Arizona-based Aviation Performance Solutions (APS) Announces the Promotion of Karl 'Schlimmer' Schlimm to the Position of Director of Flight Operations - This Move Further Streamlines the Highly Active APS Upset Prevention and Upset Recovery Training services in Arizona Often Exceeding 20 Flights per Day - Mr. Schlimm has Been a Leading Instructor Pilot with APS for More Than Three Years - As Director of Flight Operations, Check Airman, and Recently Designated Master CFI-Aerobatic, Karl will Continue to Augment APS State-of-the-Art Loss of Control In-flight Mitigation Training Services for Pilots.

View Original Press Release at PRWeb

Mesa, AZ (PRWEB) May 14, 2013 - Aviation Performance Solutions, a global leader in the provision of upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT) to pilots, announced today that Karl Schlimm has been promoted to the position of Director of Flight Operations. Mr. Schlimm will be responsible for managing the highly active APS flight operations in Arizona, often exceeding 20 flights per day. As an APS UPRT expert, safety officer and recently designated Master CFI-Aerobatic, Karl will continue to augment APS state-of-the-art Loss of Control In-flight (LOC-I) mitigation training services for pilots of all experience and skill levels.

“It is our great honor to have Schlimmer accept the position of APS Director of Flight Operations where he'll manage the day-to-day delivery of both our flying activities and full flight simulator upset training programs.” said Paul ‘BJ’ Ransbury, president of Aviation Performance Solutions, ‘Mr. Schlimm has proven both his leadership and commitment to consistently moving our team of experts forward in top-notch safety of flight operations, unparalleled customer service and industry leading all-attitude all-envelope training services for pilots.”

With over 20 years of experience in all-attitude/all-envelope flight operations and training, Mr. Schlimm's background provides a solid foundation for managing the significant operational growth in upset prevention and recovery training at APS in Arizona. His experience in the US Air Force as Chief of Training, Weapons Office, Veteran of the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom A9 Lessons Learned Division, combined with his many years of experience managing APS flight operations offer another leap forward in APS customer service and operational effectiveness.

As the Director of Flight Operations at APS, Mr. Schlimm will aggressively pursue the effective management of both personnel and flying assets to enhance air safety and mitigate other interactive factors such as fatigue, equipment, scheduling and personnel. “At the operational level, this position provides an opportunity to precisely and efficiently deliver what is “state of the art” in the area of upset prevention and recovery training, which has the potential to dramatically improve aviation safety worldwide”, said Schlimm.

ABOUT AVIATION PERFORMANCE SOLUTIONS LLC (APS)

Aviation Performance Solutions LLC (APS), dba APS Emergency Maneuver Training, based at the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport in Mesa, Arizona USA, has successfully trained over 5,500 professional pilots in fully comprehensive upset recovery skill development. For more than a decade, with additional training locations in Dallas (Texas USA) and The Netherlands (Europe) APS has been committed to giving professional pilots of all skill levels the highest quality upset recovery training available. APS offers comprehensive LOC-I solutions via industry-leading computer-based, on-aircraft, and advanced full-flight simulator upset recovery and prevention training programs. In addition to all flight training being in full compliance with the internationally-recognized Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid – Revision 2 and the recently issued FAA Aviation Circular 120-109 on Stall and Stick Pusher Training, APS is the only Part 141 Flight School currently certified in the delivery of fully comprehensive upset recovery, stall/spin and instrument recovery training courses worldwide.

# # #

TRIVIA: Approximately 20% of the world's sixteen active Master CFI - Aerobatic instructors work at Aviation Performance Solutions (APS), the world's leading provider of Upset Prevention and Recovery Training. APS has more Master CFI–Aerobatic instructors on staff than any other flight training provider.

Karl A Schlimm, a 1st-time Master and a Member of IAC as Well as SAFE, Recently Earned his Master CFI-Aerobatic Accreditation - A US Air Force Veteran and Instructor Pilot, Karl is the Newly Named Director of Operations with Aviation Performance Solutions (apstraining.com) at Mesa's Gateway Airport (IWA) - He Specializes in Upset Recovery, Spin, and Aerobatic Training.

Mesa, Arizona – 14 May 2013: Aviation Performance Solutions, LLC is very pleased to announce that Karl 'Schlimmer' Schlimm has earned his Master CFI – Aerobatic accreditation. A full time instructor with Aviation Performance Solutions, and recently promoted to the position of APS Director of Flight Operations, Karl has over 30 years of aviation experience. His experience in the US Air Force as Chief of Training, Weapons Officer, Veteran of the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom A9 Lessons Learned Division, combined with his many years of experience managing APS flight operations offer another leap forward in APS customer service and operational effectiveness.

