AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: In deep space, man.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another quick one, and I will try and keep this short, regarding training and the use of automation.
The view from the back seat is that the guys in front have a difficult job and need to be trained to the ultimate standard possible and be using the safest possible techniques (auto or manual etc). Any suggestion that our safety is being compromised due to financial constraints is not taken well - especially in this industry where for years now the highest priority is safety.
Realistically its all a business but this thread has shown a number of discussion areas that sound like they really need reviewing and changes made at a number of levels.
Personally speaking I like to think that a pilot would be fully skilled and practised at flying manually in the event this is required as well as being capable of using all the helicopters auto systems competently and confidently. Training and assessment should cover this completely and if it does not at present then it needs fixing.
The view from the back seat is that the guys in front have a difficult job and need to be trained to the ultimate standard possible and be using the safest possible techniques (auto or manual etc). Any suggestion that our safety is being compromised due to financial constraints is not taken well - especially in this industry where for years now the highest priority is safety.
Realistically its all a business but this thread has shown a number of discussion areas that sound like they really need reviewing and changes made at a number of levels.
Personally speaking I like to think that a pilot would be fully skilled and practised at flying manually in the event this is required as well as being capable of using all the helicopters auto systems competently and confidently. Training and assessment should cover this completely and if it does not at present then it needs fixing.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dakarman, on the old 330s (the RAF ones at least) the door jettison was on the door itself, both inside and out. Seems far more logical, why it was moved I don't know.
On the subject of the pax opening the door rather than jettisoning it in emergency when they do what is most normal to them, perhaps this needs to be addressed in the training you are given. Sliding the door open may very well condemn those at the front so it must be well drilled into you guys to jettison the door as a well drilled emergency procedure.
The VSI is a small strip gauge on the outermost screens, so if you can see those screens you probably can see it, just not very well from back there!
On the subject of the pax opening the door rather than jettisoning it in emergency when they do what is most normal to them, perhaps this needs to be addressed in the training you are given. Sliding the door open may very well condemn those at the front so it must be well drilled into you guys to jettison the door as a well drilled emergency procedure.
The VSI is a small strip gauge on the outermost screens, so if you can see those screens you probably can see it, just not very well from back there!
Dakarman, your points are in general true although I think the large windows in the front row are unaffected by the door being open(?). The 2 nd and 3rd rows certainly are affected though.
Regarding the door jettison handle location, I agree that it should be nearer to door, however there would be only one thing worse than it being difficult to jettison following a ditching, and that would be inadvertent jettison in flight with subsequent probable contact with main or tail rotors.
However, the point is that its very difficult to design a helicopter with each person next to a window. Also, I question whether this would be the right way to proceed. Firstly, accidents involving difficulty getting out are very rare and have always arisen from a crash rather than a controlled ditching. It is therefore a sliding scale of crash severity causing some to become too incapacitated to escape, whilst others, either tougher or in a better location, manage to escape. Even with a large window next to each passenger its easy to envisage a crash severity such that some don't exit.
The last loss of life from a survivable crash was the N Cormorant accident in 1992, 21 years ago. In terms of ways of dying accidentally, its a tiny drop in the ocean (no pun intended!). That may sound harsh, but the idea that all life is precious and can't have a price put on it, is naive.
Compare with a fixed wing airliner. One exit per 30 or 40 passenger, many rows away. No pop out windows. Following a crash into water, its acceptable that people are going to drown through not being able to get out. The acceptability arises because such an event is very rare.
Therefore I would prefer that most of the efforts went into keeping the helicopter out of the water, since making a helicopter from which escape can be guaranteed regardless of the severity of the crash, is not possible.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 12th Sep 2013 at 08:46.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This very public thread is creating a monster for the guys in the back. Its getting to the stage after reading it that the pax wont be thinking is this SP safe, but can the pilots actually fly it !!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 76
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simulator Training at Aberdeen
Industry Insider,
You say that sim training needs to be carried out overseas. Why is simulator training not available at Aberdeen - or at least somewhere within reasonable driving distance of Aberdeen?
Rather than having to pay for pilots' time off, air travel, hotels, per diems (perhaps?) and for the cost of sim training itself, could not the operating companies form a joint-venture company to provide a simulator locally?
However, I'm sure the bean-counters - in both the helicopter operators and the oil companies - have decided the present arrangement is the cheapest option that ticks the boxes required to be legal. These trips to the sim' presumably cover the legal minimum, plus a little more if time permits.
