well mate..the FAA and NTSB seemed to disagree.......typical east crap

You are the only person on the face of this earth that thinks they wouldn't have applied max power as any normal pilot would have before ditching. The FAA doesn't believe it, just you. Have a nice life.

Reading 'Handling the big jets' is a start, but no substitute for experience. Simulator upset training has value, but again it's not like being in a real aircraft acheiving more extreme attitudes.

I'm sometimes suprised by the fact that many of my colleagues with tens of thousands of hours have never seen an angle of bank over 90 degrees. Having been bought up on a diet of visual and IF UPs (unusual positions) both as a student and an instructor in the military, my advice to those who haven't tried it is to go out there, find a school with an aerobatic aircraft and go and enjoy yourself for a few hours. You owe it to yourself - amd your passengers! What's more, you will become a better pilot and make yourself just that little bit safer. As a long time Airbus FBW pilot, I'm aware that my skills have been dulled down over the years. I make sure that I stay in touch with real flying by doing a few hours of 'real' upside down style flying each year.

Jet Upset Recovery
 

From personal experience, it depends on the time you have to deal with the upset, the more the better!

Manual flying skills are essential. A good pilot should be able to hand fly the aircraft from take-off to maximum cruising altitude and back to landing, to the same degree of accuracy as the Autopilot.

The"feel" of the aircraft in the seconds before the upset may give the pilot flying some information as to the reason why the aircraft has gone out of control.


As long as human flight crews are used in Aviation, manual flying skills should be practiced and kept at the highest order, for the safety of all concerned.

Tmb

You have a good point, of course. But the big jet loss of control accidents were caused primarily by poor instrument flying skills and in IMC or at night with no visible horizon. In other words, poor instrument flying got the crew into trouble in the first place and the same lack of instrument flying skills caused their inability to recover from extreme attitudes on instruments in IMC.

Anyone can learn to do daylight VMC aerobatics in a light aircraft certified for aeros but I suggest that very few are in a position or aircraft type to do them on instruments where you cannot peek outside. This is where full flight simulators are better for IMC unusual attitude recovery training on instruments than a light trainer aircraft.

Use the same aircraft (with an appropriate instrument panel) and do follow-up aero work at night. From experience, that is a big confidence builder, but build up to it and you can be safe. The idea is to expand your comfort zone.

Doing night intercepts over the waters West of Key West, was a challenge. Stars above-lights from the shrimp boats below.

Upset recovery training is important but equally, I think, is to use your situational awareness to avoid getting into a situation in the first place.

(I fly the Airbus, I don't know about the 737) Don't fly above optimum alt on the fmgc, ensure you program it properly in the first place, wind, tropo and OAT - update tropo and OAT enroute and if the optimum decreases as it might sometimes then descend with it.

Slow down promptly when you encouter turb., coming back from say 0.79 to .77 will give you a lot more margin if the tx suddenly worsens. If you expect a significant change in wind in the first few thousand feet of descent or tx has been reported or forecast then slow down a decimal point or two at top of descent and then speed up again once the margin is greater and you are through the questionable layer.

Don't push you luck with CB's - use the bloody wx radar correctly! Years ago, just out of line training I was a very inexperienced FO and trucking back north across croatia etc from a med charter we were imc at FL340 and in continual moderate turb, the a/c (321) was struggling to maintain the speed and we were vunerable to any worsening. Suddenly came out into a clear patch and surprise surprise we were in the middle of a line of thunderstorms, the capt had the wx radar on zero tilt and only showing greens, but we were of course just looking at ice in the tops, he turned it down 2 degrees on my suggestion and low and behold and whole pretty picture of reds and yellows etc. I still feel we were lucky that evening. I have never let a radar sit at zero in the cruise again - and many people leave it like that.

Lastly, use tcas and contrails, particularly in v busy airspace like western Europe to keep track of wake, its easy to do if you put a bit of thought into it. ATC over western europe are pretty good at wake separation but not perfect and I have asked many times for 5 degrees left or right to avoid wake.