To help put these achievements in their proper perspective, there are approximately 97,000 CFIs in the United States. Fewer than 800 of those aviation educators have achieved that professional distinction thus far. The last 18 national Flight Instructors of the Year were Master CFIs (see: http://www.GeneralAviationAwards.org/) while Karl Schlimm is one of only 28 Arizona teachers of flight to earn this prestigious "Master" title and one of only 30 worldwide to earn aerobatic accreditation.

In the words of former FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, "The Master Instructor accreditation singles out the best that the right seat has to offer."

The Master Instructor designation is a national accreditation recognized by the FAA. Candidates must demonstrate an ongoing commitment to excellence, professional growth, and service to the aviation community, and must pass a rigorous evaluation by a peer Board of Review. The process parallels the continuing education regimen used by other professionals to enhance their knowledge base while increasing their professionalism. Designees are recognized as outstanding aviation educators for not only their excellence in teaching, but for their engagement in the continuous process of learning -- both their own, and their students'. The designation must be renewed biennially and significantly surpasses the FAA requirements for renewal of the candidate's flight instructor certificate.

ABOUT AVIATION PERFORMANCE SOLUTIONS (APS) IN ARIZONA

Aviation Performance Solutions (APS) with headquarters located at the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (Mesa, Arizona), has trained thousands of pilots in fully comprehensive upset recovery skill development, more than any other training organization. For over 17 years, with additional training centers in Dallas (Texas USA) and The Netherlands (Europe), APS has been committed to giving professional pilots and private pilots of all skill levels the highest quality upset prevention and recovery training available. APS offers comprehensive loss of control in-flight solutions via industry-leading web-based, on-aircraft, and full-flight simulator upset training programs. APS is the only Part 141 Flight School currently certified in the delivery of complete upset recovery, stall / spin and instrument recovery training courses worldwide. APS upset recovery training courses are all in compliance with the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid – Revision 2 and the recently released FAA Aviation Circular 120-109 on Stall and Stick Pusher Training. http://apstraining.com

MEDIA CONTACT

Faye Hamilton, Marketing Coordinator
Aviation Performance Solutions
Mobile: 480-797-0752
Office: 480-279-1881 ext. 12
faye (dot) hamilton (at) apstraining (dot) com

A Pilot-to-Pilot Message from APS Flight Training and Standards

Attention Pilots,

There is much controversy concerning the topic that follows. Despite this controversy, we feel safety-conscious pilots should have access to pertinent tail plane icing information whether out of necessity or simple curiosity. However, and this is important, a deep understanding of tail plane icing concepts is needed for pilots as just a limited or cursory understanding of the information that follows could have dire consequences. Although the aerodynamic information below is, to our knowledge, accurate based on available resources at the time of the writing of this article, this information should not be considered a pilot's primary source of information on the tail plane stall.

All pilots (even those pilots where their model of airplane is listed below) MUST consult with their manufacturer as the primary and official resource to determine:

• If their model is susceptible to the tail plane stall,
• The details of the tail plane stall diagnosis for their model of airplane (if applicable) and,
• If needed, the tail plane stall recovery technique or techniques specific to that model (where applicable).

The following industry opinions are for your consideration as a professional pilot:

1. Opinion (APS has not yet been able to substantiate this with an official reference): Aircraft with powered flight control systems are not susceptible to tail plane icing. T-tail aircraft tend to be more susceptible, however, when an analysis of those airplanes with unpowered t-tails was completed, there were only a handful of airplanes left in service globally, and many of those are in the Caribbean where icing is not a risk.

2. Opinion: A recent FAA rule making committee recommended the removal of tail plane icing theoretical training from those aircraft types that are not susceptible to tail plane icing. Their stated concern was that a general working knowledge of the subject could lead a crew to do the exact opposite of what is required in a stall.

As a specialized training provider, having trained many thousands of professional pilots in upset recovery training over the past two decades, APS respects and understands statement #2 above but we do not fully agree with it. In our experience, pilots are mystified by the tailplane icing threat (other than tail plane icing happens in icing) and they lack awareness of two primary factors; 1) the very limited list of airplanes it even applies to, and 2) the basic aerodynamic factors in diagnosis. In our opinion at APS, leaving a pilot mystified for fear they may not properly apply their knowledge correctly does not address the deficiency. With that said, pilots must THOROUGHLY understand the information that follows, especially the understanding that only a very limited number of airplane models are susceptible to this phenomena and that the airplane's manufacturer is the primary source of operational information.

The following message will be reiterated through the article that follows; In the vast majority of cases, the main wing stall in both icing and non-icing conditions is a much more likely threat of loss of control in-flight than the tail plane stall.

