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

Fascinating article in this week's Flight International; "BACK IN CONTROL: The life-or-death importance of mastering upset recovery.”

It leads with a statement that the "Global airline industry faces a decision: whether to take radical and expensive action as a result of lessons learned; or accept crashes such as AF447 happen but are sufficiently rare that a cost-benefit analysis of the investment in further safety improvements does not stack up. If the latter view prevails, it is much the same as saying that another widebody crash with similar causes is acceptable". (my emphasis)

The thought provoking article looks at the "overwhelming evidence that the AF447 crash is only the latest manifestation of a developing phenomenon the industry has watched helplessly for 20 years and done almost nothing about: loss of control in flight (LOC-I)."

The article looks at the recommendations made by the French Accident Investigator, the BEA, as well as considering a variety of factors such as the challenges around the man-machine interface, confusion arising from airspeed readings, and a little on what we refer to as the 'startle factor'. It then goes on to look at the substantial value that can be derived from upset training on aerobatic aircraft like the Extra 300.

It concludes: "There is a general consensus that honing pilot knowledge and skills should best concentrate on 'staying in control', as EASA puts it, rather than recovering when the aircraft has already adapted an extreme attitude. Others demand both. The industry knows pilots are not getting the training they need for flying aircraft in a fast-developing, increasingly intense environment, so the question is: should they train more, or train differently? They cannot stay the same."

What is the most suitable approach, given real world commercial limitations? Is the current training sufficient at your company?

I can only mention again Davis' plea in one of his later editions. I had, still have, the first edition, but in about 2000 one of my FOs showed me his. It really spelled out the need for airlines to go that extra mile and give real handling training.

I was lucky, I did what I wanted to satisfy myself I had a good feel for the aircraft, but I gather I wouldn't get away with it these days.

What is very noteworthy, is that it usually took 500-ish hours of short haul - with numerous empty legs - to really feel at one with the new kit. I can see that could never be paid for in the real world.

Quote...What is the most suitable approach, given real world commercial limitations? Is the current training sufficient at your company?

Airlines need to cough up the money and spend it on training.....going into a sim session prepared and ready to go,and expected to be at the top of your game,is sometimes not enough.We have debated this before...Airlines have,over the years,cut training times,ventured into areas(current flavour of the month) that really dont need a lot of training,and neglected the issues that are now surfacing,real issues(not that you should dismiss any/all).Two sim sessions/annum(some airlines one)is not enough.

A/C redundancy has created mores issues,than it has sometimes resolved.The pressures of passing sim checks,rather than training in lieu of,I believe has cost us dearly......I believe the way to solve some of these issues is the way in which we instigate and approach sim training sessions,and a "bust" or "Pass" mentality needs to be removed,

No doubt in my mind that aerobatics should be a compulsory part of commercial pilot training and recovery from unusual positions should be practised from time to time in the sim.

Google on 'ICATEE' which is the International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes. Its all there and will be an ICAO requirement eventually.

The current JAA syllabus has only incipient spinning in the zero to hero course.

I think flying schools got scared in the nineties when there was a few unrecoverable spin incidents. It is a real shame that current new F/O's do not experience aeros or fully developed spins.

When I was a 509 instructor the studes got full blown aeros instruction, indeed a 509 instructor had to have the aeros instructor rating. As with all areas of life these days a dumbing down has occured, JAR no longer requiring aeros is a missed opportunity but perhaps things will go full circle and it will be reinstated in due course. However the article in flight regards airline pilots flying an hour or so in an extra is all rather pointless I feel.

As a passenger this gets a little scarier each time there is new thread on ‘skills’. Are new generation flight crew really 'pilots' or aircraft systems monitors is one question that comes to my mind. I know that all newer recruits are not the same but that holds good for any profession-difference being most people’s mistakes do not end in death. Looked at a different way there are many careers where skill or touch of people like skilled toolmakers or machinists have seen the skill factor eroded as they monitor computer controlled devices. They still need some of their traditional skills to assess quality and consistency but after a few eyars often could no longer use their precsion skills to replicate the part. Unless allowed to ‘keep their hand ‘ in pilots must lose handflying skills because that si the way we humans are made-use it or lose it.
I am not seeking to be deliberately provocative because I still sort of have faith but wonder what will happen as the older pilots with more rounded experience retire in greater numbers -again I know this group can sometimes be accused of having insufficient skills in other ways as well.
It seems to me though that all airline pilots at some stage of their career should get some experience of unusual attitudes but is a sudden stall in an Extra really much good if your triple 7 300 suddenly throws a hissy fit at 35000 ft .
It is not easy I know but perhaps a way could be found for people to safely ( I am old enough to remember reading about training accidents as people shut down engines etc) experience the scary combination of unusual attitude and huge mass/momentum.
I had a couple of school friends who went on to become flight crew and one I kept in touch with for some years to the point where he was a 757 Captain but as he put it he had learned a huge amount in his early years hand flying 707s round the Bovingdon hold and similar manoeuvres which gave his generation an experience denied to his successors.
I know money is an issue but perhaps a little pressure needs to be put on managements about how safety first really works. A mischievous friend of mine recently wrote to Easy Jet about their attitude to flight safety and got the usual -safety is our first priority response and the most important issue to our management. He didn’t get any response at all to his follow up which said he appreciated the assurance but if they really meant it why was the board composed solely of accountants and marketing people and none of them had any responsibility for flight operations or safety.

