FOCUS - MINDEF Singapore safe and successful operations. The achievement did not come easily and there were occasions of setbacks during the initial stages of the operations with maintenance

RSAF Safety Magazine Issue 71 | April 2012

FOCUS

2

>> A Unique PPP >> Air Movement Operations in Afghanistan >> Three-Legged Race >> Managing Risk In Runway Repair Operations >> Mind Your Back

Team ExcellenceInside:

Issue 71Republic of Singapore Air Force Safety MagazineFOCUSA

pril

2012

Mission Success Safety Always - Mission Success Safety Always - Mission Success Safety Always - Mission Success Safety Always - Mission Success

Mission Success Safety Always - Mission Success Safety Always - Mission Success Safety Always - Mission Success Safety Always - Mission Success


Cont

ents

EDITORIAL BOARD

ChairmanCOL Aw Kwee Siong

MembersLTC Danny KohLTC Alex CorneliusME6 Lee Lip KeeMAJ Peter HoMAJ Marcus WooCPT (DR) Magdalene LeeMs Audrey Siah

Production Crew

CPT Khoo Pak SynEditor

Assistant / Photographer

Graphic / Layout Design

2WO Steven Goh

2WO Steven Goh

Printed ByVaCain Design Pte Ltd

FOCUS is published by Air Force Inspectorate, HQ RSAF, for accident prevention purpose. Use of infor-mation contained herein for purposes other than accident prevention, requires prior authorisation from AFI. The content of FOCUS are of an informative nature and should not be considered as directive or regulatory unless so stated. The opinions and views in this magazine are those expressed by the writers and do not reflect the official views of the RSAF. The contents should not be discussed with the press or anyone outside armed services establishment. Contributuons by way of articles, cartoons, sketches and photographs are welcome as are comments and criticisms.

FOCUS magazine is available on these sites:

http://webhosting.intranet.defence.gov.sg/web/AirForce/AFI/index.htm (intranet)

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/rsaf (internet)

ISO 9001:2008 BS OHSAS 18001:2007

Front Cover Image: A RSAF Pearce Detach-ment’s Pilatus PC-21 flying over Australia.

2 ForewordBy COL Aw Kwee Siong

15

FOCUS Issue 71 - April 2012

17

26

18

Annual Safety AwardsRSAF CO’s Conference 2012

What Our People Think...

30

Managing Risk in Runway Repair OperationsBy ME6 Wong Chee Yuen

Cross Word Puzzle

Know Your CSOsCSO ADOC & CSO PC

10

3 A unique Public-Private Partnership(PPP)

8 Air Movement Operations In Afghanistan

11 Three-Legged Race

Outstanding Safety Awards

Mind Your BackBy MAJ (DR) Cheong Siew Meng

22

29

Safety Workshops27

Annual Safety Conference 201214


FOCUSForew

ord

2

FOREWORDI would like to congratulate all of you for achieving another accident free year in work-year 2011. This is the 11th year that we have done so. The collective will and commitment of everyone in the RSAF to prevent accident have been instrumental.

Our safety principle of “Safety is an individual, team and command responsibility” encapsulates the importance of team effort, especially in risk management and crew resource management (CRM), in our strive towards Zero Accident.

Hence, the theme of this issue of FOCUS is on Team Excellence. Just like Safety, Team Excellence is also one of the RSAF’s 9 Core Values. The articles will showcase the importance of teamwork to achieve positive mission outcome without compromising safety. With shared goals and commitment, people from different organisations, backgrounds, race and culture can still make up an integrated team to achieve mission success, safety always. This is important as we seek to outsource more and better optimise our use of National Service resources in the coming years. The teamwork between the 2 USAF pilots to safely recover and land their T-6 TEXAN II trainer with each having only partial control of the aircraft, is one of the finest that we have seen in recent aviation.

We have also included an article to raise our awareness of chronic back pains and how we should take care of our backs as we go about performing our daily work.

The importance of team effort is clear. It is our core value and safety principle. It is through the build-ing of successful teams within the RSAF and with all our defence partners that we can better identify all hazards, manage the associated risks, and overcome any obstacles that might come our way.

COL Aw Kwee SiongHead Air Force Inspectorate

The AFI Team


The Pilatus PC-21 aircraft in service with the RSAF since 2008.

CPT Soo Meng Yew “Miso” - Safety Officer, Pearce Detachment

CPT Soo Meng Yew is the Safety Officer for 130 Squadron and Standards Squadron in RAAF Base Pearce, Western Australia. He graduated with honors from Nanyang Technological University with a Bachelor degree in Mechanical Engineering in 2007. He is a Qualified Flying Instructor in 130 Squadron and previously operated the E2-C Hawkeye.

3

A Unique Public-Private Partnership (PPP)

A U

niqu

e PP

P

Introduction

The idea of having 3 commercial companies to support the maintenance program for a fleet of 19 aircraft may appear to be an extravagant arrangement. The complexity of such an arrangement poses significant challenges in managing the differences of 3 management policies, extremely diversified cultures, varying work practices, as well as an intricately linked contractual agreement which dictates the chain of communications amongst them.

To add to the complexity of the equation, these companies serve to support the flying operations of an overseas RSAF detachment in a foreign country. The detachment by itself is a unique structure with 2 operating squadrons, with a mixture of active aircrew as well as Defence Executive Officiers (DXO). The complex nature of this detach-ment set up underlines the need for every individual to develop a sense of belonging, with a common goal of achieving safe and successful operations.

The achievement did not come easily and there were occasions of setbacks during the initial stages of the operations with maintenance errors such as incomplete servicing and improper maintenance procedures. The detachment forged ahead, worked hand-in-hand with the commercial companies to overcome these challenges, and evolved together as a stronger team to meet the demanding requirements of flying operations over time.

Detachment Operations and Logistic Support Structure

The RSAF detachment in RAAF Base Pearce, West-ern Australia, consists of 130 Squadron which conducts the Basic Wings Course (BWC) for ab-initio trainees, and Standards Squadron which trains Qualified Flying Instructors (QFI). Both Squadrons share a fleet of 19 Pilatus PC-21 aircraft, which replaced the venerable SIAI-Marchetti S-211 since 2008.

The logistic element and maintenance construct changed with the replacement of the fleet. Lock-heed Martin Global Training and Logistics (LM) was awarded as the prime contractor for the BWC training program under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement. As part of the contract, LM supplies and maintains a fleet of 19 Pilatus PC-21 aircraft, provide the expertise to conduct ground school training, and a suite of ground-based training systems that meet the RSAF's requirements for its BWC flying training, which includes the flight simulator. Hawker Pacific Ltd (HP) is the maintenance agency for the PC-21 aircraft in the detachment. In addition, Pilatus provides the engineering knowledge and technical expertise in support of the maintenance requirements, as well as manages the supply chain and pilot safety equipment.


FOCUS

“The importance of safety in the aviation business.... serves as a common lan-

guage amongst the organi-sations, driving every indi-vidual to perform beyond contractual obligations.”

Binding Four Organisations

The different organisations were brought together to one common location and work together to achieve a single goal for the RSAF. An analogy would be that of a 4-wheel drive vehicle, where the wheels must work in unison in order for the vehicle to manoeuvre through treacherous terrain. For the vehicle to perform on both on and off road, the wheels, tyre pressure, suspension system, brakes and many other supporting system have to be fully functional. In addition, all 4 wheels have to be balanced and aligned, in order to provide the best handling capabil-ity the vehicle can offer to the driver.

The unique composition of the team members in Pearce detachment may appear to be diversified in the first in-stance. However, the experiences, knowledge and skills of each individual member can be harnessed to make positive contributions to the successful operations of the PC-21 fleet. The operators in both Squadrons consist of a mixture of active pilots and DXOs, who have a wealth of experience and local operating knowledge to share with the junior aircrew. Likewise, the ground maintenance personnel are made up of different nationalities with diverse cultural background. Moreover, the experience level of the maintenance crew averages at over 20 years in aviation maintenance, with over 3 years of experience on the PC-21, and is a valuable asset hidden beneath the façade of convoluted composition. Many are equipped with operational experiences in the military and fully understand the operational requirements and safety emphasis in military aviation.