As SASless says, they are not exactly throwing money at sim' training - and they never will unless sufficient pressure comes from the coal-face users for them to do more. I doubt the oil companies will want to spend an extra penny, unless pressure comes from their work forces.
You say that sim training needs to be carried out overseas. Why is simulator training not available at Aberdeen - or at least somewhere within reasonable driving distance of Aberdeen?
Rather than having to pay for pilots' time off, air travel, hotels, per diems (perhaps?) and for the cost of sim training itself, could not the operating companies form a joint-venture company to provide a simulator locally?
However, I'm sure the bean-counters - in both the helicopter operators and the oil companies - have decided the present arrangement is the cheapest option that ticks the boxes required to be legal. These trips to the sim' presumably cover the legal minimum, plus a little more if time permits.
As SASless says, they are not exactly throwing money at sim' training - and they never will unless sufficient pressure comes from the coal-face users for them to do more. I doubt the oil companies will want to spend an extra penny, unless pressure comes from their work forces.
LD, do try to keep up if you are going to participate! There are a number of simulators in Aberdeen, however mr II is not based in Aberdeen. He is not even based in this country. Not even in this continent. In fact further from Aberdeen is hard to envisage!
Last edited by HeliComparator; 12th Sep 2013 at 09:54.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: In deep space, man.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its fair to say that I have a practical mind about the risks. I have been travelling on rotary and fixed wing world wide in the oil industry for 17 years and I vaguely recall once landing early due to a dodgy fuel gauge on a helicopter so statistically I know that things will be fine.
If I was really concerned after all, I would take a perceived 'safer' seat at the back by a window but obviously my safety concern does not override my curiosity at the little I can see on the screens. I did once have a trip back from WoS sitting on the pilots briefcase with headset on which was amazing - albeit slightly uncomfortable.
This forum does however seem to be getting a lot of view and response and if any minor point (i.e. not too expensive) could be improved even slightly (relocating the door release for example) it may just save another life, maybe in 20 years, maybe tomorrow.
I will have a look at the door next time I am onboard, after all the only place you can see all the flight info - albeit with a twisted neck - is row one single seat. Although from that position I could hardly smack the pilot upside the head if he was doing it wrong (and I am kidding and would never ever consider this to those who think I am being serious!!)
With regards operating the door release correctly, it does constitute part of the training however I just have a slight concern that in a panic this will be forgotten in the need to escape, Particularly as you have up to 4 people all trying to get out of this door. Maybe I misjudge people in this situation and it is after all very very rare that this will happen in exactly these circumstances.
Having the quick release adjacent to the door with a safety design to prevent coming off in flight (seems like a good idea) would give an instantaneous better option. If anything it seems slightly odd to have it where it is now. Please note that generally the passengers rarely open the door themselves, my comment comes from having seen the door opened in the normal way many times.
I would also like to point out that from a couple of brief conversations yesterday that the pilots opinion of 225 vs 332 which I have learnt from here is not getting to the workforce very well yet. I spoke to 2 people yesterday attempting to point out what I had learnt from here about a 225 being much safer and it came straight back to 'gearbox broke = 225 bad' (note that personally I have followed the story about the 225 and don't hold this opinion myself)
If I was really concerned after all, I would take a perceived 'safer' seat at the back by a window but obviously my safety concern does not override my curiosity at the little I can see on the screens. I did once have a trip back from WoS sitting on the pilots briefcase with headset on which was amazing - albeit slightly uncomfortable.
This forum does however seem to be getting a lot of view and response and if any minor point (i.e. not too expensive) could be improved even slightly (relocating the door release for example) it may just save another life, maybe in 20 years, maybe tomorrow.
I will have a look at the door next time I am onboard, after all the only place you can see all the flight info - albeit with a twisted neck - is row one single seat. Although from that position I could hardly smack the pilot upside the head if he was doing it wrong (and I am kidding and would never ever consider this to those who think I am being serious!!)
With regards operating the door release correctly, it does constitute part of the training however I just have a slight concern that in a panic this will be forgotten in the need to escape, Particularly as you have up to 4 people all trying to get out of this door. Maybe I misjudge people in this situation and it is after all very very rare that this will happen in exactly these circumstances.
Having the quick release adjacent to the door with a safety design to prevent coming off in flight (seems like a good idea) would give an instantaneous better option. If anything it seems slightly odd to have it where it is now. Please note that generally the passengers rarely open the door themselves, my comment comes from having seen the door opened in the normal way many times.
