AAIB January 2017
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
B73, I understand fully the implications of this PPL not being able to save himself if his pedals/TR got stuck. That is not my point!
None of us SHOULD ever introduce such exercises without a full brief.
In CAT land we also forget how to do these things. That's precisely what there is a requirement for Annual Flight Training, before checking.
I am sorry but any Instructor of mine who subjected any pilot to the situation H500 described himself, would be pulled and retrained himself as the core concepts of teaching and learning, allied to the very clear safety guidelines in training, are absent between the lines of H500s story.
None of us SHOULD ever introduce such exercises without a full brief.
In CAT land we also forget how to do these things. That's precisely what there is a requirement for Annual Flight Training, before checking.
I am sorry but any Instructor of mine who subjected any pilot to the situation H500 described himself, would be pulled and retrained himself as the core concepts of teaching and learning, allied to the very clear safety guidelines in training, are absent between the lines of H500s story.
If I had stuck pedals on an LPC, I wouldn't expect the examiner to have warned me about it beforehand. I certainly wouldn't expect to be briefed about it earlier either.
If the outcome wasn't expected after trying to deal with the issue, I would then expect the usual explanation/demonstration/imitation.
If the outcome wasn't expected after trying to deal with the issue, I would then expect the usual explanation/demonstration/imitation.
If I had stuck pedals on an LPC, I wouldn't expect the examiner to have warned me about it beforehand. I certainly wouldn't expect to be briefed about it earlier either.
If the outcome wasn't expected after trying to deal with the issue, I would then expect the usual explanation/demonstration/imitation.
If the outcome wasn't expected after trying to deal with the issue, I would then expect the usual explanation/demonstration/imitation.
How can an LPC be a testing flight if when you get it wrong, you are trained "on the hoof" until you get it right? Guaranteed pass, I suppose!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
B73 I don't doubt the sincerity of your statement above. However, the Examiner would have failed to follow the very clear CAA published guidelines. In my case STDS doc 24H. And I quote:
"It is perfectly proper for Examiners to include some training input during the briefing...."
It goes on to describe this SHOULD not be a full training brief but rather facilitate, by Q&A technique that the candidate has a reasonable understanding of the exercises he will fly, aimed mainly at critical failures, and in the interests of the Examiner serving both the testing requirement and the essential safety brief for those exercise.
Of course the guidance is generic and open to interpretation. However, to protect the candidate and myself I would ALWAYS brief simulated TR malfunctions both for training and testing when I am conducting them in the actual aircraft. In the FFS there is a little latitude BUT only in so far as the essential safety brief. The training element must be served always.
Above all, committing a student or candidates money, or in our case the Company's money to Flight or FFS time where the brief is inadequate or non existent makes no sense economically or is indeed fair to the PPL who I guess is paying for the Instruction or Check.
The primary purpose of Instruction is to improve knowledge skills and thus safety. In H500 story I cannot see how this was achieved.
So in the future B73 feel free to challenge your Examiner if he fails to brief adequately for this exercise. Otherwise the check is simply a chop ride and most certainly could never be conducted as safely as when a full, sympathetic and relevant brief has been given that at least conforms to the CAA guidelines. Maybe that's what H500 struggles with the Authority!
"It is perfectly proper for Examiners to include some training input during the briefing...."
It goes on to describe this SHOULD not be a full training brief but rather facilitate, by Q&A technique that the candidate has a reasonable understanding of the exercises he will fly, aimed mainly at critical failures, and in the interests of the Examiner serving both the testing requirement and the essential safety brief for those exercise.
Of course the guidance is generic and open to interpretation. However, to protect the candidate and myself I would ALWAYS brief simulated TR malfunctions both for training and testing when I am conducting them in the actual aircraft. In the FFS there is a little latitude BUT only in so far as the essential safety brief. The training element must be served always.
Above all, committing a student or candidates money, or in our case the Company's money to Flight or FFS time where the brief is inadequate or non existent makes no sense economically or is indeed fair to the PPL who I guess is paying for the Instruction or Check.
The primary purpose of Instruction is to improve knowledge skills and thus safety. In H500 story I cannot see how this was achieved.
So in the future B73 feel free to challenge your Examiner if he fails to brief adequately for this exercise. Otherwise the check is simply a chop ride and most certainly could never be conducted as safely as when a full, sympathetic and relevant brief has been given that at least conforms to the CAA guidelines. Maybe that's what H500 struggles with the Authority!
