Stick Pusher and 

Adverse Weather Event 

Training (SPAW)

Section 208 Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee

Final Report

12 December 2012
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | i Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................... i

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. iii

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 1

Group Composition................................................................................................................................................2

Abbreviated Answers to the FAA’s 13 Questions ....................................................................................................4

Upset Prevention and Recovery Training in an Airplane.....................................................................................4

Upset Prevention and Recovery Training in an FSTD ......................................................................................... 5

Recommendation Guidance................................................................................................................................... 7

Training Element Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 7

Using this section ............................................................................................................................................ 10

Clarifications and Rationale............................................................................................................................. 11

Instructor Requirements.................................................................................................................................. 32

UPRT Instructors—Initial and Recurrent Training Requirements and Prerequisites .......................................... 39

Device Requirements ...................................................................................................................................... 40

Airplane Requirements....................................................................................................................................40

FSTD Requirements ........................................................................................................................................ 41

Instructor Support........................................................................................................................................... 42

V-n Diagram: Flight Envelope .........................................................................................................................44

Simulator Fidelity and Validated Data Envelope.............................................................................................. 45

Malfunctions ................................................................................................................................................... 45

Aerodynamic Simulation.................................................................................................................................46

Completion Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 47

Aircraft Training Risk Mitigation......................................................................................................................49

On-Aircraft Training—Risk Mitigation Strategies.............................................................................................49

Additional Risk Mitigation Requirements ........................................................................................................ 50

FSTD Training Risk Mitigation ......................................................................................................................... 50

Additional Recommendations.............................................................................................................................. 52

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 54

APPENDIX A—OEM Upset Prevention and Recovery Recommendations............................................................... 1

OEM Recommendations for Training ................................................................................................................2

Energy Awareness.............................................................................................................................................2

Flight Control Effectiveness............................................................................................................................... 3

OEM-Recommended Training Sequences ......................................................................................................... 3

Environmental Factors ...................................................................................................................................... 3
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | ii Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Wake Vortex...................................................................................................................................................... 3

Mechanical/System Induced..............................................................................................................................4

Stall...................................................................................................................................................................4

Pilot Factors ......................................................................................................................................................4

Energy Management.........................................................................................................................................4

Engine Performance/Power...............................................................................................................................4

Aircraft Acceleration .........................................................................................................................................4

High Altitude Engine Power Management......................................................................................................... 5

High Altitude Energy Management ................................................................................................................... 5

Flight Control Effectiveness............................................................................................................................... 5

Buffet................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Roll Capabilities................................................................................................................................................. 5

Pitch Capabilities...............................................................................................................................................6

APPENDIX B—Proposed Revisions to 14 CFR Part 60............................................................................................. 1

APPENDIX C—Safety Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 1

APPENDIX D—Abbreviations and Definitions ........................................................................................................ 1

APPENDIX E—Presenters/SME List by Organization.............................................................................................. 1

APPENDIX F—Member Information....................................................................................................................... 1
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | iii Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is directed to the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Associate 

Administrator for Aviation Safety and recommends improvements for flightcrew member 

training in the area of Loss of Control–Inflight (LOC–I). To have the greatest impact on safety, 

the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of 2010, § 208 Public Law 111–216 Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee’s (208 ARC) recommendations place special emphasis on knowledge 

and skills in manual flight operations.

During its deliberations, the 208 ARC reviewed many previous working group reports, some of 

which are outlined in appendix E, from the past two decades. The ARC commends its

predecessors’ excellent work in their respective subject areas. The ARC adopted the Airplane 

Upset Recovery Training Aid Revision 2 (AURTA1

) and the Aviation Circular 120–1092” as the 

basis of their recommendations. The ARC recommends the FAA retain these two documents as 

source documents. While AURTA, Revision 2 was designed for swept-wing airplane with more 

than 100 seats, the general concepts are applicable to most high-performance airplane. As this 

document makes significant reference to the AURTA, Revision 2, the ARC recommends original 

equipment manufacturers (OEM) review the AURTA, Revision 2 to determine whether it 

contains recommendations inappropriate for their airplane. The ARC also recognizes that many 

OEMs have coordinated their efforts and are completely in agreement with both stall recovery 

procedures and upset recovery recommendations and techniques. It is important for users to 

study and understand the AURTA, Revision 2 and FAA AC 120–109 beyond simply reading the 

parts that highlight procedures/recommendations or techniques.

One issue identified by the 208 ARC was the lack of instructor knowledge, qualification, and 

standardization for upset prevention and recovery training. Instructors must know the limitations 

of the devices (airplane or Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD)) and not instruct beyond 

their knowledge on the subject. It is imperative that the instructor not use the device for any 

purpose for which it was not designed or intended.

Based on surveys, presentations, and experiences of 208 ARC members, it was apparent that 

while standardization may exist among instructors within a training organization, there was 

limited instructor standardization among the industry training providers. The ARC believes that 

incorporating this report’s recommendations will provide better standardization of training 

delivery and improved quality of training, as well as risk reduction for airplane training during 

the commercial pilot phase of a pilot’s career.

A second issue identified was the lack of knowledge with pilots and instructors on items that 

could lead to a loss of control. The 208 ARC recommends improved academic training at all 

levels of certification including type rating training. 

In addition to the tasks assigned to the 208 ARC, an airplane OEM group was established to 

create standard OEM guidance for the recovery from nose-high/nose-low upsets. 

The recommendations from this group are attached in appendix A, and should serve as a 

 

1 http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/media/AP_UpsetRecovery_Book.pdf

2 http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-109.pdf
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | iv Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

template for all airplane manufacturers for the development of, and revisions to, 

OEM-recommended Upset Prevention and Recovery Training and flightcrew guidance. 

The 208 ARC recommends changing the training paradigm from Upset Recovery/Unusual 

Attitude Training to Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (hereafter to be referred to as 

UPRT). This is to stress the requirement for knowledge to create awareness and the ability to 

prevent an occurrence, rather than waiting for recovery. This report separately addresses training

conducted for the commercial pilot certificate and during type rating training. Therefore, it

includes on-airplane training at the commercial pilot certificate and FSTD training at the type 

rating level. In addition, manual flight operations training should be emphasized in order to

consolidate the principles of airplane energy management skills.

The term prevention as used in this report refers to any pilot’s actions to avoid any divergence 

from a desired airplane state. Recovery refers to any pilot’s actions that return an airplane that is 

diverging in altitude, airspeed, or attitude to a desired state from a developing or fully developed

upset. Awareness and prevention training serve to avoid incidents; recovery training serves to 

reduce accidents as a result of an unavoidable upset event.

All of the recommendations made by the 208 ARC achieved majority consensus and thus, for the 

purposes of this report, the terms ARC, committee, subcommittee, and subgroup may be 

considered synonymous.

The members of the 208 ARC wish to thank the Administrator for the opportunity to offer 

recommendations on these important issues confronting the air carrier industry. We remain 

available for further consultations as necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

Philip Adrian Lou Nemeth

Co-Chair of 208ARC /LOCART Co-Chair of 208ARC /LOCART
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 1 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

(ARC) to address § 208 of the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of 2010, Public Law 

111−216 (208 ARC) to make recommendations to the FAA regarding critical training elements 

involving stall and upset. The ARC was convened in 2010 and made the initial report to the 

FAA in July 2011. This report supplements the content and provides more detail to the ARC 

report on the subject of Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT).

The ARC was reconvened in March 2012 with additional participants and observers of 

international regulatory agencies. The meetings were held at the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) in Montreal, Canada, with ICAO reference to Loss of Control Avoidance 

and Recovery Training (LOCART). 

The 208 ARC was tasked by the FAA to provide recommendations for the development of 

guidance for UPRT. In order to target the recommendations, the FAA provided the ARC with 

13 questions. The 13 questions are addressed throughout the report. The FAA requested the 

ARC provide joint recommendations and answers to specific questions that arose from the 2011 

208 ARC report. The 13 questions focused on UPRT training for the incremental development 

of a professional pilot’s knowledge and skills.

The ARC divided into four subcommittees to complete its tasking. These groups were identified 

as follows:

• One group representing all aircraft original equipment manufacturers (OEM)

• One group addressing instructor requirements, 

• One group addressing device (aircraft/ Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD)) 

requirements, and

• Οne group addressing academic and flight training requirements.

The ARC has acknowledged that a great deal of work has been done in this area and invited 

subject matter experts (SME) to present opinions to the group. The ARC also reviewed 

numerous documents from other working groups that provide guidance on upset prevention and 

recovery. A summary of SME presentations is included in appendix E.

In addition to presentations, the ARC requested surveys from international industry to establish 

current practices within UPRT. The results of these surveys provided the ARC with two 

conclusions: industry is aware of the need for UPRT, and there is no standardization within the 

industry on UPRT training.

For the purposes of this document “commercial pilot certificate training” is used to denote 

prerequisite aircraft training for the commercial pilot certificate. Although the FAA does not 

offer Multi-crew Pilots License (MPL) as a certification option, recommendations for 

“commercial pilot certificate training” would also be applicable to MPL training should the FAA 

adopt an MPL certificate “Type Training” is used to denote aircraft type-specific training in an 

FSTD. Because MPL training encompasses both commercial pilot certificate training and type 

training, the ARC expects both the commercial requirements and the type rating training 

requirements will be completed within a MPL course.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 2 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

GROUP COMPOSITION

Co-Chairs

Philip Adrian The Boeing Company

Lou Nemeth CAE

Subgroup Chairs

Susan McHaffie FlightSafety International, Inc.

Itash Samani CAE

Dave McKenney/Chad Balentine Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA)

Larry Rockliff Airbus

Members

Noam Morgenstern The Coalition of Airline Pilots 

Associations (CAPA)

Larry Rooney CAPA

Paul Kolisch Regional Airline Association

Paul Railsback Airlines for America

Gilson Russo Embraer

Mark Elliott Bombardier

Jerome Bonetto ATR

Rudy Canto Airbus

Jim Burin Flight Safety Foundation

Karsten Liljegren Boeing

Regulatory Agency Observers

ICAO

EASA

Transport Canada

UK CAA

Australian CAA

French DGAC

FAA Representatives

Robert Burke

Designated Federal Official, Air Carrier 

Training and Part 142 Training Center 

Branch

Robyn LaPorte

Aviation Safety Inspector, Air Carrier 

Training and Part 142 Training Center 

Branch

Jeffrey Schroeder Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor, 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 3 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Flight Simulation Systems

Kathy Abbott Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor 

Flight Deck Human Factors

Larry McDonald Engineering Section Supervisor, 

National Simulator Program

Gerry Baker Manager, Flight Test and Program 

Management Branch

Tim Shields Aviation Safety Inspector, General 

Aviation and Commercial Division

FAA Advisor

Gautam Shah National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 4 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

ABBREVIATED ANSWERS TO THE FAA’S 13 QUESTIONS

The following are the 13 questions submitted to the 208 ARC from the FAA in order to target 

their recommendations towards airplane and FSTD training. The answers are expanded with 

greater detail throughout the body of the report. Page numbers/sections are indicated at the end 

of each question.

UPSET PREVENTION AND RECOVERY TRAINING IN AN AIRPLANE

1. Define the scope and objectives of upset prevention and recovery training in 

an airplane.

UPRT will be required for all commercial pilot certificated training. The knowledge 

elements of UPRT must be completed before the associated flight training element.

Within the context of commercial pilot certificated training, pilots should demonstrate in an 

airplane the applied knowledge and skills to prevent an upset, or if not prevented, recover 

from one. See page 7.

2. Define the aircraft requirements for upset prevention and recovery training in 

an airplane.

The airplane used for conducting UPRT elements must be capable of supporting the specific 

training exercises for which it is being used. Though no specific category of airplane is 

identified in this report, different elements may have different airplane requirements. See 

page 40.

3. Define the instructor requirements for upset prevention and recovery training in 

an airplane.

Instructors conducting UPRT must be approved to teach UPRT-specific elements, assess 

(determine the pilot’s ability to achieve the objectives) and debrief the applicable elements. 

In addition, instructors providing on-airplane UPRT training must be trained on how to 

recognize and recover from improper student inputs and recover the airplane to safe flight. 

The ARC recommends Certified Fight Instructors (CFI) conducting UPRT be under strict 

oversight by the FAA. See page 32.

4. Define the academic training elements required before beginning upset prevention and 

recovery training in an airplane.

Academic training elements must be accomplished before the commencement of the 

associated practical element. Though a given timeframe has not been indicated, academic 

elements should be accomplished within a reasonable time before the training event to ensure 

sufficient retention. See page 7

5. Define the flight training elements required for upset prevention and recovery training 

in an airplane.

Specific training exercises and integrated elements are identified in the Recommendation 

Guidance section of this report. These include, but are not limited to, Energy Management, 

Aerodynamics and Human Factor elements that are intended to focus on awareness and 

prevention of upsets, rather than the current focus on recovery only. This is intended to build 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 5 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

on existing training, not to replace it. The ARC recommends that the FAA provide strict 

oversight of the curriculum content of UPRT programs.

Proper foundation of elements and concepts are required during the commercial pilot 

certificated training phase of a pilot’s career to provide knowledge and skills that will prevent 

upsets, or if not prevented, support the recovery from upsets. See page 7.

6. Define the completion criteria for upset prevention and recovery training in 

an airplane.

The student shall demonstrate knowledge and skill recognizing, preventing, and if necessary,

recovering from a developing or developed upset. See page 47

7. Define the risk mitigation strategies required for upset prevention and recovery 

training in an airplane.

In order to mitigate the inherent risk involved in on-airplane UPRT, enhanced safety 

measures during training must be followed, as outlined in the Recommendation Guidance 

section. See page 49.

UPSET PREVENTION AND RECOVERY TRAINING IN AN FSTD

8. Define the scope and objectives of upset prevention and recovery training in an FSTD.

UPRT will be required for all pilots operating airplanes that require type rating training. This

training is to be conducted at the initial pilot type rating, transition, requalification, and 

upgrade training. Because UPRT is not a developed skill, it will have to be developed with 

repetition over time. The UPRT elements are to be included in recurrent training not to 

exceed 3 years. Pilots enrolled in recurrent training may have the UPRT academic and flight 

training elements spread out over time. UPRT elements should be covered during each 

training event to promote recency of experience. 

In addition to the aforementioned training programs, the ARC recommends introducing 

a UPRT Fundamental curriculum. This course is for current professional pilots who 

have not previously undergone UPRT training during their commercial pilot certificate or 

Airline Transport Pilot certificate. UPRT Fundamental training and subsequent recurrent 

curriculums are discussed at the end of this report under the Additional 

Recommendations section.

To prevent repetitive training the exercises are recommendations and can be varied provided 

they cover the training elements prescribed in this document.

For type-specific training, pilots should demonstrate the applied knowledge and skills to 

prevent an upset, or if not prevented, recover from one. This should be continuously 

reinforced throughout the pilot’s career. See page 7.

9. Define the training device requirements for upset prevention and recovery training in 

an FSTD.

The FSTD used for conducting UPRT elements must be capable of supporting the specific 

training exercises for which it is being used. Training elements may have different level 

requirements, as outlined in the Recommendation Guidance section. See page 41.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 6 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

10. Define the instructor requirements for upset prevention and recovery training in 

an FSTD.

Instructors conducting UPRT must be qualified to teach, assess (determine the pilots ability 

to achieve the objectives) and debrief the applicable elements, as outlined in the 

Recommendation Guidance section of this report. See page 39.

11. Define the academic training elements required before beginning upset prevention and 

recovery training in an FSTD.

Academic training elements must be accomplished before the commencement of the 

associated practical element. Though a given time frame has not been indicated, the 

academic elements should be accomplished during the same training syllabus. See page 7.

12. Define the training elements required for upset prevention and recovery training in 

an FSTD.

Specific training exercises and integrated elements are identified in the Recommendation 

Guidance section of this report. These include, but are not limited to, Energy Management, 

Aerodynamics and Human Factor elements that are intended to focus on awareness, 

prevention, and recovery of upsets, rather than the current focus on recovery only. This is 

intended to build on existing training, not to replace it. See page 7.

13. Define the completion criteria for upset prevention and recovery training in an FSTD.

The student shall demonstrate knowledge and skill recognizing, preventing, and if necessary,

recovering from undesired airplane states. See page 47.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 7 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

RECOMMENDATION GUIDANCE

The ARC determined the FAA questions could be addressed more clearly by grouping them into 

the following categories:

• Training Element Requirements

• Instructor Requirements

• Device Requirements

• Completion Criteria

• Risk Mitigation

TRAINING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS

Questions Addressed:

Define the academic training elements required before beginning upset prevention and 

recovery training in an airplane.

Define the flight training elements required for upset prevention and recovery training in an 

airplane.

Define the academic training elements required before beginning upset prevention and 

recovery training in an FSTD.

Define the flight training elements required for upset prevention and recovery training in an 

FSTD.

The ARC recommends the academic training elements directly related to a given flight training 

element be accomplished before commencing practical training. This would be limited to the 

associated knowledge-based element for each flight training element as outlined in the table 

below. This training could be accomplished before flight training or during flight training as 

long as the knowledge element is covered before the associated flight training element. Though 

a given time frame has not been indicated, the academic elements should be accomplished within 

a reasonable time before the flight training and must be completed during the same syllabus (or 

training program) to ensure sufficient retention. UPRT knowledge elements should be taught by 

a qualified UPRT instructor in a classroom setting, or distance learning with a qualified UPRT 

instructor immediately available to answer questions and supplement the presentation as well as 

to ensure student understanding of the material. Specific academic training elements are listed in 

the training matrix below.

