AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Is it time to address the elephant in the room yet? By which I mean, what contribution to this accident has CHC's strategy of selling off all their training assets to a third party provider made? Many of whose instructors have never operated the types they are teaching in the Sim on, have no idea of the CHC company culture, the North Sea environment etc.
One presumes this was done as a cost cutting excercise, but at what overall cost?
One presumes this was done as a cost cutting excercise, but at what overall cost?
Perhaps it is time to put to bed the differences in basic training and using different techniques to control height/speed.
We are assuming that, as the serviceability of the SP seems to have been OK, that there has been some form of procedural/pilot error. So how did this happen?
We have 2 experienced pilots flying a relatively simple IFR approach, in IMC, as cloud was probably scattered at 200ft, broken at 300ft. They knew the MDH was 300ft so would be trying to fly as accurately as possible to achieve the required visual clues at, or just before, the MAP. Yet the airspeed was allowed to decay to such an extent that the a/c developed a RoD which was high enough for the a/c to enter the water?
The NHP would have his eyes clued to the instruments while the HP would certainly be monitoring them while looking up to see if he had the required visual parameters to land. His scan in/out would increasingly be out as he neared MDH and probably fully out by the 100ft to go call.
The AIB full report will make very interesting reading especially looking at the casual factors such as training/autopilot approach SOPs/management philosophy on the use of the autopilot. Then the human factors as to why 2 pilots didn't recover from a low speed U/P before they entered the water. Then any technical faults which may have confused or misled the crew into thinking they were in control.
HF
We are assuming that, as the serviceability of the SP seems to have been OK, that there has been some form of procedural/pilot error. So how did this happen?
We have 2 experienced pilots flying a relatively simple IFR approach, in IMC, as cloud was probably scattered at 200ft, broken at 300ft. They knew the MDH was 300ft so would be trying to fly as accurately as possible to achieve the required visual clues at, or just before, the MAP. Yet the airspeed was allowed to decay to such an extent that the a/c developed a RoD which was high enough for the a/c to enter the water?
The NHP would have his eyes clued to the instruments while the HP would certainly be monitoring them while looking up to see if he had the required visual parameters to land. His scan in/out would increasingly be out as he neared MDH and probably fully out by the 100ft to go call.
The AIB full report will make very interesting reading especially looking at the casual factors such as training/autopilot approach SOPs/management philosophy on the use of the autopilot. Then the human factors as to why 2 pilots didn't recover from a low speed U/P before they entered the water. Then any technical faults which may have confused or misled the crew into thinking they were in control.
HF
In other words, being of the view that in general the autopilot is better at flying than the pilot (certainly in the case of the 225 anyway) I would rather have the AP doing the more critical bit and the pilot the less critical bit, though to be honest I can't remember how well the L2 copes with cyclic coupled to GS in turbulence etc.
The NHP would have his eyes clued to the instruments while the HP would certainly be monitoring them while looking up to see if he had the required visual parameters to land. His scan in/out would increasingly be out as he neared MDH and probably fully out by the 100ft to go call.
I think Hummingfrog may have identified the problem without realizing it.
As i am not flying on the North Sea these days...and do not know what the current procedures are on this......I will rely upon Humm's post to be correctly stating the situation.
My response to his statement quoted above is that it has it completely backwards in my humble opinion.
The HP should be focused upon the Instruments as he is doing the flying and is doing an Instrument Approach. The NHP is the one that should be looking outside and monitoring inside.
If Visual Contact is sufficient when the Decision to continue or Go Around is made....he should take the controls and make the Landing....or if a Missed Approach is done....the HP continues flying instruments and performs the Missed Approach.
As it appears now..... you have the Flying Pilot splitting his focus....at a very critical point in the approach. That is building in a Distraction as I see it.
Anyone remember the "BA Memo" that talked about the shift in controls that was so comical to read....but had a very serious underlying safety message?
It had to do with the shift of duties and altimeter settings as I recall.
What was really funny about it to me was at that time we had three Bar Alts on the Instrument Panel but no RadAlt....and when we did a Missed Approach and shifted control from one pilot to another....the song and dance that took place resetting the Altimeters from QFE, QNH (local), and QNH Regional was just silly....and also left room for mistakes.
HC....you care to expound on why the HP, FP....the one on the Instruments doing the actual control of the aircraft should be peeking outside looking for the runway and not the NHP, PNF, NFP should not be looking outside even though he is not flying the machine at the time?
