EC155 incident, SNS, 6 Nov 2013
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Hompy - Your comments in your last post stab right at the heart of this problem. There needs to be crystal clear instructions from the OEM as to the correct use of the AFCS. This is happening in the background but it is a slow and sometimes painful process.
DB
DB
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May or may not be relavant but for whats its worth.Talking only about N2,the go around button was for go arounds mainly if you were doing an approach at say 100 kts,if you pressed the go around button the aircraft would put 70 kts indicated(I think by memory)and the aircraft would nose up to change the attitude to climb away.If you did this climbing out from a rig and you had less than 70 kts indicated it would push the nose down looking to increase the aircraft speed until you acheived 70 then it would nose up which would mean you are diving at the sea,not a good idea.as I have stated not up on 155 auto pilot so may be a red herring???
DB,
We would love crystal clear instructions from the OEM but in my experience on the EC225 the output at times isn't that clear at all. Also why is it even as a trainer so hard to get a copy of the latest THM and other training notes? I would have thought it was in the manufacturers interest to give pilots access to all that to improve their knowledge and in doing so make them safer.
Regards,
Finalchecksplease
We would love crystal clear instructions from the OEM but in my experience on the EC225 the output at times isn't that clear at all. Also why is it even as a trainer so hard to get a copy of the latest THM and other training notes? I would have thought it was in the manufacturers interest to give pilots access to all that to improve their knowledge and in doing so make them safer.
Regards,
Finalchecksplease
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
FINALSCHECKSPLEASE - I agree with you and you are not the only pilot to make those comments. In our case I think there has been a lack of understanding between various commercial elements in the Company. Certain departments have viewed publications as a sales opportunity when they could be viewed as essential product support services.
Like all innovative manufacturers there is a natural fear of commercial espionage and sometimes this can lead to a resistance to release information generally.
So much for our excuses! I feel confident however that we are trying to address these issues as best we can and it will take time, especially to get the right information into the right publication. These processes do not absolve the Operators from optimising their training based on the current information available, assisted by the support and guidance of their local Airbus training centre. In my experience the Operators have yet to engage us at the correct level which is a shame as we could even now be in a better place.
I was trained by Industry and have been subsequently trained by the OEM. The emphasis by each is different with Industry holding expertise in the operating environment and the OEM holding expertise in the product. It seems almost inconceivable that we have not, as yet, managed to combine these qualities and capabilities to the point where we are serving correctly the needs of operational flight crew.
In my opinion we are hindered by inappropriate management involvement, culture and in some cases, dogma and fear of change. We need to clear these barriers away and communicate our data and ideas freely to capture the optimum processes.
I live in hope that we will one day achieve this especially before we suffer any more totally avoidable loss of life.
DB
Like all innovative manufacturers there is a natural fear of commercial espionage and sometimes this can lead to a resistance to release information generally.
So much for our excuses! I feel confident however that we are trying to address these issues as best we can and it will take time, especially to get the right information into the right publication. These processes do not absolve the Operators from optimising their training based on the current information available, assisted by the support and guidance of their local Airbus training centre. In my experience the Operators have yet to engage us at the correct level which is a shame as we could even now be in a better place.
I was trained by Industry and have been subsequently trained by the OEM. The emphasis by each is different with Industry holding expertise in the operating environment and the OEM holding expertise in the product. It seems almost inconceivable that we have not, as yet, managed to combine these qualities and capabilities to the point where we are serving correctly the needs of operational flight crew.
In my opinion we are hindered by inappropriate management involvement, culture and in some cases, dogma and fear of change. We need to clear these barriers away and communicate our data and ideas freely to capture the optimum processes.
I live in hope that we will one day achieve this especially before we suffer any more totally avoidable loss of life.
DB
I must say that I find it incredible that we are even having a discussion about AFCS trim systems in the context of large, IFR, Multi-Pilot Commercial Air Transport aircraft, but it does appear there is a deep-rooted lack of understanding of the basics of SAS and ATT modes and the role of the trim system amongst many pilots. That's before we even begin to look at upper modes and automation! 
