DOCSLIB.ORG

National Technical Information Service US

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AD-758 699 CONTROLLER-REPORTED PERFORMANCE DEFECTS IN THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL RADAR BEACON SYSTEM (1971 SURVEY) Bruce Rubinger Transportation Systems Center Prepared for: Federal Aviation Administration March 1973 DISTRIBUTED BY: National Technical Information Service U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 22151 $m ea o e• m m =m m m m REPORT NO. FAA-RD-73-16 CONTROLLER-REPORTED PERFORMANCE DEFECTS INTHE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL RADAR BEACON SYSTEM 0 (1971 SURVEY) Bruce Rubinger 0~ z1 THROUG TOf ATINLTCNCRE * * MARhIN1973 VIRGINIA 22151 Prepared for DEPARTMENT OF TRAEISPORTATIO/l FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Systems Research and Develcpment Service Washington, D.C. 20591 NATIONAL IEC,4NICAL INFORMATION SERVIPSVICE NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to the object of this report. Use of this report in any manner whatsoever for advertising p rposes is prohibited. ..... ................. TECIhNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1.RpitM.2. Gocoevsom' Accoss...t Me. 3. Recii~-et's ca'rm-"N. FAA-RD-73-16 _ eotDf _ Tjl n _ uie5 _ CONTROILER-REPORTED PERFORMhNCE DEFECTS IN THE AIR March 1973 TRAFFIC CONTRmOL RADAR BEACON SYSTEM (1971 SURVEY) 6- Pod.,,_ 1 .. _Oe _ Code _ _ Bruce Rubinger DOYT-TSC-FAA-72 40 Department of Transportation R32 Transportation Systems Center F31 Kedall Square ____A319 ________ Cambridge, MA. 02142 13- T"- of *.-,.. ood pos C..wa.. 12.SoosorgAgency Now* .sd Aid..ss FnlRpr Department of Transportation Novemae Reprt1 Federal Aviation Administration December 1971 ISystems Rosearch and Develcpment Service Ed. -. o Af- Ceito I Washingtoan, D.C. 20591 IS. S'..1 Ismoneai'y Net*$ 16Astac This report analyzes the returns from a recent ATC performance survey initiated by the Beacon System Interference Problem Subgroup. The survey beganon ith poebroble7s cnd idered freproesentai. ofrtieieatirewys lmtedin- 3faniiteont27roveberm 191ondsiasted fopretosenaieks Particieatire waslmted to- cluded were enroute centers, civilian towers and military air traffic instal- lat'ons. Examination of the deficiency data revealed that the most commn nationwide problem was the loss cf beacon cco'erage for a short period of time. This is followed by broken target slash, ring around, loss of coverage for long time, and false targets. The returns are sotdt dniytetp fa raft involved In the reported discrepancies. For each aircraft the data is further refined on the basis of error category, and the performance summnarized by an error matrix. Attention is focused on the air carriers and the beacon dis- crepancies associated with this group are cartaloguEd. Air traffic statistics are derived and employed to normalize the discrepancy information. The re- sulting data reveals significant performance variation among the different a air carriers, as well as between different aircraft. Finally, the manner in which the survey was conducted is discussed, and recommnendations made for I automating future performance tests. 17. Key Words 18. Distriblution Statement Air Traffic Control, Radar Beecon Discrepancy Reports, Controller Fault INFORMATION SERVICE. SPRINGFIELD. Reports, Beacon System Performance VIRGINIA 22151 19 ecrtyCcs,.hi Fot 2.Security CI....f. (of this Pogo) 21. No. of Pages 2. Price Unclassified Unclassified 200 Form DOT F 1700.7 (a.69) 1 "444 I! PREFACE The work described in this report was carried out in the Radar and Navigation Branch at the Transportation Systems Center for the S-ste. s Research and Development Service (FAA-SRDS), Department of Transportation. The objective oi this effort was to analyze the data acquired in a recent beacon system performance survey which was in:fiated to assess the impact of several improvement pro- grams. The author wishes to acknowledge the support of Mr. Martin Xatchipolsky and Mr. Donald D. Asker of the Systems Research and Development Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Special thanks are due to Mr. Joseph E. Herrnann, Beacor Management Team, Federal Aviation Administration, for his encouragement and valuable - suggestions. In the course of researching background material for this report the author received assistance from many individuals. These include Ms. Augusta Gilbreath, Operations Analysis Branch, Air Traffic Service; Mr. Doug Wooten, Bureau of Accounts and Statistics, Civil Aeronautics Board; Mr. Wayne Decker (Chief) and Mr. Hal Greenlief (Deputy Chief) of the Salt Lake City Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC); and Messrs. Orv Graham (Area Officer) and E. T. Harris (Chief) of the Los Angeles ARTCC. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the contributions of my colleague, Dr. Bernard Kulke, with whom numerous discussions were held concerning the manner in which the survey returns should be processed. Finally, the assistance and support of Mr. George Haroules are deeply appreciated. S~iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................... I 1.1 Participation in the Survey ..................... 1 1.2 Procedure Employed in Processing Data ........... 5 1.3 Error Categories Employed for Analysis of Returns .......................................... 6 2. ANALYSIS OF RETURNS FROM SALT LAKE CITY ARTCC ........ 8 2.1 Analysis tf Fault Reports (Unnormalized Data)... 8 2.2 Breakdown of Fault Reports by.Error Category .... 8 2.3 Breakdown of Discrepancy Reports by Aircraft Involved ........................................ 11 2.4 Analysis of Discrepancy Reports Involving Air Carriers ........................................ 19 2.5 Locations Associated with Beacon Discrepancies.. 21 2.6 Air-Traffic-Population Statistics Derived from Flight Strips ................................... .3 2.7 Normalized Discrepancy Data by Aircraft Type and Carrier Involved ............................ 50 3. ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RETURNS FROM LOS ANGELES ARTCC .... 53 3.1 Analysis of Fault Reports (Unnormalized Data)... 53 3.2 Analysis of Fault Reports by Error Category ..... 59 3.3 Analysis of Fault Reports by Aircraft Involved.. 61 3.4 System Discrepancies Involving Air Carriers ..... 66 3.5 Use of Departure Information to Normalize Fault Data ...................................... 66 3.6 Aircraft Locations Associated with Beacon Dis .repancies ................................... 73 4. ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RETURNS FROM LAREDO AFE, NEW YORK ARTCC, AND MIAMI ARTCC ...................... 89 4.1 Laredo Air Force Base ........................... 89 4.2 The New York ARTCC .............................. 89 4.3 Miami ARTCC ..................................... 93 5. OVERALL.SYSTEM PROBLEMS .............................. 107 5.1 Analysis of Fault Reports by Error Category ..... 107 5.2 Analysis of Fault Reports by Aircraft Type ...... 117 3.3System Discrepancies Associated with Air Carriers ........................................ 117 5.4 Revised Survey-Questionnaire Format ............. 126 V I TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page 6. SUMMARY ............................................... 128 7. CONCLUSIONS .AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 132 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ..................................... 135 AIR CARRIER CODES ..................................... 137 CIVIL/MILITARY AIRCRAFT TYPE DESIGNATORS .............. 138 REFERENCES ............................................ 148 APPENDIX A - BEACON-SYSTEM rE2FORMANCE AT CENTERS .AND CIVIL TOWERS ......................... 149 B - BEACON-SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AT MILITARY FACILITIES .............................. 168 C - RADAR SYSTEM DATA FOR FACILITIES INVOLVED IN THE SURVEY ............................ 181 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1-1. ATCRBS Survey Beacon Discrepancy Rep-rt Form ....... 2 1-2. ATCRBS Survey Radar System Data Report Form ........ 3 2-1. Breakdown of Discrepancy Reports by Aircraft Mis- sion, Facility; Salt Lake City ARTCC ............... 9 2-2. Distribution of Discrepancy Reports by Error Category, Facility: Salt Lake City ARTCC........... 12 2-3. Distribution of Discrepancy Reports by Aircraft Type, Facility: Salt Lake City ARTCC ............. 13 2- 4 . Locations Associated with Problems of Ring Around or Sidelobes-RKS Radar Site ........................ 22 2-5. Supeiposition of Traffic Flow upon Locations Associated with Ring Around/Sidelobes-RKS Radar Site ............................................... 24 2-6. Locations Associated with Ghosts, False Targets and Reflections-RKS Radar Site ..................... 25 2-7. Locations Associated with Loss of Targets for a Short Interval-RKS Radar Site ...................... 26 2-8. Locations Associated with Loss of Targets for a Long Inverval-RKS Site ............................. 27 2-9. Locations Associated with Broken Targets for Commercial Aircraft-RKS Site ....................... 28 2-10. Locations Associated with Broken Targets for General Aviation-RKS Site .......................... 29 2-11. Locations Associated with Broken Targets for Military Aircraft-RKS Site ......................... 30 2-12. Locations where False Emergency Alarms Occurred- RKS Radar Site ..................................... 32 2-13. Locations Associated with Problems of Ring Around or Sidelobes-Ashton Site ........................... 34 2-14. Locations Associated with Ghosts, False Targets, Reflections-Ashton
Recommended publications
  • FAA Order 8020.11 C

