AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it is the “ex” bit that is the difficulty. They may be the best and most experienced instructor in the world, but operating procedures change, checklists change, usually as a result of current and recent experience. It is a dynamic operational environment. Aircraft types are modified and upgraded and have a direct effect on the operation, and this happens regularly and often with little notice. It is far more preferable to have a current operational instructor in this sense as he brings to the table the most up to date information and procedures. In addition the company can clearly and specifically identify trends within the company pilot group that need specific focus for training and implement this with relative ease into scenario based training and briefing during OPC’s. This can and has meant that every pilot in the company will be briefed on specific subjects of relevance and importance and have the opportunity to fly key areas of training importance in the sim during OPC training that is not mandated by the authoruty. This can and has included appropriate use of couple and coupler philosophy, winter operating procedures, night procedures offshore, CRM, highlighting of areas of JAROPS/EUops, relevant technical breifing and training following major upgrades or passage of info following recent safety issues/incidents/accidents.
Using in-house instructors acts as an extremely effective communication tool throughout the company as they are the few people in the company who will have access to the entire pilot group regularly. With the effective use of instructor group meetings it is also a very effective way of enabling standardization and quality control across the company with a good closed loop feedback system. They can act as a good barometer to the overall standard and trends in the pilot group. With further evidence based systems such as FDR monitoring, a very good picture can be built up of what is happening on the line as well. Provided the same person or very small group of people are all talking regularly and closely we have a better system of control. This is far more possible if the company maintains control of all its flying and training assets. One chief pilot has all the feeds and a very good “big picture”.
Using in-house instructors acts as an extremely effective communication tool throughout the company as they are the few people in the company who will have access to the entire pilot group regularly. With the effective use of instructor group meetings it is also a very effective way of enabling standardization and quality control across the company with a good closed loop feedback system. They can act as a good barometer to the overall standard and trends in the pilot group. With further evidence based systems such as FDR monitoring, a very good picture can be built up of what is happening on the line as well. Provided the same person or very small group of people are all talking regularly and closely we have a better system of control. This is far more possible if the company maintains control of all its flying and training assets. One chief pilot has all the feeds and a very good “big picture”.
CC
Yes, one of the best and in fact, probably THE best. Not only did he have a hand in my ab initio training at Redhill, but it was also he who sold me my first car to complement my motorbikes in anticipation of moving to Aberdeen in a snowy February, 1980. Oh, so not perfect then...
Last edited by HeliComparator; 7th Sep 2013 at 21:14.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: In Communicado
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all "third party" training is created equal. Some teach to fundamental system understanding and proficiency. Some teach to "pass the test".
If 100 out of 100 students pass.... what are the odds of that?
You usually get what you pay for.
If 100 out of 100 students pass.... what are the odds of that?
You usually get what you pay for.
HC ...that would have been the dark green Saab 96 with the fuel saving freewheel unit! CC was indeed a gent and one of the best instructors.
Last edited by industry insider; 8th Sep 2013 at 06:29.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'
As the Third Party has to satisfy the Customer....so long as the Customer sets a Standard that must be met....The Third Party has no axe to grind and has no need to play favorites.
A true Third Party impartial evaluation of both the Pilots and the Operational Procedures cannot hurt. Sometimes an outside look is beneficial.
A true Third Party impartial evaluation of both the Pilots and the Operational Procedures cannot hurt. Sometimes an outside look is beneficial.
Last edited by SASless; 8th Sep 2013 at 03:10.
It would appear that somehow the institutionalised military, stuck in the mud RAF SAR Force, have somehow managed to achieve what 26500lbs has advocated as the ideal -
Our simulator training is provided by a 3rd party (Thales) who employ ex-mil instructors (not all of whom have SAR Sea King experience operationally) - there are close links between the OCU, the 2 Sqn training teams and SAR Standards to ensure that what is taught is what is required and is kept up to date and relevant to the operational requirements.
Who would have thought? Oh let me guess, the answer is that we have a limitless bucket of money to throw at it - nothing could be further from the truth.