Right guys the student i was flying with has over 400 hours has done his CPL course in this country, failed his CPL skills test ( 3 times ). He asked for some refresher training on VOR ( having had a very lengthy brief on VOR's tracking etc etc )and some general handling. I asked when coming back into the circuit what the Vne on a 300 was, big pause, obviously didn't know, looked at gauge and then gave the wrong answer. Decided at that point well lets look at an emergency, I like stuck pedals as it puts the pilot under a bit of pressure, but allows quite a lot of time to think about a solution. It also shows when coming into land how much confidence the pilot has and what finesse he has on the controls. Forgive me HC if I was a passenger and this guy as a CPL or even a PPL the last thing I want to hear his I don't know, couldn't even work it out. had a lengthy debrief about this and other emergencies. During this debrief it became evident that his training ( FAA licence ) and his UK CPL training was woeful. Thankfully it has been caught by various examiners.
Sorry to disappoint you HC but I will continue to show those I fly with where I have got things wrong, yes including flying in bad weather, a settling with power incident while long lining, an engine failure at 80 ft and 30 kts and loads of other things.
If showing someone stuck pedals, an EOL, flying at MAUW, flying in 1500m viz helps saves someones life one day then I will be a happy bunny. Having had a student / friend kill themselves from a 500 ft high hover really sharpens the mind as to what one teaches and concentrates on. If you teach / show people, things that hopefully they never need then maybe one day it might make the difference between walking away or not.
Sorry if English is not great writing in a hurry !
Sorry to disappoint you HC but I will continue to show those I fly with where I have got things wrong, yes including flying in bad weather, a settling with power incident while long lining, an engine failure at 80 ft and 30 kts and loads of other things.
If showing someone stuck pedals, an EOL, flying at MAUW, flying in 1500m viz helps saves someones life one day then I will be a happy bunny. Having had a student / friend kill themselves from a 500 ft high hover really sharpens the mind as to what one teaches and concentrates on. If you teach / show people, things that hopefully they never need then maybe one day it might make the difference between walking away or not.
Sorry if English is not great writing in a hurry !
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
H500 but you did not "Show" him stuck pedals did you! You tested him in that exercise unbriefed having originally briefed a VOR procedure.
I am sorry but even 10,000 hour ATPL in full time employment need retraining on many exercises prior to the check. This is precisely the reason for the 6 month OPC and the training mandated prior to doing it. These requirements are a clear recognition that in 6 months of normal flying, skills fade on those exercises that cannot be done without an Instructor.
Your 400 hour PPL has my sympathy. The poor guy was struggling generally as you describe so just to heap sh1t on him you do the unbriefed TR procedure.
Mate I would take a long hard look at your conduct with this guy and ask yourself, did you help him at all and I a, assuming the poor sod paid for this humiliation.
No bud I will fly with HC long before I put myself in your hands.
I am sorry but even 10,000 hour ATPL in full time employment need retraining on many exercises prior to the check. This is precisely the reason for the 6 month OPC and the training mandated prior to doing it. These requirements are a clear recognition that in 6 months of normal flying, skills fade on those exercises that cannot be done without an Instructor.
Your 400 hour PPL has my sympathy. The poor guy was struggling generally as you describe so just to heap sh1t on him you do the unbriefed TR procedure.
Mate I would take a long hard look at your conduct with this guy and ask yourself, did you help him at all and I a, assuming the poor sod paid for this humiliation.
No bud I will fly with HC long before I put myself in your hands.
DB
Let me be very very clear here, I was asked by the guy and his school to run over VOR as their machine didnt have one. At the same time i was asked by both to do the following (he was briefed on what we would be doing) some general handling and some emergencies.
So you are telling me that a relatively easy emergency to deal with in a Schweizer 300 would be difficult for a 10000 hour pilot to perform ? I am afraid that everyone of my PPL's that I have trained will put one on the ground with no help from me. You have just confirmed what a mess our industry is in if a 10000 hour ATPL couldn't do that, what the fu.k are they doing flying a helicopter if they have to be trained before their OPC. So what happens when the pedals are stuck the day before their OPC ..... Sorry passengers I havent been trained for this so we are going to crash
I agree with you don't want to be in a machine with you
Let me be very very clear here, I was asked by the guy and his school to run over VOR as their machine didnt have one. At the same time i was asked by both to do the following (he was briefed on what we would be doing) some general handling and some emergencies.
So you are telling me that a relatively easy emergency to deal with in a Schweizer 300 would be difficult for a 10000 hour pilot to perform ? I am afraid that everyone of my PPL's that I have trained will put one on the ground with no help from me. You have just confirmed what a mess our industry is in if a 10000 hour ATPL couldn't do that, what the fu.k are they doing flying a helicopter if they have to be trained before their OPC. So what happens when the pedals are stuck the day before their OPC ..... Sorry passengers I havent been trained for this so we are going to crash
I agree with you don't want to be in a machine with you
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
If showing someone stuck pedals ...... helps saves someones life one day then I will be a happy bunny.
