Unusual attitudes
This is from TrainingCom spring 2020
"Unusual Attitude Recoveries vs UPRT We are receiving feedback from examiners who are starting to observe test applicants recovering from conventional unusual attitudes (UA’s) using Upset Prevention and Recovery Technique (UPRT) protocols. So, rather than seeing “power, roll, pitch”, the examiners are seeing “push, roll, power, stabilise”. The reason for the conventional UA recovery technique being used in light twin and single engine aeroplanes is to achieve “minimum height loss”. Whereas, minimum height loss using the UPRT techniques is not a priority as they have been developed for jet aircraft, especially those with underslung engines where the thrust-pitch couple causes problems. Both instructors and examiners need to understand that the use of UPRT procedures is not appropriate in light twin or single engine aeroplanes during UA recoveries because minimum height loss is the overriding priority and the power-pitch couple is usually small. Therefore, it is important that instructors continue to teach the conventional UA recovery technique and that examiners brief the applicant on their requirements and expectations during the test or check. Confusion and misunderstandings over what is required could lead to a UA recovery being judged as unsatisfactory and then a subsequent Reg 6 appeal from the applicant who had been taught that UPRT procedures were appropriate."
I think it is a misunderstanding to assert that that minimum height loss during UPRT is not a priority. If an aeroplane gets into an unusual attitude at low altitude it seems to me desirable to recover with minimum height loss whether the aeroplane is a jet transport or a SEP. The authors of the AUPRTA were concerned that improper emphasis on attempting to minimize height loss during stall recovery could lead to pilots using incorrect technique and failing to recover from the stall, thereby ultimately failing to minimize height loss. This is why during UPRT stall event training the point is made that some height loss will be inevitable during stall recovery and in the case of a jet aircraft stalling at high altitude the inevitable height loss could be considerable. It is also why GM1 FCL.745.A (i) includes the training task "accept altitude loss" during recovery from stall event. "Accept altitude loss" is included only in the recovery from stall event exercise and not in any other UPRT exercise.
"Push, roll, power (or thrust), stabilise" is not a procedure to be applied blindly. It is a strategy to guide decision making during an upset event. It can only be effective when used with proper knowledge of how to apply it to different upset events and properly understanding the handling characteristics of the particular aircraft type. I think when applied correctly the strategy should be applicable to all fixed wing aircraft.
For example, GM1 FCL.745.A (g), nose low recovery, includes the enabling objectives:
(C) unloading to increase roll rate; (D) avoid ‘rolling-pull’; and (E) accept the priority of rolling to wings level first, before reducing power and before pulling.
If these are applicable to nose low or spiral dive recovery in a King Air, why would they not also be applicable in a DA 42?
Last edited by Rivet gun; 5th Dec 2020 at 15:56.