If all of that means you take an extra minute or even 5 to destination, so what? I agree that we probably need more upset training but I'd rather we avoided the situations in the first place.

My tuppence for what its worth.

Upset training
 

DW: What a really sensible and realistic posting. As a student, and later a QFI/IRE , I had very early exposure in the RAF to UPs (Unusual Positions) UNDER THE HOOD , and of course using only untoppleable instruments (Turn indicator plus pressure instruments) and frankly it was a lesson for life, rather like being taught to swim at an early age.

After a long career on many kinds of aircraft from gliders to heavy jets I sincerely believe that all pilots should have a sound knowledge and be trained in how to regain control of their aircraft, whatever size or type, from ANY recoverable position. After all the principles are much the same whatever the type.*

As well as upsets in large transport aircraft that also includes spin training for PPL courses, and at an early stage of training for professional licences, but with considerable emphasis on early recognition and prompt recovery at the incipient stage, recovery from which often leaves the aircraft in a UP, two birds with one stone !! !

I gather that EASA and the FAA disagree on the latter point !


* Just referred to my copy of Big Jets given to us on day 1 of joining BOAC :

Sort out the speed.
Correct roll angle.
THEN Pull or push to the horizon
exactly what we taught in the RAF for UP recovery !

wings11 - generally a good post to guys going from big pistons to heavy jets - but I got to say I am not sure your statement " coming back from say 0.79 to .77 will give you a lot more margin if the tx suddenly worsens". That is - at a max - 3 knots IAS - hardly think that gives alot more margin.

@CDRW: Think again! 3 KIAS will correspond to 10-15 KTAS, depending primariliy on altitude, and then on some other things. What you are looking for is to fly an (indicated) speed somewhere near the middle of high and low speed buffet.

Money
 

It all has to do with money. Once upon a time pilots were picked/sacked/bashed/kicked out/selected/graduated in function of real skills as both airlines and the military did'nt need so many of them. Today virtually anyone with enough cash and time available can become an airline pilot:{. It is not politically correct to say that a candidate/young pilot is below average. The center of interest of many youngsters I see flying is more on the latest version of their FMS than on correctly decrabbing the jet at roundout or using their thrust levers for their initial purpose: power ! Keeping a correct speed as near as possible to the bug is not essential: we have autothrottles or autothrust, handflying ?? Are you crazy ? we have an autopilot and you are supposed to use it to the maximum extent ! Looking outside the window ? half of young pilots are already blind at the age of 20...Can you blame them ? Surely not: they adapt to the system and the system is happy they're not asking questions :ok:
To answer one of the questions of the post: Yes, pilots are becoming airline agents, just the same as ground agents, gate agents....system controlers...but that's an industry desire, not a pilot request if you ask me....:=
It's a personal constant fight to let not my skills erode with time as less and less opportunities exist to keep them :uhoh:

pakeha-boy - NTSB said the engines were incapable of producing thrust to maintain flight. Page 81 of the report, page 98/213 of the pdf, Section 2.2.3.2 Engine Core Damage

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/aar1003.pdf

Old rule - the first guy has to get ridiculed and the second guy gets the credit.

AA CA Warren Vanderburgh developed Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program at American Airlines in 1997. Given a Flight Safety Award in 2000 for his work.

NTSB found AAMP partially at fault for the 2001 AA 587 crash.

Ten years later the circle is coming around once again.

TAS is never more than double the IAS; most times for airline type aeroplanes below 40k, 70% extra.

Waspy, glad to see that the answer to any problem posed on PPRuNe remains to kick the young. Must be their fault. No one had irrecoverable upsets in my day. :bored:

Sims for UP Recovery Training.
 

About a decade ago towards the end of my 73 "classic" sim conversion syllabus, we did some UP recovery training in the "box", owned and run by a major British airline.

Great fun and somewhat informative despite the lack of "g" and dirty laundry factor.

Some time later at another session I asked to use up the spare time at the end of a OPC session by practising UPs and recoveries, same company and simulator.

