EASA NPA for Upset Prevention and Recovery training
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Goodwood
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA NPA for Upset Prevention and Recovery training
EASA yesterday issued their Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) covering aeroplane Loss of Control In-flight (LOCI). On-aircraft Upset and Prevention Recovery Training (UPRT) will be made mandatory for new ATPL(A)s but not new CPLs.
One of many items of interest is the training required to be a UPRT instructor.
"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"
So an instructor who has received a total of three hours on-aircraft upset recovery training would be allowed to enter a training course that would enable him or her to train ATPL(A) students in the skills, knowledge and expertise required for UPRT.
Is that an appropriate requirement? How much training would be appropriate to get a minimum entry requirement individual to an appropriate standard?
The document is here: https://easa.europa.eu/document-libr...nt/npa-2015-13
One of many items of interest is the training required to be a UPRT instructor.
"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"
So an instructor who has received a total of three hours on-aircraft upset recovery training would be allowed to enter a training course that would enable him or her to train ATPL(A) students in the skills, knowledge and expertise required for UPRT.
Is that an appropriate requirement? How much training would be appropriate to get a minimum entry requirement individual to an appropriate standard?
The document is here: https://easa.europa.eu/document-libr...nt/npa-2015-13
Last edited by greeners; 2nd Sep 2015 at 20:41. Reason: Accuracy
No worries. The pilots receiving this brief and infrequent training will, of course, hardly, if ever, encounter the situation and will no doubt achieve and maintain the highest proficiency in the "simple tasks" of recognizing, diagnosing, and skillfully intervening for the potentially life-and-death condition. Onset to completion taking less time than asking "what is happening, it cannot possibly be happening, how did that happen ..."
Maybe someone should be working on an upset recovery guidance system that leads the crew safely through these "simple tasks". Creating such a system would not be trivial, but worth the effort.
Maybe someone should be working on an upset recovery guidance system that leads the crew safely through these "simple tasks". Creating such a system would not be trivial, but worth the effort.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: at my computer
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
upset recovery guidance system
"Roll to put the sky pointer at the top of the ADI then pull or push to get the nose on the horizon".
That always worked.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE OTHER WAY TO LOSE CONTROL
Maybe they should be teaching about PIO and how to avoid inducing it.
Seems we have one at least one fairly recent loss of control incident that started with a roll pio early on (AF447) and another one where we are awaiting the accident report but some sort of oscillation appears to have helped take the aircraft out of control. (QZ8501).
A few minutes in a proper PIO simulator and most pilots would probably be "vaccinated" for life against PIO aka Aircraft-Pilot-Coupling.
Seems we have one at least one fairly recent loss of control incident that started with a roll pio early on (AF447) and another one where we are awaiting the accident report but some sort of oscillation appears to have helped take the aircraft out of control. (QZ8501).
A few minutes in a proper PIO simulator and most pilots would probably be "vaccinated" for life against PIO aka Aircraft-Pilot-Coupling.
What an absolute idiotic over-kill. This is worse than the current Australian CASA mandated MCC course which some flying schools have dragged out to two weeks of class room lectures and 28 hours of simulator time at huge cost for candidates.
A competent simulator instructor with the average instrument rated candidate could teach how to safely recover from unusual attitudes in IMC in 30 minutes. For example, the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual covers upset recoveries in five pages of succinct, easily read material, directly transferrable into simulator training.
A competent simulator instructor with the average instrument rated candidate could teach how to safely recover from unusual attitudes in IMC in 30 minutes. For example, the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual covers upset recoveries in five pages of succinct, easily read material, directly transferrable into simulator training.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Above the Transition Level
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so they do this UPRT as part of initial training/familiarisation in a light aircraft once in their life.. But I guess it's left up to the airline to decide on what recurrent training is required later when they move onto jets post ATPL?
Appreciate some ATO's include an element of UPRT in the initial type rating stage but not much.
