Functional Check Flights 1/4 - Special flights requiring special treatment

Source: Airbus Safety First URL: https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/functional-check-flights-1-4-special-flights-requiring-special-treatment/ Published: 2015-10-19 Category: Flight Ops PDF: Original PDF

The Airbus Safety Magazine October 2015

Special Issue

Safety first Functional Check Flights

Functional Check Flights

002

001

Safety first, Special Edition October, 2015. Safety first is published by Airbus S.A.S. - 1, rond point Maurice Bellonte - 31707 Blagnac Cedex/France. Publisher: Yannick Malinge, Chief Product Safety Officer, Editor: Corinne Bieder, Director Product Safety Strategy & Communication. Concept Design by Airbus Multi Media Support 20151711. Reference: D15030884. Photos by Airbus, P. Masclet, Lindner Fotografie, S. Chobert, P. Pigeyre, C. Brinkmann. Printed in France.

This brochure is printed on Stucco. This paper is produced in factories that are accredited EMAS and certified ISO 900114001, PEFC and FSC CoC. It is produced using pulp that has been whitened without either chlorine or acid. The paper is entirely recyclable and is produced from trees grown in sustainable forest resources. The printing inks use organic pigments or minerals. There is no use of basic dyes or dangerous metals from the cadmium, lead, mercury or hexavalent chromium group.

The printer, Art & Caractère (France 81500), is engaged in a waste management and recycling programme for all resulting by-products.

By taking delivery of this Brochure (hereafter “Brochure”), you accept on behalf of your company to comply with the following guidelines:

No other intellectual property rights are granted by the delivery of this Brochure than the right to read it, for the sole purpose of information.

This Brochure and its content shall not be modified and its illustrations and photos shall not be reproduced without prior written consent of Airbus.

This Brochure and the materials it contains shall not, in whole or in part, be sold, rented, or licensed to any third party subject to payment.

This Brochure contains sensitive information that is correct at the time of going to press. This information involves a number of factors that could change over time, effecting the true public representation. Airbus assumes no obligation to update any information contained in this document or with respect to the information described herein.

Airbus S.A.S. shall assume no liability for any damage in connection with the use of this Brochure and of the materials it contains, even if Airbus S.A.S. has been advised of the likelihood of such damages.

Safety first

The Airbus magazine contributing to the enhancement of the safety of aircraft operations by increasing knowledge and communication on safety related topics.

Safety first is published by the Product Safety department. It is a source of specialist safety information for the restricted use of flight and ground crew members who fly and maintain Airbus aircraft. It is also distributed to other selected organisations.

Material for publication is obtained from multiple sources and includes selected information from the Airbus Flight Safety Confidential Reporting System, incident and accident investigation reports, system tests and flight tests. Material is also obtained from sources within the airline industry, studies and reports from government agencies and other aviation sources.

All articles in Safety first are presented for information only and are not intended to replace ICAO guidelines, standards or recommended practices, operator-mandated requirements or technical orders. The contents do not supersede any requirements mand ated by the State of Registry of the Operator’s aircraft or supersede or amend any Airbus type-specific AFM, AMM, FCOM, MMEL documentation or any other approved documentation.

Articles may be reprinted without permission, except where copyright source is indicated, but with acknowledgement to Airbus. Where Airbus is not the author, the contents of the article do not necessarily reflect the views of Airbus, neither do they indicate Company policy.

Contributions, comment and feedback are welcome. For technical reasons the editors may be required to make editorial changes to manuscripts, however every effort will be made to preserve the intended meaning of the original. Enquiries related to this publication should be addressed to:

Airbus Product Safety department (GS) 1, rond point Maurice Bellonte 31707 Blagnac Cedex - France safetycommunication@airbus.com Fax: +33(0)5 61 93 44 29

Past experience has shown that conducting Functional Check Flights like “normal” commercial flights poses significant safety problems.

Indeed, even though they may be performed in an airline environment, used to managing the safety of commercial flights, they differ from these routine flights in many respects: their status of non-revenue flights, the required pilots’ profile, the characteristics of suited operational environments, the guidance documentation or even the overall regulatory framework.

YANNICK MALINGE

Functional Check Flights are peculiar flights requiring specific safety attention. As such, addressing them deserved a peculiar format. This special issue of the Safety first magazine will take you through the specific Functional Check Flights preparation journey.

SVP & Chief Product Safety Officer

This journey starts way before performing the flight itself, at much more remote and wider organizational levels as well. It involves a variety of aspects at a variety of time horizons that all contribute to Be Prepared for such flights.

To address all these aspects as a consistent whole, this special issue deserved a special structure as well. Not a set of articles, but a single text structured along the various organizational levels and time horizons illustrating what it takes to be prepared for safe Functional Check Flights.

Enjoy your reading!

Functional Check Flights

What does it take to be prepared?

Every flight is singular and needs to be prepared as such by flight crews, considering the state of the aircraft, the route, weather conditions, their own condition, the fuel quantity, the aircraft weight and balance… However, flights involving aircraft functional checks are flights with additional specific risks that deserve even more safety attention.

Indeed, these flights, when flown within an airline environment, differ significantly from “normal”, routine airline flights in many respects. They are sometimes called Technical Check Flights, Post Maintenance Check

HARRY NELSON Experimental Test Pilot

SIMON PETERSON Flight Test Engineer Instructor

Flights, End of Lease Transfer Flights or Functional Check Flights. For the purposes of this magazine we shall use the abbreviation of Functional Check Flights, or put simply, FCFs.

Ensuring the safety of FCFs relies on various aspects and actors, at all organizational levels and phases. This special issue will provide you with an overview of what it takes to perform safe FCFs. It will address along a time / organizational unit line, the major aspects that, at each level, contribute to make FCFs safe. It is therefore arranged into the following sections:

Special flights Airline preparedness Planning Executing requiring special to perform Functional and preparing a Functional treatment Check Flights a Functional Check Flight Check Flight

Functional Check Flights 005

Special flights requiring special treatment

006 Functional Check Flights - Special flights

Functional Check Flights - Special flights 007

What is a Functional Check Flight?

EASA REGULATION ON MAINTENANCE CHECK FLIGHTS AT A GLANCE

Figure 1: Summary of Functional Check Flights regulations

Non revenue

Technical check

Post maintenance check

End of lease

Functional Check flights are non-revenue flights following maintenance actions or repairs that could affect the aircraft’s inherent aerodynamic and/or system characteristics and operational performance or before a return to lessor of the aircraft. It is recommended that they are performed by three airline crew members, two pilots and an engineer.

Therefore, in the airline world, FCFs are flights that differ from routine activities in many respects.

To start with, FCFs are “non-revenue flights”. As this activity is not the core business of airlines, it also disturbs to some extent the aircraft and crew availability schedules by mobilizing aircraft as well as crews and all the other needed operational personnel.

In addition, considering the objectives of a FCF, which is to get close to the limits and check the systems and the aircraft response, FCFs are unusual flights for airline crews.

A specific framework

Be it a matter of mind-set, of training, of documentation, of planning or all the other dimensions that contribute to making such flights safe, FCFs require specific preparation and conditions.

A preliminary condition to make such flights safe is to acknowledge this unique status and the need for special treatment of these flights at all levels.

From a regulation perspective, FCF specificities have been acknowledged and translated into the development of a dedicated regulation on Maintenance Check Flights that was issued in 2012 by EASA: Ref- EASA, NPA 2012-08. Maintenance Check Flights (MCF).

The regulatory requirements address a number of aspects contributing to the safety of FCF, namely:

Flight crew requirements
Additional crewmembers
Training course
Maintenance Check Flight Manual

In order to complete and reach beyond the regulatory material, the following sections provide some detailed and qualitative insights on key aspects that contribute to making FCF safe flights.

Airline preparedness to perform Functional Check Flights

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 011

Selected and trained crews

Once it is acknowledged that FCF deserve special treatment, setting up all that is needed at the airline level to be prepared for performing such flights encompasses a number of aspects that are reviewed hereafter.

There are certain characteristics of individuals’ profiles that are more important in check flight work than in other tasks. In the airlines, most young pilots are selected against criteria with a different objective in mind. However, check flights are a fact of life for all airlines and often the task falls to the Chief Pilot or other senior personnel like the fleet captain, or the fleet technical pilot who may see such flights as a chance to get “out of the office”. Not all these categories of people, important as they are, may necessarily be best suited for the task nor do they necessarily have the available time to prepare in the way they should and probably would wish to. So what should be looked for in a pilot or engineer who will be recruited into the “checking community”?

There are 4 pillars on which a check crew member builds a successful career. These are Knowledge, Skill, Aptitude and Experience. “Not much difference there from my world” one may rightly say but let us look at some of these characteristics more closely in a “checking” sense.

KNOWLEDGE

A deep knowledge is clearly required of the aircraft, the theory behind the task and the role. A determined inquisitive mind is essential if one is to survive in the check flight world, and one would expect all check aircrew to be asking questions and then more questions until they receive an answer that is both “right” and makes sense. Questions coming from newcomers are especially welcome, as they keep the organisation true and sharp. Disinformation is generally easy to recognise and has no time in the checking world, so the answers had better be good.

An answer that was right 5 years ago may not be right today. Circumstances change and those changes sometimes demand a re-think. Equally, it is important to be self-reliant in this regard. Don’t wait for the information to come to you, go looking for it and develop good contacts and sources of quality information.

A determined inquisitive mind is essential. Don’t wait for the information to come to you, go looking for it.

SKILLS

Valued skills include Observation, Interpretation, Analysis and by no means least, Communication.

Valued skills include Observation, Interpretation, Analysis and by no means least, Communication. So called “motor function” flying skills for the pilots need to be pretty good too but it may be surprising to some that pure flying coordination and technique is not necessarily the top priority as long as this aspect is to an acceptable level for the task. However, flying ability does have an impact on the capacity of the pilot to handle high workload situations and therefore it will be referred to later in the section about Upsets.

Some of these skills do not come naturally to some. It is necessary to think through each check point or task and decide which parameters are important. Know also when and how often to read them and then when to record them. For the third crew member in this situation this recording task is always secondary to acting as the safety “observer”, someone with an immediate oversight of the way each of the check points is being conducted and someone who can therefore issue timely warnings.

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 013

012

APTITUDE

The right type of pilot or engineer should be naturally skilled at Crew Resource Management and be especially good at listening… the trick is to ensure on check flights that all those with knowledge and useful information are really heard, whatever their level, number of rings on their jacket, nationality, gender or salary grade.

Aptitude is a bit more complex. In this context, it refers to whether someone “thinks in the right way” and demonstrates the right judgement.

Firstly, check trainees need to be able to handle several apparent paradoxes. Let us take an example or two. Take the issue of when a check crew member has to stand their ground on a given topic versus when they can afford to be flexible. If we take a situation where an aircraft may need some re-work before or after a check flight but is due on the programme later in the day, you can immediately see the pressure that has to be handled in this fairly common situation and knowing when it is ok to be flexible or when a tougher stance has to be taken is part of the job.

Taking another example, in a typical group discussion about, for example, a specific systems check, certain people will inevitably have more knowledge than others, so the issue of when to speak from within your own knowledge and when to listen becomes a skill and a challenge. With the right level of sensitivity and awareness of each other, the team dynamic has to lead to the right answer.

Perhaps the most well-known is the issue of confidence. A check crew member has to have sufficient self-confidence to make decisions when necessary and to intervene in developing situations but not so much confidence that may lead to check points being flown in conditions outside the safe limits. There are many such paradoxical situations to be faced and correctly resolved in the world of check flights. Good team members get more of these situations right than wrong.

The right type of pilot or engineer should therefore be naturally skilled at Crew Resource Management and be especially good at listening. But check flight CRM is very different from the normal airline route situation. A ground engineer who is acting as a Functional Flight Check Engineer may well be the person with the best knowledge of a particular system. The second pilot likewise may be a specialist on a given area so the classic cockpit leadership balance may change during a check flight and should only tip with certainty towards the Captain when and if a final safety decision has to be made. Clearly, in the normal airline situation, the authority gradient is clearly defined. But each airline will need to decide how to handle the authority gradient issue in the context of their local and national culture. The trick is to ensure on check flights that all those with knowledge and useful information are really heard, whatever their level, number of rings on their jacket, nationality, gender or salary grade.

Check pilots in particular, also need to be able to achieve a good balance in their activities and maintain the necessary level of self-confidence without an over developed ego. Look for people who are not trying to prove how good they are but rather how good (or bad) the aircraft is. Interestingly, this trait is also critically important in the flight display world.

Look for people who are not trying to prove how good they are but rather how good (or bad) the aircraft is.

In some respects this is the key difference between the checking world and the normal operational pilot world. Younger pilots spend their developing career improving their skills as a pilot and having to demonstrate those skills under test conditions. If the flight doesn’t go too well the normal reaction is, “it must be me”. “I am having an off day”. In other words they look inwards at their own performance. The checking world is different. It demands that they become “the standard” and that they use that standard to assess the aircraft they are flying. It is the aircraft that is under examination, not the pilot. They have to look outwards. If the same type of aircraft was flown yesterday and its response through a given manoeuvre was “normal” but today it is not or it feels different, then what has changed? Has something altered? Is the weight and Centre of Gravity (CG) the same, or is it potentially something even more serious like a degraded flight control system due to something like trim damage?

It is the aircraft that is under examination, not the pilot.

Finally, and highest on the list of desirable characteristics, is personal integrity which is valued above everything else. The check flight specialists need to be people mentally strong enough to take responsibility for their decisions (good and bad) and then be able to live with their mistakes, learn from them and communicate them to others. Hours can be wasted chasing a non-snag or flight characteristic when in fact the culprit was the pilot who had selected the wrong configuration or moved the wrong switch at the wrong time. In the development test world there is no hiding place as everything done is filmed, instrumented, telemetered and examined by teams of specialists but this is not true of the airline check flight situation where good old fashioned integrity is vital. There is no more important characteristic in this activity.

Highest on the list of desirable characteristics, is personal integrity.

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness

014

EXPERIENCE

Look beyond the hours…

Experience (of the right kind) is extremely valuable in terms of improving judgement, prioritisation of task and risk evaluation but experience can also be a great deceiver. There are many 35,000 hr airline guys, in some parts of the world, who are totally unsuited to check flight tasks. Such people have much experience of doing repetitive and similar tasks rather than a range of different experiences against which to make good informed check flight judgements. So look beyond the hours and find out what relevant checking experience lies within the log book and how many non-routine operations have been successfully carried out by an individual.