HC
no, your implication was that NS flying techniques are dictated by the need for passenger comfort - the technique of flying in a mixed-mode because you prefer small cyclic changes to collective changes, clearly didn't achieve passenger comfort and confidence in this sad case.
Our simulator training is provided by a 3rd party (Thales) who employ ex-mil instructors (not all of whom have SAR Sea King experience operationally) - there are close links between the OCU, the 2 Sqn training teams and SAR Standards to ensure that what is taught is what is required and is kept up to date and relevant to the operational requirements.
Who would have thought? Oh let me guess, the answer is that we have a limitless bucket of money to throw at it - nothing could be further from the truth.
HC
How very logical to correlate concern for passengers' feeling with crashing into the sea!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab - you are correct and it is an ideal. It works well in the military. I saw it myself in my time and all the staff used in the sim were excellent instructors and former squadron QHI’s.
The main difference is that in the military environment you have time to train in the aircraft and a large amount of budgeted training sorties. Here the Squadron QHI can have his input on the process and feed down the directives from his boss. That does not exist in the offshore world. There are no dedicated aircraft training sorties available after the initial aircraft famil following the type rating.
If an operator were to wholeheartedly embrace third party training they must be able to address the shortfalls. I think the way it is done in the military is an excellent example of how it can work. The key is the two systems must work closely together and be on the same team. An operator cannot just let go of the ropes and say goodbye to training - “third party provider - you have control”.
The main difference is that in the military environment you have time to train in the aircraft and a large amount of budgeted training sorties. Here the Squadron QHI can have his input on the process and feed down the directives from his boss. That does not exist in the offshore world. There are no dedicated aircraft training sorties available after the initial aircraft famil following the type rating.
If an operator were to wholeheartedly embrace third party training they must be able to address the shortfalls. I think the way it is done in the military is an excellent example of how it can work. The key is the two systems must work closely together and be on the same team. An operator cannot just let go of the ropes and say goodbye to training - “third party provider - you have control”.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 62
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The discussion here is extremely interesting and thought provoking, and I would like to commend all the contributor's and this forum - it is excellent.
I am ex SLF, but still talk to colleagues who are SLF.
If a helicopter crashes, they are normally grounded. If mechanical fault is found, they remain grounded until either all have been fully inspected, or have had component replacement - and then the regulator (and operators) is satisfied the event cannot reoccur and the aircraft start flying again.
In this event, we still don't know the cause, but you guys seem pretty sure it is some form of procedural or human error, possibly coupled with something else that may have distracted the crew until it was too late to take corrective action.
Why then, are the aircraft (L2) then returned to the air without any assurance that the same event cannot be repeated? This worries me a little, although I am sure (well hopeful) that all crews now are very aware of the possible causes of this accident and this makes another occurrence less likely.
You guys are kings of the check list - I assume there is no check list you use when starting approach?, including ensuring both crew are aware of AP modes, who is controlling each axis and who is monitoring what?
I also found section 8.6.1 of this EASA document very interesting regarding automation and training.
The discussion on 3rd party training is very interesting - oil companies are run by bean counters too, but the MD's will release funds if required for safety improvements - as we all know a major accident (like this one) will cost much more than any savings made anyway - a lesson we seem to keep forgetting?
From limited discussion with my offshore colleagues, the EC225 briefings appear to be going well with very good input from the pilots doing briefings, although the major concern of the workers still seems to be how to get out if they end up inverted in the water.
In this incident, there was no warning and no time to prepare or deploy rebreather - I wonder if then the air bottles in the rebreathers activated on contact with water and there would have been air bubbles everywhere as the air escaped the rebreather? Personally my focus would have been on escaping and i would not have tried to deploy the rebreather, and I hope the full AAIB report focuses on what happened in the rear cabin as well as what caused the accident.
I still think the main focus should be on keeping the aircraft from entering the water - I think those of us who have flown in the NS for a long time know if we had to ditch on a winters day with quick overturning of the chopper the outcome may not be very good.
I am ex SLF, but still talk to colleagues who are SLF.
