Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

EASA NPA for Upset Prevention and Recovery training

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

EASA NPA for Upset Prevention and Recovery training

Old 15th Sep 2015, 17:40
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here's the problem - what experience did the TRE/CKA have in the airplane maneuvering the a/c at SS? If he has no idea how the a/c handles how can he program the simulator to model .... what?


You weren't doing stalls simulating the aircraft's behavior. Both Boeing and Airbus have said that many times - 'current simulator modeling does not replicate the real aircraft.' You were teaching the students a non existent world. That can be a huge negative training event.


We used to teach (fake) stalls in the simulator until the training folks realized the simulator wasn't modeling reality.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2015, 18:02
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We used to teach (fake) stalls in the simulator until the training folks realized the simulator wasn't modeling reality.

I've got to admit, having just remembered the experience, that in my HS-125 rating days in 1978 we took the a/c unto 10,000 and stalled it, properly. The wing drop and nose down pitch was worse than any small a/c stall I'd ever seen then or since. It was scary & fun at the same time. This big hunk of metal pitching & rolling and dropping out of the sky. A previous experience of aerobatics, a love of adventure and 10,000' of sky softened the shock. It was amazing. Now that might add much worth to a pilot's CV.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 03:10
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The USAF had a training maneuver called 'the confidence maneuver'. I called it 'the scare the sh*t out of the students maneuver'. Pull up to 70 degrees nose high, hold the pitch there, and set the throttles at a mid range power setting (compressor stall protection), and let the plane just run out of energy. A little bit more aggressive than the standard civilian trained stall.


After a while it became fun. A buddy and I did it line abreast(obviously with significant spacing) trying to see if we could time the stall at the same time. The plane would kind of flop around, and you'd be hanging from your lap belt/shoulder harness, so it was neat to look over and see my buddy's jet flopping around - "so that's what it looks like from the outside". I forget what the plane would pitch over to but it was pretty steep, probably in the 60-80 degrees nose down. Pretty impressive from 70 degrees nose up a couple of seconds earlier.

Last edited by misd-agin; 16th Sep 2015 at 14:35.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 12:36
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yep; sounds fun and a great idea. It's a bit like a mariner out on a large boat and experiencing a rolling sea with dutch roll and pitch involved for the 1st time. Most of life is straight & level. They've no idea how far the boat can go and where the tipping point is. Sometimes over controlling to try and stop the natural motion can make it worse. No simulators, but perhaps they had the chance on a rough day with an old salt to show them. The confidence that going near the edge can bring is enormous and invaluable.
With AF447 I never understood why they didn't remember they had 33,000' underneath them and use it. Shoving the nose down was not going to be so hazardous. TA only and do want you need to do. No MSA's to worry about; lots of sky to let aerodynamics do their thing, if you didn't fight it. Too much time spent keeping it all within +/-100'. Sometimes you need to get out of the box.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 13:40
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With AF447 I never understood why they didn't remember they had 33,000' underneath them and use it. Shoving the nose down was not going to be so hazardous
I can readily understand how they got into trouble. Their whole career apart from CPL training was spent on button pushing the automatic pilot. In addition neither pilot had manually flown the aircraft in IMC at high altitude cruise either in the simulator or in the real aircraft. It took only one unexpected event (autopilot disconnected while in IMC at high altitude) to start the chain of events that culminated in a crash into the ocean.
My guess is that with MPL graduates with almost no real hands-on flying experience apart from VFR light training singles, taking their place on flight decks as second in command of big jet transports, we should expect the occasionally statistically improbable event like AF 447; whether fatal or not. Whatever that event may be, it is highly probable to involve IMC conditions, combined with lack of manual basic instrument flying ability on the part of the handling pilot.

Last edited by Centaurus; 16th Sep 2015 at 13:54.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 15:40
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In the Old Folks' Home
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They Didn't Know

With AF447 I never understood why they didn't remember they had 33,000' underneath them and use it.
It's simple: They didn't know that they had stalled it.
Smilin_Ed is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 16:41
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Guys: I don't want to reopen an AF447 thread and the circular debate about basic flying skills and scans. It was just a comment that perhaps too many pilots think they have to recover, whatever upset they find themselves in, ASAP and not use all the space they have. This could be true of lateral manoeuvring as well as vertical. Too tight turn with too much bank can stall an unstalled a/c and exacerbate your problems. Height can be used to experiment with an a/c and find out what's going, what works & what does't work. Hauling back on the stick may not always be the best option if there is sky below you.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 18:10
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
December 1996 (Narrows, Virginia) -- an Airborne Express DC-8 entered a full stall at 13,500' during a post-maintenance flight evaluation of the aircraft's stall warning system, which failed to operate.

The test flight crew recognized the stall immediately but failed to recover. The DC-8 impacted terrain with the control column held in the aft nose-up position. There were no survivors.

Among the contributing factors:
  • The outdated practice of recovery from incipient stall primarily by using power instead of reducing pitch
  • FAA and Airborne Express check objectives requiring stall recovery with "minimum altitude loss"
  • Lack of an AOA indicator to provide awareness of the critical angle of attack
  • Unrealistic stall model in the DC-8 flight simulator resulted in negative training of the flight crew

From the NTSB report: "(the) simulator’s benign flight characteristics when flown more into the stall provided the flightcrew with a misleading expectation of the handling characteristics of the actual airplane. The PF’s initial target pitch attitudes during the attempted stall recovery (from 10 degrees to 14 degrees) may have resulted in a successful recovery during his practice and teaching in the simulator."

In part due to the negative training, there is evidence that the crew believed that they had recovered from the stall and were now in a simple dive, while in fact they were still in an accelerated stall. The PF might have held aft yoke pressure to pull out from the perceived dive, which only made matters worse.

The FAA and Airborne Express performance standards that stalls are to be recovered with "minimum altitude loss" may have also resulted in pilots applying only "the minimum reduction in pitch attitude" which may not be adequate in actual stall conditions.

All this may be changing.

In the aftermath of the Colgan Air crash, the FAA has mandated new Part 121 upset recovery training and updated Part 60 Flight Simulator standards to include "extended envelope" flight models covering full stalls. I believe the new standards will start to take effect in 2018.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 10:41
  #49 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cast your minds back prior to JAR introduction in 1999.

At BAe flying college Prestwick, the course included five flying progress tests in the single engine phase.
The final test was on the AS202 ~ Bravo, a fantastic Swiss aerobatic trainer.
As part of the G/H test, the five basic aerobatic manoeuvres had to be demonstrated.

So the basic skills were learnt by junior birdmen during basic training. Mainly BA, Cathay and Gulf Air students from 1988 under CAP509 approval.

Compare that to what EASA requires now for licence issue............and what is proposed........

You need to teach it prior to licence issue to an appropriate standard. Sticking plasters don't work.
parkfell is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 18:35
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 95
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How long before the century ?

I cast my mind back to 1948, when Auster's Chief Test Pilot would not have allowed me to go SOLO until I could Stall and Spin. And then Recover.

( Later, at Hamble similar exercises were done towards a CPL. And in the Link Trainer, too.)

Horatio Barber's 1917 edition of " The Aeroplane Speaks" says:

Stall, to - " To give or allow an aeroplane an angle of incidence greater than the "maximum" angle, the result being a fall in the lift-drift ratio, the lift consequently becoming less than the weight of the aeroplane, which must then fall, ie. "Stall" or "Pancake".

Spinning recovery was tested at Farnborough in about 1917, by Frederick Lindemann, a 29 year old physicist, who had learned to fly.

LT

Last edited by Linktrained; 22nd Sep 2015 at 18:39. Reason: add
Linktrained is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.