When the S-92 appeared in service Norway there was a lot of feedback to SAC about problems crews were having on departure from runways, where they would accelerate with forward cyclic held against the force spring and then found the aircraft 'rearing up' on them when they released the cyclic to engage the FD. SAC even had to publish an ASB or AOL to explain the problem. A similar issue appears to have occured in Canada, and I have seen it first hand having taken on a pilot from that operator. The common response was "but the Super Puma doesn't do that".....!
We did not conduct type rating training in my last organisation - as we were not an ATO - but did do operator conversions, and in the first general handling flight in the aircraft we would emphasise basic handing with no automation, to get a feel of how the aircraft actually behaved. This included progressive deselection of the AFCS functions from dual AP dual SAS, to single AP dual SAS, to dual SAS, to single SAS, to no stabilisation at all - and back again, to give a sense of what assistance was being given by the basic system. We would also practice the use of trim - both beeper and FTR. This seems quite elemental to me, and mirrors what I did on the EC-155 (and the other non-automated types I trained on - S61 and B212).
I know when discussing these kinds of issues with the OEM test pilots there is a sense of incredulity and exasperation, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that view.
One thought that does come to mind, though,which might partially explain this gulf in understanding, is the types of basic training aircraft that are in service (certainly for civillian training) - they generally have no trim system at all! So, even training using Attitude, Power, Trim and Power, Atittude, Trim, has a slight disconnect to it as it's not actually a trimmed state, but 'trimmed attitude retention by the pilot' that's required. So, what emphasis is placed on this basic but essential function during the initial training on a complex type?
By contrast, any fixed wing pilot starting on even the most basic single piston trainer will know the importance of at least pitch trim, and using it will be second nature. More powerful singles, and twins, have a yaw trim too and it's use is also critical - particulaly for IF, formation flying and navigation. I'm old enough to have been taught by an (Military FW) instructor who rewarded sloppy/inaccurate trimming with growling and a thump on the side of the helmet - we could have a separate thread all about insructional technique, I'm sure - however the overriding emotion when it happened was of sadness at dissapointing him and not meeting his expected standards. Conversely, when he gave praise the pride was immense, and his standards became my standards. We remained friends long after. I'm not sure we see this kind of technique for demanding accuracy and standards in the sausage-factory, paying customer, 20 year old hours-building-instructor world that many of the CPL(H)s come from today, but perhaps we should have a modern equivalent!
I digress....but before we discuss automation I think we have some more basic areas to address....
When the S-92 appeared in service Norway there was a lot of feedback to SAC about problems crews were having on departure from runways, where they would accelerate with forward cyclic held against the force spring and then found the aircraft 'rearing up' on them when they released the cyclic to engage the FD. SAC even had to publish an ASB or AOL to explain the problem. A similar issue appears to have occured in Canada, and I have seen it first hand having taken on a pilot from that operator. The common response was "but the Super Puma doesn't do that".....!
We did not conduct type rating training in my last organisation - as we were not an ATO - but did do operator conversions, and in the first general handling flight in the aircraft we would emphasise basic handing with no automation, to get a feel of how the aircraft actually behaved. This included progressive deselection of the AFCS functions from dual AP dual SAS, to single AP dual SAS, to dual SAS, to single SAS, to no stabilisation at all - and back again, to give a sense of what assistance was being given by the basic system. We would also practice the use of trim - both beeper and FTR. This seems quite elemental to me, and mirrors what I did on the EC-155 (and the other non-automated types I trained on - S61 and B212).
I know when discussing these kinds of issues with the OEM test pilots there is a sense of incredulity and exasperation, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that view.
One thought that does come to mind, though,which might partially explain this gulf in understanding, is the types of basic training aircraft that are in service (certainly for civillian training) - they generally have no trim system at all! So, even training using Attitude, Power, Trim and Power, Atittude, Trim, has a slight disconnect to it as it's not actually a trimmed state, but 'trimmed attitude retention by the pilot' that's required. So, what emphasis is placed on this basic but essential function during the initial training on a complex type?
