DOCSLIB.ORG

Bombard Er Challenger 604, D-ABCD No & Type of Engines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bombard Er Challenger 604, D-ABCD No & Type of Engines AAIB Bulletin: 5/2007 D-ABCD EW/C2006/02/01 ACCIDENT Aircraft Type and Registration: Bombarder Challenger 604, D-ABCD No & Type of Engines: 2 General Electrc CF34-3B turbofan engnes Year of Manufacture: 2003 Date & Time (UTC): 5 February 2006 at 233 hrs Location: London Luton Arport Type of Flight: Non-scheduled Commercal Ar Transport (Passenger) Persons on Board: Crew - 3 Passengers - Injuries: Crew - None Passengers - None Nature of Damage: Damage to landng gear and arport approach lghtng Commander’s Licence: Arlne Transport Plot’s Lcence Commander’s Age: 4 years Commander’s Flying Experience: 9,04 hours (of whch 688 were on type) Last 90 days - 02 hours Last 28 days - 4 hours Information Source: AAIB Feld Investgaton Synopsis History of the flight On short final approach to Runway 26 the engine thrust The crew began ther duty at Luton Arport at 0600 hrs. ncreased to 64% N (engne fan speed) and was not Following normal preparation they flew the aircraft reduced before touchdown. Following a prolonged float, empty to Geneva, where they boarded one passenger the arcraft touched down approxmately 800 metres before departng to return to Luton. The weather forecast from the stop end of the runway, and ran off the paved for ther return ndcated the possblty of low vsblty surface. No evdence was found to ndcate that any on arrval, and addtonal fuel had been loaded. The techncal defect relevant to the approach or landng planned landng weght (37,449 lbs) was close to the phase of flight was present before the aircraft left the maxmum permtted by the structural lmt (38,000 lbs). paved surface. However, the investigation identified human factors that may account for the accdent. The flight towards Luton was uneventful and the vsblty was good by the tme the arcraft made ts approach. The surface wnd was from 350° at 11 kt. The commander flew an ILS approach to Runway 26 using Footnote the autoplot and autothrottle. The approach speed was N s engne fan speed, a measure of engne thrust. The dle N settng on ths engne s approxmately 30%. 137 kt, which was five knots above the value calculated © Crown copyrght 2007 7 AAIB Bulletin: 5/2007 D-ABCD EW/C2006/02/01 for VREF at the landng weght. At about 300 ft above the The Aerodrome Controller (callsgn Luton Tower) threshold elevaton, the commander dsconnected the observed the late touchdown and, when he recognsed autoplot. Later, he recalled havng dsconnected the that the arcraft was not gong to stop on the runway, autothrottle closer to 60 ft. The engne thrust ncreased activated the crash alarm. The airport fire service to 64% N by the tme the arcraft passed through 40 ft responded rapdly and reached the arcraft soon after above the runway. The commander began to flare the it came to rest. Neither fire fighting nor rescue was arcraft at the normal pont, wth both hands on the necessary. control column. The aircraft floated along the runway Flight crew n a manner whch both crew members descrbed as most unusual. The arcraft touched down approxmately The crew consisted of two pilots and one flight attendant. 800 metres before the stop end of the runway and the The plot n the left seat was an experenced freelance co-plot selected the spolers up. After a short delay Type Ratng Examner, employed from tme to tme by the commander selected reverse thrust and began the company, and was tasked wth provdng nstructon aggressve brakng. Both plots stated afterwards that, and famlarsaton to the rght seat plot, who was beng when the arcraft touched down, they consdered that traned to carry out supervson of new captans. The there was sufficient runway remaining to stop. left seat plot was over 60 years of age, and the operator had a polcy whch requred arcraft commanders to be The landng roll contnued wth the arcraft deceleratng under ths age, so the rght seat plot was nomnated as normally untl t ran off the end of the runway, nto commander. In the two months pror to the accdent soft ground, at about 35 kt. The nose and rght man flight, the left seat pilot had operated 15 flights for the landng gear, runnng through soft earth approxmately operator, nne n the left seat and sx n the rght. The up to the depth of the axles, struck the vertcal faces left seat