In most aspects of aviation training, transfer of skill is one of the primary driving forces behind the implementation of various training devices, curricula, type conversions and the applicability of utilizing full flight simulator devices as valid skill development resources. For a thorough discussion on Transfer of Skill in Upset Recovery Training visit our Video Training Web Site for APS Members.

As an example, when I participated in my initial Airbus A320 rating in Miami, Florida, the course took about 6 weeks to complete in preparation for my eventual employment as a line pilot with the airline. The course was designed with several assumptions related to my established pilot skill. I already had advanced flight skills based on flying a variety of military aircraft, had an instrument rating, understood jet aircraft operations and had developed significant airmanship skills in my previous flying experience. The airline had certain expectations and a lot of my skills were taken for granted by them to consider me to be a trainable candidate in the allotted period. At the time, once I completed my type-rating course on the A320 and demonstrated proficiency flying that particular aircraft during IOE, the conversion course for the A330 was a 4-day program. That may seem to all be irrelevant to this discussion but the concept of core pilot skill versus type-specific pilot skill in relation to operating any specific aircraft safely will hit the topic of Transfer of Skill Concepts in Upset Recovery Training head-on as we proceed.

Just by reading that brief paragraph above, only hinting at the very basic highlights of how I was trusted to even get training in an Airbus, it is quite easy to see how pilots and training managers become understandably convinced all aspects of aviation training must follow a similar model. In other words, as our flying experience grows in aviation, all our skills must similarly become enhanced. As we get type-rating after type-rating, we start to take many of our basic skills as pilots for granted without realizing how just a small proportion of our flight skills in our day-to-day operations are actually type-specific.

Unfortunately, the story gets bleaker when we consider the reality of a typical pilot’s LOC-I skill. The assumption that pilots already have a safe level of measurable skill in dealing with upset scenarios outside their small flight-envelope/attitude comfort zone, is not supportable by statistics or formal research. In many ways, pilots need to be taught fundamental all-attitude flight skills as the core focus of upset recovery training as they do not have any experience whatsoever to fall back on. Even worse, in threatening upset situations, as pilots quickly become overwhelmed and start panicking on the flight controls, they tend to go with what they know. Typically, the panicking pilot has no idea their 20,000 hours of flight skills and learned flight control instincts are predominantly invalid when dealing with the loss of control in-flight threat beyond certain parameters.

Although pilots in general are excellent students of aviation, they have not been forced to receive the right kind of training to be armed to deal with the loss of control in-flight threat. It isn’t their fault, as they are simply learning what they are expected to learn by the industry. For pilots to be truly prepared to recognize, avoid and (if necessary) recover from life-threatening airplane upset scenarios, we need to start their training from knowledge of the demonstrated fact that they have very little skill at all.

With such a dismal snapshot of pilot competence in relation to loss of control in-flight situations, how can anything be done quickly, inexpensively and in a manner that truly arms pilots with the skills necessary to save the aircraft and the lives of those they are charged to keep safe? Fortunately, with the right kind of finely tuned upset recovery training, a pilot who is incompetent to deal with a wide variety of LOC-I threats, can be given knowledge, insight skills, and stress-managing strategies that can propel them to a high state of competence in just a few days. And the most exciting part is that the skills learned are enduring, and are skills that last if – again, ‘if’ – the training is done properly.

Why is Upset Recovery Training Such a Unique Challenge?

Although this document addresses the current training industry’s lack of resources to impart all-attitude recovery skills in the typical pilot, it is important to highlight that many aspects of upset recovery training can be accomplished in a traditional manner. As we’ll see a little later, loss of control academic training, type-specific transfer of skill training and some aspects of recognition and avoidance training are well within reach of the established training model.

OK, NOW THIS IS IT FOLKS: It is now time to say what nobody wants to say or hear (especially line pilots, flight schools and many other training institutions) :

The vast majority of skills that can be transferred are already being transferred. The problem is the skills that need to be transferred cannot be transferred because pilots do not have them to begin with. The primary issue in the industry’s task to produce pilots with skills necessary to address loss of control in flight is to give them the skills that they don’t have. When it comes right down to it, “Transfer of Skill” is the easy part as long as the “Core Skills” are taught properly, generically and simply.

It is our contention that more than 90% of the Transfer of Skill issue associated with upset recovery training is actually “Core Upset Recovery Skill Creation” not specifically the “Transferring of Skill”.

Recovering most any type, class or category of fixed wing aircraft from most airplane upsets involves straightforward manipulation of primary flight controls in a manner and order that maximizes the pilot’s ability to resolve the situation to recovery. Technically, the process of applying the core recovery strategy is not difficult. On the other hand, the skills required to do so are counter-intuitive to the pilot who has virtually no all-attitude flight experience of any kind. It is not a complex issue when we’re just talking about identifying the steps necessary for a pilot to recognize, avoid and, if necessary, recover an airplane from an upset. There is more to it than that.

On the down side, there is seemingly an endless supply of tips, tricks or try-this methods that float around the industry, often relayed from flight deck to flight deck, dozens – even hundreds – of times separated from the original sources that allude to recovery techniques which are quite frankly scary and too often unfounded. In some slightly more encouraging cases, the “tips” might actually work in an aerobatic aircraft but often provide no consistent application to safely recovering a non-aerobatic airframe with an untrained pilot at the controls.

A Core Upset Recovery Skill Set of Primary Control Strategies must be established as a fundamental recovery technique for all pilots, or as a minimum, commercial pilots and flight instructors. Defining the elements, application and processes that comprehend a thoroughly demonstrated and universally transferable upset recovery skill set are not the focus of this document. For further information on a thoroughly investigated, tested and practically proven Core Upset Recovery Strategy, please contact APS.

Aspirations with Future Training Developments

Transfer of Skill is a crucial factor in the development of an industry solution to the LOC-I threat. It is hoped academic, political and aviation training efforts made by APS Emergency Maneuver Training will motivate regulators, decision-makers and oversight committees to consider the following in relation to upset recovery training:

1. Transfer of Skill is primarily about Core Skill Development, as pilots do not have a competent skill set pre-established.
2. Over 90% of the core skill development necessary for a pilot to recover an airplane from an in-flight upset is not type-specific. However, type-specific ‘differences training’ in Level D full flight simulator of a pilot’s specific aircraft type would have significant value.
3. Pilots must receive specialized training to be given the fundamental tools to be able to recover any fixed-wing aircraft from a wide variety of stalled flight, unusual attitudes, upsets, control failures and wake turbulence situations. Similar to an Instrument Rating, the core concepts of how to recover a fixed wing aircraft remain relatively constant.
4. Pilots must be given more than just practical skills to deal with a wide variety of airplane upsets. They must be instilled with the mental discipline to not be overwhelmed by the threatening nature of an airplane upset, be able to contain panicked over-response (i.e. contain the startle factor) and have a trained ability to draw upon counter-intuitive skills in a high-stress life-threatening environment.
5. Making a measurable difference in a pilot’s ability to address LOC-I requires a specialized combination of the right kind of academics, threat assessment, decision-making, and skill development through repetition to proficiency and recurrent training. Making a minor change to how training is currently accomplished, although likely keeping regulators and training organizations comfortable will have minor results. Regulated intervention is required.
6. Change will need to be mandated by the regulators and insurance agencies. Airlines, training departments and individual pilots will not use their own initiative to take skill-altering steps to address LOC-I.
7. LOC-I has been appropriately noticed but, for the most part, dismissed since the beginning of aviation history and will continue to be ignored as it has been accepted that an easy solution does not exist. A solution does exist and only requires a few days of specialized training. Similar to the few hours of training mandated to receive high performance, tailwheel, complex aircraft and high altitude endorsements, a regimented requirement for all commercial pilots to have an upset recovery endorsement could potentially be aviation’s largest leap forward in history related to the improvement of safety of flight.

* END *

faye.hamilton@apstraining.com

Online Upset Recovery Training for Pilots of All Skill Levels Developed by Aviation’s Leading Provider of Loss of Control In-Flight Instruction

READ THE PRWEB VERSION OF THIS RELEASE

Mesa, AZ – Aviation Performance Solutions, LLC (APS) announces the release of its online upset recovery training academic program previously only available to pilots participating in-person at the APS Emergency Maneuver Training campus at the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport in Arizona USA. Over a decade in development, this ‘pilot skills training enhancement course’ will further support the APS commitment to providing pilots of all experience levels the knowledge necessary to be academically prepared to address aviation’s most lethal threat, loss of control in-flight.