These highly trained and professional crew are able to value-add to the safety process and improve safety margins during operations. This was evident in an earlier incident, where the technician went beyond his scope of duty and took the initiative to further investigate the observation of cracks at the engine cowling hinge assembly, thereafter promptly reporting the abnormality to the management. The technician exhibited ownership and pro-activeness during maintenance and operations, preventing the defect from deteriorating further and compromising flight safety.

Strong RSAF safety culture established back home was brought to a foreign land, providing a common platform to draw the commercial counterparts closer and align the differences. The importance of safety in the aviation business is well un-derstood by the commercial partners and serves as a common language amongst the organisations, driving every individual to perform beyond contractual obligations. The commercial companies share the commitment of the detachment to produce RSAF pilots of the next generation. Maximum effort is placed daily in the generation of serviceable aircraft to meet the flying requirements of the detachment, despite challenges posed by program changes as a result of weather, attrition, and other restrictions.

To promote safety awareness, build rapport and foster better working relationship, the detachment expressed their appreciation and recognition of the contractors by extending the Outstanding Safety Award to include them and presenting the award in the presence of the whole detachment during a safety forum. The 6-monthly BWC safety forum is a collaborative initiative between the detachment and LM, involving all members in the de-tachment from both aircrew and maintenance crew. Guest speakers specialised in various safety topics have been invited to provide lectures, conduct case studies, and share lessons learnt from past experiences etc. It is a good avenue to improve the working relationship and cross share cultures amongst the organisations.

4

A U

nique PPP

Staff from the different organisations gather for the daily briefs.


Safety Structure and Organisation

Although all the 4 organisations are different in their unique way, there is great commonality in the area of safety management in the form of risk identification, risk management, and hazard reduction. The private contractors are also firm believers of safety being paramount in the aviation industry. LM and HP each have their internal safety management policy and Safety Officer. The contract managers, supervisors and all safety appointment holders meet on a monthly basis to discuss and address various issues so as to iron out any safety concerns or de-velopments to increase awareness and achieve a common understanding such that the detachment can function safely and efficiently. In addition, LM, Pilatus and HP hold regular meetings among themselves to deal specifically with aircraft ground operation and maintenance issues.

Safety Processes and Manage-ment Systems

LM, being the prime contractor, serves as the direct communication linkage between RSAF operators, and HP maintenaners. An of-ficial reporting channel is available through the Safety Hazard Observation Report (SHOR) system, akin to the RSAF’s Safety In-formation System (SIS), and is used by HP to track and report significant areas of flight line operations to the detachment manage-ment through the LM safety officer. As HP provides services to many other operators around the world, including the RAAF in other parts of Australia, valuable lessons are shared through the SHOR which are in turn applied to the detachment operations. HP also adopted an internal system to ensure information dissemination such as face to face briefings and read-and-sign for all the technicians. This monitors and ensures that all the technicians are updated and informed of any changes to processes, procedures, and/or new technical memos.

The detachment has also established a healthy Crew Resource Management (CRM) culture between the aircrew and the maintenance crew, whereby there are unrestricted communications between the two during daily opera-tions to enhance safety. Significant case studies of incidents and lessons learnt within the RSAF pertaining to op-erations are disseminated and shared with the contractors through numerous ways, such as end of day debriefs, safety/quality notices issued by the Contract Management Office, quality and safety audits, and interactions with the Squadron Management and Safety Officer. These efforts continually improve the safety awareness and align the safety and quality standards of the maintenance personnel to that of the RSAF.

Pilatus engineers will provide timely and detailed briefings to aircrew on any software or hardware modification to enhance the serviceability state of the PC-21 fleet, defect trends and rectification plans to address aircrew concerns. Aircrew are free to query and offer recommendations which provide a different perspective from the engineer's eyes.

Training

As part of the contractual agreement, LM provides state-of-the-art training aids to improve training ef-fectiveness and efficiency. This allows realistic and yet safe training for aircrew to handle challenging

A U

niqu

e PP

P

The trainees are exposed to the flight environment in the high fidelity simulator to learn the various air exercises prior to actual flight.

An official report through the Safety Hazard Observation Report (SHOR) system is used to track and report significant areas of flight line operations.


FOCUS

conditions such as adverse weather or in-flight emergencies. The trainees are also exposed to the flight environ-ment in the high fidelity simulator to learn the various air exercises prior to actual flight. This reduces ambiguity and increases the preparedness of the trainees to minimise possibilities of mishandling the aircraft before con-ducting any new exercise in an actual flight. In addition, scenario-based training are also incorporated into the simulator training program to allow trainees to handle time-critical situations and training for uncertainty. The simulator instructors are all ex-RSAF pilots/instructors with a wealth of experience to impart their knowledge to the trainees. As a result, the trainees are better equipped with the required knowledge and experience prior to every flight, which enhances their in-flight performance and flight safety.

LM also provides technologically advanced Mission Planning System (MPS) and Ground Debrief Station (GDS) which enhance the ground training capabili-ties. The MPS allows the detailed planning of the mission required. For navigation flights, the time required to plan time is significantly reduced, and allowed more time and capacity for the trainees to prepare the other aspects of the flight. The GDS is capable of a full playback of the entire flight pro-ceedings in voice, cockpit instruments display, HUD videos, as well as a 3-dimensional mapping of the flight profile. This enables a detailed debrief of the trainee's performance by the instructor, and allows the focus on any specific phase or snapshot of the flight for better illustration to improve the learning curve of trainees. The HUD playback available on the laptop allows the trainees to perform self debrief through viewing the recordings at their own time.

In addition to face to face briefings, HP has an on-line induction program for the newly recruited personnel to level them up on the safety aspect of operations. It is a company policy and requirement for the personnel to complete the induction package prior to the commencement of training. The contents of the induction program is comprehensive, covering areas such as aircraft system knowledge, human factors, teamwork and safety. Re-fresher trainings are also conducted periodically to ensure that all the maintenance crew remain updated and relevant in their scope of work.

HP also works closely with the RAAF’s Base Operations to coordinate maintenance activities such as aircraft tow-ing and engine ground run. HP personnel are required to be trained and equipped with the knowledge of ground operations in the aircraft manoeuvring area.

Building A Strong Team

To build a safe operating environment, a team with strong safety consciousness is required. However, this is a big challenge in a PPP arrangement as every company is different in culture, beliefs, structures, processes and has employees with different motivational factors. Several other ingredients will be essential to enable the team to perform efficiently and safely. These ingredients do not come naturally and require the cooperation and con-tributions by all members. Thus, the management plays an important role to set the tone and place the correct emphasis.

1. Understanding the differences – Commercial companies are run differently compared to military organi-sations. The practice of questioning the rectifications and checks done should be delivered in an engaging and sharing manner, taking into consideration the differences in organisational cultures and individual motivational factors. In addition, it has to be directed to the right person who is in a better position to provide the answer.

2. Be professional - All interactions should be maintained at a professional level during operations. Proper respect for the other individual should be observed, and is necessary to increase the bonding within the team.

6

A U

nique PPP

The Ground Debrief Station (GDS) is capable of a full playback of the flight proceedings in voice, cockpit instruments display, HUD videos, as well as a

3-dimensional mapping of the flight profile.


3. Open up communication lines – Effective com-munication remains a key ingredient for a diverse team to be successful. Besides the official and formal report-ing chain, other avenues are opened to allow timely and immediate exchange of information, especially on time critical issues to prevent the next incident.

4. Cross sharing of information – Variations in procedures, work practices and standards are inevita-ble amongst the companies. Misunderstanding can be avoided through regular sharing and comparing of notes. These can be beneficial to reveal each organisa-tions blind spots too. Sharing of experiences and les-sons learnt will also raise the entire team’s safety aware-ness to a higher level.

