Bristow S76 Ditched in Nigeria today Feb 3 2016
It seems to me that this discussion is a between people who have most possibly never flown for one of the offshore majors and those who have most possibly been trained by one of them and have spent their whole flying careers in offshore O&G. Offshore flying these days is all about automation in very reliable large, twin-engine helicopters and requires little manual intervention so why require pilots to have years flying onshore SPVFR?
It would most certainly mean better flying skills and airmanship but is not necessary and many pilots with that background would quickly get bored with the monotony of offshore flying. The present system of recruiting young pilots straight from ab-initio training as co-pilots with PICUS and eventual captaincy seems to work well (in UK anyway).
I do feel that they have missed out on a fulfilling career as a helicopter pilot which has so many more exciting and rewarding opportunities.
It would most certainly mean better flying skills and airmanship but is not necessary and many pilots with that background would quickly get bored with the monotony of offshore flying. The present system of recruiting young pilots straight from ab-initio training as co-pilots with PICUS and eventual captaincy seems to work well (in UK anyway).
I do feel that they have missed out on a fulfilling career as a helicopter pilot which has so many more exciting and rewarding opportunities.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 56
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait watch and see
Kick back put on the popcorn and watch!
If it happens again in the next few months then the proof is in the pudding!
Evidently judgement, experience and stick time is no longer required and we have been replaced by machines and computers!
Well I'm getting tired of CD players that skip! Bring back the 8 track an carburetor !
If it happens again in the next few months then the proof is in the pudding!
Evidently judgement, experience and stick time is no longer required and we have been replaced by machines and computers!
Well I'm getting tired of CD players that skip! Bring back the 8 track an carburetor !
We see trainees arrive on recurrent courses that don't know the aircraft limitations, don't know the immediate (memory) actions in the ECL, don't take notes in class, can't correctly answer straight forward questions on aircraft systems, some don't even know whether their aircraft has a SLA or Nicad battery installed. Unfortunately not isolated examples. It can be quite challenging teaching because without these basic fundamentals the flight manoeuvres training suffers. But the most frustrating aspect I see regularly is a NFP not saying or doing anything when the FP has put the aircraft in imminent danger of an adverse outcome. In other words, the NFP is just a passenger arriving at the scene of the accident.
I'd be interested in the CRM aspects of this Bristow accident, particularly the extent to which the co-pilot supported the decision of the Captain to undertake a ditching under the circumstances faced.
I'd be interested in the CRM aspects of this Bristow accident, particularly the extent to which the co-pilot supported the decision of the Captain to undertake a ditching under the circumstances faced.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 56
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really?
That's surprising!?
You can select the R242 battery with the selector switch and revert back to the nicad if it's overheating. Surely CRM is clear that this must only be done after confirming rate of decent above 750fpm with the disc fully loaded but only if the bypass reversion switch is armed prior to entering into LTE.
Surely you Jest!
You can select the R242 battery with the selector switch and revert back to the nicad if it's overheating. Surely CRM is clear that this must only be done after confirming rate of decent above 750fpm with the disc fully loaded but only if the bypass reversion switch is armed prior to entering into LTE.
Surely you Jest!
Last edited by pilonrock; 3rd Mar 2016 at 02:37.
It would be futile to expend a lot of effort maintaining a redundant skill.
Depending on your area of operation you might decide almost all manual flying is redundant and end up training and assessing pilots as competent but only in a very narrow field of ops.
If that is what is desired by companies/operators then fine but don't come crying when your 'plastic pilot' spears in if the airborne situation suddenly changes to something outside that very narrow field of experience.
Crab a couple of points:
It is interesting to note that EASA's Prof check doesn't require AP out flying. It's something covered in the initial skills test (IIRC) only. This applies to all ME types. I don't subscribe to that view for the many types with limited autopilot redundancy / reliability and of course an operator can always choose to add stuff. But it does go to show the Authority's view on the subject.
Secondly and more importantly we are fortunate compared to our FW colleagues in that every takeoff, final approach and landing is flown manually, as often is inter-rig shuttling. (Well except for the SAR guys who seem to need a button to fly an approach and to hover
). Landing offshore at night can be quite challenging. Therefore I don't think there is a risk of us getting to the state of inability to fly that some of our FW a colleagues seem to have reached.
