After spending time ingraining a disciplined and strategic application of upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT) techniques in an Aviation Performance Solutions (APS) Extra 300L single-engine piston aerobatic airplane, pilots might want to consider sticking around for a jet enhancement program to learn how to handle upsets at high altitudes.
APS currently offers high-altitude jet UPRT in its Siai Marchetti S211 single-engine jet trainers, one of which was on the static display at last month’s NBAA Convention. I was recently invited to sample the half-day S211 UPRT session at APS’s headquarters in Mesa, Arizona. APS also has facilities in Arlington, Texas, and Breda International Airport in the Netherlands, and the in-aircraft high-altitude UPRT is available in Texas and at customer request.
APS trainees can add the S211 high-altitude UPRT enhancement program to the end of their full Extra 300L-based UPRT or as part of a recurrent training event at APS, according to Paul “BJ” Ransbury, APS president and CEO. The enhancement takes half a day, either on the last half of the third day, or the morning of the fourth day. For recurrent students, the S211 high-altitude course can be added as a second-day training event. “We need to make sure the fundamentals are in place before we take them to high altitude,” he said. “There’s just so much going on there.”
APS also offers low-altitude programs integrating the S211 with the Extra 300L program, with many customers taking the entire three-day course in the S211 exclusively. However, for human factors reasons and repetition to proficiency, Ransbury recommends that initial UPRT is best accomplished by using both training airplanes, with at least two flights in the Extra 300L.
The high-altitude training course begins with a ground session on high-altitude jet operations, then for pilots who haven’t flown the S211 yet in the program, a differences briefing and a preflight discussion are provided to cover the training plan and profiles to be flown.
After spending time ingraining a disciplined and strategic application of upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT) techniques in an Aviation Performance Solutions (APS) Extra 300L single-engine piston aerobatic airplane, pilots might want to consider sticking around for a jet enhancement program to learn how to handle upsets at high altitudes.
APS (Booth N1412) currently offers high-altitude jet UPRT in its Marchetti S211 single-engine jet trainers, one of which is here at the NBAA static display (SD33). On Thursday October 12 during the National Safety Forum event from 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. at the NBAA show (Room N245), APS president and CEO, Paul “BJ” Ransbury, who leads the NBAA Loss of Control In-flight Working Group, will be moderating a panel of industry experts on the topic of high-altitude wake turbulence, featuring the A380 and Challenger 604 wake encounter over the Arabian Sea in January.
AIN editor-in-chief Matt Thurber was recently invited to sample the half-day S211 UPRT session at APS’s Mesa, Arizona, headquarters. This segment focuses on the waketurbulence encounter training (A longer version of this story including information on the ground training will be published in AIN’s November issue and on AINonline.)
The high-altitude training course begins with a ground session on high-altitude jet operations. Then for pilots who haven’t flown the S211 yet in the program, a differences briefing and a preflight discussion are provided to cover the training plan and profiles to be flown.
At 16,000 feet, Ransbury took the controls and simulated a wake-turbulence encounter with autopilot on by imparting a rolling moment with the rudders. As with all of the maneuvers we were practicing, I would have to apply the APS All-Attitude Upset Recovery Strategy baseline process—push, roll, power, stabilize. Later I would see that this upset is far different at high altitude.
The nose banked slightly to the right then to the left. I switched off the autopilot and applied the strategy. It was a fairly benign upset, and the autopilot could have handled it. “The point is we had a certain amount of rolling moment and we saw that the airplane was pretty responsive and dampening was pretty controlled,” he said.
At 33,000 feet Ransbury did the exact same footwork with the rudder pedals for the wake turbulence encounter with the autopilot on. This time, the result was stunning. The nose banked slightly to the right, then abruptly swung around the horizon to about 160 degrees to the left and down 24 degrees. So when I started the recovery, we were basically upside down and pointing well below the horizon.
First I pushed on the stick, despite the temptation to pull back to avoid the ground, then I rolled. But, I mistakenly had turned the autopilot off then back on because I was pushing the wrong buttons on the stick. Switching the autopilot off, I rolled upright and resumed the climb profile during the recovery. This time we lost 3,500 feet. “It gets your attention, doesn’t it?” Ransbury asked. “The same little inputs turned us upside down. Not only does the input put you in a bad situation, but it’s easy to overcontrol to try to get out of it. It’s much more dramatic here at altitude.”
We did another wake turbulence encounter, this time to the right, and the nose rolled 150 degrees and dropped 18 degrees.
The classic incorrect upset recovery is when faced with rolling nearly upside down and with the nose down: the urgent reaction is to pull the yoke or stick back and end up in a high-speed, high-g split S maneuver—instead of rolling back upright—where the nose is pulled back up through the horizon. During this recovery, I flew the procedure correctly by pushing on the stick (while upside down), rolling back upright, reducing power, adding speedbrakes then returning to a climb attitude.
Ransbury flipped us upside down again, and this time, as instructed, I didn’t recover but flew the incorrect reaction by pulling back on the stick and completing the split S. We lost nearly 10,000 feet, and I could feel the airframe nibbling at the stall buffet as I carefully pulled the nose back up; the g level reached a maximum of 3.7. Ransbury debriefed me that we were simulating a 2.5 g airplane but, he clarified that in a crisis where exceeding Mmo was imminent or ground impact likely, cautiously applying control inputs to generate an over-g condition may be the best alternative.