the level at which policy is set and we need to focus our attention on those people to get them to understand the nature of our world these days.
My next assertion will be one that may cause a few ructions for we have a big problem developing with the quality of the sims we are given for these vital training roles. If you agree that a simulator that does not replicate the system behaviour of the real aircraft is unacceptable (it amounts to negative training) then we must demand that we change them for simulators that are 100% the same as the real aircraft.
I am fed up to the back teeth with having to apologise to students because "it doesn't do that in the real aircraft," or "sorry, that function doesn't work in the sim". Unreliable and inaccurate training devices are our ENEMY not our friend. Ban them forthwith I say, cast them out. It is simply not possible to deliver effective training with defective tools.
G.
My next assertion will be one that may cause a few ructions for we have a big problem developing with the quality of the sims we are given for these vital training roles. If you agree that a simulator that does not replicate the system behaviour of the real aircraft is unacceptable (it amounts to negative training) then we must demand that we change them for simulators that are 100% the same as the real aircraft.
I am fed up to the back teeth with having to apologise to students because "it doesn't do that in the real aircraft," or "sorry, that function doesn't work in the sim". Unreliable and inaccurate training devices are our ENEMY not our friend. Ban them forthwith I say, cast them out. It is simply not possible to deliver effective training with defective tools.
G.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Geoffers, re the SIM reality I agree with you 100%. With these modern aircraft, never before has it been so important for the SIM to accurately replicate the aircraft otherwise, as you say, the best outcome is negative training. The worst outcome is damn right dangerous!
DB
DB
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB
I know that I am part of the problem - I keep soldiering on, I keep complaining but I just keep soldiering on. We all know that the alternative to making do is to refuse to do anything and then where would we be. The truth is we are window dressing and treading water (mmmm that's an interesting concept!!!). We don't want to say we can't deliver so we pretend all is OK.
I am disappointed with the business model that says they (the sim designers makers and operators) can dish up a dysfunctional piece of kit that we know can't deliver what the customer needs but hey ! what choice do they have?
I have considered that what we - the sim users - need is a Sim Users Association to lobby for improvements and to rid ourselves of unreliable, unrepresentative flight simulators that despite being 'certified' (whatever that means) have the same fidelity as my old Windows Desk Top simulator are full of erroneous features and completely fail to meet their fundamental purpose which is to TRAIN pilots not confront them with endless apologies for same.
Grrrrrr
Back to bed. Sorry it's been another frustrating day in the box with two MCDU freezes and an inflexible generic training scene.
G.
I am disappointed with the business model that says they (the sim designers makers and operators) can dish up a dysfunctional piece of kit that we know can't deliver what the customer needs but hey ! what choice do they have?
I have considered that what we - the sim users - need is a Sim Users Association to lobby for improvements and to rid ourselves of unreliable, unrepresentative flight simulators that despite being 'certified' (whatever that means) have the same fidelity as my old Windows Desk Top simulator are full of erroneous features and completely fail to meet their fundamental purpose which is to TRAIN pilots not confront them with endless apologies for same.
Grrrrrr
Back to bed. Sorry it's been another frustrating day in the box with two MCDU freezes and an inflexible generic training scene.
G.
the larger Operators continue to favour this training being delivered by their own, or indeed external Instructors, some of whom have never flown the type or ever offshore.
At the first we did Classroom, Systems Trainers, Sim and Flight Instruction.....thus we got outside and actually flew the machine. Granted, always in a Training role. At the second there was no flying beyond a once a year Jolly in something the factory had available.
Both Operations maintained high standards, did offer good value for money, and had experienced pilots. Neither place had a complete staff of good instructors for many reasons.....at one it was the need for multi-lingual capable "Instructors" which certainly narrows the choice of candidates for the job with language ability being the Trump Card.
One place had self imposed limits on what could be taught, what wording could be used, and very strict limits on compliance to the approved course of instruction. Over time, one could in fact recite the Training Manuals verbatim as a result.....but dared not risk stepping an inch outside that neatly drawn Box.
At the first place.....one passed muster or one did not get the Stamp of Approval....no matter one's place on the Customer's Totem Pole. I failed the Chief Pilot of a major oil company with no squawk from my Boss. At the other...that would never have flown (so to speak).
I have seen the use of both internal company instructors and customer instructors during Sim Training. I favor using Sim Company Staff and not the Operator's own Instructors as it affords a "Third Party" review of both individual Pilots but also Company SOP's, Checklists, and Emergency Procedures.
I would also suggest the Sim Company and the Customer ensure the Sim Instructor has the background, training, licenses, and Check Pilot status with the Operator so that the Sim Training is part of the Operators Training/Check Program.
That is being done today at some Sim Operations.
It has to be far cheaper and more efficient to have a "Central" source of Training being performed by Contractors using modern state of the art Sims than to try to replicate that service in-house.
