Cover / backcover
17/09/1998 11:06
Page 1
WE’VE A REVOLUTIONARY METHOD OF UNDERSTANDING YOUR AIRLINE’S REQUIREMENTS. WE LISTEN. Airbus Resident Customer Support Managers are based at their operator’s premises. With over 25 nationalities represented, they can be relied upon to understand your country’s culture, ensuring they’ve a close relationship based on mutual trust. Many have an airline background, which means they’re at home with your operation and aircraft. In fact, whatever you require, you can be sure our Resident Customer Support Managers are all ears. Airbus Customer Services. Dedicated to meet your requirements.
AIRBUS S E T T I N G T H E STA N DA R D S
ht t p://w w w.a i rb u s.c o m
AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
fast23
p1 / 11
17/09/1998 9:18
Page 1
AIRBUS TECHNICAL DIGEST
NUMBER 23 OCTOBER 1998
TRAINING PHILOSOPHY FOR PROTECTED AIRCRAFT IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS CAPTAIN ETIENNE TARNOWSKI
AVOIDING ELEVATOR VIBRATION - A319, A320, A321 SONIA BOURCHARDIE
CUSTOMER SERVICES CONFERENCES
COMMON, RELIABLE AND PUNCTUAL... THE PATH TO LOWER SPARES COSTS OLYMPIOS PANAYIOTOU AND MARTIN WOODS
COMBINING ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND WINDSHIELD RAIN PROTECTION ON AIRBUS AIRCRAFT FRANCOIS POVEDA
SERVICE BULLETIN REPORTING TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS WHICH REFLECT THE CONFIGURATION OF YOUR AIRCRAFT CLAIRE HAREL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - PART II
RESIDENT CUSTOMER SUPPORT REPRESENTATION
22 10 12 12 13 13 19 19 24 24 31 31 32 32
The articles herein may be reprinted without permission except where copyright source is indicated, but with acknowledgement to Airbus Industrie. Articles which may be subject to ongoing review must have their accuracy verified prior to reprint. The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They are based on the assumptions shown and are expressed in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these statements are not shown, the Company will be © AIRBUS INDUSTRIE 1998 pleased to explain the basis thereof. Publisher: Airbus Industrie Customer Services, 1 rond-point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France Editor: Denis Dempster, Product Marketing Telephone +33 (0)5 61 93 39 29, Telex AIRBU 530526F, Telefax +33 (0)5 61 93 27 67 Graphic design: Agnès Lacombe, Customer Services Marketing Photo-engraving: Passion Graphic, 60 boulevard Déodat de Séverac, 31027 Toulouse Cedex, France Printer: Escourbiac, 5 avenue Marcel Dassault, 31502 Toulouse Cedex, France This issue of FAST has been printed on paper produced without using chlorine, to reduce waste and help to conserve natural resources. 'Every little helps'.
FAST may be read on Internet http://www.airbus.com FAST / NUMBER 23
1
fast23
p1 / 11
17/09/1998 9:30
Page 2
TRAINING PHILOSOPHY FOR PROTECTED AIRCRAFT IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS by Captain Etienne Tarnowski Vice President Engineering Operations, Airbus Industrie
The civil aviation environment has evolved considerably in the past decade. The passenger and cargo demands have increased enormously, leading to a far larger number of aircraft in service. Also flight safety criteria have become more and more stringent. Furthermore, the media and the expectations of the public, in terms of safety, have set even greater pressure on the civil aviation industry. Although the accident rates have dropped considerably, due to the ever-increasing number of airliners in service, accidents do not seem to be much less frequent, and it is this factor which may influence public opinion. Consequently, the civil aviation industry has to fight untiringly against the main causes of accidents which occur mostly in approach phases: controlled flight into terrain, and to a lesser extent, windshear.
2
ince 1985, Airbus Industrie has designed a fly-by-wire aircraft family; the fly-by-wire control laws include protections that have been provided as an assistance to the pilot in emergency situations. Crews are being trained to face emergency situations such as evasive manoeuvres to avoid Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT). The Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) has sponsored a large programme regarding “how to train for CFIT escape manoeuvres”, and Airbus Industrie has released a training manual on this issue to Airbus operators.This article aims to inform the aviation community on the safety benefits of those protections, and on the ways they are implemented in the training philosophy, which are: l Explain the protection philosophy l Explain and demonstrate the achievable performance l Provide alertness training for pilots by flying realistic scenarios in full flight simulators (FFS).
S
THE PROTECTION PHILOSOPHY Most late-technology aircraft carry the most up-to-date systems to assist the pilots in achieving their tasks, without changing the nature of the tasks themselves. The protections built in the flyby-wire system is one of them. These systems have been designed to be a COMPLEMENT for the pilots, after a thorough analysis of pilots’ strengths and weaknesses; basically they have been added wherever they could do better than man, to compensate for those weaknesses. These systems are merely operators which work repetitively, accurately and consistently, according to built-in logic, but with no intuition, no discernment, no decision capacity. However pilots need an understanding of those systems to operate them properly. As a consequence, if the main goal of training is to make flying more instinctive, more natural, the pilots have to be taught the why’s of those systems. Then the pilots understand the process and become naturally part of it and will apply the associated procedures instinctively and naturally. This statement applies to the protections that are implemented on essential systems of the aircraft. When a pilot faces an unexpected event, he normally has to react within seconds to save the aircraft. He is the one ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight. Dangerous unexpected situations are often linked to non-linear, discontinuous phenomena that appear at the border of the flight FAST / NUMBER 23
FAST / NUMBER 23
envelope. In such circumstances the pilot does not normally have any relevant past experience, to give him a spontaneously correct response. Therefore, the design of the main aircraft systems must aim at giving full authority to the pilot to consistently achieve the maximum possible aircraft performance in such extreme circumstances, with an easy, instinctive and immediate procedure, while minimising the risks of over-controlling or over-stressing the aircraft. This design philosophy has been applied homogeneously throughout the essential systems of the Airbus fly-bywire aircraft.
Protection in the brakes A pilot may apply full pedals down, at take-off or landing when required (rejected take-off or landing a heavy aircraft on a short runway...), because the braking system is protected by the antiskid system which releases the brake pressure whenever a skidding condition is detected. The braking system with anti-skid allows the pilot to get the best braking performance with an instinctive action on the pedals; by no means does it limit the authority of the pilot.
Protection in the engines The engine acceleration characteristics, on a high by-pass ratio engine, seems to be very sluggish to a pilot who needs full Take-off and Go Around (TOGA) thrust out of idle, in order to recover from a dangerous situation. As shown in the graph (Figure 1), there is hardly any thrust increase in the first 3 to 4 seconds; then the thrust increases very rapidly to its maximum. This character-
Figure 1 TYPICAL ENGINE ACCELERATION RESPONSE Maximum thrust (%) 100
50
0 1
2
3
4 5 Time (sec)
6
7
8
3
fast23
p1 / 11
17/09/1998 9:38
Page 4
istic is common to all turbofan engines with high by-pass ratio. High by-pass ratio implies: l High inertia, in particular in the low pressure assembly because of the size of the fan and turbine discs; l Only a fraction of the airflow gets into the combustion chamber to produce energy in the combustion process. Today, all engine manufacturers have programmed an engine acceleration schedule and a “bleed bias” system in the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), in order to protect the engines against stall. This protection allows the pilot to get the best possible thrust increase rate, consistently and repetitively, by pushing thrust levers full forward instinctively and rapidly, while minimising the risks of engine stall and without limiting whatsoever the authority of the pilot.
Fly-by-wire protection in the flight controls Fly-by-wire control systems in Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft protect the aircraft against a stall. This protection allows the pilot to get the maximum available performance of the aircraft consistently and repetitively, with a unique, instinctive and immediate action on the sidestick, while minimising the risks of over-controlling or over-stressing the aircraft. (Non protected aircraft provide warning of the arrival of a stall and leave the pilot to deal with it as best he can).
Figure 2 HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK PROTECTION
CL Airspeed scale 140
VLS
Vα Prot Vα Floor 120 α Prot VLS
4
α Max
α Floor α Stall
Vα Max
How is this achieved? By pulling the side-stick fully aft the pilot gets: l maximum angle of attack giving maximum lift, l alpha floor* function giving maximum TOGA thrust, l speed brake auto-retraction giving reduced drag. (* see below - angle-of-attack where maximum thrust is automatically applied by the autothrust system).
