Pilot Competency
 

How much confidence do you have in the system you work within to deliver genuine competency?

How many pilots where you work have ever failed a Licence Proficiency Check or military equivalent?

Are your Proficiency Checks a 'walk in the park' or a 'really good work-out'?

Do you have colleagues you consider need extra training if so what percentage of the pilot workforce would they represent?

Do you consider those who are given the responsibility for Proficiency Checks to be top-notch and competent?

G. :ok:

1. edited for grammar
2. edited to allow for military readers

1 system Ok, adherence to it / marginal at best.
2 very few
3 depends on the check pilot
4 yes, possibly 20%
5 no, bottom 20% dodos, 60% passable, top 20% might be tops most days.

any ideas how to improve it?

cheers tet

As long as it is done "In-House"....and particularly in the UK where the "Old Boy" network is at the helm.....(for Check Pilots checking Check Pilots)....at best the system is "incestuous" and we know how that turns out.

At least in the US FAA system....Check Pilots get checked by the FAA....which doesn't prevent bastardy...but it does help.

But then....there a few more pilots and helicopters in the USA than in the UK.

How many Operators insist upon a third party review of their Operation....and look for a really "Independent" review with a goal of seeking weaknesses and finding solutions or improvements?

How many are willing to admit they perhaps do not have the single unique path to salvation re Operational Procedures, Standards, Industry Best Practices, and Safety Environment?

Can you name just one?

Before you utter a single type written word.....SM...."Shell" by God sure ain't one of them?

SAS
 

Thanks SAS - no disputes with what you have to say but it would help a bunch if you can answer the questions. I need to get a feel for how healthy global competence management is. Very un-scientific I know but we have to start somewhere.
G. :)

Geoffers:
A very good question - but what do you mean by competence?
A good definition is the start to understanding and solving the problem.
Competence at doing the same standard things over and over, or at solving new and never-before-seen problems?

Not trying to be difficult, but a good definition would help us all to think about this very vexing problem.

Very interesting topic, and something I have had many a discussion on. I look forward to seeing this one progress.

System here works fairly well most of the time, but incompetence has and does creep in and is not always addressed appropriately.
A select few have failed LPC, but not many. Those that have, could not argue it was wrong.
Generally our proficiency checks are a good balance and work most people.
Those responsible for the checks are generally pretty good, but here in lies the problem. They probably all have the ability, but perhaps not always the back-up to do the job completely. I suspect this is a common problem.
Extra training costs big-bucks at the end of the day. I know an accident cost more, but only in hindsight is it realized. If an instructor in starts failing people, the first person who will likely be called into question will be the instructor. Often companies do not have the time or resources to really standardize themselves with regards to established, clear, measurable guidelines for non-acceptable standards. I believe this is something that needs to be addressed form the start of a pilots career within a company. We should be hiring all co-pilots with a view to them being suitable for upgrade to commander within 3-5 years (emphasis on suitable, depending on requirement.). They may not become commanders in this time, but we must see a steady curve of improvement over that time to indicate he will one day be ready. If a guy is in a company after 2 or 3 years and is still no better than the day he arrived and will clearly never be suitable for command, still requires constant close supervision and is still struggling with capacity, procedures, techniques and division of attention, should we keep him on? He may just be up to standard of a brand new pilot, but a long way short of his peers. I would argue the answer is no, but reality is more difficult. This is where we have to try and define levels of competency and the "checkers" need the back-up to deal with the problem.
Companies may well also be very aware that in some cases the customer is looking over their shoulders. If the customer suddenly sees an increase in the number of people failing LPCs, this might have an adverse effect on confidence levels. Better just to paint a rosy picture and hope it will be alright and the problem will "sort itself out".
Finally we tend to be becoming more and more averse to conflict. This stems from multiple areas, but largely from the trends within modern western CRM/HF. The job of checking people in your own company will lead to elements of conflict and feelings must be left at the door on the way to the sim or planning room. The instructor has to work with the same guys on the line, but must be clear that he is not there to be friends with everybody. Again this is made far simpler by very clear training and competency standards that are crystal clear for all to see and adhere to. This needs importantly to identify areas that are NOT acceptable as well as what is required.
Sounds easy. But.........