“One of the biggest challenges associated with addressing loss-of-control in-flight pilot training, often referred to as upset recovery training, is educating pilots that their regulatory-compliant licensing training only comprehends just over 10 % of the actual flight envelope they fly in every flight.” says Paul BJ Ransbury, President of APS Emergency Maneuver Training. “We witness on a daily basis the disbelief pilots experience, as well as the despair they feel, when they realize first-hand that not only do they not have training useful in nearly 90% of the full flight envelope of their aircraft, the skills they do have are often setting them up to do exactly the wrong thing in an airplane upset necessitating their intervention to recover. Very often pilots graduating from our courses testify they now know they would have never survived an actual airplane upset without having had specialized upset recovery training as offered by APS. Our recently released online course Preparing for Practical Upset Recovery Training lays the foundation of academic preparation for on-aircraft training but also educates pilots on their own deficiencies that they themselves must address as regulatory certification training does not currently provide these crucial survival skills”.

Is Loss of Control In-Flight really that big of a deal or just a new piece of ‘here-today-gone-tomorrow’ drama for the aviation training industry to let pass with time? Yes, it is a big deal and no, it won’t just ‘go away’. In fact, over the past 50 years of statistically analyzed accident history in commercial aviation, Loss of Control In-Flight (LOC-I) is indisputably one of the most persistent leading causes of airplane crashes and crash-related fatalities worldwide. Regrettably, current pilot training curricula, standards and certification requirements perpetuate this pilot-skill deficiency. In a report issued by Boeing in July 2009, the Commercial Aviation Safety Team’s statistical research clearly shows LOC-I representing the most severe cause factor in commercial aviation over the past 10 years, resulting in the most crash-related fatalities from 1999 through 2008. Commercial aviation will continue to experience high rates of LOC-I fatalities until a training solution to mitigate this threat is implemented. This inexpensive online training course is the place to start for pilots at all stages of flight experience. Today’s aviation training marketplace does not currently offer a tangible solution to dealing with Loss of Control In-Flight (LOC-I) using readily available assets, technologies and knowledge resources. This is primarily due to the perceived risk of thorough upset recovery training, the limited accuracy of simulator fidelity in extreme flight conditions, and the stark absence of instructor knowledge to effectively teach all-attitude all-envelope recovery procedures.

More Details on this Online Upset Recovery Training Course

http://www.apstraining.com/upset-recovery-training/life-saving-pilot-training/

About APS Emergency Maneuver Training

APS Emergency Maneuver Training has trained more pilots in fully comprehensive upset recovery training skill development than any other training organization. For the past 14 years, APS has been committed to giving both private and professional pilots the highest quality, most cost-effective upset recovery training available. APS has a diversity of turnkey solutions to mitigate the Loss of Control In-Flight threat from online computer-based training solutions to a fully integrated full motion simulator curriculum complimented by real on-aircraft training. Every APS instructor pilot’s professional flight experience spans a highly specialized spectrum of aviation uniquely qualifying them as ideal LOCI-I training providers. All APS instructors have extensive experience in; all-attitude all-envelope maneuvering in both piston and jet aircraft, military instruction, technologically advanced aircraft and transport category flight operations. In addition to all APS training being in compliance with the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid – Revision 2, APS Emergency Maneuver Training is the only Part 141 Flight School certified in the delivery of upset recovery, spin and instrument recovery training courses worldwide.

For media inquiries, photos and flight information, visit: www.apstraining.com or contact the APS Public Relations Manager, Faye Hamilton, toll free at 1-866-359-4273 or via email at faye.hamilton@apstraining.com.

###

Images for Media Use: Courtesy of APS Emergency Maneuver Training

by Jonathan E. Doolittle, President
Sutton James Incorporated
Aviation Insurance Brokers

Download Aviation Consumer Article: APS’s Upset Training: Practical Survival Skills

In a 2007 study going back over 50 years, a Boeing safety group identified in-flight loss of control as the number one source of airline fatalities. The 2008 Nall Report tells a similar story for general aviation airplanes.

Loss of control- in flight, or LOC-I in the argot of those who study aircraft accidents, includes a host of hazards ranging from garden-variety stalls to control surface hardovers and encounters with wake turbulence.  LOC- I accidents happen to the spectrum of civilian pilots, from Students to airline veterans, and every one of the rest of us in between.

The stubbornness of LOC-I as the single largest cause of fatal accidents has a great deal to do with the way that we train.  While the airlines have incorporated a number of  loss of control scenarios in their training, general aviation has not really addressed the issue.

The quality of GA training varies widely, and most pilots have never been in a spin unless they trained to be flight instructors or took aerobatic lessons.  Most stall training is aimed at avoidance, rather than recovery.  We go to the horn, or if we’re really feeling brave, to the buffet, and then fly the airplane out.  We rarely completely stall the airplane, especially in crossed-control or other aggravated configurations.  So is it any wonder that when we are confronted with a sudden loss of control of the airplane, we don’t typically react well enough to live through the event?

Enter APS Emergency Maneuver Training, whose motto is ‘to fly another day.’  APS is located in Mesa, Arizona, and is one of a handful of schools around the country that offers upset training to pilots of all backgrounds.  APS is one of the few that is 141 approved, and that is dedicated to this type of training.  We recently completed the APS Professional Pilot Upset Recovery Training Course, which included the core upset recovery program, spin training and instrument recovery training.  While there are a number of schools that offer this type of training, we feel that APS offers an excellent value based upon the qualifications of the instructors, the quality of the curriculum, and the suitability of the airplane used.

All of the APS instructors are former or current military instructor pilots, and a  number have airline experience as well.  We flew with the company’s president, Paul “BJ” Ransbury, and the Director of Flight Training, Clarke “Otter” McNeace.  Both flew F/A-18’s, both have thousands of hours in the Extra 300, and both have strong academic backgrounds for the material they are teaching. Before each flight, they conducted a thorough briefing on the flight.  There was a great deal of stress on making sure that we understood the physics of the upset as well as the recovery.  There was also repeated emphasis on the steps of the recovery procedure.  After each flight, students are debriefed.  We found that the debriefings were excellent reinforcement.  The instructors seemed to have almost total recall of the specifics of the flight.  The airplanes are also equipped with video cameras mounted on the right wing, vertical stab and inside the cockpit.  Particularly after the spin flights, video was used for the debriefings along with the instructors comments.  Each student goes home with cd’s of all of the flying that he did during the course.

We found the curriculum to be a good balance of academics and a rote building block approach to use in the airplane.  We were furnished with the course manuals months before arriving and were urged to read them and re-read them before starting the course.  We found that this helped speed up our learning substantially.  Everything that we were taught in the classroom sessions was carefully related to what we would see and do in the airplane, but there was a considerable underpinning of aerodynamics.  None of this is rocket science, but we came away with a much better understanding of the fundamental importance of angle of attack, as well as the effects of g-loading, roll-yaw coupling, negative roll damping.

In addition to the academic side of things, APS provides a building block approach which they call the ‘All Attitude Upset Recovery Checklist,’ a five step procedure which allowed us to proceed one step at a time from total chaos to recovery of the airplane to an upright attitude.   As the name implies, this technique is used for almost every situation except for fully-developed spins.  For spins, APS uses the NASA spin-recovery technique.

One of the most important parts of the training was the ‘say and do’ technique, which forces the student to name each step of the recovery process as he does it.  We found that if we could say it, we could eventually do it as well.  By the end of the course, the combination of increased understanding and repeated practice with the techniques made us feel that we probably would have the chance ‘to fly another day.’

For upset and spin training, APS relies upon two Extra 300L’s, complete with shark’s teeth.  While the point of the training is to learn to recover within the limits of Standard or Transport category airplanes, the Extra’s unlimited aerobatic capability and limit load of plus or minus 10 g’s make it an ideal airplane for this type of training.  There is no maneuver that can’t be recovered from, and your internal organs will probably fail before the airplane does.  The huge margin between the g’s that you pull in the course and the g-load available to the airplane made us feel very comfortable.  And if you haven’t flown an Extra before, you are in for a treat.  Aside from the light stick forces which took us about 15 minutes to get used to, there are few surprises.  It goes where you point it, and does what you think it will.  If you have never flown with a stick before, you will find the transition painless.

APS has a military feel to it, and it is noticeable throughout  the course.  The instructors and some of the students wear flight suits.  Most flights start as a formation flight of two airplanes out to the practice area, then break up into north and south working areas, and at the end of the lesson, rejoin for the brief flight back to the airport.  If you are interested in trying your hand at formation flying, this is a good time for it.  Missions, as APS refers to them , are  crafted so that there is no time wasted, and yet we never felt that it was a problem if we wanted to see a given maneuver yet another time.  And if we didn’t do it correctly, the instructor’s would point out our errors, and we would keep doing it until we had it right.

