satsuma

We already have a safety management system - more regulations than anyone ever knows, let alone remembers, a rigorous aircraft maintenance system and a training and qualification system for pilots. And it is the pilot who is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. The fact is, however defensive people get on this forum of particularly commercial pilots, most accidents are ultimately due to pilot error, as I suspect the Sumburgh Super Puma accident, the Glasgow 135 and probably this 139 accident will turn out to be. Yes there will be contributory factors, but they will be just that, contributory not causual.

I said before that I thought if owners are pressurising crew too much maybe a system licensing employers of pilots should be implemented, when such owners can be instructed on responsibilities, limitations, accidents and causes etc, and be made aware that their entitlement to continue to employ pilots relies upon them not developing a valid reputation from reports for endangering the safe operation of an aircraft.

Apart from that, I think as pilots we should all look primarily to ourselves to ensure we do not make the bad decisions that have lead to accidents in the past.

I'm really not sure what you mean by the need for a further 'Safety Management System' that corporate and private owners would need to implement - perhaps you could expand on what you see this would involve that is not required by legislation or common sense already? I certainly do not believe that we need more administration, flight record keeping or reporting, for example.

rotorspeed


Something, anything that took the form of backing up the pilot's decision making with regard to the weather or aircraft serviceability would be sufficient. It doesn't have to be an SMS but they're usually pretty comprehensive. It has to make the captain's decision bulletproof and modern Safety Management Systems, if implemented properly, will contain words or phrases that do just that. We simply can't allow a situation to continue where a guy is in fear for his employment if he goes against the wishes of the big boss man. Helicopters are developing a notorious reputation with the public and it's only going to get worse if it is discovered that sensible aviation decisions are being overruled by fear of upsetting the owner and being shown the door.

I already have a Safety Management System. It's me. It's an intrinsic part of the responsibility of the job.

I have no knowledge if what I am about to say had any impact whatsoever on the accident under discussion, however...

I feel an employer should indeed have the ultimate right to hire and fire employees. There are rules to protect individuals from unscrupulous employers. They protect pilots in just the same way anyone else is protected.

It is perfectly correct to say that the most important tool in any pilot's (not just captain's!) armoury, is the ability to say 'no'. The innate sense of self preservation must never come second to any other consideration. Ever.

However, in the field of corporate/private operations I have to assume (because I have never done it!) that the ability to explain one's decisions, emphasising the paramount importance of safety must also be a pre-requisite for the job.

Nobody wants to come a cropper. Not even the super rich. Some actually like having key individuals around them who are prepared to prevent them forcing a dangerous situation. But it is their right to have each occasion explained to them in however much detail they require. Because some pilots can equally be over-cautious/obstructive/under confident.

I think that the latest little spat in the last few posts is quite illustrative of the problem.Of course the person flying the aircraft SHOULD be the one to make the decision but in real life subtle pressures are applied in all manner of ways.

Back o=in the 70's working for a US rig construction company in the North Sea a colleague and myself used to joke that the ultimate sanction was "To be badly thought of" by the company.Now we were a pair of pisstakers and significantly we both ended up self employed,but a lot of our colleagues was worried by this ultimate sanction.

In any Master/servant relationship it is the former who carries the responsibility to ensure the safety of employee,customer and public.But rich businessman probably tend towards the can do attitude.it is only when an event such as this occurs that they should realise there are things that they can't do,or at least should not do.

Some businessmen also have a flying licence of their own and their personal risk assessment process may be at odds with that of the professional pilot. A successful businessman may be a risk taker; that is how they make money.

My personal SMS system will not allow me to work for such people.

I worked for a fairly large company with a range of different helicopters. The Chairman's son was on the same type of helicopter as I was. We were having a bit of trouble with them and they were subject to various preventive checks. The call came from on high. He was to be transferred to another type as he was not going to have his son fly a dodgy aircraft.

He didn't seem to worry about us.

ShyTorque


Your references to your personal SMS is below your usual standard of posts. You may well have the strength of character, experience and financial security to make the decisions that in an ideal world every pilot should make but that's not always going to be the case. Younger, less experienced, less confident pilots who may be in financial difficulty also operate within this industry. It is they that need to be protected.

Satsuma

Fine words. Can you just explain exactly how you will protect people, essentially from themselves? Because I can't imagine any effective mechanism.

Tragically people such as the theoretical ones you describe, would have positioned themselves in the wrong segment of the wrong industry.

