simulator upset and recovery training_philip adrian

8/3/2019 Simulator Upset and Recovery Training_Philip Adrian

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/simulator-upset-and-recovery-trainingphilip-adrian 1/39

Export of this technology is controlled under the United States Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 730-774).

An export license may be required before it is used for development, production or use by foreign persons from specific

countries. The controller of this data has the individual responsibility to abide by all export laws.

Copyright © 2011 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Simulator UpsetRecovery Training

Captain Philip AdrianChief Pilot Regulatory Affairs

737 Chief Technical Pilot

The Boeing Company



Copyright © 2011 Boeing. All rights reserved. Simulator Upset Recovery Training.2

Overview

• History—The need to address operational issues

• Training Aid Purpose

• Ultimate Goal—Educate Pilots

• Boeing Study onTraining Effectiveness

• Simulator Fidelity Study

• Stall Training

• Summary




HistoryLoss of Control Accident —The Leader in Fatal Accidents




History

• 1996 Industry working group:

– Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid Team

• Team Members:

– Manufacturers, airlines, pilot associations, government

and regulatory agencies, industry safety groups, andflight training organizations

– International in scope

–

Produced 1st training aid in 1998 – Updated 2004, 2008

– High Altitude Operations Section 2008




History

• Variable situations and outcomes

• Lack of training

• Rare events so crewsbecame startled

• Crews sometimes used improper inputs torecover

• Crew training generally left themunprepared to deal with upsets and

recover

What the Accident Data Shows Us…




History

• Basic flaws in knowledge and training became evident

• Many accidents were recoverable withproper training

What the Accident Data Shows Us…

Copyright © 2011 Boeing. All rights reserved.




Training Aid Goal & Objectives

• The Goal:

– Increase the pilot’s ability torecognize and avoid situationsthat lead to airplane upsets

• Objectives: – Develop a consensus on training

methods for recovery

– Develop educational material

– Develop an exampletraining program

Airplane Upset RecoveryTraining Aid Team




Boeing Upset Recovery Study

• When the Upset Recovery Training Aid initially was

released in 1998, there was a limited assessment ofsimulator validity

• Various research reports published on validity ofsimulators for upset training

• Many varying opinions

• No relevant studies documented with a statistically

significant pool of pilots• Boeing decided to undertake relevant studies





• Boeing—Upset Recovery Validation Studies

– Sept 15 , 2007 First subject pilot tested—Initiated study

– June 15, 2008 Last subject pilot tested—Concluded study

• Boeing—2nd Study

– Simulator EnvelopeValidation Study

– Concluded April 21, 2009

Longacres Training Center

Tukwila, WA





• Pilots who have had Upset Recovery Training will be more

successful in coping with upset events than they werebefore they were trained

Boeing Study—Hypothesis





• Select a group of a minimum of 30

737-qualified Boeing pilots

• Objectively evaluate the pilots’performance on three maneuversin a 737 full-flight simulator

Boeing Study—Research Design





• Train the pilots using a video and a simulator session

• Reevaluate the pilots one to six months after trainingusing the same initial testand scoring method to seeif performance improved

Boeing Study—Research Design





• Number of pilots first test 35

• Average Age 48

• Average Flight Time 10,200 hours

• Average Pilot Years 26• Average 737 Flight Time 2200 hours

• Aerobatic Training 29

• Military 25

• Number of pilots retested 33

Pilot Demographics





• Events came from Airplane UpsetRecovery Training Aid

• Tailored for 737 airplane

Scenarios





737 Instructor Panel

Scenario 2:

• 25°NOSE DOWN

• 60°BANK

• TRIM NEUTRAL

Upset Recovery Test/Training Scenarios




Boeing Upset Recovery StudyUpset Recovery Test/Training Scenarios

Scenario 3:

• 25°NOSE DOWN

• 120°BANK

• TRIM NEUTRAL

737 Instructor Panel





• Each subject given the identical events in identical order

• Recorded selected objective parameters to measure

performance

• Data recorded by researcher and research participant in rightseat

• Subjects not informed of what data was recorded or of ‘scoringsystem’





• Criteria

• Need a way to significantly differentiate performance

– Need a way to show performance improvement ordeterioration for individuals and the whole group

– Need to show “gradients” of performance to spread outthe different ways of handling the events

Scoring System





• This system did spread the scores out for the test subjects

from 0 to 10

• It met the subjective test requirement that the bestperformance did get a 10 and the worst performance didget a zero

• Retesting also was successful in applying the same scoringsystem to show changes in performance

Note: there is no thought that this system will be applied inthe normal training or checking environment!