Appreciate some ATO's include an element of UPRT in the initial type rating stage but not much.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ElitePilot - no, this is only the first part of the broader UPRT mandate described in EASA Decision 2015/012/R published in May. NPA 2015-13 lays down the requirements for basic training (CPL(A)/MPL/ATPL(A)) and proposed increased instructor competences for FSTD instructors (TRI's/SFI's). The proposals for UPRT for part-FCL licence holders are still being prepared.
greeners
"So an instructor who has received a total of three hours on-aircraft upset recovery training would be allowed to enter a training course that would enable him or her to train ATPL(A) students in the skills, knowledge and expertise required for UPRT."
And an aerobatic rating, which is more in line with pre-EASA/JAA spin/UA awareness/recovery training for the CPL syllabus. It's a bit more than the 5:3 mentioned in addition to the intention that this is only an introduction to UPRT - there will be further training and assessment throughout the career of the qualified pilot.
Centaurus - agree with your second paragraph and with Elite's comment regarding some ATO's including UPRT in initial TR's; the intent of this NPA is to reintroduce through mandate a more thorough awareness and understanding of the recognition of onset of upset situations, prevention of and/or recovery that was apparently lost with the adoption of JAA/EASA.
greeners
"So an instructor who has received a total of three hours on-aircraft upset recovery training would be allowed to enter a training course that would enable him or her to train ATPL(A) students in the skills, knowledge and expertise required for UPRT."
And an aerobatic rating, which is more in line with pre-EASA/JAA spin/UA awareness/recovery training for the CPL syllabus. It's a bit more than the 5:3 mentioned in addition to the intention that this is only an introduction to UPRT - there will be further training and assessment throughout the career of the qualified pilot.
Centaurus - agree with your second paragraph and with Elite's comment regarding some ATO's including UPRT in initial TR's; the intent of this NPA is to reintroduce through mandate a more thorough awareness and understanding of the recognition of onset of upset situations, prevention of and/or recovery that was apparently lost with the adoption of JAA/EASA.
Last edited by Reverserbucket; 3rd Sep 2015 at 12:28.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Previously, in other threads regarding loss of control, there have been many who advocated aerobatic experience in basic training. At least now there will be more than straight & level, and the QFI will have been inside out and upside down.
I note it is a requirement for ATPL. So those jockeys who have a CPL as an F/O and wish to upgrade to ATPL before their command course will now have to perform more than only a Raw Data ILS. That's going to cause a few headaches. Has anybody seen the UPRT syllabus? Must it be done in a small a/c or can it be a sim thing? If it is given at flight school in a small aerobatic a/c, and should include spins of at least incipient recovery, then that's one thing: if it is something that will be conducted in a sim it must be by definition something much more tranquil. And how many modern day young TRE's have aerobatic ratings.
Perhaps these answers are in the whole EASA document. I admit to not having read it in depth.
It does seem to be a sticking plaster on a bigger problem. "Let's teach guys to recover from a scary semi-out of control situation. Let's drum into the trained monkeys a rigid set of SOP's designed to keep them away from such scary scenarios." It's the bit in-between that is missing. How to train the guys better in handling the a/c the way it was designed to be flown, and well within design parameters, so that they don't reach the edge of their own envelope, or the a/c's, but they know where both are.
If something untoward happens that pushes them over the edge then use Up Set training techniques to recover. You should have then been aware what was going on, perhaps even a guess at why, and then not be so terrified scared about what to do about it. Now, the gap between everyday handling and an upset is so wide that I can understand guys wondering what the heck is happening and freeze; or even worse do the wrong thing. By having a better knowledge & experience of the a/c envelope, indeed any a/c envelope, you can be a true PIC and be more relaxed about recovery.
I remember one old aerobatic pilot who wondered at some real life recoveries. There was a famous one in USA B727 that rolled inverted at high level and they recovered in a very 'over stressing of the airframe' manner with still 20,000' below them. His thought was that they had effected a recovery but then might have negated it by pulling the wings off. A little far fetched, perhaps, but I can follow his thinking. The only time airline pilots are used to being near the ground is on takeoff & landing. height is everything. However, sometimes........?