SPECIFIC TRAINING

Identifying these main characteristics during an interview and selecting the “right” kind of person for this kind of work will buy you many dividends in the check flight scenario. Indeed, if you get the people wrong, no matter how good the process, it will still be at risk. Yet, training these people to further develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes to perform check flights is an additional asset.

It is quite possible to train check flight pilots inside an airline when the right expertise exists and is supported fully by management who recognise the need to get their people “up to speed” in a check flight sense. Some of the airlines with very large fleets, have a dedicated professional department whose role is to carry out the checks on all their fleet aircraft.

Equally, a manufacturers’ Functional Check Flight course has been developed by Airbus and has demonstrated very positive results. It is not designed to generate full test qualified crews but rather to give an initial immersion into the right type of thinking and to help airline check personnel get some way up the learning ladder and so prevent some basic errors. The course uses one of the Airbus aircraft types as a vehicle on which to hang the “generic” teaching elements and Airbus also uses this type to demonstrate the level of knowledge and skills that are needed to safely carry out FCFs.

Other aeronautical training agencies also do the same sort of thing but in a much more general way. The choice is with the airline.

THE AIRBUS TECHNICAL FLIGHT FAMILIARISATION COURSE

The analysis of actual Functional Check Flights that involved safety concerns allowed for highlighting some key aspects contributing to the safety of such flights:

Based on this feedback from experience, Airbus developed in 2009 a Technical Familiarization Flight course with the objective to provide flight crew with Knowledge, Skills and Attitude to improve safety, quality and efficiency for conducting:

an aircraft checking mindset
appropriate crew expectations
specific skills to perform manoeuvres different from line operations
Technical flights or Functional Check Flights (i.e. post maintenance, painting, etc.)
Acceptance flights (i.e. handover between operators)
recognition of the threat of differing objectives of crew members especially in an end of lease situation
keeping away from a “tick the box” approach

This course is designed for a crew of 3, 2 pilots and 1 engineer and is delivered by 2 instructors, 1 flight test pilot and 1 flight test engineer.

an awareness of performance and handling differences associated with unfamiliar airplane weights and CG

It combines a ground phase (2 days), a Full Flight Simulator phase (2 days) and a flight to cover all the aforementioned aspects to make FCF as safe as possible.

new crew member skill sets and new knowledge
a positive ATC interface

Want to know more about Airbus Technical Flight Familiarization course? Contact or website

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness

016

017

Guidance documentation

Beyond having the right people, being prepared for performing functional check flights also relies on an understanding of what these checks are, what they are for and how to perform them.

There has been a certain amount of confusion over the years about which document an airline should use if it is intending to carry out its own post maintenance FCFs.

The only manual that is to be used to perform Functional Check Flights is the ISATFM. Do NOT use the CAM.

Mistaking one manual for another could induce hidden risks that have no place in the world of Functional Check Flights. So which one should be used?

A MANUAL FOR EACH CIRCUMSTANCE

A number of manuals have been developed by Airbus to perform “check” flights. Specifically, the ISATFM (In-Service Aircraft Technical Flight Manual), the PATM (Production Aircraft Test Manual) and the CAM (Customer Acceptance Manual). There has been a certain amount of confusion over the years about which document an airline should use if it is intending to carry out its own post maintenance flight check.

several hidden risks that have no place in the world of Technical Flight Checks. So which one should be used?

Although all the flights covered by these three manuals are meant to perform checks, each manual has a specific scope in terms of:

The status of the aircraft (from straight off the production line to already in-service).

The easiest, and incorrect, solution seems to be to use the one that is most likely in hand….the Customer Acceptance Manual, which has been received by all Customers during the acceptance flight of a newly delivered aircraft. However, this “solution” carries with it

The background of the pilots and the organization they belong to.

In a nutshell, these documents could be characterized as follows:

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 019

018

THE ISATFM (IN-SERVICE AIRCRAFT TECHNICAL FLIGHT MANUAL)

As just mentioned, this is THE manual which must be used for In-Service aircraft. There is an ISATFM for each family of Airbus Aircraft: Wide Body for A300 family, Single Aisle for A320 family, Long Range for A330/A340 family, and Double Deck for the A380.

no flight checking experience. The manual was therefore divided so that “Part 2”, became the basic function checks of the aircraft within the normal envelope, and “Part 3” the advanced checks to be performed by crews who had been suitably trained and therefore allowed a deeper technical check of the aircraft and its systems.

Each manual is divided into 3 parts:

Part 1 is the Ground Check phase Part 2 is the Basic Flight Phase and Part 3 is the Flight Phase with additional checks for Trained Crews.

These phases should be carried out in the logical and numbered sequence.

In fact, Part 2 is intended to be used for aircraft already in service, with no significant maintenance actions prior to flight, allowing a handover phase between operators. It could be flown by regular line pilots.

These are the primary reasons why Part 2 should not be used as a manual for carrying out Technical Flights within airlines.

Here, we will deal only with the flight phases. (Parts 2 and 3)

In 2014, the ISATFM flight phase was divided into 2 parts after requests coming from the aircraft leasing community. It was recognised that the older generation of ISATFM manuals was quite complicated to fly for pilots who had

The Part 3 flight profile is very similar to a production first flight, but without the checks for performance or degraded modes. At the end of the flight, the crew have a very good picture of the technical state of the aircraft.

In order to fly the “Part 3” flight profile, it is recommended that the crew should be correctly trained.

HOW TO GET THE ISATFM MANUAL AND USE IT?

The philosophy of use of the ISATFM document developed by Airbus is to support airlines in the development of their own FCF manual, adapted and customized to their own context of operation (airfields, checks, pilots profile…). In other words, the ISATFM has been designed as an “a la carte” menu, and is a guideline recommended by Airbus based on its expertise. But in order to support the safety of FCFs, each airline needs to go through its own thinking process and design its own manual based on this reference. This reflection may lead an airline to remove some checks if it does not feel confident about performing them or add some specific information considering its environment…

In order to make sure all airlines are aware of and acknowledge this required step, the ISATFM is supplied by Airbus upon request, after signature and reception

of a legal waiver stating how to use this document. The legal waiver states that the airline should take control of its own document using the guidelines of the supplied ISATFM and that the reference to the document being an Airbus document should be removed and the Airline headings applied. Logically, it also states that the ISATFM document with Airbus headings should not be forwarded to third parties nor copied or stored, but this is only with the Airbus headings.

To receive the Waiver, airlines need to write (e-mail) to the secretariat of EVRT (evrt.control-room@airbus.com)

In turn, the airline will be supplied with the legal waiver which must be signed, and returned, in order to receive the document for their type of aircraft. The airline will then receive a pdf version of the document.

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 021

020

A FLAVOUR OF THE ISATFM… OR THE CHECKS TO BE PERFORMED IN FLIGHT

The first major actions on the aircraft in flight are the flight control check. After ensuring that all loose objects are secured and the weather radar is switched off, the pilot will pitch and roll the aircraft towards, but not exceeding, its protection limits – that is +30 to -15 degrees pitch with a pull of up to +2.0g and push to no less than +0.5g, and just over 45 degrees LH and RH. The objective is to ensure that the aircraft response and the “feel” of the aircraft is “normal” and that the envelope protections function as per design.

Following this, the autoflight systems will be checked with normal and stick over-ride disconnections, followed by a check of global speed protection that is carried out to monitor the control law reversions.

During the climb, the 3rd crew member monitors, and records, the systems parameters, whilst checking for abnormal values. The pilots keep busy performing Radio and Navigation qualitative checks. On arriving at FL310, the crew perform a series of checks for the engines, lateral trim (to check that the aircraft flies wings level) and anemometry checks of the altimeters, and angle of attack probes. Once happy, the crew will proceed with pressure checks. The first check is to inflate the cabin up to its maximum pressure limit in order to check the correct functioning of the cabin pressure safety valves. This check is critical as the crew must monitor very carefully that the valves open within the correct limits. Leak rate and depressurisation checks follow, which may take the cabin up to 14000ft cabin altitude, whilst checking the cabin leak rate (caused by passenger and cargo door seals), pack valve sealing, cabin altitude warnings and finally the dropping of the oxygen masks. This later check involves good communication and coordination with any cabin engineers on board. If there are “non-crew members” working in the cabin, a depressurisation to a lower cabin altitude may be advisable – in which case stopping the depress at the Hi Altitude warning (9550 or 11300 feet cabin altitude) then using Mask Man On, is a more prudent option.

After this, the crew will fly towards the operational ceiling of the aircraft, performing more anemometry checks to complete RVSM checks. At the ceiling, the APU will be started, and when stabilised, each engine generator will

be selected OFF then ON, in turn, in order to check the correct transfer of electrical power to the APU generator.

The descent is relatively fast, with overspeed checks at MMO and VMO, plus speed brake deployments to check for any abnormal lateral behaviour. Wing and engine anti-ice are also checked in the descent, as is APU bleed at lower flight levels.

The descent is into an airspace known as “the block”. This is an altitude “block” agreed with Air Traffic Control normally FL100 to FL140 – but significantly depends on the geographical terrain where the aircraft is flying. If the terrain is high then a higher block altitude will be necessary! Here, the low speed checks are carried out provided that the aircraft has not acquired any ice in the descent. Prior to commencing any low speed checks, the Green Dot speed and AOA values are confirmed. If problems are found at this stage, then the remaining low speed checks may be abandoned. When the relevant values have been assessed and agreed, the aircraft will be decelerated in the clean configuration until it is stable at “alpha-max”. This condition is the stabilised minimum speed with full back stick using “normal law”. When the 3rd crew member has recorded the values, the pilot will perform the low speed recovery procedure and, immediately, the aircraft is set up for the alpha-lock test. This check is to confirm that, with a low speed / high angle of attack, if the slats are set from 1 to 0, they will not retract.

The aircraft will then be configured into the landing configuration and decelerated again to alpha max. It may be surprising to know that for A320s, A330s and A380s, the stabilised minimum speed will be roughly the same, in the region of 100 knots! Whilst both of these checks must be approached with caution and due care in terms of rate of speed reduction and gentle control use, provided the aircraft systems are working normally, they are relatively easy check points to fly.

The final checks in the low speed block, are to ensure that various systems are functioning correctly – Automatic Go-Around, Hydraulic locking of the spoilers (when hydraulic systems are degraded), emergency electric and Ram Air Turbine, and flap relief and audio warnings with various speeds and flap configurations.

The final check – depending on airfield capability – is an autoland. However this check needs to be carefully considered. Before checking the autoland system, the characteristics of any non Cat III ILS facility need to be assessed beforehand, preferably on another serviceable aircraft. (The readers may interpret that as meaning they need to fly another aircraft before they fly the check aircraft). The intended autoland also needs to be discussed with the local ATC as Cat 3 protection may need to be organised in advance.

hanger staff are very good and thorough, there may be still some aspects which the airline management feels cannot be adequately checked on the ground. The airline decision will be – “do we need to do a dedicated technical flight?”

Such decisions must be based on the local engineering and operational judgement on, the level and depth of overall maintenance that has taken place, the number of systems that have been disturbed, the applied modifications, the maintenance “history” of a given unserviceability and the significance or all these issues with regard to the flight control system, the engines, the aerodynamics and the sensors of the aircraft. The Aircraft Maintenance Manual reads as follows:

It is important to note that the sequence of tests above has been carefully considered, is important and should be adhered to.

Why is it advisable to fly such a profile? The answer is that, while the ground checks performed by the

Functional Check Flights 023

Planning and preparing a Functional Check Flight

Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing 025

Let us now move to the planning and preparation aspects. Many questions need to be asked and answered before the check flight takes off, starting with the need to understand the task. What exactly is the objective of the flight? Can the objective be met on the ground? What state is the aircraft in? Who will be doing it? When has it got to be done? Where is it to be done? And finally, with all that information, what are the risks and what will we do if it goes wrong? Some things seem to be common to most tasks. Let us try to capture those which come up most often.

ONLY those checks that cannot be performed on the ground should be performed in the air.

The first rule is to be able to justify why a flight check is being done in the first place. Many checks can be performed successfully on the test bench. Despite pilots’ love of flying, ONLY those checks that cannot be performed on the ground should be performed in the air. GPWS is a good case in point. The “box” has all the logic fixed and it can be bench tested. The software will have been correctly tested and certificated. What is then needed of a possible check flight? In reality, the “aircraft connections” only need to be verified in terms of flap signal, gear signal and radio altimeter. Such a check does not require all the modes to be flown.

The Aircraft

Let’s deal with the aircraft first. The check flight crew will need to know exactly what servicing has been carried out and which systems have been disturbed. They will also need to know if repairs, modifications and upgrades have been applied and if so, what impact they may have on the intended flight. Some notice of the flight is therefore required because a visit to the hangar is essential to get to the bottom of most of these aircraft questions. Talk to the servicing manager and look at the log books in depth. Take care with the “can you just come down this afternoon and carry out a quick check flight” type of request. More has often been disturbed or worked on than at first appears.

In the longer term develop a trustful working relationship with the mechanics in the hangar. It is amazing what they will tell you once that trust is established. Humour between people who know each other tends to help a lot here. If the situation does not encourage that, due to the use of an outstation or remote facility for instance,

Apply the principle that if it can happen, it will happen.

try to gauge the quality of the hangar guys (and their management) and the level of pressure they have all been working under.

If the aircraft has been cleaned or painted, pay careful attention as these activities can give rise to numerous “knock on” technical issues such as pitot or AOA sensor damage. Always do a detailed walk around before such a check flight and take time over it. There have been many examples of jacking pads left on aircraft, masking tape covering elevator hinges and over spring tabs, not to mention paint on static plates and vents being blocked by FOD following deep servicing or painting.

Remember also all those systems that may have been required to be put into the Ground Test position to allow certain ground checks to be completed prior to flight clearance. Know what they are and make sure that they

are all correctly re-positioned to the flight position prior to flight. Apply the principle that if it can happen, it will happen. Your job as checker is to ensure that there is no adverse effect on the flight.

You will also need to think carefully about the weight and Centre of Gravity (CG) for the check flight. Loading ballast in an airline is not always the easy thing it is in the manufacturers test world and unusual CGs are not so common for the loads specialists. Even so, ask anyone who has been around a while in the test world and they will all have accrued a few mis-loading incidents in their life time. An advice would be to try to put the aircraft into a weight and loading situation with which you feel comfortable and use it as a standard for all subsequent similar flights.