Last edited by SASless; 7th Sep 2013 at 15:10.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC
Do you really think the elepant in the room is cost cutting on training? Or is it that two pilots tragically might have made a mistake - that their training, let alone experience, should have been sufficient to prevent?
Understandably, a number of NS colleagues here are perhaps loath to accept that concept.
But there again, there may well have been an understandable reason for the pilots to act as they did, from a complicated whole scenario.
Do you really think the elepant in the room is cost cutting on training? Or is it that two pilots tragically might have made a mistake - that their training, let alone experience, should have been sufficient to prevent?
Understandably, a number of NS colleagues here are perhaps loath to accept that concept.
But there again, there may well have been an understandable reason for the pilots to act as they did, from a complicated whole scenario.
which destabilises the passengers' calmness, something which these days is a precious commodity. So you see, there are some things you have yet to have to concern yourself with.
However what does flying a serviceable aircraft into the sea do for passengers' calmness? - rather a lot of damage judging by many of the SLF posts here.
HC
I totally agree that in real IMC down to limits I would rather use the coupler than hand fly - the coupler in the365N2 was pretty basic but a coupled ILS was safer to fly as all you had to do - and we were single pilot- was make sure that the instruments showed that you were actually on the glidepath and localiser!!
In my early days we had a member of management who said " we're not paying for a nav coupled function on the 332L because I pay you lot (pilots) enough so we expect you to fly and navigate!!" We had height hold, heading hold via the bug on the compass my memory fails me so I am not sure if we had airspeed or VS functions.
I am sure management views on equiping the a/c have changed since the early 1990s.
SASLESS
Sorry my fault
- you are right - I got it wrong it is the NHP who is looking out and is the one who takes control to land the a/c as he is seeing the outside picture first. Memory failed me as I was generally single pilot and only really flew 2 crew for the last few years of my career.
HF
HF
In other words, being of the view that in general the autopilot is better at flying than the pilot (certainly in the case of the 225 anyway) I would rather have the AP doing the more critical bit and the pilot the less critical bit, though to be honest I can't remember how well the L2 copes with cyclic coupled to GS in turbulence etc.
In my early days we had a member of management who said " we're not paying for a nav coupled function on the 332L because I pay you lot (pilots) enough so we expect you to fly and navigate!!" We had height hold, heading hold via the bug on the compass my memory fails me so I am not sure if we had airspeed or VS functions.
I am sure management views on equiping the a/c have changed since the early 1990s.
SASLESS
Sorry my fault
- you are right - I got it wrong it is the NHP who is looking out and is the one who takes control to land the a/c as he is seeing the outside picture first. Memory failed me as I was generally single pilot and only really flew 2 crew for the last few years of my career.HF
HF
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, the way you describe it is how we do it on the NS (I assume the other companies do it that way as well.)
Hummingfrog's description is how it was (and may still be, I don't know) in the military, when you may very well have been single pilot or had a non-pilot such as a Nav in the other seat and therefore had no one to make the decision or hand over control to. That may well have been the case on the NS, but isn't now.
His paras 1, 2, 3 and 5 though are spot on!
Edited to add:
HF, sorry! Your typing skills are quicker than mine!
Hummingfrog's description is how it was (and may still be, I don't know) in the military, when you may very well have been single pilot or had a non-pilot such as a Nav in the other seat and therefore had no one to make the decision or hand over control to. That may well have been the case on the NS, but isn't now.
His paras 1, 2, 3 and 5 though are spot on!
Edited to add:
HF, sorry! Your typing skills are quicker than mine!
Last edited by obnoxio f*ckwit; 7th Sep 2013 at 15:45. Reason: Last comment
The NHP would have his eyes clued to the instruments while the HP would certainly be monitoring them while looking up to see if he had the required visual parameters to land. His scan in/out would increasingly be out as he neared MDH and probably fully out by the 100ft to go call.
The PF (Pilot Flying) should be eyes in all the way to DA/MAPT, at which point 'decide' is called. It is the PM (Pilot Monitoring) who will be looking out of the window for the visual cues to land. If the PM is visual, then he/she calls 'Visual, I have control' and lands the aircraft. If nothing is seen, the PM calls 'Go Around' and the PF flies the go around.
