EFATO and similar low level emergencies

[dgr4340]

EFATO and similar low level emergencies have been a big deal with me since I had an engine 'moment' during initial training years ago.

It became an even bigger deal last year, during refresher training. There I was dutifully practising EFATO drills and recitations, when two multi-thousand hour instructors took the wrong option during a low level emergency at Archerfield at died spectacularly. It really got to me - if they got it wrong when the pressure was on, what chance does a casual pilot like me have?

I don't think I am alone in this. A quick search of this site on "EFATO" got pages of hits. Even a stuffed shirt ATPL holder told me he got the horrors thinking about what a younger himself would have done during a real EFATO, back when he first started flying a Baron.

But I am a professional engineer so I came up with a device to allow the necessary training with all of the educative effect of low level EFATO etc training, but none of the risk. NB It is not a simulator, it all happens in your aircraft in flight.

But before I take it further, I need feedback and a reality check. How big a deal is it really? Out there in the big bad world? Is it something to discuss ad nauseum, like politics or football, or is it something that the people responsible for training will take steps over? Like spend money and change syllabi, for example?

NB I AM NOT TRAWLING FOR MONEY. I have that in hand I believe. What I need is decent information, which is even harder to come by, to write the business plan.

[tacpot]

Aviation as well as being very safety conscious, is also very resistant to change.

Your training system would have to either be 'obviously' better than what we have currently or be demonstrably better as proved by experimentation and testing, for it to be taken up is sufficient quantity to provide a viable business.

My own feeling as a PPL (I'm not an instructor), is that the training we receive in EFATO acts as emotional crutch as much as anything else. We know that an EFATO is the most significant danger we face, but we take comfort in the fact that we have been trained to deal with it, and that it forms part of any BFR or instructional flight for re-validation. I think we all worry about how we would react to the real thing, due to the infrequent nature of the occurrence, and the unexpected nature of the failure. But the training is the only defence we have. I think very few private Pilot's are prone to practising EFATOs, due to the low level that the exercise has to be carried out at and noise considerations.

My conclusion is that very few private pilots would buy into a different system of training, as they will cling to the belief that the training they have had and what little practise they get, will be sufficient. Unfortunately, I think that most flying schools will tend to follow the same path: i.e. that the current method of training is basically adequate, so why change (spend money).

I think most likely way to commerical success will be to to get the regulatory authorities to mandate the use of your system. Difficult as it may be, I think it is the only way you will get people that are not inclined to change to do so.

[dgr4340]

That's what I am worried about. Inertia. (Related to momentum which is what extrudes you through the radio stack.)

So come on you instructors, let me in on the secret. I won't insult you by asking "Do you want to train your students better" because clearly you do. That's why you (and we) talk about it so often.

But how much? Would you take it up? Or is there a barrier?

Would you prefer for it to be mandated?

Further info on the device is available if it doesn't make sense to you.

[Tinstaafl]

The onus is on you to demonstrate that it is better. A claim is not evidence.

You would also have to show that it didn't introduce another, possibly different, problem.

What about certification requirements? How do you know that the same or similar idea hasn't already been considered and found wanting? How many others have reviewed your idea/device to reduce bias or simple error/overlook?

Other factors such as cost & practicality also must be addressed.

I'm not trying to say that your concept isn't better. I'm trying to explain the types of things that your idea must get through before it would even start to be taken up.

It may well be that your perception of the problem is not one that bears up in reality. How many take-offs are there where there isn't a failure and, of those that had an EFATO, how many of those had no or minimal injuries? I don't know the answer but it has to be considered to properly address your concerns.

What is your idea?

[dgr4340]

All good points.

I am developing a prototype. Everyone I have spoken to wants to see one. However, the hardware is not cheap and I am 'ground-truthing' the concept with people in the field first.

Certification I am confident of. It does not change or connect to any of the systems in the aircraft. Except maybe via a 14V accessory socket. I am thinking the only issues might be RF EMR inteference, but that is relatively easy, it just means a higher grade of hardware.

Better? Well, you tell me. Picture this.

You are the pilot of an aircraft (of any type) that is in flight. The operation of the aircraft is entirely real: nothing is simulated. On your head is what looks like an oversized set of clear goggles, which are connected to a 'black box' sitting behind you. The black box is not connected to the electrical, control or other systems
of the aircraft, except perhaps via a standard accessory power supply.