As to fields of operation I always maintain that aviation is very role specific. Yes offshore flying is one such narrow role but it is hard to see the benefit, and certainly not feasible, to train offshore pilots in other role skills that they will never need. So for example we had a small group of pilots rated for winch and underlslung, they received the relevant training and practice, but if we had done that for everyone there wouldn't have been enough opportunity to actually carry out the role and so it would have been counterproductive since no-one would have been current.
By the way when I was a trainer on the SAR L2 I found that role equally narrow. Yes the guys were great at dangling things over the side and fishing things out of the water (much, much better than me) but in other areas many were pretty poor simply because they never needed to do it and so lacked the motivation and practice. C'est la vie!
It is interesting to note that EASA's Prof check doesn't require AP out flying. It's something covered in the initial skills test (IIRC) only. This applies to all ME types. I don't subscribe to that view for the many types with limited autopilot redundancy / reliability and of course an operator can always choose to add stuff. But it does go to show the Authority's view on the subject.
Secondly and more importantly we are fortunate compared to our FW colleagues in that every takeoff, final approach and landing is flown manually, as often is inter-rig shuttling. (Well except for the SAR guys who seem to need a button to fly an approach and to hover
). Landing offshore at night can be quite challenging. Therefore I don't think there is a risk of us getting to the state of inability to fly that some of our FW a colleagues seem to have reached.As to fields of operation I always maintain that aviation is very role specific. Yes offshore flying is one such narrow role but it is hard to see the benefit, and certainly not feasible, to train offshore pilots in other role skills that they will never need. So for example we had a small group of pilots rated for winch and underlslung, they received the relevant training and practice, but if we had done that for everyone there wouldn't have been enough opportunity to actually carry out the role and so it would have been counterproductive since no-one would have been current.
By the way when I was a trainer on the SAR L2 I found that role equally narrow. Yes the guys were great at dangling things over the side and fishing things out of the water (much, much better than me) but in other areas many were pretty poor simply because they never needed to do it and so lacked the motivation and practice. C'est la vie!
(Well except for the SAR guys who seem to need a button to fly an approach and to hover)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Role related training
There is a growing realisation amongst regulators that role-related training is becoming a 'must do' rather than a 'nice to do'. In other words there are teams working to identify possible ways forward in this conundrum.
Personally I see an advantage in a role-related rating that at least recognises that some relevant basics have been delivered prior to going 'live'. The crucial benefit of that rating would be the date that it was issued. Such a rating is deliverable for SAR, HEMS, OFFSHORE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE FIGHTING and maybe CORPORATE. As Crab And HC point out there is s relationship between pilot performance and the length of time since the relevant training was delivered. Keeping track of recency is a crucial element in the equation.
My latest hobby horse is to bang on about Ebbinghaus (German psychologist in Victorian times) and his 'FORGETTING CURVE'. The trouble is we keep forgetting how fragile imparted knowledge is. In many cases 80% of imparted knowledge is lost after 2-3 weeks. That doesn't work well in our world.
I wonder how much of her technical training was the young lass in this incident able to recall when the proverbial hit the fan? Essinghaus went on to emphasise the value of continued repetition as a teaching tool. Repeat it enough times and you remember for ever. What 'post-graduate' support is offered to TR graduates - NIL. We need to look at that. If we has some intensive post-course, on-line Q&A routines with a live instructor and CBT then maybe we could hang on to the vital elements of system knowledge a little longer.
G.
Personally I see an advantage in a role-related rating that at least recognises that some relevant basics have been delivered prior to going 'live'. The crucial benefit of that rating would be the date that it was issued. Such a rating is deliverable for SAR, HEMS, OFFSHORE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE FIGHTING and maybe CORPORATE. As Crab And HC point out there is s relationship between pilot performance and the length of time since the relevant training was delivered. Keeping track of recency is a crucial element in the equation.
My latest hobby horse is to bang on about Ebbinghaus (German psychologist in Victorian times) and his 'FORGETTING CURVE'. The trouble is we keep forgetting how fragile imparted knowledge is. In many cases 80% of imparted knowledge is lost after 2-3 weeks. That doesn't work well in our world.
