Extras |
Cutting Cookies.. By Jannie Matthysen Henry Ford knew a thing or two about mass production. The application of his assembly line philosophy to automobile manufacture set the standard for industries for generations to come. The concept was rather simple but relied on standardized components being added to the newly produced Model T at just the right time in the assembly process. This one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter approach made Mr. Ford a billionaire and saw his little black horseless carriage become the most popular car of the 20th century.  One of the privileges as a Designated Flight Examiner is that I get to fly with a large variety of helicopter pilots. I am always eager to learn how other people fly, how they make decisions, and why they do things in a certain way. I suppose that I'm a bit of a closet-psychologist for being more interested in the way that a pilot's mind works than trying to analyze his coordination. I always ask probing questions, not necessarily as a test, but also to selfishly satisfy my own curiosity and add to my own level of experience. I'm sometimes astonished by the high level of competency displayed by pilots with relatively little experience. I'm often humbled by the effortless skill and natural ability possessed by many more experienced pilots. It's not all good news, though. There are some less-than-perfect specimens out there! I can name a number of helicopter pilots who do not belong in a cockpit. There are many whose egos do the thinking, as there are others who simply do not think at all. The one common trait that I see across the spectrum of competent, incompetent, reckless, and disciplined is that many pilots fail to look beyond the obvious. The blinkers remain firmly intact. The problem starts with the way in which we are trained to fly. As a pilot, we learn from day one that almost everything that we do is prescribed in some form of checklist. From the pre-flight inspection to start-procedures, circuit patterns, emergency procedures, and even flight plans are all procedurally dictated to us. There is a form, checklist, SOP, or guideline for everything that a pilot does. We are being taught that if it's not on the checklist, it does not exist. Our ability for logical thought and common sense based decision-making is being severely curtailed by the cookie-cutter approach. Henry Ford wanted his factory workers not to think for themselves, but to merely do what the process requires - and nothing more. We are living in an age where legal accountability and the threat of remedial action influence a substantial part of our decision-making process. The airline pilot knows this all too well, and the procedures are very clear for the Captain and his crew to follow. Everything is prescribed and followed to the finest detail, and modern aircraft take this to the next level where the ever-present Big Brother in the cockpit records and logs all your actions for scrutiny by employers, Aviation Authorities, or Prosecution Lawyers. We are continuously looking over our shoulders at where the next punishment is going to come from. I agree with all these procedures, as it makes for safer flying, no doubt about it. My argument is that procedures are accepted and followed without really understanding what they mean or analyzing the context in which they are presented to pilots. Take, for example, the graphs in the Performance Section of any helicopter flight manual. Do we really know the methods employed in the design of these graphs? We often fail to notice the fine print such as "zero wind conditions" or "smooth, hard surface". Do we ever fly in those "zero wind conditions" over a "smooth, hard surface"? I know I've never had the luxury. I know of very few piston-engine helicopters that meet the hover performance claims made in the operating manual. How do we know if the engine actually meets the claimed output figures? We don't, but yet we choose to follow the printed word to the finest detail. Most turbine helicopters thankfully have a power assurance procedure that is designed to validate the manufacturers claims. Almost all manuals are vague, ambiguous, or simply inadequate in many areas. The reason for this is simple. Any manufacturer must publish a procedure in case of any specific emergency. The limitation in this practice is that no one can write a procedure for each specific set of conditions. At best, we are given a very generic solution to a problem that could have hundreds of different variations. I recently tested a candidate for his initial Helicopter CPL. This guy must have been his instructor's favourite student. He was very well prepared, knew the answers to all the questions that I pitched at him during the oral examination. He started the helicopter by meticulously following every item on the checklist by memory. I must admit that I was rather impressed. He also flew very well, but the chink in his armour became glaringly apparent when I asked him to do an autorotation. He was so busy trying to get to the right speed and Rotor RPM as demanded by the procedures that he did not pay much attention to wind direction or the selection of a suitable landing area... a simple example of how procedures at the expense of everything else can get you killed. Upon our return to the airport, ATC instructed us to approach directly to the hangar area. This was a procedure that the candidate had never before encountered. All his training had always neatly categorized approaches as either normal, of confined area type landings with its associated inspection procedures. We finally reached our intended landing area on the third attempted approach. The plank-pilots (yes, those that can not hover) will naturally disagree with me. Airline pilots, in particular, are known to be very fond of their procedures, and rightly so. Before every flight they know exactly where they will be going, how long it will take to get there, what the take-off weight is, what the power settings will be, and the fact that they will be landing on a runway. Hell, they even know how long the runway is! The only variables are the weather, and any emergencies or failures that may occur along the way. Even these aspects are addressed in a black or white context of a checklist or flowchart. The helicopter pilot, in contrast, is often equipped with very little information before a flight. GPS coordinates are considered a luxury, and we routinely work in an environment where the weather forecast has no bearing whatsoever on the microclimate in a particular area. The helicopter's naturally vibrating components subjected to the harsh environment where we operate, means that our craft are prone to emergencies and failures that no procedure has yet been written for. Most helicopter operations cannot be conducted solely based on a published procedure. We as helicopter pilots do not always have the luxury of consulting the operating manual or discussing alternatives with a knowledgeable co-pilot when things go wrong. Sure, the procedures form the basis for every successful flight. I'm not suggesting that we ignore procedures, however, I strongly recommend that we understand the limited application of procedures at the expense of common sense. The Henry Ford School of Pilot Training clearly has no future in today's helicopter environment. |
