54044®Fli ISSUE g ht 96
S a f e ON COMMERCIAL AVIATION SAFETY t y i ss 96
22/9/14 The official publicationoftheUnited KingdomFlightSafety Committee
15 : 07
P age 1 ISSN 1355-1523
AUTUMN 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 2
Contents
The Official Publication of THE UNITED KINGDOM FLIGHT SAFETY COMMITTEE ISSN: 1355-1523 AUTUMN 2014
FOCUS is a quarterly subscription journal devoted Editorial 1 to the promotion of best practises in aviation safety. It includes articles, either original or reprinted from other sources, related to safety issues throughout all areas of air transport Chairman’s Column 3 operations. Besides providing information on safety related matters, FOCUS aims to promote debate and improve networking within the industry. It must be emphasised that FOCUS is not intended Flight Data monitoring for corporate operators 4 as a substitute for regulatory information or company publications and procedures. by Dave Jesse
Editorial Office: The Graham Suite, Fairoaks Airport, Chobham, Woking, Surrey. GU24 8HU Temporary Reserved Areas (TRAs) 6 Tel: 01276 855193 Fax: 01276 855195 e-mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.ukfsc.co.uk Office Hours: 0900 - 1630 Monday - Friday Brave New World 8
Advertisement Sales Office: by Wayne Rosenkrans UKFSC The Graham Suite, Fairoaks Airport, Chobham, Woking, Surrey GU24 8HU Tel: 01276 855193 Fax: 01276 855195 Datalink: the story continues 13 email: [email protected] by Jenny Beechener Web Site: www.ukfsc.co.uk Office Hours: 0900 - 1630 Monday - Friday
Printed by: Why and when to perform a Go-Around maneuver 15 Woking Print & Publicity Ltd The Print Works, St. Johns Lye, St. Johns, by Michael Coker Woking, Surrey GU21 1RS Tel: 01483 884884 Fax: 01483 884880 e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.wokingprint.com UAV – Are they a threat to you? 19 by Capt Sarah Clachan FOCUS is produced solely for the purpose of improving flight safety and, unless copyright is indicated, articles may be reproduced providing that the source of material is acknowledged. Prepare to be Surprised 21 Opinions expressed by individual authors or in by Sunjoo Advani, Jeffery Schroeder and Bryan Burks advertisements appearing in FOCUS are those of the author or advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the views and endorsements of this journal, the editor or the UK Flight Safety Committee. Members List 24
While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein, FOCUS accepts no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the information, or its consequences. Specialist advice should always be sought in relation to any particular circumstances. Front Cover Picture: Emirates A380 taking off from Manchester Airport.
focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 3
EDITORIAL
Rockets and Risk
by Dai Whittingham, Chief Executive UKFSC
he appalling loss of MH17 is an event answers. But finding answers in zones where In responsible nation states there will be a set Tthat will continue to resonate long the rule of law has broken down is notoriously of conditions imposed, so-called ‘Rules of into the future.The previously unthinkable difficult, especially where there are strong Engagement’, that govern the use of force by has happened. Whether this was an political vested interests in play, and the those people bearing arms on behalf of the accident in the strictest sense of the word answers on causation may not necessarily be state itself; you would rightly expect such or whether it should more properly be found using traditional accident investigation conditions to be far more stringent in characterised as a crime, there is no methods. And what are the implications for peacetime than in all-out war. Even in war denying the scale of the human tragedy future investigations? there will be conditions, if only to ensure that involved. The understandable need for you don’t take out someone on your own security meant that two weeks elapsed In terms of preventing a recurrence, and as the side. However, if the rule of law no longer after MH17 was downed before official Chairman points out in his column, operators prevails and the institutions of government investigators could gain access to the crash and crews need to know where they can safely are weak or non-existent, the reality can be site. Sadly, militia, media and local people fly. Over-flight has a very different risk profile very different. have had almost unrestricted access from when compared with arrivals and departures, the outset. There is distressing TV and so operating over a conflict area needs to be In the MH17 case it appears from anecdotal other evidence of bodies and personal considered separately. Lower altitudes can evidence that those in possession of the SAM effects being looted and even footage of place you within reach of the smaller, man- fell into the “weak or non-existent journalists rooting round in baggage as portable missile systems (MANPADS) but you government” category and so lacked the part of their reports; clearly the wreckage are already vulnerable to small arms fire on disciplined command and control has been disturbed and there are amid the approach if someone really wants to take arrangements that would have allowed them worrying suggestions that some parts a pop at you, as was recently demonstrated in to properly identify MH17 as being non- have already been removed by 3rd parties. Pakistan on 24 June when two PIA crew military (squawking traffic, flight plan, track Given the size of the debris field, the members were injured and a passenger fatally behaviour, origin etc). One could maybe argue nature of the terrain and the ongoing wounded by gunfire on approach to Peshawar. that the attack was an unintended conflict it is also likely that some smaller There is also no public indication as to whether consequence of the internal conflict rather pieces of wreckage will go undiscovered. the attack was deliberate or, for example, just than deliberate targeting of a CAT flight, but poorly-timed celebratory gunfire. That said, it the result is tragically the same. Fortunately, the CVR and FDR are in the is actually quite hard to hit a moving aircraft possession of the investigators, though these without some sort of assisted aiming or So perhaps one of the lessons from MH17 is may not provide any real answers as to why an specialist training, and most large CAT aircraft that, for our threat equation, political will as a apparently serviceable aircraft should have a good chance of surviving a MANPAD form of restraint can quickly be subverted by suddenly break up in the air. However, hit because there is plenty of system lack of control. It follows that it would be wise photographs exist of wreckage showing the redundancy, the warheads are small and the to avoid areas where you have knowledge that tell-tale signs of a blast fragmentation missiles are heat-seekers so will head for an SAM systems (and/or fighter aircraft) are warhead; recovery and forensic examination of engine, the loss of which pilots are trained to present and where there appears to be no, or the physical items and passenger injuries will deal with. But if there is a serious risk that poor, political control over the people bearing be crucial if there is to be absolute proof the someone will have a go at you with an AK-47 arms. But instability and violence on the aircraft was destroyed by a surface-to-air or a MANPAD, you should not be there in the ground does not necessarily mean an area is missile, as seems highly probable. Even with first place! unsafe for over-flight; you still need the the addition of military intelligence capability to attack aircraft at high level for the information and the forensic results the The same is not true when considering the threat to be meaningful. conclusions of the inquiry will be rejected in larger vehicle-mounted SAM systems, like the some quarters, for one reason or another, and Russian-built Buk (SA-11), which bring normal Syria is a classic case for concern and possibly the whole sorry episode will for many remain CAT operating altitudes firmly into the missile avoidance at the moment, simply because wrapped up with web-based bizarre engagement envelope. But does the mere there is a known presence of highly capable conspiracy theories. presence of a system make it a threat? It all SAM and a civil war that is seeing possession depends where you are. For a threat to be of some hardware passing to the opposition So will an investigation tell us anything that genuine you require the capability (the rather than remaining in government hands, will help prevent a recurrence? What lessons equipment) and the political will to use it – whatever you may think of that government. do we take from the aftermath? The relatives one without the other gives you useless A similar situation of instability prevails in and friends of those who died want answers. equipment or empty words; it is the principle Libya. There is understandable caution with Governments want answers. Aviation needs on which deterrence is founded. Iraq because of the current ISIS insurgency and
focus autumn 14 1 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 4
its extremist approach to life or, rather, to the nature of the information become publicly operations can be conducted without undue casual taking of it; there is little doubt that a known, and there will be capabilities and risk. In this respect it is always worth weapon system would be used without techniques that intelligence agencies would reinforcing the message that safety and compunction if the opportunity arose, not wish to see compromised under any security are essential pre-requisites for regardless of the consequences. While there is circumstances. But without this information commercial success. no information to suggest that ISIS has yet any security risk assessment will be gained possession of a SAM system capable of fundamentally flawed. hitting an over-flight, there will be a number of nations watching carefully for such a All operators have direct or indirect access to development. It would be very wise to heed classified intelligence, though they may not the warnings when they are issued as they will always realise it as it will usually come in be based on proper intelligence, but until such unclassified form; some information will be warnings are issued there seems to be no routed via NAAs, some may be given particular reason to avoid over-flying the area. information more directly. It is not important However, the international response to ISIS that people know where the information has atrocities appears to be swinging increasingly come from but it is important they know it is towards military air activity and this may credible and they do need to act accordingly. prompt an ‘avoid’ recommendation sooner For example, we do not need to know how or rather than later. where intelligence on the recent terrorist bomb plots came from, but we must certainly The residual question for crews post-MH17 is ensure those working on physical security at “How do I know my company is telling us the airports know what they are looking for when truth when they say it’s safe?” when the they examine baggage. There may also be decision is to continue operating into or across times when it is appropriate to give people a troubled turf. The simple answer is that it has little more information about the nature of a to be taken on trust. But trust has to be threat and the accompanying risk assessment, earned, and the difficulty for the operator here particularly so when people believe they will is that it may not be able to reveal all its cards. be personally exposed to it. This is the essence Any confidential information, be it capability, of the trust relationship and the confidence commercial or security-based, must be generated when that relationship is solid. protected if it is to remain confidential and the Crews need to understand the company risk simplest way of achieving this is to restrict assessment process and accept that it includes access only to those with a genuine ‘need to access to information that often cannot be know’. There will be times when the human released into the public domain. Management source of information would be placed directly also needs to consider ways of enhancing trust in harm’s way should their identity or even the in the process and building confidence that
ADVERTISING IN THIS MAGAZINE FOCUS is a Quarterly Publication which has a highly targeted readership of 14,000 Aviation Safety Professionals worldwide. If you or your company would like to advertise in FOCUS please contact:
Advertisement Sales Office: UKFSC, The Graham Suite, Fairoaks Airport, Chobham, Woking, Surrey. GU24 8HU. Tel: +44 (0)1276 855193 Email: [email protected]
2 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 5
CHAIRMAN’S COLUMN
Safe Skies?
by Chris Brady, Chairman UKFSC
t now appears certain that flight MH17 To assist this decision making, airlines have after MH17. One of the concerns of crew is Iwas shot down over the Ukraine from to gather intelligence from various sources that either the operators are not fully aware its cruising altitude by a ground to air to determine their safety and suitability, of the situation on the ground or that they missile. Regardless of who did it or why, such as governments, ICAO, IATA and are choosing to continue for commercial or and perhaps helped by the fact that there Eurocontrol. political reasons. Hopefully if there was ever were so many different nationalities on- any suspicion that the latter was occurring board and the subsequent delays in MH17 was in airspace approved by ICAO. Its MH17 will have ended such practice. recovering the bodies, it has woken the flight plan was approved by the Ukrainian world up to the hazards of overflying authorities, as well as Eurocontrol, yet it was What is now clearly needed is for a conflict zones. still brought down. respected independent body to be established which is able to give real-time, Malaysian Airlines was not doing anything Interestingly the FAA has since extended its accurate, security assessments and unbiased differently to many other airlines who had overfly warnings to eastern Ukraine, Iraq, advice for any part of the world, based upon also been overflying this area since that Syria, Afghanistan, Kenya and Ethiopia. Yet objective criteria. Only then will all conflict began; it was just desperately countries like Nigeria and the Central African operators, crew and passengers have unlucky that a Malaysian aircraft was hit so Republic which are listed as war zones with confidence in the system that the flights will soon after the loss of MH370. ongoing conflicts are not on the FAA banned only fly over and into areas when it is safe to list. Furthermore, these overfly warnings are do so. Clearly, in retrospect the aircraft should not only issued for US registered aircraft, so have been overflying the area; the question should they be taken into consideration by a is how should the airline, or any of the others non-US aircraft? Is the decision on if in that airspace, have known that airspace is safe to overfly dependent upon beforehand? the country of registration?
