Welcome to Flight Safety Connection TV, the new communication forum from ATR Flight Safety. You will find the link for the broadcast of the 14th of January 2021 and below the Questions & Answers raised that day.
Our thanks to our customers for their questions and feedback. We look forward to our next broadcast scheduled for the 29th of April 2021.
Question – I had asked a question earlier to ATR about rudder trim position setting during landing. The response I had got was to keep it in the previously managed position as was kept by the Yaw damper. Will this practice affect controllability of the aircraft in case of an engine failure post disengagement on the upwind side? Air India
Answer – From a stabilized approach, the rudder trim will be around the neutral position at yaw damper disengagement. In these conditions, the controllability is not affected, even in case of engine failure post disengagement.
Question – We encountered with 500 series some cases of blocked flight controls at the end of every winter season due to de-icing residues accumulated on gaps of ailerons. Should we expect the same problems with 600 series? ( this was our first year to operate the new model). TAROM
Answer – Flight control design does not change between -500 and -600. If a specific issue is experienced we suggest TAROM to contact ATR technical support for further assistance. In addition please refer to AOM 42/72/2017/02 issue 1.
Question – I’d like to know about Abnormal Runway contact( bounce landing ) definition. Air KBZ
Answer – From MP ATR-A-05-51-10-05ZZZ-282Z-A: “Unscheduled Inspection after Abnormal Runway Contact”:
An abnormal runway contact at landing is a touchdown at landing with a high level of ground loads and accelerations.
It includes for example:
– Hard landings
– Heavy landings
– Landings with high bank angle
– Nose wheel first touchdowns
– Tail strikes
– Gear-up landings.
Also refer to OIM 2020/008 for further information.
Question – In case engine flame on takeoff, ATPCS feathering is inop. Can the pilot feather the engine below 400 feet AGL? Trujet
Answer – If the ATPCS is inop there is a MEL item. This MEL has an operational limitation (to climb single engine without feathering) plus an operationnal procedure. This is this procedure to follow strictly.
Question – What informed the decision to remove ” Loop Fault” from the memory items? Dennis
Answer – During the transition to EDORA, a need to rationalize and simplify the emergency and memory checklists as identified and this particular “LOOP FAULT” was removed from the “immediate or urgent action required” list. It was determined there is no technical reason why this checklist needs to be treated in a more high priority manner than any other.
This fault is now treated in the same manner as any other abnormal checklist.
Question – In accordance with COVID 19, the volume of flights is really reduced. Is the normal recurrent program sufficient for training? Air Madagascar
Answer – The volume of training might need some adjustment on a case by case study, depending on the time spent away from flight deck, the pilot experience as well as alternative training provided (or not) during interruption.
Question – Has the ClearVision wearable HUD been tested with the oxygen mask donned? Dennis
Answer – Yes. All these tests have been performed. The Head Mounted Display must be removed before donning the oxygen mask (CF dedicated AFM, emergency procedures).
Question – Any chance to stop spurious warnings (ENG FLAME OUT) associated with engine shutdown after parking? They can be reset only by removing electric power from the aircraft. TAROM
Answer – An Update of the FCOM is available. “ENG 1 OUT alert can trigger during engine shutdown if the flight crew slowly sets CL 1 from FTR to FUEL S.O. The alert will disappear as soon as the flight crew sets CL 1 to the FUEL S.O. position.”
Question – ATRactive haș option for signing in through a company and individually BUT in effect you can never register individually it has to go through a company administrator which in reality denies ATR allot of feedback from the Pilots that fly the aircraft …can ATRactive be more user friendly? Dennis
Answer – We continue to update our communication channels. Today we have a dedicated pilot forum in addition to the Flight Safety Website. ATRactive is used for the formal communication in regards to documentation and procedures.
Question – How we can get or find the quick change configuration. Travira Air
Answer – Assuming the question is about the cargo quick change solution, info are available on the retrofit catalogues published on ATRactive and/or contacting ATR service sales directors.
