Operational Effectiveness Tim Rolfe Introduction Tim Rolfe GovernanceStage

Operational Effectiveness Tim Rolfe

Introduction Tim Rolfe

Governance/Stage Gate Reviews * Safety Strategy Panel Is this a priority for us? Have we got a viable/resourced plan to develop the solution? Have we got a viable/resourced plan to implement? Did we deliver the benefits? Lessons learned and implemented *Courtesy of Airbus 4

Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM) Workstream

FCOM Expectations • Why FCOM? • Updated FCOM Briefing Sheet “…lack of understanding / awareness of the state of automated systems. . ” • Benefits of FCOM 6

FCOM Effectiveness (B 525) Chris Cawelti

FCOM Development Context Bell has previous experience with FCOM deliveries on our military products and similar experience with our Avionics Flight Deck Operating Manuals for our commercial products. The Bell 525 has implemented a Crew Error Management evaluation process to further enhance design for safety. This process will augment FCOM and RFM content. • Design evaluation of usability with trained flight crews in normal and emergency tasks. • Identifies flight crew tasks that have a higher potential for crew error to assure detection and recovery. Part 25 CEM process reviewed and implemented into 525 development in alignment with certification authorities for added design safety

FCOM Development Plan RASIL Flight Test CEM Limitations Normal Procedures (FT) Normal Procedures Emergency Procedures (FT) Emergency Procedures Flight Manual Supplements FSB Entry Into Service FCOM Supporting OGP Training and Operations System Descriptions & Operation System FAM Curriculum Ground School Curriculum Test Pilot Orientation Flight Training Flight Syllabus Crew Coordination Operator’s Input Customer Training Operator’s Best Practices Current Status Best practice recommendations for off-shore landings and other flight regimes are best informed by the OGP industry, working alongside our pilots. Bell knows the aircraft; operators have the expertise in the environment and performing these maneuvers.

FCOM Effectiveness (H 175) Mark Radford, Alain Di. Bianca

Why we wrote the FCOM • Certification versus operational environment • EASA rules require manufacturers to give Operational Suitability Data (OSD) • Increasing levels of automation in helicopter cockpits • New cockpit design adopts pilot workload to be closer to fixed wing • The offshore operators pushed manufacturers to provide more information that required by certification 11

How we wrote the FCOM • New Airbus organization was created: a Flight Ops department • Airbus Flight Ops have involved our Training Department, Flight Test Department and the helicopter operators to help in building the FCOM • Airbus have built on their previous experience with the EC 225 FCOM • The EC 175 FCOM has been updated regularly 12

How we wrote the FCOM • FCOM items dealing with safety o Autopilot o Good practice o Integrated avionic o Specific helicopter features o Standardization • Based on Airbus FCOM, operators can then revise and improve their own Operations Manuals 13

AIRBUS FCOM template can be tuned by operators • FCOM is related to a specific company mission (offshore, SAR. . ) • FCOM is linked to the operational environment (local rules, weather risks…) • Additional company procedures to be included • Company CRM policies can be adapted • Equipment of the helicopter in the company (TAWS, Icing, TCAS…) • FCOM can be adapted for dual pilot or single pilot use

What is an FCOM? The RFM tells you what to do. The FCOM tells you how to do it. 15

EXAMPLE: Upper Mode Description: 16

EXAMPLE: 17

EXAMPLE: Best and Good Practice Advice Flight Manual:

EXAMPLE: FCOM:

EXAMPLE: Best and Good Practice Advice Recommendations In confusing situations, do not shift to an immediate hands on flying, consider reverting first to more direct upper modes (Recovery double click, GA, HDG etc) 20 20

IMPLEMENTATION “…the purpose of the FCOM is to…Provide Airbus Helicopters operators with a basis for their development of a customised Operations Manual Part B…” 21 21

IMPLEMENTATION 22

“What is it doing now? ”

“What is it doing now? ”

Governance/Stage Gate Reviews * Safety Strategy Panel Is this a priority for us? Have we got a viable/resourced plan to develop the solution? Have we got a viable/resourced plan to implement? Did we deliver the benefits? Lessons learned and implemented 25 *Courtesy of Airbus

Governance/Stage Gate Reviews * H 175 Safety Strategy Panel Agree need for FCOM requirements understood FCOM content agreed and deployed FCOM effectiveness measured Revise FCOM as “live” document 26 *Courtesy of Airbus

Governance/Stage Gate Reviews * AW 609 H 160 S 92 EC 225 B 525 S 76 D AW 139 AW 169 AW 189 H 175 Safety Strategy Panel Agree need for FCOM requirements understood FCOM content agreed and deployed FCOM effectiveness measured Revise FCOM as “live” document 27 *Courtesy of Airbus