Airlines cannot possibly have the resources A recent attack which saw a rocket land to be global security experts and yet they quite close to Tel Aviv airport, led to some have to make decisions about whether or short term recommendations by the FAA not it is safe to overfly regions, countries or and EASA not to fly into this airport. These parts of countries in scenarios that could be only lasted for a day or so and when flights changing in severity on a daily basis. resumed crews understandably remain concerned about operating there given the daily TV news reports of rocket fire so soon
focus autumn 14 3 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 6
Flight data monitoring for Corporate Operators
by Dave Jesse, CEO. Flight Data Services
Flight Data Monitoring Regulations Gulfstream G650ER Embraer Phenom 100E
lthough extensive amounts have Passengers 8 6 Abeen written on the subject of Flight Max takeoff weight (kg) 46,992 4,750 Range (nm) 7,500 1,178 Data Monitoring (FDM) for airline operations, when it comes to the corporate world and FDM on private jets, (Table 1 Summary scale of aircraft) the issues have been less well transfer the data or alternatively aircrew can its fleet to attain economies of scale, documented. install software on a laptop to download and whereas corporate operators often manage a send flight data remotely, perhaps from their number of different privately owned aircraft. On 1st January 2005 the International Civil hotel at a later time. This method is more This is all combined with the way the aircraft Aviation Organisation amended Annex 6 of suited to a private jet operator where the is flown. If aircrew are trying to maximise the Chicago Convention and introduced aircraft owners’ plans can change at short passenger comfort then the aircraft will tend requirements for a ‘flight data analysis notice. to rotate more slowly on take-off or float programme’, which was mandatory for further down the runway on landing. aircraft over 27 tonnes and recommended Without passengers on-board, performance for aircraft over 20 tonnes. Flight Data Analysis and Event of these “pocket rockets” can lead to an Measurements enthusiastic pilot achieving remarkable rates Many of the larger corporate aircraft are well of climb and steep bank angles. above the 27 tonnes limit in the ICAO With similar recorded parameters as mandate (see Table 1), and while the airliners, such as: Airspeed, Pitch Angle, ILS mandate is based purely on take-off weight Deviation and similar exceedance events Early Corporate FDM Operations and not use, large business jet AOC holders such as: overspeed, excessive pitch altitude in the UK are all required to implement an and unstable approach, the conversion from Typically of FDM, many early users installed FDM programme. airliner analysis to corporate jet analysis is the equipment and carried out a review of technically straightforward, however there data with reluctance, or at least a lack of are some significant differences that enthusiasm - after all, they had been flying Equipment Installation complicate the practical implementation of safely for years and were approved operators the process. prior to the change in the law. They had not The ARINC standards that govern the become unsafe, just because some regulator manufacture and test of crash protected in ICAO invented a new rule. That was until Flight Data Recorders (FDR’s) have made it Differences between Corporate the safety events started to come in, at difficult to certify a new FDR, which as a Operators and Airlines which point phrases like “that’s not in our consequence, mean that all aircraft large SOP’s” or “I wonder why he did that?” were enough to require an FDR have been fitted Firstly, there is the irregular flight pattern of heard. At some stage the Safety Manager with recorders with the same data interface. the aircraft. Unlike airlines with a familiar has to take action and how this is done and regular flight schedule, the corporate depends upon a culture within an This enables the fitting of small Quick Access operator is rarely returning to the same organisation. The significant points are that: Recorders (QAR’s). These were developed for airport twice. Then there is the issue of the airliners but are equally suited for corporate small fleet sizes.While some larger operators ■ All corporate operators who installed jets and are the best solution for extracting can build statistically meaningful patterns of FDM found that the aircraft were being data from the aircraft. These use removable data, this is almost impossible for operators operated in ways that had previously not memory cards, rather than more expensive of a few or even a single aircraft, flying been anticipated. ‘wireless’ solutions or ‘milking’ the FDR with irregular patterns often with low utilization. a download unit which is inconvenient. For ■ Often a common pattern emerged that fixed base operators, maintenance crew can Aircraft variation is an added factor; an characterized that operator/type use a computer located in the hangar to airline will have as few types as possible in combination.
4 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 7
■ Tackling events that arose in the early Analyst comment FSO comment days allowed the safety department to gain a “quick win” to demonstrate the Max speed exceeded limit for 4 secs from noted effectiveness of the programme. 3269 ft AAL. Max speed = 252 kts. The speed was high for 16 seconds between Noted nothing to add at this time 3985 ft and 3530 ft AAL with a maximum For example, an operator might find that of 257 kts crews were tending to float down the The speed was high for 1 minute and 39 all crew have been warned runway to achieve very gentle touchdowns, seconds between 5000 ft and 4205 ft AAL re speeding below 10. but as a result reducing the runway length with a maximum of 296 kts. available for braking and increasing the risk The speed was high for 35 seconds between all crew aware of speeding below 10 of an excursion on a short runway. Focusing 5000 ft and 3000 ft AAL with a maximum on landing technique can increase the safety of 309 kts margins without significant reduction in passenger comfort. (Table 2. Events Recorded)
The Corporate Aviation Safety Executive aircraft (below the 27 tonne weight limit). High Speed Descents This trial covered three different aircraft A group of corporate Safety Managers types at three different operators. During the Although the trial was only run for a short recognised that the industry could benefit year, 400 flights of data were collected from period, there was one clear case of a safety from a sharing of safety information and the trial aircraft proving that the aircraft event being identified and addressed during formed the Corporate Aviation Safety could be modified to accept QARs. The trial the course of this trial, specifically the event Executive (CASE). This entirely voluntary has recently come to completion, proving was high speed between 5000ft and 3000ft international group meets regularly to share that data capture and analysis was a during the descent. The limit was set at safety lessons learned and build upon practical proposition for this class of aircraft 250kts to account for bird-strike speed experience from their peers. It was through and operation. The final report is currently in limits,ATC needs and also operations in Class CASE that an initial step was completed to preparation by the CAA. G Airspace. create a shared SMS platform. Although the purpose of the trial was to During the first quarter of 2014, a number of Some of the larger operators within CASE prove the feasibility of gathering data from these events occurred, with the peak speed with previous experience of FDM recognised this class of aircraft, the question that often just over the limit. In these instances the value and potential for this safety tool to immediately followed was, were there any the Flight Safety Officer just recorded be applied to smaller operators. Furthermore, issues found? As with all operations new to ‘noted’ but as the speeds increased he took they understood that, for this to be really FDM, different operators identified different action as shown in the sample event effective, it had to be tied in with a data issues, for example, low rotation rates at comments (see Table 2). sharing mechanism to gain a greater depth take-off occurred in one type while with of understanding and insight into the another speedbrakes were used more often The Flight Safety Officer had, justifiably, safety issues. than expected. One enthusiastic approach monitored the first events but took action led to a turn peaking at 60 degrees left wing when the overspeed became excessive, this The first stage was to collect data from low and 10 degrees nose down. The resulted in an elimination of this event aircraft. Members of the CASE executive met commander agreed this approach was “a during the following three months (see Table with the UK Department for Transport (DfT) little aggressive in its execution” and he 3), which demonstrates a good example of and the CAA, and it was agreed that a CAA would remember to “reduce the bank angle how FDM is not used as a punitive tool but funded and managed trial should be in future”. used to keep operations within the SOPs and conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of achieve a consequential increase in flight fitting FDM equipment on smaller corporate safety through education and training.
focus autumn 14 5 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 8
The trial, initiated by the Corporate Aviation Safety Executive, sponsored by the CAA and supported by the Department for Transport, demonstrated the practicality of gathering data from smaller corporate aircraft and as an added bonus, encouraging initial results were obtained from this programme.
All three operators involved in the trial have gained a better understanding of their operation, and thanks to continued CAA support all three are continuing to monitor their operations.
The Future
A second trial, to be sponsored by the Department for Transport, is now being planned to expand the available pool of data and explore the (Table 3 High speed 5000-3000ft over six month period) potential for statistical analysis of data across multiple operators. Anyone Conclusion interested in collaborating in this second trial should contact the Corporate Aviation Safety Executive. Introducing Flight Data Monitoring to corporate aircraft is not technically difficult, and many of the lessons learned about Flight Data Service (FDS) supplied the equipment for the trial and carried how to handle the information and how to communicate the out the data analysis. safety lessons to the crews can be read across, if not directly, at least in principle, to corporate operations.