5. Mutual exchange of culture – As the person-nel are from a myriad of nationalities and cultural background, habits and customs will be different. Dif-ferent working style and behaviour may cause misun-derstanding in the course of daily work. Therefore, it is necessary to be sensitive and uphold the proper con-duct by establishing comprehensive work processes to reduce assumptions and ambiguous techniques.

Conclusion

With Safety as the common language and open chan-nels of communications, it is possible to build a strong team to overcome the challenges posed by differences in culture, practices and motivational factors.

It also requires high levels of professionalism and discipline, with the right safety attitude and concerted effort from all parties.

As the commercial partners continuously strive to meet the RSAF’s operational demands and expectations of high quality and safety standards, 130 and Standards Sqn will continue to create a conducive environment that promotes professional exchanges and cross-sharings. This is necessary for constructive contributions by every individual to achieve the common objective of effective and safe flight training operations.

What it should Be:

We had ommitted the full list of contributors for the article:

ME5 Teo Wee Boon - ME5 Teo is currently the Commanding Officer of the Airfield Maintenance Squadron (AMS) in Changi Airbase. He graduated from the Loughborough University (UK) with BSc (1st Hons) in Business Studies and post-graduate diploma in Defence Technology System from NUS.

ME5 Phua Kian Sean - ME5 Phua is currently Officer Commanding of the Airfield Operations Flight in AMS Changi Airbase. He holds a Diploma in Civil Engineering from Singapore Polytechnic.

MAJ Andrew Keong - MAJ Keong is currently a Trial Pilot in the RSAF Flight Test Centre. He is a graduate of the United States Naval Test Pilot School and has a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering from Nanyang Technological University.

Special thanks is given to 3SG Cheong Li Yang and 3SG Daniel Wong Tun Liang of AMS CAB for their invaluable contributions in this article.

FOCUS Magazine issue 70 - Page 10 - 13 - ‘Distraction’

The Editorial Board apologies for the errors.

A U

niqu

e PP

P

Effective communication remains a key ingredient in all successful teams.


FOCUS

8

Air Movement OperationsIn Afghanistan

Air M

ovement O

perations

ME1 Daniel Justin Teo is a loading specialist in the RSAF Air Movement Centre. He was part of the RDTF03 deployed to Afghanistan to provide Air Movement support for the UTG. He has received the Best Logistics Serviceman award given out at the Group, Command and RSAF level for 2011.

ME1 Daniel Justin Teo - Loading Specialist, Air Movement Centre

INTRODUCTION

On 11st November 2010, a team of six personnel from the Air Movement Centre (AMC) was deployed to Tarin Kowt, Uruzgan, in southern Afghanistan, to plan, coordi-nate and palletize the RSAF UAV Task Group (UTG) cargo for retrieval back to Singapore. The UTG was deployed to Afghanistan in Aug 2010.

Geo-strategically located in the centre of Asia, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has endured many wars, turmoil and strife over centuries. The AMC personnel were part of the third Re-Deployment Task Force (RDTF03) sent in to support the redeployment of the RSAF UTG. Photo Source: Internet - War-torn buildings badly in need

of re-construction.

OPERATIONS IN A NON-BENIGN AND DESERT ENVIRONMENT

Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) – Not a Norm! Upon landing at Tarin Kowt, we were promptly whisked away from the airfield to rest and acclimatise our circadian rhythms to the time zone. We would later find out with trepidation that where we would be working at was yet another 'point of impact' for the Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), launched by insurgents from the mountains in the vicinity. IEDs had claimed more than its fair share of casualties in this warn-torn country's armed conflict and we knew we had to keep a watchful eye for one another. This slowed down our work processes as we had to constantly look around our environment.

Imbued with good safety training and practices drilled into us by our Unit Safety Officer and Unit Occupational Safety and Health Officer, especially during monthly AMC Safety Days, we began our arduous task of providing air movement support in a non-benign environment.

Overcoming Physical and Psychological Challenges

It was initially both physically and psychologically challenging to be working in such different and unfamiliar conditions; days were scorch-ing and dry while nights were cold and numbing. The gentle sloping gradient of land and immensely soft body of sand beneath our boots made work tougher for us. Neither our training in AMC nor Pre-Deploy-ment Training (PDT) fully prepared us for working in such an environ-ment. Acclimatising to this vastly different and challenging environment also proved difficult, especially being donned in our Personal Protective

Equipment (PPE) which was cumbersome and hindered our movements for palletising the cargo loads. The stark weather contrasts meant that waking up and heading for breakfast each morning was an event in itself, as the freezing desert wind relentlessly whipped at every pore of exposed flesh and seeped into uncovered orifices in our thick woollen garments. Contrastingly, once we entered midday, intense rays of the sun would bear down mercilessly on us and quickly, the temperature would rise dramatically, which prompted us to remove layers of clothing for it to be bearable to resume work.


Air

Mov

emen

t Ope

rati

ons In Singapore, the AMC is situated next to the runway and working next to one was a norm for us. But in Afghanistan,

working next to the runway in the middle of a desert came with its own set of complications, noise aside. In addition to the frequent 'sandstorms' created by both fixed and rotary wing aircraft taking off or landing, we had to keep each other within vocal distance in cases of IED attacks. This caused much inconvenience and sporadic disruptions to work as we were often distracted with the aircraft, and ridding ourselves of sand thereafter to prevent irritation and abrasion. Like in Singapore, ear plugs were a must to prevent Noise Induced Deafness (NID) while working. In Afghanistan, the ear plugs also provided additional protection in preventing excessive sand from entering our ears.

Over the days, we attuned our working styles to assimilate with the harsh foreign environment. Ladders were used when working at height. Gloves and proper lifting techniques were utilised when moving equipment about. We reminded each other to take short breaks in between and nibble snacks to keep our energy levels up. It was an uphill task as when in Singapore, the entire unit was involved in the palletisation process, but in Afghanistan, it was just the six of us.

ACHIEVING MISSION SUCCESS THROUGH SAFETY AND TEAM EXCELLENCE

The team had a good mix of seniority and experience. Being the greenhorn of the lot, with barely three years of service, I felt my expertise and opinions were lightweight when measured against that of the team. However, throughout the whirlwind training for this mission, it was brought to my attention that when it came to Crew Resource Management (CRM), everyone mattered.

An example which we encountered was in the basic air movement work process. Besides building the pallets, we had to plan and prioritise cargo loads, either to be airlifted by the C-17 or the C130 aircraft. This itself posed a challenge to the team as the height limitations and walkway considerations to palletise the cargo for the two aircraft types were different. Complicating this issue, the UTG team had bought and purchased more equipment to support the UAVs, which meant more pallet space would be required. Our team brainstormed, banded every-one's inputs, and finally overcame the loading process challenges, incorporating modified loading techniques. We also resolved the limited cargo space problem by stacking two UAVs together on a married pallet. All these were possible only because of the wealth of different expertise in the team which comprised Dedicated Air Movement Officers (DAMO), supervisors and loading specialists.

Another unique challenge encountered was when we drove the forklift to pick up the completed pallets for weigh-ing, we realised that the ground was inclined and peppered with small rocks. That made it impossible to insert the forks of the forklift under some pallets to lift them up. The team again brainstormed and eventually came up with an idea of using wood blocks to shore the difference in angles and height of either the forks or sides of the pallets so as to solve the problem. Once again, leveraging on the team's initiative and expertise, we managed to overcome the unknown problem through improvisation to achieve mission.

ME1 Daniel Teo (on top of the palletised cargo) and the rest of the AMC members worked closely together with foreign counterparts as a team.


FOCUS

10

Air M

ovement O

perationsCommunications also played a key safety role in our task. Being consciously mindful of the unknowns, there were constant communication among everyone in the team throughout our stay; from our 'start of day' briefs and 'end of day' debriefs, to canteen conversations and 'sandstorm' shoutings. Feedback and ideas were constantly exchanged, encouraged and implemented.

