Teaching and testing 'Pilot Incapacitation in Commercial Helicopters
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teaching and testing 'Pilot Incapacitation in Commercial Helicopters
I've taken the liberty of copying this from the Instructors and Examiner's Forum as there was little response in that arena.
--------
I'm curious to know how the SFE's handle the conduct of the mandatory 'Pilot Incapacitation' exercise during an LPC/OPC.
In the helicopter world we do not have the ability to check a crew. Each pilot must be tested individually so there is an inherent problem for the SFE as he can only test the PF. To test for the 'pilot incapacitation' would therefore require the PM to 'fail' in some way which is not far off a pointless exercise. All the PF has to do is demonstrate that he has the wherewithal to get the aircraft safely back with no support from the PM. But how do you test the recognition of incapacitation when the person who is supposed to fail to respond is the PM?.
OK so far but......
..... we all know that the real test if you have a pilot incapacitation incident is when the PF falls over and the PM must now identify that he is non responsive then take control and demonstrate that he can get down safely from his seat.
This is important in our world because we have no seat restrictions as in FW so the commander may occupy either seat. The display layout on the left is the reverse of the right so the ability to fly an instrument approach from the LHS would therefore be a key skill worthy of inclusion in the LPC/OPC
It seems a bit of a confused mess. What are others out there doing, FW or RW?
G
--------
I'm curious to know how the SFE's handle the conduct of the mandatory 'Pilot Incapacitation' exercise during an LPC/OPC.
In the helicopter world we do not have the ability to check a crew. Each pilot must be tested individually so there is an inherent problem for the SFE as he can only test the PF. To test for the 'pilot incapacitation' would therefore require the PM to 'fail' in some way which is not far off a pointless exercise. All the PF has to do is demonstrate that he has the wherewithal to get the aircraft safely back with no support from the PM. But how do you test the recognition of incapacitation when the person who is supposed to fail to respond is the PM?.
OK so far but......
..... we all know that the real test if you have a pilot incapacitation incident is when the PF falls over and the PM must now identify that he is non responsive then take control and demonstrate that he can get down safely from his seat.
This is important in our world because we have no seat restrictions as in FW so the commander may occupy either seat. The display layout on the left is the reverse of the right so the ability to fly an instrument approach from the LHS would therefore be a key skill worthy of inclusion in the LPC/OPC
It seems a bit of a confused mess. What are others out there doing, FW or RW?
G
Usually simulated on approach when no response to PM's deviation calls given by PF.
No messing around at night time - if no response I'm out of there!
Securing restraints to restrict slump but difficult to pull body back for inertial reel to take affect - would involve pax help.
Of course this is all after you have 'aviated' first.
Maybe safest option is to land rather than prescribed missed approach?
Scenarios can be quite in-depth!
The other scenario is when PF acknowledges deviation call but continues to deviate - amazing how many times experienced PMs allow the PF to fly into the sea all because the PF acknowledgement is not 'monitored'
No messing around at night time - if no response I'm out of there!
Securing restraints to restrict slump but difficult to pull body back for inertial reel to take affect - would involve pax help.
Of course this is all after you have 'aviated' first.
Maybe safest option is to land rather than prescribed missed approach?
Scenarios can be quite in-depth!
The other scenario is when PF acknowledges deviation call but continues to deviate - amazing how many times experienced PMs allow the PF to fly into the sea all because the PF acknowledgement is not 'monitored'
Geoffers I'd say you are getting a bit bogged down with who is under test during a MP LPC/OPC. As far as I am concerned the crew are under test. If you consider only the PF is under test then how do you test them in their role as PM, which is just as important as their role as PF? Or are you a closet single pilot guy 
?
I'll grant you that if it's a LPC only then, due to the outrageous lack of any PM testing tick-boxes, it's tricky, but if combined with the OPC the operator can pretty much set their own rules which certainly should include PM testing. If an element is failed (an approach say) as far as I'm concerned it is just as much the fault of the PM as it is of the PF. Otherwise, what is the point of having a PM?
?I'll grant you that if it's a LPC only then, due to the outrageous lack of any PM testing tick-boxes, it's tricky, but if combined with the OPC the operator can pretty much set their own rules which certainly should include PM testing. If an element is failed (an approach say) as far as I'm concerned it is just as much the fault of the PM as it is of the PF. Otherwise, what is the point of having a PM?
In single pilot, light heli ops, what about no duals in the a/c. For example, PF is right seat in a 206, PNF ( may just be along for the ride) is on the left. Pedals are locked out, no cyclic or collective, and PF becomes incapacitated. How is PNF supposed to remove him/her from the right seat and take control of the a/c? Scary thought when you think of it... 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC
Remember that ATO's don't have AOC's so don't have Ops Manuals, Official SOP's etc.
None of the OPC checklists that I have come across provide for the checking of the 'crew'. We all know they should, seeing as we now have MCC but no bl***y paperwork to go with it. The whole thing's a mess and needs sorting. Do you think EASA reads Prune?
G.
For Variable Load - You need to work in an ATO to understand that bit. The FW world do it and we don't/
None of the OPC checklists that I have come across provide for the checking of the 'crew'. We all know they should, seeing as we now have MCC but no bl***y paperwork to go with it. The whole thing's a mess and needs sorting. Do you think EASA reads Prune?
G.
For Variable Load - You need to work in an ATO to understand that bit. The FW world do it and we don't/
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 18th Dec 2015 at 20:50. Reason: special addition for VL
Well, the pilot flying can be the checker - playing incapacitated....
or deviating without responding....
