Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Safety
FAA pilot training rules delayed 6 years >

FAA pilot training rules delayed 6 years


Notices
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc

FAA pilot training rules delayed 6 years

Old 07-15-2012, 08:29 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
KC10 FATboy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,097
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
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.
No he didn't. The aircraft wasn't in an extreme situation. The airspeed simply decayed until the stick shaker went off. When it did, his immediate reaction was to pull the nose up to a unusual attitude - about 20 degrees nose high - and didn't use maximum power, and then continued to pull to about 30 degrees nose up. Once he pulled the nose up that aggressively, they were in a full blown stall, caused entirely by him. Then once he had that nose high attitude established, as the aircraft tried to roll over to the left or right, he used full deflection rudder to and aileron to help keep the airplane wings level nose high. Then she retracted the flaps which sealed their fate.

That wasn't procedure by a long shot no matter how you slice it or dice it.
KC10 FATboy is offline  
Old 07-16-2012, 04:36 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sniper's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Default

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
That wasn't procedure by a long shot no matter how you slice it or dice it.
We'll never know, honestly. There is ample evidence of civilian training departments, including Colgan and Pinnacle, putting an emphasis on reducing the altitude loss in stall recovery until this accident - the sim check was a 'bust' if you recovered the stall, but lost more than 100' from entry altitude doing so. You could bust a 'stall recovery' maneuver in training by recovering from a stall successfully with little altitude loss.

These days, FAA POI's and Airline training departments sometimes overzealously enforce certain aspects of training. Couple this with the increased civilian training atmosphere, which more rigidly balances cost with experience than the military, and you have a situation where pilots, who have never actually spun an aircraft or seen more than a very benign stall in a forgiving piston trainer, are now piloting large complex aircraft, as well as training others to do so.

There is no substitute for experience, yet we sacrifice it at the alter of cost. Further delay of potential changes to antiquated FAA training rules is part of this path - reducing training costs will result in lower costs, and a less experienced (less safe?) pilot.
Sniper is offline  
Old 07-16-2012, 06:48 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 620
Default

Originally Posted by Sniper
We'll never know, honestly. There is ample evidence of civilian training departments, including Colgan and Pinnacle, putting an emphasis on reducing the altitude loss in stall recovery until this accident - the sim check was a 'bust' if you recovered the stall, but lost more than 100' from entry altitude doing so. You could bust a 'stall recovery' maneuver in training by recovering from a stall successfully with little altitude loss.

These days, FAA POI's and Airline training departments sometimes overzealously enforce certain aspects of training. Couple this with the increased civilian training atmosphere, which more rigidly balances cost with experience than the military, and you have a situation where pilots, who have never actually spun an aircraft or seen more than a very benign stall in a forgiving piston trainer, are now piloting large complex aircraft, as well as training others to do so.

There is no substitute for experience, yet we sacrifice it at the alter of cost. Further delay of potential changes to antiquated FAA training rules is part of this path - reducing training costs will result in lower costs, and a less experienced (less safe?) pilot.
I agree with on a few points but beg to differ with you on the less experienced less safe part...

Both the pilots in the front of Colgan flight were decently experienced, none was less than 1500 hrs, the CA had enough flight experience....

Why he failed to recognise the stall, we will never know, why the FO failed to recognise the stall, we will never know......

What we definitley do know is,

# 1) They were both TIRED & FATIGUED......

The congress's knee jerk reaction was the pilot should be more experienced, they did nothing to implement the REST RULES.....

If you want to propose safety, then here's what every pilot should ask for:

The PILOT'S duty day should be NO MORE than 12 hrs DUTY & 8 hrs of flying & a 10 hour REST in between duty days. That will ensure a decent rest & sleep...

Even big rig TRUCK drivers have better rest rules......

#2) MODIFY THE STALL RECOVERY
The stall recovery procedures which say "need to recover in less than 100 feet" should be modified to say "recover with minimun altitude loss".