How does this work? The high Angle of Attack (AOA) protection is an aerodynamic protection that prevents the aircraft reaching an AOA at which is stalls. AOA is also known as alpha (α): There are three thresholds incorporated in the protection: l Alpha Prot(ection), which is the maximum attainable stick-free AOA. The auto-trim stops there because there is no valid reason to fly at such a low speed for a lengthy period of time; The speed brakes, if extended, retract automatically. l Alpha floor, which is the AOA where engine thrust increases to TOGA even with autothrust selected off. l Alpha max, which is the maximum attainable AOA with the side stick held fully back. Suppose that an aircraft decelerates, stick free, with thrust at idle in level flight; the fly-by-wire pitch normal law will keep the aircraft roughly in level flight and auto-trimmed and when VLS (minimum normal speed) is reached, the pilot should take an action to prevent the speed from dropping further. If the pilot takes no action, the aircraft will continue to decelerate till it reaches Alpha Prot. This is where the angle of attack protection starts: l If there is still no action from the pilot, the aircraft will sink to maintain the α Prot and associated speed. This is a major change in the aircraft behaviour. l If, due to the sink rate the pilot then pulls the side-stick back, he directly orders a higher angle of attack, till he reaches full back stick where he orders α Max (Figure 2). In addition to the aerodynamic protection, three energy features enhance that function since engine thrust is needed to maintain the flight path: l When Autothrust (ATHR) is in SPEED mode, it will adjust the thrust to the maximum possible, in order to FAST / NUMBER 23
maintain speed at, or above VLS. l Should the aircraft energy drop below a certain threshold, a low energy aural warning is triggered calling “SPEED - SPEED”. The aircraft energy is a function of speed, acceleration and flight path angle, and the aural warning comes typically below VLS. l Should the aircraft angle of attack reach the threshold of Alpha Floor the ATHR sets TOGA thrust automatically. The resulting procedures are shown in the table on the right. Due to this protection function, which allows the pilot to apply full back stick immediately, the escape procedures on protected aircraft are straight-forward, instinctive and natural. They do not require exceptional skills or flying techniques, which are far more difficult to achieve when the pilot is under pressure, or subject to heavy stress when facing emergency situation. The optimum escape procedures on non-protected aircraft are most difficult to achieve! The pilot has to try to achieve a pitch rate of 3°/sec, and fly at the stick shaker angle of attack, because it is the best for the escape! This is exactly the goal achieved by the flyby-wire protections.
ACHIEVABLE PERFORMANCE In case of an emergency on approach (CFIT, windshear...) what matters to the pilot is the overall performance he is able to get from the aircraft (airframe & engines) during a recovery manoeuvre. He must always have in mind the capability of the aircraft, so as to be able to always fly ahead of the aircraft. This is the only way for him to readily react to any emergency warning. For the pilot, the overall performance of the aircraft is materialised with the altitude versus distance profile the aircraft is able to fly in a recovery manoeuvre. This profile is essentially a function of two paramount parameters: l The engine thrust spool-up characteristic, which is similar on all FADEC controlled high by-pass ratio engines, since ALL engine manufacturers have implemented an anti-surge protection. l The aircraft’s response to the pilot’s inputs on the side-stick or on the yoke; this response depends significantly on the pilot’s flying technique, on how aggressively he acts. The aircraft’s response will therefore be very tightly linked to whether the aircraft is protected or not: ➜ If the aircraft is protected the pilot may apply full back stick immediately whenever an emergency is detected. FAST / NUMBER 23
ESCAPE PROCEDURES COMPARISON Non protected aircraft Airbus protected aircraft Apply TOGA thrust
Apply TOGA thrust
Autopilot disconnect
-
Rotate with pitch rate 3°/sec
-
Pitch initially 20° up
Pull full back stick
Respect stick shaker
-
Retract speed brakes
Check speed brakes retracted
Maintain wings level
Maintain wings level
The flying technique is simple and most instinctive; it allows the pilot to rapidly trade speed for altitude in minimum distance, and then to climb at maximum AOA properly stabilised. ➜ If the aircraft is not protected the pilot has to act on the yoke cautiously, not too aggressively, so as not to get into the stall, in other words to reach, but not over-shoot, the stick shaker angle of attack and try to stay there. This requires a lot of skill and a lot of concentration, in a very stressful situation. The observed result is invariably AOA oscillations around the stick shaker setting, with usually an initial significant overshoot. As a consequence, the overall performance is severely penalised. In order for the pilot to really feel those characteristics, the training sessions must include: l an explanation and a description of the characteristics of the altitude versus distance profile, on both types of configuration (protected and not protected); l a demonstration of the aircraft/engine behaviour and of the resulting performance, by specific manoeuvres on the Full Flight Simulator. This will make pilots fully aware of the real capabilities of the aircraft, and thus will comfort their confidence in the recommended escape procedure.
Altitude versus distance profile during a recovery The flight trajectories achieved on all protected aircraft have the same characteristics since, on a short-term basis, they are a function of aircraft dynamics and engine response, which are similar for all these types of aircraft. On a longer-term basis, once stabilised, they depend upon the thrust-to-weight ratios. The flight trajectories achieved on all non protected aircraft also have similar characteristics; however, they are significantly penalised by the excessive difficulty to properly achieve the manoeuvre, and to stabilise the stick 5
fast23
p1 / 11
17/09/1998 9:40
Page 6
Figure 3 CFIT ESCAPE TRAJECTORIES - PROTECTED VERSUS NON-PROTECTED AIRCRAFT Landing configuration V/S init - 1500 ft/min. MLW Aft CG for protected aircraft Altitude (ft)
Protected 7 sec
ALT init
Non-protected 12 sec 15 sec
Duck under
In-flight demonstration This demonstration is achieved in two steps: l An analytical step which demonstrates successive phases of the protection, and resulting aircraft/engine behaviour. l A deductive step where a typical recovery manoeuvre shows the flight trajectories to the pilots.
80
The analytical step (Figure 4)
125
Slowly decelerate (approximately 0.5 knot/sec.), with ATHR off, in flaps extended configuration (e.g CONF3), level flight, stick free: l Reaching VLS minus 5 knots approximately: Check “Speed - Speed” aural message. l Reaching Alpha Prot speed: Note the significant change in aircraft behaviour. The aircraft sinks down at Alpha Prot speed; the auto-trim stops; to keep level flight the stick feels “heavy”. l Acting on the side-stick to maintain level flight, speed decreases: Alpha Floor is reached, TOGA is automatically set by ATHR, the aircraft climbs at Alpha Prot speed, if stick is free. l Pulling full back side-stick : the Alpha Prot speed is immediately traded into additional rate of climb till Alpha Max speed is reached, and Alpha Max maintained.
500
1000
1500 2000 Distance (ft)
2500
shaker / stall warning AOA. But they are also penalised by the procedure itself that limits necessarily the initial manoeuvrability and the pitch target so as to try to avoid the stall. Figure 3 outlines the flight trajectories in both cases. Since the average time between a Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) pull-up warning to impact is about 15 seconds, the safety margin on a protected aircraft is doubled, and the reaction time is more than halved. (The safety margin is 15 seconds, minus the time which it takes the aircraft to stop descending and climb back to the altitude at which the pull-up signal was given, named the Bucket time).
Figure 5 TYPICAL GO-AROUND FROM HIGH VERTICAL SPEED APPROACH - ALTITUDE LOSS Landing configuration VAPP V/S -1500 ft/min.
A typical go around with Auto Pilot engaged, out of a high vertical speed approach (approx. -1500 ft/mn) will be flown. This will show the crew a typical altitude loss in such a manoeuvre, as well as the effect of the engine spool-up time. The influence of the aircraft speed at go around initiation will be outlined .
Altitude loss Go around initiation altitude
Figure 6 TYPICAL ESCAPE MANOEUVRE - PERFORMANCE Landing Landingconfiguration configuration VAPP`V/S 1500 ft/mn VAPP V/S --1500 ft/min.
Maintains αα max max Maintains with withstick stickfully full back aft VVα α Floor floor
Altitude loss
160
The deductive step Two exercises will demonstrate the capabilities of the aircraft in recovery manoeuvres, and parameters essential to the pilots will materialise. l Go around from high vertical speed (V/S) approach (Figure 5). l Escape manoeuvre (Figure 6).
160
ALERTNESS TRAINING 140
140
VLS
140
140
Vα prot 120
120
Vα max
120
Stick back for level flight
120
-16
The training for escape from emergency situations such as windshear and CFIT has actually two aspects: l Train the pilot to be alert to the elements which may create an emergency situation., l Train for the escape manoeuvre.
Training the escape manoeuvre
Stick fully aft
Stick fully back
6
A typical escape manoeuvre, out of a high vertical speed approach (approx. -1500 ft/mn) final approach speed (VAPP), will be flown in order to outline the resulting performance, the procedure and the aircraft behaviour (manoeuvrability, AOA stability...).
Escape manoeuvre Initiation altitude
Maintains αα prot prot Maintains withstick stick neutral neutral with
160
(SRS is the flight director pitch law used in Go Around)
Note: The difference in altitude loss between these two procedures is approximately 50ft.
Figure 4 ANALYTICAL DEMONSTRATION OF THE PROTECTIONS
160
Fly SRS
FAST / NUMBER 23
A GPWS alert comes up with about 15 seconds before potential impact, deFAST / NUMBER 23
Fly full back stick
pending on the terrain configuration. Therefore, the pilot’s reaction must be quick and efficient. Thus, he must be able to achieve the escape manoeuvre easily and naturally. ➜ On a protected aircraft, no training is required to achieve the escape manoeuvre; indeed, the procedure is straight-forward, is instinctive and does not require exceptional flying skills. And, it systematically leads to the best achievable aircraft performance. The demonstrations “in clear air”, as described in the previous paragraph, are actually enough to train the manoeuvre itself, and provide an awareness of the aircraft’s performance. ➜ On a non protected aircraft, a thorough training is required in order to reach a certain level of flying skill. The flying technique is not easy to acquire. Furthermore, it is very dependent upon the situation! Therefore, a lot of time is required to try to make this manoeuvre “natural” for the pilot and a lot of men7
fast23
p1 / 11
17/09/1998 9:45
Page 8
Figure 7 INTERMEDIATE APPROACH - MOUNTAINOUS AREA - RADAR VECTORING - GPWS MODE 2 CLOSURE RATE
Figure 9 PRECISION (ILS) APPROACH - ATC BRINGS AIRCRAFT HIGH ABOVE GLIDE SLOPE - ANY AREA - GPWS MODE1 “SINK RATE”
Sink rate
Below Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA) down to Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA): Aircraft at end of descent, still in clean configuration with a “high” speed (say 250 knots).
Pull up
Aircraft is beyond the Final Approach Fix (FAF)at high vertical speed (= -1500 ft/mn) to capture glide slope from above.
Terrain
Figure 8 NON-PRESICION APPROACH - MOUNTAINOUS AREA - TURBULENT WEATHER - GPWS MODE 2 / MODE 4
-3° gl
ide sl
Pull up
ope
Figure 10 INITIAL CLIMB AFTER TAKE-OFF (OR GO-AROUND) - MOUNTAINOUS AREA - GPWS MODE 4 / MODE 2
Radar vectoring of the aircraft during configuration clean up and acceleration to initial climb speed
Aircraft on final approach, in landing configuration. Stabilised approach speed (VAPP).
Terrain Pull up
Pull up
Too low terrain
tal effort is required from the pilot to be able to achieve this manoeuvre efficiently!
Having an alert state of mind This should be the core of the training: Get pilots to be aware of the situation. Get pilots to be alert. The earlier an escape manoeuvre is initiated, the greater are the chances of success! Thus, the pilot’s skill and mental capacity have to be concentrated on consciousness and awareness of the situation; this statement is obviously true on any aircraft type. On a protected aircraft the training can therefore be fully devoted to pilot alertness, since all the pilot’s skill and mental capacity are available for that purpose. This is not the case on a non protected aircraft, where a lot of the pilot’s mental energy is required for the achievement of the manoeuvre itself. 8
In order to train the pilot alertness, many aspects have to be reviewed: l proper departure/arrival procedures, l proper and concise take-off and approach briefings, l proper review of major obstacles and safety altitudes, l proper appreciation of lateral and vertical situation of the aircraft, l radio communication phraseology, altimeter setting, task sharing. Last but not least, in case of emergency, the pilots’ reaction must be automatic and immediate, with little room for argument (unless in clear, cloudless weather for GPWS warning). This is also part of the training for pilot’s alertness. It will be achieved through several realistic scenarios flown in the simulators, spread throughout the training courses. For that purpose the simulator must have the capability to create an “electronic mountain” from the instructor panel, at a selected point ahead of the FAST / NUMBER 23
aircraft’s instantaneous position along its predicted trajectory. However, this facility shall be used in an environment where it will create an alert realistically. Four examples of realistic scenarios are proposed hereunder; these will create a surprise for the pilots without degrading the crew confidence in the GPWS warning. Note: The same principle applies for windshear scenarios.
l Intermediate approach / Mountainous area / Radar vector (Figure 7). l Non precision approach / Mountainous area / Turbulent (gusty) weather (Figure 8). l ILS approach / Any area / ATC brings the aircraft high above the glide slope (Figure 9). l Initial climb after take-off (or go around) - Mountainous area (Figure 10).
CONCLUSION The effort to improve flight safety must be a co-ordinated one, from aircraft manufacturers to airline management, including Air Traffic Control and other agencies. However, the pilot is the last link in the chain. The pilot has to take the right decision, and the pilot has to take the right action at the right moment, in an emergency situation, so as to save lives. Therefore, all efforts have to converge, to assist pilots in their decision-making processes, to ensure that they achieve the safest and most efficient manoeuvre, in an emergency. Training is obviously one of these essential efforts; and it is most clear that the training to handle emergency situations on protected aircraft is a rational one, because the protection of fly-by-wire allows concentration on the most important aspect of the accident prevention, which is pilot alertness. On a protected aircraft, valuable training time is not necessary and is not lost in teaching and learning how to fly the escape manoeuvre itself. ✈
FAST / NUMBER 23
9
fast23
p1 / 11
17/09/1998 9:53
Page 10
Added to potential aerodynamic excitation, two concomitant conditions causing the LCO were discovered: servo control bearing backlash and low actuator load.
SOLUTIONS
AVOIDING ELEVATOR VIBRATION
Two solutions were developed to eliminate these two causes: reduce backlash and increase hinge moment.
A319, A320, A321
TO REDUCE BACKLASH Several cases of excessive play within the spherical bearings of the elevator servo control, due to premature wear of the Teflon liners, were discovered during inspections following reports of in flight airframe vibrations. This condition has now been eliminated thanks to higher performance NMB bearings, introduced on the elevator servo-controls through the LUCAS Service Bulletin 3107527-17 and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1111. This modification incorporates an additive in the existing liner, and chromium and super finishing of the inner ball to reduce the wear rate and friction coefficient. Also the maximum acceptable value for backlash, measured at the elevator trailing edge has been reduced from 10mm to 7mm, as described in the AMM. TO INCREASE HINGE MOMENT The Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1114 describes the resetting of the elevator neutral position to 0.5 degree (aircraft) nose up. Accomplishment of this modification ensures that the elevators are aerodynamically loaded in an appropriate manner in order to eliminate vibration, even during flight in turbulent conditions. Those changes have no effect on aircraft performance and there is no change in the handling characteristics of the aircraft, nor is there any penalty in fuel consumption. This modification has been developed to fit easily into the maintenance program. To perform the revised elevator rigging, a new elevator rigging tool, developed by Airbus Industrie, enables the new neutral position to be determined. It is highly recommended that this new tool be used, as it allows more accurate rigging through a simplified procedure. Nevertheless, the elevators can also be set using the previous tool which was developed originally to set the elevators to a 0 degree position. Therefore the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) procedure now describes how to set the elevators to the 0.5 degree using the original tool or the new tool.
Elevator rigging tool (developed by Airbus Industrie)
by Sonia Bouchardie, Engineer Flight Control Systems, Customer Services, Airbus Industrie
CONCLUSION
F
ollowing reports of in-flight vibrations on the A320 Family, an intensive flight test campaign was launched by Airbus Industrie to determine the different sources of elevator vibrations. They are described in the Trouble Shooting Manual (TSM) Chapter 05-50-00, and each possible cause is associated with corresponding trouble shooting procedures. The TSM also provides a recording sheet to help operators establish the cause of vibration. The main source is the elevator system, which accounts for more than 70% of all vibrations. Further to the flight test campaign, it was revealed that the phenomenon was in fact a Limit Cycle Oscillation (LCO) which is a sustained vibration at a fixed frequency with limited amplitude and having no impact on flight safety. This article describes how to avoid elevator vibration through the incorporation of a modification on the spherical bearing of the elevator servo control and a new elevator setting.
10
ADVANTAGES As a preventive measure, these modifications will: ● improve the fleet reliability due to the new elevator servo spherical bearings and revised elevator rigging, ● improve passenger and crew comfort by removing the causes of vibration, ● reduce maintenance costs.