But they won´t tell you in advance - just saying, a little bit training in left hand handling and then - let me fly a bit
or deviating without responding....
But they won´t tell you in advance - just saying, a little bit training in left hand handling and then - let me fly a bit
Remember that ATO's don't have AOC's so don't have Ops Manuals, Official SOP's etc.
None of the OPC checklists that I have come across provide for the checking of the 'crew'.
None of the OPC checklists that I have come across provide for the checking of the 'crew'.
So we seem to be heading off down a rather strange cul-de-sac? ATOs provide a (very
) basic standard to pass a Skills Test
A tap on the shoulder from the instructor to the PF to "play" incapacitated while flying night rig decks at the opportune time will get the job done...
Last edited by Bladestrike; 18th Dec 2015 at 23:06.
they do conduct OPC's for some of our AOC's
An ATO is an EASA qualification. Please tell me which EASA AOC complies with their Part ORO training and checking requirements under an ATO approval?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It is possible to conduct OPCs at an ATO, if the instructor is fully familiar with the SOPs of the operator concerned, and the instructor is approved under that AOC to conduct the checks.
An OPC is the ideal environment to conduct incapacitation training & checking, and this is where it will normally take place, where a crew can be examined in all roles.
During an LPC/LST it is not mandatory - it is an option open to the examiner under section 4? I think.
As stated above, as an examiner for a LPC which is NOT combined with an OPC clearly can only test the person under test. Given that the person under test will be PF for nearly all the sortie in order to cover all the mandatory VFR and IFR exercises, in the couple of hours available, it is not likely to happen that the PF will be incapacitated, because it doesn't contribute to the objective of checking him.
An OPC is the ideal environment to conduct incapacitation training & checking, and this is where it will normally take place, where a crew can be examined in all roles.
During an LPC/LST it is not mandatory - it is an option open to the examiner under section 4? I think.
As stated above, as an examiner for a LPC which is NOT combined with an OPC clearly can only test the person under test. Given that the person under test will be PF for nearly all the sortie in order to cover all the mandatory VFR and IFR exercises, in the couple of hours available, it is not likely to happen that the PF will be incapacitated, because it doesn't contribute to the objective of checking him.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What we really need is....
.... clarification from the regulator(s) on what their expectations are. Is recognising that the other pilot is non responsive enough? Or do we need to 'complete the flight to a safe landing' with the other pilot flying.
Then all we need to do is solve the mystery of who is going to be the one we nominate for incapacitation? PF or PM.
So much for the MCC concept!
What is behind the inclusion of this evolution in the OPC or LSK and how come it's optional?
G.
Then all we need to do is solve the mystery of who is going to be the one we nominate for incapacitation? PF or PM.
So much for the MCC concept!
What is behind the inclusion of this evolution in the OPC or LSK and how come it's optional?
G.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would be from an EASA perspective only.
While I agree that only one pilot is actually tested at the time, said pilots ability to function as part of a crew is to be tested.
How about the followibg scenario:
During for example an Approach, you fail the Horizon or other applicable vital instrument of the PF only (pilot beeing tested), necessitating him/her to hand over controls to PM rather than keep flying on eg stby attitude only.
This alone would give an interesting insight to the Decision making in the crew.
Thereafter you "fail" the co-pilot once visual with runway (briefed to co-pic ahead of time, and with descent wx to give the poor guy a chance) requiring the pilot beeing tested to identify the incapacitation and proceed to land visually.
Probably several other scenarios that would accomplish the same as well, just my two cents/pennies/currencyofyourchoice
While I agree that only one pilot is actually tested at the time, said pilots ability to function as part of a crew is to be tested.
How about the followibg scenario:
During for example an Approach, you fail the Horizon or other applicable vital instrument of the PF only (pilot beeing tested), necessitating him/her to hand over controls to PM rather than keep flying on eg stby attitude only.
This alone would give an interesting insight to the Decision making in the crew.
Thereafter you "fail" the co-pilot once visual with runway (briefed to co-pic ahead of time, and with descent wx to give the poor guy a chance) requiring the pilot beeing tested to identify the incapacitation and proceed to land visually.
Probably several other scenarios that would accomplish the same as well, just my two cents/pennies/currencyofyourchoice
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Trouble is, as an examiner, you have to be "fair", because you leave yourself open to legal action if you are unfair, and the examinee fails the check. It is not generally fair to give multiple unrelated malfunctions at the same time, and it could be argued that failing the captains AI and the copilot together was unfair.
Also, if you spend 10 mins or so with the copilot flying, will you have enough time to fit in the mandatory precsion and non-precision approaches which the pilot under check must also demonstrate his ability to fly?
Also, if you spend 10 mins or so with the copilot flying, will you have enough time to fit in the mandatory precsion and non-precision approaches which the pilot under check must also demonstrate his ability to fly?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can guess....
... that the regulator will say to us all
'Please submit your proposal as an AMC and we will either say yes or no to accepting it.'
The problem with that is we end up with multiple solutions to the problem that may leave us none the wiser when it comes to the examiner understanding what the objectives are and what an acceptable response from the candidate(s) would be.
AS it's an optional item in the test there will be many examiners who believe it's all too difficult and give it a miss but the SFI's still have to cover it just in case.
G.
'Please submit your proposal as an AMC and we will either say yes or no to accepting it.'
The problem with that is we end up with multiple solutions to the problem that may leave us none the wiser when it comes to the examiner understanding what the objectives are and what an acceptable response from the candidate(s) would be.
AS it's an optional item in the test there will be many examiners who believe it's all too difficult and give it a miss but the SFI's still have to cover it just in case.
G.