Set up a mid CG if possible, avoid being on the limits and do consider the effect of the weight and CG on the expected “feel” of the controls. Expect that the aircraft will inevitably be much lighter than the aircraft on the line. No big problem there, but think about it and consider the speeds to be used in relation to stall speed and Minimum Control Speed. It may be that whilst you would normally be stall speed limited, you may now be on or near the Minimum Control Speed in the Air (Vmca) limits. It may also be that to fully test the fuel system a specific fuel load is needed and this may drive the CG.

Think carefully about the weight and Centre of Gravity (CG).

Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing

026

Crewing

The primary role of management, with regards to check flight personnel, is to select the right people, then to let them do the job and finally be supportive in a safety sense, of their sometimes difficult decisions.

As previously said, often FCFs are seen by airline flight operations management personnel as a “chance to do some flying”. Understandable and tempting as this may be, they may well be the least able in terms of their ability to spend time researching and understanding the issues, keeping their flying skills at the right level and at being able to focus completely on the task and make the right technical judgments whilst handling the “pressure” to get the aircraft back on the line. Clearly, there are some management pilots who are “right” for the task but before selecting themselves, a totally honest review of their workload, experience and technical type knowledge needs to be carried out. The primary role of management, with regards to check flight personnel, is to select the right people, then to let them do the job and finally be supportive in a safety sense, of their sometimes difficult decisions. Checkers need to know that they will be supported by their operational boss in this regard and yes they will sometimes make mistakes too.

Having a small team of hand selected crew members who are properly prepared for the task is a better approach than trying to “be fair” and rotating the checking flights amongst all to give everyone the experience. A minimum group needs to be defined consisting of sufficient support or check engineers and pilots to manage the checking workload of the airline. They should have a nominated head who, through regular meetings with the team, reviews the schedules to be used, and ensures learning from the experience gained from each flight. He / she can also recommend to senior management how aircraft to be checked should be presented. Such a person can

also act as the liaison with the aircraft manufacturers to pick their brains and ensure that the airline receives the best advice possible from the manufacturers test specialists.

We recommend a crew of three wherever possible, so perhaps one of the major challenges for many airlines is to be able to integrate a ground operations engineer, a licenced quality engineer or specialist check engineer into the «test» crew environment in such a way that his voice is «heard» and his opinion weighed and valued alongside the pilot’s. No easy task in some cultures. Some airlines use a third pilot in this role but it must be clear that the primary role of this third crew member is not to be a third pilot but is to record data, maintain an over view of the checks to be carried out and most importantly to act as a safety back stop.

The checks to be undertaken will determine the number of check personnel in the full checking crew. With increasingly complex cabins and cabin systems, several Cabin Engineers are used by the manufacturers in a test capacity. The basic flight deck checking group should consist of the pilots and the senior Functional Check Engineer, who may also be cabin qualified. If needed, specialist Cabin Engineers can also be included. Take care during depressurisation checks, when using such a small team as there is a risk of one crew member being isolated in the cabin. The size of the cabin and the complexity of the systems checks in it, will generally dictate the overall size of the team in the back of the aircraft.

Airfield

The airfield to be used is rarely a choice matter but it is wise to consider any implications stemming from the airfield itself. The runway capability, the height above sea level and its effect on performance, high ground and obstacles, the available navigation aids, and the active NOTAMs, all need to be considered as well as the general operational situation. For example before doing a rejected take-off or braking check, ask the question “is the operational runway the only runway in use?” and consider at what time of day the RTO will be carried out in respect to scheduled traffic. Burst a tyre at a busy time and you will not be too popular. At the bigger and busier central hubs, a short flight to another quieter airfield will probably be the answer.

Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing 029

Pre-flight ATC briefings, directly between the pilots and the controller who will look after them, are very valuable and tend to act as a positive “bond” between pilot and controller. Wherever possible a quiet ATC environment is helpful.

Air Traffic and Airspace

ATC can be your best friend or your worst enemy in a check flight sense. The check crew have got to ensure that they are a friend. Pre-flight ATC briefings, directly between the pilots and the controller who will look after them, are very valuable and tend to act as a positive “bond” between pilot and controller. The controller will then tend to move other traffic rather than the check aircraft. No briefing and the opposite happens. The controller may become irritated by the continual and seemingly illogical demands for turns and odd levels and can then add to the workload of the check crew by making things a lot more difficult.

It is also useful to annotate the flight plan in Section 18 with the words “This flight is a check flight””. The implication to a briefed ATC controller is that it will therefore be subject to many changes of height, heading and configuration and the crew workload may be high at times.

Wherever possible a quiet ATC environment is helpful and if the ATC agency has such a quiet frequency channel, it should be used. In the pure manufacturers test environment we have dedicated controllers to ensure efficient flight separation and conflict avoidance but normally an airline does not have this privilege. However, a careful look pre- flight at the airspace and the prevailing weather can often lead to selecting a good quiet, out of the way, corner of airspace like an inactive danger area which will serve the check aircraft flight profile well. If in doubt, ask the controller for his advice and through this advice he again tacitly binds himself to the success of the mission.

It is recommended that a daylight flight is better. If there are any serious weather concerns, a day only flight is the logical decision.

The day / night question

Each organization will need to make a decision on the question of whether to carry out check flights by day only or by day and night. In principle, there is no major issue with carrying routine checks at night provided the meteorological conditions are VFR. However, there are nights when you can see for miles and there are other nights when it is inky black out there with no moon to assist. The combination of night and IFR should start to ring a warning bell or two and certainly will increase the workload on the crew a lot. So, it is recommended that a daylight flight is better, particularly for smaller airlines where these types of flight are flown less often and the crew currency may be lower. Also, after a significant deep service, the flight should commence in daylight if at all possible. In Airbus production testing, the last possible take off time for a first flight is related to the time of useful daylight so that at least the first slow speed handling checks can be carried out in daylight and VFR. If there are any serious weather concerns, a day only flight is the logical decision.

Ask the controller for his advice and through this advice he again tacitly binds himself to the success of the mission.

Weather

During certification development flight testing, the weather criteria often drive the ability to carry out a given test. However, in the check flight world it is rare to have the privilege of waiting for perfect weather. That said, it is certainly wise to know what the bottom line is for the checks to be undertaken. It may not be wise to carry out a check of the brakes in a 30 kt crosswind for example.

In Airbus, the minimum weather for a first flight of a new build aircraft is defined. If full authority flight control checks or envelope protection checks are to be done then some clear vertical airspace between clouds is needed. Autoland systems are checked out in Cat I conditions before they are used for real and a lot of attention is paid to avoid icing layers in the descent for the low speeds handling. Even small amounts of icing can significantly change the onset of buffet speeds and the schedule speeds at which warnings operate.

So as part of the flight preparation and in the cool of the office it is best to define the rules of the game that will be applied from a meteorological point of view. Apply as few rules as possible as this will allow the greatest flexibility for the check crews. Apply only as many rules as may be needed to ensure safety. But then they must be respected - always.

Regarding weather, apply only as many rules as may be needed to ensure safety. But then they must be respected - always.

Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing 031

Checklists should still be used but they should be used for guidance and not treated as if they are the holy grail. No checklist can cover all check situations.

Checklists

Bearing in mind the more normal airline “standards driven” operational situation, the check crew will need to be able to think and work «outside» the standard checklist (whilst still understanding and recognising its importance) and be comfortable doing so. Checklists should still be used but they should be used for guidance and not treated as if they are the Law. No checklist can cover all check situations.

Test schedules

In the airline world, Functional Check Flights are often looked at as not being necessary at all or at best a necessary irritation that interrupts the smooth aircraft allocation and planning process. It means that they are often conducted under great pressure from both operations and technical management who, of course want to see their costly asset getting back into the schedule where it is earning money for the airline as soon as possible. Whilst this is absolutely understandable, especially in the smaller airlines, management have a vital role to play in the check flight process, which is to shield their selected check personnel from such unhelpful pressures, whilst they in turn must do their job as safely and professionally as possible.

Therefore, planning for success means ensuring that the time element is considered. Ideally check flights should be flown in daylight and without the immediate pressure of a “back in line service” time. With smaller airlines sometimes this is simply not possible. However, the planning must allow time for a full briefing opportunity prior to flight and the opportunity to fully de-brief the technical staff.

Likewise, check flights should not be used to carry any form of passengers or people “along for the ride” or just for “the experience”. Whilst appearing to be tempting for various reasons, passengers in the checking situation often lead to adding complexity, health issues and pressure to an already complex exercise. If there is a requirement to move people from A to B then carry out the check flight first, land and then pick up the passengers for the subsequent transit.

Check flights should not be used to carry any form of passengers or people “along for the ride” or just for “the experience”

Different approaches to check schedules are used. A different check schedule can be developed for each type of check flight to be carried out or a master reference check schedule can be created where certain checks are crossed through if they are not applicable. The document should not only have the item to be checked but also any associated safety warnings written before the check together with the success criteria and the maximum tolerances allowed. Where a check demands the approach towards a hard limit like a VFE limit, then the NOT BEYOND figures need to be clearly written as this will form part of the mini item briefing later in the execution phase. Avoid writing a check over two pages if possible and certainly avoid having the safety warning detached from the check to be done. Better to have gaps on the pages. Also as check flights rarely work out as planned, format the schedule to make it easy to handle and use in a different order but take care with this. Certain checks should be carried out before others i.e. low speed handling before approaches.

The Airbus In Service Aircraft Flight Test Manual (ISAFTM) can be used as a reference by Customer airlines to create their own check schedules. Along with the data provided, the other factors mentioned above should all be taken into account in the final airline version. The process, of generating one’s own check schedules, forces the discipline of thinking about all the factors mentioned and ensures a better pre-flight preparation.

Functional Check Flights 033

Executing a Functional Check Flight

Functional Check Flights - Executing

034

035

Ok, so now the right people have been selected and as much preparation as possible has been done. It is time to fly, but in this paper there is no intention of going through a test schedule check by check. This is well covered in Airbus Technical Flight Familiarization Course. The emphasis has deliberately been put on preparation. However, some of the

Briefing

Some guidelines on the briefing are useful here.

1. All involved parties need to be present and listening. Let us remember that this is a pre-flight briefing, not a long maintenance diatribe on what has been done item by item to the aircraft. Such data should already have been reviewed and frankly anyone can only remember a certain amount of detailed information at a time. The briefing is run by the Captain or the Check Engineer and needs to stay relevant to the flight. By all means have background technical people there to answer any questions that may arise.

2. Everyone must understand the task, their role in that task, the planned check sequence and the way in which the flight will be conducted. Any limits and key words should be agreed.

3. The weather needs to be specifically briefed with regards to any impact on any of the abovementioned aspect of the task.

4. Likewise the airfield and ATC and airspace situation must be reviewed.

5. A brief flight risk assessment should be made. This deals with the practical “what will we do if this or that happens?” question. It is not a deep engineering risk assessment but rather a review of the sequence assuming that things may not always go exactly as planned. It should include the things most likely to cause a problem and the fall back plan should they happen.

good things to do and some good general practices that should be followed will be mentioned.

Let us start with the briefing. No matter what the level of advance preparation certain things will change just before the flight and they need to be covered at a pre-flight briefing.

Always have one person flying.

The sections of the flight that are primarily a pure flying activity (like flight control checks or low speed handling) will be identified as will those which are essentially systems related (like a de-pressurization check) and it will be decided who is flying and who is monitoring. Always have one person flying. An observed tendency is that the whole crew gets “involved” in the detail of the check sequence. There is absolutely nothing wrong in having one crew member quietly listening but focused on the basic flying.

This pre-flight briefing will be later supported by mini “in flight briefings” that will be made before certain phases of the check flight to “remind” everyone what is coming next, what the limits are and what action needs to be taken by whom “in the event of” certain situations arising.

Getting airborne

The pre-flight preparation should consider any need for FMS programming regarding fuel transfer and also back up flight plans in case the maneuvers flown early in the plan erase waypoints. Also electrical checks can sometimes cause some interesting computer responses on modern aircraft.

seat. His or her role is to record data and to monitor the work of the pilots in a non-intrusive way but with a “right of intervention” should something occur that he doesn’t understand or that he thinks may be incorrect.

Irrespective of the good use of checklists, along with most of the test fraternity, always carrying out a quiet final configuration check just before take-off and also just before landing seems a useful safety habit to develop.

As stated, it is expected that most airlines would use the standard checklists in the run up to getting airborne in their normal way. The difference is that a third crew member will probably be present in the jump

Functional Check Flights - Executing 037

Really good crew communication throughout the check flight is required. Key words are sometimes useful. These can include commands such as STOP or GO AROUND but there are also some unwritten but absolutely clear rules for events such as one crew member not being comfortable with the test progression.

“Switching” confusion should be avoided by carrying out only one check at a time.

Really good crew communication throughout the check flight is required.

Take-off

If any test / check crew member says “I am not happy” the active pilot recovers immediately and the crew reviews the situation. Likewise if someone declares themselves as being “out of it” through workload or whatever, again, a recovery is carried out and then a re-brief to ensure all crew members are mentally on the same test point with the same level of understanding of the plan. Even silences need to be “listened to” as they can tell you that another crew member may be concerned about something. After a while it is possible to develop a “nose” for when it is not going according to plan and that is the time to slow it down and think about what is happening and whether the plan still makes sense. The

In the manufacturers test world, some specialist Flight Test Engineers are included in the take-off brief, so as to allow them the right to call STOP, as a key word command. The circumstances under which they would exercise this right are discussed and carefully considered and if in doubt they say nothing. In the airline world such a protocol probably would not be appropriate (subject to the experience and training) and we would recommend staying as close to the local standard practice as possible. In general, the flight deck should be quiet and free of unnecessary “chat” and certainly so below FL100. Careless words can be mis-interpreted and sometimes create a dangerous response.

Actually, in the manufacturer’s world, the principle is carried a bit deeper than this and it is normal to have two members of the three man check team always “in the loop”. Normally the flying pilot is allowed to concentrate on that task whilst the non-flying pilot and the “engineer” focus on system switching safety. It is also easy for one person to get “buried”, for example whilst carrying out radio checks (normally the non-flying pilot) but under those situations it is essential that the non-flying third member be in the loop with the person on the controls and aware of what is happening in a general flying sense. “Switching” confusion should be avoided by carrying out only one check at a time.

pacing has to be led by the slowest crew member but of course there are situations where ATC has no choice but to dictate the check pace such as when you are in the pattern or on the approach. Often the aircraft may be carrying a snag or two by this stage and the impact has to be continually re-assessed against the “remain to do” checks. This is where good check crews work together to continually formulate a new and safe plan of action.

