A Global Express corporate pilot crew, Chris Davis and Steven Cox, attended the APS Upset Recovery and Prevention Training program in Mesa Arizona as part of the Bombardier Leading Edge In-Flight Upset Recovery program that included online academic study, on-aircraft all-attitude maneuvering and FSTD upset training transfer of skill sessions. Please review their videos for individual commentary ...

Learjet corporate pilot, Tim Ganse, comments on his upset prevention and recovery training at APS training in Arizona through the Bombardier Leading Edge program. Tim discusses how the upset recovery program addresses areas of flight not generally addressed in career flying operations and training.

APS president, Paul BJ Ransbury, was honored to be the official back-up speaker at the Corporate Aviation Safety Seminar (CASS) event in San Antonio, Texas on the dates 18 - 19 April 2012. Here is his presentation providing an update on the upset recovery advancements and training recommendations of the Royal Aeronautical Society's ICATEE Working Group (ICATEE is the International Committee on Advanced Training in Extended Envelopes).

 
The APS president, Paul BJ Ransbury, is honored to be the team leader (since Nov 2011) on the development of a draft manual for the Royal Aeronautical Society's International Committed for Advanced Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE.org) on airplane upset prevention & recovery training (UPRT) for ICAO. Mr. Ransbury provided the ICATEE Working Group body at large an update on the manual development progress in Tampa, Florida at an Opinicus-sponsored conference.
]]> http://www.apstraining.com/2012/international-manual-on-upset-recovery-in-development/feed/ 0 http://www.apstraining.com/2012/crj-series-pilot-feedback-bombardier-leading-edge/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=crj-series-pilot-feedback-bombardier-leading-edge http://www.apstraining.com/2012/crj-series-pilot-feedback-bombardier-leading-edge/#comments Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:49:58 +0000 APS Corporate Administrator http://www.apstraining.com/?p=10296 Video Testimonial (CRJ Series Pilot): Tony Lezcano participated in the APS in-flight upset recovery training program uniquely designed for Bombardier Leading Edge clients. He comments on value, quality and relevance of training for all pilots ...]]>

Capt. Anthony (Tony) Lezcano with Caselton Investments participated in the APS in-flight upset recovery training program uniquely designed for Bombardier Leading Edge clients. Please review the video below as Tony comments on the value, quality and relevance of this upset training for himself as a corporate pilot and for other professional pilots. Learn more about the Bombardier Leading Edge in-flight upset recovery training with APS.

• Industry feedback invited on Loss of Control In-flight (LOC-I)  and upset recovery scenario
• Try It: http://www.apstraining.com/cae/caeaps-ffs-ip-standardization-session-1-1/

Montreal, Canada and Mesa, Arizona, March 20, 2012 – (NYSE: CAE; TSX: CAE) – CAE and Aviation Performance Solutions (APS) today announced a new web-based tool designed to help standardize full-flight simulator (FFS) instructor knowledge for loss of control in-flight (LOC-I). LOC-I is defined as flight that occurs outside of the normal flight envelope in which the pilot is unable to control the aircraft, and is the leading cause of aviation crash fatalities over the past decade.

"This new online tool provides a way to effectively deliver a standardized level of theoretical knowledge to a large number of instructors efficiently and quickly," said Lou Nemeth, CAE’s Chief Safety Officer. Nemeth is chairman of the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Rule Making Committee (ARC) which has made recommendations to the FAA on how pilots can better manage stall situations. He is also a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE). "The objective is to provide an analysis tool for pilots and instructors to recognize the conditions contributing to an LOC-I upset situation and a fundamental core strategy for recovering control and flying the airplane."

"LOC-I events are often unexpected, high-stress situations which can develop very rapidly. Business aircraft and commercial pilots who have not experienced comprehensive upset prevention and recovery training or advanced military jet training have probably never been exposed to such abnormal areas of the flight envelope," said Paul BJ Ransbury, President of APS, who is a former airline and military fighter pilot. Ransbury is also a co-leader of the RAeS ICATEE group. "By addressing this important area with an easily accessible online training tool, we can help mitigate the serious threat posed by aircraft loss of control situations."

