Q: Not specifically an EET question, but would like to know what other carriers are using to meet the Gusty Crosswind Takeoff and Landing requirements both in terms of crosswind/gust values and models and in terms of training and checking.
Q: For Dennis Crider - Is there any correlation between the total flight time of the pilots involved and the accidents discussed?
A: No I don’t know if any study had been done correlating flight hours with stall accidents. That might be interesting and I will check with my data folks to see if this can be done.
Q: For Dennis Crider - I was particularly interested in you discussion on training crews on stalls at low pitch attitudes. It seems like all of our stall training in the simulator occurs at very high pitch attitudes just prior to entering the stall. Do you have any suggestions on how we can set up a stall in the simulator to show crews that stall can occur at any attitude, including low pitch attitudes or would this topic be more of a briefing point in the classroom?
A: Yes, I think we should train nose low stalls and the board recommended this 20 years ago. As far as methods to get a nose low stall a slow approach would be one. In accidents a stall usually pitches nose low in a short time.
Q: Will copies of the presentations be made available to attendees?
A: NTSB and FAA presentations are available on the Resources page. We will continue to add briefs as the come available.
Q: For Crider and/or Schroeder - Can you speak about the regulation's definition of stall as including pusher activation as it relates to training in aircraft with pre-stall pushers? Trainees do not experience fully developed aerodynamic stalls when recovery is initiated at the pre-stall pusher activation. Are we therefore missing the intended point of this training?
A: Schroeder...Typically, a pre-stall pusher is placed on an aircraft because its aerodynamic stall characteristics do not meet what is set forth in the part 25.203 regulation. So, the intent of the pusher (if its activation is respected, which is an expected outcome of stick pusher training) is to prevent an aerodynamic stall in airplanes with these non-compliant stall characteristics. AC 25-7C refers to stick pushers as “stall identification devices”. When they activate, you are thus stalled, and the intended point of the training is to let the pusher fire (which should reduce the AOA to the point that the stall warning stops) and then carry out the rest of the stall recovery template.
A: Crider... The target is for recovery from fully developed stalls so, yes, going only to a pre-stall pusher would not expose the student to important stall cues. I have been told by a couple folks who have trained stalls for aircraft with pushers that on first exposure students almost always pull back again the pusher. They let the student experience the resulting stall cues and then do it again letting the pusher work.
Q: For Jeff Schroeder - Is there a reason not to perform slow flight just above stall on the backside of the power/drag curve?
A: I suppose it depends on what you mean by “just above stall”. Some might say that a stall warning activates just above stall. Interestingly, in previous private pilot certificate training, that is how many instructors had their students conduct slow flight, that is, with the stall warning activated the entire time during slow flight. That has been changed (in the last year) to instead target a speed above stall warning activation. If that is what you mean by “just above stall” then you can perform slow flight at those speeds if you wish. During my talk I mentioned that the primary objective is to show pilots what flight is like on the backside of the thrust required curve (or as some call “the region of reversed command”). Physically, that occurs when you are below the minimum drag speed (or L/D max). As you know, when flying there, one has to use pitch for speed control and thrust for path control. This objective can be shown simply by getting too slow while on altitude hold and showing that you cannot regain your speed with thrust. Instead, you have to descend to regain your speed. After the talk, one operator said that they used the slow flight task to enhance manual flying skills, and that is a useful second objective that I should not have discounted.
Q: For Crider - It has been recognized that after the DHL accident years ago the NTSB made a recommendation that is now part of the UPRT requirements. Are there any other outstanding recommendations from the NTSB that you see or hope to become regulation as it connects to Upset training?
Q: For Schroeder - I didn't have a chance to capture all of the "Instructor Mutations" list. Would you please put that list back up?
A: Top 5 Mutations
Q: For Schroeder -
1. Do we have data on Stall recovery with Max thrust under icing condition?
A: Perhaps I don’t understand the question, but the stall recovery action is to reduce AOA whether you have ice or no ice. Max thrust is not relevant. The idea behind the Part 60 Directive 2 icing improvements is to improve the physics of the icing effects. Manufacturers typically fly with ice shapes, and the aerodynamic effects of those shapes are then physically modeled in the simulator. As Dennis Crider showed, this physical modeling of the ice then typically causes the simulated wing to stall at a lower angle of attack than it would if it had no ice on it.