As regards external communication, if there are significant radio problems, then the safe continuation of a check flight quickly becomes very challenging and it may well be wiser to concentrate on getting on the ground safely to get the radios fixed before continuing with other checks.

If there are significant radio problems, then the safe continuation of a check flight quickly becomes very challenging.

Functional Check Flights - Executing

038

039

Workload

Enter a hold or ask for a vector away from the airfield, to give thinking time.

Workload also has to be continually assessed on an individual and group basis. One person may become overloaded for a short while but if two out of the three reach this state then the situation can become very critical very quickly. The whole crew must never be allowed to reach this state, so if the test crew is only a two person crew the increased threat is obvious. A third, check qualified, crew member for this type of work is therefore strongly recommended.

One of the problems with workload is that it can rise very quickly and in such a way that the individual concerned, although aware that he or she is working too hard, is unable to take the decisions that will reduce that potentially dangerous situation. The person involved may even be unable to “see” the problem, never mind the solution.

As the workload increases the crew has to prioritize the tasks. The first priority is always securing the safety of the aircraft. Easy to say, but often this requires some tough decisions to be made and sometimes ones that local management may not be too happy with. Someone, normally the Captain, has to make it clear that until the technical systems issues are resolved or their implications fully understood, no more check points will

be carried out. Enter a hold or ask for a vector away from the airfield, to give thinking time, are useful workload reducing techniques. If the crew has a problem that they do not understand they should put the aircraft back on the ground while they think about it. There is no room for “pressing on” when a situation is not understood and may be potentially dangerous or worse, catastrophic.

Secondly, the objective is to secure good quality check or test data. There is no point in being there to gather poor data that the engineers cannot use. And finally the whole process should be carried out as expeditiously as possible. It is not a pleasure flight, although when done well, it’s extremely enjoyable. The objective is to re-clear the aircraft so that it can get back into the air quickly and re-start earning revenue with passengers on board.

The first priority is always securing the safety of the aircraft… Secondly, the objective is to secure good quality check or test data…

Snag resolution

The whole purpose of a check flight is be able to give an aircraft a clean bill of health, so it is not surprising that if a snag is found there is a desire to find out as much as possible about that snag to help the mechanics. Laudable as this may sound, it can lead quickly to some very unhealthy situations. Great care needs to be taken when “snag chasing”. The implications of one failure needs to be understood across all the systems affected, as do the implications of selecting certain associated systems into a degraded mode so as to “isolate” a snag. Remember too, that there may be another dormant but un-reported snag in the system already, which when coupled with the original snag and the crew switching may put the aircraft into a serious risk area. We tend to think, with modern aircraft, that everything is captured by the BITE system or is presented to us through the Flight Warning Computers but this is not so. This brings us back to the issue of integrity and if the crew do not know all the ramifications of complex and multiple switching actions then they simply should not do it. Put the aircraft on the ground, examine the situation very carefully, call the manufacturer if in doubt and only then proceed after having tried to fix the problem.

No anomalous indication on an aircraft appears for no reason. Some are small, some have little operational significance, some are intermittent (the worst kind) but there is always a reason. It is no good just hoping a snag has somehow just “gone away”. It may indeed not be easy to reproduce the symptoms or it may be limited to certain very precise flight or meteorological conditions but it will still be there and if left, these types of snag have a habit of returning at the worst possible moment. Sometimes the smallest of apparent issues can lead to failure scenarios with some very serious consequences. Watch out particularly for snags associated with “enabling” functions like weight on wheels switches and sensors. Their impact can be seen over several systems. Pressure controllers are another area where a snag can turn from fairly benign to very serious pretty quickly.

Watch out particularly for snags associated with “enabling” functions like weight on wheels switches and sensors.

No anomalous indication on an aircraft appears for no reason.

Note: In case the crew also needs to perform a Certificate of Airworthiness renewal which also includes checks, the crew must mentally separate these two demands and if possible clear the aircraft of snags first prior to completing the C of A renewal check points. If that is not possible (sometimes it is not) then crew awareness and good communication is essential.

Functional Check Flights - Executing 041

Tricky test points

Think about tricky test points on the ground carefully and decide how they should be flown and what the “break off” point is.

Some checks are certainly more difficult to fly than others or some may have a more immediate impact if they go wrong. The failure of a generator to come back on line does not have the same immediately damaging effect as allowing the speed to exceed Vmo by too much. So it is sensible to treat the “tricky test points” with the care they demand and not to rush them. Think about them on the ground carefully and decide how they should be flown and what the “break off” point is. These tricky tests can include speed limit checks, envelope boundary checks, depressurizations, initial handling checks, low speed checks and of course some engine checks.

It is also important not to become tempted to “take a look at” some of the certification test points. There are many “interesting” experiences in this category that could have developed into sad stories. Taking one example like Vmca definition, fuel starvation on some types of aircraft has occurred in the past on this test (which is done at very low altitude) causing the remaining engine to stop. The job of the checker is not to try to re-define the basic certification criteria of the aircraft. Those criteria have been flown and examined by experts under strict weather conditions and rigorously controlled conditions. The checkers job is to check “this” line aircraft against a pre-defined and approved Airworthiness standard or to clear a reported squawk or snag.

It is also important not to become tempted to “take a look at” some of the certification test points.

Different flight plans

With a modern aircraft check flight there are several “plans” being conducted at the same time. You have the desired planned check schedule. You have the approved Air Traffic Flight Plan which may involve some “on airways” flying and will often start with some sort of procedural departure. The FMS may have to be set up to a slightly different plan to ensure some functions work as they should like fuel transfer logics. There is also the Flight Warning Computer flight phase plan which may throw “stored” snags at you at pre-determined times and you also have an Air Traffic Control handover plan which drives the communication world and to some extent the workload. Finally, remember that you have no control over the most important “plan” and it’s called “the weather”.

The crews’ job is to safely carry out the check points whilst also conducting this “orchestra” of differing plans not all of which are in sequence and not all want to align conveniently. It’s not unusual to have a check point set up and ready, only to be asked to change frequency, squawk and then head straight towards a Cb.!! Or you may require an altitude or a block of altitudes only to run out of the ideal bit of airspace in which to do the next point. Patience is required and it is this aspect that benefits most from pre-planning, a good weather examination and pre-consultation with the ATC guys. It may be that on some days it simply becomes impossible and the sensible conclusion is to keep it safe and call it a day. Such judgments are not easy as they often have a considerable cost implication.

The crews’ job is to safely carry out the check points whilst also conducting this orchestra of differing plans not all of which are in sequence and not all want to align conveniently.

042 Functional Check Flights - Executing

Functional Check Flights

043

Cabin systems

Increasingly the area of cabin testing, as said before, is becoming more and more important. Complex seat systems and entertainment systems prevail and it is worth getting to know basically how they work. With the new larger aircraft, there is much closer integration between cabin systems and the flight deck, so cabin systems are no longer “something back there”. They are “passenger important” check areas that have to be thought about quite hard.

This whole paper could have dealt with pressurization issues that have occurred during testing but in order to be brief it is worth thinking about emergency oxygen if a depressurization is planned. Plan which oxygen sets the crew will use. The typical therapeutic oxygen bottles may be “a bridge too far” for someone working in the back of the aircraft to get to. Try getting one out of its stowage and in use in 20 secs and remember that if you are in the cabin checking something you may have to walk some distance to get to the bottle. A better idea is to select and allow a few well-placed oxygen masks to drop in the event of a full de-pressurization, so that the cabin checker can immediately take a seat and then breathe oxygen with the nearest passenger system.

Think also about communication with the guys in the back and ensure the ability to inform them of what is going on and when to be strapped in. Likewise, there are many tasks they can help with like wing inspections and they will need to be able to communicate with the flight deck.

Conclusion

The key to a successful FCF is to prepare thoroughly on the ground and to ensure the best information and knowledge is available to the well selected and correctly trained crew. Once airborne, the most common weakness in the overall checking “system”, of aircraft and crew, will probably be the active pilot as he is the most likely to become over loaded in a workload sense. Therefore, well communicated and timely support from the rest of the check crew is essential in ensuring the success of the check mission. It is the role of the Captain to encourage such communication. It is the duty of all check flight crew members to be active in a communication sense. The challenge for the crew is to avoid critical crew workload levels by excellent preparation, by regular mini briefings and by being ready for the unexpected as they conduct each test. Solid flying skills help as they allow a greater concentration on the communication aspects of the whole operation.

Always remember: Select the crews well, train them properly, brief carefully including the ATC and airspace agencies, plan the flight carefully and then fly the plan “defensively” with “escape routes” in mind and being failure minded. Never assume “it” will work perfectly. Finally, communicate well and no matter what the pressures are, always default to the safest decision.

We wish you good, safe check flights and remember always that preparation is the key.

044 Functional Check Flights

Articles published in previous ‘Safety first’ issues

Issue 20

July 2015

Control your speed… during climb
Lateral runway excursions upon landing
Fuel monitoring on A320 Family aircraft
High-altitude manual flying

Issue 19

January 2015

Tidy cockpit for safe flight
Landing on contaminated runways
Understanding weight & balance
Wind shear: an invisible enemy to pilots?

Issue 18

July 2014

Control your speed… at take-off
Safe operations with composite aircraft
Learning from the evidence
A320 Family cargo Containers/ pallets movement
Parts Departing from Aircraft (PDA)

Issue 17

January 2014

Airbus Brake Testing
Hard Landing, a Case Study for Crews and Maintenance Personnel
Aircraft Protection during Washing and Painting
Flight Data Analysis (FDA), a Predictive Tool for Safety Management System (SMS)
Flying a Go-Around, Managing Energy

Issue 16

July 2013

• Performance Based

Navigation: RNP and RNP AR Approaches
Atlantic Airways: Introduction of RNP AR 0.1 Operations

• Flight Crews and De-Icing Personnel – Working together in Temporary Teamwork for safe Skies

Low Speed Rejected Take-Off upon Engine Failure
Late Changes before Departure

Issue 15

January 2013

The Golden Rules for Pilots moving from PNF to PM
Airbus Crosswind Development and Certification
The SMOKE/FUMES/AVNCS SMOKE Procedure
Post-Maintenance Foreign Objects Damage (FOD) Prevention
Corrosion: A Potential Safety Issue

Issue 14

July 2012

Thrust Reverser Selection means Full-Stop
Transient Loss of Communication due to Jammed Push-To-Talk A320 and A330/A340 Families
A380: Development of the Flight Controls - Part 2
Preventing Fan Cowl Door Loss
Do not forget that you are not alone in Maintenance

Issue 13

January 2012

A320 Family / A330 Prevention and Handling of Dual Bleed Loss
The Fuel Penalty Factor
The Airbus TCAS Alert Prevention (TCAP)
• A380: Development of the Flight Controls - Part 1
Facing the Reality of everyday Maintenance Operations

Issue 12

July 2011

Airbus New Operational Landing Distances
The Go Around Procedure
The Circling Approach
VMU Tests on A380
Automatic Landings in Daily Operation

Issue 11

January 2011

What is Stall?
How a Pilot Should React in Front of a Stall Situation
Minimum Control Speed Tests on A380
Radio Altimeter Erroneous Values
Automatic NAV Engagement at Go Around

Issue 10

August 2010

A380: Flutter Tests
Operational Landing Distances: A New Standard for In-flight Landing Distance Assessment
Go Around Handling
A320: Landing Gear Downlock

Issue 9

Issue 6

February 2010

July 2008

A320 Family: Evolution of Ground Spoiler Logic
A320: Runway Overrun
FCTL Check after EFCS Reset on Ground
Incorrect Pitch Trim Setting at Take-Off
A320: Possible Consequence of VMO/MMO Exceedance
• A320: Prevention of Tailstrikes
Technical Flight Familiarization
Oxygen Safety
Low Fuel Situation Awareness

Issue 8

Rudder Pedal Jam
Why do Certain AMM Tasks Require Equipment Resets?

July 2009

Slide/raft Improvement
The Runway Overrun Prevention System

• Cabin Attendant Falling through the Avionics Bay Access Panel in Cockpit

The Take-Off Securing Function
Computer Mixability: An Important Function

Issue 5

Fuel Spills During Refueling Operations

December 2007

Issue 7

New CFIT Event During Non Precision Approach

February 2009

A320: Tail Strike at Take-Off?
Unreliable Speed
Airbus AP/FD TCAS Mode: • Compliance to Operational A New Step Towards Safety Procedures Improvement • The Future Air Navigation
• Braking System Cross System FANS B
Compliance to Operational Procedures
Braking System Cross Connections

Issue 4

Upset Recovery Training Aid, Revision 2

June 2007

Fuel Pumps Left in OFF Position
A320: Avoiding Dual Bleed Loss
Operations Engineering Bulletin Reminder Function
Avoiding High Speed Rejected Take-Offs Due to EGT Limit Exceedance
Do you Know your ATC/TCAS Panel?
Managing Hailstorms
Introducing the Maintenance Briefing Notes
A320: Dual hydraulic Loss
Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems Operations Based on GPS Data

Issue 3

December 2006

Dual Side Stick Inputs
Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Damage
Pitot Probes Obstruction on Ground
A340: Thrust Reverser Unlocked
Residual Cabin Pressure
Cabin Operations Briefing Notes
Hypoxia: An Invisible Enemy

Issue 2

September 2005

Tailpipe or Engine Fire
Managing Severe Turbulence
Airbus Pilot Transition (ATP)
Runway Excursions at Take-Off

Issue 1

January 2005

Go Arounds in Addis-Ababa due to VOR Reception Problems
The Importance of the Pre-flight Flight Control Check
• A320: In-flight Thrust Reverser Deployment
Airbus Flight Safety Manager Handbook
Flight Operations Briefing Notes
Situation Awareness and Decision Making

中文译文

来源: Airbus Safety First 网址: https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/functional-check-flights-1-4-special-flights-requiring-special-treatment/ 发布日期: 2015-10-19 类别: 飞行运营 PDF: 原始 PDF

空中客车安全杂志 2015年10月

特刊

Safety first 功能检查飞行

功能检查飞行

002

001

Safety first，特刊 2015年10月。Safety first由空中客车公司出版——法国布朗扎克 Cedex 31707，Maurice Bellonte 环岛1号。出版人：Yannick Malinge，首席产品安全官。编辑：Corinne Bieder，产品安全战略与传播总监。概念设计：Airbus Multi Media Support 20151711。参考编号：D15030884。摄影：Airbus、P. Masclet、Lindner Fotografie、S. Chobert、P. Pigeyre、C. Brinkmann。法国印刷。

本手册采用 Stucco 纸张印刷。该纸张由获得 EMAS 认证并通过 ISO 9001/14001、PEFC 和 FSC CoC 认证的工厂生产。纸张采用无氯、无酸漂白工艺制浆，完全可回收利用，原料来源于可持续经营森林的木材。印刷油墨使用有机颜料或矿物质，不含碱性染料或镉、铅、汞、六价铬等危险金属。

印刷商 Art & Caractère（法国 81500）实施了废弃物管理与回收计划，对所有副产品进行回收处理。

接收本手册（以下简称“手册”），即表示贵公司同意遵守以下指南：

除仅为信息目的阅读本手册的权利外，因交付本手册而未授予其他知识产权。

未经空中客车事先书面同意，不得修改本手册及其内容，不得复制其插图和照片。

本手册及其包含的材料，不得全部或部分出售、出租或授权给任何第三方。

本手册包含敏感信息，印刷时信息准确无误。这些信息涉及多种可能随时间变化的因素，影响其对公众的表述准确性。空中客车不承担更新本文件所含信息或与此处描述信息相关的义务。

无论本手册及其包含材料的使用造成任何损害，Airbus S.A.S. 均不承担责任，即使已告知发生此类损害的可能性。

Safety first

空中客车致力于通过增进安全相关主题的知识与交流，提升飞机运营安全的杂志。

Safety first 由产品安全部出版，是飞行和地面机组人员（驾驶和维护空中客车飞机）专用的专业安全信息来源，同时也分发给其他选定的机构。

publications 稿件来自多个渠道，包括空中客车飞行安全保密报告系统的精选信息、事故和事故调查报告、系统测试和飞行测试。材料还来自航空公司行业内部、政府机构的研究和报告以及其他航空来源。

Safety first 中的所有文章仅供信息参考，无意替代 ICAO 的指南、标准或推荐做法、运营人强制要求或技术指令。内容不取代注册国对其飞机运营人的任何强制要求，也不取代或修订任何空中客车特定机型的 AFM、AMM、FCOM、MMEL 文件或其他批准文件。

除标明版权来源的文章外，其他文章可未经许可转载，但需注明出处。非空中客车撰写的文章内容不一定反映空中客车的观点，也不表示公司政策。

欢迎来稿、评论和反馈。因技术原因，编辑可能需要对稿件进行编辑修改，但将尽一切努力保留原文的原意。如有与本出版物相关的询问，请联系：

空中客车产品安全部（GS） 法国布朗扎克 Cedex 31707，Maurice Bellonte 环岛1号 safetycommunication@airbus.com 传真：+33(0)5 61 93 44 29

过去的经验表明，将功能检查飞行当作“正常”商业飞行来执行会带来重大的安全问题。

事实上，尽管功能检查飞行可能在航空公司环境中执行——这类环境习惯于管理商业飞行的安全——但它们在许多方面与例行飞行不同：非收入飞行的性质、对飞行员资质的要求、特定的运营环境特征、指导文件乃至整体监管框架。

YANNICK MALINGE

功能检查飞行是特殊的飞行，需要特定的安全关注。因此，以特殊的版式呈现是恰当的。本期《Safety First》杂志特刊将带您了解功能检查飞行的特殊准备流程。

SVP兼首席产品安全官

这一流程在实际飞行之前很早就开始了，涉及到更为广泛和更高层次组织层面。它涉及多个时间维度上的多个方面的内容，所有这些都有助于为此类飞行做好充分准备。

为了将这些方面作为一个整体加以解决，本特刊也采用了特殊的结构。不是一组文章，而是一篇按照不同组织层面和时间维度组织的完整文本，阐述安全功能检查飞行所需的条件。

祝您阅读愉快！

功能检查飞行

需要做好哪些准备？

每次飞行都是独特的，需要由机组人员根据飞机的状态、航线、天气条件、自身状况、燃油量、飞机重量和平衡……等因素进行准备。然而，涉及飞机功能检查的飞行具有额外的特殊风险，需要更加注意安全。

事实上，这些飞行在航空公司环境中执行时，在许多方面与“正常”、常规的航空公司飞行有显著不同。它们有时被称为技术检查飞行、维修后检查飞行、租约终止转场飞行或功能检查飞行。在本杂志中，我们使用功能检查飞行（Functional Check Flights）这一缩写，或简称 FCF。

确保 FCF 的安全依赖于多个方面和参与者，涵盖所有组织层面和阶段。本特刊将为您提供安全执行 FCF 的概览。它将沿时间/组织单元的维度，阐述各层面促进 FCF 安全的重大方面。因此，本特刊分为以下几个部分：

特殊飞行航空公司准备规划和准备执行 需要特殊处理功能检查飞行功能检查飞行功能检查飞行

功能检查飞行 005

特殊飞行 需要特殊处理

006 功能检查飞行 - 特殊飞行

功能检查飞行 - 特殊飞行 007

什么是功能检查飞行？

EASA 维修检查飞行法规概览

图1：功能检查飞行法规概要

非收入

技术检查

维修后检查

租约终止

功能检查飞行是在维修操作后进行的非收入飞行，这些维修可能影响飞机的固有气动特性或系统特性以及操作性能，或在飞机归还出租人之前进行。建议由三名航空公司机组人员执行：两名飞行员和一名工程师。

因此，在航空公司领域，FCF 与常规运营活动在许多方面存在差异。

首先，FCF 是“非收入飞行”。由于这一活动不是航空公司的核心业务，它在一定程度上也会扰乱飞机和机组人员的调度安排，同时占用飞机、机组人员及其他所需运营人员。

此外，考虑到 FCF 的目的是接近极限、检查系统以及飞机响应，FCF 对航空公司机组来说是不同寻常的飞行。

特定框架

无论是心态、培训、文档、规划还是所有其他有助于此类飞行安全的维度，FCF 都需要特殊的准备和条件。

确保此类飞行安全的初步条件是在各个层面承认这些飞行的独特地位和对特殊处理的需求。

从监管角度看，FCF 的特殊性已得到认可，并转化为制定专门的维修检查飞行法规。该法规由 EASA 于2012年发布：参考 - EASA，NPA 2012-08。维修检查飞行（MCF）。

监管要求涵盖了对 FCF 安全有贡献的多个方面，即：

机组人员要求
额外机组人员
培训课程
维修检查飞行手册

为了补充和超越监管材料，以下章节提供了关于对 FCF 安全飞行有贡献的关键方面的详细定性见解。

航空公司准备 执行功能检查飞行

功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备 011

选拔和培训的机组人员

一旦承认功能检查飞行值得特殊对待，在航空公司层面建立执行此类飞行所需的一切准备就需要涵盖多个方面，下文将逐一审查。

在检查飞行工作中，个人档案的某些特征比其他任务更为重要。在航空公司，大多数年轻飞行员的选拔标准有着不同的目标。然而，检查飞行是所有航空公司都必须面对的现实，而这项任务往往落在首席飞行员或其他资深人员身上，比如机队机长或机队技术飞行员，他们可能将此类飞行视为“走出办公室”的机会。但并非所有这些人员——尽管他们都很重要——都必然最适合这项任务，也并非他们都能抽出应有的、可能也是他们希望的那样充足的时间来进行准备。那么，在招募进入“检查 community”的人选时，应该关注什么呢？

检查机组人员要在这一领域取得成功，需要建立在 4 个支柱之上，即 知识、技能、能力 和经验。“这和我所在的领域没什么区别，”人们可能会这样说，但让我们从“检查”的角度更仔细地审视其中一些特征。

知识

显然需要对飞机、任务背后的理论以及自身角色有深入的了解。在检查飞行这个领域生存下去，求知欲强的大脑必不可少，而且我们期望所有检查空勤人员都会不断提问——问完一个再问下一个，直到得到既“正确”又合理的答案。来自新手的提问尤其受欢迎，因为它们能保持组织的敏锐和锐利。虚假信息通常很容易被识别，在检查领域没有容身之地，所以回答必须经得起推敲。

五年前正确的答案今天可能已经不正确了。环境会变化，而这些变化有时需要重新思考。同样重要的是，在这方面要保持自力更生。不要等别人把信息送上门来，要主动去寻觅，并建立良好的联系人网络和可靠信息来源。

求知欲强的大脑必不可少。不要等别人把信息送上门来，要主动去寻觅。

技能

重要的技能包括观察、解读、分析，以及绝不可或缺的——沟通。飞行员所谓的“运动功能”飞行技能当然也需要相当不错，但有些人可能会惊讶地发现，纯粹的飞行协调和技术并不一定是首要优先级，只要这方面达到任务可接受的水平即可。然而，飞行能力确实会影响飞行员处理高工作负荷情况的能力，因此这将在后文关于失控的章节中进一步提及。

其中一些技能并非所有人都能天生具备。必须仔细思考每个检查点或任务，确定哪些参数是重要的。还要知道何时以及多久读取一次这些参数，然后何时记录。对于这种情况下的第三名机组人员来说，记录任务始终次要于担任安全“观察员”的角色——这个人需要对每个检查点的执行方式进行即时监督，并能因此及时发出警告。

功能检查飞行——航空公司准备就绪

功能检查飞行——航空公司准备就绪 013

012

资质

合适类型的飞行员或工程师应该在 CRM 方面天赋异禀，尤其擅长倾听……诀窍在于确保在检查飞行中，所有拥有知识和有用信息的人都能真正被倾听，无论他们的级别、制服上的条纹数量、国籍、性别或薪资等级如何。

资质这个词更加复杂。在此语境下，它指的是某人是否”以正确的方式思考”并展现出正确的判断力。

首先，检查学员需要能够处理几个看似矛盾的情况。让我举几个例子。以检查机组成员在某个特定话题上必须坚持己见与何时可以灵活变通的问题为例。如果我们面临这样一种情况：飞机在检查飞行前或后可能需要返工，但当天晚些时候还要按计划执行任务，你就能立即看到这种相当常见的情况下必须承受的压力，知道何时可以灵活处理或何时必须采取更强硬的立场，这也是工作的一部分。

再举一个例子，在典型的小组讨论中——例如关于特定系统检查——某些人不可避免地会比其他人拥有更多知识，因此何时应该基于自己的知识发言、何时应该倾听，就成为一项技能和挑战。通过适当的敏感度和相互了解，团队动态必须引导出正确答案。

最广为人知的可能是信心问题。检查机组成员必须具有足够的自信，在必要时做出决策并介入正在发展的情况，但自信不能过度，以至于可能导致在超出安全限制的条件下飞检查点。检查飞行领域有许多这样的矛盾情况需要面对和正确解决。优秀的团队成员在这些情况中正确的时候比错误的时候多。

因此，合适类型的飞行员或工程师应该在 CRM 方面天赋异禀，尤其擅长倾听。但检查飞行的 CRM 与正常的航空公司航线情况大不相同。担任功能飞行检查工程师的地面工程师很可能是对某个特定系统最有了解的人。同样，副驾驶也可能是某个特定领域的专家，因此在检查飞行期间，驾驶舱内的领导权平衡可能会发生变化，只有在必须做出最终安全决策时才能确定性地向机长倾斜。显然，在正常的航空公司情况下，权力梯度是明确定义的。但每家航空公司都需要根据其当地和国家的文化背景来决定如何处理权力梯度问题。诀窍在于确保在检查飞行中，所有拥有知识和有用信息的人都能真正被倾听，无论他们的级别、制服上的条纹数量、国籍、性别或薪资等级如何。

尤其是检查飞行员，还需要能够在活动中实现良好的平衡，并保持必要的自信水平而不会过度自大。寻找那些不是试图证明自己有多优秀，而是试图证明飞机有多优秀（或多差）的人。有趣的是，这一特质在飞行表演领域也至关重要。

寻找那些不是试图证明自己有多优秀，而是试图证明飞机有多优秀（或多差）的人。

在某些方面，这是检查领域与正常运营飞行世界之间的关键区别。年轻飞行员在成长职业生涯中不断提升作为飞行员的技能，并需要在测试条件下展示这些技能。如果飞行进行得不太顺利，正常的反应是”一定是我的问题”。“我今天状态不佳”。换句话说，他们会向内审视自己的表现。检查领域则不同。它要求他们成为”标准”，并用这个标准来评估他们所驾驶的飞机。受到检验的是飞机，而不是飞行员。他们必须向外看。如果昨天驾驶了同一型号的飞机，其在特定机动中的响应是”正常”的，但今天不正常或感觉不同，那么什么改变了？有什么东西改变了吗？重量和重心是否相同，或者可能是更严重的问题，比如由于配平损坏导致的飞控系统降级？

受到检验的是飞机，而不是飞行员。

最后，也是最值得期待的特征清单中的首位，是个人正直，它被看得比什么都重要。检查飞行专家需要是心理足够强大的人，能够为自己的决定负责（无论好坏），然后能够与自己的错误共存，从中学习，并将其传达给他人。可能会浪费数小时追踪一个不存在的故障或飞行特性，而实际上罪魁祸首是选择了错误构型或在错误时间拨动错误开关的飞行员。在研发测试的世界里，没有藏身之处，因为所做的一切都被拍摄、仪表化、遥测化，并由专家团队进行检查，但在航空公司检查飞行的情况下并非如此，老式的正直至关重要。在这项活动中，没有比这更重要的特征了。

最值得期待的特征清单中的首位，是个人正直。

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness

014

经验

超越飞行小时数……

经验（正确的经验类型）在提高判断力、任务优先级排序和风险评估方面极其有价值，但经验也可能是巨大的欺骗者。在世界某些地区，有许多累计飞行时间达35000小时的航空公司飞行员，他们完全不适合执行检查飞行任务。这类人员在做重复性和相似性任务方面经验丰富，但缺乏多种不同经验来做出良好且明智的检查飞行判断。因此，要超越飞行小时数去寻找，了解飞行记录簿中有哪些相关的检查经验，以及个人成功完成过多少次非例行操作。

专项培训

在面试中识别这些主要特征并为这类工作选拔“合适”的人选，将在检查飞行场景中带来诸多益处。确实，如果人选错误，无论流程多好，仍然存在风险。然而，对这些人进行培训以进一步发展其执行检查飞行所需的知识、技能和态度是一项额外的资产。

当具备适当的专业知识且管理层充分支持、认识到需要让员工在检查飞行方面“跟上进度”时，在航空公司内部培训检查飞行员是完全可行的。一些拥有大型机队的航空公司设有专门的专业部门，负责对所有机队飞机进行检查。