I too endured the years that Helicopter Sims were knock offs of Airplane Sims....with the usual problems of trying to adapt a Fixed Wing Visual to the Helicopter Sim. The synching of the Visual Display to the Aircraft Sim was especially difficult to cope with.....as there is that very slight delay that even Computers cannot defeat (or could not in my time).
Even with all the problems.....as long as the Cockpit Indications exactly mimic the actual Aircraft re Systems Operation in all Modes, normal and other, the Sim can be the most useful method of learning the Aircraft.
The real key to achieving the maximum benefit to Sim Training is funding.
Until the Oil Companies, Operators, and the Sim Operators come together to establish Minimum Standards and settle upon exactly what level and scope of training is necessary we shall have the same situation Geoffers describes.
Someone has to pay for Training.....and until there is a steady, constant, sufficient flow of money to fund the Training System....nothing will ever change much in the Sim Training world.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
Don't have a problem with any of that but we have unfortunately reached a point if helicopter development where the conventional 'cheap is best' solution no longer works.
It's very sad because I realise that to turn things around the sims are going to have to be more expensive and that really goes against the grain. It looked for a while as if our dream would come true and every type would have a good quality sim in every part of the globe. I'm afraid we have to stop that right now, go back to the drawing board and produce simulators IN CONJUNCTION with the avionics boys.
When these clever kids produce a software driven wizard piece of kit they should do so in the full realisation that it needs to drive a simulator as well as the real thing. The notion that reverse engineered windows-based displays and software is pure and utter nonsense. Windows is the most flaky system going. Cheap - yes, reliable NO.
We desperately need simulators to help us with our training needs but the problems I and my colleges see in the field of automation management are a serious accident risk that has already peppered the accident statistics in the FW world and since 2002 - at least - has featured in our own.
To teach effectively we need the tools for the job. This means that all concerned need to get round the table and plot a way forward. It should begin, I believe with having exactly the same equipment in the simulator as the aircraft. I have yet to see a generic switch box, display or rotating knob that matches the real thing for longevity. Bite the bullet, pay the price and do it right.
G.
It's very sad because I realise that to turn things around the sims are going to have to be more expensive and that really goes against the grain. It looked for a while as if our dream would come true and every type would have a good quality sim in every part of the globe. I'm afraid we have to stop that right now, go back to the drawing board and produce simulators IN CONJUNCTION with the avionics boys.
When these clever kids produce a software driven wizard piece of kit they should do so in the full realisation that it needs to drive a simulator as well as the real thing. The notion that reverse engineered windows-based displays and software is pure and utter nonsense. Windows is the most flaky system going. Cheap - yes, reliable NO.
We desperately need simulators to help us with our training needs but the problems I and my colleges see in the field of automation management are a serious accident risk that has already peppered the accident statistics in the FW world and since 2002 - at least - has featured in our own.
To teach effectively we need the tools for the job. This means that all concerned need to get round the table and plot a way forward. It should begin, I believe with having exactly the same equipment in the simulator as the aircraft. I have yet to see a generic switch box, display or rotating knob that matches the real thing for longevity. Bite the bullet, pay the price and do it right.
G.
In time it would be "cheaper" than the way we do it now.....for every one.
As a dedicated and now loyal Mac User......I have only harsh words for Bill Gates and Microsoft.....and shall never ever no matter what cause myself to suffer anything He and his company produce (by choice anyway).
As a dedicated and now loyal Mac User......I have only harsh words for Bill Gates and Microsoft.....and shall never ever no matter what cause myself to suffer anything He and his company produce (by choice anyway).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The thread has drifted a bit away from the original topic! One of the problems with sim fidelity is that the requirements (including the recent FAR Part 60) are pretty bad as far as helicopters go. No low speed fidelity appears to be needed as just one example. AFCS modeling likewise not given much emphasis.
Should we start a new thread on what's wrong with simulators from a technical (as opposed to instructor) point of view?
Should we start a new thread on what's wrong with simulators from a technical (as opposed to instructor) point of view?
Just how many contributors do you think you would have for such a "Technical" discussion? The population you will draw from is not exactly huge.
Shawn, I wouldn't say its not relevant. Clearly the flight crew in the L2 accident, for whatever reason, were not controlling the airspeed with the collective as they should have been. Whether they intended to be in 4-axis and weren't, or whether they decided to fly the whole thing in 3 axis for some reason, we don't know. However it does seem that they mismanaged the partial automation condition. To address that, unfortunately I can't think of a better answer than "more and better training" and to do that, we need representative and reliable Simulators - something which some fleets don't have at the moment.
Start a new thread on Sims if you want (not too FARS-ish if you don't mind - remember they are FAR away from this side of the pond!) and I will participate. Actually it would be interesting to know the differences between the FARs and the EASA equivalent standards and requirements.
Start a new thread on Sims if you want (not too FARS-ish if you don't mind - remember they are FAR away from this side of the pond!) and I will participate. Actually it would be interesting to know the differences between the FARs and the EASA equivalent standards and requirements.