Temporary Reserved Areas (TRAs) Information for Commercial Air Transport
n Airprox occurred recently between The Single European Sky (SES) Airspace dimensions and activation times of these Aan E145 and a Tornado GR4 both Classification Regulation (Regulation (EC) TRAs are detailed in the UK AIP at ENR 5.2. operating IFR under IMC within Temporary 730/2006) required EU Member States to Reserved Area (TRA) 007A. This was adopt Class C airspace above FL195 by 1 July A TRA is a defined volume of airspace assessed by the UK Airprox Board as a 2007 at the latest. normally under the jurisdiction of one Category B Airprox: avoiding action may aviation authority and temporarily reserved, have been taken but still resulted in safety UK implementation of the rule was by common agreement, for the specific use by margins much reduced below normal – undertaken in 2 phases.The first of these took another aviation authority and through which safety not assured. During the effect on 16 March 2006 with the other traffic may be allowed to transit under investigation and debate by the Airprox introduction of Class C in UK airspace above an ATS authority. Board it became apparent that the type of FL245; the second phase was implemented on ATS provided in Class C TRA airspace was a 15 March 2007 to introduce Class C at and TRAs may be used simultaneously by both potential source of confusion. Strictly above FL195, replacing all other classifications civil and military aircraft, including aircraft in speaking, within the TRA the CAT pilot was in the London and Scottish FIRs/UIRs. en-route transit through a TRA. Military required by Rule 9 of the Rules of the Air to aircraft may either operate autonomously give way to the other aircraft, which was In order to accommodate VFR and within a TRA or be in receipt of an air traffic on his right as they converged. autonomous operations above FL195 it was service (ATS) from approved ATS units. necessary to introduce eight TRAs. The
6 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 9
Flights within a TRA should be conducted Pilots that do not require ATC deconfliction To summarise, aircraft in Class C airspace on Standard Pressure Setting (1013 hPa) advice or deconfliction minima to be applied above FL195 are provided with a Radar unless instructed otherwise. The semi- should not request a Deconfliction Service. Control service and standard separation. CAT circular rule applies above FL195 in Class C may well be operating in active TRAs under Airspace; however, the Quadrantal Rule still Traffic Service: Traffic Service is a the assumed protection of a Radar Control applies within an active TRA between FL195 surveillance-based ATS, where controllers Service above FL195, when, in fact, they will and FL245. This will change later this year provide specific surveillance-derived traffic be provided with a UK FIS and ultimately when the UK completes implementation information to assist pilots in avoiding responsible for their own collision avoidance. of the Standardised European Rules of the other traffic. Controllers may provide This means that active TRAs is effectively Air (Regulation (EU) 923/2012) and adopts headings and/or levels for the purposes of Class G and must be treated as such. Unlike the semicircular cruising level system in all positioning and/or sequencing; however, other Class C Controlled Airspace, aircraft in UK airspace. During periods of activation, controllers are is not required to achieve area TRA can be receiving different types of while the airspace classification of a TRA deconfliction minima, and the pilot remains ATS, and military aircraft are able to act doesn’t change, but the rules associated with responsible for collision avoidance. autonomously. it do. In short, an activated TRA shall be Traffic Service is available under IFR in any treated as uncontrolled (i.e. Class G) airspace, meteorological conditions, or under VFR. If The message is, therefore, know your UK FIS and accordingly the ATS provided within it will controllers issue headings and/or levels that and ask for the one most appropriate to be the UK Flight Information Services (UK FIS would require flight in IMC, pilots who are your transit of an active TRA, taking – often referred to as air traffic services not suitably qualified to fly in IMC shall prevailing meteorological conditions into outside controlled airspace – ATSOCAS). inform of this and request alternative account. Or route around an active TRA These are described in detail in CAP 774 “UK instructions. under Radar Control. Flight Information Services” and the UK AIP at Pilots must be aware that a Traffic Service ENR 1.1 General Rules. might not be appropriate for flight in IMC or Further information: where lookout is significantly constrained by Regulation (EC) No 730/2006 It’s vital, therefore, that pilots understand the other factors, when other ATSs (e.g. Regulation (EU) 923/2012 differences between the surveillance-based Deconfliction Service) are available. CAP 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services ATS provided above FL195. Outside a TRA, a CAP 774 UK Flight Information Services radar control service will be provided to all A Basic Service may also be requested, CAP 789 Requirements and Guidance aircraft. Aircraft shall be given avoiding action however this will not afford pilots the same Material for Operators against conflicting traffic and traffic degree of protection as Deconfliction or UK AIP ENR 1.1 General Rules information shall be passed. Specific lateral Traffic services. Basic Service is an ATS and vertical separation criteria have to be provided for the purpose of giving advice and European Legislation can be found on the achieved by air traffic control – the basic information useful for the safe and efficient LEX-Europa website, www.eur-lex.europa.eu. requirements are 5 nms laterally and up to conduct of flights. This may include weather CAPs can be downloaded from the 5000 ft vertically. information, changes of serviceability of publications section of the CAA website, facilities, conditions at aerodromes, general www.caa.co.uk. Within a TRA, the UK FIS will apply. These can airspace activity information, and any other be summarised as follows: information likely to affect safety. The AIP content can be accessed through the AIS avoidance of other traffic is solely the pilot’s website, http://www.nats-uk. Deconfliction Service: A Deconfliction responsibility. Basic Service relies on the pilot ead-it.com/public/index.php.html Service is a surveillance-based ATS where avoiding other traffic, unaided by ATS controllers provide specific surveillance- providers. It is essential that a pilot receiving derived traffic information and issue this ATS remains alert to the fact that, unlike a headings and/or levels aimed at achieving Traffic Service and a Deconfliction Service, the planned deconfliction minima (basic provider of a Basic Service is not required to deconfliction minima are 5 nms laterally or monitor the flight. 3,000 ft), or for positioning and/or sequencing. However, the avoidance of The basic rule that pilots of aircraft other traffic is ultimately a pilot’s operating within an activated TRA must responsibility. Deconfliction Service shall remember is that they are responsible for only be provided to flights under IFR, avoiding collisions in accordance with the irrespective of meteorological conditions. Rules of the Air. Controllers will expect the pilot to accept headings and/or levels that may require Therefore given the prevailing operating flight in IMC. Pilots who are not suitably environment within TRAs, consideration of qualified to fly in IMC shall not request a flight through them must be included in the Deconfliction Service unless compliance Operator’s Safety Risk Assessment for permits the flight to be continued in VMC. Operations Outside Controlled Airspace.
focus autumn 14 7 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 10
Brave New World
by Wayne Rosenkrans
Social media pressures and expanded use of portable electronic devices disrupt conventional cabin safety.
ovel risks involving airline air safety, health and security, Association of the airline’s social media policy for Npassengers’ behavior with social Flight Attendants–Communications Workers employees, he said. media and/or inflight use of portable of America (AFA-CWA), addressed what she electronic devices (PEDs) are being described as a rushed method of enabling “All of our employees have a right to free validated a bit at a time, say two U.S. all-phase PED use that in October 2013 speech, but a paycheck comes with a certain cabin safety specialists. Early signs lead resolved concerns about electromagnetic level of responsibility, and I think we owe it them to expect these changes to be a interference risks but so far overlooks some to [flight attendants] to really educate lasting consequence of governmental of the human factors. them,” Parrigin said. “But there are very few decisions to accommodate public policies in place if any of our passengers demand for expanded in-flight use of Social Media Disruption utilize social media. We don’t spend a lot of passenger-supplied PEDs and media they time training our folks on that ‘ever-present produce. So they recommend that “Social media [use] is now the no. 1 activity watchdog’ in the cabin — and I think this has training programs specifically prepare on the web,” Parrigin said. “Social media are taken on increased relevance, especially now flight attendants to be resilient in coping used by our employees and passengers. How that most [U.S. airlines] have gate-to-gate with the effects. do we incorporate that and deal with that in PED policies in place [with a] WiFi system our training environments? … It also allows active gate to gate. Now we say, ‘Work every Speaking at the World Aviation Training our customers to air our goofs and blunders flight as if someone is taking a photo or Conference and Tradeshow (WATS 2014) in in a matter of seconds — and a lot of times video of what you’re doing in the airplane — April, Larry Parrigin, manager of curriculum before we can actually be prepared to because they are.’” development, Southwest Airlines University, respond. … This is the new reality that our focused on disruptive changes that social flight attendants are currently facing.” The new normal is that, at the first sign of media have brought to the cabin trouble in the cabin, passengers immediately environment, airline classrooms and the lives Relevant training begins with education retrieve smartphones to take photos and of flight attendants — especially when about the potentially harmful consequences make video recordings, cabin crews report. crewmembers’ decisions and on-the-job that can arise from any aviation Increasingly, the resulting digital media are actions “go viral” within minutes on the professional’s communication through social uploaded to social media sites just as soon Internet. Candace Kolander, coordinator for media. Typically, formal training first covers as these incidents occur, he said.
8 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 11
Among diverse subjects captured have been “The first images that we actually saw on the could hesitate when critical thinking and aircraft anomalies, crew responses to news were taken by these passengers on the quick decisions are called for,” Parrigin said. disruptive passengers and abnormal behavior airplane,” he said. “Several videos were shot “That hesitation could cost lives.” of aircraft crewmembers. Parrigin showed in the cabin — several videos of the landing, that an Internet search during the several videos of the evacuation.” In the Assuming that passengers’ in-flight use of conference, for example, for the phrase edited version of the video clip shown at PEDs and social media treatment of airline “flight attendant meltdown” produced tens WATS, a flight attendant directs passengers crews really have become the daily reality for of thousands of web page hits. to bring along the smaller carry-on bags and crewmembers, Parrigin believes that shifts purses already in their hands as they jump within training can make a difference. “We The recordings made with PEDs can result in onto slides. This instruction is inconsistent need to establish a culture that empowers a benefit or can do harm, or both, from the with training on telling passengers to leave our crewmembers with critical thinking skills standpoint of cabin safety. “The good side is behind all carry-on items. … to make decisions and take actions that recording on the airplane … gives us a without fear of being judged wrong,” he said. raw, unfiltered [look] as to what is actually However, Parrigin said the video clip omits “That assertiveness and decisionmaking occurring in the cabin,” Parrigin said. “This is contextual and explanatory information. A process [are] critical in any sort of safety not a flight attendant report. This is not a more complete version shows that the environment. We need to have that frank customer letter. This is not a re-creation evacuation flow already had been impeded discussion of the presence and possible scenario. It is what is actually occurring. Now by numerous passengers asking for impact of social media … in the classroom on the flip side, these photos and videos rarely exceptions to her initial “Come this way, before they encounter this on board the show the lead-up to any particular event. All leave everything behind!” command and aircraft — especially in a critical situation.” of our patient interactions with difficult that she exercised judgment per training and customers do not warrant any kind of social made a decision to override the standard One tactic for introducing these realities media update. …. So we have a very skewed command with “Just bring your small stuff during training is to incorporate PEDs into perception.We get all of the drama with none — let’s go!” to successfully expedite cabin event–management scenarios, of the context. Without that context, these evacuation in these specific circumstances, especially those involving emergencies. events are very easily misinterpreted by he said. Parrigin said that as he watched another U.S. anyone who wants to play armchair airline’s recurrent training, he saw a person quarterback.” “The biggest issue … was a huge shock for playing the role of a passenger filming the the crew coming down the escape slide [and] emergency situation in a manner likely to Flight attendants and other cabin safety facing a line of passengers with their cell induce distraction and stress.Another way to specialists — as aviation professionals — phones out who were photographing and help overcome these factors is to record have a responsibility not to draw conclusions filming the accident scene,” Parrigin said. scenarios with mobile phones, tablet about an event based on a single source. This During the airline’s debrief process, one flight computers and other PEDs for immediate includes caution about how any externally attendant also recalled feeling “assaulted” by feedback to the participants and to sourced videos and photos from the Internet critical comments left on social media sites, strengthen their resolve to disregard the are presented during flight attendant especially some posted by people who presence of such devices. training, he said. identified themselves as flight attendants. “The comments questioned their actions, “We could use our cell phones, we could use questioned their decisions [and] criticized our iPads, to actually record student New Training Resource the decisions without taking into account performance in the cabin mockups then use the conditions [and emotional states] that those videos to debrief the flight attendants “If you ask, ‘Should we use social media in the flight attendants were actually facing, and say, ‘Hey, here’s your door drill … right training?’ I think we can because there’s a ton and without really knowing what was here … you forgot to assess the conditions.’ of it [sometimes reflecting] exactly what’s occurring on board that aircraft,” Parrigin … That increases the flight attendant’s happening on the airplane,” he said, said. Particularly trivial, he said, was criticism comfort level with facing the camera when acknowledging that instructors and trainees of the flight attendant wearing an apron they’re having to perform tasks.” also need to apply their judgment, their while conducting the evacuation. “credibility filters” and “a healthy dose of Finally, flight attendants should be able to skepticism” about the possibility of false Flight attendants assume that part of cope more easily with social media fallout by information being communicated through performing safety duties on any aircraft, knowing that their airline’s seasoned social media. Parrigin used as an example a anytime, is psychological readiness for investigators and cabin safety professionals Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 landing emergency situations. But some training generally bring a sophisticated perspective accident at La Guardia Airport, which a professionals now are expressing concerns from their long experience using scientific number of passengers documented by taking that in the current environment — and methods of interpreting human factors. “Our photos and videos from inside and outside especially among those unprepared for flight attendants have got to be reassured the airplane. today’s likely scenarios — crewmembers that their performance in any given situation “may hesitate for fear of being judged wrong — if it was proved to be necessary, out there on the World Wide Web, and they reasonable and appropriate — is not going
focus autumn 14 9 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 12
The union’s continued issue advocacy on this subject partly stems from a trend of member flight attendants expressing frustration about setbacks in performing their safety communication duties. “We know there are studies that say that the passengers [who listen to] exit-row briefings gain knowledge that helps them to evacuate when an aircraft is burning,” Kolander said. “And yet we’ve just shut off that [benefit] by allowing the earbuds and the noise-canceling headsets. … With passengers now able to use PEDs during all phases of flight, including during crewmember briefings, flight attendants are concerned that important safety information is being ignored. … Eventually, this frustration will lead to our front line safety professionals throwing up their hands [as they] stop caring about safety because we have failed them.”
