AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Bondu, we live in an age of "evidence based" conclusions. May I ask where your evidence is that HC or I have been slagging anyone off?
[Edited to add: "In fact, I have been struck by how little 'slagging off' is happening on this thread, compared to others. I think people really want to get to the right answer.]
Your further remarks about the topics to be covered in a "wide ranging review" simply support a post of mine around - oh, page 40 or so, I can't be bothered finding it again. There is much to be looked at, and although I can't see MPs doing much good, I do think it may be time to go beyond the AAIB report.
On the "how much training do you want?" question: From where I sit (in the back of the sim) I'd say, "As much as you can bleedin' well get!"
[Edited to add: "In fact, I have been struck by how little 'slagging off' is happening on this thread, compared to others. I think people really want to get to the right answer.]
Your further remarks about the topics to be covered in a "wide ranging review" simply support a post of mine around - oh, page 40 or so, I can't be bothered finding it again. There is much to be looked at, and although I can't see MPs doing much good, I do think it may be time to go beyond the AAIB report.
On the "how much training do you want?" question: From where I sit (in the back of the sim) I'd say, "As much as you can bleedin' well get!"
Last edited by keithl; 12th Sep 2013 at 21:00.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC,
Yes, I do understand.
You're right, of course, with new people after such an intensive start-up process. Perhaps the scenario I outlined while trying to keep the post short wasn't the best example.
I've been in company where more senior people, well established on Type, have been complaining about the idea of going straight into Check mode after 6 months on the line without any or very little preparation. I had the impression at the time that one of the problems giving rise to the situation was a cut-back in the number of Sim hours available for each training interval.
I've been labouring, perhaps naively, under the idea that the objective of Training/Checking was to ensure standards of proficiency are being maintained and, where there is evidence of some degradation in performance, to provide an opportunity to recover the ground lost rather than it becoming a check-driven, livelihood-threatening moment.
Am I wrong to think that the level of proficiency in certain areas, emergencies which are practiced/trained only in the Sim being one, would follow a slight downward trend over time?
Yes, I do understand.
You're right, of course, with new people after such an intensive start-up process. Perhaps the scenario I outlined while trying to keep the post short wasn't the best example.
I've been in company where more senior people, well established on Type, have been complaining about the idea of going straight into Check mode after 6 months on the line without any or very little preparation. I had the impression at the time that one of the problems giving rise to the situation was a cut-back in the number of Sim hours available for each training interval.
I've been labouring, perhaps naively, under the idea that the objective of Training/Checking was to ensure standards of proficiency are being maintained and, where there is evidence of some degradation in performance, to provide an opportunity to recover the ground lost rather than it becoming a check-driven, livelihood-threatening moment.
Am I wrong to think that the level of proficiency in certain areas, emergencies which are practiced/trained only in the Sim being one, would follow a slight downward trend over time?
Last edited by heliski22; 12th Sep 2013 at 20:56.
HC,
Yes, I do understand.
You're right, of course, with new people after such an intensive start-up process. Perhaps the scenario I outlined while trying to keep the post short wasn't the best example.
I've been in company where more senior people, well established on Type, have been complaining about the idea of going straight into Check mode after 6 months on the line without any or very little preparation. I had the impression at the time that one of the problems giving rise to the situation was a cut-back in the number of Sim hours available for each training interval.
I've been labouring, perhaps naively, under the idea that the objective of Training/Checking was to ensure standards of proficiency are being maintained and, where there is evidence of some degradation in performance, to provide an opportunity to recover the ground lost rather than it becoming a check-driven, livelihood-threatening moment.
Am I wrong to think that the level of proficiency in certain areas, emergencies which are practiced/trained only in the Sim being one, would follow a slight downward trend over time?
Yes, I do understand.
You're right, of course, with new people after such an intensive start-up process. Perhaps the scenario I outlined while trying to keep the post short wasn't the best example.
