Cost effective UPRT for airline pilots
Thread Starter
Cost effective UPRT for airline pilots
Upset Prevention Recognition Training, otherwise UPRT. Unusual Attitude Recovery Training. Undesired State Recovery Training. All these terms have the same basic meaning. Different State Regulators apply their own mandated training syllabus for this training which for airliners is usually conducted in full flight simulators. The length of course UPRT can vary depending on operator policy, from one day to several days.
Briefing material also varies depending on aircraft design characteristics. Airbus v Boeing for example. The Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual has this advice (edited for brevity)
Upset Recovery.
An upset can generally be defined as unintentionally exceeding any of the following conditions:
Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees nose up
Pitch Attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down
Bank angle greater than 45 degrees
Within above parameters but flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions.
General
Though flight crews in line operations rarely, if ever, encounter an upset situation, understanding how to apply aerodynamic fundamentals in such a situation helps them control the airplane. Several techniques are available for recovering from an upset. In most situations, if a technique is effective, it is not recommended that pilots use additional techniques. Several of these techniques are discussed in the example scenarios below.
Nose high, wings level
Nose low, wings level
High bank angles
nose high,high bank angles
Nose low, high bank angles
Stall recovery
Note: Higher than normal control forces may be required to control the airplane attitude when recovering from upset situations. Be prepared to use a firm and continuous force on the control column and control wheel to complete the recovery.
............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ .........................................
With UPRT being mandated by most regulators the cost of such training can be significant depending on the length and content of the course. .
For example, UK Aviation magazine, Pilot, in its October 2019 issue, described one flying school that offers a general aviation UPRT course utilizing Slingsby Firefly aircraft stressed to +6/-3g. The one day course includes three hours of ground instruction and two 45 minute flights during which upset manoeuvres and their recovery are demonstrated. The instructors are are all highly qualified former RAF pilots.
In contrast, one international airline of which this writer is aware, schedules four days days of UPRT, including simulator time. This meets its Regulator's syllabus
There is a clear difference between UPRT in a jet transport such as the Boeing 737 and the equivalent course using an aerobatic Slingsby Firefly. That said, the basic recovery actions from unusual attitudes apply to most aeroplanes. Although current flight simulators cannot replicate 'G" forces likely to be experienced, the key to successful recovery from any unusual attitude in IMC, is good flight instrument interpretation and the flying ability of the pilot. . Study of Loss of Control airline accidents reveal most were at night or in IMC. In most cases it was poor instrument flying ability displayed by pilots during attempted recoveries that contributed to the end result. Automation dependency was often a contributory factor.
There would be considerable cost saving to airline operators if UPRT courses were reduced to one day per crew including simulator time. There are only so many unusual attitudes that can occur in a jet transport and these are well covered for example in the Manoeuvers Section of the Boeing 737 FCTM.
Sensible use of the simulator "freeze" button during demonstrations by the instructor and pilot under instruction, can reduce operating time in the simulator and have no effect on the integrity of the manoeuvre being practiced. Class room briefings should be restricted to each specific unusual attitude manoeuvre to be covered in the simulator. Allied subjects, such as aviation medicine, should have already been adequately covered in previous aeronautical pilot examinations. There should be no need to repeat what is already known and examined.
Briefing material also varies depending on aircraft design characteristics. Airbus v Boeing for example. The Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual has this advice (edited for brevity)
Upset Recovery.
An upset can generally be defined as unintentionally exceeding any of the following conditions:
Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees nose up
Pitch Attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down
Bank angle greater than 45 degrees
Within above parameters but flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions.
General
Though flight crews in line operations rarely, if ever, encounter an upset situation, understanding how to apply aerodynamic fundamentals in such a situation helps them control the airplane. Several techniques are available for recovering from an upset. In most situations, if a technique is effective, it is not recommended that pilots use additional techniques. Several of these techniques are discussed in the example scenarios below.
Nose high, wings level
Nose low, wings level
High bank angles
nose high,high bank angles
Nose low, high bank angles
Stall recovery
Note: Higher than normal control forces may be required to control the airplane attitude when recovering from upset situations. Be prepared to use a firm and continuous force on the control column and control wheel to complete the recovery.
............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ .........................................
With UPRT being mandated by most regulators the cost of such training can be significant depending on the length and content of the course. .
For example, UK Aviation magazine, Pilot, in its October 2019 issue, described one flying school that offers a general aviation UPRT course utilizing Slingsby Firefly aircraft stressed to +6/-3g. The one day course includes three hours of ground instruction and two 45 minute flights during which upset manoeuvres and their recovery are demonstrated. The instructors are are all highly qualified former RAF pilots.
In contrast, one international airline of which this writer is aware, schedules four days days of UPRT, including simulator time. This meets its Regulator's syllabus
There is a clear difference between UPRT in a jet transport such as the Boeing 737 and the equivalent course using an aerobatic Slingsby Firefly. That said, the basic recovery actions from unusual attitudes apply to most aeroplanes. Although current flight simulators cannot replicate 'G" forces likely to be experienced, the key to successful recovery from any unusual attitude in IMC, is good flight instrument interpretation and the flying ability of the pilot. . Study of Loss of Control airline accidents reveal most were at night or in IMC. In most cases it was poor instrument flying ability displayed by pilots during attempted recoveries that contributed to the end result. Automation dependency was often a contributory factor.
There would be considerable cost saving to airline operators if UPRT courses were reduced to one day per crew including simulator time. There are only so many unusual attitudes that can occur in a jet transport and these are well covered for example in the Manoeuvers Section of the Boeing 737 FCTM.
Sensible use of the simulator "freeze" button during demonstrations by the instructor and pilot under instruction, can reduce operating time in the simulator and have no effect on the integrity of the manoeuvre being practiced. Class room briefings should be restricted to each specific unusual attitude manoeuvre to be covered in the simulator. Allied subjects, such as aviation medicine, should have already been adequately covered in previous aeronautical pilot examinations. There should be no need to repeat what is already known and examined.
Last edited by Judd; 1st Dec 2020 at 12:05.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 448
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I‘d prefer the regulator to prescribe either light aircraft or full-motion (Desdemona) training as even the comprehensive on-Type maneuvers training we get on the normal sim will not let you experience any significant G-forces. It‘s easier to say ‚push to zero G‘ than actually experiencing stuff starting to move around and feel yourself pushing against the harness.
Back in August I did a two day refresher (having been on furlough) / OPC/ LOE sim event. It included looking at high-altitude stalls. I’m new to type (first OPC). The 737 is 3 times heavier than previous type and it impressed me how long the recovery took. Contrast that with a check flight in a glider (DG500) a couple of weeks later, in which the stall was sharp, control forces at low speed very low and recovery takes a few seconds. Stick and rudder flying certainly helps keep those motor skills alive but with obvious caveats.
Having said that, the previous poster mentioned the effect of G. When I returned to gliding after years of airline flying, on the first flight as we were just about to enter into a spin and the G reduced I thought ‘ooh, i don’t like this!’ - and I have hundreds of hours of gliding, gliding towing and skydiving-flying. Soon get used to it again but it is upsetting if unused to it.
Having said that, the previous poster mentioned the effect of G. When I returned to gliding after years of airline flying, on the first flight as we were just about to enter into a spin and the G reduced I thought ‘ooh, i don’t like this!’ - and I have hundreds of hours of gliding, gliding towing and skydiving-flying. Soon get used to it again but it is upsetting if unused to it.
