The International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations has issued two new papers targeting one of aviation’s most persistent safety challenges: loss of control in flight. The publications arrive amid renewed concern following several incidents worldwide in which crews were unable to recover otherwise flyable aircraft.
High-profile cases, including the China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 crash, have brought attention back to the complex interaction between automation, aircraft energy state, and pilot inputs. IFALPA’s latest material addresses these themes through a focus on trim system awareness and angle-of-attack-related upsets.
A Persistent Threat in Modern Aviation
Despite advances in automation, aircraft design, and training, LOC-I remains a leading cause of fatal accidents in commercial aviation. Recent analyses indicate that, between 2019 and 2024, LOC-I events have overtaken Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) as the primary contributor to fatalities worldwide.
This is not a marginal issue. LOC-I encompasses a broad spectrum of scenarios, from aerodynamic stalls and inappropriate control inputs to system malfunctions and degraded flight control laws. What makes these events particularly dangerous is that they often develop rapidly, leaving crews with limited time to correctly diagnose and respond.
IFALPA’s Strategic Response
IFALPA’s latest publications focus on two technically complex but operationally critical areas: aircraft trim systems and angle-of-attack (AoA)-related loss of control.
Their paper on trim systems highlights a paradox of modern aviation. While fly-by-wire technology has simplified many aspects of flight, it has also rendered certain aircraft behaviours less transparent to pilots. In several documented occurrences, crews were unaware of significant out-of-trim conditions until the situation had already escalated.
Similarly, the organisation’s briefing on AoA-related loss of control underscores a fundamental issue: pilots either fail to recognise the situation they are in, or they do not apply the correct recovery inputs, even when the aircraft remains technically flyable.
Across both papers, IFALPA highlights a consistent set of priorities: the need for clearer and more intuitive flight deck information to support situational awareness, more robust training focused on manual handling and upset recovery, and system designs that provide effective alerts without contributing to automation-related ambiguity.
Lessons from Recent Accidents
While IFALPA’s documents are deliberately non-specific in naming accidents, their themes resonate strongly with several high-profile events in recent years.
Investigations into accidents involving modern transport aircraft have repeatedly pointed to a breakdown in the pilot–aircraft interface. Whether due to automation surprises, degraded flight control laws, or misinterpretation of flight data, the underlying issue is often the same: the crew’s mental model of the aircraft’s state diverges from reality.
The role of trim, particularly in high-workload situations such as go-arounds, has also come under scrutiny. Rapid transitions from one flight regime to another can leave the aircraft in a hazardous energy state if trim behaviour is not properly understood or monitored.
Equally, AoA-related incidents continue to demonstrate that recognising and managing the aircraft’s energy state is central to maintaining control. IFALPA’s emphasis on AoA-based information, rather than raw AoA indicators, reflects a growing consensus that information must be not only available but immediately interpretable under stress.
Training: The Human Factor
A recurring theme across IFALPA’s work is the critical importance of training. LOC-I events are rare, which paradoxically increases their risk profile: pilots have limited real-world exposure and must depend largely on simulator-based preparation.
Accordingly, IFALPA highlights the need to reinforce manual flying proficiency, particularly in non-normal flight control laws, while incorporating training scenarios that expose crews to startle and surprise. This is coupled with a stronger focus on understanding aircraft energy management as a key factor in maintaining control during dynamic situations.
These recommendations align with broader industry concerns around “de-skilling” in highly automated cockpits. As automation capability increases, so too does the importance of timely and effective pilot intervention when systems behave unexpectedly.
A Shift Towards Proactive Safety
What distinguishes IFALPA’s current approach is its focus on anticipation rather than reaction. Rather than waiting for accident reports to drive change, the organisation is attempting to identify systemic vulnerabilities and address them through guidance, advocacy, and standard-setting.
This aligns with the wider evolution of aviation safety from a reactive model, learning from accidents, to a predictive one, where data, human factors, and system design are analysed to prevent accidents before they occur.
A Warning and a Roadmap
The renewed output from IFALPA serves as both a warning and a roadmap. LOC-I remains a formidable challenge, but it is not an intractable one. The solutions, better information, better training, and better system design, are within reach.
What remains is the industry’s willingness to act decisively. IFALPA’s message is clear: understanding the aircraft, in all its automated sophistication, is not optional. It is the cornerstone of safe flight.
