Functional Check Flight Symposium Vancouver, 8 February 2011 FCF : EASA perspective Didier Nicolle,...

Functional Check Flight Symposium

Vancouver, 8 February 2011

FCF : EASA perspective

Didier Nicolle, EASA flight test pilot

Functional check flight Symposium- EASA perspective 2

AGENDA

Recent FCF accidents/incidents : Safety recommendations to EASA

FCF/ flight testing draft regulations

EASA actionsTASK MDM.097Safety Information Bulletin

Best practices


AGENDA

Recent FCF accidents/incidents : Safety recommendations to EASA

Functional check flight Symposium- EASA perspective

4

FCF Safety recommendations

Following recommendations are extracted from already published investigation reports:

1 BEA-Accident Report Ref ISBN 978-2-11-099128-7 available at: Airbus A320 registered D-AXLA2 AAIB-Serious Incident Report Ref AAIB Bulletin EW/C2009/01/02 available at: Boeing 737 registered G-EZJK3 AAIB-Incident Report Ref AAIB Bulletin EW/C2009/11/03 available at Falcon 2000 registered CS-DFE

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/d-la081127.en/pdf/d-la081127.en.pdf

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Boeing%20737-73V,%20G-EZJK%2009-10.pdf

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Falcon%202000,%20CS-DFE%2012-10.pdf


5


1 BEA-Accident Report Ref ISBN 978-2-11-099128-7

Short summary of the accident:In the context of a transfer of an large aircraft , a non revenue

flight ended in a fatal accident, as result of a stalling. The flight programme contained a check of the functioning of the angle of attack protections. It was determined that the angle of attack sensors were blocked and made impossible for the protections to trigger. The crew did not take into account the speeds mentioned in the flight card and did not abort the check before the stall


6


1 BEA-Accident Report Ref ISBN 978-2-11-099128-7

BEA ( French AIB) recommends that:

EASA details in the EU-OPS the various types of non revenue flights that an operator from a EU state is authorised to perform

EASA requires that non-revenue flights be described precisely in the approved parts of the operational manual, this description specially determining their preparation, programme and operational framework as well as the qualifications and training of the crew

As a temporary measure, EASA requires that such flights be subject to an authorisation, or a declaration by the operator, on a case-by-case basis


7


2 AAIB-Serious Incident Report Ref AAIB Bulletin EW/C2009/01/02

Synopsis:• A flight control manual reversion check ( elevator power-off flight test) was

being conducted as part of a post-maintenance check flight. During the check, the aircraft pitched rapidly nose-down, descending approximately 9,000Ft before control was recovered. A number of maintenance and airworthiness check issues were identified and six safety recommendations have been made.

• The same captain, during another post-maintenance air test to check asymmetrical flight control forces to another aircraft experienced a large pitch-down and moderate roll to the right and was unsure how to proceed was unsure how to proceed with the AMM or CFDS ( operator own check schedule). with the AMM or CFDS ( operator own check schedule).


8


2 AAIB serious incident report UK AIB recommends that:

Safety recommendation 2010-72: EASA review the regulations and guidance in OPS1, Part M and Part 145 to ensure they adequately addressed complex, multi-tier, sub- contract maintenance and operational arrangements. The need for assessment of the overall organisational structure, interfaces, procedures, roles, responsibilities and qualifications/competency of key personnel across all sub-contract levels within such arrangements should be highlighted. EASA require AOC operators to have, and comply with, a detailed procedure and a controlled test schedule and record of findings for briefing, conducting and debriefing check flights that assess or demonstrate the serviceability or airworthiness of an aircraft.


9


3 AAIB-Serious Incident Report Report Ref AAIB Bulletin EW/C2009/11/03

Synopsis:The aircraft had been undergoing a technical investigation to identify the cause of a braking defect. The crew conducted a series of seven accelerate/stop runs along the main runway, at gradually increasing reject speeds. At the commencement of the eighth run, the crew felt that a tyre had deflated and brought the aircraft to a stop. They were informed by ATC that there was a fire under the left wing; the crew and passengers then abandoned the aircraft safely. The fire was caused by damage to the brakes from excessive temperature, this released hydraulic fluid under pressure, which then ignited.


10


3 AAIB serious incident report

UK AIB recommends that:

The operator introduce maintenance procedures which document the tasks, roles and responsibilities of all maintenance personnel when requesting and participating in operational/functional check flights or flight crew operated ground tests.