I got spin training at 4 hrs so when I soloed shortly after it I was more aware of what could happen at any time while flying no matter how much time you had.

When I became an instructor I taught spin recovery to my students even though it wasn't required until you went for your flight instructors rating.

Being in command of an airliner and never exceeding a 60 degree bank or less and no spin recovery doesn't make sense to me.

I taught an aerobatics course for quite a while and believe it really helps a pilot feel confident in his ability to handle most anything that can upset his aircraft no matter how large it is. Airplanes basically all fly the same whether a biplane or 747. The biplane just does it quicker.

I fear that greeners first post - his statement in italics will be the way of the future.

In a leading Far Eastern company new cadets with just a few hundred hours total time, doing their B777 conversion are encouraged, if not taught, to engage the ap from sim session one. !!! Autopilot out when on final full flap and nice and stable.

I fear the autopilot is now the master with the "pilots" telling it what to do - which is the normal thing to do - BUT it is becoming our crutch when things are not so normal. Strong crosswind - do an autoland - rainy day, vis down to 1500m do and autoland ( that is even recommended by management) regardless of the state of the ILS! - one engine inop - do an autoland. Loss of control whilst in manual flight - engage the autopilot!

It's a big big problem but it does seem that high profile individuals and organizations recognise this - its just going to take years and years ( if it gets done at all) to move towards getting BACK IN ONTROL

Scarey isn't it but it doesn't have to be that way. Basic flying skills should still be the norm and automation should be a way to make flying easier. It is all about money and airline management wants it this way.

In the US the FAA can fix this with mandatory hand flying skills. If you don't have them you can't fly no matter how fast you can type. Do you think the FAA will do it? No. Money runs how the FAA rules.

our airline introduced unusual attitude recovery quite awhile ago...after one of our planes had a rudder hardover and killed everyone

and when we started unusual attidue recovery training, with the exception of turning off the hydraulics to the rudder, it was just like being in a light GA aircraft like when I was a flight instructor.

there are some good words of wisdom from WEBB in "FLY THE WING" and DAvies in "handling the big jets".

we also instituted feet on rudders and hand near yoke below FL180.

and the best way is to avoid gtting upside down in the first place!~

Helplessly? The leaders of industry (pilots and beancounters alike) have actively pursued this policy of automation, actively encouraged of course by certain designers of "aeroplanes"...or is it the other way round? Whatever, there's no helplessness about it.

Add to the AF447 A330, the Colgan Air crash at Buffalo, NY and the XL A320 at Perpignan. You don't have to look too far to find evidence that automation is relied on far too much. It's not only about the of erosion of manual flying skills but also recognising and diagnosing the situation the aircraft is in. If pilots were exposed to situations in aerobatic aircraft where they could experience the symptoms of stall, spin and UPs and then execute correct recovery techniques, IMHO they would be able to bring this experience to the fore when confronted with the seemingly incredible circumstance of loss of control in a complex modern airliner. In the cases of the AF447 A330 and the XL A320 , these types have protections to prevent the stall:WHEN THEY ARE FULLY FUNCTIONING. When all the holes line up in James Reason's Swiss cheese accident model (Wikipedia if you haven't heard of it), it is then down to the pilot to prevent the accident. Sadly, these accidents are showing that the pilots are not doing so.

I have no doubt that some kind of upset training would be extremely beneficial but I repeat what I said in another thread. This is not recommended to be done in a simulator because no data was gathered during test flights to program the simulator to replicate the the aircraft reaction to pilots inputs during major upsets. Hence what happens in the simulator may bear no resemblance to what the actual aircraft does and could lead pilots into learning techniques that do not work in real life.

Handling the big jets is my favorite. It explains a lot.

The 737 hardover crash with the rudder problem hasn't happened in decades so is probably no longer a threat. I always loved the 737.