The CAE-APS instructor training tool is based on FAA guidance in the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid (AURTA), Revision 2. Key components of the training are an online multimedia presentation powered by CAE Flightscape flight data analysis software, guidance by training experts, and detailed APS upset recovery training options which are integral to instructor assessment and teaching of LOC-I risk mitigation.

The initial CAE-APS training scenario features an aircraft upset event in which a pilot-in-training is attempting to recover from a nose-low, high-bank upset condition in an FFS for the Boeing 737 aircraft. The presentation uses high-definition video, graphic representations of avionics displays and aircraft controls, and a stealth view animation of the aircraft in flight. The aircraft displays and animation are provided through CAE Flightscape software, which captures the data from the simulator event much as a flight data recorder captures information for aircraft in flight.

CAE and APS are making the initial LOC-I scenario available for aviation industry participation and comment through April 28, 2012. Instructors and pilots are invited to view the multimedia presentation (http://www.apstraining.com/cae/caeaps-ffs-ip-standardization-session-1-1/), provide feedback on what instruction they would provide to a student during the LOC-I event scenario, and compare their responses with those of training experts. A goal of the project is to establish a global standard for training simulator instructors on how to teach fundamental LOC-I and upset recovery.

About CAE

CAE is a global leader in modelling, simulation and training for civil aviation and defence. The company employs more than 7,500 people at more than 100 sites and training locations in more than 25 countries. Through CAE’s global network of 34 civil aviation, military and helicopter training centres, the company trains more than 80,000 crewmembers yearly. CAE’s business is diversified, ranging from the sale of simulation products to providing comprehensive services such as training and aviation services, professional services and in-service support. The company aims to apply its simulation expertise and operational experience to help customers enhance safety, improve efficiency, maintain readiness and solve challenging problems. CAE is now leveraging its simulation capabilities in new markets such as healthcare and mining.  www.cae.com

About Aviation Performance Solutions (APS)

Aviation Performance Solutions’ Emergency Maneuver Training at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (Mesa, Arizona) has trained thousands of pilots in fully comprehensive upset recovery skill development, more than any other training organization. For 15 years, APS has been committed to giving professional pilots and private pilots of all skill levels the highest quality upset recovery training available. APS offers comprehensive LOC-I solutions via industry-leading web-based, on-aircraft, and full-flight simulator upset recovery training programs. APS is the only Part 141 Flight School currently certified in the delivery of upset recovery, stall / spin and instrument recovery training courses worldwide. All APS upset recovery training courses are in full compliance with the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid – Revision 2. www.apstraining.com

– 30 –

APS contact:

Faye Hamilton, APS Marketing and Public Relations Manager, (480) 797-0752, faye.hamilton@apstraining.com

CAE contacts:

Nathalie Bourque, Vice President, Public Affairs and Global Communications, (514) 734-5788, nathalie.bourque@cae.com

Trade media – civil aviation:

Rick Adams, Senior Manager, Marketing Communications – Civil Aviation, (214) 864-5409, rick.adams@cae.com

Investor relations:

Andrew Arnovitz, Vice President, Investor Relations and Strategy, (514) 734-5760, andrew.arnovitz@cae.com

Captain Mike Weipert with the US Army leaves a video testimonial on his upset recovery training experience at APS in Arizona USA ...
 

Bombardier Selects Aviation Performance Solutions (APS) to Provide In-flight Upset Recovery Training Services as Part of its Leading Edge Program to Crews of Newly Purchased Learjet, Challenger and Global Business Aircraft – Through Pilot Education and Skill Development, Effectively Delivered Upset Recovery Training Mitigates Loss of Control in-Flight (LOC-I), the Leading Cause of the Most Crash-Related Fatalities in Commercial Aviation Worldwide over the Past 10 Years

Original APS PRWeb Release:
Release Bombardier Selects APS for Leading Edge Upset Recovery

Original Bombardier Release:
Bombardier Selects Aviation Performance Solutions LLC for its Leading Edge Safety Training Program

Mesa, AZ (PRWEB) February 7, 2012 - Bombardier Aerospace, the world’s third largest civil aircraft manufacturer, announced today the selection of Aviation Performance Solutions LLC (APS) as its provider of In-flight Upset Recovery Training for Bombardier’s innovative Leading Edge program. The training is provided to crews purchasing new Learjet, Challenger and Global Express business aircraft. This industry effort is the result of both companies’ steadfast commitment to enhanced safety through flight training and education.

