Flight Data Monitoring - IHST

Flight Data Monitoring 

CHC Safety & Quality Summit 2009 

Lindsay Cunningham, American Eurocopter 

Joint Helicopter Safety Implementation Team 

Stuart “Kipp” Lau, CAPACG, LLC. 

Joint Helicopter Safety Implementation Team 


Vancouver, BC March 30, 2009 

1

CHC Safety and Quality Summit 

• Summit Theme: The Future of Human Error Management 

in Aviation 

• Session Theme: The role of Flight Data Monitoring in 

effectively managing human error and identifying 

vulnerabilities in the aviation system. 

• Key Deliverable: A path to global FDM implementation and 

cooperation amongst stakeholders. 



2

Helicopter FDM & the Oil and Gas Industry 

Operator 

Bristow 

Bristow/Air Logistics 

CHC 

Cougar Helicopters 

Era Aviation 

PHI 

Arkansas Children’s Hospital 

Baldwin Aviation 

Primary Industry (Secondary) 

Oil and Gas (SAR) 

Oil and Gas 



Oil and Gas (EMS) 

Oil and Gas (EMS) 

EMS 

Multi/Organizational‐based 



3

Overview: 

• Introduction – IHST FDM activities 

• Brief FDM/FOQA history 

– Airline and Helicopter 

• Program management 

• Practical applications of FDM 

– Approved and non-approved 

programs 

• Available resources 

• Discussion 



4

Why are we here? 

Reduce accidents…save lives!!! 



5

JHSAT Standard Problem Statements: 

Q: What 

other areas 

can be 

impacted by 

FDM? 



6

JHSAT Intervention Categories 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

367 

275 

7 

173 

143 

119 

43 33 28 

Training 

Safety 

Management 

Information 

Maintenance 

Systems & 

Equipment 

Regulatory 

Instructional 

Infrastructure 

Frequency 


Vancouver, BC March 30, 2009

US JHSAT Recommendations: 

• Utilize flight data monitoring systems such as HOMP 

or FOQA to evaluate flight operations and to address 

unsafe/undesirable flight crew habits. 

• Install flight data retrieval systems such as: 

– Cockpit image recorder 

– Flight parameter recorder 

– Cockpit information recorder 

– Quick Access Recorder (QAR) 

– Multi-function data acquisition unit (MFDAU) 

– Cockpit voice flight data recorder (CVFDR) 

Source: Year 2000 U.S. JHSAT Report 



8

Why do we need flight data? 

• Additional data source for information in accident 

investigation 

• Accident prevention due to operational oversight 

• Support implementation of flight data monitoring 

system (FOQA/HOMP/HUMS) 

• Can be utilized for training 

• Data validation in the event of an incident 

• Acquisition of fleet data for operator 



9

Information Recommendation Strategies: 

• Install flight data retrieval systems, and utilize this 

equipment to implement flight data monitoring systems 

such as HOMP/FOQA/HUMS. 

– Publish flight data retrieval & management system guidance for 

industry 

– Sponsor flight data monitoring workshop at Heli-Expo 2009 and 

IHSS 2009 

– Encourage airframe and avionics Original Equipment 

Manufacturers (OEMs) to develop and install low-cost flight data 

retrieval systems 



10

Information Recommendation Strategies: 

• Work with accident investigation authorities to increase 

data gathered in accident investigations. 

– Developed helicopter accident checklist to trigger deeper 

investigation into unique aspects of helicopter operations 

– Ongoing effort to support investigative authorities with data and 

investigations and inform them of relevant industry safety issues 

– Additional sources of information such as flight data retrieval 

systems will augment information available to investigators 



11

Flight Data Monitoring: 

How can you fix what you don’t know? 

How can you improve what you don’t measure? 



12

Exploring FDM in HEMS – no formal programs, yet. 

• Recommendations from NTSB Hearings 

– AAMS 

– AMOA 

– HAI 

• Flight data retrieval systems for 

helicopters 

• FOQA programs 

• Interest from several operators such as Air 

Methods, Tramahawk, OmniFlight, etc. 