同样，制造商的功能检查飞行课程也已由空客开发并取得了非常积极的效果。该课程的目的不是培养完全合格的试飞员，而是让学员初步接触正确的思维方式，帮助航空公司的检查人员沿着学习阶梯提升，从而避免一些基本错误。该课程使用空客的一种机型作为载体来承载“通用”教学内容，空客也用这种机型来展示安全执行FCF所需的知识和技能水平。

其他航空培训机构也提供类似课程，但方式更为通用。选择权在航空公司。

空客技术飞行熟悉课程

对涉及安全关切的功能检查飞行进行的分析，使我们能够突出有助于此类飞行安全的关键方面：

基于经验的反馈，空客于2009年开发了技术熟悉飞行课程，目标是使飞行机组掌握知识、技能和态度，以提高执行以下任务时的安全、质量和效率：

建立飞机检查的思维方式
建立适当的机组期望
掌握执行与航线运营不同动作的特定技能
- 技术飞行或功能检查飞行（即维护后、喷漆后等）
- 接收飞行（即运营商之间的移交）
识别机组人员目标差异带来的威胁，特别是在租期结束情况下
避免采用“打勾式”方法

本课程面向3人机组（2名飞行员和1名工程师），由2名教官（1名试飞员和1名试飞工程师）授课。

了解与不熟悉的飞机重量和重心相关的性能和操控差异

该课程结合地面阶段（2天）、全动飞行模拟机阶段（2天）和实际飞行，涵盖上述所有方面，使FCF尽可能安全。

新的机组技能组合和新知识
积极的ATC协调

想了解更多关于空客技术飞行熟悉课程的信息？请联系或访问网站

功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备就绪

016

017

指导文件

除了拥有合适的人员之外，为执行功能检查飞行做好准备还依赖于对以下内容的理解：这些检查是什么、为什么需要这些检查，以及如何执行这些检查。

多年来，关于航空公司如果打算自行执行维修后功能检查飞行应使用哪份文件一直存在一定程度的混淆。

执行功能检查飞行应使用的唯一手册是 ISATFM。请勿使用 CAM。

将一份手册误认为另一份可能会引入隐藏的风险，这在功能检查飞行的领域中是绝不应该存在的。那么应该使用哪一份手册呢？

每种情况对应一份手册

空客开发了多份手册用于执行“检查”飞行。具体包括：ISATFM（In-Service Aircraft Technical Flight Manual，在役飞机技术飞行手册）、PATM（Production Aircraft Test Manual，生产飞机测试手册）和 CAM（Customer Acceptance Manual，客户验收手册）。多年来，关于航空公司如果打算自行执行维修后飞行检查应使用哪份文件一直存在一定程度的混淆。

在技术飞行检查的领域中存在若干隐藏的风险，不应该出现这种情况。那么应该使用哪一份手册呢？

虽然这三份手册所涵盖的所有飞行都是用于执行检查，但每份手册在以下方面都有特定的适用范围：

飞机的状态（从生产线直接交付到已在役运营）。

最简单但错误的解决方案似乎是使用最容易获得的那份手册——客户验收手册，该手册在接收新交付飞机时的验收飞行期间已提供给所有客户。然而，这种“解决方案”所带来的问题包括：

飞行员及其所属机构的背景。

简而言之，这些文件可以概括如下：

功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备工作

功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备工作 019

018

ISATFM（IN-SERVICE AIRCRAFT TECHNICAL FLIGHT MANUAL，在役飞机技术飞行手册）

如前所述，这是用于在役飞机必须使用的手册。每个空客飞机系列都有相应的 ISATFM：宽体机对应 A300 系列、单通道对应 A320 系列远程对应 A330/A340 系列、双层对应 A380。

没有飞行检查经验的飞行员来说，较为复杂。因此，手册进行了划分，使“第 2 部分”成为飞机在正常包线内的基本功能检查，而“第 3 部分”则为经过适当培训且被允许对飞机及其系统进行更深入技术检查的机组执行的进阶检查。

每份手册分为 3 个部分：

第 1 部分为地面检查阶段，第 2 部分为基础飞行阶段，第 3 部分为经培训机组执行的附加检查飞行阶段。

这些阶段应按逻辑顺序和编号顺序执行。

事实上，第 2 部分适用于已投入运营、在飞行前没有重大维修工作的飞机，便于运营商之间的交接阶段。它可以由常规航线飞行员执行。

这些是第 2 部分不应该被航空公司用作技术飞行手册的主要原因。

在这里，我们只讨论飞行阶段（第 2 部分和第 3 部分）。

2014 年，应飞机租赁行业的要求，ISATFM 飞行阶段被划分为两个部分。人们认识到，旧一代 ISATFM 手册对于没有飞行检查经验的飞行员来说飞行难度较大。因此，手册进行了划分，使“第 2 部分”成为飞机在正常包线内的基本功能检查，而“第 3 部分”则为经过适当培训且被允许对飞机及其系统进行更深入技术检查的机组执行的进阶检查。

第 3 部分飞行剖面与首次生产飞行非常相似，但不包括性能检查或降级模式检查。飞行结束时，机组对飞机的技术状态会有非常清晰的了解。

为了执行“第 3 部分”飞行剖面，建议机组应接受适当的培训。

如何获取 ISATFM 手册及其使用方法？

空客开发的 ISATFM 文件使用理念是支持航空公司开发自己的 FCF 手册，并根据自身的运营环境（机场、检查项目、飞行员概况……）进行改编和定制。换句话说，ISATFM 被设计成一份“菜单式”选项，是空客基于其专业知识推荐的指南。但为了支持功能检查飞行的安全，每家航空公司都需要经历自身的思考过程，并基于此参考设计自己的手册。这一过程可能导致航空公司删除某些检查项目（如果对执行这些检查缺乏信心），或根据其环境添加特定信息……

为确保所有航空公司了解和认可这一必要步骤，ISATFM 由空客在收到请求后提供，需签署并接收一份法律免责声明，说明如何使用此文件。该法律免责声明声明，航空公司应使用所提供 ISATFM 的指南自行控制其文件，且应移除空客文件标题并应用航空公司标题。相应地，免责声明还声明，带有空客标题的 ISATFM 文档不应转发给第三方，不得复制或存储，但这仅针对带空客标题的版本。

如需收到免责声明，航空公司需致函 EVRT 秘书处（evrt.control-room@airbus.com）。

作为回应，航空公司将收到法律免责声明，必须签署并返还，以便收到其机型对应的文档。随后，航空公司将收到 PDF 版本的文档。

功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备工作

功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备工作 021

020

ISATFM 简介……或飞行中需要执行的检查

飞行中飞机上的首要主要动作是飞行控制检查。在确认所有松散物品已固定且气象雷达已关闭后，飞行员将使飞机俯仰和滚转至保护限制范围内，但不超过限制——即俯仰角+30°至-15°，拉杆不超过+2.0g，推杆不低于+0.5g，左右坡度略超过45°。目的是确保飞机响应和”感觉”正常，且包线保护功能按设计工作。

随后，将检查自动飞行系统，包括正常断开和杆力超控断开，然后进行全球速度保护检查，以监控控制律的转换。

在爬升过程中，第三名机组成员监控并记录系统参数，同时检查是否有异常值。飞行员忙于执行无线电和导航定性检查。到达 FL310 时，机组对发动机进行一系列检查，横向配平（检查飞机是否保持水平飞行），以及气压高度表和迎角传感器的测速检查。确认无误后，机组将继续进行气压检查。首次检查是将座舱充压至最大压力限制，以检查座舱压力安全活门的正确功能。此项检查至关重要，机组必须非常仔细地监控活门在正确的限制范围内打开。随后进行泄漏率和释压检查，座舱高度可能升至 14000 英尺，同时检查座舱泄漏率（由客舱门和货舱门密封件引起）、组件活门密封、座舱高度警告，最后是氧气面罩的释放。此项后续检查需要与机上任何客舱工程师进行良好的沟通和协调。如果有”非机组成员”在客舱工作，建议使用较低的座舱高度进行释压——在这种情况下，在高高度警告（座舱高度 9550 或 11300 英尺）处停止释压，然后使用”面罩人工接通”，是更为谨慎的选择。

此后，机组将飞向飞机的运营上限，执行更多测速检查以完成 RVSM 检查。在上限高度，将启动 APU，稳定后依次将每个 IDG（整体驱动发电机）选择关闭再接通，以检查向 APU 发电机正确转换电力。

下降相对较快，将在 MMO 和 VMO 进行超速检查，并放减速板以检查是否有任何异常的横向行为。下降过程中还将检查机翼和发动机防冰，在较低飞行高度时检查 APU 引气。

下降将进入一个被称为”空域块”的区域。这是与空中交通管制协商的高度”块”，通常为 FL100 至 FL140——但很大程度上取决于飞机飞行地区的地形。如果地形较高，则需要更高的空域块高度！在此时执行低速检查，前提是飞机在下降过程中未结冰。在开始任何低速检查之前，需确认绿点速度和 AOA 值。如果在此阶段发现问题，则可能放弃剩余的低速检查。当相关值经过评估并达成一致后，飞机将在光洁构型下减速，直至在”alpha-max”处稳定。此状态是在”正常法则”下使用全拉杆保持的稳定最小速度。当第三名机组成员记录数值后，飞行员将执行低速改出程序，然后立即设置 alpha-lock 测试。此项检查是为了确认在低速/高迎角情况下，如果缝翼从 1 设置到 0，它们不会收回。

随后飞机将设置着陆构型并再次减速至 alpha max。令人惊讶的是，对于 A320、A330 和 A380，稳定最小速度大致相同，约 100 节！虽然这两项检查在减速速率和柔和的操控方面需要谨慎和适当的注意，但只要飞机系统正常工作，它们是相对容易飞行的检查点。

低速块中的最后检查是确保各种系统正常工作——自动复飞、液压系统降级时扰流板的液压锁定、应急电气和冲压空气涡轮，以及各种速度和缝翼构型下的缝翼解除和音频警告。

最后一项检查——取决于机场能力——是自动着陆。然而，此项检查需要仔细考虑。在检查自动着陆系统之前，需提前评估任何非 III 类 ILS 设施的特性，最好在另一架可用飞机上进行。（读者可以将其理解为，他们需要在飞行检查飞机之前先飞另一架飞机。）计划的自动着陆也需要与当地 ATC 协商，因为可能需要提前组织 III 类保护。

尽管 hangar 工作人员非常出色和彻底，但航空公司管理层可能认为仍有一些方面无法在地面上充分检查。航空公司的决定将是——“我们是否需要进行专门的技术飞行？”

此类决定必须基于当地的工程和运行判断，包括所执行的维护的级别和深度、受到扰动的系统数量、应用的改装、给定故障的维护”历史”，以及所有这些问题对飞机飞行控制系统、发动机、气动特性和传感器的重要性和影响。《飞机维护手册》如下所述：

重要的是要注意，上述测试顺序已经过仔细考虑，是重要的，应当遵循。

为什么建议按此剖面飞行？答案是，虽然 hangar 工作人员执行的地面检查

功能检查飞行 023

规划和准备功能检查飞行

功能检查飞行 - 规划和准备 025

现在让我们转向规划和准备方面。在检查飞行起飞之前，需要提出并回答许多问题，首先要理解任务。飞行的具体目标是什么？该目标能在地面上实现吗？飞机的状态如何？谁来执行？什么时候必须完成？在哪里执行？最后，有了所有这些信息，风险是什么，如果出了问题我们将怎么办？有些事情似乎是大多数任务共同的。让我们尝试捕捉最常出现的那些。

只有那些在地面上无法执行的检查才应在空中执行。

第一条规则是能够说明为什么要进行飞行检查。许多检查可以在试验台上成功执行。尽管飞行员热爱飞行，但只有那些在地面上无法执行的检查才应在空中执行。GPWS 就是一个很好的例子。该”盒子”具有固定的所有逻辑，可以进行台架测试。软件将经过正确测试和认证。那么可能的检查飞行需要什么呢？实际上，只需验证”飞机接口”方面的缝翼信号、起落架信号和无线电高度表。这种检查不需要飞行所有模式。

飞机

让我们先从飞机说起。检查飞行机组需要确切了解已执行了哪些维修工作，哪些系统受到了干扰。他们还需要了解是否进行了修理、改装和升级，如有，这些可能对计划飞行产生什么影响。因此需要提前通知飞行，因为要彻底了解这些飞机问题，参观机库是必不可少的。与维修经理交谈，深入查阅飞行日志。对“能麻烦您今天下午过来执行一次快速检查飞行吗”这类请求要谨慎对待。实际情况往往比最初看起来受到干扰或已进行的工作更多。

从长远来看，与机库机械师建立一种相互信任的工作关系。当这种信任建立后，他们愿意告诉你的东西会让你惊讶。彼此熟悉的人之间的幽默互动在这里大有裨益。如果情况不允许这样做，例如由于使用了外站或偏远设施，

应用这一原则：只要可能发生的事情，就一定会发生。

试着评估机库人员（及其管理层）的质量水平，以及他们一直在承受的工作压力。

如果飞机进行了清洗或喷漆，要特别注意，因为这些活动可能引发许多“连锁”技术问题，如皮托管或迎角传感器损坏。在此类检查飞行前务必进行详细的绕机检查，并花时间仔细查看。有许多案例表明千斤顶垫块留在飞机上、升降舵铰链和超弹簧片被遮盖胶带覆盖，更不用说深层维修或喷漆后静压板上的油漆以及被外来物堵塞的通气口了。

还要记住，所有那些可能被要求置于地面测试位置以完成某些地面检查后才允许飞行的系统。了解这些系统是什么，并确保它们

在飞行前都正确恢复到飞行位置。应用这一原则：只要可能发生的事情，就一定会发生。作为检查员，您的工作是确保这些系统不会对飞行产生不利影响。

还需要仔细考虑检查飞行的重量和重心（CG）。在航空公司中装载压舱物并不总是像制造商测试世界中那样简单，而且对装载专员来说不常见的极限重心情况。即使如此，请教任何在测试领域工作过一段时间的人，他们一生中都会积累一些装载错误的事件。一个建议是尽量将飞机置于您感觉舒适的重量和装载状态下，并将其作为所有后续类似飞行的标准。

