rotorcraft cfi special emphasis workshop · rcfi special emphasis program • based upon successful...
TRANSCRIPT
Rotorcraft CFI Special
Em phasis W orkshopA USHST TW G I nit iat ive
Nick Mayhew
Philipp Wynands
Bob Jex ‐ Orlando FSDO ‐ FAASTeam
Introduction and Scope
• RCFI Special Emphasis Program• TEM ‐ Philipp• FAA CFI Check Ride Feedback ‐ Bob• Questions and Discussion
RCFI Special Emphasis Program• Based upon successful CFI Special Emphasis Program• Established 1998 – Orlando FSDO• Regular Special Emphasis Meetings
• Education Program• DPE & Pt 141 Schools Oversight• Reduced fixed wing accidents by 57% in 10 years
THREAT AND ERROR
MANAGEMENT
� The aim of this presentation is to introduce the concept of Threat and Error Management to Rotorcraft Flight Training in order to assist Flight Instructors and Pilots in Training in their situation awareness and decision making before and during the execution of a flight
� Threat and Error Management (TEM): Is defined as the process of detecting and responding to threats and errors to ensure that the ensuing outcome is inconsequential, i.e. the outcome is not an error, further error or undesired aircraft state (UAS)
� The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) require that Threat and Error Management (TEM) be introduced into all pilot training
DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT:
To PLAN, DIRECT and CONTROL
Threat and Error Management therefore considers first and foremost that THREATS, ERRORS and UNDESIRED AIRCRAFT STATES happen!
We just have to find a process to manage them…
THREATS ERRORS
UAS
� THREATS are events that occur beyond the influence of the flight crew, increase operational complexity, and must be managed to maintain the margins of safety.
� 3 types of threats: Anticipated
Unanticipated
Latent
Understanding what a threat is, and being aware of these threats enables the flight crew to both plan and execute the flight in a safe manner by selecting the appropriate countermeasure and achieving a safe outcome.
Anticipated ThreatsSome threats can be anticipated, since they are expected or known to the flight crew:• Thunderstorms / icing / wind
shear and other forecast inclement weather
• Congested airport / heliport• Cross and/or downwind
approaches/landings
• Outside air temperature / density altitude extremes
• Mass and balance• Forecast / known bird activity
Unanticipated ThreatsSome threats occur unexpectedly, suddenly and without warning. In this case, flight crews must apply skills, knowledge and attitudes acquired through training/experience:
• In‐flight aircraft malfunction
• Automation anomalies
• Un‐forecast weather / icing• ATC re‐routing, error,
congestion, non‐standard phraseology
• Un‐forecast bird activity
Latent ThreatsLastly, some threats are not directly obvious to or observable by flight crews immersed in flight operations. These may by uncovered by Safety Analysis and include organizational weaknesses and the psychological state of the pilot/crew:• Organizational culture / changes• Operational pressures / delays• Complacency / fatigue• Over or under confident• Lack of recency• Lack of proficiency
� ERRORS are actions or inactions by the flight crew that lead to deviations from organizational or operational flight crew intentions or expectations. Unmanaged or mismanaged errors, as with threats, have the potential to reduce margins of safety.
� 3 categories of errors: Aircraft handling Procedural
Communications
The objective of Error management is timely detection and prompt response which does not reduce the margins of safety in flight operations.
Aircraft Handling Errors
• Manual handling of flight controls: vertical, lateral or speed deviations, inappropriate attitude or power settings’
• Systems, radio, instruments: incorrect use of cyclic trim, incorrect pressure setting, incorrect heading bug or incorrect frequency selected/dialed
• Operations: hovering too low or fast, failure to hold short
Procedural Errors
• Documentation: wrong weight and balance, fuel information, ATIS or clearance recorded
• SOPs: non‐compliance
• Checklists: from memory, items missed, checklist performed late or at the wrong time, wrong challenge and response (CRM)
• Callouts: omitted or incorrect• Briefings: omitted or items
missed
• Risk Assessment: not commenced
Communication Errors
• Crew to external: missed calls, incorrect phraseology, transmitting while another call in progress, misinterpretation of instructions, incorrect read‐back, wrong clearance, taxiway or runway communicated
• Pilot to Pilot: miscommunication, tone of delivery, inter‐personal difficulties, mis‐interpretation
� UNDESIRED AIRCRAFT STATES are flight crew induced aircraft position or speed deviations, misapplication of flight controls or incorrect system configurations, associated with a reduction in margins of safety. UASs that result from ineffective Threat or Error Management may lead to compromising situations and further reduce margins of safety in flight operations.
� 3 categories of errors: Aircraft handling Ground Navigation Incorrect aircraft configurationsManaging UAS means timely detection and recovery of aircraft to safe conditions.
Aircraft Handling UAS
• Vortex Ring State• Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness • Degraded Visual Environment
• Vertical, lateral or speed deviations
• Unnecessary weather / airspace penetration
• Operation outside aircraft limitations
• Continued landing after unstable approach
Ground Navigation UAS
• Proceeding towards wrong taxiway or runway
• Wrong taxiway, ramp, pad or hold spot
Aircraft Configuration UAS
• Systems
• Flight Controls• Automation
• Engine
• Weight and Balance• Fuel
Flight crews must, as part of the normal discharge of their operational duties, employ countermeasures to keep threats, errors and undesired aircraft states from reducing the margins of safety in their flight operation.
ChecklistsChecklists
Briefings / Risk
Assessment
Briefings / Risk
Assessment
SOPsSOPs
Training StandardsTraining Standards
Countermeasures = Margin of Safety
Training Standards and TEM?
