Welcome Back
Operational Effectiveness Keith Mullett, President and General Manager, International Oil and Gas at PHI International
Operational Effectiveness Goals • Agreed priorities from Lisbon (2015) – FCOM, HTAWS, Operations / Training Standards 3
Operational Effectiveness Pat Attaway, Tim Rolfe, and Alan Walling
Operational Effectiveness Workstreams Vision Evidence- Individual workstreams informing based Training each other through the provision (EBT) and use of data via HSIP Terrain Flight Crew Awareness Operating Warning Addressing priority risks: Manuals System Safety (FCOM) System Failures • Information (HTAWS) Programme Loss of Control • (HSIP) Controlled Flight into Terrain / • Water Flight Eye- Path tracking Management Research (FPM) 6
Flight Crew Operating Manuals (FCOM)
FCOM Expectations Why FCOM? • HeliOffshore FCOM • “…lack of understanding / awareness of the state of Briefing Sheet automated systems..” 8
Play FCOM video here 9
FCOM Steering Committee Alan Walling 10
Background Each OEM developing FCOMs for their models High-level guidelines only specified what each section of the FCOM should be, not format of content FCOM meeting in Oct 2018 resulted in OEM concern that the content structure may not be consistent OEMs agreed to meet to develop content structure (standardisation) 11
FCOM Meeting 2 – 4th April 2019 Hosted by Leonardo at the Leonardo Training Facility in Sesto Calende Attendees: Leonardo, Airbus, Bell, Sikorsky, Bristow, Babcock, HeliOffshore We are all HeliOffshore! Created FCOM Steering Committee responsible for: Determining content structure (i.e. common callouts, table construct, etc.) • Reviewing and approving feedback for incorporation • Developing and maintaining FCOM roadmap • 12
Purpose and Mission Statements Purpose Statement: The Flight Crew Operating Manual is the recommended practices that provide the flight crew guidance to operate the aircraft safely and efficiently based on manufacturer’s design philosophy and operational intent. Mission Statement: Encourage commonality for the development and implementation of the Flight Crew Operating Manual. 13
Steering Committee Actions Estimated Action Complete Date Status Establish Steering Committee 2nd April 2019 Complete Adopt FCOM Guidelines 4th April 2019 Complete Coordinate with EASA workgroup June 2019 Preliminary info supplied to EASA Common Phraseology On-going Telecon in next 6 weeks Feedback review Every 6 months Based on user feedback Committee meetings Quarterly Telecons and in-person (yearly) 14
FCOM Steering Committee Members: David Denman – Bristow (Chairman) Simon Fielding – Babcock François Lassale – HeliOffshore Christophe Pozzo-di-Borgo – Airbus Serge Tyran - Airbus Mike Gralish – Bell Neil Barton – Bell David Bohn – Bell Dario De Liguoro – Leonardo Matthew Boffin – Leonardo Carmine La Rocca – Leonardo Alessandro Dina – Leonardo Rod Duplin – Sikorsky Simon Gharibian – Sikorsky Alan Walling – Sikorsky 15
Delivering on FCOM Development & Implementation Pat Attaway 16
FCOM Implementation Roadmap Post- Initial Iterative Pre-release Iterative release Post-release Final Release Release Release Revision Revision Feedback Feedback Initial FCOM Standalone Operator Operator OEM and OEM and development HO supported HO FCOM Implement Implement Operator SME Operator SME Survey adoption supported Input Input Partial / Full Partial / Full Survey HeliOffshore FCOM Status HeliOffshore Table Focused Operator Targeted Survey Revision Gap Which elements adopted Elements to be What is status of latest Analysis / not adopted prioritised for version of FCOM for each development? fleet? Feedback Database 17
FCOM Status Table Helicopter OEM Stage Gate Status Revision # OEM POC Type H225 G9 FR Rev. 2, 15-18 C. POZZO DI BORGO H175 G9 FR Rev.3, 18-39 C. POZZO DI BORGO Airbus H160 G6 ID - C. POZZO DI BORGO B525 G6 ID - Mike Gralish Bell A139 G9 FR issue A 6/3/2017 D.de LIGUORO Leonardo A 189 G9 FR issue 1 5/10/2018 D.de LIGUORO 76 G6 FR Rev 1.0 Mike Petras Sikorsky 92 G6 FR Rev 1.0 Rod Duplin Revision # ID = In development PR = Pre-release FR = Post-release feedback required “n.n” [date] = Regular Published Revision 18
Recommended Practices for FCOM Implementation Where an FCOM is published by an OEM for a given helicopter type, operators should review the FCOM in line with requirements of the HeliOffshore FCOM briefing sheet and: identify and incorporate relevant sections into their operating • procedures (Normal and Emergency) identify sections not to be incorporated into their operating • procedures, and document the reasons for not doing so 19
