Upset recovery and a few thoughts

The place to discuss Flight Safety, SMS structures, ERP etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Raffles
Site Admin
Posts: 3605
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:00 am
Location: Die K@K Plaas
Burkina Faso

Upset recovery and a few thoughts

#1

Post by Raffles » Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:28 pm

I posted this on "another" forum because someone had to do a thesis on upset recovery for the ALMIGHTY CAA.............................what do you say?

Boeing has an unreliable airspeed checklist and this is what we follow. I have some Airbus exposure, but not the type rating.

Indiscriminate push can be devastating as in the FlyDubai crash and the Tatarstan crash;
therefore the corrective action would be apply thrust;
adjust the pitch attitude according to the conditions;
Roll to the nearest horizon;

Air France 447 should not have stalled in the first place but the copilot and in flight relief pilot had inadequate experience and training to deal with the situation.

Another thing I disagree with is that 500 hours "glass cockpit" experience requirement is total BS for several reasons.
Every glass cokpit pilot didn't have glass cockpit experience at some point.
It is actually more difficult to go from a glass cockpit to a steam cockpit;
A few thousand hours in non-computerized airplane teaches you how to fly the plane;
there is a complete lack of stick and rudder skills if pilots are thrown directly into a glass cockpit scenario....


NASA website has a lot of information, e.g. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 002791.pdf


In my day we did full spins and several turns.



User avatar
Moertoe Pilut
2000 feet Poster
Posts: 2914
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:00 am
Location: In a cockpit....
Contact:
Netherlands

Re: Upset recovery and a few thoughts

#2

Post by Moertoe Pilut » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:44 am

Not sure what the question here is, but I will give my own opinion, take that as it is....

Boeing's unreliable airspeed Memory Items differ from type but shouldn't be a reason to loose control of the airplane. The 737 classic gives you 2 pitch/thrust settings, one for flaps extended and one for flaps up. It will than refer you to the Performance Inflight section of the QRH (hard exercise, don't rush it). The AF447 crash was mainly due to one of the pilots to pull back on the stick while the airplane was stalled (incorrect stall recovery technique) and a lack of training provided for unreliable airspeed.

The "new" Boeing stall recovery technique was changed by Boeing thanks to AF447. On the older Boeings (737-200) this technique should't have changed, as you can easily fly out of the stall out high altitudes (I do this on test flights on the -200 at around 20,000 feet and loose 50 feet). On the newer 737's the increase of thrust while stalling (big CFM motors) could actually aggravate the stall (at higher altitudes). The "new" Boeing method is therefor to lower the nose below the horizon (about 5 degrees) and smoothly increase thrust to G/A thrust)

This is were the Tatarstan and FlyDubai crash come in. Boeing is so "smart" to change the stall recovery technique but than fails to state "clearly" in the FCTM/QRH that when you stall with terrain being a factor that the GPWS manoeuvre takes precedence. Boeing just assumes that it makes sense to you. Well from what I've seen in both crashes is that the crew executed the prefect "new" Boeing stall recovery technique and flew it straight into the ground (minimum of 5 degrees nose down, increase thrust smoothly...) and probably completely ignored the "whoop whoop pull up" (which now you must refer back to the old Boeing stall recovery technique) because they were busy unstalling the airplane as per Boeing. I'll leave it that....

As for the glass cockpit story....I'll give my opinion tomorrow some time, time to go to bed (long week of night flying).



bmused55
Moderator
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:59 pm
Great Britain

Re: Upset recovery and a few thoughts

#3

Post by bmused55 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:14 pm

Moertoe Pilut wrote:This is were the Tatarstan and FlyDubai crash come in. Boeing is so "smart" to change the stall recovery technique but than fails to state "clearly" in the FCTM/QRH that when you stall with terrain being a factor that the GPWS manoeuvre takes precedence. Boeing just assumes that it makes sense to you. Well from what I've seen in both crashes is that the crew executed the prefect "new" Boeing stall recovery technique and flew it straight into the ground (minimum of 5 degrees nose down, increase thrust smoothly...) and probably completely ignored the "whoop whoop pull up" (which now you must refer back to the old Boeing stall recovery technique) because they were busy unstalling the airplane as per Boeing. I'll leave it that....


Both crashes were caught on video. Both ended up at an almost 90 degree nose down attitude on impact. How do you explain following a procedure that first has you lower the nose to 5 degrees below the horizon results in a near vertical nose dive? Surely they have to have screwed up somewhere?



User avatar
Moertoe Pilut
2000 feet Poster
Posts: 2914
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:00 am
Location: In a cockpit....
Contact:
Netherlands

Re: Upset recovery and a few thoughts

#4

Post by Moertoe Pilut » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:28 pm

bmused55 wrote:
Both crashes were caught on video. Both ended up at an almost 90 degree nose down attitude on impact. How do you explain following a procedure that first has you lower the nose to 5 degrees below the horizon results in a near vertical nose dive? Surely they have to have screwed up somewhere?
That's exactly my point, why would you lower the nose during a stall recovery with terrain being a factor, whether it's 5 degrees or 90 degrees doesn't matter, the result will be the same, although 90 degrees will get you quicker to the point of impact.

The common sense of applying max thrust and using the stickshaker as an upper pitch limit should be used (GPWS recovery procedure).



bmused55
Moderator
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:59 pm
Great Britain

Re: Upset recovery and a few thoughts

#5

Post by bmused55 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:14 pm

Ah, I understand.
Well, better training and some common sense would not go amiss either in such situations!



Post Reply