Old saying:
“Your student is trying to kill you!”
New saying:
“I will manage the errors of my student progressively throughout his or her training so that his or her
actions or inactions become no threat to the safety of any flight”
TEM built into maneuvers:
� Airmanship
� Progressive Approach
� Errors managed within Training Standards
Example: Autorotations
FAA‐P‐8740‐71 (2008):� “Currently, statistics for helicopter accidents/incidents
indicate the greatest exposure for an accident or
incident occurs during practice autorotations.”
� As an FI(H), you are the final safety factor aboard the
helicopter
� Before Flight, Training Site, Autorotation Phases
FAA‐P‐8740‐71 (2008):� Progressive Approach aims to produce “building
blocks” of learning / teaching
� TEM aims to manage each building block and to move
forward only if a particular phase of learning has
occurred
� Most critical errors in Autorotation?
FAA AC 61‐140 (2013) Para 4.d:“A review of NTSB reportable accidents and incidents
during autorotation training/instruction indicates that the
predominant probable cause is failure to maintain
RPM(Nr) and airspeed within the POH’s specified range,
resulting in an excessive and unrecoverable rate of
descent.”
FAA AC 61‐140 (2013) TEM:
� Initial training should be at higher altitudes and over
several flight lessons with elements introduced
progressively
� Discuss Energy Management principles on preflight
� Begin with “straight‐in” and build up to “turning” or
180 degree autorotation
Lessons preceding autorotation could include:
� Effects of Controls
� Attitude and Power Changes
� Straight and Level Flight, Turns, Climbs and
Descents
Progressive Approach during the autorotation:
� Entry with student on cyclic only to observe large attitude change
required on entry (>1,500 feet AGL!)
� Then followed by collective (>1,500 feet AGL!)
� Then combined (>1,500 feet AGL!)
� Only 2‐3 repetitions to avoid fatigue and aid the learning process� If errors occur, and they WILL, FI(H) takes full controls at height
EHEST Training Leaflet HE8:
The Principles of Threat and Error
Management (TEM) for Helicopter Pilots,
Instructors and Training Organisations
Bob Jex, Orlando FSDO
Common
Practical Test
Weak Areas
Topics from
Disapproved
RH
Check Rides
WATS / HATS Conference
Robert Jex, FPM
20 Apr 2016
Overview
• Defining “Weak Area”
• Orlando testing stats since Apr 2015
• Historically weak areas
• Weak areas observed within last 12
months
• Managing weak areas
• Advent of ACS
37
References
• DPE Feedback Reports
• IACRA
– Notices of Disapproval
– Rolling 1-year database
38
Defining “Weak Area”
• Practical Test Task
• Performed in excess of PTS standards
• Recorded as “Unsatisfactory” by DPE
• “Common” = Seen at least twice in FSDO39
Testing Statistics – FSDO-15
• Orlando FSDO is largest flight training dist.
– 20-25% of world’s pilots
– 1 out of 6 certifications nationwide
– 11,700 certifications filed over past year in IACRA
• 320 RH practical tests since 20 Apr 2015
• 88.7% RH pass rate on first attempt
– Measured as overall DPE output, not by school40
41
Historic Weak Areas - Knowledge
• Special Emphasis Areas not understood
• Weather information - misinterpretation
• Chart knowledge & Flight planning
• Airport / Heliport marking & lighting
• Airworthiness determination from records
• CFI’s: endorsements, 8710-1 prep, FOI
Historic Weak Areas - Flight• Navigation & flight planning
• Fundamentals of radio navigation
• Determining coordinates (Lat / Long)
• Crosswind takeoffs
• Compass turns
• Instrument approaches – too slow prior to
intercepting final course
• Confined area procedures – improper approach
angle, airspeed and/or altitude42
Historic Weak Areas-Flight (cont)• Rapid acceleration with nose too high
• Straight-in and 180° autorotations exceeding PTS
tolerances
• Touchdown autorotations – late flare
• Aircraft preflight inspection – identification of
items, description of function
• CFI’s: Not teaching IAW RFH, POH, etc.
• CFI’s: Autorotations from hover – not teaching
“detent” vs. idle43
Weak Areas – Apr 2015 to Pres.
• Knowledge of FAR’s, esp. Part 91
– Chart interpretation scenarios, IAP symbology
• Knowledge of RFH, Mfr pub’s
• Systems
– Low-G / Mast bumping scenarios
– Instrument systems
• Airworthiness determination from records
• Aircraft performance and limitations
– Determination of PA, DA
• Aerodynamics, esp. Retreating Blade Stall44
Weak Areas, Apr 2015-Present
• Improper set-up for shallow or steep appch
• Autorotations (Straight and 180°)
– Too high or low in flare
– Outside lateral tolerances from intended point
• Physiology of night operations
• ADM / risk management
• Clearing before maneuvers 45
Managing Weak Areas• Know what they are
• Talk to the DPE’s about their observations
– Sit in on post-test debriefs
• Ask SME’s to present topics at your school
• Teach how to review mx logbooks
• Have student conduct lesson brief
• Quiz student in weak areas before testing
• Conduct mock check rides
• Promote WINGS program (www.faasafety.gov)46
FSDO’s
A/W
Checklist:
47
Advent of ACS
Coming this June – First of the new tests:
Private Pilot – Airplane
Instrument – Airplane
Coming soon to Rotorcraft and all others
Beta-tested in Orlando and select other sites
Same flight tasks as PTS
Knowledge testing integrated with flight tasks
Risk Management elements added 48
QUESTI ONS?