CAA (UK) AFM Supplement for Certification
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA (UK) AFM Supplement for Certification
G'day
I've been having a look through the P68C (Partenavia) AFM and there's a supplement titled "C.A.A. Approved Supplement for Certification in the United Kingdom".
In the intro it mentions that the info and limitations provided in the supplement should be taken over that given in the basic flight manual.
It contains things such as different flap extension speeds, a procedure for engine fire in flight (which interestingly isn't in the basic flight manual), and a new single engine rate of climb graph which gives less performance for the same conditions.
I presume the CAA believes that this additional or replacement info is necessary to operate the aircraft safely so I'm wondering how they came up with the supplement?
In the case of the different Vfe's did they do some sort of structural analysis and decide the orginal flap extension speeds were too high?
In the case of the S/E RoC graph would they have done flight tests to verify the original data and decided it was simply unrealistic?
Thanks in advance
Rob.
I've been having a look through the P68C (Partenavia) AFM and there's a supplement titled "C.A.A. Approved Supplement for Certification in the United Kingdom".
In the intro it mentions that the info and limitations provided in the supplement should be taken over that given in the basic flight manual.
It contains things such as different flap extension speeds, a procedure for engine fire in flight (which interestingly isn't in the basic flight manual), and a new single engine rate of climb graph which gives less performance for the same conditions.
I presume the CAA believes that this additional or replacement info is necessary to operate the aircraft safely so I'm wondering how they came up with the supplement?
In the case of the different Vfe's did they do some sort of structural analysis and decide the orginal flap extension speeds were too high?
In the case of the S/E RoC graph would they have done flight tests to verify the original data and decided it was simply unrealistic?
Thanks in advance
Rob.