    FAA Order 8020.11 C

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIAl-ION ADMINISTRATION National Policy Effective Date: 02/02/2010 SUBJ: Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification, Investigation, and Reporting This order prescribes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) procedures and responsibilities for aircraft accident and incident notification, investigation, and reporting. It provides direction and guidance to aviation safety inspectors when they are called upon to perform accident investigation. It also explains the responsibilities of the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board when conducting investigations. The order is also used as a training guide for teaching accident investigation courses at the National Aircraft Accident Investigation School, Transportation Safety Institute, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. All concerned personnel must familiarize themselves with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities and exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations not covered by the order. /J. *dolph Babbitt Distribution: Electronic Only Initiated By: AAI-100 02/02/2010 8020.11C Table of Contents Chapter 1. General Information Pages 1. Purpose of This Order 1-1 2. Audience 1-1 3. Where Can I Find This Order 1-1 4. What This Order Cancels 1-1 5. Explanation of Changes 1-1 6. Definitions 1-1 7. Forms and Reports 1-7 8. Authority To Change This Order 1-7 9. FAA Responsibilities in Aircraft Accident Investigations 1-7 10. Responsibilities of Regional Divisions and Aircraft Certification Directorates in Aircraft Accident Investigations 1-9 11. FAA and NTSB Accident and Incident Investigation Agreements 1-9 12. Post-Accident or Incident Drug Testing 1-10 13. FAA Investigator-In-Charge (IIC) 1-10 14.
  • Cessna 172 in Flight 1964 Cessna 172E 1965 Cessna F172G

