Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > North America
Reload this Page >

About real stall and Upset training

North America Still the busiest region for commercial aviation.

About real stall and Upset training

Old 19th Jun 2015, 13:52
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Washstate
Age: 79
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking About real stall and Upset training

Airlines Put Pilots in a Real Spin in New Training Initiative
Delta, SAA among airlines worried about erosion of manual-flying skills

This in the WSJ -
..
By Andy Pasztor
Updated June 19, 2015 6:43 a.m. ET


LE BOURGET, France--The latest trend in training pilots to fly commercial jets features the practicing of extreme maneuvers in small, propeller-powered aircraft.

Using a technique unheard of until recently, carriers such as Delta Air Lines Inc. and South African Airways are sending some of their most experienced flight instructors back to flight school to learn how to recognize and recover from airborne upsets.

Goes on but behind paywall- I would expect more of this to be in news
SAMPUBLIUS is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 21:39
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: ask me tomorrow
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Insurance companies are offering a discount on premium if the operators send their pilots to them. I like the concept, but the older veteran pilots I know aren't too keen about getting tossed around in an Extra 300 just because the brass thinks it will make them safer. In their opinion- 300 hour Scarebus F.O. yes, 10,000 hr ex-military or came up in the U.S. flying pistons, no.
Geosync is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2015, 12:23
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Around
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Using a technique unheard of until recently, carriers such as Delta Air Lines Inc. and South African Airways are sending some of their most experienced flight instructors back to flight school to learn how to recognize and recover from airborne upsets.
Ba ha ha ha, "unheard of" yeah except for every pilot who has so much as soloed or has over 20 hours of flight time.

Gotta love media always screwing up any story that has jack to do with aviation.

Heck, I had full spin training and full stall training before I even soloed as a student pilot.

As a CFI I do the same with my students (spins only if the plane is certified for em), plus I do falling leaf stalls.

If you can't reconiginze and recover from a stall you should just hang it up.
James331 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 15:06
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You will see a lot more emphasis on this in the next couple of years but but no later the 2019

The FAA and Congress have mandated "extended envelope training" for all Part 121 operators. This is not just another unusual attitude training module but recovery from full stalls, bounced landings and a whole lot more. The immediate problem is the lack of simulator capability. Boeing has the engineering data that can be programmed into the sims now. There is some question whether or not Airbus has all the data needed at this time? Regardless look for some new and much welcomed training in the near future.

This is a multi million dollar added training program so expect the unexpected.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 17:53
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Qatar
Age: 68
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arrow

" Boeing has the engineering data that can be programmed into the sims now"

That's the bulls..t of the century !!!! There is no way it can be introduced into sims - and one of the first reason is that no experimental test pilot, along with the manufacturers, will try those manoeuvers with airliner prototypes ! so how could you confirm the data ?

Already for fighter aircraft, it's always, by obligation, partial and uncomplete flight testing regarding loss of control and departures (look at the F15, which had to be sent back to a flight test program for spin testing something 20 years after its first flight !)

Coming from Boeing, we have been used to the worst in terms of communication (remember the Sonic Cruiser, or the flight test program of the 787 " to be run like an airline" but this time we reached the deepest point .. ! )
Reinhardt is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 18:41
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rienhart, I'm so sorry for your condition and thought process. Boeing does have data available. End of story. You can go back to your Airbus logic any time now.

Suggest you down load AC120-111 for starters and learn something about the issues before spout off on something you obviously know little about.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2015, 04:42
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Qatar
Age: 68
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arrow

