Does ALPA oppose upset recovery training

[JammedStab]

There have been several articles written recently about the benefits to pilots of upset recovery training on real aircraft such as aerobatic aircraft. A recent article in Flying Magazine has an interesting quote with no further backup.

It said "One of the biggest opponents to the idea, interestingly enough, is the Airline Pilots Association".

However, I could find nothing further on this. Has anybody else heard of this?

[RAT 5]

Which ALPA? It might be opposed to if the pilot had to pay for it and not the company. Otherwise why not support a day out having some real fun?

[Centaurus]

Otherwise why not support a day out having some real fun?

And enjoy yourself being air-sick all over the cockpit. :E

[Can737]

http://www.alpa.org/news-and-events/air-line-pilot-magazine

Page 26 of the August 2016 edition.

[JammedStab]

It doesn't make sense to me. I am just quoting a news article. A little more info from any source would be nice.

[vapilot2004]

ALPA has consistently lobbied for more flight and FFS training, not less. They not only support upset recovery training, but full stall training as well. I would imagine most if not all Western pilot's associations and unions also support the same.

[Can737]

It doesn't make sense to me. I am just quoting a news article. A little more info from any source would be nice.

Quoting which news article?

I'll try to post the article, but ALPA is in favor of upset recovery training.

[JammedStab]

Quoting which news article?

I'll try to post the article, but ALPA is in favor of upset recovery training.
August 2016 issue of Flying Magazine. Page 56.

[Denti]

I believe most if not all western pilot unions are very much in favor of more upset recovery training. However, usually with a few caveats. Like real datapoints of the production aircraft outside the normal flying envelope to generate a truly representative simulator model. Training in the simulator on the type flown in normal line operation, not on small single engine piston aircraft that do behave quite differently from the aircraft for which said training is aimed, and have a very different envelope as well.

Skills learnt in an Extra are not necessarily transferrable to an A380.

[Arctaurus]

Upset recovery training in a simulator will always have its limitations.

Lack of real 'g', software limitations outside of the data envelope which may not represent the aircraft are just 2 of the issues.

However, the idea is to recognise that earlier recovery may mitigate the possibility of the aircraft ending up in an unrecoverable scenario.

So, recognising and practicing nose high and nose low recovery combined with a roll component within existing and known software envelopes is better than no training at all.

I don't know of any ALPA that opposes this type of training.

[CONSO]

SLF here- seems to me if 30 years ago NASA could configure a small jet to act/respond like a space shuttle for training, the industry could now do the same for a small jet and provide maybe one or two hours of time with steep banks, nose high, stalls, etc with attendant g's and glass screen versions of appropriate instruments for model airplane. And there kmigh be a business opportunity for a private operator to provide such minimal ' aerobatic ' scenarios. Possibly making a few extra $$ for providing suitable BARF bags at $5 each ??

[LeadSled]

Conso,
About 25+ years ago, a number of airlines were approached, including one that almost lost a B707 in an upset, the aircraft to be used were available and configured, and had been used by the US Navy for the same purpose --- training transport pilots in upset recovery.
The aircraft were an early model Citation, much modified and strengthened for the purpose.
We got a flat NO!! from every airline approached --- all majors ---- the answer was simple, unless it was mandated by regulation, they would not spend the money.
Tootle pip!!

[RAT 5]

'Upset recovery training' in the sim is a tick in the box requirement every 3 years in refresher training. If it wasn't mandatory I doubt any airline would do it. Instead their attitude is to have rigid SOP's that should keep you so far away from such possibilities that the risk is negligible; so why train for something like that? They don't even teach their guys proper basic manual flying for visual circuits, other than base training, and then the door is closed. So don't expect any enthusiasm for any extra upset recovery training. They don't even refresh basic stall recovery or training about the known 'gotchas' of some of the automatic systems.

[markkal]

It looks like UPRT makes everyone happy as long as it will be done in sims.

The issue whether spin training or UPRT needs to be done in suitable small aerobatic aircraft is open to debate.

Small aerobatic aircraft and airliners respond to the same laws of aerodynamics except inertia. And aerobatic aircraft have big tail surfaces and inverted fuel/oil systems, making them safe to operate on the back side of the power curve.

