Season’s Greetings from Aerossurance
Aerossurance sends its season’s greetings to all its customers, partners, suppliers, colleagues and friends. For aviation safety, regulation and contracting expertise contact: enquiries@aerossurance.com Follow us on LinkedIn for our latest updates....
read moreBell 525 Fly-By-Wire Update
Bell 525 Fly-By-Wire Update Bell Helicopter gave an update this month on the Fly-By-Wire (FBW) system being developed for their new super-medium helicopter, the 525 Relentless, at the 8th Rotorcraft Symposium in Cologne. This event was organised by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The paper by Mike Bothwell and Awais Razais is downloadable as part of a large zip file for the whole symposium or directly here: 7.1._Bothwell_Bell Model 525 relentless advanced fly-by-wire – the pilot safety advantage. Bell claim that the system will aid pilot situational awareness and reduce accidents. Bell is keen to emphasise that the sidesticks are mechanically connected to eliminate two pilots inadvertently fighting each others control inputs. Though the lack of mechanical linkages elsewhere is touted as a safety advantage as it “results in fewer parts and fewer mechanical repairs”. In a feature article [registration required] on the 525 in November Flight International reported that: A pilot can initiate a turn and even retrim the aircraft on the way into it and the helicopter will “maintain the attitude, heading, altitude and speed even if you are nowhere near the controls”. It will prove particularly beneficial in high-workload situations where task saturation becomes an issue, [Bell senior vice-president of commercial programmes Matt] Hasik says, adding that with the FBW system, “you can very easily put the aircraft into a very safe operating condition and put eyes out of the window with less worry than you might normally have”. Tactile cues, like those found on modern fixed-wing transport aircraft, have also been added to the controls, allowing the pilot to receive simple feedback about what the helicopter is doing. At low speeds for example the collective input results in the helicopter translating sideways. At higher speeds it results in a roll. On 2012 Bell announced that they had selected Garmin to provide their newly launched new G5000H helicopter avionics suite. The Bell 525 will feature a four-display system and incorporate Bell’s new awareness, reactive and control (ARC) cockpit. Bell designed and built the flight control system, which runs on three BAE Systems flight control computers and Moog electrohydraulic actuators. In 2012 Bell also selected BAE Systems to provide the FBW computers. The development work will be conducted in Endicott, NY, with production at BAE Systems’ facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The collective and cyclic, made by Sagem, are mechanically interconnected (as are the anti-torque pedals) so they move in concert. Bell elected not to adopt electronically connected flight controls, due to the need for additional electronics to manage that connection and ensure reliability and redundancy. The reliability of the Bell 525’s FBW system is being tested in the Relentless Advanced Systems Integration Laboratory (RASIL). The RASIL includes a full cockpit much like a non-motion simulator, but hooked into all the lab equipment that replicates the 525’s systems. The RASIL hosts three separate 525 systems integration labs, one for the helicopter’s Garmin G5000H avionics, one for its FBW flight controls and a third for the electrical system. It was recently reported that electrical power on has occurred on the first aircraft. It was also stated in Cologne that the 525 Customer Advisory Panel was being briefed in early December on readiness progress for the first flight. First flight has slipped from Q4 2014 until at least Q1 2015. The Ottawa-based National Research Council Canada Institute for Aerospace Research (aka NRC Aerospace) has been researching helicopter FBW for a number of years on...