Noone has responded to my post on ICATEE. Please do, as I need some input.

the problem with current upset recovery training is the "startle factor" is missing...also the simulator,s inability to produce the negative g- forces that may be encountered

The MPL includes aerobatics as part of the course. ( in the UK, dont know about elsewhere )

True, but good exposure to canned UAs will go a long way to reducing reaction time when really startled, as well as greatly assisting the correctness of the subsequent response.

I remember doing the rudder hard-over module in easyJet over a decade ago, which was quite a fun session, finding that the aircraft could be fully recovered in 1500' from a 135 deg bank angle and 10 deg nose down in landing configuration; it was very educational. RYR do a lot of upset training, too, though it concentrates mostly on high altitude stalls and not so many severe UAs. Both airlines have done quite a lot of doble-engine failure training, too, well before the bad year of the LHR, Hudson and CIA accidents. It's interesting that two locos that draw heavy criticism for having so many cadets and low hours captains seem to be so well ahead on this element of training.

My perception is that there has been a creeping reduction in the abilities and reactions of new cadet pilots to handle the aircraft and they have become much more computer dependent. Many of these cadets become more proficient with experience, depending on the nature of the individual captains they fly with. I think the SOP and automatics mantras have been pushed to hard, that line experience has already been lost, and that fear cultures (compounded by live FDM) prevent pilots from learning or practicing, even in ideal conditions. I find FOs very reluctant to try self positioning or raw data approaches, even in calm and cavok conditions, and those who are keen say that most captains won't allow it. I think that culture needs to be addressed - practice of basic skills when the circumstances permit should be actively encouraged by industry management.

Personally, I think that an aeros, spinning and severe UA recovery section should be reinstated in the ATPL training. The laws of physics and aerodynamics don't change a great deal between light singles and heavy jets - the differences are mainly just details, but the principles are consistent.

That attitude is just as useless as saying "I'll teach you how to stay away from the water, rather than teach you how to swim".

Yep. Is it too much to ask for both evasion and recovery training? It's unfathomable why airline management seem to think everything has to be an either/or decision.

It takes a competent pilot less than one second to have his hands and feet on the controls from the pilot monitoring position where hands are usually comfortably on knees. There is simply no need (pun, chaps) to go overboard on such precautions as you state. I hasten to add this is not a personal crack at you- after all company SOP are inviolate if you want to eat:ok: Taken to the extreme using your SOP, you may as well require all pilots to wear Nomax flying suits while piloting as well as wool socks with no holes in the toes and don't forget the bone dome -all just in case you abort at high speed and end up in a ditch. After all, we all practice engine failure/fire as a reason to abort.

In all the Loss of Control accidents that I have read about, the aircraft was in IMC or at night. For whatever initial reason the aircraft got into an unusual attitude it usually boiled down to poor instrument flying ability by crews who could be termed as "automatic monkeys" or more kindly the victims of automatics addiction.

If lack of the pilots basic manual instrument flying competency is accepted as a prime cause of a Loss of Control in jet transports, then it follows their instrument interpretation skills were lacking. Now, while it is accepted that there are limitations to the fidelity of modern flight simulators, as far as I know there are no such limitations on their flight instruments. An artificial horizon (EADI) will still correctly depict a 60 degree angle of bank accomanied by 30 degree pitch up or down and the ASI will correctly depict speed at VMO or stick shaker. The IVSI will correctly show high rates of climb and descent and the altimeter will wind rapidly down in an emergeny descent at high altitude.

I know of at least one fully accredited level Five Boeing 737 FFS that has a selection on the instructor panel that places the aircraft in a 135 degree roll and 30 degrees nose down attitude. By any standard that is an unusual attitude.

Assuming the crew member has a basic pilot's licence, it is a simple matter for a competent simulator instructor to set up an unusual attitude, even fully inverted, and within ten minutes teach a student the basics of recovery on instruments from most of the variants of unusual attitudes. It's all about interpretation of what the flight instruments are telling you. Of course it also assumes basic instrument flying competency; which means holding a current instrument rating.

You don't need a course in light aircraft aerobatics to be able to practice unusual attitudes in a simulator. The problem is almost every simulator session in a jet transport is 90 percent on automatics. What unusual attitudes that are practiced, often sees the ridiculous situation where the victim is told to put his head down and close his eyes while the other bloke winds on lots of bank and says "handing over"

That might have been de rigeur in light trainers with the student under the hood trying to have a furtive peek outside. But heads down eyes closed in an airline simulator? Come off the grass...