When you look ahead, you see what you would normally see on that day flying at that height in that part of the world, plus something else. Overlaid on your vision is a view of a full sized 'synthetic landscape' that happens to be situated at an altitude of several thousand feet.

The landscape appears in your view as if it were a hologram. You can fly around it, and you can fly through it.

As your aircraft moves, your view of it adjusts to reflect that movement faithfully. You can look down on the roofs of the buildings, or you can go lower and look through the doors.

As you move your head to look about, the view adjusts to reflect that movement also.

It isn't really a hologram, because instead of being generated optically it is generated via software in the black box. You or your instructor selected that landscape for this mission.

The landscape is not 'floating' like a cloud, it is precisely fixed in place geographically by reference to a GPS system. This means latitude, longitude, and altitude are fixed.

The landscape is as realistic and complex as a good 'first person shooter' computer game such as Quake. This is because it uses similar software techniques and display hardware. It is constructed of geometric shapes over which are draped satellite images and other photographs. It is in fact a good representation of an aerodrome.

Why is this happening?

This is a training mission. You are about to go through a series of emergencies at low level:
- Total engine failure at the instant that you lose the option of landing straight ahead on the runway;
- (In a multi-engine aircraft) Partial engine failure after takeoff at the instant that you lose the option of landing straight ahead on the runway;
- Forced landing following engine failure at altitude but at varying distances from your target 'landing point'. The landing will continue on right until 'touchdown', whether that is on the aerodrome or off it;
- Partial loss of control at low speed on short final (for example as caused by turbulence, windshear, etc);
- Short field landings, over obstacles and onto a landing strip that represent the limits of your aircraft's performance, as if you were being forced to land at a marginal aerodrome in poor
conditions, by bad weather or a partial breakdown of the aircraft;
- Crosswind landings at the limits of the aircraft's capabilities, or even above them, as if you were being forced to land at a marginal aerodrome in poor conditions, by bad weather or a partial breakdown of the aircraft;
- (In a helicopter) Auto-rotation following engine failure, down to 'ground' level.

At the end of your mission, you have 'crashed and burned' several times following total loss of control at low altitude. You have messed up approaches to one-way airstrips and impacted into mountains. You have landed short through the fences, you have landed high and hot with no hope of stopping and with no option to go-around. You have flared metres above or below where you wanted to and hit the deck with enough vertical speed to destroy the landing gear. You have landed with enough sideways drift to destroy your landing gear. You have done this from all points of the compass and in all conditions of visibility.

You and the aircraft are undamaged because all of the above happened at a safe altitude, even though the view told you that it all happened at a _very_ unsafe altitude.

The physics of the aircraft performance have been perfect. You have felt the buffeting, the full scale g-forces, the ineffectiveness of your controls, the disorientation. When you stalled it fully, you fell several hundred feet in a matter of seconds, rather than small cue movements as in a simulator. Your stomach felt the difference. If you got into a spin, you felt the true effects on your inner ear. Your stomach felt the difference then too.

The performance of the aircraft was as per that aircraft at that weight and CoG position in those atmospheric conditions, rather than according to factory specifications and the standard flight manual as in a simulator. You can therefore be very sure about what that aircraft can and cannot do in those situations.

The visual feedback was far better than for those maneuvers carried out high above the ground. When you lost control, and the ground filled the windscreen going around and around, you had direct feedback on what you had done and how much opportunity you had to correct it. You saw the ground come rushing up, felt the compulsion to pull back on the stick to avoid it, but learnt to trade height for airspeed as the situation demanded. When you got it wrong, you knew it immediately. You worked up a sweat during the difficult periods.

The visual feedback was better than in a simulator because the horizon and the background were real, and the synthetic graphics were at least as good.

The aural feedback was also perfectly realistic. The engine noises, the sound of the airflow around the aircraft, and the creaking of the airframe as the loads varied, were all perfect because the aircraft really was in flight carrying out the maneuvers.

The point is that the educative effect has been every bit as strong as if you had been through the real thing, except that you didn't have to pay for the repairs.

Also, you were able to do some of these things more than once in a lifetime, so you could learn from them.

At the end of your training mission, you download information on forward, lateral and vertical velocities on a second-by-second basis. This provides an extra degree of feedback on your performance, particularly for check-rides where the tolerances on your handling of the aircraft are tighter. With further processing, you can replay the mission forward and backward to see exactly where it all went wrong. Your instructors or check captains can compare your performance with previous missions, other pilots, and objective standards.

