Unusual attitudes
The problem is, there are three choices for doing large aircraft UPRT training outside of a pure classroom environment.
(1) A simulator, which provides very poor representation of the physical motion and may well have a flight mechanics model that is at best guessing at the real behaviour of an aeroplane in a severe upset.
(2) A real part 25 aeroplane, which is likely to have a 2.5g structural g-limit, and is eyewateringly expensive to use for pure training purposes.
(3) A light aeroplane, with good aerobatic structural limits, but intertia two orders of magnitude below that of a large widebody, and a cockpit designed for single pilot operations.
Clearly, none of them are a perfect training tool. But, it is reasonable approach to use a light aircraft *if*
(1) It has a cockpit that lends itself to flying as if in a 2-crew part 25
(2) It will respond appropriately to the actions that you would use in a part 25
(3) It has limits that give a reasonable guarantee you won't break it whilst doing so.
This is the approach most UPRT training providers are using. It shouldn't actually matter that, say, the T67M260 I did my training in could be recovered from an upset much more efficiently in a different manner. What matters is that it is representative *enough* of the jet environment.
What I suspect however is not happening is much rigorous work to actually prove that, because nobody amongst either airline managers or training providers really want a robust and defensible answer to that question.
G
(1) A simulator, which provides very poor representation of the physical motion and may well have a flight mechanics model that is at best guessing at the real behaviour of an aeroplane in a severe upset.
(2) A real part 25 aeroplane, which is likely to have a 2.5g structural g-limit, and is eyewateringly expensive to use for pure training purposes.
(3) A light aeroplane, with good aerobatic structural limits, but intertia two orders of magnitude below that of a large widebody, and a cockpit designed for single pilot operations.
Clearly, none of them are a perfect training tool. But, it is reasonable approach to use a light aircraft *if*
(1) It has a cockpit that lends itself to flying as if in a 2-crew part 25
(2) It will respond appropriately to the actions that you would use in a part 25
(3) It has limits that give a reasonable guarantee you won't break it whilst doing so.
This is the approach most UPRT training providers are using. It shouldn't actually matter that, say, the T67M260 I did my training in could be recovered from an upset much more efficiently in a different manner. What matters is that it is representative *enough* of the jet environment.
What I suspect however is not happening is much rigorous work to actually prove that, because nobody amongst either airline managers or training providers really want a robust and defensible answer to that question.
G
The question that must be asked is what are you recovering from and why. 30 years or so ago spinning was removed from the mandatory list of exercises in the PPL/Ab Initio syllabus. There were safety issues with some fatalities having resulted but also it was thought that the spin training did not address the core causes of why pilots were getting into a spin. 'Slow Flight' was introduced but without sufficient clarity or defined purpose. It was, some said, "teaching people to acceptably fly the aeroplane dangerously close to the stall". and the lesson fell in to contempt with those who were against the withdrawal of the full spin recovery training. Others simply struggled to inject a purpose.
The light aircraft that are being used for the UPRT course can be used to investigate the stall but from analysis the slow flight handling has little to do with the extreme 40 degree pitch up reported in many of the large aircraft accident reports. The South Atlantic Air France fatal from the reports would indicate that extensive stall awareness training may have saved the day. Human Factors, TEM and CRM were completely absent in the Air France incident. The causes though can be more often an auto pilot malfunction or the pilot having selected the incorrect mode for the aircraft condition. These scenarios cannot be replicated in relatively simple light aircraft.
The light aircraft that are being used for the UPRT course can be used to investigate the stall but from analysis the slow flight handling has little to do with the extreme 40 degree pitch up reported in many of the large aircraft accident reports. The South Atlantic Air France fatal from the reports would indicate that extensive stall awareness training may have saved the day. Human Factors, TEM and CRM were completely absent in the Air France incident. The causes though can be more often an auto pilot malfunction or the pilot having selected the incorrect mode for the aircraft condition. These scenarios cannot be replicated in relatively simple light aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But we do have a few aerobatics at the airport, and I guess some real flying would be good for me though, since I haven't spun an aircraft since I flew gliders 25 years ago.
So, what was wrong with the way we were taught, and practiced on theRAF when I was a QFI, 1960s.
Speed low or decreasing, add power.
Speed high or increasing , reduce power,
Roll till turn needle comes off stops. ( it was done on limited panel , assumed ah had toppled)
Pull or push til vsi comes off stops, or altimeter reverses.
CHECK, you are NEAR straight and level .
Adjust and trim for level flight.
It worked !
Speed low or decreasing, add power.
Speed high or increasing , reduce power,
Roll till turn needle comes off stops. ( it was done on limited panel , assumed ah had toppled)
Pull or push til vsi comes off stops, or altimeter reverses.
CHECK, you are NEAR straight and level .
Adjust and trim for level flight.
It worked !
The only thing I would add to this is do it gently , smooth power movements , smooth coordinated control inputs ,although you should always be doing that anyhoo .
Perhaps I could add that in the current range of jet transports pilots could rely on the “glass “ ADI, rather than the turn needle, which I believe to be untoppleable, certainly freedom in roll.
But I ask the question, how many pilots fully understand the workings and limits of their instruments.
As IREs in the RAF he had to be able to DRAW the mechanics of them !
For my 23 years of military life UPs (unusual positions) were dealt with by first looking at speed and then applying or removing power as required. This worked really well for all the types I flew but none of them had the massive pitch power couple of modern jets.
When I started my civ career (20+ years ago). I found UPRT really difficult and counterintuitive and it took a while to fully appreciate the strength of that pitch power couple. TBH I still find it slightly counterintuitive (very hard to put aside hard learnt techniques). Fortunately I have Mr Boeing’s Big Book of Aviation (FCTM) and my company derived manual (QRH, manoeuvres section) to guide me so that as a line pilot, TRI, TRE I can fly, instruct and examine in a very simple fashion. Also fortunate is that Mr Boeing’s recoveries are pretty simple:
If you’re stalled, sort that out first.
Pitch to the horizon.
Sort out the subsequent shambles
Use trim if needed but be careful with its use to avoid losing elevator authority.
If you want to, apply bank to assist with lowering the nose.
If nose low, roll wings level before pitching up.
Power is not a priority to start with and may be used to assist pitching if required, so with nose high you may choose to reduce power.
If you’re slow, be very careful with application of power or you risk pitching into a stall.
For more grown up phrasing refer to the 737 recovery in an earlier post, which is pretty much also the 75/76 technique.
Our current sim schedule includes UPRT, on this cycle nose high, with and without bank. Fortunately we have a brand new sim with some nice frozen presets which is making this exercise simple and, I hope, productive.
I don’t work at the light ac end of UPRT training so my insight into suitability of ac is poor, but GtE’s comment s in #62 make sense to me.
HtH, dh
When I started my civ career (20+ years ago). I found UPRT really difficult and counterintuitive and it took a while to fully appreciate the strength of that pitch power couple. TBH I still find it slightly counterintuitive (very hard to put aside hard learnt techniques). Fortunately I have Mr Boeing’s Big Book of Aviation (FCTM) and my company derived manual (QRH, manoeuvres section) to guide me so that as a line pilot, TRI, TRE I can fly, instruct and examine in a very simple fashion. Also fortunate is that Mr Boeing’s recoveries are pretty simple:
If you’re stalled, sort that out first.
Pitch to the horizon.
Sort out the subsequent shambles
Use trim if needed but be careful with its use to avoid losing elevator authority.
If you want to, apply bank to assist with lowering the nose.
If nose low, roll wings level before pitching up.
Power is not a priority to start with and may be used to assist pitching if required, so with nose high you may choose to reduce power.
If you’re slow, be very careful with application of power or you risk pitching into a stall.
For more grown up phrasing refer to the 737 recovery in an earlier post, which is pretty much also the 75/76 technique.
Our current sim schedule includes UPRT, on this cycle nose high, with and without bank. Fortunately we have a brand new sim with some nice frozen presets which is making this exercise simple and, I hope, productive.
I don’t work at the light ac end of UPRT training so my insight into suitability of ac is poor, but GtE’s comment s in #62 make sense to me.
HtH, dh
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, what was wrong with the way we were taught, and practiced on theRAF when I was a QFI, 1960s.
Speed low or decreasing, add power.
Speed high or increasing , reduce power,
Roll till turn needle comes off stops. ( it was done on limited panel , assumed ah had toppled)
Pull or push til vsi comes off stops, or altimeter reverses.
CHECK, you are NEAR straight and level .
Adjust and trim for level flight.
It worked !
Speed low or decreasing, add power.
Speed high or increasing , reduce power,
Roll till turn needle comes off stops. ( it was done on limited panel , assumed ah had toppled)
Pull or push til vsi comes off stops, or altimeter reverses.
CHECK, you are NEAR straight and level .
Adjust and trim for level flight.
It worked !