read moreFurther Category A EBS Approved
Further Category A EBS Approved More Category A Compressed Air – Emergency Breather System (CA-EBS) options are now approved against the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) standard in CAP1034. These approvals are under the accessory approval requirements of British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR) A4-8. Category A EBS was a recommendation from the CAA Review, which resulted in the CAP1145 report (‘Safety review of offshore public transport helicopter operations in support of the exploitation of oil and gas’). It is also being examined as part of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Rule Making Team RMT.0120 on Helicopter Ditching. Biardo Dutch company, Biardo Survival Suits B.V., a manufacturer of survival suits and lifejackets, has received a UK CAA approval for the CA-EBS integrated with their EASA approved LRS002 lifejacket. This system uses a SCUBA style mouth piece and stores the bottle under a sealed cover. Hansen Meanwhile Norwegian manufacture Hansen Protection gained approval in October 2014 for a Cat A EBS that can integrate with their combined SeaAir suit / lifejacket, according to UK CAA in a prentation given in early December at the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 8th Rotorcraft Symposium. It is also apparently compatible with the SeaAir Barents suit and the company’s SeaAir Europe suit and SeaLion lifejacket. Viking The UK CAA also report that Danish company, Viking Life Saving Equipment is developing a Cat A EBS option. Survitec Group The first UK CAA Cat A EBS approval was granted to UK Company Survitec on 27 June 2014. Aerossurance has previously covered the development of this CA-EBS, which Survitec integrated with their new Mk 50 Lifejacket: Rapid Progress with a Category A EBS OPITO Compressed Air Emergency Breathing System (CA-EBS) Initial Deployment Training Standard UPDATE 26 September 2017: ASD-STAN prEN 4856 for Rotorcraft — Emergency Breathing Systems (EBS) — Requirements, testing and marking has been issued. This will then become a full European Standard (EN) via CEN and be incorporated in an EASA ETSO. Aerossurance is an Aberdeen based aviation consultancy. For expert advice you can trust on helicopter safety, equipment certification and survivability matters, contact: enquiries@aerossurance.com Follow us on LinkedIn and on Twitter @Aerossurance for our latest...
read moreHelicopter Ditching – EASA Rule Making Task RMT.0120 Update (NPA 2016-01)
Helicopter Ditching – EASA Rule Making Task RMT.0120 Update (NPA 2016-01 Helicopter ditching and water impact occupant survivability) The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) gave an update at their 8th Rotorcraft Symposium on the rule making task (RMT.0120) looking at helicopter ditching requirements. The paper is downloadable as part of a large zip file for the whole symposium or directly here. The RMT was one initiative launched by EASA after the 2009 Newfoundland S-92 accident and predates the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Safety review of offshore public transport helicopter operations in support of the exploitation of oil and gas, which resulted in the CAP1145 report and its 61 actions and recommendations (discussed here). The team is taking a holistic approach looking at: New rules on ‘survivable water impacts’ Modifying existing Ditching rules Enhancing existing cabin safety rules Enhancing rules for life raft installation New rules/guidance on ELT installation Survival Equipment (including immersions suits, lifejackets and EBS) Passenger Size & Weight Study Operational Issues such as training & brace position UPDATE: We have also since published these articles: NTSB Report on Bizarre 2012 US S-76B Ditching Dramatic Malaysian S-76C 2013 Ditching Video Canadian Coast Guard Helicopter Accident: CFIT, Survivability and More Night Offshore Winching CFIT CAP1145 Helicopter Water Impact Survivability Statistics – A Critique UPDATE 22 August 2020: Fatal Mi-8 Loss of Control – Inflight and Water Impact off Svalbard UPDATE 12 December 2020: NH90 Caribbean Loss of Control – Inflight, Water Impact and Survivability Issues NPA 2016-01 Helicopter ditching and water impact occupant survivability UPDATE 23 March 2016: EASA published NPA 2016-01 Helicopter ditching and water impact occupant survivability on a 3 month public consultation period. Previous studies on and accident investigations into helicopter ditchings and water impact events have highlighted inadequacies in the existing certification specifications (CS-27, CS-29) and in the rules governing offshore operations. In particular, it has been established that in an otherwise survivable water impact, most fatalities occurred as a result of drowning because the occupants were unable either to rapidly escape from a capsized and flooded cabin, or to survive in the sea for sufficient time until rescue. Furthermore, the testing environment in which helicopters are type-certified for ditching bears little resemblance to the sea conditions experienced in operation. In order to thoroughly address these and other ditching-related issues, and due to the nature of ditching-related hazards, this rulemaking task (RMT.0120 (27&29.008)) has taken a holistic approach to the problem, which crosses traditional airworthiness/operational boundaries. A detailed risk assessment has been undertaken that reflects both certification and operational experience and builds upon data extracted from accident reports and previous studies. The specific objective of this NPA, however, is to propose changes to CS-27 and CS-29… Retroactive rules are to be considered in a second phase of this RMT. …the primary change proposed aims to establish a new ditching certification methodology by which a target probability of capsize following a ditching can be determined based on the level of capsize mitigation applied to the design. UPDATE 20 September 2016: The UK CAA today briefed the Oil and Gas UK Aviation Seminar that 300 comments were received, which were assessed at a three day EASA review session in July 2016. UPDATE 20 January 2017: EASA release the revised group composition for the NPA review. An update of BARSOHO (Version 3), fully aligned...
