Airbus crash/training flight
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 to Go, Grd Chk Satis and Recceguy are 100% right and should form up the new 'Board of Control' for such flight activity!
S/Bus03, I have to disagree with you, the conventional flying (non FBW)Boeing 'test' flight is necessary. There are many occasions where, If I was the recipient customer, I would have wanted some guarantees from the leasing Co or at the very least rectification of fault before accepting the airplane.
If YOU were paying for a second hand Boeing/Airbus (et al) ~$300,000/month, and had to return that airplane back to the lessor 8 years later in the same condition as originally accepted, then, I'm sure you would want to crawl all over the machine looking for everything from; tired engines, APU's, sloppy flight controls, poor (or even illegal) lapjoint work etc etc... I've seen all of the above. The airline handing back the a/c, will do as little as possible in terms of maintenance, and the airline accepting, if they're any good, will look very very closely at the machine they are about to lease.
Recceguy, whilst I agree with you, I think the best solution that doesn't cost an airline 1.5 years and lots of money at SETP school, is for the manufacturer to provide a course for TRI/E's to educate them to conduct these flights. Without such education, safety is compromised, quality of the test is compromised, which cost leasing companies lots of money 'fixing' faults that were misdiagnosed by an 'inexperienced' TRE in the first place.
Grd Chk Satis, one of the scariest jobs I've done is the 'observer' job, sitting in the jumpseat watching poor crews make a hash of the test. It is certainly a job I don't think is worth the money!
S/Bus03, I have to disagree with you, the conventional flying (non FBW)Boeing 'test' flight is necessary. There are many occasions where, If I was the recipient customer, I would have wanted some guarantees from the leasing Co or at the very least rectification of fault before accepting the airplane.
If YOU were paying for a second hand Boeing/Airbus (et al) ~$300,000/month, and had to return that airplane back to the lessor 8 years later in the same condition as originally accepted, then, I'm sure you would want to crawl all over the machine looking for everything from; tired engines, APU's, sloppy flight controls, poor (or even illegal) lapjoint work etc etc... I've seen all of the above. The airline handing back the a/c, will do as little as possible in terms of maintenance, and the airline accepting, if they're any good, will look very very closely at the machine they are about to lease.
Recceguy, whilst I agree with you, I think the best solution that doesn't cost an airline 1.5 years and lots of money at SETP school, is for the manufacturer to provide a course for TRI/E's to educate them to conduct these flights. Without such education, safety is compromised, quality of the test is compromised, which cost leasing companies lots of money 'fixing' faults that were misdiagnosed by an 'inexperienced' TRE in the first place.
Grd Chk Satis, one of the scariest jobs I've done is the 'observer' job, sitting in the jumpseat watching poor crews make a hash of the test. It is certainly a job I don't think is worth the money!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: following the yellow brick road
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my last airline, Huck
All of the items you have mentioned can be found using a conventional flight profile. Is it really necessary to be diving at 9000 fpm or bordering on stalling to find out that the APU doesn't work?
Engine power assurance checks and trend data generally let you know that the engines are tired or o.k. (If you check that all the parts are where they're supposed to be, ref your CF6 story)
The pilots will let you know if the flight controls are sloppy, vibrate, flutter etc. using a normal flight profile. (better if they are properly trained for test flights and very experienced)
If an airplane has bad (or illegal) lap joint repairs it shouldn't have got to the flight test stage, should it?
I regularly do this type of aircraft acceptance work and of course follow what the manufacturer/lessor/ new operator requires but when it comes to the ground and flight tests I don't always see the logic of each check especially if it is inherently dangerous and can be function checked or simulated without putting lives at risk.
None of the items mentioned by Huck or indeed any of the other posters could not have been found by adhereing to a conventional test flight profile and does not necessitate testing the flight recovery envelope.
You have all made my point for me even by disagreeing. If you improve the ground test schedule these failures should not make it into the air therefore negating some of the riskier flight checks which given the wrong conditions can result in disaster without any possibility of recovery.
It is only an opinion on how to better protects both ourselves as observers and the flight crew who carry out the checks. After all these are commercial airliners not fighter jets.
This accident certainly has shocked me and I will be eagerly awaiting more recommendations from the investigators as I have one of these flights coming up on a A320 at the end of May.
I don't like to be patronised but believe me I'm well aware of the inspections required, the costs involved and believe it is not worth losing an aircraft and crew if the procedures can be reviewed to remove unnecessary risks.