“The Bombardier Leading Edge program promotes knowledge and skills-based training along with each individual pilot’s discipline and responsibility as essential elements of aviation professionalism and safety,” said Captain Rick Rowe, Manager Safety Standdown Programs at Bombardier, “Loss of Control in Flight is aviation’s most lethal threat to air safety and it is Bombardier’s commitment to provide our clients and operators with the industry’s most effective safety training, as evidenced by our In-flight Upset Recovery Training program commitment with APS.” The multi-year upset recovery training commitment between Bombardier Aerospace and Aviation Performance Solutions sends a clear message to both general aviation and corporate operators that LOC-I, the leading cause of crash-related fatalities in aviation worldwide, will be seriously addressed by progressive manufacturers.

“It is a great honor to work with Bombardier Aerospace, the recognized leader in aviation safety training initiatives, in the mitigation of the loss of control in-flight (LOC-I) threat to its clients and their flight crews.” says Paul BJ Ransbury, president of Aviation Performance Solutions,  “Prevention must always be the dominant focus in effective upset recovery training as it is at APS. However, when faced with an unpreventable, severe flight condition beyond everyday experience thresholds, pilots must have the fundamental knowledge and practical skills necessary to recover the airplane to controlled flight amidst a developing high-stress time-critical airplane upset situation.”

ABOUT AVIATION PERFORMANCE SOLUTIONS LLC (APS)

Aviation Performance Solutions LLC (APS), dba APS Emergency Maneuver Training, based at the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport in Mesa, Arizona USA, has successfully trained over 4,500 professional pilots in fully comprehensive upset recovery skill development. For more than a decade, APS has been committed to giving professional pilots of all skill levels the highest quality upset recovery training available. APS offers comprehensive LOC-I solutions via industry-leading computer-based, on-aircraft, and advanced full-flight simulator upset recovery and prevention training programs. In addition to all flight training being in full compliance with the internationally-recognized Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid – Revision 2, APS is the only Part 141 Flight School currently certified in the delivery of all of upset recovery, stall/spin and instrument recovery training courses worldwide.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TRIVIA: Over 10% of the world's Master CFI - Aerobatic instructors work at Aviation Performance Solutions (APS), the world's leading provider of Upset Prevention and Recovery Training. APS has more Master CFI–Aerobatic instructors than any other flight training provider.

Mesa, Arizona - 16 December 2011: Aviation Performance Solutions, LLC is very pleased to announce that Brian "Rotor" Willett has earned his Master CFI – Aerobatic accreditation.  A full time instructor with Aviation Performance Solutions, Rotor has over 30 years of aviation.  A former USAF Command Pilot and Flight Examiner (SEFE), Rotor is an ATP SEL & MEL, Comm Inst Rotorcraft-Helicopter, Comm SES, CFI/CFII Airplane and CFI/CFII Helicopter certified pilot with six type ratings. A DESERT STORM combat veteran with over 8,000 hours of global flight experience and 1,500 hours of inflight instruction in both civilian business jet and military operations, Rotor brings a wealth of experience to all of APS' programs.

To put this achievement in its proper perspective, there are approximately 96,000 CFIs in the United States.  Fewer than 700 of those aviation educators have achieved this professional distinction thus far.  The last 16 national Flight Instructors of the Year were Master CFIs (see: http://www.GeneralAviationAwards.org/)  while Rotor is one of only 25 Arizona teachers of flight to earn this prestigious "Master" title and one of only 26 nationwide to earn aerobatic accreditation.

In the words of former FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, "The Master Instructor accreditation singles out the best that the right seat has to offer."