I would also like to point out that from a couple of brief conversations yesterday that the pilots opinion of 225 vs 332 which I have learnt from here is not getting to the workforce very well yet. I spoke to 2 people yesterday attempting to point out what I had learnt from here about a 225 being much safer and it came straight back to 'gearbox broke = 225 bad' (note that personally I have followed the story about the 225 and don't hold this opinion myself)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 76
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC, Fair cop on location of simulators! :-)
However, does the existing sim training cover only the legally-required minimum for proficiency checks? Or is it possible to have additional time, if sim slots are available?
However, does the existing sim training cover only the legally-required minimum for proficiency checks? Or is it possible to have additional time, if sim slots are available?
DWT This is a forum for professional pilots. if the boys in the back reading this are put off due to not understanding, let them get a job stacking shelves in Tesco where they can speculate from a position of ignorance about the price of bananas at no risk to safety.
However I suspect that most of the boys in the back who are bothering to read this thread, are less stupid than you imply.
Sorry but every time there is a post promoting secrecy on this matter, I will rile against it.
However I suspect that most of the boys in the back who are bothering to read this thread, are less stupid than you imply.
Sorry but every time there is a post promoting secrecy on this matter, I will rile against it.
SASLESS
The reasoning behind that I suppose is that the main reason you are in the SIM is to complete the mandatory checkride.
In my case with the 365N2 we had to go to France to use a SIM - we usually went with a Capt and Co-pilot along with a company TRE. We had 4 x 2hr SIM sessions 2 as HP and 2 as NHP and they were very good value as you would expect. We were treated to the delights of complex failures, insiduous failures and down right scary failures!! This was of great value.
The training after the checkride was also good value as we could ask for any failure we wanted - fenestron failure on transition being a favourite, along with single engine failure, heavy, just as you rotated to come off the deck.
I am a great fan of the SIM as it allows complex and maybe dangerous failures to be practised in a safe environment. Though you do get so involved with flying the a/c you can actually believe it is the real thing!!
I was lucky we had a good SIM and TREs who flew the line and knew how the company operated. I hope that that system can be protected from the bean counters!!
HF
Please explain to me why a TRE/IRE would do training AFTER the Check Ride?
In my case with the 365N2 we had to go to France to use a SIM - we usually went with a Capt and Co-pilot along with a company TRE. We had 4 x 2hr SIM sessions 2 as HP and 2 as NHP and they were very good value as you would expect. We were treated to the delights of complex failures, insiduous failures and down right scary failures!! This was of great value.
The training after the checkride was also good value as we could ask for any failure we wanted - fenestron failure on transition being a favourite, along with single engine failure, heavy, just as you rotated to come off the deck.
I am a great fan of the SIM as it allows complex and maybe dangerous failures to be practised in a safe environment. Though you do get so involved with flying the a/c you can actually believe it is the real thing!!
I was lucky we had a good SIM and TREs who flew the line and knew how the company operated. I hope that that system can be protected from the bean counters!!
HF
Sim emergencies
HF, just a thought but yes we do practice a lot of emergency drills in the sim -its the only place you can do it. We all consider it "good value", however if you look at the accidents how many were caused by system failures, and how many caused by piloting a fully serviceable heli to its doom? So, is the balance of sim training correct or should we put more emphasis on normal operations training?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DWT This is a forum for professional pilots. if the boys in the back reading this are put off due to not understanding, let them get a job stacking shelves in Tesco where they can speculate from a position of ignorance about the price of bananas at no risk to safety.
However I suspect that most of the boys in the back who are bothering to read this thread, are less stupid than you imply.
Sorry but every time there is a post promoting secrecy on this matter, I will rile against it.
HeliComparator is online now Report Post
However I suspect that most of the boys in the back who are bothering to read this thread, are less stupid than you imply.
Sorry but every time there is a post promoting secrecy on this matter, I will rile against it.
HeliComparator is online now Report Post
So, is the balance of sim training correct or should we put more emphasis on normal operations training?
Checking and training
If you do training before checking, you might be coaching the pilots to pass the check. They should be able to pass the check without just having had a warmup sim ride, if not they are incompetent.
They will also be in a better frame of mind to take in what is being taught if they already kow they have passed their checks, on which their livelihood depends.
It also gives the TRE some slack in the event that a particular weakness is found during the test, either time for a retest and/or time to retrain a specific element that wouldn't have been covered unless it had been found to be deficient.