There were a number of maneuvers put into the syllabus as demonstrations, and we thought that these were well chosen and great teaching tools.  Our personal favorite was the zoom maneuver, which basically consists of pulling the nose up to about 30 degrees, and then pushing till you are light in the seat, about ½ G.  The airplane flew a gentle arcing parabola, and as airspeed dropped, we were encouraged to move the controls in order to see that when unloaded, the controls remained effective 20 knots below the published 1-g stall speed.  This was an excellent graphic reminder of the effects of g-loading on angle of attack and hence upon stall speeds.

The greatest benefit of the course is that the student, accompanied by an extremely experienced instructor in a very capable airplane is able to safely explore areas of the envelope well beyond what he will see in normal operations, or what he could live through if he saw it by himself for the first time.  The skidding turn stall is performed by starting a turn, and then feeding in increasing amounts of inside rudder while gradually adding aileron against overbank and back pressure in an attempt to keep the nose from falling.  When the stall comes, it is spectacular, and it happens at a speed well above the published stall speed, rolling the airplane onto its back quite briskly, and leaving you looking down at rocks and desert, no blue sky, the proverbial ‘face full of dirt.’  Using the all-attitude upset recovery technique, the student goes from step to step, fixing the upset by saying and making one control input at a time.  Another unusual attitude covered in the course is the spiral dive.  When our instructor gave us the controls, the airspeed was almost 200 knots, and the g-load was about 3.8, well beyond what you would want to do intentionally in your own airplane, but not so different from what might happen in the real situation.

We liked the businesslike approach that the instructors took toward the training.  They carefully briefed the flight, and then flew the mission as briefed.  In case we missed anything, we then sat down and debriefed.  We felt that there was a good balance of academics and the rote learning that must be at the heart of any emergency procedure where the pilot is not likely to be thinking clearly.  We liked the airplane.  While the point of the course was to learn how to recover the kind of airplane that you actually fly day in and day out, it was nice to know that if you screwed up a maneuver or a recovery, you wouldn’t hurt the airplane.

We think that the experience we gained during the course is invaluable.  Our sense is that in order to remain proficient in the recovery procedures, we would have to return every two years or so.

The APS courses are not cheap.  The 2-day, 3 flight Basic Upset Recovery course lists on the website for $2,415.  The Standard Emergency Maneuver Training course lasts 3 days and includes 5 flights,  and lists for $3,290.  APS also offers training in formation flying, aerobatics, and simulator training as well.

We felt that given the experience of the instructors, the curriculum and the airplane, that the price of the courses we took was an excellent value.  We would recommend this school to any pilot who is interested in learning more about upset recovery. We will certainly be back next year.

The FULL VERSION of this Article is Available to APS Members Only.

Do You Want to Become a APS Member?

Here's How: Click Here to Sign-Up for our 2.5 Hours of Video Training for a full 30-Days for Just $1.00

In the meantime, please enjoy the excerpt of this article below ...

How exactly do you put your finger on the single most important aerodynamic component or practice related to upset recovery training? That’s a tough question and, quite honestly, the answer varies depending upon the situation being addressed. As opposed to picking “one” aerodynamic component as “the” critical factor in upset recoveries, a thorough discussion of recovery techniques must focus on the order in which control loss issues are addressed for a generalized recovery to be effective in a wide variety of instances. In Figure 1, the All-Attitude Upset Recovery checklist developed by APS Emergency Maneuver Training addresses the mental processes and order in which a loss of control situation should be managed by the pilot.

1. Centralize / analyze (Recognize the Flight Condition)
2. Disconnect auto-pilot (If Equipped)
3. Recover:
   • PUSH
   • POWER
   • RUDDER
   • ROLL
   • CLIMB
Note: This checklist is to organize pilot considerations in an airplane upset. It does not supersede the aircraft's operating instructions issued by the manufacturer or established recovery procedures.

There really are only five major aspects of flight that pilots have direct control over while airborne in a time-critical upset emergency flight condition. They are (in no particular order):

1. Pitch
2. Roll
3. Yaw
4. Power, and
5. Configuration

Although a seemingly simple list of items to be managed, not only are they usually mismanaged in an emergency unusual attitude scenario, but they are also typically addressed in the wrong order and in the opposite direction assuming the ultimate goal is an effective, efficient and successful recovery. This is why when you’re reading articles on stall/spin, unusual attitude or upset recovery training techniques, you’ll hear the author state time and again that the recovery is counter-intuitive ... Continued in the APS Members-Only Area.

This is an excerpt. You do not have sufficient rights to view the full content.

Please login or become a subscriber.

Whether we are professional pilots or weekend warriors heading off for $100 hamburgers on Saturday morning excursions, it is very easy to fall out of touch with fundamental aerodynamic concepts. We know they are there and most pilots are generally familiar with their names. However, when a layman or (even worse) our instructor, asks us to provide an explanation of various aerodynamic concepts we begin to realize they have often become fuzzy or hidden in a dark corner of our mind.

In this discussion, let’s briefly look at few “Critical Angles” we really should clearly understand as pilots. For some, this will be a confirmation exercise; for others, it may be the first time these three critical angles have been brought together as a combined discussion. In either case, remaining clear on aerodynamic basics is a core component to ensuring safety of flight each and every day. With the understanding this short snippet of information below is meant to be a discussion generator, let’s proceed as follows:

1. Review the brief definitions of each critical angle,
2. Watch the included flash animation dealing with these concepts in a practical “slow down” situation, and finally
3. Consider posing questions, or simply posting feedback, in the Airplane Upset Recovery Training forum under the following topic:
   http://www.upsetrecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=26

DEFINTIONS:

Three important angle definitions are crucial to fully comprehending the relationship between Angle of Attack (AOA), Pitch and the aircraft’s Flight Path. Please review the definitions below followed by a viewing of the included flash animation.

Angle of Attack:

• Is the difference between the pitch attitude and the flight path angle.
• Determines whether the aerodynamic surfaces on the airplane are stalled or not.

Flight Path Angle:

• Is the angle between the flight path vector and the horizon.
• Is also the climb or descent angle.

On the newest generation jet transports, flight path angle can be displayed on the primary flight display (PFD) as shown in animation below. Flight path angle can also be inferred from the vertical speed indicator (VSI), or from the observed rate of change of the altimeter, in relation to a known ground speed.

Pitch Attitude or Pitch Angle:

• Is the angle between the longitudinal axis of the airplane and the horizon.
• Is displayed on the attitude indicator or artificial horizon.

Dumping the “Techno Jargon”…

Here’s how you explain these concepts to your great grandmother who would rather drive from NY to LA than fly a lap around the traffic pattern with you. You’ll need to be patient. However, with a little help from your favorite airplane model in-hand, she’ll get it. If you want to learn something and maximize your ability to retain the information, teach it. Great Grandma is an excellent start.

Pitch:
Is where the wing/nose is pointing.

Pitch Angle or Pitch Attitude:
Is the angle between Pitch and the Horizon.

Flight Path:
Is where the wing is going through the air.

Flight Path Angle:
Is the angle between the Flight Path and the Horizon.

Angle of Attack:
Is the angle between Pitch and Flight Path.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

• Statistics on “Stall Spin” Knowledge and Recovery
• Spin Training Versus Stall Training
• A Spin is Just a Turning Stall, Right?
• Stall Recovery
• Role of the CFI in Relation to “Stall Spin” Training
• Comments from Other Aerobatic Master CFIs
• Importance of Stall Recoveries in Other Aircraft
• Conclusion

Dear Readers,

The Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) plays a critical role in ensuring every pilot being instructed and evaluated by them is ultimately safe and safety conscious. As CFIs, our assessment of a pilot’s proficiency status comprehends a wide spectrum including: flight preparation, aeronautical knowledge, recency of experience, regulatory awareness and compliance, system management, stick and rudder skill, aeronautical decision-making and mental attitude. In General Aviation, the CFI commonly represents the measuring stick by which most pilots compare their piloting capability to the ideal. This is a tremendous responsibility that CFIs should not take lightly.

Having said those high sounding words, does that mean every CFI knows everything all the time? No, and they are not expected to. However, they must be firmly grounded in all skills and knowledge requirements of the PTS as well as be familiar with how to find information on any topic within their professional domain.

In this article I would like to address one specific aspect of a CFI’s range of safety-evaluation responsibilities – Regulatory Compliance. Specifically, we are going to investigate why performing spin training in a normal category single-engine certified aircraft is an unsafe practice. Additionally, we’ll highlight some of the reasoning behind established regulations related to “stall spin” awareness.