Hughes500
If I may ask, after you took control, what then?
Did you land or run the other guy through the correct actions for "stuck pedals"?
I really don't understand why you allowed him to go any lower than 500' without being the
instructor you should be and demonstrating the correct actions. You appear to me to be
trying to dig yourself out of a hole you have created which makes you look very much like
the instructor a PPL would not want to fly with again? I've flown with only a few who would
consider doing what you did. During my initial PPL training in 88, I had to change instructors
so I could get to grips with hover engine offs. The replacement instructor was calm, considerate and would not have entertained behaviour such as yours. I have to agree with HC and DB I'm afraid.
I don't post very often on here but I do visit a few times a week. With regards Mil verses
Civi pilots, I personally see no difference here on the North Sea. I have flown with each many times. I also flew elsewhere for 9 years before coming to the NS. To me, it's a persons attitude that makes a good pilot. Putting anyone down does no good at all in my opinion.
If I may ask, after you took control, what then?
Did you land or run the other guy through the correct actions for "stuck pedals"?
I really don't understand why you allowed him to go any lower than 500' without being the
instructor you should be and demonstrating the correct actions. You appear to me to be
trying to dig yourself out of a hole you have created which makes you look very much like
the instructor a PPL would not want to fly with again? I've flown with only a few who would
consider doing what you did. During my initial PPL training in 88, I had to change instructors
so I could get to grips with hover engine offs. The replacement instructor was calm, considerate and would not have entertained behaviour such as yours. I have to agree with HC and DB I'm afraid.
I don't post very often on here but I do visit a few times a week. With regards Mil verses
Civi pilots, I personally see no difference here on the North Sea. I have flown with each many times. I also flew elsewhere for 9 years before coming to the NS. To me, it's a persons attitude that makes a good pilot. Putting anyone down does no good at all in my opinion.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Ignoring the somewhat predictable and repetitive nature of this thread, there is one very obvious difference between military and civilian training which is overlooked. All military pilots have been tested and have successfully demonstrated an acceptable level of aptitude during pilot selection tests. This simply means they have displayed an ability to scan, absorb, process and react to various information sources within an acceptable time frame and to an acceptable standard. This doesn't make you a pilot, but it does allow you to concentrate on the flying task without struggling to maintain situational awareness when in the cockpit. I don't know the fail rate currently, but it used to be about 50% of the applicants.
As a civilian pilot, aptitude remains an unknown quantity until you are in the cockpit on Exercise 1. If we extrapolate the rough statistic, about half of those students will do perfectly fine, but the other half will be working very hard to stay the right way up (figuratively and literally). Those that work to develop better aptitude will inevitably end up taking more time, and burning more money to get to the required standard, but for a small number they will always be on or outside the competency boundary. Some instructors will recognize this, others may not. If the student keeps paying, who cares how long it takes, right?
So what?
Well it means that military trained pilots generally have one less means of killing themselves and their passengers, in that they have demonstrated flying aptitude. It doesn't mean there are no stupid, arrogant, wilful or just plain dangerous military pilots out there, of course there are. It just means that while they are being stupid, arrogant, wilful or just plain dangerous they are probably fully in control of the aircraft with the requisite situational awareness. The same rule applies of course to the civilian trained pilots who also have the requisite level of flying aptitude, they have just never been formally tested for it.
Most of us can be aviation professionals, whichever route we choose, but the military mitigates the risk against those who might not have the capacity for professionalism at an early stage.
As a civilian pilot, aptitude remains an unknown quantity until you are in the cockpit on Exercise 1. If we extrapolate the rough statistic, about half of those students will do perfectly fine, but the other half will be working very hard to stay the right way up (figuratively and literally). Those that work to develop better aptitude will inevitably end up taking more time, and burning more money to get to the required standard, but for a small number they will always be on or outside the competency boundary. Some instructors will recognize this, others may not. If the student keeps paying, who cares how long it takes, right?
So what?
Well it means that military trained pilots generally have one less means of killing themselves and their passengers, in that they have demonstrated flying aptitude. It doesn't mean there are no stupid, arrogant, wilful or just plain dangerous military pilots out there, of course there are. It just means that while they are being stupid, arrogant, wilful or just plain dangerous they are probably fully in control of the aircraft with the requisite situational awareness. The same rule applies of course to the civilian trained pilots who also have the requisite level of flying aptitude, they have just never been formally tested for it.
Most of us can be aviation professionals, whichever route we choose, but the military mitigates the risk against those who might not have the capacity for professionalism at an early stage.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
H500, for you TR malfunctions are easy because you teach and practice them very often. However, a commercial pilot carrying passengers every day, and particularly in offshore where there is ZERO opportunity for the crews to do general handling or practise anything but normal procedures,their skills fade.
