FAA pilot training rules delayed 6 years
07-12-2012, 08:30 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,154
I think the issue is not stall training during primary instruction...that training is pretty good.
The problem was that 121 training would only go to the first stall indication, then max power and pitch UP to maintain altitude. The idea being that you would recover from the situation before the actual stall occurred. Renslow used this technique to recover from an actual, not imminent, stall with predictable results.
I think most airlines are now training to full stall recovery. As far as I can tell that issue is moot now. Not sure what more they want.
The problem was that 121 training would only go to the first stall indication, then max power and pitch UP to maintain altitude. The idea being that you would recover from the situation before the actual stall occurred. Renslow used this technique to recover from an actual, not imminent, stall with predictable results.
I think most airlines are now training to full stall recovery. As far as I can tell that issue is moot now. Not sure what more they want.
07-12-2012, 11:55 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 611
I see what you guys are saying...I still don't understand why, regardless of what phase you are I'm-approach to stall or an a tual stall-you wouldn't just push the nose forward to get airspeed? Even if you havent fully stalled, unless you are 50 feet off the ground, what do you have to lose? Push the dang nose down and get your airspeed back, don't dork around trying to maintain your altitude. The only reason we are taught that is for checkrides standards. Nothing more.
Aren't we missing the bigger picture here?
07-12-2012, 12:45 PM
#13
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,205
I see what you guys are saying...I still don't understand why, regardless of what phase you are I'm-approach to stall or an a tual stall-you wouldn't just push the nose forward to get airspeed? Even if you havent fully stalled, unless you are 50 feet off the ground, what do you have to lose? Push the dang nose down and get your airspeed back, don't dork around trying to maintain your altitude. The only reason we are taught that is for checkrides standards. Nothing more.
The old 121 stall training plan seemed to made some assumptions...
1) The stall warning (shaker) would work prior to stall
2) One of the two pilots would recognize it prior to stall
3) One of the two pilots would react properly prior to stall
4) The airplane would not be in an extreme aerodynamic situation which would make a stall a forgone conclusion.
In that case it would make sense to minimize altitude loss during recovery from the imminent stall. But that's a lot of assumptions...#3 (and maybe #4) failed in the case of colgan.
07-12-2012, 07:18 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,154
The old 121 stall training plan seemed to made some assumptions...
1) The stall warning (shaker) would work prior to stall
2) One of the two pilots would recognize it prior to stall
3) One of the two pilots would react properly prior to stall
4) The airplane would not be in an extreme aerodynamic situation which would make a stall a forgone conclusion.
In that case it would make sense to minimize altitude loss during recovery from the imminent stall. But that's a lot of assumptions...#3 (and maybe #4) failed in the case of colgan.
1) The stall warning (shaker) would work prior to stall
2) One of the two pilots would recognize it prior to stall
3) One of the two pilots would react properly prior to stall
4) The airplane would not be in an extreme aerodynamic situation which would make a stall a forgone conclusion.
In that case it would make sense to minimize altitude loss during recovery from the imminent stall. But that's a lot of assumptions...#3 (and maybe #4) failed in the case of colgan.
I think we need to start teaching stall recovery NOW, not later. Stall avoidance is no good unless you see it coming and have time to react. My company teaches us stall recovery (tho they do not test us on this) during training flights, and it's a very good tool IMO. It's frustrating the FAA wants to delay this. I don't understand it.
Another thing that my company uses that helps is that we brief our minimum speed on approach until on final. I believe, in the case of 3407, that was their second last chance to live. Had the captain briefed "minimum speed on this approach until on final is 140 kts"-or to that extent-the FO would have immediately started squawking as soon as the speed got below instead of wondering what the captain may be doing. Let's face it, while there are indeed FOs out there who would have spoken up, there are many who won't and will just let the captain do their thing for fear of creating a bad "cockpit environment" or other reasons...
07-12-2012, 07:25 PM
#17
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,205
Rick these are good points. I realize I wasn't there and had I been in the captains position, would I have reacted better? I like to think so...so it's hard to be critical, which I have been so far.
I think we need to start teaching stall recovery NOW, not later. Stall avoidance is no good unless you see it coming and have time to react. My company teaches us stall recovery (tho they do not test us on this) during training flights, and it's a very good tool IMO. It's frustrating the FAA wants to delay this. I don't understand it.
Another thing that my company uses that helps is that we brief our minimum speed on approach until on final. I believe, in the case of 3407, that was their second last chance to live. Had the captain briefed "minimum speed on this approach until on final is 140 kts"-or to that extent-the FO would have immediately started squawking as soon as the speed got below instead of wondering what the captain may be doing. Let's face it, while there are indeed FOs out there who would have spoken up, there are many who won't and will just let the captain do their thing for fear of creating a bad "cockpit environment" or other reasons...