Hangar Talk:
Aside from aircraft certification requirements that normal
category single-engine aircraft be fully recoverable within a
one-turn spin, what really is the risk of doing spins in them?

Spin Training Regulations

Pilots well versed in AC 61-67C, or have recently read the placards posted in plain view in their normal or utility category aircraft, may wonder why this topic is coming up.

COCKPIT PLACARDS

Normal Category:

“No acrobatic maneuvers, including spins, approved.”

Utility Category Not Meeting Acrobatic Certification:

“Spins Prohibited”

(Note: Not all utility category aircraft are spins-approved)

So what’s the issue? If the posted placards and published maneuvering limitations of the normal category aircraft say don’t do spins, then don’t do them right? Right. That is 100% correct. You’ve passed this short regulatory compliance exam. Simply put; don’t intentionally spin airplanes that aren’t approved for spins. If you passed the test then you can stop reading here. If you didn’t pass then please keep reading and keep in mind that this article is intended to inform as well as offer food for thought in relation to your actions and teachings related to both stall and spin training.

Statistics on “STALL Spin” Knowledge and Recovery

Over the years there have been many diligent efforts made to ascertain the average instructor’s knowledge level related to “stall spin” dynamics, regulations and recoveries. The results of a few are listed below. If you find yourself falling into a statistic that indicates a possible shortcoming in “stall spin” knowledge, resist the temptation to feel reassured that many others are in the same situation. When it comes to “stall spin” awareness, “comfort in groups” or “but I know other people who do the same thing I do”, is not an answer you should be contented with. Regrettably, we are all a product of our training and opinions. To a certain extent, how we were trained is not our fault – however, when it comes to safety and regulatory compliance “not knowing” or “being unaware” of the rules and regulations is not an acceptable explanation for violating them unintentionally or otherwise. Neither the FAA nor insurance companies have much tolerance during an accident investigation in the area of published safe flying regulations and practices.

1976 General Aviation Pilot Stall Awareness Training Study*

Survey of 75 CFIs attending a Flight Instructor Refresher Clinic revealed that only 30% of the instructors present would not spin a Normal category aircraft despite intentional spins being prohibited in Normal category airplanes.

1993 Transportation Research: Re-Examination of Stall/Spin Prevention Training*

Questionnaires were distributed in CFIs at 43 flight schools in Tennessee, Mississippi, California and Utah as well as to instructors who attended seven FAA safety seminars and three Flight Instructor Refresher clinics. In total, 513 civilian flight instructors and 28 designated examiners participated. The surveys were processed by five aviation professionals – all flight instructors with college education in aerodynamics. NASA research, journal literature, and the textbook “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators” were used as references: Results of surveying this Certified Flight Instructors and Designated Examiners are listed below:

• 94% relied primarily on popular literature for “stall spin” information (ie. aviation magazines)
• 96% additionally relied heavily on their own instructors
• 95% failed to ever receive training in either spin dynamics or the likely conditions preceding an inadvertent spin
• 94% did not understand spin certification requirements nor the limitations imposed as a result
• 98% indicated that their formal spin training consisted of no ground instruction and a mere two spins – one in each direction

Despite the above statistics, all these instructors readily received logbook endorsements certifying they were competent to teach spins. The same study revealed the following general conclusions:

• Marginal understanding by surveyed CFIs in the following subjects:
  • stall aerodynamics
  • effects of control deflection on the stall
  • airfoil stall development, planform effects on stall behavior and spanwise flow effects
  • stall warning signs and secondary effects of flight controls, and
  • roll control at high angles of attack
• Unsatisfactory understanding of these critical items:
  • pro- and anti-spin forces
  • autorotation
  • spin phases and spin modes
  • effects of the controls on spin motion and recovery, and
  • common student errors and the effects on aircraft motion

In the same survey, these instructors and examiners self-assessed their understanding of “stall spin” dynamics as “Excellent”. The survey results clearly indicate that those charged with the task of teaching and testing new pilots possess a marginal understanding of “stall spin” phenomena.

2005 Stall/Spin Study by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University*

An internet based questionnaire evaluated 468 flight instructors on spin training, spin experience and their individual “stall spin” knowledge. The conclusions broke down as follows:

• Spin Experience
  • 6% had received 1 hour or less of ground instruction prior to receiving spin endorsements
  • 36% performed 4 or less spin entries prior to receiving their spin endorsement
  • 59% had hands-on spin experience in only 1 or 2 different models of airplanes
  • 38% had not practiced spins since becoming an instructor
• “stall spin” Knowledge
  • 47% incorrectly believed the slip/skid ball would help identify opposite rudder in a disorienting spin
  • 44% did not understand that spin direction would be in the same direction as yaw at the stall

* Reference: The Light Airplane Pilot’s Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness, Chapter 7: Who’s Spinning In

Spin Training Versus Stall Training

The thought process for some pilots, and even Certified Flight Instructors, who make the decision to push beyond approved stall training and into the regime of spin training lies within their interpretation of the normal category spin certification description. Assuming the aircraft in question does not fall under the classification of being Spin Resistant or meets Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) criteria to meet certification, those familiar with certification requirements are aware that a normal category single-engine aircraft is spin-tested to be recoverable from up to a one-turn or 3-second spin (whichever takes longer). As stated clearly in AC 61-67C Chapter 4 (below), this is not permission or authorization for any pilot or CFI to perform intentional spins in those aircraft.

Although this instructor’s interest (above) in providing spin awareness training to himself and his students is admirable, he or she really needs to understand the intent of requiring the normal category aircraft to be recoverable form a one-turn spin. The reasoning is discussed in the AC 61-67C Chapter 4, Para 400a (above). The intent of the one-turn spin recovery certification is solely “to provide a margin of safety when recovery from a stall is delayed”. This is not referring to spin training and the delay from the stall during training should not be intentional. This margin of safety is there for both students AND instructors.

1. PUSH – Reduce Angle of Attack: Aggressively unload the aircraft through a purposeful “Push” straightforward on the control column to reduce the angle of attack of the wing to below critical AOA to eliminate this critical aerodynamic spin-risk component*. The amount of elevator movement and control pressure may vary from a simple release of control column pressure to a distinct push of 20-30 lbs or more in a nose-high autopilot trimmed power-on stall condition in a transport category aircraft. In a stall where the wings are close to level (less than 45 degrees), the angle of attack should only be reduced enough to get out of the stall yet not so much so as to unnecessarily induce a significant amount of altitude loss.
2. POWER – Make a Power Selection: The power is typically selected to full thrust. There are exceptions to this general guidance based on aircraft design and configuration. Exceptions to applying full power (or full thrust) in a stall situation include situations such as; Vmc (a failed engine) stall in a multi-engine aircraft, high-powered single-engine propeller aircraft where the manufacturer cautions the torque rolling effect as being excessive in slow-speed high-AOA flight conditions, and in large jet aircraft where the manufacturer may require the reduction of power in the stall recovery because of excessive nose-up moments at full power in low-speed high-AOA situations when the engines are mounted under the wing.
3. RUDDER – Cancel Yaw with Rudder: Apply a firm single application of rudder to cancel yaw to attain coordinated flight. Remember, if the aircraft is in a stall, the ball in the turn coordinator is not reliable. Visually arrest the yaw/roll couple to eliminate this critical aerodynamic spin-risk component*. It is important to emphasize that rudder is NOT used to roll the aircraft unless judiciously and properly combined with aileron input in the “ROLL” step (next). This recommended stall recovery DOES NOT advocate the “Step on the Sky” technique as it unnecessarily uncoordinates the aircraft, significantly increases drag, may overstress the rudder assembly (especially when above Va and/or the rudder is cycled) and has marginal secondary roll response in comparison the proper use of aileron as detailed in the next step.
4. ROLL – Re-orient the Lift Vector to the Nearest Horizon: Using aileron, the lift vector must be rolled to nearest horizon immediately. In an overbanked scenario (above 45 degrees), the roll must be accomplished while keeping the aircraft unloaded at low angle of attack under positive G. Up to full control deflection must be initiated to achieve the desired wings level flight attitude in minimum time.
5. CLIMB – Initiate an Immediate Climb: With the lift vector oriented in a wings-level flight attitude, the pilot should now initiate an aggressive pull on the control column to attain a climbing Vy pitch attitude. Pilots must necessarily manage AOA-onset to avoid the secondary stall when below Va and manage G-onset to avoid exceeding the aircraft’s limit-load when above Va.