FAST / NUMBER 23
The extensive work performed by the Airframe Vibration Task Force led to conclusions for eliminating airframe vibration which have since been proven in service. The effectiveness of these modifications has been clearly demonstrated through the positive feedback from the Operators. Therefore as a preventive measure, the incorporation of the Service Bulletins are highly recommended by Airbus Industrie. ✈ REFERENCES • TSM Task 05-50-00, “In-flight airframe vibration” • AMM Task 27-34-00-200-001 “Check of the elevator servo controls and hinge bearings for too much play, and condition” • Video Tape “A320 Family elevator rigging” The Part Numbers are: New Elevator Rigging Tool, 98D27309006000 / Previous Elevator Rigging Tool, 98D27309002000 To order the new Elevator Rigging Tool, please contact AIRBUS INDUSTRIE, Materiel Support Center Tel: +49 (40) 50 76 0 - Fax: +49 (40) 50 31 68 For further information or to receive a copy of the video tape please contact: Airbus Industrie Customer Services AI/SE-E52 - Flight Control Systems - Sonia Bouchardie 1, rond-point Maurice Bellonte - 31707 BLAGNAC Cedex FRANCE Tel: +33 (0) 5 61 93 22 33 Fax: +33 (0) 5 61 93 44 25
FAST / NUMBER 23
11
fast23
p12 / 23
17/09/1998 10:10
Page 12
A330/A340 TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM 11 - 15 MAY 1998 IN KUALA LUMPUR Three hundred representatives from 33 Airlines, 40 Vendors, Airbus Industrie and Partners attended the third A330/A340 Technical Symposium which took place 11-15 May in Kuala Lumpur. The symposium was hosted by Gerard Misrai, Deputy VP Engineering and Technical Support, and John Grother, Programme Manager for Long Range Aircraft. During the four day event all major technical items affecting the A330/A340 in service fleet were reviewed with the operators as well as some areas of more general interest. In accordance with tradition the event was preceeded by a social evening at which awards were given to some operators in recognition of exceptional operation of their aircraft. Cathay Pacific took two awards on their A340 fleet, winning both the dispatch reliability and highest daily utilization awards. On the A330 fleet the honours went to LTU for utilization and Aer Lingus for dispatch reliability. A special recognition was also give to Philipines Airlines for the simultaneous entry into service of three Airbus types (A320,A330 and A340) last year. The awards winners (left to right) and their hosts, John GROTHER (left) and Gérard MISRAI (right): • Helmut FEIGL, LTU, Team Leader A330 • Mike KINSELLA, AER LINGUS, Technical Liaison Manager • Michael BOCK, LTU, Head of Engineering & Planning • Chris GIBBS, CATHAY PACIFIC, General Manager Engineering • Arnelou BADIOLA, PHILIPINES AIRLINES, Senior Airframe & System Engineer
THE 10TH PERFORMANCE AND OPERATIONS CONFERENCE 28 SEPTEMBER - 2 OCTOBER 1998 IN SAN FRANCISCO
Common, reliable and punctualÉ
In everyday life, the words common, reliable and punctual often conjure up an image of something dull, lacklustre, and non-spectacular. In the commercial or engineering world these terms can mean the difference between profit and loss or success and failure. The aircraft industry is no exception to this. In the aircraft manufacturing business, the benefits of being common are apparent not only through flight deck commonality (1) with cross crew qualification (CCQ) and common system architecture and maintenance philosophy, but also in the savings which can be made through common spare parts. More reliable equipment naturally means that less spare parts are required. The punctuality in the repair of spare parts will determine how many spares are required to ensure the operation of the aircraft while a part is away for repair. All these factors, when optimised, yield considerable cost savings which this article examines with respect to aircraft spare parts.
the path to lower spares costs by Olympios Panayiotou Senior Marketing Analyst
and Martin Woods Provisioning Manager
Materiel Support Centre Airbus Industrie
Every two years since 1980, Airbus Industrie Flight Operations Support has organised a Performance and Operations Conference. This year will be the 10th, a milestone! An excellent opportunity for Airbus Operators, Flight Operations directors and managers, chief pilots, training pilots, operations engineers... and Airbus Industrie Training, Flight Operations and Flight Test staff to share their experience. Looking ahead, Documentation Procedures, Operations and environment and new technologies are part of the programme. Separate sessions are also planned for fly-by-wire aircraft, conventional aircraft and performance issues.
A300/A310/A300-300 TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM 30 NOVEMBER - 5 DECEMBER 1998 IN BANGKOK Providing an opportunity for the operators, suppliers and Airbus Industrie staff to discuss technical subjects of common interest and share in-service experience.
(1) FAST no.14 February 1993, pages 7 - 11
12
FAST / NUMBER 23
FAST / NUMBER 23
13
fast23
p12 / 23
17/09/1998 10:17
Page 14
Figure 1 OPERATING EXPENSES AND ACQUISITION COSTS
COMMONALITY
Operating expenses Insurance 2%
Airframe consumed spares 4%
Operational fees 14%
Engine consumed spares 5%
Flight Crew 16% Labour 5% Fuel 14%
Airframe price 31%
Airframe spares float 5% Engine spares float 4%
Acquisition cost (depreciation & finance)
Figure 2 SPARES INVESTMENT by value 90.3% 4.5% 1.4% 0.6% 3.2% 2.3% 4.1% 24.7%
Vendor line replaceable units (LRUs) Vendor breakdown parts (LMPs) Standard hardware Cockpit pushbuttons 37.2% Tools and GSE 31.7%
by part number count
14
Looking at a typical airline’s Direct Operating Costs (DOC) which may vary depending on individual airlines and regions, spares costs are an important part (figure 1). Typically, consumed airframe spares represent 29% of direct maintenance costs (airframe, and engine consumed parts and labour), whilst airframe spares acquisition account for 12.5% of total acquisition costs. Therefore, a common set of spares will bring cost savings, which this article will highlight. When considering spares commonality it is useful to first consider the initial investment required at entry-intoservice of a new aircraft. Airbus Industrie provides spares recommendations for operators, which enables them to select with a certain degree of confidence the optimum spares holding that they will need for their aircraft operation (see FAST no. 21 May 1997, pages 2529) . The major share (figure 2), over 90% of the spares investment by value, consists of vendor Line Replaceable Units (LRU). These parts are rotable spares and repairable spares which are considered re-usable over the lifetime of the aircraft. Of approximately 500 LRUs recommended, the top fifty spare LRUs, in terms of recommended investment, account for approximately 70% of that investment, the top hundred for 80% and the top two hundred for 95%. Given the distribution of the investment, an effort to concentrate on the commonality of a few spare parts can result in large cost savings. If an airline chooses to fit the same equipment across its fleet, e.g. wheels and brakes, navigation equipment or communication equipment, up to 95% investment commonality can be achieved within an Airbus family. This implies considerable savings when adding say an A319 or A321 to an existing fleet of A320s in order to provide flexibility. Commonality therefore enables economies of scale to be realised as the fleet grows. The Airbus idea of family planning involves maximum parts commonality and system maintenance commonality. Naturally, the greatest commonality exists within family groups; ● A300-A310, ● A319-A320-A321 and ● A330-A340 Commonality between the A320 family and A330/A340 family is concentrated in the cockpit and systems. The evolution of Airbus aircraft commonality means that aircraft in the same family, rolling off the production lines toFAST / NUMBER 23
Figure 3 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND INTEGRATION
1988
1994
1996
A320 introduction
A321 introduction
A319 introduction
A320 / A321 common standard
A319 / A320 / A321 common standard
day, share the highest commonality of spare parts. In the case of the A320 family this is due to the introduction of common standards along with the introduction of the A321 and A319, as shown in figure 3. We will examine the achievable savings through commonality by comparing the addition of A319s and a noncommon type to an existing fleet of 10 A320s. The commonality dividend i.e. the savings made specifically through the effect of commonality can be seen in figure 4. This illustrates the effect of adding the first A319 to a 10 strong A320 fleet with the full benefits of commonality, compared to adding one non-A320 family aircraft. The impact of commonality is clear. The cost of the fleet of 10 A320s is $11.63m and the cost of adding an A319 to the A320 fleet is $0.27m, compared to a cost of $2.35m of adding a non-common type. The commonality dividend is therefore 88.5% of the cost of the spares for the additional aircraft. The overall investment for 11 aircraft in a combined Airbus fleet is 85% that of the investment required for the non-common fleets. As the number of added A319 aircraft increases, the commonality dividend expressed as a percentage FAST / NUMBER 23
Figure 4 COMPARISON OF ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT FOR A319 VS. NON COMMON TYPE A320 investment
Commonality dividend
Additional investment
Investment (US$m) 16 14 12
+$2,35m +$0,27m
10 8 6
$11.63m
$11.63m
4 2 0 10 A320 + 1 A319 combined
10 A320 + 1 non common type
15
p12 / 23
17/09/1998 10:19
Page 16
Figure 5 COMMONALITY SAVINGS: ADDING A319S TO A FLEET OF 10 A320S Investment saved (US$m)
Percentage investment saved
7
90%
6
80% 70%
5
60%
4
50%
3
40% 30%
2
20%
10+50
10+45
10+40
10+35
10+30
10+25
10+20
10+15
10+10
10+9
10+8
10+7
10+6
10+5
10+4
0% 10+3
0 10+2
10% 10+1
1
Fleet
Figure 6 COMPARISON OF SPARES INVESTMENT Non common fleet A320 only Combined A320/A319
Spares investment (US$m) 45 Initial 40 35 A320 build up to 10 a/c fleet 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15
The commonality dividend
20 25 30 Fleet development
35
40
45
50
Figure 7 COMMONALITY SAVINGS: ADDING A330-300S TO A FLEET OF 10 A340S Investment saved (US$m)
Percentage investment saved
10
60% 50%
8
40% 6 30% 4 20% 2
10%
0
16
10+50
10+45
10+40
10+35
10+30
10+25
10+20
10+15
10+10
10+9
10+8
10+7
10+6
10+5
10+4
10+3
10+2
0% 10+1
fast23
Fleet
decreases due to averaging effects (Figure 5). The reason for this is that the fleets are so large that the individual fleet commonalities and economies of scale have been maximised and the spares investment curve has flattened out. In other words, by adding a 51st A319, the additional spares investment would be constant at a minimal level. The commonality dividend and the averaging effects are evident when we consider the total investment rather than just the savings themselves. Figure 6 illustrates not only these points but also that the investment required for a ‘combined’ fleet differs little from the investment required for a fleet consisting of only A320s. In this article we have considered only the single aisle family using data for the A320, A319 and a non-common aircraft of similar size. Similar commonality savings are evident with the A321 and the long-range A340/A330 family as can be seen in the similarity between Figures 6 and 7.
RELIABILITY Along with the initial provisioning and “in service” savings achievable through commonality there are the spares savings that Airbus Industrie has sought to make through continuous improvement and integration of aircraft systems. As we have already seen LRUs are the most expensive materiel category within an initial provisioning recommendation. Of the ATA chapters, chapter 22 “Auto Flight” generates the highest spares investment for an Airbus aircraft representing 14% of the total investment (Figure 8). For the A320, ATA chapter 22 consists of only five LRU part numbers reflecting the continuous integration of functions into single boxes. It is therefore an appropriate area to focus upon: within this ATA chapter a significant improvement has taken place in integrating the computers performing the Automated Flight System (AFS) function. Looking at the Figure 9, the AFS computers in a typical non ‘fly-bywire’ generation aircraft consists of the Flight Control Computer (FCC), the Flight Augmentation Computer (FAC), the Thrust Control Computer (TCC) and Flight Management Computer (FMC) or equivalent. For the A320, the first full ‘fly-by-wire’ (FBW) aircraft the functions of the FCC, TCC and FMC were integrated into a single LRU, the Flight Management Guidance Computer (FMGC) leaving the A320 with two LRUs performing the AFS FAST / NUMBER 23
Figure 8 DISTRIBUTON OF AN A320 INITIAL PROVISIONING RECOMMENDATION BY ATA CHAPTER Investment (US$m) 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 11 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 49 52 53 55 56 57 ATA chapters
function, the FMGC and the FAC. With the introduction of the A330/A340 the functions of these LRUs were further integrated into one unit, the Flight Management Guidance and Envelope Computer (FMGEC). The impact on reliability and spares provisioning cost of this leap from non-FBW to FBW aircraft will be examined. To examine the impact that systems integration has had upon spares provisioning it is necessary to consider the reliability (mean time between unscheduled removals - MTBUR) of the LRUs and, of course, their cost to the customer. There have been certain trends which have been evident in the development of FBW technology: ● As can be seen in Figure 9, the number of units required to fulfill the Automated Flight System function has been reduced simplifying maintenance and spares holding costs. ● Generally the reliability (MTBUR) of the individual LRUs has remained fairly constant. ● Individual LRU prices have increased The savings attained as a result of combining these factors must be calculated by considering the Automated Flight System as one system. It is therefore necessary to calculate the reliability of the system as a whole. This we
Figure 9 EVOLUTION AND INTEGRATION OF AFS COMPUTERS
Non fly-by-wire generation aircraft
FAC
FCC
TCC
FMC
FAC
FMGC
A320
A330/340 FMGEC
2 1
have done by using the following calculation where Nu = number of units (see formula below). Applying this formula the impact of FBW integration is readily apparent. Although the individual LRU MTBURs have remained relatively steady.
1 ∑ (Nu A/MTBUR A + Nu B/MTBUR B + Nu C/MTBUR C....) * * For spares provisioning purposes the AFS components above are considered as a series of failure probabilities, since a spare is required as soon as a part is taken off the aircraft to be tested or repaired regardless of whether the system remains functional. FAST / NUMBER 23
17
fast23
p12 / 23
17/09/1998 10:21
Page 18
COMBINING ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND WINDSHIELD RAIN PROTECTION ON AIRBUS AIRCRAFT
Figure 10 AFS MTBUR COMPARED TO INDIVIDUAL LRU MTBUR Relative MTBUR value 400
AFS MTBUR 364
350 300
by François Poveda Engineer Fire, Ice and Rain Protection Customer Services Engineering Airbus Industrie
250 190
200 150
100
100 50 0 Non FBW a/c FCC
FAC
TCC
FMC
A320
FAC
FMGC
A340
FMGEC
LRU MTBUR
Figure 11 AFS COST EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON
Relative Spares investment / AFS MTBUR Index value 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Non FBW a/c A320 A340 (10 aircraft fleet)
However with eleven years of technological improvements the Auto Flight system MTBUR has increased quite dramatically from the non-FBW aircraft to the latest technology FBW aircraft, the A320 and A340. The savings for a recommended spares investment in dollar terms as a result of the integration of AFS functions are considerable. The investment required for the AFS equipment for ten A340 or A320 being roughly half of that required for ten non FBW type aircraft. The advances made in component integration offsets the increase in price of the individual LRUs (Figure 10). The cost effectiveness of the integration of the AFS can be measured by dividing the recommended spares investment figures by the AFS reliability i.e. Cost/AFS MTBUR. The results can be seen in the Figure 11. The AFS fitted to the A320 is four times, and the A340 seven times, more cost effective than the pre-FBW aircraft and as fleet size increases this effect becomes more pronounced.
PUNCTUALITY The turnaround time for rotable and repairable spares is a combination of the transit time and the repair processing time. The transit time The transit time is dependent on the
two following factors: ● The administrative efficiency of an airline in realising that a spare has been removed, shipping the spare part out and then, when the spare part returns, placing it back on the shelf. ● The speed and efficiency of the freight forwarder and Customs authorities in importing/exporting and transporting the spare part will have an impact on the transit time. Airbus Industrie has been working closely with several major forwarders and logistics service suppliers to develop an off-theshelf transit management programme. This will offer customers a choice of forwarder service with defined performance levels and terms. The repair processing time Airbus Industrie has taken the initiative with its proprietary parts repair turnaround time. Airbus Industrie now guarantees a maximum of 15 calendar days repair time for its proprietary parts. This is backed up by a forward exchange at no additional cost should the repair time exceed this guarantee. The operator in this case is then only invoiced for the repair charges and not the exchange fee. This significantly reduces the level of inventory which needs to be stored to cover those “just-in-case” situations and moves away from the current industry ‘standard’ of guaranteeing average repair times.
W
indshield rain protection provides the flight crew with a clear vision through the aircraft windshield when rain is encountered. The “ Rainboe ” rain repellent fluid, originally used on Airbus aircraft in addition to the basic windshield wiper system, has been phased out as part of the worldwide effort to protect the Ozone layer. Airbus Industrie has been actively working on alternative solutions and is now in a position to provide the operators with a choice of environmentally friendly rain repellent fluid or windshield hydrophobic coating. This combines maximum windshield rain protection with safe guards for the environment.
CONCLUSION Airbus Industrie is able to demonstrate that its aircraft families share large commonality in aircraft spares, enabling operators to reduce their operating costs. This has been achieved through aircraft design with maintenance in mind. Further, the fly-by-wire technology has lent itself to improving commonality by integrating the Automated Flight System Computers into a reduced number of LRUs, which share high commonality and reliability within the family groups. So, when it comes to aircraft spare parts, Airbus Industrie is glad to be called common, reliable and punctual. ✈
18
FAST / NUMBER 23
FAST / NUMBER 23
19
fast23
p12 / 23
17/09/1998 10:34
Page 20
Figure 1 WINDSHIELD WIPER SYSTEM Wiper blade
Wiper arm
- RAINBOE RAIN REPELLENT FLUID PHASE OUT
The basic windshield rain protection system on Airbus aircraft consists of two electrically operated windshield wipers, one on the Captain’s side and one on the First Officer’s side (Figure 1). The wipers can be operated independently and at low or high speed, depending on the level of the precipitation (Figure 2). An optional intermittent function is also available. All Airbus aircraft are certified for operation without further windshield rain protection system.