If a helicopter crashes, they are normally grounded. If mechanical fault is found, they remain grounded until either all have been fully inspected, or have had component replacement - and then the regulator (and operators) is satisfied the event cannot reoccur and the aircraft start flying again.
In this event, we still don't know the cause, but you guys seem pretty sure it is some form of procedural or human error, possibly coupled with something else that may have distracted the crew until it was too late to take corrective action.
Why then, are the aircraft (L2) then returned to the air without any assurance that the same event cannot be repeated? This worries me a little, although I am sure (well hopeful) that all crews now are very aware of the possible causes of this accident and this makes another occurrence less likely.
You guys are kings of the check list - I assume there is no check list you use when starting approach?, including ensuring both crew are aware of AP modes, who is controlling each axis and who is monitoring what?
I also found section 8.6.1 of this EASA document very interesting regarding automation and training.
The discussion on 3rd party training is very interesting - oil companies are run by bean counters too, but the MD's will release funds if required for safety improvements - as we all know a major accident (like this one) will cost much more than any savings made anyway - a lesson we seem to keep forgetting?
From limited discussion with my offshore colleagues, the EC225 briefings appear to be going well with very good input from the pilots doing briefings, although the major concern of the workers still seems to be how to get out if they end up inverted in the water.
In this incident, there was no warning and no time to prepare or deploy rebreather - I wonder if then the air bottles in the rebreathers activated on contact with water and there would have been air bubbles everywhere as the air escaped the rebreather? Personally my focus would have been on escaping and i would not have tried to deploy the rebreather, and I hope the full AAIB report focuses on what happened in the rear cabin as well as what caused the accident.
I still think the main focus should be on keeping the aircraft from entering the water - I think those of us who have flown in the NS for a long time know if we had to ditch on a winters day with quick overturning of the chopper the outcome may not be very good.
The learner - why would you assume that there is no such checklist?
On the contrary - there is a comprehensive "Approach checklist" that should include all relevant aspects of the approach and landing including a crew brief of the approach procedure, instrument settings and Autoplit modes to be used.
OH
On the contrary - there is a comprehensive "Approach checklist" that should include all relevant aspects of the approach and landing including a crew brief of the approach procedure, instrument settings and Autoplit modes to be used.
OH
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
The learner,
Thank you for your very well written and informed posting on this forum. It is really good for the crews to hear what you guys in the back are thinking, discussing and worrying about.
CHECKLISTS, actually you may well have stumbled on something really relevant here despite Overthawks simplistic answer.
My previous and current job gives me oversight of a lot of Operators procedures and checklists. All I have seen do not formally address how the Pilot Flying intends to deploy the automatics in sufficient detail to correlate the contingencies when a Mixed Mode approach is flown. It is rather implied by a very simplistic statement like "This will be a 3 Axis coupled ILS etc."
I must stress that there is no valid reason to fly a real 3 Axis approach in a 4 Axis helicopter that I can think of. It is more difficult and potentially dangerous when low and slow at the bottom of the approach if the pilots fail to recognise the collective (power) is in their control.
SASless implores us to let our shields down if we are to identify areas ŵhere we can reduce any risks to our passengers. I think your question is extremely valid, thought provoking and should be carefully considered by all the stakeholders involved in this business.
So Overthawk, Instead of slamming the door in his face lets hear if anyone is currently briefing in such detail that there is no doubt, at the start of the approach, the clear division of duties between the AP and the Crew??
DB
Oh! The Learner, one more point. I well understand your self degenerate reference to you and your colleagues as SLF.
However, please be reassured that to 99.9% of offshore crews on this forum you are "Passengers". Anyone referring to our Passengers as SLF is a stone cold moron and most likely not an Offshore Pilot. Even in jest it is disgusting to me given the nature of the human tragedies that these events actually represent.
Thank you for your very well written and informed posting on this forum. It is really good for the crews to hear what you guys in the back are thinking, discussing and worrying about.
CHECKLISTS, actually you may well have stumbled on something really relevant here despite Overthawks simplistic answer.
