AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Chief Bottle Washer
Although they are fixed wing, I find it difficult to accept that Embry Riddle should come out with this attitude in the light of all that is discussed here: Hand flying skills not a priority says Embry Riddle educator.
Especially if this attitude filters through to the helicopter world.
Especially if this attitude filters through to the helicopter world.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I only have 3,000 hrs in this and that, but it required a lot of t/o and landings.
So even though too old to instruct any more I can still fly and the safety pilot never gets a lookin. And I have followed this thread from the beginning.
Beside the checklists being apparently constructed to satisfy the auditors, there is another point of significance.
In post 1406, the chap entitled "26500 pounds" goes back to the different records of the two nations that specialise in what has to be nearly the most difficult flying in the world, to oil rigs in the North Sea. The Gulf of Mexico is a tranquil warm bath by comparison. Alaska....well, only frequented, I believe, by American and Canadian pilots, probably also has horrid weather and icy water.
The difference between Norway and UK that strikes me as absolutely sinister is that the UK is training with a separate organisation providing the trainers. And in Norway, COMPANY INSTRUCTORS carry out all training, and must have a minimum of 5 years experience in NS flying, and get to know all the pilots who work there. So they are able to assess much better the chap who turns up for a sim session, what he needs to improve.
Exactly the structure of our gliding club, which you may think is irrelevant.
The CFI knows the weakness and strengths of the candidates. We do not want any accidents either.
So even though too old to instruct any more I can still fly and the safety pilot never gets a lookin. And I have followed this thread from the beginning.
Beside the checklists being apparently constructed to satisfy the auditors, there is another point of significance.
In post 1406, the chap entitled "26500 pounds" goes back to the different records of the two nations that specialise in what has to be nearly the most difficult flying in the world, to oil rigs in the North Sea. The Gulf of Mexico is a tranquil warm bath by comparison. Alaska....well, only frequented, I believe, by American and Canadian pilots, probably also has horrid weather and icy water.
The difference between Norway and UK that strikes me as absolutely sinister is that the UK is training with a separate organisation providing the trainers. And in Norway, COMPANY INSTRUCTORS carry out all training, and must have a minimum of 5 years experience in NS flying, and get to know all the pilots who work there. So they are able to assess much better the chap who turns up for a sim session, what he needs to improve.
Exactly the structure of our gliding club, which you may think is irrelevant.
The CFI knows the weakness and strengths of the candidates. We do not want any accidents either.
The key point of the video is that automation is there to reduce workload (and therefore leave more time for "big picture etc.). Any time its not doing that is the time to drop down at least one level of automation. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that concept.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference between Norway and UK that strikes me as absolutely sinister is that the UK is training with a separate organisation providing the trainers.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Sty
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better handling skills are always going to be useful provided you have the time to use them. An aircrafts EGPWS will provide crews with the necessary time to use those skills in most scenarios. The Morecambe bay accident may have been prevented by a current EGPWS. However it won’t help you when your airspeed decays then vertical speed increases and you’re on an insidious flight path to result in hurtling towards the ground with little or no airspeed whilst distracted. The radalt won’t provide you with sufficient time to use your better handling skills.
Assuming that some pilots will still not adhere to the message in the magenta kids video or still become distracted during critical flight phases. Why not have a system that alerts the pilot of low airspeed prior to the vertical speed problem, prior to the proximately with terrain/water problem? The S-92 has a min IFR speed yet no means of alerting the pilot of an unsafe flight configuration, as you slow beyond it. The current EGPWS modes could do with an update.
Our training could be improved by emphasising the shortcomings of automation more. Generally we’re only taught how to use the AP functions. A chunk of time should be dedicated to demonstrating the APs gotchas in the aircraft and the sim……….As well as, improving SOPs, checklists, flight safety culture etc.
Assuming that some pilots will still not adhere to the message in the magenta kids video or still become distracted during critical flight phases. Why not have a system that alerts the pilot of low airspeed prior to the vertical speed problem, prior to the proximately with terrain/water problem? The S-92 has a min IFR speed yet no means of alerting the pilot of an unsafe flight configuration, as you slow beyond it. The current EGPWS modes could do with an update.
Our training could be improved by emphasising the shortcomings of automation more. Generally we’re only taught how to use the AP functions. A chunk of time should be dedicated to demonstrating the APs gotchas in the aircraft and the sim……….As well as, improving SOPs, checklists, flight safety culture etc.