    Cessna 172 in Flight 1964 Cessna 172E 1965 Cessna F172G

    Cessna 172 in flight 1964 Cessna 172E 1965 Cessna F172G 1971 Cessna 172 The 1957 model Cessna 172 Skyhawk had no rear window and featured a "square" fin design Airplane Cessna 172 single engine aircraft, flies overhead after becoming airborne. Catalina Island airport, California (KAVX) 1964 Cessna 172E (G- ASSS) at Kemble airfield, Gloucestershire, England. The Cessna 172 Skyhawk is a four-seat, single-engine, high-wing airplane. Probably the most popular flight training aircraft in the world, the first production models were delivered in 1957, and it is still in production in 2005; more than 35,000 have been built. The Skyhawk's main competitors have been the popular Piper Cherokee, the rarer Beechcraft Musketeer (no longer in production), and, more recently, the Cirrus SR22. The Skyhawk is ubiquitous throughout the Americas, Europe and parts of Asia; it is the aircraft most people visualize when they hear the words "small plane." More people probably know the name Piper Cub, but the Skyhawk's shape is far more familiar. The 172 was a direct descendant of the Cessna 170, which used conventional (taildragger) landing gear instead of tricycle gear. Early 172s looked almost identical to the 170, with the same straight aft fuselage and tall gear legs, but later versions incorporated revised landing gear, a lowered rear deck, and an aft window. Cessna advertised this added rear visibility as "Omnivision". The final structural development, in the mid-1960s, was the sweptback tail still used today. The airframe has remained almost unchanged since then, with updates to avionics and engines including (most recently) the Garmin G1000 glass cockpit.
  • COMPANY BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET PAX EACH BAR S WEBSITE E-MAIL Pel-Air Aviation Adelaide Brisbane Melbourne Sydney Saab 340 16 34 Y

    COMPANY BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET PAX EACH BAR S WEBSITE E-MAIL Pel-Air Aviation Adelaide Brisbane Melbourne Sydney Saab 340 16 34 Y

    PAX BAR COMPANY BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET WEBSITE E-MAIL EACH S Adelaide Saab 340 16 34 Pel-Air Brisbane Additional access Yes www.pelair.com.au [email protected] Aviation Melbourne to REX Airline’s 50 n/a Sydney Saab aircraft Adelaide Citation CJ2 n/a 8 Brisbane Beechcraft n/a 10 Cairns Kingair B200 The Light Darwin Jet Aviation Melbourne n/a www.lightjets.com.au [email protected] Group Sydney Beechcraft Baron n/a 5 *Regional centres on request Broome Metro II n/a 12 Complete Darwin Merlin IIIC n/a 6 n/a www.casair.com.au [email protected] Aviation Jandakot Piper Navajo n/a 7 Network Fokker 100 17 100 Perth n/a www.networkaviation.com.au [email protected] Aviation A320-200 4 180 Challenger 604 1 9 Embraer Legacy n/a 13 Australian Essendon Bombardier n/a 13 Corporate Melbourne Global Express Yes www.acjcentres.com.au [email protected] Jet Centres Perth Hawker 800s n/a 8 Cessna Citation n/a 8 Ultra SA Piper Chieftain n/a 9 NSW King Air B200 n/a 10 Altitude NT n/a www.altitudeaviation.com.au [email protected] Aviation QLD Cessna Citation n/a 5-7 TAS VIC Piper Chieftain 1 7 Cessna 310 1 5 Geraldton Geraldton GA8 Airvan 4 7 n/a www.geraldtonaircharter.com.au [email protected] Air Charter Beechcraft 1 4 Bonanza Airnorth Darwin ERJ170 4 76 n/a www.airnorth.com.au [email protected] *Other cities/towns EMB120 5 30 on request Beechcraft n/a 10 Kirkhope Melbourne Kingair n/a www.kirkhopeaviation.com.au [email protected] Aviation Essendon Piper Chieftain n/a 9 Piper Navajo n/a 7 Challenger
  • Airline Schedules

    Airline Schedules

    Airline Schedules This finding aid was produced using ArchivesSpace on January 08, 2019. English (eng) Describing Archives: A Content Standard Special Collections and Archives Division, History of Aviation Archives. 3020 Waterview Pkwy SP2 Suite 11.206 Richardson, Texas 75080 [email protected]. URL: https://www.utdallas.edu/library/special-collections-and-archives/ Airline Schedules Table of Contents Summary Information .................................................................................................................................... 3 Scope and Content ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Series Description .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Administrative Information ............................................................................................................................ 4 Related Materials ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Controlled Access Headings .......................................................................................................................... 5 Collection Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 6 - Page 2 - Airline Schedules Summary Information Repository:
  • Flight Safety Digest May 1989

    Flight Safety Digest May 1989

    The First Two Minutes The author reviews problems that have confronted flight crews during the critical takeoff phase and concludes that the accident record would improve considerably if as much attention is paid to the prevention of takeoff emergencies as to the response to them. by Gerard M. Bruggink Worldwide accident statistics show consistently that sented here. Nor does it follow that the recent primacy most air-carrier accidents occur in the approach and of takeoff accidents in the United States could not have landing phase of flight. In the same statistics, takeoff been duplicated elsewhere in the world; it so happens accidents are next in frequency of occurrence. Accord- that the U.S. accident data are the most-readily avail- ing to a recent study by Captain Caesar1, these two able for analysis — at least to this writer. phases of operation accounted for 80 percent of the 370 total losses of jet transports in the 1959-1987 period: Within the limited scope of this discussion it is suffi- 57 percent occurred during approach and landing; 23 cient to realize that the prominence of takeoff accidents percent during takeoff. as the greatest loss-producer in the United States during the past five years was brought about by two factors: The predominance of approach and landing (A&L) ac- cidents is confirmed by the fatal jet transport accident • The remarkable decline of A&L accidents over experience of U.S. air carriers over the last two decades the last 20 years, and (1968-1987). Of the 67 fatal accidents in that time frame, 33 (50 percent) were A&L accidents.
  • EVB Runway 7-25 Alternatives DRAFT 7 22 2019

    EVB Runway 7-25 Alternatives DRAFT 7 22 2019

    NEW SNEW SMSMMMYRNAYRNA BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Runway 7/25 Runway Safety Area Alternatives City of New Smyrna Beach DRAFT Prepared By: July 2019 New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport Runway 7/25 Alternatives Table of Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Florida Department of Transportation Airport Inspection Report .......................................... 2 3. C&S Companies Report ...................................................................................................... 3 4. 2018 Airport Master Plan Update ........................................................................................ 4 5. Airport Layout Plan ............................................................................................................. 6 6. FAA Versus FDOT Safety Area Requirements .................................................................... 6 7. Departure Surfaces ............................................................................................................. 7 8. Published Departure and Landing Distances ...................................................................... 7 9. Typical Aeronautical Insurance Policies .............................................................................. 8 10. Typical Airport Leases at the Airport ................................................................................ 9 11. Wetlands at the Ends of the Runway ..............................................................................
  • 08-06-2021 Airline Ticket Matrix (Doc 141)

    08-06-2021 Airline Ticket Matrix (Doc 141)

    Airline Ticket Matrix 1 Supports 1 Supports Supports Supports 1 Supports 1 Supports 2 Accepts IAR IAR IAR ET IAR EMD Airline Name IAR EMD IAR EMD Automated ET ET Cancel Cancel Code Void? Refund? MCOs? Numeric Void? Refund? Refund? Refund? AccesRail 450 9B Y Y N N N N Advanced Air 360 AN N N N N N N Aegean Airlines 390 A3 Y Y Y N N N N Aer Lingus 053 EI Y Y N N N N Aeroflot Russian Airlines 555 SU Y Y Y N N N N Aerolineas Argentinas 044 AR Y Y N N N N N Aeromar 942 VW Y Y N N N N Aeromexico 139 AM Y Y N N N N Africa World Airlines 394 AW N N N N N N Air Algerie 124 AH Y Y N N N N Air Arabia Maroc 452 3O N N N N N N Air Astana 465 KC Y Y Y N N N N Air Austral 760 UU Y Y N N N N Air Baltic 657 BT Y Y Y N N N Air Belgium 142 KF Y Y N N N N Air Botswana Ltd 636 BP Y Y Y N N N Air Burkina 226 2J N N N N N N Air Canada 014 AC Y Y Y Y Y N N Air China Ltd. 999 CA Y Y N N N N Air Choice One 122 3E N N N N N N Air Côte d'Ivoire 483 HF N N N N N N Air Dolomiti 101 EN N N N N N N Air Europa 996 UX Y Y Y N N N Alaska Seaplanes 042 X4 N N N N N N Air France 057 AF Y Y Y N N N Air Greenland 631 GL Y Y Y N N N Air India 098 AI Y Y Y N N N N Air Macau 675 NX Y Y N N N N Air Madagascar 258 MD N N N N N N Air Malta 643 KM Y Y Y N N N Air Mauritius 239 MK Y Y Y N N N Air Moldova 572 9U Y Y Y N N N Air New Zealand 086 NZ Y Y N N N N Air Niugini 656 PX Y Y Y N N N Air North 287 4N Y Y N N N N Air Rarotonga 755 GZ N N N N N N Air Senegal 490 HC N N N N N N Air Serbia 115 JU Y Y Y N N N Air Seychelles 061 HM N N N N N N Air Tahiti 135 VT Y Y N N N N N Air Tahiti Nui 244 TN Y Y Y N N N Air Tanzania 197 TC N N N N N N Air Transat 649 TS Y Y N N N N N Air Vanuatu 218 NF N N N N N N Aircalin 063 SB Y Y N N N N Airlink 749 4Z Y Y Y N N N Alaska Airlines 027 AS Y Y Y N N N Alitalia 055 AZ Y Y Y N N N All Nippon Airways 205 NH Y Y Y N N N N Amaszonas S.A.
  • Name of Plan Wing Span Details Source Area Price Ama Ff Cl Ot Scale Gas Rubber Electric Other Glider 3 View Engine Red. Ot C

