Does ALPA oppose upset recovery training
 

There have been several articles written recently about the benefits to pilots of upset recovery training on real aircraft such as aerobatic aircraft. A recent article in Flying Magazine has an interesting quote with no further backup.

It said "One of the biggest opponents to the idea, interestingly enough, is the Airline Pilots Association".

However, I could find nothing further on this. Has anybody else heard of this?

Which ALPA? It might be opposed to if the pilot had to pay for it and not the company. Otherwise why not support a day out having some real fun?

And enjoy yourself being air-sick all over the cockpit. :E

I hope you are being sarcastic
 

http://www.alpa.org/news-and-events/air-line-pilot-magazine

Page 26 of the August 2016 edition.

It doesn't make sense to me. I am just quoting a news article. A little more info from any source would be nice.

ALPA has consistently lobbied for more flight and FFS training, not less. They not only support upset recovery training, but full stall training as well. I would imagine most if not all Western pilot's associations and unions also support the same.

Quoting which news article?

I'll try to post the article, but ALPA is in favor of upset recovery training.

August 2016 issue of Flying Magazine. Page 56.

I believe most if not all western pilot unions are very much in favor of more upset recovery training. However, usually with a few caveats. Like real datapoints of the production aircraft outside the normal flying envelope to generate a truly representative simulator model. Training in the simulator on the type flown in normal line operation, not on small single engine piston aircraft that do behave quite differently from the aircraft for which said training is aimed, and have a very different envelope as well.

Skills learnt in an Extra are not necessarily transferrable to an A380.

Upset recovery training in a simulator will always have its limitations.

Lack of real 'g', software limitations outside of the data envelope which may not represent the aircraft are just 2 of the issues.

However, the idea is to recognise that earlier recovery may mitigate the possibility of the aircraft ending up in an unrecoverable scenario.

So, recognising and practicing nose high and nose low recovery combined with a roll component within existing and known software envelopes is better than no training at all.

I don't know of any ALPA that opposes this type of training.

SLF here- seems to me if 30 years ago NASA could configure a small jet to act/respond like a space shuttle for training, the industry could now do the same for a small jet and provide maybe one or two hours of time with steep banks, nose high, stalls, etc with attendant g's and glass screen versions of appropriate instruments for model airplane. And there kmigh be a business opportunity for a private operator to provide such minimal ' aerobatic ' scenarios. Possibly making a few extra $$ for providing suitable BARF bags at $5 each ??

Conso,
About 25+ years ago, a number of airlines were approached, including one that almost lost a B707 in an upset, the aircraft to be used were available and configured, and had been used by the US Navy for the same purpose --- training transport pilots in upset recovery.
The aircraft were an early model Citation, much modified and strengthened for the purpose.
We got a flat NO!! from every airline approached --- all majors ---- the answer was simple, unless it was mandated by regulation, they would not spend the money.
Tootle pip!!

'Upset recovery training' in the sim is a tick in the box requirement every 3 years in refresher training. If it wasn't mandatory I doubt any airline would do it. Instead their attitude is to have rigid SOP's that should keep you so far away from such possibilities that the risk is negligible; so why train for something like that? They don't even teach their guys proper basic manual flying for visual circuits, other than base training, and then the door is closed. So don't expect any enthusiasm for any extra upset recovery training. They don't even refresh basic stall recovery or training about the known 'gotchas' of some of the automatic systems.

It looks like UPRT makes everyone happy as long as it will be done in sims.

The issue whether spin training or UPRT needs to be done in suitable small aerobatic aircraft is open to debate.

Small aerobatic aircraft and airliners respond to the same laws of aerodynamics except inertia. And aerobatic aircraft have big tail surfaces and inverted fuel/oil systems, making them safe to operate on the back side of the power curve.

How anyone can oppose getting exposed to the full spectrum of the flight envelope, including inverted flight and full stall - where without training any pilot will instinctively pull on the yoke, with disastrous consequences as many accidents reports have shown - experience and get used to lateral and vertical accelerations, spatial disorientation, extreme attitudes, is something I cannot easily understand.

After all this is what happens when one gets out of his comfort zone, so dont fear the unknown, go expolre it, bit by bit, at your own pace, til you get familiar and learn to react the right way, ultimately becoming a better pilot.

How can one expect to properly react with accurate flying on situations never experienced before outside the rigid SOP's envelope, using the proper recovery reflex, is again something I cannot understand. Failing this, fear and startle will take over, and as someone said, fear is the leprosy of aviation, it gets rarely if ever adressed, it is too much linked to the pilot's ego.

Basic skills are very much transferrable.

What has big tail surfaces and iverted/oil systems got to do with flying on the back side of the power curve?

They help keep the a/c maneuverable especially in yaw (Rudder) and to maintain elevator effectiveness at very low speeds, let alone during stall and spin, due to their oversized surfaces to counter diminished airflow over them, with the addition of propwash which however raises the issue of torque, P factor, and gyroscopics effects.

Inverted oil/fuel sytems keep positive lubrication and engine from quitting at extreme attitudes/during prolonged spin, or inadvertent inverted flight entry.

Never heard of an aircraft type that does not have adaquate elevetor or rudder effectiveness on the backside of the power curve (pre stall), and as long as you have plenty of altitude below you, it is also perfectly safe in any type.

STALLING... then

Details of stalling training on B170, DC7c and Britannia aircraft were given in"Information Cautionary Tale on 25th Feb 2016, #16"
Three different Training Captains were used, one on each type of aircraft. (with F/Es to keep the engines happy on two of them !) All had propellers.
These were all "gentle, premeditated stalls." A startle factor or a high altitude might have given different results. Others may know.
LT

Loss of control on the backside of the power curve is a killer.

Airliners and GA aircraft are designed for cruise operations therefore they have small movable tail surfaces, up to 1,5 VS these are unstable and much less maneuverable than at cruise speed.

Just go maneuver at 1.1 or 1.2 VS or let the a/c pancake when fully stalled correcting swiftly in yaw, with a truly aerobatic aircraft and see the difference.

So in the context of UPRT training, on aircraft, these are the types that are going to be offering the best margin for safety, not only for the air exercises, but when because of poor energy management or wrong/excessive pilot control inputs things go awry.

If the instructor is up to the job, and properly trained on type he will recover any situation whether inadvertent spin, flipping inverted, or tendency to pull when inverted or stalling...

All good points, Markkal. Here in the states, the FAA directive mainly focuses on FFS for both upset recovery and stall training. I believe EASA is also in this direction, however due to the (apparent) influence of the local airframer, Airbus, stall training is not part of the guidance from the EU regulators.