Sincerely,

Clarke 'Otter' McNeace, APS VP Flight Training & Standards

Note to Readers: Aviation Performance Solutions LLC (APS) does not endorse or warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content, advertisements or other materials contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from our web site. Any reliance upon any information, content, advertisements, materials, products, or services included on or found through this web site shall be at the user's sole risk. Pilots must consider the manufacturer, and the manufacturer's guidance related to the operation of their airplane, as their primary source of type or model specific information.

Tail Plane Stall: Differentiating from a Main Wing Stall

Karl 'Schlimmer' Schlimm, APS Safety Officer

By: Karl “Schlimmer” Schlimm, APS Safety Officer

Advanced Upset Recovery, Aerobatics & Stall/Spin Instructor

Aviation Performance Solutions LLC (APS)

References

• NASA/FAA Tailplane Icing Program: Flight Test Report (Thomas P. Ratvasky)
• Various NTSB Accident Reports
• A Limited Use Reference: NASA Tailplane Icing Video
• Related APS Article: Real Life Saves - Surviving an Ice-induced Airplane Upset

In this article, I’ll explain what an Ice Contaminated Tailplane Stall (ICTS) is, and how to differentiate between an ICTS and a main wing stall. I’ll also explain which aircraft, or which types of aircraft, are most susceptible to an ICTS encounter.

Figure 1. Tail Down Force Balancing Wing Moment

NASA conducted a Tailplane Icing Program (TIP) in the late 90’s in response to an FAA request for further study into the matter. At the time of the study, ice contamination on tailplane surfaces had already been blamed as the primary cause of 19 aircraft accidents resulting in 139 fatalities.

The key to avoiding an ice contaminated tailplane stall hinges on a sound aerodynamic understanding of what can cause it.  Any aircraft that has a horizontal stabilizer and is susceptible to ice accumulation is also susceptible to an ICTS. When an aircraft encounters icing conditions, ice can build up on any surface of the aircraft. Modern aircraft employ various measures to battle ice buildup including de-icing boots on the wing, horizontal and vertical stabilizers, and ant-icing systems.

Figure 2. Increased Pitching Moment with Flap Extension

Ice accumulation can disrupt the smooth airflow on the main wing. And no matter where it collects on the aircraft, it can add a tremendous amount of weight. Both of these events can increase the stall speed of the main wing and aggravate stall characteristics. So the pilot must be wary of a main wing stall when ice accumulation is noticed. It is the same icing environment that can lead to an ICTS. Unfortunately the pilot cannot usually see what is happening to the tail surfaces. So it must be assumed that if ice is collecting on the wings, it is also collecting on the tail surfaces. To understand what happens in an ICTS, one must understand how the tailplane works to achieve equilibrium of forces on an aircraft, when the tailplane is operating near its aerodynamic limit (i.e. close to its critical AOA) and how ice accumulation, configuration changes and airspeed and power changes effect the aerodynamic limit of the tailplane.

Figure 3. Increased Down-Wash on Tail Plane from Flap Extension

An aircraft’s center of gravity (where the aircraft pivots) is normally forward of the center of pressure. This produces a natural pitch forward moment of the main wing (Figure 1). The horizontal stabilizer is essentially an inverted wing, and provides a stabilizing downward force to achieve equilibrium. As flaps are lowered, the center of pressure moves aft creating a greater pitch forward moment (Figure 2). Also, as flaps are lowered, the downwash from the main wing strikes the horizontal stabilizer at a greater downward angle, creating a greater tailplane angle of attack (Figure 3). So, as flaps are lowered, the pilot must pull back on the yoke bringing the elevator up and increasing the downward force of the horizontal tail (Figure 4). This causes the tail to perform closer to its aerodynamic limit, possibly at time when icing is present on  the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer.

Figure 4. Increased Tail Down Force with Flaps Extended

Ice accumulation on the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer (Figure 5) can be much more severe relative to its leading edge radius than on the main wing. Ice buildup on the leading edge of the tail decreases stalling AOA of the tail and limits the amount of tail down force achievable to keep the aircraft in equilibrium, especially as flaps are lowered. The ice on the leading edge produces an airflow separation “bubble” aft of the tailplane leading edge on the underside of the tail (Figure 6). If that low pressure bubble moves aft and behind the hinge point of the elevator as AOA of the tail increases, the elevator surface could be forced (pulled) down abruptly to fill the low pressure void. This would pull the yoke forward. Operating with a forward CG can aggravate the problem due to the increased pitch forward moment of the aircraft causing increased tail down force and tailplane angle of attack.