Table 1 provides high-level guidance for the ARC’s recommended training elements to be 

incorporated into a program to provide integrated or stand-alone training for upset awareness, 

prevention, and recovery. The UPRT course referenced in this document would include the 

content of this section. The ARC acknowledges these recommendations are made with the 

information and research currently available and recommends the FAA monitor the effectiveness 

of the recommendations implemented and determines whether changes are necessary.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 8 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Table 1. UPRT Training Elements

Training Element

Knowledge

(Academic)

Based

Flight

Training

(Airplane/

FSTD)

Commercial 

Pilot 

Certificate

Training

Type Rating

Training

A. Aerodynamics

i. General Aerodynamic Characteristics • • •

ii. Advanced Aerodynamics • • •

iii. Aerodynamics (High and Low Altitudes) • • •

iv. Aircraft Performance (High and Low Altitudes) • • • •

v. Angle of Attack (AOA) Awareness • • • •

vi. Mach Effects – if applicable to aircraft type • • •

vii. Aircraft Stability • • • •

B. Causes and Contributing Factors of Upsets

i. Environmental • • •

ii. Pilot Induced • • •

iii. Mechanical • • •

C. Safety Review of Accidents and Incidents relating to 

Aircraft Upsets • • •

D. G Awareness

Positive/Negative/Increasing/Decreasing g Loads • • •

ii. Lateral g Awareness (Sideslip) • • •

iii. G Load Management • • • •

E. Energy Management

i. Kinetic Energy vs. Potential Energy vs. Chemical 

Energy (Power) • • • •

ii. Relationship between Pitch and Power and 

performance • • • •

F. Flight Path Management

i. Automation Inputs for Guidance and Control • • • •

ii. Type-Specific Characteristics • • •

iii. Automation Management • • •

iv. Manual Handling Skills • • • •

G. Recognition

i. Type-Specific Examples of Instrumentation During 

Developing and Developed Upset • • •

ii. Pitch/Power/Roll/Yaw • • • •

iii. Effective Scanning (Active Monitoring) • • • •

H. Upset Prevention and Recovery Techniques • • • •

i. Timely and Appropriate Intervention • • • •

ii. Nose High/Wings-Level Recovery • • • •
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 9 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Training Element

Knowledge

(Academic)

Based

Flight

Training

(Airplane/

FSTD)

Commercial 

Pilot 

Certificate

Training

Type Rating

Training

iii. Nose Low/ Wings-Level-Recovery • • • •

iv. High Bank Angle Recovery Techniques • • • •

v. Consolidated Summary of Airplane Recovery 

Techniques • • • •

I. System Malfunction

i. Flight Control Anomalies • • •

ii. Power Failure (Partial or Full) • • •

iii. Instrument Failures • • •

iv. Automation Failures • • •

J. Specialized Training Elements

i. Steep Spiral • • •

ii. Slow Flight • • •

iii. Steep Turns • • •

iv. Nose High/High Speed • • •

v. Nose High/Low Speed • • •

vi. Nose Low /High Speed • • •

vii. Nose Low/Low Speed • • •

viii. High Bank Angle Recovery • • •

ix. Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) or 

Line-Operational Simulation (LOS) • •

K. Human Factors • • • •

i. Human Information Processing • • • •

ii. Threat and Error Management • • • •

iii. Crew Resource Management (CRM) • • • •

iv. Situation Awareness • • • •

v. Decision Making • • • •

i.) Cognitive Bias • • • •

ii.) Surprise and Startle Factor • • • •

vi. Problem Solving • • • •

i.) Fixation • • • •

vii. Physiological Factors

i.) Spatial Disorientation • • •

ii.) Instrument Interpretation • • •

iii.) Errors in Adjusting Attitude/Power • • •

iv.) Pilot-induced oscillation (PIO)

Avoidance/Recovery • • •
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 10 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Training Element

Knowledge

(Academic)

Based

Flight

Training

(Airplane/

FSTD)

Commercial 

Pilot 

Certificate

Training

Type Rating

Training

v.) Pilot Inattention/Complacency • • •

vi.) Illusions in Flight • • •

vii.) Visual Illusions • • •

viii.) Vestibular Angular Illusions • • •

ix.) Vestibular Linear Illusion • • •

USING THIS SECTION

In order to provide further guidance to the training elements in the table, clarification of the 

intended content and rationale is below.

• Highlighted items are specific extractions from the given training element or instructor 

requirements table.

Example:

A. Specialized Training Elements

i. Steep Spiral

• In order to clarify the focus for the area of training the following abbreviations are provided.

AW – Awareness

P – Prevention

R – Recovery 

• The Content section provides further guidance into what should be included during the 

training of a given element for both commercial pilot certificated training and type rating 

training. This section is to assist with training course development and refers to both 

training types.

Where an element requires additional information specific to an area of training it will be 

specified as commercial pilot certificated training or type rating. This categorization will 

continue to the next title and provide additional information for that specific training area. 

Where no such specification exists it will be assumed to be for both training areas.

• Commercial training refers to training that is conducted at the commercial pilot 

certificate level. Type rating training refers to training that is conducted as type specific 

to a given aircraft.

• The Rationale section provides guidance into why the ARC has made recommendations for 

specific training elements are to be trained.

• The Human Factor Integration section, where included, provides guidance on including 

critical CRM elements as integrated elements when developing course material.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 11 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

• The Reference section, where included, refers to specific accidents and incidents 

highlighting the given training element. This section also references information the ARC 

used from additional sources.

CLARIFICATIONS AND RATIONALE

A. Aerodynamic Effects (AW, P)

Content

Students should be knowledgeable about aerodynamics in the altitude stratum in which they will 

be operating.

This element provides the pilot with in-depth knowledge of aircraft aerodynamics in areas 

affecting the performance and handling of the aircraft, and which if not adequately understood 

have the potential of causing an aircraft upset condition or the prevention thereof.

Aerodynamic knowledge should be established to include, but not be limited to the following: 

• General Aerodynamic Characteristics

o Aerodynamic flight envelope 

o Load factor 

o Directional and lateral control 

o Weight and Balance effects on handling 

o Trim 

o Sideslip 

• Advanced Aerodynamics

o L/D curve and significance on aircraft performance in general - and L/D Max 

in particular 

o Relationship between L/D curve and airspeed 

o Aircraft Energy state and its application in various flight altitudes, airspeeds 

and attitudes. 

o Optimum Climb Speed, Crossover Altitude, Optimum Altitude and Maximum Altitude as 

they relate to aircraft performance and the effect of deviations (environmental or aircraft) 

on performance 

o Thrust required vs. Thrust available 

o Thrust-Limited conditions and recovery 

o Airplane stability and its effects in flight including Maneuvering stability and 

characteristics at high and low altitude 

o Environment impact on aerodynamics and handling (e.g., Temperature, Ice, etc.) 

o High-altitude considerations 

• Aerodynamics (High and Low Altitudes)
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 12 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

o Airplane flight envelope 

o Load factor 

o Directional and lateral control 

o Weight and Balance effects on handling 

o Trim 

o Sideslip 

o L/D curve and significance on aircraft performance in general - and L/D Max 

in particular 

o Relationship between L/D curve and airspeed 

o Airplane Energy state and its application in various flight altitudes, airspeeds 

and attitudes. 

o Optimum Climb Speed, Crossover Altitude, Optimum Altitude and Maximum Altitude as 

they relate to aircraft performance and the effect of deviations (environmental or aircraft) 

on performance 

o Thrust required vs. Thrust available 

o Thrust-Limited conditions and recovery 

o Aerodynamic stability and its effects in flight including maneuvering stability and 

characteristics at high and low altitude, Environment impact on aerodynamics and 

handling (e.g., Temperature, Ice, etc.)

o High-altitude considerations 

• Aircraft Performance (High and Low Altitudes)

o Use of aircraft (type-specific) performance charts to determine the effects of 

environmental changes on planned flight performance 

o Use of aircraft (type-specific) performance charts to determine the effects of aircraft 

configuration or system changes on planned flight performance 

Commercial Pilot Certificate Training

Students in commercial pilot certificated training should be familiar with not only aerodynamics 

at the altitudes at which they will be operating, but also with high-altitude aerodynamics as a 

building block for the progression of their career. The flight training portion of the aerodynamic 

elements should expose students to the limits of the aircraft envelope.

Type Rating

Students should be knowledgeable about aerodynamic effects at both high and low levels. 

The FSTD training should be accomplished at both high altitudes (within 5,000 ft of the 

service ceiling of the aircraft), where applicable and for low altitude (below 10,000 ft 

above ground level). Use of normal operational cruise altitudes for high-altitude training

should be encouraged.

Students should also—
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 13 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

• Recognize, when encountered, high speed buffet (if applicable to aircraft type) and 

low-speed buffet. 

With regards to AOA awareness, students should be taught—

• The importance of AOA as it relates to aircraft performance and wing stall angle.

• The relationship of AOA to various aircraft systems, particularly warning systems (stall 

warning, stick shaker, stick pusher, etc.)

• General knowledge as well as aircraft-specific knowledge. 

• The impact of environmental and system factors on AOA indications and their relationship to 

the stall AOA and various aircraft warning systems (for example, type-specific knowledge of

the stall warning system).

• Airplane type-specific AOA information, and if that information is presented to the pilot, 

what the indications are.

• Airplane-specific handling to use AOA-derived information to prevent or recover from an 

upset (including stall).

Students should also be trained with respect to the effects of mach including—m

• Definitions of mach tuck and mach buffet and the reason for them.

• Buffet-limited max altitude.

• Critical mach number and aerodynamic forces acting on the wing.

• Control surface effectiveness at high speed.

Note: This training, for AOA and mach effects, should be accomplished only to the extent the 

topics are applicable to the specific aircraft.

Students at the type rating level should apply their aerodynamic knowledge by including the 

following in FSTD training:

• The pilot shall maneuver the aircraft (simulator) at high altitudes at various speeds and 

automation levels. The pilot shall apply the aerodynamic principles studied to prevent 

an upset. 

• Pilots should be aware of the AOA from available data shown on the flight deck and 

demonstrate the use of those data to prevent an upset or recover from one.

• Speed controlled by elevator inputs or speed controlled by thrust, aircraft energy state as it 

pertains to the type being flown, and demonstrate use of that knowledge to avoid or recover 

from an upset.

• The pilot shall demonstrate knowledge of the type-specific systems that use AOA with 

emphasis on warning systems and the limitations of those systems.

Additional details regarding most of these areas can be found in the Airplane Upset Recovery 

Training Aid Revision 2 (AURTA), section 2.5. While the training aid was designed for

swept-wing aircraft with more than 100 seats, the general concepts are still applicable to most 

high-performance aircraft.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 14 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Rationale

Evidence from numerous stick shaker events at high altitude has illustrated the general lack of 

pilot understanding of aerodynamics and aircraft performance and the relationship between 

high-altitude and low-altitude operations. Information obtained from members of the ARC also 

supports the belief that pilots need a better understanding of aerodynamics, specifically with 

respect to upsets. This knowledgebase is a fundamental building block to providing the pilots 

with the information they need to be aware of and prevent upsets.

Human Factor Integration

Pilots should understand airplane performance across all flight phases, including how to respond 

as pilot flying (PF) and pilot monitoring (PM). 

Pilots should understand basic aerodynamics and flight dynamics to mentally integrate an 

understanding of the airplane AOA and energy state throughout the normal envelope of 

operations and be able to communicate that awareness to the other pilot. 

B. Causes and Contributing Factors of Upsets (AW, P)

Content

Students should be knowledgeable in the various causes and factors that can contribute to an 

upset. This training is accomplished academically. 

This training should include—

• Environmentally Induced Upsets, which could be caused by clear air turbulence, mountain 

wave, windshear, thunderstorms, microbursts, wake turbulence, temperature changes, or 

airplane icing.

• Pilot-Induced Upsets, which could be caused by misinterpretation or slow instrument 

cross-check, improper adjustment of attitude and power, improper pilot input, inattention, 

distractions, spatial disorientation, pilot incapacitation, improper use of airplane automation, 

and POI.

• Mechanical-Induced Upsets, which could be caused by flight instrument anomalies/failures, 

autoflight anomalies/failures, flight control malfunctions/failures, or other system anomalies.

The ARC recommends the use of the AURTA, Revision 2, section 2.4 for details regarding these 

factors.

Rationale

Understanding the causes and contributing factors for upsets increases pilot situation awareness 

and provides knowledge to recognize situations that may lead to airplane upsets so they may be 

prevented. Familiarity with causes and factors that contribute to upsets helps pilots understand 

the importance of UPRT.

Human Factor Integration

Pilots should receive academic training on common illusions associated with LOC events. It 

should be explained why they occur and the importance of following procedure to avoid 

susceptibility to illusions. 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 15 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Train pilots in what to monitor and when, cross-checking, verification, during all phases of flight 

to prevent an LOC event. Stress communication behavior between pilots to share understanding 

of airplane state so that both pilots recognize when either of them might be introducing a 

pilot-induced upset. Development and training on procedures, including PF and PM roles, for 

normal operations and deviation recovery limitations, what to monitor during recovery, how to 

identify and communicate deviations between pilots and guide recovery should focus on 

LOC prevention.

C. Safety Review of Accidents and Incidents Relating to Aircraft Upsets (AW, P)

Content

Commercial Pilot Certificate Training

Students should be shown actual accidents and incidents related to general and commercial 

aviation aircraft upsets. These should include a variety of upsets emphasizing an understanding 

of the events, as well as the proper and/or improper decision making and actions which 

contributed to the upset and, if applicable, recovery.

Type Rating

Students should be shown actual accidents and incidents related to transport category aircraft 

upsets. These should include a variety of upsets emphasizing an understanding of the events, as 

well as the proper and/or improper decision making and actions which contributed to the upset 

and, if applicable, recovery.

Rationale

One method to train pilots on avoiding and preventing upsets is by showing them previous upset 

accidents and incidents. These upset events should be discussed within the training program 

with an emphasis on avoiding or preventing the upset, along with the proper recovery techniques 

if the upset was unavoidable.

D. G Awareness (AW, P, R)

Content

Commercial Pilot Certificate Training

Airplane training of g awareness is specifically required to expose the student to the 

physiological aspect of g loading (+/-/lateral). Students need to develop the manual handling 

skills to be able to apply the appropriate amount of g loading for a given situation to maintain the 

aircraft performance within its designed certification envelope.

The physiological g loading exercises must be completed with a building block approach. 

Positive and Negative g loading should be completed with pullups, various bank angles, and 

pushover(s) to develop awareness and manual handling skills to apply various levels of g loading

at various aircraft attitudes, bank angles, and energy states within the airplane’s flight envelope. 

Lateral g loading should be demonstrated with steady state sideslip maneuvering.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 16 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Type Rating

Students should be provided academic reinforcement of the effects of g, especially during 

aircraft upsets. It must be emphasized that g loading in transport category airplanes feels 

significantly more pronounced than in other airplanes, due specifically to the cockpit 

environment. If any practical exercise regarding g awareness is accomplished in an FSTD, 

careful consideration should be taken to avoid negative transfer of training. Because there will 

be a visual aspect associated with g loading, the training program will need to validate whether

the g awareness training in the FSTD will be effective and can be accomplished without negative

transfer of training. 

Airline pilots are normally uncomfortable (for the sake of passenger comfort and safety) with 

aggressively unloading the g forces on a large passenger airplane. Pilots must overcome this 

inhibition when faced with the necessity to quickly and sometimes aggressively unload the 

airplane to less than 1 g. Most simulators cannot replicate sustained g forces; therefore, the 

cockpit situation must be envisioned during less than 1-g flight. For example, the pilot may be 

floating up against the shoulder harness and seat belt making it difficult for the pilot to reach the 

rudder pedals. Unsecured items may be flying around the cockpit. 

Rationale

Students should be exposed to various levels of g loading to be able to recognize the condition to 

determine when to adjust the g loading.

Human Factor Integration

Explain how motion affects pilot perception and how to respond to it. Expose pilots to g-loading 

conditions associated with LOC events. Explain the importance of following procedure to avoid 

susceptibility to physical disorientation.

Expose pilots to these sensory illusions in training to provide experience with their effects.

E. Energy Management (AW, P, R)

Content

The Energy Management training objective addresses the following pilot performance issues:

• Inappropriate inputs to an event,

• Inappropriate understanding of energy state, and 

• PF overload

The training should include integrated CRM training for developing crew knowledge and skills 

for energy management and techniques for reducing pilot error.

Following training, the students should be knowledgeable regarding energy management, 

to include—

• The energy states of the airplane for all types of LOC events.

• How the airplane gets in a high- or low-energy state and the input options available to change 

the energy state to a stable and safe state.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 17 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

• How external factors can change energy state and how to correct for them. 

• What parameters to focus on to decide an appropriate response. Cross-check with the other 

pilot to establish a shared understanding.

• What to monitor during an event and how the PM should coach the PF in the recovery using 

appropriate callouts and other verbal feedback. 

Students should understand the interrelationship between kinetic energy (airspeed), 

potential energy (altitude), and chemical energy (power) (such as the relationship between 

pitch and power).

Commercial Pilot Certificate Training

In order to fully understand the concepts discussed above in academic training students should 

demonstrate acceleration performance when on the back side of the power curve.

Type Rating

To fully understand the concepts discussed above in academic training students should

demonstrate the following:

• Acceleration between two speeds of which the aircraft is capable at low altitude, medium and 

high altitude (e.g., 200–250 at low altitude and high altitude which corresponds to mach at 

high altitude).

• Acceleration performance from second regime (back side of power curve) at low altitude and 

high altitude.

• The relationship between Maximum Cruise/Climb/Continuous Thrust and Takeoff/Goaround (TOGA) at high altitude.

• Acceleration capabilities through descent versus power application.

• Roll rate performance of the airplane at different speeds and different configurations and 

with flight spoilers retracted/extended if a difference exists (e.g., B727).

• Pitch rate performance of the airplane at different speeds and different configurations and 

with flaps retracted/extended. Also demonstrate an aft center of gravity (CG) versus forward 

CG if flight qualities are significantly different.

Rationale

Students must understand the concept of energy management for upset awareness, prevention, 

and recovery training. The elements discussed above must demonstrate the following:

• The performance decrement at high density altitudes.

• Potentially different recovery technique from flight in the second regime at low altitude 

versus high altitude.

• Identify that TOGA is not likely to produce more power at maximum altitude than cruise 

power, etc.

• The inability of the aircraft to power out of a high-altitude upset.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 18 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

• An appreciation of high-altitude response differences to the same flight control input.

• Correctly identify the low- and high-speed buffet with corresponding recovery techniques.

• The full pitch and roll capabilities of the airplane.

Human Factor Integration

Explain the energy states of the airplane for all types of LOC events. Describe how the 

airplane gets in a high- or low-energy state and the input options available to change the energy 

state to a stable and safe state. Describe how external factors can change energy state and how 

for correct them. 

Explain what to monitor during an event and how the PM should assist the PF in the recovery 

using appropriate callouts and other verbal feedback. 

Explain the difference between kinetic, potential, and chemical energy and the relationship 

between pitch, power, and performance. Know what parameters to focus on to decide on an 

appropriate response. Each pilot must understand the current energy state of the aircraft and how 

to effectively manage the aircraft energy to avoid and recover from an upset. Each pilot, whether 

acting as PF or PM, must be able to effectively communicate the current energy state of the 

aircraft with the other pilot to be able to reach a shared understanding of how to avoid a potential 

upset or how to recover from a developing/fully developed upset.

F. Flight Path Management (AW, P,R)

Aircraft used in commercial pilot certificated training and type training will have various types 

of automated systems. Flight Path Management training should be developed with regard to 

what automated systems are on the airplane being used for the specific training, including 

type-specific automation anomalies.

Content

i. Manual or Automation Inputs for Guidance and Control

The Manual or Automation Inputs for Guidance and Control training objective addresses correct 

pilot control inputs to avoid undesired flightpath deviations.

This training objective should include the control strategies pilots should use in both developing 

and developed upset events. Pilots must know the conditions under which it is best to allow 

automated systems to control the airplane and those under which manual intervention by the pilot

is best. This should include Primary/Alternate Control Strategies.

ii. Type-specific characteristics (e.g., Vertical Speed (VS) or indicated airspeed (IAS) based on altitude).

Training provided on type-specific characteristics will help avoid inadvertent LOC events 

because of automation surprise. Integrated CRM training should include communication 

between pilots of their understanding of the current airplane state. Pilots should create a mutual 

mental picture of airplane status and keep it updated. In addition, pilots must be able to work as 

a crew to be aware, identify, and prevent. 

This will include instrument interpretation as it applies to recognizing LOC events.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 19 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

iii. Automation Management 

The automation management training objective addresses correct pilot control inputs to avoid 

undesired flightpath deviations.

Pilots must know how to use the automated systems (if installed) during prevention and recovery 

from an upset event. This training should include the following:

• Common errors to avoid and why they occur.

• Specific automation modes to use for specific contexts.

• Cross-check and verification of mode use and understanding of how it has been directed to 

command the airplane. 

• Advantages and disadvantages of using automated systems for prevention and recovery.

• The importance of ensuring correct inputs to the automation systems, which are commanded 

by pilot input and the consequences of failing to do so.

The Manual or Automation Inputs Control training objective addresses correct pilot control 

inputs to avoid undesired flightpath deviations.

This training objective should include the control strategies pilots should use in both developing 

and developed upset events. Pilots must know the conditions under which it is best to allow

automated systems to control the airplane and those under which manual intervention by the pilot 

is best. This should include Primary/Alternate Control Strategies.