In this case, like the REDU/ETAP accident, I suspect that both pilots were looking out at the critical time.
Froggie.....sometimes my fingers type much quicker than my brain thinks.
I guess that is what makes us Humans....and thus able to make a mistake now and then.
Note....I don't grant HC such latitude out of a delight in revving him up now and then.
I guess that is what makes us Humans....and thus able to make a mistake now and then.
Note....I don't grant HC such latitude out of a delight in revving him up now and then.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
perhaps a little patronizing there HC of course I completely ignore everyone aft of the pilot's seat, especially spinal patients and when the boys and girls in the back are doing CPR!
However what does flying a serviceable aircraft into the sea do for passengers' calmness? - rather a lot of damage judging by many of the SLF posts here.
However what does flying a serviceable aircraft into the sea do for passengers' calmness? - rather a lot of damage judging by many of the SLF posts here.
HC,
Now slow down....remember who you are talking to here.
Crab has very definite ideas on all this stick wiggling we do.
He is not too concerned about passenger comfort as everyone he picks up are damned glad just to be given a ride home in his antique Sea King.....thus not one of his passengers is inclined to critique such things as yours might.
Different frames of reference you see....even if Crab doesn't.
Now slow down....remember who you are talking to here.
Crab has very definite ideas on all this stick wiggling we do.
He is not too concerned about passenger comfort as everyone he picks up are damned glad just to be given a ride home in his antique Sea King.....thus not one of his passengers is inclined to critique such things as yours might.
Different frames of reference you see....even if Crab doesn't.
Last edited by SASless; 7th Sep 2013 at 16:31.
HC
Do you really think the elepant in the room is cost cutting on training? Or is it that two pilots tragically might have made a mistake - that their training, let alone experience, should have been sufficient to prevent?
Understandably, a number of NS colleagues here are perhaps loath to accept that concept.
But there again, there may well have been an understandable reason for the pilots to act as they did, from a complicated whole scenario.
Do you really think the elepant in the room is cost cutting on training? Or is it that two pilots tragically might have made a mistake - that their training, let alone experience, should have been sufficient to prevent?
Understandably, a number of NS colleagues here are perhaps loath to accept that concept.
But there again, there may well have been an understandable reason for the pilots to act as they did, from a complicated whole scenario.
TBH I have no idea whether the 3rd party training is a big deal or not, but at first glance it seems a really bad idea. That's why I was hoping to provoke some response from those who do know.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 53
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humm
Surprising assumption.
SAS
I agree SAS. You described what I would call a Pilot Monitored App (PMA) and that is what I would have briefed with weather so close to minimums. The Pilot Flown App (PFA) that Hummingfrog described is what we use when weather is well above minima, essentially VMC.
==========================================
As far as 3rd party training....I can't believe that we are both going down this road, and reducing the time allotted in the sim.
The NHP would have his eyes clued to the instruments while the HP would certainly be monitoring them while looking up to see if he had the required visual parameters to land. His scan in/out would increasingly be out as he neared MDH and probably fully out by the 100ft to go call.
SAS
As i am not flying on the North Sea these days...and do not know what the current procedures are on this......I will rely upon Humm's post to be correctly stating the situation.
My response to his statement quoted above is that it has it completely backwards in my humble opinion.
The HP should be focused upon the Instruments as he is doing the flying and is doing an Instrument Approach. The NHP is the one that should be looking outside and monitoring inside.
If Visual Contact is sufficient when the Decision to continue or Go Around is made....he should take the controls and make the Landing....or if a Missed Approach is done....the HP continues flying instruments and performs the Missed Approach.
My response to his statement quoted above is that it has it completely backwards in my humble opinion.
The HP should be focused upon the Instruments as he is doing the flying and is doing an Instrument Approach. The NHP is the one that should be looking outside and monitoring inside.
If Visual Contact is sufficient when the Decision to continue or Go Around is made....he should take the controls and make the Landing....or if a Missed Approach is done....the HP continues flying instruments and performs the Missed Approach.
==========================================
As far as 3rd party training....I can't believe that we are both going down this road, and reducing the time allotted in the sim.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, at this stage we are of course speculating. I did hear through the grapevine that the copilot was pretty new. If that is true, he will presumably have done his type rating etc via the 3rd party trainer. Reluctantly I can accept one highly experienced pilot making a big mistake, its rather harder to believe two can, u less there were other factors that made the second pilot less than optimal.
