Helicopter Automation - Hvor er IFALPA?

Industry News Helicopter flightdecks and automation: friend or foe? 2 October 2014 TIM ROLFE* Director, Aviation Safety, Bristow Group, speaking  at a RAeS Rotorcraft Conference† earlier this year, examines the  role of automation in the cockpit of the latest offshore helicopters. Cockpit of a Sikorsky S-92 helicopter. Could rotary-wing pilots  learn from the fixed-wing community in the introduction of  advanced automated flightdecks? If so, where is the forum to do  so? (Ian Scott) There is a plethora of research from the past four decades focused  intensely on automated cockpit environments. We know that  automation was originally designed to increase efficiency and  accuracy in operations while at the same time reducing workload  and training requirements. We know that the increasing application  of cockpit technology does not work in concept if it is simply  designed to replace the human and that operational weaknesses  develop if the human does not know what part they play in the  overall system. We know also that the expected benefits of  automation do not materialise if the designer’s assumptions on  intended use do not match the actual use of the system(s). Still work to do  Lagging behind? What steps are needed to bring knowledge levels  of automation up to a par with the fixed-wing sector? (Airbus  Helicopters) So, if we know all of this, does that reflect in our performance?  Eight years ago we were discussing the challenges presented by  the introduction of types new to our industry at the time — the  EC225, S92, AW139, EC155 and S76C++. The thrust of the  discussion was recognising that operators faced new issues, such  as the interpretation of novel forms of information presented in  the cockpit, the need to standardise behaviours associated with  the use of automated systems and the need to update our training  programmes to reflect the new skills and competencies required.  Clearly we’ve moved forward but has the move been incremental  or of a larger magnitude? Despite a low number of accidents and  incidents relating to automation and monitoring, I would suggest  that there is still work to do. While the immediate attention on CAP1145 focuses on survivability,  it contains a commitment to focus on operational issues in line with  the CAA’s 2011 report highlighting the ‘Significant 7’ with loss of  control being the top of the list. The final report of the Commercial  Aviation Safety Team (CAST) Flight Deck Automation Working  Group released in September 2013 raises a number of findings and  recommendations which read across to modern helicopter  operations. Flight-path and automation management principles in modern  helicopters look pretty similar to those in aeroplanes, most  especially in the offshore IFR environment. The questions we should ask ourselves: Do we, in rotary operations,  experience loss of control events? Are we aware of the different  skills required because of the threats associated with automation use  and of the types of errors made in the modern cockpit? What is  required to ensure that our crews are given the tools to further  enhance their considerable capabilities in accident prevention? Across the divide Bristow has recently introduced the AW189 into service. (Bristow  Group) Do we all actively participate in industry forums on loss of control,  on the latest human factors developments, on focused safety  concepts such as line operations safety audit (LOSA) or evidence- based training (EBT), on enhancing our flight data monitoring  (FDM) programmes? Do industry forums seek input from the  rotary world, and are we prepared to participate if we are given  the opportunity? Our proficiency lies in the application of technical knowledge,  the maintenance of manual and cognitive skills and the  establishment of cultural attitudes. I propose that our future  success has three main building blocks: (1.) The provision of robust training programmes which deliver: a. consistent instructional standards b. a clear understanding of the automation design philosophy, c. appropriate content and focus on automation management     principles d. up to date human factors training related to research and      delivered by appropriately qualified instructors e. improved simulator access and timely configuration updates (2.) The development of optimised operating practices a. with SOPs based on a common operating philosophy driven      by the OEM b. with clarity on sub-system integration such as TCAS and       ground proximity warning systems (GPWS) (3.) Focus on building resilience into crew performance a. including the definition of technical and non-technical skills b. appropriate maintenance of manual flying skills c. development of monitoring skills d. active feedback from safety systems into the training  environment to ensure that emergent risks are trapped and mitigated Currently operators are trying to achieve these goals from the  ‘bottom up’ and often in isolation. We should remove barriers and form partnerships to ensure that all stakeholders play their part in delivering the co-ordinated and timely provision of relevant  information to the appropriate parties. Further action needed Sikorsky S-92 simulator. Should there be better access to simulators  for helicopter pilots? (Mike McDougall) We have the foundations, but to strengthen them, further action is  needed:Regulators must require, and approved training organisations (ATOs must commit to delivering, consistent instructor trainingand evaluation standards — this is the cornerstone of our future success OEMs must inform us of the design principles applied as each platform is conceived and built. At the most basic level, crews need to understand if the automation philosophy is centred on envelope protection or task enhancement. The operation evaluation board (OEB)/ operational suitability data  (OSD) process must be updated and run to ensure continuity between  type