• IHST/FSF HEMS FOQA Trial 



13

Initial Steps 



14

Flight Data Monitoring History 

• 1960s – FDM with British Airways and TAP Air 

Portugal 

• 1993 – FSF recommends FOQA beyond airlines 

• Late—1990s Airline FOQA becomes commonplace 

• 2002 – Final CAA HOMP trial paper issued 

• June 2005 – FSF/NBAA C-FOQA Trial 

• Late 2006 – New recorder technology enables GA 

FDM 

• 2008 – Bristow/Air Logistics FAA-approved HOMP 

• 2009 – IHST/FSF Helicopter FDM Trial 



15

What is a flight data monitoring system? 

Current 

Intervention 

Point 

FDM 

Intervention 

Point 

1 

30 

300 

The accident that finally 

occurs. 

For the few incidents that 

are reported, which 

ultimately results in… 

Hundreds near misses, 

incidents and events go 

unreported… 

The Heinrich Pyramid 

Data from Appareo Systems LLC, Feb 2008 



16

Question: Why Flight Data Monitoring? 

• For every major accident there 

are several less significant 

accidents, hundreds of 

reportable incidents and 

thousands of unreported 

incidents. 

• Below this lie the normal 

variations present in all 

operations. 

Information sources added 

• FDM gives more detail on the 

incidents, encourages more 

consistent reporting and fills in 

the void below this that we know 

very little about. (HOMP Study) 



17

Flight Data Monitoring defined 

• Definition: “A systematic method of accessing, analyzing 

and acting upon information obtained from digital flight data 

records of routine operations to improve safety” 

• FDM involves the pro-active use of flight data to identify 

and address operational risks before they can lead to 

incidents and accidents. (HOMP Study – UK CAA, Shell 

Aircraft, Bristow and BA leads to adoption by UKOOA) 

• Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) is the technology and 

methodology for collecting and analyzing data recorded in 

flight. (FAA) 



18

Answer: Discovering the unknown! 

• The HOMP (trial) provided valuable new information on the risks 

associated with helicopter offshore operations. 

• Events have identified hazards which otherwise would not have 

come to light. 

• The operator has been able to take appropriate corrective and 

preventative measures. 

• The measurements are building a useful picture of everyday 

operations which has not previously available. 

• The HOMP has shown how pro-active use of flight data in a FDM 

program can significantly enhance the safety of helicopter offshore 

operations. (HOMP Study – www.caa.co.uk - CAA Paper 2002/02) 



19

FDM by any other name… 

• FOQA – Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FAA) 

• FDA – Flight Data Analysis (ICAO) 

• FDM – Flight Data Monitoring (CHC) 

• HFDM – Helicopter Flight Data Monitoring (Cougar) 

• HOMP – Helicopter Operations Monitoring Program 

(Bristow/Air Log) 

• LAMP* – Line Activity Monitoring Program (PHI) 

• HUMS – Health & Usage Monitoring Program (MX) 

• MOQA – Maintenance Operational Quality Assurance (MX) 



20

What is FOQA? 

• Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) is 

an FAA program that standardizes the FDM 

process for interested parties. (AC 120-82) 

• FOQA versus ASAP Landscape – US Airlines 

Major Carrier 

Regional Carrier 

ASAP 93 percent 91 percent 

FOQA 86 percent 10 percent 

NTSB – FAA Shared Vision 

Conference 2008 



21

What’s up with ASAP? 

• Aviation Safety Action Program – a voluntary reporting 

system for employees of certain certificate holders. A 

partnership between the FAA, certificate holder and 3 rd 

party such as a labor organization. (AC 120-66) 

• Easier to implement than FOQA – fewer barriers such as 

cost associated with fleet equipage and ground analysis 

stations (WBAT offered at no-cost) 

• ASAP in the news – In 2008, a number of US airlines 

suspended their ASAP (Delta, American, US Airways) 

over concerns of program management. Most have 

reconciled differences and have crafted new MOUs. 