By contrast, any fixed wing pilot starting on even the most basic single piston trainer will know the importance of at least pitch trim, and using it will be second nature. More powerful singles, and twins, have a yaw trim too and it's use is also critical - particulaly for IF, formation flying and navigation. I'm old enough to have been taught by an (Military FW) instructor who rewarded sloppy/inaccurate trimming with growling and a thump on the side of the helmet - we could have a separate thread all about insructional technique, I'm sure - however the overriding emotion when it happened was of sadness at dissapointing him and not meeting his expected standards. Conversely, when he gave praise the pride was immense, and his standards became my standards. We remained friends long after. I'm not sure we see this kind of technique for demanding accuracy and standards in the sausage-factory, paying customer, 20 year old hours-building-instructor world that many of the CPL(H)s come from today, but perhaps we should have a modern equivalent!
I digress....but before we discuss automation I think we have some more basic areas to address....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resolution
BB, DB, HC, 212Man.
I find heartening to know that all the potential safety issues that I have experienced with flying a modern type are being discussed. On the other hand I despair that we are in this position as I thought the industry had progressed from being the 'poor and unsafe' cousin of FW. When did we lose our grip? How long will it take before the above issues are resolved? How long has this technology been flying and therefore have pilots and passengers been exposed?
I find heartening to know that all the potential safety issues that I have experienced with flying a modern type are being discussed. On the other hand I despair that we are in this position as I thought the industry had progressed from being the 'poor and unsafe' cousin of FW. When did we lose our grip? How long will it take before the above issues are resolved? How long has this technology been flying and therefore have pilots and passengers been exposed?
Last edited by Hompy; 15th Jul 2014 at 11:55. Reason: Grammar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ananke you really disappointed me.
We do know what happened in the EC155 incident; the AAIB, using all the data that was recorded, have reported and published the facts, and the trace, for all to read (did you read it before commenting?).
It has been established, not least on this forum (see the discussion above), that pilots do not "...have a generally good knowledge of the aircraft systems" because that implies that when something out of the ordinary happens, they would be able to cope. That this is not so, shows that they have learnt mostly by rote and not by understanding the systems. They are probably not entirely to blame for this as the system appears to be letting them down.
The move away from OPC/LPC - with its reliance upon checking of historical events captured in a tick-box system - to one of facilitating competency, and development of the pilot to have the ability to think through issues that have not been experienced before (resilience), is a fundamental change in direction.
I agree with 'pilotandapprentice' that we all have an individual responsibility for upholding our own standards and taking an interest in our chosen profession. However, this problem is not going to be solved by letting pilots wazz about in multi-million pound transport aircraft. Do they allow that in the A380?
We do know what happened in the EC155 incident; the AAIB, using all the data that was recorded, have reported and published the facts, and the trace, for all to read (did you read it before commenting?).
It has been established, not least on this forum (see the discussion above), that pilots do not "...have a generally good knowledge of the aircraft systems" because that implies that when something out of the ordinary happens, they would be able to cope. That this is not so, shows that they have learnt mostly by rote and not by understanding the systems. They are probably not entirely to blame for this as the system appears to be letting them down.
The move away from OPC/LPC - with its reliance upon checking of historical events captured in a tick-box system - to one of facilitating competency, and development of the pilot to have the ability to think through issues that have not been experienced before (resilience), is a fundamental change in direction.
I agree with 'pilotandapprentice' that we all have an individual responsibility for upholding our own standards and taking an interest in our chosen profession. However, this problem is not going to be solved by letting pilots wazz about in multi-million pound transport aircraft. Do they allow that in the A380?
Last edited by Mars; 15th Jul 2014 at 13:26.
I am reminded of doing ground schools (lots of them!) on the AS332L. Once we had covered how to stoke the boiler with coal, we got onto electrics. As soon as it was mentioned, a groan would go up and the shutters would come down. In order to keep it in its place, it was given a demeaning name ("wiggly amps") whilst something conceptually simple like hydraulics was called "hydraulics", not "squirty fluid" or some other disparaging term. Real men were proud of their ignorance of electrics and wore it as a badge of honour. Only girly swats had any concept of how basic DC and AC electrics worked. So what hope for fancy automation state machines, control laws and algorithms?
