DOCSLIB.ORG

Vibration During Take-Off in the Cockpit of Concorde

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vibration During Take-Off in the Cockpit of Concorde Journal of Aeronautical History Paper 2017/01 VIBRATION DURING TAKE-OFF IN THE COCKPIT OF CONCORDE C G B (Kit) Mitchell* and Brian W Payne** * Formerly Structures Department, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough ** Formerly Chief Dynamics Engineer, British Aircraft Corporation Ltd, Weybridge and Filton Abstract Before Concorde flew, there was concern that vibration in the cockpit during take-off could be severe. This proved to be the case for the prototypes, made worse by undercarriage oleos with high friction that stuck and moved very little during the take-off roll. RAE, in cooperation with BAC and Aerospatiale, developed a computer programme that predicted vibration and undercarriage behaviour and allowed the effect of design changes to be explored. The characteristics needed to reduce vibration were identified as reduced friction and a softer air spring at take-off weight. This could be achieved while still absorbing the energy of landing by using a 2-stage oleo, for which space was available. Once the required characteristics had been identified, the project was passed to industry for further analysis and the necessary design changes. The path to developing revised undercarriages was tortuous, involving many tests, until undercarriages with 2-stage oleos were fitted in 1977 and reduced vibration by about 25 percent. Introduction One of the interesting, though specialised, technical challenges set by the Concorde project was reducing the level of vibration in the cockpit during the take-off roll, caused by the unevenness of the runway exciting bending of the long flexible fuselage. It was an issue that was not reported publicly, but if it had not been successfully overcome, could have prevented the use of the aircraft from some uneven runways and also reduced its structural fatigue life. As this account describes activities which took place over 40 years ago, reliance has had to be placed on memory, as well as on the documents still available. The authors therefore apologise in advance for any detailed errors or omissions Before the prototypes flew, RAE was expecting that vibration in the cockpit during take-off would be a problem (Zbrojek, 1965). The prototype North American XB-70 supersonic bomber was shaking its crew during take-off at levels that NASA rated unacceptable (Irwin and Andrews, 1969). Calculations in the USA of vibration during high speed taxying for several hypothetical SSTs predicted high acceleration levels in the cockpit (peak vertical accelerations of more than +/- 2g). Calculations by SNIASx for Concorde on runway 28 at San Francisco, an abnormally rough runway for which a profile was available from NASA, predicted a peak cockpit acceleration of 3.1g. But this was probably pessimistic, because when calculations of vibration during take-off for subsonic aircraft were compared with flight test measurements, the measured accelerations were typically half to two-thirds of those calculated. _____________________________________________________ x Société Nationale Industrrielle Aérospatiale - Aerospatiale. 1 Journal of Aeronautical History Paper 2017/01 At the same time, as the first generation of big jets started flying in Africa, it was found that on some runways the vibration levels in the cockpits were borderline unacceptable. In extreme cases, this was probably interfering with the ability of the crew to read instruments during the take-off roll. Some of this information was from reports by pilots, some from data recorded on airliners that had been instrumented as part of the Civil Aircraft Airworthiness Data Recording Programme (Owen, 1971). Establishing acceptable levels of vibration in the cockpit RAE had cockpit vibration measurements from a VC-10 and a Boeing 707 in airline service with British Airways (Mitchell, 1970b), and was reasonably confident that the crew complained if the incremental vertical acceleration in the cockpit exceeded about 0.5 - 0.6g (Figure 1). The curves for VC-10 and Boeing 707 in Figure 1 were obtained by analysing film records of take-offs and landings such as Figure 2, which shows a take-off from New York JFK. The magnitudes of the acceleration peaks were measured by hand and plotted as exceedance curves (a count of the numbers of peaks exceeding different values). On subsonic aircraft, much of this vibration was caused by structural vibration of the fuselage at about 4 Hz. The structure of Concorde is more flexible, so the first vibration mode for the fuselage occurred at 2.28 Hz. This means that fuselage bending is