11


Summary of AIB recommendations

To determine what is a maintenance flight and when it must be performed.

To adapt regulations accordingly

Part M

Part OPS

Part FCL?

To establish operational procedures and crew competence


AGENDA

FCF/ flight testing regulations


13


Publications provide different definitions for FCF

Operational Check Flight: flight where aircraft need to be checked for proper operational functioning.Maintenance check flight: continuing airworthiness task Acceptance flight : defined in the Acceptance Flight test schedule (AFTS). Its purpose is to perform a general check of the aircraft systemsTest flight: flight performed after special maintenance and/or repair work on an aeroplane and on special request of the authority

Test flight in Part FCL: Skill test for a licence or rating issue.


14


Multiple definitions of FCF

Cover a very large scope of flights

flights going from checks of radios to a check of general behaviour of the aircraft

Boundary between FCF and flight testing has to be well defined


15


Flight test definition (PART 21):

Flights for the development phase of a new design (aircraft, propulsion systems, parts and appliances)

Flights to demonstrate compliance to airworthiness codes

Flights intended to experiment new design concepts, requiring unconventional manoeuvres or profiles for which it could be possible to exit the already approved envelope of the aircraft

Flight test training flights.


16


As Flight testing is a very specific activity and is a key issue for aircraft development and certification, EASA decided to initiate a regulatory task MDM.003.

To do so, EASA proposed flight testing requirements in the relevant NPAs

EASA received via the CRD process, comments specially related to flight test:

A flight testing review group including industry and Flight test schools has been created to review the comments and to propose modifications to regulations


17


Part 21 (NPA 2008-20):

Definition of Categories of Flight Test : CAT1/2/3/4

Definition and Qualifications for Lead flight test engineer for all categories of flight tests:

Only for aircraft above 2000kg

Qualifications for pilots for flight tests cat 3 and cat 4 only for aircraft above 2000kg

Flight test operational manual

Part FCL (opinion04-2010)

Ratings for pilots for CAT 1 and CAT2 flight tests only for aircraft above 2000kg

Part OR ( CRD 2008-22)

Flight test training organisations

Operations requirements ( NPA 2009-02) : flight test operation not yet taken into account


18


Part 21 definitions : categories of flight test

Category one (1)

Correspond broadly to opening and expending the flight envelope

Category two (2):

Correspond broadly to “engineering flight test” on new aircraft or on aircraft modifications that do not significantly modify the aircraft behaviour

Category Three (3)Flights performed for the issuance of statement of conformity for a new-built

aircraft which do not require flying outside of the limitations of the type certificate (TC) / aircraft flight manual (AFM)

Category Four (4)Flights not classified as Category 1 or 2 on an aircraft of an already certified

type, in case of an embodiment of a not yet approved design change.


19


Status of the flight test review group work:

Part FCL/ Part OR : Modifications accepted and introduced in PARTs

Adoption by the Commission is pending.

Part 21: CRD and revised text in short final. Results will be published very soon for reactions.

EASA opinion scheduled before Summer then adoption by the Commission

Operations requirements: Work in process to develop a concept


20


First Conclusion

Even if flight testing regulations are going well above what could be requested for FCF, some ideas could be kept in mind:

Crew member policy as defined in a manual such as FTOMAccording to the category of test, the FTOM should describe the organisation’s policy for the composition of the crew, and the competency and currency of its flight crew members, including procedures for appointing crew members for each specific flight

Cat 4 flight test and FCF could be seen as of comparable technical complexityCreation of a study group to elaborate proposals


AGENDA

EASA actionsTASK MDM.097Safety Information Bulletin

Guidance material


FCF/EASA actions

Regulatory Task MDM.097

Following safety recommendations addressed to the Agency, EASA reviewed the timing of the OPS and the Part M tasks and decided that the new regulatory maintenance task should be advanced

To do so, a regulatory group should be created.

Term of Reference of the group should be published very soon on EASA website


FCF/EASA actions

• Task MDM.097 Maintenance group

• Objective :– Determine when/ how a maintenance flight should be performed

– Establish the corresponding operational requirements and crew competence

• Task issue– Results to be included in Part M or Part OPS and/or their AMC/GM

• Time scale – Start 2011/Q1

– Proposed NPA 2011/Q4

– CRD 2012/Q4

– Decision/Opinion 2013/Q2


FCF/EASA actions

• EASA Safety Information Bulletin

– Pending MDM. 087 results, EASA felt necessary to elaborate a SIB in order to raise awareness of the potential hazards of functional checks flights

– That SIB will be published very soon.