It is imperative that the PF keep the aircraft in trim while flying with an engine out on a multiengine airplane. At slow speed, the autopilot is incapable of holding the correct attitude against 

an adverse yaw condition caused by an engine failure resulting in an upset.

iv. Manual Handling Skills 

The manual handling skills objectives are to address correct pilot control inputs to avoid 

undesired flightpath deviations. Refer to the discussion in section G below 

(ii. Pitch/Power/Roll/Yaw) on how to develop pilot skills for making the correct control inputs to 

arrest the divergence or recovery from the upset. A secondary benefit of UPRT is improved 

manual handling skills acquired during the development of skills for prevention and recovery 

from the edges of the envelope. These manual handling skills should be developed during the 

Specialized Training Elements in section J of the Table 1. UPRT Training Elements.

Training should include the practice of manual handling at the operational edges. Pilots must 

know the common errors to avoid and why they occur, as well as the importance of 

cross-checking and verification of inputs and a shared understanding among the pilots of why the 

pilot is flying the airplane manually. Pilots must know how the airplane responds to inputs 

across flight regimes. 

Manual Handling Training should include training on the use of full control inputs. Flight 

control forces become less effective when the airplane is at or near its critical AOA or stall. The 

tendency is for pilots not to use full control authority because they rarely are required to do so. 

Pilots must overcome this habit when recovering from severe upsets. Note: Rudder control is 

still effective at a high AOA, and special care must be taken in the use of rudder during upset 

prevention and recovery. It is important to guard against control reversals. To maintain 

structural integrity rapid full-scale reversal of control deflections should be avoided.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 20 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

In addition, Manual Handling Training (Pitch/Power/Roll/Yaw) should include training on 

non-intuitive factors. For example, it may be counter-intuitive to use greater unloading control 

forces when recovering from a high AOA, especially at low altitudes. If the airplane is stalled 

while already in a nose-down attitude, the pilot must still push the nose down (unload) in order to 

reduce the AOA. Additionally, for under-wing mounted engines it may be necessary to reduce 

thrust in order to reduce the AOA due to the strong pitch up forces from added thrust. Altitude 

cannot be maintained in a stall and should be of secondary importance.

The training should highlight when it is appropriate to fly manually versus using automation. 

Specific aspects of the transition from automated to manual flight should also be covered.

Rationale

Airmanship in the form of aircraft manual handling skills may still be the last line of defense. 

With the use of automated systems increasing, any training that can develop and assist in 

averting the erosion of manual handling skills is an asset. UPRT in an airplane and in an FSTD 

provides effective manual handling training. Manual handling skills developed during UPRT 

will be critical to allowing the pilot to handle unexpected upsets.

Human Factor Integration

Pilots need to know when it is best to use the automated systems to control the airplane versus

manual flying.

Human factors considerations with automation management should include type-specific 

descriptions of automation use, with an emphasis on common automation errors. Training 

should also include communication between the pilots of their understanding of the current 

airplane state. Pilots should be able to create a mental picture of the airplane status and keep 

it updated.

Automation management should also include how to use the automation during upset events, 

common errors to avoid, why they occur, and specific automation modes to use for specific 

situations. Pilots should have a shared understanding of the cross-check and verification of 

mode use and an understanding of how it has been directed to command the airplane. 

Pilots should understand the human factors issues regarding when to fly manually versus when to 

use the automated systems. Training should include the practice of manual handling at the 

operational edges. Pilots must know the common errors to avoid and why they occur as well as 

the importance of cross-checking and verification of inputs and a shared understanding among 

the pilots of why the pilot is flying the airplane manually. Pilots must know how the airplane 

responds to inputs across flight regimes. 

G. Recognition (AW, P, R)

Content

i. Type-Specific Examples of Instrumentation During Developing and Developed Upset 

A key aspect to upset awareness, prevention, and recovery training is for students to recognize 

developing and developed upset conditions. Students should understand that anytime the 

airplane begins to diverge from the intended flightpath or speed that they must identify and 

determine what, if any, action must be taken. The emphasis is on using examples of 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 21 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

type-specific instrumentation and visual cues to train upset awareness, prevention, and 

recognition of a developing/developed upset in order to train effective aeronautical decision 

making to prevent upset events.

This academic training should include visual representations of the outside view and 

type-specific instrument indications of a variety of developing and developed upset conditions, 

with a focus on pitch, power, roll, and what is happening to the speed. Students should be 

provided context for each event in order for them to identify the divergence. The training should 

also include some normal situations so students can identify what is normal versus what is not. 

If possible and applicable, other cues, such as, but not limited to audio or buffet cues, should also 

be discussed.

ii. Pitch/Power/Roll/Yaw

A key aspect to upset awareness, prevention, and recovery training is for students to recognize 

developing and developed upset conditions so they can make control inputs based on desired 

aircraft reaction. Control deflections at one point in the flight envelope might not be appropriate 

in another part of the flight envelope. Pilots must have a fundamental understanding of 

instrumentation and flight dynamics in Pitch/Power/Roll/Yaw in order to recognize the current 

state of the airplane and make the correct control inputs to arrest the divergence or recovery from 

the upset. Students should understand that anytime the aircraft begins to diverge from the 

intended flightpath or speed they must begin to identify what, if any, action must be taken. 

The Attitude Direction Indicator (ADI) is the primary control instrument for recovery from an 

upset. Due to varying visibility conditions, one cannot depend on having adequate outside 

visual references.

The ARC recommends the use of the AURTA, Revision 2, section 2.5.5.5–section 2.5.5.9 for 

specific details for training Pitch/Power/Roll/Yaw.

iii. Effective Scanning 

Effective instrument scanning techniques should be trained as appropriate to recognize normal 

states and divergence from normal flight parameters and the appropriate CRM techniques to 

work as a crew to return the aircraft to normal flight.

To avoid upsets related to the monitoring of airplane state, pilots should be trained on what to 

monitor and when, cross-checking, verification, during all phases of flight to prevent an LOC 

event. Training should also be provided on communicating airplane state between pilots, 

including CRM callouts to improve situational awareness.

To reduce delays in deviation detection as well as surprise events, pilots should be trained on 

type-specific description of what instrumentation to monitor during developing and developed 

upsets. Appropriate communication patterns need to be developed between pilots toward 

understanding the current airplane state. Pilots must create a mental picture of the airplane status 

and keep it updated and cross-checked with the airplane and the other pilot throughout the flight. 

To reduce pilots missing deviations or the poor interpretation of deviation, effective 

communication between pilots and between pilots and airplane should be based on knowledge of 

the airplane normal states, detect deviations, interpret the meaning of the deviation, decide on a 

response, and take action. This also addresses Pilot inattention and complacency.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 22 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Rationale

A key aspect of upset awareness, prevention, and recovery training is for students to be able to 

identify when an aircraft is diverging from the desired path. This is one of the initial building 

blocks for the remainder of the upset awareness, prevention, and recovery training. An effective 

scan is essential for pilots to identify the precursors and the initial development of the upset and 

then using that recognition to make timely and appropriate responses to bring the aircraft back to 

the desired path.

Human Factor Integration

Pilots should be trained on what to monitor and when, cross-checking, verification, during all 

phases of flight to prevent an LOC event. This should include type-specific description of what 

to monitor and identification of the type-specific instrumentation the aircrew should monitor 

when they recognize a developing or a developed upset, so as to quickly establish the aircraft 

state and the effectiveness of any recovery actions taken. In addition, pilots should be able to 

effectively communicate between themselves to share an understanding of the airplane state. 

Techniques should be trained for normal operations and deviation recovery techniques, including 

what pilots should monitor during recovery and how to identify and communicate deviations in 

order for the PM to assist the PF during recovery.

Pilots need to focus on stabilizing the airplane. They need to know the appropriate pitch and 

power levels for stabilization. The PM should know how to assist the PF to return the aircraft to 

a stable state. The training should define appropriate inputs whether manual or automated and 

how to distribute the tasks between PF and PM so as not to overload individual pilots.

H. Upset Prevention and Recovery Techniques (AW, R)

Content

i. Timely and Appropriate Intervention 

Training should emphasize that recovery to a stabilized flight path should be initiated as soon as 

a developing upset condition is recognized. The amount and rate of control input to counter a 

developing upset must be proportional to the amount and rate of pitch, roll, and/or yaw 

experienced. This action may prevent what might become a more serious event.

Training should emphasize the need for the PF or PM to recognize a divergence as early as 

possible and immediately ensure corrective action is taken to return the airplane to a stabilized 

flight path rather than waiting until the aircraft has developed into an established upset. Anytime 

the aircraft starts diverging away from the intended state, the pilot should take corrective action 

to arrest the divergence, and return the aircraft to the desired path. 

Based on the pilot’s flying skills and airmanship, the pilot will normally respond to minor upsets 

and make corrections to stop the divergence and return the aircraft to the desired flight path and 

energy state. If the pilot’s inputs do not arrest the divergence, then the pilots should follow their 

airplane’s flight manual recommended guidance. The attitude direction indicator (ADI) is the 

primary control instrument for recovery from an upset. Due to varying visibility conditions, one 

cannot depend on having adequate outside visual references.

Airlines and OEMs may already have policies on how to handle minor divergence from the 

desired flightpath for items such as bank, airspeed, heading, etc., including callouts. The intent 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 23 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

of these procedures or CRM techniques is for the PM to draw attention to any divergence that 

exceeds parameters set by the company and for the PF to take corrective action.

Evidence shows in some incidents/accidents that the PM may have been more aware of the 

aircraft flight condition than the PF. This might suggest that the PM then take over from the PF; 

however, this may not always be the best solution. Further complications could happen during 

the role reversal between PF and PM, especially if the crews have not been properly trained in 

the exchange. While the Captain always retains authority to take the aircraft at any time, the PM 

taking the controls in a chaotic upset could worsen the outcome. Correct crew interaction would 

be to vocalize the divergence conditions, and use CRM to stop the divergence and return the 

aircraft to stabilized flight.

There are infinite potential situations that pilots can experience while flying an airplane. The 

techniques presented in this section are applicable for most situations and provide the crews with 

the knowledge and skills to handle developing and developed upsets. Training must emphasize 

that a developing upset will define how prompt or aggressive the required control inputs will be 

to recover from the event. In all cases the pilot response to an upset must be appropriate to arrest 

and recover the condition. Up to full-scale control deflections may be necessary; however, 

initiating recovery with arbitrary full-scale control deflections could actually aggravate the 

situation. An excessive or inappropriate control input that overshoots the desired response 

can startle the pilot and cause one upset to lead to another (see section 2.6, page 81 of the 

AURTA, Revision 2).

• The following three activities should be part of every recovery from an upset and provide an 

overview of actions taken:

• Manage the energy, 

• Arrest the flightpath divergence, and 

• Recover to a stabilized flightpath. 

The ARC recommends the use of the AURTA, Revision 2, sections 2.6.3.2–2.6.3.5, for details to 

train the academic portion of the recovery techniques for the four elements below. For 

instructional purposes, the AURTA, Revision 2 addresses several different aircraft upset 

situations (elements ii–v below). This provides the basis for relating the aerodynamic 

information and techniques to specific situations.

ii. Nose-High/Wings-level recovery

iii. Nose-Low/Wings-level recovery

iv. High Bank-Angle Recovery Techniques

v. Consolidated Summary of Airplane Recovery Techniques

Commercial Pilot Certificate Training

Upset prevention and recovery techniques should be accomplished in an airplane using published 

flight manual upset prevention and recovery procedures. Operators must include these 

techniques in their Aircraft Operating Manual (AOM), Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM)

or other operator equivalent and must use OEM recommendations for upset prevention and 

recovery when available. The academic portion of the training must discuss these techniques 

which will be applied practically during the flight training.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 24 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Type Rating

Upset prevention and recovery techniques should be accomplished in the highest fidelity FSTD 

qualified for the training using published operator upset prevention and recovery procedures. 

The operator is required to include in their AOM, FCOM or other operator equivalent OEM 

recommendations for upset prevention and recovery and must follow these recommendations.

See appendix A.

Rationale

Several recent accidents demonstrate that pilots may not have the knowledge and experience to 

recover from an upset. While the goal of upset awareness, prevention, and recovery training is to 

avoid the upset and correct any diverging situation, pilots must be able to recover from any upset 

they encounter.

Human Factor Integration

Training for these elements should include an understanding of the maneuvers, potential load 

factors, and techniques on how to maintain situational awareness during the event. Pilots should 

know and be able to perform recovery maneuvers across different situations. They must also

know the roles of the PF and the PM in the recovery maneuver and how to work as a crew to 

recover the airplane from an upset condition. The PM should assist the PF as necessary to 

recover from the upset, to include the following:

• Monitor airspeed and attitude throughout the recovery and announce any 

continued divergence.

• Call out attitude, airspeed, and altitude throughout the recovery.

• Verify all required actions have been completed and call out any omissions.

Pilots should understand the human factors that could affect maintaining proper energy and be 

able to maintain appropriate use of energy, as well as know the parameters to monitor across all 

flight situations and correct parameter ranges. They should also understand spatial disorientation 

characteristics, how it impairs performance, and factors that can reduce spatial disorientation. 

Pilots should also understand the effects of illusions on recognition and the recovery role of the

PM in a shared understanding of the situation.

I. System Malfunction (AW, P)

Content

Commercial Pilot Certificate Training

Students in commercial pilot certificated training should understand the systems of their aircraft 

and how these systems can cause or contribute to an upset. In-flight training students should be 

exposed to simulated system malfunctions with an emphasis on preventing an upset. Examples 

of simulated malfunctions could include covering instruments to simulate a pitot-static or 

vacuum failure or having the instructor block a flight control and have the student use an 

alternate control strategy. Extreme care should be taken to ensure any risks associated with the 

simulated malfunctions are addressed and mitigated. OEMs, if available, should be consulted for 

possible system malfunctions which could cause or contribute to an upset.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 25 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Type Rating

Students in type rating training should understand the systems of their aircraft and how these 

systems can cause or contribute to an upset. FSTDs allow instructors to safely induce 

malfunctions that would not be possible in the aircraft. Operators should refer to OEM 

checklists and procedures, which cover system and component failures. Failures/malfunctions 

related to systems, instruments, power, and automation should all be incorporated into training, 

whenever applicable. Inaccurate information, if possible, should also be part of the training 

program (e.g., unreliable airspeed), so students must recognize the error, prevent an upset, and 

maintain control of the aircraft.

Review additional information from the AURTA, Revision 2, section 2.4.2.

Rationale

Several accidents have demonstrated that the failure of a system can cause or contribute to an 

upset. Students must be aware of how these malfunctions can cause upsets, with the focus on 

preventing the upsets from occurring after a malfunction, and if unavoidable, how to recover.

J. Specialized Training Elements

Content

The ARC recommends several specific elements be incorporated into both the commercial pilot 

certificated training and type rating training. Each element teaches a specific skill-set to help 

students prevent and, if needed, recover from an upset.

i. Steep Spiral

In this maneuver, sometimes called a graveyard spiral, the airplane is at a high bank angle and 

descending. Students will learn in this situation that applying up-elevator in an attempt to arrest 

both the speed and sink rate causes the spiral to tighten. The skill learned is that it is imperative 

to get the wings close to level before beginning any pitching maneuver. This orients the lift 

vector away from the gravity vector so the student can manage the forces acting on the airplane 

in a controlled way. Students must decrease the bank angle and then apply up-elevator to 

recover. If g loading is large the pilot may need to offload some g to regain adequate roll 

control. See AURTA, Revision 2, section 2.5.5.8.

ii. Slow Flight

Although slow flight is already included in the Commercial Pilot certificate training flight 

training elements, the ARC believes it is important to include the maneuver in the type rating 

training as well. Slow flight exposes the student to flight right above the stall speed of the 

aircraft and maneuvering the aircraft at this speed without stalling. The purpose is to reinforce 

the basic stall characteristics learned in academics and allow the pilot to obtain handling 

experience and motion sensations when operating the airplane at slow speeds during the entire 

approach to stall regime in various aircraft attitudes, configurations, and bank angles.

iii. Steep Turns

Steep turns provide the student with some practical experience of load factor and maneuvering 

the aircraft at higher than normal bank angles. Steep turns are already included in the flight 

training elements of both the commercial pilot certificated training and type rating training, and 

the ARC recommends retaining this maneuver.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 26 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

iv. Nose High/High Speed

v. Nose High/Low Speed

vi. Nose Low/High Speed

vii. Nose Low/Low Speed

viii. High Bank-Angle Recovery

These maneuvers are specifically designed for upset prevention and recovery, with the 

academics and appropriate exercises contained in the AURTA, Revision 2. The ARC 

recommends accomplishing these maneuvers at various angles of pitch and bank, as well as 

high/low speeds maneuvers. This training will expose the students to conditions close to the 

limits of the operating envelope and high bank angles as well as demonstrate appropriate 

recovery techniques. 

Further information for training the academic portion of these elements is contained in the 

AURTA, Revision 2, sections 2.6.3.2–2.6.3.5. Chapter 3 of the AURTA, Revision 2 includes 

reference material for conducting the flight training exercises.

Commercial Pilot Certificate Training

The on-aircraft training should include a variety of developing and developed upset conditions, 

with focus on pitch, power, roll, and yaw. The on-aircraft training should include 

demonstrations and practice for various upset scenarios, to include nose-high and nose-low

scenarios with various bank angles and speeds, including high bank angles (defined by the 

AURTA, Revision 2 as greater than 45 degrees through inverted flight). High bank-angle 

recovery exercises should be practiced in both nose-high and nose-low situations. On -aircraft 

training should be done in both visual and simulated instrument conditions to allow the student 

to practice recognition and recovery under both conditions as well as experience and recognize 

some of the physiological factors related to each.

Rationale 

A review of aircraft major incidents and accidents shows that bank angles have exceeded 

90 degrees in actual upsets. The ARC heard testimony from those organizations conducting 

on-aircraft UPRT on the benefits of developing pilot skills by including inverted flight training. 

ARC testimony on practical experience and studies show that most pilots who went inverted for 

the first time incorrectly added back pressure (in one case 80–90 percent responded with pull 

instead of push) even though they received academic training and briefings before flight not to 

increase back pressure. Current industry best practices for on-aircraft UPRT include inverted 

flight training. Because type rating training should include AURTA-recommended training of 

high bank-angle recovery, between 45 and 180 degrees, initial skill development should be 

accomplished in a suitable aircraft during commercial pilot certificated training rather than in a 

simulator to develop initial pilot skills.

The ARC considers that training for recovery from bank angles exceeding 90 degrees could add 

to a pilot’s overall knowledge and skills for upset recognition and recovery. For such training, 

additional measures should be taken to ensure the suitability of aircraft and that instructors are 

appropriately qualified. The ARC recommends the FAA conduct further research to establish 

the human performance factors and training methods required for training with bank angles 

greater than 90 degrees.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 27 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Type Rating 

The FSTD training should include a variety of developing and developed upset conditions with 

focus on pitch, power, roll, and yaw. The FSTD training should include demonstrations and 

practice recovery techniques for various upset scenarios, to include nose-high and nose-low 

scenarios with various bank angles and speeds, including bank angle greater than 90 degrees. 

Students should practice high bank-angle recovery exercises in both nose-high and nose-low 

situations. FSTD maneuvers training should be done in both visual and instrument conditions to 

allow students to practice recognition and recovery under both conditions and to train them to

recognize some of the physiological factors. Upset training in an FSTD that exceeds the airplane 

envelope provided by the OEM could increase the risk of negative transfer of training.

ix. LOFT or LOS

Training should expose students to situations or malfunctions through LOFT or LOS scenarios 

which if not corrected could cause an upset. The focus of each scenario should be awareness and 

prevention of the upset. The operator should integrate the various LOFT/LOS scenarios into the 

LOFT/LOS training and rotate them to ensure a wide exposure to a wide variety of possible 

upset scenarios.

Rationale

These maneuvers are the culmination of the upset training and are designed to reinforce the 

knowledge and practical experience gained throughout the training. To maximize safety and 

minimize unlearning and to reinforce proper pilot upset prevention and recovery prevention, 

recognition, and recovery competencies and skills the training and procedures provided at the 

commercial pilot certificated training level should be as consistent as possible with the type

rating training in order. On-aircraft training should be accomplished at the commercial pilot 

certificated training level for initial upset prevention and recovery skill development with all the 

cues available in the actual aircraft. Once the student has learned the skills in the aircraft, the 

foundation is set to allow the use of a simulator for upset prevention and recovery training for 

type rating programs. On-aircraft training is also important to assist the student through the 

startle and surprise factors associated with upset events and to remain in control of the airplane 

when an upset happens later. Many sources provided evidence to the ARC showing the 

importance of training these maneuvers, which included bank angles greater than 90 degrees. 

This included upset prevention and recovery training programs conducted at Western Michigan 

University, University of North Dakota, and by many MPL training programs based on the 

requirement in Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The evidence also 

includes studies and testimony by Aviation Performance Solutions. Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 121 operators in the United States who are already providing UPRT 

are following the AURTA, Revision 2 to include training bank angles greater than 90 degrees.

The AURTA, Revision 2 also cites accident data to support training high bank-angle recovery 

techniques.

K. Human Factors

Human factors are an overarching, integral part of UPRT. The area of human factors explicitly 

related to human skilled behavior is known as human performance, and as such, is one of the 

central tenets of skilled operational performance. The purpose of discussing human factors in 

UPRT is to address the physiological and crew responses in the event of a flightpath divergence 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 28 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

or a sudden upset. It is also important for integrating human factors into UPRT to help develop 

airmanship, which requires perceptual, cognitive, and psychomotor knowledge and skills.

Human factors include but are not limited to CRM, the cognitive process, the learning process 

and the ability of the student to recall and apply appropriate knowledge and skills at a later date. 

While human factors concepts may appear vague or nonfunctional, these theories serve an 

important purpose in actual operational flying, including assisting the flightcrew’s correct 

reactions to unplanned events, overcoming human limitations and breakdown in the cognitive 

process.

Therefore, separate human factors integration sections are included in the training elements 

above where applicable, providing suggested human factors issues applicable to each training 

element. This section, which is not all inclusive, includes further information and 

recommendations regarding human factors issues relating to UPRT that supplements the human 

factors integration discussions above.

i. Human Behavior and Performance

The ARC recommends the FAA conduct research into methods to help pilots improve 

communication and increase human performance and overall safety as it relates to UPRT and 

line operations. In reviewing aircraft upset incidents and accidents, sometimes the disorientation 

of the crew was such that other trained practices were not executed. The ARC recommends 

further studies to include human performance factors and disorientation that may make trained 

practices ineffective. An example of such a situation is when the aircraft exceeded bank angles 

of 90 degrees. Airlines should be able to integrate these methods into the way they currently 

train.

The understanding of inherent human performance issues in aviation are essential not only for 

those who are operational, but also those who design, create, test, deploy and maintain 

equipment and those who train and manage these teams.

ii. Threat and Error Management

Threat and Error Management (TEM) as it relates to upset prevention and recovery should be 

integrated in the UPRT. TEM training should include the following communication/interaction 

techniques between pilots (pilot-to-pilot) and between pilots and airplane (pilot-to-airplane): the 

airplane normal states, detection of deviations, interpretation of the meaning of the deviation, 

decision on how to respond, and response.

iii. Crew Resource Management

The crew’s capacity to think effectively in an area to which they have not previously been 

exposed may be challenged during an upset event. Pilots should focus on stabilizing the airplane 

as a team, with clearly defined PF and PM roles, especially if one pilot is fixated. Training 

should emphasize the importance of evaluating whether a solution is working and not rushing

into an action that may be detrimental. Pilots should reevaluate what is working (the available 

resources) instead of focusing on what is not working.

Methods and training should include the following:

• Appropriate assessment techniques (i.e., what to monitor and when, what to cross-check, 

proper verification) during all phases of flight to prevent a LOC event.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 29 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

• Communication patterns between pilots to share understanding of airplane state.

• UPRT techniques for normal operations and deviation recovery limitations.

• What to monitor during recovery.

• How to identify and communicate deviations and guide recovery for PF and PM roles.

• Airplane type-specific description of assessment techniques during developing and 

developed upset.

• Development and application of appropriate communication patterns between pilots for 

understanding of current airplane state. 

Pilots should be able to create a mental picture of the airplane status and keep it updated and 

cross-checked with the airplane and other pilot throughout the flight. Crew communication 

awareness callouts may assist in leading the crew into a recovery strategy. 

Training should define appropriate inputs, whether manual or automated, and how to distribute 

the tasks between the PF and PM to avoid overloading either pilot. The training should also 

include appropriate communication techniques between the PF and PM for deviation avoidance 

and recovery. 

To facilitate energy management, techniques should include pilots understanding the difference 

between kinetic, potential, and chemical energy and the relationship between pitch and power 

and performance. Pilots should also understand on which parameters to focus to choose an 

appropriate response, and be able to effectively communicate with the other pilot to establish a 

shared understanding of the aircraft’s current energy state.

iv. Situation Awareness

Pilots must maintain situation awareness at all times. Pilots do this by maintaining a mental 

model while creating mental pictures of developing situations. A breakdown of a pilot’s mental 

picture or the model, which can be caused by several factors including surprise, can result in a 

loss of situation awareness. Complacency can also lead to a loss of situation awareness. 

Training should include what to monitor to maintain situation awareness for preventing upsets as 

well as during recoveries. Students must learn what to monitor during an upset event and how 

the PM should assist/coach the PF in the recovery using appropriate callouts and other verbal 

feedback. 

After a deviation, it is important that the first actions be correct and timely to avoid the recovery 

from one upset leading to a new upset. Troubleshooting the cause of the upset is secondary and 

can wait. Pilots should use the primary flight instruments because darkness, weather conditions, 

and the limited view from the cockpit will make it difficult to effectively use the horizon. The 

ADI is a primary reference.

Situation Analysis Process:

• Communicate with crewmembers.

• Locate the bank indicator.

• Determine pitch attitude.

• Confirm attitude by reference to other indicators.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 30 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

• Assess the energy state.

The phrase, “recognize and confirm the situation,” will be used frequently in discussing recovery 

techniques. The process outlined above is used to accomplish this.

v. Decision Making

Training must stress the importance of the pilots effectively communicating verbally and

nonverbally. Another important subject is the criteria for a PM to decide whether to take control 

of the airplane if the PF is overwhelmed. The pilots should use a shared decision-making 

process where both are engaged in the response.

Pilots should focus on stabilizing the airplane. They must know the appropriate pitch and power 

ratios for stabilization. The pilots should understand the role of the PM in coaching the PF to a 

stable state. 

i.) Cognitive Bias

ii.) Surprise and Startle Factor

Training should include behavior management so pilots know how to deal with anxiety and 

stress response in decision-making. During an extreme event, including cases of surprise and 

stress, the pilots’ ability to regulate their thoughts and behaviors diminish. In aviation, the 

extreme operational environments a pilot can be subjected to during an unexpected upset or 

under conditions of uncertainty and fear can result in the pilot freezing or making the incorrect or 

incomplete corrective action.

Pilots may become surprised when an unexpected event during flight contradicts their 

expectations. If an unexpected event is sufficiently serious, and/or arises during a critical phase 

of flight, the correct response to that uncertainty becomes vital for survival.

Upset prevention and recovery training is different from aerobatic training. In aerobatics 

training, the pilot knows what the maneuver is and they are expecting it, so there is no threat of 

consequences or perception of risk by the pilot. This is also true in the simulator. Upset training

should strive to include the element of surprise pilots will experience in a real-world application. 

When pilots encounter an upset in an airplane and suddenly find themselves in an unexpected 

and excessive attitude, there is a threat and perception of risk. 

Rationale

Upset prevention and recovery training conducted in a mixed attitude/ envelope environment that 

includes progressively increasing the aeronautical challenges in on-aircraft training, results in the 

student gradually becoming desensitized to the extreme performance requirements and the fear 

and threat that goes with it, thereby reducing the surprise element. Specific training in situation

awareness and management strategies for handling surprise and effective decision making is also 

necessary. Pilots who undergo upset prevention and recovery training are in a better position to 

handle the situation.

The ARC received evidence showing that the lack of training in all-attitude/all-envelope training 

resulted in an adverse effect. One study included 20 LOC–I accidents, 16 of which had enough 

information to be used for comparison. Of the 16 accidents studied, all the pilots behaved in an 

unreliable manner (for example, pulling back on the stick when in a stall or fighting the stick 

pusher), and the training they received was not applicable to the upset prevention and recovery

domain. The ARC also received a study conducted with 18 B–747 pilots contrasting their 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 31 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

recognition of abnormal events when they were expected versus when they were not expected. 

This study showed evidence of startle/surprise and underdeveloped recognition skills based on 

training discrete, expected maneuvers. 

A National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) study showed that pilots on average 

have 6–10 seconds to recover once the aircraft leaves normal flight. The on-airplane upset 

prevention and recovery training during the commercial pilot certificated training needs to be 

robust, including surprises, to have the desired result when the pilot encounters a threatening 

upset situation. If properly trained in upset prevention and recovery techniques at the 

commercial pilot certificated training level, the ab initio pilot will experience the surprise factor, 

threats, and perception of risk in the actual airplane. It is reasonable to assume the pilot can then 

transfer that experience learned in an airplane to the simulator, so at the type-rating level and 

beyond, type-specific and recurrent UPRT can be accomplished in an FSTD.

vi. Problem Solving

Pilots should be able to communicate verbally or nonverbally to the other pilot if stress 

overwhelms them. Training should include cognitive overload and how to self-assess impending 

incapacitation because of stress. 

vii. Physiological Factors

i.) Spatial Disorientation

ii.)Instrument Interpretation

iii.) Errors in Adjusting Attitude/Power

iv.) PIO Avoidance/Recovery

v.) Pilot Inattention/Complacency

vi.) Illusions in Flight

vii.) Visual Illusions

viii.) Vestibular Angular Illusions

ix.) Vestibular Linear Illusions

Vertigo or Spatial Disorientation

Spatial disorientation has been a significant factor in many airplane upset accidents. The 

definition of spatial disorientation is the inability to correctly orient oneself with respect to the 

Earth’s surface. Humans are all susceptible to sensory illusions. Pilots who are unable to 

resolve a perceived conflict between bodily senses and the flight instruments are spatially 

disoriented. Allowed to continue, spatial disorientation will lead to airplane upset. Attention to 

flight instruments and a good cross-check are the keys to remaining spatially oriented.

Inattention or Distraction from Primary Cockpit Duties

A review of airplane upsets reveals that inattention or neglecting to monitor the airplane’s 

performance can lead to extreme deviations from the normal flight envelope. Neglecting to 

monitor the appropriate instruments or fixating on a certain instrument can lead to performance 

deviations. Distractions can be very subtle, such as warning or caution lights illuminating during 

critical phases of flight. Many airplane upsets occur while the pilot is engaged in some task that 

takes attention away from the flight instruments. “Control the airplane first” should always be 

the guiding principle.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 32 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

INSTRUCTOR REQUIREMENTS

Define the instructor requirements for upset prevention and recovery training in an airplane.

Define the instructor requirements for upset prevention and recovery training in an FSTD.

UPRT instructors must meet the following requirements:

1. Instructors conducting training in either an airplane or an FSTD must be trained in and 

qualified to conduct training in the device they are using. UPRT instructors for commercial 

pilot certificated training in an airplane must hold a CFI. 

2. Instructors must have completed the applicable UPRT program as a student. 

3. UPRT instructors must be able to teach, assess, and debrief the elements included in the 

training programs they are conducting.

4. Instructors must demonstrate the ability to teach, assess and debrief UPRT to a qualified 

regulator or delegate for the programs for which they are training. 

5. UPRT instructors must hold a certificate and rating in the category, class and type of airplane

for which they are training.

6. Considering all other qualifications are the same, the ARC recognizes the benefits of

instructors with operational experience on type and recommends FSTD UPRT instructors 

with time on type are preferred.

7. UPRT instructors must have received UPRT instructor training in matrix A below.

Note: Though most of these elements are included in the training elements required 

within the URPT, the ARC has determined that instructors providing UPRT should 

receive further knowledge and teaching skill development specific to the training of 

these elements.

8. For all elements indicated for training in an FSTD or airplane, instructors must be able to 

demonstrate in the appropriate device the ability to train and assess the student on the 

applicable element.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 33 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Table 2. Instructor Requirements

Matrix A Element

Knowledge

(Academic)

Based

Flight

Training

(Airplane/ 

FSTD)

Commercial 

Pilot 

Certificate

Training/MPL

Type

Rating

Training

A. Knowledge of Device

i. Limitations of Device • • •

ii. Instructor Operating System (IOS) Operation • • • •

B. Review of LOC Accidents • • •

C. Energy Management Factors • • • •

D. Disorientation • • •

E. Workload Management • • • •

F. Distraction • • • •

G. Specific OEM Recommendations • • •

H. Recognition and Recovery Strategies • • • •

I. Recognition of Student Errors • • • •

J. Airplane Type-specific Characteristics • •

K. Operating Environment • • • •

L. How To Do a Flight Risk Assessment (Airplane) • •

M. How To Induce the Startle Factor (FSTD) • • • •

N. Value and Benefits of Demonstration (FSTD) • • • •

O. How To Assess Pilot Performance Completion 

Standards

• • • •

A. Knowledge of Device

Content

i. Limitations of device

Instructors should receive training in the limitations of FSTDs in the areas of stall and UPRT 

with emphasis on areas that have the potential to introduce negative transfer oftraining. 

Instructors should learn to brief and debrief pilots on these limitations.

Instructors providing UPRT in airplanes and simulators must be aware that different airplanes

will have different characteristics and recognition and recovery techniques may be specific to 

individual airplane.

FSTD instructors should be aware that valid responses may be limited to the parameters to which 

the FSTD is tuned. Motion cuing information may not accurately simulate the associated forces 

that would be felt in an aircraft. The dynamic nature of flight may cause the airplane to react 

differently in each situation.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 34 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

ii. IOS Operation (FSTD)

Instructors must receive additional simulator operator training that includes specific IOS 

indications and controls that will be used to provide training and feedback during

UPRT elements.

Rationale

Negative transfer of training has occurred as a result of the instructor’s lack of knowledge of the 

limitations of the associated device or airplane FSTD. It is important to note that the FSTD is 

only a training device and qualified to limited parameters and that operating outside of these 

parameters may result in misleading indications.

B. Review of LOC Accidents

Content

Awareness of LOC events, incidents, and accidents can assist in emphasizing the importance of 

diligence in a variety of flight regimes.

Training and review of the LOC accidents is used to apply the lessons learned to the knowledge 

and skill development to recognize and recover from an airplane upset. 

Rationale

A review of LOC events will provide pilots with a focus and a context for the consequences of 

allowing the airplane to develop into an upset condition. This can provide the appropriate 

training law of effect throughout the UPRT.

C. Energy Management Factors

Content

Instructors need to be trained in the importance of effective energy management in addition to 

cause and effect correlation during UPRT. It is also important that instructors not only have 

proper understanding of energy management, but also the ability to integrate and emphasize the 

concepts throughout all training as a constant means of upset prevention. Airplane UPRT 

instructors should be trained on specific techniques and maneuvers to effectively demonstrate 

and train energy management during flight.

Rationale

An improper understanding of airplane energy state including power, pitch and load factor, has 

been indicated as a contributing factor in a pilot’s poor understanding of airplane control. The 

improper understanding of any of these factors was relevant in the improper training of stall 

recovery. It is therefore important that the instructors have an understanding of how energy 

management is a factor in all phases of flight including most of the training elements identified 

as UPRT elements. 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 35 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

D. Disorientation

Content

Instructors should be trained in the effects of the physiological factors that both the motion and 

visual cues of the airplane can cause. Instructors should be aware that some of these effects 

cannot be reproduced in an FSTD.

Instructors should be trained in a variety of causes of disorientation, prevention strategies, 

recognition cues, and recovery from disorientation.

Rationale

Spatial disorientation training may not be effectively represented in an FSTD.

E. Workload Management

Content

It should be demonstrated to crews throughout their training that proper workload management 

can improve situation awareness.

Instructors should be trained on assessment when and when not to increase workload to achieve 

the best training results.

Training is needed on the importance of pilots adhering to standard operating procedures (SOP)

to manage workload and avoid an upset.

Rationale

Evidence has shown that failure to adhere to SOPs has led to upset accidents. 

F. Distraction

Content

UPRT instructors must learn the different distractions than can affect a flightcrew. These 

distraction topics can include both internal (such as, cockpit and crew) and external (such as, air 

traffic control (ATC) causes of distraction. Crew complacency can make distraction more likely. 

UPRT instructors need awareness of how distractions can lead to disorientation and to airplane

upset and how to use them in training. This can be used to assist in properly training events that 

may cause startle, which can function to teach appropriate crew response.

Instructors should be trained in methods of creating distraction to enable the crew to learn to 

manage them.

Rationale

Distractions have been identified as causal factor in pilot-induced upset.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 36 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

G. Specific OEM Recommendations

Content

Different s may have specific procedures for prevention and recovery from upset. Reference to 

the airplane manufacturers’ procedures and/or recommendations must be applied for specific 

airplanes. Training should address situations in which procedures or recommendations 

applicable to one airplane may not be applicable to another and which may have the potential for 

negative results. Identifying procedures from previous airplanes which may not be applicable to 

the current type can be beneficial during training.

Training should make reference to specific OEM guidance and developed general procedures. 

Rationale

Evidence indicates that training programs incorporating operating procedures from other types of 

airplanes may have a detrimental effect if carried over onto certain types of airplanes and can

lead to an upset.

H. Recognition and Recovery Strategies

Content

Instructors must be able to convey to the student how to recognize upset conditions and to apply 

appropriate recovery strategies.

Training must include specific examples, in both academic discussion and practical 

demonstration, of how to recognize and apply recovery strategies. Airplane UPRT instructors 

should be trained on specific techniques and maneuvers to effectively demonstrate and train 

recognition and recovery strategies during flight.

The following chart is a general approach/concept that can be applied to various types of upsets 

and the final response will depend on the specific situation.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 37 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Rationale

Evidence shows that an absence of complete and correct recovery strategy has led to improper 

action in an upset.

I. Recognition of Student Errors

Content

Failure to properly identify and readily correct student errors can lead to a negative transfer of 

training. Instructors must be aware of the consequences of failure to recognize and correct 

student errors.

Instructors must know what the common student errors are, be able to identify the root cause,

and provide training to avoid errors and incorrect inputs that can create undesired airplane states 

(such as, overcontrolling for Traffic Collision and Avoidance System Resolution Advisories). 

Rationale

Negative transfer of training can occur if errors are allowed to persist uncorrected.