How anyone can oppose getting exposed to the full spectrum of the flight envelope, including inverted flight and full stall - where without training any pilot will instinctively pull on the yoke, with disastrous consequences as many accidents reports have shown - experience and get used to lateral and vertical accelerations, spatial disorientation, extreme attitudes, is something I cannot easily understand.

After all this is what happens when one gets out of his comfort zone, so dont fear the unknown, go expolre it, bit by bit, at your own pace, til you get familiar and learn to react the right way, ultimately becoming a better pilot.

How can one expect to properly react with accurate flying on situations never experienced before outside the rigid SOP's envelope, using the proper recovery reflex, is again something I cannot understand. Failing this, fear and startle will take over, and as someone said, fear is the leprosy of aviation, it gets rarely if ever adressed, it is too much linked to the pilot's ego.

[F-16GUY]

Skills learnt in an Extra are not necessarily transferrable to an A380.

Basic skills are very much transferrable.

And aerobatic aircraft have big tail surfaces and inverted fuel/oil systems, making them safe to operate on the back side of the power curve.

What has big tail surfaces and iverted/oil systems got to do with flying on the back side of the power curve?

[markkal]

They help keep the a/c maneuverable especially in yaw (Rudder) and to maintain elevator effectiveness at very low speeds, let alone during stall and spin, due to their oversized surfaces to counter diminished airflow over them, with the addition of propwash which however raises the issue of torque, P factor, and gyroscopics effects.

Inverted oil/fuel sytems keep positive lubrication and engine from quitting at extreme attitudes/during prolonged spin, or inadvertent inverted flight entry.

[F-16GUY]

Never heard of an aircraft type that does not have adaquate elevetor or rudder effectiveness on the backside of the power curve (pre stall), and as long as you have plenty of altitude below you, it is also perfectly safe in any type.

[Linktrained]

STALLING... then

Details of stalling training on B170, DC7c and Britannia aircraft were given in"Information Cautionary Tale on 25th Feb 2016, #16"
Three different Training Captains were used, one on each type of aircraft. (with F/Es to keep the engines happy on two of them !) All had propellers.
These were all "gentle, premeditated stalls." A startle factor or a high altitude might have given different results. Others may know.
LT

[markkal]

Loss of control on the backside of the power curve is a killer.

Airliners and GA aircraft are designed for cruise operations therefore they have small movable tail surfaces, up to 1,5 VS these are unstable and much less maneuverable than at cruise speed.

Just go maneuver at 1.1 or 1.2 VS or let the a/c pancake when fully stalled correcting swiftly in yaw, with a truly aerobatic aircraft and see the difference.

So in the context of UPRT training, on aircraft, these are the types that are going to be offering the best margin for safety, not only for the air exercises, but when because of poor energy management or wrong/excessive pilot control inputs things go awry.

If the instructor is up to the job, and properly trained on type he will recover any situation whether inadvertent spin, flipping inverted, or tendency to pull when inverted or stalling...

[vapilot2004]

All good points, Markkal. Here in the states, the FAA directive mainly focuses on FFS for both upset recovery and stall training. I believe EASA is also in this direction, however due to the (apparent) influence of the local airframer, Airbus, stall training is not part of the guidance from the EU regulators.

[greeners]

vapilot2004 - EASA is very much in favour of 'stall training', which was made clear in NPA 2015-12 'Upset Prevention and Recovery Training' for FSTDs. NPA 2015-13 'Loss of control prevention and recovery training' mandates on-aircraft UPRT from April 2018 for ab-initio ATPLs.

F-16GUY - you are absolutely correct that 'Basic skills are very much transferrable'; UPRT schools teach techniques that are mostly independent of airframe type, and where there are material differences then they get highlighted and understood. Whilst there are clear differences between a swept wing airliner with underslung jet engines and a straight wing piston, any approach to stall will always require a reduction in alpha.

markkal - I want to highlight that spin training - recovering from fully developed spins - is NOT going to be mandated by the FAA or EASA. Aside from the fact that getting into a spin in an airliner is going to end badly, the training focus is very much on avoidance in the first instance and then recovery from the incipient spin only.

[G0ULI]

Airline pilots are not poorly paid compared to the average income. Surely they can afford to pay for a few hours with an instructor and an aerobatic aircraft each year to maintain some currency even if the company won't pay for such training. Every other profession requires their practitioners to remain current with updated legislation, safety and training, frequently at their own expense. Why are (some) commercial pilots not keen to keep their skills as polished as possible?