This is the most widely recognised problem of intensive compluant CAT operations. It is EXACTLY why the crews are afforded the chance eac 6 months the practice these exercises prior to being checked for competency. The entire EU-OPS training system is based on this fundemental principle. Without regular practise performance deterioratesand you are correct. Theoretically the day before his 6 monthly check istheoreticlly his most incompetent day. Now older pilots who have been through many regular, AND PRODUCTIVE training and Check cycles show less fade than those who have not done that many both in theory and in general practise. There are exceptions and they generally end up as TRI TRE as a result.
You can carry on and buck the system and believe that all pilots should, at the drop off a hat, safely solve all emergencies but I can tell you that is generally not the case and it has very little to do with their appititude, suitability or prior training and EVERYTHING to do with lack of adequate practise time.
As an Instructor/Examiner myself, like I guess all my contemporaries, we would always argue that more training time should be afforded and more practise offered. However the practical and fiscal constraints of most flight operations make this difficult and in my heart I am so grateful that EASA continue to mandate the training and checking regimes as is.in addition, huge respect for the UK CAA for the content and guidance in Standrads Doc 24 H for their clear recognition, that during checking, proper briefing should occur and appropriate training and guidance offered for those procedures that the candidate does not normally do during his day job. The "2 Attempt" principle of checking clearly recognises that the candidate should at least be able to diagnose his own errors but is allowed a second go at the exercise. It also recognises that if the Examiners sees a successful competent exercise that could be further improved with some hints and guidance, he can offer it.
This is "Checking". You were tasked to do training Iam sorry but in my honest opinion, if you actually proceeded as you described, you broke just about every principle of the Part-01 Teaching and Learning module for the Core Instructors course. I list the, for you:
BRIEF THE FLIGHT and FLY THE BRIEF
BY EMPATHETIC WITH THE STUDENT
PROGRESS LOGICALLY THROUGH EACH EXERCISE
RE-BRIEF WHERE REQUIRED
DO NOT INTRODUCE EXERCISES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BRIEFED
DO NOT INFRINGE SAFETY MARGINS (letting a student descend to 100 feet with no yaw control when he has already told you he does not know how to proceed could have ended very differently if he panicked as the ground came up and caught you out)
So how you took a student out for some VOR practice, combined with critical flight control malfunctions that were not briefed, knowing he was already behind the aircraft in the briefed VOR exercise is beyond my comprehensio. However, for free, and to help you gauge you conduct, if you did that to an offshore pilot in a real helicopter I suspect your training management would look very chisels at you. Not him.
I am trying to think of something positive to say to you but it's not easy.
This is the most widely recognised problem of intensive compluant CAT operations. It is EXACTLY why the crews are afforded the chance eac 6 months the practice these exercises prior to being checked for competency. The entire EU-OPS training system is based on this fundemental principle. Without regular practise performance deterioratesand you are correct. Theoretically the day before his 6 monthly check istheoreticlly his most incompetent day. Now older pilots who have been through many regular, AND PRODUCTIVE training and Check cycles show less fade than those who have not done that many both in theory and in general practise. There are exceptions and they generally end up as TRI TRE as a result.
You can carry on and buck the system and believe that all pilots should, at the drop off a hat, safely solve all emergencies but I can tell you that is generally not the case and it has very little to do with their appititude, suitability or prior training and EVERYTHING to do with lack of adequate practise time.
As an Instructor/Examiner myself, like I guess all my contemporaries, we would always argue that more training time should be afforded and more practise offered. However the practical and fiscal constraints of most flight operations make this difficult and in my heart I am so grateful that EASA continue to mandate the training and checking regimes as is.in addition, huge respect for the UK CAA for the content and guidance in Standrads Doc 24 H for their clear recognition, that during checking, proper briefing should occur and appropriate training and guidance offered for those procedures that the candidate does not normally do during his day job. The "2 Attempt" principle of checking clearly recognises that the candidate should at least be able to diagnose his own errors but is allowed a second go at the exercise. It also recognises that if the Examiners sees a successful competent exercise that could be further improved with some hints and guidance, he can offer it.
This is "Checking". You were tasked to do training Iam sorry but in my honest opinion, if you actually proceeded as you described, you broke just about every principle of the Part-01 Teaching and Learning module for the Core Instructors course. I list the, for you:
BRIEF THE FLIGHT and FLY THE BRIEF
BY EMPATHETIC WITH THE STUDENT
PROGRESS LOGICALLY THROUGH EACH EXERCISE
RE-BRIEF WHERE REQUIRED
DO NOT INTRODUCE EXERCISES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BRIEFED
DO NOT INFRINGE SAFETY MARGINS (letting a student descend to 100 feet with no yaw control when he has already told you he does not know how to proceed could have ended very differently if he panicked as the ground came up and caught you out)
So how you took a student out for some VOR practice, combined with critical flight control malfunctions that were not briefed, knowing he was already behind the aircraft in the briefed VOR exercise is beyond my comprehensio. However, for free, and to help you gauge you conduct, if you did that to an offshore pilot in a real helicopter I suspect your training management would look very chisels at you. Not him.