I've been in company where more senior people, well established on Type, have been complaining about the idea of going straight into Check mode after 6 months on the line without any or very little preparation. I had the impression at the time that one of the problems giving rise to the situation was a cut-back in the number of Sim hours available for each training interval.
I've been labouring, perhaps naively, under the idea that the objective of Training/Checking was to ensure standards of proficiency are being maintained and, where there is evidence of some degradation in performance, to provide an opportunity to recover the ground lost rather than it becoming a check-driven, livelihood-threatening moment.
Am I wrong to think that the level of proficiency in certain areas, emergencies which are practiced/trained only in the Sim being one, would follow a slight downward trend over time?
Days 2 and 3 are 2x2hr sim each. Normally roughly half testing and half training. So that's effectively 2 days training and 1 days testing every 6 months.
As I posted earlier, its inappropriate to coach prior to testing. I very much doubt our passengers would be too pleased to know that our pilots may not be able to cope with emergencies etc unless they had been coached in the sim the day before.
We train to proficiency plus a bit, thus allowing for the inevitable decline over the following 6 months so that they should still meet the minimum standard at 5.9 months.
In a large fleet, there will be some good, mostly average, and a few weak pilots. Unfortunately as I keep saying, we cannot and should not coach the weak ones into just being able to pass their check following extensive coaching. That inevitably means that a few weeks later they will be below the standard. This is certainly not fair to our passengers, our other fellow pilots etc.
In such cases, the correct course of action is to take the pilot off line duties (aka fail their check) and give them some retraining, followed by retesting. If this has to happen over consecutive checks, there is something wrong and it could be that the pilot lacks the ability to operate in his/her current role, and might for example be appropriate to regrade them as copilot for a while, fly them with a Line Trainer etc.
One thing I have noticed is a massive difference between individuals in terms of the amount of preparation they do before checks. Some arrive keen, full of knowledge they have read up on, and are a pleasure to check/train. A few arrive having clearly not opened a book, cannot describe a normal takeoff that they (supposedly) do each day from Aberdeen, and have no idea how systems work etc.
This latter group (fortunately a small minority) seem to benefit from being failed - they subsequently buck their ideas up big time!
There are hardly any I can think of who, after an attitude adjustment, can't make the required standard each 6 months.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are hardly any I can think of who, after an attitude adjustment, can't make the required standard each 6 months.
Thanks for (all) that...
22
Last edited by heliski22; 12th Sep 2013 at 21:23.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Investigation Report A11H0001
There may be a separate thread on this already, but thought I'd post it here seeing as we're discussing various types and AP modes.
(EDIT: I see the link was already posted, I just hope it doesn't take 2 years for the AAIB report to come out. I know a few of the pax who were on that flight and to say that they needed replacement underwear is putting it mildly]
Safe flying
Max
Last edited by maxwelg2; 12th Sep 2013 at 21:57.
Max, however if you read up on the history of the capt he was obviously pretty marginal, they knew that but gave him command anyway due to a shortage of qualified and competent pilots. Was that the fault of the pilot, or the fault of the management - who of course hoped to absolve themselves by sacking him? Its good that the TSB-C saw right through that one!
It also reminds me just how clunky the S92 automation is!
Quite a good report, I thought.
It also reminds me just how clunky the S92 automation is!
Quite a good report, I thought.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC, I agree, the report is very concise. What caught my eye was the two previous occurrences in 2007 and 2008 that were not reported to the TSB but internally investigated only.
The 16 main findings and 3 other findings are as always valuable lessons learned. If we are to truly adopt a shields down mode of transparency then we should end up in a better place down the road for all.
Safe flying
Max
The 16 main findings and 3 other findings are as always valuable lessons learned. If we are to truly adopt a shields down mode of transparency then we should end up in a better place down the road for all.
Safe flying
Max
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keithl,
I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you and HC - I was not. However, there are others on this thread who have not been very complimentary to one another (better, HC?).
As for the review, that is exactly what BALPA has asked for, so I must agree with your earlier post!