* NOTE: Two critical aerodynamic factors must be present for an aircraft to enter a spin: 1) AOA above critical (see PUSH above), and 2) Continuous yaw (see RUDDER above). Without both of these components present simultaneously, an aircraft can not spin. A proper stall recovery must aggressively resolve both factors.

RolE of the CFI in Relation to “STALL Spin” Training

In short; the role of the CFI out in the field is spin-awareness and avoidance instruction through thorough academic examination of the student’s aeronautical knowledge and providing regulatory-compliant stall training in accordance with AC 61-67C. Additionally, the CFI should be educating each student on the risk of incorrect stall recovery and the importance of maneuvering each aircraft flown within its approved operating envelope.

In all that we do as pilots and instructors, insisting on a margin of safety must always be integrated into practical operations and personal training. Venturing into the regime of spin training by implementing intentional spins with a normal category aircraft is in violation of the aircraft’s approved operating limitations. This practice puts the instructor, and all aboard, in a scenario that has very little, or no margin of safety.

Become a Referral Expert:

As a minimum, encourage your students and other pilots you influence to participate in a spin training course in approved aircraft given by expert instructors. A list of established schools can be found on the IAC website. Keep in mind that spin training is part of the story but not all-inclusive when it comes to the all-attitude all-envelope flight environment. The best recommendation you can provide is to seek out an Emergency Maneuver Training course founded on; thorough “stall spin” awareness academics, upset recovery, a wide variety of stall recovery, spin recovery and, if recommending an instrument rated pilot, instrument recovery training. A comprehensive Emergency Maneuver Training course will additionally include integrated aerobatic training with strong focus on developing recovery skills in a crisis and extensive flight envelope awareness. An aerobatics course alone is not at all the same as, or equivalent to, a properly delivered Emergency Maneuver Training or Upset Recovery Training program. Prior to sending students to any particular provider, be sure to call them to discuss their instructor’s experience level, aircraft used, depth of instruction and demonstrated results.

Comments from Other Aerobatic Master CFIs

Rich Stowell, MCFI-A, 2006 National CFI of the Year

Author: Emergency Maneuver Training: Controlling Your Airplane in a Crisis
Author: The Light Airplane Pilot’s Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness

When asked to comment on the subject of this article Rich submitted the following excerpt from his most recent book:

The Light Airplane Pilot’s Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness

Chapter 23: Taking Charge of Your Education – Risk Management

… “Strive to give yourself as great a margin of safety as possible when flying, too. For example, one frequently asked question is: can a Normal category airplane be spun?? Yet another is: can a Normal category airplane be rolled?? The truthful answer to both is yes, of course the airplane can be. But the real question is should it be spun, or rolled, or anything else if the airplane isn’t approved for it?? It’s not about what happens if everything goes according to plan, but what happens if something goes wrong. In the case of spins, the difference in the margin of safety is one turn in the Normal category versus up to six turns in the Acrobatic category; unproven spin recovery capability beyond one turn versus proven recovery capability. From a structural standpoint, the Normal category airplane is limited to +3.8 g’s before metal might start to bend, whereas the Acrobatic category airplane might have a +6.0 g limit. Thus a botched maneuver in a Normal category airplane (perhaps resulting from an unapproved roll) risks structural problems much sooner compared to the Acrobatic category airplane.

“Eating into our margin of safety increases risk; conversely, as our margin of safety increases, risk decreases. It is of little value to have plenty of altitude and possess the skills to apply the correct recovery inputs if we’re going to intentionally spin airplanes not approved for spins. It is likewise also of little value to spin a spins-approved airplane with insufficient altitude for recovery, or given enough altitude and a recoverable airplane, to lack the necessary recovery skills. Our margin of safety is tied to the Trinity: altitude, airplane capability, piloting skills. Acknowledging this and acting to achieve a balance among these elements will improve the safety of each flight operation.”

Rich adds: “There is ZERO margin for error when spinning a Normal category airplane. Plus, the experience may be instilling a false sense of security in pilots doing it. What’s to stop someone who adopts that mindset from loading up a Cessna 182 with four people and baggage for a cross country, and along the way saying, ‘hey, watch this!’”

Importance of Stall Recoveries in Other Aircraft

As a CFI we must always be cognizant of the various Laws of Learning during the instruction and evaluation of other pilots. For example, the Law of Primacy often creates the most lasting impression as first impressions are persistent ones. Additionally, following the Law of Recency, pilots tend to do things the way they’ve done them recently. Wrapping it up with one more, pilots in the long-term tend to do things in accordance with the Law of Exercise that asserts what we do most often is usually the best learned. Having said that, think about the students you are teaching. What are they learning about “stall spin” training first, most recently and most often? Can what you teach be looked up in an official aviation training publication of some kind? If not, it should be.

The nice thing about stall training in accordance with AC 61-67C is that the general recovery principles remain consistent across the spectrum of fixed wing aircraft including GA, large, business jet and airline category machines. General philosophy; reduce angle of attack, make a power decision, cancel yaw with rudder, re-orient the lift-vector towards the sky and initiate a climb. In each and every aircraft you fly, every CFI or authorized instructor must be emphasizing recognition, avoidance and, if necessary, immediate stall recovery. Note the repeated emphasis on “immediate”.

So what about the pilot moving up from the single-engine GA aircraft where they make the potentially fatal thought “You know, I really need to be sure I’m safe from spinning my new Cessna 421, so I think I’m going to go do some one-turn spin recoveries”. Is that a thought that could occur? Although very wrong and potentially deadly that type of thinking does happen. Too often. If they erroneously learned Spins-Prohibited equals One-Turn Spins-Approved, why would their thinking change? Having trained thousands of pilots in unusual attitude and spin recovery training, you’d be surprised how many pilots make a similar initial call to our office saying; “I’m concerned about safety when flying my family around so I think it’s really important that I learn how to recovery from spins in my Beech Baron (or a similar light twin). I used to do one-turn spins with my instructor in my Piper Arrow but I’d like to have an instructor with me in my new aircraft before I try it on my own”. How thankful we are when these pilots call as they’ve taken the first step on the road to safety and education. It is calls like these that affirm the importance of “stall spin” awareness and recovery training by approved highly-qualified experts.

Twin engine airplanes are not evaluated for spin recoverability during testing for certification. The only requirement as stated in the Flight Test Guide AC 23-8A is that twin engine airplanes can not display an “undue tendency” to spin from an unaccelerated, wings level stall with the critical engine failed. It is common practice during stalls in multi-engine aircraft in this configuration to select power to idle in the recovery.

For example: In response to a number of flat spin accidents in the Beech Baron, the US Army spin tested the airplane in 1974. One of the most noteworthy published findings was that it took less than one second for the airplane to spin following a single-engine stall. Immediate recovery action was needed to avoid spinning. In 1998 and 2002 the Raytheon Aircraft Company published safety communiqu?s reporting the results of 229 spins in Baron Models 58 and 58P. With the windmilling left engine idle with max continuous power on the right engine throughout the stall, entry to beyond 270 degrees of rotation, the spin was unrecoverable requiring the deployment of the spin chute. Part of Raytheon’s published recommendations was:

“During single-engine operation (actual or simulated), at the first indication of approach to stall (the stall warning horn, buffeting, or both) stall recovery must be initiated immediately … if this instruction is not followed, a stall will occur and a dangerous spin is likely to occur”

Conclusion

The simple answer is that intentional spins in Normal category aircraft are not approved. As a professional CFI, this statement alone should keep us from ever even considering doing an intentional spin in a normal category aircraft, or worse, recommending that others do it. The fact that a normal category aircraft is certified to be recoverable from a one-turn (or 3-second) spin is most definitely not an authorization to violate the “Spins Prohibited” maneuvering limitation of these aircraft. The one-turn spin recoverability is only to add a margin of safety in regulatory compliant stall recovery training.

Following the same philosophy it should be obvious that training to prepare pilots to effectively recovery from a one-turn spin (the absolute maximum certified limit of recoverability in a normal category aircraft) should ONLY be done in aircraft that offer a margin of error. Spins-approved Utility category and Aerobatic category aircraft within their spins-approved certified weight and balance limits are the only aircraft that should be used for spin training of any kind. There is a reason why CFIs, Designated Examiners and FAA Examiners do not evaluate CFI candidates in their ability to recovery from spins in a Normal category aircraft. The reason: Intentional spins are prohibited.