Back to the main topic: IMHO UPRT should be incorporated in a total rethink of the a/c handling syllabus and not a 'sticking plaster knee jerk' add-on to an inadequate training program.
I note it is a requirement for ATPL. So those jockeys who have a CPL as an F/O and wish to upgrade to ATPL before their command course will now have to perform more than only a Raw Data ILS. That's going to cause a few headaches. Has anybody seen the UPRT syllabus? Must it be done in a small a/c or can it be a sim thing? If it is given at flight school in a small aerobatic a/c, and should include spins of at least incipient recovery, then that's one thing: if it is something that will be conducted in a sim it must be by definition something much more tranquil. And how many modern day young TRE's have aerobatic ratings.
Perhaps these answers are in the whole EASA document. I admit to not having read it in depth.
It does seem to be a sticking plaster on a bigger problem. "Let's teach guys to recover from a scary semi-out of control situation. Let's drum into the trained monkeys a rigid set of SOP's designed to keep them away from such scary scenarios." It's the bit in-between that is missing. How to train the guys better in handling the a/c the way it was designed to be flown, and well within design parameters, so that they don't reach the edge of their own envelope, or the a/c's, but they know where both are.
If something untoward happens that pushes them over the edge then use Up Set training techniques to recover. You should have then been aware what was going on, perhaps even a guess at why, and then not be so terrified scared about what to do about it. Now, the gap between everyday handling and an upset is so wide that I can understand guys wondering what the heck is happening and freeze; or even worse do the wrong thing. By having a better knowledge & experience of the a/c envelope, indeed any a/c envelope, you can be a true PIC and be more relaxed about recovery.
I remember one old aerobatic pilot who wondered at some real life recoveries. There was a famous one in USA B727 that rolled inverted at high level and they recovered in a very 'over stressing of the airframe' manner with still 20,000' below them. His thought was that they had effected a recovery but then might have negated it by pulling the wings off. A little far fetched, perhaps, but I can follow his thinking. The only time airline pilots are used to being near the ground is on takeoff & landing. height is everything. However, sometimes........?
Back to the main topic: IMHO UPRT should be incorporated in a total rethink of the a/c handling syllabus and not a 'sticking plaster knee jerk' add-on to an inadequate training program.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5 - the intention of NPA 2015-13 is to increase existing instructor training standards for FFS's thereby encompassing TRI's/TRE's and SFI's. I mentioned earlier that this is only part of a broader proposal which will encompass initial TR's and recurrent OPC's etc. eventually.
You are absolutely spot on though, there is genuine concern at regulatory level that a pilot who has only been exposed to highly automated and strictly managed system handling throughout their career is very likely to not recognise the onset of any departure from the 'norm' and rapidly lose the plot because they reach the edge of their personal envelope sometime before the aircraft reaches it's. Part of the problem however is that teaching how to fly the aircraft as it was designed to be flown these days, is precisely why the proposed amendment is necessary. Too little emphasis is placed on basic handling skills during initial training and a reliance on automatics has become increasingly necessary with current types during type training, whilst simultaneously training syllabi have been reduced in hours and content.
I understand you may have done some aerobatics during your career? Your comments to the NPA would be very welcome - but you have to read it first
EASA CRT application
You are absolutely spot on though, there is genuine concern at regulatory level that a pilot who has only been exposed to highly automated and strictly managed system handling throughout their career is very likely to not recognise the onset of any departure from the 'norm' and rapidly lose the plot because they reach the edge of their personal envelope sometime before the aircraft reaches it's. Part of the problem however is that teaching how to fly the aircraft as it was designed to be flown these days, is precisely why the proposed amendment is necessary. Too little emphasis is placed on basic handling skills during initial training and a reliance on automatics has become increasingly necessary with current types during type training, whilst simultaneously training syllabi have been reduced in hours and content.
