Upset prevention and recovery training for the Private Pilot

short version:

1. This is not an issue for only DTO but ATO as well
2. a. I fully agree to the idea, that FI shall have basic experience in aerobatics, where "upright" may be sufficient (Dominique knows better) and may be extended to solo spins only (but aerobatic rating is a good recommendation).
2. b. Pilots education may include spin experience and it is covered by FCL (aerobatics maneuvres = ... unless as part of educution), so it´s legal already.
2. b. Several Aeroplane types offer intended upright spin capabilities (allowance) and are in use for pilots basic education (C150/152 Aerobat, Bölkow 208 / 209 and others). To ease usage of such if not ATO included, rules shall allow to charter, aircraft from outside oraganisation for such lessons within PPL/LAPL education.
3. I agree, many loss of control incidences happen during last turn to final, espacially after engine malfanction. ...
BUT in that situation and not having "heard" what the aircraft has "talked", spin experience does not help the Pilot to escape; he then is beyond another required basic knowledge: "In level flight stall speed increases with bank angle (with g-load)!" Even in 300ft, if an unintended spin occurs and nose goes almost to or through vertical ... ... ... there is not that much helping (except an integral rescue system).
During education, pilots must learn and accept that life insurence in such situation is speed indicator! ... Look to where most important information is coming from! ;-) And: "Fly that numbers!" (quotation)

Well, not that really short ... sorry

Hi Peter, I don’t believe Advanced UPRT training for FCL 745 needs either an aerobatic aircraft or rating. Sure, it is recommended that instructors qualified to teach AUPRT iaw FCL 915 have an aerobatic rating, it’s not mandatory. Neither is it mandatory to do spinning as part of 745 training. The prime aim is to train pilots cope with physical and psychological effects of startle resulting from an unintentional event. Having not ‘frozen up’ the AUPRT-trained pilot will be better equipped to apply an appropriate corrective action, whatever the situation. Basic UPRT as defined in the new regs is, I believe, what we have always done as part of basic flying training - another term for stall-spin awareness training. The key is to make it real (scenario based) and as Florian says, to introduce AoA awareness from an early stage.

An aerobatic rating is not strictly necessary for the FI for initial PPL UPRT, but I am sure that it is useful. When a student embarks on an Aerobatic Rating, he needs once again to visit various "unusual attitude" scenario and learn appropriate recovery technique, and now this can be made a lot more "all-attitude" than when just conducting UPRT for basic PPL flight.

It is an interesting topic and one I have been giving a lot of thought to recently. I provide advanced on-aircraft UPRT. I've been doing this for MPL students for almost 6 years where it was already compulsory. But what does a GA pilot need? I've given a few presentations at aeroclubs regarding this and most pilots are receptive to the idee of additional recovery training. Everything is dependent on the quality of the instructor as to how effective the training will be. I'd advocate the use of aerobatic or capable utility category aircraft. Instructors not only with an aerobatic rating but ones who fly aerobatics regularly or have give UPRT on a regular basis. Why? Well I'm sure all of us have experienced startle and of course surprise but the more you are exposed to the environment of upsets startle will effect you for shorter intervals. pilots will not always do what you want or expect them to do. As an instructor you need to be well practiced to be able to know when and how to intervene in order to achieve maximum training effectiveness without stepping over the threshold to negative training. Or, becoming the victim of the very same S+S effects. Maximum learning is achieved when pilots feel safe and confident enough, (in the aircraft and the instructor), to be able to recall and analyse the situation afterwards and evaluatie how they reacted i.e. self reflection. Why did they pull instead of unloading etc.
Anyway, this piece is getting too long, I'll leave it here for now.

I think you make a valid point when you say that a pilot under training needs to feel safe and confident in both aircraft and instructor. Can't do much about the aircraft but instructors have a duty to be competent and confident with the onset and recovery from a stalled condition. Tone of voice and body language must give the right message.

Indeed; it is incumbent upon the instructor to have experienced many different sorts of "upset" in the aircraft in which he is teaching. He should also have explored the reactions, of the aircraft he is using, to various "incorrect" student inputs that may result from handing over control to a startled and inexperienced fellow pilot.

I am not sure exactly how there can be training to recover from an "Advanced Upset", nor how there might be a an "Advanced" category to upset prevention, which is a binary matter - you avoid it or you don't.
In my view, the best training to follow on from basic, mandatory UPRT, if the student is to become more safe in a greater variety of aircraft, is actual aerobatic manoeuvre training. On this side of the Atlantic, at least, we now have a syllabus and a primary qualification for aerobatics at the entry level.

Hi Alan. Basic and Advanced UPRT are the terms and associated course content mandated by EASA. These are geared towards the future commercial airline pilot. Academic subjects include a wide range of causal factors such as automation and system anomalies etc. Probably only relevant to a minority of GA pilots. Even though I agree with your comment regarding aerobatic training, aerobatics is not everyones cup of tea.
I think that a similar but simpler approach to the issues more relevant to the GA pilot is the way to go. If they want more, than can always follow an aerobatic rating course. My 2 cents worth.

My original concern was that the 'non aerobatic' Club PPL SEP Instructor, was being overlooked as a safety asset. A little investment by flight schools and clubs in their instructors could help reduce loss of control accidents. Perhap the aviation authorities in conjunction with the insurance industry could provide a bursary for flying club FIs to improve their skills through a basic aerobatic course tailored towards UPRT rather than competition aerobatics. As it would not be a Part FCL requirement, it could be less formal than a rating. Could also extend skills via tailwheel difference training where required.

Thanks for that Stephen. Will check the website

Didn't intend to imply any difference in the qualification or quality of FIs operating through the Clubs/DTO vs Commercial school/ATO. However the environment is different. I intended to suggest that FIs teaching at the lighter end of aviation, might be a somewhat 'overlooked' asset in the effort to reduce loss of control incidents.
I teach through a small club holding DTO status using an SF25C TMG.

RIP Peter :-(

RIP Peter