excited by undulations on the runway with a typical wavelength of about 40 metres, which tend to be of larger amplitude than the undulations of about 20 metre wavelength that affect subsonic transports. RAE calculated a typical acceleration history for the cockpit during take-off, and the late Geoff Rowland in Engineering Physics Department used the former TSR-2 simulator at Weybridge to replicate this history, to determine whether this would provide an acceptable cockpit environment for the flight crew. We could not make the ride in the simulator quite as rough as the calculations predicted, because the simulator motion system was not powerful enough. Indeed, we could not match the worst environments that pilots were already experiencing in big jets in Africa. A number of the BAC Concorde test crew tried the simulator, and commented that they did not believe an airliner would ever behave like that, and that if it did, it would be wholly unacceptable. So when the flight test instrumentation showed that at Fairford the prototype Concorde 002 was vibrating rather more than we had achieved with the simulator, we were surprised not to be getting reports of crew complaints (measured peak vertical acceleration at the pilot's seat was around 0.6 - 0.7g at 2¼ Hz, and was a little higher than that being experienced in the XB-70). It was really only when the first accelerate- stop tests were done that the crews seemed to become aware of any difficulties caused by the vibration environment. However, during the route proving flight to the Far East by 002 mentioned below, the Concorde prototype encountered runways more uneven than Fairford, Toulouse and Heathrow. During one take-off, peak vertical accelerations of +/- 1.3g at 2¼ Hz were experienced at the pilot's seat, and the crew were not slow to complain. 2 Journal of Aeronautical History Paper 2017/01 Concorde vibration - measured and calculated Royal Aircraft Establishment initially used a very complicated computer programme to calculate vibration in a VC-10 during take-off at Boscombe Down, to compare with experimental measurements. We found the programme was seriously overestimating the vibration experienced. The programme took a long time to run, and was so complicated that it was difficult to use for parametric studies to understand the causes of the effects observed. RAE then developed a much simpler computer programme, which represented the flexible aircraft supported by main and nose undercarriages during a take-off along a runway with a defined profile. The springs provided by the tyres and the undercarriage air springs are non-linear - that is, the force is not proportional to deflection - and were represented by equations that fitted characteristics measured on test rigs. Most importantly, both the static and sliding friction of the oleo (the oil/air spring unit that provides stiffness and damping) were included, because it usually takes a bigger force to unstick a moveable object than to keep it sliding*. On the prototype undercarriage the static friction was large, which meant that small changes in end load on the undercarriage did not move the sliding leg, because it was stuck by friction. A contributor to the high friction was a mechanism that shortened the main undercarriage leg during the retraction cycle, but which trapped the sliding lower part of the leg between the outer structural casing and the interior oleo mechanism, acting as a friction lock, Figure 3. The values of the static and sliding friction were deduced from drop tests for the undercarriage. The measured end load was different for compression and extension of the leg, and the difference was twice the sliding friction. Initially the static friction was guessed as slightly larger than the sliding friction, but once flight test results were available, it was possible to measure how much the undercarriage end load could vary without the sliding leg moving. The RAE studies concentrated on vertical vibration in the cockpit. The level of lateral vibration was lower, but possibly as disturbing, because pilots are more sensitive to lateral acceleration. Symmetric motion was easier to analyse and required less data, so it became the priority topic. The army surveyed the profiles of a number of runways, including the Concorde flight test base at Fairford, and we calculated the vibration levels we should expect. One of the reasons for a visit to Heathrow by prototype 002 early in the test programme was to measure the vibration at a major airport, though we did not have the runway surveyed. Once the prototypes started flying, to our surprise we found that vibration levels during taxying were higher than predicted rather than lower, as had occurred for