Stall recovery should include push the stick forward & nose slightly down to gain positive speed & the pilots to ensure that they are in POSITIVE territory & then once in a positive territory, proceed to recover back to original attitude & altitude....
bcpilot is offline  
Old 07-17-2012, 09:51 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hawker Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: Toilet warmer.
Posts: 337
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
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.
Excellent comment! The problem was also that it didn't apply to just 121 training, but 135 and 91 operators with Part 25 airplanes as well.

I myself was shocked the first time I was told to not recover a Learjet conventionally, even a little, by pushing down at all. It went against everything that I had been taught previously.

Someone somewhere decided that, since no Part 25 airplane is actually in a stall, when the shaker goes off, there is no need to recover conventionally.

The term "stall training" for Part 25 aircraft operators is also a complete misnomer since no one is actually stalling anything. It needs to be changed to reflect what it really is.
Hawker Driver is offline  
Old 07-18-2012, 06:30 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: retired
Posts: 992
Default

Originally Posted by LowSlowT2
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)
An excellent point! Just look at all the references to "lowering the nose" in this thread, instead of reducing the angle of attack?
Dougdrvr is offline  
Old 07-18-2012, 06:52 AM
  #26  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,544
Default

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
No he didn't. The aircraft wasn't in an extreme situation. The airspeed simply decayed until the stick shaker went off. When it did, his immediate reaction was to pull the nose up to a unusual attitude - about 20 degrees nose high - and didn't use maximum power, and then continued to pull to about 30 degrees nose up. Once he pulled the nose up that aggressively, they were in a full blown stall, caused entirely by him. Then once he had that nose high attitude established, as the aircraft tried to roll over to the left or right, he used full deflection rudder to and aileron to help keep the airplane wings level nose high. Then she retracted the flaps which sealed their fate.

That wasn't procedure by a long shot no matter how you slice it or dice it.

I agree that the old 121 technique should have worked if performed correctly.

The problem was that it puts pilots in the position of actually having to think during a crisis...apparently not all of us are up to that challenge. You have to decide whether you are in an imminent or actual stall and react accordingly. Probably safer to do like they do in GA, and treat every stall indication as though an actual stall has occurred and react accordingly.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 07-18-2012, 07:01 AM
  #27  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,544
Default

Originally Posted by Sniper
There is ample evidence of civilian training departments, including Colgan and Pinnacle, putting an emphasis on reducing the altitude loss in stall recovery until this accident - the sim check was a 'bust' if you recovered the stall, but lost more than 100' from entry altitude doing so. You could bust a 'stall recovery' maneuver in training by recovering from a stall successfully with little altitude loss.
This is certainly the way it was done at both airlines I worked for, and as far as I know every other regional and at least some majors. Not sure how it evolved, but I'm sure the FAA was in the lead.

The FAA quickly changed the procedure after Colgan...we now do real stall training.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 07-18-2012, 08:32 AM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: Square root of the variance and average of the variation
Posts: 1,602
Default

Originally Posted by LowSlowT2
I

Two books every pilot must read:

Stick and Rudder (Wolfgang Langewiesche)
Contact Flying (Jim Dulin)
"Stalls, Spins, and Safety" by test pilot Sammy Mason.
Probably out of print but easily readable and one of the best books on stalls/spins I have ever read.

From his bio -

"Mason flew for more than a half-century and won acclaim in three arenas of aviation.
In the late 1940s, he was the premier performer of the air show circuit, commanding the highest salary of any aerobatic performer in the country. In 1976, he was named Flight Instructor of the Year by the National Assn. of Flight Instructors. Last month, the Society of Experimental Test Pilots awarded him an honorary fellowship, a distinction reserved for a handful of legendary fliers such as Charles Lindbergh and Jimmy Doolittle, to acknowledge pioneering feats accomplished during 22 years of test piloting."
Std Deviation is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BTDTB4
Major
29
02-14-2012 12:27 PM
JeepDrowner
Regional
85
10-03-2009 05:18 AM
EWRflyr
Major
2
01-09-2009 03:12 PM
JungleBus
Major
121
12-20-2008 04:13 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices