Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013

Old 15th Sep 2013, 10:07
  #1741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@Keitll: apologies, did not mean black/white choices just worded poorly. Appropriate level of automation is indeed what I am after; and sometimes that boils down to hand flying (either assisted by the AP/SAS system or not, depending on the system).

As far as cockpit gradient is concerned: as a Line Trainer I stress the fact that I am very capable of making my own mistakes and therefore they have the duty to speak up if they are not happy. Mostly I try to be humorous about it to avoid any tension, saying something like "Don't kill me and don't allow me to kill you".

When correcting errors I make an effort to keep the emotions out and calmly discuss events later. Ensure the safey of the flight, the rest is secondary. Every error, after correction, is first and foremost an opportunity to learn. That also goes for my own errors, and whenever they have corrected me I am very happy with their performance and tell them so.

There is never any doubt about who is in charge on the flight, so my attitude does not diminish the capability to take decisions, very quickly if required. But it also helps to create an open atmosphere where my copilot feels safe to monitor my actions, and act if required.

Guys, this is a great discussion and a shame it needed a fatal accident to generate it.
S76Heavy is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 10:35
  #1742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,217
Received 315 Likes on 175 Posts
In addition, what proportion of a pilot's annual simulator time might be spent in practicing these 'Its time to take over' scenarios?
In my experience, the true value of creating these scenarios - either deliberately or through the crew actually inducing a UP/UA - is debatable. The problem is that the PM will often not take control for one of two reasons:
  • He knew he was in a sim and wanted the PF to sort himself out for training value
  • He knew he was in a sim and wasn't concerned about the consequence of hitting the ground/water

That said, such events have normally resulted in fairly forthright debriefs, and those who have taken control are commended.

Last edited by 212man; 15th Sep 2013 at 10:37.
212man is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 10:39
  #1743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 4 Posts
212 Man I fully agree. It's very difficult to create these scenarios to any degree of training value. However it is an area we need to really look at closely.

DB
DOUBLE BOGEY is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 11:10
  #1744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
One of the things I noticed since we got the 225 sim, was that the majority of debrief points were aimed at PM. Before that, it was very difficult to do valid PM training in the aircraft.

Whilst there is a general requirement to train for all roles the pilot will act in, IIRC there are no specific PM tick items in the generic multi-pilot prof check, although of course there are in our operator elements.

Last edited by HeliComparator; 15th Sep 2013 at 11:11.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 14:03
  #1745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 62
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More thoughts from an ex Pax

From DB
Hopefully the HSSG, the Government enquiry into helicopter safety and the AAIB will identify these cultural obstacles and force the Operates to properly and adequately mandate the use of Automation in sufficient detail, for each type, such that the loss of life, caused by these completely avoidable accidents, ends forever.

In addition we must now surely all recognise the enormous safety benefits of a DAFCS with in built flight envelope protections.
I want you guys, the biggest contributors to this thread, to try and bring the learned outcomes to the enquiry, or the HSSG, I worry that it won't find it's way there otherwise? There has been fantastic input from many here, in particular DB (who already seems to have huge respect from his peers for the improved procedures for night flying after ETAP from what I have read), HC, 26500lbs, keithl, victor papa and others. How can we make this happen?
I know HC works for Bristows, don't know and not asking about the others either, but is there no forum or method for getting some workshop or workgroup together from the 3 Aberdeen companies, with trainers and NS pilots included?

The comparison with Norwegian statistics was mentioned early on lots of times. We should also ask the question why are Bristows UK statistics so much better than the other 2? Is it chance - remember no criticism here - shields down and looking for learnings.

26500lbs quote
I agree with Al-bert and Crab in that more training would be a godsend. I really hope this can be a reality. It was always a luxury we had in the military that training hours and aircraft without pax on board were available. Now we only have the sim. Al-bert mentioned the autopilot culture and said should we just go all the way, with pilots really just monitoring? This is the direction we are heading. With the introduction of the new rig-approach into the S92 autopilot system the pilot will effectively only need to take control once committed to landing. With the introduction of all these fantastic levels of automation we must be even more cautious as to how to implement them and how to support our pilots through training. We must also use them completely and thoroughly to reap their benefit. This has to develop. Basic flying skill MUST not be lost. Otherwise we might as well sit in Mumbai with a non-alcoholic cocktail. Sounds nice to me on a dark winter night but not sure it will sell!
More training - tailored to needs - agreed.
I don't want to be flown by anyone remotely from Mumbai - ever. The new Rig Approach AP mentioned for S92 also worries me (also as previous comments say S92 AP very inerior to EC225?) - the helideck is usually very close to the Derrick - I would want to be hand flown on/off the rig as we are now.