Individual people's risk assessment is all over the place.A friend of mine,retired schoolteacher wouldn't say boo to a ghost as an employee of mine used to say.Recently turned up at mine on his Honda Fireblade and stripped off his leathers to reveal a tee shirt saying "I've ridden at 150". "Have you?" I asked.Several times apparently and more,up to 170.That is crazy.

Tandemrotor

Some individuals may not be able to be protected from themselves, they never will be. We should at least though give them a fighting chance.

satsuma

You comment: "Something, anything that took the form of backing up the pilot's decision making with regard to the weather or aircraft serviceability would be sufficient".

The problem is how to focus effort where it is really required and would be effective. The fact is the vast majority of (corporate) flights are very straightforward and 30 seconds looking at the TAFs and METARs is all that is necessary to know that weather is no problem - and I assume everyone does that at least at the start of a day and often the day before a flight. Any requirement to have to box tick and document what the weather actually was for example would be laborious, tedious and superfluous in these situations. And at the private sites helicopters often operate from there can never be any proof of what the weather actually was anyway, so subjective judgement is required, with contingencies if it proves worse than anticipated.

And surely aircraft serviceability is something that is verified (as far as a pilot reasonably can) by checking the tech log to see it is within maintenance schedules, checking for defects and doing and signing for a Check A. What more could one be sensibly doing?

Can you give us a clue what you have in mind? Because I'm genuinely struggling to see how any such system could work?

Thanks.

An SMS can be as complex or as simple as it needs to be for the size of organisation and number of employees concerned. However, if it contains statements that pilots are subsequently able to use to back up their arguments as to why they won't be going flying that day, then they can do so without fear because it could be something that a private owner could be compelled to sign up to before being permitted to employ licenced pilots.


Have a look at Chapter 12 of this ICAO Document, especially Appendix 1, the Sample Safety Policy Statement.


http://legacy.icao.int/osg/isd/afi/R...S%20Manual.pdf


If a private or corporate owner HAD to sign up to this or something similar before they could employ pilots to fly their aircraft, then the pilots would be protected. It would be dead easy to throw it back in their faces if they're applying pressure for you to go flying in poor weather for example.


Apologies for the formatting if it comes out wrong but read what's below and adjust to suit the individual owners/organisation.



ICAO Sample Safety Policy Statement


Safety is the first priority in all our activities. We are committed to implementing, developing and improving strategies, management systems and processes to ensure that all our aviation activities uphold the highest level of safety performance and meet national and international standards.




Our commitment is to:






a) Develop and embed a safety culture in all our aviation activities that recognizes the importance and value of effective aviation safety management and acknowledges at all times that safety is paramount;


b) Clearly define for all staff their accountabilities and responsibilities for the development and delivery of aviation safety strategy and performance;


c) Minimize the risks associated with aircraft operations to a point that is as low as reasonably practicable/achievable;


d) Ensure that externally supplied systems and services that impact upon the safety of our operations meet appropriate safety standards;


e) Actively develop and improve our safety processes to conform to world-class standards;


f) Comply with and, wherever possible, exceed legislative and regulatory requirements and standards;


g) Ensure that all staff are provided with adequate and appropriate aviation safety information and training, are competent in safety matters and are only allocated tasks commensurate with their skills;


h) Ensure that sufficient skilled and trained resources are available to implement safety strategy and policy;


i) Establish and measure our safety performance against realistic objectives and/or targets;


j) Achieve the highest levels of safety standards and performance in all our aviation activities;


k) Continually improve our safety performance;


l) Conduct safety and management reviews and ensure that relevant action is taken; and


m) Ensure that the application of effective aviation safety management systems is integral to all our aviation activities, with the objective of achieving the highest levels of safety standards and performance.

This article on the Daily Mails website, included several photos;


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580477/BREAKING-NEWS-Helicopter-crashes-Beccles-Norfolk.html


One photo, titled “a sheared tree branch near the crash scene” shows the broken top of a conifer.





This conifer is located in a fairly dense copse, on the east side of the A143, and is about 70’ from the road.


The broken section is approximately 20’ long, and the remaining ‘stump’ is still around 30’ tall.


I note the trunk has sheared at a point well below the height of the other trees closely surrounding it.



https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-W...2/P1170204.JPG





The X marks the approximate location of this conifer, Are there any others?

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6...0/P1130268.JPG

Facts
 

When crew are provided with all means to plan their flights and fair warning of upcoming flights, "THE MAN", does not wish to be told at the last moment that their activities will be curtailed due to, for example weather.
The crew therefor have/had the responsibility to monitor weather events and advise and plan accordingly.