plot stated that, untl the accdent, he had been of concrete lghtng bases upon whch two Runway 08 mpressed wth the rght seat plot’s ablty, notng that approach lghts were mounted. Ths caused damage he was partcularly “crcumspect” and that he gave to the approach lghts and the arcraft landng gear. very full briefings. The aircraft came to rest and the flight crew identified that there was no mmedate threat to ther safety and The rght seat plot was nomnated as commander and carred out normal shutdown checks. ‘pilot flying’ on both of the day’s flights. He was an experenced plot employed full-tme by the operator, The flight attendant and passenger, both seated in and was already qualified to carry out supervision of forward-facng passenger seats, were unaware of the new co-plots. In the month before the accdent, the ncdent untl the arcraft was almost at a standstll, when right seat pilot had operated eleven flights, of which one the flight attendant noticed that the emergency exit lights was as ‘pilot flying’ in the right seat, two were as ‘pilot had llumnated. Wth the arcraft at rest, both saw that not flying’ in the right seat, and the others were in the left there was grass, not runway, outsde the arcraft, and seat. Prior to that, he flew only in the left seat. concluded that the arcraft had left the runway surface. The flight attendant assessed that there was no immediate The two pilots had not previously flown together. threat to safety and reassured the passenger. © Crown copyrght 2007 8 AAIB Bulletin: 5/2007 D-ABCD EW/C2006/02/01 Landing technique way. The track created by the rght man landng gear ntersected the edge of a concrete plnth supportng a When ntervewed, both plots explaned that n landng lght. It was noted that the nosewheel axle was executive flying, they believed that passengers bent. expected very smooth landngs, and that achevng a very smooth touchdown was an mportant part of The arcraft was defuelled, the data recorders were ther task. However, they both acknowledged that removed and the arcraft was wnched back onto the on comparatvely short runways t was necessary to paved surface before beng towed to a mantenance concentrate on achevng an accurate touchdown n the faclty on the arport. correct place, to ensure safety. Accumulated mud was hosed from the landng gears. Landng performance s calculated on the assumpton Detailed examination confirmed that all tyres remained that the arcraft wll touch down wthn the touchdown inflated and were free from flat spots on their treads. A zone (the area of runway around the pont where the tyre on the rght man landng gear had sustaned cuts to gldeslope ntersects the runway surface). On the Luton a sdewall, apparently as a result of rollng contact wth runway, this zone is identified by runway markings a lghtng plnth. Three brake unts were found to be at 50 metre ntervals from the landng threshold to wthn wear lmts whlst the fourth was worn to slghtly a maxmum of 600 metres, by the postonng of the below the minimum specified thickness. PAPIs and by the ILS gldeslope. After the accdent t was found that some electrcal The operator’s Operatons Manual dd not nclude any nterlocks were not operatng correctly and ths appeared stpulaton that a mssed approach should be executed n to be due to damage sustaned by the weght swtches the event of a prolonged float during landing. and wheel speed sensors as the wheels ‘ploughed’ through the unpaved surface beyond the stopway. Aircraft examination Borescope examnaton of one engne revealed slght Ths Challenger 604, D-ABCD, was bult n July 2003 ngeston damage to the compressor. The tme of as seral number 5565. occurrence of ths damage could not be determned and t was decded that the engnes should not be run At Luton, the arcraft was found to have run off the before removal. Accordngly, the electrc pumps were western end of the stopway of Runway 26. It came to used to power the hydraulc systems; all were found to rest havng travelled approxmately 30 metres beyond hold pressure correctly and the spolers were found to the end of the paved surface, the wheels havng sunk functon approprately. nto, and made tracks through, the soft ground. Tracks on the paved surface ndcated that the arcraft was A ptot-statc test set was utlsed to calbrate the ADCs turnng slghtly to the rght whlst sldng towards ts left (air-data computers) and the flight-deck displays. All as t