Validation of Stall Recovery Technique and Training

VALIDATION OF STALL RECOVERY TECHNIQUE AND TRAINING
Presented by Claude LELAIE
INTRODUCTION
Following discussion between Manufacturers

within the FAA Stall Training Group, it has been decided to create a generic template for stall recovery, valid for all types of aircraft. Adaptations can be made in line with aircraft specificities.
All the procedure is based on a key item for

recovery:
APPLY NOSE DOWN PITCH CONTROL TO REDUCE AOA

2
AIRBUS Operations GmBH. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.
A380 STALL
film
Page 3
AIRCRAFT / SIMULATOR COMPARISON
Before deciding to perform stall recovery training in a

simulator, we had to check if simulators are reasonably representative when approaching stall.
Two flights followed by a simulator session were conducted in

April 2010 on A340-600 then on A320.
Stalls were performed in degraded law (aircraft no longer

protected) at low altitude in Clean and Landing configuration and at high altitude. About 30 stalls on A340-600 and 20 on A320.
Some other tests were done to get more detailed information

on the old procedure.
4
RECOVERY FULL THRUST WITHOUT LOSS OF ALTITUDE (1)
- Tests performed on A340-600 in Direct Law, engines idle, Landing

configuration, decelerating in level flight. - At Stall Warning, IMMEDIATLY, Max thrust, maintaining precisely level flight. - AoA values:
- Stall Warning: 12.9 - G-break: 19 - AOA reached in the manoeuvre in flight: between 15.5 and 17
- Same tests repeated in the simulator:

- Max AOA value almost identical. - If waiting 2 seconds to push thrust lever, max AOA increased by
around 2 which means that stall might be reached. ,
5
- Tests in Clean only done in simulator.

- Stall Warning: 9.8 - G-break: 13 - AOA reached in this manoeuvre: between 14and 16.
- The reason for this behaviour in Clean (flaps up) is that the
engines have a low idle of and it takes more time than in approach configuration to reach max thrust. - The simulator effect may increase slightly the final AOA compared to flight. However the AOA reached are well above stall, even with an immediate reaction. - Position of engines would not change this conclusion for both configurations. During engine spool up there is a significant speed decay and AOA increase. Pitch up may not always be the key issue for this recovery technique.
6
ALL THESE TESTS SHOW THAT THE PROCEDURE: APPLY FULL THRUST, WHILE MAINTAINING ALTITUDE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO REACH STALL CONDITIONS.
7
BUFFETING CONDITIONS FOR A340-600

- There is a difference between the buffet conditions in the aircraft
and in the simulator. - Approach configuration:
- Aircraft: almost no buffet, only configuration buffet, except close to stall. - Simulator: more buffet than on the aircraft from 15AOA.
- Clean low altitude:

- Aircraft: buffeting increasing with AOA. - Simulator: weaker than on the airplane and not increasing.
- Clean high altitude:

- Aircraft: buffet starting at 6, just before SW (7 ), increasing to become
really deterrent. Max AOA reached 13 . - Simulator: buffet starting later, 9.5. Not as stro ng the aircraft (fortunately!)
8
BUFFETING CONDITIONS
Simulators do not represent perfectly buffeting,

mainly in clean, as buffet AoA is not tuned as a function of Mach.
However, even if the AOA reached at buffet is not

exactly the real one, it is not so important, as in the real life, stall buffet may appears in various conditions according to weight, altitude, type of manoeuvre... The key issue is that the trainee has to recognize buffet.
9
STALL: SIDE ISSUES

Aircraft:
Clean: G break (stall) always difficult to see for a pilot. Approach configuration: a well trained pilot may be aware
of the stall, not by pitch nose down cue, but more by lateral motions.
Simulator:
In all cases, no visible cue of stall. In all tests in the simulator, we went to very high (and
unrealistic) AOA.
A very important issue that have to be outlined in the training

program is the risk of secondary stall, mainly at high altitude.
10
CONCLUSION OF THE COMPARISON
There is no significant difference between aircraft

and simulator behaviour in the recovery procedure stick forward.
Recovery up to Stall Warning or buffeting can be

demonstrated with limited restrictions.
11
STALL RECOVERY TRAINING
After coordination with other Manufacturers in the FAA

Stall recovery training Working Group, a basic training sequence has been developed and then validated.
It includes stall recovery demonstration in the following

conditions:
Low altitude clean and landing configuration. High altitude. Specific exercise with startle factor
12
Airbus stall training experimentation
August 2010
VALIDATION METHODOLOGY
A training profile has been established on A320

after aircraft and simulator comparison.
Four Airbus training pilots (TRIs) who had never

been exposed to real stalls in flight before, followed this training. Then, they performed a flight on A320, to be put in the same situation than in the simulator: Stall Warning and buffeting.
Their reaction allowed to validated (or not!) the

training.
Page 13
August 2010
VALIDATION METHODOLOGY: PILOTS

1 Airbus Test pilot acting as Instructor 4 Airbus Training Captains
Age Military background Nationality Total Flight time 42 French AF transport French 4500h 41 French AF transport French 7400h 1200h C160 60 No British 13000h 8000h 707/747 44 No Austrian 14500h 5000h 757/767
Flight time on 350h Airbus FBW Other a/c flown C160
Page 14
August 2010
EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM
Ground briefing
30 minutes.
A320 FFS
3 hours dedicated session same day . Airbus Training Centre (CAE).
A320 flight
3 hours dedicated flight. Airbus A320 prototype aircraft MSN1 fully equipped with Flight test
installation.
Page 15
August 2010
LOW ALTITUDE RESULTS
Some initial reluctance from one pilot (most