J. Airplane Type-specific Characteristics

Content

OEMs have recognized that different airplanes have unique characteristics that may both assist in 

and deter from the recognition and recovery of an airplane upset. UPRT instructors must know 

specific unique characteristics regarding airplane handling and recognition, such as how the 

airplane responds while approaching stall buffet.

Rationale

Incorrect procedures, such as tailplane stall recovery, may not be applicable to certain airplanes, 

and the procedure applied in the wrong aircraft could lead to a worse upset.

K. Operating Environment 

Content

Instructors should be trained in how to demonstrate the effects of the operating environment 

and how these will affect the airplane handling characteristics and potentially lead to an 

airplane upset. 

This should include how changes in the environmental conditions will affect the airplane.

Rationale

Current training does not take into consideration the different handling characteristics in all areas 

of the operating envelope.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 38 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

L. How to do a Flight-risk Assessment (Airplane)

Content

UPRT instructors must be trained in conducting a flight risk assessment to ensure that 

appropriate risk mitigation is ensured. 

The flight risk assessment should include but not be limited to the following factors:

• Training elements

• Pilot skills

• Instructor experience

• Weather

• Training airplane

• Equipment

• Environmental

Rationale

Risk Mitigation

M. How to Induce the Startle Factor in the FSTD

Content

Instructors can cause a crew to enter into an unintended approach to stall or airplane upset 

by manipulating the IOS or by distracting the crew while adjusting the energy condition of 

the airplane. 

Instructors must be aware of the capability of simulators. These may allow speed slew, which 

can be used to cause a sudden stall warning when pilots are in a slow flight condition. The PM 

may be engaged as a collaborator with the instructor to induce an upset, but with the caution that 

the PM must resume proper functions from recognition to recovery.

Rationale

Because upsets that occur in normal flight operations are unplanned and inadvertent, pilots must 

learn to recognize and recover from such events. 

N. Value and Benefits of Demonstration FSTD

Content

Effective training may require FSTD instructors to take a pilot seat position to adequately 

demonstrate certain elements of UPRT.

Rationale

Some elements in UPRT may be more assessable and trainable through use of demonstration 

from a pilot seat.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 39 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

O. How to Assess Pilot Performance Completion Standards

Content

Instructors should be trained on how to assess the students’ performance on the UPRT elements 

and determine whether the required completion criteria level has been met. 

Rationale

Training is effective only when an appropriate level of proficiency is achieved. Instructors must 

be able to assess this.

UPRT INSTRUCTORS—INITIAL AND RECURRENT TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND 

PREREQUISITES

UPRT Airplane Instructors

Prerequisite: 

• Airplane CFI

Initial Training:

• Receive a UPRT airplane course as a student.

• Receive training in the additional UPRT instructor requirements defined in Table 2, Matrix A

Elements above.

• Present and teach the academic elements of the UPRT airplane program to an acceptable 

standard as evaluated by the regulator or designate.

• Teach the practical elements of a UPRT airplane program to an acceptable standard as 

evaluated by the regulator or designate.

• Receive training in an aircraft on how to recognize and recover from improper student inputs 

and how to recover the airplane to safe flight.

Recurrent Training:

• Receive recurrent training on the specialized training elements every 12 months.

• Receive recurrent training and assessment not less than every 24 months coincident with the 

CFI renewal. 

• Attend a recurrent UPRT instructor airplane course that covers representative elements from 

each section and complete all elements within the 24 month period.

• Be evaluated on representative segments of the UPRT during both the academic and practical 

training phase.

UPRT Simulator Instructors

Prerequisite: 

• Qualified to act as an FSTD instructor.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 40 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

• Considering all other qualifications are the same, the ARC recognizes the benefits of 

instructors with operational experience on type and recommends that FSTD UPRT 

instructors with time on type are preferred when other qualifications are equal.

Initial Type Training:

• Receive a UPRT simulator course as a student.

• Receive training in the additional UPRT instructor requirements defined in Table 2 Matrix A

Elements above.

• Present and teach the academic elements of a UPRT simulator program to an acceptable 

standard as evaluated by the regulator or designate.

• Teach the practical elements of a UPRT simulator program to an acceptable standard as 

evaluated by the regulator or designate.

Recurrent Training:

• Conduct recurrent training not less than every 12 months coincident with the FSTD 

instructor renewal.

• Attend a recurrent UPRT instructor simulator course that covers representative segments of 

the initial training program above.

• Be evaluated on representative segments of the UPRT during both the academic and practical 

training phase.

DEVICE REQUIREMENTS

The response to the FAA questions is based on and in relation to the questions on the training 

requirements for aircraft and FSTDs. Specifically the aircraft and FSTD requirements are 

limited to supporting the training elements where training in aircraft or FSTDs is 

prescribed/recommended.

Under the FAA system, type rating training is primarily completed in either a level C or level D 

device and the requirements in this section apply to these devices. The ARC believes some 

training elements which do not require simulator motion may be completed in a Level 6 flight 

training device (FTD). For example, flightpath management does not necessitate motion and 

could be trained in a level 6 FTD.

FSTDs used for commercial pilot certificated training are generally low-level, nonmotion-based 

devices and are generally considered to be inadequate for providing UPRT. Accordingly, there 

are no additional FSTD requirements discussed herein that relate to such devices.

AIRPLANE REQUIREMENTS

Define the aircraft requirements for upset prevention and recovery training in an airplane.

The airplane used for conducting UPRT elements must be capable of supporting the specific 

training exercises for which it is being used. Though no specific category is identified in this 

report, different elements may have different airplane requirements.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 41 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

A review of the training elements as outlined in Table 1 does not extend any specific or 

additional aircraft certification requirements beyond those in place today for completing such 

maneuvers. The airplane used must be suitable, by its commercial pilot certificated training

certification category, to perform such maneuvers and the organization conducting the training 

must have the necessary approvals for the use of the airplane in performing such maneuvers. 

FSTD REQUIREMENTS

Define the training device requirements for upset prevention and recovery training in 

an FSTD.

Today FSTDs are a key part of a pilot training program. The use of simulators provide for a 

cost-effective and safe alternative to performing training in the actual airplane. Furthermore,

simulators provide the capability to train certain tasks which cannot be easily trained in the 

actual airplane. Abnormal and emergency procedures which could not be trained in the actual 

aircraft can be trained in a simulator in a risk-free environment, and with a high level of fidelity. 

Training in the flight simulator is in a synthetic environment which cannot fully replicate the 

exact experience of that in the aircraft. There is, however, statistical reason to trust that the 

appropriately qualified simulator has extremely good fidelity for training normal, abnormal and 

emergency procedures. Notwithstanding the normal limitations of flight simulators, there is 

concern that UPRT could include inadvertent excursions during recovery, which may extend 

beyond the normal flight regime and the fidelity of the simulation in these areas may not be 

adequately validated. Nonetheless, there is significant evidence that simulator training better 

prepares the pilot for the real-world environment. With a better understanding of the simulator 

limitations, they can be overcome through an effective training program.

Accordingly, the ARC reviewed the training elements and associated tasks and maneuvers to 

verify the fidelity requirements to perform this training, and it identified and summarized in 

appendix B any limitations found in the current standard.

The ARC recommends the FAA incorporate changes to 14 CFR, part 60, through due process, 

and make these requirements applicable to new full flight simulator (FFS) equipment based on 

an effective date coordinated with the effective date of new training requirements as defined in 

the body of this report. Furthermore, because the training requirements recommended in this 

report will likely be conducted in FSTDs previously qualified either under part 60 or an earlier 

standard, the recommended simulator standards be published through an FSTD directive as 

defined in § 60.23. Note that the publication of an FSTD directive addresses safety of flight 

issues and is applicable to each qualified FSTD, regardless of its original qualification standard. 

The ARC intends that any retroactive simulator requirements be published as an FSTD directive 

which will address additional qualification requirements (see § 60.16) applicable only to those 

simulators being used to conduct training tasks as defined in this report.

The SPAW ARC, chartered as a result of Public Law 111–216, § 208 made certain 

recommendations with regard to FSTD requirements. In view of the additional work performed 

during this ARC, the ARC recommends that the requirements specified herein supersede the 

previous recommendations. 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 42 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

INSTRUCTOR SUPPORT

To ensure a positive transfer of training the ARC believes a number of areas merit special 

attention. Therefore, in support of UPRT in an FSTD the ARC recommends the instructor have 

the following tools to support the briefing, training, and debriefing:

1. Cockpit video and audio capability that allows the marking of events.

a. The system should allow the instructor to easily review any part of the 

UPRT session.

b. The cockpit audio, including the instructor’s voice should be recorded and 

integrated with the video recording.

c. The system should allow the marking of events to enable the instructor to easily 

locate segments of the video.

d. The system should allow the instructor to erase, and verify deletion of, all 

evidence of recorded cockpit video and audio in the presence of the students.

2. A data recording system to allow for real-time instructor monitoring of pertinent 

parameters and for use during the debriefing of the UPRT session. At a minimum the 

following parameters should be included:

a. Weight and CG.

b. Attitudes, airspeed, altitude, AOA, beta, g load.

c. Primary flight control input (position and force).

d. Secondary flight controls—trim/stab, speed brake, flap.

e. Warnings (audible and shaker), shaker/pusher trigger, and limits (CL-max).

f. Throttle/power lever position.

The data output may be in a graphical format or in time domain plots. Strict simulator training 

safeguards shall be enforced to ensure that all data collected during training sessions is deleted

fully following lesson completion. 

3. A set of instructor controls which can aid the instructor in developing distractors.

a. The distraction should be a nonstandard event such that the crew thought process 

and the actions they take are not based on the use of the checklist.

b. These may be weather-related, traffic, ATC, or other such inputs which may 

create a distraction.

4. A dynamic set of upsets, which may be a result of internal or external factors.

a. A set of upset initiation features designed to assess the prevention of an upset 

event by the crew.

i. The objective of this upset feature is to generate a condition that, if the 

crew does not recognize it and take timely corrective action, it will 

continue to develop and result in an upset.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 43 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

b. A set of upset initiation features designed to lead the crew to initiate 

recognition measures.

i. The objective of this upset feature is to generate a developing 

upset condition so that crew action will prevent a fully developed 

upset condition.

c. A set of upset initiation features designed specifically to progress in severity so 

that the crew has to initiate recovery measures.

i. The objective of this upset feature is to generate a developed upset 

condition so that the crew has to initiate appropriate recovery action to 

prevent further loss of control.

d. Instructor control to vary the intensity of the above features causing the upset, to a 

level where the crew may react on over control.

5. A set of malfunctions designed to support automation anomalies and which lead the crew 

to deviate from normal function; the malfunction effect should occur in a manner which 

surprises the crew, and should be realistic and accurate in the manifestation of the upset 

condition. OEM guidance should be used in creating these malfunctions to assure correct 

use of malfunctions.

6. A preprogrammed stall demonstration.

a. This feature should allow the instructor to demonstrate a full aerodynamic stall 

which is performed automatically through the simulation. Note this is similar to 

the automated tests performed during Qualification Test Guide (QTG) testing.

b. Instructors should warn the crew to keep clear of the controls which may move to 

the extreme positions.

7. Instructor indication of the exceedance of operating limits including the following:

• Airspeed limitations

a. Maximum operating limit speed

b. Maneuvering speed

c. Flap extended speed

d. Minimum control speed

e. Landing gear speeds

f. Rough air speed

• Altitude limitations

• Weight, CG

• Power plant limitations 

• Maximum operating altitude

• Maneuvering flight load factors including simultaneous roll and pitch

The instructor should be provided with an indication of when a limit is—
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 44 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

1. Approached (cautionary warning—amber), or 

• Reasonable margins as appropriate can be used; the intent is to give the 

instructor an initial indication that the aircraft is operating close to a limit.

2. Exceeded (exceedance warning—red).

• For UPRT the simulation should not freeze unless the limit is exceeded by a 

predefined margin that voids the training or can cause an unsafe condition on 

the simulator.

If the simulator is programmed to detect a crash condition and a feature to inhibit (crash 

inhibit) the simulator from freezing when such a condition is reached this should be 

automatically activated.

The limits shall be based on aircraft OEM-provided data as applicable for the specific 

aircraft type. 

V-N DIAGRAM: FLIGHT ENVELOPE

The flight envelope demonstrates the variations of airspeed versus load factor (V-n). This 

diagram is an important part of UPRT as it provides the limits of load factor and speed and 

defines the maneuvering capabilities of an aircraft for safe flight. Accordingly the ARC 

recommends that the concepts and limits associated with the V-n diagram are fully covered 

during the academic training.

The ARC neither recommends nor requires the use of a real time V-n diagram at the IOS for use 

during the simulator training. However, if the pertinent information is available, then it is the 

ARC’s view that this will provide value during the UPRT briefing and debriefing. If the V-n 

diagram is used for debriefing, the following guidance should be considered:

1. The V-n diagram should be from the aircraft OEM and specific for the aircraft 

being trained.

2. The instructor should be aware of the following aspects of the V-n diagram: 

a. The diagram is unique for each aircraft.

b. The diagram is three-dimensional, the 3d axis is weight—the diagrams provided 

in flight manuals are typically at maximum gross weight.

c. The data on the V-n diagram will vary with flap setting, altitude and with gust.

d. The V-n diagram depicts the normal operating envelope and does not show the 

safety factor (50 percent under 14 CFR part 25).

e. The simulator, because of limited motion, does not adequately represent the 

load factor.

f. The qualified FSTD does not model the structural characteristics of the 

airplane structure.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 45 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

SIMULATOR FIDELITY AND VALIDATED DATA ENVELOPE

Simulation mathematical models use data extrapolation as a means to extend the simulation 

beyond available data. In effect, the process uses the concept of estimation of the data beyond 

that which is validated with either flight test data or wind tunnel data or which may have been 

obtained through computational fluid dynamics methods. While the extrapolation is based on 

scientific relationships, it is subject to greater uncertainty and therefore poses concern with 

regard to the simulation fidelity when operating in an extrapolated region. Furthermore, the type 

of extrapolation used, such as, linear and biquadratic, may also provide varied degrees of 

accuracy. In UPRT the extrapolation of data related to AOA (Alpha) and sideslip angle (Beta) 

are of key importance and, as such, the validity of the simulation can be assessed with the use of 

an Alpha/Beta plot showing the regions which are (a) validated with flight test data, (b) validated 

with wind tunnel or engineering data and (c) the extrapolated boundary. During the ARC 

deliberations much discussion took place on this topic and some argued the importance of 

instructor understanding of the limitation of the simulation in the extrapolated region, while 

others argued that having such information would not necessarily provide value. The ARC 

neither requires nor recommends the use of Alpha/Beta plots at the IOS for use during UPRT; 

the ARC does, however, recommend instructors be given an indication (Validated-data/

Extrapolated-data) of exceeding the validated data envelopes. The primary purpose of such a 

flag in the first instance is to help the operator and instructor establish that recovery maneuvers, 

while applying the recommend techniques, can generally be completed within the validated 

envelope. If the operator chooses to use a graphical Alpha/Beta plot, which shall be based on 

data provided by the aircraft OEM, then this could be on a maintenance page of the instructor 

operating station.

MALFUNCTIONS

Simulators are commonly used for performing abnormal and emergency procedures and, as such,

are typically equipped with numerous malfunctions that allow for training of the related 

procedures. Some of the malfunctions already available may in some respects be adequate to 

support the training of certain elements defined in the UPRT program. However, it is also 

necessary that additional malfunctions be developed.

For example, a pitch trim runaway is available as part of the abnormal training; however, the 

ARC considers that in a simulator training environment crews are mentally focused on expecting 

malfunctions and as such their responsiveness may be different to that when such a malfunction 

manifests in a real world situation.

Automation failures should be designed to meet the training need/intent. When there is 

degradation of aircraft protection, this should be developed in conjunction with or in accordance 

with the aircraft OEM guidance.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 46 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

AERODYNAMIC SIMULATION

A. Aerodynamics

iii. Aerodynamics (High and Low Altitudes).

iv. Aircraft Performance (High and Low Altitudes).

v. AOA Awareness.

vi. Mach Effects.

Content

A review of 14 CFR part 60, change 1, the requirements for the qualification of FSTDs, confirms 

the D simulators standard for qualification support the required level of fidelity for the training 

of these elements; the ARC therefore does not recommend any improvements regarding 

aerodynamic simulation to the requirements for a level D simulator. 

However, current level C and level 6 FTD qualification requirements do not require the 

aerodynamic modeling for low-altitude level-flight ground effect, mach effect at high altitude, 

aeroelastic representations and nonlinearities because of sideslip. As such, these devices may be 

further limited in providing the necessary fidelity to perform certain parts of the aerodynamic 

training. While these additional areas are not a requirement in the regulation, it is often the case 

that the simulation model includes the required programming. Therefore, the ARC recommends

that level C and level 6 devices be assessed individually. The ARC recommends level C and 

level 6 devices be allowed to provide this training when the programming supports the additional

fidelity, so the devices are adequate for training this element, or parts thereof.

In reviewing part 60, change 1, the standard supports the required level of fidelity for the training 

of AOA up to the critical AOA in the second segment climb configuration and approach or

landing configuration. The QTG for the device should be reviewed to determine whether the 

approach or landing configuration test has been included, and only this configuration should be 

currently used; however, the SPAW ARC recommended improvements in FSTD fidelity for 

training beyond the critical AOA.

Rationale

The ARC considers it necessary to use only those FSTDs that require type-specific simulation 

models for the simulation of the aerodynamic modeling.

The general simulator requirements for qualifying an airplane FFS are described in part 60,

change 1, dated October 30, 2006 and part 60, appendix A (change 1), dated May 9, 2008.

These general requirements for level C and level D FFS require a statement of compliance 

as follows:

“A flight dynamics model that accounts for various combinations of drag and thrust normally 

encountered in flight must correspond to actual flight conditions, including the effect of change 

in airplane attitude, thrust, drag, altitude, temperature, gross weight, moments of inertia, CG

location, and configuration.”

The requirements for a level D simulator improve on the fidelity of a level C simulator and 

require the aerodynamic modeling in the simulator which includes (1) low-altitude level-flight 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 47 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

ground effect, (2) mach effect at high altitude, (3) normal and reverse dynamic thrust effect on 

control surfaces, (4) aeroelastic representations, and (5) nonlinearities because of sideslip.

Similarly, the general requirements for level 6 require a statement of compliance as follows:

“The FTD must provide the proper effect of aerodynamic changes for the combinations of drag 

and thrust normally encountered in flight. This must include the effect of change in airplane 

attitude, thrust, drag, altitude, temperature, and configuration.” 

“Level 6 additionally requires the effects of changes in gross weight and center of gravity.”

Reference

Part 60, change 1, dated October 30, 2006 and part 60, appendix A (Change 1), dated 

May 9, 2008.

D. Awareness

iii. G Load Management

Content

The hexapod-based motion systems are limited in the amount of movement and thus ability to 

provide sustained cuing. The normal method for providing acceleration cuing is to provide an 

onset cue, which simulates the initial acceleration for a short duration, and then through low-pass 

washout filters to provide the effect of a sustained cue through the tilting of the platform and 

using the gravity vector to provide the simulated g cue. While the level of sustained acceleration 

cue is limited in the longitudinal (surge) and lateral (sway) axis, it is not possible to generate any 

sustained cuing in the vertical axis and this is a significant limitation with respect to providing 

g training in a simulator. 

The ARC recommends that in the academics instructors provide emphasis to the lack of g cueing

in the simulator and the potential, in the airplane, for the student to hesitate or have the tendency 

to pull less than appropriate or necessary.

COMPLETION CRITERIA

Define the completion criteria for UPRT in an airplane.

Define the completion criteria for upset prevention criteria for UPRT in an FSTD.

The student shall demonstrate knowledge and skill in recognizing, preventing and, if necessary,

recovering from undesired airplane states. NOTE: Upset prevention and recovery is a 

training maneuver and should not be used in a checking event.

While prevention is the ultimate goal, the pilot shall be able to recognize and recover the 

airplane from an upset in accordance with the manufacturer’s/operators recommended guidance

(or in the absence thereof, with the guidance provided in appendix A of this report) and return 

the airplane to a desired airplane state. As the completion standards for the prevention phase of 

UPRT are not currently defined, the ARC recommends the following be recognized as 

completion standards:

A pilot who has completed UPRT—
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 48 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

• Is aware of his/her surroundings, is vigilant, asks questions, scans the internal and external 

environment, and raises crew awareness of the factors that may lead to an undesired 

airplane state. 

• Will create, communicate, and manage alternative courses of action that reduce the 

likelihood of an upset event or undesired airplane state.

• Promptly recognizes a divergence from the desired airplane state.

• Takes prompt action in the event of a divergence from a desired airplane state.

• Makes or commands the appropriate control inputs to recover the airplane without exceeding 

the airplane’s limitations.

• Correctly applies the manufacturer’s/operator’s recovery techniques according to 

guidance material.

• Involves the necessary resources available to timely and appropriately return the airplane to 

the desired state.

• Demonstrates an ability to recover from a simulator-induced or instructor-induced upset in a 

manner that would not damage the aircraft or injure the passengers or crew.

• Will, if the aircraft is stalled, demonstrate recovery from the stall before initiating recovery 

from the upset.

Assessment examples airplane:

• A trend toward uncoordinated maneuvering.

o Expected behavior: trend announced and corrected.

- Rationale: Uncoordinated stall/LOC–I accident data.

• While executing an intentional slip—

o The student includes in the briefing the impact cross-control maneuvering has on stall 

AOA and IAS.

- Rationale: Uncoordinated stall/LOC–I accident data.

• With the student’s eyes closed or in another way where the student is unable to have visual 

reference, the instructor flies the aircraft and establishes an unusual attitude (either nose high 

or nose low, with bank) and has the student recover.

o The pilot makes the appropriate control responses to recover the aircraft to safe flight 

without exceeding the airplane’s limitations.

- Rationale: General aviation accident data of an unknown upset event.

• While maneuvering in turbulent conditions.

o The student briefs the impact of increased g on stall AOA and IAS.

- Rationale: General aviation in-flight breakup accident data.

Assessment examples FSTD (LOFT/LOS/special purpose operational training):

• The radio altimeter system fails.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 49 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

o Crew awareness and communication of the impact of this system on other systems that 

may result in an undesired airplane state.

- Rationale: Accident data of LOC–I accidents where system anomalies played a role.

• The flight control laws are in a degraded mode because of system anomalies.

o Crew awareness and communication on which protections were lost, and the creation of 

an action plan to mitigate workload and risk for the remainder of the flight.

- Rationale: Flight envelope-protected LOC–I accident data in degraded mode.

• With the student’s eyes closed or in another way where the student is unable to have visual 

reference, the instructor/PM flies the aircraft and establishes an unusual attitude (either nose 

high or nose low, with bank) and has the pilot recover.

o The student makes the appropriate control responses to recover the aircraft to safe flight 

without exceeding the airplane’s limitations.

- Rationale: Accident data of an unknown upset event.

• The aircraft is operating at its thrust-limited altitude and weather appears on the 

weather radar.

o Crew awareness and communication of an action plan that changes altitude or lateral 

flightpath, or both, considering the thrust limit concern and consequences.

- Accident/incident data of high-altitude stall or approach to stall.

Examples are given to stimulate the thinking of the training manager. The training manager

should develop scenarios specific to the operating environment and applicable to the category 

and class of aircraft flown by the pilot to add relevance to the learning experience.

During dual received instruction, the student must show achievement of the 

completion standards. 

UPRT scenarios may be completed separately or may be combined with other training tasks.

AIRCRAFT TRAINING RISK MITIGATION

Define the risk mitigation strategies required for UPRT in an airplane.

ON-AIRCRAFT TRAINING—RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES 

Based on the training prescribed to be conducted in the aircraft, the ARC considers there are no 

additional risks posed by the nature of this training. However, to minimize the inherent risks in 

this specialized training, the ARC recommends that any training facility conducting in-airplane

UPRT meet the following requirements:

1. Conducts training with due consideration of geographical and weather limitations, and any 

other limitations as provided for by the regulations under which such training is performed. 

2. Is evaluated by an adequately trained inspector with UPRT experience on their ability to 

provide such training in the context of air transport operations.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 50 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

3. The instructor providing UPRT training has undergone specific UPRT instructor training for 

academics and on-airplane training and has been evaluated and qualified to provide UPRT.

4. Completed the pertinent academics training elements supporting the flight training before the 

on-aircraft training. 

5. The instructor should be trained in the aircraft on how to recognize improper student inputs 

and recover the airplane to safe flight.

6. Receives briefing and debriefing on each UPRT element to be trained in flight.

7. UPRT is provided in dual instruction only.

8. UPRT is provided in day visual meteorological conditions only, but should include training 

in both visual and simulated instrument conditions.

9. Completed a risk assessment acceptable to the Administrator pertaining to the UPRT 

maneuvers, with due consideration to the types of events which may occur during this 

training, the probability of such events, the impact the event may have on the training or 

otherwise, an appropriate mitigation strategy and any contingency plans toward 

minimizing risk. 

10. Instructors and students must do a risk assessment and briefing prior to each UPRT flight 

covering the anticipated risks of the flight, and include TEM strategies and possible 

emergency scenarios.

11. Aircraft used for performing UPRT are certified to a suitable category for performing the 

specific training elements. For example, inverted flight may be completed only in an aircraft 

in the aerobatic category, or in an airplane certified for inverted flight.

ADDITIONAL RISK MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS

In addition to the above requirements, those organizations conducting training beyond 

60 degrees bank angle should ensure the following:

1. The training organization is approved to provide aerobatic flight training in an airplane, to 

include the use of parachutes.

2. For applicable training elements the instructor should be approved to provide flight training 

in an aerobatic airplane, to include the use of parachutes.

3. The recommendations in this report regarding the on-aircraft training primarily apply to 

commercial pilot certificated training. However, if the pilot is receiving on-aircraft training 

while holding a type rating on and flying a transport category aircraft, then as a precaution

the in aircraft training g loads should be within the normal limits for the transport category 

aircraft that the pilot normally operates. That is, if the transport category aircraft is limited to 

2.5 g, then regardless of the training aircraft capability the 2.5 g limit should be respected to

prevent the transfer of negative training.

FSTD TRAINING RISK MITIGATION

Define the risk mitigation strategies regarding negative transfer of training required 

for UPRT.

The most significant concern with UPRT pertains to the potential of negative transfer of training, 

which may result from many factors including the improper simulation of the upset condition, 

the improper behavior of the simulator to the upset condition, the improper response of the key 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 51 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

feedback cuing (motion, visual, sound) during the upset condition, or improper instruction. 

Furthermore, because the simulator environment is free of physical danger the pilot’s

performance can differ from that in the aircraft, which could be different depending on the 

specific maneuver and the overall performance of the simulation environment.

For UPRT, the potential of negative transfer of training is increased for a number of reasons.

It is therefore imperative that each of the training elements be closely reviewed in view of the 

possible effect of the simulation on any transfer of negative training. Simulator training must 

not lead the student to contribute to or compound an upset condition if experienced in the 

actual aircraft.

Specific consideration should be given to the following:

Inducing an Upset

One of the key concerns stemming from the review of LOC events is the surprise or startle 

factor, and the ARC considers this an important factor for effective UPRT. However, to ensure a 

positive transfer of training, it is equally important that upsets are induced both unexpectedly and 

realistically. Furthermore, to prevent the negative transfer of training, there must be no artificial 

inputs, and the simulator should respond to the pilot inputs appropriately for the flight condition. 

In at least one accident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that the 

manner in which the unusual attitude maneuver was programmed was potentially a factor in 

the pilot’s response to the aircraft upset and may have contributed to the probable cause of the 

fatal accident.

Instructor Feedback

The instructor role in the delivery of UPRT is a core part of the effectiveness of performing this 

training in an FSTD. To effectively mitigate the limitations of the simulation environment, the 

instructor would need to be fully cognizant of the overall behavior of the simulated aircraft 

response, in particular the pilot inputs and the following:

• Attitudes, airspeed, altitude, AOA, beta, g load.

• Primary flight control input (position and force).

• Secondary flight controls—trim/stab, speed brake, flap.

• Warnings (audible and shaker), shaker/pusher trigger and limits (CL-max) 

• Automated full/aerodynamic stall sequence, which can be initiated by the instructor at 

low or high altitude (for use in a demonstration mode only).

• Overall aircraft view.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 52 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to the recommendations made in this report the ARC wishes to address the gap that 

will occur between currently trained pilots and pilots who will receive this training in the future. 

Once UPRT guidance is published with an implementation date, the ARC recommends the new 

UPRT requirements for commercial pilot certificated training be required for pilots obtaining 

their commercial pilot certificate after the implementation date.

The ARC understands the difficulty with introducing UPRT into the current training 

environment. The ARC recognizes the impracticality and high risk of introducing on-aircraft 

UPRT to all pilots who hold a commercial or ATP certificate. In light of this, the ARC 

recommends the FAA provide to all current pilots information on the benefits of obtaining 

on-aircraft UPRT and recommends that all current commercial pilot certificate holders choose to 

obtain the optional on-aircraft UPRT in the interest of safety.

The ARC considers that for type-rated pilots who have not experienced UPRT during their 

commercial pilot certificated training or any other training (such as military flight training), they 

can obtain some of this training and knowledge within current training programs. However,

there may be a need during this transition period to improve the knowledge and skills of the 

current pilot population with an enhanced training program during recurrent training (academic 

and FSTD). This enhanced training, hereby called UPRT Fundamental training should include a 

proper foundation of elements and concepts that are required during the commercial pilot 

certificated training phase of a pilots’ career. This training should be completed using academics 

and FSTD (no airplane training) and provide an emphasis on the knowledge and skills to prevent 

upsets, or if not prevented, support the recovery of upsets. For all type-rated pilots, the ARC 

believes the FAA will need to propose a way for operators to transition and introduce UPRT into 

both type and recurrent training. Because UPRT is a new skill, it will have to be developed with 

repetition over time.

Thus, the ARC recommends that at the first occurrence of UPRT at the type-rating level, either 

during initial or recurrent, all type-rated pilots and instructors shall undergo UPRT Fundamental 

training. UPRT Fundamental training is a dedicated course of academic and FSTD training to 

introduce the UPRT knowledge elements from the commercial pilot certificated training level, in 

addition to the initial academic and flight training type rating elements prescribed in this 

document. This training may be combined with other scheduled training events.

The fundamental training curriculum shall provide adequate FSTD time to allow the pilot to 

consolidate the theoretical and practical knowledge and to demonstrate proficiency in aircraft 

upset prevention and recovery.

Once pilots undergoing their first UPRT training have completed the UPRT Fundamental 

training, which includes all academic and FSTD flight elements prescribed in this document, 

pilots undergoing recurrent training shall be trained in representative academic and flight training 

elements prescribed in this section every recurrent training cycle for three cycles. This is to 

provide maximum training to all pilots and raise UPRT knowledge levels in an effort to mitigate 

LOC accidents.

As mentioned in the instructor qualification section, as well as the risk mitigation sections (see 

pages 49 and 50), of this document, the quality of the instructors teaching UPRT is crucial to the 

UPRT program success. The ARC recommends instructors at the type-rating level shall first 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 53 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

undergo the UPRT Fundamental training curriculum as a student, then be trained as instructors to 

teach the various UPRT programs at their training entities. The FAA shall prescribe and oversee 

UPRT program manager requirements and train-the-trainer instructor requirements consistent 

with the many comments in this report regarding UPRT instructor qualification, experience level, 

standardization, and requalification.

One strategy to improve UPRT knowledge throughout an organization would be, for example, to 

choose senior instructors who will become the SMEs on UPRT for their respective organizations. 

These instructors will undergo on-aircraft UPRT provided at the commercial pilot certificated 

training level by approved training entities, followed by the UPRT Instructor (Airplane) course. 

Once these SMEs return to their own training organizations, they can then train the other 

instructors and oversee the UPRT curriculum and instructor standardization.

Once all instructors have learned upset prevention and recovery skills, the goal should be for 

them to integrate upset prevention, recognition, and recovery throughout the entire training 

curriculum while still offering dedicated UPRT during type-specific and recurrent training 

sessions.

Because the AURTA, Revision 2 was initially developed for large transport category aircraft, 

and the goal is to align UPRT as much as possible between commercial pilot certificated training

and type training to minimize unlearning and negative transfer of training, the ARC recommends 

the FAA sponsor research to define areas of possible negative transfer of training for UPRT at 

the commercial pilot certificated training level for pilots who will attend type training. The 

research should also produce training guidance and mitigation strategies for avoiding and 

minimizing risk associated with any identified problem areas.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | 54 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

SUMMARY

In conclusion, the ARC recommends improvements for flightcrew training in the area of LOC–

Inflight. The ARC recommends that for the greatest impact on safety, the FAA Associate 

Administrator for Aviation Safety adopt recommendations placing special emphasis on 

knowledge and manual flight operations development throughout a pilot’s career.

Following review of many previous working group reports from the past two decades the ARC

commends its predecessors’ excellent work in the subject areas and has highlighted 

two documents of particular interest to aviation safety. The AURTA, Revision 2, has functioned 

as not only background, but also as a source document. Further, FAA AC 120–109, issued 

recently by the FAA, addresses an important part of the upsets studied, namely training in stall 

and approach to stall. The ARC recommends the FAA retain these as source documents. 

Issues identified in this report include the lack of instructor knowledge, qualification, and 

standardization. Based on surveys, presentations, and experiences of ARC members, it was 

apparent that while standardization may exist among instructors within a training organization, 

there was limited instructor standardization among the industry training providers that were 

surveyed. The ARC concludes that incorporating this report’s recommendations will provide for

better standardization of training delivery and improved quality of training, as well as providing 

risk mitigation for on-airplane training during the commercial pilot certificated training phase of 

a pilot’s career.

A second issue identified was the lack of knowledge on items that could have an impact on LOC. 

The ARC recommended improved academic knowledge training at the commercial pilot 

certificated training level as well as the type rating level. This knowledgebase can lead directly 

to the ability to prevent an event, and should be introduced as a requirement during commercial 

pilot certificated training and type rating training.

In addition to the tasks assigned to the ARC, the airplane OEM group established 

recommendations attached in appendix A that should serve as a template for all aircraft 

manufacturers for the development of, and revisions to, UPRT and flightcrew guidance. 

The ARC recommends changing the training description from Upset Recovery/Unusual Attitude 

Training to Upset Awareness, Prevention, and Recovery Training. This is to stress the 

requirement for knowledge to create awareness and being able to prevent an occurrence is the 

desired result of training, rather than waiting for recovery. This training includes on-airplane 

training at the commercial pilot certificated training level for professional pilots and FSTD 

training at the type rating level and should include hands-on skill-based training on airplane 

responses and energy management.

To minimize risks for on-airplane training, this report includes several recommendations 

for consideration.

The term recovery is used often in this report to mean any pilot’s actions to avoid any divergence 

from a desired airplane state, and not to wait until a specific assigned attitude or speed is 

achieved. Awareness and prevention serve to avoid incidents; recovery serves to recover from 

an event.

The members of the ARC wish to thank the Administrator for the opportunity to offer these 

recommendations. We remain available for further consultations as necessary.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | A–1 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

APPENDIX A—OEM UPSET PREVENTION AND RECOVERY RECOMMENDATIONS

The following upset prevention and recovery template was created by Airbus, ATR, Boeing, 

Bombardier and Embraer. The OEM recovery techniques will be updated in their respective

manuals and remain consistent with the information contained in the AURTA, Revision 2. It is 

important to note that correct interpretation and application of techniques and recommendations 

can only be determined when the supporting information is well understood.

The following techniques represent a logical progression for recovering the aircraft. They are 

not necessarily procedural. The sequence of actions is for guidance only and represents a series 

of options for the pilot to consider and to use depending on the situation. Not all actions may, or 

should, be necessary once recovery is underway. If needed, use pitch trim sparingly. Careful 

use of rudder to aid roll control should be considered only if roll control is ineffective and the 

airplane is not stalled

These techniques assume the aircraft is not stalled. A stalled condition can exist at any 

attitude and may be recognized by continuous stall warning activation accompanied by one 

of the following:

• Buffeting, which could be heavy at times.

• Lack of pitch authority and/or roll control.

• Inability to arrest descent rate.

If the aircraft is stalled, recovery from the stall must be accomplished first by applying 

and maintaining nose-down elevator until stall recovery is complete and stick shaker 

activation ceases.

NOTE: Operators should work with their airplane manufacturer(s) to ensure they have the 

manufacturer-approved, airplane-specific upset prevention and recovery guidance and 

techniques in their operating manual. 

NOTE: The manufacturer’s procedures take precedence over the following recommendations:

Nose-High Recommendation 1

Recognize and confirm the developing situation. Announce: "Nose High" 

PF PM 2

AP - DISCONNECT Monitor Airspeed and Attitude 

throughout the recovery and 

announce any continued 

divergence.

A/THR - OFF

APPLY as much nose down control input as required to obtain a nose-down pitch rate. 

Thrust - Adjust (if required)

Roll - Adjust (if required) not to exceed 60 degrees

When Airspeed is sufficiently increasing: 3RECOVER to level flight

1

If the AP and/or A/THR are responding correctly, it may not be appropriate to decrease the level of automation while 

assessing if the divergence is being stopped. 

2 A large out of trim condition could be encountered when the A/P is disconnected. 

3 Avoid stall because of premature recovery or excessive g loading.

Recovery to level flight may require use of pitch trim.

Warning: Excessive use of pitch trim or rudder may aggravate the upset situation or may result 

in high structural loads.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | A–2 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Nose-Low Recommendation 1

Recognize and confirm the developing situation. Announce: "Nose Low " 

PF PM 2

AP - DISCONNECT Monitor Airspeed and Attitude 

throughout the recovery and 

announce any continued 

divergence.

A/THR - OFF

RECOVER from stall if required 

3

ROLL in the shortest direction to wings level. 

Thrust and Drag Adjust (if required) 4

Recover to level flight

1

If the AP and/or A/THR are responding correctly, it may not be appropriate to decrease the level of automation while 

assessing if the divergence is being stopped. 

2

A large out of trim condition could be encountered when the A/P is disconnected. 

3

It may be necessary to reduce the g loading by applying forward control pressure to improve roll effectiveness. 

4

Avoid stall because of premature recovery or excessive g loading.

Recovery to level flight may require use of pitch trim. 

Warning: Excessive use of pitch trim or rudder may aggravate the upset situation or may result 

in high structural loads

OEM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRAINING

With focus upon awareness and avoidance, it is the OEMs’ motivation to ensure pilots are 

properly taught to operate their airplanes. Passing a type rating check ride is not a measure of 

how well the pilots understands the performance of the airplane throughout the entire operating 

envelope, because the check is completed in a very narrow band of operating performance.