Figure 5. Typical Icing Accumulation on Leading Edges

Flying on autopilot can mask the warning signs that tail plane icing is occurring and a tail plane stall imminent. Specifically, the pilot may not notice tactile feedback cues. Moreover, symptoms may not be noticed in cruise flight since the horizontal stabilizer is not working anywhere near its performance limit. The pilot may actually not notice any problem until flaps are lowered close to the ground.

A typical progression of symptoms might be:

1. A lightening in the controls, particularly in the forward direction, which can lead to a PIO (pilot induced oscillation) since it is far easier to push forward then to pull back on the yoke.
2. The aircraft may become difficult to trim.
3. Also, buffeting may be felt through the control column as the elevator begins to flutter due to airflow separation and reattachment below it. This would not be the same as airframe buffet due to a main wing stall. The pilot must be able to differentiate between airframe buffet present typically just before or during a main wing stall, which can be felt through the seat, and control buffet present typically just before a tail plane stall.
4. As the situation worsens, the yoke will start wanting to come forward out of the pilot’s hands. Forward pulses may occur, and eventually the yoke may be snatched forward aggressively to the stop as the elevator is pulled aggressively downward into the low pressure separated airflow region on the underside of the tailplane. This will cause a pronounced pitch down. Control forces can easily reach or exceed 170 pounds, requiring two pilots to pull the elevator controls back. Pilots have noted a lightening in the seat or even being pulled out of the seat. This situation may not be recoverable at low altitude.

Figure 6. Elevator Forced Down into Low Pressure Area

NASA identified three paths which could lead to a tail plane stall in the presence of tail plane icing. They are:

1. Increasing Flaps: Increasing flaps causes increased downwash over the tailplane thus making the tail plane AOA more negative. Yoke buffet indicates separation and reattachment of airflow on the underside of the tailplane. This makes it difficult to keep the aircraft in trim. Symptoms are often encountered immediately after flaps are lowered to near full or full extension.
2. Increasing Airspeed: With flaps full, increasing airspeed while maintaining power can increase negative AOA further and increase yoke buffet.
3. Increasing Power: Increasing power while maintaining speed can also induce a tailplane stall, especially with full flaps. As power increased, the pilot will pull back on the yoke to maintain airspeed, bringing the elevator up which further increases negative AOA of the tail plane.

Once a tailplane stall occurs, nose down pitch rate can increase rapidly. Altitude loss can easily reach a few hundred feet even if control is regained. This can be disastrous if on final approach. Avoid full extension of flaps. And if any flaps are used, it is recommended to extend them at a safe altitude that would allow for successful recovery if a tailplane stall occurs. Make pitch changes slowly, particularly nose down movements. If the airplane has a deicing system, activate the system several times to attempt to dislodge the ice. Land with reduced flaps if conditions permit.

Note to Pilots: In the vast majority of cases, the main wing stall in both icing and non-icing conditions is a much more likely threat of loss of control in-flight than the tail plane stall.

ICTS Recovery Procedure: While the symptoms of a tailplane stall can be similar to a main wing stall (e.g. nose pitch down), the recovery procedure can be dramatically different. The procedure for recovering from a tailplane stall is to:

1. Pull back on Yoke
2. Reduce Flaps to last setting
3. Reduce Power (on some aircraft); or at least be judicious with power.

If the pilot determines that there is control buffet or lightening of the controls, and has difficulty trimming the aircraft, or is experiencing PIO, he should immediately pull back on the yoke to counteract an un-commanded forward movement of the yoke, reduce flaps to previous setting and be cautious with power. Pulling the yoke back and retracting the flaps to the previous setting are universal. And NASA determined that it is often wise to be very judicious with power since power increases can make the tailplane have to work much harder. Also, it is important to maintain airspeed precisely.

This recovery is of course opposite compared to a main wing stall recovery which would be to relax back pressure or push yoke forward depending on aircraft, configuration and trim, and to add power. And a pilot not acutely aware of the oftentimes subtle differences between a main wing stall and a tail plane stall may apply the wrong recovery technique in an altitude critical environment with potentially disastrous results.

Another way to differentiate between the two stalls is configuration and speed. If flaps are lowered at the high speed range of flap extension and control buffet occurs, there is a good chance that tail plane icing exists. The higher the airspeed when flaps are extended, the more susceptible the aircraft is to a tailplane stall.