2. Do we have L/D max chart of modern aircraft wing design like B787 or A350?
A: A generic plot of the drag versus airspeed, which would show the L/D max speed, is used to convey the academic point of speed stability. For training, one does not need the curve. Instead, you should know what the L/D max speed is, and that can be effectively determined either from the primary flight display on the A350 or the FMS on the B787.
Q: For Schroeder - Can you elaborate on the upcoming changes to the Gust factor requirements?
A: I may not have been clear, as I did not discuss gust factor requirements. What is new required training in the U.S. (which started March 12, 2019) is that all part 121 operators must train and check crosswind takeoffs with gusts and crosswind landings with gusts (see Appendix E and F in part 121). The National Simulator Program evaluates the gust model for this task, and it must be approved by them before simulators can be used for this training and checking.
Q: For Schroeder - Another interesting theorem is... « Action / Reaction ». If, as you explained, the intent of the Stick Pusher training in sims is to « feel » the effort, how do you actually -practically- do it without having the trainees fighting the force? That is to say without having them countering the pusher? And how does that not constitute a Negative Training?
A: The purpose of the training is teach what a stick pusher does, why, and to not resist it. The purpose is not for a pilot to somehow, through feel, determine how big the stick pusher force is. Here is an example. Let’s say you are pulling the stick aft with a force of 20 lbs and the airplane reaches an AOA that activates a stick pusher, which then results in an equivalent 70 lbs of forward force on the stick where you are hold it. The stick should now accelerate forward with a net force of 50 lbs. If you have been trained properly, you will allow that stick to move forward, and naturally, you will be feeling the stick move forward (feel is made up of not only forces, but motion too through the muscle spindles). The purpose is not for you to add 50 more pounds of pull force, which would now prevent the stick from moving forward, to get some sort of force feel for how strong the pusher is.
Q: For Schroeder - Does 121 do both approach to stall recoveries and full stall recoveries during training? Different events call for different recoveries so saying Reduce AOA is appropriate for an approach to stall but PUSH, would appropriate for a full stall would it not? One you are still flying and in control the other you are not and need to get there. Our challenge is to train the pilot to recognize which is occurring and use the correct response.
A: Yes, both approach-to-stall and full stall recoveries are required during training in part 121. The recovery technique is the same for both, which has the first step (after A/P & A/T disconnect) of reducing AOA until the stall warning stops. Whether a push is required in either case depends strongly on the trim position. If you flew into a stall without trimming along the way, you could recover from either an approach-to-stall or a full stall without pushing. You would reduce the AOA in either case, and that could be done in both cases without a push. If you trimmed all the way into a stall warning or a full stall, the reducing AOA in either case would require a push.
In actual flight, recognition of a full stall is described by the indications described in AC 120-109A or part 25.201. Those indications do not occur for an approach-to-stall.
In a simulator, those same indications can be shown with the possible exception of deterrent buffet. The simulator does not have to have the full buffet of the airplane. Also, what is deterrent buffet in the airplane is a subjective test pilot call. So, it is beyond the pale to expect a line pilot to have experience of determining when a buffet is deterrent, and often this is the stall indication when the flaps are up. As a result, on the instructor operating station, instructors can determine when the simulator’s AOA has reached the stall AOA, and the instructor can then say recover. However, even with this simulator limitation, there are a cascading of many cues (visual, tactile, and aural) that should result in no confusion as to whether the situation is an approach-to-stall or a full stall.
Q: For Preiser & Fredricks - How are you grading UPRT maneuvers? P (Proficient), A (Additional Training), another AQP method?
A: Fredricks...United Airlines AQP basically has four possible “AQP validation strategies,” depending on the AQP objective; exam (written/oral/electronic), Train to Proficiency, Validated, or Evaluated. Each AQP objective can have only one validation strategy. All UPRT objectives are assigned the Train to Proficiency validation strategy. This means United will not Validate a UPRT objective during a Procedures Validation (PV), or Maneuvers Validation (MV), nor will we Evaluate a UPRT objective within an LOE; we only use Train to Proficiency for all UPRT objectives.