passed onto the soft ground. parameters were found to be wthn lmts. Electrcal tests on the autothrottle system revealed no evdence of When first examined, the flaps were retracted and the defects and, after replacement of the engnes, the system arcraft appeared to have been shut down n the normal was renstated successfully. © Crown copyrght 2007 9 AAIB Bulletin: 5/2007 D-ABCD EW/C2006/02/01 5 Flight recorders wth the engne N parameters fluctuating between 50% and 63%, crossng the threshold at about 110 feet aal. The aircraft was fitted with a Solid State Memory At this point, the aircraft started to flare, pitching from Flght Data Recorder (FDR)2 capable of recordng -.8º to .7º nose-up over seven seconds, whle the thrust a range of flight parameters into solid state memory was ncreased to 64% N.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-74B
    U.S. Department Advisory of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Circular Subject: Pilot Guide: Flight in Icing Conditions Date:10/8/15 AC No: 91-74B Initiated by: AFS-800 Change: This advisory circular (AC) contains updated and additional information for the pilots of airplanes under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 91, 121, 125, and 135. The purpose of this AC is to provide pilots with a convenient reference guide on the principal factors related to flight in icing conditions and the location of additional information in related publications. As a result of these updates and consolidating of information, AC 91-74A, Pilot Guide: Flight in Icing Conditions, dated December 31, 2007, and AC 91-51A, Effect of Icing on Aircraft Control and Airplane Deice and Anti-Ice Systems, dated July 19, 1996, are cancelled. This AC does not authorize deviations from established company procedures or regulatory requirements. John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service 10/8/15 AC 91-74B CONTENTS Paragraph Page CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1. Purpose ..............................................................................................................................1 1-2. Cancellation ......................................................................................................................1 1-3. Definitions.........................................................................................................................1 1-4. Discussion .........................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • PROPULSION SYSTEM/FLIGHT CONTROL INTEGRATION for SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT Paul J
    PROPULSION SYSTEM/FLIGHT CONTROL INTEGRATION FOR SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT Paul J. Reukauf and Frank W. Burcham , Jr. NASA Dryden Flight Research Center SUMMARY The NASA Dryden Flight Research Center is engaged in several programs to study digital integrated control systems. Such systems allow minimization of undesirable interactions while maximizing performance at all flight conditions. One such program is the YF-12 cooperative control program. In this program, the existing analog air-data computer, autothrottle, autopilot, and inlet control systems are to be converted to digital systems by using a general purpose airborne computer and interface unit. First, the existing control laws are to be programed and tested in flight. Then, integrated control laws, derived using accurate mathematical models of the airplane and propulsion system in conjunction with modern control techniques, are to be tested in flight. Analysis indicates that an integrated autothrottle-autopilot gives good flight path control and that observers can be used to replace failed sensors. INTRODUCTION Supersonic airplanes, such as the XB-70, YF-12, F-111, and F-15 airplanes, exhibit strong interactions between the engine and the inlet or between the propul- sion system and the airframe (refs. 1 and 2) . Taking advantage of possible favor- able interactions and eliminating or minimizing unfavorable interactions is a chal- lenging control problem with the potential for significant improvements in fuel consumption, range, and performance. In the past, engine, inlet, and flight control systems were usually developed separately, with a minimum of integration. It has often been possible to optimize the controls for a single design point, but off-design control performance usually suffered.