CONCLUSION

Completing our AMC task and eventually seeing those pallets being pushed into the aircraft gave us a great sense of satisfaction, achievement and pride. It must be highlighted that the RSAF’s safety culture, along with our other core values, were cardinal enablers and evident throughout this mission. Our AMC team achieved Mission Success not only in the professional aspects of the mission but more importantly, doing so safely despite the challenging situation. The experience gained from such a deployment is invaluable and demonstrated our AMC team’s high operational readiness to deliver in both peacetime and hostile environment.

KNOW YOUR CSOs

CSO ADOC - MAJ Woo Gim Chuan MarcusMAJ Marcus Woo is a WSO(GBAD) trained in the RBS 70 and Mis-tral systems with more than 20 years of service. Prior to assuming the appointment of CSO ADOC, MAJ Marcus Woo was a lead audi-tor in the Air Force Inspectorate. MAJ Woo attended the Aviation Safety Management Systems Course at the University of South-ern California's Viterbi School of Engineering in Los Angeles, USA.

As ADOC’s CSO, MAJ Marcus Woo is responsible in ensuring the safety of the people in the Command. As part of the ac-cident prevention framework, he is required to implement and enforce safety standards and regulations. In addition, he is re-sponsible for providing a comprehensive safety oversight pro-gram, consisting of safety audits, education and promotion.

CSO PC - MAJ Peh Kay LengMAJ Peh is an experienced helicopter pilot, qualified on the Super Puma and Chinook since 1995. He is also an Instructor and Mainte-nance Test Pilot. He has participated in operational missions, NDP fly-pasts, and multi-lateral and multi-service exercises both locally and overseas.

MAJ Peh has served as a Staff Officer in HQ RSAF and as a Flight Commander in Peace Prairie Detachment. He graduated from the Singapore Command and Staff College (SCSC) in 2009, and attended the Aviation Safety Management System Course at the University of Southern California, USA prior to his appointment as PC’s CSO.

MAJ Peh is responsible to strengthen the safety culture in PC, and to implement and enforce safety standards and regulations in all the units under PC. He is also responsible to provide oversight on the various safety programmes.


Photo by Tech Sgt. SAMUEL BENDET

11

“Three-Legged Race”In the T-6 Texan II

(Article reproduced with permission from Author. Origi-nal article is printed in the US Air Force, Air Education and Training Command (AETC), TORCH Magazine, Winter 2011, Volume 18, Number 6)

By Tim Barela - Editor TORCH, Air Education and Training Command, USAF

Capt. Frank Baumann was in a three-leg-ged race of sorts. But if he and his partner didn't work in concert, the consequences would be far greater than falling down and scrapping a knee. They could crash a multi-million dollar aircraft and be ripped apart in the wreckage.

Their “race” started 13,000 feet in the air, and the thing that 'tethered' them together were the bro-ken flight controls in a T-6 Texan II.

On Sept. 13, Baumann, an instructor pilot with the 459th Flying Training Squadron at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas, and student pilot 2nd Lt. Derek Olivares had to land a T-6 that neither of them had full control over. A flight control malfunction left Baumann with control of the ailerons, which determine the right and left motion of the plane, and Olivares with control of the elevators, which manipulate the up and down motion. Usually only one pilot controls the plane.

Complicating matters, until just a couple of months ago, Baumann had been flying B-52 Bombers out of Barksdale AFB. La. The 36-year-old Fort Still, Okla., native had only been an instructor pilot for a little more than a month. While he had 1,000 flying hours, less than 200 of those had come in the T-6. And the 23-year-old Olivares had even less time in the T-6, or any aircraft for that matter. He had yet to fly solo.

Talk about flying by the seat of your pants!“Imaging driving your

car down the street and making a right-hand turn, but the car goes

left. Your reaction is to desperately turn the

wheel even harder, and you might do that un-til you crash because

it’s disorienting. That’s kind of the situation we faced but in an aircraft.”

Thre

e-Le

gged

Rac

e

When the flight controls malfunctioned on their T-6 Texan II, an instructor pilot and his student had to figure out a way to land the plane safely back home at Sheppard AFB, Texas. The pilot had only been an in-structor for a little over a month, while the student pilot had never even flown solo.

Earlier that day, the duo had taken off as a standard T-6 sortie to train on spins, basic aircraft control and landings. But when the aircraft in-flight emergency occurred, the flight became a flight to bring the plane – and themselves – home safely.

Olivares, a Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training student pilot, discovered the flight control problem during recovery from a practice spin maneuver. The Harrison Township, Mich., native said he knew something was wrong when felt the control stick jump during the spin. His first thought was that Baumann had assumed control of the aircraft, as it felt as though they were fighting over the stick. But Baumann reaffirmed that the student did have full control of the plane.

“When I looked at the flight instruments, they were indicating a left bank even though I had full deflection of the control stick to the right,” Olivares said. “That's when I told Captain Baumann there was something wrong with the controls.”


FOCUS

Photo by Tech Sgt. Jeffrey Allen

12

Baumann immediately assumed control of the T-6.

“Imagine driving your car down the street and making a right-hand turn, but the car goes left,” Baumann said. “Your reaction is to desperately turn the wheel even harder, and you might do that until you crash because it's disorienting. That's kind of the situation we faced but in an aircraft.”

When the instructor pilot took over, the first thing he noticed was that the flight controls seemed real sloppy. “It was really strange, and I was not able to process what was happening at first.” he said.

After a few minutes he figured out that he did not have control of the elevator, which hindered their ability to climb and descend. He still managed to stabilize the aircraft by controlling the banking motions with the ailerons and using the trim to make minor stabilizing adjustment to the elevator inputs.

After recovering to level flight, the hair raised on the back of Baumann’s neck as he realized the severity of their plight. Without the elevator, they appear to be headed for an ejection.

“The T-6 has an awesome ejection seat, but so many things can go wrong in a bail out,” the instructor said. “So I’d rather not test it.”

His main concern was for the safety of his student. He told Olivares to double check all his gear in preparation for an ejection.

“I was really concerned that on one of his first rides that he was all set up because it looked like we were probably going to have to bail out of the airplane.” Baumann said. “Even if an ejection works perfectly, it’s pretty violent so you want to be strapped in properly. If something is not lined up right, you can get badly injured.”

Olivares followed his mentor’s advice. “I checked my harness about three times to make sure that everything was tight and good to go.” the student pilot said.

The duo also began troubleshooting the problem. “I was a fairly new instructor pilot, so I didn’t assume to know everything,” Baumann said. “It might well be a common malfunction with a simple fix. So I asked Derek to go through the checklist in search of an emergency procedure that lined up with what was occurring.”

Baumann reported the in-flight emergency to the supervisor of flying, who directed him to the T-6 operations supervisor, Maj. Gary Greicar.

Greicar immediately gathered an expert think tank of wing leadership, safety and maintenance personnel to help come up with a plan. “The people on the ground were acting like another crew member,” Greicar said. “Our job was to support the pilots with ideas and solutions to safely recover the aircraft.”

At first first, the ground team came to the same conclusion as Baumann: Without control of the elevators, the plane would be impossible to land. With that in mind, Greicar offered to read the controlled bailout checklist to the pilots as they had their hands full maintaining level flight with a broken airplane.

About that time a chase-ship support aircraft piloted by Capt. Wade Maulsby, 459th FTS instructor pilot, joined up with the stricken aircraft to provide assistance and perform an exterior inspection. The wingman searched for anything unusual.

“He looked over our plane and saw the elevator and trim ap-peared to be intact,” Baumann said.

Maulsby recommended having Olivares check to see if he had control over the elevators. That’s when they discovered the stu-dent pilot could, indeed, control the elevators. But their trou-bles certainly weren’t over at that point.

Three-Legged Race


“I still had zero control over the elevators, and Derek had zero control over the ailerons,” Baumann said. If they were going to safely land the plane, it was going to take an unorthodox approach with both of them working as one. “Once we had full comprehension of our situation, we discussed our options,” Baumann said. “Leadership left it up to me to decide if we bail out or try to land the crippled aircraft. But I was glad to get everybody's input; because if I was about to do something stupid, I wanted to know about it.”

