HSIT - A "combined" joint venture

Bengt Persson
Mikael Karlsson

Abstract

When the first trials started in 2006, the Swedish Armed Forces (SAF) had very limited experience in helicopter on ship operations, and no joint regulations between Air force and Navy. The knowledge in general in the SAF and FMV about this kind of operations could be considered as negligible. Therefor what initially was identified as a “land on deck” trial grew to the development of operational procedures, training of ship crew and aircrew and to establishing international procedures and increased knowledge within operational units and responsible authorities.

Throughout all campaigns there has been a core of a test team from FMV T&E and Prism Defence. Some other actors have participated more than once, but some only on one occasion. The vessels involved were two Visby class corvettes, the command ship HMS Carlskrona and the helicopter type AW 109 LUHS with the Swedish denomination HKP 15.

A large number of participants lead to different expectations and ambitions about the goals for each campaign. Here are some samples; participation in international operation Atalanta II, declaration of helicopter-ship operation capability for ships and helicopters, clearance to develop helicopter on ship operations within the Swedish armed forces. The different participants presented a network of experts in many areas, with ambitions to go fast forward to similar goals. The expectations were high, as was the expertise in the different areas of operation.

As a test organisation FMV T&E were experts on traditional flight testing in Sweden, and responsible for the test activities and campaigns. The FMV T&E employed test manager was tasked to coordinate and manage the overall organisation and activities, based on the rules and commands from the FMV test organisation. All tests were performed under the responsibility and control of FMV T&E test leaders.

The test sites were the respective ships, which were also test objects, and the ship crew were on one hand test site personnel but at the same time assessing test crew and the crew to be assessed.

The campaigns were defined in time and all activities; training of test crew, developing procedures, testing functions and training SAF personnel was to take place in the same frame. After a period of build-up, a test readiness review was performed to ensure that procedures and competences were at hand to start testing. There was no time in between the build-up and initiation of the testing, why this had to be cleared within the test team.

In order to handle this kind of development, routines had been worked out how to analyse and declare the organisation ready for testing. Mandate was given to the test manager and he was supported by experts from Prism and representatives from the own organisation.

Once testing had started, data was collected within weather and system conditions permitting, to a point where a minimum operational capacity was established. At this point, following the prepared procedures, further development including new procedures or new equipment could be introduced if requested. This opened for the possibility to use the gathered results as a base for Deck Landing Qualification (DLQ) of SAF pilots.

So, if weather or test equipment prevented further testing, training could be performed within the responsibility and limitations of the test organisation.

A team of subject matter experts, including SAF and Prism personnel, and under the command of a FMV test leader, could develop and suggest new routines or the use of new equipment. A board of experts, not previously involved in the development of the suggested solution, could within given limits decide about the implementation during the campaign. If requested, the issue could be raised one level to get the acceptance.

In a test like this you are guest in somebody else’s backyard. There are tradition and cultures to benefit from, and that you depend on. That is also one of the major challenges. You want to satisfy the people you are working with. You want to make sure you stick to the rules that you created at home and got orders to operate by, and you want to make use of the skill the people around you possess. At the same time you know that the responsibility is yours and the good advices you get are from well-intended people who most probably does not, like yourself, have the complete picture.

Make sure you can make time to stand aside and observe. Talk to the single sailor training hard to be part of a lashing team, as well as to your programme test pilot. Make sure they trust themselves in what they are doing. They are all individuals and they form your success.

The following three lessons learned were noted:

1. If test tools and procedures work for trained test personnel, they most probably work for non-test trained participants as well. Use and trust all the normal tools.
2. The team includes everybody involved in the test; either it is the senior test pilot or the flight deck FOD team. Openness and acceptance about the individual roles and needs creates team spirit, and are main factors to bring forward the information that ensures good results and safe testing.
3. In order to test safely, and to ensure test data quality, groups of independent decision makers should be organised. Unique and leading experts must have freedom, but total effects should be independently controlled within the team by relevant review personnel without the pressure of “time and cost”.