## STICK PUSHER AND ADV ERSE WEATHER EVENT T RAINING AVIATION RULEMAKING COMMITTEE



## Final Report and Recommendations

July 6, 2011SPAW ARC Final Report i



## TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1 1.0 Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3 2.0 Summary of Recommendations

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4 2.1 Training Enhancements

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4
2.2 InFO and SAFO Enhancements

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4 2.3 Regulatory Standards

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 4 2.4 Simulator Modeling

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 4 2.5 Simulator Fidelity

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 4 2.6 Instructor Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 4 2.7 Simulator Instructor Operating Stations

................................ ................................ ............................. 4

2.8 Auto

- Pilot Utilization

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 5 2.9 Competency Based Training

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 5
2.10 FSB Process

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5 2.11 Upset Prevention and Recovery Training

................................ ................................ ........................ 5 2.12 Adverse Weather Academic Training

................................ ................................ ............................... 5 2.13 Comprehensive Pilot Training

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5
2.14 Stall and Stick Pusher Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5
2.15 Feedback Mechanism

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 5 2.16 Required Simulator Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 6 3.0 Icing

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 7 Findings & Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 7
Recommendations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8 3.1 Icing Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8
3.2 InFO and SAFO Process

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 10 3.3 Simulator Fidelity

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 11 3.4 Comprehensive Pilot Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 13 3.5 Airman Knowledge Test Requirements

................................ ................................ ........................ 13 3.6 Training Program Content

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 14 3.7 Instructor Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 14 3.8. Autopilot Utilization

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 15 4.0 Microburst and Windshear Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 16 Findings & Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 16

Recommendations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17 4.1 Microburst and Windshear Training

................................ ................................ .............................. 17 4.2 Complex Wind Models

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 18

4.3 Adverse Weather Academic Training

................................ ................................ ........................... 18 4.4 Simulator Fidelity

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 19SPAW ARC Final Report ii

4.5 Simulator Instructor Operating Stations

................................ ................................ ........................ 19 4.6 Turbulence Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 20

4.7 Non

- Survivable Scenarios

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 20 4.8 Instructor Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 21 4.9 Competency Based Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 21 4.10 Regulatory Oversight

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 22

5. 0 Stall/Stick Pusher/Loss of Control

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 23 Findings & Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 23

Recommendations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 24 5.1 Stick Pusher Training

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 24 5.2 Stall Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 25
5.3 FSB Process

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 28 5.4 Simulator Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 28 5.5 Stall Training Programs

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 29 5.6 Upset Prevention and Recovery Aca demic Training

................................ ................................ .... 30 5.7 Upset Prevention and Recovery Flight Training

................................ ................................ ........... 30 5.8 Certification Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 30 5.9 Simulator Fidelity

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 31

5.10 Feedback Mechanism

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 31 Appendix A

— Members, Staff, and SME s

................................ ................................ ................................ . A

– 1 Appendix B

— Acronyms

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ B

– 1 Appendix C

— Charter

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... C

– 1 Appendix D

— Section 208 of Pub. L. 111

– 216

................................ ................................ ........................ D

– 1 Appendix E

— Definitions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... E

– 1 Appendix F

— Training to Objective and Measurable Standards

................................ ............................... F

– 1 Recommended/Example Competencies and Proficiency Standards for a Windshear Training Program

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... F

– 1

Theoretical K nowledge Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ F

– 1 Flight Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... F

– 1 Appendix G

— Survey & Data Analysis Results/Industry Practices

................................ .......................... G

– 1 Appendix H

— Proposed Simu lator Standards for Icing, Winds hear, Upset, & Stall Training

.................. H

– 1

Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... H

– 1
S ummary of Recommended Changes to Current FFS Evaluation Standards

................................ ..... H

– 1

Attachment A

— Proposed Revisions to Current Simulator Standards Tables (14 CFR Part 60)

......... H

– 1 General Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... H

– 1 Objective Testing Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... H

– 6

Functions a nd Subjective Testing Re quirements

................................ ................................ ........... H

– 12 Upset Recognition and Recovery

................................ ................................ ................................ ... H

– 12

Attachment B

— Supplemental Information t o Objective Testing Tables

................................ ............ H

– 12SPAW ARC Final Report iii

Stall Maneuver Evaluation

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. H

– 12 Upset Prevention and Recovery Maneuver Evaluation

................................ ................................ .. H

– 14 Appendix I

— Training Objectives from FAA AC 120

– 50A (Current Guidance)

................................ ......... I

– 1 Ground Training

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... I

– 1
Simulator Traini ng

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. I

– 1 Appendix J

— Reference Material

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. J

– 1SPAW ARC Final Report 1



## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report was created to satisfy the requirements of the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather ( SPAW ) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) charter and the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, Public Law 111

– 216 ( Pub

. L. 111

– 216 ) § 208

. The ARC, composed of a multidisciplinary panel of specialists, studied the issues rel ated to stick pusher activations and adverse weather events.

Th is report is directed to the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety and recommends improvements for flightcrew member training. T o have the greatest impact on safety, the SPAW ARC ’ s recommendations should be incorporated beyond Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121 training

, with particular emphasis on core handling skill development throughout a pilot’s career

.

Du ring its deliberations, the SPAW ARC r eviewed many previous working group reports from the past two decades. The ARC commend s previous ARCs and working groups on their excellent work in this subject

. A review of National Transportation Safety Board accid ent data did not reveal any evidence of microburst, windshear, or icing accidents in par t 121 operations over the last 10 years. The ARC recognizes aviation safety has improved significantly over the last two decades, but believes additional improvements should be made

. It urge s the Administrator not to delay implementation of its recommendations.

The SPAW ARC divided into three subcommittees to complete its tasking : Icing, Microburst and Windshear, and Stick Pusher. The full ARC membership reviewed, studied, and debated the

s ubcommittee s’ work product s . All of the recommendations achieved 100 percent consensus
, negating the need for a minority position section. Thus, for the purposes of this report, the SPAW ARC and its subcommittee s may be consider ed synonymous

.

T he current flight simulation training device ( FSTD ) equipment deliver ing training provide s an inadequate level of fidelity and requires updat ing to support the SPAW ARC’s training requirements. Accordingly

, the ARC recommend s improvements to the technical standards of 14 CFR p art 60 in the areas of icing, microburst and windshear, stall and upset prevention and
recovery.

Each subcommittee identified the lack of instructor standardization

. Based on surveys, presentations, and the experien ces of the SPAW 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 th i s report’s recommendations will provide for better standardization of training delivery and improved quality of training.

The ARC recommended methods to increase the familiarity of flightcrew members with, and improve their response to

, stick pusher activa tions, and adverse weather events. The ARC concluded that it must also address relevant training tasks in the same flight regime as stick pusher training and improved icing training.SPAW ARC Final Report 2

T he SPAW ARC recognized th at aircraft ic e accumulation can lead to an increased stall speed and further develop into an aerodynamic stall or upset. This may occur without the activation of the stall

- warning or stick pusher system. The ARC reviewed related training requirements and standards for FSTD equipment used in the d elivery of microburst/windshear, icing, and stick pusher training, and concluded it was also necessary to extend its recommendations to stall and upset prevention and recovery training. The ARC also determined these simulator deficiencies must be addresse d before any training can be accomplished beyond the first indication of a stall (or stick

- pusher activation). The ARC then leveraged previous industry work group efforts to make recommendations addressing these deficiencies.

The members of the SPAW ARC w ish to thank the Administrator for the opportunity to offer recommendations on these important issues confronting the air carrier industry. They remain available for further consultations as necessary. Respectfully submitted,

___________________________ _ _____________________________ Lou Nemeth Philip Adrian ARC Chairman, ARC Vice

- chair man CAE The Boeing CompanySPAW ARC Final Report 3



## 1.0 METHODOLOGY

The Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather ( SPAW ) Aviation Rulemaking Committee ( ARC ) convened three subcommittees : The Icing Subco mmittee, The Microburst and Windshear Subcommittee, and The Stick Pusher Subcommittee.

D uring its 8 months of deliberations

, the SPAW ARC used the following processes in each of its subcommittees to arrive at its findings and recommendations:

 Conducted e xt ensive research in each subject area, including any previous work already completed

.

 Review ed relevant accidents, incidents and other safety data

.

 Developed and conducted industry surveys to identify best practices and any deficiencies for each subject are a

.

With the assistance of the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) , the SPAW ARC made specific data requests for accident and incident data for the period extending back over the last 20 years. The FAA’s Office of Accident Investigation (AVP) used the Av iation Safety Information Analytical Sharing (ASIAS) database to support the ARC’s requests.

The SPAW ARC made two separate data requests. The first was for non

- proprietary data, which consisted of National Transportation Safety Board ( NTSB ) accident data , FAA incident data, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) Aviation Safety Reporting System ( ASRS ) reports in the subject areas. The search parameters were refined to focus on operations in transport category airplanes. The second requ est was for proprietary data, specifically Aviation Safety Action Plan ( ASAP ) and Flight Operations Quality Assurance ( FOQA ) data, which would have been provided by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121 air carriers that have an agreement through ASIAS.

AVP was able to fulfill the non

- proprietary data request , and the SPAW ARC heavily relied
upon it in its deliberations and in determining its recommendations. The ARC was required to submit a formal request for proprietary to the ASIAS Exe cutive Board, which has FAA and industry board members. Th ough the ARC did not receive a formal notification, it understands the ASIAS Executive Board considered its request and determined not to fulfill it. While the ARC members believe the data they re ceived supports the recommendations contained in this report, data provided by air carrier ASAP and FOQA programs may have identified safety concerns that could have led to additional recommendations.SPAW ARC Final Report 4



## 2 .0 SUMMARY OF R ECOMMENDATIONS

This section identifies the SPAW ARC ’s recommendations . An in

- depth explanation and supporting data for each recommendation are found in the appropriate section.

2 .1 TRAINING ENHANCE MENTS

The SPAW ARC recommends specific enhancements to training for icing, microburst and winds hear, and stick

- pusher training. See section s 3 .1, 3 .5, 3 .6, 4 .1, 4

. 7

, 5 .1 , and 5 .2

.

2 .2 INFO AND SAFO EN HANCEMENTS

The SPAW ARC recommends operators and training providers develop an improved and structured system for delivery and dissemination of Inf ormation for Operators ’ ( InFO ) and Safety Alerts for Operators ’ ( SAFO )

. See section 3 .2.

2 .3 REGULATORY STAND ARDS

The SPAW ARC recommends more specific regulatory standards for establishing evaluation of microburst and windshear training and a comprehens ive training program for icing

, including knowledge

- based training and practical and operational training. See section s 3 .1 and 4

. 10

.

2 .4 SIMULATOR MODELI NG

The SPAW ARC recommends improved simulation modeling to improve training in icing, turbulence, a nd windshear , stall, and upset prevention and recovery

. See sections 3. 3, 4

. 2

, 4

. 6

, and Appendix H

.

2 .5 SIMULATOR FIDELI TY

The SPAW ARC concluded that i n order to implement its recommended training requirements

, simulator fidelity improvements need to b e made for icing, microburst/windshear, and stick pusher training. Therefore, the ARC recommends a regulatory change to 14 CFR part 60 and a flight simulation training device (FSTD) directive as defined in § 60.23 to improve simulator fidelity. See secti on s 3 .3, 4 .4, and 5 .9.

2 .6 INSTRUCTOR TRAIN ING

The SPAW ARC recommends operators provide a method to ensur e that instructors are prepared to properly train elements included in the specific training program. See sections 3

. 7

, 4

. 8 , and 5.2

2.7 SIMULATOR INSTRUCTOR OPERATING STATIONS

The SPAW ARC recommends that all required windshear models must be selectable and clearly labeled on the i nstructor o perating s tation (IOS)

. See section 4

. 5SPAW ARC Final Report 5

2

. 8 AUTO

- PILOT UTILIZATION

The SPAW ARC recommends that the o rigin al e quipment m anufacturer s ( OEM ) give specific guidance on use of the autopilot during icing conditions. See section 3

. 8

.

2

. 9 COMPETENCY BASED TRA INING

The SPAW ARC recommends training programs focus on objective and measurable completion standards rath er than time or content requirements. See section 4

. 9

.

2

. 10 FSB PROCESS

The SPAW ARC recommends the Flight Standards Board ( FSB ) Report identify differences in stall handling characteristics between variants of the same type or between types

. I n the cas e of a common type rating, training shall be accomplished in each identified variant or type being operated. See section 5 .3.

2 .1 1 UPSET PREVENTION AND RECOVERY TRAINING

The SPAW ARC recommends both academic and flight training for upset prevention and
recovery based on the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid (revision 2) or an approved equivalent See section s 5 .6 and 5 .7.

2 .1 2 ADVERSE WEATHER ACAD EMIC TRAINING

The SPAW ARC recommends the use of theoretical knowledge training for adverse weather and specific training topics. See section 4

. 3

.

2 .1 3 COMPREHENSIVE PILOT TRAINING

The SPAW ARC recommends that training be improved beyond the scope of part 121 training. The ARC concluded that better training is needed throughout the professional pilot’s c areer. See section s 3 .4 and 5 .8.

2 .1 4 STALL AND STICK PUSHER TRAININ G

The SPAW ARC recommends stall and stick pusher training be conducted during initial, transition

, recurrent, and upgrade training. See section 5 .5.

2 .1 5 FEEDBACK MECHANISM

The SPAW ARC recommends a feedback mechanism be use d in the simulator and outside of it for briefing and de

- briefing pilots on their performance relate d to upset prevention and recovery. See section 5 .10.SPAW ARC Final Report 6

2 .1 6 REQUIRED SIMULATOR T RAINING

The SPAW ARC recommends that s tall training and stick pusher training (if appropriate ) should be conducted in a qualified full

- flight simulator (FFS) with motion. See section 5 .4.SPAW ARC Final Report 7



## 3 .0 I CING

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIO NS

The SPAW ARC reviewed multiple icing events within a number of sources including the ASRS database , NTSB accident reports, and Australian Transport Safety Bureau reports. In addition, the ARC reviewed numerous publications relat ed to icing and operations in icing conditions. Finally, it conducted a survey of industr y practices regarding icing and training related to icing operations. Collectively, t his information was used to establish the ARC’s conclusions and recommendations.

The SPAW ARC recommends that the FAA take these recommendations and develop regulations on f

light crew icing t raining. For icing conditions, the main recommendation (3.1) is to develop a comprehensive training program to ensure appropriate flight crew member knowledge and response s to icing conditions. The ARC also recommends that the FSTD

s tandards be updated to support such training.

Since the Roselawn 1 accident in 1994 , there has been a considerable amount of research into icing, specifically in

- flight icing. I cing incidents that are not seen on larger transport category aircraft continue to occur on smaller transport category aircraft

. The SPAW ARC was instructed to identify methods to increase familiarity and improve the response of flightcrew members while operating in icing conditions.

Regarding i cing

, the SPAW ARC

—

 Conducted e xtensiv e research to identify what work has already been completed in the area of icing

.

 A ccomplished a review of icing events within a variety of database s including various icing related incidents and accidents

.

 Performed a survey of pilots and air carriers to identify best practices and deficiencies

.