Ultimately, he concluded it was safer to attempt the risky landing, versus an even riskier ejection. The pilot and his student practiced a half dozen simulated landings in the airspace before even thinking about touching earth.

“I controlled the ailerons, rudder and throttle; he controlled the elevators as I gave him verbal commands,” Bau-mann said. They reviewed contingency plans and thought through worst-case scenarios while practicing the landing. “We didn't know what else might be broken on the aircraft, so we had to prepare solutions in case other things went wrong,” Baumann said. “And ejecting remained a last-resort option if we decided things just weren't working out.”

Racing against the clock while facing decreasing fuel and deteriorating visibility, the crew flew a straight-in ap-proach on a 12,000-foot runway. One misstep here could spell disaster.

“We actually settled the aircraft onto the ground rather smoothly,” Baumann said. “It was a pretty nice landing.”

His student pilot couldn't have been happier.

“There was lots of celebration and relief when the aircraft was safely on the ground,” Olivares said. “We were all excited.... it was an awesome feeling.”

A post flight maintenance investigation revealed that a critical component of the flight control system failed, causing the control sticks in the front and rear cockpits to function independently rather than in unison as would normally be the case. As a result of the mishap, the T-6 fleet of 446 aircraft across all Air Education and Training Command bases went through a 100 percent maintenance inspection before returning to flying operations.

Baumann attributed the triumphant flight to communication, training and crew resource management.

“Having a smart wingman and the support and experience on the ground were the main contributors to our suc-cess,” he said. “It was the whole crew concept. We were getting information from a lot of different sources, and it was important to take advice and find the crucial info that was applicable to us.”

But Baumann was especially happy with whom he “ran that three-legged race”: his student pilot.

“Derek remained completely calm throughout the emergency,” Baumann said. “Some students would have frozen up in a situation like that and been almost useless. To his credit, he stayed focused and never panicked even once.”

Photo by US Air Force

After landing their stricken T-6 Sept. 13 at Sheppard AFB, Capt. Frank Baumann (left), 459th Flying Training Squadron instructor pilot, and 2nd Lt. Derek Olivares, Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training student pilot, pose for a photo.

Thre

e-Le

gged

Rac

e


FOCUS

14

Annual Safety Conference


Ann

ual S

afet

y A

war

ds

OUTSTANDING UNIT SAFETY OFFICER AWARD

Rank / Name Command / UnitCPT Neo Aik Chiao FTC, AODCPT Chan Tzeyang 123 Squadron

CPT Cen Jinsheng Lionel 203 SquadronCPT Daryl Yeo 122 Squadron

CPT Lee Sze Lui 116 SquadronMAJ Low Kheng Mei Melody C3 School, AWTI, AFTC

Mr Chen Zhihao AFSC, ALDMr Teong Chun Leong, Sam 706 Squadron

OUTSTANDING UNIT SAFETY WARRIOR AWARD

Rank / Name Command / UnitME2 Lim Thiam Hock 127 Squadron

ME2 Yee Choon Leong ALS, UCSSG Tan Song Hui 165 Squadron

2WO Seah Huat Beng UTS, FTI, AFTCME3 Tay Kar Hoon 817 Squadron

ME3 Kwek Joo Wah FTC, AODME3 Subash S/O Neelakantan AFSC, ALD

ME3 Mathew S/O V.C. Mathews 140 Squadron

MOTOR TRANSPORT SAFETY AWARD

Air Force Training CommandUAV Command

Participation CommandAir Combat Command

HQ RSAF


FOCUS

16

Annual Safety A

wards

UNIT ACCIDENT FREE YEARS

Recipient Accident Free Years120 Squadron 1Peace Carvin 2 1123 Squadron 2Peace Carvin V 2125 Squadron 3111 Squadron 5

UAV Training School 5130 Squadron 5116 Squadron 5128 Squadron 6119 Squadron 7126 Squadron 8

Trials Squadron, FTC 8Peace Vanguard 8112 Squadron 12Peace Prairie 16

127 Squadron 16145 Squadron 19140 Squadron 20144 Squadron 20143 Squadron 22

Air Grading Centre 22150 Squadron 22124 Squadron 25149 Squadron 25

122 Squadron 35Standards Squadron 36

121 Squadron 39

Standards Squadron122 Squadron

121 Squadron


RSA

F CO

’s Co

nfer

ence

The Annual RSAF Commanding Officer's (CO's) Conference, organised by the Air Force Inspectorate (AFI) was held from 29th to 30th March 2012 at The Chevrons. The theme for this year's conference was “Expanding Capabilities, Sustaining Success”.

Apart from safety issues, the conference encompassed a wide range of operational, training and human resource topics that allowed for the sharing and discussion of ideas pertinent to the running and development of a unit in the RSAF. This year's discussion topics included “Expanding Capabilities While Ensuring Zero Accident”, “Identifying Challenges In Optimising NSmen Employment” and “Sustaining Mission Success, Safety Always”. Through various exciting presenta-tions and active discussions, the conference reinforced the RSAF's workplan imperatives and safety focus of the year, and provided evocative thoughts on the employment and engagement of NSFs and NSMen. The two-day conference closed with an interactive sharing and dialogue session with the Chief of Air Force, MG Ng Chee Meng.


FOCUS

18

Runway repair operations entails the use of construction equipment within a confined space to repair the damage on the runway.

Managing Risk In Runway Repair Operations

ME6 Wong Chee Yuen, CO 506 SQN, APGCME6 Wong Chee Yuen is currently the Commanding Officer of 506 Squadron. He is in charge of all Airfield Damage Recovery (ADR) training, which entails runway repair, ordance disposal and utilities repair. He graduated from the Singapore Command and Staff Course in 2006.

In the business of generating air power, one of the core operations in Air Base Operability (ABO) is Airfield Dam-age Recovery (ADR). ADR operations encompasses a slew of actions to expeditiously restore damaged runways to establish a usable operating strip for aircraft Launch and Recovery (L&R) following a hostile attack. Airbase Civil Engineering (ACE) Squadron in the Airbase is entrusted to perform these tasks.

One of the key component in this recovery effort in get-ting the launching platform back to a usable condition is runway repair operations. This operation entails the use of construction equipment to repair the damages on the runway. With six to ten of these heavy construc-tion equipment manoeuvring within a confined space of

25m by 25m and having various personnel such as the repair commander and marshallers also working within the same space, the risk in such operations is considered high. From an observer who is not trained in runway repair operation, the scene may seem chaotic, but to a trained eye, it is an orderly and systematic operation that optimally employs equipment and manpower. Senior Commanders were often marvelled at how the repair team could carry out the repair in such an expeditious manner yet managing the high risk involved.

Hence, this article will discuss the ways and means of minimising risk in runway repair operations, using the 5M 4L model and also look into how Crew Resource Management (CRM) plays a part in managing the risks involved.

THE RISK INVOLVED

One fundamental aspect of minimising risk in the runway repair is to understand the risk associated with such operations. The risks are as follows:

• Personnel being hit by the construction equipment.• Collision between the equipment.

With a clear understanding of the risks involved, let us discuss on how these risks can be minimises using the 5M 4L model.

Mission

The team's mission is to repair the damaged runways. Whether it is in a hostile or training environment, the risks involved remains unchanged as the repair team is expected to complete the repair within a specific timing. However, in a training environment, the teams need to go through several stages of training to achieve the performance standard required of them. This progressive training itself is one key components of risk minimisation.

Progressive training is one key component of risk minimisation.

Managing Risk


Man

agin

g Ri

sk

Adequate maintenance is the key to minimise risk associated with equipment failure. The maintenance of the heavy plants are governed by the RSAF L-Series which provides a comprehensive checklist to ensure periodic maintenance are conducted. These include daily inspections by the operators and scheduled servicing by qualified personnel. A 'In-Between' operations check will be carried out if an equipment has been operated for a prolonged period. This will ensure the equipment is at its optimal operating condition and will not fail during operations.

