EASA Uprt-Loc update

[markkal]

HHi,

Have been informed by a reputable source within EASA together with one of the leading aircraft manufacturers in Europe about an important decision concerning the Uprt-Loc mandatory training effective as per 19 Dec.2019 for MPL and ATPL
training courses.

There will be a meeting next November within EASA rulemaking committee to review and possibility amend the requisites for the flight training.

EASA will decide if to make mandatory the use ( up to know only recommended ) of single engine aircraft with structural safety margins of +6 -4 G ‘s
carried out by instructors with not only the minimal requisites but also experience in the field.

Safety and liability concerns dictate to make use of the most appropriate resources available, this will certainly affect ATO’s at least those equipped only with normal or utility category aircrafts and instructors with the minimal requirements.

I would like to keep my sources private but have no problem to transmit any info via a PM.
Also would be pleased to hear any additional info in this respects

[FoxtrotGolfFoxtrot]

HHi,

Have been informed by a reputable source within EASA together with one of the leading aircraft manufacturers in Europe about an important decision concerning the Uprt-Loc mandatory training effective as per 19 Dec.2019 for MPL and ATPL
training courses.

There will be a meeting next November within EASA rulemaking committee to review and possibility amend the requisites for the flight training.

EASA will decide if to make mandatory the use ( up to know only recommended ) of single engine aircraft with structural safety margins of +6 -4 G ‘s
carried out by instructors with not only the minimal requisites but also experience in the field.

Safety and liability concerns dictate to make use of the most appropriate resources available, this will certainly affect ATO’s at least those equipped only with normal or utility category aircrafts and instructors with the minimal requirements.

I would like to keep my sources private but have no problem to transmit any info via a PM.
Also would be pleased to hear any additional info in this respects






any news about the UPRS course requirements ?

[greeners]

The course requirements have been available for some time under FCL.745.A with associated AMC and GM.

[BEagle]

FCL.745.A Advanced UPRT is a prerequisite only for ATPL issue. It may be completed either during an integrated course or as a standalone course flown with certain training providers.

It is emphatically NOT an aerobatic course; however, aircraft used for the course should be suitable for the task and it makes sense to use something like a T67 to afford greater protection should a training event go awry.

I once saw a videoclip of UPRT 'training' conducted by some American in an Extra 300. He talked incessantly and concentrated on sudden departures from controlled flight. Some of the worst flight instruction I've ever seen.

However, stand by for news from EASA next month. While Advanced UPRT in light aeroplanes and basic UPRT during CPL or MPL courses is going fine, recurrent training for ATPL holders is highlighting a severe lack of qualified full flight simulators certified as capable of replicating UPRT elements accurately... So some form of deferment is likely to be announced.

Frequent 'stalling' of multi-pilot FFS is likely to knock hell out of them. No doubt this wasn't taken into account when this whole UPRT elephant in the room was agreed.

[Rivet gun]

FCL.745.A is not a prerequisite to ATPL issue, it will (very soon) be a prerequisite to the first multi crew type rating.

As I mentioned in another thread, the stand alone advanced UPRT course could potentially be taught by a FI with only a PPL, no experience of transport aircraft or operational military types and perhaps only a few hours on aerobatic SEP aircraft provided they have at least 500 hours total time and 200 hours instructing.

What company was the American in an Extra 300? I think Aviation Performance Solutions use Extra 300s in Phoenix Arizona. They claim to be leading UPRT experts. They have a base in the Netherlands but use Slingsby Firefly's there. They say they have EASA FCL.745.A approval (presumably wef 20 December).

[BEagle]

FCL.745.A is not a prerequisite to ATPL issue […]
Oh really? According to Appendix 3 to Annex 1 of Part-FCL, Section A. 4(d):
(d) UPRT in accordance with FCL.745.A unless applicants have already completed this course before starting the ATP integrated course.’;


Apologies for the format errors - PPRuNe still hasn't sorted out font size / type ever since the geeks last messed things up!

[Duchess_Driver]

Why would you do an UPRT course before starting an integrated course?

I understand it may be a pre-requisite for ATPL issue but is actually a pre-req for a type rating..!?!?!

[Rivet gun]

Oh really? According to Appendix 3 to Annex 1 of Part-FCL, Section A. 4(d):



Apologies for the format errors - PPRuNe still hasn't sorted out font size / type ever since the geeks last messed things up!

Yes, advanced UPRT is part of the ATP(A) integrated course which confers CPL(A)/IR with theoretical knowledge to ATPL level.

For modular route, the CPL(A) can be issued without advanced UPRT but it then will become a prerequisite to the first multi-pilot type rating.

AFIK, for those already (before 20 December) holding a CPL(A)/IR with multi-pilot type rating, the advanced UPRT course will not be required for ATPL issue.

[ZFT]

FCL.745.A Advanced UPRT is a prerequisite only for ATPL issue. It may be completed either during an integrated course or as a standalone course flown with certain training providers.

It is emphatically NOT an aerobatic course; however, aircraft used for the course should be suitable for the task and it makes sense to use something like a T67 to afford greater protection should a training event go awry.

I once saw a videoclip of UPRT 'training' conducted by some American in an Extra 300. He talked incessantly and concentrated on sudden departures from controlled flight. Some of the worst flight instruction I've ever seen.

However, stand by for news from EASA next month. While Advanced UPRT in light aeroplanes and basic UPRT during CPL or MPL courses is going fine, recurrent training for ATPL holders is highlighting a severe lack of qualified full flight simulators certified as capable of replicating UPRT elements accurately... So some form of deferment is likely to be announced.

Frequent 'stalling' of multi-pilot FFS is likely to knock hell out of them. No doubt this wasn't taken into account when this whole UPRT elephant in the room was agreed.

I believe what you refer to is the Draft Decision in accordance with Article 15 (Direct publication) of MB Decision No 18-2015 published on 18th November 2019 with a very short deadline for submission of comments of 4 December 2019 (which proposes extending the deadline from 20th December 2019 until 20th April 2020 for qualification of applicable FSTDs).

Whilst I doubt FFSs are likely to fall apart, I concur fully about the UPRT circus and the industry it has spawned.

[parkfell]

I believe what you refer to is the Draft Decision in accordance with Article 15........(gap).....

Whilst I doubt FFSs are likely to fall apart, I concur fully about the UPRT circus and the industry it has spawned.

Answer might be to turn off the motion, or even use a fixed base device...?
Using purely the “dials” and not relying upon other senses works well.
‘G’ forces cannot be created in any event.
Programming pre determined unusual attitudes (option selections) as required by EASA creates a standardised UPRT syllabus to be practised, gain confidence and achieve the necessary competence.

Will these unusual attitudes be practised on a regular basis?

[Rivet gun]

I once saw a videoclip of UPRT 'training' conducted by some American in an Extra 300. He talked incessantly and concentrated on sudden departures from controlled flight. Some of the worst flight instruction I've ever seen.


Was it this one by any chance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLCfVYDV9A

[markkal]

This new "Uprt Loc Advanced" course now mandatory raises a considerable amount of confusion, at least the "On Aircraft " part.


"Advanced" refers to pitch and bank "Greater" 25 degrees pitch up, 10 pitch down and 45 AoB, (25/10/45) .

How much "Greater" ? that is the whole question...Up to the edges of the flight envelope of the aircraft ? With what margins ? What about botched up maneuvers leading to unknown territory both for instructor and trainee ?



A reputable ATO I know is starting in january 2020 such "Advanced" training with a Diamond DA20 and ATPL instructor,( they will limit training to 25/10/45 plus nose up nose down recoveries)

Other ATO's are training with aerobatic aircrafts and aerobatic qualified instructors, stating to extended envelopes without further specifications

ATO's like CAE are sending their students to the US or in the Netherlands ( APS, the leader in the field) who only offers full flight envelope training including falling leaf, and developped spins.

Where is uniformity ? and what about possible litigation issues in our sue happy society in case of accidents ?

This whole saga has been going on for more than 10 years involving EASA, ICAO, ICATEE and the outcome frankly could have been more relevant, less open to interpretation with more solid foundations in terms of decisions from the proposed legislation.

[Rivet gun]

AFIK every ATO proposing to do this training in the UK will use an aerobatic aircraft for at least part of the course. The requirements and guidance material are at FCL.745.A. this includes for example:

(iv) the physiological effects of different g-loads between -1 and 2.5G

(b) Instructors should:
(4) understand the differences between all-attitude UPRT and aerobatics training;

(c) In order to increase the applicant’s resilience related to the handling of aeroplane upsets, the advanced UPRT course needs to include the development of confidence and competence in recognising and recovering safely from upsets under the presence of the real human factors. Such confidence building is specifically addressed by:
(i) successfully overcoming natural stress response (startle and surprise); and
(ii) performing critically important counter-intuitive actions.
Advanced UPRT therefore considers pitch attitudes, bank angles, AOA/airspeeds, sideslip and g-loads, none of which are normally experienced during routine operations.

(d) Aeroplanes used in this course should be:
(1) appropriately certified and operated by the ATO in a manner that takes into account the effects of repeated training manoeuvres on airframe fatigue life; and
(2) provide sufficient safety margins to cater for student and instructor errors.

My emphasis in bold face. I don't see how a CS23 normal cat aircraft can meet these requirements.

I understand it was once intended that the training should be 3 hours actual training not counting taxi, take off, climb and recovery. However the way Part-FCL is written the minimum is 3 hours from the moment an aircraft first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.

There should be no unknown territory for the instructor who must be able to recover from any situation a student might get into. UPRT instructor training will explicitly include aggravated and inverted spins.

If APS are leader in the field, what do you think of the above video? I don't know if it is the one BEagle didn't like. Developed spins are not required for FCL.745.A. Falling leaf would (IMO) be negative training, encouraging rapid rudder reversals.

From EASA again: Note: Instructors should be aware that the safety and potential human factor implications of poor upset recovery instructional technique or misleading information are more significant than in any other areas of pilot training.

I agree that there is too much left to the interpretation of ATO heads of training or individual instructors (who could be PPL FI) with no guidance so far from our UK CAA. It remains to be seen how the CAA go about regulating standards for this training.

[Kemble Pitts]

If a pilot holds an aerobatic rating would that exempt them from the UPRT requirement?

[Rivet gun]

No, UPRT is not aerobatic training and an aerobatic rating confers no exemption.

It is however recommended that advanced UPRT instructors hold an aerobatic rating or similar experience.

[BEagle]

Was it this one by any chance?

I'm not sure - I don't think so though. But in that YoofTube clip, I failed to recognise anything which could be described as 'training'.

[markkal]

The video in question from what I can see and from the sequence of pilot/instructor inputs shows recovery technique for an "Overbank".
Such recovery from overbank is part of the advanced theoretical syllabus in Fcl.745 where it is described but not to be practiced as an upset.

Few schools train the maneuver, APS is one of them.
The extended UPRT training syllabus offered by APS, is based on the precept that in case of an emergency one does not raise to the level of expectations, but rather sinks to the level of one's training.

Over 90 degrees of bank the wrong recovery technique due to untrained instinctive reaction (Pulling on the stick) will have disastrous consequences;
The" lift vector" in an arcraft trimmed for straight and level (1g) when passed 90 degrees is pointing downwards towards the ground below,

The video shows the simulation of the upset, in correct sequence, first quickly positionning by half roll past 90 degrees to inverted

Pausing for a moment when inverted ( recognising the situation), due to "Lift vector" set for normal flight at 1g here the nose is already pointing to the earth below.
Then the instructor "Freezes " the maneuver for a second to emphasize the necessity to "Push" on the stick to reverse the "Lift vector" now pointing towards the sky, introducing a slight negative load -1G
Next in the sequence is the rolling towards the "nearest" sky to complete the maneuver

Note the repetition of the maneuver over and over to achieve consistency a prerequisite for proficiency , situational awareness and acquaintance to extreme attitudes.

[Rivet gun]

recovery from overbank is part of the advanced theoretical syllabus in Fcl.745 where it is described but not to be practiced as an upset.



Why not to be practiced?

FCL.745.A says:
(2) training in techniques to recover from:
(i) nose high at various bank angles;
(ii) nose low at various bank angles;

but what "various" means is not specified. I think any ATO using an aerobatic aircraft would include bank angles beyond 90 deg. The whole point is to train the counter intuitive "unload" response required, rather than the more intuitive split s pull.

(c) In order to increase the applicant’s resilience related to the handling of aeroplane upsets, the advanced UPRT course needs to include the development of confidence and competence in recognising and recovering safely from upsets under the presence of the real human factors. Such confidence building is specifically addressed by:
(i) successfully overcoming natural stress response (startle and surprise); and
(ii) performing critically important counter-intuitive actions.
Advanced UPRT therefore considers pitch attitudes, bank angles, AOA/airspeeds, sideslip and g-loads, none of which are normally experienced during routine operations.

[markkal]

Other than incipient spin, incipient stall / nose high/low recoveries there is nothing specific in the whole very long and bureaucratic legalese written document: ORO.FC.220&230

Now I have stated previously in this post that a big ATO I know will use Diamond DA20 trainers with its standard instructors ( Nothing has been said about extra training for these instructors as per the broad lines set by regulation, we will see in january) And they will only show nose high / nose low, incipient stall, as they say, to "keep it safe"

I also must note that same ATO in its SOP's has modified all reference speeds for landing increasing them by 15% for "Safety", so the aircraft Flight manual and the school's SOP differ. Therefore there is a set "Buffer" to "feel" safe added in the SOP's, For the same reason the HT of the school will limit UPRT training the nose/high/nose low/incipient stall to keep a " Safety buffer" which is part of the schools philosophy.

Now my question is and I would appreciate to get some insight

"Advanced" Uprt from what I have read should be starting anywhere" beyond" published parameters 25 deg nose up/ 10 nose down/ 45 AoB left and right, all the way up to the edges of the envelope for each a/c category.
Then EASA ORO.FC.220&230 is nowhere specific in this respects I can only find broad principles and the requirement for nose high/low/incipient spin exercises.

The end result is that we have Training facilities like APS or Ultimate High offering a wholly comprehensive course with dedicated aircrafts and all envelope instructors,
And ATO's which will use utility category aircrafts, with their own atpl instructors which at most will follow a generic unspecific training for which EASA has defined very broad lines only.


I have contacted EASA to ask for clarification to a regulation which is interpreted by my CAA to ask for the "meaning" as intended by the rulemaking comittee, which are lawyers not pilots, to get some answers

i got an answer aftre 3 months; EASA does not take stand if issues cannot be clarified with CAA there is a procedure available to appeal within the European Union which has adopted the regulation turning it into law.

Needless to say that following such procedure not only suggests to hire a lawyer but then there will be biblical time frame th even get a reply.

[Fl1ingfrog]

All this stuff is getting very confused. In a slow or hesitation roll you will need to push hard at certain points to maintain a desired radius but not to recover. If inverted and stalled or spinning then you must not push but PULL. In aerobatics the student must learn to sense the stall by the feel of their particular aeroplane and from the aerodynamic buffet: i.e. at the top of the loop when inverted the back pressure must be relaxed but it must not become a push which will cause a stall. Beggs and Mueller put a lot of effort and knowledge into recovery from an unintended spin upright and inverted: if in doubt (but only if in doubt) do nothing and let go but if spinning shove hard against the pedal that will move (anti-spin), the other pedal (pro-spin) will already be at its stop. But, we are not teaching aerobatics here when a stall or spin is always possible and even part of it. We must put the emphasis on why and how the pilot has got themselves into a pickle in the first place.

The first thing to emphasise is that the aeroplane cannot and will not stall itself. The most important element from UPRT that the student must take away with them, and hold firmly in the front of their mind, is that it is their fault and not that of the aeroplane if stalled. Auto pilots can cause mayhem and maybe to blame so in all cases turn it off. We are teaching a recognition of the stall in the climb (high nose) and recovery from a dive (low nose) resulting from the pilots failure to recover from this high nose condition correctly or not at all. High angles of bank: the folly of over pulling back during a steep turn is already covered fully in the PPL syllabus, including the resulting spiral dive and stall (although not sustained). This should be revised during UPRT. It is not necessary to go inverted to cover this sufficiently.

Without stall warning devices the approaching stall and the stall itself may not be obvious, the installed warning devices though can go unnoticed. The main danger of the stall is not the stall itself but that it may not be recognised. An emphasis on the signs of the approaching stall/stall must be taught and practised in various scenarios and then later should be repeated on each new type to be flown because an aircraft's characteristics can vary a lot.

Disorientating students will teach them little even if, in accordance to “Pavlov’s dog”, they appear afterwards to be competent.

[Rivet gun]

there is nothing specific in the whole very long and bureaucratic legalese written document: ORO.FC.220&230


ORO.FC.220&230 deal with operator conversion training and checking and with recurrent training and checking. These include simulator UPRT but are not relevant to on-aircraft UPRT.

The on-aircraft advanced UPRT information is given at FCL.745.A and the associated instructor training at FCL.915(e)

[greeners]

(d) Aeroplanes used in this course should be:
(1) appropriately certified and operated by the ATO in a manner that takes into account the effects of repeated training manoeuvres on airframe fatigue life; and
(2) provide sufficient safety margins to cater for student and instructor errors.

My emphasis in bold face. I don't see how a CS23 normal cat aircraft can meet these requirements.

I understand it was once intended that the training should be 3 hours actual training not counting taxi, take off, climb and recovery. However the way Part-FCL is written the minimum is 3 hours from the moment an aircraft first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.
.

Sadly there remains a substantial amount of confusion for a regulation that becomes mandatory one week from today.

I participated in EASA RMG.0581 that ended up writing FCL.715.A. I completely agree that the psychological objectives of the on-aircraft UPRT programme cannot be met in anything other than an aerobatic aircraft. People are completely missing the point if they attempt the training in a non-aerobatic platform.

And yes, the intention was AND STILL IS that the training should be 3 hours of actual training - I wrote the original requirement along with a member of the APS team. The way Part-FCL has been written is misleading; EASA have subsequently confirmed to me - which I have relayed to the CAA - that the requirement IS 3 hours of actual training.

With one week to implementation, my understanding is that the CAA have yet to approve any FCL.915(e) courses that qualify FIs to deliver FCL.745.A, which will make life interesting. Our course was submitted 8 months ago for approval; heard this week that it's 'being worked on'.

[greeners]

ONow I have stated previously in this post that a big ATO I know will use Diamond DA20 trainers with its standard instructors ( Nothing has been said about extra training for these instructors as per the broad lines set by regulation, we will see in january) And they will only show nose high / nose low, incipient stall, as they say, to "keep it safe"

I also must note that same ATO in its SOP's has modified all reference speeds for landing increasing them by 15% for "Safety", so the aircraft Flight manual and the school's SOP differ. Therefore there is a set "Buffer" to "feel" safe added in the SOP's, For the same reason the HT of the school will limit UPRT training the nose/high/nose low/incipient stall to keep a " Safety buffer" which is part of the schools philosophy.

The end result is that we have Training facilities like APS or Ultimate High offering a wholly comprehensive course with dedicated aircrafts and all envelope instructors,
And ATO's which will use utility category aircrafts, with their own atpl instructors which at most will follow a generic unspecific training for which EASA has defined very broad lines only.

EASA clearly states that FIs delivering FCL.745.A Advanced on-aircraft UPRT MUST be qualified through FCL.915(e). NAAs are allowed to make local exemptions for suitably experienced FIs, who may for example have substantial experience in delivering similar training.

And any ATO that adds a random buffer to OEM guidelines is not one that I would choose to send my students to!

[djpil]

And yes, the intention was AND STILL IS that the training should be 3 hours of actual training - I wrote the original requirement along with a member of the APS team. The way Part-FCL has been written is misleading; EASA have subsequently confirmed to me - which I have relayed to the CAA - that the requirement IS 3 hours of actual training.Is that confirmation, or equivalent clarification, available publicly anywhere please?

[Rivet gun]

Sadly there remains a substantial amount of confusion for a regulation that becomes mandatory one week from today.

And yes, the intention was AND STILL IS that the training should be 3 hours of actual training - .

Given the confusion on this I e mailed the CAA asking for clarification of exactly how the 3 hours of dual instruction specified at FCL.745.A (a) (3) is to be measured. This is the response from the CAA licensing support technical team.

"Refer to AMC1 FCL.050 Recording of flight time

(g) Flight time is recorded:

(1) for aeroplanes, touring motor gliders and powered-lift aircraft, from the moment an aircraft first moves to taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight

Note: 3 hours is a minimum not a target"

So there it is unless the CAA change their minds in the next 4 days.

[Fl1ingfrog]

Exactly. Why do some think that a loss of control doesn't happen during start up, taxi, take-off, climb and during the approach/landing phase. The same people also seem to think that turning people upside down and doing suddenlies (a really great way to teach safety skills, yippee! here we go - man or mouse) is a good idea.

[BEagle]

Hot off the press:


Information Update

Issued: 17 December 2019

8 month extension of deadline for compliance with CS-FSTD(A) issue 2 for Air Operator UPRT exercises

Following further consultations and review, EASA decided to extend the deadline for eight months, until 20 August 2020, instead of the initially foreseen four months.

A Decision by the Executive Director of EASA (‘ED Decision’) to this effect will be published within the next days.

Operators need to ensure that the devices used for the relevant UPRT elements will be in full compliance with the applicable requirements by 20 August 2020, at the latest.

[greeners]

(1) for aeroplanes, touring motor gliders and powered-lift aircraft, from the moment an aircraft first moves to taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight

Note: 3 hours is a minimum not a target"

So there it is unless the CAA change their minds in the next 4 days.

Sigh. With the greatest of respect to our illustrious regulators, left hand, meet right hand. EASA have confirmed in an email to me that it is supposed to be 3 hours of ACTUAL UPRT (exactly as specified when I wrote the original requirement as part of EASA RMG.0581) and I relayed this to our ATO Inspector directly. I will re-engage - thanks for the feedback, appreciated.

[greeners]

Exactly.

Sorry. Exactly - what?

[BEagle]

greeners, I concur. In a similar vein, we requested clarification regarding flight time for the aerobatic rating. This was confirmed as 5 hrs of actual aerobatic instruction; taxy, take-off, climb, descent and landing were not included.

(However, IFR time is counted from chock-to-chocks, whereas instrument flight time is actual time flown by sole reference to instruments....:rolleyes: )

[Fl1ingfrog]

greeners, can you define for me how the working group has defined the point at which it is said UPRT is commenced and similarly when it has ended? Examples will help. How is the flight time outside of these specific times to be logged?

I note from an earlier post that the training is to satisfy the pilot's psychological need. This is an expertise way outside of the flight instructor's knowledge. What input to the working group was gained from qualified psychologists who are considered experts in this field?

[TheSkylander]

Hi,
Does anybody knows where is this training endorsed?
Is it on licence, logbook or other papers? How to prove that I went through this training?
I tried to have a look around but I didn't find anything..

Cheers

[BillieBob]

FCL.745.A
(b) Upon completion of the UPRT course, applicants shall be issued with a certificate of completion by the ATO.
In the case of the integrated ATPL(A) course, there is no independent evidence. It is assumed that UPRT has been completed as without it the course would not have been approved.

[greeners]

Hi,
Does anybody knows where is this training endorsed?
Is it on licence, logbook or other papers? How to prove that I went through this training?
I tried to have a look around but I didn't find anything..

As a specialist UPRT provider, we will issue a Certificate of FCL.745.A completion and endorse the logbook - as per the EASA requirement.

[yxcvmnb]

Guys, I might be missing something obvious here as I have not drank my coffee yet, but:

previously the BIFM modules of CPL and IR were the same and we could cross credit them with the BIFM certificate.
Now that CPL BIFM includes basic UPRT, and the IR BIFM remained the same (in regulation), we cant cross credit them anymore?
Or we can cross credit those 10h from IR when starting CPL but do the extra basic UPRT part?

Edit: upon closer inspection it seems like CPL can still be credited with 10h BIFM from IR (as stated in appebdix 3), but how can that be if that does not include basic uprt.
I must be missing something very simple here.

[covec]

Yet more cash to fork out.

Definitely becoming a Rich Geezer’s game.

[djpil]

Sigh. With the greatest of respect to our illustrious regulators, left hand, meet right hand. EASA have confirmed in an email to me that it is supposed to be 3 hours of ACTUAL UPRT (exactly as specified when I wrote the original requirement as part of EASA RMG.0581) and I relayed this to our ATO Inspector directly. I will re-engage - thanks for the feedback, appreciated.Have they joined hands yet?
I’ve been looking around online at courses and I see quite a few (not greeners’ naturally) that are 3 hrs in an aeroplane rather than 3 of actual UPRT.

I’m interested in seeing this clarified for all but I don’t see it?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Was it this one by any chance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLCfVYDV9A

Personally I think the Extra 300 is the worst possible airplane to teach UPRT. I have a few hours in one and can state that it does not fly like any "normal" aircraft. The controls are an order of magnitude more powerful than a normal category aircraft. If you are upside down you can be right side up in about 1/3 of a second. No skill required just slam the stick to one side and immediate centralize it. It is also perfectly symmetrical . The level flight attitude inverted is the same as erect flight

A much better UPRT aircraft IMO is something like a Zlin 242. It has side by side seating, a leisurely roll rate, pretty heavy controls and will have a high inverted descent rate inverted unless a significant nose high attitude is maintained.