 Hosted subject matter experts ( SME ) from the NTSB, FAA, NASA, and industr y to get their perspective on what has been done, what needs to be done, what is working, and what is not working.

Based on that input

, the S PAW ARC developed recommendations aimed at increasing the familiarity and improv ing the response of flightcrew members in icing condition s

.

It is evident that considerable research and studies exist in the areas of aircraft icing and operations in icing co nditions. The FAA has taken steps to improve safety for aircraft operations through changes to regulation, airworthiness directives

, and operator guidance using InFOs

,

1 A n American Eagle GIE Avions de Transport Régional ( ATR ) 72, Flight 4184, flew into unknown icing conditions on October 31, 1994. The plane was en route from Indianapolis International Airport, Indiana to O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois when it crashed

, killing all on board. The f ull report is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

, and the report number is DCA95MA00 1.SPAW ARC Final Report 8

bulletins

, and other such means

. H owever, this has not resulted in complete industry a doption or the use of all available publications. The ARC believes that to ensure adoption of best practices, implementation requires regulation.

The ARC identified some challenges faced by industry and regulators. These include, but are not limited to

—

 The range of aircraft types used and their associated performance, technologies and systems;

 Lack of uniformly trained p ilots upon entering p art 121 operations;

 Geographic differences in operational requirements ; and

 Lack of uniform application of regula tory standards and oversight.

By reviewing recent efforts to improv e safety during operations, the SPAW ARC noted that while much information is available to the industry and individual flightcrew m embers, there is no consistent method to ensure this infor mation is properly disseminated to and used appropriately by stakeholders.

T he ARC concludes that

—

 The industry , as a whole

, lack s consistency in interpretation of current regulations.

 Tracking of previous recommendations , such as I n FOs and SAFOs

, is ins uffici ent.

.

 S ome s imulators may lack the fidelity to accurately portray the aerodynamic effects of ice accumulation.

 The issue of icing training and awareness exists prior to entering p art 121 operations and should be part of the tra ining curriculum throug h the entire career of a professional pilot

.

 There is a lack of uniformly trained p ilots entering p art 121 operations

.

 There is a l ack of uniform application of regulatory standards and oversight.

 I n some of the accidents /incidents analyzed, the flight crew ’ s actions deviated from company procedure and training.

 Effective training can be conducted through a variety of methods, including scenario

- based training, threat and error management, and modular training

.

 T he method of delivery should be based on the o perator ’ s procedures and should be evaluated based on its effectiveness.

RECOMMENDATIONS

3 .1 I CING T RAINING
The SPAW ARC recommends that operations in icing must be i nitially trained to include no less than the following matrix

, where applicable to type of aircraft and operation. Where an element is not applicable, mitigating tactics are required

, i.e.

, operator must satisfy principal operations inspectors ( POI ) regarding the exclusion of the element fr om the training requirement

.SPAW ARC Final Report 9 Table 3 .1 . Icing Trai ning Elements.

Knowledge Based Training Flight Training

(Simulator or Aircraft) Operational Experience

(Demonstration or Discussion )

a. General icing and meteorological information
Aerodynamic Effects X
Meteorological Reports X X X

Performance Effects X
Types of Icing X
Super

- C ooled Large Drop s X
Definitions of Icing Levels X

* Operational Limitations X

b. Ground De

- I cing

De

- I cing Fluid Types and Effects X X X

Use of Hold Over Charts X X X
Ground Operations on Contaminated Ground Surfaces X X

Identification of Aircraft Contamination Before Flight X X

c. Type

- S pecific Operations
Aerodynamic Effects of Icing X X
Use of aircraft ice equipment X X X
Failure of ice equipment X X
Use of Autopilot X X

Performance a nd Handling E ffects of I ce A ccumulation X X X

Severe Icing Conditions
Recognition X X

Procedures X
Operational Considerations ( e.g. , s peed) X X X

d. Company Operations and Procedures
Company Policies ( standard operating procedure s) X X X

A irplane Flight Manual ( AFM ) / Aircraft Operating Manual ( AOM ) X

Pilot Monitoring Requirement X X X

* The flight crew should have a full understanding of the operational limitations as documented in the AFM, AOM, and Quick Reference HandbookSPAW ARC Final Report 10

The knowl edge

- based training elements should be tested through an operator or training provider’s own test ing method to ensure the training is effective. It is not necessary to test
every element or every aspect of each element, and the primary purpose of the test is to establish that the training was effective. T hese recommendations are intended to supplement existing regulation, i.e.

, these requirements are additional guidance and do not replace existing requirements.

Rationale

T he SPAW ARC conducted a n industry survey to determine the content and methods of training

on operation s in icing conditions. As the current regulations provide little guidance to operators and POI s on the elements that should be covered in this training, the response showed significant d ifferences in the content of training programs. T he ARC do es not intend to prescribe the methods of training delivery, but believe s it is imperative to provide guidance to the operators, training providers, and POIs as to critical content for training. T his matrix is designed as a checklist to assist in this. This conclusion was also supported through the review of a smaller sampling of specific p art 121 training programs by ARC members. It is the opinion of the ARC that consistency through the industry will improve safety standards and this or a similar matrix should be included in regulation.

3

. 2 I N FO AND SAFO P ROCESS 2

The SPAW ARC recommends that the Administrator and all operators/training providers develop a system to ensure that stakeholders rece ive, distribute, evaluate for adoption, and report back to the Administrator the disposition of all I n FOs and SAFOs

. A mechanism should be created for the Administrator to share this information with POIs

. However, the FAA must ensure that the purpose of the SAFO and InFO remain s as an information dissemination tool only for the FAA and does not translate to a regulatory mechanism.

Rationale

The SPAW ARC makes this recommendation b ecause past I n FO guidance

, SAFO information

, and other guidance on this sub ject was not incorporated into current training plans.

The Administrator uses I n FOs and SAFOs as a means to rapidly transmit information that may have importance to operators and training providers before it is incorporated into other documents ( such as an a dvisory c ircular (AC) ) or until it becomes an actual rule. It is important to note that not all of the information contained in an I n FO or SAFO may be applicable to all operators and training providers. Results of interviews and discussions with indust ry representatives reveal that there is no formal system to verify that operators and training providers have evaluate d the relevance of the information contained in these documents.

The SPAW ARC make s th i s recommendation to help improve the safety of oper ations across the industry by ensuring that critical safety information is available, reviewed, and incorporated when applicable, by all operators and training providers, in a timely fashion.

2 Th is recommendation applies to Stall, Stick Pusher, Icing, and Microbur st/WindshearSPAW ARC Final Report 11

3

. 3 S IMULATOR F IDELITY
The SPAW ARC recommends improv ing the f idelity o f simulating the aerodynamic effects of aircraft icing conditions in FSTDs used in flight crew member training. Specific aircraft data should be used whe n available ; lacking that, other sources of engineering data may be used . It should be noted that there are limitations to simulation and not every possible situation can be demonstrated. Simulator improvements should include the following considerations:

1

. Flight test data should be made available for simulator modeling.

2

. E ffects that represe nt the actual flight dynamics and performance change s should be simulated to increase the awareness of ice accretion.

a

. Aerodynamic effects on lift , drag

, and moment in simulation through means other than weight.

b

. T he effects of icing on control feel

, airframe buffeting ( if applicable )

, and control effectiveness should be simulated.

c

. There should be the p otential to have the aircraft stall before the stall warning systems activate.

3

. I ce protection equipment failures should be simulated

. 4

. The e f

fe ct of ice due to engine ingestion should be simulated

.

Please refer to a ppendix H for technical requirements pertaining to the above.

Rationale

The SPAW ARC makes this recommendation based on industry and survey feedback about unrealistic training events and improving flight crew recognition.

The SPAW ARC acknowledged that icing conditions were generally not a problem for large transport category aircraft. The ARC research ed accidents and incidents involving icing conditions that involved fixed

- wing transp ort category aircraft. It was evident through the various surveys and testimony that there was general concern from the operators and users about the fidelity of icing simulation models in FSTD equipment. The method to simulate the effects of icing varie d, were based on improper simulation through changes in weight

, and were not subject to adequate testing through the qualification process.

A key concern from the simulator manufacturing representatives was the lack of appropriate OEM data to properly mode l the aerodynamic effects related to the form ation of ic e and the resulting effects on the airplane performance.

In its review, the SPAW ARC recognized that icing effects should not be treated as a constant for every aircraft type . Certain aircraft types are more susceptible to the formation of ice

. Therefore it is necessary for simulation models to include specific characteristics applicable to the simulated aircraft type.

For example

, in the Roselawn accident due to the icing encounter and subsequent l oss of control (LOC) , ATR used data available from incidents and their numerical simulation to study theSPAW ARC Final Report 12

airplane performance and identify any abnormal aerodynamic characteristics . It concluded that in each incident there were significant drag increases, and in some cases this was accompanied by a significant decrease in lift coefficient; the drag increases were primarily attributed to the propeller ice accretions at the lower revolutions per minute settings used during the subject flight. It is evident t hat such factors are not captured in the aerodynamic mathematical models used in aircraft simulators.

One of the factors leading to a LOC resulting from the effects of icing is the increased stall speed or reduced critical angle of attack (AOA) at which t he aircraft will stall. There is evidence indicat ing that in many cases, current simulation of icing aerodynamics effects is through an increase of the weight

, which may be disproportionately changed to provide the general characteristics. After review

, the SPAW ARC concluded this method is inappropriate. The most significant effect of icing on the wing surface is its influence on the smooth flow of air over the surface

, caus ing the airflow to separate from the wing at a lower AOA than normal and creatin g a reduction in the lift that is normally developed by a wing at a given AOA and airspee d. The maximum lift that can be developed and the AOA at which it will be developed is significantly reduced and the stall buffet and stall will be encountered at hig her than normal airspeeds. The systems to protect the aircraft from entering a stall are considered effective for most transport

- category aircraft and are designed to activate at a predefined AOA

. I t is evident that

, in icing conditions

, these may not ac tivate prior to the stall

, or may activate with a reduced safety margin

, and not allow the flight crew reaction time to avoid a stall condition

. This condition is observed in numerous incident and accident reports, such as in 2006 3 when a S AAB

- Scania AB ai rcraft during an en

- route climb over Santa Maria, C A suddenly entered icing conditions

. T he wing dropped

, the autopilot disconnected

, and the clacker immediately sounded.

The SPAW ARC is confident that

, based on the system design

, this is a critical situa tion that may also be masked by the autopilot and could result in a n LOC condition. Accordingly, the ARC finds it important that flight crews are appropriately trained on this phenomenon in a simulator training scenario that emphasizes that in icing condit ions the stall protection system may not activate and the stall margins may be significantly reduced. The ARC also notes that the ice contamination of the wing has a significant detrimental effect on the aircraft ’ s total drag

, which is comprised of parasi tic drag and induced drag. Similarly, the pitching moment characteristics are also affected by the ice contamination. For example, on a swept wing, the progression of flow separation is affected and the pitch down characteristics may be different from a stall event with an uncontaminated wing. It is therefore important that these effects of icing o n lift, drag, and pitching moment are properly modeled to ensure the appropriate airplane characteristics are present for flight crew member training.

3 On January 2, 2006, a Saab

- Scania AB SF340B+, N390AE, operated by American Eagle Airlines

, Flight 3008 encountered icing conditions during the en route climb over Santa Monica, California. The airplane was at 11,700 feet mean sea level ( MSL ) when it departed controlled flight, and descended to an altitude of about 6,500 feet MSL

. The pilots recovered control of the airplane, and continued to their scheduled destination. The NTSB report is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/inde x.aspx , and the report number is LAX06IA076

.SPAW ARC Final Report 13

The sys tems to protect the aircraft from in

- flight icing are built into the aircraft and go through a rigorous certification process. Flightcrews are trained to use the m and make appropriate judgments about when to exit icing conditions. While these systems are considered to be effective for most aircraft, it is necessary for flight crew members to be trained to recognize the failure of such systems and to manage the ensuing conditions

.

3

. 4 C OMPREHENSIVE P ILOT T RAINING 4

The ARC concluded that it is important to look beyond p art 121 training into p ilot certification training to ensure enhanced skills, comprehension, and knowledge. To assist in consistent flightcrew member training and response in icing conditions , operational issues such as icing training should be part of the training curriculum throughout the entire career of a professional pilo t.

Rationale

B ased on research into accidents and incidents involving icing conditions

, i t is the opinion of the SPAW ARC that a pilot operating an aircraft in p art 121 operations is using the total of all of the skills learned and used to that point. I cing is a condition that may be encountered in a variety of aircraft operations so it is critical to have training in this area during all phases of a pilot’s aviation ca reer. Th e ARC believes

—

 E ncountering icing conditions without proper preparation and training in any form of operations is dangerous

.

 I f the importance of operations in icing conditions is not introduced early in the pilot ’ s career, the experience will no t be gained for future p art 121 operations.

 Numerous NTSB reports of accidents that are not under p art 121 regulations have c ited icing as a contributing factor to the accident.

It is the opinion of the ARC that these recommendations should be applied beyo nd
p art 121 operations.

3 .5 A IRMAN K NOWLEDGE T EST R EQUIREMENTS 5

The SPAW ARC recommends the Airman Knowledge Test requirements be changed to require the applicant to meet a minimum pass ing grade in each of the subject areas to verify the applicant has the desired/satisfactory level of knowledge in all of the areas covered in the test.

4 Th is r ecommendation applies to Stall, Stick Pusher, Icing, and Microburst/Windshear.
5 Th is r ecommendation applies to Stall, Stick Pusher, Icing, and Microburst/Windshear.SPAW ARC Final Report 14

Rationale The current Airman Knowledge Test require s the student to have a minimum passing grade based on the average of the overall test; the applicant can potentially obtai n a passing grade without correctly answering a single question i n one of the subject areas. For example, the applicant could pass the test without answering any question correctly on m eteorology

. Additionally, it is good practice for an employer to vali date the knowledge of a pilot in each of
t he written test subject areas during initial training.

3

. 6 T RAINING P ROGRAM C ONTENT
The SPAW ARC recommends that POIs inspect training program content and ensure it is comprehensive with regard to the operations a nd that the training conducted is applicable to the operation. Additionally, the ARC recommends that a mechanism be developed to allow POIs to collect and share information concerning approved training programs

.

Rationale

The ARC’s recommendations are b as ed on evidence that informatio n and procedures taken out of context can be detrimental

.

The Administrator is required to review the contents of any approved training program. This review should be conducted to validate that the training program conforms with all regulatory requirements and is appropriate to the information contained in the approved Operat ions Specifications.

Results of accident/incident reviews have shown that material in approved training programs may not be appropriate for all operato rs. For example, training material for p art 121 turbo

- prop operators may not apply to a p art 121 turbo

- jet operator, even if a single operator maintains a mixed fleet type , such as turbo

- prop and turbo

- jet.

Th e additional mechanisms for POI information s haring are to help ensure application and standardization of safety

- critical information across the industry

.

3

. 7 I NSTRUCTOR T RAINING
The SPAW ARC recommends that the operators provide a method of ensuring that instructors are prepared to properly train elements included in the training program. This shou ld include knowledge of any limitation that exists with the equipment used in the delivery of this training.