It is no doubt an interesting topic and the testing regime of modern commercial aircraft is probably due an overhaul,
Brgds
SB03
All of the items you have mentioned can be found using a conventional flight profile. Is it really necessary to be diving at 9000 fpm or bordering on stalling to find out that the APU doesn't work?
Engine power assurance checks and trend data generally let you know that the engines are tired or o.k. (If you check that all the parts are where they're supposed to be, ref your CF6 story)
The pilots will let you know if the flight controls are sloppy, vibrate, flutter etc. using a normal flight profile. (better if they are properly trained for test flights and very experienced)
If an airplane has bad (or illegal) lap joint repairs it shouldn't have got to the flight test stage, should it?
I regularly do this type of aircraft acceptance work and of course follow what the manufacturer/lessor/ new operator requires but when it comes to the ground and flight tests I don't always see the logic of each check especially if it is inherently dangerous and can be function checked or simulated without putting lives at risk.
None of the items mentioned by Huck or indeed any of the other posters could not have been found by adhereing to a conventional test flight profile and does not necessitate testing the flight recovery envelope.
You have all made my point for me even by disagreeing. If you improve the ground test schedule these failures should not make it into the air therefore negating some of the riskier flight checks which given the wrong conditions can result in disaster without any possibility of recovery.
It is only an opinion on how to better protects both ourselves as observers and the flight crew who carry out the checks. After all these are commercial airliners not fighter jets.
This accident certainly has shocked me and I will be eagerly awaiting more recommendations from the investigators as I have one of these flights coming up on a A320 at the end of May.
I don't like to be patronised but believe me I'm well aware of the inspections required, the costs involved and believe it is not worth losing an aircraft and crew if the procedures can be reviewed to remove unnecessary risks.
It is no doubt an interesting topic and the testing regime of modern commercial aircraft is probably due an overhaul,
Brgds
SB03
Sorry Scarebus03 but there's just no way one can simulate airloads, g-loads, reduced pressure and reduced temperature on ground, let alone the combination of them. Also proper functioning of protection systems cannot be found by using conventional flight profile because it keeps you well clear of protection activation parameters. However, as A320 windshear and GPWS escape maneuvres are heavily relying on alpha protection, its proper operation has to be ascertained. IMHO there's proper way to do this: the height during the maneuvre has to be sufficient to facilitate recovery if things go pear-shaped. The crew has to calculate protection activation speeds for actual weight and CG and if speed goes below with protections remaining silent, recovery has to be initiated at once and aeroplane returned to maintenance.
It's true that airliners are not fighters, but still they can be inadvertently flown into the corners of the flight envelope and we need acceptance test flight to make sure there are no hidden surprises waiting there. But acceptance flights have to be done properly to minimize the risk involved.
It's true that airliners are not fighters, but still they can be inadvertently flown into the corners of the flight envelope and we need acceptance test flight to make sure there are no hidden surprises waiting there. But acceptance flights have to be done properly to minimize the risk involved.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We use a mimimum of 12,000 feet for low-speed checks. Speeds are calculated for weight. No trimming below a certain point. Decelerate at 1 knot/sec.
The real hazard is the engines - when you recover they need to come up together. One cough and you're on your back.
The real hazard is the engines - when you recover they need to come up together. One cough and you're on your back.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At our airline we have a dedicated group of captains that do maintenance test flights. I did some on the Airbus before I moved over to the 757. It is very necessary to flight test after maintenance overhauls, we even do them for engine changes, which you would think would be a routine procedure for any airline's maintenence program.
You also get to ferry aircraft that the average line pilot won't want to deal with, like an A 320 I ferried back with a cracked P1 window. My seat was cranked down for that one!
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to run a test card. You just fly the profiles the manufacturers have developed. You just need the ability and knowledge to stay well ahead of the aircraft and to know thoroughly what the jet is doing and what it will be doing. Not an easy thing sometimes with the Airbus.
Cheers
You also get to ferry aircraft that the average line pilot won't want to deal with, like an A 320 I ferried back with a cracked P1 window. My seat was cranked down for that one!
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to run a test card. You just fly the profiles the manufacturers have developed. You just need the ability and knowledge to stay well ahead of the aircraft and to know thoroughly what the jet is doing and what it will be doing. Not an easy thing sometimes with the Airbus.