Two FAA guidance documents that accompanied the Oct. 31, 2013, policy announcement emphasized the securing vs. stowing aspects of PED safety, she said: InFO 13010, Expanding Use of Passenger Portable to be judged based solely on a single piece of flight attendants are covered by a generic Electronic Devices (PED), and a supplement evidence that’s been posted out there on company policy that says, in essence, that an to InFO 13010, updated June 9, 2014, FAA social media,” Parrigin said. A YouTube video employee posting anything that would harm Aid to Operators for the Expanded Use by a passenger, for example, does need to be the airline or harm the airline’s reputation of Passenger PEDS. (The links to the principal considered as part of the airline’s or the U.S. violates the policy, Parrigin said.“We have one FAA PED documents for passengers National Transportation Safety Board’s [social media arena] specifically for cabin and airlines are available at (NTSB’s) investigative process but will not be services, so there’s a lot of activity and we do
10 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 13
The union participated in the Portable egress; overall impact on public safety and discussions on safe stowage versus securing Electronic Device Aviation Rulemaking cabin safety; management of cabin electrical of PEDs in the cabin, and how flight Committee (PED ARC), formed by the FAA in receptacles to prevent impediment of egress; attendants would need to be trained for this January 2013. Beyond ensuring adequate and the question of whether uncased, thin change. “They were very supportive, aircraft protection against electromagnetic PEDs placed under seats would pose recognizing our concerns for safety … once interference, the committee’s key issues evacuation risks, she said. we launched PEDs in the cabin. They realized were impact-injury risks; size/ weight limits our concerns when [we] dealt with for PED seat pocket stowage and the The committee, including FAA aviation evacuation,” Kolander said. “So the issues influence of such stowage on emergency safety inspectors (cabin), conducted lengthy were raised.The PED ARC did have to address
U.S. Flight Attendant Training on Expanded Use of PEDs In issuing new policy and guidance on how airlines can obtain approval to expand the use of passenger-supplied portable electronic devices (PEDs), the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said in October 2013 that “the FAA believes that sufficient risk mitigation can occur to allow for safe operation of PEDs during critical phases of flight. … The administrator will evaluate the rest of the [PED Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s (ARC’s)] longer-term recommendations and respond at a later date.” The FAA also explained to its aviation safety inspectors, “[The PED ARC] report contains recommendations that can be implemented in the very near term, as well as changes in policy and guidance that need additional time to be considered and implemented. … Allowing expanded use of passenger PEDs into the takeoff and landing phases of flight may change the flight attendant’s (F/A) responsibilities from confronting and reporting passenger noncompliance to informing passengers of the content of PED policy. ”With exceptions, flight attendants are not expected to police passenger compliance or even to know whether any passenger’s PED is on, off or in airplane mode, said the guidance to operators. One reason passenger-compliance checks are discouraged is that the overriding safety priority is to ensure flight attendants can remain in their jump seats with their seatbelts and shoulder harnesses fastened in preparation for takeoff or landing, according to the FAA. However, the FAA’s PED Aid to Operators notes that “on an extremely rare basis, the flight crew may require the flight attendants to coordinate and check for compliance to ensure that all devices are turned off (e.g., potentially harmful interference noted with flight instruments).” Focus areas for revised flight attendant training include the individual airlines’ revisions to flight manuals, handbooks and checklists covering procedural changes in normal, abnormal and emergency operations; revised predeparture safety briefings; and airline-specific details of PED securing and stowage. The areas require operational knowledge that large PEDs — such as full-size laptops or other PEDs that weigh more than 2 lb (0.9 kg) or that could impede egress — must be safely stowed in an approved carry-on stowage location during takeoff and landing so as not to present a hazard in the event of severe turbulence, crash forces or emergency egress. Small handheld PEDs such as tablets, e-readers and smartphones may safely remain powered on — in airplane mode only — and be connected to a WiFi network installed in the aircraft (if allowed by the airline) and to Bluetooth accessories. Passengers’ small PEDs must be secure (i.e., not loose) during surface movement, takeoff, descent, approach and landing, typically by being placed in a seat pocket or “on their person,” that is, by being hand-held (although not preferable) or placed in a belt or arm holster, or placed in a pant pocket. PED cords or accessories must not impede emergency egress. The FAA adds that flight attendant training also must “clearly address” what PEDs are approved for use aboard the specific aircraft make and model (including medical PEDs and portable oxygen concentrators); the times when approved PEDs can and cannot be used; how and when PEDs must be secured or stowed; PED modes of operation that can and cannot be used; and how and when to inform passengers of the airline’s PED policies and procedures. Other expected training content covers how and when to report suspected or confirmed electromagnetic interference events (including transient or intermittent problems); coordinating the aircraft crew’s management of passenger PED use; effective teaching of passengers about the new PED policy; how and when passengers will be informed about these PED procedures; responding to passengers who use PEDs in a disruptive or unsafe way; and applying procedures for nonroutine, abnormal or emergency scenarios such as suspected or confirmed interference and the detection of smoke or fire in a PED or battery. Moreover, to support cabin crews, the FAA’s public-awareness campaign now tells all passengers: “Put down electronic devices, books and newspapers and listen to the safety briefing. In some instances of low visibility — about 1 percent of flights — some landing systems may not be proved PED-tolerant, so you may be asked to turn off your device. Always follow crew instructions and immediately turn off your device if asked. Make safety your first priority.” — WR
focus autumn 14 11 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 14
some of these issues very specifically in the Another factor behind the union’s concerns their airline procedures to educate final report.” is flight attendant training that emphasizes passengers about PED safety. that every second lost to distractions after the decision to evacuate an aircraft could “Flight attendants’ concerns nowadays are Holding Small PEDs mean the difference between life and death, reflecting exactly what the [PED ARC wrote], Kolander said. The passenger-made they’re saying the exact same things,” The question of whether it is acceptable for evacuation video shown by Southwest’s Kolander said. “For any country, any company, passengers to hold small PEDs in their hands Parrigin, she said, showed the extra difficulty that is looking at doing this on aircraft, [note during takeoff or landing needed close that can occur in getting people moving. how] we spent years looking at the technical examination before a change in guidance issues … and we spent no time to decide what and practice. “Everyone is trying to collect some of their was going to happen to us in the cabin. … Had personal [PEDs],” she said of the video.“Now, [the United States] done it by saying, ‘OK, we “The [PED] ARC final report … defines a they want to make sure that their cameras mean this as a six-month period when all stowage location as ‘one that is approved for or cell phones are available and ready to airlines can get PED-tolerant, and we will stowage by the operator, and placarded with a start taking videos and pictures. So that even launch on the same day’ — maybe that maximum weight restriction’ and refers to a slowed the evacuation.” would have been a better way to do it.” secure location as a ‘place that lacks formal operator approval or a maximum weight The memo from CAMI, which accompanied Reprinted with kind permission of Flight placard, but where it is considered, in the the PED ARC’s final report to the FAA, said in Safety Foundation AeroSafety World Issue judgment of the operator, that in a survivable part,“CAMI cabin safety researchers recognize July/August 2014 incident … the item is unlikely to threaten any the attraction of ‘PED-tolerant’ airplanes, occupant’s safety,’” Kolander said. including the allure of allowing these devices to operate during all phases of flight. The PED ARC’s final report in September However, in addition to … scientific data and 2013 represented about three years of work analysis pertinent to maintaining a ‘clean by RTCA technical committees. “A lot of cabin environment,’ accident data show that time [was] spent on engineering aspects. … takeoff/initial climb and final approach/ [The PED ARC] had 29 recommendations for landing are critical phases of flight for the FAA … basically [answering the question] accidents and fatalities. … The research and ‘How can we launch a program dealing with accident statistics indicate that added expanded PED use on aircraft?’” she said, distractions (e.g., usage of PEDs) during noting that the new FAA policy was critical phases of flight would unnecessarily announced a few weeks later. “The FAA increase risk, discount passenger safety, and didn’t say ‘Let’s [set] a timeline, let’s take a disregard the many serious efforts to rectify break, let’s say that all aircraft will be PED- the shortcomings related to passenger safety tolerant in six months.” awareness.
