737 airspeed unreliable QRH
On the 777 it’s 10degs/85% or 4degs/70%.
I think it has to be reiterated that these figures are not expected to produce level flight or cruise airspeeds. Just something that keeps you inside the flight envelope while you diagnose the problem and get the QRH out.
One thing is pretty much guaranteed: the failure will catch you by surprise and it will be of a type you haven’t experienced before. It will probably interact with auto systems in a “interesting” way, too.
A good point. Maybe it is assumed, much like stick/yoke forward, houses get bigger, stick/yoke back, houses get smaller then bigger again? They do mention trim when it comes to upset recovery, which could be needed if the UAS scenario has been in play for a while until noticed...
It seems foolish to me to increase pitch and reduce thrust if we notice that our airspeed is unreliable. In fact it might be downright dangerous.
One thing is pretty much guaranteed: the failure will catch you by surprise and it will be of a type you haven’t experienced before. It will probably interact with auto systems in a “interesting” way, too.
So far none of the aircraft manufacturer(s), Mr A nor Mr B nor Mr E, appear to mention checking that the Stab Trim is somewhere near where it should be for the configurations.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably introduced by Boeing because they know only a minority are still able to fly manually. If regularly practiced, the appropriate pitch and power values are ingrained.
You guys go ahead with what Boeing prescribes, I'll stick with 12-15 deg pitch on takeoff, 6 deg/65% N1 for level flight below FL100 and 2 deg/85% N1 in cruise.
You guys go ahead with what Boeing prescribes, I'll stick with 12-15 deg pitch on takeoff, 6 deg/65% N1 for level flight below FL100 and 2 deg/85% N1 in cruise.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Air France case, it has been said that if the PF had initially done nothing at all the chance of survival would have been much greater.
Anyway, question relating to the use of the FPV. With the previous memory items in place,I can remember a sim session where the use of the FPV was actively encouraged. I recall the emphasis was placed on getting the aircraft into level flight (a complete loss of airspeed data was simulated after departure). Taking account of terrain etc the aircraft was placed in level flight and the three former memory items were performed. The FPV could be used.
The recent NNC states that FPV information could be inaccurate. So what are its inputs considering it displays drift and flight path angle? Thanks
Anyway, question relating to the use of the FPV. With the previous memory items in place,I can remember a sim session where the use of the FPV was actively encouraged. I recall the emphasis was placed on getting the aircraft into level flight (a complete loss of airspeed data was simulated after departure). Taking account of terrain etc the aircraft was placed in level flight and the three former memory items were performed. The FPV could be used.
The recent NNC states that FPV information could be inaccurate. So what are its inputs considering it displays drift and flight path angle? Thanks
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The procedure is primarily targeted at high altitude/high weight where the margins between the stalls is minimum and is SOLELY disigned to keep the aircraft from stalling and provide the crew with as much time as required to try and work out what the f**ks going on and not misdiangose anything due
to any (incorrect) perception of time constraints.
I also was a non-believer initially, the day the change came out I flew at FL400, around 135,000lb, 3 degrees and 90% N1.
Was in the SIM a few days later and tried the NNC, A/P off...A/T off...F/D off...CWS set 4degrees (I'm a bad gaijin and not scared of white man magic, worked good-o)....75% N1.
SIM finally entered a shallow descent, entered the low speed margin but at no time did it approach or enter a high or low speed stall.
Suspect that's the intent Mr Boeing had in mind, if so then a success.
If you get in the SIM try it for yourself - seeing is believing - or if you really want to stir up your Flt Ops Dept try it on a line flight.
You'll most certainly attract their attention!!
to any (incorrect) perception of time constraints.
I also was a non-believer initially, the day the change came out I flew at FL400, around 135,000lb, 3 degrees and 90% N1.
Was in the SIM a few days later and tried the NNC, A/P off...A/T off...F/D off...CWS set 4degrees (I'm a bad gaijin and not scared of white man magic, worked good-o)....75% N1.
SIM finally entered a shallow descent, entered the low speed margin but at no time did it approach or enter a high or low speed stall.
Suspect that's the intent Mr Boeing had in mind, if so then a success.
