Functional Check Flights 2/4 - Airline preparedness to perform Functional Check Flights

Source: Airbus Safety First URL: https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/functional-check-flights-2-4-airline-preparedness-to-perform-functional-check-flights/ Published: 2015-10-19 Category: Flight Ops PDF: Original PDF

The Airbus Safety Magazine October 2015 Safety first Special Issue Functional Check Flights

Functional Check Flights 002 001 Functional Check Flights Safety first is published by the Product Safety depart- ment. 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 acci- dent 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, stand- ards or recommended practices, operator-mandated requirements or technical orders. The contents do not supersede any requirements mandated by the State of Registry of the Operator’s aircraft or supersede or amend any Airbus type-specific AFM, AMM, FCOM, MMEL doc- umentation or any other approved documentation. Articles may be reprinted without permission, except where copyright source is indicated, but with acknowl- edgement 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 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, 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 9001- 14001, 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.

© Airbus S.A.S. 2015 – All rights reserved. Proprietary documents. 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. YANNICK MALINGE SVP & Chief Product Safety Officer 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. 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. 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!

Special flights requiring special treatment HARRY NELSON Experimental Test Pilot SIMON PETERSON Flight Test Engineer Instructor 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 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: Airline preparedness to perform Functional Check Flights Planning and preparing a Functional Check Flight Executing a Functional Check Flight Functional Check Flights

005 Functional Check Flights Special flights requiring special treatment

006 007 Functional Check Flights - Special flights Functional Check Flights - Special flights 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. EASA REGULATION ON MAINTENANCE CHECK FLIGHTS AT A GLANCE Figure 1: Summary of Functional Check Flights regulations Level A Level B Flight Definition • Flights involving the use of Abnormal or Emergency Procedures or • when a “back-up” or safety level recovery system is to be checked. i.e. RAT All other flights Aircraft Definition Complex (motor powered aeroplanes) Non-complex • Above 5700 kg MTOW, or • Certificated for more than 19 seated pax, or • Certificated for operations with at least 2 pilots, or • Equipped with turbojet engine(s) or • More than one turboprop engine. • All other aeroplanes Flight Crew • 1000 hrs total experience • 400 hrs as PIC on type • Completed Training Course to be PIC • 500 hrs total experience • 200 hrs as PIC on any type No specific requirement PIC and Co-pilot Type rating on type Currency • 1 check flight in last 36 months • If out of currency, 1 check flight as Co-pilot or observer to regain currency Training Course • Includes: Ground and Simulator elements • Valid for all types • 1st flight must be as Co-pilot / Observer unless course included real aircraft training Check Flight Manual • Requirement for airlines to have one • Copy “lodged” with their authority • No “external” approval process Notes

Qualified test pilots automatically qualify, as having completed the Training Course
“Grandfather rights” apply w.r.t Training Course, but not the hours requirement
Additional crew member required in the cockpit
Possibility to add cabin “specialists” to crew
“Specialist crew” definition to be included in the Maintenance Check Flight Manual What is a Functional Check Flight? Functional Check flights are non-revenue flights following maintenance actions or repairs that could affect the air- craft’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. Non revenue Technical check Post maintenance check End of lease

009 Functional Check Flights Airline preparedness to perform Functional Check Flights

011 Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 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. Selected and trained crews 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. Valued skills include Observation, Interpretation, Analysis and by no means least, Communication. SKILLS 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. A determined inquisitive mind is essential. Don’t wait for the information to come to you, go looking for it.

012 013 Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness APTITUDE 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. 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? 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. 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. Look for people who are not trying to prove how good they are but rather how good (or bad) the aircraft is. It is the aircraft that is under examination, not the pilot. Highest on the list of desirable characteristics, is personal integrity.

014 Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 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: • an aircraft checking mindset • appropriate crew expectations • specific skills to perform manoeuvres different from line operations • 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 • an awareness of performance and handling differences associated with unfamiliar airplane weights and CG • new crew member skill sets and new knowledge • a positive ATC interface 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: • Technical flights or Functional Check Flights (i.e. post maintenance, painting, etc.) • Acceptance flights (i.e. handover between operators) 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. 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. Want to know more about Airbus Technical Flight Familiarization course? Contact or website EXPERIENCE 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. Look beyond the hours…

016 017 Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 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. 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? In other words, the only manual that is to be used to perform Functional Check Flights is the ISATFM. Do NOT use the CAM. Brand new, straight off the production line Just passed through the stringent testing process of the Production Flight Test Department In-service, following maintenance actions on items that cannot be properly ground tested Manufacturer test pilots PATM Objective: Fully check the operation of the aircraft to the limits of the certified flight envelope. More than checks, the PATM is used to perform tests as it is the first time the aircraft will have been tested in flight. Serves as evidence to the Authorities that the aircraft meets the standard required for the granting of a Certificate of Airworthiness. Mixed manufacturer/airline crew CAM Objective: Demonstrate that the technical operational standard against a commercial contract has been met i.e. the aircraft flies correctly with no abnormal handling or system failure. Airline crew, specifically trained for Functional Check Flights ISATFM Objective: Verify that the aircraft’s operational characteristics have not been adversely affected following the maintenance actions on items that cannot be properly ground tested. 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. 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 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 background of the pilots and the organization they belong to. In a nutshell, these documents could be characterized as follows: The only manual that is to be used to perform Functional Check Flights is the ISATFM. Do NOT use the CAM. Flight crews Status of the aircraft

018 019 Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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.

020 021 Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 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. 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 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: 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 – Au- tomatic 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.

023 Functional Check Flights Planning and preparing a Functional Check Flight

025 Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing 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, 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. 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. 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. Apply the principle that if it can happen, it will happen. Think carefully about the weight and Centre of Gravity (CG). ONLY those checks that cannot be performed on the ground should be performed in the air.

026 Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing Crewing 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. 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. 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.

029 Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing 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. 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. 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 implica- tion to a briefed ATC controller is that it will therefore be subject to many changes of height, heading and configu- ration 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. 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. Regarding weather, apply only as many rules as may be needed to ensure safety. But then they must be respected - always. 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.

031 Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing 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. 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. Check flights should not be used to carry any form of passengers or people “along for the ride” or just for “the experience” 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.

033 Functional Check Flights Executing a Functional Check Flight

034 035 Functional Check Flights - Executing Functional Check Flights - Executing Briefing Some guidelines on the briefing are useful here.

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.
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.
The weather needs to be specifically briefed with regards to any impact on any of the abovementioned aspect of the task.
Likewise the airfield and ATC and airspace situation must be reviewed.
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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. Always have one person flying.

036 037 Functional Check Flights - Executing Functional Check Flights - Executing Switching Switching and system selection needs to be thought about. Who switches and how? In general a two man principle on all switching actions should be used, with one person pointing at the switch and then after verification that it is indeed the right switch, the selection is made. Some may consider this as overkill but there have been cases where due to poor switching discipline, engines have been “accidentally” shut down and also hydraulic and electric systems lost when APUs have been inadvertently switched off during acceptance flights. Under stress bad things can happen and it is best to develop good practices right from the start. 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. Communication 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 absolu- tely clear rules for events such as one crew member not being comfortable with the test progression. If any test / check crew member says “I am not hap- py” the active pilot recovers immediately and the crew reviews the situation. Likewise if someone declares them- selves 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 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. Really good crew communication throughout the check flight is required. If there are significant radio problems, then the safe continuation of a check flight quickly becomes very challenging. Take-off 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. “Switching” confusion should be avoided by carrying out only one check at a time.

038 039 Functional Check Flights - Executing Functional Check Flights - Executing 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. Note: In case the crew also needs to perform a Cer- tificate 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. Workload 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. Enter a hold or ask for a vector away from the airfield, to give thinking time. The first priority is always securing the safety of the aircraft… Secondly, the objective is to secure good quality check or test data… 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.

041 Functional Check Flights - Executing Tricky test points 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. 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. Think about tricky test points on the ground carefully and decide how they should be flown and what the “break off” point is. 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 is also important not to become tempted to “take a look at” some of the certification test points.

042 043 Functional Check Flights - Executing Functional Check Flights 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.

Functional Check Flights 044 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 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 19 January 2015 • Tidy cockpit for safe flight • Landing on contaminated runways • Understanding weight & balance • Wind shear: an invisible enemy to pilots? 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 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 • Situation Awareness and Decision Making Issue 8 July 2009 • The Runway Overrun Prevention System • The Take-Off Securing Function • Computer Mixability: An Important Function • Fuel Spills During Refueling Issue 9 February 2010 • A320 Family: Evolution of Ground Spoiler Logic • Incorrect Pitch Trim Setting at Take-Off • Technical Flight Familiarization • Oxygen Safety Articles published in previous ‘Safety first’ issues Issue 2 September 2005 • Tailpipe or Engine Fire • Managing Severe Turbulence • Airbus Pilot Transition (ATP) • Runway Excursions at Take-Off 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 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 Issue 5 December 2007 • New CFIT Event During Non Precision Approach • A320: Tail Strike at Take-Off? • Unreliable Speed • Compliance to Operational Procedures • The Future Air Navigation System FANS B Issue 4 June 2007 • 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 6 July 2008 • A320: Runway Overrun • FCTL Check after EFCS Reset on Ground • A320: Possible Consequence of VMO/MMO Exceedance • A320: Prevention of Tailstrikes • Low Fuel Situation Awareness • Rudder Pedal Jam • Why do Certain AMM Tasks Require Equipment Resets? • Slide/raft Improvement • Cabin Attendant Falling through the Avionics Bay Access Panel in Cockpit Issue 7 February 2009 • Airbus AP/FD TCAS Mode: A New Step Towards Safety Improvement • Braking System Cross Connections • Upset Recovery Training Aid, Revision 2 • Fuel Pumps Left in OFF Position • A320: Avoiding Dual Bleed Loss

中文译文

功能检查飞行航空公司执行功能检查飞行的准备工作

Yannick Malinge 高级副总裁兼首席产品安全官

过去的经验表明，将功能检查飞行像”正常”商业航班一样进行会带来重大的安全问题。事实上，尽管这些飞行可能在航空公司环境中进行，航空公司也习惯了管理商业飞行的安全，但它们在许多方面与日常飞行不同：非收入飞行的性质、对飞行员资质的要求、特定的操作环境要求、指南文档，甚至整个监管框架。功能检查飞行是特殊飞行，需要特别的安全关注。因此，以特殊的方式来处理它们是必要的。这本《Safety first》杂志的特刊将带您了解特定功能检查飞行的准备工作流程。这一准备工作流程在飞行本身之前很久就开始了，涉及更远和更广的组织层面。它包括多个时间范围和多个方面的内容，所有这些都有助于为执行此类飞行做好准备。为了将所有这些方面作为一个整体来解决，本特刊采用了特殊的结构。不是一组文章，而是一篇按不同组织层面和时间范围组织的文本，阐述安全执行功能检查飞行需要做哪些准备。祝您阅读愉快！

特殊飞行需要特殊处理

Harry Nelson 试飞员

Simon Peterson 飞行试验工程师教官

需要做哪些准备工作？

每次飞行都是独特的，需要由飞行机组根据飞机状态、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是具有额外特定风险的飞行，需要更多的安全关注。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”的日常航空公司飞行有很大不同。它们有时被称为技术检查飞行、维修后检查飞行、租期结束转让飞行或功能检查飞行。在本杂志中，我们将使用功能检查飞行（Functional Check Flights）的缩写，或简称FCF。确保FCF安全取决于多个方面和多个层面的参与者。本特刊将为您提供安全执行FCF所需的概述。它将沿时间/组织单位线介绍在每个层面有助于FCF安全的主要方面。因此，本刊分为以下几个部分：

