Great Vortex

[Longdog]

Mr. Vardy, Well done on the 2nd issue of Vortex for ''03. Most informative and was read by self from back to front several times. There is more than one manager out there whom should spend a little time contemplating some of these studies. Good Stuff and keep up the flow of good info. Aloha

[Bladestrike]

I agree. Very informative...one of the best yet!

[Heli Ops]

You sure CTD had anything to do with it if it is this good

[Biggles]

Bravo CTD!  Excellent read as always!  Say, is that Mr. Ball on page 4 by the way!

Now, lets see how I can apply this info on the Biggs character who''s been running a a 4 hr sleep regime!  Good thing I don''t fly for a "living", I probably might not being doing much of either one!  Pretty scary when you do the math ......

 

 

[downwash]

Tried to resist, CTD, but couldn''t hack it. That was really a super issue! The fatigue and ergonomics topics were winners by themselves, but the info about the influence of situations vs. personality approaches journalistic award status in this field of ours. You''ve given new hope that maybe, just maybe, the accident investigation wallahs might be able to broaden their fields of view a smidge. Thanks, pal.

[CTD]

Thanks guys. Nice to hear indeed.

 

I can''t take any credit for the Situations piece, other than that of asking Adam Hunt to write it, and a wee bit of editing. Actually, I asked him to prepare this last summer, and was going to include it as a two-part series through two issues. However, after reading it, I didn''t want to break it up, as I felt it has the best impact when presented as one article. I finally had room for it in 2/2003.

 

There has been some great positive feedback on his article, and I''ll make sure he hears about it.

 

Thanks again.

[LDP]

I have to echo everyone else. I think that that was the most informative Vortex yet. Very interesting and educational. I barley missed the accident summaries this time... Keep up the good work CTD.

[downwash]

Brad, never mind the authorship. You don''t have to write ALL of the articles of that quality, just be sure you get them in ''Vortex'' and you''ll get every bit as much praise.

[Winnie]

Speaking of accident synopses and reports, how come they are allowed in the plank magazine and not in the proper magazine? Or maybe I just missed something. However, how about throwing in the reports from that states in stead, nobody would know the difference, and we''d get some great examples?

[CTD]

Winnie, I''m not sure Paul is still producing ''preliminary'' data in ASL. He either tackles things that TSB are finished with, or are Class 5 occurrences, and are no longer under investigation. There are many more of these in the fixed-wing world from which to draw.

 

Here''s an excerpt from letter I got from a guy last week, and part of my response. Believe it or not, this was from the editor of a magazine (not Canadian), even though the tone does not reflect this. Read the response carefully and think about exactly how much we really learn from the mere knowledge that something occurred.

 

 

"Your decision to pull preliminary accident reports from Vortex is a mistake. Don''t you guys have a Freedom of Information Act? And isn''t the need to highlight possible safety hazards with helicopter types much more important than hurting some politician''s feelings?

We have published preliminary accident reports for 25 years now, with the caveat that they are preliminary and, out of the many hundreds covered, all of which identify aircraft and owner, I can only recall one where the owner disagreed.

 

There is no better way of getting the safety message than by prompt publication of the known facts. Half fictitious "stories" simply don''t have the clout, don''t encourage manufacturers to put recurring faults right and don''t impact on the pilots out there doing (perhaps) the same thing.

 The "new" Vortex? File it under Aviation Safety - Fatigue Section!

(P.S. Dare you to publish this to gauge the reaction)."

 

 

"We do have something akin to a Freedom of Information Act, but Canadian legislation differs slightly in that it links access to information and privacy in the same legislation (ATIP). The decision to pull the synopsis was taken in line with this legislation. While I disagree with your statement “There is no better way of getting the safety message than by prompt publication of the known facts”, I fully agree that a synopsis of recent occurrences has some merit, and I intend to have it back in Vortex (in some form) very soon.

That being said, I don’t believe that publishing the fact that two helicopters had tail rotor strikes in the past three months is of any great benefit to anyone. The simple knowledge that an event occurred does little to prevent reoccurrence.

For example; I expect my readers gained little knowledge from the preliminary information that a Hughes 500 crashed in the Arctic as the pilot made a precautionary landing. However, the Vortex article that followed focused on several issues: the pilot had not filed an itinerary and nobody in town knew he was coming, he pushed darkness in an extremely remote area, he did not know how to use his ELT, his flares did not work and he carried no other form of signalling device etc. I think these articles have more impact on the safety knowledge of Canadian helicopter pilots and operators (who are the target audience) and the feedback from the readership supports this.

I expect the “half fictitious story” to which you refer is the one about the 212 accident in front of the hangar? This article was written in response to 4 events in the past year where pilots approached controlled aerodromes with an emergency, and either failed to declare, or refused emergency services. Yes, the surrounding story was fictitious, but thankfully I didn’t have a real disaster to draw upon. I was trying to prevent one. 

Since I took over Vortex, I have tried to broaden its horizons to include the human factors that cause the majority of our accidents. Topics like pre-flight inspections, poor flight planning, fuel exhaustion, declaring emergencies etc. are very pertinent to Canadian helicopter operations, and can go a long way to helping the newer pilots develop good attitudes and habits. I have included pieces on physiological factors like dehydration, sleep deprivation and cold weather that affect decision making in pilots and other flight crews.

There have been technical articles on freewheel units, LTE, vertical reference, fuel drum handling, snow landings and cockpit ergonomics in recent issues. 

Another thing I''ve tried to do is to turn much of Vortex over to the readership with ''Tips and Tails''. Several pilots have written some excellent articles for inclusion in this section, and in the next issue there are stories of how two Canadian pilots got themselves in trouble during longline operations. These are things that we all can learn from, and to date they have received excellent comments from the readership. They also offer pilots the opportunity to share their mistakes and lessons-learned with others.

As for your concern about our failure to “encourage manufacturers to put recurring faults right”, that is not the mandate of Vortex. We constantly monitor events involving all Canadian operated, registered, crewed, or manufactured aircraft, and problems are dealt with through our Continuing Airworthiness, Commercial and Business Aviation, and Certification branches¾I work with these groups on a daily basis. Any information that poses a threat to our industry is disseminated immediately through media other than Vortex, which is only published quarterly. 

I thank you for the offer to print your letter, but I have no shortage of feedback with which to “gauge reaction”.

 Sincerely,...."