If you get in the SIM try it for yourself - seeing is believing - or if you really want to stir up your Flt Ops Dept try it on a line flight.
You'll most certainly attract their attention!!
Last edited by galdian; 20th Mar 2015 at 00:06. Reason: computer glitch
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jammed stab,
Review the lift equation and then rethink.
The aircraft will decelerate and then descend, it's not dangerous at all and Boeing have tested it!
Follow the procedure
Flight path vector receives static inputs so may be unreliable, depends on the failure.
Review the lift equation and then rethink.
The aircraft will decelerate and then descend, it's not dangerous at all and Boeing have tested it!
Follow the procedure
Flight path vector receives static inputs so may be unreliable, depends on the failure.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIM finally entered a shallow descent, entered the low speed margin but at no time did it approach or enter a high or low speed stall.
Suspect that's the intent Mr Boeing had in mind, if so then a success.
Suspect that's the intent Mr Boeing had in mind, if so then a success.
The Boeing Word..
I attended a meeting last year, chaired by A Boeing Technical Pilot, he discussed the new unreliable airspeed procedure ,stating that the power/attitude settings were the same across all Boeing types.... it is designed to keep you in a safe flight regime while you drag out your trusty QRH and look up exact figures for your type/weight/altitude/flight-mode....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is designed to keep you in a safe flight regime while you drag out your trusty QRH and look up exact figures for your type/weight/altitude/flight-mode....
My question is: if I know that 6 & 60% will keep me safe at 6000' at 220kts or 3 & 65% at 250kts, or 2 & 85% at 0.76m >FL370 and something in-between at mid-levels,why would I do something else while time is spent searching for the QRH which will tell me what I already know. Meanwhile the a/c is doing something I don't want it to do.
I understand the argument that for those who are unsure what to do they can set these parameters and go through the whole process and survive. It is an attempt to avoid panic and achieve some calm control. But one size fits all, scenarios & pilots, is not comfortable for me. I teach the new procedure in the sim during a SID and all the students ask "why don't we set 6 & 60% that has been beaten into us as a safe setting for 220kts? If we set 4 & 75% it causes us more problems?" It is not easy to find an answer other than "because the QRH says so." It is not easy to explain why. IMHO pilots should be able to understand the 'why'.
I suspect many of us will 'have to agree to disagree'.
My question is: if I know that 6 & 60% will keep me safe at 6000' at 220kts or 3 & 65% at 250kts, or 2 & 85% at 0.76m >FL370 and something in-between at mid-levels,why would I do something else while time is spent searching for the QRH which will tell me what I already know. Meanwhile the a/c is doing something I don't want it to do.
I understand the argument that for those who are unsure what to do they can set these parameters and go through the whole process and survive. It is an attempt to avoid panic and achieve some calm control. But one size fits all, scenarios & pilots, is not comfortable for me. I teach the new procedure in the sim during a SID and all the students ask "why don't we set 6 & 60% that has been beaten into us as a safe setting for 220kts? If we set 4 & 75% it causes us more problems?" It is not easy to find an answer other than "because the QRH says so." It is not easy to explain why. IMHO pilots should be able to understand the 'why'.
I suspect many of us will 'have to agree to disagree'.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: England
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If both (or all three/four) of you know whats going on then that is fine, but if not all of the crew are on the same page then there is potential for a further layer of confusion. Whilst I also know the rough setting for each of the major flight regimes, I will follow the QRH....then everyone knows what to expect and can feel more comfortable in the procedure.
Of course if someone forgets to check the library and QRH is not on board...it can be useful to know what to set!!.
Of course if someone forgets to check the library and QRH is not on board...it can be useful to know what to set!!.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a few out there on this thread actually try this at TOD and then post back on this thread what the result was. Reduce power, pitch up slowly to avoid a climb and then get back to us. Try for flights below at and above optimum. It is deemed to be safe so there should be no issues. It will be interesting to hear the results.
Last edited by JammedStab; 20th Mar 2015 at 15:07.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TEST FLYING ON REVENUE FLIGHTS?