The Master Instructor designation is a national accreditation recognized by the FAA.  Candidates must demonstrate an ongoing commitment to excellence, professional growth, and service to the aviation community, and must pass a rigorous evaluation by a peer Board of Review.  The process parallels the continuing education regimen used by other professionals to enhance their knowledge base while increasing their professionalism.  Designees are recognized as outstanding aviation educators for not only their excellence in teaching, but for their engagement in the continuous process of learning -- both their own, and their students'.  The designation must be renewed biennially and significantly surpasses the FAA requirements for renewal of the candidate's flight instructor certificate.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Faye Hamilton, Marketing Coordinator
Aviation Performance Solutions
Mobile: 480-797-0752
Office: 480-279-1881 ext. 12
www.apstraining.com

Pilot Project: Download this AeroSafety World article in PDF

At AeroSafety World: Link to Original Online ASW Version

Evolving guidelines aim to correct deficiencies in methods of training for airplane upset prevention and recovery.

By Paul “BJ” Ransbury and Janeen Kochan

Although debate continues about how best to incorporate upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT) at the commercial pilot licensing and type rating levels for airline transport pilots (ASW, 6/11, p. 24), a robust high-level framework already exists. This framework enables a consistent delivery of instruction, general sequencing of training phases and practical verification of effectiveness by integrating resources such as Web-based curricula, specialized UPRT instructors, aerobatic-capable airplanes and Level D simulators.

The framework also addresses seven deficiencies that we outline in this article to help mitigate the persistent, complex and lethal problem of loss of control in-flight (LOC-I). Loss of control can be a precursor to, or the result of, an airplane upset.

The airline industry’s Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid, Revision 2 defines airplane upset as “an airplane in flight unintentionally exceeding the parameters normally experienced in line operations or training: pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees nose up; pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down; bank angle greater than 45 degrees; [or,] within the above parameters, but flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions.”

The geometric pitch and bank components of the definition can be plotted as a blue region representing the normal flight environment (Figure 1). Disregarding airspeed in the definition for the moment, the vast majority of commercial pilots tend to spend more than 99 percent of their flying careers within these tight blue-region confines, which represent less than 5 percent of the all-attitude flight envelope. In rare instances during commercial pilot licensing training, and perhaps during unusual attitude training in the simulator, pilots delve into Figure 1’s yellow region, up to 30 degrees of pitch and 60 degrees of bank, which represents the widely accepted maximum pitch and bank limitations of commercial licensing training. This yellow region represents barely more than 11 percent of the all-attitude flight envelope.

Deficiency No. 1, Unfounded Confidence. One faulty assumption by pilots is that their day-in, day-out expertise in the blue region will give them the skills, discipline and awareness necessary to prevent or recover from an airplane upset event. An upset event that is rapidly hurtling out of the blue region, through the yellow region and into the last region we call the all-attitude red zone can present unexpected, unfamiliar and sometimes violent situations that can rapidly degrade a pilot’s ability to prevent the escalating LOC-I condition or to effectively recover.

What does the reference to inappropriate airspeeds in the upset definition mean exactly? Similar to plotting data that represent the pitch-bank environment, we can graphically represent on the coefficient of lift curve a plot where pilots are only regularly exposed to certain portions of the speed envelope (Figure 2). With effects of aerodynamic loading aside, the typical 1-g experience of pilots (that is, one times standard gravitational acceleration) is shown by the green region of the curve proceeding from the bottom of the chart up to the L/D max angle-of-attack (AOA), the lowest point on the total drag curve.

This region of speed stability is where pilots spend almost their entire flying career. Pilots are only rarely exposed to the yellow region of the curve that proceeds up from L/D max AOA to the stall warning AOA. In speed terms, in a 1-g flight condition, the stall warning AOA is usually 5 kt to 10 kt faster than the published 1-g stall speed. The yellow region is generally only experienced intentionally by commercial pilots when practicing stall prevention training by initiating recovery at the first indication of the stall.

