SAFETY IN FLYING TRAINING Juris Ignatovičs – Head of Training, ERIVA FTO
OVERVIEW • What we miss in our safety procedures • Airmanship vs Procedures • What is in regulations? • Proposed safety procedures • Proper identification of training threats • Importance of CRM principles • Things to improve
ACCIDENT – P2006T, YL-SVN • Very experienced and disciplined examiner • Qualified student (almost CPL-holder) • Brand-new modern airplane • WHY THEY CRASHED???
THREATS • General threats • Applicable for all flights • Counteracted by training, regulations, general airmanship • Example: engine failure on SE airplane, counteracted by specific training and minimum altitude regulations • Flying training-specific threats • Applicable only for flying training activities • Counteracted by instructors’ training and experience, school procedures • Example: unexpected control input by the student, counteracted by overtaking of the controls by instructor • Excercise-specific threats
EXERCISE-SPECIFIC THREATS • Counteracted only by instructors’ airmanship and skill, maximum by school procedures • No regulatory guidances exist to assist instructors! • Example: • “Unusual attitudes” exercise • How far we can go in terms of pitch, bank, airspeed? • PA-28 airplane operated by Patria Pilot Training (leading FTO in Finland) crashed after airframe overstressing during unusual attitudes training MORE EXAMPLES IN A MOMENT...
THIS PRESENTATION IS NOT ABOUT: • Discipline • If somebody ignores any kind of rules, new set of limitations will not change anything • General airmanship • Absolutely necessary but airmanship alone is too general and person-dependant, therefore it doesn’t work very well for training threats • General hazards • Real problems during training flights are pretty rare compared to instructor / student induced ALL THAT IS REQUIRED AND SHALL BE TEACHED BUT THIS IS SEPARATE TOPIC
WHY EXISTING SYSTEM FAILS? • What safety measures specifically related to flight training are in place around the industry? • School’s procedures – ATO-SPECIFIC • Instructors’ initial and recurrent training – ATO-SPECIFIC • Instructors’ standartization – ATO-SPECIFIC • Pre-flight briefings – INSTRUCTOR’S-SPECIFIC • Judgement and airmanship – CREW-SPECIFIC Nothing in the list is INDUSTRY-WIDE
BRIEFINGS, TEM, PLANNING ETC... CURRENT POPULAR SAFETY MEASURES CANNOT ACT AGAINST EXERCISE-SPECIFIC THREAT! • Briefings are useful only if specific procedure is defined • Example: airline operations • Operator has very detailed operating manuals (OM-A, OM-B) • Briefings are conducted on basis of operating manuals • Examiners are airline-stndartized and shall strictly follow procedures • Planning is strategic tool, not tactical • Good weather, airspace compliance or MBL in limits cannot prevent airframe overstressing doing unusual attitudes
BRIEFINGS, TEM, PLANNING ETC... • Threat and Error Management (TEM) theory • Very good safety tool, BUT... • It is too general • Its application heavily depends on individual • And it is still ATO or Instructor specific
AIRMANSHIP vs PROCEDURES • Currently great emphasis is placed on instructor’s / student airmanship as an accident prevention tool • This could be similar to an airline without detailed operations manual (OM-A, OM-B) Airline captain (ATPL holder) in most cases has much more experience and airmanship than school instructor BUT... HE IS REQUIRED TO OPERATE AIRPLANE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LIMITATIONS SET OUT IN THE MANUALS! AIRMANSHIP IS SUPPLEMENTARY TO PROCEDURES, NOT THE REPLACEMENT
WHAT IS IN THE REGULATIONS? • AMC1 ORA.ATO.230(a) • TRAINING manuals for use at an ATO conducting integrated or modular flight training courses should include the following: (a)(8) Safety training: - individual responsibilities - essential exercises - emergency drills (frequency) - dual checks (frequency at various stages) - requirements before first solo flights THIS TRAINING COVERS GENERAL THREATS(i.e. real fire or engine failure)
WHAT IS IN THE REGULATIONS? • AMC1 ORA.ATO.230(b) • OPERATIONS manual for use at an ATO conducting integrated or modular flight training courses should include the following: (b) Technical: - aircraft descriptive notes - aircraft handling (checklists, limitations, ...) - emergency procedures - radio and radio navigation aids - allowable deficiencies THESE PROCEDURES AGAIN COVERS GENERAL THREATS (i.e. real failures, icing etc.)
WHAT IS IN THE REGULATIONS? • ARA.FCL.210 Information for examiners • The competent authority may provide examiners it has certified and examiners certified by other competent authoritiesexercising their privileges in their territory with safety criteria to be observed when skill tests and proficiency checks areconducted in an aircraft. THIS COULD BE EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED BUT THAT INFORMATION IS TARGETED ONLY TO EXAMINERS...