I wonder how much of her technical training was the young lass in this incident able to recall when the proverbial hit the fan? Essinghaus went on to emphasise the value of continued repetition as a teaching tool. Repeat it enough times and you remember for ever. What 'post-graduate' support is offered to TR graduates - NIL. We need to look at that. If we has some intensive post-course, on-line Q&A routines with a live instructor and CBT then maybe we could hang on to the vital elements of system knowledge a little longer.
G.
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 3rd Mar 2016 at 10:34. Reason: Amplification of post TR support and correcting spelling of my German psychologist (Thanks Bob)
Very good points Geoffers, I give both the technical and the flying instruction on my present type so I know exactly what the pilots were taught and can reinforce the tech training during the flying and sim sorties.
Repetition is definitely the key.
As for the 'forgetting curve' - mine seems to have steepened as I have got older!
HC
you have changed your tune from a previous thread when you assured me it was in the passengers' interests that the automatics were used as much as possible.
so how did you have credibility as a SAR trainer if you couldn't do it as well as the crews you were 'training'? That is certainly something that wouldn't have passed muster in the mil.
Repetition is definitely the key.
As for the 'forgetting curve' - mine seems to have steepened as I have got older!
HC
Secondly and more importantly we are fortunate compared to our FW colleagues in that every takeoff, final approach and landing is flown manually, as often is inter-rig shuttling.
By the way when I was a trainer on the SAR L2 I found that role equally narrow. Yes the guys were great at dangling things over the side and fishing things out of the water (much, much better than me)
Originally Posted by [email protected]
HC you have changed your tune from a previous thread when you assured me it was in the passengers' interests that the automatics were used as much as possible.
so how did you have credibility as a SAR trainer if you couldn't do it as well as the crews you were 'training'? That is certainly something that wouldn't have passed muster in the mil.
so how did you have credibility as a SAR trainer if you couldn't do it as well as the crews you were 'training'? That is certainly something that wouldn't have passed muster in the mil.
2/ Oh the winderful mil. If only everything could be run by the mil there would be no more accidents!
But you misunderstand the structure of civilian training. I was a TRE on the L2, I was not a SAR pilot. In order to be a SAR pilot you have to have a licence, and in order to have a licence you need to be able to do, and be tested on, such things as OEI Cat A procedures, procedural instrument approaches etc. In other words, pass an LPC. That was my role, doing type conversions onto the L2 and taking LSTs, LPCs and OPCs, technical ground school refresher etc. This ticked the necessary box for them to be a licenced L2 pilot. There was then another set of Line Trainers who were the SAR experts, would train and test for the SAR-specific elements which of course on a day to day basis was the most important bit.
That was my problem, some of the pilots didn't see why they needed to be able to do all the stuff in a standard LPC since some was not relevant to their role. But of course my answer was that in order to be a SAR pilot you first need to be a pilot with a licence.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ban Don Ling
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aaaw, come on now Crab ...... of course it's manual for the first and last 30 seconds - I think that was the point. And a little humility and self-deprecation is a good instructor's trait.
I reckon if we put all you guys in the same room, a day of CRM training and a few beers at night - you'd all come out thinking better of each other and realize you are all aiming for the same goals ......
We need look how the knowledge can be better imparted to your trainees, through broader oversight from the operator and authority.
I reckon if we put all you guys in the same room, a day of CRM training and a few beers at night - you'd all come out thinking better of each other and realize you are all aiming for the same goals ......
We need look how the knowledge can be better imparted to your trainees, through broader oversight from the operator and authority.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lost and Legless somewhere in LaLaLand
Age: 77
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so how did you have credibility as a SAR trainer if you couldn't do it as well as the crews you were 'training'? That is certainly something that wouldn't have passed muster in the mil.
HC - I just wanted to clarify that being a trainer on a SAR L2 does not make you a SAR trainer on the L2 which is what your post rather implied
can't see whay any of that LPC stuff isn't considered relevant - maybe your pilots needed a bit of military re-briefing about professionalism
isn't that even more important to do in less than CAVOK conditions so they gain experience?
Phone Wind
the difference is in being able to show you can do it better, rather than just telling them you can
some of the pilots didn't see why they needed to be able to do all the stuff in a standard LPC since some was not relevant to their role
When there are reasonably good visual references it is a good thing to fly manually especially for the young chaps with limited exposure to manual flying
Phone Wind
Hmmm. Tin gods comes to mind. We seem to have a lot of those in aviation
Originally Posted by [email protected]
HC - I just wanted to clarify that being a trainer on a SAR L2 does not make you a SAR trainer on the L2 which is what your post rather implied
Originally Posted by [email protected]
isn't that even more important to do in less than CAVOK conditions so they gain experience?
In my youth we used to, for instance, fly a whole rig trip AP out including a rather wobbly landing offshore, but for many years this has been verboten by both the customers and the CAA. We are not allowed by the CAA to intentionally degrade the aircraft's systems in any way with passengers on board. Once the CAA wakes up they will realise that that includes failing to make best use of the automation. (OK to be fair, they are starting to wake up to that point).
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Phone Wind the difference is in being able to show you can do it better, rather than just telling them you can
In the military so much time is spent getting the callipers out to measure the size of each other's balls that I wonder there is any time for flying!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our Offshore facilities are in the Tropics and we don't routinely fly passengers at night. As a client, we have to pay for our Contract Pilots to remain current for night flying in case of emergency, which we are happy to do.
With offshore facilities are > 200nm from our operating base, there is not a closer deck to use, we have some significant transit time each way. When our Pilots complete their 3x landing in 3 month night deck landing currency, we have a requirement that we take 3 crew to maximise the benefit.
Since its revenue flying without passengers, we specify the outbound and inbound sectors are used as much as is reasonable to practice manual flying skills. We also encourage crews to take a slightly extended routing to land and take fuel onshore rather than offshore so that they have another landing at night at a different place for some variety.
With offshore facilities are > 200nm from our operating base, there is not a closer deck to use, we have some significant transit time each way. When our Pilots complete their 3x landing in 3 month night deck landing currency, we have a requirement that we take 3 crew to maximise the benefit.
Since its revenue flying without passengers, we specify the outbound and inbound sectors are used as much as is reasonable to practice manual flying skills. We also encourage crews to take a slightly extended routing to land and take fuel onshore rather than offshore so that they have another landing at night at a different place for some variety.
Our Offshore facilities are in the Tropics and we don't routinely fly passengers at night. As a client, we have to pay for our Contract Pilots to remain current for night flying in case of emergency, which we are happy to do.
With offshore facilities are > 200nm from our operating base, there is not a closer deck to use, we have some significant transit time each way. When our Pilots complete their 3x landing in 3 month night deck landing currency, we have a requirement that we take 3 crew to maximise the benefit.
Since its revenue flying without passengers, we specify the outbound and inbound sectors are used as much as is reasonable to practice manual flying skills. We also encourage crews to take a slightly extended routing to land and take fuel onshore rather than offshore so that they have another landing at night at a different place for some variety.
With offshore facilities are > 200nm from our operating base, there is not a closer deck to use, we have some significant transit time each way. When our Pilots complete their 3x landing in 3 month night deck landing currency, we have a requirement that we take 3 crew to maximise the benefit.
Since its revenue flying without passengers, we specify the outbound and inbound sectors are used as much as is reasonable to practice manual flying skills. We also encourage crews to take a slightly extended routing to land and take fuel onshore rather than offshore so that they have another landing at night at a different place for some variety.
Although technically, since the 3rd pilot is not a necessary member of the flight crew, he/she is a passenger on a commercial flight. But never mind, unlike oil co. passengers, pilots are expendable!
Expendable as in you find it OK for pilots to be practising flying a degraded aircraft when the only passengers are other pilots, but not when the passengers are oil workers. Can you explain your double standards?
If a captain, not a co-pilot, cannot fly an AP out trip offshore without the passengers noticing, then he shouldn't be a captain. When I first flew for Mr Bristow we were paid to fly the aircraft, not the autopilot. Should the single channel AP go u/s that was tough, you went without it.
HC, you bleat on about how much safer the North Sea is since everybody is slavishly pushing buttons instead of flying it. Can you back that up with all the accidents in the North Sea that would have been avoided if a Flight Management System had been in operation instead.?
HC, you bleat on about how much safer the North Sea is since everybody is slavishly pushing buttons instead of flying it. Can you back that up with all the accidents in the North Sea that would have been avoided if a Flight Management System had been in operation instead.?