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
SAFETY IN FLYING TRAINING
Juris Ignatovičs – Head of Training, ERIVA FTO
MORE EXAMPLES IN A MOMENT...
ALL THAT IS REQUIRED AND SHALL BE TEACHED BUT THIS IS SEPARATE TOPIC
Nothing in the list is INDUSTRY-WIDE
CURRENT POPULAR SAFETY MEASURES CANNOT ACT AGAINST EXERCISE-SPECIFIC THREAT!
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
(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)
- 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.)
THIS COULD BE EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED BUT THAT INFORMATION IS TARGETED ONLY TO EXAMINERS...
EXAMPLE: STALL TRAINING ON MEP AIRPLANE
(ME airplanes are not tested for spin recovery)
RISK OF STALL/SPIN DEVELOPMENT
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT INSTRUCTORS, ATO’s AND EXAMINERS HOW SPECIFIC EXERCISES ARE FLOWN
SAFETY PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES
DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION
TRAINING OF INSTRUCTORS AND EXAMINERS
TEM, SAFETY BRIEFINGS
TOO MANY TASKS and THEY ARE TOO GENERAL...
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
CAA-ISSUED GUIDANCE WOULD BE USEFUL ON SOME SUBJECTS: