EASA Uprt-Loc update
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA Uprt-Loc update
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: N/A
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Last edited by Rivet gun; 9th Dec 2019 at 15:54.
FCL.745.A is not a prerequisite to ATPL issue […]
(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!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..!?!?!
I understand it may be a pre-requisite for ATPL issue but is actually a pre-req for a type rating..!?!?!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Rivet gun; 9th Dec 2019 at 21:07.
N4790P
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.
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.
Whilst I doubt FFSs are likely to fall apart, I concur fully about the UPRT circus and the industry it has spawned.
de minimus non curat lex
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?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Last edited by markkal; 10th Dec 2019 at 15:34.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
(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.
Last edited by Rivet gun; 10th Dec 2019 at 16:48.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
It is however recommended that advanced UPRT instructors hold an aerobatic rating or similar experience.
Was it this one by any chance?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Rivet gun; 11th Dec 2019 at 19:24.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 12th Dec 2019 at 14:52.