Discouraging FAA and EASA Developments on UPRT in General Aviation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discouraging FAA and EASA Developments on UPRT in General Aviation
There are pressures to resist changes in the UPrt LOc training process implementation, both within FAA and EASA. (Courtesy APS Training):
Airman Certification Standards and Upset Recovery Training
Regulators are under pressure from the industry to minimise exposure to training especially with respescts to in flight air exercises... Sad
Discouraging FAA and EASA Developments on UPRT in General Aviation
Opinions vary and here’s one worrisome perspective.
The role of regulatory agencies in general seems to be to understandably minimize change and set the bar as low as possible on training standards that will achieve the desired safety objective.
Current FAA CFI’s are Not Prepared for Comprehensive, Effective UPRT Delivery
Although AC 120-111 makes a major step in that direction in alignment with ICAO Doc 10011 Manual on Aeroplane Upset Prevention and Recovery Training, the General Aviation (GA) divisions of both the FAA and EASA seem to have missed the point of modernized UPRT as specified by ICAO.
Although the FAA’s own Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) on Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) got it right just a short few years ago in 2013, and made major progress on definitive guidance on dramatically reducing the risk of LOC-I, that doesn’t seem to be the case for the direction of current ACS efforts on LOC-I mitigation and UPRT.
Although EASA has taken a step in the general direction of delivering on-aircraft UPRT and created a body of work to implement some of its convenient aspects, EASA faces the same problem as the GA division of the FAA’s ACS team; the necessary critical UPRT interventions aren’t being instituted, nor do the instructors expected to provide UPRT have the knowledge, experience, and skills to deliver effective ICAO / LOCART UPRT.
Airman Certification Standards and Upset Recovery Training
Regulators are under pressure from the industry to minimise exposure to training especially with respescts to in flight air exercises... Sad
Discouraging FAA and EASA Developments on UPRT in General Aviation
Opinions vary and here’s one worrisome perspective.
The role of regulatory agencies in general seems to be to understandably minimize change and set the bar as low as possible on training standards that will achieve the desired safety objective.
Current FAA CFI’s are Not Prepared for Comprehensive, Effective UPRT Delivery
Although AC 120-111 makes a major step in that direction in alignment with ICAO Doc 10011 Manual on Aeroplane Upset Prevention and Recovery Training, the General Aviation (GA) divisions of both the FAA and EASA seem to have missed the point of modernized UPRT as specified by ICAO.
Although the FAA’s own Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) on Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) got it right just a short few years ago in 2013, and made major progress on definitive guidance on dramatically reducing the risk of LOC-I, that doesn’t seem to be the case for the direction of current ACS efforts on LOC-I mitigation and UPRT.
Although EASA has taken a step in the general direction of delivering on-aircraft UPRT and created a body of work to implement some of its convenient aspects, EASA faces the same problem as the GA division of the FAA’s ACS team; the necessary critical UPRT interventions aren’t being instituted, nor do the instructors expected to provide UPRT have the knowledge, experience, and skills to deliver effective ICAO / LOCART UPRT.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discouraging FAA and EASA Developments on UPRT in General Aviation
Discouraging FAA and EASA Developments on UPRT in General Aviation
Have posted a new thread on this issue this morning, stating interesting information from a very reputable source, open to comments, but for some reason it got removed, is it possible to know why?
Have posted a new thread on this issue this morning, stating interesting information from a very reputable source, open to comments, but for some reason it got removed, is it possible to know why?