read more70 Years of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has issued the following press release: In 1944, delegates from 54 nations gathered in the Grand Ballroom of the Stevens Hotel in Chicago at the invitation of the United States of America. At this event, the participants concluded and signed the Convention on International Civil Aviation, also known more popularly as the ‘Chicago Convention’, the defining international agreement which has since permitted the global civil aviation system to develop peacefully and in a manner benefitting all peoples and nations of the world. In 2014, ICAO and the global air transport community will be commemorating this momentous occasion by convening a series of special events in Montreal and Chicago. Featuring high-level participation from the host governments of Canada and the United States of America, and representatives from ICAO’s Council and Member States, these proceedings will culminate in an Extraordinary Session of the ICAO Council on Monday, 8 December, in the exact same room where the Convention was signed in the Stevens Hotel (now the Chicago Hilton) 70 years ago. On this occasion, ICAO Council Representatives will adopt a Special Resolution paying tribute to the Chicago Convention’s significant contributions to global peace and prosperity through the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation. For impartial and practical expertise on aviation regulation and safety management, contact Aerossurance at enquiries@aerossurance.com Follow us on LinkedIn and on Twitter @Aerossurance for our latest updates....
read moreElbit Enhanced Flight Vision Systems
Elbit Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) for Helicopters and regional Aircraft Elbit Systems presented to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 8th Rotorcraft Symposium today. The paper is downloadable and a prior video is available to view: UPDATE 5 July 2016: Certification of the SkyLens system on the ATR turboprop family is expected in 2017: EASA and the FAA have been involved very early in the process, as the system will be the first of its kind in civil aviation. Both authorities participated in demonstration flights and have jointly prepared a certification review item, with the aim of updating the existing AMC2511 standard for HUD approval. The equipment, which is to be donned just before the approach phase, is similar to wearing glasses and an audio headset. It weighs about 0.7 pounds (just over 300 grams)… A stick-mounted push button enables the pilot to deactivate the infrared image. He or she can thus return to naked eye vision (augmented with symbology) quickly. In approach, the symbology is decluttered for the pilot to focus on the runway, speed and height. Only the pilot in the left seat will be equipped with the wearable device—for cost reasons Canary Islands carrier Binter Canarias, for example, believes it would be helpful to cope with mist that forms close to the sea. In a second phase, synthetic vision will be added. Fusion of the two images (infrared and synthetic) will be possible—or the pilot may choose just one of these, depending on the flight phase. UPDATE 31 October 2018: UPDATE 8 January 2019: Aurigny will buy three ATR 72-600 for delivery from August 2019 and all three will be equipped with the new ClearVision Enhanced Vision System (EVS) and SkyLens, with Aurigny the launch customer:. Aurigny’s…Guernsey location in the English Channel, sees its flight operations regularly affected by fog, leading to disruptions for passengers. A study showed that an ATR equipped with the ClearVision™ EVS could have saved 50% of the disrupted landings in Guernsey, over the period of a year. ClearVision™ will also enhance operations into other destinations served by Aurigny. The airlines was recently rated no 1 short haul airline by Which? magazine. UPDATE 21 March 2020: [Elbit’s] Universal Avionics Systems has received European Union Aviation Safety Agency certification for its ClearVision enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) with SkyLens head-wearable display, the first time that a head-wearable display has been certified for civil aviation. The certification is on the ATR 72/42 regional airliner. Universal Avionics is working on three helicopter certification programs for ClearVision and SkyLens in Europe. Two are for Leonardo’s AW139 and AW169 and one for a German police Airbus Super Puma. For advice you can trust on helicopter safety, equipment certification and selection, contact us at enquiries@aerossurance.com Follow us on LinkedIn and on Twitter @Aerossurance for our latest...