Last edited by IFR Piglet; 10th Sep 2013 at 10:01.
I think there is some muddying of the waters going on here by failing to differentiate between various pilot skills.
There is manual flying skill (making the heli go where you want it to by use of pedals, stick and collective.
Then there is use of automation, making the heli go where you want it to be pressing buttons, turning knobs etc
Then there is monitoring - keeping a constant awareness of what is happening to the flight path when its being flown by the autopilot or the other pilot.
Then there is situational awareness - keeping track of the bigger picture, where you are in the instrument pattern, how the fuel is doing, what's the weather doing etc etc.
To fail to differentiate between all these skills is to totally miss the point. If this accident is as we suspect, it was use of automation and monitoring that were deficient. It most certainly nothing to do with manual flying skills because they were not trying to fly it manually. Well, unless you include a need to pull the lever up a bit. But I would say the recovery action when the airspeed started to decay would better have been to press IAS and beep it up a bit.
There is manual flying skill (making the heli go where you want it to by use of pedals, stick and collective.
Then there is use of automation, making the heli go where you want it to be pressing buttons, turning knobs etc
Then there is monitoring - keeping a constant awareness of what is happening to the flight path when its being flown by the autopilot or the other pilot.
Then there is situational awareness - keeping track of the bigger picture, where you are in the instrument pattern, how the fuel is doing, what's the weather doing etc etc.
To fail to differentiate between all these skills is to totally miss the point. If this accident is as we suspect, it was use of automation and monitoring that were deficient. It most certainly nothing to do with manual flying skills because they were not trying to fly it manually. Well, unless you include a need to pull the lever up a bit. But I would say the recovery action when the airspeed started to decay would better have been to press IAS and beep it up a bit.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 10th Sep 2013 at 10:45.
HC
I agree with your definition of the different skills that a NS Pilot needs.
I perhaps disagree with your final analysis of the last few minutes of this accident.
It seems to be a failure to monitor and therefore notice that the IAS was decaying - I don't know the rate of increase that the autopilot gives as you beep forward - will it be fast enough once the IAS has decayed below say 40kts. I presume a good handful of collective plus lowering the nose would be faster. I understand that minor adjustments using the autopilot during an approach on limits is the way to do it. When it all starts going wrong in a major way then manual flying skills may get you out of the situation. The key, of course, is to spot the divergence from the expected flight path as soon as possible and use the autopilot to adjust back to the required flightpath. Once you get into a UP then manual flying skills may get you out of danger - you may overtorque by pulling loads of power but better trash the transmission than the whole a/c
I am sure you don't teach UP recoveries using the autopilot?
HF
I agree with your definition of the different skills that a NS Pilot needs.
I perhaps disagree with your final analysis of the last few minutes of this accident.
It seems to be a failure to monitor and therefore notice that the IAS was decaying - I don't know the rate of increase that the autopilot gives as you beep forward - will it be fast enough once the IAS has decayed below say 40kts. I presume a good handful of collective plus lowering the nose would be faster. I understand that minor adjustments using the autopilot during an approach on limits is the way to do it. When it all starts going wrong in a major way then manual flying skills may get you out of the situation. The key, of course, is to spot the divergence from the expected flight path as soon as possible and use the autopilot to adjust back to the required flightpath. Once you get into a UP then manual flying skills may get you out of danger - you may overtorque by pulling loads of power but better trash the transmission than the whole a/c
I am sure you don't teach UP recoveries using the autopilot?
HF
But I would say the recovery action when the airspeed started to decay would better have been to press IAS and beep it up a bit. Says HC
Given the last few posts regarding what should have happened ( taking for granted this is a rumour forum and we don't actually know yet what really transpired !)
How about we train the SLF to watch those standby VSI and iAS dials over the monitoring pilots shoulders in case they have become too absorbed in pressing buttons and not actually flying the aircraft ?
We could then extend our "Intervention culture " from the rig or platform and hopefully prevent an inadvertent coming together of machine and terra firma ?
We could even give them a check ride in the sim every 6 months to keep them current. ....
BG
How about we train the SLF to watch those standby VSI and iAS dials over the monitoring pilots shoulders in case they have become too absorbed in pressing buttons and not actually flying the aircraft ?
We could then extend our "Intervention culture " from the rig or platform and hopefully prevent an inadvertent coming together of machine and terra firma ?
We could even give them a check ride in the sim every 6 months to keep them current. ....