航空公司执行功能检查飞行的准备工作规划和准备功能检查飞行执行功能检查飞行

006 007 功能检查飞行 - 特殊飞行功能检查飞行 - 特殊飞行

一个特定的框架

无论是心态、培训、文档、规划，还是有助于使此类飞行安全的所有其他方面，FCF都需要特定的准备和条件。使此类飞行安全的一个先决条件是在各个层面承认这种独特状态以及对这类飞行进行特殊处理的必要性。从监管角度来看，FCF的特殊性已得到认可，并转化为2012年EASA发布的相关维护检查飞行法规的开发：参考 - EASA，NPA 2012-08。维护检查飞行（MCF）。监管要求涉及有助于FCF安全的多个方面，即： • 飞行机组要求 • 额外机组成员 • 培训课程 • 维护检查飞行手册

为了补充和超越监管材料，以下各节提供了关于有助于使FCF成为安全飞行的关键方面的详细定性见解。

EASA维护检查飞行法规概览

图1：功能检查飞行法规摘要

级别	A级	B级
飞行定义	• 使用非正常或紧急程序的飞行，或 • 当需要检查”备份”或安全级别恢复系统时。即RAT	所有其他飞行
飞机定义	复杂飞机（ motor powered aeroplanes）	非复杂飞机
	• 最大起飞重量超过5700公斤，或 • 取得19座以上客舱认证，或 • 取得至少双飞行员运行认证，或 • 配备涡轮喷气发动机，或 • 配备超过一台涡轮螺旋桨发动机。	所有其他飞机
飞行机组	机长： • 总经历1000小时 • 在该机型上担任机长400小时 • 完成机长培训课程	机长和副驾驶： • 总经历500小时 • 在任何机型上担任机长200小时
	机型等级照	机型等级照
近期经历	• 在最近36个月内完成1次检查飞行 • 如超过有效期，需作为副驾驶或观察员完成1次检查飞行以恢复资格
培训课程	• 包括：地面和模拟机要素 • 对所有机型有效 • 首次飞行必须作为副驾驶/观察员，除非课程包含真机培训
检查飞行手册	• 航空公司必须配备 • 副本”存放”于其主管部门 • 无”外部”审批流程
备注	1. 合格的试飞员自动符合资格，因为他们已完成培训课程 2. 关于培训课程适用”祖父权利”，但不适用于小时数要求 3. 需要在驾驶舱内配备额外机组成员 4. 可在机组中增加客舱”专业人员” 5. “专业人员机组”定义需包含在维护检查飞行手册中

什么是功能检查飞行？

功能检查飞行是在维护操作或修理后进行的非收入飞行，这些操作或修理可能影响飞机固有的空气动力学和/或系统特性和运行性能，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，在航空界，FCF在许多方面与日常活动不同。首先，FCF是”非收入飞行”。由于这项活动不是航空公司的核心业务，它也在一定程度上扰乱了飞机和机组人员的调度安排，动员了飞机以及机组人员和所有其他所需操作人员。此外，考虑到FCF的目标——接近极限并检查系统和飞机响应——FCF对航空公司机组来说是不同寻常的飞行。

非收入飞行技术检查维修后检查租期结束

009 功能检查飞行航空公司执行功能检查飞行的准备工作

011 功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备工作

一旦承认FCF需要特殊处理，在航空公司层面建立执行此类飞行所需的所有准备工作就涉及多个方面，现综述如下。

经过挑选和培训的机组

检查飞行工作与某些其他任务相比，对个人资料档案的某些特征要求更高。在航空公司中，大多数年轻飞行员的选拔标准是不同的目标。然而，检查飞行是所有航空公司都会面对的现实，通常这项任务会落到首席飞行员或其他资深人员身上，如机队机长或机队技术飞行员，他们可能将此视为”走出办公室”的机会。并非所有这些类别的人——尽管他们很重要——都一定最适合这项任务，而且他们也不一定有时间以应有的方式并可能希望的方式进行准备。那么，应该在将被招募到”检查界”的飞行员或工程师身上寻找什么呢？

检查机组人员建立成功职业生涯有四个支柱：知识、技能、能力和经验。“这与我的世界没有太大区别”有人可能会正确地说，但让我们在”检查”意义上更仔细地看看其中一些特征。

知识

显然需要对飞机、任务背后的理论和角色有深入了解。如果一个人要在检查飞行世界中生存，好奇探究的精神是必不可少的，人们期望所有检查空勤人员都在不断提问，然后提出更多问题，直到得到既”正确”又合理的答案。新人的问题尤其受欢迎，因为它们使组织保持真实和敏锐。虚假信息通常很容易被识别，在检查世界里没有容身之地，所以答案必须足够好。

五年前正确的答案今天可能不正确。情况会发生变化，而这些变化有时需要重新思考。同样，在这方面保持自力更生很重要。不要等待信息来找你，而是主动去寻找，并与可靠的信息来源建立良好的联系。

技能

受重视的技能包括观察、解读、分析，尤其是交流。飞行员的所谓”运动功能”飞行技能也需要相当好，但对于某些人来说，纯飞行协调和技术不一定是最高优先事项——只要这方面的水平对于任务来说是可以接受的。然而，飞行能力确实会影响飞行员处理高工作负载情况的能力，因此这将在后面的失速章节中提及。

其中一些技能并非对所有人都与生俱来。必须仔细考虑每个检查点或任务，确定哪些参数是重要的。还要知道何时以及多久读取一次，然后在何时记录它们。对于这种情况下的第三名机组人员来说，记录任务始终次于充当安全”观察员”的角色——这个人能够立即监督每个检查点的执行方式，因此能够发出及时的警告。

知识

需要深入了解飞机、任务背后的理论和角色。好奇探究的精神是必不可少的。不要等待信息来找你，主动去寻找。

012 013 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

能力

能力更为复杂。在这种情况下，它指的是某人是否”以正确的方式思考”并表现出正确的判断力。

首先，检查学员需要能够处理几个明显的矛盾。让我们举几个例子。

以检查机组人员在某个话题上必须坚持自己立场与何时可以灵活变通为例。如果我们遇到这样的情况：飞机可能需要在检查飞行之前或之后返工，但计划在当天晚些时候进行，您会立即看到在这种相当常见的情况下必须处理的压力，了解何时可以灵活变通或何时必须采取更强硬的立场是工作的一部分。