Rationale It is the opinion of the SPAW ARC that the industry should be mandated to incorporat e training for all instructors responsible for delivering training in FFS to ensure that the potential for negative training as a result of operating outside the verified limits of a FSTD is avoided. The ARC makes this recommendation based on evidence gat hered from incident reports that FFS es are not consistently operated within the prescribed limits of their operational specifications. Maneuvering within the operational parameters and constraints derived through either OEMSPAW ARC Final Report 15

flight test data or engineering data, which are verified by SME s , is essential. Although simulators may be aerodynamically modeled outside of these operational limits, without proper verification with OEM data, there is no guarantee that the flight training device will accurat ely simul ate the actual aircraft for which it is modeled and thus, it cannot be relied upon to realistically simulate undocumented flight conditions.

3

. 8

. A UTOPILOT U TILIZATION
The SPAW ARC recommends that the OEMs give specific guidance on use of the a utopilot during icing conditions. If additional r equirements are identified by the Aircraft Certification Office ( ACO ) for the use of autopilot during these conditions , this should be evaluated by the Aircraft Evaluation Groups ( AEG ) and included in the FS B report

. The AEG should evaluate flight crew workload and awareness of the aircraft state.

Rationale

I ncidents and accidents demonstrate that automated flight control systems may mask the actual aircraft trim state and consequent changes in performance and handli ng qualities. If such conditions go unnoticed, the aircraft state may deteriorate

, resulting in LOC and possibly a stall. By design, an autopilot system will generate commands to adjust for unusual conditions until the commands reach full authority or ca nnot be sustained. This may result in autopilot disconnect, when control must be assumed by the pilot. Accordingly, the SPAW ARC believes that autopilot design should be reviewed with consideration for the potential of trimming to an undesirable aircraft state, to ensure that such characteristics are addressed in pilot training in specific types.

There are three elements related to the automated systems that should be a focus in any practical or theoretical training related to this subject:

1

. An understa nding of the operation of the automation and specific conditions that may result in an undesired/unexpected response ;
2

. An understanding of the indications and cues related to the system, in particular in situations where there is potential for the undesi red or unexpected behavior ; and

3

. A p roper flight crew response in situations where the condition of the aircraft under automated control may lead to an undesired/unexpected behavior.

Anomalous behavior of the autoflight system is generally confined to unu sual circumstances, such as when an aircraft is accreting ice on the lifting surfaces. In such circumstances it is especially important to monitor aircraft status with a focus on the autoflight systems that may reach trim limits and ultimately disconnect

, with the potential for aircraft upset. Accordingly, the SPAW ARC urges the OEM, FAA ACO, and the FS B/AEG to give emphasis to assessments of autoflight systems and conditions that might cause the system to trim toward an upset.SPAW ARC Final Report 16



## 4 .0 MICROBURST AND W INDSHE AR TRAINING

FINDINGS & CONCLUSION S
Since the introduction of the Windshear Training Aid 6 in the late 1980 s, m icroburst and

w indshear events (both incidents and acciden ts) have decreased significantly. The recommendations in this report must therefore be s een as a combination of current ―best

- practices‖ and issues that may not be properly described in current regulations and AC s.

With regard to m icroburst s and w indshear s , the SPAW ARC

—

 Conducted e xtensive research to identify what work had already been comp leted

.

 Performed a review of microburst and windshear events within a variety of databases and the provided incident and accident reports

.

 Survey ed operators, pilots, training providers, and universities offering flight training to identify best practices and deficiencies in microburst and windshear training.

T he SPAW ARC members agreed on the main issues that could either be improved upon , should be required in new regulatory guidance or advisory material, or have not been properly addressed. Th o se issues are discussed in this section

. The specific issues addressed are validated by findings from the provided incident and a ccident reports, survey responses from stakeholders

, the experiences of subcommittee participants

, and testimony from SME s.
Safety impac t has been the main reason for the recommendations, but care has been taken that these proposals do not pose significant monetary investments or add to already demanding simulator profiles. Rather, the SPAW ARC recommendations focus on the quality and
sta ndardization of current practices, tightening of simulator specifications and requirements, and additions to theoretical knowledge training. This theoretical training can be accomplished through classroom training

, Web

- based/ d istance learning

, or any othe r suitable training method. Recency requirements have been added as part of the recommendation.

The basis of safe operation in and around areas of w indshear and m icroburst can be divided in to different segments. These are

—

 Knowledge/Awareness

,

 Prevention

,

 Recognition , and

 Recovery (Skill)

.

6 Windshear Training Aid, U.S. Depart ment of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 1987.SPAW ARC Final Report 17

RECOMMENDATION S

4

. 1 M ICROBURST AND W INDSHEAR T RAINING

T he SPAW ARC recommends including microburst and windshear training in the following air carrier training programs :

 New

- hire t raining,

 Type r ating/ t ransition t rain ing

,

 Recurrent t raining with specified intervals

, *

 Requalification t raining , and

 Upgrade t raining

.

*The intervals for training on adverse weather during recurrent training recommended by this subcommittee are

—

 For t heoretical knowledge t raining

, a t least e very other t raining event

.

 For f light t raining

, a t least every recurrent training cycle

.

Rationale

The SPAW ARC member s’ experiences and industry feedback show that the knowledge and experience level of new

- hire pilots var ies widely on many subjects. Wind shear and m icroburst is no exception. In order for an operator to ensure that all new

- hire pilots have the minimum level of knowledge and skill required for company type

- specific training, operators should define and identify what they consider to be the minimum acceptable level of microburst and windshear knowledge required prior to entering any category of training. Each operator should then ensure that all new

- hire pilots have the required minimum knowledge and skills to enter their next training cours e , or provide refresher training to ensure that pilot s meet the minimum standards.

Maintaining safe operations requires pilots to build and retain skills and knowledge in microburst and windshear avoidance, recognition, and recovery regardless of operatio n, airplane type, role, or position. In order to build and maintain these skills, pilots need to be exposed on a periodic basis to microburst and windshear training. Since the results may be catastrophic if a pilot fails to avoid, recognize, or properly recover from a microburst or windshear event, the SPAW ARC members believe a pilot should be exposed to microburst and windshear training on a recurring basis during their career.

Air carriers and training centers should include both academic and maneuver s training (both takeoff and landing) on a periodic cycle as part of their required recurrent training cycles. Pilots shall accomplish microburst and windshear training during recurrent training on each type of aircraft for which they are qualified at lea st once every recurrent training cycle. The intent is that some part of m icroburst and windshear training is covered during every training event.SPAW ARC Final Report 18

During p art 121 training, aircraft t ype, a rea s of operations

, and o perator

- specific issues need to be address ed

. Also, p art 121 training must validate the skills and knowledge of a pilot in th ese issues

. Training initial skills and r etaining skills and knowledge should remain part of training during the career of a pilot

.

4

. 2 C OMPLEX W IND M ODELS

The current p art 60 requirements require four wind profiles in takeoff and landing configuration s

. The SPAW ARC recommends two additional complex windshear models, which include vertical wind (shear) components, to be available to the instructor. These profiles are considered to provide experience in a more complex windshear encounter. The y must be available in the takeoff and landing configurations and must consist of independent variable winds in multiple simultaneous components. The Windshear Training Aid provid es two such example complex windshear models that can satisfy this requirement. Any proposed alternate wind models used to meet this requirement must be properly supported and referenced in the

m aster q uality t est g uide ( QTG ) . After inclusion of the two additional complex models, these models should be included in training programs.

Rationale The four required profiles, which allow for the training of procedures, only include horizontal windshear components. The complex scenarios include vertical downdra ft

, are representative of microburst s, and provide for a more challenging encounter.

4

. 3 A DVERSE W EATHER A CADEMIC T RAINING
The SPAW ARC recommends that t heoretical knowledge training for adverse weather should include at least, but not be limited to, the following items:

 Windshear ;

 Microburst ;

 En

- route/ h igh a ltitude weather phenomen a ;

 Convective activity ;

 Weather events that exceed the capability of the airplane ; and

 Events that do not necessarily exceed the threshold for microburst and windshear alerting , such as gusting crosswinds, turbulence

, or virga

.

Rationale Information contained in the Windshear Training Aid and other FAA

- approved training material should be used to ensure pilots have a more complete understanding of the phenomena causing

a dverse w eather, and provid e an added capability to recognize and avoid adverse weather, including microburst s and windshear s

.SPAW ARC Final Report 19

4

. 4 S IMULATOR F IDELITY

T he SPAW ARC recommends that improv e ments be made to simulator standards that will improve FSTD capabilities to su pport the m icroburst and w indshear training requirements as recommended herein . For these chang es to become mandatory

, the ARC recommends the publication of an FSTD D irective as defined in § 60.23

. For more information, s ee appendix H.

Rationale Training recommendations made in this report to improve microburst and windshear training will require updates to the FSTD technical standards as defined in part 60. These technical standards were developed by a technical working group comprised of a broad range of SME s on simulator development and evaluation

, including members of the FAA’s National Simulator Program (NSP) and simulator manufacturer engineers.

T he FAA should incorporate these changes to p art 60, through due process, and make these requirements app licable to all new FFS equipment based on an effective date that is coordinated with the effective date of new training requirements as defined in the body of this report. Furthermore, since the training requirements recommended in the body of this report will likely be conducted in FSTDs evaluated and qualified under grandfathered simulator standards, the recommended simulator standards detailed in A ppendix H should be published through an FSTD Directive as defined in § 60.23. Note that the publication o f an FSTD d irective addresses safety of flight issues and is applicable to each qualified FSTD, regardless of its original qualification standard. It is the intent of the SPAW ARC that any retroactive simulator requirements as defined in a ttachment A of a ppendix H and published as an FSTD Directive should be addressed as additional qualification requirements (see § 60.16) that are applicable only to those simulators being used to conduct training tasks as defined in this report.

4

. 5 S IMULATOR I NSTRUCTOR O PERATING S TATION S

T o improve microburst and windshear training, t he SPAW ARC recommends that a ll required windshear models be selectable and clearly labeled on the IOS. Additionally, all IOS selectable windshear models must employ a method, such as a simu lator preset, to ensure that the FSTD is properly configured for use in training. I n order to achieve the training objectives in accordance with the Simulator Windshear Model Implementation Guide

, t his method must address variables such as windshear inten sity ; aircraft configurations

, including weights and flap settings ; and ambient conditions

, to ensure that the proper windshear recognition cues are present . The FAA NS P manager (NSPM) shall insure these profiles are evaluated at initial and recurring
qua lifications. Please refer to a ppendix H for further guidance.SPAW ARC Final Report 20

Rationale Current requirements for windshear profiles do not require a standardized approach for the labeling of the available profiles on the IOS; as a result, there is variation in the implem entation and use of the windshear profiles between simulators and between instructors ’ use of them on the same simulator. Furthermore, the instructors lack the necessary information to determine how to configure the profile to ensure the windshear recogni tion cues will occur as desired and that the profile will provide the expected levels of severity. R equiring the pertinent parameters to be preset
, together with information/guidance for the instructor on the nature of the profile and its purpose should e nsure a consistent use of the installed profiles.

4

. 6 T URBULENCE R EQUIREMENTS

The SPAW ARC recommends m inimum turbulence requirements be included in the windshear profiles.

Rationale

Most windshear events include levels of noticeable turbulence. Feedback from simulator manufacturers and training providers revealed that wide variations exist between simulators in how they handle turbulence in windshear profiles. Some simulators have turbulence automatically programmed into windshear profiles while others do not. Some simulators allow the instructor s to select a turbulence setting when they select a windshear profile, while others do not. There is no industry standard or regulatory guidance on this

, and it is not part of the simulator qualification standa rds. The result is that there is no standardization in microburst and windshear training among instructors. Without adding this realistic effect, the situation and recovery maneuver can be seen as benign, resulting in negative training. By requiring a s pecific turbulence setting to be programmed in each windshear profile that cannot be changed , the use of realistic turbulence will be standardized in microburst and windshear training, helping avoid negative training.

4

. 7 N ON - S URVIVABLE S CENARIOS

The SPAW ARC recommends that a non

- survivable scenario should not be required or approved by the Administrator as part of a windshear training program

.

Rationale The current industry philosophy is that p ositive training should be r e i nforced and non

- survivable
tra ining events should not be used

. S imulators currently have the requirement to demonstrate a

no n

- survivable windshear scenario

, and this scenario is used for microburst and windshear training. R equiring a non

- survivable event can not only result in negati ve training, it can create a sense of helplessne ss when encountering an actual w indshear

.SPAW ARC Final Report 21

4

. 8 I NSTRUCTOR T RAINING
The SPAW ARC recommends that all instructors responsible for delivering training on adverse weather, including microburst s and windshear s , h ave the knowledge and teaching skills to properly deliver this specialized training. Specifically, the ARC recommends

—

 Instructors receive instruction on adverse weather and the Windshear Training Aid

, including microburst s and windshear s . This training will include specific parameters for different windshear modules available in the simulator and how to effectively teach and assess students using these windshear modules.

 Instructors are trained and evaluated on effectively brief ing and debrief

ing windsh ear training events to insure the key elements in the Windshear Training Aid are covered.

 Instructors should be trained and assessed on the delivery of microburst and windshear training. This shall be done on a recurring basis, when profiles change, or wh en there is a change in recovery or avoidance procedures.

Rationale Feedback from training providers and pilots show that instructors do not always have the required background knowledge of adverse weather. Additionally, instructors are not always

aware o f the proper use of the available microburst and windshear scenario s. The lack of instructor knowledge has resulted in some improper use of microburst and windshear profiles, different training standards, and improper or negative training.

The instructor must have knowledge of the Windshear Training Aid , which sets the industry standard for microburst and windshear training, and the scenarios for use within the microbu r st and windshear training program. Instructor training should focus on the practical ap plication of these principals and the evaluation of a pilot’s performance of proper avoidance and recovery techniques for microburst s and windshear s

. The standardization of briefing and debriefing is critical to ensuring the required standards are met.

4

. 9 C OMPETENCY B ASED T RAINING
The SPAW ARC recommends that objective and measurable completion standards are set ( c ompetency b ased r ulemaking), rather than time or content requirements. Appendix F provides examples of recommended competencies and proficien cy standards for w indshear training. The ARC further recommends that c hecking should not be a requirement for windshear and

m ic roburst t raining

.

Rationale

Time

- based training does not guarantee a successful or safe outcome. To satisfy a minimum standard requirement, setting objective

- based completion standards guarantee that an outcome is the same or similar

, regardless of the method of training or time spent in training. Training
outcomes are more important than time

- based requirements

. There is a glob al initiative to transition from prescriptive training requirements to a competency

- based model.SPAW ARC Final Report 22

4

. 10 R EGULATORY O VERSIGHT

B y not including competency based objectives in FAA AC 120

– 50A

, Guidelines for Operational Approval of Windshear Training Programs ( See a ppendix I ), any w indshear/ m icroburst program is subjectively judged by a POI. To eliminate subjectivity, the SPAW ARC recommend s improvement of the approval process for training programs by including not only the operators’ POI, but by providing over sight from the certificate management office /region, implementation of a safety management system ( SMS )

, and have the FAA Flight Standards Service ( AFS

– 200 ) inte raction for quality assurance.