From AFA-CWA’s perspective, the FAA’s “In particular, use of PEDs should continue to guidance for cabin crews has not gone far respect the clean cabin environment during enough beyond content of a PED-related the pre-flight briefing and critical phases of announcement to passengers prior to takeoff flight, since the focused attention of and landing. This announcement first seeks passengers to PEDs creates competition for to gain passengers’ attention to and passenger mental capacity. People can cooperation in minimizing PED distractions selectively attend to only one thing at a during the safety briefing itself. Especially for time. … It seems inexplicable to promote the predeparture safety briefing, the reason PED usage during the very times when for paying attention should be stressed, it passengers might need to engage that safety says. The announcement also should instruct information the most.” passengers to secure their PEDs and other loose items, and tell them the types of Overall, the human factors dynamics in the devices permitted, when they are permitted, cabin, although covered in the PED ARC and how to prevent personal injury.As noted, deliberations, did not get the level of it also says that “an operator’s flight attention that AFA-CWA expected. From the attendants are not expected to conduct a union’s perspective, FAA has yet to address a compliance check to ensure PEDs are stowed number of other ramifications, such as how or secured.” cabin crews will get adequate time built into
12 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:07 Page 15
Datalink: the story continues
by Jenny Beechener Projects proceed apace on both sides of the Atlantic to implement the latest data communications technologies and procedures
rials are underway to test data Tcommunications between the cockpit and tower controllers at two US airports: Newark Liberty International Airport and Memphis Airport. Departure clearance (DCL) messages are sent digitally to the cockpit in place of voice, and are acknowledged by the pilot by simply pressing a button. The DCL messages use the controller pilot datalink communications (CPDLC) already onboard aircraft equipped with Future Aircraft Navigation Systems (FANS-1/A).
Participating airlines include British Airways, Federal Express, Lufthansa Airlines, United Airways, and UPS. The messages are sent during the surface departure phase and SESAR partners aim to make air travel more perdictable by developing and validating Initial 4D include the flight plan route, initial and (i4D) trajectory management – connecting aircraft and ground systems to optimise the aircraft requested altitude, beacon code assignment, trajectory in three dimensions plus time. and departure frequency. The digital communications are faster and more accurate support CPDLC. Harris Government SESAR I4D than voice messages, and significantly reduce Communications NextGen Initiatives for Civil the workload for controllers and pilots. Programs Vice President John O’Sullivan told In Europe, the second Initial 4-Dimensional IHS Jane’s in March 2014:“We already have six (I4D) test flight in March 2014 demonstrated Although results of the tests at Newark and that trajectory information can be shared in Memphis will not be published until late airlines signed up, with two more pending. So we have 1,636 aircraft taking advantage of the real-time between the air and the ground to 2014, airlines have already been able to take optimise flight profiles. advantage of earlier departure times during incentives, out of 1,900 requested by the FAA.” He expects more than 2,000 to be bad weather, jumping the departure queue by The I4D flight was part funded by the SESAR included in the programme by April 2014. receiving digital clearances while other Joint Undertaking (SJU) to validate new aircraft wait for voice clearance to depart. Harris is working with service providers ARINC technology that will support more efficient flight operations in Europe. The first flight in The trials form part of the six year USD331 (now part of Rockwell Collins) and SITA to provide the VHF datalink communications February 2012 demonstrated the feasibility of million Data Communications Integrated using the aircraft’s flight management system Services (DCIS) programme awarded to Harris infrastructure, and avionics suppliers include Rockwell Collins, Honeywell, and GE Aviation. (FMS) to exchange data directly with the in 2012. This includes deployment of Tower ground to achieve more accurate flight profiles. Datalink Services (TDLS) at some 57 sites Thales ATM Inc is providing the ground infrastructure for TDLS. from 2016, starting at Salt Lake City Both flights recorded extremely accurate International, Houston Intercontinental, and “We have started the integration and test predicted arrival times (well within the 10- Houston Hobby airports. phase at the FAA Technical Center,” said second envelope) paving the way to begin certification of some of the equipment used. The introduction of digital clearances, plus the O’Sullivan.“We will then move to a production system ready for airport deployment.” Harris is capability to send a revised clearance, to the The industrial partners include Honeywell and also responsible for providing training services flight deck, is the first part of a two-phased Thales (each of which developed a prototype for the programme. The company participates programme. The second phase envisages FMS for the flight trials and simulations); in the joint US-Europe datalink working group, datalink communications between controllers Airbus (who provided the MSN001 A320 test comprising RTCA Standing Committee 214 and pilots during the en route flight phase to aircraft and the cockpit simulator at and EUROCAE Working Group 78, which sets transfer information such as altitude Toulouse); Thales and Indra (who supplied the out to define standards and interoperability assignment and revised route information. dedicated controller displays at the requirements for air-ground datalink This requires CPDLC capability to be installed Maastricht and Malmo control centres); and communications. While datalink programmes at 20 en route centres across the United air navigation service providers LFV of in North American and Europe have slightly States beginning in 2019. Sweden, Naviair of Denmark, and Eurocontrol different time lines and requirements, they Maastricht Upper Area Centre. The programme also includes an incentive have agreed to adopt common standards to programme for airlines to invest in avionics to ensure global interoperability.
focus autumn 14 13 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 16
Honeywell Advanced Technology Leader ANSPs have implemented CPDLC, many more Meanwhile, a demonstration project by the Stéphane Marché told IHS Jane’s: “Everyone have yet to comply with the deadline. SJU is testing the use of ATN communications has worked on maturing the prototypes. We to handle routing messages such as have improved the standardisation and we are The Maastricht Upper Area Centre (MUAC) was clearances, handover, and routing instructions. capturing the needs of several stakeholders.” first to introduce CPDLC in 2003, when it began The ATC Full Datalink (AFD) project is led by exchanging digital messages with suitably the Italian service provider ENAV and includes Marché said all the systems have been equipped aircraft for routine communications.A SITA, NATS UK, Selex ES, Airbus, Boeing, Air improved and the second flight shows the decade later, other service providers added France, and NATS UK. robustness of the system. Honeywell is now CPDLC to area control centre air-ground looking to build a solution for pioneer airline communications including DFS of Germany, Tests carried out in 2013 demonstrated operations. “We carry out cockpit evaluations skyguide of Switzerland, NATS of the UK, and successful message exchange between the when we build an aircraft system, but here is the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA). CPDLC offers ENAV AFD platform and airframe another dimension that includes the ground. a fast alternative to congested VHF radio manufacturers’ testbed equipment in Seattle It is important to have all the actors involved.” channels, and is less prone to misunderstanding. and Toulouse. In 2014, NATS UK extended the Messages can also be printed out in the cockpit tests to include the lower airspace, below Much of the detailed work has been carried or control centre for reference.The aeronautical FL285. Between March and June 2014, live out in a series of simulations over the last 18 data is transmitted via a network of VHF flight trials are taking place between Bristol months. This has included human factor datalink (VDL) Mode 2 ground stations, the and Edinburgh, Bristol and Rome Fiumicino and analysis, generation of different scenarios, majority installed by ARINC and SITA, and four routes between Scotland and Scandinavia. different traffic levels, and different weather European carriers are also preparing to meet the patterns. “The main function of the flight test datalink mandate through new deliveries and The aim is to demonstrate datalink use in is to make sure your simulation is retrofit avionics. VDL Mode 2 provides a data busy airspace at low altitudes, where it can representative of real life in terms of winds radar of 31.5 kbps, compared with the legacy enhance safety and efficiency. Routine voice that you will encounter, in terms of pilot aircraft communication and reporting system messages are replaced by datalink, leaving reactions to real situations,” said Marché. (ACARS) rate of 2.4 kbps in the same channel congested voice channels free for urgent “You have the most interesting scenarios in the width of 25 kHz. communications. Under the European simulator, but you have to check that what implementation rule, datalink is only you are simulating is right.” mandated in European airspace above FL285.
The SJU anticipates that I4D will be available in STR-SpeechTech monitors datalink messages Europe from 2018.The programme has already confirmed important safety and STR-SpeechTech has added new functionality to its Digital-Automatic Terminal Information environmental gains with reduced fuel costs, Service (D-ATIS) solution. increased flight predictability, and overall network efficiency. While the benefits will This Airbus A320 test aircraft completed the second Initial 4- The D-ATIS Response Monitor is being installed at initially be limited to the en route flight phase, Dimensional demonstration flight in March 2014 as part of a a new approach control facility at Natal in Brazil, joint project with SESAR Joint Undertaking partners. I4D is an important step towards trajectory- where STR-SpeechTech is supplying a bilingual English/Portuguese StarCaster ATIS system. based operations. SITA supplies a datalink front end processor (DL-FEP) gateway, developed with partner The StarCaster text-to-speech system is already In the longer term, the combination of I4D company Egis Avia. DL-FEP is designed used to broadcast ATIS messages, including runway with more widespread use of sequencing to handle messages from aircraft equipped use, notices to airmen, and weather information. tools in the terminal area is expected to with FANS 1/A and aeronautical contribute to improved network efficiency. The new D-ATIS Response Monitor is now able to telecommunications network (ATN) capability. monitor and log data link requests made by Among several SESAR programmes looking at The gateway is installed at many large area aircraft. It logs aircraft identifier, time, message arrival sequencing, a simulation by Italian air control centres in Europe including in Belgium, contents, and whether successfully delivered. navigation service provider (ANSP) ENAV in France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, The D-ATIS server collects the data and makes it Rome in the second half of 2014 plans to Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. combine I4D with interval management to available to the D-ATIS Response Monitor on the StarCaster ATIS computers. A separate application more accurately predict arrival times. The increase in datalink activity has brought that resides on the operator workstation in the attention to some performance issues with the control tower is able to access the D-ATIS request European deadline looms digital messaging at the start of 2014. Some and make this available to controllers to view. CPDLC messages were disconnecting, ANSPs in Europe have until February 2015 to especially in the busy core area of Europe. The Reprinted with kind permission of IHS Jane’s comply with a mandate to support air-ground Datalink Implementation Steering Group Airport Review,Vol 26 Issue 4 May 2014. datalink services in European upper airspace. (DLISG) is looking into these ‘provider aborts’ Datalink communications form a central part to establish the cause. The industry is also of ATM modernisation programme, as Europe looking at ways to introduce multi-frequency moves from routebased to trajectory-based VDL Mode 2. airspace management. While a number of
14 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 17
Why and when to perform a Go-Around maneuver
by Michael Coker, Lead Safety Pilot, Flight Services
ndustry statistics indicate that while instance of hull loss, the outcome may have Why flight crews continue landing with Ionly 3 percent of commercial-airplane- been very different if the flight crews an unstabilized approach landing approaches meet the criteria for involved had elected to perform a go-around being unstabilized, 97 percent of these instead of attempting a landing.According to According to the FSF, a number of factors unstabilized approaches are continued to a a Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) study, more contribute to a flight crew’s decision to landing, contrary to airline standard than half of all commercial airplane continue landing with an unstabilized operating procedures. Most runway accidents in 2011 could have been approach, including: prevented by a go-around decision. In fact, excursions can be attributed at least in ■ Fatigue. according to FSF’s analysis 83 percent of part to unstabilized approaches, and ■ Pressure of flight schedule (e.g., making approach-and-landing accidents could be runway excursions in several forms are the up for delays). prevented by a go-around decision. leading cause of accidents and incidents ■ Any crew-induced or air-traffic-control within the industry. Airlines should (ATC)-induced circumstances resulting in The conclusion from this analysis is that emphasize to flight crews the importance insufficient time to plan, prepare, and flight crews need to know when to abandon of making the proper go-around decision if conduct a safe approach. an approach to landing and perform a go- their landing approach exhibits any ■ ATC instructions that result in flight too around maneuver because the decision to go element of an unstabilized approach. high and/or too fast during the initial around is an essential element of conducting approach. According to industry sources, no single a safe flight. decision has the potential impact on the overall aviation industry accident rate than the timely decision to execute a go-around maneuver. The reason is that runway excursions or overruns — which are typically the result of an unstabilized approach with a failure to perform a go-around — account for 33 percent of all commercial aviation accidents and are the primary cause of hull loss.