"How about a few out there on this thread actually try this at TOD and then post back on this thread what the result was. Reduce power, pitch up slowly to avoid a climb and then get back to us. Try for flights below at and above optimum. It is deemed to be safe so there should be no issues. It will be interesting to hear the results."
And if something out of the ordinary occurs "it will be interesting to hear" the subsequent interview with fleet/flight manager(s)!!
Whilst I appreciate the desire for some HARD info on this topic, I doubt whether a line sector is the place for such research by ordinary line dogs.
However, it reinforces my oft-voiced opinion that the particular type simulator is NOT the realistic tool we are all sold by training and management.
Post AF447 when still practising the art, I made sure I knew with instant recall what pitch/power/trim my craft was using to survive at the cruise mass at the (aerodynamically dodgy) cruise altitude, where, when things go wrong, they go wrong quickly.
The 73NG seemed to be happy with the rule of 3s, namely 3ish degrees pitch, 90% N1 and 6.0ish on the stab trim. The cruise N1 was usually a bit less than 90, but if the wind powered instruments go AWOL, then I think I'd rather go too fast than risk slowing and reducing my energy and risking stalling. I am convinced this type, at cruise mass/altitude, will inevitably slow down with 75% N1 and would not be happy to go there.
Thank you Mr Boeing for doing some work on this, but you are the organisation who recommends I select Eng Anti-ice ON plus Airframe Anti-ice ON, above FL350, if I run into volcanic ash??!! Those of you on the type might like to imagine the resultant chaos if/when the dual bleed trip occurs as you are trying to sort out the Ash Encounter procedure!!
Still have not had a satisfactory answer to this one, and I'm NOT pretending I'm cleverer than their TPs, but here is a QRH item which directly contradicts the recommendation in another QRH, so I and others are left with a certain lack of confidence in some published procedures. And yes, the lawyers would have a field day, but if I'm still alive to argue then so be it.
Tin hat at the ready..........
And if something out of the ordinary occurs "it will be interesting to hear" the subsequent interview with fleet/flight manager(s)!!
Whilst I appreciate the desire for some HARD info on this topic, I doubt whether a line sector is the place for such research by ordinary line dogs.
However, it reinforces my oft-voiced opinion that the particular type simulator is NOT the realistic tool we are all sold by training and management.
Post AF447 when still practising the art, I made sure I knew with instant recall what pitch/power/trim my craft was using to survive at the cruise mass at the (aerodynamically dodgy) cruise altitude, where, when things go wrong, they go wrong quickly.
The 73NG seemed to be happy with the rule of 3s, namely 3ish degrees pitch, 90% N1 and 6.0ish on the stab trim. The cruise N1 was usually a bit less than 90, but if the wind powered instruments go AWOL, then I think I'd rather go too fast than risk slowing and reducing my energy and risking stalling. I am convinced this type, at cruise mass/altitude, will inevitably slow down with 75% N1 and would not be happy to go there.
Thank you Mr Boeing for doing some work on this, but you are the organisation who recommends I select Eng Anti-ice ON plus Airframe Anti-ice ON, above FL350, if I run into volcanic ash??!! Those of you on the type might like to imagine the resultant chaos if/when the dual bleed trip occurs as you are trying to sort out the Ash Encounter procedure!!
Still have not had a satisfactory answer to this one, and I'm NOT pretending I'm cleverer than their TPs, but here is a QRH item which directly contradicts the recommendation in another QRH, so I and others are left with a certain lack of confidence in some published procedures. And yes, the lawyers would have a field day, but if I'm still alive to argue then so be it.
Tin hat at the ready..........
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some are misunderstanding that the NNC change is ESSENTIALLY, 99.9999% about hot and high situations where you have f**k all airspeed to play with before a stall - whether high speed or low speed.
At FL280/300 or so you can literally set whatever power/pitch you want and you will NEVER STALL.
The AirFrance incident did NOT occur at FL280 - it occurred when hot and high.
CK: apologies but did not see the margin to low speed stall, end of SIM session and the others wanted to call it quits, all I wanted to see was what would happen when (IMHO) setting a high pitch/low power when hot and high should get extremely ugly.
Having tried the scoreline is: Boeing 1, Galdian 0.