If a United pilot is not proficient with all UPRT maneuvers by the end of the UPRT simulator period, then the deficient UPRT maneuver(s) are allowed to “roll-over” to any subsequent simulator period within the time frame of the course. If, by the end of the course, the pilot has still not demonstrated proficiency, then that pilot will receive “Additional Training” on the deficient objective(s).
A: Preiser... When it comes to the specifics on grading these maneuvers, we first created supporting qualification standards for each UPRT and EET tasks as supporting proficiency objectives under our supplemental maneuvers section. For all these maneuvers other than First Look, these are were only “independently” graded as complete because we wanted to ensure all pilots received this training. Overall proficiency is graded at the lesson level as satisfaction, unsatisfactory, or incomplete.
We too use a rollover feature if something is not complete; however, for our initial qualification courses, we removed the independent grading and tied the maneuver completion to the completion of the LOE (for record tracking). We know for certain that the LOE requires any rollovers to be complete in order to be recommended for this event.
Q: For Anyone: Looking for input on using iPads (over Surface Pro) in CAE sims for UPRT customer feedback device
Q: For Samani - On the Issue 2 AMC 10, This SOC will only be required at the time the FSTD is initially qualified for stall training tasks as long as the FSTD’s stall model remains unmodified compared to what was originally evaluated and qualified. Where an FSTD shares common aerodynamic and flight control models with those of an engineering or development simulator, the competent authority will accept an SOC from the aeroplane manufacturer or data provider confirming that the stall characteristics have been subjectively assessed by an SME pilot on the engineering/development simulator. The question is who approved or determined the data provider for the simulator that is done without OEM data package.
Q: For Sharber - In regards to startle/surprise events in the simulator, almost every pilot comes to training knowing the full script including the surprise event (through word of mouth), how do you mitigate this in an effort to continue to invoke a surprise response from your crews in the simulator?
A: Adding surprise/variability/unpredictability certainly offers challenges for our training programs. As you mention, the word gets on the street very quickly once a new scenario is introduced into the program. It is difficult to find balance between having a number of scenarios to offer that reduces predictability, but not so many scenarios that we loose the ability to maintain familiarity and standardization among the instructor cadre.
1) In loft scenarios, we use “Branched events,” where the flight has the same basic profile planned, but at a predetermined event point, one of 3 events can be selected (engine failure, hyd failure, or medical emergency, etc). Each of those branch events may offer another subset of choices - different airports with different weather options, etc. This allows for a limited number of options for instructors to have to be proficient in delivering, but adds enough randomness that crews can’t know exactly what is coming. After enough time they may know that it’s one of 3 options, but they can’t know which one they are about to get.
2) Specifically for UPRT startle, the randomness is provided in the timing. The instructor has latitude as to when the event is triggered. They may know that is is coming. But they don’t know when.
To be honest our program does not currently offer a great amount of opportunities for surprise. This is something that we need to try to improve upon as well.
Q: For AQP & Courseware: When on-boarding only one new Flight Instructor, how does the industry handle the round robin train the trainer training? Do you provide a full compliment (multiple seat supports), single seat support , etc with the new Instructor and SME?
A: From Captain Schmid - At Lufthansa Airlines we did our Train the Trainer UPRT session with 1 SME and 3 instructors. This training consisted of a UPRT CBT about theoretical knowledge, completed prior to the sim session. The sim session was 2 hours of pre-simulator briefing on our Airbus fleets and 1.5 hours on Boeing fleets. The actual sim session itself was 4 hours with all 3 instructors alternating between sitting in each pilot seat and the instructor seat.
This TTT session satisfied our authority as UPRT Initial Training for the instructors since they flew all maneuvers from both seats as instructors (flying manually into the upsets) and as pilots recovering from the upsets. Afterwards they had 1 - 1.5 hours of debriefing.
Overall Feedback from participants was: long day, demanding manual flying but one of the best sim sessions they ever had.
For our new instructors, who are already trained on the type of aircraft on UPRT recovery, we included the recoveries from the other seat and flying into the upsets from both seats into their instructor/simulator training.
Q: Is there an industry accepted definition of LOCI?
A: Flight path divergence
Q: For Sharber - Hello Is the presentation on Resilience Training going to be made available to download?
A: It is our intent to try to provide as many presentations from the conference, if they can be released from the speaker. They will be posted under the "Resources" tab.