The AAIB report will give us the answers to this accident, but unless we as a group push very hard, that is where it will end. As professional pilots we cannot 'rest on our collective laurels': we owe it to our passengers, our families and ourselves to continue to push for better flight safety, in all aspects of our operations.
The latest Transport Canada report shows that there are still major problems we must confront - only extremely good fortune prevented another CFIT disaster.
As SASless has already said, "shields down" is the only way forward.
bondu
I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you and HC - I was not. However, there are others on this thread who have not been very complimentary to one another (better, HC?).
As for the review, that is exactly what BALPA has asked for, so I must agree with your earlier post!
The AAIB report will give us the answers to this accident, but unless we as a group push very hard, that is where it will end. As professional pilots we cannot 'rest on our collective laurels': we owe it to our passengers, our families and ourselves to continue to push for better flight safety, in all aspects of our operations.
The latest Transport Canada report shows that there are still major problems we must confront - only extremely good fortune prevented another CFIT disaster.
As SASless has already said, "shields down" is the only way forward.
bondu
Maybe, but let me elaborate. I have 3000+ hours experience on modern IFR helicopters with DDAFCS, EFIS, IIDS, 4-axis coupled autopilot and all that other fancy stuff. I gotta say I don't feel any safer with all those black boxes I've got to look after, taking up all that brain power making sure they're doing what I thought I've told them to do, and contemplating whether I am where I'm supposed to be. Supposedly making the flying easier for me. Because it doesn't.
More recently I've gotten back to basics flying busted-arse 40 year old IFR helicopter with no auto-pilot, no electronic displays, no nothing, just a weather radar and a single GPS. More-over, the float bottle might have no gas in it, the engines might be on extension 100 hours past TBO, the liferafts might be time-ex, and the windscreen wipers don't work especially when it's bucketing down in a tropical thunderstorm for 5 months of the year. In my situation, if I had a modern helicopter with all that elaborate auto-pilot stuff mentioned before, wouldn't get me home under the IFR, and it would be a maintenance nightmare. If I can get down to 300' and see the sea surface through a hole in the scud that's all the break I need to get VFR and get home. Failing that, just turn around and go back to where I started out from, which doesn't happen very often.
Which is why I say; sometimes these modern helicopters can be a hindrance, just keeping on-top of everything, with all those check-lists and other things to contend with that keep a 2-pilot crew busy. I know, I've been there. Which is why my busted-arse 40-year old helicopter with the pilot door window wound down can get me home, because once I can see what's going on outside is probably much safer than all those black boxes taking up my concentration and brain power when I can't see outside.
I know my circumstances can't be applied to the NS environment, for a whole stack of reasons. I'm just making an argument that getting back to the most basics as part of a wider training regime can be of benefit...
More recently I've gotten back to basics flying busted-arse 40 year old IFR helicopter with no auto-pilot, no electronic displays, no nothing, just a weather radar and a single GPS. More-over, the float bottle might have no gas in it, the engines might be on extension 100 hours past TBO, the liferafts might be time-ex, and the windscreen wipers don't work especially when it's bucketing down in a tropical thunderstorm for 5 months of the year. In my situation, if I had a modern helicopter with all that elaborate auto-pilot stuff mentioned before, wouldn't get me home under the IFR, and it would be a maintenance nightmare. If I can get down to 300' and see the sea surface through a hole in the scud that's all the break I need to get VFR and get home. Failing that, just turn around and go back to where I started out from, which doesn't happen very often.
Which is why I say; sometimes these modern helicopters can be a hindrance, just keeping on-top of everything, with all those check-lists and other things to contend with that keep a 2-pilot crew busy. I know, I've been there. Which is why my busted-arse 40-year old helicopter with the pilot door window wound down can get me home, because once I can see what's going on outside is probably much safer than all those black boxes taking up my concentration and brain power when I can't see outside.