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
recceguy - although your view is a well-thought out perspective based on knowledge and experience, I have to disagree with your ultimate position. My own background includes extensive flight testing. I was once a Test Navigator in the RAF (WSO in the USAF!) involved in test flying fast jets. Although not a Test Pilot, I underwent substantial training prior to carrying out the role (over a year). That was many years ago and since then I retrained as a pilot and am now an A320-series TRI with thousands of hours on type. During my test flying experience, however, I flew with numerous test pilots who were graduates of variously the Empire Test Pilots' School, at RAF Boscombe Down in the UK, the United States Air Force Test Pilot School located at Edwards Air Force Base, the United States Naval Test Pilot School at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland and EPNER (the French test pilot school), in Istres, France. These folks were without doubt top people trained in experimental test flying of new and previously unflown aircraft. The harsh reality, however, is that virtually none of them ever did any experimental test flying once they left their training establishments. This was because unless they were lucky enough to be there at the start of say the Eurofighter or Raptor programmes, for example, their day-to-day existence was testing software and new weapons.
Furthermore, my observations of both my own performance and of the people I flew with was that there was simply no substitute for time on type. A guy who had flown the aircraft operationally was always better than one who had not. We should not be surprised at that - after all who wants to be the first person ever to be operated on by a skillful but inexperienced brain surgeon?! Coming back then to the points being made about TRI/TREs, these people are almost invariably extremely familiar with their particular aircraft and are very skilled in its operation due to a combination of skill, knowledge and experience. Who then do you want to carry out test flying duties (ie post -maintenance testing) on large passenger aircraft? May I suggest you do want TRI/TREs, but ones who have been trained specifically to carry out the particular test schedules required. Given the choice between a 'Test Pilot', fine chap as he may be, or a very experienced TRI/TRE - there is only one winner for me. You take the TRI/TRE every time. Test flying is intrinsically more risky than normal line flying - that just goes with the territory. It simply is not good enough to say you just ignore past test-flying disasters and still back the TPs without reservation. TPs through unfamiliarity on type have on countless occasions in test flying history made significant and in some cases fatal errors. You have to dig deep and find out why accidents happen. Particularly on an Airbus, experience on type plus regular simulator training is critical to being at the top of your game. That precludes anyone not current on type. It would not be true to say that TRI/TREs are the best, but employing them in these duties is one way of reducing risk. Thereafter appropriate further training of these individuals is also critical - a test flying qualification is not.
Furthermore, my observations of both my own performance and of the people I flew with was that there was simply no substitute for time on type. A guy who had flown the aircraft operationally was always better than one who had not. We should not be surprised at that - after all who wants to be the first person ever to be operated on by a skillful but inexperienced brain surgeon?! Coming back then to the points being made about TRI/TREs, these people are almost invariably extremely familiar with their particular aircraft and are very skilled in its operation due to a combination of skill, knowledge and experience. Who then do you want to carry out test flying duties (ie post -maintenance testing) on large passenger aircraft? May I suggest you do want TRI/TREs, but ones who have been trained specifically to carry out the particular test schedules required. Given the choice between a 'Test Pilot', fine chap as he may be, or a very experienced TRI/TRE - there is only one winner for me. You take the TRI/TRE every time. Test flying is intrinsically more risky than normal line flying - that just goes with the territory. It simply is not good enough to say you just ignore past test-flying disasters and still back the TPs without reservation. TPs through unfamiliarity on type have on countless occasions in test flying history made significant and in some cases fatal errors. You have to dig deep and find out why accidents happen. Particularly on an Airbus, experience on type plus regular simulator training is critical to being at the top of your game. That precludes anyone not current on type. It would not be true to say that TRI/TREs are the best, but employing them in these duties is one way of reducing risk. Thereafter appropriate further training of these individuals is also critical - a test flying qualification is not.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brief question, to save me wading back through 30+ pages.
ON the BEA site there is no mention yet of a final report (in French or English), just the Interim Report (which I have).
Have I missed a mention of a final report, or is it indeed not out yet?
Thanks in advance.
CJ
ON the BEA site there is no mention yet of a final report (in French or English), just the Interim Report (which I have).
Have I missed a mention of a final report, or is it indeed not out yet?
Thanks in advance.
CJ
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember earlier on in the thread everyone (including me) complaining that the interim report was in fact LONG overdue, and complaining that the French love of holidays seemed as usual to have taken precedence over work.
So, finally, don't hold your breath
it wasn't so long ago they released the report on the Fokker 100 crash from Jan 07, although in fairness to my "froggy friends" I don't think in this respect they will be any faster or slower than other countries.
These things, for many reasons both fathonable and unfathonable, take time.