    [Show full text]
  • Using an Autothrottle to Compare Techniques for Saving Fuel on A
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2010 Using an autothrottle ot compare techniques for saving fuel on a regional jet aircraft Rebecca Marie Johnson Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Johnson, Rebecca Marie, "Using an autothrottle ot compare techniques for saving fuel on a regional jet aircraft" (2010). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 11358. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11358 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Using an autothrottle to compare techniques for saving fuel on A regional jet aircraft by Rebecca Marie Johnson A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major: Electrical Engineering Program of Study Committee: Umesh Vaidya, Major Professor Qingze Zou Baskar Ganapathayasubramanian Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2010 Copyright c Rebecca Marie Johnson, 2010. All rights reserved. ii DEDICATION I gratefully acknowledge everyone who contributed to the successful completion of this research. Bill Piche, my supervisor at Rockwell Collins, was supportive from day one, as were many of my colleagues. I also appreciate the efforts of my thesis committee, Drs. Umesh Vaidya, Qingze Zou, and Baskar Ganapathayasubramanian. I would also like to thank Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Boeing Submission for Asiana Airlines (AAR) 777-200ER HL7742 Landing Accident at San Francisco – 6 July 2013
    Michelle E. Bernson The Boeing Company Chief Engineer P.O. Box 3707 MC 07-32 Air Safety Investigation Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Commercial Airplanes 17 March 2014 66-ZB-H200-ASI-18750 Mr. Bill English Investigator In Charge National Transportation Safety Board 490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW Washington DC 20594 via e-mail: [email protected] Subject: Boeing Submission for Asiana Airlines (AAR) 777-200ER HL7742 Landing Accident at San Francisco – 6 July 2013 Reference: NTSB Tech Review Meeting on 13 February 2014 Dear Mr. English: As requested during the reference technical review, please find the attached Boeing submission on the subject accident. Per your request we are sending this electronic version to your attention for distribution within the NTSB. We would like to thank the NTSB for giving us the opportunity to make this submission. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Best regardsregards,, Michelle E. E Bernson Chief Engineer Air Safety Investigation Enclosure: Boeing Submission to the NTSB for the subject accident Submission to the National Transportation Safety Board for the Asiana 777-200ER – HL7742 Landing Accident at San Francisco 6 July 2013 The Boeing Company 17 March 2014 INTRODUCTION On 6 July 2013, at approximately 11:28 a.m. Pacific Standard Time, a Boeing 777-200ER airplane, registration HL7742, operating as Asiana Airlines Flight 214 on a flight from Seoul, South Korea, impacted the seawall just short of Runway 28L at San Francisco International Airport. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident with clear visibility and sunny skies.
    [Show full text]
  • Twins in an Ever-Changing Business Aviation World, Turboprops
    Textron is betting big 16 with the Cessna Denali that turboprops have a solid future. Twins Dornier Seastar After several years of uncer- tainty, the centerline push-pull, all-composite amphibian twin appears back on track after the Dornier family formed a new joint venture (Dornier Seawings) to manufacture the aircraft with China’s Wuxi Industrial Development Group and the Wuxi Communications Industry Group. It then struck a deal in February this year for component airframe parts for the first 10 aircraft to be manu- factured at Diamond Aircraft’s by Mark Huber plant in London, Ontario, and shipped to Dornier Seawings in 16 Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, In an ever-changing business aviation world, turboprops for final assembly. Produc- represent timeless value in a steady market segment. tion eventually will be shifted to China. The interior of the Seastar Perhaps it is appropriate that things do not move very fast in the turboprop segment. Consider this: can be tailored to many dif- the Dornier Seastar first flew in 1984, was certified in 1991 and apparently will at last enter production ferent operations: personal, later this year. Or that Cessna, after dipping its toes in the pressurized turboprop single market for the commercial, government or better part of a decade, finally decided to jump into the pool this year—with the Denali—and likely will corporate missions. It fea- tures a light and spacious have an aircraft to customers by 2020. Or India’s NAL Saras. After three decades of development, two cabin that can be equipped flying prototypes and reportedly nearly half a billion dollars, the Indian government finally decided to with various configurations, pull the financial feeding tube and kill it.