Aircraft Susceptibility to ICTS: The following are traits of types of aircraft that are susceptible aircraft common characteristics:

1. Examples of aircraft known to be susceptible tailplane icing include the Cessna Caravan, Pilatus PC-12, Beechjet 400 and Mitsubishi MU-300 Diamond, and King Air 200, 300, 350 (T Tail). All pilots, even for pilots of aircraft models listed here, must consult with the manufacturer of their airplane concerning type-specific tail plane icing susceptibility, diagnosis, countermeasures and, if applicable, recovery techniques.
2. Aircraft with unpowered controls (i.e. aircraft that rely on aerodynamic forces to keep stick forces neutral). These aircraft have a fixed horizontal stabilizer leading edge with a trim tab on moveable elevator. Large aircraft with hydraulic controls are less susceptible to ICTS. However, for these aircraft, the tactile cues of an impending tail stall will be less noticeable as well. The pilot needs to be more perceptive of subtle cues such as unusual trim settings and PIOs.
3. Flaps w/ large deflection causing greater downwash on the horizontal stabilizer resulting in greater tailplane AOA. Many operators are prohibited from lowering flaps while holding in known icing conditions.
4. Aircraft that use de-icing boots instead of an anti-icing system.
5. Turboprop aircraft are generally more susceptible due to their operating environment in the lower altitudes, in middle of the icing environment, and with increased takeoff/landing cycles. It is possible that the propeller wash from turboprop aircraft can have a super-cooling effect on water droplets aggravating ice accumulation.
6. Any aircraft that operate often in icing conditions. Large and small GA aircraft are susceptible.
7. Newer, more efficient stabilizers are more susceptible to ice accretion. Generally, the leading edge of aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer is sharper than main wing leading edge and is therefore a more efficient ice collector (this has been proven in wind tunnel tests).

Note to Pilots: In the vast majority of cases, the main wing stall in both icing and non-icing conditions is a much more likely threat of loss of control in-flight than the tail plane stall.

Here are some key points to remember:

1. Become acutely aware of tailplane icing/stall symptoms.
2. Be prepared to undo configuration changes which result in uncommanded responses.
3. Avoid the use of autopilot in known icing conditions.
4. If equipped with a deicing system, use it to clear even small accumulations of ice, especially before extending flaps.

Below is a comparison of causes, susceptibility, characteristics and recovery procedures for a Main wing stall and an iced induced tailplane stall:

Remember, severe icing conditions probably means icing beyond the capability of your aircraft’s deicing or anti-icing systems. Avoid operating in icing conditions whenever possible. If unavoidable or inadvertently encountered, avoid prolonged operation in icing conditions.

Note to Readers: Aviation Performance Solutions LLC (APS) does not endorse or warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content, advertisements or other materials contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from our web site. Any reliance upon any information, content, advertisements, materials, products, or services included on or found through this web site shall be at the user's sole risk. Pilots must consider the manufacturer, and the manufacturer's guidance related to the operation of their airplane, as their primary source of type or model specific information.

Mainline Media Pick-ups: AIN - Operations: Upset Recovery Training Pays Off

It has often been said that there is no substitute for experience but I am living proof that training is sometimes the only thing that keeps you alive long enough to benefit from the experience.

Like so many other stories, it started with a normal training mission in one of our C-12 aircraft (US Army version of the Beechcraft King Air). No missions had come down for the day so another pilot and I decided to take one of the aircraft out for an afternoon flight. He was our newest PIC but he didn’t have a lot of flight time in our local area so I pulled up a flight plan that took us to some lesser used airports that he had never been to. We checked over our Dash One (US Army weather briefing) and everything looked fine for an early winter flight in the northwest – low ceilings and nothing worse than light rime in the descents. My co-pilot was the acting PIC for the flight and he chose to fly right seat in order to work on his cockpit management.

The flight en route to our first destination was uneventful and we enjoyed the views of mountain tops piercing the low cloud decks below us. The plan, as approved by ATC, was to do the VOR approach followed by the published missed into holding. This would give us a chance to practice some maneuvers we rarely do and once we were in holding we could pick up our clearance to our next airport. We entered the clouds at about 7000’MSL in the descent and when we leveled out at MDA we were right in the cloud base. During the descent I noticed some trace rime ice on the wings. We had turned on all of our ice protection equipment, and neither of us were the least bit concerned. At that time of year in the Northwest, it is a rare flight to not see at least some ice. We hit our missed approach point, accomplished the go-around procedure, had the auto-pilot back on, and in the climb before we even had to start our turn back out to holding. We were feeling pretty good about things as the aircraft leveled out at 6000’MSL and turned towards the VOR, which was our holding point. The plan was to enter holding, do one pattern, pick up our clearance and then depart.

