Clipper5895h
New Member
I had to write a two page paper on a safety topic in the airline industry and I choice an article about KLM starting a mandatory upset training course. I'm very interested in the opinions of current individuals in the aviation industry and this type of training so here's my take on the matter if your interested...
Upset Training in the Airline Industry
Aircraft have been taking to the skies for decades since that historical event on December 17, 1903 over the sandy landscape of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. On this monumental day, the Wright Brother’s proved that sustained, controlled, manned, powered flight was indeed an obtainable reality. Yet, even after 107 years of improvements in aircraft development over the original aircraft design, control issues still remain a major concern in the aviation industry. As the industry progresses into the future, improved technology has been developed to assist the pilot in controlling the aircraft, yet loss-of-control accidents or (LOC) still remain the leading contributor to commercial aviation accidents.
According to a statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents developed by Boeing from the years of 2000 to 2009, LOC accidents contributed to 1759 of the 5001 fatalities experienced within commercial aviation industry over this time period. Additionally, an onset of recent loss-of-control accidents such as the Pinnacle Airlines CRJ200 accident in 2004 and the Colgan Air Q400 accident of 2009 have caused the general public to question the integrity and safety of the airline industry. With pressure building from the FAA and Congress to pass new training regulations and improve the safety of commercial airline travel, KLM Airlines has decided to take matters into their own hands. By partnering with an Arizona based flight training school named Aviation Performance Solutions (APS), KLM will mandate their initial trainees to take an upset training course utilizing two Extra 300L single-engine aerobatic aircraft. With this added exposure to unusual attitudes that are otherwise unobtainable in ordinary training aircraft, ”the pilot will begin to understand what to do when their world is turned upside down.” (Croft, 2011)
This type of extreme upset training is a definite first for the commercial aviation industry. Rob van den Heuvel, KLM’s head of flight training at their Flight Academy in Phoenix, AZ, justifies the new training by stating: "Nowadays, training for civil aviation does not involve maneuvers of more than 60° bank and 20° nose up or down. After upset training, they realize they can recover from any situation. It does a lot for self-confidence." After the three day APS upset training course is completed, the students will return to the Netherlands for additional training in Beechcraft Baron and Boeing 737 simulators before assuming the role of a line pilot. Van den Heuvel predicts that, “While the results of the upset training might not be immediately obvious, I expect to see some differences in the students' performance when they begin initial airline training with KLM.”
As mentioned above by Mr.Van den Heuvel, the FAA practical training standard (PTS) does not require pilot applicants to demonstrate proficiency in any type of unusual attitude exceeding 60° bank and 20° nose up or down. The only certificate that unusual attitudes are intentionally entered into is for the Certified Flight Instructor rating requiring an endorsement in spin recovery training. Yet, this lack of unusual attitude training in the FAA PTS was not always the case. According to many early aviators from the mid 1920’s to early1960’s, the PTS required the applicant to actually demonstrate proficiency in entering and exiting spin conditions. The FAA decided to re-write the PTS at the request of the aircraft manufacturing companies. The manufactures argued that the modern aircraft could be built to adequately prevent the pilot from entering any inadvertent spin condition. Some aircraft designers even removed the rudder petals from the cockpit as seen on the ERCO Ercoupe aircraft design. Additionally, as computer technology advanced, simulators were used in pilot training to safely replicate emergency situations and reduce the risk of actually performing spin attitudes. Eventually, spin proficiency was taken out of the pilot training environment and PTS.
While simulators have a very important part in the training environment, there is currently no adequate substitute to learning the proper recovery procedures from unusual attitudes then by actually conducting the training in-flight, with the actual aircraft. The pilot can then truly experience the actual reactions that the aircraft will produce in a deep stall or extreme attitude condition. Simulators do not accurately replicate the reactions that the aircraft will produce when it is operated outside its flight-testing envelope perimeters. Interpolation methods from the wind tunnel data are used in place of actual data to represent the aircraft’s performance outside these normal performance envelopes, yet this method “does not accurately reflect the non-linear response of the aircraft in those regimes.” (Croft, 2009) Undergoing upset training in an actual aircraft is an invaluable part in developing the proper techniques to regain positive aircraft control when the normal flight envelope is exceeded. By exceeding such flight attitudes in a controlled and structured training environment, the pilot can proactively recognize and effectively avoid hazardous flight attitudes that could potentially result in a loss-of-control accident.