Training programs leading up to type rating checks usually focus on the environment to be 

tested, rather than the larger operating environment to which the pilots will be systematically 

exposed. Moreover, autopilots systematically manage the larger portion of the operating 

envelope where the pilots will usually fly. Therefore, it is impossible for any pilot to become 

aware and avoid an upset without practical knowledge of the performance available (or not 

available) throughout a wider portion of the airplane’s capabilities.

It is unreasonable to develop training sequences at the edges, or even beyond the normal 

envelope, without first exposing pilots to the airplane’s capabilities within the operating 

envelope. Combined with adequate training for recognition and recovery from stalls, simple 

exercises to expose the pilot to airplane capabilities will add volume benefits toward 

upset avoidance.

Upon completion of academic training, these FSTD exercises are a prerequisite for the 

performance envelope demonstration training of a given airplane. 

ENERGY AWARENESS 

Demonstrate acceleration between two speeds at which an airplane is capable of flying at low 

altitude, medium and high altitude. For example, 200–250 knots at low altitude and high 

altitude, which corresponds to Mach at high altitude: Observe time to reach target speed.

Demonstrate acceleration performance from the second regime (back side of power curve) at low 

altitude and high altitude: Observe capability and determine only option (if available thrust will 

not permit acceleration, the only option will be to accelerate by descending).
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | A–3 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Demonstrate the relationship between Max Cruise, Climb, MCT, and TOGA power settings at 

high altitude.

Demonstrate acceleration capabilities through descent versus power application.

• The objective is to understand the advantage of using elevator instead of thrust levers to 

regain control.

• Observe a rapid acceleration during descent versus the slow acceleration previously 

demonstrated with only the use of power. 

FLIGHT CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS 

Demonstrate a defined control deflection at a fixed Vc at both low altitude and high altitude. 

• For example, a 2-cm deflection of pitch control at a common Vc between mean sea level 

(MSL) and Max Altitude. 

• Observe the airplane reaction.

• Demonstrate high-speed buffet (if applicable) and low-speed buffet. 

• Observe the airplane performance.

• Demonstrate roll rate performance of the airplane at different speeds and different 

configurations.

• Maximum CG range can be included in pitch sensitivity demonstration if necessary. 

• Demonstrate Mach buffet exercises, if applicable.

OEM-RECOMMENDED TRAINING SEQUENCES

Regulatory Subset

• Training Assumption: Regulatory subset is irrelevant for commercial operations.

Flight Control Automation

• Training Assumption: All scenarios will be demonstrated to effectively teach the student 

when (or if) to disconnect the autoflight system. For example, if transitioning a wake 

encounter, it may be best to leave the autoflight system engaged rather than disconnecting it 

as long as the autoflight system is performing.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Conditions: For example, Mountain Wave, Rotor Cloud, Horizontal, and Vertical Windshear.

Training: Demonstrate how a rapid windshear can alter the flightpath of a high-altitude aircraft.

Rationale: High-Altitude Upset with environmental factors as a causal factor.

WAKE VORTEX

Conditions: Takeoff and Approach configuration—behind a Heavy aircraft
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | A–4 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Training: Demonstrate how a prompt roll can alter the flightpath of an aircraft.

Rationale: Awareness of how a vortex can affect the aircraft, that is, different roll capabilities 

and mass of the aircraft would affect how a pilot would respond to a wake encounter. Particular 

emphasis on time to transition through the vortex and effective mitigation strategies.

MECHANICAL/SYSTEM INDUCED

Conditions: Upset as a functions of roll, yaw and pitch path failures.

Training: Demonstrate how a failure or degradation of flight controls affecting each axis can 

create an upset. Training has to be aircraft-specific to correctly reflect failure mode of that 

aircraft (for example, hydraulics/fly-by-wire/autopilot failure).

Rationale: Aircraft-specific training to showcase how a flight control failure can create an upset 

and how to mitigate (for example, rudder hard over/runaway, demonstrate stab/spoiler 

float/engine loss). 

STALL

According to AC 120–109 and the SPAW ARC recommendations.

PILOT FACTORS

Conditions: Loss of pilot situational awareness leading to LOC.

Training: Highlight how loss of situational awareness can allow a flightpath degradation 

leading to LOC (for example, loss of autothrottles; misusing pitch, roll or yaw trim; engine loss; 

airspeed loss from International Standard Atmosphere deviation when too high; forgetting to 

reengage autothrottle after making an entry in an engine monitor log).

Rationale: Recent accidents have shown a failure of crews to effectively monitor their aircraft 

energy state and/or understand system logic

ENERGY MANAGEMENT

ENGINE PERFORMANCE/POWER

Conditions: Demonstrate acceleration between two speeds of which the aircraft is capable at 

low altitude, medium and high altitude. For example, 200–250 knots at low altitude and high 

altitude which corresponds to mach at high altitude.

Training: Observe time to reach target speed in level flight and in descending flight.

Rationale: Demonstrate and highlight the performance decrement at higher density altitudes.

AIRCRAFT ACCELERATION

Condition: Demonstrate acceleration performance from the second regime (back side of power 

curve) at low altitude and high altitude.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | A–5 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Training: Observe capability and determine the only option (if available thrust will not permit 

acceleration, the only option will be to accelerate by descending).

Rationale: Demonstrate the potentially different recovery technique from flight in the second 

regime at low altitude versus high altitude.

HIGH ALTITUDE ENGINE POWER MANAGEMENT

Condition: Demonstrate the relationship between Max Cruise/Climb/MCT and TOGA at 

high altitude.

Training: Highlight to the student the practical relationship between available engine power 

modes at high altitude.

Rationale: Teach the student that TOGA is not likely to produce more power at max altitude 

than cruise power, for example.

HIGH ALTITUDE ENERGY MANAGEMENT

Condition: Demonstrate acceleration capabilities through descent versus power application.

Training: Objective is to understand the advantage of using elevator instead of thrust levers to 

regain the desired energy state (observe a rapid acceleration during descent versus the slow 

acceleration previously demonstrated with only use of power).

Rationale: Demonstrate the inability of the aircraft to power out of a high-altitude slow-down.

FLIGHT CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS

Condition: Demonstrate a defined control deflection at a fixed Vc at both low altitude and 

high altitude.

Training: Demonstrate how a fixed flight control deflection is different at low and high altitude 

(for example, a 2-cm deflection of pitch control at a common Vc between MSL and Max Altitude 

and observe the airplane reaction).

Rationale: Student appreciation of high-altitude response differences to same flight 

control input.

BUFFET

Condition: Demonstrate high-speed buffet and low-speed buffet.

Training: Demonstrate the aircraft behavior at the low- and high-speed buffet entry. Highlight

how loading the aircraft in a high-speed buffet will aggravate the condition.

Rationale: Teach the student to correctly identify the low- and high-speed buffet with 

corresponding recovery techniques.

ROLL CAPABILITIES

Condition: Demonstrate roll rate performance of the airplane at different speeds and different 

configurations and with flight spoilers retracted/extended if a difference exists (for example, on 

the B727).
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | A–6 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Training: Demonstrate roll response at Vref versus clean, and IAS 250 knots, Vmo and Mmo.

Rationale: Demonstrate the full roll capabilities of the aircraft are.

PITCH CAPABILITIES

Condition: Demonstrate pitch rate performance of the airplane at different speeds and different 

configurations and with flaps retracted/extended. Also, show an aft CG versus a forward CG if 

flight qualities are significantly different.

Training: Demonstrate pitch response at Vref versus clean, and IAS 250 knots, Vmo and Mmo.

Rationale: Demonstrate the full pitch capabilities of the aircraft.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | B–1 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

APPENDIX B—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 14 CFR PART 60

Table A1A—Minimum Simulator Requirements, Entry No. 2.m.

Entry # General Simulator Requirements A B C D Notes

2.m

(append)

Upset Prevention, Recognition, and Recovery. 

The simulator shall be capable of 

performing upset prevention, recognition,

and recovery training as approved under 

the sponsor’s training program.

Aerodynamic Evaluation: The simulator must be 

evaluated for each specific upset prevention and 

recovery maneuver for the purpose of determining 

that the combination of AOA and sideslip does not 

exceed the range of validated data or wind 

tunnel/analytical data while performing the 

recovery maneuver.

The following minimum set of upset prevention and 

recovery maneuvers must be available to the 

instructor/evaluator. 

1. A nose-high, wings-level aircraft upset. 

2. A nose-low, wings-level aircraft upset. 

3. A high bank-angle aircraft upset.

Other upset prevention and recovery scenarios as 

developed by the FFS sponsor must be evaluated in 

the same manner.

To avoid a potential negative transfer of 

training, the intentional degradation of 

simulator functionality to drive an aircraft

upset is generally not acceptable unless 

used purely as a tool for repositioning the 

FSTD with the pilot unaware.

Special consideration should be given to 

the motion system response during UPRT 

maneuvers. Notwithstanding the 

limitations of simulator motion, specific 

emphasis should be placed on tuning out 

any responses of effects that have the 

potential for the transfer of negative 

training.

Aircraft system malfunctions or other 

malfunctions may be used to cause an 

aircraft upset; however, the effects of these 

X X This section applies to the 

qualification of all upset 

prevention, recognition,

and recovery maneuvers 

that are to be conducted 

on the FSTD.

The upsets should be 

primarily based on criteria 

defined in the AURTA 

Revision 2.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | B–2 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

malfunctions should be representative of 

the aircraft and where possible supported 

by data. 

Specific features and/or malfunctions for 

use in UPRT are not prescribed, the 

operator may use appropriate available 

features/malfunctions or ensure a 

minimum are available to allow for the 

following:

• Selection of features, or 

malfunctions, specifically tailored 

to allow for the training of crew 

awareness of a potential upset 

condition should be provided. 

• Selection of features, or 

malfunctions, to allow for the 

training of crew “Recognition” of a 

developing upset condition should 

be provided.

• Selection of features, or 

malfunctions, to allow for the 

training of crew “Recovery” of a 

developed upset condition should 

be provided.

These features/malfunctions shall be 

evaluated in conjunction with the 

aerodynamic assessment described above.

Instructor Operating System (IOS):

To allow for controlled training of upset prevention 

and recovery the following features as listed below, 

or equivalent, must be provided:

- A means to play back audio and video.

- A means to record and play back pertinent 

parameters including—

- Weight and center of gravity.

- Attitudes, airspeed, altitude, AOA, beta, 

g load. 

- Primary flight control position and force.

- Secondary flight controls: stabilizer/trim, 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | B–3 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

speed brake, flap, gear.

- Warnings (audible and shaker), 

shaker/pusher trigger, and limits (CL-max).

The data recording may be in time history 

or graphical format.

Selectable aircraft upsets must provide guidance to 

the instructor concerning the method used to drive 

the FFS into an upset condition including any 

malfunction or degradation in the FFS functionality 

required to initiate the upset. 

The simulator must have a mechanism in place to 

notify the instructor/evaluator when the simulator’s 

flight test validated and/or wind tunnel/analytical 

envelope, in terms of angle of attack and sideslip, 

have been exceeded during an UPRT task.

The simulator must also have a mechanism in place 

to notify the instructor/evaluator when the aircraft 

operating limits have been exceeded during an 

UPRT task. 

Statement of Compliance

1. A statement of compliance (SOC) is 

required that defines the source data used 

to construct the flight test and wind 

tunnel/analytical envelope. 

2. The SOC must verify that each upset 

prevention and recovery feature 

programmed at the instructor station, and 

the associated training maneuver has been 

evaluated by a suitably qualified pilot

using methods described in this section. 

The statement should confirm that the 

recovery maneuver can be performed such 

that the simulation does not exceed the 

flight test and wind tunnel envelope 

described above, or when it is exceeded 

then it is within the realm of confidence in 

the simulation accuracy.

3. The SOC should confirm the source of 

data used for the operating limits which 

are used to provide the instructor 

indications or warnings on approaching or 

exceeding these limits.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | C–1 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

APPENDIX C—SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of safety recommendations arising from accident investigations relating to training for 

stalls and LOC

Accident Accident Report Recommendation

Accident on 

November 27, 2008

off the coast of Canet-Plage

to the Airbus A320–232

registered D–AXLA

operated by XL Airways,

Germany

The Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile (BEA)

recommends the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), in cooperation with 

manufacturers, improve training exercises and techniques relating to 

approach-to-stall to ensure control of the aeroplane in the pitch axis.

Interim Report No. 3

On the accident on 

June 1, 2009

to the Airbus A330–203

registered F–GZCP

operated by Air France

Flight AF 447 

Rio de Janeiro–Paris

The BEA recommends EASA review the content of check and training programs and 

make mandatory, in particular, the setting up of specific and regular exercises 

dedicated to manual aircraft handling of approach to stall and stall recovery, 

including at high altitude.

Crashed during approach, 

Boeing 737–800,

near Amsterdam Schiphol 

Airport,

February 25, 2009

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), ICAO, FAA and EASA should 

change their regulations in such a way that airlines and flight training organizations 

include in their recurrent training programs practicing recovery from stall situations 

on approach.

REPORT ON THE 

SERIOUS INCIDENT 

OVER GLACIER 

FOLGEFONNA, 

NORWAY ON 14. 

SEPTEMBER 2005 WITH 

ATR 42–320, LN–FAO, 

OPERATED BY 

COAST AIR AS

It is important that flightcrews on the ATR 42 know by heart the manual actions to 

take if uncommanded roll movements occur during icing conditions. This is to avoid 

losing control of the aircraft, and/or to regain control more quickly. Experience has 

shown that crews forget to extend flaps to 15°. The Accident Investigation Board 

Norway (AIBN) recommends the Civil Aviation Authority Norway (CAA–N)

request EASA reconsider the layout of the procedure in question in airplane flight 

manual in consultation with ATR. The item on setting flaps to 15° after losing 

control in icing conditions ought to be an item that should be known by heart, and 

this should be reflected in the manufacturer’s training program.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | C–2 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Accident Accident Report Recommendation

Boeing B747–400

G–BYGA

Group ‘A’ L/E Flaps 

retracted on Takeoff

from O.R. Tambo Airport,

SOUTH AFRICA.

May 11, 2009

It is recommended that the Regulatory and Certificating Authorities of all states of 

design and states of manufacture should introduce requirements to operators that 

they should provide flightcrews with more basic hand flying and simulator flight 

training on new generation aircraft to address the technological developments in 

aviation, inclusive of effective stall training.

Date and time Monday, 

February 28, 2005, 

06:16 UTC

Site Barcelona Airport

AIRCRAFT

Registration EC–IHD

Type and model 

Cessna 208B 

Grand Caravan

It is recommended that the Spanish Civil Aviation Authority (DGAC) ask 

commercial aerial transport companies to carry out specific periodic training courses 

on flight in adverse meteorological conditions that would, at least, cover aspects such 

as the following:

• Conditions of ice formation and how to recognize them.

• Types of ice.

• Formation of ice on the aircraft.

• Recovery procedures.

• Procedures in icing conditions on the ground.

• Capability and limits of deicing and anti-icing equipment and systems.

MD82 EC–HFP

Spanair

Madrid-Barajas

August 20, 2008

It is recommended that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States and European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) jointly promote the holding of an international conference, to 

be attended by every civil aviation representative organization, such as authorities, 

industry, academic and research institutions, professional associations and the like, 

for the purpose of drafting directives on good industry practices in the area of 

aviation operations as they apply to checklist design, personnel training and 

improved procedures and cockpit work methods so as to ensure that crews properly 

configure aircraft for takeoffs and landings.

MD82 EC–HFP

Spanair

Madrid-Barajas

August 20, 2008

It is recommended that the FAA and EASA require takeoff stall recovery as part of 

initial and recurring training programs for airline transport pilots. .(REC 18/11)

MD82 EC–HFP

Spanair

Madrid-Barajas

August 20, 2008

It is recommended that EASA establish requirements for flight simulators to allow

simulator training to cover sustained takeoff stalls that reproduce situations that 

could exceed the flight envelope limits. (REC 20/11)
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | C–3 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Accident Accident Report Recommendation

MD82 EC–HFP

Spanair

Madrid-Barajas

August 20, 2008

It is recommended that EASA and national civil aviation authorities, when 

evaluating operator training programs, expressly ensure that—

• The concept of sterile cockpit is stressed, along with the consequences of even 

minor distractions

• Examples of accidents are included in which noncompliance with regulations 

involving the sterile cockpit was a relevant factor. (REC 22/11)

MD82 EC–HFP

Spanair

Madrid-Barajas

August 20, 2008

It is recommended that EASA standardize the CRM training that must be provided to 

the operations inspectors of national authorities, and define the criteria that must be 

met by said inspectors in order to exercise their duties as inspectors in the area of 

CRM. (REC 27/11)

MD82 EC–HFP

Spanair

Madrid-Barajas

August 20, 2008

It is recommended that the FAA and EASA study and assess the stall recovery 

procedure in the flight manuals of large transport airplanes to include a check of the 

flap/slat lever and its adjustment, if required. (REC 19/11)

Colgan Air 3407

Buffalo, February 12, 2009

Dash–8 Q400

Develop a process for verifying, validating, auditing, and amending pilot training 

records at 14 CFR, parts 121, 135, and 91K operators to guarantee the accuracy and 

completeness of the records. (A–10–20) Direct parts 121, 135, and 91K operators of 

airplanes equipped with a reference speeds switch or similar device to (1) develop 

procedures to establish that, during approach and landing, airspeed reference bugs 

are always matched to the position of the switch and (2) implement specific training 

to ensure that pilots demonstrate proficiency in this area. (A-10-21)

Colgan Air 3407

Buffalo, February 12, 2009

Dash–8 Q400

Require parts 121, 135, and 91K operators and 14 CFR, part 142 training centers to 

develop and conduct training that incorporates stalls that are fully developed; are 

unexpected; involve autopilot disengagement; and include airplane-specific features, 

such as a reference speeds switch. (A-10-22)

Colgan Air 3407

Buffalo, February 12, 2009

Dash–8 Q400

Require all 14 CFR, parts 121, 135, and 91K operators of stick pusher-equipped 

aircraft to provide their pilots with pusher familiarization simulator training.

(A-10-23) (Supersedes Safety Recommendation A-07-4)

Colgan Air 3407

Buffalo, February 12, 2009

Dash–8 Q400

Define and codify minimum simulator model fidelity requirements to support an 

expanded set of stall recovery training requirements, including recovery from stalls 

that are fully developed. These simulator fidelity requirements should address areas 

such as required angle-of-attack and sideslip angle ranges, motion cuing, 

proof-of-match with post-stall flight test data, and warnings to indicate when the 

simulator flight envelope has been exceeded. (A-10-24)

Formatted: English (U.K.)

Formatted: English (U.K.)
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | C–4 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Accident Accident Report Recommendation

Colgan Air 3407

Buffalo, February 12, 2009

Dash–8 Q400

Identify which airplanes operated under parts 121, 135, and 91K are susceptible to 

tailplane stalls and then (1) require operators of those airplanes to provide an 

appropriate airplane-specific tailplane stall recovery procedure in their training 

manuals and company procedures and (2) direct operators of those airplanes that are

not susceptible to tailplane stalls to ensure that training and company guidance for 

the airplanes explicitly states this lack of susceptibility and contains no references to 

tailplane stall recovery procedures. (A-10-25)

Adam Air 574

January 1, 2007

B737–400

The National Transportation Safety Committee of Indonesia recommends that the 

Directorate General Civil Aviation (DGCA) ensure that all Indonesian airlines 

include the following in their syllabus of initial and recurrency training: 

1. Aircraft upset prevention and recovery training; both ground school and 

simulator; and 

2. The spatial disorientation and its effects.

USAir 427

September 8, 1994

B737–300

The NTSB determines the probable cause of the USAir flight 427 accident was a loss 

of control of the airplane resulting from the movement of the rudder surface to its 

blowdown limit. The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to 

that commanded by the pilots because of a jam of the main rudder power control unit 

servo valve secondary slide to the servo valve housing offset from its neutral position 

and overtravel of the primary slide.