Scoring System





• Active Instructor participation

• Maneuvers flown until common student errors eliminated

– 40 degrees Nose High aft trim—Roll Recovery Technique

– 40 degrees Nose High aft trim—Push Recovery Technique

– 40 degrees Nose High neutral trim—

Thrust Reduction Recovery Technique – 25 degrees Nose Low, Medium Bank Recovery

– 25 degrees Nose Low, High Bank Recovery

Training — Simulator




Subject Number

27 26 11 19 24 7 9 18 23 5214 12 20 25 13 17 22 29 31 32 1 4 16 21 35 8 3 30 34 15 10 28 33 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Score

Boeing Upset Recovery StudyTotal Scores

35

Score 1

Score 2





• Training makes a difference—and it is positive

• The average total score improved from 20.4 to 26.0 points

• 29 out of 33 pilots did better on the second test

– Average improvement was 6.7 points

– Those who improved went from an average of 19.7 to 26.4

• 4 out of 33 pilots did worse on the second test

– Average deterioration was 2.8 points

– Those who deteriorated went from 25.8 to 23.0 points

Total Scores Conclusions





• The results of each of the maneuvers showed higher scores

after training for the majority of the pilots

• Pilots demonstrated the largest increase in average scoresfor the Nose High, Zero Bank Angle maneuver

–

It appears that either a rolling recovery or a pushrecovery can be successful

– The push recovery seems to be statistically moresuccessful

• The average total score for all three maneuvers showed anincrease after training

• There was a higher level of consistency of performance

among the pilot group after training

Boeing Upset Recovery Summary





• Upset Recovery Training should be implemented at all

training centers

• The column forward technique should be presented as theprimary method of recovery from nose high upset events inBoeing commercial airplanes

• Further study to confirm simulator fidelity in upset recoveries

Recommendations



Copyright © 2011 Boeing. All rights reserved. Simulator Upset Recovery Training_Carbaugh.26

Boeing Simulator Fidelity Study

• Applicability ofSimulator Data toUpset Recovery Training




• Consideration of study: Does upset training take place in aregion of valid simulation data?

• Region of valid Simdata includes

– FT validated

– WT validated

– Region ofConfidence

– Extrapolatedfor simulation

Appendix 3-D, Upset Training Aid, presents Simulator Alpha and Beta plots criteria (most airplanes available)


Aerodynamic Envelope of 767-400 ER





• Consideration of Fidelity Study: Does upset training take

place in a region of valid simulation data?• Study sampling:

– 10 pilots

– 4 Upset scenarios

• Recorded α, β and other parameters to determine thescope of the maneuvering envelope for the UR flights




Recovery from Nose High Attitude


Data Analysis:

• Recovery—Conditions – 40°Nose High

– Wings level

– Level flight stab trim

• 8 Recovery plots

• All Used Upset TrainingAid recovery techniques

• All recoveries were withinthe Flight Test Validatedenvelope





Recovery from Nose High Attitudeusing Pitch Control



Data Analysis:

• Recovery—Conditions

– 40°Nose High

– Wings level

– Stab Mis-trimmed 6 units


– 7 attempts prior toreceiving Upset Training

– 5 attempts brieflyexceeded the flightvalidated envelope

• Conditions basicallystayed within the WindTunnel envelope




Recovery from Nose High Attitudeusing Lateral Control


Data Analysis:

• Recovery—Conditions – 40°Nose High

– Wings level

– Stab Mis-trimmed 6 units


• Lateral control techniquecauses most concern

• Several exceeded WindTunnel envelope

• All generally fit within theregion of confidence







Data Analysis:

• Results such as this couldindicate the student was notfollowing the trainingguidelines

• In cases such as this, it fallsto the instructor to have thestudent repeat a maneuver,if done poorly





All Test Conditions


Data Analysis:

• Additional data werecollected during the previousset of maneuvers

• Presented as a V-n diagram

• V-n limits slightly exceeded

• Excursions do not negate thesuitability of the training





Recovery from Nose Low AttitudeMedium Bank


Data Analysis:


– 25°Nose Low

– 60°Bank


• Half of recovery attemptswere done prior to receivingUpset Training

• 1 attempt briefly exceededflight test Validatedenvelope





Recovery from Nose Low AttitudeHigh Bank


Data Analysis:


– 25°Nose Low

– 120°Bank

• 20 recovery plots

• Half of recovery attemptswere done prior toreceiving Upset Training

• 4 attempts brieflyexceeded flight testValidated envelope





Simulator Fidelity Issues and Summary

• Boeing Study indicates that training has a positive effect on

the successful completion upset recovery maneuvers• Simulator fidelity issues are important and simulators must

be validated prior to training

• Upset training typically enables the pilot to complete themaneuver before exceeding the validated flight envelope

Conclusions




Conclusions—Continued

Simulator Fidelity Issues and Summary

• Motion studies have not been conducted

• Motion adds value to all training aspects—e.g., takeoff andrejected takeoffs—not the same motion but the sensorycues help validate the maneuver

• Motion aids the pilot in early recognition of the upsetcondition just as buffet helps to warn a pilot of an approachto stall condition prior to shaker onset

• Motion aids an element of realism to the upset condition

and recovery maneuvers




Summary

• Loss of control accidents is the leader in fatalities worldwide

• Recognition and confirmation are critical for proper use ofrecovery techniques

– Training enhances the ability of the pilot to correctlyidentify the upset condition

– Training equips the pilot to properly utilize techniquesthat are appropriate for the upset condition of flight

Training will give the pilot the proper tools to ensure a high probability of success




Thank you

simulator upset and recovery training_philip adrian

Documents