The ‘Rainboe’ rain repellent fluid originally used on Airbus aircraft and on all other jetliners equipped with a similar system contains CFC 113. This substance is a type of freon (Chlorofluorocarbon). It is officially listed as an Ozone depleting substance by the Montreal Protocol which bans its production, import and export since 1st January 1996. Since this date and in order to comply with the international agreements for the protection of the Ozone layer (Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol), the ‘Rainboe’ fluid bottle is no longer installed on delivered aircraft. Airbus Industrie has nevertheless taken the option to leave the rain repellent system installed on the aircraft (electrically deactivated) whilst actively working with chemical manufacturers on the development of a new rain repellent fluid free of CFC. Service Bulletins for all aircraft types were issued in January 1996 in order to allow ‘Rainboe’ fluid bottle removal and system deactivation on aircraft in service (refer to Table below for the applicable Service Bulletins and Modifications references).
- RAIN REPELLENT AN ADDITIONAL FORM OF RAIN PROTECTION
Motor converter
Figure 3 RAIN REPELLENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC
- WINDSHIELD WIPERS THE BASIC RAIN PROTECTION SYSTEM
All Airbus aircraft are also equipped with a so-called rain repellent system. This system allows spraying of a fluid onto the windshield outer surface when heavy rain is encountered (see Figure 3 on the following page). The fluid can be sprayed independently on the Captain’s side and on the First Officer’s side. It temporarily modifies the surface tension on the windshield and, combined with the effect of the air flow caused by aircraft movement, prevents water droplets from adhering to the windshield outer surface.
Rain repellent fluid can assembly
Test check valve
Gauge assembly
Purge check valves
Rain repellent blowout reservoir Spray nozzles
Solenoid valves
S
S
From hot air manifold
RAIN RPLNT
WIPER OFF SLOW
Figure 2 WINDSHIELD RAIN PROTECTION COCKPIT CONTROLS
FAST
Applicable Service Bulletins and Modifications references
‘RAINBOE’ RAIN REPELLENT FLUID DEACTIVATION A300 A300-600 A310 MOD 11480 11480 11480 SB A300-30-0044 A300-30-6023 A310-30-2029 (1)
RAIN RPLNT
WIPER
WIPER
OFF
OFF SLOW
FAST
RAIN RPLNT
SLOW
FAST
(1)
(1)
A319/A320/A321 A330 25419 44482 A320-30-1032 A330-30-3015 (1)
(1)
CFC FREE (LBFS) RAIN REPELLENT FLUID INSTALLATION A300 A300-600 A310 A319/A320/A321 A330 MOD 11974 11974 11974 26963 45897 SB A300-30-0046 A300-30-6025 A310-30-2032 A320-30-1037 A330-30-3019 (2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
A340 44482 A340-30-4020 (1)
A340 45897 A340-30-4022
(3)
(3)
PPG ‘SURFACE SEAL’ COATING INSTALLATION AIRBUS Service Information Letter 30-024 - Issued in July 1997 (1) SB issued in January 1996
20
FAST / NUMBER 23
FAST / NUMBER 23
(2) SB will be issued by end of 1998
(3) SB issued in July 1998
21
fast23
p12 / 23
17/09/1998 10:37
Page 22
NEW RAIN REPELLENT FLUID FREE OF CFC A new rain repellent fluid has been successfully developed. The product complies with all the existing regulations for the protection of the environment. Laboratory testing has confirmed its compliance with the existing toxicity requirements and its compatibility with the surrounding materials on Airbus aircraft (windshield, structure, paint). The excellent rain repellent characteristics of the fluid and its endurance have been demonstrated by extensive
Figure 4 CFC-FREE RAIN REPELLENT FLUID - ENDURANCE TESTING HEAVY RAIN
bench testing and flight testing (Figure 4). The fluid bottle can be installed on the aircraft with only minor modification of the existing rain repellent system. Airbus Industrie is now preparing the introduction of the new fluid in production. Service Bulletins allow reactivation of the rain repellent system and installation of the fluid bottle on aircraft in service (Figure 5). The rain repellent fluid bottle is supplied by Le Bozec Filtration and Systems (LBFS). Refer to the Table on the preceding page for the applicable Service Bulletins and Mod references.
Figure 5 CFC-FREE RAIN REPELLENT FLUID BOTTLE REPLACEMENT
WINDSHIELD HYDROPHOBIC COATINGS - AN ALTERNATIVE For those operators wishing to leave the rain repellent system deactivated, Airbus Industrie has also formally approved the use of the PPG Industries “Surface Seal” windshield hydrophobic coating on all Airbus aircraft types The coating, which can be used without restriction on all types of windshields available on Airbus aircraft, consists of a treatment applied on the windshield outer surface in a liquid form. It dries out to provide rain repellent characteristics similar to those of the fluid. The coating does not contain CFC and is therefore not subjected to the requirements of the Montreal protocol. The treatment has a limited service
life and needs to be reapplied on a regular basis. Airbus Service Information Letter 30-024, issued in July 1997, provides procurement and material information related to the coating, as well as recommendations for application and servicing. The content of this SIL is being incorporated in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Maintenance Planning document, Consumable Materials List and Tool and Equipment Manual in accordance with the normal revision planning set for each document and aircraft type. Airbus Industrie is closely monitoring the development of other windshield hydrophobic coatings, which will also be incorporated in the SIL and in the aircraft documentation if their performance is found to be satisfactory on Airbus aircraft.
No rain repellent EFFECT OF RAIN REPELLENT OR HYDROPHOBIC COATING ON WATER DROPLET / WINDSHIELD CONTACT ANGLE BEFORE APPLICATION
AFTER APPLICATION
Rain repellent fluid applied After 15 seconds
After 2 minutes
CONCLUSION
After 10 minutes
Before
22
After
FAST / NUMBER 23
The commitments of Airbus Industrie on the subject of windshield rain protection were twofold: ● To comply with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol on Ozone depleting substances. ● To provide Airbus operators with an alternative form of windshield rain protection, in addition to the basic wiper system. These commitments are today achieved with the removal of the ‘Rainboe’ fluid from the Airbus aircraft and with the availability of two alternative forms of windshield rain protection for use on all Airbus aircraft types: ● A new rain repellent fluid, ● A windshield hydrophobic coating. The needs of Airbus operators regarding windshield rain protection vary a lot, depending on local weather conditions, habits, operational and maintenance procedures. Airbus Industrie strongly believes that the choice of fluid or coating now available provides the best response to these different needs. ✈
FAST / NUMBER 23
23
fast23
p24/32
17/09/1998 10:46
Page 24
A
irbus Industrie endeavours to supply all Airbus Operators with Technical Publications that accurately reflect the configuration of their aircraft. However, in order to do this the Operators must supply Airbus Industrie with the relevant data on Service Bulletins (SB) selected for, and implemented on the aircraft in a timely manner, since the Operators are the sole source of such information.
SERVICE BULLETIN REPORTING
by Claire Harel. Group Manager Configuration Control Technical Data and Documentation Customer Services Airbus Industrie
S ERVICE BULLETIN REPORTING Technical Publications which reflect the configuration of your aircraft
During aircraft final assembly, for each piece of equipment installed in the aircraft the relevant data is directly incorporated into the Technical Publications. In this case, the Airbus Industrie internal process is smooth, as the source of the data is controlled by Airbus Industrie production system. Once the aircraft has been in service, the aircraft is regularly inspected, repaired and upgraded by the incorporation of SBs. The Technical Publications should evolve with the aircraft, reflecting the changes that the aircraft undergoes throughout its service life. To enable this to happen, Operators should systematically report SB selection and accomplishment to Airbus Industrie. These changes can only be reflected in the customised manuals as and when Airbus Industrie is informed of them. In the event an aircraft is sold or transferred from one operator to another, Technical Publications which accurately reflect the state of the aircraft can significantly ease the sale or transfer.
● Aircraft Wiring Manual (AWM), ● Aircraft Wiring List (AWL) ● Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC).
Note: All affected non-customised manuals are systematically revised with SB data after SB release (no Operator input is required). The original information i.e. PRE SB data, remains valid but, in addition, the POST SB data is included and dual configuration is shown, i.e. PRE and POST service bulletin configuration.