I think we need to start teaching stall recovery NOW, not later. Stall avoidance is no good unless you see it coming and have time to react. My company teaches us stall recovery (tho they do not test us on this) during training flights, and it's a very good tool IMO. It's frustrating the FAA wants to delay this. I don't understand it.
Another thing that my company uses that helps is that we brief our minimum speed on approach until on final. I believe, in the case of 3407, that was their second last chance to live. Had the captain briefed "minimum speed on this approach until on final is 140 kts"-or to that extent-the FO would have immediately started squawking as soon as the speed got below instead of wondering what the captain may be doing. Let's face it, while there are indeed FOs out there who would have spoken up, there are many who won't and will just let the captain do their thing for fear of creating a bad "cockpit environment" or other reasons...
I think most airlines, regionals at least, are voluntarily training to full stall recovery at this point. The FAA has gotten very forward-leaning on that issue.
The colgan crew was not paying attention whatsoever...I assume they briefed a straight-in speed, that's pretty much standard for all airlines. But briefing it doesn't help if you you're not scanning.
07-12-2012, 07:35 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Sorry for length, but this is impotant
The problem was that 121 training would only go to the first stall indication, then max power and pitch UP to maintain altitude. The idea being that you would recover from the situation before the actual stall occurred. Renslow used this technique to recover from an actual, not imminent, stall with predictable results.
I think most airlines are now training to full stall recovery. As far as I can tell that issue is moot now. Not sure what more they want.
I think most airlines are now training to full stall recovery. As far as I can tell that issue is moot now. Not sure what more they want.
As a result of the Colgan accident, the industry and regulators responded in mid-2010.
From Airbus's Jan. 2011 'Safety First' magazine (though ATR, Boeing, Bombardier and Embraer have put out this info as well):
As an answer to the stall situation, a working group gathering the FAA and the main aircraft manufacturers, including Airbus, ATR, Boeing, Bombardier and Embraer, have established a new generic procedure titled “Stall Warning or Aerodynamic Stall Recovery Procedure” applicable to all aircraft types.
This generic procedure will be published as an annex to the FAA AC 120.
This new procedure has been established in the following spirit:
Generic Stall Warning or Aerodynamic Stall Recovery Procedure
Immediately do the following at the first indication of
stall (buffet, stick shaker, stick pusher, or aural or visual
indication) during any flight phases except at lift off.
1. Autopilot and autothrottle.............................. Disconnect
Rationale: While maintaining the attitude of the aircraft,
disconnect the autopilot and autothrottle. Ensure
the pitch attitude does not change adversely when
disconnecting the autopilot. This may be very important
in mis-trim situations. Manual control is
essential to recovery in all situations. Leaving one
or the other connected may result in in-advertent
changes or adjustments that may not be easily
recognized or appropriate, especially during high
workload situations.
2. a) Nose down pitch control… Apply until out of stall (no longer have stall indications)
b) Nose down pitch trim................................... As needed
Rationale: a) The priority is reducing the angle of attack.
There have been numerous situations where flight
crews did not prioritize this and instead prioritized
power and maintaining altitude. This will also
address autopilot induced full back trim.
b) If the control column does not provide the
needed response, stabilizer trim may be necessary.
However, excessive use of trim can aggravate the
condition, or may result in loss of control or in high
structural loads.
3. Bank.............................................. ..................Wings Level
Rationale: This orientates the lift vector for recovery.
4. Thrust............................................ ....................As Needed
Rationale: During a stall recovery, many times maximum
power is not needed. When stalling, the thrust can
be at idle or at high thrust, typically at high altitude.
Therefore, the thrust is to be adjusted accordingly
during the recovery. For engines installed below
the wing, applying maximum thrust can create a
strong nose up pitching moment, if speed is low.
For aircraft with engines mounted above the wings,
thrust application creates a helpful pitch down
tendency. For propeller driven aircraft, thrust
application energizes the air flow around the wing,
assisting in stall recovery.
5. Speed Brakes............................................ ..............Retract
Rationale: This will improve lift and stall margin.
6. Bank.............................................. ..................Wings Level
Rationale: Apply gentle action for recovery to avoid secondary
stalls then return to desired flight path.
This generic procedure will be published as an annex to the FAA AC 120.