再举一个例子，在典型的分组讨论中——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，何时从自己的知识出发发言，何时倾听，就成了一项技能和挑战。通过适当的敏感性和对彼此的了解，团队动态必须导向正确的答案。

也许最著名的是信心问题。检查机组人员必须有足够的自信，在必要时做出决定并介入正在发展的情况，但不能过于自信，以至于可能导致在超出安全限制的条件下飞行检查点。在检查飞行世界中存在许多这样的矛盾情况，需要正确面对和解决。好的团队成员在这些情况下正确的时候比错误的时候多。

正确的飞行员或工程师类型应该天生熟练掌握机组资源管理（CRM），尤其善于倾听。但检查飞行的CRM与正常的航空公司航线情况非常不同。担任功能飞行检查工程师的地勤工程师很可能是对某个特定系统了解最多的人。副驾驶同样可能在某个领域是专家，所以经典的驾驶舱领导力平衡可能在检查飞行期间发生变化，只有在最终安全决定必须做出时——而且只有在确定的情况下——才能倾向于机长的权威。显然，在正常的航空公司情况下，权威梯度是明确定义的。但每个航空公司都需要根据其当地和民族文化决定如何处理权威梯度问题。窍门是确保在检查飞行中，所有具有知识和有用信息的人都能被真正听到，无论他们的级别、制服上的条纹数量、国籍、性别或薪资等级。

特别值得注意的是，检查飞行员还需要能够在活动中取得良好的平衡，保持必要的自信水平，而不能有过度的自我意识。寻找那些不是试图证明自己有多优秀的人，而是证明飞机有多好（或多差）的人。有趣的是，这种特质在飞行表演领域也至关重要。

在某些方面，这是检查世界与正常运营飞行员世界之间的关键区别。

年轻飞行员在成长过程中不断提高自己作为飞行员的技能，并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，“一定是我出了问题”。我今天状态不好”。换句话说，他们向内审视自己的表现。检查世界则不同。它要求他们成为”标准”，并用这个标准来评估他们正在驾驶的飞机。被检验的是飞机，而不是飞行员。他们必须向外看。如果昨天飞的是同型号飞机，通过某个动作的响应是”正常”的，但今天不是或感觉不同，那么发生了什么变化？是否有什么东西改变了？重量和重心（CG）是否相同，或者可能是更严重的问题，比如由于配平损伤导致的飞控系统性能下降？

最后，在最受欢迎的特性清单中，位居榜首的是个人诚信，它被看得比什么都重要。检查飞行专业人员需要是精神上足够强大的人，能够为他们的决定（好的和坏的）承担责任，然后能够与自己的错误共处，从中学习，并传达给他人。在追踪非故障或飞行特性时，时间可能会被浪费，而实际上罪魁祸首可能是选择了错误构型或在错误时间拨动了错误开关的飞行员。在研制试飞世界里，没有藏身之处，因为所做的每件事都被拍摄、仪器记录、遥测并由专家组审查，但在航空公司检查飞行环境中并非如此，在这种情况下，老式的诚信是至关重要的。在这个活动中，没有比这更重要的特征了。

正确的飞行员或工程师类型应该天生熟练掌握机组资源管理，尤其善于倾听……窍门是确保在检查飞行中，所有具有知识和有用信息的人都能被真正听到，无论他们的级别、制服上的条纹数量、国籍、性别或薪资等级。

寻找那些不是试图证明自己有多优秀的人，而是证明飞机有多好（或多差）的人。

被检验的是飞机，而不是飞行员。

在最受欢迎的特性清单中，位居榜首的是个人诚信。

014 功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备工作

专项培训

在面试过程中识别这些主要特征并为这种工作选择”正确”类型的人，将在检查飞行场景中获得很多回报。事实上，如果你选错了人，无论流程多好，仍然会有风险。然而，培训这些人进一步发展知识、技能和态度以执行检查飞行是一项额外的资产。

当航空公司内部存在正确的专业知识并得到充分认可这一需求的管理层支持时，在航空公司内部培训检查飞行飞行员是完全可能的。一些拥有非常大型机队的航空公司有专门的专业部门，其职责是对其所有机队飞机执行检查。

同样，空客也开发了制造商的功能检查飞行课程，并取得了非常好的效果。它的目的不是培养完全合格的试飞员，而是提供对正确思维方式类型的初步入门，并帮助航空公司的检查人员登上学习阶梯的某个位置，从而防止一些基本错误。该课程使用空客的一种机型作为载体来承载”通用”教学要素，空客也使用这种机型来演示安全执行FCF所需的知识和技能水平。

其他航空培训机构也做类似的事情，但方式更为笼统。选择权在航空公司。

空客技术飞行熟悉课程

对涉及安全问题的实际功能检查飞行的分析使人们能够突出此类飞行安全的关键方面：

• 飞机检查心态 • 适当的机组期望 • 执行与航线运营不同动作的特定技能 • 识别机组人员不同目标的威胁，特别是在租期结束情况下 • 避免”勾选方框”的方法 • 对不熟悉的飞机重量和重心相关的性能和操纵差异的认识 • 新机组人员技能组合和新知识 • 积极的ATC协调

基于这些来自经验的反馈，空客在2009年开发了技术熟悉飞行课程，目标是向飞行机组提供知识、技能和态度，以提高执行以下飞行时的安全性、质量和效率：

• 技术飞行或功能检查飞行（即维修后、喷漆后等） • 接收飞行（即运营商之间的交接）

该课程设计为三人机组（2名飞行员和1名工程师），由2名教员授课：1名试飞员和1名飞行试验工程师。

它结合了地面阶段（2天）、全动模拟机阶段（2天）和飞行阶段，覆盖上述所有方面，使FCF尽可能安全。

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

经验

正确种类的经验在提高判断力、任务优先级排序和风险评估方面非常有价值，但经验也可能是伟大的欺骗者。在某些地区，有许多飞行时间达35000小时的航空公司人员，完全不适合检查飞行任务。这些人有很多执行重复和类似任务的经验，而不是有各种不同的经验来做出良好的知情检查飞行判断。所以要超越小时数去寻找，了解飞行日志中有哪些相关的检查经验，以及个人成功完成了多少次非正常操作。