Figure 1 SB ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION SHEET
1st step: SB selection Upon receipt of an Airbus Industrie SB, the Operator decides whether the change is to be accepted and implemented on the fleet. The last page of each SB (Figure 1) can be used to inform Airbus Industrie of this decision: SB selected for embodiment or SB rejected. Airbus Industrie also accepts a simple fax, letter or other document from the Operator. When Airbus Industrie has been informed of the Operator’s decision, the records are updated and a target date for the updating of the manuals is supplied to the Operator. Once the SB has been selected, data is incorporated in the affected customised maintenance manuals: ● Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), ● Trouble Shooting Manual (TSM), ● Aircraft Schematic Manual (ASM), 24
FAST / NUMBER 23
FAST / NUMBER 23
25
fast23
p24/32
17/09/1998 10:50
Page 26
Figure 2 2A - PRE SB SOLUTION ON AFFECTED AMM
PRE & POST SB SOLUTION
2B - PRE SB SOLUTION ON AFFECTED IPC
Figure 2A shows the PRE solution and also the PRE and POST SB solution in the AMM with the addition of subtask 26-21-00-860-057-A (highlighted) in the close-up paragraph. As long as aircraft 0401 to 0405 are PRE SB A340-24-4015, the PRE SB subtask 26-21-00-860-057 applies. When aircraft are retrofitted, the maintenance personnel can then find the POST SB subtask 26-21-00-860057-A.
Figure 2B shows the introduction of new part number 5908974-17 (highlighted) in Figure 1 - 1B of the IPC 2422-34-1 for aircraft 0401 to 0405. Pending retrofit on the aircraft, the Operator’s maintenance personnel can consult the PRE SB data while POST SB data is also available (highlighted). Note: If the SB is rejected, only the PRE SB data is reflected.
PRE & POST SB SOLUTION
26
FAST / NUMBER 23
2nd step: SB accomplishment As soon as an SB is installed on a given aircraft, all that is required of the Operator is to notify Airbus Industrie. The pre-printed card that is supplied together with the kit can be used to inform Airbus Industrie of SB accomplishment.
Figure 3 shows a completed card. Here also a simple fax, letter or other document from the Operator is accepted. For each aircraft the SB accomplishment is recorded and a target date for the updating of the manuals is supplied to the Operator. When affected, the operational manuals are revised: ● Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM), ● Quick Reference Handbook (QRH), ● Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) ● Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL). The operational manuals are configured on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis and every SB accomplishment is reflected. In addition, any relevant Operations Engineering Bulletin (OEB) can be removed.
Figure 3 SB ACCOMPLISHMENT CARD
In addition and upon specific request, a Temporary Revision (TR) (Figure 4) can be issued when the new pages of the manual are needed on an urgent basis. When the SB is reported as having been accomplished on the whole fleet, the PRE SB data is removed from the customised maintenance manuals: AMM, TSM, ASM, AWM, AWL and IPC. As long as one aircraft remains to be retrofitted, both PRE and POST SB configurations are valid and will be reflected in the manuals.
Figure 4 TEMPORARY REVISION
FAST / NUMBER 23
27
p24/32
17/09/1998 10:52
Page 28
Figure 5 5A - PRE & POST SB SOLUTION
ON AFFECTED
AMM
Figure 5A highlights the subtask 26-21-00-860-057 to be deleted from the AMM when SB A340-24-4015 has been installed on aircraft 0401-0405.
Figure 6 INTRODUCTION TO A SERVICE BULLETIN LIST
POST SB SOLUTION
5B - PRE & POST SB SOLUTION ON AFFECTED IPC
Figure 5B highlights the part number 5908974-16 and associated information to be deleted from the IPC figure when SB A340-24-4015 has been installed on aircraft 0401 to 0405.
POST SB SOLUTION
This process ensures that the manuals accurately reflect the technical status of the fleet with respect to SB application. The volume of the manuals is also significantly reduced after fleet-wide SB reporting, as obsolete PRE SB data is removed from the manuals leaving the relevant POST SB information. This also results in more user-friendly manuals and can help avoid any confusion when ordering spares and carrying out maintenance tasks. An overall view of SB application/ incorporation is available in the SB list of each maintenance manual.
28
FAST / NUMBER 23
Figure 6 shows the introduction page of a typical SB list, including the Operator’s Engineering Order (EO). The left column gives the SB incorporation code: ‘S’ means split (or dual) configuration (PRE and POST) while ‘C’ indicates the complete (final) configuration (POST). On the Operator’s request, it is possible to show the Operator’s internal EO number that is associated with the SB. FAST / NUMBER 23
▼
fast23
These two steps of the reporting process are absolutely vital if the Technical Publications are to be correctly updated. Regular reporting of SBs that have been selected by the Operators for embodiment is the first and basic stage and should always be completed by reports of their accomplishment. All reports should be sent to Airbus Industrie Customer Services Directorate Technical Data and Documentation AI/SE-D32 1, rond-point Maurice Bellonte - 31707 Blagnac Cedex France Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93 28 06
29
fast23
p24/32
17/09/1998 10:55
Page 30
Figure 7 SB STATUS LIST
ris to
Pa from light 1919. f a r ing fo uary repar n in Febr p s r e o ng dr Passe s in a Cau l e s s Bru
SERVICE BULLETIN CONFIGURATION REVIEW An SB configuration review has been launched and sent to all Airbus Industrie Operators with specific emphasis on the SBs which are classified as mandatory (linked to an Airworthiness Directive). This exercise enables the Operators to review their SB data and to make sure that proper information is supplied to Airbus Industrie. As a result, the technical level and content of all maintenance and operational documentation should reflect the technical status of the Operators’ fleets. Two SB status lists were sent to all Airbus Industrie Operators: ● The first list containing all SBs which are effective for the Operator’s fleet. ● The second list containing only mandatory SBs.
Figure 7 shows one status list. This lists are available in printed form and on diskette. They reflect the current SB embodiment status based on the data received from the Operators. In the case of leased or second-hand aircraft, they also include SB status reported from previous Operators. Each Operator is requested to provide Airbus Industrie with the configuration of their aircraft after cross checking against the real aircraft status. Then Airbus Industrie will update their database. Continuous updating will also be performed from the regular reports which should be received from each Operator. As previously mentioned the SB acceptance/rejection sheets and accomplishment cards can be used for this reporting. It should also be noted that a simple fax, letter or other document from the Operator is also accepted.
Monsie ur Deperd Parmelin pr e ussin o ver the paring to fly h Alps in is 1914.
flight in
ng for prepari and y d a L A avill te de H Moth. a v i r p her
In the early days of civil aviation, Environmental protection actually meant Protection from the Environment. Windshields were carefully profiled to give the maximum protection, and rain dispersion was provided by a quick wipe of the pilot’s hand. All that was needed was a good scarf and/or hat, and a pair of goggles, for the passengers as well as the pilot. Mind you, having a stiff upper lip probably made the elements easier to bear.
