ornge
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ornge
Ornge has decided that captains only will fly from the right seat of the 139s and copilots from the left seat, is anyone else in the world operating this way.
Very common for SIC's to stay left side until they start upgrade training. That's the way I've always known it. Only the right guy can pretty much operate the parking brake and the 102% switch plus the manual engine control. Makes sense to me.
Wonder what brought that on? Detrimental in all kinds of ways for pilot development, CRM, safety. As Sir Korsky points out though there are some controls on the right, which drives the right-seat only single pilot limitation. Multi-crew we never found it a problem to put the SIC in the right seat, and in our company you could fly PIC or SIC from right or left for whim or reason. For a tough left side landing offshore at night on a pitching deck you'd be damn sure the experienced guy sat on the left for the whole trip.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the 139 able to be flown PIC from left and right hand seats.
If it can’t be then in a two pilot crew the PIC would have to be on the right unless the SIC had been signed off for PIC.
Depending on experience and sometimes with a lot of experience there’s a lot to be learnt from time in the LH seat, and a lot less responsibility.
If it can’t be then in a two pilot crew the PIC would have to be on the right unless the SIC had been signed off for PIC.
Depending on experience and sometimes with a lot of experience there’s a lot to be learnt from time in the LH seat, and a lot less responsibility.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very old and established Canadian operators have pretty much always swapped seats with the FO, for a number of reasons, one of which Malabo has already pointed out. I know that not everyone on here has long line experiance, but that is another situation where the "Capt" has to sit on the left in the 61 and 212 for example. I remember when one of our CP's decided that all FO's must have 500 hours on type before being allowed the right seat on the 61 offshore. That did not last long as that forced me to do cross cockpit landings with the 61 on a pitching and rolling deck. You tell me what the safer choice is in that situation?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
35 plus years they’ve been switching......what happened that brought this about? What happened that they’re not talking about?
All that expensive CAE training of pilots to captain standard (transport Canada rules) seems to be a waste?
Forging ahead to the dinosaur age!
While I agree with you there, I also would ask for another guy if I couldn't trust him with the parking brake, 102 switch, or manual engine control, as per your above post ;-)
I started flying offshore back in 2008, and from the beginning was trained to fly from both seats and flew from both seats as a FO and later Captain on the S76, EC/H155, and AW139. Company procedure was that the PF for the flight was to be in the right seat.
I started flying offshore back in 2008, and from the beginning was trained to fly from both seats and flew from both seats as a FO and later Captain on the S76, EC/H155, and AW139. Company procedure was that the PF for the flight was to be in the right seat.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: B***f***
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very old and established Canadian operators have pretty much always swapped seats with the FO, for a number of reasons, one of which Malabo has already pointed out. I know that not everyone on here has long line experiance, but that is another situation where the "Capt" has to sit on the left in the 61 and 212 for example. I remember when one of our CP's decided that all FO's must have 500 hours on type before being allowed the right seat on the 61 offshore. That did not last long as that forced me to do cross cockpit landings with the 61 on a pitching and rolling deck. You tell me what the safer choice is in that situation?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see a couple of safer choices - 1. Have a competent copilot who can make a left seat landing. 2. If the deck is rolling and pitching, forcing a cross seat landing that you're not comfortable with, go missed and RTB. You obviously pushed the envelope being 'forced' to do something you considered unsafe.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: B***f***
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
those fixed wing ORNGE management types really know their helicopters! (Rolls eyes).
35 plus years they’ve been switching......what happened that brought this about? What happened that they’re not talking about?
All that expensive CAE training of pilots to captain standard (transport Canada rules) seems to be a waste?
Forging ahead to the dinosaur age!
1. Old and underpowered S-76 A models incapable of meeting required H1Helipad performance requirements.
2. A system of managed helipads that didn't meet CAR 305 regulations or 325 Standards, utilizing a unaided 'black hole' let down approach procedure. Why don't you do a survey amongst the crews, of how many near misses and near ball ups occurred whilst carrying out that procedure?
3. A number of training accidents on said S76s over the years, plus the Snake Lake black hole approach crash in Temagami in 2008 that everyone seems to want to blame on Ornge.(Ornge was only certified as an Air Operator in 2012).