S76Heavy Post
As far as cockpit gradient is concerned: as a Line Trainer I stress the fact that I am very capable of making my own mistakes and therefore they have the duty to speak up if they are not happy. Mostly I try to be humorous about it to avoid any tension, saying something like "Don't kill me and don't allow me to kill you".

When correcting errors I make an effort to keep the emotions out and calmly discuss events later. Ensure the safey of the flight, the rest is secondary. Every error, after correction, is first and foremost an opportunity to learn. That also goes for my own errors, and whenever they have corrected me I am very happy with their performance and tell them so.

There is never any doubt about who is in charge on the flight, so my attitude does not diminish the capability to take decisions, very quickly if required. But it also helps to create an open atmosphere where my copilot feels safe to monitor my actions, and act if required.
Could not agree with this more. Also agree with the post by 212 man - this cannot really be trained in the SIM - it's a culture that needs to be built if it is not there already - and it does not appear to be there from what I have read.

Finally (for this post) EASA already knew a lot of the above. In a much earlier post I mentioned a section of a report from them, first issued in 2009 but then uprevved in February this year - but I don't know if anyone read it - but nobody commented so I am going to post the link and a section in below, but there is much more in this section of the report than I have posted here.

8.6 Training Areas of Special Emphasis (TASE).
8.6.1 General
Within “Super-Puma Fleet”, each variant differs from the others in complexity and sophistication;
EC225 LP and AS332e should be considered as highly automated aircraft.
Several studies have identified that automation (its use and its limitations) is not well understood by a part of the pilot community. This in turn can lead to situations where pilots are unable to satisfactorily control the flight path of their aircraft.
This leads to two separate but connected issues:
a. Understanding how to use the automatics, what can go wrong with the automatics and how to cope when they do go wrong, and
b. The need to retain the ability, when all else fails, to recover the aircraft manually.
Training, initial, additional and recurrent are the only effective mitigation for these issues.
Automatics and their integration with other systems should be taught holistically, rather than treating it as a separate subject.
Training providers should ensure that pilots completing training courses for highly automated aircraftsuch as the EC225 LP & AS332e and to a lesser extent, the AS332L2, have a detailed operational knowledge of the automatic flight systems and have demonstrated competence in their use. The
Type Rating examination question paper should test a pilot’s understanding of how the automatics affect the operation of the aircraft. Furthermore operators should have in place a programme of training that will ensure pilots are able to retain their manual flying skills.

Last edited by thelearner; 15th Sep 2013 at 14:07. Reason: formatting last section
thelearner is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 14:12
  #1746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 62
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some people have also asked if this accident would have been prevented if Sumburgh had a full ILS system. This question has never really been answered?

I know weather delays frustrate the bears, and I guess the pilots too, and cost the companies a lot of money, and make hotels and bars in Aberdeen a vast amount of money.

Would ILS (or the more modern alternatives MLS and upcoming Satellite systems?) be a huge benefit, and reduce delays and therefore costs and pay for themselves over time? I know we will never (hopefully) have ILS for landing offshore, but often the Shetlands are fogged in and the offshore rigs are clear?

I have landed ILS in Aberdeen on helicopters (EC225 not sure about earlier models) and it seems fine - fine for fixed wing so should be OK for helicopters? Can you land ILS with lower height for visibilty than non ILS on a chopper - I am sure you can in fixed wing?
thelearner is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 14:35
  #1747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 4 Posts
Learner. There is an ILS at Sumburgh but it is on R/W 27 The L2 crew flew an approach to R/W 09. I do not know why but it could be any of the following:

1. 27 was not available
2. or the ILS unserviceable.
3. Crew decided to approach to 09 due to wind direction

Current culture would imply that if the ILS 27 was flown it would likely to have been fully coupled. This is a complex supposition based on observed behaviours.
The presence of both Glideslope and Localiser seems to attract a fully coupled response in most crews.

To put this into some context, in 18 years I have spent flying IFR offshore I have actually never done a Localiser approach for real. It is an unusual occurrence.

In poor WX, such as Sumburgh that day, I personally would have ignored the wind direction as reported and opted for ILS 27, assuming of course that it was serviceable and available. The crew may not have had this option.

DB

Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 15th Sep 2013 at 14:37.
DOUBLE BOGEY is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 14:47
  #1748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 62
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK DB Thanks, I was not aware of ILS on r/w 27 at Sumburgh. Does Scatsta have ILS?

