Flight Simulators for Upset Recovery

Jeffery A. Schroeder Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor Flight Simulation Systems

Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration Administration

EASA Safety Conference Staying in Control Loss of Control Prevention and Recovery Cologne, Germany October 4-5, 2011
Federal Aviation Administration 1

Federal Aviation Administration

Take Away
Todays simulators are satisfactory for teaching upset prevention Todays simulators can cover approximately 1/3 of what they need to for teaching upset recovery
Remaining 2/3 cover improvements needed in stall modeling, icing modeling, and instituting effective surprise scenarios

Solid proposals are in place to address these improvements Remaining debates on

How far to go with stick-pusher-equipped aircraft Best ways to convey simulator limitations What can be done with less capable simulators

Federal Aviation Administration

Outline
High-level requirements Mid-level requirements
Which of these can we meet today? Which of these cant we meet today?

Top three changes to meet what we cant now

Representative stall modeling Icing modeling The element of surprise

Current debates Timeline

Federal Aviation Administration 4

High-Level Requirements
From U.S. Law signed on Aug. 1, 2010
require part 121 air carriers to provide flight crewmembers with ground training and flight training or flight simulator training
to recognize and avoid as stall of an aircraft or, if not avoided, to recover from the stall; and to recognize and avoid an upset of and aircraft or, if not avoided, to execute such techniques as available data indicate are appropriate to recover from the upset in a given make, model, and series of aircraft

Federal Aviation Administration

Mid-Level Requirements
Upset and Loss-of-Control Events in Transport Airplanes, 1993-2007*

75 events 3261 fatalities

*Lambregts, A.A., et. al., Airplane Upsets: Old Problem, New Issues, AIAA Paper 2008-6867, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Conference, Honolulu, HI, 2008

Federal Aviation Administration

Mid-Level Requirements
Upset and Loss-of-Control Events in Transport Airplanes, 1993-2007*
Undetermined Other Stall Atmospheric disturbance

75 events 3261 fatalities

Contaminated airfoil

Disorientation Flight control

*Lambregts, A.A., et. al., Airplane Upsets: Old Problem, New Issues, AIAA Paper 2008-6867, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Conference, Honolulu, HI, 2008

Federal Aviation Administration

Mid-Level Requirements
Have reasonable confidence todays simulators can mitigate most
Undetermined Other Stall Atmospheric disturbance

75 events 3261 fatalities

Contaminated airfoil

Disorientation Flight control

*Lambregts, A.A., et. al., Airplane Upsets: Old Problem, New Issues, AIAA Paper 2008-6867, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Conference, Honolulu, HI, 2008

Federal Aviation Administration

Mid-Level Requirements
Have reasonable confidence todays simulators can mitigate some
Undetermined Other Stall Atmospheric disturbance

75 events 3261 fatalities

Contaminated airfoil

Disorientation Flight control

*Lambregts, A.A., et. al., Airplane Upsets: Old Problem, New Issues, AIAA Paper 2008-6867, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Conference, Honolulu, HI, 2008

Federal Aviation Administration

Mid-Level Requirements
Lack confidence todays simulators are up to the full job
Undetermined Other Stall Atmospheric disturbance

75 events 3261 fatalities

Contaminated airfoil

Disorientation Flight control

*Lambregts, A.A., et. al., Airplane Upsets: Old Problem, New Issues, AIAA Paper 2008-6867, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Conference, Honolulu, HI, 2008

Federal Aviation Administration

10

Representative Stall Modeling

L I F T

Angle of attack
11

Federal Aviation Administration

11

Representative Stall Modeling

Can train to here today

L I F T

Stall warning

Angle of attack Approach to stall

Federal Aviation Administration

12

12

Representative Stall Modeling

Can train here with current data but with some fidelity lost Can train to here today

Stick pusher

L I F T

Stall warning

Aerodynamic stall (i.e.,critical angle of attack)

Angle of attack Approach to stall

Federal Aviation Administration

13

13

Representative Stall Modeling

Can train here with current data but with some fidelity lost Can train to here today

Stick pusher

L I F T

Stall warning

More needs done before entering here

Aerodynamic stall (i.e.,critical angle of attack)