4. No change in SOP, equipment or anything after the Snake Lake crash, business as usual, even after a 38 page analysis was published with recommendations for changes and higher standards. (To Donut King's 35 years............why change)
Now, since Ornge...
1. AW139s
2. Implementation of hard proficiency and currency targets
3. AV-70 lighting for every heliport designated as black hole as an interim measure until completion of the NVG program, plus currency restrictions on crews
4. Improved, more robust changes to SOPs, training program, progression for FOs etc
5. NVGs (this was a non-starter from the previous operator, not even considered, the CP was dead set against them).
6. Integration of a fully functional EFB with real time weather wherever there's cell coverage.
It's nice to moan and groan and demonise Ornge, but many of their issues were inherited, legacy ones that functioned only in that unique business model of the previous operator. So the ongoing level of disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty I see from the previous cadre stuns me.
Yes, a nasty, poorly-managed, hostile take over of business by a bunch of entitled criminals happened initially, but after everything is said and done, I think you have in Ontario a better, safer, more robust air ambulance system than what previously existed. Unfortunately you're now working in a government bureaucracy instead of a profit driven company, but that was determined at a political level, so it's now the world you live in.
It will never be perfect, but it's time the old school guys like Mac and Arcal wake up and smell the coffee - you definitely didn't come from a perfect world either. This whole attitude of "we've always done it this way" and resistance to change for resistance' sake that still pervades is in of itself a risk to the operation.
BTW, FO left seat retention is normally used as part of a pilot progression scheme where, after he becomes captain (or senior FO) qualified, and after a right seat check to qualify him for command duties, he can operate as P1 U/S with LHS trained and qualified Training Captains, Line Training Captains, or approved senior Captains, leading up to his final checkout as an aircraft captain. Nothing out of the ordinary, welcome to the real world.
My two cents.
Last edited by sandyhelmet; 15th Jun 2018 at 08:11.
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: earth
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At risk of sounding like I'm taking sides (I'm not), let's talk about dinosaur age........from the previous operator standpoint to Ornge's one....
1. Old and underpowered S-76 A models incapable of meeting required H1Helipad performance requirements.
2. A system of managed helipads that didn't meet CAR 305 regulations or 325 Standards, utilizing a unaided 'black hole' let down approach procedure. Why don't you do a survey amongst the crews, of how many near misses and near ball ups occurred whilst carrying out that procedure?
3. A number of training accidents on said S76s over the years, plus the Snake Lake black hole approach crash in Temagami in 2008 that everyone seems to want to blame on Ornge.(Ornge was only certified as an Air Operator in 2012).
4. No change in SOP, equipment or anything after the Snake Lake crash, business as usual, even after a 38 page analysis was published with recommendations for changes and higher standards. (To Donut King's 35 years............why change)
Now, since Ornge...
1. AW139s
2. Implementation of hard proficiency and currency targets
3. AV-70 lighting for every heliport designated as black hole as an interim measure until completion of the NVG program, plus currency restrictions on crews
4. Improved, more robust changes to SOPs, training program, progression for FOs etc
5. NVGs (this was a non-starter from the previous operator, not even considered, the CP was dead set against them).
6. Integration of a fully functional EFB with real time weather wherever there's cell coverage.
It's nice to moan and groan and demonise Ornge, but many of their issues were inherited, legacy ones that functioned only in that unique business model of the previous operator. So the ongoing level of disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty I see from the previous cadre stuns me.
Yes, a nasty, poorly-managed, hostile take over of business by a bunch of entitled criminals happened initially, but after everything is said and done, I think you have in Ontario a better, safer, more robust air ambulance system than what previously existed. Unfortunately you're now working in a government bureaucracy instead of a profit driven company, but that was determined at a political level, so it's now the world you live in.
It will never be perfect, but it's time the old school guys like Mac and Arcal wake up and smell the coffee - you definitely didn't come from a perfect world either. This whole attitude of "we've always done it this way" and resistance to change for resistance' sake that still pervades is in of itself a risk to the operation.
BTW, FO left seat retention is normally used as part of a pilot progression scheme where, after he becomes captain (or senior FO) qualified, and after a right seat check to qualify him for command duties, he can operate as P1 U/S with LHS trained and qualified Training Captains, Line Training Captains, or approved senior Captains, leading up to his final checkout as an aircraft captain. Nothing out of the ordinary, welcome to the real world.