From what you say crew have the choice of runway in situations like this, and I realise wind direction is important for flight and landing, but in your opinion an ILS landing would have been possible unless there were other factors and r/w 27 or ILS not available.
Edited to add - the crew also have the choice of what AP level or mode to use - obviously - if flying on ILS is your decision point at a lower height or closer distance than when flying manually, as I assume from your reply most use fully coupled on ILS - but it's still their choice, or I assume the choice of the captain?

To put this into some context, in 18 years I have spent flying IFR offshore I have actually never done a Localiser approach for real. It is an unusual occurrence.
Can you explain to us non flyers what a localiser approach is? I go to wikipedia but not always the best - are you saying r/w09 has a localiser guide which can be used?

ABZ only has one runway, but not for helicopters who have the short side approaches. On murky days at ABZ, do you fly ILS in poor vis and land on the main runway regardless of wind direction? Although on murky days there is usually not that much wind.

Last edited by thelearner; 15th Sep 2013 at 15:09.
thelearner is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 15:10
  #1749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 466 Likes on 190 Posts
The new Rig Approach AP mentioned for S92 also worries me (also as previous comments say S92 AP very inerior to EC225?) - the helideck is usually very close to the Derrick - I would want to be hand flown on/off the rig as we are now.
You will still be hand flown on and off the decks using the Sikorsky Automated Approach.


I would suggest the criticism of the SK Autopilot system while comparing it to the EC system is exactly the same concept as has been done by some comparing the Boeing/EC Fixed Wing automation philosophies.....just accept they are different and each have their merits and perhaps shortcomings.

The questions that keep cropping up now are very much the same that have been brought up before....and the explanation for why they remain is still the same as before.

As noted by way too many of us....it is the "Culture" of the Offshore Helicopter Business (that includes every single one of the participants...CAA, EASA, JAA, FAA, Helicopter Operators, Oil Companies, Unions, Pilots, Engineers, Insurance Companies), that is the root cause of all these issues.

Each participant has its own agenda, own Ox that gets gored whenever changes do occur and thus must be defended.

Until an agreement can be arrived at that will facilitate a truly free debate and genuine willingness to address ALL of the issues and settle upon a prioritized program of improvements, followed up by an evaluation of the various projects to determine if all the players are working together as they should....not much will change. As in the Past....we shall only see incremental change that evolves from biased decisions and not fundamental changes that we need.

We have to get away from the attitude of looking for excuses "not to do something" and embrace an attitude of seeking ways "to do" something.

A quick and simple example.....the Sikorsky Automated Approach....was immediately "Dead on Arrival" in UK waters as expressed by some. I fully understand there are very serious considerations that need to be weighed in adopting such a novel concept....but at least it should be approached with an attitude of "How can we make use of this new Technology?".

We can look back and recall the very great reluctance of the UK to embrace GPS.

Lord knows....we had that discussion all those years here at Rotorheads and just recently it has been discussed here if not in this particular thread. For sure it was at the "Bristow Photos" thread.

There have been excellent ideas for positive change presented here along with some very enlightened commentary by those in a position to see the need for improvements.
SASless is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 15:13
  #1750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 4 Posts
Learner,

No ILS at Scatsta. Shell took the ESB Operation there from EGPB to save money. no doubt about this.

ILS is available on both 16 and 34 at Aberdeen. Usually the active runways the one predominantly into wind.

Crews can request another runway other than the active.

The Operating Rules for onshore landings require NS heavy helicopters to adhere to Performance Class 1.

To achieve PC1 in EC heavies we use the CAT A Performance Supplement in the Flight Manual which prohibits landings with a downwind component. The "Landing" in this context is the very last bit from 40 knots and 100 feet. The direction of the approach runway may be different from the actual "Landing" if manoeuvring space exists like a crossing runway.

The regulations permit a Commander to ignore rule(s) if he believes the safety of his crew and passengers is better served by doing so.

There are many factors in play that result in a particular runway being favoured over another and it would be grossly unfair to the L2 Crew to comment on their decision as we do not have enough information but I am sure the AAIB will be looking at this aspect along with many others.

DB

Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 15th Sep 2013 at 15:15.
DOUBLE BOGEY is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 15:20
  #1751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 4 Posts
SAS, sorry buddy, there are no shortcomings in the EC225/175/155 autopilot. (Provided it is used properly). They are the only systems with full flight envelope protection.

Only a matter of time until AW and Sikorsky catch up.

Anybody know if the AW189 has protections??

DB
DOUBLE BOGEY is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 15:36
  #1752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
DB I seem to recall there was a fairly prolonged period last year (or two) when the glideslope at Aberdeen 16(?) was inop (antenna damaged by a snowplough IIRC). This was after your time on the N Sea I suspect, but means that most Abz pilots did quite a few localiser only approaches.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 15:41
  #1753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SE England
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DB, it may be a rare event to fly a LOC/DME approach into Aberdeen but it's something that will be done plenty by anyone operating out of Sumburgh on a regular basis.
FC80 is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 15:48
  #1754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 4 Posts
HC & FC80 thanks for the corrections. My EGPB based operations were before the ILSs were installed.