    [Show full text]
  • Vpa Report 2002-12-05
    UNCLASSIFIED NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIVISION PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND TECHNICAL REPORT REPORT NO: NAWCADPAX/TR-2002/71 REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT PHASE I; FINAL REPORT by Thomas Rudowsky Stephen Cook Marshall Hynes Robert Heffley Melvin Luter Thomas Lawrence CAPT Robert Niewoehner Douglas Bollman Page Senn Dr. Wayne Durham Henry Beaufrere Michael Yokell Albert Sonntag Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIVISION PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND NAWCADPAX/TR-2002/71 REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT - PHASE I; FINAL REPORT by Thomas Rudowsky Stephen Cook Marshall Hynes Robert Heffley Melvin Luter Thomas Lawrence CAPT Robert Niewoehner Douglas Bollman Page Senn Dr. Wayne Durham Henry Beaufrere Michael Yokell Albert Sonntag NAWCADPAX/TR-2002/71 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    [Show full text]
  • Flight Deck Solutions, Technologies and Services Moving the Industry Forward Garmin Innovation Brings Full Integration to Business Flight Operations and Support
    FLIGHT DECK SOLUTIONS, TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES MOVING THE INDUSTRY FORWARD GARMIN INNOVATION BRINGS FULL INTEGRATION TO BUSINESS FLIGHT OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT From web-based flight planning, fleet scheduling and tracking services to integrated flight display technology, head-up displays, advanced RNP navigation, onboard weather radar, Data Comm datalinks and much more — Garmin offers an unrivaled range of options to help make flying as smooth, safe, seamless and reliable as it can possibly be. Whether you operate a business jet, turboprop or hard-working helicopter, you can look to Garmin for industry-leading solutions scaled to fit your needs and your cockpit. The fact is, no other leading avionics manufacturer offers such breadth of capability — or such versatile configurability — in its lineup of flight deck solutions for aircraft manufacturers and aftermarket upgrades. When it comes to bringing out the best in your aircraft, Garmin innovation makes all the difference. CREATING A VIRTUAL REVOLUTION IN GLASS FLIGHT DECK SOLUTIONS By presenting key aircraft performance, navigation, weather, terrain routings and so on. The map function is designed to interface with a and traffic information, in context, on large high-resolution color variety of sensor inputs, so it’s easy to overlay weather, lightning, traffic, displays, today’s Garmin glass systems bring a whole new level of terrain, towers, powerlines and other avoidance system advisories, as clarity and simplicity to flight. The screens offer wide viewing angles, desired. These display inputs are selectable, allowing the pilot to add advanced backlighting and crystal-sharp readability, even in bright or deselect overlays to “build at will” the map view he or she prefers for sunlight.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems Study for an Integrated Digital/Electric Aircraft (IDEA)
    NASA-CR-3840 19850007405 NASA Contractor Report 3840 t i Systems Study for an Integrated Digital/Electric Aircraft (IDEA) G. E. Tagge, L. A. Irish, and A. R.Bailey CONTRACT NAS1-17528 JANUARY 1985 R [_.._ _ _ _'l _ €__!7 . ','7:2! ' ;: ;; 11) LANGLEY RESEJtRCHCEI",I_ER LIBRARY, NASA H;_4MPTO_JVIRG_N!A, NASA Contractor Report 3840 Systems Study for an Integrated Digital/Electric Aircraft (IDEA) G. E. Tagge, L. A. Irish, and A. R. Bailey Boeing Commercial Airplane Company Seattle, Washington Prepared for Langley Research Center under Contract NAS1-17528 N/ A NationalAeronautics and SpaceAdministration Scientific and Technical IntormatlonBranch 1985 FOREWORD This document constitutes the final report of the Integrated Digital/Electric Aircraft (IDEA)Program,ContractNASI-17528. The major studyobjectiveweres to definethe configurationof an IDEA aircraftd,efine technicalrisksassociatedwith the IDEA systemsconcepts,and identifytheresearchand developmentrequiredto reducetheserisksforpotentialapplicationto transporatircraft intheearly1990s. The NASA TechnicalRepresentativeforthistaskwas Cary R. SF1tzer;the Contracting Officerwas James Y. Taylor,of theLangleyResearchCenter. The work was accompUshed withinthe PreUmlnaryDesign Department of the Boeing Commercial AirplaneCompany. Key personnelwho contrlbutewdere: G. E.Tagge ProgramManager L.A. Irish StudyManager J.D.Vachal AerodynamicsTechnology L.A. Ostrom AerodynamicsTechnology R. H. Johnson PropulslonTeclmology G. G. Redfield PropulsionTechnology A. R. Bailey WeightsTechnology K. E. Siedentopf We_,_htsTechnology D. L.Grande StructuresTechnology C. B. Crumb Electronic FlightControlDesign F.Byford Mechanical FlightControlDesign W. F. Shivttz Flight Systems Technology C. W. Lee Flight Systems Technology P.J.Campbell FUght Systems Technology J. W. Harper Airframe Systems Technology-Electrlcal K. T. Tanemura AirframeSystemsTechnology-ECS E. C. Lim AirframeSystemsTechnology-ECS R. A. Johnson AirframeSystemsTechnology-ECS D. E. Cozby AirframeSystemsTechnology-lcing J.