WHY WE NEED COMMON SAFETY STANDARDS? EXAMPLE: STALL TRAINING ON MEP AIRPLANE (ME airplanes are not tested for spin recovery) • Based on risk assessment, ATO procedures prescribe initiation of recovery on first indication of stall (i.e. aural stall warning) • Student haven’t experienced full stall during training and therefore is not prepared for it • Examiner has different interpretation of stall training and requests a developed stall demonstration from the student • Examiner may not realize that studenthas never done full stall RISK OF STALL/SPIN DEVELOPMENT
WHY WE NEED COMMON SAFETY STANDARDS? DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT INSTRUCTORS, ATO’s AND EXAMINERS HOW SPECIFIC EXERCISES ARE FLOWN • Minimum altitude for stalls • Limits for unusual attitudes • BIFM advanced exercises – IMC or VMC? • Stall recovery initiation (VFR, IFR, SEP, MEP) • Simulated engine failure procedures (SEP, MEP) • OEI exercises on MEP airplanes: • Actual engine shutdown or simulated (idle thrust)? • Minimum altitudes or other safety considerations • Safety in cross-country flights (ELT, FPL, Fuel, Daylight) • Night flying safety (Altitudes, Fuel, Safety Equipment etc.)
EVERYBODY SHALL BE INVOLVED! • Authority • Publishes safety procedures and guidelines • Examiners • Know what to ask and expect from the student • ATO’s and instructors • Operate in accordance with safety guidelines • Students • Act as a “last defence line”, i.e. don’t accept unsafe practices • CAA guidelines shall be available to students!
INFORMATION CHAIN SAFETY PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION TRAINING OF INSTRUCTORS AND EXAMINERS TEM, SAFETY BRIEFINGS SAFE TRAINING
SOME PROCEDURE EXAMPLES • SEP stall exercises • Full Stall and Incipient Spin exercises may be performed only on airplanes certified in utility category • SEP simulated engine failure exercises • Shall be terminated not later than reaching 500 ft height AGL • MEP OEI (One Engine Inop) exercises • Actual engine shut-downs may be performed not lower than 2500 ft AGL, at a safe (cruising) speed • Speed shall never drop below Vyse (blue line) • Instructor shall be ready to reduce power on remaining engine in case of any controlability problems
PROPER IDENTIFICATION OF THREATS • We shall identify and prioritize threats properly • It would be useless to name too many threats for any specific exercise, some of them may be overlooked • The key threat may be masked with secondary or obvious tasks • EXAMPLE: Simulation of engine failure on MEP airplane • Watch altitude • Guard controls of operating engine • Monitor engine instruments • Perform good look-out • Monitor speed • Apply carburator heat TOO MANY TASKS and THEY ARE TOO GENERAL...
PROPER IDENTIFICATION OF THREATS • More safety-efficient approach: • Name 1-2 threats or tasks, be specific • EXAMPLE: Simulation of engine failure on MEP airplane • Guard controls of operating engine, reduce power in case of controlability issues • Monitor speed – not below Vyse (blue line) • Also: • Poor OEI performance of MEP airplanes is not a training-specific threat
WHAT ELSE COULD HELP? CRM principles • SEP training • Call-outs during taxi(i.e. Left side / Right side clear) • Call-outs during takeoff (Speed alive / Checked) • MEP training, additionally: • Confirmation of engine controls / switches during securing the “failed” engine FAILURE TO OBTAIN CONFIRMATION FROM THE INSTRUCTOR / EXAMINER BEFORE OPERATING “FAILED” ENGINE CONTROLS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS A SERIOUS THREAT AND SERIOUS ERROR BY THE STUDENT
THINGS TO IMPROVE... • Safety procedures shall be produced for everyone involved in flight training or checking activities • Examiners • ATO’s • Instructors • Students • Airspace shall be available for safety-critical training exercises • Not far from training aerodromes • With more flexible attitude from LGS and minimum formalities • Foreign examiners shall be briefed about local airspace and training procedures
ABOUT AIRMANSHIP CAA-ISSUED GUIDANCE WOULD BE USEFUL ON SOME SUBJECTS: • Carburator heat operation • Too many carb ice accidents in Latvia for the hours flown • Still unsatisfactory related knowledge and procedures observed by the students • Fuel planning • Students try to plan flights with 30..45 min. final res. fuel, no contingency fuel, no extra fuel • Unrealistic “book” cruise performance figures, which underestimates real fuel consumption by 10% and overestimates airspeed by 5% at average • Emergency briefings • Bad discipline for emergency briefings • Often unrelated to real conditions, excessive or with decision-making errors