Rationale Currently

, there are large variations in content, qual ity

, and methods among approved training
programs , which may affect safety. To effectively address the underlying issues, there needs to be an exchange of information between POIs to provide an industry

- wide uniform application through sharing industry be st practices. This approach will provide a system in which improvements in operational safety will be made through controlled training programs, while oversight, harmonization

, and standardization are improved. This approach still allows reasonable flexi bility for industry. SMS concepts are required and accepted in industry. The SMS concept provides feedback and quality assurance, and leads to process and safety improvements. Even though SMS is not required, it would be recommended for implementation.SPAW ARC Final Report 23



## 5 .0 STALL/STICK PUSHER / LOSS OF CONTROL

FINDINGS & CONCLUSION S
Part 121 air carriers are required to provide flightcrew members with ground training and flight training to recognize and recover from stall s in several conditions. A primary objective should be to provide training to maximize the likelihood that pilots will respond correctly and consistently to unexpected stall warnings, stalls, and/or stick pusher activations. The SPAW ARC recommends that training providers present realistic stall scenarios to en sure recognition and recovery of an impending stall in order to avoid an actual upset. Training should address specific aircraft behavior at low speeds and approaching stall s

. Prevention training should be included to train pilots to recognize cond itions that could increase the likelihood of a stall occurring as well as recogniz e undesirable aircraft states that could result in a stall. The ARC recommends that training providers present unexpected situations that surprise pilots as they would be du ring an inadvertent event. The ARC maintains that the ability to recognize the earliest indications of an impending stall is a critical skill in preventing stalls and consequent upsets. The ARC recommends scenario

- based training to observe flight crew beh avior in situations with threats of impending stall.

Stall recovery procedures prescribed by the OEM provide the proper flight crew response to recover from any condition between first indication of a stall and aerodynamic stall ( exceed ing C L Max). A ny pi lot encounter ing a stall indication is to assume an actual stall has occurred or
is imminent. Pilots should be trained to treat an approach

- to

- stall warning as an aerodynamic stall and immediately execute the recommended stall recovery at the first indica tion of an impending stall. Time should not be spent trying to determine if it is an approach

- to

- stall or aerodynamic stall

. The SPAW ARC discourages mandating precise parameters for evaluating pilot performance in stall, stick pusher

, and upset preventio n and recovery maneuvers

. If pilots are concerned about meeting such constraints, they are distracted from the total picture of recovering to safe flight. The total performance

— including decision making

— embraces the valid criteria for judging the pilot s kills essential for safe operations.

With regard to stick pushers, no training requirement exists beyond the generic mandate of training on all aircraft systems. The letter of the law has been met by discussing the stick pusher in academic training, altho ugh some operators have included some training in simulators. When there has been simulator training, a variety of approaches have been used

, ranging from preflight checks to overriding improper stick pusher activation. Some of the deficiencies the SPAW ARC discovered from surveys included

—

 Not all training providers address stick pusher in simulator training

.

 Among operators that train on the stick pusher, there is no consistency in the training

.

 There are i nsufficient regulatory requirements ( 14 CFR) an d guidance ( FAA Order 8900

, Flight Standards Information Management System ).SPAW ARC Final Report 24

The SPAW ARC conducted an informal survey of operators and training centers offering part 121 flight training in stick pusher equipped aircraft. The results are in a ppendix G . Q ueries were also made to manufacturers regarding improper pusher activations

. The manufacturers reported no occurrences of any improper pusher activations.

No evidence was found that any stick pusher system installed in transport category airplanes has

a history of improper activation. Therefore, the ARC has determined that there is no value in training for such an event ; such training may have a negative effect on pilot response to an actual pusher activation.

Despite the fact that pilots receive acade mic training to allow the pusher to function, the few training organizations that regularly train pilots in stick pusher activation during stall training find that the initial (natural) pilot response is to resist the pusher. Evidence from surveys shows
t hat only a few training organizations have added stick pusher training to their syllabi , and they have completion standards for the pilots. The training objectives of the air carriers responding

— barring one

— are nebulous in that they do not describe the ob jectiv e of training.

RECOMMENDATIONS

5

. 1 S TICK P USHER T RAINING

T he SPAW ARC recommends mandating stick pusher training in equipped airplanes. Although the ARC does not recommend checking pilot response to the pusher, the training should have specific co mpletion standards. Operators should have completion standards appropriate to pusher

- activation training during stall. The training completion standards shall include recovery to desired flight path. Federal r egulations should require the training and t he Administrator should provide guidance for training standards for pusher

- equipped aircraft. Stick

- pusher training should be included in the following curricula :

 Initial training

,

 Recurrent

— not less than once in 3 years ,

 Transition

,

 Differences , and

 Upgr ade.

Rationale Since overwhelming evidence indicates that pilots’ initial physical reaction to the stick pusher is to resist it, training providers should en sure that the training continues until the completion standard of permitting the pusher to reduce A OA is accomplished by each pilot. Notable accidents include

—SPAW ARC Final Report 25

 In 1994, a n Atlantic Coast Airlines 7 J

– 41 stalled on final approach after the autopilot disconnected

. T he pilot resisted the stick pusher

. The result was fatal

.

 In 2004, a Pinnacle Airlines 8 C RJ stalled at high altitude, and the pilot resisted the initial stick push , resulting in the engines fail ing and fatal injuries.

 In 2009, a Colgan Air, Inc. 9 Q

– 400 stalled on final approach after the autopilot disconnected

. T he pilot resisted the stick pu sher

. The result was fatal.

5

. 2 S TALL T RAINING
The SPAW ARC recommend s that training programs for stall training include the following:

Stall Training Element Knowledge

Based Training Flight Training

(Simulator or Aircraft) Operational

Experience Focus Elements 7
General Aerodynamic Characteristics

General A erodynamic P rinciples X

Control Effectiveness at H igh AOA X
High AOA Reduction in Stability X

Effects of H igh A ltitude and MACH N umber X

Characteristics of Power ON and Power OFF S tall s X

Stall with S ideslip P resent X
Type Specific Aerodynamic Characteristics X
Effects of Weight and Center of Gravity X
Stall Training 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5

Energy Management X X X

Avoidance and Prevention X X X
Recognition X X X
Stall Recovery X X

7 On January 7, 1994, a Jetstream J4101, N304UE, operated by Atlantic Coast Airlines doing business as United Express 6291, stalled on final approach a fter the autopilot disconnected

. T he pilot resisted the stick pusher and crashed 1.2 nautical miles east of the runway. The NTSB report is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx and the report number is DCA94MA027

. 8 On October 14, 2004, a Bombardier CL

– 600

– 2B19, N8396A, operat ed by Pinnacle Airlines doing business as Northwest Airlink

, crashed into a residential area about 2.5 miles south of Jefferson City Memorial Airport , Jefferson City, Missouri

. During the flight, both engines flamed out after the pilot induced an aerodyna mic stall at high altitude and resisted the initial stick push. The engines failed to restart. The NTSB report is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx and the report number is DCA05MA003

. 9 On February 12, 2009, a Colgan Air

, Inc, Bo mbardier DHC

– 8

– 400, N200WQ, operating as Continental Connection Flight 3407, was on an instrument approach to Buffalo

- Niagara International Airport , Buffalo, New York

. The Q

– 400 stalled on final approach a fter the autopilot disconnected

. T he pilot resist ed the stick pusher and crashed into a residence. The NTSB report is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx and the report number is DCA09MA027

.SPAW ARC Final Report 26

Stall Training Element Knowledge

Based Training Flight Training

(Simulator or Aircraft) Operational

Experience Focus Elements 7

Surprise Effect 8 X X

Handling Characteristics (Type Specific) X X
Slow Flight Characteristics X X
Stick Pusher ( E quipped A ircraft) 2 X X

Stall Maneuvers : Training and Evaluation 1, 2, 3

, 4, 5

Clean Configuration Stall at Low Altitude 6 X
Clean Configuration Stall at High Altitude 6 X
Departure/Approach Stalls with Partial Flaps X
Landing Configuration Stall X
Company Operations and Procedures
Crew Resource Management Integration with Stall Training X X X

Instructor Training X X

Notes: 1. Stall training beyond the first indication of a stall in the simulator will not be conducted until all of the following conditions are met :

a. T he simulator modeling and fidelity are such that the simulator of the specific airplane is represen tative in this flight regime.

b. Simulator enhancements in the low speed regime are incorporated in order to represent the changes in flying characteristics that typically occur approaching the critical AOA and include the following enhancements:

i. Reduction in pitch, roll, and yaw stability,

ii. Reduction in aircraft response to control inputs,

iii. Improved motion response for better g

- cueing,

iv. Stall buffet to cover broader range of flight conditions (if appropriate for the airplane),

v. Feedback of model aerodynamic fi delity and pilot control inputs to the instructor station, and

vi. Type or model specific characteristics or behavior approaching or exceeding critical AOA (C L Max) .

c. Simulators used for aerodynamic stall training must obtain additional qualification in

acc ordance with § 60.16. See appendix H.SPAW ARC Final Report 27

2. For pusher

- equipped aircraft

, stall training will be conducted to pusher activation and through recovery. Pusher equipped aircraft according to certification requirements, are deemed to have stalled at pusher activat ion. Pilots should always be trained to recover from an impending stall at the first indication of a stall ; however

, demonstration of the stick pusher activation should also be included in stall training.

3. Stall training should be conducted in a full

- fligh t simulator with motion. If an airplane is used for stall training, stall training must be limited to approach

- to

- stall training only

. S tall training to aerodynamic stall must not be performed in a transport category airplane.

4. All stall training and ev aluation should be conducted using realistic scenarios that replicate operational conditions and representative altitudes . Stall training must be accomplished with the autopilot engaged and disengaged.

5. For the purpose of this training matrix, stall traini ng must be done within the aircraft certification envelope as defined in 14 CFR part 25 or 23. Note: The stall may be defined as the stick

- pusher system activation. Emphasis in training must be on the recognition and recovery, not the entry into the con dition.

6. Stall training in a clean configuration should be conducted both at altitudes close to the service ceiling and at low operational altitudes to familiarize pilots with the difference in aircraft performance at these altitudes.

7. These items need discu ssion during operating experience , and are not meant as training items that need to be performed on the actual airplane.

8. P resenting pilots with a surprise event in the simulator and t raining to respond to such events

.

Rationale In 2010, an industry Stall/S tick

- pusher Working Group was organized to address concerns with LOC accidents due to stalls. The recommendations in the matrix are based on industry feedback that indicated discrepancies among operators for standards in stall training and checking in kno wledge and practical flight training. The matrix represents industry best practice and defines the elements required for part 121 air carriers to provide flightcrew members with ground training and flight training to recognize and avoid a stall of an airc raft or, if not avoided, to recover from the stall.

A paper published by the technical subgroup of the FAA/Industry Stall/Stick

- pusher Working Group, including members of the FAA’s NSP and simulator manufacturer engineers, concluded that simulators for t ransport category aircraft as of 2010 are accurate, validated, and can be used for training to the first indications of a stall, which includes up to the stall warning (stick shaker) and stick pusher (if installed). However, s tick pusher force must be val idated to ensure that it is representative of the airplane. It is not currently required to be checked.

Due to current simulator limitations, stall training beyond the first indication of a stall should not be conducted because the simulator’s lateral/d irectional characteristics may not be representative of the aircraft (in most cases they are not validated) and the pilots/instructors cannot always determine where the stall occurs. Negative training may result if the simulator is notSPAW ARC Final Report 28

representative of t he airplane. A technical subgroup of the FAA/Industry Stall/Stick

- pusher Working Group, including members of the FAA’s NSP and simulator manufacturer engineers, further recommended today’s simulators not be used to train between stick pusher and aerodynam ic stall ( exceeding C L Max) unless further testing and validation in this flight regime are performed for the specific simulator and approved by the FAA (see note 1 of the stall matrix and a ppendix H ).

5 .3 FSB P ROCESS 10

T he SPAW ARC recommends a review of the current procedures and standards established for developing OEM

- recommended and AEG/ FSB

- validated training programs for safety systems that will be included in the FSB report. Standards should also be established for a continuous process improvement f

eedback loop of the FSB report, including changes an OEM may recommend to established training programs after operating experience is gained from in

- service aircraft.

Rationale

The SPAW ARC, based on expert testimony and through deliberations, concluded th at the current FSB review process and the resulting FSB report has the potential to omit the assessment of training requirements for safety critical systems when the y have not been identified by the aircraft OEM. Furthermore, where safety

- critical systems are assessed, they may not receive the required level of scrutiny to assure the desired level of safety through training. The ARC observed that

—

 Incorporation of new systems do es not always receive proper attention in the FSB report

.

 No quality

- assurance process for FAA reviews and approvals exists.

5 .4 S IMULATOR T RAINING
The SPAW ARC recommends s tall and stick

- pusher training (if appropriate ) should be conducted in a qualified FFS with motion. If the airplane is used for stall training when a qualified simulator is not available for the aircraft type
, this training must be limited to recovery at the first indication of stall

.

Rationale Industry experience shows modern FFS es with motion allow stall training and evaluation in a safe environment without su bjecting the pilots and instructors to the associated hazards of in

- flight training. Most stall training is currently done in a qualified FFS with motion.

10 Th is r ecommendation applies to Stall, Stick Pusher, Icing, and Microburst/Windshear

.SPAW ARC Final Report 29

There are specific cases where stall training is conducted in the airplane because no qualified FFS exists. This inflight stall training has proven to be safe in airplanes because adequate safety margin s are maintained during the stall training. Conducting stall training to the aerodynamic stall in the airplane increases risk and could lead to a n LOC situation . Therefore, the stall training must not be conducted in the actual aircraft beyond first indication of a stall in transport category aircraft

.

5 .5 S TALL T RAINING P ROGRAMS

T he SPAW ARC recommends that each air carrier should include stall and st ick pusher training conducted for pilots during

—

 Initial new

- hire training

.

 Transition training (including requalification training) to include stall and stick pusher training on the specific stall characteristics and recovery techniques for the specific airplane

.

 Upgrade training

.

 Recurrent training provid ing refresher training of academic and maneuvers training spread out over two years to include basic stall aerodynamics, slow flight, stall recognition and recovery maneuvers, and effective aeronautical decision making to avoid stall events. The intent is to ensure some basic elements of stall training are covered during each training event. Maneuvers training, including stick

- pusher demonstration, should be conducted in a qualified simulator. At leas t once each three years a scenario

based training stall exercise should be accomplished in the simulator as a flight crew stall event. Scenario

- based exercises should be accomplished during recurrent training without briefing the pilots that the event will occur.

 R ecurrent training on each type of aircraft with distinctly different stall characteristics at least once every 24 months

, i n the event that a pilot is qualified on more than one aircraft.

Rationale Industry feedback shows that some p art 121 stall training programs make improper assumptions of new

- hire pilots ’ aerodynamic knowledge

, and stall recognition and recovery skills for large transport aircraft. Therefore part 121 air carriers shall include stall training in their initial

new

- hire training program to ensure that all new

- hire pilots meet the required level of aerodynamic knowledge as well as stall avoidance, recognition, and recovery skills.