Regards your concerns about low speed stall - why can't it be high speed stall if you're in turbulence with strong vertical windshear??
Personally if I was in or approaching ANY stall I'd be calling it quits - drag off the power, setting around 0 degrees pitch, making a "mayday" and getting down to FL280 and luxuriate in all that margin between high/slow stalls whilst trying to sort out what's going on.
Live to fight (flight) another day!
At FL280/300 or so you can literally set whatever power/pitch you want and you will NEVER STALL.
The AirFrance incident did NOT occur at FL280 - it occurred when hot and high.
CK: apologies but did not see the margin to low speed stall, end of SIM session and the others wanted to call it quits, all I wanted to see was what would happen when (IMHO) setting a high pitch/low power when hot and high should get extremely ugly.
Having tried the scoreline is: Boeing 1, Galdian 0.
Regards your concerns about low speed stall - why can't it be high speed stall if you're in turbulence with strong vertical windshear??
Personally if I was in or approaching ANY stall I'd be calling it quits - drag off the power, setting around 0 degrees pitch, making a "mayday" and getting down to FL280 and luxuriate in all that margin between high/slow stalls whilst trying to sort out what's going on.
Live to fight (flight) another day!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regards your concerns about low speed stall - why can't it be high speed stall if you're in turbulence with strong vertical windshear??
Accelerated stall (occurring at a higher speed than a 1G stall) is exactly what I mean. If you are deep in the low speed band, you are awfully close to the 1G stall speed. A few bumps of turbulence and the wing is stalled.
I have never heard of high speed buffet (supersonic shockwaves) causing disruption of the airflow to an extent that is causes the wing to stall in the case of 737. I doubt that turbulence would contribute further to the disruption of the airflow caused by the shockwaves as I would believe they are purely a function of the speed. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.
Anyway, Boeing did dive tests with full thrust as part of the certification!! The drag rises so much that it is not possible to accelerate the aircraft to such speeds in normal attitudes.
Exceeding MMO/VMO is no big deal, there is a huge margin. So, I would still go for the safe numbers:
12-15 deg pitch on takeoff
Descent all altitudes:
-1 deg / idle
Climb, at climb thrust:
Sealevel: 10
FL100: 8
FL200: 6
FL300: 4
FL400: 2
6 deg / 65% for level flight below FL100
2 deg / 85% for level flight at cruising altitude.
The short version (easy to remember): 12-15, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, -1 - and the thrust settings 65/85 to go with 6 and 2.
In my opinion Boeing are dumbing things down, because they know the eroding manual flying skills causes people not to know these values anymore.
AF447 has been mentioned as an example. My point: Had they maintained a normal cruise pitch and thrust, nothing would have happened! From the CVR it appears that they never recognised the airspeed disagree, hence they would never have set pitch and thrust to a predetermined value, even if Airbus had had procedures comparable to the new ones of Boeing.
So for those who can still fly, "use attitude and thrust to maintain control". For those that can't, they will probably be so startled that it won't matter what procedures they use. Sad state of affairs.
I have to say that Cosmo has summed up the current state of affairs very well.
Particularly this;
I think that pilots flying today could be roughly divided into two groups, one group who have attitude as their first go-to because they actually have experience flying aircraft IMC and learnt ( probably subconsciously) that a good scan is built around attitude, and the second group who have never learnt and practiced that.
Particularly this;
So for those who can still fly, "use attitude and thrust to maintain control". For those that can't, they will probably be so startled that it won't matter what procedures they use. Sad state of affairs.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that pilots flying today could be roughly divided into two groups, one group who have attitude as their first go-to because they actually have experience flying aircraft IMC and learnt ( probably subconsciously) that a good scan is built around attitude, and the second group who have never learnt and practiced that.
The root cause of this statement is not the line plot training but the training of the flying school student. That is where the basics should be ingrained. I receive 148hr cadets to start a jet TQ course. Some are good, some OK. They have not had the 'attitude is the heart & start of the scan' pumped into them. Scarily I now hear from a TC on A320 that he is line training cadet pilots with 79hrs total from a MPL course. Can this really be true..correct...good idea? They must have done, hopefully, a huge amount of sim flying IR/IMC to be allowed anywhere near a pax a/c wit only 79hrs air time. Have they been pounded into good IR scanning?