22

Lessons learned: Airlines 

• Over 30 years of FDM experience 

• A mature global system (ICAO mandate) 

• Active information sharing through the following 

(US example): 

– Over 5 years of infoshare meetings 

– Current Aviation Safety Information and Sharing 

(ASIAS) process 

• Following sequence of slides courtesy of the Flight 

Safety Foundation 



23

•There were no fatalities or injuries 

•There was no mechanical damage to 

the aircraft 

•No Air Safety reports were submitted 

(assumed) 

Therefore, no investigation was 

carried out and no lessons were 

learned – 

Except perhaps by the crew concerned 



24

If we can detect this …………. 



25

…………maybe we can prevent this………….. 



26

Best Practices 

using 

understanding 

analysing 



27

FOQA produces results: 

Hull losses as % of total hulls flying 

0.4 % 

0.3 % 

0.2 % 

World average 

Last 28 FOQA users 

Middle 11 FOQA users 

First 6 FOQA users 

0.1 % 

0 % 

Source : Skandia 

1976-1982 1983-1989 1990-1996 



28

Beyond safety… 

• Operational benefits of FOQA 

• Orange County (KSNA) Noise Study 

• Problem – legacy “alternate” 

departure procedure mandated by 

airport property leases 

• Procedure required “deep cutback” of 

thrust – noise monitored by airport 

authority (3 rd type of TO procedure) 

• High bypass turbofans introduced 

• Legacy aircraft no longer operate into 

SNA – procedure remained 



29

Troublesome procedure 

• FOQA studies showed high rate of 

the following events: 

– Pitch High on Takeoff 

– High Rotation Rate 

– Climb Speed Low 

• AQP data indicated high number 

of unsuccessful departures. 

• Actual observed “stick shaker” 

events and one reported bird strike 

at high pitch/low energy 



30

SNA Noise Study – a success story 

• Airline study involved: 

– Simulator trials 

– Actual flight test utilizing all takeoff procedures and 

engine combinations 

• Airport Authority waived noise violations during test 

flights 

• Results validated simulator trials and procedure was 

changed industry wide 

• Airline conducting study benefited from increased 

operational flexibility, fuel savings and a wider safety 

margin 



31

How did others learn from this lesson? 

OLD – individual silos 

New – free flow of information 

UAL 

UPS 

DL 

AMR 

SWA 

JBLU 



32

Model for the helicopter industry 

Example – S-76 operators (segments, locale, etc.) 

Current – individual silos 

Future – free flow of information 

EMSI 

OFI- 

Gulf 

VIPI 

OFI – 

N.ATL 

Heli 

EMSI- 

CAN 



33

Program Management Decisions 



34

FOQA is not a “silver bullet” 

Flight Operational Quality 

Assurance Programs are only 

effective when coupled with an 

active SMS in a “just culture.” 

Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) is only effective when coupled with an active SMS in a “just culture.” 

NO 

YES 



35

Caution! 

• Upon implementation - organizations 

must be prepared for immediate results – 

following AC 120-82 will reduce the 

likelihood of a surprise. 

• Be aware of the different emotions 

associated with FOQA implementation 

– “Geez that’s neat” 

– “Wow, we’re collecting a lot of data” 

– “Crap, how do we manage all of this 

information” 



36


• Process begins with 

needs assessment. 

• Include all stakeholders 

Maintenance 



37

MOST Model 

Maintenance 

Engine trend monitoring 

Exceedance reports 

HUMS 

Trouble shooting 

Fuel savings 

Operations 

Insurance reductions 

Automated data transfer from 

aircraft 

Automated OOOI reporting 

Automated billing 

Fuel savings 

Automated aircraft tracking 

Training 

Provide feedback to 

instructor/students (e‐debrief) 

Validation of training programs 

Training footprint analysis and 

adjustment 

Safety 

Fleet oversight 

SOP adherence 

ID of adverse safety trends 

Uncover threats and errors 

Mitigate risk 



38 

38


• Corporate Infrastructure 

– Size of company 

– Safety organization 

– IT department 

• Personnel 

–Cost 

• FT/PT FMT 

• Flight Qualified? 