Ten minutes per pilot in the simulator on unusual attitude instrument interpretation, and how to recover to level flight, is not going to break an airline budget. Done earlier it could have saved countless lives.

I beg to differ old chap
 

having one's hands and feet near/on the controls below FL180 is really not too much to ask. And One second is a long time when you are about to go out of control. Wearing a Nomex suit is a good idea. Indeed the idea of wool sox and uniforms is a good idea too...if I owned an airline all of my STEWS would wear wool instead of nylons and polyesters...I spoke to one STEW who's nylons caught on fire and burned her legs.

EVEN if my company didn't ORDER us to put our hands near the controls, my hands /feet would be right there.

I would ask that one additional topic might be added, use of assymetric thrust (jockeying throttles) to control a plane in trouble. The easiest way for me to handle a rudder hardover was to use assymetric thrust while getting things sorted out.

It boils down to this...someone coming out of WW2 had more acro and unsusual attitude recovery than someone today.

But we simply need to remind every pilot that an autopilot can go TANGO UNIFORM and the pilot is still expected to FLY THE FRICKING PLANE if airborne.

no, what do I do now?

Hand flying is easier to someone who knows how to do it and practices it regularly.

Spinning and aerobatics should be mandatory in ALL PPL, CPL and MPL courses to a) recognise unusual attitudes (you'd be amazed how many studes can't recognise their attitude from the instruments) b) learn how to recover from them and, most importantly, c) learn how to avoid the situation in the first place. It also does wonders for confidence and basic 'stick and rudder' skills.:D

A37575: I'll stay out of "where should your hands be" discussion, as it's already covered, but will otherwise offer up a "yes, what he said" regarding the difference between UA training, instrument scan, and its utility (In Type!) over aerobatics in a different type.

That said, I think all flight training before one can get a PPL ought to include some aerobatics, as a confidence builder and in understanding how to Control The Aircraft.

I admit to a bias, since that is how I was trained as a fledgling going through Navy flight training. I appreciate arguments against.

Surely one of the biggest differences between practicing UAs in the Sim as opposed to a real (light) aircraft is the lack of (and/or unreal) physiological sensations in the sim?

For UA training to be effective you also have to add in the physiological sensations. It's all very well being able to interpret the instruments but it's having the experience and discipline to do so when everything else that you feel is telling you something different - hence all LOCs happening when IMC or at night.

Sevenstrokeroll
Maybe on your side of the pond but not the ww2 ex bomber pilots who "trained" me on my first jet... Our training chief did most of his 1011 course on autopilot and his boss was a firm believer in the tent peg landing philosophy - the ace fleet were grounded with main spar cracks...
Nothing beats aerobatics for spatial awareness and why not use gliders/sailplanes to teach energy management as well, then add "forced" landings for good measure - all were poorly taught in my day.
Add some decent simulator upset exercises....
But it all costs money and needs good flight managers.... Rare as hens teeth.

I'd hazard a guess that way more people died per passenger seat flown in the decades gone by than they do now. Accidents happen and they are more widely reported and hence more shocking for exactly that reason.

Hand flying skills may not be what they used to be, but I'd also guess that part of that is down to 'the older I get the better I was' philosophy. I have to be be honest and say that I haven't seen anybody in my 10+ year career who as truly scared me with their hand flying skills.

I'd love to see a comparison over the last 60 years of the number of loss of control situations resulting in deaths in commercial aviation per decade. All factors considered I'd think that commercial aviation is a heck of a lot safer now than it has ever been, especially in the Western world.

I'm sure I'm probably wrong though.

when I got my PPL back in 1975...US recovery was part of the exam.

same for my instrument rating.

didn't see it again except when I taught it to my students.

and didn't see it till after the airplanes augered in with rudder hardovers.

BUT I NEVER FORGOT HOW TO DO IT...it isn't that hard.

as to using gliders to manage energy...well, just flying the plane teaches you that...I've never taken my transport jet out looking for thermals to glean a little bit better fuel consumption number.

the best way to LEARN anything is to learn it and then TEACH IT.

Lindbergh said he learned more about flying by teaching than anything else.