I know my circumstances can't be applied to the NS environment, for a whole stack of reasons. I'm just making an argument that getting back to the most basics as part of a wider training regime can be of benefit...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of, if not THE, most bizarre replies to this thread.
Interesting that five months following discussions with the regulator they came out with the following CASA Search -- Federal Agencies meta-collection -- CEO-PN029-2005
It's basically a reprint of what was once included as a supplement in the flight manual. But it has one very important revision, it absolved this particular oil company from complying with OEI requirements, because it is a private operation. So should you lose an engine in crap weather and all bolt holes are clagged, good luck. The weather to be contended with had everything the North Sea could dish up, save the icing.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Gullibell, your last post has me lost for words. If only half of what you post is true then for the love of god...find another job. Vote with your feet.
DB
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 13th Sep 2013 at 02:16.
What I'm saying is throwing more money at training and fancy helicopters might not be the solution....the Op I gave example too is perfectly safe, not because we have a $15m+ helicopter with all the bells and whilstles and simulator trained crews and the rest of it. Because we don't. We have completely busted arse helicopters (by International standards), very limited on-going training (I never did an off-shore check in 3 years), and no simulator training at all, not for anybody. We don't have check-lists and manuals and documentation of Encyclopedia Britannia proportions. Everything is boiled down to the important stuff, plus the not-so-important mandatory regulatory stuff which gets kept on the shelf for when the auditors come once per year.
The Oil Company (client) is perfectly happy, for $150k/month + $1k/flight hour + fuel they get 24/7 IFR helicopter with experienced crew and maintenance support. And the bears are happy, despite getting soaking wet when it rains because the cabin leaks like a sieve, and despite not having much fresh air because the cabin ventilation is disconnected to help keep some of the rain out. Fortunately they don't need to wear the Michelin Man suits because the water is a comfortable 28+ degreesC all year round. The pilots do their very best at keeping them out of the water, because the liferaft probably doesn't work and the sharks will get you for sure if you went for a swim.
What works for us is having 2 very experienced Captains up the front, where if the guy driving did something hair-brain or through temporary loss of attention the other surely would whack him, and a very simple helicopter with nothing too complicated to think about. Total attention can be focused on finding a hole in the scud and then creep home up the river in sight of at least 1 river bank without any complicated distractions like coupled auto-pilots and other things. And of course just as important is the guy who's swinging the spanner back in the hangar totally knows his stuff, despite probably coming off the end of an 18 hour shift after clearing any maintenance snags encountered during the day.
And let me just say the Op mentioned here is not the Op mentioned by BA above. But I did learn the ropes at said Op mentioned by BA and I am very appreciative for that. I learned a lot. And I have him and about 15 or so other Captains to thank for those lessons learned.
The Oil Company (client) is perfectly happy, for $150k/month + $1k/flight hour + fuel they get 24/7 IFR helicopter with experienced crew and maintenance support. And the bears are happy, despite getting soaking wet when it rains because the cabin leaks like a sieve, and despite not having much fresh air because the cabin ventilation is disconnected to help keep some of the rain out. Fortunately they don't need to wear the Michelin Man suits because the water is a comfortable 28+ degreesC all year round. The pilots do their very best at keeping them out of the water, because the liferaft probably doesn't work and the sharks will get you for sure if you went for a swim.
What works for us is having 2 very experienced Captains up the front, where if the guy driving did something hair-brain or through temporary loss of attention the other surely would whack him, and a very simple helicopter with nothing too complicated to think about. Total attention can be focused on finding a hole in the scud and then creep home up the river in sight of at least 1 river bank without any complicated distractions like coupled auto-pilots and other things. And of course just as important is the guy who's swinging the spanner back in the hangar totally knows his stuff, despite probably coming off the end of an 18 hour shift after clearing any maintenance snags encountered during the day.
And let me just say the Op mentioned here is not the Op mentioned by BA above. But I did learn the ropes at said Op mentioned by BA and I am very appreciative for that. I learned a lot. And I have him and about 15 or so other Captains to thank for those lessons learned.