    Name of Plan Wing Span Details Source Area Price Ama Ff Cl Ot Scale Gas Rubber Electric Other Glider 3 View Engine Red. Ot C

    WING NAME OF PLAN DETAILS SOURCE AREA PRICE AMA POND RC FF CL OT SCALE GAS RUBBER ELECTRIC OTHER GLIDER 3 VIEW ENGINE RED. OT SPAN COMET MODEL AIRPLANE CO. 7D4 X X C 1 PURSUIT 15 3 $ 4.00 33199 C 1 PURSUIT FLYING ACES CLUB FINEMAN 80B5 X X 15 3 $ 4.00 30519 (NEW) MODEL AIRPLANE NEWS 1/69, 90C3 X X C 47 PROFILE 35 SCHAAF 5 $ 7.00 31244 X WALT MOONEY 14F7 X X X C A B MINICAB 20 3 $ 4.00 21346 C L W CURLEW BRITISH MAGAZINE 6D6 X X X 15 2 $ 3.00 20416 T 1 POPULAR AVIATION 9/28, POND 40E5 X X C MODEL 24 4 $ 5.00 24542 C P SPECIAL $ - 34697 RD121 X MODEL AIRPLANE NEWS 4/42, 8A6 X X C RAIDER 68 LATORRE 21 $ 23.00 20519 X AEROMODELLO 42D3 X C S A 1 38 9 $ 12.00 32805 C.A.B. GY 20 BY WALT MOONEY X X X 20 4 $ 6.00 36265 MINICAB C.W. SKY FLYER PLAN 15G3 X X HELLDIVER 02 15 4 $ 5.00 35529 C2 (INC C130 H PLAMER PLAN X X X 133 90 $ 122.00 50587 X HERCULES QUIET & ELECTRIC FLIGHT INT., X CABBIE 38 5/06 6 $ 9.00 50413 CABIN AEROMODELLER PLAN 8/41, 35F5 X X 20 4 $ 5.00 23940 BIPLANE DOWNES CABIN THE OAKLAND TRIBUNE 68B3 X X 20 3 $ 4.00 29091 COMMERCIAL NEWSPAPER 1931 Indoor Miller’s record-holding Dec. 1979 X Cabin Fever: 40 Manhattan Cabin.
  • Ntsb/Aas-64-Aa