Up to this point in the speed/AOA discussion, pilots have a measured capability to operate in these areas. Unfortunately, most pilots’ ability to deal with events further on the curve is noticeably deficient. Nearly 50 percent of fatal LOC-I accidents are due to the aerodynamic stall. That means that pilots, for a variety of reasons, do not always effectively remain below the stall warning AOA/airspeed.

Historically, in stall prevention training at the commercial level, pilots have been repeatedly taught to minimize altitude loss, and this has been a criterion of performance evaluation (ASW, 11/10, p. 40). This precept is valid until pilots are faced with an actual stall, when they have maneuvered the airplane beyond the yellow region, through the orange region and into the airspeed/AOA red zone of the coefficient of lift curve.

Once at the stall, a pilot often reverts to what was taught in training: To recover with a minimum loss of altitude. This is the exact opposite of what should be emphasized: To reduce the AOA first and foremost. The aerodynamic stall is an airplane upset by definition, and these pilot errors perpetuate stalls, which can lead to serious airplane upsets.

Deficiency No. 2: Improper Stall Recovery. The obsolete paradigm of minimizing altitude loss has generated situations in which pilots continued to pull back on the control column, further increasing AOA in the stall and immersing themselves in the red zone. Several major challenges are presented here to these pilots. These challenges may never have been experienced, and pilots have not been consistently trained on how to exit from this deadly region. Other than rare exposures to the peak of the lift curve during initial flight training, this red zone is not often visited.

The risk of a fatal accident increases in proportion to duration and depth of exposure to the red zones. Myriad warning cues — the auditory, visual, tactile control feedback, motion cueing and other combinations of sensory feedback — also flood the pilot’s senses, causing extremes of psychological states such as stress and panic and of physiological states such as spatial disorientation. Adding insult to injury, piloting skills suitable for the blue and green regions of Figures 1 and 2 rapidly decrease in their effectiveness during the escalating upset event. Counter-intuitive, corrective control inputs are often required to reliably recover the airplane to the “normal flight” regions of the commercial licensing flight envelope. Without proper UPRT, it is doubtful the pilot will recover.

If these red zones are not being addressed adequately by traditional training, where do we start as an aviation industry to significantly mitigate LOC-I? Mitigation begins with ensuring that industry-approved UPRT programs establish a sound foundation from which situational awareness, insight, knowledge, and eventually, skills can be reliably developed in the all-attitude, all-envelope environment.

Industry-approved, Web-based training tools can assist as powerful academic resources. At the outset, however, it must be emphasized that LOC-I mitigation is not an academics-only challenge. Academic preparation offers limited mitigation as a standalone intervention. Yet, academics combined with practical, hands-on experience under a quality-assured program can have significant and lasting UPRT skill-development benefits.

A pilot’s unfamiliarity with the all-attitude, all-envelope environment can be overcome efficiently by imparting a significant portion of the awareness skills early in initial UPRT sessions. These initial sessions are best accomplished in an aerobatic-capable airplane with expert UPRT instructors, preferably before beginning airline flying.

UPRT instructors must cautiously build from the familiar to the unfamiliar to effectively bridge knowledge and experience gaps. Extensive experience shows that early focus on awareness of AOA, load, lift vector, coordination and energy management, combined with real-time feedback on the negative consequences of their mismanagement of those elements, helps trainees to gain trust and confidence in the training platform, the instructor pilot, and the building-block design of the course of UPRT training.

Teaching the fundamental concepts and core skills in a progressive, non-threatening manner enhances the trainee’s situational awareness at a rate that allows knowledge, skills and abilities to be internalized — enhancing long-term retention. When effectively delivered, this initial UPRT indoctrination comprehensively prepares the pilot for type-specific UPRT differences training ideally provided by the airline in the simulator.

The focus of UPRT must be placed squarely and firmly on upset prevention through enhanced pilot awareness. Two general types of this training can be clearly defined. One type stresses time-favorable actions through effective aeronautical decision making (ADM), and the other type stresses time-critical actions to counter an escalating upset before it develops beyond certain thresholds. UPRT must address both of these prevention concepts. Time-favorable ADM upset prevention, typically on the order of several minutes or even hours, involves environmental analysis, upset risk awareness, resource management and breaking the error chain through sound judgment.