The record, on this forum, of the principal in this case is perhaps tainted by reputation rather than experience or facts.

I am not by any means attempting to decry all that has been said thus far, just that there were two guys capable of making decisions for themselves. Whether they made an error of judgement or bowed to some implied pressure it is not known at this time.

Additional rules such as suggested will do nothing to change matters. Employers already have a legal duty towards staff. IF the nasty rich man ignores these rules he will ignore yours too.


There is an answer; grow a set and be the captain. If you can't stand up to the nasty rich man on safety matters you are too cowardly for the role. Give up 2 stripes and take a more appropriate job.

satsuma

Sorry, but you've got to be kidding with that suggested SMS policy! It might have some relevance in a major AOC organisation with many employees, but it is a complete waste of time for a small corporate or private operation. It's largely just health and safety generalised rhetoric and would probably only provoke disdain and contempt in many operations - and ones that fly with a great safety culture. It basically all just means fly as safely as we reasonably can, and that's what we all try to do.

When it comes to owner pressure, as others have said, we as pilots have got to be sensible and strong enough to say no when conditions are not safe, whatever the reason, and that should be part of the training and suitability appraisal.

Good afternoon rotorspeed


You'll note my use of the following phrases:


An SMS can be as complex or as simple as it needs to be for the size of organisation and number of employees concerned...........and adjust to suit the individual owners/organisation.


Best wishes.

John R81


They're not rules. It's about developing a culture. How do people 'grow a set' when they've got significant debts and are fearful for their future? They need some sort of back up, don't they?

As someone who does not rely upon flying for your job John your attitude is somewhat skewed. When you have means and are not reliant on having to fly to get paid then it is very easy to bandy words about like grow a pair.

satsuma

I am genuinely interested in flight safety. I have no doubt that all the professionals here are. However I just don't see how your Safety Management System will prevent pilots who are inexperienced, under-confident, or penniless, from being pressured by 'the man'! Nor discourage 'the man'!

I'm afraid it's just a non-starter!

We all need the best quality pilots available, to be flying aircraft. They are produced by quality training and quality experience. They USUALLY make the best decisions. Anyone putting themselves in a position where their training/experience is inadequate for the pressure they will encounter, needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

I'm afraid it's a truism that many of the best pilots I have come across are, if not bolshy, then certainly the people with rock solid bottom lines. A fair number (though tragically not all) of those appear to have reached a grand old age.

It's always down to individuals to know their personal limits. That is just as true for choice of employment as it is for pre-flight planning.

Sad but true!

I have no idea whatsoever if any of this had any influence at all in the accident being discussed.

Satsuma, Sorry to disappoint you but I have no personal obligation to protect anyone except those affected directly by my own operation.

It really doesn't matter how many fluffy, fanciful words you might choose to lay down in a document if they are unenforceable.

Bering

Not all ex-mil people will have an army pension.:rolleyes:

Many ex-mil pilots. Lyle easily have no ex-mil pension at all!

As for the others you mention. It's a very dangerous world out there. Know the limits of your abilities at all times! Or be prepared to accept the consequences.

ShyTorque


I was asked to expand upon a suggestion. I did just that. The alternative put forward seems to be something along the lines of grow some balls. A round of applause for that one. Very progressive.

satsuma

Out of interest, are you actively flying? What sort of ops and aircraft?

Carl's Funeral
 

Gents,

Just to bring this thread back to reality and to put a human face to what has happened.

Carl's funeral is at Christ Church, Meadows Avenue, Thornton on Tuesday April 1st

The service will commence at 1230hrs and will be followed by a committal at Carleton Crematorium at 1330 hrs.

There will be refreshments afterwards at The Castle Gardens, Carleton.

Family flowers only.

Anyone wishing to support the family's chosen charity, The NorthWest Air Ambulance, should send a donation to The Willows Funeral Home, 57 Fleetwood Road North, Thornton Cleveleys, FY5 4AB.

Lee's funeral is on the 2nd April. I will post details when I have them.

FNW

Would you treat me differently if I wasn't? These are anonymous forums so stop being nosey.

Satsuma, I certainly never used that phrase.

The person who did would no doubt also be able to stick to his guns if challenged on an airmanship decision, so I see nothing to be concerned about there. That's the name of the game, like it or not. It's not a job for the faint hearted.

You're clearly happy with the status quo.

Not sure what you mean by the status quo in this context but I am happy that my operation is run in a safe and controlled manner. If not I would change things until I felt that it was. I have the backing of my employer in that respect. Having said that, we are never complacent and review our operations on a continuous basis. Although we are not required to do so in law, we aim to operate broadly to standards required by regulations for public transport.