The answer was a definite NO. The reason was attributed to the complaints from the simulator engineers that our manoeuvres were placing abnormal stresses on the motion hydraulic jacks and structure and cracks were either detected or feared.

Can anyone cast any light on whether this was the real reason this exercise was dropped from the menu?

Re hand flying the real aircraft, my previous (now defunct) airline actually had a statement in the Ops Manual Part A saying "it is unlawful to hand fly above 10,000 feet", probably due to an altitude bust alleged to have occurred to one of the movers and shakers of that company. Other colleagues in that and another airline say it is forbidden to hand fly in RVSM airspace, so I presume I'll just have to eject if the A/P goes phut at cruise altitude?! The MEL is vague regarding u/s A/Ps, the wording seems to revolve around "must be a least one altitude holding capability" (F/Ds?) or similar wooly wording.

I thought the average pilot instrument rating included the requirement to fly S&L to well within RVSM limits, so is management going to accept my diversion on departure from Egypt to Europe due to cruising below RVSM flight levels and running low on fuel as a result? Though me and my oppo in the flight deck are tested as capable of such S&L flight, the written guidance on this issue is alas vague in the companies for whom I have flown, so I would appreciate any constructive input on the topic from those who can quote HARD FACTS please.

So is it any wonder that the pilot community as a whole are suffering from a lack of handling skills, even before the bean-counters via the training empires are pushing automatics for economy reasons? :sad:

Don't know about your company's decision but in the full flight simulator we used for UA training, it is obvious the hydraulic jacks take a beating at attitudes well beyond those used in 60 bank angle steep turns - although 45 degrees is OK. Because the G fidelity in terms of G manoeuvres is not available it is common practice to go off-motion for UA recovery practice.

As the purpose is mainly practice at flight instrument scanning IMC when in a UA, then it makes no real difference in the recovery technique whether the simulator is on or off motion.

We used to do recoveries from unusual attitudes on primary instruments under the hood in the Hunter Trainer. The instructor would hurl the aircraft about and then hand over. As you took over he would press the 'g' suit test switch! Very disorientating.

Hand Flying Real Aircraft.
 

Thank you A37575, as I suspected the sims were being damaged. Fair enough, so we switch the motion off and use it as a fixed base trainer, which would be useful to practise techniques.

I would prefer to use "Speed, bank, pitch" in that order, rather than Mr Boeing's long winded non-recall checklist, whilst recognising the effect of thrust/pitch with underslung engines.

Now I eagerly await from those in the know, the chapter & verse on hand flying, either S&L or climbing/descending, in RVSM airspace. Obviously some unlucky colleagues have had to do this for real as quoted in another posting re a 73NG whose A/Ps went on strike. I'm just keen to find the legal/regulatory position on this one should the kit go u/s down route with all the associated aggro and expense.

As I said, the references available to me and others are at best ambiguous. :confused:

My AIP is quite clear:

The only way to do it. :ok:

Two contracts ago, I had the pleasure to fly with pilots from all over the world. Probably at least 30 countries, if not more. I learned a lot.

Training and "habits" are very standard in the west, including N and S America, and Europe. Even the way most of us flew. Even on the A320, most pilots would take off and hand fly until stabilized at climb speed on an assigned heading, or to a fix. On approach if the wx was bad, or we were busy, we would use the AP a lot, but usually would turn it off between 1-5000' agl if the weather was good.

Most pilots from Asia are taught to use the autopilot to the maximum extent possible. 100' agl on takeoff, AP on. 500' agl on landing. Every single flight. There are a lot of old TRE's on airbuses that still teach this, and to fly "Managed" descents almost exclusively. When they get a vector off the arrival, they have no idea how to calculate and monitor a descent.

I believed Airbus has changed their tune, and recommend hand flying for the past few years.

A lot of airlines in Asia require the use of autothrottles as SOP. Even a few big ones where the flight department is run by expats.

UA training in a sim should be required, but I fully agree that it is not enough. You need some initial training to get the spatial stimulus. AF447 should have never happened.