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Longitudinal Emergency Control System Using Thrust Modulation Demonstrated on an MD-11 Airplane
    AIAA 96-3062 Longitudinal Emergency Control System Using Thrust Modulation Demonstrated on an MD-11 Airplane John J. Burken Trindel A. Maine Frank W. Burcham, Jr. NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, California Jeffrey A. Kahler Honeywell, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona 32nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference July 1–3, 1996 / Lake Buena Vista, Florida ForFor permissionpermission toto copycopy oror republish,republish, contact the American InstituteInstitute ofof AeronauticsAeronautics and and Astronautics Astronautics 370 L'EnfantL’Enfant Promenade, S.W.,S.W., Washington,Washington, D.C. D.C. 20024 20024 LONGITUDINAL EMERGENCY CONTROL SYSTEM USING THRUST MODULATION DEMONSTRATED ON AN MD-11 AIRPLANE John J. Burken,* Trindel A. Maine,* Frank W. Burcham, Jr.† NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, California Jeffery A. Kahler‡ Honeywell, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Abstract Clon state output matrix D control input observation matrix This report describes how an MD-11 airplane landed lon using only thrust modulation, with the control surfaces EPR engine pressure ratio (turbine and inlet total locked. The propulsion-controlled aircraft system would pressures) be used if the aircraft suffered a major primary flight FADEC full-authority digital engine control control system failure and lost most or all the hydraulics. computers The longitudinal and lateral–directional controllers were designed and flight tested, but only the longitudinal FCC flight control computer control of flightpath angle is addressed in this paper. A FCP flight control panel flight-test program was conducted to evaluate the aircraft’s high-altitude flying characteristics and to h˙ sink rate, ft/sec demonstrate its capacity to perform safe landings. In ILS instrument landing system addition, over 50 low approaches and three landings without the movement of any aerodynamic control Kvc flightpath error feed-forward gain, deg surfaces were performed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ac 25-15 11/20/89
    Advisory us. Departmenf of Tronsportafion Federal Aviation Circular Administration Subject: APPROVAL OF FLIGHT MANAGEMENT Date: 11/20/89 AC No: 25-15 SYSTEMS IN TRANSPORT CATEGORY Initiated by: ANM-110 Change: AIRPLANES 1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance material for the airworthiness approval of flight management systems (FMS} in transport category airplanes. Like all AC material, this AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. It is issued for guidance purposes and to outline a method of compliance with the rules. In lieu of following this method without deviation, the applicant may elect to follow an alternate method, provided the alternate method is also found by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA} to be an acceptable means of complying with the requirements of Part 25. Because the method of compliance presented in this AC is not mandatory, the terms II sha11" and "must II used herein apply on1y to an applicant who chooses to follow this particular method without deviation. 2. RELATED DOCUMENTS. a. Related Federal Aviation Regulations {FAR}. Portions of Part 25 and a portion of Part 121, as presently written, can be applied for the design, substantiation, and certification of FMS for transport category airplanes. Sections which prescribe requirements for these types of systems include: § 25.101 Performance: General. § 25 .103 Stalling speed. § 25.105 Takeoff. § 25.107 Takeoff speeds. § 25.109 Accelerate-stop distance. § 25.111 Takeoff path. § 25.113 Takeoff distance and takeoff run. § 25.115 Takeoff flight path. § 25.117 Climb: general. § 25.119 Landing climb: All-engines-operating. § 25.121 Climb: One-engine-inoperative.
