1. Captain John M. Cox, FRAeS CEO Safety Operating Systems 1 “Loss of Control, Avoidance, Recognition and Recovery”

2. Fatalities 2000-09 2 Flight International

3. Fatalities Per Million Departures 3 1990-94: 1.32 serious accidents/million deps. 1995-99: 1.06 2000-04: 0.58 2005-09: 0.55

4. Rate of Fatal Accidents 4

5. CAST/ICAO Accident Taxonomy

6. 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%

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

8. CFIT vs. LOC-I 8 Commercial Jet Fleet

9. CFIT vs. LOC-I 9 Commercial Jet Fleet

10. 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

11. Breakdown of LOC-I Training Need 11

12. 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

13. Loss Of Control Accident Causes Upset Recovery Training Aid rev1

14. Critical Skills 14

15. Critical Skills Recognition – What is happening? – Am I stalled? – Avoidance of upset Recovery – Before the upset Stall – After the upset Stall

16. Colgan 3407

17. Colgan 3407 – NTSB DFDR Plots Angle of Attack Control Column Pitch

18. Roll Control Wheel

19. LOC-I C-5 Near Loss 19 This is the most terrifying video I have seen

20. Upset Recovery Training History Causes Solutions

21. Baseline Knowledge Pilots today are not aerodynamicists

22. 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

23. Angle Of Attack Angle of attack (AOA, α, Greek letter alpha)Greek letteralpha is a term used in aerodynamics to describe theaerodynamics angleangle between the chord line of an airfoil andchord lineairfoil the vector representing the relative motionvector 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

24. Basic Aerodynamics Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators Wild ride DifferentWingsDifferentStallCharacteristics

25. Basic Aerodynamics Lift Drag Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators How many pilots really understand this?

26. Basic Aerodynamics Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators Thrust available vs. Altitude At 40,000 feet only 30% thrust is available

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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 31 There will be some altitude loss

32. Power vs. Pitch 32 Courtesy of Captain Dave Carbaugh

33. CAA UK 33 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.

34. Zero Altitude Loss Stall Training Power Out Only 34

35. Wait a Minute! What if I Am Not Stalled? 12.5 % PUSH-Possibly-Valid Region (20% Chance? ~ 2.5%) 87.5 % PUSH-Valid Region We Can’t Just Push Indiscriminately!!! 4.9 % FAA Upset Definition FAA Upset Definition (45 AOB, +25 & -10 Pitch) Roll (Right) Roll (Left) Pitch (-down) Pitch (+up) + 90 o + 50 o + 30 o + 25 o + 10 o - 10 o - 50 o - 90 o 90 o 180 o 135 o Courtesy of APS Normal flight envelope

36. Simulator Aerodynamic Model David R. Gingras John N. Ralston

37. Boeing Study 37

38. Boeing Study 38

39. Boeing Study 39

40. When It Goes Right 40

41. 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

42. How Does This Turn Out?