HTAWS

HTAWS Project Phase 1 - Update

Governance/Stage Gate Reviews * Safety Strategy Panel Agree need for enhanced HTAWS Phase 1 requirements understood Enhanced HTAWS software developed Enhanced software effectiveness measured Phase 2 EUROCAE WG established 30 *Courtesy of Airbus

EGPWS Mk 22 Offshore Enhancements Yasuo Ishihara – Technical Fellow, Honeywell Matteo Regazzi – Chief Engineer, Leonardo

HTAWS Offshore Development & Certification Processes Proof of Concept & Risk Reductions OEM Aircraft Certification & Service Bulletins OEM Service Bulletins FAA Concept Review Human Factors Evaluation EGPWS MK 22 Prototype CAP 1519 FAA STC Approval EGPWS Integration with OEMs EGPWS MK 22 Production Software FAA TSO Approval Honeywell Flight Tests Formal Development & TSO 32

Human Factors Pilot Evaluations • Pilot evaluation conducted using Bristow’s S 92 simulator, involving pilots from Bristow, CHC and Babcock • New Mode 3 B and Mode 7 functions provide aural and visual alerts “Check Airspeed” to the pilots when airspeed and/or engine torque are mismanaged during takeoff and approach 33

Human Factors Pilot Evaluation Safety value of Mode 3 B alert Safety value of Mode 7 alert 34

PROJECT TEAM H-TAWS AW 139 / 189 Implementation Project Summary 1) Background and Scoping IN • • David Solar Leonardo UK CAA / Heli. Offshore EASA Organization • WP 1 Handover CAP 1519 WP Non-offshore aircraft WP 2 Validation of CAP 1519 2014 HTAWS OUT Development and implementation by Avionic OEMs aircraft OEMs Heli. Offshore, Operators, IOGP EASA / UK CAA Advocacy and Promotion by Heli. Offshore & Stakeholders Project Team Dave Howson / Mark Prior 2015 WP 3 Start Certification 2016 WP 5 Implement improved HTAWS WP 4 EASA Certification 2017 G 2 2018 2019 G 5 G 3 WP 1 G 7 G 9 Handover of CAP 1519 WP 2 Validation of CAP 1519 WP 3 TSO WP 4 EASA Certificate WP 5 Steering Committee Organization Dave Howson UK CAA HO Safety Steering group Heli. Offshore, Mark Prior HO HO Safety Strategy Panel Matteo Ragazzi Leonardo OEM & Operators David Solar EASA Heli. Offshore Board Heli. Offshore Deployment Next Steps: • Application to EASA May – Jun 18 for certification • Development Flight Testing Apr-May 18 (AW 189) Jul 18 -Oct 18 (AW 139) • Software freeze Oct 18 followed by Technical Standing Order (TSO) launched Oct 18 – Apr 19 • EASA certification and Service Bulletin released Apr 19 followed by US FAA validation 2) Targets and Expected Benefits Risk Unacceptable delay Mitigation Owner Align priorities with OEM manage project in line with stakeholders requests and Regulatory support HO, OEM, Operators, Regulators Support from HO, IOGP and Regulators to Operators and OEMs on planning implementation. HO, IOGP, Regulators OEMs Operators Insufficient frontline deployment Reduction in Controlled Flight into Terrain / Water (CFIT) Reduction in Loss of Control (LOC) (loss of airspeed alerts in Modes 3 B and 7) Reduced automation related near misses Reduced flight path/ approach path deviations Enhanced pilot warning Enhanced methods for pilot feedback and alerting systems First AW 189 flight done 4) Risk Assessment Insufficient in-aircraft implementation • • • Date: May 2018 3) Work Breakdown Structure and Macro-Schedule Project Aim For avionic and airframe OEMs to implement the intent of HTAWS Offshore Envelopes identified in CAP 1519 aimed at improving capability to prevent offshore CFIT and LOC and meeting a number of AAIB Safety Recommendations. Scope Matteo Ragazzi Support and encouragement from HO and IOGP HO, IOGP, leadership and HO Board 5) Decision-ready requests for G 2 Type and Amount of Resource Budget G 2 to G 5 Project Leader Budget until G 5 Budget Owner name & validation Project Launch decision: q Go as is q Go, but modify and review by xx q No go

Governance/Stage Gate Reviews AW 139 36 *Courtesy of Airbus

Governance/Stage Gate Reviews * S 92 AW 189 B 525 S 76 AW 139 AW 609 EC 225 H 175 Safety Strategy Panel Agree need for enhanced HTAWS Phase 1 requirements understood Enhanced HTAWS software developed Enhanced software effectiveness measured Phase 2 EUROCAE WG established 37 *Courtesy of Airbus

Operational Effectiveness Summary • Celebrate successes to date • Commit to close out on agreed objectives • Focus on measuring effectiveness It’s all about delivering safety to the front line…… 38