Pilots need to be trained on the specific stall characteristics for the type aircraft they are flying

. Stall training should be conducted on a recurring basis during the career of a pilot at an air carrier. Air carriers and training centers should include both academic and maneuvers training as part of their required stall/stick

- pusher recurrent trainin g cycles.SPAW ARC Final Report 30

5 .6 U PSET P REVENTION AND R ECOVERY A CADEMIC T RAINING
The SPAW ARC recommends a n academic training program based on the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid revision 2 or an approved equivalent, be mandated for all commercial pilots.

Rationale

T his s atisfies the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010

, Pub lic L aw 111

– 216 (Pub. L 111

– 216 ) § 208 mandate to utiliz e the existing aviation training infrastructure and ensures appropriate qualifications for those that del iver training. It e nsures that the existing aviation

- training infrastructure is used appropriately to eliminate incorrect information and negative training

. The term ―commercial pilots‖ encompasses more than
p art 121.

5 .7 U PSET P REVENTION AND R ECOVERY F LIGHT T RAINING

U pset prevention and recovery simulator and academic training shall be conducted f or pilots operating under 14 CFR part 91 subpart K and 14 CFR p art s 121, 125

, and 135

. This training shall be delivered by instructors specifically trained a nd evaluated in u pset p revention and

r ecovery t raining (UPRT) . The FAA should develop an AC articulating how to implement a UPRT program based on the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid revision 2

, an approved equivalent , or other FAA

- approved guidance.

Rationale

LOC in flight is the leading cause of fatalities in the world

- wide commercial jet fleet. It has been determined that appropriate training is lacking because there is no regulatory requirement and the current industry guidance (Airplane Upset Rec overy Training Aid) is either poorly understood or not used.

Due to limitations in simulations, this area of instruction requires specialized knowledge and skill to avoid negative training.

5 .8 C ERTIFICATION T RAINING Aircraft training relevant to upset prevention and recovery training shall be mandated for Commercial Pilots License and Multi

- Crew Pilot License ( MPL ) pilots during certification training. This will require UPRT

- qualified f light i nstructors.

Rationale

The new

- hire demographics have changed to include far fewer pilots with a military background who have had all

- attitude training

. T he target group for this training is commercial pilots. There is insufficient infrastructure to expect today’s pilot population to undergo basic in

- flight UPRT

. This area of instruction requires instructors with specialized knowledge and skills. The need for this training will be enduring; recognition and recovery skills should be a core

- competency for commercial pilot s

. Aircraft training relevant to UPRT is be st done early in the pilot’s flyingSPAW ARC Final Report 31

career so the relevant knowledge and skills can be developed over time. The International Civil Aviation Organization has recognized the importance of UPRT in aircraft prior to flying large transport category aircraft b y including UPRT in the basic phase of the MPL training.

5 .9 S IMULATOR F IDELITY
The SPAW ARC recommends p art 60 sh ould be amended with a requirement (see a ppendix H ) for an improved mathematical model of aircraft responses in a stall, as well as improved motion and stall buffet cueing. For previously qualified simulators

, such requirements shall be through an FSTD directive. The ARC further recommends s imulators used in UPRT should include proper simulation of the following

, as appropriate :

 The effects of the proper and improper use of flight controls and thrust

,

 R eduction of stability

,

 Reduction of control effectiveness

,

 The improvement of control effectiveness with the reduction in AOA

,

 Wing drop (if required) , and

 Entry into secondary stalls

.

Rationa le Specifications are training

- objective driven. Current mathematical models are inadequate for teaching recoveries from fully developed stalls. The SPAW ARC concludes that improvements are required for both the dynamics and the cueing in these regimes. Over the past 25 years

, training of aerodynamic stall and upset prevention and recovery in simulators have not been required

. The applicable FSTD regulatory standards have therefore not been required to be amended to allow for this training. In light of the recommendations to include aerodynamic stall and UPRT herein, i t is the opinion of this ARC that a set of minimum objective and subjective testing standards for simulators needs to be defined to support the intended training tasks in both stall and U P RT. A ppendix H to this document contains a set of recommended changes to
p art 60

, includ ing improved simulator evaluation standards for both stall and UPRT tasks.

5 .10 F EEDBACK M ECHANISM

The SPAW ARC recommends f eedback mechanisms for use in the simulator and outside the simulator for briefing and debriefing pilots on their performance as it relates to upset prevention and recovery. These feedback mechanisms should include pilot inputs during recovery from an upset as well as information from both the val idated simulation envelope and the aircraft operating envelope as determined by the data provider, to include at least control forces, angle

- of

- attack, g

- load

, and sideslip excursions. During UPRT, maneuver excursions beyond the validated simulator envelo pe require training intervention and explanation. See attachment B to appendix H.SPAW ARC Final Report 32

Rationale Industry feedback from instructors indicates that they do not always have the proper tools to provide adequate feedback to pilots on their responses to upset prev ention and recovery or show how the flight crew ’s responses relate to the aircraft operating envelope. This often results in negative or incomplete training. Proper feedback of pilot performance is crucial during training, especially when an instructor ne eds to be able to relate pilot responses to upset prevention and recovery to the actual aircraft operating envelope.

If part of the training is done outside of the validated envelope, there is a risk that the aircraft will not respond as simulated

, which could result in negative training. When exceeding the accepted simulator model envelope or the known aircraft load factor envelope, the instructor should be able to inform the pilot that he or she is exceeding th o se limits and should have improved tools to
correct flight crew behaviors

, thus mitigating negative training.

In addition, simulator time is normally constrained and the instructors do not have enough time to completely debrief the flight crew on their performance while in the simulator. These fe edback tool(s) need to be available both inside the simulator for immediate feedback to correct flight crew behavior and outside the simulator during the debrief, where longer discussions can take place between the instructor and students in a more relaxed and less time constrained environment

.

For recommendation s 5 .6 through 5

. 10

, the following conditions apply:

 UPRT shall follow a phased implementation plan. This plan, created in conjunction with industry, shall be put in place to eliminate the risk of ne gative training.

 Completion of an integrated course of UPRT shall result in pilot training record.SPAW ARC Final Report A

– 1



## APPENDIX A

— MEMBERS , STAFF , AND SMES

SPAW ARC C HAIRMAN
Mr. Lou Nemeth , CAE, Chief Safety Officer

SPAW ARC V ICE C HAIRMAN Mr. Philip Adrian , The Boeing Compan y, 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Chief Pilot Regulatory Affairs

A IR L INE P ILOTS A SSOCIATION , I NTERNATIONAL (ALPA) Capt. David McKenney

Mr. Chad Balentine

A IR T RANSPORT A SSOCIATION OF A MERICA , I NC

. Mr. Paul Railsback

Mr. David Ward

ATR

Mr. Jerome Bonetto

Mr

. Dominique Falque

T HE B OEING C OMPANY
Mr. Chuck Allison

B OMBARDIER A EROSPACE
Mr. Allan Dunville

Mr. Scott Black CAE

Mr. Itash Samani

Mr. Gary Morrison

T HE C OALITION OF A IR L INE P ILOTS A SSOCIATION S Mr. Noam Morgenstern

Mr. Charles Cox

E MBRAER N ORTH A MERICA
Mr. Gilson Russo

Mr. John Sevalho

F LIGHT S AFETY F OUNDATION
Mr. Jim Burin

Mr. Bill Voss

F LIGHT S AFETY I NTERNATIONAL

Mr. Suren Meras

Ms. Susan McHaffie

R EGIONAL A IRLINE A SSOCIATION

Mr. Paul Kolisch

Mr. Paul PreideckerSPAW ARC Final Report A

– 2

S UBJECT M ATTER E XPERTS

D r. Sunjoo Adv ani, International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE)

Mr. Mike Belcher, Calspan Corporation

Mr. Tom Bond, FAA

Mr. Randy Brooks, Upset Prevention and Recover y Training Association (UPRTA)

Mr. Bryan Burks, ALPA

Mr. Dan Campbell

, Airbus SAS

Mr. Dennis Crider, NTSB

Mr. John Foster, NASA

Mr. Joe Jacobsen, FAA

Mr. Dan Litman, FlightSafety International

Mr. Pete Neff, FAA

Mr. Jerry Ostronic , FAA

Mr. Paul Pellicano , FAA

Mr. Paul Ransbury, UPRTA

Mr. Tom Ratvasky, NASA

Mr. Don Weins, Ho rizon Airlines F EDERAL A VIATION A DMINISTRATION Mr. Robert Burke, Designated Federal Official

Ms. Barbara Adams, Air Transportation Division

Ms. Catherine Burnett, Management and Program Analyst

, Air Transportation Division

Mr. Larry McDonald, National Si mulator Program

Ms. Sara Mikolop, Attorney, Office of the Chief Council Regulations Division

Dr. Jeff Schroeder, Chief Scientist and Technical Advisor

PAI C ONSULTING Mr. Scott Harper

Mr. Ryan Gibson

Mr. Davis ChungSPAW ARC Final Report B

– 1



## APPENDIX B

— ACRONYMS

14 CFR Title 14, Co de of Federal Regulations

AC A d visory C i rcular

ACO Aircraft Certification Office

AEG Aircraft Evaluation Groups

AFM Airplane Flight Manual

AOA Angle of Attack

AOM Aircraft Operating Manual

ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee

ASAP Aviation Safety Act ion Plan

ASIAS Aviation Safety Information Analytical Sharing

ASRS Aviation Safety Reporting System

AVP Office of Accident In vestigation

CCA Computer Controlled Aircraft

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FFS Full

- flight simulators
FOQA Fligh t Ope rations Quality Assurance

FSB Flight Standards Board

FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device

ICATEE International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes

I n FO Information for Operators

IOS Instructor Operating System S tation

LOC L oss of C ontrol

MPL Multi

- Crew Pilot License

MSL Mean Sea Level

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NSP National Simulator Program

NSPM National Simulator Program Manager

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

OEM Original Equipment Manufac turer

POI P rincipal O perations I nspector

Pub. L. 111

– 216 Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010

,

Public Law 111

– 216
QTG Quality Test GuideSPAW ARC Final Report B

– 2 SAFO Safety Alert for Operators

SME Subject Matter Expert

SMS Safety Manage ment System

SPAW Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather

TEM Threat and Error Management

UPRT Upset Prevention and Recovery Training

UPRTA Upset Prevention and Recovery Training AssociationSPAW ARC Final Report C

– 1



## APPENDIX C

— CHARTERSPAW ARC Final Report C

– 2SPAW ARC Final Report C

– 3SPAW ARC Final Report D

– 1



## APPENDIX D

— SECTION 208 OF PUB . L. 111

– 216SPAW ARC Final Report E

– 1



## APPENDIX E

— DEFINITIONS

Term Definition

Adverse Weather For the purpose of this report, the term adverse weather is not limited to icing, microburst, and windshear. The ARC deliberations and recommendations went beyond the narrow scope and include d broader weather conditions.

Aerodynamic Stall (VS) When the wing’s critical angle of attack is exceeded and lift is reduced substantially due to airflow separation over the upper surface of the wing.
Approach to Stall Flight conditions bordered by stal l warning and aerodynamic stall.

First Indication of a Stall The initial aural, tactile, or visual sign of an impending stall, which can be either natural or synthetically induced.
Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) A full flight simulator (FFS) or a flight

- training device (FTD)

, which is in compliance with the standards for FSTD qual ification as described in part 60.

Integrated Training Course In an integrated training course the licenses and ratings are provided through a single course. The inte grated course is done with a constant and intensive assessment accomplished in a shorter duration than a modular course.

Landing Configuration Starts at initial configuration change for commencing an approach until executing a landing, go

- around, or misse d approach.

Lift Curve A depiction of an aircraft’s lift coefficient versus angle of attack. Typical lift curves show lift increasing proportionally with angle of attack until lift decreases due to airflow separation.

Maneuver

- Based Training Training th at focuses on a single event or maneuver in isolation.

Microburst A concentrated, powerful downdraft associated with convective weather.

Modular Training Course In a modular training course, the licenses and ratings are obtained in different phases and m ay be by different providers. The modular course is normally longer than the integrated course.

Scenario

- Based Training Training that incorporates maneuvers with possible real

- world experiences to facilitate training of critical thinking, flight managem ent skills, and cultivate practical flying skills in an operational environment.

Secondary Stall A premature increase in angle of attack during stall recovery that results in another stal l.

Stall Event Anytime the aircraft develops indications of an appr oach to stall or aerodynamic stall.

Stall Warning A natural or synthetic indication provided when approaching a stall that may include one or more of following indications:

 B uffeting (some aircraft will buffet more than others)

,

 R educed roll stability and aileron effectiveness

,

 L ow airspeed visual or aural indications

,

 R educed elevator (pitch) authority

,

 I nability to maintain altitude or arrest rate of descent

,

 A n aural or visual cue , or

 S tick shaker activation (if installed)

.SPAW ARC Final Report E

– 2

Term Definition

Startle An unexpect ed event that causes an emotion such as when a p ilot engages autopilot in vertical speed 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 Configuration Defined as normal configuration for takeoff, go

- around, or missed approach until all flaps/slats and gear are fully stowed. Retractable landing gear may be extended

or retracted.

Threat and Error Managemen t (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, since both threats and errors carry the potential to generate undesired aircraft states.

Training Provider Defined as anyone who is providing flight/simulator training to pil ots flying under parts 91K, 121, 125

, and 135.

Uncoordinated Flight Flight, especially during turns, in which the horizontal and vertical forces acting on the aircraft are out of balance resulting in a slip or a skid.

Undesired Aircraft State A position, condition, or attitude of an aircraft that reduces or eliminates safety margins.

Windshear Any rapid change in wind velocity , either direction or speed

.SPAW ARC Final Report F

– 1



## APPENDIX F

— TRAINING TO OBJECTIV E AND MEASURABLE STANDARDS

Windshear training programs should be c ompetency based. Pilots must demonstrate proficiency in each competency to satisfactorily complete the training. Proficiency standards must be clearly outlined for each competency.

RECOMMENDED /EXAMPLE COMPETENCIE S AND PROFICIENCY ST ANDARDS FOR A WINDSHEA R TRAINING PROGRAM

T HEORETICAL K NOWLEDGE T RAINING 1. Microburst

/ Windshear Theory

—

 Identifies conditions that produce microburst s and windshear

.

 Lists indicators of the presence of microbursts and windshear

. 2. Microburst

/ Windshear Accidents

—

 Describes ma

jor accidents caused by microburst and windshear

.

 Shows knowledge of the existence of microbursts that exceed the performance capability of any airplane

. 3. Microburst

/ Windshear Avoidance

—

 Identifies avoidance as the primary means of handling microburst a nd windshear

. 4. Microburst

/ Windshear Escape

—

 Lists the steps of the windshear escape procedure

.

 Identifies the goal of the windshear escape procedure

.

F LIGHT T RAINING 1. Microburst

/ Windshear Escape

—

 Identifies the presence of windshear

.

 Initiates windsh ear escape maneuver promptly

.

 Follows windshear guidance according to OEM or c ompany procedures ( if available)

.

 Coordinates flight crew activities to respond the windshear

.

 Maintains flight path and accepts abnormal airspeed and pitch attitude

.