experienced) to reduce positively AOA by moving stick forward before to increase thrust. When out of stall, discovery of pitch-up due to thrust increase which led to secondary stall warning (1/4).
Reasonable fidelity of FFS versus airplane
Page 16
August 2010
HIGH ALTITUDE RESULTS (1)
Three interesting levels of buffet identified: Notification by the pilot (0.05g peak to peak) Maximum accepted by the pilot (0.1g peak to
peak) Buffet onset as per regulations (0.2g peak to peak)
Remarks: Flight with no turbulence No startle factor for pilots
Page 17
August 2010
HIGH ALTITUDE RESULTS (2)

Civilian pilots and even turboprop military pilots are not familiar
with high Mach buffet (a first for all 4 pilots) Depending on aircraft type, buffet may be the first stall identifier at high altitude
A320 vs A330/340/380
Need for:
Enhanced briefing Exposure in the simulator
But today some lack of FFS fidelity (at least for some a/c types)
Buffet simulation should be improved
Page 18
August 2010
LOW ALTITUDE SYNTHESIS EXERCISE

FFS only Initial conditions: visual conditions, MLW, ADR3 OFF High speed downwind (1500 ft AGL, 250 kt, clean) Deceleration (Idle thrust, Full speed brakes out,
CONF 1/CONF 2/ Gear down) Turn in final on PF side PF concentrates looking on runway Instructor switch off ADR on PF side (then degraded law) and keeps idle thrust Stall warning and recovery
Very much appreciated as a synthesis close to

the ground.
Page 19
August 2010
CONCLUSION OF THE EXPERIMENTATION
Stall recovery training possible in FFS. Low altitude synthesis exercise with some startle
factor useful.
FFS fidelity for buffet should be improved,

especially at high altitude.
Instructor training appears to be a key issue.

Page 20
How do I....
Recommendation for new PowerPoint templates design
Evelyne Petersen - INUT3
march 2011
AIRBUS Operations GmbH. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. This document and all information contained herein is the sole property of AIRBUS Operations GmbH. No intellectual property rights are granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure of its content. This document shall not be reproduced or disclosed to a third party without the express written consent of AIRBUS Operations GmbH. This document and its content shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied. The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these statements are not shown, AIRBUS Operations GmbH. will be pleased to explain the basis thereof. AIRBUS, its logo, A300, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340, A350, A380, A400M are registered trademarks.
Page 21

Validation of Stall Recovery Technique and Training - Claude Lelaie

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Validation of Stall Recovery Technique and Training - Claude Lelaie

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Presented by Claude LELAIE

Following discussion between Manufacturers

All the procedure is based on a key item for

APPLY NOSE DOWN PITCH CONTROL TO REDUCE AOA

AIRCRAFT / SIMULATOR COMPARISON

Before deciding to perform stall recovery training in a

Two flights followed by a simulator session were conducted in

Stalls were performed in degraded law (aircraft no longer

Some other tests were done to get more detailed information

RECOVERY FULL THRUST WITHOUT LOSS OF ALTITUDE (1)

- Tests performed on A340-600 in Direct Law, engines idle, Landing

- Same tests repeated in the simulator:

RECOVERY FULL THRUST WITHOUT LOSS OF ALTITUDE (2)

- Tests in Clean only done in simulator.

RECOVERY FULL THRUST WITHOUT LOSS OF ALTITUDE (3)

BUFFETING CONDITIONS FOR A340-600

- Clean low altitude:

- Clean high altitude:

Simulators do not represent perfectly buffeting,

However, even if the AOA reached at buffet is not

STALL: SIDE ISSUES

A very important issue that have to be outlined in the training

CONCLUSION OF THE COMPARISON

There is no significant difference between aircraft

Recovery up to Stall Warning or buffeting can be

STALL RECOVERY TRAINING

After coordination with other Manufacturers in the FAA

It includes stall recovery demonstration in the following

Airbus stall training experimentation

A training profile has been established on A320

Four Airbus training pilots (TRIs) who had never

Their reaction allowed to validated (or not!) the

Airbus stall training experimentation

VALIDATION METHODOLOGY: PILOTS

Flight time on 350h Airbus FBW Other a/c flown C160

Airbus stall training experimentation

Airbus stall training experimentation

LOW ALTITUDE RESULTS

Some initial reluctance from one pilot (most

Reasonable fidelity of FFS versus airplane

Airbus stall training experimentation

HIGH ALTITUDE RESULTS (1)

Remarks: Flight with no turbulence No startle factor for pilots

Airbus stall training experimentation

HIGH ALTITUDE RESULTS (2)

Buffet simulation should be improved

Airbus stall training experimentation

LOW ALTITUDE SYNTHESIS EXERCISE

Very much appreciated as a synthesis close to

Airbus stall training experimentation

CONCLUSION OF THE EXPERIMENTATION

FFS fidelity for buffet should be improved,

Instructor training appears to be a key issue.

Recommendation for new PowerPoint templates design

Evelyne Petersen - INUT3

Você também pode gostar