I know nothing of MPL, but the dilution of training seems to be close to bottom.
IMHO the new unreliable airspeed procedures is a knee jerk reaction to a couple of events that should not have led to an accident. It's a one size fits all, in all circumstances, "flying for dummies" solution. I'd rather teach the guys better in their foundation phase, AND practice it.
Amidst all this, one thing I find very unsettling: With a blocked pitot or static source the 1st thing you may notice (on the more modern a/c) is an "IAS disagree" flag. (It is not there on older a/c. You determined something was amiss due to incompatible ATT/Power/Speed interrogation = scan.) You call for the B737 IAS Disagree QRH (non memory). It directs you, after no action, to the "Unreliable Airspeed QRH. Here there are memory items, the definition of which are actions that need to be competed expeditiously. So why the delay going via the non-memory IAS disagree QRH? I am confused, perplexed and consider this not good. It confuses the heck out of the more intelligent cadets.
An added note about all these new additional bells & whistles is it encourages a laziness in scan. You wait for a caution/warning to tell you something is wrong and then react. IMHO it is good airmanship to know your a/c and understand/perceive when it is sick and not behaving itself. You can then be proactive in reducing the oncoming bunfight. After every incident/accident a new bell or whistle is added. After THY in AMS there is a new "airspeed low" vocal. It happens when the IAS is deep in the yellow. I didn't know blind pilots were allowed to fly. There is a caution to tell you that +5 degrees attitude with level flight, an IAS 250kts and accelerating is not correct. There are cautions to tell you that +10 degrees, VSI climbing but speed increasing is not correct. etc. etc. How can a pilot have an IR on type and not know these things?
After flying a B732 I flew B767. We learnt to fly it in the same manner. Keep you eyes around the cockpit. I moved on to a B727 company that had acquired B757. The instructors there taught to "follow the FD!!" and "no need to keep scanning the overhead or instrument panel as EICAS is installed". They advised a lowering of alertness and thereby encouraged reactive operations, not proactive. That was 25 years ago. We've slipped a long way down the slope since then. If you know the a/c, and you should, then do the correct thing to keep it safe, by knowledge. It galls me to have to do something I know will not work and will then need to be adjusted. Someone said you have to be quick to get into the P.I. QRH, but as always don't rush. I am still curious what the PF, who has the failed side, is doing while PM is searching for "IAS Disagree" QRH and it all going to worms. The "Unreliable Airspeed" QRH has not yet been reached. So what is happening during this delay by the low time cadet as PF in RHS?
The root cause of this statement is not the line plot training but the training of the flying school student. That is where the basics should be ingrained. I receive 148hr cadets to start a jet TQ course. Some are good, some OK. They have not had the 'attitude is the heart & start of the scan' pumped into them. Scarily I now hear from a TC on A320 that he is line training cadet pilots with 79hrs total from a MPL course. Can this really be true..correct...good idea? They must have done, hopefully, a huge amount of sim flying IR/IMC to be allowed anywhere near a pax a/c wit only 79hrs air time. Have they been pounded into good IR scanning?
I know nothing of MPL, but the dilution of training seems to be close to bottom.
IMHO the new unreliable airspeed procedures is a knee jerk reaction to a couple of events that should not have led to an accident. It's a one size fits all, in all circumstances, "flying for dummies" solution. I'd rather teach the guys better in their foundation phase, AND practice it.
Amidst all this, one thing I find very unsettling: With a blocked pitot or static source the 1st thing you may notice (on the more modern a/c) is an "IAS disagree" flag. (It is not there on older a/c. You determined something was amiss due to incompatible ATT/Power/Speed interrogation = scan.) You call for the B737 IAS Disagree QRH (non memory). It directs you, after no action, to the "Unreliable Airspeed QRH. Here there are memory items, the definition of which are actions that need to be competed expeditiously. So why the delay going via the non-memory IAS disagree QRH? I am confused, perplexed and consider this not good. It confuses the heck out of the more intelligent cadets.