This brings us to the point about 3rd party training and and sims. When I was on the L2 we had to use Helisim. A good facility for sure, but very hard to get time in as it was so busy. Thus a marginal candidate who probably should have failed and received retraining, was passed because anything else was too difficult. No spare time in Sim, flights already booked etc.
By contrast on the 225 once we had our own sim it was a joy because extra slots could always be found at short notice. Well that was until a bean counter sold all our spare capacity to 3rd parties! Yes we too have middle management who have no concept of flight safety, or at least not when it might cost a few quid! Anyway, fortunately that didn't last too long and we were back to limiting 3rd party use and keeping spare slots for ourselves.
It really does make a massive difference.
They will also be in a better frame of mind to take in what is being taught if they already kow they have passed their checks, on which their livelihood depends.
It also gives the TRE some slack in the event that a particular weakness is found during the test, either time for a retest and/or time to retrain a specific element that wouldn't have been covered unless it had been found to be deficient.
This brings us to the point about 3rd party training and and sims. When I was on the L2 we had to use Helisim. A good facility for sure, but very hard to get time in as it was so busy. Thus a marginal candidate who probably should have failed and received retraining, was passed because anything else was too difficult. No spare time in Sim, flights already booked etc.
By contrast on the 225 once we had our own sim it was a joy because extra slots could always be found at short notice. Well that was until a bean counter sold all our spare capacity to 3rd parties! Yes we too have middle management who have no concept of flight safety, or at least not when it might cost a few quid! Anyway, fortunately that didn't last too long and we were back to limiting 3rd party use and keeping spare slots for ourselves.
It really does make a massive difference.
Dry wretched thunder "This very public thread is creating a monster for the guys in the back. Its getting to the stage after reading it that the pax wont be thinking is this SP safe, but can the pilots actually fly it !!"
Would the pax be happy to go in an airliner which is fully automated and carries no pilots?
I didn't think so, even though this technology is do-able right now.
No doubt the pax would be far less keen on a fully-automated pilotless helicopter. This will never be possible in the offshore environment, due to the huge number of variables and unpredictabilities.
Very rarely pilots make mistakes which coincide with other factors (the holes in the swiss cheese line up) and there are tragic consequences.
The best protection against human error in difficult weather is a really, really good autopilot which is used to maximum effect by pilots who are well trained in its use and can monitor it intelligently, only taking over manually if necessary.
Colleagues who have flown both the S92 and the EC225 almost universally agree that the EC225 has the more capable autopilot. It "protects the flight envelope" (keeps everyone safe) to a very high standard.
Having flown various types over the years and seen the advances in automation, its my belief that you need the best autopilot possible, along with some of the other improvements being suggested. I'm one of the many pilots who are open to the balanced views coming from some pax.
Would the pax be happy to go in an airliner which is fully automated and carries no pilots?
I didn't think so, even though this technology is do-able right now.
No doubt the pax would be far less keen on a fully-automated pilotless helicopter. This will never be possible in the offshore environment, due to the huge number of variables and unpredictabilities.
Very rarely pilots make mistakes which coincide with other factors (the holes in the swiss cheese line up) and there are tragic consequences.
The best protection against human error in difficult weather is a really, really good autopilot which is used to maximum effect by pilots who are well trained in its use and can monitor it intelligently, only taking over manually if necessary.
Colleagues who have flown both the S92 and the EC225 almost universally agree that the EC225 has the more capable autopilot. It "protects the flight envelope" (keeps everyone safe) to a very high standard.
Having flown various types over the years and seen the advances in automation, its my belief that you need the best autopilot possible, along with some of the other improvements being suggested. I'm one of the many pilots who are open to the balanced views coming from some pax.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: In deep space, man.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect to those 'in the back' becoming disillusioned by this thread, I think its a good bet that after 80 pages of very technical discussion in places, only the very keen and somewhat knowledgeable on aviation will still be reading.
With respect to full auto - no pilot heli's in the north sea. Nope, no and no thanks.
With respect to full auto - no pilot heli's in the north sea. Nope, no and no thanks.
What I have found is if the weather is really bad I go VFR, because sticking to the rules under the IFR just doesn't get you where you need to go. I'm just astounded that a modern 2-crew helicopter can come to grief in a way where "technical aspects" don't seem to be involved. Maybe there's an argument to made to go back to basic stick-and-rudder flying and common sense airmanship from time-to-time, as part of a wider structured training regime, and just forget about all the complex automation stuff that time and time again we see giving rise to holes in the Swiss cheese.
Just a thought.
Last edited by gulliBell; 12th Sep 2013 at 11:36.