Medium

Weather has a great impact on runway repair operations. The fact that visibility is poor under a downpour and the slippery condition greatly increase the potential of errors of judgement when operating the equipment. In a training environment, operations can be halted as there is always a better day to conduct the training. However, when operational demand sets in, the repair commander will make a judgement call to satisfy both the operation’s objective and at the same time minimising the risks the team is subjected to. Hence, adequate training to gain valuable experience must be accorded to the repair commander – to make a sound decision.

Mission, machine and medium factors rarely cause incident on their own. More often than not, man is involved in an accident because he sanctions the mission, or chooses to operate the equipment in a particular medium. Hence, the 4 Levels i.e. Individual, Team, Unit Management and Organisational Management factors has a big role to minimise risk in runway repair operations.

Individual Factors

Understanding the individual is crucial to minimising risk. In runway repair operations, the equipment operators consist of both National Service Full time (NSFs) servicemen and NSmen who are ex-regulars or ex-NSF. Although they have met the minimum physical and medical status, supervisors must know the profile of these operators and understand the individual lifestyle and their associated family or financial situation. Where needed, the situa-tion must be monitored closely and appropriate action recommended. The supervisor need to assess the mental condition of the operator in order to sieve out potential risk before an incident happens. These conditions are classified in the following areas:

Physiological• Fatigue – Ensuring adequate rest is important. With close observa-

tion and eyeball checks, one can assess if the operator has adequate rest and is ready for the operation. Mishandling of the equipment as a result of fatigue could be catastrophic.

Machine

Construction equipment or heavy plants are self pro-pelled heavy machineries. Examples of heavy plants are wheel loaders, compactors, dump trucks. A typical wheel loader weighs about 7,500 kg or 7.5 ton (approxi-mately 5 times heavier than a passenger car) and has a dimension of 3m (in height) , 2.2 m (in width) and 6m (in length), which is about 2.5 times the size of a passenger car. Hence, we are dealing with huge, heavy and powerful machinery that can cause catastrophic consequences when collision occur with personnel and /or between equipment, due to mechanical failure. An example is the failure of the brake system. Hence, the way to minimise the risk is to ensure that the equipment remains in tip-top condition with a comprehensive maintenance programme.

Heavy and powerful machineries that can cause catastrophic consequences.

Mishandling of the equipment as a result of fatigue could be catastrophic.


FOCUS

20

Managing Risk

Team Factor

Runway repair is a team level operation. Without the active participation of every member of the team, the level of effectiveness will be drastically affected. Several factors must be considered to minimise risk at the team level:

Communication• Communication is the most crucial in run-

way repair operations. In many instance, the operators must have unambiguous instruction from both the marshaller and repair commander. Any miscommunication could result in an undesired manoeuvre of the equipment that could lead to an incident.

Lack of Assertiveness• The repair commander and marshallers play crucial roles in getting the repair completed in an expeditious

manner. He or she must deliver instructions in a positive and confident manner. As the equipment and per-sonnel are working in close vicinity, any delay in giving the correct instruction at the right time may result in an incident.

Crew Resource Management (CRM)• CRM was borrowed from the aviators and it helps to increase general situation awareness and increase the

team's ability to look out for each other. While it is the duty of the repair commander and the marshallers to ensure safety, the training given to each member of the team allows them to understand each other’s roles and is able to anticipate the next course of action by their fellow team mate. Hence, any deviation in the repair procedures will be picked up by another operator. He or she will send the alert signal to warn the respective party on the deviation. Another aspect of CRM application in runway repair operations is the maintenance of adequate safety distance between the equipment during the repair operations. This is to prevent the risk of collision between the equipment working in a confined space. Similarly, each member of the team has a role to play in this. At the operator level, he must have safety in mind and ensure that the safety distance is maintained at all times. As a team member, each member must be assertive to warn others when any of the safety distance is encroached.

Unit Management

One of the key components to minimise risk at the Unit Management level is training.

Training Runway repair training is carried out at two levels, individual and as a composite team. Trainees work on individual proficiency for several months, followed by practical and theory tests before they are qualified. At this stage, the operators are exposed to various types of equipment which provides them with an understanding of the limita-tion of each type of equipment. In the composite team training, they will go through the following stages:

Cognitive• Understanding an individual’s mental limitation is essential to ensure that the operator is not distracted or

the demand of the tasks does not exceed his or her mental limit.

Attitudes and Emotional State • With advancement in technology, the newer generation of servicemen are exposed to multi-tasking and com-

plex environment. Hence, there is a need to ensure that undesirable attitudes (i.e. missionitis, over confidence, discipline) and emotional state are promptly dealt with when the situation arises.

Runway repair is a team level operation. Without the active participation of every mem-ber of the team, the level of effectiveness will be drastically affected.


Organisational Management

At the organisational level, proper resource management and planning must be provided. This translates into adequate budget for the maintenance of the equipment, equipment Life Cycle Management for fleet renewal and replacement of critical components.

The organisation will also ensure that procedures and training are periodically reviewed to ensure their relevance for safe operation.

CONCLUSION

Runway repair operations are inherently risky and the consequences of an accident can be quite serious consid-ering the size and weight of such equipment. While adequate training is crucial, more often than not, man is the key contributory factor in an accident. The ACE community is able to maintain our good safety record because of the attention given to the safety issues at all the levels, i.e. Individual, Team, Unit Management and Organisational Management. Individual competency and team excellenace are cardinal to sustain our “Mission Success, Safety Always!”

Man

agin

g Ri

sk• Working on individual plants through the sequential steps

of a runway repair operation. At this stage, supervision is one to one until the operators are qualified to operate the equipment.

• Concurrent activities with several plants (three to five equipment).

• A culmination phase in which numerous activities are ex-ercised to simulate a really intense situation that exposes the operators to all situations. Such training will also allow the repair commander to gain valuable experience and make sound decision when the need arises.

• An operations evaluation to assess the team's capability to perform the mission.

This progressive training approach enables the operators to be equipped with the necessary individual skills and experience. As they train as a team, each team member understands the roles of his fellow team members and is able to anticipate the next course of action. This will enhance the level of CRM within the team, minimising the risks involved in the repair operation.

Training together as a team will enhance the level of CRM within the team, minimising the risks involved in the repair operation.

Through excellent teamwork and effective training, 506 Squadron has won the overall “Best Airbase Civil Engineering Squadron” in the recent Ex Eagle Challenge.


FOCUS

22

Mind Your BackMAJ (DR) Cheong Siew Meng, ARMC

MAJ (DR) Cheong Siew Meng enlisted into the SAF in 2001 and graduated from the National Unitversity of Singapore School of Medicine in 2007. He joined the RSAF as an Aviation Medical Officer and serves at the Aeromedical Centre. He completed his post graduate Diploma in Aviation Medi-cine in the UK in 2009. MAJ Cheong endeavours to develop human performance programmes that will strengthen the RSAF operational capability and deepen the competency of his fellow airmen.

Introduction Mechanical low back pain is a common ailment experienced. It is the 2nd most com-mon symptom related presentation to the doctor, with up to 70% of the adult popula-tion at some point in their lifetime experiencing an episode. The lifetime prevalence of low back pain ranges from 12 to 30%. It usually appears in the 3rd decade of life, peaks between the ages of 35 and 55 years, and decreases thereafter. Low back pain is a significant medical condition as it can result in substantial socioeconomic impact. In the United States, low back pain accounts for approximately the loss of 17 million work days per year and $60 billion of the annual U.S. health care budget.

Back Pain Our spinal column is a column of vertebrae and ligaments seperated by a soft intervertebral discs1 with 2 facet joints at each level. (Figure 1). The column is supported by the muscles of the back and abdomen as well as ligaments. The unique con-figuration of muscles, bony joints, ligaments and soft interver-tebral discs allows a unique ability of flexibility, strength and stability, a characteristic of bipedalism. The spine also protects the spinal cord (Figure 2), which carries nerves that connect the brain to the rest of the body.