rating and operator conversion training segments — this appears  to have fallen between the cracks in Europe. There should be better access to simulators and more flexible software  configuration capabilities. It is unacceptable to introduce new aircraft  without access to a simulator or plan recurrent training in a simulator  with differing software to the aircraft. As the wider industry moves towards performance-based training, the  regulation should afford us use of an alternative training and  qualification programme (ATQP) and EBT, and operators must be  prepared to generate the required operational metrics to support their  programme. The subject of CRM training can divide opinion, but the move from  current human factors training syllabus to a focused application of  threat and error management (TEM) principles should be embraced. OEMs should provide a Flight Crew Operating Manual which, in turn,  generates a common flight crew training manual. Central to these  documents must be a consistent language and terminologies for the use  of automated systems. Operators and ATOs should focus on identifying successful technical  and non-technical skills, and define what ‘good’ looks like. Only then  can we objectively assess our crews against the defined behavioural  standard. In recognition of the required skillset, ATO’s training programmes  must be focused on the need to use appropriate levels of automation  by task and a clear understanding of when and how crews effectively  manage their part in the control loop. On the continuing concerns over skill fade, I would ask the question  of operators, regulators and ATOs — do manual flying skills rest in the  hand or in the head? Is it physical or mental practice that is required and  could we counter their potential loss through credited use of lower level  devices such as flight navigation procedure training (FNPT) simulators? As an industry we need to improve our collective understanding and  reinforcement of what constitute effective monitoring skills. Safety swept up by commercial sensitivities? The FBW/glass cockpit Bell 525 Relentless promises to bring even  more fixed-wing cockpit technology to the rotary-wing world.   (Bell Helicopters) As operators, we exist in an intensely competitive environment  and anti-trust issues are always a concern. The sharing of safety i nformation may have become confused with intellectual property.  Our subject matter experts’ (SME) workload is high and perhaps our  participation levels in industry activity are lower as a result. If regulation traditionally takes a decade to update and there is no  off-the-shelf solution to these challenges, how can we be clear on our  collective objectives in the interim and how might an acceptable  vision of the future look? Our desired future state would: Reflect improved partnerships and present open forums for discussion  which involves and represents industry SMEs Be an environment where the broad sharing of de-identified safety  information — from operators, ATOs and OEMs — would be the  accepted norm. Lead to common operational practices and common training  solutions centred on clearly defined competencies, particularly in  the areas of manual handling, systems management, technical  knowledge and monitoring. A precursor to this future state is the Joint Operators Review (JOR),  an organisation which came into being last October following consensus  from the CEOs of Avincis, Bristow and CHC. Focused on delivering  safety improvements globally, the JOR’s workstreams on automation  and monitoring are very closely aligned with those in CAP1145 and  the CAST FDA WG. The initiative has spawned Helioffshore, a not- for-profit trade body brought about principally to support the work of  the JOR, representing the interests of the global offshore operators and  other stakeholders. It is hoped and envisaged that this will be the active  and effective forum for our industry sector in future. In the meantime: We are all cognisant of the benefits and need the support of having a strong regulator working in partnership with industry. We need ATOs to lay the foundations for continued learning beyond  the limited content constraints of initial type training programmes. We need OEMs to provide operators with a voice in effective forums  aimed at improving their products post service introduction. And we need operators to participate. We cannot recognise these  issues and walk away from being part of the solution. Conclusion The latest generation of offshore helicopters such as the EC175 feature  highly automated glass cockpits (Airbus Helicopters) We currently have considerable industry alignment and interest and are  being given the opportunity to bridge any gaps that may have developed  between operators and the technology they employ. To deliver the  desired resilience, let us solidify the partnerships, agree our objectives  and take action. We are in this together and together we can unquestionably make the  necessary progress toward safer operations across the industry.   † Coming in the wake of the Transport Select Committee’s report into  offshore helicopter safety, the Rotorcraft Group’s 2014 conference  'Technology: Friend or foe?' in July dealt with automation in modern  complex helicopters engaged in offshore operations. It attracted world- wide interest and support from the European Helicopter Operators’  Committee, Oil &; Gas UK and the International Association of Oil and  Gas Producers, together with OEMs, operators and delegates throughout the  industry. Mark Swan, Head of the UK CAA’s Safety and Airspace  Regulation Group kicked-off the conference which included an impressive  line-up of speakers including Dr Guy Boy, NASA’s Chief Scientist for  'Human Centered Design. The conference was a call for action for all parties  as described by Captain Tim Rolfe in this article. A detailed report including  summaries of all the papers is available on the RAeS website.