captain john m. cox, fraes ceo safety operating systems
DESCRIPTION
“Loss of Control, Avoidance, Recognition and Recovery”. Captain John M. Cox, FRAeS CEO Safety Operating Systems. Fatalities 2000-09. Flight International. Fatalities Per Million Departures. 1990-94: 1.32 serious accidents/million deps . 1995-99: 1.06 2000-04: 0.58 2005-09: 0.55. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Captain John M. Cox, FRAeSCEO
Safety Operating Systems
“Loss of Control, Avoidance, Recognition and Recovery”
2
Fatalities 2000-09
Flight International
3
Fatalities Per Million Departures
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
1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-090
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.41.32
1.06
0.580000000000001
0.55
Rate of Fatal Accidents
Rate per million de-partures
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
8
CFIT vs. LOC-I
Commercial Jet Fleet1997-2006 1998-2007 1999-20080
5
10
15
20
25
CFIT vs. LOC-I
CFITLOC-I
9
CFIT vs. LOC-I
Commercial Jet Fleet1997-2006 1998-2007 1999-2008
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
21%
22%
24%
23%
20%19%
CFIT vs. LOC-I
LOC-ICFIT
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
11
Breakdown of LOC-I Training NeedLOC-I Accidents
Training would not help
Avoidance and Recognition
Recovery
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
Loss Of Control AccidentCauses
Upset Recovery Training Aid rev1
14
Critical Skills
Avoidance!
Critical Skills
• Recognition– What is happening?– Am I stalled? – Avoidance of upset
• Recovery– Before the upset• Stall
– After the upset• Stall
Colgan 3407
Colgan 3407 – NTSB DFDR Plots
Angle of Attack
Control Column
Pitch
Roll
Control Wheel
19
LOC-I C-5 Near Loss
This is the most terrifying video I have seen
Upset Recovery Training
History • Causes • Solutions
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
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
Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
Wild ride
DifferentWingsDifferentStall Characteristics
Basic Aerodynamics
Lift
Drag
Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
How many pilots really understand this?
Basic Aerodynamics
Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
Thrust available
vs.
Altitude
At 40,000 feetonly 30% thrust is available
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
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
There will be some altitude loss
32
Power vs. Pitch
Courtesy of Captain Dave Carbaugh
33
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.
34
Zero Altitude Loss Stall TrainingPower Out Only
IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY
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)+ 90o
+ 50o
+ 30o
+ 25o
+ 10o
- 10o
- 50o
- 90o
90o90o 180o180o 135o135o
Courtesy of APS
Normal flight envelope
Simulator Aerodynamic Model
David R. Gingras John N. Ralston
37
Boeing Study
38
Boeing Study
39
Boeing Study
40
When It Goes Right
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?
It is a matter of the RIGHT training