I am trying to think of something positive to say to you but it's not easy.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
H500, I have thought of something positive to say, reading my own posts I come across as a "Holier than thou prat"
However, I too have done something similar to what you done. Several times. I have also found at times, myself being frustrated at the students lack of progress and let this bleed from me across the cockpit or from the FFS seat. I have sometimes rushed my briefs or briefed poorly.
I used to be a very good pilot and did not make any mistakes but as I get older I seem to have started to make mistakes. Could it just be my age or is it that my greater knowledge, experience and wisdom actually allows me see mistakes now that I was always making. I am not sure! However the process has given me much more empathy with those pilots who I am hugely privelidged to be able to train and check. It's not always the case but I would say that at least I am generally honest after the event. I try to look inward and see how my behaviour can really affect those in my care. Sometimes I am brilliant and the student hangs on my every word and makes tremendous progress. Sometimes the reverse. Sometimes my lack of affection for the poor guy in my charge dulls my enthusiasm. These are my failings not his.
Training and checking is a dynamic fluid process where literally anything can happen. However, I have learned slowly that the whole damn thing hangs on the quality of the brief. I have tried wherever possible to standardise briefs with PowerPoint etc to eradicate the fluctuations in my own performance.
Human factors affect everything we do. We are after all only human.
I recommend to you in great humility to read again some of the CAA guidance for training and checking. You cannot dip your toe in. You've got to swallow the whole thing and try hard to implement i and in my experience it works more often than not.
I have also been very lucky to have myself received always entirely excellent training from vey gifted instructors. I try my best to emulate the best parts of them. They know who they are and like most professional pilots I owe them for everything I have achieved even if at times my own performance sucks.
Look at ourselves first before we critique the student. Ask not why he his doing that but why I have let him get to that point Was it the brief. Was it my demo. Am I Rushing him too far too fast. Easy words to write but not easy to do in practise.
That's all I have. I truly hope you find something useful in this post.
DB
However, I too have done something similar to what you done. Several times. I have also found at times, myself being frustrated at the students lack of progress and let this bleed from me across the cockpit or from the FFS seat. I have sometimes rushed my briefs or briefed poorly.
I used to be a very good pilot and did not make any mistakes but as I get older I seem to have started to make mistakes. Could it just be my age or is it that my greater knowledge, experience and wisdom actually allows me see mistakes now that I was always making. I am not sure! However the process has given me much more empathy with those pilots who I am hugely privelidged to be able to train and check. It's not always the case but I would say that at least I am generally honest after the event. I try to look inward and see how my behaviour can really affect those in my care. Sometimes I am brilliant and the student hangs on my every word and makes tremendous progress. Sometimes the reverse. Sometimes my lack of affection for the poor guy in my charge dulls my enthusiasm. These are my failings not his.
Training and checking is a dynamic fluid process where literally anything can happen. However, I have learned slowly that the whole damn thing hangs on the quality of the brief. I have tried wherever possible to standardise briefs with PowerPoint etc to eradicate the fluctuations in my own performance.
Human factors affect everything we do. We are after all only human.
I recommend to you in great humility to read again some of the CAA guidance for training and checking. You cannot dip your toe in. You've got to swallow the whole thing and try hard to implement i and in my experience it works more often than not.
I have also been very lucky to have myself received always entirely excellent training from vey gifted instructors. I try my best to emulate the best parts of them. They know who they are and like most professional pilots I owe them for everything I have achieved even if at times my own performance sucks.
Look at ourselves first before we critique the student. Ask not why he his doing that but why I have let him get to that point Was it the brief. Was it my demo. Am I Rushing him too far too fast. Easy words to write but not easy to do in practise.
That's all I have. I truly hope you find something useful in this post.
DB
Hughes - if perhaps HC and DB could dismount from their high horses they might see that what you did was completely fair, not even remotely dangerous and actually good post-PPL instruction.
You established, without drama, the limited extent of the student's aircraft knowledge, retention of taught emergencies and ability to think through a problem that might present itself in the air for real.
DB - no-one said mil pilots don't crash - either in training or operationally - but this thread was started to highlight 2 very preventable accidents and you know how much value the mil puts on doing that. Your rather rigid attitude to instruction is perhaps why people like Geoffersincornwall are complaining about the poor standard of training and flying in civil ops. Box-ticking to meet regulated minima doesn't make for good pilots.