DB

Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 15th Sep 2013 at 15:50.
DOUBLE BOGEY is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 17:12
  #1755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thelearner, tks for incl me in a elite group BUT really I dont belong there. Worked 8 weeks along time ago only in the NS and worked for 1 of the operators remotely for a few years but not part of the big players at the moment.

Advantage of a smaller new offshore company, I took our proposals to change SOP's direct to top management ignoring Quality abd Safety and their audit checklists. CEO and Ops manager asked for updates from this thread and what the big boys are saying as well as started asking casual questions to our crews. Result, we snagged a aircraft for auto pilot uncommanded yaw inputs and asked different crews to do test flight without knowing situation and report status of aircraft. We identified the "I dont need the FLM or AMM checklist to decide", "dont really need it so dont know difference", "dont know how to interpret FLM instruction", "know the system and followed the correct FLM check and accordingly certified aircraft as serviceable" crews. We even got to identify a Commander who knew the system and FLM but got side tracked by his co-plt ego! We now have loads off additional sim sessions and prev sim training under investigation, aircraft hours allocated, auto pilot ground school being booked with manufacturer and human factors-in addition to CRM-training for all pilots and engineers.

Not so easy in a big organisation, but I think the process followed by the company using a nonexistant defect and test flights by different crew taught us how many variables a known can have! Aircraft was fully serviceable during the exercise.
victor papa is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 17:47
  #1756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 466 Likes on 190 Posts
Advantage of a smaller new offshore company, I took our proposals to change SOP's direct to top management ignoring Quality abd Safety and their audit checklists. CEO and Ops manager asked for updates from this thread and what the big boys are saying as well as started asking casual questions to our crews.
Try that in a large, old, organization with well entrenched constituencies and see how far you get?

We have lots of very senior people who on the one hand want to push their agenda but very likely have defended their own Rice Bowl against similar challenges in the past as they worked their way up that greasy pole of management and training.

Turf Protection can be a sinister evil thing especially when done behind closed doors by a group of folks who share a secret handshake or membership in a society closed but to themselves and those they invite to participate.

Please note....I am not referring to the Free Masons, Knights of Columbus, or Salvation Army here.

But....I bet you can recognize the generic sorts of folks to whom I refer....by type, character, and ego size.

Last edited by SASless; 15th Sep 2013 at 17:48.
SASless is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 18:23
  #1757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Age: 77
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
thelearner

No-one's answered yr question re Localiser Approaches.
It's simply that with an ILS, you get an instrument display of the approach profile in two dimensions, Horizontal = LOCALISER; Vertical = GLIDESLOPE.

If a GLIDESLOPE (G/S) is not provided (as Sumburgh 09) or if it fails (e.g. HC's Aberdeen example) the approach is flown by following the LOCALISER, but descending according to tabulated guidance about what altitude you should be at for your distance out. So it's called a LOCALISER approach

For your purposes, will this do? I'm assuming you want to understand the general idea, not the technicalities.

Last edited by keithl; 15th Sep 2013 at 18:47.
keithl is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 19:35
  #1758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 62
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
keithl - yes thanks for answering- explains it perfectly. I had searched and found a caa localiser approach chart for sumburgh r/w 09 - I think - but I won't pretend I could understand the chart fully - although I can see the glideslope heights which it was on at 3 miles out before things started to go wrong according to aaib report.

Edited to add - when I have had the best seat in the house (for watching and learning - not escaping!) and the curtain has been open I have watched ILS landing in Aberdeen and can see how easy it is to monitor progress against glideslope.

Last edited by thelearner; 15th Sep 2013 at 19:37.
thelearner is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 21:09
  #1759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,217
Received 315 Likes on 175 Posts
Some people have also asked if this accident would have been prevented if Sumburgh had a full ILS system. This question has never really been answered
Flying an ILS is the same as flying a CDFA NPA approach but with the latter having higher minima. There is vast inertia within the RW community -partly shown within this thread - about the merits of the concept. In simple terms - "people need to get out more!"

Last edited by 212man; 15th Sep 2013 at 21:10.
212man is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2013, 21:37
  #1760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
212Man, it is not; an ILS gives guidance in the vertical which makes a world of difference.
Like others I am far from convinced that the CDFA NPA is as good as some think it is. I was taught the dive and drive and to me it still has its place and merit.
But I'll take an ILS everytime.
S76Heavy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.