every other aircraft where measurements and calculations were compared. Figure 4 shows the history of the vertical acceleration in the cockpit and in the passenger cabin during take-off from Toulouse by the French prototype 001. The peak acceleration in the cockpit is about 0.75 ‘g’, with ____________________________________________________________ * Friction is the force needed to move an object horizontally along a level surface, and is proportionate to the weight of the object. The static friction is the force needed to start an object moving, the sliding friction is the force needed to keep it moving once it has started. Static friction is almost always larger than sliding friction, and this difference can cause vibration such as chalk screeching on a blackboard, tyres screaming in a skid or a machine tool cutter juddering.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Nation of Aviation Pioneers
    ICAO TIE-INS By Albert Pelsser Romania - A nation of aviation pioneers At the beginning of the 20th century, Romania was among the few nations in the world which brought essential contributions to aviation and flying because there were people who dedicated their life and work to fulfilling the human desire to fly and developing aviation. Among the most well-known inventors who contributed to the flight development by means of apparatuses heavier than the air, Traian Vuia, Aurel Vlaicu and Henri Coanda played a distinct role. In parallel to the above developments, schools of piloting were established and airships from other countries were purchased, with provision for specially designed workshops for the maintenance and repairing of aircraft. The first school of piloting was initiated by the Romanian lawyer Mihail Cerchez, after his return from Paris in the summer of 1909. It started its activity in the spring of 1910, on the field near Chitila, where the first aerodrome of the Romanian aviation was settled. Once the infrastructure for the construction and repair of the airships had been completed, Mihail Cerchez purchased four aircraft from France: two biplane Farman aircraft that were intended to carrying out the training flights of the future pilots, one Demoiselle aircraft and a Wright aircraft for the ground instruction. Second Lieutenants Ştefan Protopopescu and Gheorghe Negrescu were among the first six military pilots trained. Cerchez also obtained that the Farman aircraft be assembled in his workshops. Chitila’s infrastructure in 1911. Farman IV biplane. Having obtained their Pilot Licences in July 2011, Protopopescu and Negrescu, along with other pilots, participated in military maneuvers on Farmans in the fall of 1911 and carried out a series of raids to popularize aviation among youth and to maintain a high degree of readiness among pilots.
    [Show full text]
  • Concorde Is a Museum Piece, but the Allure of Speed Could Spell Success
    CIVIL SUPERSONIC Concorde is a museum piece, but the allure Aerion continues to be the most enduring player, of speed could spell success for one or more and the company’s AS2 design now has three of these projects. engines (originally two), the involvement of Air- bus and an agreement (loose and non-exclusive, by Nigel Moll but signed) with GE Aviation to explore the supply Fourteen years have passed since British Airways of those engines. Spike Aerospace expects to fly a and Air France retired their 13 Concordes, and for subsonic scale model of the design for the S-512 the first time in the history of human flight, air trav- Mach 1.5 business jet this summer, to explore low- elers have had to settle for flying more slowly than speed handling, followed by a manned two-thirds- they used to. But now, more so than at any time scale supersonic demonstrator “one-and-a-half to since Concorde’s thunderous Olympus afterburn- two years from now.” Boom Technology is working ing turbojets fell silent, there are multiple indi- on a 55-seat Mach 2.2 airliner that it plans also to cations of a supersonic revival, and the activity offer as a private SSBJ. NASA and Lockheed Martin appears to be more advanced in the field of busi- are encouraged by their research into reducing the ness jets than in the airliner sector. severity of sonic booms on the surface of the planet. www.ainonline.com © 2017 AIN Publications. All Rights Reserved. For Reprints go to Shaping the boom create what is called an N-wave sonic boom: if The sonic boom produced by a supersonic air- you plot the pressure distribution that you mea- craft has long shaped regulations that prohibit sure on the ground, it looks like the letter N.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of the UK Aerospace Industry: a Transaction Cost Analysis