You established, without drama, the limited extent of the student's aircraft knowledge, retention of taught emergencies and ability to think through a problem that might present itself in the air for real.
DB - no-one said mil pilots don't crash - either in training or operationally - but this thread was started to highlight 2 very preventable accidents and you know how much value the mil puts on doing that. Your rather rigid attitude to instruction is perhaps why people like Geoffersincornwall are complaining about the poor standard of training and flying in civil ops. Box-ticking to meet regulated minima doesn't make for good pilots.
Sorry have to be quick as I am away mountain biking. Following " the I have control" to answer the question I spent about 20 minutes with him sorting out stuck pedals, which he fully understood and said was tremendously beneficial ( this included sticking the pedal , left one , for a transition away.)
The issue that I have, obviously not put down very well ,here is I was asked to do some VOR revision followed by general handling based on a CPL skills test.
My beef here and it proves the point, this is a potential CPL who over 400 hours over 6 Biannual check rides, a 35 hour CPL course, 3 loads of recurrent training we can't perform a relatively easy emergency and to make it worse was happy to sit there and do nothing.
Perhaps to keep some on this thread happy perhaps I should teach the following, to keep in my fashion the lesson numbers are the old ones
Lesson 1-2 walk round check, safety etc etc - why bother
Lesson 3 air experience
lesson 4 effects of controls - suppose I better do that one
Lesson 5 2sets of controls together "
Lesson 6 speed, power changes climbing descending yup better do that
Lesson 7 Basic autos, no don't need that as engines don't fall, rarely need an auto for any other reason
Lesson 8 hovering yes better do that
Lesson 9 landing / take off yes
Lesson 10 transitions yes
Lesson 11 circuits perhaps we could get rid of this as helicopters don't really need to fly one
Lesson 12 first solo yup
Lesson 13 spot turns yes
Lesson 14 sideways backwards yes
Lesson 15 vortex ring - suppose we better
Lesson 16 EOL.s no engines don't fail
Lesson 17 adv auto's lets not bother as engine s rarely fail
Lesson 18 PFL's well we could cut this one short as helicopters rarely go wrong
Lesson 19 steep turns, why do we want to go round in a big 30 degree bank turn for ?
Lesson 20 point to point hovering, weld we really need to do this ?
Lesson 21 quick stops, do we really need to do that, bit of fun
Lesson 22 Nav, we all use Satnav so why bother
Lesson 23 Limited power, better do this as everyone overloads everything
Lesson 24 sloping ground yup lets do this
Lesson 25 Down wind, yup as we need to know this
Lesson 26 restricted sites, better do this as we are flying a helicopter
Lesson 27 IF well should we shouldn't we
So basically according to some we could cut down the whole PPL from 45 hours to about 30 by removing Nav, most emergencies, all autos
I will be back for your answers late this afternoon subject to me crashing and off to hospital ( many a true word here !!! )
The issue that I have, obviously not put down very well ,here is I was asked to do some VOR revision followed by general handling based on a CPL skills test.
My beef here and it proves the point, this is a potential CPL who over 400 hours over 6 Biannual check rides, a 35 hour CPL course, 3 loads of recurrent training we can't perform a relatively easy emergency and to make it worse was happy to sit there and do nothing.
Perhaps to keep some on this thread happy perhaps I should teach the following, to keep in my fashion the lesson numbers are the old ones
Lesson 1-2 walk round check, safety etc etc - why bother
Lesson 3 air experience
lesson 4 effects of controls - suppose I better do that one
Lesson 5 2sets of controls together "
Lesson 6 speed, power changes climbing descending yup better do that
Lesson 7 Basic autos, no don't need that as engines don't fall, rarely need an auto for any other reason
Lesson 8 hovering yes better do that
Lesson 9 landing / take off yes
Lesson 10 transitions yes
Lesson 11 circuits perhaps we could get rid of this as helicopters don't really need to fly one
Lesson 12 first solo yup
Lesson 13 spot turns yes
Lesson 14 sideways backwards yes
Lesson 15 vortex ring - suppose we better
Lesson 16 EOL.s no engines don't fail
Lesson 17 adv auto's lets not bother as engine s rarely fail
Lesson 18 PFL's well we could cut this one short as helicopters rarely go wrong
Lesson 19 steep turns, why do we want to go round in a big 30 degree bank turn for ?
Lesson 20 point to point hovering, weld we really need to do this ?
Lesson 21 quick stops, do we really need to do that, bit of fun
Lesson 22 Nav, we all use Satnav so why bother
Lesson 23 Limited power, better do this as everyone overloads everything
Lesson 24 sloping ground yup lets do this
Lesson 25 Down wind, yup as we need to know this
Lesson 26 restricted sites, better do this as we are flying a helicopter
Lesson 27 IF well should we shouldn't we
So basically according to some we could cut down the whole PPL from 45 hours to about 30 by removing Nav, most emergencies, all autos
I will be back for your answers late this afternoon subject to me crashing and off to hospital ( many a true word here !!! )
However, a commercial pilot carrying passengers every day, and particularly in offshore where there is ZERO opportunity for the crews to do general handling or practise anything but normal procedures,their skills fade.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Crab - I agree with your first point. However the students standard SHOULD have been established in the briefing room where something could be done to address it before wasting the students money in the air AND increasing the risks in the actual training.
For your second point. All that I have indicated has nothing to do with being rigid in training. EASA Regulations for a TRI are THE LAW whether you agree or not. For practical purposes, CAA guidelines to an authorised TRE are as good as the law.
You do not know me. You have no idea what my training standards or technique is like and like most of your posts they smack heavily on anti-authority mixed with the arrogance that a few years in SAR makes you believe you are entitled to.
Well guess what, eventually in the Civil world, just like the military world you will realise that compliance is a must. Not an option.
Finally, don't try to tell me that in your old SAR world you would BRIEF THE FLIGHT and FLY A COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT BRIEF during SAR training.
Briefing for a VOR sortie, realising that the student can't cope so electing to introduce a TR malfunction, unplanned and unbriefed, prolonging the exercise from 800 feet to 100 feet despite the student announcing clearly at 500 feet he does not know what to do, ( no surprise to me seeing as he received no brief). Is not and never will be an acceptable method of progressing a student. Now Crab. DO you agree with that or disagree.
If you choose to disagree please explain in a rational manner the following;
1. the compliance of the activity against published documents fine/rules etc
2. The training value the student received from the training
3. The Safety Management TEM principles deployed.
4. The overall value for money the student received. Is he entitled to a brief before he is expected to fly etc.
Answer those Crab before you try to critics even me again.
For your second point. All that I have indicated has nothing to do with being rigid in training. EASA Regulations for a TRI are THE LAW whether you agree or not. For practical purposes, CAA guidelines to an authorised TRE are as good as the law.
You do not know me. You have no idea what my training standards or technique is like and like most of your posts they smack heavily on anti-authority mixed with the arrogance that a few years in SAR makes you believe you are entitled to.
Well guess what, eventually in the Civil world, just like the military world you will realise that compliance is a must. Not an option.
Finally, don't try to tell me that in your old SAR world you would BRIEF THE FLIGHT and FLY A COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT BRIEF during SAR training.
Briefing for a VOR sortie, realising that the student can't cope so electing to introduce a TR malfunction, unplanned and unbriefed, prolonging the exercise from 800 feet to 100 feet despite the student announcing clearly at 500 feet he does not know what to do, ( no surprise to me seeing as he received no brief). Is not and never will be an acceptable method of progressing a student. Now Crab. DO you agree with that or disagree.
If you choose to disagree please explain in a rational manner the following;
1. the compliance of the activity against published documents fine/rules etc
2. The training value the student received from the training
3. The Safety Management TEM principles deployed.
4. The overall value for money the student received. Is he entitled to a brief before he is expected to fly etc.
Answer those Crab before you try to critics even me again.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
H500 thank you for the list but you are being coy now and you know better than that.
You BRIEF extensively for the core exercise that the sortie will involve. You MUST brief for all safety critical exercise as follows:
1. Involving movement of engine control levers/switches
2. Involving hazardous manoeuvres (Autos, EOLs, Vortex Ring, Simulated control failures) including recovery heights, control handover etc.
3. Responsibilities for real emergencies
You can assume, at the input standard of that particular student all NORMAL manoeuvres do not need to be briefed apart from the manoeuvres and procedures appended to the AIM of the sortie.
But you know all this and still you post a smokescreen.
You BRIEF extensively for the core exercise that the sortie will involve. You MUST brief for all safety critical exercise as follows:
1. Involving movement of engine control levers/switches
2. Involving hazardous manoeuvres (Autos, EOLs, Vortex Ring, Simulated control failures) including recovery heights, control handover etc.
3. Responsibilities for real emergencies
You can assume, at the input standard of that particular student all NORMAL manoeuvres do not need to be briefed apart from the manoeuvres and procedures appended to the AIM of the sortie.
But you know all this and still you post a smokescreen.
This escalated quickly..
Helo ops are diverse and encompass a broad range of environments requiring different skills, capabilities and training.
Lumping recreational flying into the same bucket as you would military operations isn't a fair comparison.
Most people, with the correct training, have what it takes to develop basic helicopter handling skills that would allow safe private flying.
