APPROACH-AND-LANDING ACCIDENT REDUCTION

TOOL KIT

fsf alar briefing note 6.3

Terrain-Avoidance (Pull-Up) Maneuver

A
• An instructor-led classroom briefing or a self-briefing based
typical training program to reduce approach-and-landing
on the FSF ALAR Tool Kit;
accidents (ALAs), including those involving controlled
flight into terrain (CFIT), includes the following: • A complete discussion about the operation of the GPWS/TAWS;
• The FSF Controlled Flight Into Terrain: An Encounter Avoided
• Alert flight crews to the factors that may cause ALAs and
video;
CFIT;
• Exercises to be incorporated in simulator training sessions
• Ensure that situational awareness is maintained at all times;
during transition training/recurrent training (three typical
• Ensure that crews attain proficiency in conducting approach sample exercises are described later); and,
procedures for their aircraft type; • A simulator briefing for nonprecision approaches to empha-
• Provide crews with adequate knowledge of the capabilities size CFIT risks and the advantages of using a constant-angle
and limitations of the ground-proximity warning system nonprecision approach (CANPA) or other type of precision-
(GPWS) or terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS)1 like approach.
installed on their aircraft; and,
Simulator Requirements
• Ensure that crews are proficient in conducting the terrain-
avoidance maneuver required in response to a GPWS warning • The flight simulator database should include terrain in the
or a TAWS warning (as published in the aircraft operating vicinity of the airports selected for training. The terrain data-
manual [AOM]/quick reference handbook [QRH]). base should extend to an area with a radius (centered on the
airfield reference point) of 25 nautical miles (nm) to 30 nm
(45 kilometers to 55 kilometers). This terrain also should be
Statistical Data
displayed by the visual system;
The Flight Safety Foundation Approach-and-landing Accident
Reduction (ALAR) Task Force found that CFIT was involved in • The capability should be available to insert an “electronic
37 percent of 76 approach-and-landing accidents and serious mountain” from the instructor’s panel at a selected point on
incidents worldwide in 1984 through 1997.2 the aircraft’s projected flight path.

Inserting an electronic mountain at an airport that does not

GPWS/TAWS Training
have such terrain, however, may result in the trainee dismiss-
The rigorous application of standard operating procedures
ing the GPWS/TAWS warning as a spurious warning, thus
(SOPs) to reinforce situational awareness and the optimum use
resulting in negative training.
of automated systems and displays during approach procedures
should be incorporated in transition training and recurrent The slope and height of the mountain should be tailored to a
training programs developed by the aircraft manufacturer or by particular aircraft at a representative gross weight (e.g., maxi-
the company’s training department. mum landing weight [MLW]), so that maximum performance
A training program should include: is required to avoid striking the mountain.

flight safety foundation ALAR tool kit | ALAR briefing Note 6.3 |1
 The slope of the mountain therefore should be adjustable to Briefing. Explain the objective. Although the trainees will
match the climb gradients that can be achieved in the pull-up know that the exercise is to be conducted, explain that it is
maneuver; and, intended to simulate an inadvertent descent below minimum
• To prevent negative training, the simulator must represent re- safe altitude (MSA) because of a loss of situational aware-
alistically the handling qualities and performance as airspeed ness (e.g., because of a lateral navigation error, an incorrect
reduces to stick-shaker speed or minimum airspeed. altitude selection or an incorrect nonprecision approach
procedure).
Simulator Exercises Initial Conditions. Either of the following two scenarios can
All GPWS/TAWS modes should be demonstrated. The objec- be used:
tive should be to ensure an understanding of the capabilities • Establish initial approach configuration and airspeed,
and limitations of the GPWS/TAWS installed on the aircraft at or near the MLW, in a shallow descent or in level flight;
type. or,
These exercises can be conducted in either a fixed-base simu-
lator (FBS) or a full-flight simulator (FFS). • Establish landing configuration and approach speed, at or
The following scenarios, to be conducted in an FFS, are near MLW, on a typical three-degree descent.
designed to increase CFIT awareness and to allow the pilot to Procedure. The instructor inserts an electronic mountain
practice the correct response to GPWS/TAWS warnings without ahead of the aircraft and talks to the flight crew throughout
significantly increasing the training time. The scenarios should the maneuver, insisting on an immediate and aggressive
be modified in accordance with the company’s training require- response.
ments or operating environment. Ensure proper crew coordination, with the PNF/PM calling
radio altitudes and trend (e.g., “300 feet decreasing”).
Pull-Up in VMC Exercise Continue the maneuver at maximum performance until the
Objectives. Demonstrate GPWS/TAWS warnings, that a pull- terrain is cleared. The duration of the maneuver should be suf-
up maneuver must be immediate, the pull-up technique (with ficient for the crew to demonstrate proficiency in maintaining
special emphasis on pitch force and attitude) and crew the maximum climb performance.
coordination. Repeat the exercise, as needed, until crew proficiency is
Briefing. Explain the objectives and emphasize that this is a achieved.
training exercise. Describe the pull-up technique required for Debriefing. Review the exercise, as appropriate.
the particular aircraft type.
Initial Conditions. Establish initial approach configuration Unexpected GPWS/TAWS Warning
and airspeed, at or near the MLW, in a shallow descent or in This scenario should be included during a line-oriented flight
level flight. training (LOFT) session, which normally is programmed at the
Procedure. The instructor inserts an electronic mountain end of transition training and during periodic recurrent training
ahead of the aircraft and talks to the flight crew throughout the LOFT sessions.
maneuver, insisting on an immediate and aggressive response. Objective. To maintain crew awareness of the CFIT hazard
Ensure proper crew coordination, with the pilot not flying/­ and to confirm crew proficiency in responding to a GPWS/
pilot monitoring (PNF/PM) calling radio altitudes and trend TAWS warning.
(e.g., “300 feet decreasing”). Briefing. None.
Continue the maneuver at maximum performance until the Initial Conditions. Establish either initial-approach configura-
mountain is cleared. The duration of the maneuver should be tion and airspeed, or clean configuration and maneuvering
sufficient for the crew to demonstrate proficiency in maintain- speed, at MLW, descending or in level flight.
ing maximum climb performance. Procedure. The instructor clears the crew to descend to an
Repeat the exercise, as needed, until crew proficiency is altitude below the MSA or provides radar vectors toward
achieved. high terrain.
Debriefing. Review the exercise, as appropriate. If the flight crew takes corrective action before any GPWS/
TAWS warning (as expected), an electronic mountain can be
Pull-Up in IMC Exercise inserted at a later stage in the session.
Objective. Reinforce and confirm correct response to a GPWS/ Verify crew response to GPWS/TAWS and crew coordination
TAWS warning in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), during the pull-up maneuver.
including pilot technique and crew coordination. Debriefing. Review the exercise, as appropriate.

2| flight safety foundation ALAR Tool Kit | ALAR Briefing Note 6.3
Summary 76 ALAs and serious incidents in 1984 through 1997 and audits of
The following should be emphasized when discussing CFIT about 3,300 flights.
awareness and response to a GPWS/TAWS warning:
Related Reading From FSF Publications
• Situational awareness must be maintained at all times;
Rosenkrans, Wayne. “Helping Hand.” AeroSafety World Volume 3 (June
• Preventive actions (ideally) must be taken before a GPWS/ 2008).
TAWS warning;
Lacagnina, Mark. “High, Hot and Fixated.” AeroSafety World Volume 3
• Response to a GPWS/TAWS warning by the pilot flying (PF) (January 2008).
must be immediate;
Carbaugh, David. “Good for Business.” AeroSafety World Volume 2
• The PNF/PM must monitor and call the radio altitude and its (December 2007).

trend throughout the terrain-avoidance maneuver; and, Bateman, Don; McKinney, Dick. “Dive-and-Drive Dangers.” AeroSafety
World Volume 2 (November 2007).
• The pull-up maneuver must be continued at maximum climb
performance until the warning has ceased and terrain is Tarnowski, Etienne. “From Nonprecision to Precision-Like Approaches.”
AeroSafety World Volume 2 (October 2007).
cleared (radio altimeter).
Lacagnina, Mark. “Into the Black Sea.” AeroSafety World Volume 2
The following FSF ALAR Briefing Notes provide information to (October 2007).
supplement this discussion:
FSF International Advisory Committee. “Pursuing Precision.” AeroSafety
• 1.1 — Operating Philosophy; World Volume 2 (September 2007).

• 1.2 — Automation; Gurney, Dan. “Last Line of Defense.” AeroSafety World Volume 2 (January
2007).
• 2.3 — Pilot-Controller Communication;
Berman, Benjamin A.; Dismukes, R. Key. “Pressing the Approach.”
• 3.1 — Barometric Altimeter and Radio Altimeter; AviationSafety World Volume 1 (December 2006).