My two cents.
1. Old and underpowered S-76 A models incapable of meeting required H1Helipad performance requirements.
2. A system of managed helipads that didn't meet CAR 305 regulations or 325 Standards, utilizing a unaided 'black hole' let down approach procedure. Why don't you do a survey amongst the crews, of how many near misses and near ball ups occurred whilst carrying out that procedure?
3. A number of training accidents on said S76s over the years, plus the Snake Lake black hole approach crash in Temagami in 2008 that everyone seems to want to blame on Ornge.(Ornge was only certified as an Air Operator in 2012).
4. No change in SOP, equipment or anything after the Snake Lake crash, business as usual, even after a 38 page analysis was published with recommendations for changes and higher standards. (To Donut King's 35 years............why change)
Now, since Ornge...
1. AW139s
2. Implementation of hard proficiency and currency targets
3. AV-70 lighting for every heliport designated as black hole as an interim measure until completion of the NVG program, plus currency restrictions on crews
4. Improved, more robust changes to SOPs, training program, progression for FOs etc
5. NVGs (this was a non-starter from the previous operator, not even considered, the CP was dead set against them).
6. Integration of a fully functional EFB with real time weather wherever there's cell coverage.
It's nice to moan and groan and demonise Ornge, but many of their issues were inherited, legacy ones that functioned only in that unique business model of the previous operator. So the ongoing level of disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty I see from the previous cadre stuns me.
Yes, a nasty, poorly-managed, hostile take over of business by a bunch of entitled criminals happened initially, but after everything is said and done, I think you have in Ontario a better, safer, more robust air ambulance system than what previously existed. Unfortunately you're now working in a government bureaucracy instead of a profit driven company, but that was determined at a political level, so it's now the world you live in.
It will never be perfect, but it's time the old school guys like Mac and Arcal wake up and smell the coffee - you definitely didn't come from a perfect world either. This whole attitude of "we've always done it this way" and resistance to change for resistance' sake that still pervades is in of itself a risk to the operation.
BTW, FO left seat retention is normally used as part of a pilot progression scheme where, after he becomes captain (or senior FO) qualified, and after a right seat check to qualify him for command duties, he can operate as P1 U/S with LHS trained and qualified Training Captains, Line Training Captains, or approved senior Captains, leading up to his final checkout as an aircraft captain. Nothing out of the ordinary, welcome to the real world.
My two cents.
From an outsider's perspective (reading the report and hearing the odd rumor here and there), it seems like Ornge really didn't have any intention of changing anything until the crash in Moosonee. For example, I was under the impression that many of the pilots were asking for NVGs for years prior to the crash, and neither the previous operator or Ornge showed any interest in purchasing them. Same with the old S-76A's. Weren't the bases in the blackest part of the province operating those things for years while the south bases benefited from the more modern aircraft?
I'm not saying that things were better before. But based on what I read in the TSB Report for the Moosonee crash, and from the rumblings through the rumor mill, I am pretty skeptical that Ornge had any intention of changing much until the crash happened. The report made Ornge out to be a pretty incompetent operator as a whole, and TC to be an incompetent regulator.
Again, not saying things haven't improved (I'm sure they have otherwise the OC would probably have been pulled), but your post comes across as a piece of propaganda put out by someone in a management position rather than an honest recollection of the facts as outlined by the TSB Report.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colombia (the country, not the tandem-rotor company) requires SIC in the left seat (except during upgrade training) and PIC in the right seat in something like the AW139.
Instructors / examiners, assuming they're up front at all, when engaged in those duties sit exclusively in the SIC seat, by regulation.
In the 139 this isn't a big problem, as everything (with the sole exception of the parking brake) is easily operable from the left seat (no matter how snappish some folk get when another pilot's hand crosses the aircraft centerline).
I buy a used car....I get a mechanic to check it out for problems BEFORE I sign on the dotted line.
After I buy it I am responsible for seeing it gets inspected, serviced, and repaired or up-graded.
At what point did Ornge take on that model of ownership?
After I buy it I am responsible for seeing it gets inspected, serviced, and repaired or up-graded.
At what point did Ornge take on that model of ownership?