All feedback gratefully accepted.

[FormationFlyer]

I have a couple of concerns here...

1. The equipment is likely to affect the compass....thus it either cannot be used or the compass must be swung with it on or off OR a plaque detailing the error when ON would have to be fitted.

Incidently I have the same concerns over GPS receivers - some of which come very close to the compass...but people seem to think they are untouchable due to having GPS on board....anyway...

2. Um...If the instructor is to evaluate what is going on then the instructor must be wearing a headset too. This then leads to other problems...

3. Loss of situational awareness by those involved - will they still be able to quite clearly see obstacles in the REAL environment. What about controlled airspace? Focusing on this equipment could cuase MORE problems - and we have enough of those in the UK...

4. Loss of lookout - how will continuous lookout by instructor and student be maintained?

5. stall/spin avoidance - we are talking about operating a real aicraft in response to an artificial environment. This seriously concerns me - especially when you say simulation of landing...I can just see the stall/spin accidents starting to happen already.

Not trying to put a damper on it - but operating the real aircraft in the real environment is hard enough for a student - having them think about the real environment, the simulated environment AND the aircraft in both real and simulated environments seems to me to perhaps overload the student rather than enhance their training....

I can see where you are coming from...but how many lives will this *really* save - most accidents in the UK are caused by

1. Loss of control in VMC (stall/spin)
2. CFIT

How will this system particularly solve these issues?

AFAIK those pilots who do carry out forced landings from EFATO, E/F @ height etc etc tend to walk away and we are talking about a reasonable investment in equipment here....so where is the payback?

Where is your information regarding the current dangers of low-level training/manoeuvres? Im just curious...

Very interesting though - Good to see some lateral thinking here...about time there were some new ideas in the industry - as opposed to replacing us all with computers... :(

BTW...Your new method isnt as perfect as you think...for instance the lack of ground-effect, turbulence & wind-shear encountered at low-level. These will not be felt as the aircraft is not encountering them. On glide approaches you can readily see the student screw it up because they didnt take account of sink due to rotor off of buildings...again - these will not be encountered using your method. However - simulators *can* do this...mind you I still prefer the real environment..

[tacpot]

It's a great idea, but I think Tinstaafl has identified a crucial problem - how to demonstrate that this training system is better (and to what degree) that the current system. I'm afraid that this proof will fall to you, aviation being the industry it is.

To gather the evidence, you will need to:
1. give away a large number of these devices to any schools who will take the idea on as an experiment.
2. wait a long time to see whether the accident statistcs for those people who trained using the deivce are different from the those who did not.

This appears to place an intolerable burden on your capitalisation/time to market. What do you think?

[dgr4340]

FORMATION FLYER, in order:

Compass effects. I don't believe it will affect the compass as much as that. The black box will be on the back seat/ cargo area, or anywhere it will fit really. People don't currently swing the compass when they load cargo/ luggage, and there is nothing in
particular in the hardware list that will be especially big in B field terms. If it does I will have to change the design details to fix it. It is a common enough consideration.

Instructor headset. I have in mind the instructor having a small LCD screen rather than a headset. I want the device to be similar in rules of operation to the venerable IFR-in-VMC hood - take it off when as and when required, back to VFR in the real world.

Loss of situational awareness. I superimpose the virtual on top of the real. So the aerodrome in the sky will obscure the land etc in its backdrop, but everything else will be as usual through the HeadUpDisplay nature of the goggles.

Controlled airspace. Again, think instructor and student using the IFR hood in the training area. This would be used on the same basis. Separation by pre-arrangement, ATC involvement as required.

Loss of Lookout. As above. Instructor has an LCD screen not goggles.

Stall Spin. Unless we are flying Starfighters or 707's, stall spin is something that kills only when at too low an altitude. Training aircraft by definition (AFAIK) stall and spin in a controllable enough manner that this device will not bring extra risk there. The point of using it is that if/ when it happens at marginal height AGL you will have direct feedback on how much scope you have to recover, and will have direct feedback on what works and what doesn't. So, a positive not a negative.

"most accidents in the UK are caused by

1. Loss of control in VMC (stall/spin)"

As above, this will teach you quicker than anything else what is a safe height and what is not, how much scope you have and what works / doesn't work.

"2. CFIT"

I believe you, your weather is like that as I understand it. However, unjustified confidence is the killer, right?. So, I could do you up a Lakes District in the sky and add crappy visibility, and invite your student to try his/her luck. IF/WHEN he/she impacts cumulus granitus, he/she will know all about it, but still be alive to learn from it.