Last edited by gulliBell; 13th Sep 2013 at 03:55.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Gullibell, I am sure you are really good at what you do. However, I would suggest you have Been lucky thus far - if you actually operate in the manner you describe!!
The statistics indicate, that more often than not, these events occur to experienced pilots. Like you purport to be!!!
You ought to at least recognise, that flying in marginal VMC (and I would class scud running up river banks as marginal) below mandated limits, in what you describe as a "Busted Arse" helicopter without AP, having the opportunity to train only every three years, leaves you with very little margin for error.
I started on a S341 in Germany flying pax in the IF corridor, IMC without even a SAS. I was young, dumb and utterly naive. I now operate the most capable and sophisticated helicopters ever built. I have seen both ends and I know which end is safer. Sophistication enhances safety only when the Pilot fully understands it. Your post implies to me that you prefer scud running to even attempting to progress. There is nothing to fear in the modern cockpit provided the crew are correctly trained.
The worst aspect of your post is you almost seem proud of what you are doing. I feel sorry for the passengers subjected to such a shoddy operation. They deserve a lot better. You deserve a lot better.
Read your posts again........
You are actually suggesting we solve our problems by throwing away our modern helicopters and replacing them with helicopters with "Broken Bottoms", serviced by engineers who get only 6 hours rest in 24, doing little to no training, no checking at all, removing all known VMC limits, stocking the North Sea with Sharks (to motivate us to stay out of the water - your words), disabling the heaters (Kristiandsund Bears will love that), burning the checklists and manuals and replacing CRM and MCC with a mandate to inflict Physical Violence for any transgressions, with the sole aim of offering the Oil Companies a service at £1k per flight hour.
You should be in management!!!
Having said that, stay safe and I wish you luck. Lots of it.
DB
The statistics indicate, that more often than not, these events occur to experienced pilots. Like you purport to be!!!
You ought to at least recognise, that flying in marginal VMC (and I would class scud running up river banks as marginal) below mandated limits, in what you describe as a "Busted Arse" helicopter without AP, having the opportunity to train only every three years, leaves you with very little margin for error.
I started on a S341 in Germany flying pax in the IF corridor, IMC without even a SAS. I was young, dumb and utterly naive. I now operate the most capable and sophisticated helicopters ever built. I have seen both ends and I know which end is safer. Sophistication enhances safety only when the Pilot fully understands it. Your post implies to me that you prefer scud running to even attempting to progress. There is nothing to fear in the modern cockpit provided the crew are correctly trained.
The worst aspect of your post is you almost seem proud of what you are doing. I feel sorry for the passengers subjected to such a shoddy operation. They deserve a lot better. You deserve a lot better.
Read your posts again........
You are actually suggesting we solve our problems by throwing away our modern helicopters and replacing them with helicopters with "Broken Bottoms", serviced by engineers who get only 6 hours rest in 24, doing little to no training, no checking at all, removing all known VMC limits, stocking the North Sea with Sharks (to motivate us to stay out of the water - your words), disabling the heaters (Kristiandsund Bears will love that), burning the checklists and manuals and replacing CRM and MCC with a mandate to inflict Physical Violence for any transgressions, with the sole aim of offering the Oil Companies a service at £1k per flight hour.
You should be in management!!!
Having said that, stay safe and I wish you luck. Lots of it.
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 13th Sep 2013 at 05:59.
No, that is not a perfectly safe operation - you are just riding your luck!
If you end up in the sea, any investigation will leave the oil company and the operator (and possibly the pilots) in very messy litigation.
I suspect we have all pushed the limits in our time but to make that normal operating procedure is irresponsible - to then pretend it is somehow safe is fatuous (and probably criminal).
If you end up in the sea, any investigation will leave the oil company and the operator (and possibly the pilots) in very messy litigation.
I suspect we have all pushed the limits in our time but to make that normal operating procedure is irresponsible - to then pretend it is somehow safe is fatuous (and probably criminal).