    [Show full text]
  • The Final Approach Speed
    Flight Safety Foundation Approach-and-landing Accident Reduction Tool Kit FSF ALAR Briefing Note 8.2 — The Final Approach Speed Assuring a safe landing requires achieving a balanced • Wind; distribution of safety margins between: • Flap configuration (when several flap configurations are • The computed final approach speed (also called the certified for landing); target threshold speed); and, • Aircraft systems status (airspeed corrections for • The resulting landing distance. abnormal configurations); • Icing conditions; and, Statistical Data • Use of autothrottle speed mode or autoland. Computation of the final approach speed rarely is a factor The final approach speed is based on the reference landing in runway overrun events, but an approach conducted speed, VREF. significantly faster than the computed target final approach speed is cited often as a causal factor. VREF usually is defined by the aircraft operating manual (AOM) and/or the quick reference handbook (QRH) as: The Flight Safety Foundation Approach-and-landing Accident Reduction (ALAR) Task Force found that “high-energy” 1.3 x stall speed with full landing flaps approaches were a causal factor1 in 30 percent of 76 approach- or with selected landing flaps. and-landing accidents and serious incidents worldwide in 1984 through 1997.2 Final approach speed is defined as: Defining the Final Approach Speed VREF + corrections. The final approach speed is the airspeed to be maintained down Airspeed corrections are based on operational factors (e.g., to 50 feet over the runway threshold. wind, wind shear or icing) and on landing configuration (e.g., less than full flaps or abnormal configuration). The final approach speed computation is the result of a decision made by the flight crew to ensure the safest approach and The resulting final approach speed provides the best landing for the following: compromise between handling qualities (stall margin or • Gross weight; controllability/maneuverability) and landing distance.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Engine Thrust for Emergency Flight Control: MD-11 and B-747 Results
    NASA/TM-1998-206552 Using Engine Thrust for Emergency Flight Control: MD-11 and B-747 Results Frank W. Burcham, Jr., Trindel A. Maine, and John J. Burken Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, California John Bull CAELUM Research Corporation NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California May 1998 The NASA STI Program Office . in Profile Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. to the advancement of aeronautics and space Collected papers from scientific and science. The NASA Scientific and Technical technical conferences, symposia, seminars, Information (STI) Program Office plays a key or other meetings sponsored or cosponsored part in helping NASA maintain this by NASA. important role. • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, The NASA STI Program Office is operated by technical, or historical information from Langley Research Center, the lead center for NASA programs, projects, and mission, NASA’s scientific and technical information. often concerned with subjects having The NASA STI Program Office provides access substantial public interest. to the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of aeronautical and space science STI in the • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English- world. The Program Office is also NASA’s language translations of foreign scientific institutional mechanism for disseminating the and technical material pertinent to results of its research and development activities. NASA’s mission. These results are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which includes the Specialized services that complement the STI following report types: Program Office’s diverse offerings include creating custom thesauri, building customized databases, organizing and publishing research • TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of results . even providing videos. completed research or a major significant phase of research that present the results of For more information about the NASA STI NASA programs and include extensive data Program Office, see the following: or theoretical analysis.
    [Show full text]