Question – Regarding the upset prevention: during climb in icing conditions, is the next Avionic standard schedule to, or would it be possible for the automatic speed to maintain a minimum of Icing Bug +10kt as recommended by the procedure (ie for high weights when Icing Bug is above 160kt, the automatic speeds would then be at the Icing Bug +10kt, example Icing Bug is at 168kt, Automatic climb speed would be 168+10=178kt), ensuring to maintain High Bank and a safe margin to Icing Bug. In a same way, although Vmin ops is increased in case of degraded perf, would it be possible for the automatic speeds to be set according to any APM alerts, degraded perf, increasing speed. ASL Airlines
Answer – Yes, the next Avionics Standard 4 will automatically ensure that the managed speed is at least at Icing Bug + 10kts once the flight crew activates the de-icing system.
Note that this increase of +10kts it will not be based on DGD PERF / INCREASE SPEED APM alerts.
Since Avionics Standards 2.2 & 3.1, an automatic increase of the VminOPS (+10kts) and the Vmhb (+15kts) is done in case of DGD PERF / INCREASE SPEED APM alerts. The next Avionics Standard 4 will retain this feature, with in addition the possibility to trigger manually DGD PERF configuration with a prompt on the MCDU.
Question – Sometimes it is recommended to use CL TO 100% OVRD FOR APPROACH in turbulence conditions. Would you recommend this for Max crosswind landings? TAROM
Answer – YES this is a good practise to recover more reactivity on the engine response. Recommendation is to use CL, not PWR MGT
Question – Does ATR have UPRT training for trainer? We have already since July 2019 our Simulator equipped with STD 3 and UPRT capability. Wings Air
Answer – Yes UPRT train the trainer is available and we encourage operators to opt for it
Question – Normal landing (no crosswind, does it need to be anyway with one main landing gear first, then the other? Fabian
Answer –Normal procedure reflects aircraft with leveled wings, hence both landing gears touch down at the same time.
Question – During the X wind I can see a lot of pilots using the rudder trim for crabing ? What your opinion on this ? Nesma Airlines
Answer – This is not recommended practice. Trim is not a primary flight control and full authority is needed in all directions, hence the trim is centered.
Question – When is the proper timing to transfer yoke to CM2 after landing in strong crosswind? We saw some captains tend to give yoke to CM2 right after landing in order to hold nosewheel switch. Anonymous
Answer – There is no specific procedure for cross wind, transfer remains at 70 knots. But, as highlighted in the broadcast, it must be coordinated with proper communication and briefed before landing.
Question – does ATR emphasize the foot position on rudder pedals for landing in crosswind? heel on ground or heel avoid ground on rudder and brake pedal? Anonymous
Answer – ATR strongly recommends feet up, heels off the ground, with or without cross wind.
Question – I would appreciate thoughts of the panel on Threat Based Briefings. XFly
Answer – It is a modern type of briefing we see more and more often – especially from young pilots. We encourage the development of briefings to adapt the next generation of pilots and we refer to the discussion during the broadcast.
Question – Question regarding Pilot Flying vs Pilot not flying. Could it not be better to call it PA, Pilot Flying and Pilot assisting. That way both are “called” pilots, and one is not less active regarding the wording of the theme. XFly
Answer –Thank you for this feedback. We believe there is a strong consensus on the need to emphasize the active part of pilot monitoring. For sure, this leads to an excellent debate on the terminology we use today. The word “assist”, in some cultures, may still have a slightly negative implication. However, we look forward to the debate.
Question – We have very interested in today’s crosswind landing discussion. Regarding crosswind landing, ATR has already issued safety note which is also included FCTM, but we propose ATR to review and revise it in order to inform and share operators the latest information and/or technique which ATR recommended for crosswind landing. We operator would like to know the latest information and have training using latest ATR recommended procedure for crosswind landing. Thank you. JAC
Answer – Thank you for the feedback. We refer operators to the FCOM and the QRH in the first instance. We will review supporting documentation. However we stress that cross wind landing technique, as described in today’s broadcast, refers to the standard technique that we want all flight crews to adhere to.