This article explains the relationship between unstabilized approaches and hull loss, why flight crews continue landing despite an unstabilized approach, the factors that govern landing outcomes, when flight crews should choose a go-around maneuver, and industry education efforts related to go-arounds.
The relationship between unstabilized approaches and hull loss
Boeing developed an analysis to help visualize runway events. This Boeing Runway Track Analysis combines multiple sets of investigation data, including time-based flight-data-recorder data, distance-based ground-scar data, and the calculated track (see fig. 1).
This analysis shows the relationship between unstabilized approaches and hull loss, due to Flight crews should execute a go-around maneuver instead of continuing an unstabilized runway excursion (see fig. 2). In every landing approach.
focus autumn 14 15 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 18
■ Excessive altitude or excessive airspeed (e.g., inadequate energy management) during the initial approach. ■ Late runway change. ■ Excessive head-down work. ■ Short outbound leg or short downwind leg (e.g., because of traffic in the area). ■ Late takeover from automation. ■ Premature or late descent caused by failure to positively identify the final approach fix. ■ Inadequate awareness of wind conditions. ■ Incorrect anticipation of airplane deceleration characteristics in level flight or on a three-degree glide path. ■ Excessive confidence by the pilot monitoring (PM) that the pilot flying (PF) will achieve a timely stabilization. ■ PF and PM too reliant on each other to call excessive deviations or to call for a Figure 1: Boeing Runway Track Analysis go-around. Boeing Runway Track Analysis uses a variety of data to analyze runway events. ■ Visual illusions that cause a crew to misinterpret the airplane’s position, such as a narrow runway that may give the impression that the airplane is higher than it actually is. ■ Lack of airline policy, cultural norm, and training to direct pilots to perform a go- around instead of continuing an unstabilized approach. ■ Lack of practice in performing a go- around maneuver.
Factors that govern landing outcomes
Three primary factors govern the outcome of every landing:
■ Touchdown point. Defines runway remaining to dissipate energy. Having a stabilized approach contributes heavily to a proper touchdown point. ■ Touchdown speed. Defines energy to be dissipated. ■ Deceleration after touchdown. Defines the effectiveness of dissipating the energy.
An analysis of overruns indicates that if two out of three conditions exist, an overrun is likely. But if one condition is removed, the overrun risk is reduced. Figure 2: Relationship between unstabilized approach and hull loss. This analysis shows that four out of seven unstabilized approaches in this study resulted in hull loss.
16 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 19
Figure 3: When to perform a go-around The timely decision to initiate a go-around if the approach is unstable or conditions have changed, such that a safe landing is at risk, allows the crew to safely conduct a follow-on approach. There are several reasons to perform a go-around maneuver, including a request by ATC, an unexpected event (such as wind shear), an unstabilized approach, or the determination that the landing cannot be made within the touchdown zone.
When to perform a go-around maneuver unexpected events, it is difficult to first third of the runway may not be anticipate them. appropriate if conditions change at the last A go-around maneuver should be performed moment during the flare or touchdown. whenever the safety of a landing appears to ■ Unstabilized approach. An unstabilized be compromised (see fig. 3). Typically, this approach occurs when an airplane fails to Industry education efforts occurs for one of these reasons: keep one or more of these variables stable: speed, descent rate, vertical/lateral Numerous airline pilot associations and ■ Requested by ATC. ATC may request a flight path, and configuration for landing. regulatory authorities have efforts under way go-around for a variety of reasons, It is important to understand that the to educate flight crews about go-arounds. including tight airplane spacing, an stabilized approach recommendations do These include the FSF, International Civil airplane on the runway, or an airplane too not apply only to the “gates” of 1,000- Aviation Organization (ICAO), International close on a parallel landing runway. foot (305-meter) instrument Air Transport Association, Commercial ■ Unexpected events. The flight crew may meteorological conditions (IMC) and Aviation Safety Team (CAST ), and European determine that something is not correct 500-foot (152-meter) visual Commercial Aviation Safety Team. for landing — such as a flap gauge or gear meteorological conditions (VMC). Those indication — and that a checklist is needed altitudes are merely a snapshot analysis Resources include: to configure the airplane for landing. The of the approach, and the elements need ■ FSF Approach-and-Landing Accident presence of wind shear is another to be maintained throughout the landing. Reduction Tool Kit Briefing Note, unexpected cause of go-arounds. These (See “Recommended elements of a Being Prepared to Go Around unexpected events may warrant initiation stabilized approach” on page 18.) (http://flightsafety.org/files/alar_bn6-1- of a go-around even after the airplane has goaroundprep.pdf). touched down following a stable approach. ■ Landing cannot be made within the ■ ICAO Working Paper, Measures for Runway conditions, surface winds, friction touchdown zone. This is defined as the Preventing Runway Excursion Caused by coefficients, or unknown conflicts may be first 3,000 feet (915 meters) or first third of Unstabilized Approach (http://www. different than those reported to the crew the runway, whichever is shorter. Crews icao.int/Meetings/a38/Documents/WP/ during approach. A successful go-around should calculate a landing distance based wp302_en.pdf). maybe possible after touchdown up to the on current conditions and compare that ■ CAST Go-Around Safety point where the crew initiates the use of distance to the runway available for every (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/ thrust reverse if conditions warrant. landing. Touchdown at the far end of the Portal:Go-Around_Safety). Because these types of go-arounds involve accepted first 3,000 feet (915 meters) or
focus autumn 14 17 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 20
Recommended elements of a stabilized approach
All flights must be stabilized by 1,000 feet (305 meters) above airport elevation in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and by 500 feet (152 meters) above airport elevation in visual meteorological conditions (VMC).An approach is stabilized when all of the following criteria are met:
1. The airplane is on the correct flight path. 2. Only small changes in heading/pitch are required to maintain the correct flight path. 3. The airplane speed is not more than Vref + 20 knots indicated airspeed and not less than Vref. 4. The airplane is in the correct landing configuration. 5. Sink rate is no greater than 1,000 feet per minute (FPM) or 305 meters per minute; if an approach requires a sink rate greater than 1,000 FPM, a special briefing should be conducted. 6. Power setting is appropriate for the airplane configuration and is not below the minimum power for approach as defined by the airplane operating manual. 7. All briefings and checklists have been conducted. 8. Specific types of approaches are stabilized if they also fulfill the following: instrument landing system (ILS) approaches must be flown within one dot of the glide scope and localizer; a Category II or Category III ILS approach must be flown within the expanded localizer band; during a circling approach, wings should be level on final when the airplane reaches 300 feet (91 meters) above airport elevation. 9. Unique approach procedures or abnormal conditions requiring a deviation from the above elements of a stabilized approach require a special briefing.
An approach that becomes unstabilized below 1,000 feet (305 meters) above airport elevation in IMC or below 500 feet (152 meters) above airport elevation in VMC requires an immediate go-around.
Source: Flight Safety Foundation Approach-and-Landing Accident Reduction Task Force
Summary
Runway excursions are the leading cause of accidents and incidents within the industry. Airlines can avoid most runway excursions if flight crews choose to execute a go-around maneuver instead of continuing an unstabilized approach to a landing. Flight crews should understand the importance of making a go-around decision if they experience an unstabilized approach or conditions change during the flare or touchdown up to the point of initiating thrust reverse during the landing rollout.
Reprinted with kind permission of Boeing AERO, Qtr_02 14
18 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 21
UAV - Are they a threat to you?
by Captain Sarah Clachan, DHL
e’ve all been asked the question, W“Do you ever think there will be a day when there are pilotless aircraft?”That time may be closer than thought with aircraft the size of a Jetstream being developed for unmanned flight.
The time of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV/UAS) is upon us. The number of UAVs ■ In controlled airspace, except with the the sky with Watchkeeper.Those weighing less licensed for commercial flight rose from 30 permission of the appropriate ATC unit; than 20kg are allowed to fly in civilian airspace in January 2013 to over 300 by time of providing the operator does not intend to use ■ In any aerodrome traffic zone except writing. Last month the Army’s Watchkeeper data or mages from the flight acquired by with the permission of either the came into service after years of testing. The flying close to people or objects. skies are getting crowded. These UAVs are appropriate ATC unit or the person in charge of the aerodrome; opening up opportunities previously too According to the CAA,“ a significant increase expensive or difficult to arrange. Sporting ■ At a height exceeding 400 feet above the in both civil and military UAS is anticipated, events, festivals, natural disasters all attract surface; At a distance beyond the visual most of which will require access to all camera platforms, the images are then range of the Remote Pilot (RPA) observer classes of airspace if it is to be both beamed into the media hungry homes of the said aircraft, or a maximum range operationally effective and commercially around the world. The cost of these of 500 metres, whichever is less; viable. To achieve this, UAS will have to be platforms starts from as little as a few able to meet all existing safety standards ■ Over or within 150m of any congested hundred pounds enabling many new applicable to equivalent manned aircraft area of a city, town or settlement; or ventures to spring up, it is much cheaper to types, appropriate to the class (or classes) of hire a company to send a camera platform ■ Within 50 metres of any person, vessel, airspace within which they are intended to up to check your roof than it is to hire vehicle or structure not under the control be operated.” scaffolding and engineers. of the Remote Pilot; during take off or landing, however, the aircraft must not be There are two elements to Detect and Avoid, Whether you regard these developments as flown within 30 metres of any person, namely separation assurance and collision a nuisance or not, this technology is here to unless that person is under direct control avoidance. The systems must be able to: stay. In the USA, there is a lobby seeking to of the Remote Pilot.” legalise the shooting down of such aircraft as ■ Detect and avoid traffic in accordance with the Rules of the Air; Detect and fears are that sooner or later, someone will The requirements for licensing and training avoid all airborne objects, including be hurt or killed by a UAV. of UK civil Remote Pilots have not yet been gliders, hang-gliders, paragliders, fully developed. It is expected that UK microlights, balloons, parachutists etc; The CAA’s Richard Taylor states that requirements will ultimately be determined complaints about drones are only in double by EASA regulations and ICAO Standards ■ Enable the Remote Pilot to determine figures, with the limited overseeing and Recommended Practices. the in-flight meteorological conditions; capability of the authority, it is more a ■ Avoid hazardous weather; matter of trust that operators will stay The CAA currently regulate UAVs according to within the regulations. In the USA, the first purpose and weight. Those weighing more ■ Detect and avoid terrain and other test case is going through the courts to than 20 kg are currently banned from UK obstacles; and decide whether domestic drones should be civilian airspace other than a large zone in ■ Perform equivalent functions, such as treated as a commercial activity, therefore West Wales and a temporary zone above maintaining separation, spacing and attracting more regulations. It may fall to Boscombe Down. Although the use of a sequencing that would be done visually the individual to raise a complaint against temporary zone offers a flexible tool for in a manned aircraft. privacy invasion that will lead to greater segregating specific portions on a temporary regulation in this field. CAP722, Unmanned basis, this segregation effectively denies UAVs with such capabilities include the Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace airspace to otherwise legitimate users. A TDA Watchkeeper Tactical UAV operated by the states, if a System does not have a Detect will normally be established for 90 days. The British Army.The Watchkeeper UAV gives the And Avoid capability, the aircraft shall not next time you fly to Lasham, take a good look UK armed Forces intelligence, target be flown :- at the TDAs in operation, you might be sharing acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities.