At the end of the day, the companies are always trying to reduce costs, including training costs. In the US, we had 4 hull losses at regional airlines in the last decade that should never have happened, including one high altitude stall to a crash. The response at the FAA was to require airlines to raise the minimums for FO's to 1500 hours. Great, but in 2014 when that law kicks in, they will soon find that they cannot fill their cockpits.

For pilots, it is our responsibility to maintain our own basic handling skills. When I flew long haul on 767 and 777's a lot of us would take off and hand fly to final cruising altitude, as we only got a few legs a month. We had to take the opportunity we had. Can't go all the way now because of RVSM (AP required).

The young Kennedy, not qualified in IMC, unable to interpret his instruments, dove into the sea off Martha's Vinyard. The rare accidents attributable to loss of control in major public transport aircraft take place at night or in IMC, possibly because the ASI is unreliable, or the pilot, startled, takes inappropriate action on the controls. Or the pilot is unable to understand what the instruments are telling him.

Training on the simulator in full motion is so hard on the hydraulics that the engineers would rather shut the function down. Managing a big jet with all that inertia is not really as easy as speed/bank/pitch in a smaller craft. How can new pilots be given the right training so that even when startled, they don't pull instead of push.....

Please, all readers, check out the ICATEE website. Just Google it. When ICAO approve it, it will solve most of the problems raised on this topic.

4Greens, can you pm me please? I've read the ICATEE prospectus and have a few questions....

Mary

I posted the reference to Handling the Big jets circa 1967 because it was as relevant then as it is now. I flew the Trident with trainers who used the autopilot as much as possible and auto throttle was mandatory except with an engine failure when it was not allowed to be used as uncertified.
Our chief instructor had a reputation which was enhanced during his 1011 transition as he used the autopilot as much as possible. Basically the guy who wrote the manual either couldn't fly or was frightened of flying manually.
Until you educate or change those at the top it will still be talked about in another 45 years....fortunately I won't be about to say I told you so.

Mary,

Please contact ICATEE direct. It is possible via the website.

Glad to find somone who is interested in a positive training outcome.

JFK jr did in fact crash because of spacial disorientation. He screwed up and we all know it.

For pilots, it is our responsibility to maintain our own basic handling skills. When I flew long haul on 767 and 777's a lot of us would take off and hand fly to final cruising altitude, as we only got a few legs a month. We had to take the opportunity we had. Can't go all the way now because of RVSM (AP required).




Actually, I believe in RVSM AP is only required to be engaged during cruise flight.

Why any airline would require autopilot being on during 98 % of the flight only says their pilots can't fly without it. I flew with three airlines and none required it to be on at all. I guess I am lucky to be retired now and not have to deal with it. 95% of my flying is with an airline that has not hired in 10 years so don't have to worry about it yet. Yes, I know about the new separation rules.

Much depends not only on the specific policy in the company operations manual but also the captains personal enthusiasm for hand flying. If a company mandates automatics from liftoff to touch down, there is nothing you can do about it unless you want to risk your job.

It was 52 years ago when David Davies wrote his book "Handling the Big Jets" yet it remains arguably one of the most readable books on airmanship for airline pilots ever written. One memorable paragraph in the book that has always struck a chord with this reader, is where Davies wrote: "Airline flying really is money for old rope most of the time; but when things get hairy then you earn your pay. As we get older we all become slightly jaded, slightly more tired - and this is a bit of a trap. The demand of jet transport flying can best be met by enthusiasm. Personal enthusiasm for the job is beyond value because it is a self-productive force, and those who have it do not have to be pushed into practice and the search for knowledge. Enthusiasm generates its own protection. This is the frame of mind which needs to be developed for the best execution of the airline pilot's task."