 Reports the windshear encounter to ATC

.SPAW ARC Final Report G

– 1



## APPENDIX G

— SURVEY & DATA ANALYS IS RESULTS/INDUSTRY PRACTICES

Table G

– 1. Stick Pusher (SP) Company Survey

.

Company SP Ground

Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP

Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differen ces

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how

training is accomplished

A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

— measured Demonstration

B No No No No No No No Not in BAE syllabus

C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA En sure pilot allows pus her to lower AoA

Table G

– 2. Stick Pusher Airline Survey

.

Airline SP Ground Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP

Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differences

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how tr aining

is accomplished

#1 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Unk nown

#2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

#3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Hold from shaker to initial pusher activation

— experience only

#4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Unk nown

#5 Yes No No FAA consider ed activation of SP "negative training."SPAW ARC Final Report G

– 2

Airline SP Ground Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP

Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differences

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how tr aining

is accomplished

#6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SME and NSP force verification Training complete when

pilot response is to release back pressure

#7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Flightc rews to get hands

- on with the proper recovery
t echnique, and reset muscle memory.

Table G

– 3

. SPAW ARC 208 Stick Pusher Demo/Training Data

.

Aircraft Type SP Ground

Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differences

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how training is

accomplished

ATR 42/72/500 Yes Yes No Simulator Yes Yes No No No Stick pusher demonstration conducted during approach to stall series. Only one demo is required. As the airspeed decreases and when the s tick pusher activates, the pilot will perform the recovery. Maneuver graded with a T.

Challenger CL300 Yes Yes No Simulator Yes Yes No No No Stick pusher demonstration conducted during departure, approach, and at a high altitude

over the course of traini ng. Bombardier flight test pilot provided subjective verification of pusher activation during simulator certification process.SPAW ARC Final Report G

– 3

Aircraft Type SP Ground

Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differences

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how training is

accomplished

Challenger Cl600 Series Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Yes No Yes Stick Pusher forces measured and subjectively verified by the SME. Exercise in the simulator is trained to not oppose SP forces but is not graded.

CRJ 200 Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Yes No No Training is given in both the clean and landing configuration

. Exercise in the simulator stresses not to oppose the stick pusher, and execute a stall recovery once the pusher ceases. The e vent is trained, but not graded.

CRJ 700 Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Yes No No Training is given in both the clean and landing configuration. Exercise in the simulator stresses
not to o ppose the stick pusher, and execute a stall recovery once the pusher ceases. The e vent is trained, but not graded.

CRJ 900 Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Yes No No Training is given in both the clean and landing configuration. Exercise in the simulator st resses not to oppose the stick pusher, and execute a stall recovery once the pusher ceases. The e vent is trained, but not graded.SPAW ARC Final Report G

– 4

Aircraft Type SP Ground

Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differences

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how training is

accomplished

Dash 8 Q300 Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Yes No Yes Stick Pusher forces are measured (+4 lbs) and subjectively verified by the Bombardier c hief f light
test e ngineer

. Exercise in the simulator is trained to not oppose SP force but is not graded

. No malfunction training is provided.

Dash 8 Q400 Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Yes No Yes Stick Pusher forces are measured (+4 lbs) and subjectively verified by the Bombardier c hief f light
test e ngineer

. Exercise in the simulator is trained to not oppose SP force but is not graded

. No malfunction training is provided.

Emb raer 120 Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Yes No No Stick pusher force is per the original measured values obtained during simulator certification

. Stick pusher pressures are verified by the SME for accuracy in feel. The manufacturer does not have a stick pusher demonstration. We accomplish the demonstration in

acco rdance with standard FlightSafety recommended practices.

Emb raer 135/145/ Legacy Yes Yes No Simulator Yes Yes No No No Stick pusher forces are measured during the initial certification of the simulator . The p usher is only demonstrated not trained, but it is graded.SPAW ARC Final Report G

– 5

Aircraft Type SP Ground

Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differences

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how training is

accomplished

Global Express Bd

700 Yes Yes No Simulator Yes Yes No No No Stick pusher is subjectively verified by the Bombardier t est p ilot who originally certified the aircraft. Demonstration is conducted in the s imulator at low and high altitude s

.

Gulfs tream ( G1159 ) II / III Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes No Yes Yes Demo nstration is accomplished only after proficiency is achieved for normal stall recovery. At simulated m inimum e n route

a ltitude on visual approach, stall is taken to pusher and the pilot

rec overs to go around. Additional training options are available through use of windshear recovery that often result in a pusher or use of pusher malfunction

, which allows recovery from real

- world scenarios at any altitude. Push force is verified subjective ly by Gulfstream test pilots during
recent recurrent.

Gulfstream G200

Gulfstream G

- IVSPAW ARC Final Report G

– 6

Aircraft Type SP Ground

Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differences

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how training is

accomplished

Gulfstream G450 /550 Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes No No Yes Subjective force measurement

. Activation is verified by the cockpit avionics AOA indic ation and the graphic p itch l imit i ndicator.

Gulfstream G

- IV /300/ 400 Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes No No Yes Brief then s imulator Demonstration

. Demonstration is no lower than 600ft minimum decent altitude

. Push force is verified by the OEM t est p ilot.

Gulfstream G

- V

Hawker 750 No Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes No No Yes The demonstration is conducted in one of two methods

. One is during a mid

- altitude holding pattern, the other is on approach fully configured. Both are done as a demonstration and is not graded 1

– 4.

Hawker 800XP No Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes No No Yes The demonstration is conducted in one of two methods

. One is during a mid

- altitude holding pattern, the other is on approach fully configured. Both are done as a demonstration an d is not graded 1

- 4.SPAW ARC Final Report G

– 7

Aircraft Type SP Ground

Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differences

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how training is

accomplished

Hawker 850XP No Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes No No Yes The demonstration is conducted in one of two methods

. One is during a mid

- altitude holding pattern, the other is on approach fully configured. Both are done as a demonstration and is not graded 1

- 4.

Hawker 900XP No Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes No No Yes The demonstration is conducted in one of two methods

. One is during a mid

- altitude holding pattern, the other is on approach fully configured. Both are done as a demonstration and is not graded 1

- 4.

Hawker 4000 Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes No No Yes Pusher force was measured during simulator flight data collection and has been confirmed by Hawker Beechcraft Flight Test pilots. A stick pusher demo nstration is conducted by having a p ilot hold a landing configuration stall to the pusher and recovering.SPAW ARC Final Report G

– 8

Aircraft Type SP Ground

Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differences

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how training is

accomplished

Jetstar II Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Yes No No Stick pusher is per the original sim ulation certification for accuracy and force

. The stick pusher feel is verified by the program SM E

. The value given in the AFM is approximately 100 lbs pull force exerted by the stick pusher

. The stick pusher demonstration is from the Jetstar AFM and is delivered per the manufacturer’s recommendations and procedures. (AFM chapter 2

– 46).

Jetstream 31/32 Series No Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes No Yes No Some verification of SP f orce. Training is given in either the clean or landing configuration. Exercise in the sim

ulator stresses not to oppose the stick pusher, and to execute a stall recovery once th e pusher ceases. the e vent is trained, but not graded.

Learjet 20 Series Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Yes Yes No SME verification of SP force

. The SP demo is demonstrated as a separate maneuver as part of the

s tall s eries

. SP & s tick/ s haker inadverten t activation is given as two separate e mergency

m alfunctions during the review of all f light c ontrol m alfunctions and they are graded.SPAW ARC Final Report G

– 9

Aircraft Type SP Ground

Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differences

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how training is

accomplished

Learjet 35/36 Series Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Yes Yes No SME verification of SP force

. SP demo is demonstrated as a separate maneuver as part of the
st all s eries

. SP & s tick/ s haker inadvertent activation is given as two separate e mergency

m alfunctions during the review of all f light c ontrol m alfunctions and they are graded.

Learjet 55 Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Y es Yes No SME verification of SP force

. SP demo is demonstrated as a separate maneuver as part of the

s tall s eries

. SP & s tick/ s haker inadvertent activation is given as two separate e mergency

m alfunctions during the review of all f light c ontrol m alfuncti ons and they are graded.

Metro 23/ C

- 26B Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Stick Pusher forces subjectively verified by three program SMEs each have several thousand hours of M etro time. SP m alfunction is trained in the simulator using the

m anufac turer's checklist procedure. SP exercise in the simulator is trained to full stall and to not oppose SP force. The

e xercise is not graded.SPAW ARC Final Report G

– 10

Aircraft Type SP Ground

Training/ Briefing SP

Demo SP Training Training

Aids Used Initial

Training Recurrent

Training Differences

Training SP

Malfunction Training SP Force

Verification Comments on how training is

accomplished

Premier I / IA Yes Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes No Yes No OEM production test pilot confirmed today (Jan 6, 2011) our

s tick pusher tends to correct the AOA too quickly. The aircraft does it slower and smoother. Also, the pusher releases too soon after activation and will sometimes enter a secondary push. Need to reevaluate the stick pusher data for the sim

ulator

.

SAAB 2000

SAAB 340 A/B No Yes Yes Simulator Yes Yes No Yes No Some verification of SP f orce. Training is given in either the clean or landing configuration. Exercise in the sim

ulator stresses not to oppose the stick pusher, and to execute a stall r ecovery once the pusher ceases. The

e vent is trained, but not graded.SPAW ARC Final Report H

– 1



## APPENDIX H

— PROPOSED SIMULATOR S TANDARDS FOR ICING, WINDS HEAR, UPSET, & STALL TRAINING

INTRODUCTION
This appendix provides recommendations regarding the updates to the FSTD technical standards as defined in p art 60 to support training recommendations made in the body of this report. These standards were initially developed by the industry technical working group ICATEE. It was comprised of a broad range of SME s on simulator developme nt and evaluation.

The SPAW ARC recommends that the FAA incorporate these changes to p art 60, through due process, and make these requirements applicable to all new FFS equipment based on an effective date that is coordinated with the effective date of ne w training requirements as defined in the body of this report. Furthermore, since the training requirements recommended in the body of this report will likely be conducted in FSTDs previously qualified either under p art 60 or an earlier standard , the reco mmende d simulator standards detailed in this appendix should be published through an FSTD d irective as defined in § 60.23. Note that the publication of an FSTD d irective addresses safety of flight issues and is applicable to each qualified FSTD, regardles s of its original qualification standard. It is the intent of the ARC that any retroactive simulator requirements as defined in this appendix and published as an FSTD d irective should be addressed as additional qualification requirements (see § 60.16) tha t are applicable only to those simulators being used to conduct training tasks as defined in the body of this report.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMEND ED CHANGES TO CURREN T FFS EVALUATION STANDARDS

This appendix is in two sections

. Each section provides a summary of s ignificant new requirements that are proposed in the attached tables together with supporting information.

 Attachment A defines recommended changes to current simulator standards tables to support the required training tasks from the SPAW ARC recommendatio ns.

 Attachment B provides supporting information and requirements that are intended to be appended to existing regulatory guidance material.

ATTACHMENT A

— PROPOSED REVISIONS T O CURRENT SIMULATOR STANDARDS TABLES (14 CFR PART 60)

G ENERAL R EQUIREMENTS

Winds hear Recognition and Recovery The existing requirements for windshear recognition and recovery are amended to address the following improvements as recommended by the SPAW ARC:

1

. In addition to the four windshear profiles that are currently required, two additional complex windshear models will be required to enable demonstration of the complexity ofSPAW ARC Final Report H

– 2

a real world microburst event. The Win d shear Training Aid provides two examples of such complex models that may be used to satisfy this requirement.

2

. All required windshear profiles must be selectable from the IOS and must use a method to ensure the simulator is properly configured to ensure the proper windshear recognition cues are presented as tuned and qualified.

3

. Realistic levels of turbulence associa ted with each required windshear profile must be programed into the profile.

Table H

– 1. Proposed Revisions to 14 CFR Part 60 Table A1A

– Minimum Simulator Requirements , Entry No. 2.e

.

<<< QPS Requirements >>> Simulator Levels < Information >

Entry No. G eneral Simulator Requirements A B C D Notes

2.e.
(amend) If the aircraft being simulated is one of the aircraft listed in

§ 121.358, Low

- altitude windshear system equipment requirements, the simulator must employ windshear models that provide training for recognition of windshear phenomena and the execution of recovery procedures. Models must be available to the instructor/evaluator for the following critical phases of flight:
(1) Prior to takeoff rotation. (2) At liftoff. (3) During initial climb. (4) On final approach, below 500 ft AGL. The QTG must reference the FAA Windshear Training Aid or present alternate airplane related data, including the implementation method(s) used. If the alternate method is selected, wind models from the Royal Aerospace Establishment, the Joint Airport Weather Studies Project and other recognized sources may be implemented, but must be supported and properly referenced in the QTG. Only those simulators meeting these requirements may be used to satisfy the training requi rements of part 121 pertaining to a certificate holder’s approved low

- altitude windshear flight training program as described in § 121.409.

The addition of realistic levels of turbulence associated with each required windshear profile must be available and selectable to the instructor.
In addition to the four basic windshear models required for qualification, at least two additional complex windshear models must be available to the instructor that represent the complexity of actual windshear encounters. Th ese models must be available in the takeoff and landing configurations and must consist of independent variable winds in multiple simultaneous components. The Windshear Training Aid provides two such example ―complex‖ windshear models X X If desired, Level A and B simulators may qualify for windshear tr aining by meeting these standards; see Attachment 5 of this appendix. Windshear models may consist of independent variable winds in multiple simultaneous components. The FAA Windshear Training Aid presents one acceptable means of compliance with simulato r wind model requirements.SPAW ARC Final Report H

– 3 <<< QPS Requirements >>> Simulator Levels < Information >

Entry No. G eneral Simulator Requirements A B C D Notes

that may be used to satisfy this requirement. Any proposed alternate wind models used to meet this requirement must be properly supported and referenced in the Master QTG.
Instructor Operating Station (IOS): All required windshear models must be selectable and clearly label ed on the IOS. Additionally, all IOS selectable windshear models must employ a method, such as a simulator preset, to ensure that the FFS is properly configured for use in training. This method must address variables such as windshear intensity, aircraft configurations (weights, flap settings, etc.), and ambient conditions to ensure that the proper windshear recognition cues and training objectives are present as originally qualified.

Engine and Airframe Icing

The SPAW ARC recommend s improvements to simulation modeling regarding the aerodynamic effects of icing conditions on the aircraft, in particular emphasizes that the aerodynamic effects modeling should n ot be based on weight changes. Specific aircraft data should be used where available, however empirical data should be used if flight test data is not available.

The SPAW ARC also recommends simulation of the effects of engine ice ingestion

. In addition

, the ARC recommend s that adequate simulation of failures to ice protection equipment be included to allow for the training of failures in these systems and the ensuing impact to the performance of the aircraft.SPAW ARC Final Report H

– 4

Table H

– 2 . Proposed Revisi ons to 14 CFR Par t 60 Table A1A

– Minimum Simulator Requirements , Entry No. 2.j

.