In an effort to improve the realism of simulators outside of the normal flight regimes, research companies such as Calspan Industries have begun to “use variable stability business jet aircraft to simulate the handling and performance characteristics of a wide variety of large jet aircraft, allowing for safe in-flight practice in the maneuvers.” (Croft 2011) By using this method of airborne simulation, “pilots can receive training that more closely mirrors the heavier transport aircraft dynamic responses and result in improved safety through more-realistic upset recovery training for air carrier pilots.” (Croft 2009)
It is very easily to predict the added benefits that will be achieved with KLM’s mandatory upset course in the airlines training department. Yet, some airline industry professionals are skeptical of the large cost increase and risk level that will result from implementing this type of training program. While a certain increase in risk will be incurred, it is better to be subjected to a real situation in an intentional, controlled, training environment rather then unintentionally operating the aircraft in the capacity as a test pilot with the lives of passengers at risk. Al Haynes, the surviving captain of a DC-10 that lost complete flight control in-flight, was once quoted in saying, “You’re never truly ready for an emergency situation to occur, but you can be prepared for it.” Perhaps, only the future will provide the answer to if KLM’s upset training will be an added benefit to and improve the safety of the airline industry.
Reference
Boeing Aircraft Company. “Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accident between 1959-2009.” Mar 29,2011 http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf
Croft, John. “KLM student pilots to undergo mandatory upset training.” Flight
International. Jan 18, 2011 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/article.aspx?liArticleID=351831&PrinterFriendly=true
Croft, John. “Upset Training Group to Hold First Meeting.” Air Transport Intelligence news. Nov 11, 2009 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/article.aspx?liArticleID=334834&PrinterFriendly=true
Croft, John. FAA Proposes New Certification Category for Upset Training Aircraft.” Air Transport Intelligence news Aug 06, 2009 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/article.aspx?liArticleID=330720&PrinterFriendly=true
Upset Training in the Airline Industry
Aircraft have been taking to the skies for decades since that historical event on December 17, 1903 over the sandy landscape of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. On this monumental day, the Wright Brother’s proved that sustained, controlled, manned, powered flight was indeed an obtainable reality. Yet, even after 107 years of improvements in aircraft development over the original aircraft design, control issues still remain a major concern in the aviation industry. As the industry progresses into the future, improved technology has been developed to assist the pilot in controlling the aircraft, yet loss-of-control accidents or (LOC) still remain the leading contributor to commercial aviation accidents.
According to a statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents developed by Boeing from the years of 2000 to 2009, LOC accidents contributed to 1759 of the 5001 fatalities experienced within commercial aviation industry over this time period. Additionally, an onset of recent loss-of-control accidents such as the Pinnacle Airlines CRJ200 accident in 2004 and the Colgan Air Q400 accident of 2009 have caused the general public to question the integrity and safety of the airline industry. With pressure building from the FAA and Congress to pass new training regulations and improve the safety of commercial airline travel, KLM Airlines has decided to take matters into their own hands. By partnering with an Arizona based flight training school named Aviation Performance Solutions (APS), KLM will mandate their initial trainees to take an upset training course utilizing two Extra 300L single-engine aerobatic aircraft. With this added exposure to unusual attitudes that are otherwise unobtainable in ordinary training aircraft, ”the pilot will begin to understand what to do when their world is turned upside down.” (Croft, 2011)
This type of extreme upset training is a definite first for the commercial aviation industry. Rob van den Heuvel, KLM’s head of flight training at their Flight Academy in Phoenix, AZ, justifies the new training by stating: "Nowadays, training for civil aviation does not involve maneuvers of more than 60° bank and 20° nose up or down. After upset training, they realize they can recover from any situation. It does a lot for self-confidence." After the three day APS upset training course is completed, the students will return to the Netherlands for additional training in Beechcraft Baron and Boeing 737 simulators before assuming the role of a line pilot. Van den Heuvel predicts that, “While the results of the upset training might not be immediately obvious, I expect to see some differences in the students' performance when they begin initial airline training with KLM.”