focus autumn 14 19 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 22
The Watchkeeper can be pre-programmed to handling the same range of exceptional and remove the restriction from drones weighing carry out fully autonomous missions and can emergency conditions as a manned aircraft over 20kg from flying in Civilian Airspace. also be redirected from an operator on the as well as assuring that failure of the With the enormous number of possible ground. Take off and landings can be piloted decision making function itself does not applications, a blanket legislation is not or done automatically using Elbit’s MAgic X- cause a reduction in safety. As with any deemed appropriate. At the moment the band automatic take off and landing system. manned operation, the Remote Pilot is CAA is reviewing each application very much The air vehicle is fitted with GPS, dual potentially subject to a degradation of on a one off basis. As numbers increase, this computer systems and dual datalinks. The situational awareness due to remote will become very difficult to maintain. electrical and avionics systems have built in operation and associated lack of multi- redundancy for increased reliability. It is sensory feedback. The Remote Pilot’s risk The number of UAVs in operation has grown powered by rotary engines from UAV perception and behaviour are affected by the rapidly over the last couple of years. It is Engines Ltd and uses a two bladed pusher absence of sensory / perceptual cues and the reasonable to expect this growth will propeller. For endurance missions, sense of shared fate with the vehicle. CRM is continue especially as the technology Watchkeeper can be fitted with two 50 litre as vital in the ground station as it is in a improves and prices drop. At present there is auxiliary fuel tanks, giving a total endurance conventional flightdeck, all good CRM little evidence of UAVs coming into conflict of 17 hours. It can carry a payload of 150kg practices are therefore required in UAV with commercial aircraft, it is worth however including night sensors, a laser designator operation as well. Fatigue and stress are remembering when you accept clearance and synthetic aperture radar/ground moving contributory factors to human error. The outside controlled airspace or fly near a TDA target indicator. The UAV is connected by UAV can only perform to it’s maximum that not every other aircraft has a pilot in it. satellite datalink to a network of ability if the human interface is as free of containerised ground control stations. error as possible. When thinking of UAV Reprinted with kind permission of DHL operation it must always be treated as any Safety Digest, Spring/Summer 14 CAA policy is that all UAS must be under the other form of manned flight. Mistakes are command of a Remote Pilot. Depending on possible, treat with caution. the level of autonomy, a Remote Pilot may simultaneously assume responsibility for Thus far, the majority of requests for more than one UAS. In an emergency, the permission to operate have come from those decision making function of any wishing to use UAVs for photography. The autonomous UAS must be capable of CAA is now under mounting pressure to
20 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 23
Prepare to be Surprised
Sunjoo Advani, Jeffery Schroeder and Bryan Burks provide a summary of the current thinking and provide practical perspectives on upset prevention and recovery training.
he airplanes we operate are reliable by Tdesign, and training is so solid that we can respond to nearly all situations without allowing them to escalate beyond control. However, perfectly good airplanes can rapidly transgress from an upset state to a Loss-of-Control In-Flight (LOC-I) condition when a pilot is not trained to react properly. LOC-I is still the number one threat, and while rare, LOC-I events are likely catastrophic. The Boeing/CAST (August 2012) indicates that LOC-I killed 1648 passengers during the past ten years, and EASA’s Annual Safety Review 2012 indicates that it is also the category with the highest fatalities.
When faced with the unexpected, pilots will stall is the leading cause of fatal LOC-I developed and used appropriately so that need to refer to their learned skills and apply accidents, contributing to 36%. Surprisingly, they remain effective? Possibly. Do we need best judgement within a very small window of some crews (e.g. Colgan 3407 and AF 447) to train startle management? Absolutely. time. It is no wonder that this subject has responded inappropriately to the stall warning received focused attention during the past five and protection systems. Other flight crews Stall Tactics years following a number of compelling appeared unaware of the flight condition, or accidents: Colgan Air 3407 (Q-400, Buffalo, 12 reverted to maintaining altitude whatever the Until 2012, the aeronautical community had Feb. 2009), Turkish Airlines 1951 (B737, cost - a major systemic training deficiency. a misplaced emphasis on minimizing altitude Amsterdam, 14 Mar. 2009) and Air France 447 True, stall is an end product of poor energy loss during a stall recovery. While the safety (A330, Atlantic Ocean, 31 May 2009). While management, inattention, inaccurate flight intentions of such an emphasis may have other causes of accidents have been path monitoring, or weather-induced events. seemed sound, it led to the inappropriate systematically addressed through technology Yet, despite the escalation of the events establishment of specific standards for (CFIT, powerplant-related, mid-air collisions), leading to the stall, the recovery at any stage altitude loss in proficiency checks, and that LOC-I prevention requires better awareness, (prior to the g-break, or after loss of lift and was accompanied by an unintentional hiding recognition and avoidance, and recovery the resulting unsteady aerodynamic of stalling physics. Training events that training. In today’s cockpit, the pilot’s training is conditions) remains the same: an immediate instilled minimizing altitude loss consisted of the final safety net to prevent LOC-I. reduction of angle-of-attack is requisite. preplanned, announced, stall recovery maneuvers. Invariably, a pilot only needed to While the seeds for the Royal Aeronautical Why then do upsets invariably become Loss apply power, quickly break the stall with a Society’s ICATEE (International Committee of Control events? When combined with a short nose drop, and adjust the airplane for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes) situation that causes a pilot to become attitude to continue recovery - without had already been planted prior to these alarmed, leading to an inability to properly compromising altitude. It was a hand-eye co- events, a conference in London by that resolve the problem - a condition commonly ordination task, and because the maneuver society launched an earnest effort to known as “startle,” the upset can rapidly was planned, it caused no startle reaction or understand the causes of these upsets and to become a LOC-I event. Most of the LOC-I startle management from the pilot. However, define the best training solutions. events are believed to occur when an upset if those are the ONLY skills that one has provokes a startle reaction. If this is true, then acquired, are they enough to prevent What triggers upsets? They can be triggered unfortunately knowledge and the traditional reoccurrences of the recent stall accidents? by pilot, environment or system-induced maneuver-based training alone will not Perhaps not. conditions as shown in the table opposite, prevent LOC-I. Startling scenarios are needed. based on Jacobson [2010]. Light aerobatic-capable aircraft can be a The crew’s startle reaction is the leading beneficial learning environment, and are Startle - the LOC-I Catalyst catalyst that can take an upset airplane into recommended for at least initial training at an LOC-I condition. Can we create startle in the licensing level. A good instructor can According to Lambregts [2008], aerodynamic training? Yes. Can enough startle scenarios be demonstrate and hone the flying skills of the
focus autumn 14 21 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 24
pilot in UPRT and provide the bridge of Pilot-Induced Environmentally-Induced System Induced knowledge that pertains to transport category aircraft. Part of the complete initial UPRT Improper/inadequate Weather (turbulence, icing, Reduced envelope/ program, and the subsequent type-specific training adverse winds, wind shear) mode protection training, must rely on flight simulators with a Poor energy management Wake vortices Poor energy management representative flight-deck environment, even (systems-induced) for stall training. Changing pilot skill base Visibility (for VFR flights) Propulsion-related In a stall, the aircraft behaviour may be Automation/mode confusion Foreign Object Damage Erroneous sensor data unpredictable as the aerodynamics are unsteady. No two airplanes or situations are Destabilized approaches A/C systems failures the same, and no two stalls are the same. Improper procedures Unpredictability is not the kind of behaviour (e.g. poor monitoring) we commonly want from our simulation software, especially when qualification is What triggers upsets? Based on Jacobson [2010]. required. However, with a major focus on stall training, simulator models that do represent become unreadable. Pilots could be drawn surprised. Clearly, the approach-to-stall stalls “accurately enough for the training into a tendency to maintain the nose-up maneuver-based training leaves something objectives” are now becoming available. attitude or try to control bank angle at the to be desired. Exposure to the startle effect Boeing and NASA Langley Research Centre expense of recognizing and recovering by acting as a psychophysical catalyst in developed an accurate stall model for one reducing the angle-of-attack. Therefore, there combination with the stall reveals errors that aircraft type nearly a decade ago. Boeing has is a strong argument in favour of exposing simulator training can correct. Both developed a full stall model for the 737NG pilots to the complete threat environment in aeronautical knowledge and exposure to the using data from hundreds of flight-test stalls. a properly controlled manner. threat environment can be used to develop “Type representative” models, depicting the the confidence that is needed to avoid needed random behaviour are also becoming The FAA conducted a study in Oklahoma City startle and learn to recover properly. In other available (for example, from Bihrle Applied in late 2013 involving 45 Boeing 737 airline words, remaining calm during an emergency Research), while other consortia continue to pilots who had been previously “approach-to- can only be fully realized after one has been develop convincingly realistic real-time stall” trained in their company simulators. shown that they are indeed capable of models based on wind tunnel and They were all briefed on, and indicated they resolving that emergency. computational fluid dynamics data. Hence, were familiar with, the recently published there is no technical obstacle that prevents OEM Stall Recovery Template explaining how Using today’s technology to get the most out full stall training. to recover at first indication of stall by of UPRT is strongly