Back pain as a result of musculo-ligamentous strain are most common and presents with localised pain over the affected re-gion. It is usually sore to pulling in nature, made worse by back movement or sustained postures. It is self-limiting, often get-ting better on its own with rest and avoidance of back exertion over a few days to weeks. Pain can be relieved with application of heat or simple analgesia. Next most common are interver-tebral disc injuries where it could encroach on surrounding spinal cord and nerves (Figure 3), resulting in shooting pain to the buttocks and lower limbs, numbness or muscle weakness. Injuries to the vertebral bones and spinal joints (i.e. fractures, dislocations) are usually high impact injuries and causes severe pain, limitation of movement and physical deformity. They can also lead to serious neurological damage.

While there is no genetic predisposition to low back pain, there are certain congential spine conditions, such as abnormal spine curvature and joint weakness, that can be present at birth.

Figure 1 - Intervertebral discs and facet joints of the spinal column.

Figure 2 - Picture showing the superficial and muscle of the back.

1. The vertebral disc is a fibrocartilaginous disc serving as a cushion between all of the vertebrae of the spinal column.

Mind Your Back


Figure 3 - Diagram showing herniated disc and compression onto surrounding nerve root of the spinal cord.

23

Min

d Yo

ur B

ack

Back pain and Flying

Back pain amongst aircrew in the military and commercial aviation en-vironment is not uncommon. For one, this reflects the incidence of low back pain in the generation population, even though the incidence may be lower as aircrew applicants with pre-existing back conditions are not selected. Nonetheless, there are occupational risk factors that can put the aircrew at higher risk of the back discomfort to the working environment. Commercial pilots often complain of low back pain due to prolonged work in the cockpit, but these are usually associated with prolonged improper sitting postures and poor seat designs. In military aviation, fighter and rotary aircrew often report low back discomfort and theoretically this has been attributed to high G loading and total body vibration respectively. International studies so far conducted by military and civilian medical entities have however failed to show a clear association between flying and back pain. It is recongised that the incidence of back pain can be variable as there are many contributing factors such as the aircrew’s existing back health, presence of injuries/diseases, physical activities outside the flying environment, aircraft type, aircraft cockpit design, seat angle and personal load equipment.

Fighter aircrew often report acute back injuries especially during rapid and sudden aircraft maneouvres and G loading. This is not to say that high G will lead to back pain, but high G flying is fatiguing and fatigued muscles are more vulnerable to injuries as they are not able to support the spinal column as effectively. Other factors are also the aircrew’s existing back condition and posture due to seat angle and in-flight movements. Studies have also shown that high G does not cause increased back injuries in healthy spines if proper postures are adopted, as the axial loading to the spine by G forces are well tolerated.

These conditions are rare but have a bearing on selection of aircrew and flying-related vocationalist in the Air Force. Thus, the RSAF performs a screening spine X-ray at Pre-Employment Medical Screening (PEMS) and full spinal X-ray for all pilot and WSO(FTR) applicants. Of greater contribution to low back pain are obesity, manual labour, smoking and trauma. Men partici-pate in more strenuous activities and occupations than wom-en, and thus are more afflicted by low back pain.

Most patients with low back pain can be treated without sur-gery using short-term bed rest, painkillers, and physical ther-apy to improve muscle strength of the lower back. Prolonged bed rest is not beneficial and 2-3 days of bed rest post injury is usually sufficient. This is followed by progressive mobilisation that may include physiotherapy and aerobic conditioning, aimed at increased flexibility, endurance and strength, which will lower the recurrence rate and shortens the duration of back pain. Patients should also be educated on adopting good back posture and injury prevention. Passive modalities, such as massage, acupuncture, and electrical stimulation, can also provide immediate short term relief. Surgery is rarely needed but are indicated to decompress any nerve or spinal cord compression, provide bony fusion to achieve a stable spine or re-alignment of the spine. These surgeries are major, often complicated and require a prolonged period of post-surgical rehabilitation and recovery. Fortunately, the outcome of low back pain is often good, provided there are no permanent damage to the spine and major surgery was not required. Successful outcome is often dependent on the motivation and commitment of the individual.

While high G will not lead to back pain, high G flying is fatiguing and fatigued muscles are more vulnerable to injuries.


FOCUS

24

Mind Your Back

The approach to preventing low back pain in flying is a holistic one, as it is with all back care programmes. This consist of a combination of engineering, administrative and physiological measures. Engineering interventions are refer-ring to ergonomic aircraft, engine and personnel equipment design, so as to reduce forceful exer-tions and improper postures, buffering methods and good maintenance processses to reduce vi-bration and abnormal force generation. These serves to eliminate or reduce stresses to the spine. Administrative measures include managing oper-ational tempo and catering adequate crew-rest to allow muscle recovery and prevent back fatigue. This may also include deliberate pre-flight and in-flight procedures that acts to reduce strenu-ous or awkward back postures during flying. Physiological factors essentially target the individual, such as the promulgation of a work hardening programme and health promotion to create awareness on the need to build good back strength, adopt back postures and good social physical habits to reduce back injuries.

The Aircrew Systematic Strength and Endurance Training (ASSET) programme is one such work hardening pro-gramme that the RSAF has started since 2006. While primarily a programme to ensure our fighter aircrews attain adequate physical conditioning in enhancing G performance to prevent injuries while exposed to the high G forces.

Rotary pilots commonly report of chronic back discomfort, attributed to the vibration of the aircraft, asymmetrical posture due to the cyclic and stick and heavy personal equip-ment. Again, this is dependent on the inter-play between the aircrew’s back condition, posture, amount of vibration and duration of flying.

Non-pilot aircrew are also at risk of experiencing back injuries in their flying duties. Boom operators on the KC-135R adopt a prone position during the re-fueling du-ties and they may experience neck and back discomfort as a result of prolonged sustained postures and exertions in this challenging position. Loadmasters and aircrew specialists often handle heavy cargo which can be fatiguing to the back and cause discomfort.

Personnel who do not physically fly but perform critical operations related to flying are equally at risk of low back pain, as with any occupation that deals with heavy loads, physical exertion or prolonged operations. UAV opera-tors and Air Traffic Controllers often operate for extended periods at a time and may be pre-disposed to low back pain due to prolonged improper body postures and poor workstation ergonomic design. Ground crew such as our maintenance and technical personnel are similarly at risk as their operations may require management of heavy equipments and assumption of awkward postures when working on the aircraft.


Min

d Yo

ur B

ack The ASSET is a set of isometric and isotonic exercises that us target the core muscle groups involved in the Anti-G

Straining Manoeuvre (AGSM) and withstanding G forces. A mandatory requirement, fighter aircrew are required to perform twice-weekly work-outs and 6 monthly tests to ensure they achieve and demonstrate the minimum physical standards. Aircrew who fail the ASSET test are required to undergo further supervised physical condi-tioning programmes and will be denied centrifuge re-certification. Apart from the prescribed exercises in the ASSET, aircrew are also encouraged to regularly partake in cardiovascular workout (example running, cycling and swimming) that meet their target heart rate [THR = (220 - age) x 70%] for a minimum of 15 minutes. The ASSET programme was enhanced in 2009 with the introduction of creatine supplementation to complement weights training in achieving an optimal level of physical conditioning for better G-performance. This is also known as the “ASSET-PLUS” programme.

Conclusion

Low back pain is common and often self-limiting. Acute back pain can result in severe incapacitation, and is obviously a flight safety concern, whereas mild back discomfort can still lead to distraction and an indirect safety risk. It is therefore every individual’s responsibility to ‘mind their back’. Just as an ironsmith will require good upper limb strength, well designed tools and a good environment to produce quality metalwork, aircrew can fly successfully and safely with a combination of an ergonomic cockpit, good crew duty-rest cycle and optimal back strength. It will be difficult to eliminate low back pain entirely from flying, unless one stops flying altogether. At the organisational level, adopting engineering, administrative and physiological approaches to manage back care in our daily operations will go a long way in reducing low back injuries while enhancing our mission success.