– Simultaneously, EASA has compiled best practices concerning conduct of functional flights. They will be initially provided to National authorities, operators, maintenance organizations and aircraft manufacturers for their consideration.


FCF/ Conclusion

• EASA is extremely concerned about Functional check flight issue

• EASA decided to react quickly in:– Publishing a Safety Information Bulletin and a

guidance material giving best practices to conduct FCF

– Creating a new rulemaking group:• in order to study maintenance and operational aspects

of the FCF and• to propose the appropriate regulatory changes.

Creation of that group and its TOR will be published soon in the EASA web site


FCF/ Conclusion

Questions ?

Appendix

• More details on draft part-21 text


28


– Part 21

• Flight Test Operating Manual– DOA and POA holders

• Definition of Categories of Flight Test– Category One: Determination or expansion of the envelope– Category Two: Development flying within existing envelope– Category Three: Production flights of new aircraft– Category Four: Development flights not Categories One or Two

• Definition of lead flight test engineer • Competence and experience of flight test pilot and LFTE (>2000kg)

– LFTEs training syllabi for Category One and Two flights– Experience requirements for Category Three and Four flights


29


– Part 21 definitions : flight test Category one

• Initial flight(s) of a new type of aircraft or of an aircraft of which flight and/or handling characteristics may have been significantly modified;

• Flights during which it can be envisaged to potentially encounter flight characteristics significantly different from those already known;

• Flights to investigate novel or unusual aircraft design features or techniques;

• Flights to determine or expand the flight envelope; • Flights to determine the regulatory performances, flight

characteristics and handling qualities when flight envelope limits are approached;

• Flight test training for Category 1 flight tests


30


– Part 21 definitions : Category TWO

– Flights not classified as Category 1 on an aircraft whose type is not yet certified

– Flights which are not classified Category 1 on an aircraft of an already certified type, after embodiment of a not yet approved modification and which:

• require an assessment of the general behaviour of the aircraft; or

• require an assessment of basic crew procedures, when a new or modified system is operating or is needed; or

• are required to intentionally fly outside of the limitations of the currently approved operational envelope, but within the investigated flight envelope.

– Flight test training for Category 2 flight tests.


31

FCF/ flightDefinition of Categories of Flight Test

testing regulations Part FCL : Test pilots

• To fly Category 1 and 2 flight tests, flight test rating 1/ 2 are necessary.

• Ratings are applied to CPL (min)/ IR –Cat 1 – ‘Experimental’ – AFTTO (TPS) ‘Long’ course–Cat 2 – ‘non envelope expansion/development’

- AFTTO (TPS) ‘Short’ course

• Dedicated instructor flight test rating

• Mandated training syllabi–Perf/HQ/Systems for separate FW/RW courses–Cat 1 Rating: 350hr ground/100hr flying–Cat 2 Rating: 150hr ground/50hr flying–Previous experience to count

Bridging courses for Cat 2 to Cat 1


32


– Part 21 definition : Lead flight test engineer (LFTE)

a lead flight test engine flight crew member other than a pilot a lead flight test engine flight crew member other than a pilot assigned for duties in an aircraft for the purpose of conducting assigned for duties in an aircraft for the purpose of conducting flight tests or assisting the pilot in the operation of the aircraft flight tests or assisting the pilot in the operation of the aircraft and its systems during flight test activities.and its systems during flight test activities.

•Remarks– It is up to the DOA/POA organisations to decide if a lead flight test

engineer is necessary for the flight or not

– If DOA/POA considers that LFTE is necessary, then LFTE must follow a training course as defined in the PART 21

– Other flight test engineers may be on board and shall have an amount of experience and training commensurate to the tasks assigned to them as crew members, in accordance with the flight test operations manual.

Functional Check Flight Symposium Vancouver, 8 February 2011 FCF : EASA perspective Didier Nicolle,...

Documents

Transcript of Functional Check Flight Symposium Vancouver, 8 February 2011 FCF : EASA perspective Didier Nicolle,...