recommended. While applying a nose-down pitch input until the modifications to stall models and the Simulator Stall Training Requirements stall warning is eliminated. presentation of UPRT-critical information on the instructor operating station may involve Is training the recovery from an approach-to- During the study, the airline pilots were time and investment, airlines should applaud stall in a simulator sufficient? The viewpoints presented with an unexpected surprise stall the fact that over half of the required training differ. While US Public Law 111-216 and situation. The result was as startling for the can be accomplished by making better use of recent Part 121 revisions require training to researchers as it was for the pilots: Only one- current-day simulators, when combined with full stalls and upsets, some argue that this fourth of the pilots applied the proper stall proper knowledge-based training.The Airplane could lead to negative training transfer. While recovery procedure correctly when surprised. Upset Recovery Training Aid (AURTA) is the they argue that improvements in prevention Most of the pilots - for a significant length of distinguished source of the aeronautical alone are sufficient, others believe training time - applied back pressure, worsening the knowledge, covering causes and cures for should go beyond that. stall. The advanced stall models also tempted most upsets. pilots to deviate more from the proper As the aircraft comes close to the recovery technique through actions such as Investing in Risk Reduction aerodynamic stall, the aircraft flight applying significant pedal inputs. characteristics degrade and the controls UPRT can provide the biggest bang for the become sluggish. Buffet cues may help the The bottom line of this eye-opener was that buck when properly implemented and quality pilot to respond, and in some cases, the reverting to the old recovery technique was assured. The forthcoming ICAO Manual of vibrations can be so severe that instruments a dominant response when pilots were Aeroplane Upset Prevention and Recovery, a
22 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 25
manifestation of several international in preventing upsets and avoiding Loss of requiring it to be incorporated into their committees including ICATEE, promises to Control In Flight. bespoke cadet programmes. define the training elements necessary to ensure pilots develop the requisite knowledge And don’t forget that important catalyst: Maybe such a course should form part of best and skills for a successful program. However, Surprise! practice in all future ab initio pilot training the development or revision of those programmes. – Chris Long programs is left to the operators and local Ab Initio Students authorities themselves. References: There has been general recognition over the An innovative development is taking place at last few years that some form of upset ■ Jacobson, S., “Aircraft Loss of Control South African Airways (SAA), whose prevention and recovery training should be Causal Factors and Mitigation underwriter has pledged assistance with the introduced into ab-initio pilot training. Whilst Challenges”. In Proc. of AIAA Guidance, implementation of their UPRT program. such training forms a mandatory part of an Navigation and Control Conference, According to their Chief Training Captain approved MPL course, until recently there was Toronto, Aug 2010, AIAA-2010-8007 CP. Johann Du Plessis, “Being faced with an upset no such regulatory requirement for the ■ Proceedings of AIAA GNC Conf., condition which takes a pilot out of their modular and integrated routes to professional Toronto, 2010 comfort zone cannot be successfully pilot qualifications. ■ Lambregts, et al, “Airplane Upsets - Old recovered from, unless ingrained recovery Problem, New Issues”. In Proc. of AIAA techniques have been developed. Therefore, The inclusion or otherwise of this training had Modeling & Simulation Technologies our insurers and underwriters appreciate the therefore been left to individual training Conf., Honolulu, Aug 2008, AIAA-2008- risk associated with loss of control in flight organisations or those airlines who want new 6867 CP. and have been extremely supportive with the pilots to have completed it. introduction of a recognized and About the authors: comprehensive upset prevention and recovery One training organisation which has gone training programme”.This includes acquiring a ahead with the design of such training is CTC Dr. Sunjoo Advani, the owner and president of tablet-based version of the AURTA, Aviation – based in the UK and New International Development of Technology b.v., development of the entire training program, Zealand. In response to the specific request is an aerospace engineer and pilot. He has and a complete “Train-the-Trainer” program of British Airways, whose Future Pilot chaired the ICATEE team in the development for their instructors utilizing on-aircraft and Programme (FPP) Ab Initio Pilot Training of the content that became the core of the simulator training. programme is overseen by CTC Aviation, and ICAO Manual of Aeroplane Upset Prevention with the approval of easyJet, who also and Recovery. “The airline industry recognizes that LOC-I is support an ab initio pilot course, a the leading cause of fatal accidents”, states standardised upset prevention and recovery Dr. Jeffery Schroeder is the FAA’s Chief SAA’s Chief Standards Pilot, Captain Sandy training package has now been integrated Scientific and Technical Advisor for Flight Bayne. “A lot of the actions you take in into the training. Presently delivered at Simulation Systems. He has served as recovering from an upset are really counter- Bournemouth, UK, this consists of one day of Research & Technology Co-Chair of ICATEE. intuitive.” Following completion of the course lectures/discussions on the reasons for the at Aviation Performance Solutions in Mesa, training and the theory behind it, followed Capt. Bryan Burks is a Seattle based pilot and Arizona, Captain Bayne felt “I now have the by 3 hours in the aircraft. Some of that will UPRT content developer with Alaska Airlines. ability to impart this knowledge, to be in an aerobatic aircraft – for the moment He has served as Training & Regulatory understand the concepts behind an upset and the platform is ex-RAF Bulldog aircraft, and Requirements Co-Chair of ICATEE recovering from it.” part in a light aircraft, the Diamond DA 40. The two types are used because the stress is Reprinted with kind permission from CAT While not every nation, airline or pilot may not on aerobatics as such, but rather on the Magazine Issue 1. 2014 have the luxury to impart on-aircraft training skills which an airline pilot might have to call (it is recommended though as part of CPL or on during her/his career. The emphasis is MPL training), the message is clear: Properly very much on the relevance to airline designed and carefully instructed programs operation, so the final part of the training is that integrate knowledge and practical on a representative type – a Boeing 737 Full exposure to the upsets - that develop the Flight Simulator. A cadre of specially confidence pilots need to bring an airplane qualified instructors is used to deliver this back into its flight envelope - can be powerful training, and increasingly airlines are
focus autumn 14 23 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 26
Members List
Members of The United Kingdom Flight Safety Committee
FULL MEMBERS BAE SYSTEMS Reg. A/C DHL Air Alistair Scott Shayne Broad Chairman easyJet Baines Simmons Dubai Air Wing Capt. Chris Brady Chaz Counter Rory Fagan
Vice-Chairman BALPA Stephen Landells Eastern Airways UK Ltd Flight Data Services Ltd Capt. Anna Martin Simon Searle Belfast Intl. Airport easyJet Treasurer Alan Whiteside Capt. Chris Brady City University London Pavan Johal bmi regional Martyn Sisson flightdatapeople.com Ltd Executive Board CAA Rep Peter Clapp Rob Bishton Bond Offshore Helicopters Richard Warren Flight Data Services Ltd Non Executive Board Member Capt. Simon Searle AIG Europe Ltd Bristow Helicopters Capt. Adrian Bateman Jonathan Woodrow flybe. Capt. Ian Holder Acropolis Aviation British International Nick Leach Anthony O’Keefe Gael Ltd A|D|S CargoLux Airlines Craig Baker Mick Sanders Mattias Pak GAMA Aviation Aegean Airlines Cathay Pacific Airways Nick Mirehouse Capt. Stavros Christeas Rick Howell GATCO Aer Lingus Cello Aviation Shaneen Benson Capt. Conor Nolan Stephen Morris GE Aviation AIG Europe Limited Charles Taylor Adjusting Mike Rimmer Jonathan Woodrow David Harvey
Airbus S.A.S CHC Scotia Global Supply Systems Harry Nelson Mark Brosnan John Badley
Airclaims CityJet Gulf Air Co John Bayley John Kirke Capt. Khalil Radhi
City University London Air Contractors Independent Pilots Association Cenqiz Turkoglu Jack Durcan Capt. James West Air Mauritius Cobham Aviation Services Capt. Francois Marion Sally Longstaff Irish Aviation Authority Capt. Dermot McCarthy ALAE Coventry University Ian Tovey Dr. Mike Bromfield Jet2.com David Thombs Ascent Flight Training Cranfield Safety & Stewart Wallace Accident Investigation Centre LHR Airports Ltd Dr. Simon Place Derek Provan Atlantic Airlines Alex Wood CTC Aviation Services Ltd Capt. Phillip Woodley Loganair AVISA Neil Heron Phil Stuckle Cyprus Airways Andreas Georgiou BA Cityflyer Alan Taylor
24 focus autumn 14 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 27
London City Airport TAG Aviation (UK) Ltd RAeS Eng. Gary Hodgetts Malcolm Rusby John Eagles
Lufthansa Consulting GmbH Teledyne Controls TAM Brazilian Airlines Panagiotis Poligenis Mark Collishaw Capt. Geraldo Costa de Meneses
The Honourable Company of Air Pilots Manchester Airport plc TAM Executiva Capt. Alex Fisher Rory McLoughlin Capt. Castro
Monarch Airlines Thomas Cook Airlines David Copse Terry Spandley CO-OPTED ADVISERS
AAIB Navtech Thomson Airways Capt. Margaret Dean Harriet Dalby-Quenet Dimuthu Adikari CAA Titan Airways National Police Air Service (NPAS) Brian Watt - Flight Operations David Taylor Dominic Perrin CHIRP Panasonic Avionics UTC Aerospace Systems Air Cdre. Ian Dugmore Bob Jeffrey Gary Clinton GASCo Pen Avia Vistair Mike O’Donoghue Capt. John O’Connell Stuart Mckie-Smith Legal Advisor Edward Spencer PrivatAir VLM Airlines Holman Fenwick Willan LLP Tom De Neve Steve Hull NATS RTI GROUP MEMBERS Karen Bolton Steve Hull Air Tanker Services Ltd Royal Met. Society Rolls-Royce Plc Dale Grassby Robert Lunnon Phillip O’Dell Robert Luxton UK Airprox Board MOD Representatives RVL Group Air Cdre. Steve Forward Michael Standen Col. James Anderson - MAA Deputy Head Analysis & Plan Ryanair Wg Cdr Andrew “Errol” Flynn - MAA Jim Lynott Engineering Oversight & Assurance Cdr Ian Fitter - Royal Navy Lt Col Gavin Spink - Army Seaflight Aviation Ltd Gp Capt Brian James - RAF Dimitris Kolias QinetiQ Shell Aircraft Intl. Sqn Ldr Dave Rae Keith Curtis QinetiQ Eng. Stobart Air Rupert Lusty Capt. Clive Martin RAeS Superstructure Group Peter Richards TBA
focus autumn 14 25 54044®Flight Safety iss 96 22/9/14 15:08 Page 28
BUILDING ON TRADITIONAL VALUES fulfilment
finishing
design
Woking Print are proud to have designed and printed over 50 issues printing of Focus Magazine.
For all your design and print needs please contact Andrew Kirk
The Print Works St Johns Lye, Woking Surrey, GU21 7RS 01483 884884 [email protected] www.wokingprint.com