<<< QPS Requirements >>> Simulator Levels < Information >

Entry No. General Simulator Requirements A B C D Notes
2. j. (amend) Modeling that includes the effects of icing, where

appropriate , on the airframe, aerodynamics, and the engine(s). Icing models should simulate the aerodynamic degradation effects of ice accretion on the airplane lifting surfaces including loss of lift, decrease in stall angle of attack, change in pitching moment, de crease in control effectiveness, and changes in control forces in addition to any overall increase in drag

. Engine icing models should include the degradation effects and cues of ice accretion including vibration changes, power changes, and ice ingestion where appropriate.
Aircraft OEM data or other acceptable analytical methods must be utilized to develop ice accretion models that are representative of the simulated aircraft’s performance degradation in a typical in

- flight icing encounter or other icing e ncounter as required for training flightcrews due to accident/incident history for a particular aircraft type. Ice accretion models should be developed using historical accident/incident data where appropriate and available.
Statement of compliance ( S OC ) and tests required. See objective testing requirements.

In addition

, the SOC shall include the effects of icing following failures of ice protection equipment as applicable to the aircraft type

. The ice protection system for aircraft, aircraft engine s, propellers, and airframe

, including instrumentation systems such as pitot static sources should be considered. X X A statement of compliance should be provided describing the effects that provide training in the specific skills required for recognit ion of icing phenomena and execution of recovery; the effects resulting from a failure of an installed protection system should also be addressed through the SOC.

The SOC should include verification that these effects have been tested.
Icing effects simul ation models are only required for those airplanes authorized for operations in icing conditions. Icing simulation models should be developed to provide training in the specific skills required for recognition of ice accumulation and execution of the requ ired
response.
Upset Recognition and Recovery

1

. New requirements are proposed for the qualification of upset prevention and recovery maneuvers that are based upon the principles as described in the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid.

2

. These requireme nts address the following elements with respect to aircraft UPRT :

a

. To verify that the FFS response can remain within the range of validated data or wind tunnel/analytical data during the execution of a UPRT task.

b

. To provide the instructor/evaluator wi th a minimum set of feedback tools to properly evaluate the student’s performance during a UPRT task. This feedback tool should provide the instructor/evaluator with information that can be used to critique and/or debrief the student. It should provide t he information necessary to determine whetherSPAW ARC Final Report H

– 5 or not a repeat or additional training is warranted, should the observed recovery take the simulator outside of the validated envelope.

Table H

– 3 . Proposed Revisi ons to 14 CFR Part 60 Table A1A

– Minimum Simulat or Requirements , Entry No. 2. m .

<<< QPS Requirements >>> Simulator Levels < Information >

Entry No. General Simulator Requirements A B C D Notes

2. m. (append) Upset Recognition and Recovery.

Aerodynamics Evaluation: The simulator must be capable

o f performing upset recognition and recovery tasks as defined on the simulator’s s tatement of q ualification (SOQ) . 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 during a typical recovery maneuver as defined in the sponsor’s training program. The following minimum set of upset prevention and recovery maneuvers must be av ailable to the instructor/evaluator. Other upset prevention and recovery scenarios as developed by the FFS sponsor must be evaluated in the same manner.

1. A nose

- high, wings level aircraft upset.
2. A nose

- low, wings level aircraft upset. 3. A high ba nk angle aircraft upset. Instructor Operating System (IOS): Selectable airplane upsets must provide guidance to the instructor concerning the method utilized to drive the FFS into an upset condition including any malfunction or degradation in the FFS’ fun ctionality required to initiate the upset. The intentional degradation of simulator functionality to drive an airplane upset is generally not acceptable unless used purely as a tool for repositioning with the pilot out of the loop. The simulator must als o have a mechanism in place to notify the instructor/evaluator when the simulator’s validated envelope and aircraft operational limits have been exceeded during an upset prevent ion and recovery training task. A s tatement of c ompliance (SOC) is required th at defines the source data used to construct the flight test and wind tunnel/analytical envelope. This SOC must verify that each upset prevention and recovery maneuver as defined on the FFS’ SOQ has been evaluated using the methods described in this secti on. X X X X This section applies to the qualification of airplane upset maneuvers that exceed one or more of the altitudes described in the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid, Revision 2.

The IOS display (or equivalent method of instructor feedback) sh ould contain features that clearly indicate to the instructor/evaluator when the simulator has exceeded its flight test validated and wind tunnel/analytical envelope (typically displayed as an alpha/beta crossplot). Additional capabilities should include instructor/evaluator feedback on aircraft operational limitations (V

- n diagram) and control disp lacements, control forces, etc.SPAW ARC Final Report H

– 6

O BJECTIVE T ESTING R EQUIREMENTS

Stick Pusher Force Calibration

1

. O bjective test requirement is added to validate the stick/col umn control transient forces because of stick

- pusher system activation.

2

. The validation test may be performed as part of an existing stall characteristics test.

3

. The t est definition allows for the ground testing of this system for validation data to b e collected through stimulation of the stall protection system to produce a stick pusher response.

Table H

– 4. Proposed Revi sions to 14 CFR Part 60 Table A2A

– Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests Entry No. 2.a.10

<<< QPS Requirements >>> Informati on

Test Tolerance Flight Conditions Test Details Simulator Level Notes Entry No. Title A B C D

2.a.10 (append) Stick Pusher

System Force Calibration ±10% or ±5 lb

(2.2 daN)) Stick/Column force Ground or Flight Test is intended to validate the stick/ column transient forces as a result of a stick pusher system activation to prevent an aerodynamic stall.
This test may be conducted in an on

- ground condition through stimulation of the stall protection system in a manner that generates a stick pusher res ponse that is representative of an in

- flight condition. X X X X Aircraft manufacturer design data may be utilized as validation data as determined acceptable by the NSPM.
Test requirement s may be met through column force validation testing in conjunction w ith the

s tall c haracteristics test (2.c.8).

Stall Characteristics 1

. Additional flight conditions to the objective testing requirements for FFS qualification : These additional flight conditions broaden the scope of objective testing beyond the current re quirements

, which are limited to idle power, wings

- level , and 1

- g stall entry conditions.SPAW ARC Final Report H

– 7

a

. Cruise (high altitude 11 ) stall

. b

. Cruise (low altitude 12 ) stall

.

c

. Accelerated stall

. d

. At least two other flap settings to be demonstrated

, to include second seg ment climb and approach or landing.

2

. Modified tolerances are proposed to tighten standards on relevant aerodynamic parameters in the ―approach to stall‖ region ( to provide aircraft

- specific recognition cues) while gradually relaxing the tolerances as the stall develops

, to support an engineering

- based methodology for stall model development.

a

. Approach to s tall (prior to the activation of the stall warning system or stall buffet onset):

i

. ±2.0  pitch angle

ii

. ±2.0  angle of attack

iii

. ±2  bank angle

iv

. ±2  sideslip angle

b

. Stall w arning to s tall b reak :
i

. ±2.0  pitch angle

ii

. ±2.0  angle of attack

iii

. Correct trend and magnitude for lateral/directional body rates

a. Stall b reak through r ecovery
i

. The SOC describ es the aerodynamic modeling methods, validation, and checkout of the stall characteristics of the FFS. The m inimum model features are defined and must be addressed in the aerodynamic model where applicable to the simulated aircra ft.

ii. The SOC verif

ies that the FFS has been evaluated by a n SME pilot with knowledge of the stall characteristics of the aircraft and provides an acceptable level of fidelity to accomplish the training tasks.

11 Th ese test s should be performed as close to the service ceiling as available data permit.
12 These test s should be performed under 10,000 ft altitude.SPAW ARC Final Report H

– 8

3

. Proposed n ew tolerances to better valida te flight control inputs in an objective manner.

a

. Correct trend and magnitude tolerances applied to all flight control inputs throughout the maneuver.

4

. Additional SOC for aircraft equipped with Stick Pusher System.

a

. The SOC verifi es that the stick pusher system has been modeled, programmed, and validated using the aircraft manufacturer’s design data or an other acceptable data source. The SOC must address, at a minimum, stick pusher activation and cancellation logic

, as well as control displacement and forces that result from the stick pusher activation.

Table H

– 5. Proposed Revi sions to 14 CFR Part 60 Table A2A

– Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests Entry No. 2.c.8

<<< QPS Requirements >>> Information

Test Tolerance Flight Conditions Test D etails Simulator Level Notes Entry No. Title A B C D

2.c.8 (amend) Stall

Characteristics ±3 kt airspeed

for initial buffet, stall warning, and stall speeds.
Control inputs must be plotted and demonstrate correct trend and magnitude.
Approach to Stall :

±2.0  pitch angle ±2.0  angle of attack ±2.0  bank angle ±2.0  sideslip angle Second

Segment Climb, Cruise (High Altitude) and Cruise (Low Altitude) Approach or Landing The following stall entry methods must be

demonstrated in at least one of the three required flight conditions:

 Stall entry at wings level (1 g)

 Stall entry in turning flight of at least 15° to 30° bank angle (accelerated stall)
The required cruise condition must be conducted in a flaps

- up (clean) configuration. The second segment climb and approach/landing conditions must be conducted at different flap settings.
Record the stall warning signal and initial buffet, if applicable. Time history data must be recorded for the full stall and recovery through normal flight. The stall warning signal must occur in the proper relation to buffet/stall. FFS e s of airplanes exhibiting a sudden pitch attitude change or ―g break‖ must demonstrate this characteristic. FFS e s of airplanes exhibiting a roll off and/or loss of roll X X X X Due to the inherently unstable and

non

- repeatable behavior of the stall

maneuver, parameters from the stall break and recovery will only be subject to correct trend and magnitude tolerances for the purpose of co ntinuing qualification evaluations.
Alternate methods, such as wind tunnel methods, engineering simulation s , or other generally accepted analytical methods may be utilized to develop enhanced representative stallSPAW ARC Final Report H

– 9 <<< QPS Requirements >>> Information

Test Tolerance Flight Conditions Test D etails Simulator Level Notes Entry No. Title A B C D
Stall warning up to s tall:

±2.0  pitch angle ±2.0  angle of attack

Correct trend and magnitude for lateral/direction al body rates.

Stall Break and Recovery:
SOC Required (see A ttachment B) control authority must demonstrate this characteristic. ―Approach to Stall‖ tolerances appl y up to the activation of the stall warning system or aerodynamic stall buffet, whichever occurs first. ―Stall warning up to stall‖ tolerances apply from the activation of the stall warning system or aerodynamic stall buffet, whichever occurs first, to ju st prior to the stall break. ―Stall Break and Recovery‖ applies from just prior to the stall break (pitch break, g

- break, stick pusher activation

, or other indication of a full/aerodynamic stall) through recovery to normal flight.
For stick pusher equippe d aircraft, a Statement of Compliance (SOC) is required verifying that the stick pusher system has been modeled, programmed, and validated using the aircraft manufacturer’s design data or other acceptable data source

. The SOC must address, at a minimum, s tick pusher activation and cancellation logic as well as system dynamics, control displacement and forces as a result of the stick pusher activation.

A n SOC is required that describes the aerodynamic modeling methods, validation, and checkout of the stall characteristics of the F F S. The SOC must also include verification that the F F S has been evaluated by a n SME pilot with acceptable supporting documentation of the stall characteristics of the aircraft being simulated. See attachment models.
For the purpose of these tests, hig h altitude is an altitude close to the operational ceiling of the aircraft.. Low altitude is below 10,000 ft.

Non

- flight test tolerances as defined in Attachment 2, Paragraph 11(a) are not applicable at airspeeds below the activation of the stall warning system. Tests may be conducted at a center of gravity typically required for airplane certification stall testing.

When it i s demonstrated that engineering or flight test data is not available, the use of AFM data accompanied with SME evaluation may be per missible as agreed upon by theSPAW ARC Final Report H

– 10 <<< QPS Requirements >>> Information

Test Tolerance Flight Conditions Test D etails Simulator Level Notes Entry No. Title A B C D B for detailed requir ements. Computer Controlled Aircraft (CCA): Test in n ormal and n on

- normal control
states

. For CCA aircraft with stall envelope protection systems, tests are required in the

n on

- n ormal c ontrol s tate only if acceptable AOA envelope protection tests are pro vided (see Table A2A, section 2.h.). NSPM

. The SME must have relevant experience to perform such
assessment s.

Engine and Airframe Icing Effects

— Aerodynamic Stall Demonstration 1

. The intent of the test is to objectively demonstrate the expected icin g effects as described in the SOC required in the g eneral

r equirements in Table A1A, Section 2.j.

2

. Flight test validation data are not required. The test enables a comparison between a baseline test (with uncontaminated lif ting surfaces) as compared to a similar test with ice contamination.

3

. Icing effects should include, but are not limited to, the following effects as applicable to the simulated airplane type:

 Decrease in stall angle of attack ;

 Increase in stall warning (e.g. stick shaker) speed ;

 Cha nges in pitching moment ;

 Increase in drag ; and

 Change in stall buffet characteristics and onset.SPAW ARC Final Report H

– 11

Table H

– 6 . Proposed Revisions to 14 CFR Part 60 Table A2A

– Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests Entry No. 2. i

<<< QPS Requirements >>> Information

Te st Tolerance Flight Conditions Test Details Simulator Level Notes
Entry No. Title A B C D

2.i. (append ) Engine and

Airframe Icing Effects Demonstration (Aerodynamic Stall) Takeoff, Approach, or Landing Time history of a full stall and initiation of

the recovery. Tests are intended to demonstrate representative aerodynamic effects caused by in

- flight ice accretion

. Flight test validation data is not required.
Two tests are required to demonstrate engine and airframe icing effects. One test will dem onstrate the F F S ’ baseline performance and the other test will demonstrate the aerodynamic effects of ice accretion relative to the baseline test.

The test s must utilize the icing model(s) as described in the required SOC in Table A1A, Section 2.j. Test s must include a rationale that describes the icing effects being demonstrated. Icing effects must include, but are not limited to

, the following effects as applicable to the particular airplane:

 Decrease in stall AOA

 Increase in stall warning (e.g. stick

s haker) speed

 Changes in pitching moment

 Increase in drag

 Change in stall buffet characteristics and onset. X X Tests will be evaluated for representative effects on relevant aerodynamic parameters such as AOA , control inputs, and thrust/power settings.

P lotted parameters must include:

 Altitude

 Airspeed

 Normal acceleration

 Engine power

 Angle of attack

 Pitch attitude

 Bank angle

 Flight control inputs

 Stall warning and stall buffet
onsetSPAW ARC Final Report H

– 12

F UNCTIONS A ND S UBJECTIVE T ESTING R EQUIREMENTS
High AOA Maneuvers

The current functions and subjective testing requirement ha ve been modified to specifically require evaluation of the stall warning and stick pusher activation (if applicable) in conjunction with aircraft automation such as a utopilot and a uto

- throttle

.

U P S ET R ECOGNITION AND R ECOVERY

Additional functions and a subjective testing requirement w ere added to require evaluation of the required upset prevention and recovery tasks as described above in the General Requirements section.

Table H

– 7 . Proposed Revisions t o 14 CFR Part 60 Table A 3 A

– Functions and Subjective Tests Entry No s. 6.a and 6.i
<<< QPS Requirements >>>

Entry No. Operations Tasks Simulator Level
A B C D Tasks in this table are subject to evaluation if appropriate for the airplane simulated as i ndicated in the SOQ

c onfiguration l ist or the level of simulator qualification involved. Items not installed or not functional on the simulator and therefore, not appearing on the SOQ c onfiguration l ist are not required to be listed as exceptions on the S OQ.