要超越小时数……

016 017 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

指南文档

除了拥有合适的人员，为执行功能检查飞行做好准备还依赖于理解这些检查是什么、为什么进行以及如何执行。

多年来，关于如果航空公司打算自行执行维修后的FCF应该使用哪个文件，存在一定的混淆。

将一个手册误认为另一个可能会引入隐藏的风险，这在功能检查飞行世界里是不应该存在的。那么应该使用哪一个？

换句话说，用于执行功能检查飞行的唯一手册是ISATFM。不要使用CAM。

状态	飞机状态	飞行机组	手册
新下线	刚从生产线下来，刚刚通过生产试飞部门的严格测试程序	制造商试飞员	PATM
	目标：在认证飞行包线的极限范围内全面检查飞机运行。与其说是检查，不如说是测试，因为这是飞机首次在空中测试。向当局提供证据，证明飞机符合颁发适航证所需的标准。	制造商/航空公司混合机组	CAM
	目标：证明技术操作标准已按照商业合同满足，即飞机飞行正常，无异常操纵或系统故障。	航空公司机组，经过功能检查飞行专门培训	ISATFM
在役	维修后，无法在地面适当测试的项目
	目标：验证飞机的运行特性在无法在地面适当测试的项目的维修操作后未受到不利影响。

每种情况都有一个手册

空客开发了多种手册来执行”检查”飞行。具体来说，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，关于如果航空公司打算自行执行维修后的飞行检查应该使用哪个文件，存在一定的混淆。

最简单但不正确的解决方案似乎是使用最可能手头的那个……即客户验收手册，这是所有客户在新交付飞机验收飞行期间收到的。然而，这种”解决方案”带有若干隐藏的风险，这在技术飞行检查世界里是不应该存在的。那么应该使用哪一个？

虽然所有这三个手册涵盖的飞行都是为了执行检查，但每本手册在以下方面有特定的适用范围：

• 飞机状态（从刚下生产线到已在役）。 • 飞行员的背景和他们所属的组织。

简而言之，这些文件的特点如下：

用于执行功能检查飞行的唯一手册是ISATFM。不要使用CAM。

018 019 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

ISATFM（在役飞机技术飞行手册）

如前所述，这是用于在役飞机的必备手册。每种空客飞机系列都有一份ISATFM：宽体机用于A300系列，单通道用于A320系列，远程用于A330/A340系列，双层用于A380。

每本手册分为三部分：

第一部分是地面检查阶段第二部分是基本飞行阶段第三部分是针对已培训机组的附加飞行检查阶段。

这些阶段应按逻辑和编号顺序执行。

这里，我们只讨论飞行阶段。（第二和第三部分）

2014年，在飞机租赁界提出要求后，ISATFM飞行阶段被分为两部分。

人们认识到，较早一代的ISATFM手册对于没有飞行检查经验的飞行员来说飞行起来相当复杂。因此，手册被分成了”第二部分”，成为正常包线内的飞机基本功能检查，“第三部分”是针对经过适当培训的机组执行的先进检查，允许对飞机及其系统进行更深入的技术检查。

实际上，第二部分旨在用于已在役的飞机，在飞行前没有重大维护操作，允许运营商之间的交接阶段。它可以由常规航线飞行员执行。

这些是第二部分不应作为航空公司内部技术飞行手册执行的主要原因。

第三部分飞行剖面与首飞非常相似，但没有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有了很好的了解。

为了飞行”第三部分”飞行剖面，建议机组应接受适当的培训。

如何获取ISATFM手册并使用它？

空客开发的ISATFM使用理念是支持航空公司开发自己的FCF手册，根据其运营环境（机场、检查、飞行员资料等）进行改编和定制。换句话说，ISATFM被设计成一份”自选菜单”，是空客基于其专业知识推荐的指南。

但为了支持FCF的安全，每个航空公司都需要经过自己的思考过程，并以此为参考设计自己的手册。这一思考可能导致航空公司删除某些检查（如果他们对执行它们没有信心）或添加一些考虑其环境的特定信息……

为确保所有航空公司都了解和承认这一必要步骤，空客在收到要求并签署并收到法律免责声明后提供ISATFM。该法律免责声明声明航空公司应如何使用此文件，控制自己的文档的使用提供的ISATFM的指南，并且应删除该文件是空客文件的引用，并适用航空公司的标题。合理的是，它还声明带有空客标题的ISATFM文件不应转发给第三方，也不得复制或存储，但这仅适用于带有空客标题的文件。

要收到免责声明，航空公司需要写信（电子邮件）给EVRT秘书处（evrt.control-room@airbus.com）

反过来，航空公司将收到必须签署并返回的法律免责声明，以便为其机型收到文件。然后航空公司将收到PDF版本的文件。

020 021 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

最后的检查——取决于机场能力——是自动着陆。然而，这个检查需要仔细考虑。在检查自动着陆系统之前，需要事先评估任何非III类ILS设施的特性，最好在另一架可用飞机上进行。（读者可以将其解释为意味着他们需要在驾驶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讨论，因为可能需要提前组织III类保护。

重要的是，上面的测试顺序经过仔细考虑，是重要的，应该坚持执行。

为什么建议飞行这样的剖面？答案是，虽然由机库人员执行的地面检查非常好和彻底，但航空公司管理层可能觉得有些方面无法在地面上充分检查。航空公司的决定将是——“我们需要进行一次专门的技术飞行吗？”

此类决定必须基于当地的工程和运营判断，包括：所执行维护的级别和深度、被干扰的系统数量、所应用的改装、给定故障的维护”历史”，以及所有这些问题对飞机飞控系统、发动机、空气动力学和传感器的重要性。飞机维护手册内容如下：