Question – Is there any speed protection/reminder for the Approach in order to avoid overrun the runway or possibility of bounce landing… Air India
Answer – There is no speed protection nor specific speed reminder, but the target speed Vapp is clearly defined.
Question – I would like to know if exist any Risk Assessment about after Take Off in Icing Conditions or All Icing Conditions to perform a Landing Gear Cycle Apply? White Airways
Answer – There is no procedure, in any condition, which requires landing gear cycling in flight.
Question – Is there any channel to relay grammatical errors found in the technical publications of the ATR training department ? I come across some in the FCOM and ACOS that could cause some confusion especially for non native English speakers. AKKA-NA
Answer – Thank you for your feedback. Any findings you may have are to be reported to ops.support@atr-aircraft.com
Question – Hello to everyone, I want to Thank you first for this broadcast. My question is why training invariably comes into question when an accident occurs? Nour
Answer – This is a very good point. We refer back to our statement on threat & error management (TEM). TEM is relevant to the entire aviation system, ‘from the repair station to the flight deck’. During an investigation we do encourage investigation boards to consider human factors and organisatonal culture far beyond the flight deck. The precursors to an event can begin many years before the event itself. Of course we wish to provide ATR flight crew with all the available training to manage the unforeseen (black swan) events in addition to all the other barriers which increase safety margin.
Question – How ATR can integrate UPR package training in full flight simulator to the flight data monitoring program that the companys have to analyse these cases? SATENA
Answer – We understand that your question is about integrating into an FDM software the aerodynamic model of the aircraft as enhanced for UPRT training. This enhanced data package more specifically improves the simulated behaviour of the aircraft typically in post-stall condition. FDM is not necessarily to be used to reproduce aircraft behaviour based on flight crew inputs, but rather to compute events or values, produce statistics and identify trends as to how frequently and how close do the flight crews get close to a possible stall situation. Therefore no specific action has been considered regarding possible integration of the aero model into FDM for third parties. Please come back to ATR in case we have misunderstood the question.
Question – You mentionned the importance of the crew, why heading toward single pilot? ASL Airlines
Answer – Yes the technology is developing fast and the concepts around SPO are also developing. However the fundamental roles and tasks remain the same so the discussion remains valid (and even more interesting in terms of both job design and the man/machine interface). It is also worth noting that even if SPO is developed, certified etc in the coming years we will still have thousands of commercial aircraft operating in todays configuration.
Question – What is the best way to simulate a bounced landing as a part of UAS during the simulator sessions? Easyfly
Answer – With the UPRT data package installed on the simulator, the bounce landing has a specific P/B on the IOS, and when inserted in the appropriate context (appropriate weather such as turbulences) the realism is good and teaching objective easy to reach.
Question – Regarding crosswind landing, in case high intense crosswinds cause a deep landing, is it recommended to reject the landing? How to perform this reject landing once the FCTM predicts this maneuver only for high bounce recover? Also, in which cases besides a high bounce it is recommended to perform a reject landing? Azul
Answer – Reject landing / go around is always the proper action when entering a UAS during landing. We will review the FCTM to see where the ambiguity may come from.
Question – You mentioned the importance of pilot monitoring, how can active pilot monitoring be trained? Anonymous
Answer – At every level : initial pilot training, type rating, recurrent training, in-flight LIFUS, CRM course, etc…
Question – Experiencing windshear and recovery: what is the experience of the panel? Trujet
Answer – Captain Matthieu stressed during the broadcast adherence to procedure during his own experience during windshear on other aircraft types. To further expand this answer the following guidelines can also be considered (in order):
– Maintain configuration until positive climb and safe altitude is reached
– Pitch to 10 degrees
– Ramp power
– Wall power (if required)
– Depending on environmental conditions, the stick shaker may trigger momentarily
Question – It ‘s maybe a stupid question but from where come from the data of the new UPRT package : only computer datas or only real datas from test flights or a mix ? Alex
Answer – The primary data for the UPRT module utilised flight test data
Question – UPRT Training ( we need more details and the syllables/ is that could be done among Alpha Star Training Syllabus? Do we need to do an initial then we do it as refresher training? If yes, how? ). Alphastar
Answer – The proper UPRT training we recommend is definitively the UPRT TRAIN The TRAINER Course. In order to get the competence internally within the airline, become autonomous and spread as necessary in the yearly – recurrent program.
Question – Bounce Landing , please advice which Standard should be equipped in the training centre’s simulator to apply the “realistic” Bounce Landing? Alphastar
Answer – Realistic bounce landing, giving the best opportunity to meet great teaching objective, is possible on simulators equipped with The UPRT data package.
Question – What is the best way to plan the difference to glass cockpit training for experienced, qualified but not recent crews ? EG : get recency on 500’s SIM then follow the appendix 4 OSD ? Or appendix 5 OSD directly ? I would consider efficiency in both training objectives and costs. TAROM
Answer – With reference to the OSD, when pilot has either 500 ATR total time, or 100 within last 12 months => 1 week program is ok. For less hours than that, a 2-week is required. For specific case more than 500 hours, but no recent hours, the pilot must refresh the legacy first because the ATR Type rating must be valid for a difference course.
Question – As we only operate the glass cockpit variant now and we will still be requested to ferry some legacy a/c at some point in the future, what options do we have to meet the reccurent training requirements on 500’s series ? We still have to perform ( on an 6 months alternating basis) annualy a LPC/OPC and a full training sim session on the 500 ( as I understand) ? Are any other ( better) options ? TAROM
Answer – There is no exemption expected on OSD to fly both legacy and glass cockpit. ATR instructors have the same objective. Hence we maintain both variants recurrent training for the pilots.
Question – Regarding our own ( in house ) future initial and difference training programme development for ATR 600’s : can we use the FFS or the aircraft instead of OTD ‘s ( FPTD, FFT, DU, IESI, VCP, FMS ) used in the training footprint (OSD) without the need to apply for an ATQP ? Can a cockpit procedure training (a cockpit mockup ) still be of some use ? I am assuming the programme will otherwise be consistent with OSD, MDR/ODR , TASE and following the training footprint ( only replacing the OTD with FFS/a/c for some specific training objectives like DU, FMS, ICP, MCDU, MCP, FGCP, IESI ). TAROM
Answer – Who can do the most, can do the least. Example: FFS can replace a IESI trainer, but at a much higher cost. For the aircraft used on ground with a GPU, it can only replace a mock-up, because no failure can be triggerered and very limited action can be performed by pilot/instructor. For memory, one pillar of CBT model is to use the most relevant tool according to the learning objective targetted.
Question – For ELT ( initial type rating) what kind of FFT can we use ? I guess a FFS ? TAROM
Answer – FFS is the most appropriate tool when no FFT is available. Few operators use FFS without motion when running FFT sessions.
Question – When needed, can we dry lease the ATC OTD’s ( eg FPTD ) the same way as the FFS? TAROM
Answer – Indeed, there is a possibility to DRY lease FPT (is it the tool mentionned with FPTD?) infos at: atc@atr-aircraft.com
Question – If is possible, can you share your (ATC) training syllabuss for initial (600’s) and for differences ( legacy to glass cockpit) ? TAROM
Answer –
Detailed syllabus are not disclosed out of ATC ATO due to two main reasons:
– Getting the syllabus with no associated instructor training and proper guidance might have a negative training effect. Moreover, it would imply ATR responsibility, without giving the opportunity to secure the normal expected context and combined training.
– All ATR Syllabus and Training Supports are submitted to IP (Intellectual Property) and therefore subject to commercial policy and/or legal management of this IP.