American Eagle 4184

October 31, 1994

ATR72

The NTSB determines the probable causes of this accident were the loss of control, 

attributed to a sudden and unexpected aileron hinge moment reversal that occurred 

after a ridge of ice accreted beyond the deice boots because: 1) ATR failed to 

completely disclose to operators, and incorporate in the ATR 72 airplane flight 

manual, flightcrew operating manual and flightcrew training programs, adequate 

information concerning previously known effects of freezing precipitation on the 

stability and control characteristics, autopilot and related operational procedures 

when the ATR 72 was operated in such conditions; 2) the French Directorate General 

for Civil Aviation’s (DGAC’s) inadequate oversight of the ATR 42 and 72, and its 

failure to take the necessary corrective action to ensure continued airworthiness in 

icing conditions; and 3) the DGAC’s failure to provide the FAA with timely 

airworthiness information developed from previous ATR incidents and accidents in 

icing conditions, as specified under the Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement and 

Annex 8 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

Contributing to the accident were: 

1) The FAA’s failure to ensure that aircraft icing certification requirements, 

operational requirements for flight into icing conditions, and FAA published aircraft 

icing information adequately accounted for the hazards that can result from flight in 

freezing rain and other icing conditions not specified in 14 CFR), part 25, 

appendix C; and 2) the FAA’s inadequate oversight of the ATR 42 and 72 to ensure 

continued airworthiness in icing conditions.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | C–5 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Accident Accident Report Recommendation

China Air 006

February 19, 1985

B747SP

The NTSB determines the probable cause of this accident was the captain’s 

preoccupation with an in-flight malfunction and his failure to monitor properly the 

airplane’s flight instruments which resulted in his losing control of the airplane.

Contributing to the accident was the captain’s over-reliance on the autopilot after the 

loss of thrust on the No. 4 engine.

Pan Am Clipper 

Washington

December 8, 1963

B707–120

Pan American Boeing 707–120 Reg: N712PA named ”Clipper Washington” Dive 

over North Atlantic near Newfoundland on a flight from Paris via London at 

22.05 GMT (16.05 EDT). The jet experienced an emergency descent of 29,000 ft 

from 35,000 ft while cruising at Mach 0.82 (975 km/h), but the crew managed to 

recover at app. 6,000 ft. The crew made an emergency landing at Gander with 

damaged flaps. Flight PA115 departed London at 18.45 GMT. Occupants: 10 crew.

Passengers: 119. Scheduled passenger flight. Phase: Cruise. Destination: 

New York, Idlewild via Gander, Newfoundland. Cause: Unintentional disconnection 

of autopilot while captain had left the cockpit and entered the passenger cabin. The 

copilot did not pay sufficient attention to the instruments and the plane went into a 

dive in a clockwise spiraling turn. This plane was written off on June 23, 1990.

American 587

November 12, 2001

A300

Develop and disseminate guidance to transport-category pilots that emphasizes that 

multiple full deflection, alternating flight control inputs should not be necessary to 

control a transport-category airplane and that such inputs might be indicative of an 

adverse aircraft-pilot coupling event and thus should be avoided. (A-04-59)

American 587

November 12, 2001

A300

Amend all relevant regulatory and advisory materials to clarify that operating at or 

below maneuvering speed does not provide structural protection against multiple full 

control inputs in one axis or full control inputs in more than one axis at the same 

time. (A-04-60)

American 587

November 12, 2001

A300

Adopt and disseminate written guidance for use in developing and accepting upset 

prevention and recovery programs; such guidance could take the form of an advisory 

circular and should reflect the industry’s best practices and be designed to avoid 

inaccurate or negative training. (A-04-61) Along with developing the guidance 

recommended in Safety Recommendation A-04-61, evaluate issues concerning the 

level of automation appropriate to teaching upset training, and develop and 

disseminate guidance that will promote standardization and minimize the danger of 

inappropriate simulator training. (A-04-62)
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | C–6 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Accident Accident Report Recommendation

American 587 

November 12, 2001

A300

Require the manufacturers and operators of transport-category airplanes to establish 

and implement pilot training programs that: (1) explain the structural certification 

requirements for the rudder and vertical stabilizer on transport-category airplanes; 

(2) explain that a full or nearly full rudder deflection in one direction followed by a 

full or nearly full rudder deflection in the opposite direction, or certain combinations 

of sideslip angle and opposite rudder deflection can result in potentially dangerous 

loads on the vertical stabilizer, even at speeds below the design maneuvering speed; 

and (3) explain that, on some aircraft, as speed increases, the maximum available 

rudder deflection can be obtained with comparatively light pedal forces and small 

pedal deflections. The FAA should also require revisions to airplane and pilot 

operating manuals that reflect and reinforce this information. In addition, the FAA 

should ensure that this training does not compromise the substance or effectiveness 

of existing training regarding proper rudder use, such as during engine failure shortly 

after takeoff or during strong or gusty crosswind takeoffs or landings. (A-02-01)

American 587

November 12, 2001

A300

Carefully review all existing and proposed guidance and training provided to pilots 

of transport-category airplanes concerning special maneuvers intended to address 

unusual or emergency situations and, if necessary, require modifications to ensure 

that flightcrews are not trained to use the rudder in a way that could result in 

dangerous combinations of sideslip angle and rudder position or other flight 

parameters. (A-02-02)

Northwest Orient Airlines 

705 02/12/1963

B720

The NTSB’s final report on the crash determined the cause of the accident to be the 

unfavorable interaction of severe vertical air drafts and large longitudinal control 

displacements, resulting in a longitudinal upset from which a successful recovery 

was not made.

Alaska Air 261 01/31/2000

MD83

The NTSB determines that the probable cause of this accident was a loss of airplane 

pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim 

system jackscrew assembly’s acme nut threads. The thread failure was caused by 

excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines’ insufficient lubrication of the 

jackscrew assembly.

Pinnacle Airlines 3701

October 14, 2004 NTSB

CRJ200

Work with members of the aviation industry to enhance the training syllabuses for 

pilots conducting high altitude operations in regional jet airplanes. The syllabuses 

should include methods to ensure that these pilots possess a thorough understanding 

of the airplanes’ performance capabilities, limitations, and high-altitude

aerodynamics. (A-07-1)

Pinnacle Airlines 3701

October 14, 2004 NTSB

CRJ200

Determine whether the changes to be made to the high-altitude training syllabuses 

for regional jet airplanes, as requested in Safety Recommendation 

A–07–1, would also enhance the high-altitude training syllabuses for all other 

transport-category jet airplanes and, if so, require that these changes be incorporated 

into the syllabuses for those airplanes. (A-07-2)
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | C–7 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Accident Accident Report Recommendation

Pinnacle Airlines 3701

October 14, 2004 NTSB

CRJ200

Require that air carriers provide their pilots with opportunities to practice 

high-altitude stall recovery techniques in the simulator during which time the pilots 

demonstrate their ability to identify and execute the appropriate recovery technique.

(A-07-3)

Pinnacle Airlines 3701

October 14, 2004 NTSB

CRJ200

Convene a multidisciplinary panel of operational, training, and human factors 

specialists to study and submit a report on methods to improve flightcrew familiarity 

with and response to stick pusher systems and, if warranted, establish training 

requirements for stick pusher-equipped airplanes based on the findings of this panel.

(A-07-4)

Pinnacle Airlines 3701

October 14, 2004 NTSB

CRJ200

Verify that all Canadair regional jet operators incorporate guidance in their double 

engine failure checklist that clearly states the airspeeds required during the procedure 

and require the operators to provide pilots with simulator training on executing this 

checklist. (A-07-5)

Pinnacle Airlines 3701

October 14, 2004 NTSB

CRJ200

Work with pilot associations to develop a specific program of education for 

air carrier pilots that addresses professional standards and their role in ensuring 

safety of flight. The program should include associated guidance information and 

references to recent accidents involving pilots acting unprofessionally or not 

following standard operating procedures. (A-07-8)

Flash Air; 

January 3, 2004, 

B–737

Emphasis should be made in pilot training on the following:

• Early detection and recognition of conditions that could lead to upset condition.

• Timely and appropriate recovery action from upset conditions to counteract sudden 

unknown abnormal conditions.

American Airlines

November 12, 2001

A–300

Carefully review all existing and proposed guidance and training provided to pilots 

of transport-category airplanes concerning special maneuvers intended to address 

unusual or emergency situations and, if necessary, require modifications to ensure 

that flightcrews are not trained to use the rudder in a way that could result in 

dangerous combinations of sideslip angle and rudder position or other flight 

parameters.

Adopt and disseminate written guidance for use in developing and accepting upset 

prevention and recovery programs; such guidance could take the form of an advisory 

circular and should reflect the industry’s best practices and be designed to avoid 

inaccurate or negative training.

Along with developing the guidance recommended in Safety Recommendation 

A-04-61, evaluate issues concerning the level of automation appropriate to teaching 

upset training and develop and disseminate guidance that will promote 

standardization and minimize the danger of inappropriate simulator training.

Ethiopian Airlines

January 25, 2010

B–737

The operator should revise its CRM program in order to stress on the first officer

assertiveness and leadership requirements especially in periods of abnormal 

performance.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | C–8 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Accident Accident Report Recommendation

Korean Airlines

December 22, 1999

B–747

Korean Air continue to update their training and FOQA programs to accommodate

CRM evolution and industry developments to address issues specific to their 

operational environment and assure adaption of imported training material to 

accommodate the Korean culture.

Alliance Air

July 17, 1999

B–737

Alliance Air should review their pilot training and following aspects should be 

emphasized.

• Discipline in the air

• Cockpit Resource Management (CRM)

• Adherence to Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)

• Training curricula should include procedures such as recovery from “Approach to 

Stall” and “Clean Stall”.

Armavia

May 3, 2006

A–320

To review the necessity of enhancing crew simulator training in the section on flying 

in Flight Director mode, especially during approach and go-around.

To organize and conduct research into the conditions under which a crew may lose 

spatial orientation and/or upset aircraft attitude may develop, and to issue practical 

recommendations to enhance flight safety. In particular, to evaluate the effect of 

in-flight acceleration illusions. Based on the research, to develop and introduce a 

specialized course for recurrent training of crews that should contain both classroom 

and flying training.

Air Algerie

March 6, 2003

B–737

Air Algérie, ainsi que les autres exploitants, s’assurent que leur programme de 

formation complémentaire de type CRM sensibilise effectivement les équipages au 

strict respect des procédures de transfert et de répartition des tâches. (It looked 

important)
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | D–1 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

APPENDIX D—ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

For the purpose of this document, the following definitions and terms are provided: These 

definitions were obtained from AC 120–109, the recommendations of the SPAW ARC report 

and the AURTA.

ABBREVIATIONS

ATC air traffic control

AOM Aircraft Operating Manual

AURTA Airplane Upset Recovery 

Training Aid Revision 2

AOA Angle of Attack

ADI Attitude Direction Indicator

ADI attitude direction indicator

ARC Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee

CG center of gravity

CFI Certified Fight Instructors

CRM Crew Resource Management

FAA Federal Aviation 

Administration

FCOM Flight Crew Operating Manual

FSTD Flight Simulation Training 

Device

FTD flight training device

FFS full flight simulator

IAS indicated airspeed

IOS Instructor Operating System

ICAO International Civil Aviation 

Organization

LOS Line Operational Simulation

LOFT Line-Oriented Flight Training

LOCART Loss of Control Avoidance and 

Recovery Training

LOC–I Loss of Control–Inflight 1`

MSL mean sea level

MPL Multi crew Pilots License

NTSB National Transportation Safety 

Board

OEM original equipment 

manufacturers

PF pilot flying

PIO pilot induced oscillation

PM pilot monitoring

QTG Qualification Test Guide

SOP standard operating procedures

SME subject matter experts

TOGA Takeoff/Go-around

TEM Threat and Error Management

UPRT Upset Prevention and 

Recovery Training

VS Vertical Speed
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | D–2 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

DEFINITIONS

Airplane Upset

An airplane in flight unintentionally exceeding the parameters 

normally experienced in line operations or training:

• Pitch attitude greater than 25 deg, nose up.

• Pitch attitude greater than 10 deg, nose down.

• Bank angle greater than 45 deg.

• Within the above parameters, but flying at airspeeds 

inappropriate for the conditions

Aerodynamic Stall An aerodynamic loss of lift caused by exceeding the airplane’s 

critical angle of attack. 

Aerodynamic Stall An aerodynamic loss of lift caused by exceeding the airplane’s 

critical angle of attack. 

Angle of Attack (AOA) The angle between the oncoming air, or relative wind, and some 

reference line on the airplane or wing. 

Approach-to-Stall Flight conditions bordered by stall warning and aerodynamic 

stall. 

Autoflight Systems The autopilot, autothrottle, and all related systems that perform 

flight management and guidance.

Avoidance Prevent an aircraft upset from happening. 

Awareness Knowledge or perception of the situation.

Commercial Pilot Certificate Training Training conducted at the commercial pilot or MPL certificate 

level. 

Crew Resource Management (CRM) Effective use of all available resources: human resources, 

hardware, and information. 

First Indication of a Stall The initial aural, tactile, or visual sign of an impending stall, which 

can be either naturally or synthetically induced. 

Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) A full flight simulator (FFS) or a flight training device (FTD).

Instructor Operating Station (IOS) The interface panel between the FSTD instructor and the FSTD. 

Landing Configuration

Starts when the landing gear is down and a landing flap setting 

has been selected during an approach until executing a landing, 

go-around, or missed approach. 

Maneuver-Based Training Training that focuses on a single event or maneuver in isolation. 

Prevention Actions to avoid any divergence from a desired airplane state.
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | D–3 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Scenario-Based Training (SBT) Training that incorporates maneuvers into real-world experiences 

to cultivate practical flying skills in an operational environment. 

Secondary Stall

A premature increase in AOA that results in another stall event 

during stall recovery, before a stable flight condition being 

established. 

Stall Event Anytime the airplane develops indications of an approach-to-stall 

or aerodynamic stall. 

Stall Recovery Procedure

The manufacturer-approved airplane-specific stall recovery 

procedure.. If a manufacturer-approved recovery procedure does 

not exist, the airplane-specific stall recovery procedure 

developed by the operator based on the stall recovery template 

in AC 120–109. 

Stall Warning

A natural or synthetic indication provided when approaching a 

stall that may include one or more of the following indications: 

• Aerodynamic buffeting (some airplanes will buffet more than 

others), 

• Reduced roll stability and aileron effectiveness, 

• Visual or aural cues and warnings, 

• Reduced elevator (pitch) authority, 

• Inability to maintain altitude or arrest rate of descent, 

• Stick shaker activation (if installed).

Stick Pusher

A safety system that applies downward elevator pressure to 

prevent an airplane from exceeding a predetermined AOA in 

order to avoid, identify, or assist in the recovery of an 

aerodynamic stall. 

Startle

An unexpected event that causes an emotion such as when a 

pilot engages autopilot in VS mode at high altitude, gets 

distracted while airplane runs out of thrust, loses speed and 

stalls. 

Surprise An event that causes a reflex, such as a pilot wincing and blinking 

after windshield cracks. 

Takeoff or Maneuvering Configuration

The airplane’s normal configuration for takeoff, approach, 

go-around, or missed approach until all flaps/slats are retracted. 

Retractable landing gear may be extended or retracted. 
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | D–4 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

Threat and Error Management (TEM)

An overarching safety concept regarding aviation operations and 

human performance.. There are three basic components in the 

TEM framework: threats, errors and undesired (aircraft) states.

The framework proposes that threats and errors are part of 

everyday aviation operations that must be managed by the 

aviation professionals, because both threats and errors carry the 

potential to generate undesired aircraft states. 

Type Rating Training Training that is conducted as type specific to a given aircraft. 

Uncoordinated Flight Flight with lateral acceleration, such as slipping or skidding in 

a turn. 

Undesired Aircraft State A position, condition, or attitude of an aircraft that reduces or 

eliminates safety margins, including low energy states. 

Unusual Attitude Synonymous with Airplane Upset
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | E–1 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

APPENDIX E—PRESENTERS/SME LIST BY ORGANIZATION

1

st meeting: Flight Safety Foundation (Jim Burin)

EASA (Jean Marc Cluzeau)

ICAO (Henry Defalque)

2

nd meeting: International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE)

Upset Prevention and Recovery Training Association (UPRTA)

IATA Training and Qualification Initiative/MPL Perspective

Mr. Andrew Skow (Tiger Century Aircraft)

IATA Training and Qualification Initiative - MPL 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority – Australia (CASA) 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA)

CAE

Oxford Aviation Academy (OAA)

IFALPA presentation (Capt. Dave McKenney)

UPRTA/ICATEE Training matrix (Mr. Randy Brooks)

Boeing Survey results (Dr. Barbara Holder)

3

rd meeting: IATA’S ITQI/Evidenced Based Training (EBT) 

Operational Suitability Data Implementation - EASA 

FAA Aircraft Evaluation Group, Seattle - Tele-presentation 

Aeroplane Loss of Control Avoidance – TCCA Perspective 

Managing Risk Exposure for a High-g Environment 

Original Equipment Manufacturers – OEM Training Approaches (Boeing, ATR, Embraer, Airbus)

4th meeting: Airline Training and Upset Avoidance (Delta Air Lines) 

U.S. Aviation Degree Training (University of North Dakota) 

Aviation College Degree – Upset Recovery Training (Seneca College) 

U.S. Aviation Degree Training (University of Western Michigan)

5

th meeting: Loss of Control in the Go-around Phase & the AF447 Report (BEA-Fr)

Pilot Core Competencies and the LOCART Initiative (IATA)

IATA’s Loss of Control Industry Toolkit Concept (IATA)

Simulation Training –Loss of Control (SUPRA Project)

Spatial Disorientation (DRDC)

6th meeting: Loss of Control Prevention (CAA-UK)

Risk Mitigating Strategies (NATS)

Upset Prevention and Recovery Training – Intervention Levels (APS)

Abnormal/Emergency Event Recognition (NASA)
FAA 208 ARC Report

Page | F–1 Rev 5.0 12 Dec 2012

APPENDIX F—MEMBER INFORMATION

Philip Adrian Philip.Adrian@boeing.com 

Lou Nemeth lou.nemeth@cae.com

Dave McKenney dave.mckenney@alpa.org 

Chad Balentine chad.balentine@alpa.org 

Paul Kolisch paul.kolisch@mesaba.com 

Jim Burin jim_burin@msn.com 

Rudy Canto rudy.canto@airbus.com 

Paul Railsback PRailsback@airlines.org 

Larry Rockliff larry.rockliff@airbus.com 

Susan McHaffie susan.mchaffie@flightsafety.com 

Noam Morgenstern noam.morgenstern@gmail.com 

Itash Samani itash.samani@cae.com 

Karsten Liljegren karsten.liljegren@boeing.com 

Gilson Russo gilson.russo@embraer.com.br 

Larry Rooney flattlander1@msn.com 

Mark Elliot mark.elliott@aero.bombardier.com 

Jerome Bonetto Jerome.Bonetto@atr.fr