TBH I have no idea whether the 3rd party training is a big deal or not, but at first glance it seems a really bad idea. That's why I was hoping to provoke some response from those who do know.
TBH I have no idea whether the 3rd party training is a big deal or not, but at first glance it seems a really bad idea. That's why I was hoping to provoke some response from those who do know.
I do not know for sure if type rating courses are done by exclusively by CAE in the UK, but interestingly in CHC HS in Norway they are not involved at all. Company instructors carry out all training including type ratings. Whilst it was the desire of the company to use third party training, it was actually the customer - Statoil - that stopped this and insisted that all pilots flying their contracts will be trained by operational instructors flying in the North Sea and with a minimum of 5 years experience in Norway.
The customer has had to accept that this will ultimately be a more expensive option but they appear to have made this more of a priority, therefore ensuring CHC in Norway conduct and control their own training. They also insisted on increasing the minimum amount of time required in the sim for OPC and LPC training, which has been in effect for 2 years.
Last edited by 26500lbs; 7th Sep 2013 at 18:20.
HC - you are encroaching on a controversial subject here and one that has certainly been the subject of many a heated discussion. Third party training is definitely cheaper to the accountant. Quality can in theory be just as good if controlled properly. Therein lies the problem.
I do not know for sure if type rating courses are done by exclusively by CAE in the UK, but interestingly in CHC HS in Norway they are not involved at all. Company instructors carry out all training including type ratings. Whilst it was the desire of the company to use third party training, it was actually the customer - Statoil - that stopped this and insisted that all pilots flying their contracts will be trained by operational instructors flying in the North Sea and with a minimum of 5 years experience in Norway.
The customer has had to accept that this will ultimately be a more expensive option but they appear to have made this more of a priority, therefore ensuring CHC in Norway conduct and control their own training. They also insisted on increasing the minimum amount of time required in the sim for OPC and LPC training, which has been in effect for 2 years.
I do not know for sure if type rating courses are done by exclusively by CAE in the UK, but interestingly in CHC HS in Norway they are not involved at all. Company instructors carry out all training including type ratings. Whilst it was the desire of the company to use third party training, it was actually the customer - Statoil - that stopped this and insisted that all pilots flying their contracts will be trained by operational instructors flying in the North Sea and with a minimum of 5 years experience in Norway.
The customer has had to accept that this will ultimately be a more expensive option but they appear to have made this more of a priority, therefore ensuring CHC in Norway conduct and control their own training. They also insisted on increasing the minimum amount of time required in the sim for OPC and LPC training, which has been in effect for 2 years.
ETA with my personal knowledge of the attitudes in Statoil, limited though they are, vs the attitudes of many of their UK equivalents, gives another massive clue.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 7th Sep 2013 at 18:52.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Third party training
This just has to be one of those ideas that only a bean counter can conjure up. One of the aspect of training that sets the TR taught by a third party instructor apart from one carried out in house has nothing to do with the quality of instruction. The Third party TRI/SFI can be just as good, if not better than the guy that does it every now and then (bearing in mind that the guy in the TRTO/FTO is doing it every day).
No, the big difference is that the 'in-house' guy has 'ownership' of the people and probably knows the candidate intimately along with his strengths and weaknesses. What is more, there is an inbuilt desire to deal with those weaknesses rather than just submit the guy to a 'tick-in-the-box', 'yes-you-can-have-three-goes', groundhog-day re-run of the same-old, same-old, prof check. The third party guy has no incentive to be more or less stringent that the regs require and 99.9% of the time this equates to a 'pass'.
With in house training there is at least the possibility that the candidate will be given some extra training where this can be justified. I do not detect the use this avenue in third party training.
EVIDENCE BASED TRAINING is the way ahead, 'competence' should be the watchword not 'compliance'. God save us from 'compliance' if we go down that road forever we will be condemned to a spiral of decline. Just take a look at how the world creates the flight instructors - horrendous in many cases. Pilots appointed as instructors with little (relevant) or no training and sim instructors (i.e.. the future) shoved into the box, shown how to turn it on and told to get on with it.
Third party training, if it becomes the norm, will be a triumph of financial convenience over the desire for optimum levels of competence.
G.