read moreJames Reason’s 12 Principles of Error Management
James Reason’s 12 Principles of Error Management James Reason, Professor Emeritus, University of Manchester, set out 12 systemic human factors centric principles of error management in his book Managing Maintenance Error: A Practical Guide (co-written with Alan Hobbs and published in 2003). These principles are valid beyond aviation maintenance and are well worth re-visiting: Human error is both universal & inevitable: Human error is not a moral issue. Human fallibility can be moderated but it can never be eliminated. Errors are not intrinsically bad: Success and failure spring from the same psychological roots. Without them we could neither learn nor acquire the skills that are essential to safe and efficient work. You cannot change the human condition, but you can change the conditions in which humans work: Situations vary enormously in their capacity for provoking unwanted actions. Identifying these error traps and recognising their characteristics are essential preliminaries to effective error management. The best people can make the worst mistakes: No one is immune! The best people often occupy the most responsible positions so that their errors can have the greatest impact… People cannot easily avoid those actions they did not intend to commit: Blaming people for their errors is emotionally satisfying but remedially useless. We should not, however, confuse blame with accountability. Everyone ought to be accountable for his or her errors [and] acknowledge the errors and strive to be mindful to avoid recurrence. Errors are consequences not causes: …errors have a history. Discovering an error is the beginning of a search for causes, not the end. Only be understanding the circumstances…can we hope to limit the chances of their recurrence. Many errors fall into recurrent patterns: Targeting those recurrent error types is the most effective way of deploying limited Error Management resources. Safety significant errors can occur at all levels of the system: Making errors is not the monopoly of those who get their hands dirty. …the higher up an organisation an individual is, the more dangerous are his or her errors. Error management techniques need to be applied across the whole system. Error management is about managing the manageable: Situations and even systems are manageable if we are mindful. Human nature – in the broadest sense – is not. Most of the enduring solutions…involve technical, procedural and organisational measures rather than purely psychological ones. Error management is about making good people excellent: Excellent performers routinely prepare themselves for potentially challenging activities by mentally rehearsing their responses to a variety of imagined situations. Improving the skills of error detection is at least as important as making people aware of how errors arise in the first place. There is no one best way: Different types of human factors problem occur at different levels of the organisation and require different management techniques. Different organisational cultures require different ‘mixing and matching’….of techniques. People are more likely to buy-in to home grown measures… Effective error management aims as continuous reform not local fixes: There is always a strong temptation to focus upon the last few errors …but trying to prevent individual errors is like swatting mosquitoes…the only way to solve the mosquito problem is drain the swamps in which they breed. Reform of the system as a whole must be a continuous process whose aim is to contain whole groups of errors rather than single blunders. Error management...
read morePsychology of Responsibility
Psychology of Responsibility Aerossurance recently discussed research cited in Yes! 50 secrets from the Science of Persuasion, written by Goldstein, Martin and Cialdini, on whether organisations are considered more or less responsible for incidents depending on whether the cause was technical or human failure. In the same book they also discuss research on the reaction to how adverse events are described by organisations. Fiona Lee, Christopher Peterson, and Larissa Tiedens’ 2004 paper Mea Culpa: Predicting Stock Prices from Organizational Attrubutions, first gave research subjects one of two versions of an annual report for a fictitious company. In Version A the management took responsibility for being unprepared for deteriorating market conditions. In Version B, the company blamed legislative changes outside their control for the poor performance. The researchers found that participants who saw the Version A, viewed the company more positively than those who saw the version that blamed outside factors. Aerossurance recently highlighted that blaming suppliers or others is a flawed form of crisis management (e.g. Firestone and Ford or BP and Transocean), partly because you pick your suppliers, they work to meet your requirements and you are expected to monitor their performance. The researchers went on to study annual reports from 14 companies during a 21-year period. They found that companies that attributed poor performance to internal factors (i.e. admitted they could have done better) had higher stock prices a year later than companies who attributed the performance to external factors. Lee and her colleagues argue that taking responsibility for negative events made the organisations appear more in control, leading to more positive impressions. Perhaps it also means internally that taking responsibility also gives ‘permission’ for lessons to be learnt and improvements to be made. UPDATE 21 July 2015: The BBC published an article that discusses the value of saying sorry and come cases were that took some time. To discuss how the issues raised here are relevant to your business, contact: enquiries@aerossurance.com Follow us on LinkedIn for our latest updates and on Twitter...