Typical - for an american "pilot", if you disagree with him (or with Boeing, the supreme overlord of those people) it's because you are "Airbus" (and why not Russian also ?)
Never wondered by the way the Airbus-330 tanker has won all the international compétitions so far, facing the Boeing 767 ? (excepting USAF, where it won twice until the competition process was ... let's say "abandoned" )
I'm not Airbus, never flew their products - and regarding stall, upsets and various loss of controls, you can't figure where I come from because it's such a different world from yours
So once again, Airbus, Boeing, or Tupolev, there is no way loss of control data can be fitted into simulators, that's pure physic...
Reinhardt is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2015, 12:58
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bangalore
Age: 66
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Deep Stall practices in Airbus simulators

we are doing stall and abnormal attitude recovery training in Airbus Simulators be 320 pr 330. Infact it is mandatory to practice and be endorsed during the Proficiency checks.I do not know where did you get the idea that these can not be simulated. Yes in military we did actual super stall and recovery in delta winged fighters like Mig 21s. But you can not do that in big civil airliners. But the test pilots in prototypes do that.
Expressions is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2015, 14:43
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let me see four posts and it's a battle between AB and Boeing. Surprised..not. Add someone with a closed mid like Commander and it turns into a insulting race baiting free for all. I bet flying a three day trip with Commander R is like a month in hell.

My comments regarding simulator data loads was from a CAE rep not Boeing or Airbus.

Not to worry though as this training does not apply to your operations yet. Probably could have used it in the AF330 accident though. Just a thought.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2015, 18:17
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Expressions - you are not doing A320 or A330 stall recovery work. You're sitting in a A320 or A330 simulator that someone, who has probably never stalled an A320 or A330, has programmed to behave in a manner HE thinks the plane will respond. Never mind that both Boeing and Airbus test pilots have said current simulator modeling in the stall or high altitude upset regime doesn't accurately simulate how their respective aircraft respond. Hmm, think about that for a second.

Boeing and Airbus test pilots HAVE agreed to a generic simulator model for simulating stalling narrow body airliners. They said the generic n/b model does NOT replicate w/b post stall reactions.

AW&ST has had several articles in the last year or two on this subject. Based on the Boeing and Airbus agreement on the generic post stall simulator model we can expect to see it being implemented into future training requirements.

No simulator will be able to replicate the G loads of actual flight or the full range of human emotions that might occur.

Last edited by misd-agin; 18th Jul 2015 at 18:18. Reason: typos
misd-agin is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2015, 22:44
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: coming to a bar near you
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hmm, get to do "re-medial" training in an Extra 300 and someone else is paying the bill.

Think I will need a few more hours than the average student.
thedude1 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2015, 00:49
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Age: 34
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No idea what to put as a title

I think spin recovery is a very good idea. Being able to recognise the difference between a spiral dive and a spin is a matter of life and death. The wrong correction could be devastating. I believe CAEOAA has made spin recovery mandatory. This might be an EASA rule but it's late and my memory is.... Ummm....
The issue is that unless the airlines keep up the training what OAA does will be pointless because you will probably be in a spin 20 years after you did the 4 hours in training.
Lets Aviat is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2015, 06:50
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Qatar
Age: 68
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arrow

misd-agin, thank you very much in helping me with my points - I was about to say exactly that, but you wrote it before !
Spooky 2 :
"My comments regarding simulator data loads was from a CAE rep "
He was obviously an excellent salesman for his (future) products, as I can see... but Boeing can always supply CAE with lines of sofware, it will not mean they are for real...
Test pilots on airliners will experiment stalls and departures from controlled flights, on a very incremental basis, and up (or down !) to a certain point, which will be the subject of very long discussions, and will probably move a little bit forward during the flight test program. After this point, it will be a definite "no" (the industry doesn't want to lose prototypes, and flight test crew don't want to die... so it will remain unknown territory (until some pilots start to explore it, at their own risks) The whole flight test, certification and subsequent airines SOPs are made to prevent this situation to occur.
Therefore how could you program something you have no idea about the way it will be in reality ? unfortunately typical of new-generations, without hard scientific background, having just some absolute faith in computers by looking at their various apps and screens all-day long (computer does say it, so it's right...)
I remember close to 30 years ago, a very elaborate fighter simulator, full-motion, outside picture, with inflating g-suit and seat-cushion to simulate the g forces, on which we could perform the spin entry manoeuver (which was forbidden on real aircraft, as it was not a trainer but a combat aircraft, one class above) - so after that the sim was rocking violently in all the directions and axes, and by fighting it a little bit we could proceed out, except... that we knew the behaviour of the "aircraft" didn't mean anything realistic (or maybe it was from time to time, but nobody could confirm it) On that specific aircraft, maybe 12 spins had been done for real during the test program in the 70s, and everybody did agree that was all, enough of it !
Spooky 2, I have been operating somewhere above LA, in a place called "high desert", does it ring a bell to you ?
So... Expressions :
"But the test pilots in prototypes do that" NO, NO and NO
Also the Mig 21 is not really a delta, as far as I know.... it does feature a tail, doesn'it ?
"this training does not apply to your operations yet. Probably could have used it in the AF330 accident though" I'm at pain trying to figure what you mean. I think you rush to assumptions with the few data available to you. Once again, typical

Now airline pilots will rock their shoulders for years after having been through three, maybe four hours of aerobatics with an instructor (don't even imagine being solo) ... better than nothing of course, except they will remain what they are

Lets aviat, excellent point - training, then a real event maybe some 20 years after, what's the point ?
Reinhardt is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2015, 07:53
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Spooky 2
. This is not just another unusual attitude training module but recovery from full stalls, bounced landings and a whole lot more.
Yeah, had to laugh at this. The simulator we use has landing "characteristics" which don't even vaguely resemble how the real airplane lands. It is possible to learn how to land the simulator reasonably competently, but it requires a technique that is simply not applicable to the real airplane. Having done stalls (to the buffet) in the real plane, I can also report that the simulator flies quite differently in a stall recovery than the real airplane.

FWIW, it's a CAE simulator. So, you can count me among those who aren't impressed.
A Squared is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2015, 14:58
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A Squared, the CAE sim is generally considered the best in the industry.. to date. AK experience with it may vary but compared to some other offerings CAE is held in high regard It's likely that any existing sims will extensive modification both mechanical and through software to emulate what is proposed. Don't shoot the messenger, as I don't have a dog in the fight. I do have some knowledge regarding Boeing and what they are capable of.


Boeing does not purchase any CAE sims these days. When CAE stated that they were the official supplier to Airbus, Boeing gave them the finger. Very short sighted IMO.

I don't make the rules but rather just reporting on the developments as they happen. FWIW I like riding on the Bus but have experience flying it, or at least noe that I would admit on a public forum


As for Commander Reinhart your on my ignore list. Way to much BS. High desert? No way they would let anyone so full of himself near the place. The temps in Doah must be getting to you.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2015, 15:07
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Spooky, that wasn't intended to disparage CAE necessarily, rather to point out that even though CAE is top tier, there are limits in what simulators can simulate.
A Squared is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2015, 17:10
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes and your point is well taken. They are going to some very lengths to get to where the sims can emulate something close enough that the FAA will sign off. Sim experts of which I am not, are working towards this goal. Some things such as G loads will never be the same but other parameters are achievable or at least they think they are.

Did you take a look at AC120-111 and AC120-109 as these are the first baby steps towards that goal.

I would imagine a company that sets high standards for their pilot training, like AK would be a the forefront of the 737NG program.

Last edited by Spooky 2; 19th Jul 2015 at 22:33.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2015, 14:56
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I almost hate to post this after the least round of comments but just to keep the civil conversation alive here is some additional information and while somewhat dated ( 2013), it seems to address some of our earlier concerns.


FAA, NASA And Industry Team To Improve Stall Simulation | Not in Use content from Aviation Week
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2015, 20:27
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reinhard

Unfortunately, (based upon what you've written so far) it's obvious you are out of touch and misinformed about simulation and its capabilities, I'm shocked. Especially if you sit in a modern full flight simulator on any regular basis. You might also consider speaking with an actual Boeing or Airbus Flight Test Pilot regarding stalls beyond the g break before you post additional erroneous comments.