D.P Davies added: "Finally, do not be lazy in your professional lives. The autopilot is a great comfort, so are the flight director and the approach coupler. But do not get into the position where you need these devices to complete the flight. Keep in practice in raw ILS, particularly in crosswinds. Keep in practice in hand-flying the aeroplane at altitude and in making purely visual approaches"

When that was written the automatics were not nearly as sophisticated as they are now. But his words of advice still stand the test of time. Although some companies require their crews to engage the automatic pilot soon after take off and leave them engaged until short final, not every chief pilot feels that is really necessary. Some leave the automatics decision to the captain; in other words, flexibility is encouraged. That enlightened attitude is unfortunately quite rare nowadays.

The problem being, the more brain-washed into automatics some pilots may become, the less confident they have in their own ability to hand fly without the crutch of the flight director or other goodies. This leads to what we now know as automatics addiction or automatics dependency - just what David Davies warned against. I suspect that was happening in his day as well - hence his words of caution. The inevitable downhill slide occurs causing some captains to rationalise their own lack of handling confidence by also discouraging their young enthusiastic first officers against practicing hand flying in general. Soon the first officers lose their manual flying confidence.. One day they become captains and the inevitable vicious circle starts again Which is now the current situation in airlines large and small around the world.

I believe if pilots were actively encouraged through company SOP to practice their hand flying skills on instruments within commonsense parameters, the bogey of Loss of Control accidents would reduce over time. That said, there will be rare events requiring superb handling skills and this is why the vital importance of training in the simulator for unusual attitude recoveries will always remain.

D.B. Davies sage advice should be framed and displayed in every crew room..

Flight - Should airline pilots have more/better/different upset recovery training?
 

I believe, and practiced, getting to know your aircraft in good and bad situations, leading to confidence building trust in the recoverability of any unusual attitudes it instills in pilots....is of paramount importance in
piloting aircraft (or driving cars in adverse conditions etc):ok:

I am afraid that automisation has lulled the aviation community in a sense of submission to leave it to the computers to handle the flying. No wonder that some pilots don't even qualify to fly a Tiger Moth (well, that is...) !

We aren't the same breed of pilots that flew the DC3 and 707 types. It is sad but that is where we are at with the new pilots. I don't think we can change this because management looks at the bottom line.

Management doesn't care if you can recover from an upset because the computer doesn't have that input. Air France lost an Airbus a couple of years ago because of two pilots that couldn't fly without automation. They still don't care.

Quote:
"Air France lost an Airbus a couple of years ago because of two pilots that couldn't fly without automation. They still don't care."
May I try to differ from that statement (respectfully, I understand your anger, and share it, too): they do care, but they do not know how to solve the training issue.I have read this thread and I share most of the thoughts expressed...although I do not like to play the old warrior, I come from a generation that was trained at things which would scare the young modern pilots to death...flying aerobatics at very low altitude and at night (training in the french navy 1969) training at aerobatics under the hood with needle and ball ,the speed, and nothing else etc...But even if you are at ease with unusual attitudes, even if your experience enables you to stay cool when suddenly wake turbulence you should have avoided sends you at 80° bank on final approach...you have to keep in mind the fact that you no longer fly the solid, simple aircrafts we knew. All the things I have read in this thread seem to imply that when you act on the yoke, or sidestick, the plane will respond. Take the Air France A330, and its crash, since you speak of that company. I will certainly not reopen the thread here, all has been said elsewhere. Let us not even think of "they did not do this, or that"...let us just look at what they did, right or wrong, and the result on the flight controls:
they did not trim the aircraft...it trimmed itself UP to the very end of the THS capabilities, silently. When the pilot (time 02H12'35'') decides to use forward stick, not long I admit, and then neutral stick...the elevator goes from 30° up to 20° up and stays there! Seeking for an accelaration, and not responding directly to the stick command. It is all very well to ask for aerobatic training, but you will not win aerobatic competitions in a plane which keep the elevator up when you push the stick forward. Let us face it, on our new planes, you must avoid dire situations, because once really out of the normal operating envelope, your piloting skills may not be enough. the Perpignan pilot was experienced and competent, but he never could get in phase with his aircraft...