    The economics of the UK aerospace industry: A transaction cost analysis of defence and civilian firms Ian Jackson PhD Department of Economics and Related Studies University of York 2004 Abstract The primaryaim of this thesisis to assessvertical integration in the UK aerospace industrywith a transactioncost approach. There is an extensivetheoretical and conceptualliterature on transactioncosts, but a relativelack of empiricalwork. This thesisapplies transaction cost economics to the UK aerospaceindustry focusing on the paradigmproblem of the make-or-buydecision and related contract design. It assesses whetherthe transactioncost approachis supported(or rejected)by evidencefrom an originalsurvey of theUK aerospaceindustry. The centralhypothesis is that UK aerospacefirms are likely to makecomponents in- housedue to higherlevels of assetspecificity, uncertainty, complexity, frequency and smallnumbers, which is reflectedin contractdesign. The thesismakes these concepts operational.The empiricalmethodology of the thesisis basedon questionnairesurvey dataand econometric tests using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) andlogit regressions to analysethe make-or-buy decision and the choiceof contracttype. The resultsfrom this thesisfind limited evidencein supportof the transactioncost approachapplied to the UK aerospaceindustry, in spiteof a bespokedataset. The empiricaltests of verticalintegration for both make-or-buyand contracttype as the dependentvariable yield insufficientevidence to concludethat the transactioncost approachis an appropriateframework
    [Show full text]
  • Make America Boom Again: How to Bring Back Supersonic Transport,” Eli Dourado and Samuel Hammond Show That It Is Time to Revisit the Ban
    MAKE AMERICA BOOM AGAIN How to Bring Back Supersonic Transport _____________________ In 1973, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) banned civil supersonic flight over the United States, stymieing the development of a supersonic aviation industry. In “Make America Boom Again: How to Bring Back Supersonic Transport,” Eli Dourado and Samuel Hammond show that it is time to revisit the ban. Better technology—including better materials, engines, and simulation capabilities—mean it is now possible to produce a supersonic jet that is more economical and less noisy than those of the 1970s. It is time to rescind the ban in favor of a more modest and sensible noise standard. BACKGROUND Past studies addressing the ban on supersonic flight have had little effect. However, this paper takes a comprehensive view of the topic, covering the history of supersonic flight, the case for supersonic travel, the problems raised by supersonic flight, and regulatory alternatives to the ban. Dourado and Hammond synthesize the best arguments for rescinding the ban on supersonic flights over land and establish that the ban has had a real impact on the development of supersonic transport. KEY FINDINGS The FAA Should Replace the Ban on Overland Supersonic Flight with a Noise Standard The sonic boom generated by the Concorde and other early supersonic aircraft was very loud, and as a result the FAA banned flights in the United States from going faster than the speed of sound (Mach 1). This ban should be rescinded and replaced with a noise standard. A noise limit of 85–90 A-weighted decibels would be similar to noise standards for lawnmowers, blenders, and motorcy- cles, and would therefore be a reasonable standard during daytime hours.
    [Show full text]
  • A Statistical Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents 1958-2019
    Airbus A Statistical Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents 1958-2019 Contents Scope and definitions 02 1.0 2020 & beyond 05 Accidents in 2019 07 2020 & beyond 08 Forecast increase in number of aircraft 2019-2038 09 2.0 Commercial aviation accidents since the advent of the jet age 10 Evolution of the number of flights & accidents 12 Evolution of the yearly accident rate 13 Impact of technology on aviation safety 14 Technology has improved aviation safety 16 Evolution of accident rates by aircraft generation 17 3.0 Commercial aviation accidents over the last 20 years 18 Evolution of the yearly accident rate 20 Ten year moving average of accident rate 21 Accidents by flight phase 22 Distribution of accidents by accident category 24 Evolution of the main accident categories 25 Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) accident rates 26 Loss Of Control In-flight (LOC-I) accident rates 27 Runway Excursion (RE) accident rates 28 List of tables & graphs 29 A Statistical Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents 1958 / 2019 02 Scope and definitions This publication provides Airbus’ a flight in a commercial aircraft annual analysis of aviation accidents, is a low risk activity. with commentary on the year 2019, Since the goal of any review of aviation as well as a review of the history of accidents is to help the industry Commercial Aviation’s safety record. further enhance safety, an analysis This analysis clearly demonstrates of forecasted aviation macro-trends that our industry has achieved huge is also provided. These highlight key improvements in safety over the factors influencing the industry’s last decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Collection
