More training EASA Fcl.915 UPRT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More training EASA Fcl.915 UPRT
Some additional training to be expected soon:
How will this be enforced? All FI's concerned ? Can somebody predict what the ground course and flight syllabus will include ??
Major schools use advanced trainers like Extra 300's within europe or sending students to the US.
I've heard other schools convinced they can do it in a Diamond DV-20 or Cessna 150...
Any thoughts ??
https://easa.europa.eu/document-libr...nt/npa-2015-13
"FCL.915 General prerequisites and requirements for instructors
(e) Upset recovery instructor training course in an aeroplane.
(1) In addition to (b), in the case of flight instruction privileges for the upset recovery training course in FCL.745.A, the instructor shall:
(i) have completed an upset recovery instructor training course at an ATO; (defined elsewhere as being 5 hours of theoretical training and three hours of on-aircraft training)
(ii) have at least 500 hours of flight time as a pilot on aeroplanes, including 200 hours of flight instruction; and
(iii) hold an aerobatic rating.
(2) The training course shall include the assessment of the instructor’s competence"
How will this be enforced? All FI's concerned ? Can somebody predict what the ground course and flight syllabus will include ??
Major schools use advanced trainers like Extra 300's within europe or sending students to the US.
I've heard other schools convinced they can do it in a Diamond DV-20 or Cessna 150...
Any thoughts ??
https://easa.europa.eu/document-libr...nt/npa-2015-13
"FCL.915 General prerequisites and requirements for instructors
(e) Upset recovery instructor training course in an aeroplane.
(1) In addition to (b), in the case of flight instruction privileges for the upset recovery training course in FCL.745.A, the instructor shall:
(i) have completed an upset recovery instructor training course at an ATO; (defined elsewhere as being 5 hours of theoretical training and three hours of on-aircraft training)
(ii) have at least 500 hours of flight time as a pilot on aeroplanes, including 200 hours of flight instruction; and
(iii) hold an aerobatic rating.
(2) The training course shall include the assessment of the instructor’s competence"
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I agree with using a less ballistic aircraft. How you could conduct UPRT training in an aircraft which is so far removed from the indended type is beyond me. I believe a side by side, tricycle gear aircraft with reasonably subdued handling characteristics is far better (so c150 etc are good).
Negative transfer of training is a real risk here. A perfect world would see this training conducted by airline TRIs with FI/CRI privileges but I don't think that will ever happen.
Negative transfer of training is a real risk here. A perfect world would see this training conducted by airline TRIs with FI/CRI privileges but I don't think that will ever happen.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the best suited aircraft for this role is the Cap 10,
It's handling is superb, power more than adequate and outstanding visibility from the cockpit.
Plus it has got oversized tail surfaces giving crisp control responses at low speeds.
It is clear that UPRT is not aerobatics, but I doubt that a non experienced aerobatic instructor in a non suited aircraft can do a proper job here.
There are many variables involved, and we don't know what the content of the course will be. For reasons detailed below, in my view to be effective training should include spins, recovery from inverted flight, full control deflection slips and skids, and oscillatory stall ( i.e. aggravated stall with full back hoke, allowing the a/c to mush while countering wing drop with rudder, a coordination exercise which come first and foremost in developing spin avoidance).
All these exercises should be done at safe altitudes, with a/c equipped with inverted flight/oil systems and oversized tail surfaces to allow for handling in these configurations
The issue about spinning, an issue which will never be resolved.
Is spin training useful?
In my experience yes, and I will try to briefly explain you why:
Spin training will remove the buffer that there is between slow flight and the unknown, by doing so for most pilots it will expose them to principles like situational awareness, vertical and radial accelerations, spatial orientation.
To be effective spin training must be done in stages, many missions are required, pilots must gradually depart from the "survival mode" they will be in at the first,
clinging to the controls till the completion of the maneuver, to gradually loosen up and get the situational awareness and do away with the sensory overload which is crippling at first. The aim is to do at least 3 turns to acquire an appropriate exposure.
But the most likely benefit incurred will be the one which no one ever talks about,
a taboo in aviation, crippling so many pilots which has to do with training and not with issues inherent to pilots themselves: Fear, which is the leprosy of aviation.