品尝ISATFM的味道……或在飞行中执行的检查

飞行中的第一个主要动作是飞控检查。在确保所有松散物体已固定好且气象雷达已关闭后，飞行员将把飞机俯仰和滚转至但不超出其保护限制——即俯仰角度+30度至-15度，拉起至+2.0g，推杆不低于+0.5g，左右各略超过45度。

目标是确保飞机响应和”感觉""正常”，并且包线保护功能按设计运行。

之后，将检查自动飞行系统，包括正常和推杆覆盖断开检查，随后检查全球速度保护，以监控控制律回转。

在爬升过程中，第三名机组人员监控并记录系统参数，同时检查是否有异常值。飞行员忙着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，检查横向配平（以确认飞机水平飞行）以及高度表和迎角传感器的气象测量检查。确认无误后，机组将进行增压检查。第一个检查是将客舱充气至最大压力限制，以检查客舱压力安全阀的正确功能。此检查至关重要，因为机组必须非常仔细地监控阀门在正确限制内打开。随后进行泄漏率和释压检查，这可能使客舱达到14000英尺的客舱高度，同时检查客舱泄漏率（由乘客和货舱门密封引起）、组件活门密封、客舱高度警告，最后是氧气面罩的掉落。后一项检查涉及与机上任何客舱工程师的良好沟通和协调。如果客舱里有”非机组人员”在工作，建议进行较低客舱高度的释压——在这种情况下，在高高度警告处停止释压（9550或11300英尺客舱高度），然后使用面罩人工接通，是更谨慎的选择。

之后，机组将飞向飞机的实用升限，执行更多气象测量检查以完成RVSM检查。在升限，将启动APU，稳定后，依次将每个发电机断开再接通，以检查正确切换到APU发电机的电气电源。

下降相对较快，在MMO和VMO进行超速检查，加上减速板展开以检查是否有任何异常的横向行为。机翼和发动机防冰也在下降中检查，在较低飞行高度也检查APU引气。

下降进入称为”块”的空域。这是与空中交通管制商定的海拔”块”，通常为FL100至FL140——但显著取决于飞机飞行地区的地理地形！如果地形高，则需要更高的块高度！在这里，执行低速检查，前提是飞机在下降中没有结冰。在开始任何低速检查之前，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。

当相关值被评估并商定后，飞机将在干净构型中减速，直至稳定在”最大迎角”。这是在”正常法则”下使用全拉杆稳定在的最小速度。当第三名机组人员记录了值后，飞行员将执行低速改出程序，然后立即设置飞机进行迎角锁定测试。此检查是为了确认在低速度/大迎角时，如果缝翼从1设置为0，它们不会收回。

然后飞机将设置为着陆构型，再次减速至最大迎角。令人惊讶的是，对于A320、A330和A380，稳定最小速度大致相同，约为100节！虽然这两个检查必须谨慎对待，在减速率和使用柔和的操控方面要格外小心，但只要飞机系统正常工作，它们是相对容易的检查点。

低速块中的最后检查是确保各种系统正确运行——自动复飞、扰流板的液压锁定（当液压系统降级时）、应急电动和冲压空气涡轮，以及各种速度和缝翼构型下的缝翼卸载和音响警告。

023 功能检查飞行规划和准备功能检查飞行

025 功能检查飞行 - 规划和准备

飞机

让我们先处理飞机。检查飞行机组需要准确知道执行了哪些维护以及哪些系统被干扰过。他们还需要知道是否已应用了修理、改装和升级，如果有的话，可能对预定飞行产生什么影响。因此，需要提前一些时间通知，因为拜访机库对于弄清大多数飞机问题是必不可少的。与维修经理交谈并深入查看飞行日志。谨慎对待”你今天下午能来做一个快速检查飞行吗”这种请求。通常比最初看起来有更多的内容被干扰或工作过。

从长远来看，与机库的机械师建立信任的工作关系。令人惊讶的是，一旦建立了这种信任，他们会告诉你很多事情。人与人之间的幽默感对此有很大帮助。如果情况不允许这样，例如使用了外站或偏远设施，试着评估机库人员（及其管理层）的质量和他们在何种压力下工作。

如果飞机已经清洗或喷漆，要特别注意，因为这些活动可能引起许多”连锁”技术问题，如皮托管或迎角传感器损坏。在此类检查飞行前总是要做详细的绕机检查，并花时间仔细检查。曾经有很多例子表明：起落架支撑垫留在飞机上、升降舵铰链和超弹簧片上覆盖着遮蔽胶带、更不用说深度维护或喷漆后静压板和通风口上的油漆以及被FOD堵塞。

还要记住，所有可能需要置于地面测试位置以允许某些地面检查在飞行前完成的系统。了解它们是什么，并确保它们在飞行前都正确地重新定位到飞行位置。应用这样的原则：如果可能发生，它就一定会发生。作为检查员，你的工作是确保对飞行没有不利影响。

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试飞世界那样容易，不寻常的重心对装载专家来说也不太常见。即便如此，询问在这个领域待了一段时间的人，他们都会有一些装载失误的经历。一个建议是尝试将飞机置于您感觉舒适的重量和装载状态，并将其作为所有后续类似飞行的标准。尽可能设置中间重心，避免接近极限，并考虑重量和CG对预期”控制感觉”的影响。预料到飞机最终会比航线上的飞机轻得多。这不是大问题，但要考虑它，并考虑与失速速度和最小控制速度相关的速度。也许通常情况下您会受到失速速度限制，但现在可能接近或在空中最小控制速度（Vmca）限制上。也可能是为了充分测试燃油系统需要特定的燃油装载，这可能会影响重心。

现在让我们转到规划和准备方面。在检查飞行起飞之前，需要提出并回答许多问题，首先是理解任务。飞行的确切目标是什么？目标能在地面上实现吗？飞机状态如何？谁来做？什么时候需要完成？在什么地方进行？最后，有了所有这些信息，风险是什么？如果出了问题我们会怎么做？有些事情似乎对大多数任务是共同的。让我们试着捕捉最常出现的那些。

