Subscribe by E-mail

Archives

Recent Assets

  • Hendell PC-12.jpg
  • Cropped heli.jpg
  • FIN-HELITRAK-Xa.jpg
  • Goldenrules 1.jpg
  • Golden rules.jpg
  • Flying close to terrain.jpg
  • ICAO ANC assembly.jpg
  • ICAO ANC screen.jpg
  • ICAO.jpg
  • Jamestown.jpg

January 2013 Archives

Designing the beginning with the end in view

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)
Back in the 1950s and early 1960s, aeroplane manufacturers designed a new product essentially because they could. They were pretty sure it would fly, but would it fly well and safely? When it proved it could fly, they started selling it, and began fixing all the fixable things they found that were wrong with it.

My, how things have changed. 

Now, on its maiden flight, the new aircraft is expected to perform to the specification against which hundreds have already been sold.

But much more is going on than that, as I learned recently on a visit to Bombardier at Montreal.

Now an aircraft is "designed for the environment", on the grounds that decisions at the design stage "will affect the planet for 20-30 years", as Bombardier puts it. 

This is not entirely an altruistic aim, although clearly a responsible one. 

Bombardier aims to ensure that "aviation does not become socially undesirable", so that aeroplanes keep selling. Meanwhile, as the company points out, "aircraft that are recognised as environmentally friendly will be more highly valued".

So much for the aeroplane's life. But what of its death?

Bombardier has provided a CRJ100 approaching the end of its life to the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal - specifically to its Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services. This academic institution will strip down the machine and assess, in minute detail, its recyclability. What they find, says Bombardier, will become part of the company's design and manufacturing considerations for the future.

As the Ecole's Prof Rejean Samson says: "We can't afford to make mistakes any more. The stakes are too high. We're facing depletion of natural resources and dramatic climate change. Sustainable development is the only way to slow these trends, and the life-cycle assessment approach is so far the best tool to make wise investment decisions for the future."


Running out of options

| | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)
Helicopter pilots have one of the most demanding jobs in aviation. 

The flying itself is usually totally hands-on, totally visual, involves flying relatively close to the ground during the en-route phase, and frequently involves flying extremely close to buildings or other obstructions on the approach to the destination landing point.

This was certainly true of the task for the pilot flying the Agusta Westland AW109E when it hit a crane over Vauxhall, just south-west of London's West End, at  precisely 07:59:29 on 16 January.

The UK Air Accident Investigation Branch has just published an interim Special Bulletin releasing some of the facts established so far about the accident, but providing no analysis.

The weather was foggy over London below about 1,500ft and, at the time of the collision, the helicopter had been cleared to fly "not above 1,500ft", because that area of central London is beneath the main approach path to Heathrow airport. Crossing traffic has to stay low.

Back to the early morning before the flight: 

The pilot, Capt Peter Barnes, reported to his base at Redhill aerodrome, at 06:30, knowing his task was to fly to Elstree aerodrome to pick up a client.

That entails a 20min flight more or less due north across central London. Barnes knew that Elstree was in freezing fog, but he made the decision to go and have a look anyway.

He knew he had some personal advantages on a day when the weather made his task a marginal one. He knew it would involve continual risk assessment, mainly because of the poor visibility at low level, but he was extremely experienced, fully capable of flying on instruments, and he was piloting a twin-engined aircraft with a cockpit equipped for IFR (instrument flight rules) flying.

On departure from Redhill for Elstree, air traffic control cleared him to fly across London "not above 1,000ft", on a track that would pass over Battersea heliport. He was flying under SVFR (special visual flight rules, which means "in sight of the surface and clear of cloud"). But in a text message he sent just after passing Battersea, he said "Can't see Batts", so we know he was not continuously in sight of the surface.

When he got to Elstree he made his first obvious risk-assessment decision: Elstree visibility was not good enough to land. He made the decision to return to Redhill, and asked for clearance to re-cross London. Thames Radar gave him permission to fly "not above 1,500ft" via the London Eye.

When the helicopter was established en route, flying south at 1,500ft, about 8min before the collision with the crane, ATC asked Barnes if he wanted an instrument flight rules (IFR) radar-guided transit, but he replied: "I have good VMC on top here, that's fine." VMC is visual meteorological conditions. In other words, he was flying above the fog with good visibility at that height and did not want help.

At 07:55, Barnes' client texted him: "Battersea is open". 

In the same minute, Barnes texted back to base: "Can't get in Elstree hdg back assume still clear". Base texted back, still at 07:55, about 4min before the collision with the crane, "Yes its still fine here". That was the last text Barnes either sent or received, but ten texts altogether had been sent or received by Barnes during this flight.

Guessing what the client had in mind, Barnes asked ATC whether he could head to Battersea, and the controller told him he'd check and get back to him. At 07:57 Barnes told ATC: "I can actually see Vauxhall" and proposed that he could join the prescribed helicopter route along the Thames river. He was told: "Hold over the river for the minute between Vauxhall and Westminster bridges and I'll call you back." 

The map below shows the remainder of the flight. 

Cropped heli.jpg

Barnes did not hold over the river in the area instructed but headed for a position on the river more or less where Battersea heliport is, and began descending from 1,500ft to an altitude below 1,000ft, going as low as 570ft. Over the river opposite Battersea, Barnes turned right in a loop through more than 180deg, and headed along the river to the east.

At 07:59:10 ATC called, clearing him to Battersea, and providing him with the frequency, 122.9mHz, to call the heliport. He never made the call.

Fatally, Barnes turned right to reverse his heading along the Thames, and tracked south of the river's southern bank into the area of high rise construction at St George's Wharf. This construction work had been accurately Notamed, so Barnes should have been aware of it, and probably was.

It would have been better if he had turned left, but the commander's seat in a helicopter is on the right side of the cockpit, so you can see better into the turn if you go right than left.