Surely the aim is to be better than just holding the minimum skill set necessary to conduct a safe flight in benign conditions. Recovery from unusual attitudes and spin recovery was (and still should be) a vital part of basic flight training and recurrancy checks. Big aircraft can get into just the same attitudes as a smaller aircraft and the same techniques should assist in recovery, if possible without ripping the airframe apart.

[markkal]

Greeners you are right, developped spin training is not mandared by EASA, however there are a number of schools offering this "extension" in their training, I believe APS in the US is one of them, which cooperates with ICATEE, under the impetus of Sunjoo Advani, ICATEE being in the EASA board drafting the upcoming regulation.

Various schools using aporopriate aircraft are including spin training in their packages for UPRT. It may well be a commercial move, and I fully agree that an airliner will probably never be able to recover from a spin in the first place.

However, it is unlikely that any aircraft will end up in a spin or an aggravated oscillatory stall unless crews let an unstable condition degenerate.

In addition to this by experiencing and being able to tame the fully developped spin, is undoubtedly a great confidence building maneuver,it takes time and should be done in stages, but I can assure you does marvels in improving anyone's skills.

It will enable anyone flying at the back edge of the flying envelope to act without stress with added finesse and confidence, and will change the way one handles slow flight.

[greeners]

markkal - there is a marked difference between what the EASA UPRT regulations mandate and what I personally would view as being the best possible training! At Ultimate High we give UPRT students the option to experience fully developed spins for exactly the reasons you give in your note. IMO it could *never* be made mandatory as a significant proportion of our delegates are uncomfortable with more extreme Unusual Positions and would probably refuse to experience a full spin. And yes, I am including experienced commercial pilots here...

Sunjoo did a great job of steering ICAATEE (which was set up by the RAeS on the same day that AF447 flew into the South Atlantic) and the work of that body to influence regulators is now largely done and complete. I'm part of the EASA Rule making group that you refer to (officially RMT .0581) along with representatives from the other main UPRT schools, APS and ECAIR Aviation, and we're hoping to get the details and guidance published as soon as possible.

On the slow flight point, it's worth highlighting that a LOT of time is spent specifically focussing on the challenges associated with this phase of flight.

OK465 - you ask a good question. Because the teaching is about recognising the situation and applying the correct recovery technique, it should not make any difference on which platform this is demonstrated. If the delegate can do it on a T67, they should be able to do it on an A320 or B737.

[Golden Rivit]

These videos are from1997,but still relevant,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Zy_rl8WuM

[FlightDetent]

"if the first officer had stopped making additional inputs, the aircraft would have stabilized". Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 sensitive rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Training Program.https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwj4mu_2u4PPAhWKCMAKHbcnAdcQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finvestigations%2FAccidentRep orts%2FReports%2FAAR0404.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHzOcw6qwcojeqdmwFaQVJjT0Aaww&sig2=AryBB8aLXdGVeaRdk-ammw&bvm=bv.132479545,d.ZGg

[Golden Rivit]

" The government's own Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge says "any combination of flight control usage [below the maneuvering speed], including full deflection of the controls ... should not create an excessive air load."

From By-the-Book Pilot to Fall Guy - latimes (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/11/opinion/oe-garrison11)

http://m.rockawave.com/news/2006-04-21/Front_Page/003.html#.V9NXqTVrPM8

http://usread.com/flight587/Shame/default.html

[vapilot2004]

vapilot2004 - EASA is very much in favour of 'stall training', which was made clear in NPA 2015-12 'Upset Prevention and Recovery Training' for FSTDs. NPA 2015-13 'Loss of control prevention and recovery training' mandates on-aircraft UPRT from April 2018 for ab-initio ATPLs.

Greeners - my post was misleading in that I did not say EASA was opposed to "full stall training, which they in fact are.

[effortless]

How would fly by wire cope with a pilot inputting his interpretation of the situation?

[vapilot2004]

How would fly by wire cope with a pilot inputting his interpretation of the situation?

On the Airbus, FBW would cope like just about any other aircraft as the protections would most likely not be available if the aircraft was stalled - the only difference being sidesticks offer no tactile/haptic feedback relating to the condition.