Flight test programme - EASA example document

[Pawel87]

Hello,

as I wrote in my previous post here, I am currently working on my thesis which is related to flight testing. One of its chapters describes the process of writing flight test programmes. Some of its content is based on EASA example document for LSA applicants (https ://www.easa.europa.eu/download/general-aviation/documents-guidance-and-examples/ABCD-FTP-01-00%20-%20Flight%20test%20programme%20-%2017.02.16%20-%20v1.docx )

Anyway, I do not understand one thing, maybe you will be able to help me. On page 15 you can find a table called "Schedule of flights". One of its columns is called "Flight test plan reference". Rows below contain inscriptions such as Flight#1 (repeated several times), then Flight#2... after some time Flight#3, Flight#4, then back to 3 etc. Those numbers are not related to sequences or number of flights (both counted separately). Configuration and instrumentation is also described in other column. So what those references are conntected with? You can find them in "Flight Test Cards" in a row called "Test plan no" as for example Flight#4 / 15. Number 15 describes a particular sequence but "Flight#4" remains a secret to me. Any ideas?

I am enclosing two screenshots of those tables.

Thanks!

[dangermouse]

I suspect that test plan number is the description of the tests to be carried out, and flight no. is the actual flight number that is flown to gather the data required by the test plan

DM

[Pawel87]

In Flight Test Card I have marked a row "Test plan no: Flight #4 / 15". I am sure that " 15 " is a sequence number taken from the other table "Schedule of flights". Test point number 15 is described there as "handling of ailerons", exactly the same issue as on the other side of Flight Test Card. But I do not think that "Flight#" is actual flight number that is flown. As you can see in "Schedule of flights", one number can be repeated several times, then you can have another one for a few sequences after which the previous number is back. I am enclosing a screenshot of another page of this table.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Reading through the main linked document - I think that you're just reading too much into it. That is a sample test plan, showing a generally acceptable format and structure. It isn't a real flight test plan and report, that's been flown through, modified as issues were hit and resolved.

The format is representative of most real-world best practices, the detail has in my opinion been shoved in to give an idea of what it should look like. I don't think anybody ever intended for it to be forensically picked apart and cross-checked. That will, and should, happen to real plans as they are resolved into compliance reports - but this is just a simplified example.

G

[Pawel87]

Thank you Genghis. So to sum up - "Flight#" marked in "Schedule of flights" table shows number of actual flight that is conducted? And if it is repeated for different test points, it means that all of them can be carried out in one flight? I am sorry, this might sound as a stupid question but I would like to make sure :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

To repeat my point Pawel - I think you're reading too much into this. It's an example, not fully representative.

But yes, it's quite normal to list in a plan a nominal flight that something will be done. Then it won't actually happen that way - a planned flight may be split into three for reasons of repetition or non-delivery, or two combined, or something not quite completed and then the missing tests tagged onto another flight. This is normal in the conduct of flight testing.

It IS normal in reporting that flights will have numbers, and post flight reports use those numbers, and a tests and conditions completion grid will then show the flight numbers on which particular data were obtained. This is the flight numbers that really matter, not some nominal plan for which flight will carry which tests, written ahead of time.

Remember the adage by a Roman General "No plan of action ever survives contact with the enemy". The same is absolutely true of flight test plans.

G

[Pawel87]

I was trying to work it out as later in my thesis I will need to prepare my own programme. Without proper understanding it would be pointless. But I get it now, thanks :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Pawel, I might be able to help you out with some odds and ends.

Would you like to email me a one-liner to boffin at engineer dot com, and I can send you a template for a test plan used for UK university based flight testing.

G

[Pawel87]

Genghis, that would be great! I am sending an email right away!

[Jason Middleton]

Pawel87,
I am curious, what sort of thesis are you doing? I suggest that if you doing research on flight testing it would be wise to have a pilot experienced in flight testing as a co-supervisor, so you can get such professional advice that Genghis is about to give you on a regular basis.
JM

[Genghis the Engineer]

I suspect that you are somewhat accurate there Jason.

Unfortunately, in my experience across universities that try to dabble in flight testing, at best 1 in 4 have somebody with any flight test experience on the teaching staff, and perhaps 1 in 10 (a bit better than that in the USA, maybe) have a test pilot on the teaching staff. Regrettably neither the universities, nor their overseeing external examiners usually seem to see the problem with this and so they continue to take on projects and students with ambitions substantially beyond the academic staff's competence. Hence why we should be generous with our help here - this might have been many of us in our early 20s as incipient professionals hoping to make our way into the flight test professions.

One which topic - Pawel, I'd recommend being as open as you are able about your thesis objectives. There are a lot of very experienced and well qualified people here (of whom I'm certainly not amongst the best, although I can hold my own in certain environments) and the odds are the better we understand your objectives, the better help you'll get.

G

[Pawel87]

My thesis is divided into two parts - theoretical and practical. The first one describes typical flight test programme design as well as selected flight test techniques (I started with stability issues). Practical one will use TS-11 flight simulator. The idea is to treat it as real aricraft, prepare flight test programme, flight test cards etc. and conduct a few tests based on previously written theoretical manuals. The results of those test will let me prepare some characteristics which I will later compare with those describing actual aircraft. I am allowed to use the flight simulator for 30h which I think is more than enough.

I have two co-supervisors, both used to work as military test pilots but that was long time ago. Unfortunately, both seem not to remember everything from those days.. That is the reason why I am looking also for help here.

P.

[Genghis the Engineer]

30 hours should be more than adequate for anything I can think you're likely to try and do.

A few thoughts that may be helpful...

- I've seen very poor results from students at MSc or PhD level trying to bring in an involved test pilot, give them a 5 minute briefing, then put them straight into a simulator to "assess" it. If using your supervisors as TPs, that means involving them in procedure design, planning, simulator use, etc. as early as possible.

-Eastern European TPs, in my limited experience of the breed, were far less involved in test planning and management than their Western counterparts are used to. In most cold war era Eastern European countries the test pilots were much more required to do-as-instructed, whilst the primacy in programme management decisions tended to be with the senior engineers. So, your supervisors may simply have not had the level of theory that is, for example, in Kimberlin, in the first place.

- Define the real aircraft you're assessing?

G

[sycamore]

That`ll be the TS-11- Iskra,tandem single jet,straight wing...equivalent to a JP5 ,in performance...think there is one at Bruntingthorpe,on `run days..
Wing is thinner and more laminar than a JP.(UIUC airfoil data site)(The incomplete Guide to airfoil useage.)