I understand you may have done some aerobatics during your career? Your comments to the NPA would be very welcome - but you have to read it first
EASA CRT application
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few minutes in a proper PIO simulator and most pilots would probably be "vaccinated" for life against PIO aka Aircraft-Pilot-Coupling.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I still haven't figured out why it's not mandatory for airlines to have a fleet of Piper Cub's or something similar, and demand airline pilots keep current in those with a few hours every month.
In these times when flying is not so much about the flying anymore, but more about setting up a computer, we need to address the proficiency of pilots.
In these times when flying is not so much about the flying anymore, but more about setting up a computer, we need to address the proficiency of pilots.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because there are not too many tail wheel airliners.
There is no relevance between a Piper Cub and a pax-jet. There are other, better suited small a/c. If you are suggesting that pilots have more recurrency handling training I would put it another way. In 1980's I flew for a renowned B732 operator. We trolled the routes in & out of major ILS equipped airfields and Spanish/Greek islands. Day, night, summer, winter, CAVOK, TS and fog. The A/P was true Leggo-land, but useful when required. From RHS it was toy-town. You had to fly the damed thing and a visual was the norm, even at LGW, LTN, BHX, GLA and anywhere else that let you. The culture of the airline was TO EMPLOY PILOTS. We had excellent training - pre-line, excellent line training and then damned good demonstration and practice every day on the line. If you got to command and you couldn't fly the a/c you were binned. The fail rate was high, but that was in the thinking/management department not handling.
I then went to a B757/767 outfit. Same stuff, same routes. Big a/c into small places. It had to be visual manually flown. It was necessary and thus it was encouraged into the major places, and visuals whenever possible. This kept us capable for when it was required as the norm.
Todays cotton wool mamby pamby airlines are not employing pilots and have not trained pilots. Then, when those basic skills are required, they are found wanting. Weekend warriors in a Piper Cub will not cut it and solve the problem. In training departments we are taught to identify the root cause of the problem. We all know that unstable approaches and bad landings start very early in the set up for the approach. We identify where & how that occurred and then solve the root cause of the problem which happens some minutes later. This realisation that piloting skills are being eroded will not be solved AFTER the event. The root cause is in the basic training, and then it is compounded in line flying techniques. Basic flying is discouraged, even in safe environments. The solution has to go back to the root cause.
After B732 I flew for various VNAV/LNAV a/c operators in a variety of theatres. What a joy: so much information to make the manual flying so much more accurate and no less enjoyable and challenging. This was in 1990's. We still employed pilots and expected them to perform as such. They were taught to use the automatics when required and as necessary, but otherwise they were encouraged to fly the damn a/c and use Mk.1 eyeball, even at night. And, if it was visual and manual the damn FD was OFF. (if it was ON there was too much talking to PM to reprogram the muppet.) I then flew for various fledgling airlines with modern new shiny wiz-bang jets. The SOP manual grew & grew and the pilots did less flying. I'm not saying line flying should be gung-ho, far from it; but SOP's that deliberately dulled one's skills I found counter productive. When events conspired to present you with a problem/challenge, and I found my young mate drowning in uncertainty as to what to do and how to do it, and the situation was getting worse by inaction, it was not inspiring. It became obvious that the common training methods of the past 20 years are part of the problem and more of the same is not the solution.
And weekend warriors in a Cap-10 is also not a solution. It's not practical, relevant, but it sure a hell is fun. And that's what I now do.
IMHO "Children of the Magenta Line" should be mandatory viewing for every new student and every instructor; but first every CP & HOT. Let the pilots see the wood for the trees and lets KISS.
Gawd, I need to go and do a few cubans and flicks to calm down and earn a cold one.