But at that point, in poor visibility, with a 180deg turn to carry out, a frequency change to make on his radio, the river and buildings to watch as he turned, and Battersea heliport to find visually, he was probably overloaded.

If Barnes had seen the crane in time he would not have hit it.

Witnesses on the ground testify that the top of the building and the crane were invisible in fog. The precise horizontal visibility at the height the helicopter was flying at impact is unknown and may remain so.

When the AAIB publishes its final report, expect to see expressions like "continued VFR flight into IMC" (instrument meteorological conditions). And although the pilot was not texting just before the accident, there may be some recommendations about the practice of communicating like this while flying, especially for a solo pilot.




It matters how we fly

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Talking about his imminent departure from the Flight Safety Foundation for an executive safety oversight role at the FAA, FSF chief Bill Voss said:  "I look forward to getting back into the operational world to see if I can still do more than make speeches. The FAA never runs out of challenges."

Bill did a lot more at the FSF than make speeches, but what can he do at the FAA? He certainly knows it well - he worked there before he went to ICAO and then to the FSF.

Commercial aviation safety in the USA may not be perfect, but it's so good that the FAA, because of how it's constituted, has its hands tied behind its back. It cannot justify updating outdated regulation on the cost/benefit grounds that it needs to be able to demonstrate to be permitted to make changes. That means the organisation cannot change a regulation just because it should, or because it's right to do so.

In turn, that means existing FAA regulation is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the modern world and the FAA might as well admit that it has no safety oversight role except to cajole the industry into doing the right thing, and apply fines for technical breaches of regulations. Maybe that will work, up to a point, but it's a strange way to operate a government safety oversight agency.

Last year at Flightglobal's London safety conference Bill delivered a keynote speech in which he shared some of his thoughts about airline operations today. Despite welcoming the unprecedented safety levels being achieved today, he said this: "I don't feel we have this under control yet. The system seems fragile."

He referred to the aircraft certification assumption that the pilot is there "to pick up the pieces when the automation fails". Because of airline standard operating procedures which enjoin pilots not to do any of the flying, Voss observed, "today's pilots follow the flight director and find the raw information a mere nuisance".

Part of the reason for the latter, he commented, is that the ratio of training time to flying time is so low that "fixing training is much less of an issue than looking at how we fly".

He's not the first to bemoan the fact that today's highly automated, highly reliable operations do not provide pilots with any on-the-job training, which used to be one of the assumed benefits of experience.

But if the airlines don't make use of revenue flying time for keeping their pilots in touch with their aeroplanes, they will have to invest serious money in correcting that training/operating ratio. Which they won't do without coercion.


See the previous blog entry for Airbus' thoughts on similar issues

Learning to fly the A350XWB at Toulouse

| | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

If you go to Airbus for your A350XWB type rating training, you'll have some fun. Officially.

Since modern aeroplanes are racks of computers surrounded by an airframe that's actually just an ordinary aeroplane, Airbus has studied the way  in which people - especially children - learn to operate a  new electronic device, and modified its A350 type rating course accordingly.

Children - and most adults -  don't even use the quick-start guide with a new gadget, but just turn it on and start to find out how it works by experimenting with it. As Airbus' head  of flight crew development Christian Norden points out, this not only leads to quick learning, "it is also more fun".

But there's more to it than that. Accident and incident data for the last 15y unequivocally shows that, across the world fleet, pilots' manual aircraft management skills are declining significantly, so Airbus is going to use a more hands-on learning process for pilots - from the start - to allow them to familiarise themselves with the aircraft and its manual handling characteristics. They'll have a bunch of new training devices including a full flight simulator to play with. When the "gamers" start to feel familiar with their environment and more confident about handling the aircraft, they will gradually gain expertise at using the automated systems also.

Airbus has made a science of studying the skills needed specifically to fly the world's highly automated aircraft, and has come up with more than 300 essentials, according to Capt David Owens, head of flight crew training policy.

It has distilled these down to just four "Golden Rules", and boxes of wallet-size plastic cards printed with these arrived at the Toulouse Training Centre when I was there two days ago.

Golden rules.jpg
This is what it says:

1.    1.   Fly, navigate  and communicate (in this order and with appropriate task-sharing)

2.    2.   Use the appropriate level of automation at all times

3.     3.  Understand the flight mode annunciator at all times

4.      4. Take action if things do not go as expected

If you were flying a 707 you'd just have the first one. That sounds simple, but would you honestly opt to go back there?

The message is: feel at home with your aeroplane as a manual flying machine. The automation is good, so use it, but watch it, and if you don't like what you see, trip it out.

It's about time somebody not only said it, but started training people to do it.

The first to benefit will be the first A350 pilots who start training very soon. But gradually Airbus will adopt this training philosophy across all its types.

Goldenrules 1.jpg

 

 

Pilots seeking influence

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
The pilot unions of one American and three European airlines have announced an alliance that mirrors the transatlantic joint venture agreed by the carriers. 

Meanwhile, in the UK, dissatisfaction with existing pilot representation has led to the launch - today - of a new association called the Professional Pilots Union.

Following a meeting in Rome, the pilot associations of Air France (SNPL), Alitalia (ANPAC), Delta Air Lines (ALPA) and KLM (VNV) formalised the inclusion of the Italian union into the existing "pilot protocol" between the other three unions, arguing that the stability conferred by their companies' recognition of professional pilot organisations is an important component of commercial success for airlines and alliances in today's marketplace.

In the UK, the PPU says: "Following significant dissatisfaction with the incumbent pilots' union, the PPU was launched after a poll of 548 Virgin Atlantic pilots in June 2012 returned a 76% response and an 87.4% vote in favour of the new union and the principles upon which it was to be founded."