    Ntsb/Aas-64-Aa

    , I (j (. .1 u!) \J _l'·,· ~ABLE OF CONTENTS A. INT~ODUCTION 1 . Rcvie1-1 u f in;1'tents 2. T11,pl·:::r:cn ta ti on of Requirements b., Re.so luUoI~ of Conflicts c <· Consider a t,iorJ rif Avc:.ilable Research J, Considerat icn of Past Di.fficultie:3 et Aircraft CcckFits Accide~i/Incia2nt Re2ord 6 Conclusions C .. CREd COMP.LEHZ!~T l.. Review of 11.eq1.iirements ;::i, Views of the Industry a. Ma~uf2cturers ~~ Air Carriers c. 1·'!.:.:Uu.:·:J.l Avi at.ion Agency cL. .Pilot Organization e., Flisht Eng:inc:er Organization h. Conclusions .D. cnn·.r DUTIE.S 1. Review of ~equirements 2. Views of the Industry a. Manufacturers b .. Air Carriers c. FBricral Aviation Agency d, Military e, Flight Engi.near On.;..n] za ti on f. Pilot Organization 000002 Evalua 1:.ion Conclusions I l. e.. Fi..-:.. J.\.FI?ENDI CES II. TJ, S. J.._i-:: C:::.2'.'rie~ l~:.r..:i.Je'."'_t.s f'::.r 1J 1~riod cfo.:,.;:-::1v .July =...> ~964 - 'L-;_:rbcjet Aircr:;.ft J.11' r.·;.:;:: ~·=-:·:~-= B·::a_-l.:'..::::"~'.:':":. ~Tr: s -:~:; te1--,lis:-~:::d by BAC-ll.~. n:.:;. 9 E\r~.:il·;,s.T ~.or, Com~tr~:.t-_:.se- ::i.s p:cs.:_::,s~1ted by ..L;n~ pj_j_ot Org~r.. iz:-.. -.·. .ior; IV. Limi t:a·:::i..c:".::: f::i::.· T:·-cr:.1.::;por r:: Ai:t-::::.a.f~ Op.:::::-·:;.-:-.~~::.·":; w:i rh 1.;.r:..> '.!V:"':L!."1 crew ~L: p~~0:etJ.t:::l ty ~~1E: Fligl1t E11ginc('=Y O:t;ar,j_zg.-,l..Jn v.
  • Aircraft Accident Investigation Report 821-1004

    Aircraft Accident Investigation Report 821-1004

    Jj. AUSTRALIA,.^ •<<-<- Aircraft Accident Investigation Report 821-1004 Cessna 411AVH-AYE Archerfield, Queensland 5 January 1982 BUREAU OF AIR SAFETY INVESTIGATION Aircraft Accident Investigation Report 821-1004 Reprographics Pty Ltd Cessna 411A VH-AYE Archerfield Airport Queensland 5 January 1982 The Secretary to the Department of Aviation authorised the investigation of this accident and the publication of this report pursuant to the powers conferred by Air Navigation Regulations 278 and 283 respectively. Prepared by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation March 1983 Australian Government Publishing Service Canberra 1983 © Commonwealth of Australia 1983 ISBN 0 644 00485 1 Printed by Commonwealth Print Unit, Melbourne Contents Synopsis 1 1. Factual information 1 . 1 History of the flight 1 .2 Injuries to persons 3 .3 Damage to aircraft 3 .4 Other damage 4 .5 Personnel information 4 .5.1 Flight crew 4 .5.2 Air Traffic Controllers 5 1.6 Aircraft information 5 .6.1 History and documentation 5 .6.2 Engines and propellers 6 .6.3 Maintenance 7 .6.4 Weight and balance 8 1.7 Meteorological information 8 1.8 Aids to navigation 9 1.9 Communications 9 1.10 Aerodrome information 9 1.11 Flight recorders 9 1.12 Wreckage and impact information 12 1.13 Medical and pathological information 12 1.14 Fire 12 1.15 Survival aspects 13 1.16 Tests and research 13 1.16.1 Engines 13 1.16.2 Engine controls 13 1.16.3 Propellers 14 1.16.4 Propeller governors 14 1.16.5 Turbochargers 15 .16.6 Turbocharger controllers 15 .16.7 Exhaust pipes 16 .16.8 Fuel and oil samples 16 .16.9 Landing gear operation 16 .16.10 Engine response to throttle movement 16 .
  • Uso De ELT En 406 Mhz En La Región SAM (Presentada Por Bolivia)