    A, AIR & SPA ID SE CE MU REP SEU INT M AIRCRAFT COLLECTION From the Avenger torpedo bomber, a stalwart from Intrepid’s World War II service, to the A-12, the spy plane from the Cold War, this collection reflects some of the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS IN MILITARY AVIATION. Photo: Liam Marshall TABLE OF CONTENTS Bombers / Attack Fighters Multirole Helicopters Reconnaissance / Surveillance Trainers OV-101 Enterprise Concorde Aircraft Restoration Hangar Photo: Liam Marshall BOMBERS/ATTACK The basic mission of the aircraft carrier is to project the U.S. Navy’s military strength far beyond our shores. These warships are primarily deployed to deter aggression and protect American strategic interests. Should deterrence fail, the carrier’s bombers and attack aircraft engage in vital operations to support other forces. The collection includes the 1940-designed Grumman TBM Avenger of World War II. Also on display is the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, a true workhorse of the 1950s and ‘60s, as well as the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and Grumman A-6 Intruder, stalwarts of the Vietnam War. Photo: Collection of the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum GRUMMAN / EASTERNGRUMMAN AIRCRAFT AVENGER TBM-3E GRUMMAN/EASTERN AIRCRAFT TBM-3E AVENGER TORPEDO BOMBER First flown in 1941 and introduced operationally in June 1942, the Avenger became the U.S. Navy’s standard torpedo bomber throughout World War II, with more than 9,836 constructed. Originally built as the TBF by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, they were affectionately nicknamed “Turkeys” for their somewhat ungainly appearance. Bomber Torpedo In 1943 Grumman was tasked to build the F6F Hellcat fighter for the Navy.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Tire Data
    Aircraft tire Engineering Data Introduction Michelin manufactures a wide variety of sizes and types of tires to the exacting standards of the aircraft industry. The information included in this Data Book has been put together as an engineering and technical reference to support the users of Michelin tires. The data is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate and complete at the time of publication. To be as useful a reference tool as possible, we have chosen to include data on as many industry tire sizes as possible. Particular sizes may not be currently available from Michelin. It is advised that all critical data be verified with your Michelin representative prior to making final tire selections. The data contained herein should be used in conjunction with the various standards ; T&RA1, ETRTO2, MIL-PRF- 50413, AIR 8505 - A4 or with the airframer specifications or military design drawings. For those instances where a contradiction exists between T&RA and ETRTO, the T&RA standard has been referenced. In some cases, a tire is used for both civil and military applications. In most cases they follow the same standard. Where they do not, data for both tires are listed and identified. The aircraft application information provided in the tables is based on the most current information supplied by airframe manufacturers and/or contained in published documents. It is intended for use as general reference only. Your requirements may vary depending on the actual configuration of your aircraft. Accordingly, inquiries regarding specific models of aircraft should be directed to the applicable airframe manufacturer.
    [Show full text]
  • Type Rating of an Aircraft, Compare the Aircraft Model from Block 2 of the Airworthiness Certificate to the Civil Model Designation Column Below
    FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 2, Section 19 06/28/2021 FIGURE 5-88, PILOT CERTIFICATE AIRCRAFT TYPE DESIGNATIONS – AIRPLANE NOTE: 1. As of November 2015 the FAA has begun removing marketing names from the Civil Model Designation column. When determining the appropriate type rating of an aircraft, compare the aircraft model from Block 2 of the Airworthiness Certificate to the Civil Model Designation column below. The column titled Current Type Rating Designation will show the appropriate type rating for this aircraft. EQUIVALENT CURRENT TYPE TYPE CERTIFICATE CIVIL MODEL PRIOR MODEL MILITARY RATING HOLDER DESIGNATION DESIGNATION DESIGNATION DESIGNATION 328 Support Services GmbH Dornier 328-100 C-146A DO-328 Dornier 328-300 None D328JET Aero Commander Division (See Israel Aircraft Industries None Ltd.) Aérospatiale, France SN 601 Corvette None SN-601 Aérospatiale/Aeritalia, France (See ATR – GIE Avions de None Transport Régional) Airbus A340-200 Series: None A-340 Models: A340-211, -212, -213 A340-300 Series: Models: A340-311, -312, -313 A340-500 Series: Models: A340-541 A340-600 Series: Models: A340-642 Airbus Canada Limited BD-500-1A10 None BD500 Partnership BD-500-1A11 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model: C-212-CB, C-212-CC, None CA-212 C-212-CD, C-212-CE, C-212-CF, C-212-DF, C-212-DE Model CN-235, CN-235 CN-235 Series C-295 CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, C-295 Airbus SAS A300, Model B2-1A None A-300 A300, Model B2-1C A300, Model B4-2C A300, Model B2K-3C A300, Model B4-103 A300, Model B2-203 A300, Model B4-203 A300, Model B4-601
    [Show full text]
  • D0458 Extract.Pdf
    First published in 2000 by Sutton Publishing Limited· Phoenix Mill Thrupp . Stroud . Gloucestershire· GL5 2BU Copyright © Brian Trubshaw, 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher and copyright holder. Brian Trubshaw has asserted the moral right to be identified as the author of this work. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0 7509 2393 8 Title page: Hawk jets of the RAF's Red Arrows aerobatic display team tuck in close behind Concorde 'Alpha-Alpha' over the south coast of England on the run-in to London­ Heathrow, to commemorate the airport's fiftieth anniversary, 2 June 1999. (BAe Systems) Concorde turn around at Melbourne during route proving, August 1975. (BAe Systems) Typeset in 10/ 13pt Sabon. Typesetting and origination by Sutton Publishing Limited. Printed in Great Britain by The Bath Press, Bath. CONTENTS Foreword v Acknowledgements VI Prologue Vlll Introduction Xlll The Start of Supersonic Flight 1 The Concept of Concorde 12 Organisation and Responsibilities 20 Special Aspects 33 Simulators 55 TSS Standards 58 Pre-First Flight Preparations 63 Flight Development and Certification 71 Route Proving 99 At Long Last! 107 The End of Flight Trials 117 Sales Prospects and Costs 125 BA and Concorde 133 The Future 149 Appendices I Anglo-French Agreement 157 Il Definition of Mach Number 159 III Concorde Development 160 IV Concorde Details 161 V US Clearance of Concorde 162 VI Concorde Chronology 164 VII Concorde Anti-stall Systems 166 VIII Concorde Flying Hours 167 IX Testimony of William Magruder 168 X 002 Itinerary, June 1972 170 Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 171 Index 173 High flight: with a dramatic clouds cape spread beneath them, four Concordes are captured by the photographer's lense in loose formation over southern England.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Specifications
    Supersonic Dream Student Handout Aircraft Specifications Fuel Burn Mass (gal/h) of of of ate (kg) Gallon Take-off Fuel (kg/h) Type of (kg) Mass Mass Mass Sources: Fuel of (kg) (kg) (kg) Burn R 1 2 3 Fuel Table 3-8 Air Carrier Capacity with Burned Aircraft Engines Average Fuel Weightof Mass HourPlane HourPlane HourPlane and Utilization Factors Boeing 747-100 4 340,190 3,638 2.7215 www.api.faa.gov/economic 742SECT3.pdf Boeing DC-10-3 3 259,450 3,130 2.7215 Impact of Weight Changes Concorde 4 185,062 6,771 2.7215 on Aircraft Fuel Consumption www.api.faa.gov/economic/ Airbus 300-600 2 161,022 1,678 2.7215 742SECT7.pdf Boeing 727-200 3 95,026 1,844 2.7215 Concorde Specifications Boeing 737-4 2 64,636 792 2.7215 www.gizmohighway.com/ history/concorde_specs.htm BAE 146-2 4 40,993 817 2.7215 Fuel Burned per Hour Change in Mass Mass of Fuel Burned Fuel Burn Rate (gal/h) x Weight of Average Take-off Mass with Fuel (kg) Mass of Fuel Burned (kg/h) Gallon of Fuel (kg) = Mass of Fuel - Mass of Fuel Burned (kg/hr) x 3 = Mass of Fuel Burned Burned (kg/h) = Hour 1 Mass of Plane (kg) after 3 Hours (kg) Hour 1 Mass of Plane (kg) Percent Mass Change - Mass of Fuel Burned (kg/hr) Mass of Fuel Burned after = Hour 2 Mass of Plane (kg) 3 Hours (kg) ÷ Average Take-off Mass with Fuel (kg) x 100 Hour 2 Mass of Plane (kg) = Percent Mass Change - Mass of Fuel Burned (kg/hr) = Hour 3 Mass of Plane (kg) Passenger Count Fuel Use Per Passenger (km/h) (gal/km) per Calculate your results to one decimal place (increase the first decimal place (km) Speed York) (gal/h) Burned Crew number by one if the second decimal Passenger ate Fuel and PassengerNew number is 5 or above).