My previous and current job gives me oversight of a lot of Operators procedures and checklists. All I have seen do not formally address how the Pilot Flying intends to deploy the automatics in sufficient detail to correlate the contingencies when a Mixed Mode approach is flown. It is rather implied by a very simplistic statement like "This will be a 3 Axis coupled ILS etc."
I must stress that there is no valid reason to fly a real 3 Axis approach in a 4 Axis helicopter that I can think of. It is more difficult and potentially dangerous when low and slow at the bottom of the approach if the pilots fail to recognise the collective (power) is in their control.
SASless implores us to let our shields down if we are to identify areas ŵhere we can reduce any risks to our passengers. I think your question is extremely valid, thought provoking and should be carefully considered by all the stakeholders involved in this business.
So Overthawk, Instead of slamming the door in his face lets hear if anyone is currently briefing in such detail that there is no doubt, at the start of the approach, the clear division of duties between the AP and the Crew??
DB
Oh! The Learner, one more point. I well understand your self degenerate reference to you and your colleagues as SLF.
However, please be reassured that to 99.9% of offshore crews on this forum you are "Passengers". Anyone referring to our Passengers as SLF is a stone cold moron and most likely not an Offshore Pilot. Even in jest it is disgusting to me given the nature of the human tragedies that these events actually represent.
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 8th Sep 2013 at 09:32.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@26500lbs
Well then, perhaps there should be...? Or does Statoil's interest in safety not extend quite so far as to carry that extra cost...?
22
... That does not exist in the offshore world. There are no dedicated aircraft training sorties available after the initial aircraft famil following the type rating.
22
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 53
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the Third Party has to satisfy the Customer....so long as the Customer sets a Standard that must be met....The Third Party has no axe to grind and has no need to play favorites.
A true Third Party impartial evaluation of both the Pilots and the Operational Procedures cannot hurt. Sometimes an outside look is beneficial.
A true Third Party impartial evaluation of both the Pilots and the Operational Procedures cannot hurt. Sometimes an outside look is beneficial.
I myself have yet to see any civil 3rd party training that comes even close to the level of auditing and data acquisition you are talking about.
Originally Posted by 26500lbs
The main difference is that in the military environment you have time to train in the aircraft and a large amount of budgeted training sorties. Here the Squadron QHI can have his input on the process and feed down the directives from his boss. That does not exist in the offshore world. There are no dedicated aircraft training sorties available after the initial aircraft famil following the type rating.
If an operator were to wholeheartedly embrace third party training they must be able to address the shortfalls. I think the way it is done in the military is an excellent example of how it can work. The key is the two systems must work closely together and be on the same team. An operator cannot just let go of the ropes and say goodbye to training - “third party provider - you have control”.
If an operator were to wholeheartedly embrace third party training they must be able to address the shortfalls. I think the way it is done in the military is an excellent example of how it can work. The key is the two systems must work closely together and be on the same team. An operator cannot just let go of the ropes and say goodbye to training - “third party provider - you have control”.
Originally Posted by Double Bogey
My previous and current job gives me oversight of a lot of Operators procedures and checklists. All I have seen do not formally address how the Pilot Flying intends to deploy the automatics in sufficient detail to correlate the contingencies when a Mixed Mode approach is flown. It is rather implied by a very simplistic statement like "This will be a 3 Axis coupled ILS etc."
...
So Overthawk, Instead of slamming the door in his face lets hear if anyone is currently briefing in such detail that there is no doubt, at the start of the approach, the clear division of duties between the AP and the Crew??
...
However, please be reassured that to 99.9% of offshore crews on this forum you are "Passengers". Anyone referring to our Passengers as SLF is a stone cold moron and most likely not an Offshore Pilot. Even in jest it is disgusting to me given the nature of the human tragedies that these events actually represent.
...
So Overthawk, Instead of slamming the door in his face lets hear if anyone is currently briefing in such detail that there is no doubt, at the start of the approach, the clear division of duties between the AP and the Crew??
...