read moreOperational Suitability Data
Operational Suitability Data The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has published a useful summary on the concept of OSD: The principle of Operational Suitability Data (OSD) is that the aircraft manufacturers are required to establish certain data that is considered important for safe operation of the aircraft type. This data will be approved by the Agency under the type certificate and is then used by operators and training organisations. The data consists of 5 elements: 1- the master minimum equipment list (MMEL); 2- data for training of pilots; 3- data for cabin crew; 4- data for training of maintenance crew; and 5- data for qualification of simulators. The OSD concept is not entirely new; it succeeds the Operational Evaluation Board (OEB) that already existed in the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). The OEB was applied on a voluntary basis and resulted in recommendations to the national Aviation Authorities for the approval of pilot type rating training courses and minimum equipment lists (MEL). The novelty with OSD is that it is mandatory for the aircraft designers, ensuring that the data is available to the operators when needed. The OSD is the reference point for the customised training courses and MEL as developed by operators and training organisations. The OSD is expected to contribute to closing the gap between airworthiness and operations. This will be the case not only for new types, but also for changed designs. OSD will also be subject to continuous improvements. Furthermore it will set a level playing field in the EU for type training and MEL. The rule package necessary to implement OSD was developed in a long and heavy rulemaking process that started already in 2007. It includes amendments to several implementing rules and a series of new Certification Specifications (CS). The amendments to Part-21 and the OPS and Licensing implementing rules were published by the European Commission on 27 January 2014. The CSs for Flight Crew Data, Cabin Crew Data and MMEL as well as new guidance material to Part-21 were published shortly after that. The CS for simulator data will be published within the next weeks and the CS for maintenance certifying staff data is still under development. Transition from the OEB to OSD is taking place in several steps. As a starting point all existing OEB reports were grandfathered. For the remaining types that are still in production a catch up is needed before end of 2015. The relevant Design Organisation Approvals have to be updated to include OSD also before end of 2015. Operators and training organisations will have to implement OSD in their training and they have two years after the OSD becomes available from the aircraft designer. The OSD is a proportionate rule. It mainly applies to large aircraft and where it affects small aircraft the Agency has developed detailed guidance to facilitate compliance. For advice on OSD and how it affects your business, contact us at enquiries@aerossurance.com Follow us on LinkedIn for our latest...
read moreUK OHSAG Oct 2014 Minutes
UK Offshore Helicopter Safety Action Group (OHSAG) Oct 2014 Minutes The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has published the minutes of the latest, 28 Oct 2014, meeting of the Offshore Helicopter Safety Action Group (OHSAG). The OHSAG was formed as a result of the ‘Civil Aviation Authority Safety Review of Offshore Public Transport Helicopter Operations in Support of the Exploitation of Oil and Gas’ (CAP1145). Items to note: The Irish Aviation Authority are said to have signed up to the CAP1145 actions and are to be invited to the next meeting. The IAA have recently issued an Aeronautical Notice on offshore helicopter safety. UK CAA are to ‘investigate further operations of foreign operators in the UK who may not comply with CAP1145’. A review of progress on CAP1145 implementation is due in January 2015. The ‘Challenge Team’ that was part of the original review reconvened last month (though sharp eyed readers will note that one of the original team now works for UK CAA). That team has requested more detail and for the progress review to be more forward looking. The OHSAG asked for emphasis on ‘stabilising’ survivability matters and putting an emphasis on actions that minimise such survivability circumstances (a point made by some at this year’s Oil and Gas UK Aviation Seminar). Studies are underway on the issue of smaller helidecks and (using Cranfield University) on fire fighting on Normally Unattended Installations (NUIs). Further work is to be done on communication (confidence building was the key theme of this years Oil & Gas UK Aviation Seminar) The next meeting is January 2015. Aerossurance covered the issue of the previous minutes (with links to all prior meeting minutes) and a recent Oil & Gas UK briefing session here (which now includes video of the CAA presentation and panel sessions). Aerossurance is an Aberdeen based aviation consultancy. For expert advice on offshore helicopter safety and contracting matters, contact us at enquiries@aerossurance.com Follow us on LinkedIn for our latest updates. ...
read more
Recent Comments