第一条规则是能够解释为什么要首先进行飞行检查。

许多检查可以在试验台上成功执行。尽管飞行员热爱飞行，但只有在地面上无法执行的检查才应该在空中执行。GPWS就是一个很好的例子。“盒子”有所有固定的逻辑，可以进行台架测试。软件将已被正确测试和认证。那么可能的检查飞行需要什么呢？实际上，只需要验证”飞机连接”方面的缝翼信号、起落架信号和无线电高度表。这样的检查不需要飞行所有模式。

应用这样的原则：如果可能发生，它就一定会发生。

仔细考虑重量和重心（CG）。

只有在地面上无法执行的检查才应该在空中执行。

026 功能检查飞行 - 规划和准备

机组配备

如前所述，FCF经常被航空公司飞行运营管理人员视为”获得飞行机会”。虽然这可以理解也很诱人，但他们在研究理解问题、保持飞行技能在适当水平以及能够完全专注于任务和在处理”压力”使飞机恢复运营的同时做出正确技术判断方面，可能是最不擅长的。显然，有些管理飞行员是”适合”这项任务的，但在选择自己之前，需要对自己的工作量、经验和机型技术知识进行完全诚实的审查。关于检查飞行人员，管理层的主要角色是选择合适的人选，然后让他们做这项工作，最后在安全意义上支持他们有时困难的决定。检查员需要知道他们会得到运营主管在这方面的支持，是的，他们有时也会犯错误。

拥有一小批经过精心挑选的机组人员，他们为任务做好了充分准备，这比试图”公平”地轮换检查飞行让每个人都有经验要好。应该定义一个最小机组，包括足够的支援或检查工程师和飞行员来管理航空公司的检查工作量。他们应该有一名指定的负责人，通过与团队定期开会，审查将要使用的计划，并确保从每次飞行中获得的经验中吸取教训。他/她也可以向高级管理层建议应该如何呈现待检查的飞机。这样的人也可以作为与飞机制造商的联络人，吸取他们的专业知识，并确保航空公司从制造商的试飞专家那里获得最佳建议。

我们建议尽可能使用三人机组，因此对许多航空公司来说，主要挑战之一是能够将地勤工程师、授权质量工程师或专业检查工程师以这种方式纳入”测试”机组环境，使他的声音被”听到”，他的意见与飞行员同等重要和重视。在某些文化中这不是一件容易的事。

一些航空公司使用第三名飞行员担任此角色，但必须明确的是，这名第三名机组人员的主要角色不是充当第三名飞行员，而是记录数据，保持对要执行的检查的总体了解，最重要的是充当安全后盾。

要执行的检查将决定完整检查机组中检查人员的数量。随着客舱和客舱系统变得越来越复杂，制造商在测试中会使用多名客舱工程师。基本飞行甲板检查组应由飞行员和高级功能检查工程师组成，后者也可能具备客舱资质。如果需要，也可以包括专业客舱工程师。在进行释压检查时要小心，因为使用如此小的团队存在一名机组人员被隔离在客舱的风险。客舱的大小和客舱系统检查的复杂性将决定飞机后部团队的总体规模。

机场

要使用的机场很少是可以选择的问题，但明智的是要考虑机场本身带来的任何影响。跑道能力、海拔高度及其对性能的影响、高地形和障碍物、可用的导航辅助设备以及有效的NOTAM，都需要考虑，以及一般运营情况。例如，在进行中断起飞或制动检查之前，问一下”运营跑道是唯一使用的跑道吗？“并考虑在什么时间进行RTO相对于计划的交通。如果在繁忙时段爆胎，你不会太受欢迎。在较大和繁忙的中心枢纽，一个短途飞行到另一个较安静的机场可能是答案。

关于检查飞行人员，管理层的主要角色是选择合适的人选，然后让他们做这项工作，最后在安全意义上支持他们有时困难的决定。

拥有一小批经过精心挑选的机组人员，他们为任务做好了充分准备，这比试图”公平”地轮换检查飞行让每个人都有经验要好。

029 功能检查飞行 - 规划和准备

白天/夜间问题

每个组织都需要决定是仅在白天还是白天和夜间都进行检查飞行。原则上，在气象条件为VFR的情况下进行常规检查没有大问题。然而，有些夜晚能见度很好，有些夜晚则是漆黑一片没有月光协助。夜间和IFR的组合应该开始敲响一两个警钟，肯定会增加机组人员很多工作量。因此，建议白天飞行更好，特别是对于规模较小、此类飞行执行频率较低的航空公司，机组近期经历可能较低。此外，在重大深度维护后，应尽可能在白天开始飞行。在空客生产测试中，新飞机首飞的允许最晚起飞时间与有用日光时间相关，以便至少可以在白天和VFR条件下执行第一次低速操纵检查。如果有任何严重的天气担忧，白天飞行是唯一合乎逻辑的决定。

天气

在认证开发飞行测试期间，天气条件通常是执行特定测试能力的驱动因素。然而，在检查飞行世界里，等待完美天气的特权很少见。话虽如此，知道要执行的检查的底线是什么肯定是明智的。例如，在30节侧风中执行制动检查可能不明智。在空客，新飞机首飞的最低天气条件有定义。如果要执行全权限飞控检查或包线保护检查，则需要在云层之间有一些清晰的垂直空间。自动着陆系统在I类条件下检查后才用于实际使用，并且在下降中避开结冰层时要非常注意。即使少量结冰也会显著改变抖振速度的起始和警告速度的调度速度。

因此，作为飞行准备的一部分，在办公室冷静的时候最好定义将从气象角度应用的规则。尽可能少地应用规则，因为这将为检查机组提供最大的灵活性。只应用确保安全所需的规则。但随后必须遵守——始终遵守。

空中交通和空域

在检查飞行意义上，ATC可以是最好的朋友，也可以是最坏的敌人。检查机组必须确保他们成为朋友。飞行前ATC简报——飞行员和将负责他们的管制员直接进行——非常有价值，往往会在飞行员和管制员之间形成积极的”纽带”。管制员随后往往会更倾向于移动其他交通而不是检查飞机。不做简报则相反。管制员可能会被持续且看似不合逻辑的高度、航向和构型变化要求激怒，从而通过使情况变得更加困难来增加检查机组的工作量。