I don't know about walking away. I know of only one pilot in all the years I have been around aircraft who lived through, let alone walked away from, an uncontrolled impact following loss of control. I knew him, it was my father's plane, and I know he was doubting his luck during the reconstructive surgery to his face.

I take your point about lack of vortex around obstacles. Not much I can do about that, except have the instructor hand over an aircraft already stalled into an incipient spin at low height 'AGL' to provide the situation.

TACPOT

"Gathering the evidence."

Thanks a lot, you just added a million to my capital requirements. I don't believe I can do that. I need the market to be receptive to some extent. As with all evangelists, I think it is bleeding obvious, but I recognize that I will have to do some serious selling.

Question: If I took you for a fly with one, and frightened the living bejeezus out of you enough, would you buy one on the basis of the educative effect? Because the core of this is that it replaces drills, recitations and earnest nodding with nervous sweat and no scope for self-delusion.

[FormationFlyer]

dgr4340

Cheers for the replies. Make sense.

The only problem I can see therefore is the stall/spin situation - you agree that the student could well end in a stall/spin situation - now if you advocate spinning this will reduce the number of a/c the system can ultimately be used in. The more interesting factor is that if you allow such a stall situation to occur you need recover by 3000' agl...which given the land in the UK probably means an alt of 4000'. If the situation is allowed to go to full spin then you are looking at training at 6000' alt. (5000' agl). In the UK that can severly limit the use of the device due two the two factors of weather - its hard enough to get good days for spinning...and controlled airspace - of which we have significant densities of.

Therefore Im curious how far you see the training going re the stall/spin situation...

Im still concerned about the loss of lookout - particularly by the instructor - I can see him *having* to concentrate on the screen rather than the outside world/instruments...you see - when teaching IFR you concentrate on the instruments & the outside world - all too often instruments & teaching take priority at the cost of lookout. For the instructor to now properly monitor & instruct re: what is happening in the artificial world he must rob the time from the other two...the great thing about say a PFL in the real world is that you can lookout & monitor the student at the same time....

You have obviously given this a lot of thought...congrats for getting this far!

[Tinstaafl]

I can see where some benefit would be gained for EFATO. How much is debatable.

Even more benefit could be gained for IR training. Think of all the IR sorties that require a hood due good Wx then culminate in an approach to <gasp, shock> CAVOK. This device could allow the student to do the same approach at altitude (add a couple of thousand feet to all minima) & overlay poor vis/low cloud etc.

[hombre_007]

In Australia, we teach EFATO's much the same way of what has been spoken about. And a few important points that i use and try to beat into the student are.
1.Treat this as if it is real- sounds familiar but how many students not to mention instructors believe that it will never happen to them?
2.Every time i conduct a lesson of any kind, whenever there is a free moment, i always look and see where i would try and put the thing down if i had an engine failure then & there, so the descision won't be so difficult if the time comes.
3.I am 19 but as i said before an instructor (jnr gd 3) and although i may lack experience i try to make up for with attitude.
and if students can understand that they are in command and take responsibility for the situation, they will survive an engine failure.

cheers

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi DGR4340:

Very interesting.

May I add some comments and suggestions?

First the one shortcoming that I found when training on the Airbus A320 Sim wes the " lack of reality in the picture out the window " This was not a big deal but to me it did clue me in to the fact that I was flying a sim rather than the airplane.

So I am facinated by your new device and wish to encourage you to continue.

Ignore some of the comments such as affecting the compass, as they are indictive of a lack of understanding of what you are doing. Affect the compass, give me a break who in hell cares. ( Unless the device frys the compass permantly so you have to buy a new one.)

The stall sipn at altitude is not a consideration if you have an instructor on board who is competant in recognition of the limitations of the airplane being flown. Neither is all the airspace negativeism, you can find safe airspace.

Speaking of airspace, here is a suggestion. Look at a globe and note all the airspace outside of The UK. ;) ;)

There are a lot of people who read Pprune that do live outside of the UK. ;) ;)

Reading all the comments that I see on the instructors forum I thank God that way back in our history there were humans who grasped the concept of the wheel. Had they been some of our flying instructors we would still be walking and dragging our stuff on the ground behind us. :mad:

So keep us informed and good on you for being inventive.

Cat Driver:

...................

:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D