No, the big difference is that the 'in-house' guy has 'ownership' of the people and probably knows the candidate intimately along with his strengths and weaknesses. What is more, there is an inbuilt desire to deal with those weaknesses rather than just submit the guy to a 'tick-in-the-box', 'yes-you-can-have-three-goes', groundhog-day re-run of the same-old, same-old, prof check. The third party guy has no incentive to be more or less stringent that the regs require and 99.9% of the time this equates to a 'pass'.
With in house training there is at least the possibility that the candidate will be given some extra training where this can be justified. I do not detect the use this avenue in third party training.
EVIDENCE BASED TRAINING is the way ahead, 'competence' should be the watchword not 'compliance'. God save us from 'compliance' if we go down that road forever we will be condemned to a spiral of decline. Just take a look at how the world creates the flight instructors - horrendous in many cases. Pilots appointed as instructors with little (relevant) or no training and sim instructors (i.e.. the future) shoved into the box, shown how to turn it on and told to get on with it.
Third party training, if it becomes the norm, will be a triumph of financial convenience over the desire for optimum levels of competence.
G.
Geoffers, yes, "training to proficiency" I think we call it. As a 3rd party trainer yourself, thanks for an honest appraisal. In your case, you have lots of relevant experience in operating helicopters which must be very beneficial. But (and correct me if I'm wrong) you have very little operational experience of flying some of the types for which you teach TRs?
The point being that if you do a manufacturer's course, you tend to get the good bits about the aircraft, but maybe not the bad bits which were not supposed to be there, and which are only known about following in-service experience by the operators.
There is most definitely a place for 3rd party and manufacturer's training, but not however in the context of a mainstream and very large operator, except when introducing a brand new type (IMO!).
The point being that if you do a manufacturer's course, you tend to get the good bits about the aircraft, but maybe not the bad bits which were not supposed to be there, and which are only known about following in-service experience by the operators.
There is most definitely a place for 3rd party and manufacturer's training, but not however in the context of a mainstream and very large operator, except when introducing a brand new type (IMO!).
Bearing in mind, the current crop of CAE instructors include at least 4 ex Bristow Captains, either retired or surplus to requirements. JB, GT, GF (on and off - Not sure??) and CC, one of the most experienced instructors on the North Sea.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC
A very astute observation. There is a very appropriate saying that applies to people like me, appointed to teach on the 139 when there were virtually no type rated drivers in the world.
'In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king'
This translates into "as long as you know more than your student then you can keep on teaching".
We had to get to grips with teaching the 139 from zero operational experience. A necessary evil one might observe.
We became very good at the job because we did it day in day out but there comes a time, and for me it is now, September 2013, when I feel I have exhausted my credibility. It's a fine balance because I can teach most pilots a lot about how to manage the FMS and how to run the AP but without the operational experience you are always on the back foot.
That said my forte is teaching in the simulator environment and I hope to spend the next few years helping those who are charged with working in this challenging world to polish and perfect there skills.
By the end of this month I expect my student count over the last 7 years to be 320 from 49 different countries. I may have taught a lot of guys and girls in that time but they should know that I have learnt from them too and one of the things I have become aware of is how varied the quality of pilot training is around the world. If we are to prevent a spiral of decline then I pray we find a better way of doing things than the one we use today.
G.
'In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king'
This translates into "as long as you know more than your student then you can keep on teaching".
We had to get to grips with teaching the 139 from zero operational experience. A necessary evil one might observe.
We became very good at the job because we did it day in day out but there comes a time, and for me it is now, September 2013, when I feel I have exhausted my credibility. It's a fine balance because I can teach most pilots a lot about how to manage the FMS and how to run the AP but without the operational experience you are always on the back foot.
That said my forte is teaching in the simulator environment and I hope to spend the next few years helping those who are charged with working in this challenging world to polish and perfect there skills.
By the end of this month I expect my student count over the last 7 years to be 320 from 49 different countries. I may have taught a lot of guys and girls in that time but they should know that I have learnt from them too and one of the things I have become aware of is how varied the quality of pilot training is around the world. If we are to prevent a spiral of decline then I pray we find a better way of doing things than the one we use today.
G.
Special, yes absolutely right, there are some first rate instructors, although in some cases, whilst having massive experience in the environment, have limited or no experience of both the specific aircraft and the company culture. But are there not also some instructors who lack all these things, making training the luck of the draw? But I am not really sure of my facts so i welcome correction.