Sharp upset recovery skills requires current sharp manual handling skills. That topic has been thrashed out on here many times. The current airline philosophy is train pilots to minimum costs; operate to minimum costs. Training for visual approaches costs money; accepting the occasional screw up and G/A costs money. Answer? Better not to do it. Thus the STD line op is automatic. (even that causes screw ups, but that's another thread.) Previously I had learnt visual approaches on the line because that was SOP. Thus the sim tick in the box for upset recovery in the 3 year cycle is rudimentary at best. I've trained in many airlines including the 2 quoted LOCo's. It is rudimentary and tick in the box. If you want to train the scenario properly you spend more time and do it properly. It starts at PPL stage and should continue throughout your career. Close your eyes, induce a sim-preset upset, open eyes and recover. Waste of time. Fly the approach and induce rudder hard-over at 1500' as per real life B737; induce a 25degree nose up at 1200' after an inadvertent real life G/A selection; recover from a rolling stall a la Bergenair B757; these are surprise events that happened, were recoverable, but some died. There are even the asymmetric wing icing roll offs on takeoff that required full rudder to recover. These really happened, not the sim pre-set scenarios. Do it properly or not at all. Indeed that is what all training should be. After 37 years I think there is too much box ticking so as to satisfy the 3 year recurrent training cycle. I tried to introduce the Air Peru blocked static line scenario into the 3 year cycle for flight instruments and unreliable airspeed items. "Would take too long. Not approved." Instead we had a simple pitot block and a no drama demo; not even a landing. Wast of time. Dumbing down.
I watched a Nat Geo construction of the Valujet crash. The closing statement from current NTSB officials was sobering. 8 years earlier the FAA had issued a notice that fire detection & extinguishers should be fitted to cargo holds. The FAA did a cost analysis the matter drifted off the radar. "It took body bags to reignite the issue." That was a closing statement in the program. The Secretary of Transport and Secretary of FAA lost their jobs. I wonder just how serious the various AA's take the issue of basic training that will incur extra cost. There have been too many stall crashes in recent years. Has the response of the AA's been appropriate? Surely us the real jet jockeys should push the desk jockeys into doing their job and insist the job is done properly.
It concerns me that there are captains flying around in jets, and therefore guiding the F/O's, who have only 3000hrs of autopilot time and they are cloning youngsters who have only 500hrs autopilot time. True, you can design out many serious failures; you can build in back up systems; you can reduce the risk of needing an ACE, but one day it will happen and the ACE is not there, and people will ask why not. What have they been learning during all their training?

handling the big jets 1971 p319
 

There are too many senior transport pilots flying who have just about forgotten how to fly an aeroplane. The only way to put matters right is to give all airline pilots a couple of hours on an appropriate aeroplane, say, once every six months, so that they can practise limited instrument flying and refresh themselves with the confidence...
In comparative terms the cost involved is not large.
... A lot of people pay lip service to the cause of aviation safety, but actually do very little about it; this is one area where some positive advancement can be made.
D.P. Davies first published 1967.

incidentally 7strokes - I had been flying jets for eight years before I learnt constant angle approaches (courtesy of ex Lufthansa Starfighter guys) -having failed miserably doing forced landings (glide approaches) because the guys who taught me didn't know how to teach them whereas glider pilots have to do them all the time. As for glider aerobatics - they are far more difficult to perform than in anything with a motor and the training can be a lot cheaper. Apparently gliding is part of the Air France syllabus :confused:

My experience regarding "handling the big jets" admittedly consists in having read the book, but to my understanding Davies puts a strong emphasis on stall avoidance (e.g., p. 128 concerning "advice on what to do about stalling, there is only one thing that can be said -- don't!") and the numerous important differences between light piston airplanes and big transport jets. This just makes me wonder whether VFR aerobatic training in a light and extremely agile and responsive aircraft would be one of the most beneficial approaches to LOC scenarios in airline flying.

Similarly, C. Sullenberger himself does not seem to think that it was mainly his glider training and stick & rudder skills in light aircraft which helped him in his successful ditching:(Source: A&S Interview: Sully)

How about just learning to fly right the first time? Stick, Ball, Rudder...etc...the rest will follow if properly trained while still "in the nest"...

Sully's landing in the Hudson is a landing all of us should be able to do. If you don't think you could do it automation was probably the problem.

We all need to remember we are pilots, not computer managers, so always know you can fly as well as the buttons you push can fly. The new generation of pilots don't agree with this and the companies that train them don't but if you can not fly an airplane your computer can't then you shouldn't be a pilot. Autopilots were designed to help you not replace you.

Don't let management let the bottom line control airline safety.

Many pilots will agree that the new generation of pilots will not be the quality of what we have now because they lack experience. The new 1500 hr rule might help some. We will see. A pilot shortage will be the first result.

Quote .........Sully's landing in the Hudson is a landing all of us should be able to do. If you don't think you could do it automation was probably the problem.


so mate.....did that have anything to do with the fact that TOGA was never used...or am I mistaken????

some of us know a little more than you think

TOGA doesn't do anything if the engines don't respond do they? Those Canadian Geese can really screw up those engine computers.