Annual Flight Safety Talk-Fest -Singapore this time.
 

"Safety in Aviation -Asia" Conference in Singapore 10-12 May 2012. See brochure in latest Flight International.

The list of subjects to be presented looks like the usual nebulous power-point presentations by bureaucratic Eminence Gris from around the world, whipping visiting delegates into a frenzy of flight safety fervour about the latest in SMS and training of cadets towards the MPL. But seemingly nothing on hands-on practical solutions to loss of control accidents. :{

Loss of Control In-Flight
 

You are correct; Loss of Control In-Flight (LOC-I) accidents are the leading cause of death and loss of airframes worldwide. The trend has not been improving. The very day AF 447 was lost, a conference opened in London under the auspices of the Royal Aeronautical Society, targeted at providing industry with long-term solutions in reducing LOC-I through enhanced Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT).

ICATEE was formed (International Committee for Aviation training in the Extended Envelope) to provide these solutions. The work is just being completed, but the solutions involve long-term enhancements to pilot training, beginning at the initial licensing level and continuing through initial type and recurrent operator training. They involve emphasis on basic aerodynamic academics, practical "on-aircraft" training in an aerobatic capable aircraft (with a qualified UPRT instructor) at the commercial (or MPL) licensing level, followed with type specific UPRT training in Full Flight Simulators, delivered with enhanced all-envelope aero models and enhanced feedback tools to pilots and instructors.

What we "learned" in our intensive review of LOC-I accident literature, as well as a review of the existing capabilities of current training infrastructure, is there has been a lot of negative training in industry. Examples; practical test standards that emphasize "minimum loss of altitude" for stall training, lack of academic understanding of aerodynamics (by pilots AND instructors), incomplete aero models in FFS, and in-appropriate use of FFS for upset training (AA 587), and lack of realistic training environments for typical LOC-I events.

The solutions are forthcoming. ICATEE has a website, but these deliverables will be disseminated through ICAO as well as the FAA. There will be briefings about LOC-I/UPRT/ICATEE at many up-coming industry events such as WATS, EATS, ALPA Air Safety Week, etc. We hope to reverse the sad trend of losing perfectly good aircraft, passengers and crew due LOC-I.

Assuming the simulator instructor is suitably experienced to brief on how to recover from Unusual Attitudes - after all the Boeing 737 (for example) FCTM explains the procedure step-by-step - then it is a simple 15 minute procedure in the simulator to teach the subject. While most jet transport simulators may not have the ideal fidelity,the important thing is teaching the pilot instrument interpretation of the UA and its recovery. This is because most accidents involving UA fatalities started off by the crew having poor basic instrument flying skills in the first instance. Automation dependency does that for you.

If each recurrent simulator session was conducted with equal time spent on automatic flight and manual raw data flight, the problem would soon be solved. Crew blind concentration on - and hence almost total dependence on - the flight director, is the prime reason why basic instrument flying skills are being shot to pieces.

In turn, this becomes a vicious circle where low hour pilots such as MPL and their ilk who are the captains of the future, and for no fault of their own, have never known anything than glass cockpits, will always have trouble learning to fly by hand on instruments.

Even basic raw data flying such as touch and go circuits and landings is excellent scanning practice because things happen fast. The object being to increase scanning skills. That means switching off the automatic features such as autothrottle and FD. Yet rarely do instructors permit these manoeuvres during initial type rating and recurrent training on type. The solution above to preventing loss of control accidents caused directly by poor instrument flying skills, is so simple and cost effective. Instructors must not get bogged down wasting valuable simulator time with lengthy checklist reading when surely the priority is to give hands on flying.

Assuming that operators will never seriously encourage pilots to hand fly on revenue flights, even on the clearest of days or nights, then we should use the flight simulator to do the job. Anything is better than the current head-in-the sand approach to accidents based upon it always happens to the other fellow in some other country.