Transcript Slide 1

“Loss of Control, Avoidance, Recognition and Recovery”
Captain John M. Cox, FRAeS
CEO
Safety Operating Systems
1
Fatalities 2000-09
Flight International
2
Fatalities Per Million Departures
1990-94: 1.32 serious accidents/million deps.
1995-99: 1.06
2000-04: 0.58
2005-09: 0.55
3
Rate of Fatal Accidents
1.4
1.32
Rate of Fatal Accidents
1.2
1.06
1
0.8
Rate per million
departures
0.6
0.58
0.55
0.4
0.2
0
1990-94
1995-99
2000-04
2005-09
4
CAST/ICAO Accident Taxonomy
CFIT Decreasing
• 1997 – 2006 – 20 of 89 accidents CFIT or 22.5%
• 1998 – 2007 – 18 of 90 accidents CFIT or 20%
• 1999 – 2008 – 17 of 91accidents CFIT or 18.7%
Loss Of Control Continues As The
Number 1 Cause Of Accidents
• 1997 - 2006 – 19 of 89 accidents LOC-I or 21.3%
• 1998 - 2007 – 22 of 90 accidents LOC-I or 24.4%
• 1999 - 2008 – 22 of 91 accidents LOC-I or 24.2%
• Trend is not improving
CFIT vs. LOC-I
CFIT vs. LOC-I
25
20
15
CFIT
LOC-I
10
5
0
1997-2006
1998-2007
Commercial Jet Fleet
1999-2008
8
CFIT vs. LOC-I
CFIT vs. LOC-I
30%
24%
25%
22%
23%
20%
21%
20%
19%
LOC-I
15%
CFIT
10%
5%
0%
1997-2006
1998-2007
1999-2008
Commercial Jet Fleet
9
Results of Business Jet Data Review
• 35 accidents
• 14 would have been helped with Upset
Training
• 6 might have been helped with Upset Training
• Avoidance – Recognition - Recovery
10
Breakdown of LOC-I Training Need
LOC-I Accidents
Recovery
Training would not help
Avoidance and Recognition
11
Threat
• Stall is leading cause of LOC-I
– NTSB Study 20 LOC-I accidents 1986-1996
• Veillette Aviation Week May 2009
– 29 LOC-I accidents
• 13 of 29 on takeoff – usually not recoverable
• 16 approach and landing
– 6 circling approach
12
Loss Of Control Accident
Causes
Upset Recovery Training Aid rev1
Critical Skills
14
Critical Skills
• Recognition
– What is happening?
– Am I stalled?
– Avoidance of upset
• Recovery
– Before the upset
• Stall
– After the upset
• Stall
Colgan 3407
Control Column
Pitch
Angle of Attack
Colgan 3407 – NTSB DFDR Plots
Control Wheel
Roll
LOC-I C-5 Near Loss
This is the most terrifying video I have seen
19
Upset Recovery Training
History • Causes • Solutions
Baseline Knowledge
Pilots today are not aerodynamicists
Baseline Knowledge
• Past assumptions were WRONG
• Many pilot do not know needed aerodynamics
• Most have not seen a transport fully stalled
• Simulators do not accurately replicate this portion of
the envelope
• Power out recovery techniques may not work
• High altitude
• High drag
– Full stall
22
Angle Of Attack
Angle of attack (AOA, α, Greek letter alpha)
is a term used in aerodynamics to describe the
angle between the chord line of an airfoil and
the vector representing the relative motion
between the airfoil and the air. It can be
described as the angle between where the
chord line of the airfoil is pointing and where
the airfoil is going.
Wikipedia
Basic Aerodynamics
Different
Wings
Different
Stall
Characteristics
Wild ride
Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
Basic Aerodynamics
Lift
Drag
How many pilots really understand this?
Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
Basic Aerodynamics
Thrust available
vs.
At 40,000 feet
only 30% thrust
is available
Altitude
Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
Basic Aerodynamics
• As coefficient of lift increases so does drag
• There is high drag coefficient at critical angle
of attack – stall
• Powering out of a stall may not be an option
Basic Aerodynamics
• At stall there is high drag – wing and
fuselage
• At cruise altitude there is limited thrust
available
• Recovery at cruise altitude is different
than at 10,000 feet
Stall Characteristics
•
•
•
•
Jets are unstable when stalled
Jets will roll when stalled
Ailerons are not effective when stalled
Angle of Attack must be reduced to regain
control
It May NOT Be Possible to
Power Out Of A Stall At Cruise
Altitude
• Reduce Angle of Attack
• Accelerate
• Recover to NORMAL flight
– Monitor “G” loading in recovery
New Stall Procedure
• Airbus and Boeing have recently changed stall
recovery procedure
– Reduce angle of attack – Nose down
– Wings level
– Thrust Increase
– Speed brakes retracted
– Return to normal flight
There will be some altitude loss
31
Power vs. Pitch
32
Courtesy of Captain Dave Carbaugh
CAA UK
3 The standard stall recovery technique should therefore
always emphasise the requirement to reduce the angle of
attack so as to ensure the prompt return of the wing to full
controllability. The reduction in angle of attack (and
consequential height loss) will be minimal when the approach
to the stall is recognised early, and the correct recovery action
is initiated without delay.
NOTE: Any manufacturer’s recommended stall recovery
techniques must always be followed, and will take
precedence over the technique described above should
there be any conflicting advice.
33
Zero Altitude Loss Stall Training
Power Out Only
IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY
34
Wait a Minute!
What if I Am Not Stalled?
• We Can’t Just Push
PitchIndiscriminately!!!
(+up)
+ 90o
Normal flight
envelope
FAA Upset
Definition
+ 50o
+ 30o
+ 25o
o
+ 10
Roll (Left)
180o
135o
90o
- 10o
Roll (Right)
90o
135o
180o
- 50o
- 90o
Pitch (-down)
4.9 %
FAA Upset Definition (45 AOB, +25 & -10 Pitch)
87.5 %
PUSH-Valid Region
12.5 %
PUSH-Possibly-Valid Region (20% Chance? ~ 2.5%)
Courtesy of APS
Simulator Aerodynamic Model
David R. Gingras
John N. Ralston
Boeing Study
37
Boeing Study
38
Boeing Study
39
When It Goes Right
40
Fly By Wire Aircraft
• Some people have said that FBW technology
can eliminate LOC-I
– Always respect and follow manufacturers
guidance
• Follow SOPs
• Pilots usually train in conventional aircraft
• Often Pilots transition to conventional aircraft
• Pilots need more extensive LOC-I training
How Does This Turn Out?