For CFIs still not convinced to stop spin training in Normal category aircraft, let’s step it up a notch on behalf of your future students and passengers who don’t know better …

First, I strongly urge you to stop this practice. Secondly, despite the fact the regulations tell you not to do it, it is a prohibited maneuver, I’m telling you not to do it, every reputable CFI spin instructor is telling you not to do it, every Master CFI-Aerobatic is telling you not to do it, the FAA & Designated Pilot Examiners won’t do it … there are still some among you that will still say “I am going to do it”. Consider this: However you justify doing what your doing when spinning a normal category aircraft, be certain to use some other reason than being in the name of safety of flight. You are free to risk your own life by violating regulation and may have even found that you’ve been successful in the past based on your skill and familiarity with your specific aircraft. Regulations and approved maneuver limitations comprehend information and safety practices that may not be readily apparent to all pilots or CFIs. The only way to ensure your safety is to know and comply with the limitations published for your aircraft.

Final Question: Can you spin a Normal category aircraft? As Master Flight Instructor Rich Stowell explains nicely (above); Yes. But you can not do it legally, not for more than one turn, not without zero margin of error and not without counting on flawless spin recovery techniques. Following the practice of offering spin training in a normal category aircraft puts yourself, and those with you, at grave risk both during your intentional spin in violation of regulation and even more so when your student or fellow CFI is out by himself, or with friends, practicing one-turn spin recovery based on your recommendation to do so. Maybe your spin recovery technique is perfect but what about others you teach to do the same, is their technique perfect? I can tell you personally from training thousands of pilots in spin avoidance and recovery that their technique is not perfect (far from it), neither is yours nor is mine.

In closing, we all need a margin of safety in “stall spin” avoidance and recovery training, so be sure you have one. Emphasize immediate recovery in all stall training and ensure you, as well as all pilots you influence, seek quality spin training in a spins-approved aircraft provided by qualified spin instructors. Fly safe and be prepared. Q

Original APS Press Release | Aerospace & Defense News Release | AVweb News | Military & Aerospace Release

The FULL VERSION of this Article is Available to APS Members Only.

Do You Want to Become a APS Member?

Here's How: Click Here to Sign-Up for our 2.5 Hours of Video Training for a full 30-Days for Just $1.00

In the meantime, please enjoy the excerpt of this article below ...

AS SEEN IN FLYING MAGAZINE - NOVEMBER 2007:

The intent of this article is to provide pilots of all skill and experience levels an opportunity to review the general concepts of the All-Attitude Upset Recovery Technique. The recovery is designed as a single procedure checklist to address both stalls and unusual attitudes in a wide variety of fixed wing aircraft to include general aviation, business jet and airline transport airplanes. As a checklist, its successful application is significantly improved if the pilot has completed a comprehensive upset recovery training course. As with all in-flight procedures, the pilot implementing the recovery is expected to have aircraft-specific knowledge related to their aircraft’s performance and flight characteristics.

Our mission at APS Emergency Maneuver Training is to provide pilots with a turnkey resource in the provision of expert knowledge and practical hands-on training so they can be prepared for upset recovery scenarios in the real world. This article is not intended to be a single resource that provides the reader with all the information needed to be thoroughly trained in upset recovery techniques. We do hope this article gives pilots valuable insight into the combined importance of knowledge and practical skill when faced with a high-pressure time-critical, and possibly life-threatening, flight condition.

The training provided by APS Emergency Maneuver Training is unique in that we present our training services as being directly complimentary to recovery procedures implemented in all categories of fixed-wing aircraft. An Upset Recovery Training course is of marginal value if the techniques learned and knowledge gained during training is not directly transferable back to the participating pilot’s own aircraft.

For more than a decade APS Emergency Maneuver Training (APS) has been developing and teaching upset recovery, emergency maneuver, instrument recovery and spin recovery programs to thousands of pilots flying just about every certified fixed-wing aircraft type in existence. Keeping in touch with the growing market demand for an effective, practical, comprehensive upset recovery program has been our primary focus each and every day for over 12,000 hours of in-flight instruction. At APS Emergency Maneuver Training we are blessed with a staff of expert aviators whose experience spans the spectrum of aviation to include the US Navy, US Air Force and Canadian Armed Forces, and all having extensive professional experience flying commercial aircraft and most are experienced airline pilots. Additionally, each APS instructor has thousands of hours of aerobatic experience in both general aviation and turbojet aircraft.

Continued in the APS Members-Only Area ...

This is an excerpt. You do not have sufficient rights to view the full content.

Please login or become a subscriber.

Well folks, the time has come to announce our brand-new Redbird simulator at APS Emergency Maneuver Training. This is more than just an upset recovery training device. If you live in a hot, turbulent or storm-prone climate, then you are likely tired of not being able to train due to circumstances beyond your control. APS Emergency Maneuver Training has come up with a leading-edge solution integrating a wide variety of features such as; visuals, instructor tablet interface, coded key access, and best of all, full motion! Be sure to a take a moment to view our video tour of this training device above.

As mentioned above, one of the most exciting things about this new simulator is its full-motion capability. This is interesting because most general aviation pilots do not have access to advanced flight simulation resources. At APS, we are offering the capability for pilots of many types of single-engine and multi-engine airplanes to get specialized training, not only for their common use, but also in upset recovery training.

Brochure Link: Full Motion Simulator – Light General Aviation Pilot Training Device

As a follow-on to the video tour above, I would like to take a few minutes to describe some of the features of this new simulator. First of all, the visuals span an entire 200° field of view in full color. Also, there’s a tablet interface for the instructor to provide interaction with the student or pilot flying the simulator. In addition, there is an access key that will allow students to arrange to have a certain number of hours set up for them, complete specified flight profiles and/or training missions, and also allow them to use the simulator anytime during the day, including after standard business hours.

For pilots seeking an ability to stay current, the flight simulator is also AATD certified. AATD stands for Advanced Aviation Training Device. Pilots can record FAR-compliant flight experience, perform training related to ratings and licenses, and even complete an Instrument Rating flight test.

Other Configurations

For flight schools interested in other aircraft types, APS offers the opportunity to select a variety of other airplane models. Available in single-engine formats are; Beech Bonanza, Piper Warrior, Piper Archer, Piper Arrow, and the Cirrus SR 20 or SR 22. Multi-Engine formats include the Piper Seminole and Beech Bonanza. These models can come configured in either standard six-pack or glass cockpits.

More Information

We look forward to having you visit APS Emergency Maneuver Training to take advantage of our wide variety of upset recovery training services. For more information on this and other training offered by APS Emergency Maneuver Training, please CLICK HERE.

Note to Readers: Articles submitted by APS clients are not edited (except for format and graphic art) nor do they necessarily represent APS opinions, accurately depict training techniques, methodologies or aerodynamic principles endorsed and taught by APS Emergency Maneuver Training.

Nothing to get UPSET about …

Flight Instructors have great demands placed upon them, first and foremost of which is flight safety. The best way to ensure safety is to continuously advance our training and improve flight skills. Every pilot, especially instructors, should make an investment in specialized upset and emergency attitude recovery training, an investment the FAA does not require, but which pays dividends throughout a flying career. Military flight schools put students through the paces of upset and emergency recovery, but the requirement for these types of maneuvers was deleted long ago from general aviation licensing requirements. Pilots without upset recovery training often do not even know what they don’t know. Once pilots experience life well beyond ‘stall’ and learn to master recovery skills, they will wonder how they survived without it. Where can you find this training? The best answer is APS!

APS Emergency Maneuver Training of Phoenix, Arizona teaches a course that is more than flying upside down and aerobatics – what they teach could easily be called a master’s degree in aerodynamics. Speaking from experience, this course goes well beyond the training that military primary students receive. APS Instructors walk pilots through and around the corners and curves of the aircraft envelope with a thrilling, NAFI Master Instructor-designed syllabus. Each classroom exercise explores the finer points of aerodynamics, teaching the pilot to think like an airplane. Strapping into the Extra 300L, the flight lessons drill the all-attitude aircraft recovery procedure into pilot’s muscles and mind. The leap in skills and knowledge is a great as getting an instrument rating! We left the course a believer in specific recoveries and advanced aerodynamic theories. Most importantly, APS provided us the confidence to recover from any situation that is recoverable, and made us wise enough to recognize and avoid situations that are unrecoverable.

Arrival at Williams Gateway Airport (IAW):

Upon arrival at APS, a big, friendly black Lab named Piper meets all pilots and performs a quick indoctrination and security check. Piper’s hearty hello is the first indication of the friendly welcome extended by the entire APS team to their guests. The dog is named after an airplane, and my instructor was named after an aquatic water mammal – Otter. Otter is an experienced F-18 Hornet fighter instructor and airline captain. What is most amazing about Otter is the level of intensity and newness that he brings to every instructional hop – this guy loves his job and is great at doing it. He makes learning the techniques and lessons on emergency recoveries and aerodynamics challenging and fun. Flight instructors have the added opportunity to learn added lessons on How to Teach, by copying Otter’s instructional style and bringing home his enthusiasm to their students.

Prior to arrival, APS provides each student with a comprehensive flight-training manual for the course they are going to attend. Reading the manual is essential to maximizing the course material, from studying the aerodynamic questions explored in the manual to make classroom work enriching to memorizing the ‘All Attitude Recovery Procedure’ (PUSH – POWER – RUDDER – ROLL – CLIMB) so that it can be applied immediately in flight. A great recommendation is to go for a run and repeat this mantra about 300 times. Memorization is the key.

What is the All Attitude Recovery Procedure? PUSH – POWER – RUDDER – ROLL – CLIMB. PUSH the stick forward to decrease the weight of the aircraft, which lowers stall speed, and increases the speed of the aircraft to break the stall. POWER increases or decreases the acceleration rate of the aircraft. RUDDER – apply to establish trimmed flight, and determine why and when the ball is not accurate. ROLL to a wings-level attitude, and learn why the ailerons should not be used until this step. CLIMB – pull away from danger with the perfect amount of G-force for the limit of the particular aircraft structure (3.8G Normal Category).

APS spends a great deal of time teaching the aircraft envelope diagram that shows the relationship between Angle of Attack and Coefficient of Lift/Drag. How much time does the average pilot spend thinking about how the aircraft behaves well below the published stall speed and why it behaves that way? Not much if any. APS structures their course to explore the diagrams academically and practically, with advanced theory in the classroom and flight maneuvers in the cockpit. For example, APS practices two maneuvers that help pilots master flying the aircraft below the published stall speed, called the Falling Leaf and the Zoom Maneuver.

Strapped into the Extra 300L, the Falling Leaf is an exercise where the instructor holds the stick full aft with the Extra in a deep stall. Using the ailerons for control will increase drag on the respective wing at a greater rate than the input will increase lift! Sure, they show you on the diagram and teach you procedure on the ground, but getting the muscles to leave the stick centered is another matter. With the rudders as your only available control, the pilot gets to enjoy a wild ride trying to keep the aircraft upright, recovering from attitudes of beyond 150 degrees of roll. Bottom line – the rudder works and the ailerons do not – this exercise will make any pilot a believer. Check off this exercise and your ready to move on, they are putting the building blocks in place for more advanced procedures.

The Zoom Maneuver places the aircraft into a parabolic arcing climb. At the top of the arc, the aircraft slows down and is unloaded. In other words, it weighs less by the decelerating descent. If the aircraft weighs less by reducing G, but remains slightly positive, stall speed is lowered significantly and the aircraft is comfortably controlled at less than 40 knots! Check off this maneuver, there is life below the published stall speed, and once again you are a believer.

FIGURE 1: V-G Diagram

FIGURE 2: Coefficients of Lift & Drag Versus Angle of Attack

The entire course is one fun exercise after another. Each one goes back to the solid aerodynamic theory that makes the syllabus so enriching. Using maneuvers such as the Falling Leaf, the Zoom Maneuver, Dutch Rolls, Roll Dampening Exercises, and Accelerated Stalls, builds a solid foundation to move through practical exercises. The advanced practical exercises focus on approach-turn stall recoveries, severe wake turbulence recoveries, engine out, emergency landing, and loss of flight control scenarios. As a bonus, they use aerobatics to teach the same theories. Flying loops, Cuban Eights, aileron rolls, split-s, and other maneuvers makes it tough to believe that this is a school since it is so much fun.

What is the result? Pilots learn the limits of their aircraft and how to recognize the limits by feel. They have a greater respect for exactly what they are able to accomplish in an aircraft and an understanding of how to create better personal minimums. Additionally, they will be able to use the aircraft to its maximum performance limit in case they are ever in extremis. More importantly, students learn new flight skills from some of the best pilots in the business!

Videos and pictures of the course are available at http://www.apstraining.com/ or http://www.flitelite.com/isite/videos.htm. ?

By: David Simeur – Master Flight Instructor

APS’s Recommendations:

What is your best defense in aircraft unusual attitude or upset conditions?

1. First, attempt to avoid conditions that can induce unusual attitudes in the first place! Steer clear of thunderstorms and wake turbulence! Avoid IMC or flight into low visibility conditions if not properly certificated and trained. Avoid distractions.
2. Second, get the proper training. According to an article in AW&ST (May 8, 1995 issue): “Training should include flights in aerobatic aircraft to practice recovery techniques because no simulator can model the disorientation of actually being upside down… recurrent training every two years, with time in an actual aircraft, would be a good start.” Regardless of the aircraft that you fly, proper training will enable you to learn to react decisively in a high-pressure environment, and to learn proper recovery techniques to avoid a “panic” response that could worsen the situation.
3. Contact a APS – Emergency Maneuver Training representative. Certainly, we would like to take this opportunity to recommend our program at APS which offers three course layouts to choose from. Please give us a call a 1-866-FLY-HARD and ask to speak with a flight training specialist or submit this online form for more information today!

Get this training somewhere. The life you save may be more than just your own.

The crew of this DC-8, N827AX, departed from Piedmont Triad airport in Greensboro, North Carolina late in the afternoon of December 22. They had planned to depart earlier, but maintenance delayed their takeoff time. ATC assigned them a block altitude of 13,000 to 15,000 feet mean sea level for the checks they needed to perform. About 13 minutes before the crew initiated the stall, they had reported flying in and out of some clouds and had reported some ice build-up, but cockpit voice recordings indicated that they were clear of icing conditions before the stall was initiated. The extent of any ice build up on the aircraft at the time of the stall is unclear. It was also dark outside when the crew initiated the stall, so outside visual attitude references were limited. Guidance on FEF profiles at the time recommended that maneuvers such as stall series be performed during the daylight hours.

After other checks had been completed, the crew decided to initiate the stall series. The plan was to record the airspeed at which the stick shaker activated and the airspeed of the first stall indication. At that point, they would recover from the stall. They expected a stick shaker at 128 knots and first indication of the stall at 122 knots. The approach to stall was uneventful, as the pilot slowed the aircraft down at about 1 knot per second. The PF (pilot flying) noted “some buffet” at 151 knots at 18.08:06, and the crew commented that this was early for buffet (Whether this was due to some ice build-up or the fact that the control surfaces had been re-rigged during maintenance is unclear). At 18.08:09, the sound of rattling was heard on the cockpit voice recorder. At 18.08:11 the flight engineer stated “that’s a stall right there…ain’t no [stick] shaker.” The PF called “set max power” at 18.08:13. Perhaps confusing to the crew was the fact not only that the stall occurred at a higher than expected airspeed, but also that the stick shaker failed to activate. For the next 8 seconds, the PF continued to hold the nose up, maintaining a relatively constant pitch attitude. Popping sounds were also heard coming from one or more of the engines, and engine indications of surging were present, which can happen when airflow into the engine intakes is at an excessive angle. Airspeed continued to decay, and the aircraft began descending as the stall progressed. At 18.08:30 the PNF (pilot not flying) stated “You can take a little altitude down…” He was implying to the PF to push forward on the yoke. But at 18.08:42, he added, “Start bringing the nose back up.” For the next 56 seconds, the DC-8 continued descending and began a series of roll reversals. At times, the PF did move the control column forward somewhat, but the data recorder indicated several instances where the control column was full aft, which corresponded with un-commanded aircraft downward pitches. The crew failed to recover from the stall and impacted terrain at approximately 3400 feet mean sea level in a 52-degree, left wing low and 26-degree nose-down attitude.

Complicating successful recovery was the lack of outside visual references. Further, once the aircraft began to descend, it entered IMC conditions and remained there until shortly before impact. Most civilian aircraft do not have any on-board angle-of-attack visual reference, despite the fact that most military aircraft have such references. Angle-of-attack indicators and their associated equipment are not complicated devices, and many official agencies have recommended repeatedly that they be installed in airliners. It is possible that, without adequate visual references of pitch attitude or angle-of-attack, and with an inoperative stick shaker, that the crew of this DC-8 may not have realized in the descent that the aircraft was still stalled. It appeared as though their priority may have shifted from a stall recovery to a nose-low unusual attitude recovery as they retarded the engines toward idle, pulled the yoke well aft as the nose pitched down, and attempted to roll wings level at one point with full left rudder deflection as the aircraft rolled to over 100 degrees of right bank.