P.S. If you identify a problem it is beholden to offer solution, if possible. One idea would be to re-think the 3 year cycle of malfunction/emergency training. Much of this is box-ticking and of little value. How many times do we experience a simple QRH item, read the bible and tick the box. Yawn! In real life the problems are more subtle, often more complex, even multiple. That's when real training and the simulator are useful and positive. Incidents become accidents when events unfold in an unexpected way, often because the initial problem was not noticed and then developed, or it was mis-identified and the wrong solution applied. This is outside the scope of simple/single QRH items. This type of more in-depth training could be used in one of the bi-annual training sessions. The other training session could be focused on basic handling: not micky-mouse upset recovery manoeuvres for 5 minutes to tick a box; real handling. The only time I was ever required to fly FD off in a sim was Raw data ILS. What a doddle. This included total AC failure. Tick in the box.
In one basic type training syllabus, years ago, I used to spend 15 minutes per student FFS 1 with an aerial ballet. e.g. set 220kts, level turns, turn reversals, climb/descend at a given V/S, level turns increasing to steep turns and turn reversal, then level turns accelerating/decelerating 220/250 in the turn, then climbing turns to level off, turn reversal into descending turns to level off and change speed. Of course, no FD. Wow did it get the scan going and learn how to handle an a/c. It gave confidence where to look and how much to use the power. Their eyes were dancing over the instruments - all of them - as the a/c danced across the sky. Big smiles around. After that it was easy. Where did I learn that? My PPL test in a C150. I applied it to a pax-jet. Then the syllabus was re-written and the LST mandatory items took over. The amount of manual handling in a typical TR is minimal. If that is transferred onto the line......... what chance have the newbies got. And they will become the oldies, with little extra in handling skills. No wonder that on fine days some want to 'give it a go' and mess up. It's not that they are out of practice, although sometimes that is the case; it might well be they were never in practice in the first place and are seeking to recover the lost art.
I know some operators have a more pilot/flying orientated approach, but how to make that more common? Ah.........
Given that the basic training and then basic type rating has been diluted so much it will take a major re-think from the authorities. However, this is a situation which can also be solved bottom up rather than top down. It could work either way, if there is a will. The trouble is that first there needs to be a perceived problem. No problem = no solution.
I'm sure opinions are divided depending on which side of the desk you sit. This topic has been going round & round for years, and it does not seem to be slowing down any time soon.
There is no relevance between a Piper Cub and a pax-jet. There are other, better suited small a/c. If you are suggesting that pilots have more recurrency handling training I would put it another way. In 1980's I flew for a renowned B732 operator. We trolled the routes in & out of major ILS equipped airfields and Spanish/Greek islands. Day, night, summer, winter, CAVOK, TS and fog. The A/P was true Leggo-land, but useful when required. From RHS it was toy-town. You had to fly the damed thing and a visual was the norm, even at LGW, LTN, BHX, GLA and anywhere else that let you. The culture of the airline was TO EMPLOY PILOTS. We had excellent training - pre-line, excellent line training and then damned good demonstration and practice every day on the line. If you got to command and you couldn't fly the a/c you were binned. The fail rate was high, but that was in the thinking/management department not handling.
I then went to a B757/767 outfit. Same stuff, same routes. Big a/c into small places. It had to be visual manually flown. It was necessary and thus it was encouraged into the major places, and visuals whenever possible. This kept us capable for when it was required as the norm.
Todays cotton wool mamby pamby airlines are not employing pilots and have not trained pilots. Then, when those basic skills are required, they are found wanting. Weekend warriors in a Piper Cub will not cut it and solve the problem. In training departments we are taught to identify the root cause of the problem. We all know that unstable approaches and bad landings start very early in the set up for the approach. We identify where & how that occurred and then solve the root cause of the problem which happens some minutes later. This realisation that piloting skills are being eroded will not be solved AFTER the event. The root cause is in the basic training, and then it is compounded in line flying techniques. Basic flying is discouraged, even in safe environments. The solution has to go back to the root cause.