Discussion and Poll EV Question What is the main action you and your organisation need to take to ensure full implementation of the proposed FCOM Recommended Practice? 20
FCOM Next Steps • OEM use of private FCOM Workspace • Roll-out of Implementation Roadmap on HeliOffshore website, including: • Status table • Survey responses • Targeted revision points for each FCOM • Use of HSIP to monitor implementation and measure performance improvement 21
FCOM Next Steps • Publish FCOM Status Table • Survey operators on implementation • Highlight priority revision points for each FCOM • Collect and analyse HSIP data to monitor performance improvement 22
Enhanced Helicopter Terrain Awareness Warning Systems (HTAWS)
HTAWS Progress Phase 1 - enhanced envelope protection • increasing warning times on existing Modes 1-6 • develop new Mode 7 (low speed / low power) Phase 2 - enhanced HMI (increasing impact of warnings) Status update • Enhancements to existing Modes 1-6 agreed (60% net safety benefit) • Development of new Mode 7 not agreed • EUROCAE WG established – April 2019 – to define HTAWS standards • HMI report issued – published as CAP 1747 24
EGPWS -036 Deployment and Assumptions Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 Design TSO approval Development freeze (current TAWS TSO) Flight test Application SB EASA to EASA issue cert. Certification today • Mode 1 / 3 / 4 envelope modified per CAP1519 when TAWS Offshore Mode is selected • No Primus Epic SW changes necessary to install -036 EGPWS • Mode 7 disabled, waiting for refinements of CAP 1519 • OEI integration associated to updated TAWS TSO basis, currently under discussion • Flight Test effort limited to check of envelope implementation • Analysis effort to demonstrate low percentage of nuisance alerts
PROJECT TEAM HTAWS Sikorsky S-92 Implementation Alan Walling David Solar Dave Howson / Mark Prior Project Summary Sikorsky UK CAA / HeliOffshore EASA Date: February 2019
Next Steps and Schedule Schedule of CAP 1519 (mode 1 to 6) implementation in AH avionics Mode 1 to 6: Milestones Gate Initial commitment Update 01/2019 1 Validation of the technical solution G5 February 2019 February 2019 2 Decision of development in next Helionix upgrade G5 Q4/2019 Q1/2019 3 Validation of the solution on the first Helionix candidate G7 Q4/2020 Q4/2020 4 Deployment on the first candidate for the HLX upgrade G9 Q2/2021 Q2/2021* 5 Deployment on the next candidate for the HLX upgrade G9 None Previous milestone + 3 to 6 months * this milestone could be anticipated by 1-2 quarter depending on the outcome of milestone 3 • The two first candidates proposed for this upgrade are the H175 and H160. H145, H135 will follow • Mode 7: AH continues to work on this key topic for aviation safety by: • Contributing to the Eurocae working group Invest in R&D to improve pilot workload and anticipation of risks; more • will be communicated in the upcoming months. 27
Recommended Practice for HTAWS Implementation Where a solution is available providing enhanced HTAWS envelopes for an existing helicopter type, operators should develop an installation plan outlining the timescale for fleetwide upgrade supported by a risk assessment 28
HTAWS Next Steps • Honeywell ready to certify Mode 1-6 enhancements for EGPWS -036 release ( late 2019 ) • Operators to plan Mode 1-6 upgrades following -036 release for AW139 ( early 2020 ) and S92 ( late 2020/early 2021 ) • Mode 7 enhancements to be addressed post EUROCAE WG effort – software upgrade plan unknown ( 3+ years? ) 29
30
Discussion and Poll EV Question What do you propose is required to maintain the desired momentum on HTAWS development and implementation? 31
Evidence-based Training (EBT) Pat Attaway and Phil Cullen
Training Standards – the need • Multiple Industry Standards Can be in conflict • Create road-blocks to efficiency • Industry need for optimised Training Standards • Clear industry agreed path • Efficient • Auditable • 33
Evidence-based Training Phil Cullen 34
How Resilient is your Organisation Completely resilient • Mostly resilient …I think • Partly resilient…but I can’t tell you how much • I have no idea • 35
How do you know if you are resilient? 36
The EVIDENCE – ‘E’ BT 37
E ‘BT’ – Competency-based Training 38
Recommend
More recommend