Definition of Competence
 

Having consulted various dictionaries I find the following would be the relevant interpretation of competence in the context of a professional helicopter pilot:

Able to demonstrate the required* level of skill and knowledge to complete the assigned task.
* as set out by the appropriate regulatory authority in their Proficiency Check regulations. This to include the Line Check which is a well known weakness in the system as it permits the 'checker' to be other than a TRE/SFE and be part of the crew instead of an independent observer.

What I am particularly keen on is the 'demonstrate' part. It's no good looking at a CV or a log-book and saying "That's OK then". I want to see you do it and if you can't I want to see the proposed next step in the form of an appropriate training programme to raise the individual's performance to an acceptable standard.

G.

If your organization has a good training program you should have a ZERO or near ZERO check ride fail rate. Near ZERO allows for the guys who turn into a bundle of nerves on check rides, or the check pilots with an axe to grind.

If your company has no continual training program then you probably have a pretty small fail rate with internal check pilots, but if an outside source accomplished the checking it may or may not be higher.

Pilots who can not attain and maintain competancy should be mostly weeded out during initial training.

If the company has a good training program, the check rides should only be finding points that need additional emphasis in training, not really things to take a pilot out of the seat. That should happen well before he is to an evaluation event, either initial or recurrent.

You will always have the occasional dirt-bag that gets thru, but they should be few and far between. Usually these guys are brought to the company's attention by co-workers or customers before a check ride happens.

There are always exceptions to these points, but generally this is the world as I see it. The key to success is the training program, initial and recurrent. This recurrnet program should not be a short burst once a year either

----- Now how do we get training budgets and assets available?
HTAWS, GPS, NVG are all tangible and you can point to it as a step you took. Training is not so much easy to portray that way.

Mike
 

Very interesting comments but would appreciate it if you can answer the questions as the data collected can be used to justify a more scientific research into the issues raised. Thanks

G. :ok:

Agree. But not always the case in the civil world. If they do make it through (and often they do) someone must make the hard decision to deal with it before the consequences are an accident. A good training program is costly and often just a training program will suffice. Just good enough is good enough when competing for big contracts in the eyes of the budget controllers and without contracts we don't have jobs. This is very operation dependent. A continuity training program in a offshore operation is difficult outside a 6 monthly OPC. It can be done though, and regular standards flights can help.

Other factors also influence the mix, such as culture differences, motivation and selection processes, management style and ability. Thus my point about a conflict-averse leadership environment. Good up to a point, but poor at dealing with problems. A good selection procedure will largely weed out those who are going to be a risk, but a small percentage will ALWAYS get through. If you work for a large company with a couple of hundred pilots I guarantee at least 10 will have slipped through the initial selection. Combine this with perhaps slightly weak leadership and they probably will still be drawing a pay check, despite the fact everyone knows they are a liability and the leadership has been made aware. Ask yourself - "would I be happy that this guy could get us all home, if we have had some major failure, at night in poor weather and I am incapacitated, or would he lose it as soon as the master caution goes off?"

Totally agree. But in addition the company needs solid procedures and OMs with good clear set standards for all to adhere to and clearly defined levels of competency required and a procedure for dealing with the small percentage that slip through.

Geoff,

Before we can get unscientific, three things need to be clearly defined

1. Knowledge
2. Understanding
3. Competency
4. Standard

Example. One of our pilots hurt himself badly doing something that he had been checked out on just 1 month prior. According to the ACP, he had no qualms writing him up as competent.

(ACPs are company examiners that are authorised to do the OPC equivalent (PPC) by Transport Canada)

What Limits
 

Such things are defined by each NAA in some way and this is not an attempt to apply a global standard but to test the effectiveness, or perceived effectiveness, of each licensing/proficiency management system.

If it is shown that the real world experience indicates that despite a good-looking set of regulations the end product is not producing a satisfactory level of competency within a national grouping of pilots - even if some companies within that grouping have acceptable levels - then we must look for some other mechanism for ensuring sufficient competency. Maybe OGP and its affiliates can help? If customers are made aware of any systemic shortcomings (on what may be a global scale) then maybe they will have the clout to change some priorities that will allow sufficient training and proper screening based on competency.

More answers to my original questions are required to even begin to make some sort of assessment. One thing is for sure, helicopters are getting more sophisticated and complex and therefore ever less tolerant of incompetence.

G.

Geoffers.....lad you have been to the Pub it seems!

The Offshore Oil Operators are the problem themselves. They claim to adhere to the industry best practices....and in Europe and the UK....do pretty well. The very same Oil Companies when operating in places like Africa do far less in that regard.....and you want them to "Help" in this matter?