Deficiency No. 3: Pilot Over-reaction. As the time frame for stall/upset response compresses, typically onto the scale of seconds or fractions of a second, the pilot’s challenges become quite different from time-favorable ADM. When startled by a rapid-onset upset event, implementing the correct, time-sensitive control inputs to counter the escalating condition is often the most difficult aspect of prevention in UPRT. For the psychological and physiological reasons noted, pilots faced with rapid-onset airplane upset events tend to over-react to situations without dedicated training. Pilots in real upsets have been observed making the situation worse, sometimes unrecoverable, or causing airplane structural failure in rare instances. Over-reaction must be addressed, and this is another critical LOC-I mitigation from UPRT.

Once an airplane’s flight condition unintentionally exceeds a certain level of severity, the pilot must recognize the necessity of intervention. As the situation transitions from the prevention phase to the recovery phase defined by the above airplane upset parameters — or the prevention phase seemingly has been skipped entirely — the pilot must take immediate corrective action.

Deficiency No. 4: Primary/Exclusive Recovery Focus. Many training providers treat the upset recovery phase as the primary, or exclusive, focus of their version of UPRT. To be clear, a comprehensively addressed recovery phase has tremendous value in enhancing the trainee’s ability to contain real-world startle factor; to properly use the primary controls of all-attitude, all-envelope flight; and to enhance situational awareness of the event. Nevertheless, the core element of UPRT must be upset prevention with the understanding that this can be significantly augmented by integrating thorough and comprehensive recovery training.

The building-block sequence necessary in imparting UPRT recovery-phase skills comprises the development of primary control strategies, alternate control strategies, secondary flight control integration, airplane type/class–specific considerations and UPRT-specific crew resource management (CRM).

Deficiency No. 5, Absence of Startle Factor. Some UPRT programs fail to adequately address the startle factor. Imparting UPRT skill sets to trainees without startle training does not reliably enable them to recover during the mentally and physically demanding challenge of an actual airplane upset. However, training providers must be extra cautious in how unannounced events are integrated into UPRT. Inappropriately subjecting trainees to dramatic in-flight or simulated events — those beyond their skill level to resolve correctly — can have long-term negative consequences in UPRT skill development.

Deficiency No. 6, Simulator Limitations. Presently, the required magnitude, quality and relevance of startle factor training for UPRT cannot be fully accomplished exclusively through ground-based simulation. Appropriate UPRT training in all-attitude, aerobatic-capable airplanes readily immerses the trainee in dynamic surprise/startle experiences that are recognized in scientific research as unique and necessary.

Deficiency No. 7, Problematic CRM. Ensuring that CRM optimizes a flight crew’s upset response has been particularly challenging to the global community of UPRT specialists — for example, the concerns if only one flight crewmember has completed UPRT.

The presence of an untrained crewmember in this same crew arguably could have dire consequences in an upset event due to flight control interference. In LOC-I scenarios, the flight crew must immediately communicate and confirm the situation; manage the automation and transfer control (if necessary) to the pilot with the most situational awareness; work together through standardized interactions to mutually enhance awareness of the dynamic flight condition; and apply correct, timely control manipulation.

Paul “BJ” Ransbury, president and chief flight instructor (CFI) of APS Emergency Maneuver Training, and three-time recipient of the master CFI–aerobatic designation from the aviation education industry’s Master Instructor Program, is a founder and vice president–global integration of the Upset Prevention and Recovery Training Association <uprta.org>, a former Airbus A320 airline pilot and a former F/A-18 fighter pilot and tactics instructor. He also is co-leader of the upset analysis and development team of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE). Janeen Kochan, Ph.D., is a human factors scientist, designated pilot examiner and instructor pilot at Aviation Research, Training and Services; a former airline captain; and an author of research reports on pilot training for the mitigation of startle/surprise effects. She is also a member of ICATEE. Their original paper is available at <apstraining.com/uprt-deficits>.