CONCLUSION Methods of SB reporting will improve as time goes on, and reduce the Operators’ workload. On-line access to the Technical Publications database will become available with SPOC (Single Point of Contact). Another reporting process using bar codes could also be introduced. A project is under evaluation to record bar codes on the SB kits, Line Replaceable Units (LRU)s, and Airbus Industrie proprietary parts. This system of recording could not only trace the repair of any specific piece of equipment but it could also make it possible to easily and safely monitor the changes carried out on each aircraft. This could also lead to individual aircraft ‘identity cards’. The service Airbus Industrie offers its clients would then be improved by a more direct source of information and shorter lead-time for incorporation of the relevant information into the Technical Publications. Please remember that the data you expect from Airbus Industrie can only be as good as the configuration information provided by you. ✈
30
FAST / NUMBER 23
Lieutenan tS the World tainforth having w on Speed Re co in a Supe rmarine S rd in 1931 6-B. FAST / NUMBER 23
31
fast23
p24/32
17/09/1998 11:00
Page 32
RESIDENT CUSTOMER SUPPORT REPRESENTATION USA / CANADA Thierry van der Heyden, Vice President Customer Services Telephone: +1 .703. 834 3484 / Telefax:+1 .703. 834 3464 CHINA Emmanuel Peraud, Director Customer Services Telephone: +86 .10. 6456 7720 / Telefax: +86 .10. 6456 76942 /3 /4 REST OF THE WORLD Mohamed El-Boraï, Vice President Customer Support Services Division Telephone: +33 (0) 5 61 93 35 04 / Telefax:+33 (0) 5 61 93 41 01 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Jean-Paul Gayral, Resident Customer Representation Administration Director Telephone: +33 (0) 5 61 93 38 79 / Telefax:+33 (0) 5 61 93 49 64
LOCATION ABU DHABI AMMAN ATHENS BANGKOK BEIJING BEIRUT BERLIN BOGOTA BOMBAY (MUMBAI)
COUNTRY United Arab Emirates Jordan Greece Thailand Peoples Republic of China Lebanon Germany Columbia India
BRUSSELS BUENOS AIRES CAIRO CARACAS CHENGDU CHICAGO COLOMBO DAKAR DAKHA DELHI DERBY DETROIT DUBAI DUBLIN DULUTH DUSSELDORF FRANKFURT GUANGZHOU GUAYAQUIL HANGHZOU HANOI HO CHI MINH CITY HONG KONG ISTANBUL JAKARTA JOHANNESBURG KARACHI KINGSTON KUALA LUMPUR KUWAIT LARNACA LISBON LONDON (LHR) LUTON MACAO MADRID MALE MANCHESTER MANILA
Belgium Argentina Egypt Venezuela Peoples Republic of China USA (Illinois) Sri Lanka Senegal Bangladesh India England USA (Michigan) United Arab Emirates Ireland USA (Minnesota) Germany Germany Peoples Republic of China Ecuador Peoples Republic of China Vietnam Vietnam Peoples Republic of China Turkey Indonesia South Africa Pakistan Jamaica Malaysia Kuwait Cyprus Portugal England England Macao Spain Maldives England Philippines
32
TELEPHONE 971 (2) 706 7702 962 (6) 445 1284 30 (1)981 8581 66 (2) 531 0076 86 (10) 6457 2688 961 (1) 601 300 49 (30) 887 55 245 57 (1) 414 8095/96 91 (22) 618 3273 91 (22) 611 7147 32 2723 4824/25/26 54 (1) 480 9408 20 (2) 418 3687 58 315 52 210 86 (28) 570 3851 1 (773) 601 4602 94 73 2197 / 2199 221 8201 615 880 (2) 896129 91 (11) 565 2033 44 1332 852 898 1 (734) 247 5090 971 (4) 2085 630/31/32 353 (1) 705 2294 1 (218) 733 5077 49 (211) 9418 687 49 (69) 696 3947 86 (20) 8612 8813 593 (9) 744 734 86 (571) 514 5876 84 (48) 731 613 84 (8) 84 57 602 852 2747 8449 90 (212) 574 0907 62 (21) 550 1993 27 (11) 978 3193 92 (21) 457 0604 1 (876) 924 8057 60 (3) 746 7352 965 474 2193 357 (4) 643 181 351 (1) 840 7032 44 (181) 751 5431 44 (1582) 39 8706 853 898 4023 34 (1) 329 1447 960 317 042 44 (161) 489 3155 63 (2) 831 5444
TELEFAX 971 (2) 757 097 962 (6) 445 1195 30 (1) 983 2479 66 (2) 531 1940 86 (10) 6457 0503 961 (1) 601 200 49 (30) 887 55 248 57 (1) 414 8094 91 (22) 611 3691 91 (22) 611 7122 32 2723 4823 54 (1) 480 9408 20 (2) 418 3707 58 315 52 210 86 (28) 521 6511 1 (773) 601 2406 94 (1) 253 893 221 8201 148 880 (2) 896130 91 (11) 565 2541 44 1332 852 967 1 (734) 247 5087 971 (4) 244806 353 (1) 705 3803 1 (218) 733 5082 49 (211) 9418 035 49 (69) 696 4699 86 (20) 8612 8809 593 (4) 290 432 86 (571) 514 5916 84 (48) 731 612 84 (8) 84 46 419 852 2352 5957 90 (212) 573 5521 62 (21) 550 1943 27 (11) 978 3190 92 (21) 457 0604 1 (876) 924 8154 60 (3) 746 2230 965 434 2567 357 (4) 643 185 351 (1) 847 4444 44 (181) 751 2844 44 (1582) 70 6173 853 898 4024 34 (1) 329 0708 960 318 823 44 (161) 489 3240 63 (2) 831 0834
FAST / NUMBER 23
Cover / backcover
17/09/1998 11:12
Page 4
LOCATION MAURITIUS MEDELIN MEMPHIS MEXICO CITY MELBOURNE MIAMI MINNEAPOLIS MONTREAL MOSCOW MUSCAT NAIROBI NANJING NEW YORK NUREMBERG PARIS (CDG) PARIS (ORY) PHOENIX PITTSBURG PUSAN ROME SAN’A SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE SAN SALVADOR SAO PAULO SEOUL SHANGHAI SHANNON SHENYANG SHENZHEN SINGAPORE TAIPEI
COUNTRY Mauritius Columbia USA (Tennessee) Mexico Australia USA (Florida) USA (Minnesota) Canada Russia Oman Kenya Peoples Republic of USA (New York) Germany France France USA (Arizona) USA (Pennsylvania) South Korea Italy Yemen USA (California) Costa Rica El Salvador Brasil South Korea Peoples Republic of Ireland Peoples Republic of Peoples Republic of Singapore Taiwan
TASHKENT TEHRAN TOKYO (HND)
Uzbekistan Iran Japan
TORONTO TULSA TUNIS ULAN BATOR VANCOUVER VIENNA WINNIPEG XIAN YAKUTSK YEREVAN ZAGREB ZURICH
Canada USA (Oklahoma) Tunisia Mongolia Canada Austria Canada Peoples Republic of China Russia Armenia Croatia Switzerland
FAST / NUMBER 23
China
China China China
TELEPHONE 230 637 8542 57 (4) 5361027 1 (901) 224 4842 52 (5) 784 3874 61 (3) 9338 2038 1 (305) 871 1441 1 (612) 726 0431 1 (514) 422 6320 7 (095) 753 8061 968 521 286 254 (2) 822 763 86 (25) 248 1030/32 1 (718) 656 0700 49 (911) 365 68219 33 (0)1 48 62 08 82 / 87 33 (0)1 49 78 02 88 1 (602) 693 7445 1 (412) 472 6420 82 (51) 971 6977 39 (6) 6501 0564 967 (1) 344 439 1 (650) 6344375/76/79 506 (4) 417 223 503 339 9335 55 (11) 644 54 364 82 (2) 665 4417 86 (21) 6268 4122 353 (1) 705 2084 86 (24) 8939 2699 86 755 777 0690 65 (5) 455 027 886 (2) 25 450 424 886 (3) 38 34 410 7 (37) 1254 8552 98 (21) 603 5647 81 (3) 5756 5081 81 (3) 5756 8770 1 (905) 677 8874 1 (918) 292 3227 216 (1) 750 639 976 (1) 379 930 1 (604) 231 6965 43 (1) 7007 3688 1 (204) 985 5908 86 (29) 870 7651 7 4112 420 165 3742 593 415 385 (1) 456 2536 41 (1) 812 7727
TELEFAX 230 637 3882 57 (4) 5361024 1 (901) 224 5018 52 (5) 785 5195 61 (3) 9338 0281 1 (305) 871 2322 1 (612) 726 0414 1 (514) 422 6310 7 (095) 753 8006 968 521 286 254 (2) 822 763 86 (25) 248 1031 1 (718) 656 8635 49 (911) 365 68218 33 (0)1 48 62 08 99 33 (0)1 49 78 01 85 1 (602) 693 7444 1 (412) 472 1052 82 (51) 971 4106 39 (6) 652 9077 967 (1) 344 439 1 (650) 6344378 506 (4) 412 228 503 339 9323 55 (11) 644 54 363 82 (2) 664 3219 86 (21) 6268 6671 353 (1) 705 2085 86 (24) 2272 5177 86 755 777 0689 65 (5) 425 380 886 (2) 25 450 438 886 (3) 38 34 718 7 (37) 12 407 049 98 (21) 603 5647 81 (3) 5756 5084 81 (3) 5756 8772 1 (905) 677 1090 1 (918) 292 2581 216 (1) 750 855 976 (1) 379 930 1 (604) 231 6917 43 (1) 7007 3235 1 (204) 837 2489 86 (29) 870 7255 7 4112 420 165 3742 151 393 385 (1) 456 2537 41 (1) 810 2383
33
Cover / backcover
17/09/1998 11:06
Page 1
WE’VE A REVOLUTIONARY METHOD OF UNDERSTANDING YOUR AIRLINE’S REQUIREMENTS. WE LISTEN. Airbus Resident Customer Support Managers are based at their operator’s premises. With over 25 nationalities represented, they can be relied upon to understand your country’s culture, ensuring they’ve a close relationship based on mutual trust. Many have an airline background, which means they’re at home with your operation and aircraft. In fact, whatever you require, you can be sure our Resident Customer Support Managers are all ears. Airbus Customer Services. Dedicated to meet your requirements.
AIRBUS S E T T I N G T H E STA N DA R D S
ht t p://w w w.a i rb u s.c o m
AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