In any case UPRT only has lasting benefit if the "push and roll" reflex is automatic. When Iast asked to do an informal UPRT for a PPL who was not interested in aerobatics but had been scared by a wake turbulence encounter the majority of the course concentrated on 2 things, a review of stall recognition and recovery and recovery from more than 90 deg's of bank. After about 3 hours of training we did a "test" flight. No talking from me just me putting the aircraft in random unusual attitudes and having him recover. After that flight we both felt comfortable he could safely deal with any upset. However I told him the true test would be to come back in a year and do the test over to see if the training stuck. I never saw him again, so I have no idea if he in fact still has the muscle memory to save himself.

Like in aerobatics it doesn't matter how good you used to be, it only matters how good you are now. Without regular practice I think a lot of pilots, and regulators are fooling themselves if they think they still have the skills necessary.....

[greeners]

Have they joined hands yet?
I’ve been looking around online at courses and I see quite a few (not greeners’ naturally) that are 3 hrs in an aeroplane rather than 3 of actual UPRT.

I’m interested in seeing this clarified for all but I don’t see it?

No confirmation as yet I'm afraid. I appreciate that despite the response I received directly from the EASA RMG Project Manager confirming that the requirement SHOULD be 3 hours of actual UPRT, we need to get formal confirmation from the CAA.

In the interim we will sadly continue with the uncomfortable and non-level playing field that currently exists. As I understand it, right now Ultimate High (for transparency, my company), CRM Aviation and FPT (the three longest standing UPRT providers) all ensure that their FCL.745.A courses deliver 3 hours of actual UPRT. On-Track, Skyborne, Aviation South West and the BAA show only 3 hours airborne on their website; Leading Edge doesn't specify the flight time. L3H and BCFT insist on 3 hours of actual UPRT, I'm not sure how CAE or Aeros are planning on meeting the 745 requirement yet.

It will be great to get what should be a very straightforward issue resolved prior to professional flight training getting back off the ground.

[greeners]

Personally I think the Extra 300 is the worst possible airplane to teach UPRT. I have a few hours in one and can state that it does not fly like any "normal" aircraft. The controls are an order of magnitude more powerful than a normal category aircraft.


Completely agree - which is why our school doesn't use our Extra 300L for UPRT.

Just as critically, UPRT should ONLY be delivered in an aircraft which has side-by-side seating. Ideally the environment needs to be as similar as possible to the airline cockpit as possible, especially with respect to the CRM aspects of UPRT.

[BillieBob]

Whatever the best intentions of RMG.0581, the unpalatable fact is that the Regulation states only that "3 hours of dual flight instruction" is required on the advanced UPRT course. It really doesn't matter what individual competent authorities think, they are not able to change the Regulation. The UK CAA is quite correct in its interpretation and the inept framing of the requirement means that 3 hours of flight time, as defined by FCL.050, is compliant, if inadequate. This issue demonstrates clearly the fundamental weakness of a system that values bureaucratic pedantry and legal nit-picking above technical expertise. I maintain that EASA represents the biggest threat to flight safety that I have encountered in my 52 years in the aviation industry.

[Fl1ingfrog]

The argument over the 3 hours airbourne instruction vs flight time is specious, it matters little. The syllabus content, poorly prescribed, is more of concern in my view. A maximum duration is not laid down of course. The instructor can and should take the necessary time to ensure that the ATO syllabus in completed fully and the knowledge and skills required are achieved satisfactorily, as with all elements of all training.

[Sepp]

Whatever the best intentions of RMG.0581, the unpalatable fact is that the Regulation states only that "3 hours of dual flight instruction" is required on the advanced UPRT course. It really doesn't matter what individual competent authorities think, they are not able to change the Regulation. The UK CAA is quite correct in its interpretation and the inept framing of the requirement means that 3 hours of flight time, as defined by FCL.050, is compliant, if inadequate. This issue demonstrates clearly the fundamental weakness of a system that values bureaucratic pedantry and legal nit-picking above technical expertise. I maintain that EASA represents the biggest threat to flight safety that I have encountered in my 52 years in the aviation industry.

You are not alone.