How hard can it be?
Eurocopter, a hand full of operators and a helicopter safety steering group at the oil and gas industry group Step change in safety and a forum discussion prompted by an AAIB report on an 8 month old event is leading the charge? Really???
Fancy automation, control laws and algos might sound geeky but 1) in their design there is of course more than half an eye to usability and 2) what have people being doing with their 2000hrs before getting fired into the right hand seat?
Fancy automation, control laws and algos might sound geeky but 1) in their design there is of course more than half an eye to usability and 2) what have people being doing with their 2000hrs before getting fired into the right hand seat?
Mars - merely a reference to:-
Real men were proud of their ignorance of electrics and wore it as a badge of honour. Only girly swats had any concept of how basic DC and AC electrics worked. So what hope for fancy automation state machines, control laws and algorithms?
For anyone wishing to read the report of the RAeS conference "Technology Friend or Foe - the introduction of automation to offshore operations", it is contained here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6mhfyscvy9...e%20Report.pdf
At the moment, the presentations/papers/audio-feed are not freely available but we are working at having them released to all.
Jim
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6mhfyscvy9...e%20Report.pdf
At the moment, the presentations/papers/audio-feed are not freely available but we are working at having them released to all.
Jim
Last edited by JimL; 17th Jul 2014 at 15:24.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC,
Perhaps your sense of humor failed you. You did see the wee small figure at the end of the sentence did you not?
Read back through this Thread and you will notice I have posted a lot that fully agrees with the thoughts and comments made by JimL in his Report.
Having done that well in advance of his posting that link I should think you could remember that or are you getting Old Timer's Disease called CRS?
I am guessing there are some Mea Culpa's due out of some Senior folks if the content of the Symposium is to be taken to heart by all. You reckon that will happen? Will anyone stand up and admit to being a naughty boy for being a part of the system that has gotten us to the situation we find ourselves confronting?
The Report JimL posted paints a very sad picture of our Industry and its leadership.
At least now we are talking about in in the open which is a change in itself.
Perhaps your sense of humor failed you. You did see the wee small figure at the end of the sentence did you not?
Read back through this Thread and you will notice I have posted a lot that fully agrees with the thoughts and comments made by JimL in his Report.
Having done that well in advance of his posting that link I should think you could remember that or are you getting Old Timer's Disease called CRS?
I am guessing there are some Mea Culpa's due out of some Senior folks if the content of the Symposium is to be taken to heart by all. You reckon that will happen? Will anyone stand up and admit to being a naughty boy for being a part of the system that has gotten us to the situation we find ourselves confronting?
The Report JimL posted paints a very sad picture of our Industry and its leadership.
At least now we are talking about in in the open which is a change in itself.
For anyone wishing to read the report of the RAeS conference "Technology Friend or Foe - the introduction of automation to offshore operations", it is contained here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6mhfyscvy9...e%20Report.pdf
At the moment, the presentations/papers/audio-feed are not freely available but we are working at having them released to all.
Jim
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6mhfyscvy9...e%20Report.pdf
At the moment, the presentations/papers/audio-feed are not freely available but we are working at having them released to all.
Jim
I hope the presentations can be released too. I also wonder if the cost model can be adjusted. I made the point in my presentation that there was not a single line pilot in the audience - although there was a retired pilot who had an interest I these things, present.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering the existing system and environments at the various Operators the absence of Line Pilots seems not unusual at all.
The very last folks that ever get a chance to make useful inputs are those at the bottom of the Totem Pole.
How many Operators fund Line Pilot's attendance at such events or even advertise the events by Inter-Company Notices?
The very last folks that ever get a chance to make useful inputs are those at the bottom of the Totem Pole.
How many Operators fund Line Pilot's attendance at such events or even advertise the events by Inter-Company Notices?