如果可能的话设置中间重心，避免接近限制值，并考虑重量和重心对预期“操纵手感”的影响。预期飞机不可避免地会比航线飞机轻得多。这不是大问题，但要想清楚，并考虑相对于失速速度和最小控制速度的飞行速度。可能的情况是，通常您受失速速度限制，而现在可能处于或接近空中最小控制速度（Vmca）限制。同样，为了全面测试燃油系统，可能需要特定的燃油装载量，这可能会决定重心位置。

仔细考虑重量和重心（CG）。

功能检查飞行 - 计划与准备

026

机组人员配置

管理层在检查飞行人员方面的主要职责是选择合适的人员，然后让他们执行任务，并在安全方面支持他们做出有时很困难的决策。

如前所述，航空公司的飞行运营管理人员经常将功能检查飞行视为”一次飞行机会”。虽然这可以理解且具有诱惑力，但在以下能力方面，他们可能是最不称职的：花时间研究和理解问题、保持飞行技能在适当水平、在应对让飞机恢复运营”压力”的同时完全专注于任务并做出正确的技术判断。显而易见，有些管理飞行员是”适合”这项任务的，但在自我选拔之前，需要对其工作量、经验和机型技术知识进行完全诚实的评估。管理层在检查飞行人员方面的主要职责是选择合适的人员，然后让他们执行任务，并在安全方面支持他们做出有时很困难的决策。检查员需要知道，他们的运营主管会在这一方面支持他们，而且，是的，他们有时也会犯错。

组建一支经过精心挑选、准备充分的小型机组团队，比试图”公平”地轮流安排所有人员执行检查飞行以给予每个人经验要好得多。需要定义一个最小团队，由足够的支援或检查工程师和飞行员组成，以管理航空公司的检查工作负荷。团队应有一名指定负责人，通过与团队定期开会，审查将要使用的时间表，并确保从每次飞行中获得的经验得到总结。他/她还可以向高级管理层建议应如何呈交待检的飞机。这样的人也可以与飞机制造商建立联系，集思广益，确保航空公司能够从制造商的测试专家那里获得最佳建议。

我们建议尽可能采用三人机组，因此对许多航空公司来说，可能面临的主要挑战之一是如何将地面运营工程师、持照质量工程师或专业检查工程师融入”测试”机组环境，使他的声音被”听到”，他的意见与飞行员的意见一样被重视和采纳。在某些文化背景下，这绝非易事。一些航空公司让第三名飞行员担任这一角色，但必须明确，这名第三机组人员的主要角色不是作为第三飞行员，而是记录数据、保持对待执行检查项目的整体了解，最重要的是充当安全后盾。

组建一支经过精心挑选、准备充分的小型机组团队，比试图”公平”地轮流安排所有人员执行检查飞行以给予每个人经验要好得多。

将要执行的检查项目将决定整个检查机组中检查人员的数量。随着客舱和客舱系统日益复杂，制造商在测试中会使用多名客舱工程师。基本的驾驶舱检查组应由飞行员和高级功能检查工程师组成，该工程师可能也具备客舱资质。如有需要，还可以包括专业的客舱工程师。在进行释压检查时需要特别注意，因为使用如此小规模的团队时，存在一名机组成员在客舱中被隔离的风险。客舱的尺寸和其中系统检查的复杂性，通常决定了飞机后部团队的总体规模。

机场

所使用机场的选择通常并非轻而易举，但明智的做法是考虑机场本身带来的任何影响。跑道能力、高于海平面的高度及其对性能的影响、高地与障碍物、可用的导航辅助设备，以及有效的航行通告（NOTAM），所有这些都需要加以考虑，同时还包括总体运行情况。例如，在进行中断起飞或制动检查之前，要问自己一个问题：“正在运行的跑道是否是唯一使用的跑道？“还要考虑在什么时间段进行中断起飞，以及与预定交通流量的关系。在繁忙时段发生轮胎爆裂，你的处境可就不会太受欢迎。在较大的繁忙枢纽机场，前往另一个较为清净的机场进行短途飞行可能是解决方案。

功能检查飞行 - 计划与准备 029

飞行前的空管简报，由飞行员与将为其提供保障的管制员直接进行，非常有价值，并且往往能在飞行员与管制员之间形成积极的”纽带”。尽可能保持安静的空管环境是有益的。

空中交通与空域

在检查飞行意义上，空管可以是你最好的朋友，也可以是你最大的敌人。检查机组必须确保自己成为朋友。飞行前的空管简报，由飞行员与将为其提供保障的管制员直接进行，非常有价值，并且往往能在飞行员与管制员之间形成积极的”纽带”。管制员会倾向于调配其他航空器而非检查飞机。未经简报，情况则相反。管制员可能会因为不断出现看似不合逻辑的高度、航向和构型变化要求而感到恼怒，进而通过制造更多困难来增加检查机组的工作负荷。

在航行计划的第18栏中标注”本次飞行为检查飞行”也很有用。这对经过简报的管制员的暗示是，飞行将可能经历多次高度、航向和构型的变化，且机组工作负荷可能时不时较高。

尽可能保持安静的空管环境是有益的，如果空管机构有这样的安静频率频道，应该加以使用。在纯粹的制造商测试环境中，我们有专职管制员来确保高效飞行间隔和冲突规避，但通常航空公司没有这种便利条件。然而，在飞行前仔细查看空域和当前天气情况，往往能够找到一个良好的、偏僻的安静空域角落，如一个不活跃的禁区，以很好地服务于检查飞机的飞行剖面。如有疑问，请向管制员寻求建议，通过这一建议，他再次默认地使自己与任务的成功绑定在一起。

建议进行白天飞行更好。如果存在任何严重的天气问题，仅白天飞行是合乎逻辑的决定。

白天/夜间问题

每个机构都需要就是否仅在白天还是在白天和夜间进行功能检查飞行做出决定。原则上，在气象条件为目视飞行规则（VFR）的情况下，在夜间进行常规检查没有重大问题。然而，有些夜晚你能目视数英里，而有些夜晚却是漆黑一片，没有月光辅助。夜间与仪表飞行规则（IFR）的组合应该开始敲响一两个警钟，并且肯定会大幅增加机组的工作负荷。因此，建议白天飞行更好，特别是对于较小的航空公司，这些类型的飞行频率较低，机组的技术熟练度可能较低。同样，在完成重大深度维修后，应尽可能在白天开始飞行。在空中客车生产测试中，首次飞行的最晚起飞时间与有效日光时间相关，以便至少能在白天和目视飞行规则条件下完成低速操纵检查。如果存在任何严重的天气问题，仅白天飞行是合乎逻辑的决定。

如有疑问，请向管制员寻求建议，通过这一建议，他再次默认地使自己与任务的成功绑定在一起。

气象条件

在认证研发飞行试验阶段，气象条件往往是能否完成特定测试的关键驱动因素。然而，在检查飞行的世界里，能够等待完美天气的机会很少。不过，了解执行检查的最低气象底线绝对是明智之举。例如，在30节侧风条件下检查刹车可能并不明智。

在空客，新生产飞机首飞的气象最低标准有明确定义。如果需要进行全权限飞行控制检查或包线保护检查，则需要一定的垂直云间空间。自动着陆系统在满足一类盲降条件下进行验证后才会实际使用，并且在低速操控下降过程中会格外注意避开结冰层。即使少量的积冰也会显著改变抖振速度的起始点以及警告触发时的计划速度。

因此，作为飞行准备的一部分，在办公室冷静的环境下，从气象角度预先界定规则是最佳做法。规则越少越好，这样能为检查组提供最大的灵活性。但规则只需满足确保安全的必要数量即可，而且必须严格遵守——始终如一。

关于气象条件，规则只需满足确保安全的必要数量即可，而且必须严格遵守——始终如一。

功能检查飞行 - 计划与准备 031

检查单仍应使用，但应将其作为指导而非金科玉律。没有任何检查单能够覆盖所有检查情况。

检查单

考虑到更为常见的航空公司“标准驱动”运行态势，检查组需要能够在标准检查单“之外”思考和工作（同时理解并认识到其重要性），并且对此感到自如。检查单仍应使用，但应将其作为指导而非准则。没有任何检查单能够覆盖所有检查情况。

测试计划

在航空公司的世界里，功能检查飞行常被认为完全没必要，或者最多被视为干扰飞机调配和计划流程的必要麻烦。这意味着检查飞行经常在运行部门和技术管理部门施加的巨大压力下进行，当然他们都希望看到自己昂贵的资产尽快恢复排班赚钱。虽然这完全可以理解，尤其是在小型航空公司，但管理层在检查飞行过程中扮演着至关重要的角色——保护他们选拔的检查人员免受这些无益的压力，而检查人员则必须尽最大可能安全、专业地完成工作。

因此，计划成功意味着要充分考虑时间因素。理想情况下，检查飞行应在白天进行，且没有“恢复服役”的时间压力。对于小型航空公司来说，这有时确实无法实现。然而，计划必须留出足够时间用于飞行前的完整简报机会，以及对技术人员的完整讲评机会。

同样，检查飞行不应搭载任何形式的乘客或“顺便体验”的人员。虽然出于各种原因这看似诱人，但检查过程中的乘客往往会增加复杂性、健康问题和压力，使本已复杂的任务更加困难。如果确实需要将人员从A点运送到B点，应先完成检查飞行，着陆后再接载乘客进行后续转场。

检查飞行不应搭载任何形式的乘客或“顺便体验”的人员。

检查计划的制定方法各有不同。可以针对每种类型的检查飞行开发不同的检查计划，也可以创建一份主参考检查计划，对不适用的项目进行划掉标注。文件中不仅应包含待检查项目，还应附有检查前写好的相关安全警告、成功标准以及允许的最大公差。如果某项检查要求接近硬限制（如VFE限制），则需要明确标注“不得超过”数值，因为这将作为后续执行阶段小型项目简报的一部分。尽可能避免将检查内容跨两页，也不要将安全警告与待检查项目分离。页面留有空白反而更好。此外，由于检查飞行很少按计划进行，应将计划格式设计为便于不同顺序操作的格式，但需谨慎处理。某些检查应先于其他检查执行，即先进行低速操控再进行进近。

空中客车在役飞机飞行测试手册（ISAFTM）可作为客户航空公司的参考，用于制定自己的检查计划。除提供的数据外，上述其他因素都应在航空公司最终版本中予以考虑。自己制定检查计划的过程，强制形成了对所有上述因素进行思考的纪律性，并确保了更好的飞行前准备工作。

功能检查飞行 033

执行功能检查飞行

功能检查飞行 - 执行

034

035

好的，现在合适的人员已选定，尽可能充分的准备也已就绪。是时候起飞了，但本文无意逐一检查测试大纲中的每个项目。这在空客技术飞行熟悉课程中已有详尽阐述。本文特意将重点放在准备阶段。不过，以下内容中将会提及一些应该遵循的良好做法和通用惯例。

简令

此处提供一些关于简令的指导原则是有益的。

1. 所有相关方均需在场并保持专注。请记住，这是飞行前简令，而非冗长的维修技术讲座，逐项说明已对飞机执行了哪些工作。这些数据应已在之前审阅完毕，而且坦率地说，任何人一次只能记住一定量的详细信息。简令由机长或监控工程师主持，必须与飞行任务保持相关性。当然可以让后台技术人员在场以回答可能出现的任何问题。

2. 每个人都必须了解任务内容、自己在任务中的角色、计划的检查顺序以及飞行执行方式。应事先商定任何限制值和关键术语。

3. 天气情况需要专门进行简令，重点说明其对上述任务各方面可能产生的影响。

4. 同理，机场、空中交通管制和空域情况也必须加以审查。

5. 应进行一次简短的飞行风险评估。这是为了应对“如果发生这种情况或那种情况我们该怎么办”这一实际问题。这不是深入的工程风险评估，而是对检查顺序的审查，假设事情未必总是按计划顺利进行。评估应涵盖最可能引发问题的项目，以及一旦发生这些问题时的备选方案。

让我们从简令开始。无论前期准备到何种程度，在飞行前某些事项总会发生变化，这些需要在飞行前简令中加以涵盖。

始终保持一人操控飞行。

飞行的哪些部分主要属于纯飞行活动（如飞行控制检查或低速操纵），哪些部分本质上属于系统相关（如释压检查），这些都需要明确界定，并将决定由谁负责飞行、谁负责监控。始终保持一人操控飞行。一个值得注意的倾向是，整个机组在检查顺序的细节中变得“深度介入”。让一名机组人员安静地监听但专注于基本飞行操作是完全正常的。

这一飞行前简令后续将由飞行过程中的小型“飞行中简令”加以支持，这些简令将在检查飞行的某些阶段之前进行，以“提醒”每个人接下来将要进行什么项目、限制值是多少、以及“如果”某些情况发生，需要由谁采取何种行动。

起飞

飞行前准备应考虑FMS编程中关于燃油传输的需求，以及在计划前期执行的机动动作可能擦除航路点时的备份飞行计划。此外，电气检查有时会在现代飞机上引发一些有趣的计算机响应。

无论多么妥善地使用检查单，与大多数试飞团体一样，在起飞前和着陆前都进行一次安静的最后构型检查，似乎是一种有益的安全习惯。

如前所述，预期大多数航空公司会以常规方式使用标准检查单来推进起飞程序。不同之处在于，可能会有一名第三机组人员出现在观察员座位上。他的职责是记录数据，并以非侵入式的方式监控飞行员的工作表现，但如果发生他不理解或认为可能不正确的情况，他拥有“干预权”。

功能检查飞行 - 执行 037

在整个检查飞行过程中需要非常出色的机组通信。关键术语有时非常有用。这些可以包括STOP或GO AROUND等指令，但也有一些不成文却绝对明确的规则，适用于例如某位机组人员对测试进程感到不适等情况。

应避免因“开关操作”造成的混淆，一次只执行一项检查。

在整个检查飞行过程中需要非常出色的机组通信。

起飞

如果任何测试/检查机组人员说“我不满意”，执飞飞行员应立即恢复操作，机组共同回顾情况。同样，如果有人因工作负荷或其他原因声明自己“状态不佳”，同样执行恢复动作，然后重新简令，确保所有机组人员在同一测试点上保持一致的精神状态和计划理解程度。甚至沉默也需要被“倾听”，因为它可能告诉你另一名机组人员可能在担心某些事情。经过一段时间后，有可能培养出对计划是否偏离的“嗅觉”，这正是需要放慢速度、思考正在发生的事情以及计划是否仍然合理的时刻。