As mentioned above by Mr.Van den Heuvel, the FAA practical training standard (PTS) does not require pilot applicants to demonstrate proficiency in any type of unusual attitude exceeding 60° bank and 20° nose up or down. The only certificate that unusual attitudes are intentionally entered into is for the Certified Flight Instructor rating requiring an endorsement in spin recovery training. Yet, this lack of unusual attitude training in the FAA PTS was not always the case. According to many early aviators from the mid 1920’s to early1960’s, the PTS required the applicant to actually demonstrate proficiency in entering and exiting spin conditions. The FAA decided to re-write the PTS at the request of the aircraft manufacturing companies. The manufactures argued that the modern aircraft could be built to adequately prevent the pilot from entering any inadvertent spin condition. Some aircraft designers even removed the rudder petals from the cockpit as seen on the ERCO Ercoupe aircraft design. Additionally, as computer technology advanced, simulators were used in pilot training to safely replicate emergency situations and reduce the risk of actually performing spin attitudes. Eventually, spin proficiency was taken out of the pilot training environment and PTS.
While simulators have a very important part in the training environment, there is currently no adequate substitute to learning the proper recovery procedures from unusual attitudes then by actually conducting the training in-flight, with the actual aircraft. The pilot can then truly experience the actual reactions that the aircraft will produce in a deep stall or extreme attitude condition. Simulators do not accurately replicate the reactions that the aircraft will produce when it is operated outside its flight-testing envelope perimeters. Interpolation methods from the wind tunnel data are used in place of actual data to represent the aircraft’s performance outside these normal performance envelopes, yet this method “does not accurately reflect the non-linear response of the aircraft in those regimes.” (Croft, 2009) Undergoing upset training in an actual aircraft is an invaluable part in developing the proper techniques to regain positive aircraft control when the normal flight envelope is exceeded. By exceeding such flight attitudes in a controlled and structured training environment, the pilot can proactively recognize and effectively avoid hazardous flight attitudes that could potentially result in a loss-of-control accident.
In an effort to improve the realism of simulators outside of the normal flight regimes, research companies such as Calspan Industries have begun to “use variable stability business jet aircraft to simulate the handling and performance characteristics of a wide variety of large jet aircraft, allowing for safe in-flight practice in the maneuvers.” (Croft 2011) By using this method of airborne simulation, “pilots can receive training that more closely mirrors the heavier transport aircraft dynamic responses and result in improved safety through more-realistic upset recovery training for air carrier pilots.” (Croft 2009)
It is very easily to predict the added benefits that will be achieved with KLM’s mandatory upset course in the airlines training department. Yet, some airline industry professionals are skeptical of the large cost increase and risk level that will result from implementing this type of training program. While a certain increase in risk will be incurred, it is better to be subjected to a real situation in an intentional, controlled, training environment rather then unintentionally operating the aircraft in the capacity as a test pilot with the lives of passengers at risk. Al Haynes, the surviving captain of a DC-10 that lost complete flight control in-flight, was once quoted in saying, “You’re never truly ready for an emergency situation to occur, but you can be prepared for it.” Perhaps, only the future will provide the answer to if KLM’s upset training will be an added benefit to and improve the safety of the airline industry.
Reference
Boeing Aircraft Company. “Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accident between 1959-2009.” Mar 29,2011 http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf
Croft, John. “KLM student pilots to undergo mandatory upset training.” Flight
International. Jan 18, 2011 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/article.aspx?liArticleID=351831&PrinterFriendly=true
Croft, John. “Upset Training Group to Hold First Meeting.” Air Transport Intelligence news. Nov 11, 2009 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/article.aspx?liArticleID=334834&PrinterFriendly=true
Croft, John. FAA Proposes New Certification Category for Upset Training Aircraft.” Air Transport Intelligence news Aug 06, 2009 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/article.aspx?liArticleID=330720&PrinterFriendly=true
