SAFETY IN FLYING
TRAINING
Juris Ignatovičs –
Head of Training, ERIVA FTO
OVERVIEW
What we miss in our safety procedures
Airmanship vs Procedures
What is in regulations?
Proposed safety procedures
Proper identification of training threats
Importance of CRM principles
Things to improve
ACCIDENT – P2006T, YL-SVN
Very experienced and disciplined examiner
Qualified student (almost CPL-holder)
Brand-new modern airplane
WHY THEY CRASHED???
THREATS
General threats



Applicable for all flights
Counteracted by training, regulations, general airmanship
Example: engine failure on SE airplane, counteracted by
specific training and minimum altitude regulations
Flying training-specific threats



Applicable only for flying training activities
Counteracted by instructors’ training and experience, school
procedures
Example: unexpected control input by the student,
counteracted by overtaking of the controls by instructor
Excercise-specific threats
EXERCISE-SPECIFIC THREATS
Counteracted only by instructors’ airmanship and
skill, maximum by school procedures
No regulatory guidances exist to assist instructors!
Example:



“Unusual attitudes” exercise
How far we can go in terms of pitch, bank, airspeed?
PA-28 airplane operated by Patria Pilot Training (leading FTO
in Finland) crashed after airframe overstressing during
unusual attitudes training
MORE EXAMPLES IN A MOMENT...
THIS PRESENTATION IS NOT ABOUT:
Discipline

If somebody ignores any kind of rules,
new set of limitations will not change anything
General airmanship

Absolutely necessary but airmanship alone is too general
and person-dependant, therefore it doesn’t work very well
for training threats
General hazards

Real problems during training flights are pretty rare
compared to instructor / student induced
ALL THAT IS REQUIRED AND SHALL BE TEACHED
BUT THIS IS SEPARATE TOPIC
WHY EXISTING SYSTEM FAILS?
What safety measures specifically related to flight
training are in place around the industry?

School’s procedures – ATO-SPECIFIC
Instructors’ initial and recurrent training –
ATO-SPECIFIC
Instructors’ standartization – ATO-SPECIFIC
Pre-flight briefings – INSTRUCTOR’S-SPECIFIC

Judgement and airmanship – CREW-SPECIFIC



Nothing in the list is INDUSTRY-WIDE
BRIEFINGS, TEM, PLANNING ETC...
CURRENT POPULAR SAFETY MEASURES CANNOT ACT
AGAINST EXERCISE-SPECIFIC THREAT!
Briefings are useful only if specific procedure is
defined




Example: airline operations
Operator has very detailed operating manuals (OM-A, OM-B)
Briefings are conducted on basis of operating manuals
Examiners are airline-stndartized and shall strictly follow
procedures
Planning is strategic tool, not tactical

Good weather, airspace compliance or MBL in limits cannot
prevent airframe overstressing doing unusual attitudes
BRIEFINGS, TEM, PLANNING ETC...
Threat and Error Management (TEM) theory




Very good safety tool, BUT...
It is too general
Its application heavily depends on individual
And it is still ATO or Instructor specific
AIRMANSHIP vs PROCEDURES
Currently great emphasis is placed on instructor’s /
student airmanship as an accident prevention tool
This could be similar to an airline without detailed
operations manual (OM-A, OM-B)
Airline captain (ATPL holder) in most cases has much more
experience and airmanship than school instructor BUT...
HE IS REQUIRED TO OPERATE AIRPLANE STRICTLY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LIMITATIONS SET OUT IN THE
MANUALS!
AIRMANSHIP IS SUPPLEMENTARY TO PROCEDURES,
NOT THE REPLACEMENT
WHAT IS IN THE REGULATIONS?
AMC1 ORA.ATO.230(a)

TRAINING manuals for use at an ATO conducting integrated
or modular flight training courses should include the
following:
(a)(8) Safety training:
- individual responsibilities
- essential exercises
- emergency drills (frequency)
- dual checks (frequency at various stages)
- requirements before first solo flights
THIS TRAINING COVERS GENERAL THREATS
(i.e. real fire or engine failure)
WHAT IS IN THE REGULATIONS?
AMC1 ORA.ATO.230(b)

OPERATIONS manual for use at an ATO conducting
integrated or modular flight training courses should include
the following:
(b) Technical:
- aircraft descriptive notes
- aircraft handling (checklists, limitations, ...)
- emergency procedures
- radio and radio navigation aids
- allowable deficiencies
THESE PROCEDURES AGAIN COVERS GENERAL THREATS
(i.e. real failures, icing etc.)
WHAT IS IN THE REGULATIONS?
ARA.FCL.210 Information for examiners

The competent authority may provide examiners it has
certified and examiners certified by other competent
authorities exercising their privileges in their territory with
safety criteria to be observed when skill tests and proficiency
checks are conducted in an aircraft.
THIS COULD BE EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED BUT THAT
INFORMATION IS TARGETED ONLY TO EXAMINERS...
WHY WE NEED COMMON SAFETY
STANDARDS?
EXAMPLE: STALL TRAINING ON MEP AIRPLANE
(ME airplanes are not tested for spin recovery)
Based on risk assessment, ATO procedures prescribe
initiation of recovery on first indication of stall (i.e. aural
stall warning)

Student haven’t experienced full stall during training and
therefore is not prepared for it
Examiner has different interpretation of stall training
and requests a developed stall demonstration from the
student

Examiner may not realize that student has never done full stall
RISK OF STALL/SPIN DEVELOPMENT
WHY WE NEED COMMON SAFETY
STANDARDS?
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT INSTRUCTORS, ATO’s AND
EXAMINERS HOW SPECIFIC EXERCISES ARE FLOWN
Minimum altitude for stalls
Limits for unusual attitudes
BIFM advanced exercises – IMC or VMC?
Stall recovery initiation (VFR, IFR, SEP, MEP)
Simulated engine failure procedures (SEP, MEP)
OEI exercises on MEP airplanes:


Actual engine shutdown or simulated (idle thrust)?
Minimum altitudes or other safety considerations
Safety in cross-country flights (ELT, FPL, Fuel, Daylight)
Night flying safety (Altitudes, Fuel, Safety Equipment etc.)
EVERYBODY SHALL BE INVOLVED!
Authority

Publishes safety procedures and guidelines
Examiners

Know what to ask and expect from the student
ATO’s and instructors

Operate in accordance with safety guidelines
Students


Act as a “last defence line”, i.e. don’t accept unsafe practices
CAA guidelines shall be available to students!
INFORMATION CHAIN
SAFETY PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES

DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION

TRAINING OF INSTRUCTORS AND EXAMINERS

TEM, SAFETY BRIEFINGS

SAFE TRAINING
SOME PROCEDURE EXAMPLES
SEP stall exercises

Full Stall and Incipient Spin exercises may be performed only
on airplanes certified in utility category
SEP simulated engine failure exercises

Shall be terminated not later than reaching 500 ft height AGL
MEP OEI (One Engine Inop) exercises



Actual engine shut-downs may be performed not lower than
2500 ft AGL, at a safe (cruising) speed
Speed shall never drop below Vyse (blue line)
Instructor shall be ready to reduce power on remaining
engine in case of any controlability problems
PROPER IDENTIFICATION OF THREATS
We shall identify and prioritize threats properly


It would be useless to name too many threats for any specific
exercise, some of them may be overlooked
The key threat may be masked with secondary or obvious tasks
EXAMPLE: Simulation of engine failure on MEP airplane






Watch altitude
Guard controls of operating engine
Monitor engine instruments
Perform good look-out
Monitor speed
Apply carburator heat
TOO MANY TASKS and THEY ARE TOO GENERAL...
PROPER IDENTIFICATION OF THREATS
More safety-efficient approach:

Name 1-2 threats or tasks, be specific
EXAMPLE: Simulation of engine failure on MEP airplane


Guard controls of operating engine, reduce power in case of
controlability issues
Monitor speed – not below Vyse (blue line)
Also:

Poor OEI performance of MEP airplanes is not a training-specific
threat
WHAT ELSE COULD HELP?
CRM principles
SEP training


Call-outs during taxi
(i.e. Left side / Right side clear)
Call-outs during takeoff (Speed alive / Checked)
MEP training, additionally:

Confirmation of engine controls / switches during securing the
“failed” engine
FAILURE TO OBTAIN CONFIRMATION FROM THE INSTRUCTOR
/ EXAMINER BEFORE OPERATING “FAILED” ENGINE CONTROLS
SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS A SERIOUS THREAT AND SERIOUS
ERROR BY THE STUDENT
THINGS TO IMPROVE...
Safety procedures shall be produced for
everyone involved in flight training or checking
activities




Examiners
ATO’s
Instructors
Students
Airspace shall be available for safety-critical
training exercises


Not far from training aerodromes
With more flexible attitude from LGS and minimum
formalities
Foreign examiners shall be briefed about local
airspace and training procedures
ABOUT AIRMANSHIP
CAA-ISSUED GUIDANCE WOULD BE USEFUL
ON SOME SUBJECTS:
Carburator heat operation


Too many carb ice accidents in Latvia for the hours flown
Still unsatisfactory related knowledge and procedures observed by
the students
Fuel planning


Students try to plan flights with 30..45 min. final res. fuel, no
contingency fuel, no extra fuel
Unrealistic “book” cruise performance figures, which underestimates
real fuel consumption by 10% and overestimates airspeed by 5% at
average
Emergency briefings


Bad discipline for emergency briefings
Often unrelated to real conditions, excessive or with
decision-making errors
QUESTIONS?