在飞行计划的第18栏标注”本次飞行是检查飞行”也很有用。对于已简报的ATC管制员来说，这意味着飞行将受到高度、航向和构型的多次变化的影响，机组工作量可能随时很高。

尽可能使用安静的ATC环境，如果有的话，空管机构有这样的安静频道，应该使用。在纯粹的制造商测试环境中，我们有专门的管制员来确保高效的飞行间隔和冲突避让，但通常航空公司没有这种特权。

然而，飞行前仔细查看空域和当前的天气通常可以找到选择一块好的、偏远的空域，比如一块不活跃的危险区域，这样可以很好地服务于检查飞机的飞行剖面。如果有疑问，请向管制员寻求建议，通过这个建议，他再次默许地与任务的成功绑定在一起。

请向管制员寻求建议，通过这个建议，他再次默许地与任务的成功绑定在一起。

建议白天飞行更好。如果有任何严重的天气担忧，白天飞行是唯一合乎逻辑的决定。

关于天气，只应用确保安全所需的规则。但随后必须遵守——始终遵守。

飞行前ATC简报——飞行员和将负责他们的管制员直接进行——非常有价值，往往会在飞行员和管制员之间形成积极的”纽带”。尽可能使用安静的ATC环境。

031 功能检查飞行 - 规划和准备

检查单

考虑到更正常的航空公司”标准驱动”的运营情况，检查机组需要能够在”标准”检查单之外思考和工作（同时仍然理解并认识到其重要性），并对此感到自在。仍然应该使用检查单，但它们应该用于指导，而不是被视为法律。没有检查单能覆盖所有检查情况。

测试计划

在航空世界里，功能检查飞行通常被视为根本不必要的，或者最多是干扰顺利飞机分配和规划过程的一个必要麻烦。这意味着它们经常在运营和技术管理层的巨大压力下执行，他们当然希望看到他们昂贵的资产尽快恢复运营，为航空公司赚钱。

虽然这是完全可以理解的，特别是对于较小的航空公司，但管理层在检查飞行过程中扮演着至关重要的角色，即保护他们选定的检查人员免受此类无益的压力，而检查人员反过来必须尽可能安全和专业地完成工作。

因此，规划成功意味着确保时间因素被考虑。理想情况下，检查飞行应在白天进行，不受”恢复运营”时间的直接压力。对于较小的航空公司，有时这根本不可能。然而，规划必须留出时间进行充分的飞行前简报机会，并有机会对技术人员进行充分的讲评。

同样，检查飞行不应被用来搭载任何形式的乘客或”顺便搭乘”的人，或者仅仅为了”体验”。虽然出于各种原因这似乎很诱人，但检查情况下的乘客经常会给本已复杂的演练增加复杂性、健康问题和压力。如果有从A点到B点运人的需求，则先执行检查飞行，着陆后再接载乘客进行后续转场。

检查计划的采用有不同的方法。可以为每种类型的检查飞行开发不同的检查计划，也可以创建一个主参考检查计划，其中某些检查如果不适用则划掉。该文件不仅应包含要检查的项目，还应包括检查前写下的任何相关安全警告，以及成功标准和允许的最大容差。当检查要求接近硬限制如VFE限制时，“不超过”数值需要清楚写明，因为这将构成执行阶段稍后迷你项目简报的一部分。尽可能避免将检查写在两页上，当然要避免将安全警告与要做的检查分开。页面上有空白更好。此外，由于检查飞行很少按计划进行，格式化计划以便于以不同顺序处理和使用，但要注意这一点。某些检查应该先于其他检查执行，即低速操纵先于进近。

空客在役飞机飞行测试手册（ISAFTM）可被客户航空公司用作创建自己检查计划的参考。连同提供的数据外，上述其他因素都应在最终航空公司版本中加以考虑。自己生成检查计划的过程，迫使人们思考上述所有因素并加以纪律约束，并确保更好的飞行前准备。

检查飞行不应被用来搭载任何形式的乘客或”顺便搭乘”的人，或者仅仅为了”体验”。

仍然应该使用检查单，但它们应该用于指导，而不是视为圣杯。没有检查单能覆盖所有检查情况。

033 功能检查飞行执行功能检查飞行

034 035 功能检查飞行 - 执行功能检查飞行 - 执行

简报

这里提供一些关于简报的指南很有用。

所有相关方都需要在场并倾听。让我们记住，这是飞行前简报，不是关于对飞机逐项执行什么的冗长维护说教。这些数据应该已经过审查，说实话，任何人一次只能记住一定量的详细信息。简报由机长或检查工程师主持，需要与飞行相关。务必让后台技术支持人员在场以回答可能出现的任何问题。
每个人都必须了解任务、他们在任务中的角色、计划的检查顺序以及飞行将如何进行。任何限制和关键词都应商定。
需要特别简报天气，特别是关于对上述任务方面任何影响。
同样，机场和ATC及空域情况必须审查。
应进行简短的飞行风险评估。这处理的是”如果这个或那个发生，我们会怎么做？“的实际问题。这不是深度工程风险评估，而是假设事情可能不总是按计划进行的顺序审查。它应包括最可能引起问题的内容，以及如果发生问题时的后备计划。

飞行中主要是纯飞行活动的部分（如飞控检查或低速操纵）将被识别出来，系统相关的部分（如释压检查）也是如此，将决定谁飞谁监控。始终保持一个人在飞行。观察到的一个趋势是整个机组都”参与”检查序列的细节。一个人安静地倾听但专注于基本飞行绝对没有问题。

此飞行前简报随后将得到在某些检查飞行阶段前进行的迷你”飞行中简报”的支持，以”提醒”每个人接下来会发生什么、限制是什么，以及在某些情况发生时谁需要采取什么行动。

好的，现在已经选择了正确的人，并尽可能做了充分的准备。是时候飞行了，但在本文中，无意逐项检查测试计划。这在空客技术飞行熟悉课程中有很好的涵盖。