在制造商的测试领域，一些专业飞行测试工程师会参与起飞简令，以便赋予他们喊出 STOP（停止）这一关键命令词的权利。他们行使这一权利的情形会被讨论和仔细考虑，如有疑问则保持沉默。在航空公司的世界，这种协议可能并不适用（取决于经验和培训），我们建议尽可能遵循当地标准做法。一般来说，驾驶舱应保持安静，避免不必要的“闲聊”，特别是在 FL100 以下更是如此。随意的言语可能被误解，有时会产生危险的反应。

实际上，在制造商的世界里，这一原则执行得更为深入，通常会让三人检查组中的两名成员始终“处于闭环”状态。通常允许飞行的飞行员专注于该任务，而非飞飞行员和“工程师”则专注于系统开关操作的安全性。同样，一个人很容易被“埋没”，例如在执行无线电检查时（通常是非飞飞行员），但在这种情况下，非飞的第三名成员必须与操纵飞机的人保持闭环状态，并在一般飞行感知方面了解正在发生的情况。一次只执行一项检查，以避免“开关”操作混淆。

检查节奏必须由最慢的机组人员主导，但显然在某些情况下 ATC 别无选择只能规定检查节奏，例如在起落航线中或进近时。此时飞机可能已携带一两个缺陷，必须持续重新评估其对“剩余待检”项目的冲击。这正是优秀的检查机组协同工作、不断制定新的安全行动计划的时候。

关于外部通信，如果存在重大无线电问题，安全继续检查飞行很快会变得非常具有挑战性，此时更明智的做法是集中精力安全着陆，在继续其他检查前修复无线电设备。

如果存在重大无线电问题，安全继续检查飞行很快会变得非常具有挑战性。

功能检查飞行——执行

038

039

工作负荷

进入等待或请求引导至远离机场，以获得思考时间。

工作负荷也必须在个人和整体层面持续评估。一个人可能在短时间内过载，但如果三人中有两人达到这种状态，情况可能会很快变得非常危急。绝不允许整个机组达到这种状态，因此如果测试机组仅有两人组成，威胁增加是显而易见的。因此，强烈建议为此类工作配备第三名具备检查资质的机组人员。

工作负荷的问题之一是它可能上升得非常快，而且相关人员虽然意识到自己工作过于繁重，却无法做出能够降低这种潜在危险状况的决定。当事人甚至可能无法“看到”问题，更不用说解决方案了。

随着工作负荷的增加，机组必须对任务进行优先级排序。第一优先永远是确保飞机安全。说起来容易，但这通常需要做出一些艰难的决定，有时甚至是当地管理层不太乐见的决定。必须有人（通常是机长）明确表示，在技术系统问题得到解决或其影响被完全理解之前，将不会执行更多的检查点。

进入等待或请求引导至远离机场，以获得思考时间，是减轻工作负荷的有效技巧。如果机组遇到不理解的问题，应将飞机放回地面，趁此机会思考。在情况未被理解且可能存在潜在危险或更糟（灾难性）的情况下，没有“继续推进”的余地。

第二优先是确保获得高质量的检查或测试数据。在那里收集工程师无法使用的低质量数据是没有意义的。最后，整个过程应尽可能高效地完成。这不是一次休闲飞行，尽管如果做得好，它会令人非常愉快。目的是重新使飞机获得适航批准，以便能够快速重返蓝天并重新开始承载旅客创收。

故障排除

一次检查飞行的全部目的是能够给飞机一份健康证明，因此如果发现故障时希望尽可能多地了解该故障以帮助机械师也就不足为奇了。尽管这听起来值得称赞，但它很快就会导致一些非常不健康的情况。在“追查故障”时需要非常小心。需要了解一个故障对所有受影响系统的连带影响，同样也需要了解将某些相关系统选择到降级模式以“隔离”故障的影响。还要记住，系统可能已经存在另一个潜伏但未报告的故障，当它与原发故障加上机组操作相结合时，可能会使飞机进入危险的区域。我们倾向于认为在现代飞机上，一切都被 BITE 系统捕获或通过飞行警告计算机呈现给我们，但事实并非如此。这让我们回到系统完整性的问题——如果机组不了解复杂且多重开关动作的所有后果，那么他们根本不应该进行这些操作。将飞机停放在地面，仔细检查情况，如有疑问致电制造商，只有在尝试过解决问题之后才能继续。

飞机上没有任何异常指示是无缘无故出现的。有些很小，有些几乎不影响运行，有些是间歇性的（这是最麻烦的类型），但总是有原因的。仅仅希望故障已经“消失”是不够的。可能确实不容易复现症状，或者仅限于某些非常精确的飞行或气象条件，但它仍然存在——如果置之不理，这类故障往往会在最糟糕的时刻再次出现。有时看似最小的问题可能导致后果非常严重的失效场景。要特别注意与“使能”功能相关的故障，如空重开关和传感器，其影响可能波及多个系统。压力控制器是另一个领域，故障可能很快从相当良性转变为非常严重。

Watch out particularly for snags associated with “enabling” functions like weight on wheels switches and sensors.

No anomalous indication on an aircraft appears for no reason.

注意：如果机组还需要进行包括检查在内的适航证续期，机组必须在心理上分开这两项要求，并尽可能先排除飞机的故障，然后再完成适航证续期的检查点。如果不可能做到（有时确实如此），那么机组意识和良好的沟通就至关重要。

功能检查飞行 - 执行 041

棘手的测试点

在地面上仔细考虑棘手的测试点，决定应该如何飞行以及“中止”点是什么。

有些检查确实比其他检查更难飞行，有些如果出问题可能会产生更直接的影响。发电机未能重新接入电网不会像让速度超过 Vmo 太多那样产生直接的破坏性后果。因此，谨慎对待“棘手的测试点”并按照它们的要求进行处理，不要仓促行事。在地面上仔细考虑它们，决定应该如何飞行以及“中止”点是什么。这些棘手的测试可能包括速度限制检查、包线边界检查、释压、初始操纵检查、低速检查，当然还有一些发动机检查。

同样重要的是，不要被诱惑去“查看”某些认证测试点。这一类别中有许多“有趣”的经历本可能演变成悲剧。以 Vmca 定义为例，在某些机型上过去曾在该测试（在非常低的高度进行）期间发生燃油耗尽，导致剩余发动机停车。检查员的工作不是试图重新定义飞机的基础认证标准。那些标准已经在严格的天气条件和严密受控的条件下由专家飞行和审查过。检查员的工作是根据预定义并经批准的适航标准检查“这架”飞机，或清除已报告的缺陷或故障。

It is also important not to become tempted to “take a look at” some of the certification test points.

不同的飞行计划

在现代飞机检查飞行中，有多个”计划”同时进行。你有期望的检查计划时间表。你有批准的空管飞行计划，该计划可能涉及一些”航路”飞行，通常以某种程序离场开始。FMS 可能需要设置为略微不同的计划，以确保某些功能（如燃油传输逻辑）按预期工作。还有飞行警告计算机的飞行阶段计划，该计划可能在预定时间抛出”存储”的故障。同时还有空管移交计划，该计划驱动通信环境并在一定程度上影响工作负荷。最后，记住你无法控制最重要的”计划”，那就是”天气”。

机组人员的职责是安全执行检查点，同时也要协调这个由不同计划组成的”交响乐”，这些计划并非都能按顺序进行，也并非都能顺利协调。在设置好检查点准备就绪后，突然被要求更换频率、应答机编码，然后径直飞向积雨云，这种情况并不罕见！或者你可能需要一个高度或一段高度层，却发现执行下一个科目的理想空域已经用尽。这需要极大的耐心，而这正是前期规划、天气评估和与 ATC 预先协调所能带来的最大益处。在某些情况下，继续进行可能变得不可能，安全的做法是保持谨慎并终止飞行。这样的判断并不容易，因为往往涉及相当大的成本影响。

机组人员的职责是安全执行检查点，同时也要协调这个由不同计划组成的”交响乐”，这些计划并非都能按顺序进行，也并非都能顺利协调。

042 功能检查飞行 - 执行

功能检查飞行

043

客舱系统

正如之前所说，客舱测试领域日益重要。复杂的座椅系统和娱乐系统大量应用，值得去基本了解它们的工作原理。在新型大型飞机上，客舱系统与驾驶舱之间的集成度更高，因此客舱系统不再是”后方某处”的东西。它们是需要认真考虑的”与乘客相关”的检查区域。

本文完全可以专门讨论测试过程中发生的增压问题，但为求简洁，值得思考的是计划释压时的应急氧气问题。应计划好机组将使用哪些氧气设备。典型的治疗用氧气瓶对于在飞机后部工作的人来说可能”遥不可及”。试着在 20 秒内将其从存放处取出并使用，记住如果你正在客舱检查某些东西，可能需要走一段距离才能拿到氧气瓶。更好的做法是，在发生完全释压时，选择性地让几个位置恰当的氧气面罩落下，这样客舱检查员就能立即就座，然后使用最近的乘客氧气系统呼吸。

还要考虑与后方人员的通信，确保能够告知他们正在发生什么以及何时需要系好安全带。同样，有许多任务他们可以协助完成，如机翼检查，他们需要能够与驾驶舱通信。

结论

成功的功能检查飞行的关键是在地面进行充分准备，确保经过精心挑选并正确培训的机组拥有最佳信息和知识。一旦空中，飞机和机组整体检查”系统”中最常见的弱点可能是正在操作的飞行员，因为他在工作负荷方面最容易过载。因此，来自其他检查机组及时有效的沟通支持，对于确保检查任务的成功至关重要。机长的职责是鼓励这种沟通。所有检查飞行机组人员的职责是在沟通方面保持积极主动。对机组人员的挑战是通过出色的准备、定期的小型简令和随时准备应对意外情况，来避免关键的工作负荷水平。扎实的飞行技能有所帮助，因为它们允许在整体操作中更专注于沟通方面。

始终记住：精心挑选机组，正确培训，仔细简令（包括 ATC 和空域管理部门），仔细规划飞行，然后用”防御性”方式执行计划，始终考虑”逃生路线”并保持故障意识。永远不要假设”它”会完美运行。最后，良好沟通，无论压力有多大，始终默认选择最安全的决定。

我们祝愿您检查飞行顺利、安全，请始终记住：准备是关键。

044 功能检查飞行

前期《Safety First》已刊载文章

第 20 期

2015 年 7 月

爬升阶段的速度控制
着陆时的横向跑道偏离
A320 系列飞机燃油监控
高空手动飞行

第 19 期

2015 年 1 月

整洁驾驶舱是安全飞行的基础
在污染跑道上着陆
理解重量与平衡
风切变：飞行员的无形敌人？

第 18 期

2014 年 7 月

起飞阶段的速度控制
复合材料飞机的安全运营
从证据中学习
A320 系列货箱/托盘移动
从飞机上脱落的部件（PDA）

第 17 期

2014 年 1 月

空客刹车测试
硬着陆：飞行员与维修人员案例研究
飞机在清洗和喷漆期间的防护
飞行数据分析（FDA）：安全管理体系（SMS）的预测工具
执行复飞：能量管理

第 16 期

2013 年 7 月

• 基于性能

导航： RNP 和 RNP AR 进近
大西洋航空： RNP AR 0.1 运营的引入

• 飞行机组与除冰人员——在临时团队协作中共同守护安全蓝天

发动机失效后的低速中断起飞
起飞前的临时变更

第 15 期

2013 年 1 月

飞行员从监控飞行员到操控飞行员的金规
空客侧风研发与认证
烟雾/冒烟/航电烟雾程序
维修后外来物损伤（FOD）预防
腐蚀： 潜在安全隐患

第 14 期

2012 年 7 月

反推选择意味着全停
A320 和 A330/A340 系列按下通话（PTT）卡阻导致的短暂通讯中断
A380： 飞控系统开发——第二部分
风扇舱门丢失预防
别忘了维修工作中你不是一个人

第 13 期

2012 年 1 月

A320 系列/A330 双引气丢失的预防与处置
燃油惩罚因子
空客 TCAS 警报预防（TCAP）
• A380： 飞控系统开发——第一部分
面对日常维修运营的现实

第 12 期

2011 年 7 月

空客新运营着陆距离
复飞程序
盘旋进近
A380 VMU 测试
日常运营中的自动着陆

第 11 期

2011 年 1 月

什么是失速？
飞行员面对失速状况应如何反应
A380 最小控制速度测试
无线电高度表异常数值
复飞时自动 NAV 接通

第 10 期

2010 年 8 月

A380： 颤振测试
运营着陆距离： 飞行中着陆距离评估新标准
复飞处置
A320： 起落架下锁

第 9 期

第 6 期

2010 年 2 月

2008 年 7 月

A320 系列： 地面扰流板逻辑演进
A320： 跑道超限
地面 EFCS 重置后的 FCTL 检查
起飞时错误的俯仰配平设置
A320： VMO/MMO 超速的可能后果
• A320： 尾蹭碰撞预防
技术飞行熟悉训练
氧气安全
低燃油状况意识

第 8 期

方向舵踏板卡阻
为什么某些 AMM 任务需要设备重置？

2009 年 7 月

滑梯/救生筏改进
跑道超限预防系统 • 乘务员从驾驶舱航电舱通道盖板坠落
起飞锁定功能
计算机混用性： 一项重要功能

第 5 期

加油作业中的燃油溅溢

2007 年 12 月

第 7 期

非精密进近期间的新 CFIT 事件

2009 年 2 月

A320： 起飞时尾蹭？
不可靠空速
空客 AP/FD TCAS 模式： • 运营程序合规性 • 新一步迈向安全 • 未来空中航行系统
• 刹车系统交叉
运营程序合规性
刹车系统交叉连接

第 4 期

失控恢复训练辅助工具，第 2 版

2007 年 6 月

燃油泵置于 OFF 位
A320： 避免双引气丢失
运营工程通告提醒功能
避免因 EGT 超限导致的高速中断起飞
你了解你的 ATC/TCAS 面板吗？
处理冰雹
引入维修简报提示
A320： 双液压失效
基于 GPS 数据的 TAWS 运营

第 3 期

2006 年 12 月

双侧侧杆输入
可调水平安定面损伤
地面皮托管堵塞
A340： 反推未锁
残余客舱压力
客舱运营简报提示
缺氧： 无形敌人

第 2 期

2005 年 9 月

尾喷管或发动机失火
处置严重颠簸
空客飞行员改装（ATP）
起飞时跑道偏离

第 1 期

2005 年 1 月

因 VOR 接收问题在亚的斯亚贝巴执行复飞
起飞前飞控检查的重要性
• A320： 空中反推展开
空客飞行安全经理手册
飞行运营简报提示
情景意识与决策