I set the power to our normal maneuver cruising speed of 160kts IAS and glanced out the window to check for ice. I noticed what looked like a thin film of ice on the boots and decided to inflate the ice boots to see if I could dislodge it. Based on my previous experience with that amount of ice I didn’t think it would do much more than just fracture with most of the ice staying on the boot. To my surprise when I hit the boot the ice exploded off, leaving the boot completely clear. I quickly looked at the OAT and saw it was -4C. I glanced up at the windshield and noticed just a couple of small clear ice streaks on the outer edges. I knew we were picking up some ice but I was used to ice and even though it seemed different this time I had no idea the severity of it. In hindsight I should have done two things at that point – disengaged the autopilot and requested an immediate climb, neither of which I did. I was concerned enough that I told the PIC we were picking up ice and that instead of doing a turn in holding, we needed to get our clearance and head out. He agreed and for the next minute or so we were focused on getting the clearance and punching it into the FMS.

I knew we were still in icing conditions but in over 1000 hrs of Fixed Wing time I had learned (the vast majority of my experience has been in rime ice) that even in moderate icing conditions, it takes several minutes before enough ice builds up to where you can effectively activate the boots. In addition, I associated heavy ice with an obscured windshield and that wasn’t the case this time. I lifted my head up from looking at the FMS and noticed that our airspeed was down to 140kts IAS. That is when everything started to go wrong and time slowed down. I doubt the following actions encompassed much more than a minute but it was so hectic it took us some time afterwards to piece together what happened. This is our best estimate of the sequence of events.

As soon as I saw the airspeed, and while my brain was still trying to process it, the aircraft started to shudder. It wasn’t the buffeting that I had experienced in the simulator or anything like the stall indications we had in flight school flying the Cessna 182 – it was violent and aggressive. I knew that our stall speed in our current configuration was about 100kts, so even though we were in ice, my first thought was that something had come loose on one of the wings. I asked my co-pilot to check his wing while I added power to about 80% to keep from slowing down any more. Neither of us saw anything wrong with the wings except for some ice on the leading edge which my co-pilot cleared by hitting the boots again. Somewhere around this time I finally punched off the autopilot and struggled to control the aircraft. It started to pitch more violently and I basically had no control through the ailerons. The airspeed continued to decrease until at about 120kts IAS the aircraft pitched up then nosed over and rolled to the right. The warnings started to sound “bank angle, bank angle” as we exceeded 60 degrees and my attitude indicator was rapidly turning more brown than blue. It finally flashed through my thick skull that no matter what the airspeed said we were in a full-on stall that was rapidly turning into a spin. Because of the onset characteristics, it was clear to me that this was not a tailplane stall.

In spite of all the clues I had missed up to this point, this is where training saved our lives and the aircraft. The previous year I had completed a weeklong upset prevention and recovery course (UPRT) at APS Emergency Maneuver Training based in Phoenix, AZ in which they beat it into us that you have to aggressively and correctly reduce angle of attack in a main wing stall or you may not recover. The mnemonic they taught us for this scenario was – Push, Power, Rudder, Roll, Climb. So even though we were descending to the ground at 3000FPM at a bank angle greater than 70 degrees, my training took over and I even yelled out ”Push, power, rudder, roll, climb” as I shoved the yoke forward and pulled the power back. I made sure we were in trim and, within a couple of seconds, I could once again feel feedback in the ailerons so I rolled the aircraft upright and started to pull out of the dive. I told my co-pilot to give me full power and props to high but as soon as we slowed to 140kts in the climb it entered a secondary stall and I had to lower the nose and build up airspeed in a slight descent before pulling up into a climb again. Although I thought climbing may not be possible depending upon the amount of ice accumulated (APS addresses this consideration in training where stabilizing in a descent or level flight in some situations may be the only option), it was necessary to at least investigate the possibility of climbing due to the tremendous altitude loss and terrain. While I continued this step climb maneuver to gain altitude my co-pilot was activating the boots to ensure they stayed clear. The problem was that much of the ice had accreted aft of the protected area and we could do nothing about it. We were in classic super cooled water droplets that would hit our leading edge and then flow back beyond the boot before freezing. We broke out of the clouds at 7000’MSL and it wasn’t long before the sunlight began to remove the ice. Once we started breathing again and stopped shaking, we decided that was enough training for one day and headed for home.

Lessons Learned

We learned several valuable lessons from that experience. First, if something doesn’t look right then react to it, don’t assume it is the same old thing. I was comfortable flying in and reacting to ice but I had never seen ice explode off the boot like that. I should have picked up on the fact that there was a lot more ice than what I could see and that these were not normal conditions. Based on the time frame from when I first noticed the ice until the stall (less than 3 minutes) I believe we were in severe clear ice which I had never experienced. Along with that, and in spite of the lack of a stall horn, I likely could have, in hindsight, recognized the main wing stall sooner. Rather than reacting to the clear aerodynamic indications of a main wing stall, I convinced myself that it had to be something else because we were too fast to stall (in my mind) and it was much more violent than any buffeting I had experienced before. Finally, the most important takeaway is that training saves lives. I had a great co-pilot and crew coordination was instrumental in our survival but it is highly unlikely that I would have recovered that aircraft without upset prevention and recovery training with APS. The natural reaction of trying to over aggressively pull out of the dive, especially with the reduced stalling angle of attack, could have quickly put us into a spin and no one, to my knowledge, has recovered a C-12 from a spin in US Army line operations. We train for the worst-case scenario to give us the tools to live through it in the hope we will never have to. In the coming months and years there will be temptations to cut funding for programs like UPRT but can we really afford to?

Active-Duty US Army Pilot, Washington State
(name and unit withheld at the request of the author)

• North Texas Business Aviation Association (NTBAA) / Dallas, TX

• Pacific Northwest Business Aviation Association (PNBAA) / Seattle, WA

Date of Visits: 3-4 April 2013

APS visits Multiple Regional Business Aviation Forums

Pacific Northwest Business Aviation Association Safety Day speakers: The Honorable Robert Sumwalt, NTSB; Leigh White, Alertness Solutions; Shannon Forest, Flight Safety International; Dr. Shari Frisinger, Cornerstone Strategies; Randall Brooks, Aviation Performance Solutions

The North Texas Business Aviation Association held their first annual Safety Show Down on Wednesday May 3rd. Million Air at the Addison Airport in Dallas hosted the event. Randall co-presented with Lou Nemeth, CAE Chief Safety Officer, on Upset Prevention and Recovery Training. Randall informed the crowd that APS will be moving to their area with the opening of the new APS office at the Arlington Municipal Airport next month.

Thursday, April 4th saw Mr. Brooks in Seattle at the magnificent Museum of Flight at historic Boeing Field. There, the Pacific Northwest Business Aviation Association held their 5th Annual Safety Day with a strong lineup of speakers led by National Transportation Safety Board Member Robert Sumwalt. Randall explained why Loss of Control can penetrate our defenses and gaps in current pilot training, and presented comprehensive training solutions involving an integrated approach to Upset Prevention and Recovery Training.

PRWEB Version Available at: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/aps-europe-open/prweb10523150.htm

Mesa, Arizona (PRWEB) March 14, 2013 

Aviation Performance Solutions LLC (APS), a world leader in loss of control in-flight mitigation training, today announced its European expansion into the Netherlands. This new location, APS Europe, will provide comprehensive Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT) services for general aviation, business and commercial aircraft pilots. The training program uses APS-proven web-based academics, in-flight practical skill development and full-flight simulator exercises and scenarios. APS Europe completed its formal evaluation by key-client test pilots in February 2013 at the Seppe Airport, Bosschenhoofd, in the Netherlands using the Slingsby Firefly T-67 M200 aerobatic aircraft. The final phase of the integrated UPRT program evaluation was completed on a CAE Level D Boeing 737 Next Generation simulator at the CAE Amsterdam Training Center near Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. The preparatory web-based e-Learning academic program is an APS development based on the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid (AURTA), Revision 2. apstraining.com/europe 

The APS UPRT program is uniquely designed to enhance a pilot’s ability to reduce the threat of Loss of Control In-flight (LOC-I) situations. LOC-I is defined as flight that occurs outside of the normal flight envelope with an inability of the pilot to control the aircraft. According to a July 2012 Boeing report, LOC-I is the number one cause of fatalities in commercial and general aviation. 

"We are excited about the opportunity to expand our services into the European market," said Paul BJ Ransbury, president of APS, a leading industry authority on LOC-I training who has been both a fighter pilot and commercial airline pilot. "With advances being made through the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) related to mitigating the loss of control in-flight threat through upset recovery training, APS is strongly committed to providing turnkey, affordable, world-class UPRT services in mainland Europe. APS teaches simple, useful techniques which apply to a wide diversity of fixed-wing piston and jet aircraft so the pilot and crew can enhance their ability to prevent an airplane upset or, if necessary, effectively recover the airplane." 

Among the conditions addressed in APS training programs are severe attitude situations such as overbank, stalls, incipient spins, spiral dive, nose high, nose low, control failures, alternate control strategies, and wake turbulence encounters, as well as a range of other emergency situations.

"The program addresses the fundamental principles of all flight attitudes and is applicable to all pilot experience levels flying fixed-wing airplanes - turboprop or jet, straight or swept wing, any size and weight," said François Jurres, the Netherlands APS general manager. "Pilots who have been through this training have repeatedly called it some of the most valuable manual flying training they have ever received."