An added note about all these new additional bells & whistles is it encourages a laziness in scan. You wait for a caution/warning to tell you something is wrong and then react. IMHO it is good airmanship to know your a/c and understand/perceive when it is sick and not behaving itself. You can then be proactive in reducing the oncoming bunfight. After every incident/accident a new bell or whistle is added. After THY in AMS there is a new "airspeed low" vocal. It happens when the IAS is deep in the yellow. I didn't know blind pilots were allowed to fly. There is a caution to tell you that +5 degrees attitude with level flight, an IAS 250kts and accelerating is not correct. There are cautions to tell you that +10 degrees, VSI climbing but speed increasing is not correct. etc. etc. How can a pilot have an IR on type and not know these things?
After flying a B732 I flew B767. We learnt to fly it in the same manner. Keep you eyes around the cockpit. I moved on to a B727 company that had acquired B757. The instructors there taught to "follow the FD!!" and "no need to keep scanning the overhead or instrument panel as EICAS is installed". They advised a lowering of alertness and thereby encouraged reactive operations, not proactive. That was 25 years ago. We've slipped a long way down the slope since then. If you know the a/c, and you should, then do the correct thing to keep it safe, by knowledge. It galls me to have to do something I know will not work and will then need to be adjusted. Someone said you have to be quick to get into the P.I. QRH, but as always don't rush. I am still curious what the PF, who has the failed side, is doing while PM is searching for "IAS Disagree" QRH and it all going to worms. The "Unreliable Airspeed" QRH has not yet been reached. So what is happening during this delay by the low time cadet as PF in RHS?
Last edited by RAT 5; 21st Mar 2015 at 09:30.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've tried the new memory items for two PCs in a row now and on the simulator simulating a gross weight of 65t and we've always tended to go towards an overspeed situation rather quickly when flaps are up at low level, so you have to be pretty quick on getting the QRH out in order to be able to reduce the thrust.
Is it the sim that is too slick or is it something that you've experienced as well? or is it just my flying that's too crappy?
Is it the sim that is too slick or is it something that you've experienced as well? or is it just my flying that's too crappy?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't know about MPL then please research it, it is an evolution of training in which pilots are trained in job specific skills rather than the generic SEP/MEP. 240 hrs total of which most is done on a device representing the type they will ultimately fly. It's brilliant, anyway thread drift.
It's clear that some people on here are not willing to use the new procedures. If you are safe then I guess no one can argue with that. I however will do what the QRH and manufacturer have told me.
It's clear that some people on here are not willing to use the new procedures. If you are safe then I guess no one can argue with that. I however will do what the QRH and manufacturer have told me.
(MPL) It's brilliant, anyway thread drift.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs you are wrong.
It is not cheaper as the devices required to train from the early stages are much more advanced and require more features than before. It also takes longer and requires a commitment from the airline in question for the pilot to be streamed onto type. Under EASA they also require 12 landings not 6 so it's another cost for the operator.
One of the major parts of the course is UPRT and they receive more training of that than any other course, it is targeted training using the very best in simulator software and type specific.
Tell me how 40hrs on an MEP helps a student learn how to recover from a nose high upset in an A320?
The industry research and feedback is very good and often better than the conventional ATPL course and having talked to LTCs training these guys they have often said that the quality is higher than that of an ATPL student.
Say what you like but industry statistics say it all. Everyone I have met that has disliked the MPL system is ignorant to how it works. I was once the same.
It is not cheaper as the devices required to train from the early stages are much more advanced and require more features than before. It also takes longer and requires a commitment from the airline in question for the pilot to be streamed onto type. Under EASA they also require 12 landings not 6 so it's another cost for the operator.
One of the major parts of the course is UPRT and they receive more training of that than any other course, it is targeted training using the very best in simulator software and type specific.
Tell me how 40hrs on an MEP helps a student learn how to recover from a nose high upset in an A320?
The industry research and feedback is very good and often better than the conventional ATPL course and having talked to LTCs training these guys they have often said that the quality is higher than that of an ATPL student.
Say what you like but industry statistics say it all. Everyone I have met that has disliked the MPL system is ignorant to how it works. I was once the same.
Last edited by nick14; 21st Mar 2015 at 10:48. Reason: Added in landings