Aircraft manufacturers make available recorded flight data packages for a number of simulator manufacturers regarding their products. Companies like CAE pay huge sums of money for those data packages and install them in simulators, including specific approach-to-stall characteristics up to the g break, for the type being simulated. Simulator manufacturers don't make it up. You are correct in saying that the behavior beyond the stall angle is at best, nothing more than computer guess work for something that isn't programmed into the simulation computer program. Any maneuver beyond the stall is invalid rubbish. But that could change in the near future.

I was a member of the SPAW ARC that looked into this Stall, Upset Recovery which included discussions regarding the simulated stall capabilities of simulators and to that point in time there was no requirement for simulator manufacturers to provide modelling beyond the g break. The NSP reps recommended that simulators should be capable of providing data "just beyond the break" (or stall) to be able to provide the required stall recovery training to account for pilots who may react slowly to shaker and actually enter the stalled regime momentarily.

Airline pilots training to recover from fully developed stalls is a waste of time and money. Not to mention it is the result of idiotic regulators requiring it without sufficient industry input. T-tail aircraft in fully developed stalls are unrecoverable. Negative training! Yes?

The manufacturer I work for has collected data beyond the g break, including stall recovery data and this data can be easily included in an updated data package for any of our aircraft types, if simulator manufacturers request it. There was never a requirement for this data till now.

As for the particular stall characteristics of a specific type, it is based on the data the manufacturers provide for simulation of their products. That data is collected during certification of the aircraft, so it isn't BS. It's fact. Outside of required tuning, such as a landing flare and touchdown, simulated turbulence, etc., the simulation is as close as it gets to the real thing so, maybe you should do some research into simulation if you wish to contribute to the conversation?
Feel free to ask me a question. I'd be glad to clarify some of your misconceptions.
For a clearer idea of what is required for airliners, have a read through FAR 25 and Part 61.
For example, no simulator or simulation is expected or required to be a 100% replica of the aircraft simulated. Surprised?

Where you got the idea that this is the greatest BS of the century only illustrates how misinformed you are.

A Squared

Sounds like the simulator you are using needs tuning.
The landing flare and touchdown can be tuned to more accurately reflect your aircraft if the people responsible for that sims' certification are willing to do so.
Simple solution to a fixable issue.
Just curious...
How did you determine the aircraft stall recovery characteristics were quite different to the simulator? Stall buffet doesn't necessarily count. I'd suggest you need to go beyond the g break to make a subjective comparison. Most simulators don't go beyond that so the data is simply a computer guessing based on data it doesn't have. GIGO, as they say. Otherwise, WYSIWYG.
Simulator buffet characteristics are collected data provided by the manufacturer from the actual aircraft. This data is then compared using a qualification test guide (QTG), if the X, Y plots match when compared to the actual test data, then you could say the opinion of the pilot in training should be disregarded, or at least compared to the actual data recorded on the day when it was actually flown by the test pilot. Therefore, my question...
Did you actually stall the aircraft then compare it to the simulated behavior?

***

The lack of g force in a modern FFS is stating nothing but the obvious. There is no need for it despite calls for it. Like Upset Prevention and Recovery Training, we don't need to provide this in a simulator but, if we do, what we have today is adequate. UPRT should be a licence or certificate requirement, not a Part 121 AC or regulation. CALSPAN and APS provide excellent UPRT. This is NOT the same as aerobatic training. They are clever enough at what they do to know the difference between the two and what UPRT looks like. Because it is partially provided in an Epic aerobatic aeroplane doesn't mean it's irrelevant or a waste of time. It should be quite valuable training for airline pilots but, as I've already pointed out, perhaps at the CPL level.

Always offering free opinions.
Willie

Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 29th Jul 2015 at 00:48.
Willie Everlearn is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2015, 18:26
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Willie, thanks for sharing your knowledge and insight. It's always easy to blow this off as just another unusual attitude module when in fact when finished it will significantly different than anything previous.

Keep up the good work
Spooky 2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.