So, finally, don't hold your breath
it wasn't so long ago they released the report on the Fokker 100 crash from Jan 07, although in fairness to my "froggy friends" I don't think in this respect they will be any faster or slower than other countries. These things, for many reasons both fathonable and unfathonable, take time.
One reason these reports can take such a long time is that the investigators are not just working on that one report and it can take time for the testing of components and software. Two years for a Final report is about the average.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Age: 37
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
Sorry for going slightly off subject for 1 second but
On a test flight of a new airliner like an a320 what sort of ground/flight tests would be done on it prior to it being handed over to the airline?
Many thanks
Sorry for going slightly off subject for 1 second but
On a test flight of a new airliner like an a320 what sort of ground/flight tests would be done on it prior to it being handed over to the airline?
Many thanks
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Up front
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus will have an ATM (Acceptance Test manual) or similar document which will lay out: What, When, How and to which standards the aircraft and systems will be checked.
It`s not something to be taken lightly as a Pilot as you will be taking the aircraft into situations/scenario`s that will not be seen on the line or in the simulator. I was involved in accepting a type for 2 years and it is still the a/c I was the most "current/knowledgable" on. A good read and eye opener is Alex Henshaws book "Sigh for a Merlin".
So if you want your Airbus test flown get the Pilots who accept them at the factory - same for Boeing, Eurocopter, Pilatus etc...
It`s not something to be taken lightly as a Pilot as you will be taking the aircraft into situations/scenario`s that will not be seen on the line or in the simulator. I was involved in accepting a type for 2 years and it is still the a/c I was the most "current/knowledgable" on. A good read and eye opener is Alex Henshaws book "Sigh for a Merlin".
So if you want your Airbus test flown get the Pilots who accept them at the factory - same for Boeing, Eurocopter, Pilatus etc...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and this is what went wrong!
A test recommended at FL140 or higher that low and without any "special experience" related to this task
The status of TRE or TRI and Operational Director of the firm (The TRE) does not count in such situation like XL Airways thought looking at this from outside!
A test recommended at FL140 or higher that low and without any "special experience" related to this task
The status of TRE or TRI and Operational Director of the firm (The TRE) does not count in such situation like XL Airways thought looking at this from outside!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first flight of each plane is considered most dicey, of course. I was told that at McDouglas the first flight had a minimum crew, in which they performed basic airworthiness maneuvers. After passing those tests, the crew would call back to HQ, and then airframe insurance would be put into effect.
GB
GB
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Miami
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
groundfloor:
Airbus has several different documents, for the customer acceptance flight it is called the CAM, Customer Acceptance Manual and it is a much simplified version of the PATM, Production Aircraft Test Manual; which is used for the tests out of the assembly line, including the first flight, and yes the first flight is ususaly 3 SOB 2 pilots from EV(Flight Test) and a FTE (Flight Test Engineer). This first flight takes about 3 HRS.
It is a challenging and very fluid sequence of tests, but the crews do it often and are very familiar with the sequence and each particular test, it is designed to be continious either as a local flight or as a ferry between Toulouse and Finky. The most time consuming is the performance part, to verify and document the parameters for the customer, during this flight, the RVSM certification is also verified and activated.
My opinion is that this task should be left to people with experience doing it, a Line Capt, TRI or TRE is not qualified nor should be put in a situation he/she is not completely familiar with, specially when something does not go as expected; pilots that do it all the time will know what to expect and recognize an anomality immediately; also the FTE is an essential part of the team, conducting an acceptance flight without an experinced FTE is worthless.
G
Airbus has several different documents, for the customer acceptance flight it is called the CAM, Customer Acceptance Manual and it is a much simplified version of the PATM, Production Aircraft Test Manual; which is used for the tests out of the assembly line, including the first flight, and yes the first flight is ususaly 3 SOB 2 pilots from EV(Flight Test) and a FTE (Flight Test Engineer). This first flight takes about 3 HRS.
It is a challenging and very fluid sequence of tests, but the crews do it often and are very familiar with the sequence and each particular test, it is designed to be continious either as a local flight or as a ferry between Toulouse and Finky. The most time consuming is the performance part, to verify and document the parameters for the customer, during this flight, the RVSM certification is also verified and activated.
My opinion is that this task should be left to people with experience doing it, a Line Capt, TRI or TRE is not qualified nor should be put in a situation he/she is not completely familiar with, specially when something does not go as expected; pilots that do it all the time will know what to expect and recognize an anomality immediately; also the FTE is an essential part of the team, conducting an acceptance flight without an experinced FTE is worthless.
G
Last edited by guiones; 30th May 2009 at 22:14.