BG
HF yes, near the end it would of course be better to fly it manually. But surely a better aim would be to not let it go that far? To prevent it getting to crisis point, the skills were monitoring and use of automation. Manual flying skill only comes into it once mistakes in those other skills has led to a loss of safety margin at the very least.
If the NS mantra is always use the autopilot as it is safer actually admits that NS pilots are not capable of safe manual approaches.
Short answer is I agree with the outcome but not the reason you stated that I quoted you on.
Double Bogey a couple of Years back proved Night Rig Approaches could be done better with some standardization of techniques. Today, there is discussion of advancing that concept by use of Automation on the Aircraft.
The end result is the same....better SA, more reliable control of the aircraft.
Yes...it is a zero sum game....the more Automation is used and the less hand flying done....there shall be some degradation to hands on flying skills.
Long sectors out to the Shetland Basin where you are in cruise for a couple of hours each way....what real benefit do you get in hand flying every single mile of that flight. Do you not get far more benefit from hand flying some approaches and landings? Likewise, the Captain flies out....the Co files back....now who gets all the Airport landings and who gets all the Rig landings.
Again, we are discussiing "SOP"s" that sound good but do not effectively address the issues as we would hope.
There seems to be a general trend developing within the thread that seems to suggest that now - inexorably - that manual flying skills have been degraded by the use of automation, the number of CFITs has risen. Without picking on HF, I'll quote him as this seems to capture my comments:
I'm not sure when 'your time' was (though I think you mention joining in 1990), but I distinctly remember an SP being flown into the sea on the 14th March 1992! This was shortly after a Puma was flown into the sea in Australia, also operated by BHL. The same company also stuck an S-61 and a couple of B212s in the water too, in the years before that - all serviceable aircraft being hand flown. As was the more recent SP in Nigeria. And the two S76s in 1987 (BIH) and 1995 (KLM). That's just the NS operators.
My point is, don't delude yourselves that "in my day it was never like this, because we really flew the aircraft, not like these button pushers of today". Actually, it was like this and - what's more - the number of ditchings/accidents caused by mechanical failures was much higher and more consistent too.
It is no good saying that flying using the autopilot is safer - with 2 possible CFIT in modern SPs it doesn't compare well with the early 332L, with a simple autopilot/coupler I flew, which in my time didn't fly into the sea!
My point is, don't delude yourselves that "in my day it was never like this, because we really flew the aircraft, not like these button pushers of today". Actually, it was like this and - what's more - the number of ditchings/accidents caused by mechanical failures was much higher and more consistent too.
Last edited by 212man; 10th Sep 2013 at 11:59.
I can't resist this after 212's input: Then it must be a Mil Vs civvy thang
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
No it's just annoying that people who are, or have only flown a steam driven AP express opinions on the safety of flight where a DAFCS is deployed.
As for the RAF claiming the moral high ground we would need to forget the 330 accidents numerous, CFITs.
In IMC or at, night, the back of the power curve in a large uncoupled helicopter is a miserable place to find your self even when you deliberately visited it. To find it unexpectedly is a shocker.
Al-Bert, how about some honesty. How many times in your career were you "just lucky enough" and got away with it at the edges of the envelope?
As for the RAF claiming the moral high ground we would need to forget the 330 accidents numerous, CFITs.
In IMC or at, night, the back of the power curve in a large uncoupled helicopter is a miserable place to find your self even when you deliberately visited it. To find it unexpectedly is a shocker.
Al-Bert, how about some honesty. How many times in your career were you "just lucky enough" and got away with it at the edges of the envelope?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we would need to forget the 330 accidents numerous
Last edited by Vie sans frontieres; 10th Sep 2013 at 15:43.
Dear Bogey
To be honest, since in my world we were frequently 'at the edges of the envelope', I guess I must have been 'just lucky enough' for around 7,500 hours. Perhaps I got away with it 'cos I was (in HC's words) a Sky God (although I prefer Jedi Knight) or perhaps because I mostly kept my hands and feet on the appropriate controls and fully understood what they could do for me. 
ps As for the RAF claiming the moral high ground : I'd never ever do that, I even knew some Army and Navy pilots who could fly too
Al-Bert, how about some honesty. How many times in your career were you "just lucky enough" and got away with it at the edges of the envelope?
ps As for the RAF claiming the moral high ground : I'd never ever do that, I even knew some Army and Navy pilots who could fly too
Last edited by Al-bert; 10th Sep 2013 at 15:45.