However, please be reassured that to 99.9% of offshore crews on this forum you are "Passengers". Anyone referring to our Passengers as SLF is a stone cold moron and most likely not an Offshore Pilot. Even in jest it is disgusting to me given the nature of the human tragedies that these events actually represent.
From my own experience, the SOP's cover a lot of items that shouldn't need to be rebriefed in the aircraft. The checklist covers what is needed very well as long as the SOP's are well understood. Over the years I have found that some pilots, for various reasons, aren't completely aware of every SOP and so confusion results.
An example from my own past: A few years ago, I briefed an ILS to minimum weather. In the brief I stated that this would be a Pilot Monitored Approach (well defined in the SOP's) and asked if there were any questions when the brief was done. There were none. At DH, he asks me, "do you have visual?"! After the missed we had a discussion to clarify things and when I was satisfied we were ready we completed the ILS successfully.
In the debrief it came to light that 1) as an experienced new hire he didn't think that the IFR SOP would have very much new [definitions of PMA vs PFA?] to show him so he gave it scant attention in his studying (and training) and 2) had never done an approach to real minimums outside of the sim.
Last edited by pilot and apprentice; 8th Sep 2013 at 10:04.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 62
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The learner - why would you assume that there is no such checklist?
On the contrary - there is a comprehensive "Approach checklist" that should include all relevant aspects of the approach and landing including a crew brief of the approach procedure, instrument settings and Autoplit modes to be used.
OH
On the contrary - there is a comprehensive "Approach checklist" that should include all relevant aspects of the approach and landing including a crew brief of the approach procedure, instrument settings and Autoplit modes to be used.
OH
Edited to add - communication is one of the things we humans do worst - including making assumptions that others have understood what we mean - needs to be reinforced with feedback/questioning.
SLF - point taken, I always have assumed it was meant as a humourous term - not degenatory - I can still laugh at myself - humour is very important. I don't think most of us mind the term.
Last edited by thelearner; 8th Sep 2013 at 10:25.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern Lights
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not know what SLF was until I started reading this thread and have been flying offshore the majority of my working life. That should perhaps illustrate how little used, if used at all, it is in our cockpits.
Are we really so sensitive about such things in this day and age?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Up to my axles
Age: 61
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB asks:
lets hear if anyone is currently briefing in such detail that there is no doubt, at the start of the approach, the clear division of duties between the AP and the Crew??
Well yes. And for each crew member.
While I might not go into such great detail if we are doing, e.g. an ARA technically required for 9999 Sct/005, if it is likely to be anything near minima then we will brief explicitly.
E.g. for an ARA:
"This will be a fully coupled approach. We will let the FMS establish on finals. When you are satisfied that the approach and go-around sectors are clear, I will beep the radalt hold down to [MDH]. you will monitor this. You will then centre and select the heading hold and give me courses to steer...
... in the event of a go-around, you will select AltP, which is set at 1500ft and I will steer the aircraft at least 30 degrees to the right, and adjust speed and rate of climb as required."
I will also remind my co-pilot that once he is visual, I am more than happy for him to continue to command me to fly headings, speeds, rad-alt height etc. until he is satisfied that he can fly a safe, visual final approach.
Similar guidance for other approaches.
lets hear if anyone is currently briefing in such detail that there is no doubt, at the start of the approach, the clear division of duties between the AP and the Crew??
Well yes. And for each crew member.
While I might not go into such great detail if we are doing, e.g. an ARA technically required for 9999 Sct/005, if it is likely to be anything near minima then we will brief explicitly.
E.g. for an ARA:
"This will be a fully coupled approach. We will let the FMS establish on finals. When you are satisfied that the approach and go-around sectors are clear, I will beep the radalt hold down to [MDH]. you will monitor this. You will then centre and select the heading hold and give me courses to steer...
... in the event of a go-around, you will select AltP, which is set at 1500ft and I will steer the aircraft at least 30 degrees to the right, and adjust speed and rate of climb as required."
I will also remind my co-pilot that once he is visual, I am more than happy for him to continue to command me to fly headings, speeds, rad-alt height etc. until he is satisfied that he can fly a safe, visual final approach.
Similar guidance for other approaches.