Angle of attack Approach to stall Stalled

14

Federal Aviation Administration

14

Representative Stall Modeling

What it is
Stall response is type-specific of the airplane being simulated to the extent that the training objectives can be satisfactorily accomplished

Federal Aviation Administration

15

Representative Stall Modeling

What it is
Stall response is type-specific of the airplane being simulated to the extent that the training objectives can be satisfactorily accomplished
It allows for teaching the bulletproof recovery technique under a variety of tempting circumstances
i.e., degraded dynamic stability (particularly in roll and yaw), degraded control response, roll-off, apparent randomness

Federal Aviation Administration

16

Representative Stall Modeling

What it is
Stall response is type-specific of the airplane being simulated to the extent that the training objectives can be satisfactorily accomplished
It allows for teaching the bulletproof recovery technique under a variety of tempting circumstances
i.e., degraded dynamic stability (particularly in roll and yaw), degraded control response, roll-off, apparent randomness

What it isnt
A model that necessarily matches the aerodynamic stall characteristics of the aircraft you fly

Federal Aviation Administration

17

Representative Stall Modeling

What it is
Stall response is type-specific of the airplane being simulated to the extent that the training objectives can be satisfactorily accomplished
It allows for teaching the bulletproof recovery technique under a variety of tempting circumstances
i.e., degraded dynamic stability (particularly in roll and yaw), degraded control response, roll-off, apparent randomness

What it isnt
A model that necessarily matches the aerodynamic stall characteristics of the aircraft you fly
This is a philosophical departure from today

Federal Aviation Administration

18

Icing Modeling
Current simulator deficiency:
We dont model wing aerodynamic effects of the ice Instead, we treat ice as an effective weight increase
Pro: It increases the stall speed Pro: It is easy to model this way Pro: Does look like an effective loss of lift Con: Wing still stalls at the un-iced angle of attack
So we dont get surprising stalls w/o a shaker first like can occur in the real world

Rime ice

Con: Reversible effects, if they exist, in pitch and roll control not presented

Latest ICAO 9625 addresses these deficiencies

Clear ice

Federal Aviation Administration

19

The Element of Surprise

startle:
An event that causes a reflex Example: Pilot winces and blinks after windshield cracks. surprise An unexpected event that causes an emotion Example: Pilot engages autopilot in vertical speed mode at high altitude, gets distracted while airplane runs out of thrust, loses speed and stalls.

Federal Aviation Administration

20

The Element of Surprise

startle:
An event that causes a reflex Example: Pilot winces and blinks after windshield cracks. surprise An unexpected event that causes an emotion Example: Pilot engages autopilot in vertical speed mode at high altitude, gets distracted while airplane runs out of thrust, loses speed and stalls.

Our focus is on
developing a database of surprise scenarios inserting the scenarios in line-oriented flight training training to reduce the probability of surprise training the proper response to the surprise scenarios

Federal Aviation Administration

21

Current Debates
Stick-pusher equipped aircraft
If stick pusher is intending to prevent hazardous stall characteristics, do we still have to show those stall characteristics?

Federal Aviation Administration

22

Current Debates
Stick-pusher equipped aircraft
If stick pusher is intending to prevent hazardous stall characteristics, do we still have to show those stall characteristics?

Conveying simulator limitations

The more we convey, the more we may confuse

Federal Aviation Administration

23

Current Debates
Stick-pusher equipped aircraft
If stick pusher is intending to prevent hazardous stall characteristics, do we still have to show those stall characteristics?

Conveying simulator limitations

The more we convey, the more we may confuse

What can be done with lower-level simulators

How much value is derived for stall training in, say, non-motion devices without a buffets, etc?

Federal Aviation Administration

24

Timeline for Upset Training in Simulators

New N&O Compliance period ICATEE requirements Stall-Stick Pusher Group Aviation Safety Law Possible Part 60 changes Stall model evals

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Federal Aviation Administration

25

Summary
Todays simulators are satisfactory for teaching upset prevention Todays simulators can cover approximately 1/3 of what they need to for teaching upset recovery
Remaining 2/3 cover improvements needed in stall modeling, icing modeling, and instituting effective surprise scenarios

Solid proposals are in place to address these improvements Remaining debates on

How far to go with stick-pusher-equipped aircraft Best ways to convey simulator limitations What can be done with less capable simulators

Federal Aviation Administration

26