In the 80's B732 we flew to the most major & minor airfields: those with all the aids, those with almost nothing; no radar, no DME, perhaps only an NDB & VASI. If really necessary an NDB let down on time and altitude, but usually it was a day time visual. This was the most common into small Greek islands. If you were lucky the larger ones had an ILS. However, on a clear day a visual was the norm; even into LGW, LTN, MAN etc. The a/c had only 1 DME as a range aid. The whole descent had all been done on 1 DME from FL350 and if you spooled up before 1500' you bought the beers. I'm not hankering for the good old days; it was hard work, but satisfying. A visual was the norm using Mk.1 eyeball and knowledgeable control of the parameters necessary to make it work. One of my last airlines, there've been a few, dissuaded against visuals. If necessary it could not be flown shorter than 4nm and a VNAV LNAV route had to be constructed to 4nm to aid the profile. Good god! Every medical you have your eyes tested; every 6 months you have your skills tested. You pass and then you are not allowed to use them. No wonder there are some out there who can not do the basics and do not know how to in any case. Shame on such a philosophy. It was all about saving money due to avoiding G/A's. So when the poo hits the propellor the crew will be hard pushed to sort it out. Trained robotic button pushing monkeys; not pilots. True pilots can do both in their sleep. Even the button pushing is done as per rigid SOP's rather than understanding exactly what is going on and allowing you to chose the best method for the job in hand: even down to what CDU page you have for every phase of flight. Good God almighty. Pontious would turn in his grave never mind Ernest K. G. I fear the pendulum has swung fully to one side. What will take it to swing back to a more sensible centre? sadly too many smoking holes. Every time I watch Air Crash investigation I cringe and wonder how many times something similar has 'nearly' happened. I do not suggest we all fly like Bush Pilots or Flying Alaska jockies, but we should be able to do the basics. There are some things about flying a jet which are basic principles and don't change from a cherokee. We learnt it on the job. It was the norm. Now the HOT says there is not enough simulator time to teach these skills. Ouch! I fear not enough out there can do those; and whose fault is that? CAA's or the airline?
I do not believe flying manually at constant power and speed upto FL XYZ is keeping manual flying skills honed. It is the idle descent to a CDA LDA to a visual or visual to ILS/VOR/NDB finals manually flying through flap extension while keeping on profile that will keep your skills honed. You need to manage speed, power, attitude and configuration to a LDA/CDA. It is that which is discouraged for commercial reasons. A sad day. The saddest thing is if you want to enjoy flying don't become an airline pilot.

Agree entirely with the previous post. As an old fogey with military and airline experience, I have consistenly argued for a guarded switch that when activated turns the machine back into a real aircraft that flies normally.

Never mind 'Handling the Big Jets', the problems seem to be at a more basic level. A more suitable bit of bedtime reading, despite its dated graphics, is that classic, 'Stick & Rudder'. Understand what Langewiesche says and all will be well.

unusual attitudes in a fighter/trainer capable of high G operations, with an ejection seat, is light years apart from doing unusual attitudes in an airliner.

I wish each airliner required or offered acrobatic training. Learning to control your fear level is a huge positive from acro training.

upset training
 

Well, actually they are not THAT different, in fact quite similar. Earlier, I quoted DP Davies advice on recovering from an upset is fundamentally the same as taught in jet trainers and fighters in the RAF:

Deal with speed and trend.
Use aileron to roll wings level.
Pitch to nearest (up or down) horizon.
Stay off the rudder !

We did it, under the hood, with turn indicator and pressure instruments only because the AH could/would topple. I guess the modern ADIs are untopplable so recovery should be straightforward with modern equipment

I still remember that training both as student and instructor as clear as day and I passionately believe that ALL pilots should have the training and knowledge to recover from ANY recoverable upset.

I would also argue that a pilot trained to recover from upsets is more likely to be able to avoid them in the first place. !!



and 4 greens isn't it actually TWO switches, AP and AT disconnect !

Ref previous post. Switch removes all auto systems. You then fly attitude, wings level, power setting that you know about and call for a cup of tea.