    [Show full text]
  • 61 Part 121—Operating Require
    Federal Aviation Administration, DOT Pt. 121 (vi) A signed statement indicating PART 121—OPERATING REQUIRE- that: your company will comply with MENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND this part and 49 CFR part 40; and you SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS intend to provide safety-sensitive func- tions by contract (including sub- contract at any tier) to a part 119 cer- SPECIAL FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION NO. 50–2 [NOTE] tificate holder with authority to oper- SPECIAL FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION NO. ate under part 121 or part 135 of this 71 [NOTE] chapter, an operator as defined in SPECIAL FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION NO. § 91.147 of this chapter, or an air traffic 97 [NOTE] control facility not operated by the FAA or by or under contract to the Subpart A—General U.S. military. Sec. (2) Send this information to the Fed- 121.1 Applicability. eral Aviation Administration, Office of 121.2 Compliance schedule for operators Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement that transition to part 121; certain new Division (AAM–800), 800 Independence entrant operators. Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. 121.4 Applicability of rules to unauthorized operators. (3) This Drug and Alcohol Testing 121.7 Definitions. Program Registration will satisfy the 121.9 Fraud and falsification. registration requirements for both 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a your drug testing program under sub- foreign country. part E of this part and your alcohol 121.15 Carriage of narcotic drugs, mari- testing program under this subpart. huana, and depressant or stimulant drugs (4) Update the registration informa- or substances. tion as changes occur. Send the up- Subpart B—Certification Rules for Domestic dates to the address specified in para- and Flag Air Carriers [Reserved] graph (f)(2) of this section.
    [Show full text]
  • Burford Body Wordsearch
    APRIL 2021 ISSUE 44 AI RPI LO T INSIDE AGM ELECTIONS AND REPORT WORKING WITH COVID FLYING COVID FREE DIARY THE HONOURABLE COMPANY All physical events have been postponed until further OF AIR PILOTS notice. Some meetings will take place through video- conferencing. For the latest situation please visit the incorporating Air Navigators calendar page of the Company’s website: https://www.airpilots.org/members-pages/company-calendar/ PATRON: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh KG KT Guidelines for submissions to Air Pilot Please submit contributions as follows: GRAND MASTER: • Text in word document, including your name below the His Royal Highness title of the piece; The Prince Andrew • No embedded photos; Duke of York KG GCVO • All images to be sent as jpeg files with a file size of at least 2 MB; MASTER: • More than 2 images to be sent via a Dropbox file, Sqn Ldr Nick Goodwyn MA Dip Psych CFS RAF (ret) rather than an e-mail attachment. CLERK: Paul J Tacon BA FCIS Incorporated by Royal Charter. A Livery Company of the City of London. PUBLISHED BY: The Honourable Company of Air Pilots, Access the Company’s website Air Pilots House, 52A Borough High Street, London SE1 1XN via this QR code, EMAIL : [email protected] www.airpilots.org EDITOR: Allan Winn EMAIL: [email protected] DEPUTY EDITOR: Stephen Bridgewater EMAIL: [email protected] or follow us on Twitter @AirPlotsCo EDITORIAL CONTRIBUTIONS: The copy deadline for the June 2021 edition of Air Pilot is 1 st May 2021. FUNCTION PHOTOGRAPHY: Gerald Sharp Photography View images and order prints on-line.
    [Show full text]