This new procedure has been established in the following spirit:
- One single procedure to cover ALL stall conditions
- Get rid of TOGA [max thrust] as first action
- Focus on AoA reduction
Generic Stall Warning or Aerodynamic Stall Recovery Procedure
Immediately do the following at the first indication of
stall (buffet, stick shaker, stick pusher, or aural or visual
indication) during any flight phases except at lift off.
1. Autopilot and autothrottle.............................. Disconnect
Rationale: While maintaining the attitude of the aircraft,
disconnect the autopilot and autothrottle. Ensure
the pitch attitude does not change adversely when
disconnecting the autopilot. This may be very important
in mis-trim situations. Manual control is
essential to recovery in all situations. Leaving one
or the other connected may result in in-advertent
changes or adjustments that may not be easily
recognized or appropriate, especially during high
workload situations.
2. a) Nose down pitch control… Apply until out of stall (no longer have stall indications)
b) Nose down pitch trim................................... As needed
Rationale: a) The priority is reducing the angle of attack.
There have been numerous situations where flight
crews did not prioritize this and instead prioritized
power and maintaining altitude. This will also
address autopilot induced full back trim.
b) If the control column does not provide the
needed response, stabilizer trim may be necessary.
However, excessive use of trim can aggravate the
condition, or may result in loss of control or in high
structural loads.
3. Bank.............................................. ..................Wings Level
Rationale: This orientates the lift vector for recovery.
4. Thrust............................................ ....................As Needed
Rationale: During a stall recovery, many times maximum
power is not needed. When stalling, the thrust can
be at idle or at high thrust, typically at high altitude.
Therefore, the thrust is to be adjusted accordingly
during the recovery. For engines installed below
the wing, applying maximum thrust can create a
strong nose up pitching moment, if speed is low.
For aircraft with engines mounted above the wings,
thrust application creates a helpful pitch down
tendency. For propeller driven aircraft, thrust
application energizes the air flow around the wing,
assisting in stall recovery.
5. Speed Brakes............................................ ..............Retract
Rationale: This will improve lift and stall margin.
6. Bank.............................................. ..................Wings Level
Rationale: Apply gentle action for recovery to avoid secondary
stalls then return to desired flight path.
As for the Colgan families, there needs to be an understanding that current simulation technology is designed to replicate the aircraft to the stall, not in a stall itself. Once you actually get into a full stall in a full flight sim, all bets are off, since the sim is not certified to accurately replicate the aircraft at that point. It takes a LOT of computer power to run a sim as it is - to account for all the aero in an actual stall is hard, if not impossible, to do with todays sim technology.
Taking the plane out to do stalls is also not a good idea. Not only is it prohibitively expensive for the airlines, but past history has shown that this practice leads to additional loss of life. The instructor can't just pause the airplane if things go wrong, ya' know?
The recent Air France 447 accident, while much more complex than just an improper stall recovery, has shown that there are still weaknesses in stall recovery understanding that need to be addressed industry-wide, even after the Colgan accident.
07-15-2012, 05:38 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,989
I see what you guys are saying...I still don't understand why, regardless of what phase you are I'm-approach to stall or an a tual stall-you wouldn't just push the nose forward to get airspeed? Even if you havent fully stalled, unless you are 50 feet off the ground, what do you have to lose? Push the dang nose down and get your airspeed back, don't dork around trying to maintain your altitude. The only reason we are taught that is for checkrides standards. Nothing more.
I think finally the industry is getting away from preaching min altitude loss on stall recovery. We just had a big shift in this philosophy. I believe this was driven by the FAA finally acknowledging that powering out of a stall doesn't make sense when you have the option to pitch over and reduce AOA along with power.
My check ride last week had stall recovery using power along with pitch to reduce AOA, with no focus on maintaining altitude. Just like we all learned back in the old days.
07-15-2012, 01:00 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
I think one of the biggest problems is, as pilots, we're all taught that we stall when the AOA exceeds the critical AOA for the wing and then we go fly airspeeds and think XX is safely above stall speed...without ever being taught to the point of comprehension that stall speed is accurate for a specific set of parameters.
I'd love to see AOA gauges in every plane...since that's not going to happen, we need to focus our training on recovery from full stalls while minimizing emphasis on altitude loss.
Two books every pilot must read:
Stick and Rudder (Wolfgang Langewiesche)
Contact Flying (Jim Dulin)
I'd love to see AOA gauges in every plane...since that's not going to happen, we need to focus our training on recovery from full stalls while minimizing emphasis on altitude loss.
Two books every pilot must read:
Stick and Rudder (Wolfgang Langewiesche)
Contact Flying (Jim Dulin)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