After B732 I flew for various VNAV/LNAV a/c operators in a variety of theatres. What a joy: so much information to make the manual flying so much more accurate and no less enjoyable and challenging. This was in 1990's. We still employed pilots and expected them to perform as such. They were taught to use the automatics when required and as necessary, but otherwise they were encouraged to fly the damn a/c and use Mk.1 eyeball, even at night. And, if it was visual and manual the damn FD was OFF. (if it was ON there was too much talking to PM to reprogram the muppet.) I then flew for various fledgling airlines with modern new shiny wiz-bang jets. The SOP manual grew & grew and the pilots did less flying. I'm not saying line flying should be gung-ho, far from it; but SOP's that deliberately dulled one's skills I found counter productive. When events conspired to present you with a problem/challenge, and I found my young mate drowning in uncertainty as to what to do and how to do it, and the situation was getting worse by inaction, it was not inspiring. It became obvious that the common training methods of the past 20 years are part of the problem and more of the same is not the solution.
And weekend warriors in a Cap-10 is also not a solution. It's not practical, relevant, but it sure a hell is fun. And that's what I now do.
IMHO "Children of the Magenta Line" should be mandatory viewing for every new student and every instructor; but first every CP & HOT. Let the pilots see the wood for the trees and lets KISS.
Gawd, I need to go and do a few cubans and flicks to calm down and earn a cold one.
P.S. If you identify a problem it is beholden to offer solution, if possible. One idea would be to re-think the 3 year cycle of malfunction/emergency training. Much of this is box-ticking and of little value. How many times do we experience a simple QRH item, read the bible and tick the box. Yawn! In real life the problems are more subtle, often more complex, even multiple. That's when real training and the simulator are useful and positive. Incidents become accidents when events unfold in an unexpected way, often because the initial problem was not noticed and then developed, or it was mis-identified and the wrong solution applied. This is outside the scope of simple/single QRH items. This type of more in-depth training could be used in one of the bi-annual training sessions. The other training session could be focused on basic handling: not micky-mouse upset recovery manoeuvres for 5 minutes to tick a box; real handling. The only time I was ever required to fly FD off in a sim was Raw data ILS. What a doddle. This included total AC failure. Tick in the box.
In one basic type training syllabus, years ago, I used to spend 15 minutes per student FFS 1 with an aerial ballet. e.g. set 220kts, level turns, turn reversals, climb/descend at a given V/S, level turns increasing to steep turns and turn reversal, then level turns accelerating/decelerating 220/250 in the turn, then climbing turns to level off, turn reversal into descending turns to level off and change speed. Of course, no FD. Wow did it get the scan going and learn how to handle an a/c. It gave confidence where to look and how much to use the power. Their eyes were dancing over the instruments - all of them - as the a/c danced across the sky. Big smiles around. After that it was easy. Where did I learn that? My PPL test in a C150. I applied it to a pax-jet. Then the syllabus was re-written and the LST mandatory items took over. The amount of manual handling in a typical TR is minimal. If that is transferred onto the line......... what chance have the newbies got. And they will become the oldies, with little extra in handling skills. No wonder that on fine days some want to 'give it a go' and mess up. It's not that they are out of practice, although sometimes that is the case; it might well be they were never in practice in the first place and are seeking to recover the lost art.
I know some operators have a more pilot/flying orientated approach, but how to make that more common? Ah.........
Given that the basic training and then basic type rating has been diluted so much it will take a major re-think from the authorities. However, this is a situation which can also be solved bottom up rather than top down. It could work either way, if there is a will. The trouble is that first there needs to be a perceived problem. No problem = no solution.
I'm sure opinions are divided depending on which side of the desk you sit. This topic has been going round & round for years, and it does not seem to be slowing down any time soon.
Last edited by RAT 5; 3rd Sep 2015 at 22:37.
What is the answer? Who knows..
I did my first loop in a Cessna aerobat a very long time ago over Buckinghamshire (England). I'd covered spin recovery training in my PPL etc.