• 3.2 — Altitude Deviations; Gurney, Dan. “Change of Plan.” AviationSafety World Volume 1
(December 2006).
• 5.2 — Terrain;
Gurney, Dan. “Tricks of Light.” AviationSafety World Volume 1
• 7.1 — Stabilized Approach; (November 2006).

Gurney, Dan. “Wrong Airport.” AviationSafety World Volume 1 (October

• 7.2 — Constant-Angle Nonprecision Approach;
2006).
• 7.3 — Visual References; and,
Gurney, Dan. “Delayed Pull-Up.” AviationSafety World Volume 1
• 7.4 — Visual Approaches.  (September 2006).

Gurney, Dan. “Misidentified Fix.” AviationSafety World Volume 1 (August

Notes 2006).

1. Terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS) is the term used by Gurney, Dan. “Night VMC.” AviationSafety World Volume 1 (July 2006).
the European Aviation Safety Agency and the U.S. Federal Aviation
Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) Editorial Staff. “Nonadherence to
Administration to describe equipment meeting International
Standard Procedures Cited in Airbus A320 CFIT in Bahrain.” Accident
Civil Aviation Organization standards and recommendations for
Prevention Volume 59 (December 2002).
ground-proximity warning system (GPWS) equipment that provides
predictive terrain-hazard warnings. “Enhanced GPWS” and “ground FSF Editorial Staff. “Preparing for Last-minute Runway Change, Boeing
collision avoidance system” are other terms used to describe TAWS 757 Flight Crew Loses Situational Awareness, Resulting in Collision with
equipment. Terrain.” Accident Prevention Volume 54 (July–August 1997).
2. Flight Safety Foundation. “Killers in Aviation: FSF Task Force
FSF Editorial Staff. “Unaware That They Have Encountered a Microburst,
Presents Facts About Approach-and-landing and Controlled-flight-
DC-9 Flight Crew Executes Standard Go-around; Aircraft Flies Into
into-terrain Accidents.” Flight Safety Digest Volume 17 (November–
Terrain.” Accident Prevention Volume 53 (February 1996).
December 1998) and Volume 18 (January–February 1999): 1–121.
The facts presented by the FSF ALAR Task Force were based on Duke, Thomas A.; FSF Editorial Staff. “Aircraft Descended Below
analyses of 287 fatal approach-and-landing accidents (ALAs) that Minimum Sector Altitude and Crew Failed to Respond to GPWS
occurred in 1980 through 1996 involving turbine aircraft weigh- as Chartered Boeing 707 Flew into Mountain in Azores.” Accident
ing more than 12,500 pounds/5,700 kilograms, detailed studies of Prevention Volume 52 (February 1995).

flight safety foundation ALAR tool kit | ALAR briefing Note 6.3 |3
 Notice
The Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) Approach-and-Landing Accident Reduction autopilots, flight directors and autothrottle systems; flight management sys-
(ALAR) Task Force produced this briefing note to help prevent approach-and- tems; automatic ground spoilers; autobrakes; thrust reversers; manufacturers’/­
­landing accidents, including those involving controlled flight into terrain. The brief- operators’ standard operating procedures; and, two-person flight crews.
ing note is based on the task force’s data-driven conclusions and recommendations, This information is not intended to supersede operators’ or manufacturers’
as well as data from the U.S. Commercial Aviation Safety Team’s Joint Safety Analysis policies, practices or requirements, and is not intended to supersede government
Team and the European Joint Aviation Authorities Safety Strategy Initiative. regulations.
This briefing note is one of 33 briefing notes that comprise a fundamental part
Copyright © 2009 Flight Safety Foundation
of the FSF ALAR Tool Kit, which includes a variety of other safety products that also
601 Madison Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314-1756 USA 
have been developed to help prevent approach-and-landing accidents.
Tel. +1 703.739.6700  Fax +1 703.739.6708  www.flightsafety.org
The briefing notes have been prepared primarily for operators and pilots of
turbine-powered airplanes with underwing-mounted engines, but they can be In the interest of aviation safety, this publication may be reproduced, in whole
adapted for those who operate airplanes with fuselage-mounted turbine en- or in part, in all media, but may not be offered for sale or used commercially
gines, turboprop power plants or piston engines. The briefing notes also address without the express written permission of Flight Safety Foundation’s director
operations with the following: electronic flight instrument systems; integrated of publications. All uses must credit Flight Safety Foundation.

4| flight safety foundation ALAR Tool Kit | ALAR Briefing Note 6.3