After all, If you can manage the workload of trying to survive road traffic in a busy US or European city, it really isn't a big jump to doing so above ground - granted in a less forgiving environment.
Where some work is needed is that training can sometimes be delivered as a sequential series of lessons, rather than incorporating scenarios that allow a student to properly digest the material and translate it into a practical application of skills.
The other is educating new pilots to understand that the initial license is just the beginning of your "real world" training, and to help them build a personal structure for ongoing development and maintaining currency.
Ultimately though the individual needs to take this on board. Short of regulating (which rarely improves anything) it is better to build a culture of safety and learning throughout the initial training experience.
The biggest gotcha to avoid is developing a sense of complacency, which is where I believe many of the problems begin.
Helo ops are diverse and encompass a broad range of environments requiring different skills, capabilities and training.
Lumping recreational flying into the same bucket as you would military operations isn't a fair comparison.
Most people, with the correct training, have what it takes to develop basic helicopter handling skills that would allow safe private flying.
After all, If you can manage the workload of trying to survive road traffic in a busy US or European city, it really isn't a big jump to doing so above ground - granted in a less forgiving environment.
Where some work is needed is that training can sometimes be delivered as a sequential series of lessons, rather than incorporating scenarios that allow a student to properly digest the material and translate it into a practical application of skills.
The other is educating new pilots to understand that the initial license is just the beginning of your "real world" training, and to help them build a personal structure for ongoing development and maintaining currency.
Ultimately though the individual needs to take this on board. Short of regulating (which rarely improves anything) it is better to build a culture of safety and learning throughout the initial training experience.
The biggest gotcha to avoid is developing a sense of complacency, which is where I believe many of the problems begin.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Crab in regards the recent event S92 to be fair to the crew they all walked away. Job well done!
No doubt the various stakeholders while now analyse, as of course they should, to see if the job could be done any better. But in a heavy helicopter full of PAX a malfunction like they had is not an easy proposition AND I suspect mostly because you can never really be sure exactly what has caused it and therefore time pressure creeps in. Especially with recent Transmission histories on the heavies.
My initial thoughts were why they did not look for a long runway. However faced with the distance, the uncertainty of the cause and the eventual outcome, without knowing all the details I think the crew did a tremendous job.
In training this is the one drawback of the brief. It means most of the time the student has no doubt what has caused the malfunction. Real life is just not like that. The uncertainty can forces more time pressure than we can never simulate in training.
No doubt the various stakeholders while now analyse, as of course they should, to see if the job could be done any better. But in a heavy helicopter full of PAX a malfunction like they had is not an easy proposition AND I suspect mostly because you can never really be sure exactly what has caused it and therefore time pressure creeps in. Especially with recent Transmission histories on the heavies.
My initial thoughts were why they did not look for a long runway. However faced with the distance, the uncertainty of the cause and the eventual outcome, without knowing all the details I think the crew did a tremendous job.
In training this is the one drawback of the brief. It means most of the time the student has no doubt what has caused the malfunction. Real life is just not like that. The uncertainty can forces more time pressure than we can never simulate in training.
H500, I have thought of something positive to say, reading my own posts I come across as a "Holier than thou prat"
So you are telling me that you can't take a 400 hour pilot, thoroughly brief the main element of the sortie (VOR) and then introduce some ad hoc GH (which he asked for) and a simulated emergency that didn't involve any safety critical systems being deselected? Are you also telling me you can't introduce anything into the sortie that hasn't been thoroughly briefed before hand? Remember we are talking about someone going for CPL, not a basic PPL student.
Many of my SAR instructional and examination sorties had a basic outline brief with anything specific that need to be worked on, covered in more detail BUT when a student smashes the easy stuff, you want to be able to assess how good/what potential they have (much of my role was in developing pilots to Op Captaincy and beyond) so you have to be able to introduce unbriefed scenarios/emergencies so you can see what they know and can do.
If all you do is brief fly and debrief the required elements then you might well satisfy the rules and regs but you are not testing the student except to see if they can reproduce what you briefed them on.
However the students standard SHOULD have been established in the briefing room
I seem to have managed to be compliant as an instructor since 1989, constantly been assessed as above average and frequently exceptional and instructed everything from basic students to QHI students and those with tens of hours to those with many thousands of hours. You will, of course, just say this is me being arrogant but I know I am just one of many mil instructors who keep churning out good quality product iaw all the training directives, safety considerations, rules and regs - don't think that is really anti-authority, do you?
The S92 incident was a classic case of the crew talking themselves out of having a problem (undemanded yaw on lift) and then continuing the task and coming very close to losing the aircraft when the TR malfunction recurred because it had never gone away. Not a job well done (apart from keeping a spinning helo on a helideck) but poor awareness and CRM.