FNW has made the most eloquent contribution so far. I have been there too many times. Very well said.

Happy with the status quo?

Not necessarily. But nor do I think anything satsuma has suggested would have any influence whatsoever on any events we may be postulating. In reality, it will always come down to individual's decisions, and the quality of those calls. What else is there to say?

Non of which may be relevant to the accident we are discussing.

Airworthiness Directive Link

Effective Date 24 March 2014

Some cases of dislodging of lower half scissor spherical bearings Part Number (P/N) 3G6230V00654 have been reported on in-service helicopters. These bearings are installed on main rotor (M/R) Rotating Scissors P/N 3G6230A00733.
As a result of the investigations accomplished by the supplier of the spherical bearings, it was determined that a quality issue might have affected the production of these bearings.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of control of the helicopter.
To address this potential unsafe condition, AgustaWestland published Alert Bollettino Tecnico (BT) 139-368, providing inspection and replacement instructions.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive inspections of the M/R Rotating Scissors P/N 3G6230A00733 that have been manufactured or repaired by installing a potentially defective lower half scissor spherical bearing.
This AD also requires replacement of the affected spherical bearings or, as an alternative, replacement of the M/R Rotating Scissors with an affected bearing, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD.

P1

ShyTorque


You use the words 'I' and 'My' an awful lot. You have come across as rather selfish in recent days.

satsuma

You asked: "Would you treat me differently if I wasn't? These are anonymous forums so stop being nosey."

That's a strange comment! Of course it's not a matter of treating YOU one way or any other, it's how I treat your comments. It is entirely reasonable for anyone to treat comments from those with direct experience of a topic with more significance than those who do not. I have no experience at all of aerial lifting work for example, so any comments from me would be likely to be of far less validity than those that do. And yes, I do have a lot of experience of corporate flying in IFR twins. From your evasive answer to my innocent question, I'm guessing you don't. But correct me if I'm wrong!

And regarding anonymity, I was only asking about your flying activities, not your name!

Your lobbying for your described SMS as a solution hasn't been received positively by any of the very experienced pilots here, but you seem to be reacting rather indignantly and petulantly to this.

I await your better suggestion to the acknowledged problem of 'fly me or else'. I've enough flying experience to know when an inherent problem exists. Carry on regardless if you wish. We'll see how long it is before we're having the same discussion again. Signing off.

Teddy, cot, different parts of the room.

The answer to the owner who says "Fly me or else" has been pointed out to you a number of times. While your intentions are honourable, the practicality of your solution is nil. The fly/no fly decision is always that of the aircraft commander, whatever any document might say.

ShyT;


Absolutely right. The name on the tech log carries everything.


Satsuma;


There is a requirement under Eu Ops for a "Corporate Operations Manual" which will set down minima etc and contain a very basic SMS. Personally I don't think it will give any protection for pilots working in the corporate field, just give the lawyers someone to sue if it all goes wrong and the pilot has stepped outside the manual under intense pressure. (lets face it not many of us would expect to be able to answer for our actions after such a situation anyway) I'm lucky I have AOC protection, but many don't and having worked in that situation I know how serious the pressure can be. ShyTorque has written a lot of sense in this thread, I have met him, know the equipment he flies and sometimes share a pilots' lounge with him and know how seriously he takes what he does. Both of us are old and ugly enough to really stand up for what we know is right. If the customer/owner is not prepared to listen there are plenty of people out there prepared to bite their tongues and take his money and hope. I won't operate using hope, but use the thousands of hours of experience and knowledge me and my colleagues have, as I wrote earlier, I am a professional adviser to my clients, just like their lawyers and accountants, if they won't listen then I won't take their money.


SND

Satsuma

As someone who can speak with experience on this subject... The answer to "Fly me or else!" is - "Else please".

It's what goes with the four stripes and the pay-cheque. If you have not got what it takes to say it then an SMS will do little to help you.

OH

"Some cases of dislodging of lower half scissor spherical bearings Part Number (P/N) 3G6230V00654 have been reported on in-service helicopters. These bearings are installed on main rotor (M/R) Rotating Scissors P/N 3G6230A00733.
As a result of the investigations accomplished by the supplier of the spherical bearings, it was determined that a quality issue might have affected the production of these bearings.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of control of the helicopter."

OMG they're duplicating the scissors!! - one of the safest things around! now they too can be unreliable.

Simplex is good, duplex should be used with caution ( if ever ).

2 engines didn't help here..