Couldn't afford basic aero training after I got my PPL, so read a book, talked to a very very decent instructor, and went off for some "general handling!"
A couple of years later I did QFI upgrade with a gentleman who was an Empire Test Pilot Instructor…. So modest, so bloody clever and so bloody capable. AND so able to TEACH. I won't mention his name, and very sadly, I think he won't be with us anymore.. A truly sad lose to aviation. EGTB, TG.
Anyway, we should all have had a go at seeing the world from a different angle before we get control of a jet with 200 pax with computers that we think won't let the sun me under us!!
I did my first loop in a Cessna aerobat a very long time ago over Buckinghamshire (England). I'd covered spin recovery training in my PPL etc.
Couldn't afford basic aero training after I got my PPL, so read a book, talked to a very very decent instructor, and went off for some "general handling!"
A couple of years later I did QFI upgrade with a gentleman who was an Empire Test Pilot Instructor…. So modest, so bloody clever and so bloody capable. AND so able to TEACH. I won't mention his name, and very sadly, I think he won't be with us anymore.. A truly sad lose to aviation. EGTB, TG.
Anyway, we should all have had a go at seeing the world from a different angle before we get control of a jet with 200 pax with computers that we think won't let the sun me under us!!
Last edited by fokker1000; 5th Sep 2015 at 13:42.
The main problem in unusual attitudes is the effect of g forces
That is a matter of opinion. The main problem is pilot incompetency in basic manual instrument flying skills that allows the aircraft to get into an unusual attitude. This usually stems from automation dependency in the airline industry. Fix that problem by correct training in a simulator and thus minimising the chances of the high g forces situation starting in the first place. Prevention is better than cure
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quite like the RAT post, though personally find more value in the use of light, somewhat demanding GA aircraft. I am not a jet pilot - 'never flown one. But, back in the early '80's, after a really good read of the flight manual, I was able to totally solo master the full motion, certified DC-8-63 sim our airline had. After more than 40 hours, I never left it anywhere other than at the runway threshold, ready to go next time. I found that the handling skills I'd been taught, and maintained with aerobatic, tailwheel and float flying were valuable even on an "aircraft" of larger proportion. I'm sure the reverse is also true.
I would be pleased to think that the jet pilots are sent for circuits in something light, and a little twitchy, just so they can assure themselves, and the rest of us, that they have maintained the basic hands and feet skills. Better yet, if not one darned instrument works in the plane!
The pilot who trained me on Piper Aztec, and Cheyenne during that period of my life, went on to L1011. I went back to single Cessna (by preference). I took him flying years later, and was very disappointed and surprised to find that his efforts to land my C150 were a fail mostly every time. He'd lost the touch for "flying" the plane. And that was not unusual attitudes, that was just landing it!
I worry that general handling skills I, and many of my GA peers maintain, are less common in the big Jet world now.
I would be pleased to think that the jet pilots are sent for circuits in something light, and a little twitchy, just so they can assure themselves, and the rest of us, that they have maintained the basic hands and feet skills. Better yet, if not one darned instrument works in the plane!
The pilot who trained me on Piper Aztec, and Cheyenne during that period of my life, went on to L1011. I went back to single Cessna (by preference). I took him flying years later, and was very disappointed and surprised to find that his efforts to land my C150 were a fail mostly every time. He'd lost the touch for "flying" the plane. And that was not unusual attitudes, that was just landing it!
I worry that general handling skills I, and many of my GA peers maintain, are less common in the big Jet world now.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Above the Transition Level
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Reverse glad to hear there's more to it...
However its still all very well but with a lot of airlines adopting maximum use of automation policy on the line the stick and rudder skills are naturally decaying so until that gets addressed as well the UPRT will just be familiarisation not a skill.
However its still all very well but with a lot of airlines adopting maximum use of automation policy on the line the stick and rudder skills are naturally decaying so until that gets addressed as well the UPRT will just be familiarisation not a skill.