6. Maneuvers

6.a. (amend) High AOA , approaches to stalls, stall warning, buffet, g

- break/pitch break,

and stick pusher response (take

- off, cruise, approach, and landing configuration). Airplane automation (such as autopilot and autothrottle)
respons e s to stall warning, stall, and stick pusher. X X X X

6.i. (append) Upset recognition and recovery maneuvers within the FFS’ validated

envelope as defined on the SOQ

. X X X X

ATTACHMENT B

— SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMA TION T O OBJECTIVE TESTING TABLES :

S TALL M ANEUV ER E VALUATION

1

. Fidelity Requirements: The objective testing requirements as defined for the stall maneuver are intended to validate:

a

. Aircraft type specific recognition cues of the first indication of the stall (stall warning system an d/or aerodynamic stall buffet) ;
b

. Aircraft type specific recognition cues of an impending aerodynamic stall ;

c

. Recognition cues and handling qualities from the stall break through recovery are sufficiently representative of the airplane being simulated to allow successf ul completion of the prescribed stall entry and recovery training tasks.SPAW ARC Final Report H

– 13

For the purposes of stall maneuver evaluation, the term ―representative‖ is defined as a level of fidelity that is type specific to the simulated aircraft to the extent that the train ing objectives can be satisfactorily accomplished.

2

. Statements of Compliance: Traditionally, flight

- test

- collected data have been the preferred data source for FFS objective evaluation required for qualification. It is recognized, however, that strict time

- history

- based evaluation s against flight

- test data may not adequately validate the aerodynamic model in an unstable flight regime, such as

a stalled flight, particularly in cases where significant deviations are seen in the aircraft’s stability and co ntrol. As a result, the SOC

- based approach for evaluating the aerodynamic model at AOAs approaching the stall was implemented to allow the aerodynamic modeler and data provider to develop enhanced representative stall models that are based upon generally accepted engineering and scientific principles. Some examples are

—

 Stall models developed using aircraft OEM engineering simulation

.

 Wind tunnel or well established analytical methods to extend stall modeling sufficiently to achieve a representative full stall and recovery.

As described in the objective testing section, stall qualification requires statements of compliance detailing the following information:

a

. Aerodynamic Modeling: The SOC must identify the sources of data used to develop the aerodynami c model. Of particular interest is a mapping of test points in the form of an alpha/beta envelope plot for a minimum of flaps up and flaps down. The envelopes are defined in the Upset P revention and Recovery Maneuver Evaluation section of this attachment

, and examples can be found in a ppendix 3

– D of the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid , Revision 2 . For the flight

- test data, a list of the types of maneuvers used to define the aerodynamic model for AOA ranges greater than the first indication of stall are to be provided according to flap setting.

At a minimum, the following stall model features must be incorporated into the aerodynamic model as appropriate, and addressed in the SOC where applicable by aircraft type:

i

. Degradation in static/dynamic la teral

- directional stability

, ii

. Degradation in control response (pitch, roll, yaw)

, iii

. Roll

- off requiring significant control deflection to counter

, iv

. Changes in pitch stability

,

v

. Mach effects , or
vi

. Stall buffet

. An overview of the methodology use d to address these features must be provided.

b

. Subjective Assessment: The FFS must be evaluated by a n SME pilot with knowledge of the general stall characteristics of the simulated aircraft and the cues necessary to adequately accomplish the required tr aining objectives. This evaluationSPAW ARC Final Report H

– 14 must use available supporting documentation and/or guidance material that describes the aircraft’s general behavior in stalled flight and recovery. Documentation may include aircraft certification data/procedures, aircr aft OEM documentation, AFM documentation, and other acceptable source documentation. Particular emphasis should be placed upon recognition cues of an impending aerodynamic stall

, such as the stall buffet or lateral/directional instability ; stall break (e. g. g

- break, pitch break, roll off departure ) ; response of aircraft automation (e.g. autopilot and
auto

- throttles ) ; and the necessary control input required to execute an immediate recovery.

c

. Stick Pusher System Modeling: For aircraft equipped with a sti ck pusher system, the required statement of compliance must verify that the stick pusher system/stall protection system has been modeled, programmed, and validated using the aircraft manufacturer’s design data or other acceptable data source. At a minimum , the following characteristics must be addressed in the SOC:

i

. Stick pusher activation logic ;
ii

. Stick pusher system dynamics, control displacement, and forces ; and

iii

. Stick pusher cancellation logic

.

U PSET P REVENTION AND R ECOVERY M ANEUVER E VALUATION

1

. Basic Requirements: The basic elements for the qualification of upset prevention and recovery training maneuvers are

—

a

. To verify that the FFS can be expected to remain within its designed validation envelope during the execution of available upset pr evention and recovery training tasks

. b

. To provide the instructor/evaluator with a minimum set of feedback tools to properly evaluate the student’s performance in accomplishing an upset prevention and recovery training task

. 2

. Flight Envelopes

—
For the p urposes of this document, the term ―flight envelope‖ refers to the entire domain in which the FFS is capable of being flown. This envelope can be further divided into three subdivisions , for example ( see appendix 3

– D of the Airplane Upset Recovery Traini n g Aid)

—

 Flight Test Validated : This is the region of the flight envelope that has been validated with flight

- test data, typically by comparing the performance of the FFS against the flight

- test data through tests incorporated in the QTG and other flight

- test data use d to further extend the model beyond the minimum requirements. Within this region, there is high confidence that the simulator responds similarly to the aircraft. Note that this region is not strictly limited to what has been tested in the Q TG; as long as the aerodynamic math model has been conformed to the flight test results, that portion of the math model can be considered to be within the Flight Test Validated region.SPAW ARC Final Report H

– 15

 Wind Tunnel and/or Analytical : This is the region of the flight envelo pe for which the FFS has not been compared to flight test data, but for which there has been wind tunnel testing and/or the use of other reliable predictive methods (typically by the aircraft manufacturer) to define the aerodynamic model. Within this regi on, there is moderate confidence that the simulator will respond similarly to the aircraft.

 Extrapolated : This is the region extrapolated beyond the flight test validated and wind tunnel/analytical regions. The extrapolation may be a linear extrapolation , a holding of the last value before the extrapolation began, or some other set of values. When extrapolation extends into the non

- linear range of the airplane aerodynamics there is less confidence that simulator will respond similarly to the aircraft

3

. Instructor Feedback Mechanism: For the instructor/evaluator to provide feedback to the student during U P RT maneuver training, additional information must be accessible that indicates the relative fidelity of the simulation, magnitude of student control i nputs, and aircraft operational limits that could potentially affect the successful completion of the maneuver(s). At a minimum, the following must be available to the instructor/evaluator:

a

. Simulator Validation Envelope: The FFS must employ a method t o record the FFS’ expected level of fidelity with respect to the designed validation envelope. This must be displayed as an ―alpha/beta‖ crossplot on the IOS or other alternate method to clearly convey the simulator’s fidelity level use d during the maneuv er. This information should be available to the instructor during the simulator session and after the simulator session for use during debrief ing

. b

. Flight Control Inputs: The FFS must employ a method for the instructor/evaluator to assess the student’ s flight control input used to execute the upset prevention and recovery maneuver. Parameters that may not be easily assessed visually from the instructor station, such as rudder pedal displacement and control forces, should be included in this feedback m echanism.

c

. Aircraft Operational Limits: The FFS must employ a method to provide the instructor/evaluator with information concerning the aircraft limitations (such as normal load factor and airspeed limits found on a V

- n diagram) that may affect the

suc cessful completion of the maneuver.

This information should be available to the instructor during the simulator session and after the simulator session for use during debrief ing . An example FFS alpha/beta envelope plot and IOS feedback mechanism are in Fi gure 1 and Figure 2.

Note: The se diagrams represent an example of a typical IOS display, however the operator should use their judgment to ensure all pertinent controls and flight parameters are available so as to ensure the instructor can properly brief the upset recognition and recovery trainings tasks.SPAW ARC Final Report H

– 16 Figure 1

. Example FFS Alpha/Beta Envelope Plot

.

Figure 2

. Example IOS Instructor URT Feedback Display

.

1SPAW ARC Final Report I

– 1



## APPENDIX I

— TRAINING OBJECTIVES FROM FAA AC 120

– 50A (CURRENT GUIDANC E)

GROUND TRAINING

1

. Gen eral Training Objectives

—

a. Reduce windshear related accidents and incidents through flightcrew member education

. b. Stress the importance of windshear avoidance to flightcrews.

2

. Specific Training Objectives

. Provide pilots with the knowledge needed t o

—

a. Identify the actual or potential presence of windshear from a variety of information sources and cues.

b. Adhere to a policy of avoiding encounters with windshear whenever possible

.

c. Adhere to a policy that when executing a missed approach or go

- ar ound in weather conditions conducive to windshear

, the missed approach or go

- around is conducted in an aggressive manner and the flightcrew is ready to accomplish windshear escape procedures should an ensuing windshear be encountered.

d. Use operating proc edures and techniques designed to enhance the possibility of surviving an inadvertent encounter with windshear during takeoff, approach,

or landing.

e. Identify unique stall characteristics and windshear recovery techniques that are specific to the aircraf

t type. Special attention should be given to topics such as low airspeed lateral control characteristics, loss of climb capability, unique windshear characteristics, and windshear flight guidance system limitations.

SIMULATOR TRAINING

1. Flight Simulator Training Objectives

. The training objectives of the simulator

- training program will be to provide pilots with the necessary experience and skills to

—

a. Recognize onset of a severe windshear encounter using available flight instrumentation.

b. Coordinate cockpit activities to improve the pilot's ability to recognize and take the appropriate actions to recover from an inadvertent windshear encounter.

c. Make proper use of pitch, power, and airplane configuration to recover from an inadvertent windshear enco unter.SPAW ARC Final Report J

– 1



## APPENDIX J

— REFERENCE MATERIAL

ATR. (2009). Cold Weather Operations.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau. (1998). Saab

- SF340A, VH

- LPI, Eildon Weir, Victoria.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau. (2002). Inflight Loss of Control due to Airframe Icing, Saab

- SF340A, VH

- OLM, Eildon Weir, Victoria.

Bragg, M. (1998). An Interdisciplinary Approach to Inflight Aircraft Icing Safety.

Bragg, M. (2002). Envelope Protection and Atmospheric Distrurbances in Icing Encounters.

Bragg, M. and Broern, A. (2003). Effe ct of Airfoil Geometry on Performance with Simulated Intercycle Ice Accretion.

Commercial Aviation Safety Team. (2000). JSAT Loss of Control

– CAST Approved Final Report, Results and Analysis.

Crider, D. (2011). Airframe Icing

- What Every Pilot Should Know [PowerPoint].

Federal Aviation Administration. (1996). Advisory Circular 91

- 51A

– Effect of Icing on Aircraft Control and Airpl ane Deice and Anti

- ice Systems.

Federal Aviation Administration. ( 1994 ). Advisory Circular 135

- 16

– Ground Deicing and Anti

- ici ng Training and Checking.

Federal Aviation Administration. ( 1996 ). Advisory Circular 91

- 51A

– Effect of Icing on Aircraft Control and Airplane Deice and Anti

- ice Systems.

F ederal Aviation Administration. (1997). FAA Inflight Aircraft Icing Plan.

Federal Av iation Administration. (2007). Advisory Circular 91

- 74A

– Pilot Gui de: Flight In Icing Conditions.

Federal Aviation Administration. (2007). FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 3

- General Technical Administration; Chapter 19

- Training Programs and Airman Qualifications ; Section 5

- Flightcrew Aircraft Groun d Training Curriculum Segments.

Federal Aviation Administration. (2009). Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): Part 121 Activation of Ice P rotection. Docket FAA

- 2009

- 0675

Federal Aviation Administration. (2010). Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): Airplane and Engine certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Phase, and Ice Crystal Icing C onditions. Docket FAA

- 2010

- 0636

Federal Aviation Administration. (2010). Transportation Certification Update. Edit ion 28.

Federal Aviation Administration. (201 1 ). Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB)

– Ice/ Rain Protection System

– Stall Warning; Stall Warning Systsem Characteristics in Icing Conditions

. Flight Safety Foundation . (1997). Flight Safety Dig est: Protection Against Icing: A Comprehensive Overview.SPAW ARC Final Report J

– 2

Green, S. (2006). A Study of U.S. Inflight Icing Accident and Incidents, 1978 to 2002.

Lilly, J. (2010). Detection of In

- flight Icing Conditions Through The Analysis of Hydrometeors with a Verticall y Poiting Radar.

Mason, J. (2007). Engine Power Loss in Ice Crystal Conditions. Aero Quarterly, Quarter_04, 12

- 17.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1994). In

- Flight Icing Encounter and Loss of Control, Simmons Airlines, d.b.a American Eagle Flight 41 84, Avions de Transport Regional (ATR) Model 72

- 212, N401AM, Roselawn, Indiana.

National Transportation Safety Board. (2001). Comair Airlines flight 5054 Factual Report an d Brief of Incident DCA01MA031.

National Transportation Safety Board. (2006). America n Eagle flight 3008 Factual Report and Brief of Incident LAX06IA076.

National Transportation Safety Board. (2009). Loss of Control on Approach, Colgan Air, Inc, Operating as Continental Connection Flight 3407, Bombardier DHC

- 8

- 400, N20 0WQ, Clarence Center, New York.

Ratvasky, T., Barnhart, B., and Lee, S. (2008). Current Methods for Modeling and Simulating Icing Effects on Aircraft Performance, Stability, and Control.

Rosenkrans, W. (2010). High Marks Overall. AeroSafety World, Volume 5(9), 12

- 17

. The artic le discusses the GAO Report on Aircraft Icing and Winter Operations.

Seifert, H. and Richert, F. (1997) Aerodynamics of Iced Airfoils and their Influence on Loads and Power Production.

Stearman, R., Baars, W., and Tinney, C. (2009). Wind Tunnel Studies Emp loying Higher Upset Order Statistics to Detect Icing Induced Upsets.

Sumwalt, R. (1993). Air Carrier Ground Icing. ASRS Directline, Issue 5.

Tanzania Civil Aviation Authority. (2008). Large Aircraft Ground De

- Icing.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada. ( 1997). Loss of Control on Go

- around, Air Canada Canadair CL

600

- 2B19, C

- FSKI, Fredericton Airport, New Brunswick.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada. (2005). Stall and Loss of Control During Climb, Provincal Airlines Limited, De Havilland DHC

- 8

- 100 C

- GZ KH, St. Joh n’s, Newfoundland and Labrador.

United States Government Accountability Office. (2010). Aviation Safety: Icing and Winter Weather

Related Recommendations That NTSB Has Issued Since 1996 (GAO

- 10

- 679SP).

United States Government Accountability Off ice. (2010). Aviation Safety: Improved Planning Could Help FAA Address Challenges Related to Winter Weather Operations (GAO

- 10

- 678).

United States Government Accountability Office. (2010). Aviation Safety: Preliminary Information on Aircraft Icing and Wint

er Operations (GAO

- 10

- 441T).