About Aviation Performance Solutions (APS) 

Aviation Performance Solutions' Emergency Maneuver Training, with headquarters at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (Mesa, Arizona), has trained thousands of pilots in fully comprehensive upset recovery skill development, more than any other training organization. For over 15 years, APS has been committed to giving professional pilots and private pilots of all skill levels the highest quality upset recovery training available. APS offers comprehensive LOC-I solutions via industry-leading web-based, on-aircraft, and full-flight simulator upset recovery training programs. With locations in the Netherlands, Texas and Arizona, APS is the only Part 141 Flight School currently certified in the delivery of complete upset recovery, stall/spin and instrument recovery training courses. APS upset recovery training courses are each in compliance with the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid - Revision 2 and the recently released FAA Aviation Circular 120-109 on Stall Stick Pusher Training. apstraining.com

Contact Information
Faye Hamilton
Aviation Performance Solutions LLC
http://apstraining.com/
USA: (480) 279-1881

Ransbury and Nemeth provided an update on industry advances on the subject of LOC-I mitigation through upset prevention & upset recovery training and framed anticipated regulatory progress in this domain of safety of flight in the coming months and years. Concluding the presentation, Capt. Nemeth delivered an additional 30-minute session on Simulator Operational Quality Assurance (SOQA) and how this innovative technology can provides powerful insight into air safety practices across the spectrum of aviation operations.

TRIVIA: Approximately 20% of the world's sixteen active Master CFI - Aerobatic instructors work at Aviation Performance Solutions (APS), the world's leading provider of Upset Prevention and Recovery Training. APS has more Master CFI–Aerobatic instructors on staff than any other flight training provider.

Mesa, Arizona – 1 February 2013: Aviation Performance Solutions, LLC is extremely pleased to announce that David “Zog” Carroll has earned his Master CFI – Aerobatic accreditation. A full time instructor with Aviation Performance Solutions, Zog has over 30 years of aviation experience. A retired USAF Command Pilot, Instructor Pilot, and 4-ship Flight Lead, Zog is an ATP MEL, Comm/Inst SEL, CFI/CFII/MEI Airplane certified pilot with a Boeing 737 Type Rating, and an Advanced Ground Instructor. A combat veteran of Operations Southern Watch, Northern Watch, Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, with over 4,000 hours of global flight experience and 1,200 hours of inflight instruction in both civilian and military operations, Zog brings a wealth of experience to all of APS' programs.

To help put these achievements in their proper perspective, there are approximately 97,000 CFIs in the United States. Fewer than 700 of those aviation educators have achieved that professional distinction thus far. The last 17 national Flight Instructors of the Year were Master CFIs (see: http://www.GeneralAviationAwards.org/) while Dave is one of only 27 Arizona teachers of flight to earn this prestigious "Master" title and one of only 29 worldwide to earn aerobatic accreditation.

In the words of former FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, "The Master Instructor accreditation singles out the best that the right seat has to offer."

The Master Instructor designation is a national accreditation recognized by the FAA. Candidates must demonstrate an ongoing commitment to excellence, professional growth, and service to the aviation community, and must pass a rigorous evaluation by a peer Board of Review. The process parallels the continuing education regimen used by other professionals to enhance their knowledge base while increasing their professionalism. Designees are recognized as outstanding aviation educators for not only their excellence in teaching, but for their engagement in the continuous process of learning -- both their own, and their students'. The designation must be renewed biennially and significantly surpasses the FAA requirements for renewal of the candidate's flight instructor certificate.

ABOUT AVIATION PERFORMANCE SOLUTIONS (APS) IN ARIZONA

Aviation Performance Solutions (APS) located at the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (Mesa, Arizona), has trained thousands of pilots in fully comprehensive upset recovery skill development, more than any other training organization. For over 17 years, APS has been committed to giving professional pilots and private pilots of all skill levels the highest quality upset prevention and recovery training available. APS offers comprehensive loss of control in-flight solutions via industry-leading web-based, on-aircraft, and full-flight simulator upset training programs. APS is the only Part 141 Flight School currently certified in the delivery of complete upset recovery, stall / spin and instrument recovery training courses worldwide. APS upset recovery training courses are all in compliance with the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid – Revision 2 and the recently released FAA Aviation Circular 120-109 on Stall and Stick Pusher Training. http://apstraining.com

MEDIA CONTACT

Faye Hamilton, Marketing Coordinator
Aviation Performance Solutions
Mobile: 480-797-0752
Office: 480-279-1881 ext. 12
faye (dot) hamilton (at) apstraining (dot) com