No, what I'm suggesting is more of the same doesn't seem to be working in the NS. Perhaps it's time to look wider afield and take a fresh look at things, encompass even what might seem on the face of it to be extreme views. As we all know there is more than one way to get the job done safely.
What I'm not suggesting is transposing my environment to yours: it's horses for courses. Your flash modern horse just wouldn't work in my environment, it might get in the air but some of the time it wouldn't get back, not unless you can creep up a river visually when the weather is below IFR. Our old busted arse helicopters aren't dropping in the tide, our bears are happy despite getting rained on occasionally, and the client seems happy. With all this simplicity surrounding us we just haven't seen the holes in the Swiss cheese coming into unfortunate alignment yet. Introducing complexity into the equation is likely to change things for the worse, certainly in our environment.
So I'm advocating simplicity, reliance on experience and common sense, and 2 pilots up the front who would whack each other very vigorously if either saw the other do something that they shouldn't, or not do something they should.
What I'm not suggesting is transposing my environment to yours: it's horses for courses. Your flash modern horse just wouldn't work in my environment, it might get in the air but some of the time it wouldn't get back, not unless you can creep up a river visually when the weather is below IFR. Our old busted arse helicopters aren't dropping in the tide, our bears are happy despite getting rained on occasionally, and the client seems happy. With all this simplicity surrounding us we just haven't seen the holes in the Swiss cheese coming into unfortunate alignment yet. Introducing complexity into the equation is likely to change things for the worse, certainly in our environment.
So I'm advocating simplicity, reliance on experience and common sense, and 2 pilots up the front who would whack each other very vigorously if either saw the other do something that they shouldn't, or not do something they should.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Gullibell, you are a walking talking Swiss cheese and a shocking example to anyone reading this thread. I can only hope you are some king of "wind up" merchant OR if this is not the case, CASA identify you and take you out of the system along with anyone else involved in that operation!!
DB
DB
OK, bondu, that's fine.
While I completely agree that there are many things to be looked at, the only area where I feel I can make a contribution is the area of keeping the aircraft out of the water. That's why my posts concentrate on training and instrument approach procedures. I'm just cleaning my bit of the hangar floor.
And...well...my earlier post did slag off "MPs and posturing Trade Union leaders", so fair cop on that one. But I do support the idea of a wider review.
While I completely agree that there are many things to be looked at, the only area where I feel I can make a contribution is the area of keeping the aircraft out of the water. That's why my posts concentrate on training and instrument approach procedures. I'm just cleaning my bit of the hangar floor.
And...well...my earlier post did slag off "MPs and posturing Trade Union leaders", so fair cop on that one. But I do support the idea of a wider review.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gulliBell
YOU''re are getting paid to make the decision to 'go' or 'no go' with this aircraft.
To make this decision is part of your job.
This decision is a big hole in the swiss cheese.
YOU MUPPET.
If the world comes to bite you in the ass, due to you not being able to see out of the windscreen, and you end up in the water with no floats or liferaft, YOU and YOU alone will have some explaining to do. - to your passengers' families, and your employer.
I think neither of the above would wish you to be doing what you are doing.
Please consider a change of career.
40 year old IFR helicopter with no auto-pilot, no electronic displays, no nothing, just a weather radar and a single GPS. More-over, the float bottle might have no gas in it, the engines might be on extension 100 hours past TBO, the liferafts might be time-ex, and the windscreen wipers don't work especially when it's bucketing down in a tropical thunderstorm for 5 months of the year.
To make this decision is part of your job.
This decision is a big hole in the swiss cheese.
YOU MUPPET.
If the world comes to bite you in the ass, due to you not being able to see out of the windscreen, and you end up in the water with no floats or liferaft, YOU and YOU alone will have some explaining to do. - to your passengers' families, and your employer.
I think neither of the above would wish you to be doing what you are doing.
Please consider a change of career.
Last edited by Jetboxer; 13th Sep 2013 at 09:15.