    Uso De ELT En 406 Mhz En La Región SAM (Presentada Por Bolivia)

    Organización de Aviación Civil Internacional SAR/8 SAM-NI/05 Oficina Regional Sudamericana 17/10/11 Octavo Seminario-Taller/Reunión de Implantación de Búsqueda y Salvamento de la Región SAM (SAR/8 - SAM) Asunción, Paraguay, 24 al 28 de Octubre de 2011 Cuestión 3 del Orden del día: Uso de ELT en 406 MHz en la Región SAM (Presentada por Bolivia) Resumen Esta Nota Informativa se presenta, con el objeto de que la reunión tome conocimiento del estado de aplicación de normas para el uso del ELT en Bolivia. 1 Antecedentes 1.1 La aplicación del uso del Transmisor Localizador de Emergencia (ELT) está normada en la Reglamentación Aeronáutica Boliviana (RAB 90), el operador debe garantizar que todos los ELT’s sean capaces de transmitir en 406 MHz y estén codificados de acuerdo con el Anexo 10 de la OACI, como también registrados en la DGAC y en el RCC La Paz responsable del inicio de las operaciones de Búsqueda y Salvamento, dentro el Segmento Terrestre Asignado a Chile para el Sistema COSPAS – SARSAT. 1.2 A la fecha, el 70 % de la flota de aeronaves matriculadas en el Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, disponen de equipos ELT los mismos que trabajan en la frecuencia 406 MHz, el 30 % restante, corresponde a la aviación general. 2 Análisis 2.1 El Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia a través de la DGAC, y en cumplimiento de la Reglamentación Aeronáutica Boliviana, en su parte Reglamento sobre Instrumentos y Equipos Requeridos (RAB 90), realiza la verificación del funcionamiento y equipamiento del ELT, al inicio de la certificación así como durante las inspecciones anuales, de conformidad con el formulario DGAC-AIR 8130-6, que forma parte del Manual Guía de los Inspectores AIR.
  • Aerodynamic Analysis and Design of a Twin Engine Commuter Aircraft

    Aerodynamic Analysis and Design of a Twin Engine Commuter Aircraft

    28TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF A TWIN ENGINE COMMUTER AIRCRAFT Fabrizio Nicolosi*, Pierluigi Della Vecchia*, Salvatore Corcione* *Department of Aerospace Engineering - University of Naples Federico II [email protected]; [email protected], [email protected] Keywords: Aircraft Design, Commuter Aircraft, Aerodynamic Analysis Abstract 1. Introduction The present paper deals with the preliminary design of a general aviation Commuter 11 seat Many in the industry had anticipated 2011 to be aircraft. The Commuter aircraft market is today the year when the General Aviation characterized by very few new models and the manufacturing industry would begin to recover. majority of aircraft in operation belonging to However, the demand for business airplanes and this category are older than 35 years. Tecnam services, especially in the established markets of Aircraft Industries and the Department of Europe and North America, remained soft and Aerospace Engineering (DIAS) of the University customer confidence in making purchase of Naples "Federico II" are deeply involved in decision in these regions remained weak. This the design of a new commuter aircraft that inactivity, nonetheless, was offset in part by should be introduced in this market with very demand from the emerging markets of China good opportunities of success. This paper aims and Russia. While a full resurgence did not take to provide some guidelines on the conception of place in 2011, the year finished with signs of a new twin-engine commuter aircraft with recovery and reason of optimism. GAMA eleven passengers. Aircraft configuration and (General Aviation Manufacturer Association) cabin layouts choices are shown, also compared 2011 Statistical Databook & Industry Outlook to the main competitors.