By exposing yourself as a pilot to spins, and possible to recovery from inverted flight which will be deadly, if one follows it's instincts ( i.e. to pull on the yoke), every pilot will will be exposed to principles that will greatly enhance handling abilities, instilling confidence and skills to taclke many situations.
Slow flight will improve, fear of the unknown will be mitigated, and that mental blockage often followed by motion paralysis generated by fear, responsible for many accidents, will be done away with
This is the way I see it, I doubt and TRI / CRI without the relevant experience will do a good job. There will likely be opposition on grounds of costs, some pilots not able to tackle with it at risk of not getting their endorsement, and regulatory bodies, often lawyers not pilots, definitely in EASA land, unable to grasp the issue altogether.
I doubt this will ever happen
It's handling is superb, power more than adequate and outstanding visibility from the cockpit.
Plus it has got oversized tail surfaces giving crisp control responses at low speeds.
It is clear that UPRT is not aerobatics, but I doubt that a non experienced aerobatic instructor in a non suited aircraft can do a proper job here.
There are many variables involved, and we don't know what the content of the course will be. For reasons detailed below, in my view to be effective training should include spins, recovery from inverted flight, full control deflection slips and skids, and oscillatory stall ( i.e. aggravated stall with full back hoke, allowing the a/c to mush while countering wing drop with rudder, a coordination exercise which come first and foremost in developing spin avoidance).
All these exercises should be done at safe altitudes, with a/c equipped with inverted flight/oil systems and oversized tail surfaces to allow for handling in these configurations
The issue about spinning, an issue which will never be resolved.
Is spin training useful?
In my experience yes, and I will try to briefly explain you why:
Spin training will remove the buffer that there is between slow flight and the unknown, by doing so for most pilots it will expose them to principles like situational awareness, vertical and radial accelerations, spatial orientation.
To be effective spin training must be done in stages, many missions are required, pilots must gradually depart from the "survival mode" they will be in at the first,
clinging to the controls till the completion of the maneuver, to gradually loosen up and get the situational awareness and do away with the sensory overload which is crippling at first. The aim is to do at least 3 turns to acquire an appropriate exposure.
But the most likely benefit incurred will be the one which no one ever talks about,
a taboo in aviation, crippling so many pilots which has to do with training and not with issues inherent to pilots themselves: Fear, which is the leprosy of aviation.
By exposing yourself as a pilot to spins, and possible to recovery from inverted flight which will be deadly, if one follows it's instincts ( i.e. to pull on the yoke), every pilot will will be exposed to principles that will greatly enhance handling abilities, instilling confidence and skills to taclke many situations.
Slow flight will improve, fear of the unknown will be mitigated, and that mental blockage often followed by motion paralysis generated by fear, responsible for many accidents, will be done away with
This is the way I see it, I doubt and TRI / CRI without the relevant experience will do a good job. There will likely be opposition on grounds of costs, some pilots not able to tackle with it at risk of not getting their endorsement, and regulatory bodies, often lawyers not pilots, definitely in EASA land, unable to grasp the issue altogether.
I doubt this will ever happen
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem with tha cap 10 is that it is a tail wheel and again very far removed from the intended type of aircraft for the student.
Whilst I agree spinning is important I don't fully agree that students need to have fully developed spin recovery training (and the AMC states that only incipient are required). I cannot remember the last time a jet crashed in a spin and therefore the incipient stage should be sufficient to train recognition of a developing spin. I do however fully agree that anyone considering aerobatics should have full spin training as a minimum.
The proposed amendments seem sensible to a certain extent however there is a proposed instructor pre-entry flight test which I feel is a little over the top. The Assessment of Competence at course conclusion seems well thought out.
Interested to see how it develops.
Whilst I agree spinning is important I don't fully agree that students need to have fully developed spin recovery training (and the AMC states that only incipient are required). I cannot remember the last time a jet crashed in a spin and therefore the incipient stage should be sufficient to train recognition of a developing spin. I do however fully agree that anyone considering aerobatics should have full spin training as a minimum.
The proposed amendments seem sensible to a certain extent however there is a proposed instructor pre-entry flight test which I feel is a little over the top. The Assessment of Competence at course conclusion seems well thought out.
Interested to see how it develops.