• Revenue/productivity lost 

– Training 

• Workforce stability 



39


• Approved versus “nonapproved” 

or informal 

• Establish program IAW 

AC 120-82 

(recommendation) 

• Different motives (next) 

– Air Logistics/Bristow 

–PHI 

• Incentives of FAAapproved 

programs 



40

A tale of two tail rotors: 

Air Logistics HOMP 

• Pro-active FDM system 

• Integral part of SMS 

• Customer requirement 

• Employee acceptance 

• Offshore operations 

• Monitors Bell 206/407 

(ALERTS) and S-76 and 

S-92 w/ Flightscape 

• FAA-approved status 

PHI’s LAMP 

• Pro-active FDM system 

• Integral part of SMS 

• Customer requirement 

• Employee acceptance 

• Offshore operations 

• Monitors S-76 and S-92 

w/ Flightscape 

• Non-approved status 



41

One size doesn’t fit all… 

• Both organizations made a corporate decision on the 

status of their program (explained in detail in respective 

HeliExpo presentations posted on www.ihst.org site). 

PHI explains: 

• No PHI objections to an FAA Approved Program, and we 

may decide to move that direction in the future 

• Our program has developed extremely well and has 

become quite robust 

• Has been very effective as is… 



42

FOQA Benefits – FAA approved programs 

• Enforcement incentives –FAR violations will not be 

pursued if revealed only by FOQA and receive 

corrective action and do not involve criminal or 

intentional actions. 

• Data protection –FOQA data will be de-identified and 

protected from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

release under FAR Part 193. –FAA Legal Office will 

defend any attempts to override Part 193 by other 

authorities. (FAA AFS-230) 

• Future industry information sharing is key to 

establishing a global FDM community – ASIAS 

process relies on information from “approved” 

programs 



43


• Technology Selection 

– Fleet types (stability) 

– Common across fleets 

• Fleet equipage survey 

– What’s installed? 

• Available equipment 

• STC versus 337 

installations 

• Ground analysis tools 

– Web-based 



44

FDM Process – the 4 R’s 

• Record 

– Aircraft flight data 

(FDR/DFDAU/QAR/WQAR) 

– Light Recorder (Appareo ALERTS) 

• Retrieve 

– Manual, electronic or wireless 

• Review 

– Validate, classify and analyze with ground 

analysis station 

• Report 

– FMT review, meaningful findings and 

recommendations, group review to 

determine operational and training impact. 



45

A quick recap… 

• Properly managed 

SMS components 

convert data into 

useful information and 

the end user gains 

knowledge based on 

facts that reduce risk 

and increase safety* 

*enhanced, thanks to Dick Healing, R3 Consulting 



46

What is a flight data monitoring system? 

•Involves capturing and analyzing flight data to determine 

if the pilot, aircraft systems, or aircraft itself deviated from 

“normal” operating conditions 

•Data allows analysts to investigate predefined 

exceedances for corrective action and trend analysis 

•Designed to respond to normally unreported events to 

modify procedures and behavior in a non-punitive 

manner and thereby prevent accidents. 



47

Challenges of flight data monitoring systems: 

•Resistance from the pilot community; an effective 

flight data management program must be nonpunitive…JUST 

CULTURE! 

•Non-standard format of flight data; for operators with 

mixed equipment, a standard data format must be 

developed for effective data analysis. 

•Diversity of helicopter operations; diverse operating 

environment and requirements make it difficult to set 

standard “event triggers” 



48

Proven Benefits of flight data monitoring systems: 

•Significant increase in safety and reduction of accidents 

•Airline industry for more than a decade 

•Offshore helicopter operations 

•Significant cost savings 

•Modified procedures impending failure detections 

•Source of empirical data for operations analysis and 

evaluation of existing and new procedures and programs 



49

FDM Resources 

1. FAA – inform local POI and AFS-230 

2. FAA – AC 120-82 (FOQA)/AC 120-92 

(SMS) 

3. FAA – AC 120-66 (ASAP) 

4. FSF – Flight Safety Digest 1998 and 

other resources at 

www.flightsafety.org 

5. Vendors on display 

6. IHST FDM Tool Kit (release date TBD) 

7. FDM Workshop participants 

8. HOMP Study – www.caa.co.uk -CAA 

Paper 2002/02 



50

Discussion/Questions? 



51

THANK YOU – 

STUART “KIPP” LAU 

VICE PRESIDENT OF FDM SERVICES 

SLAU@CAPACG.COM 



52

Flight Data Monitoring - IHST

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?