References:1. Ernsting's Aviation Medicine, 4th Edition.2. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Vol 82, No 9, Sep 11 2011, pp 879-884. Prevalence of and Biopsychosocial factors Associated with Low back Pain in Commercial Airline Pilots. Prombumroong et al. 3. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Vol 82, No 8, August 2011, pp. 790-796. Whole Body Vibration in helicopters: Risk Assessment in relation to Low Back Pain. Kasin et al.4. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Vol 79, No 6, June 2008, pp 616-619. Neck and Back Muscle Loading in Pilots Flying high Gz Sorties With and Without Lumbar Support. Roope et al. 5. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Vol 76, No 6, June 2005, pp 576-580. Transmissibility of Helicopter Vibration in the Spines of Pilots in Flight. Carlos et al.6. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Vol 75, No 4, Apr 2004, pp 317-322. Back Muscle EMG of Helicopter Pilots in Flight: Effect of Fatigue, Vibration, and Posture. Carlos et al. 7. Mechanical Low Back Pain. Everett et al. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/310353-overview

Adopt good sitting postures during desk work, and good postures when carrying heavy loads will help to reduce the risk of back injuries.


FOCUS

26

What O

ur People Think

What Our People Think...

Editor’s Note

For every issue, servicemen and women on the ground will be asked about their thoughts on the theme and the articles in the FOCUS Magazine. Some of their thoughts and feedback are edited and published here for sharing. Some of them have chosen to remain anonymous.

“As units and platforms in the RSAF gets more and more intrinsically linked, the success of any mission no longer depends on just a single individual or even unit but rather a large group of people from various agen-cies supporting one another. In order to achieve mission success always, we will need to work together and excel as a team.”

CPT Tan Yi KaiUSO, 112 SQN

“In my opinion, team excellence plays a critical role in achieving mission success and ensuring safety through-out all phases of flying operations. It first entails individual professionalism and attaining excellence within your immediate scope of responsibilities. Subsequently, you have to understand the overarching mission requirements and the needs of the various stakeholders. In the context of UAV operations, which involve both internal and external crew, such team understanding and coordination is particularly crucial. This in-nate understanding of not just your own tasks, but also that of the other crew members, is the basis for crew resource optimisation, and it really takes time to build up such coordination through rigorous training.”

CPT Ren Jin Feng119 SQN

“When I was a trainee some years ago, I was first told that ‘there is no ‘I’ in a team’ and that has been imprinted in my head since. This is particularly true in helicopter operations. The success of our rescue mission does not just depend on the pilots or the aircrew specialists alone, but the close and excellent teamwork, coupled with professionalism, and the understanding of each other’s role during winching rescue operations. I am glad and proud to be associated with such a closely knit team.”

Anonymous126 SQN


Auditor and SafetyWorkshop with STAe

AFI Safety Workshopwith UAV - 09 Feb 2012

13 Mar 2012

Safe

ty W

orks

hops

AFI Safety Workshopwith GBAD - 09 Mar 2012


FOCUS

28

Safety Workshops

Study Visit By SMRT 05 Apr 2012, 112 SQN, CAB(W)

On 05 Apr, AFI and 112 SQN co-hosted a study visit for SMRT to 112 SQN. The SMRT delegation was led by their Deputy Director of Rolling Stocks and Tracks, Mr Ng Wai Yee. AFI conducted a briefing on the RSAF’s safety management system (SMS) fol-lowed by 112 SQN with a brief on how the SQN implemented the various safety programmes of the SMS. The visit also in-cluded a tour of the SQN’s flight line where the SMRT personnel were able to observe some maintenance work on a KC-135R aircraft. A tour of the aircraft KC-135R was also given. The visit ended with an interaction session at the CAB Officers’ Mess. Overall, the study visit has given the SMRT great insights into the RSAF’s safety system, especially in the areas of risk manage-ment and safety audits. The interactions and networking have been invaluable.

SMRT Deputy Director of Rolling Stocks and Tracks, Mr Ng Wai Yee, engages in an interactive sharing with the RSAF personnel.


Out

stan

ding

Saf

ety

Aw

ards

3WO Sukhwinder Singh – 125 SQN

During a night training sortie, 3WO Sukhwinder Singh, the Aircrew Specialist onboard, noticed that the rescue hoist was displaced from its normal position. He immediately held on to the hoist to prevent it from further displacement. On further investigation, he discovered that one of the four pip pins which secured the rescue hoist to the fu-selage had come loose in flight. He went on to advise the pilots of the situation and recommended to slow down the airspeed and land on Sudong runway. It was discov-ered that the loose pin was defective. Technicians were ferried by another helicopter to Sudong to rectify the defect. With the hoist firmly secured, both aircraft recovered to base uneventfully.

With his alertness and presence of mind, 3WO Sukhwinder Singh managed to prevent an incident from deteriorating and handled the situation well with composure. He was awarded the RSAF Outstanding Safety Award.

ME2 Sin Soon Meng – Peace Vanguard Detachment

On 17th Oct 2011, ME2 Sin Soon Meng discovered a bad corrosion on the stub of the main rotor swashplate while carrying out a Preventive Maintenance Servicing. This stub was concealed within the primary scissors bearing and the condition could only be assessed after the removal of the scissors bearing. During the inspection of the swashplate area, ME2 Sin found a crack in the pro-seal and went ahead to remove the scissors bearing to investigate further. This additional effort revealed bad corrosion of the stub and the swashplate had to be replaced.

ME2 Sin went on to coordinate the spares and manpower expeditiously and to recover the aircraft as soon as possible.

ME2 Sin's vigilance, coupled with his strong technical sense, had helped to prevent a potential incident by spotting the corrosion on the stub that was concealed within the scissors bearing. In addition, ME2 Sin demonstrated the mentality of achieving the right balance between safety and operational readiness by recovering the aircraft expeditiously for mission success. His actions and pro-activeness were commendable. He was awarded the RSAF Outstanding Safety Award.

CPT Lim Yeow Chong – 203 SQN

On 15 Dec 2011, a formation of two foreign aircraft was recovering to Paya Lebar run-way. The formation was maintaining the last assigned heading until 2 nm to the Initials (IP), the formation was instructed to commence a left turn inbound into Paya Lebar runway. However, the formation did not readback nor respond to the controller's in-struction. The controller continued to push out separate instructions to the formation to commence left turn. A transmission was also made on Guard frequencies in an at-tempt to contact the formation, but to no avail. The controller continued to instruct the formation to commence tighter left turn which was subsequently acknowledged and complied by the formation. At this juncture, there was a civil traffic at 10 nm final making an ILS approach into Changi runway 02L.

Observing that the formation had entered Changi Control Zone(CTR), CPT Lim Yeow Chong, the FIS controller monitoring the situation, pro-actively effected coordination with CAAS to maintain the civil traffic at a requisite safe separation with the formation. Given that both the civil traffic and formation aircraft were not directly under CPT Lim's control, it was commendable that CPT Lim displayed a high level of vigi-lance in monitoring the traffic situation as it unfolded and promptly carried out the appropriate actions to de-conflict the traffic. CPT Lim's high situation awareness and expedient response had averted an air incident and a positive outcome was achieved. CPT Lim was awarded the RSAF Outstanding Safety Award.

OUTSTANDING

SAFETY AWARDS


FOCUS

30

* Answers can be found in this issue of FOCUS

Email your answers with your Rank/Name, NRIC, Unit and contact details to 2WO Steven Goh be-fore 01 June 2012.

All correct entries will be balloted and 3 winners will receive a $30 Popular Voucher each.

The crossword puzzle is open to all RSAF per-sonnel except personnel from AFI and the FO-CUS Editorial Board.

FOCUS #70Crossword Puzzle Winners

1. LTA Huang Zhiwei 122 SQN

2. 3SG Standford Wong 145 SQN

3. CPL Phua Teng Wei ALD

Crossword Puzzle

Documents

FOCUS - MINDEF Singapore safe and successful operations. The achievement did not come easily and there were occasions of setbacks during the initial stages of the operations with maintenance