It is worth noting the stall characteristics of an aircraft such as the DC-8, and how that differs from the stall characteristics of other airplanes. Most straight wing aircraft have favorable stall characteristics. Their wings stall at the root first providing ample warning that the stall is progressing (fuselage buffet as the turbulent air flows off the wing roots and past the fuselage). They have fairly good lateral stability since, at least in the early stages of a stall, the outer portions of the wing are un-stalled, and the ailerons are somewhat effective. A modern swept wing airliner such as the DC-8 has somewhat different stall characteristics. Since aft-swept wings tend to stall at the tips first, the Center-of-lift may move ahead of the Center-of-gravity (CG) at the stall causing a pitch-up moment. The aircraft may begin descending in a nose up attitude unless positive forward pressure on the yoke is applied (Straight-wing aircraft will usually pitch down on their own accord when the stall occurs, as long as they are within aft CG limits.). That is why swept-wing aircraft have stick shakers that give an artificial warning of impending wing stall. Some even have stick pushers to force the aircraft to a lower angle-of-attack before the stall progresses too far. Many types of aircraft will tend to roll or yaw if recovery from the stall is delayed, and swept wing aircraft are particularly prone to becoming laterally unstable as the stall progresses. (Of note is the fact that the simulator that this crew had recently trained in did not exhibit lateral instability if held in a stall). To further complicate the problem, those aircraft with engines mounted underneath the wings can cause a further pitch up, since the engines’ thrust lines are below the aircraft’s CG. The pitch-up associated with adding power can cause the stall to worsen, if the yoke is not moved forward to counter this tendency, or if emphasis is not placed on lowering angle-of-attack first with forward pressure on the yoke. Swept-wing aircraft do not normally have the luxury of engine or propeller wash over the horizontal tail and elevator, or stabilator, to aid in pitch control. In the past, if a pilot encounters an impending stall in such an aircraft, he has been taught to hold the pitch attitude and apply maximum power to minimize altitude loss and to “fly” out of the stall. The success of this recovery lies in the fact that a stall has not yet occurred (the stick shaker will typically activate at an airspeed 5-10% above the stall speed.). It is not really a stall recovery that most of us would use in a typical general aviation aircraft for instance. It is not really a stall recovery at all, since a stall has not occurred. Guidance did exist at the time of this accident both for the DC-8 and other similar aircraft that recommended pushing forward on the yoke to lower angle-of-attack first, then adding maximum power.

The stall characteristics of the DC-8 are relatively good for a swept wing aircraft. The crew of N827AX obviously did not anticipate any problems. The crew noted early buffet, but the flight data recorder indicated that the actual stall occurred within a few knots of planned stall speed. Published guidance on the DC-8 warned that, when approaching a stall, aircraft buffet does not always precede the stick shaker, and may occur simultaneously with the shaker. But on this night, the stick shaker did not activate at all. The pilot’s decision to hold the DC-8′s pitch attitude constant as maximum power had been applied would have been uneventful if the stall had not progressed as far as it did. This leads to an important consideration involving pitch attitude and angle-of-attack.

The pitch attitude is typically defined as the angle between an aircraft reference such as its longitudinal axis and the horizon. Angle-of-attack, conversely, is the angle between the wing’s chord line and the relative wind, which could be coming from anywhere. We can approximately see the aircraft’s pitch attitude by referencing the angle that the wings or nose makes with the horizon, or by referencing the attitude indicator or other attitude reference. Certainly if we were to approach the stall from a steady 1-G deceleration in level flight, critical angle of attack and our pitch attitude would be roughly the same. We would “see” the stalling angle-of-attack by referencing the position of the wings or aircraft’s nose with respect to the horizon. But anyone who has practiced power-on stalls extensively knows that higher pitch attitudes are reached when the stall occurs, even though the wing always stalls at the same critical angle-of-attack. And if you have ever encountered a stall in descending flight or perhaps while recovering from a dive following a spin recovery, you know that a stall can occur at “negative” pitch angles, when the nose is definitely below the horizon. Consider again the DC-8 mishap. Because the stick shaker was inoperative, the pilot actually stalled the wings of the DC-8. Airspeed continued to decay, and, because lift decreased at the stall, the aircraft began descending. In the diagram in Figure 1, the aircraft on the left is at some angle-of-attack either below or at critical angle-of-attack. Since the flight path is level (as indicated by the relative airflow parallel to the horizon), the angle-of-attack and pitch angle are approximately the same (any typically small difference between the two would lie in the aircraft reference used to define pitch angle, which may not be the chord-line of the wing as it is for angle-of-attack, and in any built in angle-of-incidence of the wing as it is attached to the aircraft). The same aircraft depicted on the right side of the diagram has now entered a descent. Note that the relative wind is coming up at the aircraft from below. The pitch attitude of the aircraft has not changed, but the angle-of-attack has increased in the descent due to the upward flow of the relative wind. In the pilot’s desire to hold the DC-8 at constant pitch attitude he unwittingly allowed the angle-of-attack to increase further into the stall as the aircraft began a descent. This would not be readily apparent by noting the pitch attitude of the aircraft (and references were limited anyway), but there were other cues that the crew was not successfully recovering from the stall. They included:

• Continued aerodynamic buffet
• Un-commanded extreme pitch down moments (stall breaks) accompanied by un-commanded roll-off into steep banks
• Engine compressor surges
• Instrument indications of low airspeed and high sink rates

Figure 1: Pitch Attitude versus Angle-of-Attack in a Descent

The most prudent thing to do here would be to push forward on the yoke to reduce the angle-of-attack. Perhaps the pilot failed to do this, because it was not necessary to do so in his previous training, since the stick shaker kept the aircraft below critical angle-of-attack. The crew had plenty of altitude at the start of the stalled condition. As the DC-8 continued the descent, the un-commanded pitch down moments would have required pushing forward on the yoke to break the stall, not pulling back.

Regardless of the proximity of the ground, it is necessary to push forward on the yoke or stick enough to break the stall, while adding power to minimize altitude lost. Certainly, if the yoke is pushed forward excessively, the stall recovery will be successful, but excessive altitude loss will be inevitable in the ensuing dive recovery. However, if the yoke is not moved forward sufficiently, then the angle-of-attack may not be reduced sufficiently to break the stall. A pilot should not rely on pitch attitude to tell that the stall is broken. Other cues that can assist in determining that the aircraft is no longer stalled might include:

• Termination of stall warning horn or other aural warnings
• Reduction or termination of aircraft buffet
• Reestablishment of aircraft lateral and directional control
• Proper aircraft response to control inputs

The crew of DC-8 had several things going against them, including an inoperative stick shaker, lack of consistent guidance on proper stall recovery techniques, inadequate simulator training, and lack of adequate outside visual references. Still, had prompt and correct control inputs been applied to break the stall, the accident could have been avoided.

At APS, our instructors teach the following stall recovery technique:

• PRESSURE – Forward on the yoke or stick; enough to break the stall
• POWER – Full, to minimize altitude loss
• RUDDER – Enough to arrest any yaw and roll present while stalled
• LEVEL – Ailerons with coordinated rudder to level the wings after the stall has been broken
• CLIMB – Away from the ground

Notice that reducing angle-of-attack is absolutely the first and most important step in the recovery process. Minimizing altitude will at times be critical, and should be the emphasis of training, but if an actual stall occurs, altitude loss will be inevitable. You must react to all available cues that a stall exists, regardless of the aircraft’s attitude, airspeed, or proximity to the ground and you must be prepared to lower the angle-of-attack with sufficient forward movement of the yoke or stick. Proper training should involve stalls from a variety of pitch and roll attitudes and airspeeds. Your options are limited in most aircraft due to narrow structural and airspeed tolerances. A thorough Emergency Maneuver Training program in a structurally capable aircraft can help. APS offers such a program in the Extra 300L.

So what is your best defense in aircraft unusual attitude or upset conditions?

1. First, attempt to avoid conditions that can induce unusual attitudes in the first place! Steer clear of thunderstorms and wake turbulence! Avoid IMC or flight into low visibility conditions if not properly certificated and trained. Avoid distractions.
2. Second, get the proper training. According to an article in AW&ST (May 8, 1995 issue): “Training should include flights in aerobatic aircraft to practice recovery techniques because no simulator can model the disorientation of actually being upside down… recurrent training every two years, with time in an actual aircraft, would be a good start.” Regardless of the aircraft that you fly, proper training will enable you to learn to react decisively in a high-pressure environment, and to learn proper recovery techniques to avoid a “panic” response that could worsen the situation.
3. Contact a APS – Emergency Maneuver Training representative. Certainly, we would like to take this opportunity to recommend our program at APS which offers three course layouts to choose from. Please give us a call a 1-866-FLY-HARD and ask to speak with a flight training specialist or submit this online form for more information today!

Get this training somewhere. The life you save may be more than just your own.