Any time a "customer" operates to a sliding scale based upon locale....there is no hope!

When the "customer" refuses to pay the helicopter operator a professional rate....who is at fault for the lack of Standards?

As long as the Risk Analysis is happy to consider loss of life a risk of doing business....there is faint hope for real standards.

SAS
 

Funnily enough I have just returned from supper at the New Inn at Mabe-Burnthouse but a solitary G & T is not the cause of my apparent delusion.

Should your assertion that double standards are rife be true (and I think it is) then we have a dilemma that can only be fixed if the folk in OGP companies get their act together. That unfortunately may bring conflict with the politics of those areas reluctant to embrace the principle of competence defined by universal standards.

There are other customers outside the OGP orbit that are probably totally ignorant of this problem and assume that any properly licensed pilot is going to be acceptable. Some companies (very few actually) do send their prospective employees for a simulator check-ride and a very telling experience it can be for those involved. These customers may possibly bring pressure to bear but maybe not.

One thing is for sure, if the industry does not get a grip the cumulative effects of more complex helicopters, expansion in markets where experience is weak, regulation oversight poor and understanding of the issues almost non-existent t will cause a spiral of decline. Globalisation of the pilot market will mean this spiral will infect all areas to a greater or lesser extent.


G.

The question is - where do you set your minimum standard required? Not all pilots are equal, even after identical training, anyone who has been in the military training system knows that.

In any outfit you will have a spread of ability, most will be the 'average', some will be above and some below and unless you have a training system and management culture that allows the below average to improve (extra training and incentives) to average and the average to above average then you will always have those guys/girls at the bottom of the pile who just make the standard required.

Your only option if they are not want you want in your firm is to fire them and raise the bar so that your 'below average' is above the minimum standard you require or throw money and extra training at them.

Passing a check ride every 6 months/year, even if that is an exhaustive check of exercises, does not give progression, especially to the below average guys who probably need mentoring and extra training but that is expensive.

If you are not satisfied with the product then look to the training, both initial and ongoing but you have to accept that not all pilots are equal.

Crab
 

I 100% accept your assertion but please, can you answer the questions I posed at the start of this thread. If we can show by the posts received that the systems in use are dysfunctional then we can justify digging deeper.

Are the rules enough?
Are the rules actually being applied in the way they were intended?
Do you see signs of a dysfunctional system?
Are the instructors/examiners up to the task?

These are the issues I want to put on the table.

I sit at a minor crossroad in the helicopter industry and what I see maybe a symptom of what is going on elsewhere as significant number of my students give cause for concern.

That said I believe the vast majority that are below par would achieve much more if they received remedial training from instructors that themselves had received a proper training. We can't afford to throw away any experienced pilot that has the capacity to do better.

I may get on to Instructor training on a future thread.

G.

Geoffers in my little world the answer to those questions are yes, yes, no and yes but you know how the military system works.

Training is expensive so who will pay for it? As long as the attitudes prevail that just good enough is good enough and profit is the all important driver of everything, nothing will change. More legislation might help but there are always loopholes and 'interpretations' in laws and rules - the only answer is to make the minimum standard hiogher than you actually need to do the job.

Crab
 

Again I agree 100% but the people who pay (our customers or in your case the tax payers) need to be aware of the issues.

30 years ago Shell Aircraft began to employ poachers (pilots)and turned them into gamekeepers (advisors). Many are uncomfortable when they have to deal with people who can read between every line of bovine excrement and know it for what it is. Shell wised-up as did the Royal Flight when they began their business. You would never catch the sovereign and her family being delivered to a function by a Joe Line-Pilot. No. They were specially selected because the Queen deserved the best. We should not throw rocks at Shell if they want the same thing for their people. He who pays the piper gets to call the tune.

If the customer sets out the specs and audits against them then there should be no hiding place. The big problem is that (as SAS pointed out earlier) that particular group of customers have a track record of chameleon-like behaviour when they rub up against political pressures. Even these can be handled effectively and sensitively by making a contribution to the training of local staff and adding it to the cost of doing business.

G.

Geoffers,

Is this what you mean?

RVDT
 

The Peter Principle - I have worked in enough organisations to know what you are getting at. Given my present situation I am sure you will appreciate that anything I say is open to misinterpretation so we can put the subject of hierarchiology to one side for the time being and move on.

G.