Functional Check Flights 3/4 - Planning and preparing a Functional Check Flight

Source: Airbus Safety First URL: https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/functional-check-flights-3-4-planning-and-preparing-a-functional-check-flight/ Published: 2015-10-19 Category: Flight Ops PDF: Original PDF

The Airbus Safety Magazine October 2015

Special Issue

Safety first Functional Check Flights

Functional Check Flights

002

001

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety first

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YANNICK MALINGE

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

SVP & Chief Product Safety Officer

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

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

Enjoy your reading!

Functional Check Flights

What does it take to be prepared?

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

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

HARRY NELSON Experimental Test Pilot

SIMON PETERSON Flight Test Engineer Instructor

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights 005

Special flights requiring special treatment

006 Functional Check Flights - Special flights

Functional Check Flights - Special flights 007

What is a Functional Check Flight?

EASA REGULATION ON MAINTENANCE CHECK FLIGHTS AT A GLANCE

Figure 1: Summary of Functional Check Flights regulations

Non revenue

Technical check

Post maintenance check

End of lease

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

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

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

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

A specific framework

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

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

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

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

Flight crew requirements
Additional crewmembers
Training course
Maintenance Check Flight Manual

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

Airline preparedness to perform Functional Check Flights

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 011

Selected and trained crews

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

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

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

KNOWLEDGE

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

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

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

SKILLS

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 013

012

APTITUDE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness

014

EXPERIENCE

Look beyond the hours…

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

SPECIFIC TRAINING

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

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

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

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

THE AIRBUS TECHNICAL FLIGHT FAMILIARISATION COURSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness

016

017

Guidance documentation

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

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

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

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

A MANUAL FOR EACH CIRCUMSTANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 019

018

THE ISATFM (IN-SERVICE AIRCRAFT TECHNICAL FLIGHT MANUAL)

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

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

Each manual is divided into 3 parts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOW TO GET THE ISATFM MANUAL AND USE IT?

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

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

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness

Functional Check Flights - Airline preparedness 021

020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights 023

Planning and preparing a Functional Check Flight

Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing 025

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

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

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

The Aircraft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing

026

Crewing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Airfield

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

Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing 029

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

Air Traffic and Airspace

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

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

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

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

The day / night question

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

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

Weather

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

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights - Planning and preparing 031

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

Checklists

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

Test schedules

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights 033

Executing a Functional Check Flight

Functional Check Flights - Executing

034

035

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

Briefing

Some guidelines on the briefing are useful here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Always have one person flying.

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

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

Getting airborne

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

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights - Executing 037

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

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

Really good crew communication throughout the check flight is required.

Take-off

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functional Check Flights - Executing

038

039

Workload

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Snag resolution

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

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

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

No anomalous indication on an aircraft appears for no reason.

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

Functional Check Flights - Executing 041

Tricky test points

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

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

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

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

Different flight plans

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

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

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

042 Functional Check Flights - Executing

Functional Check Flights

043

Cabin systems

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

044 Functional Check Flights

Articles published in previous ‘Safety first’ issues

Issue 20

July 2015

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

Issue 19

January 2015

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

Issue 18

July 2014

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

Issue 17

January 2014

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

Issue 16

July 2013

• Performance Based

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

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

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

Issue 15

January 2013

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

Issue 14

July 2012

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

Issue 13

January 2012

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

Issue 12

July 2011

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

Issue 11

January 2011

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

Issue 10

August 2010

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

Issue 9

Issue 6

February 2010

July 2008

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

Issue 8

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

July 2009

Slide/raft Improvement
The Runway Overrun Prevention System

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

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

Issue 5

Fuel Spills During Refueling Operations

December 2007

Issue 7

New CFIT Event During Non Precision Approach

February 2009

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

Issue 4

Upset Recovery Training Aid, Revision 2

June 2007

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

Issue 3

December 2006

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

Issue 2

September 2005

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

Issue 1

January 2005

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

中文译文

来源：Airbus Safety First

网址：https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/functional-check-flights-3-4-planning-and-preparing-a-functional-check-flight/

发布日期：2015-10-19

类别：飞行运营

PDF：原始 PDF

Airbus Safety Magazine 2015年10月

特刊

Safety first 功能检查飞行

功能检查飞行

002

001

Safety first，特刊 2015年10月。Safety first 由空中客车公司出版——1, rond point Maurice Bellonte - 31707 法国布拉尼亚克。出版人：Yannick Malinge，首席产品安全官；编辑：Corinne Bieder，产品安全策略与传播总监。概念设计由空中客车多媒体支持 20151711。参考资料：D15030884。照片由空中客车、P. Masclet、Lindner Fotografie、S. Chobert、P. Pigeyre、C. Brinkmann 提供。法国印刷。

本手册采用纹理纸印刷。该纸张在获得 EMAS 认证并通过 ISO 9001/14001、PEFC 和 FSC CoC 认证的工厂生产。纸浆采用无氯和无酸漂白工艺。纸张可完全回收利用，原料来自可持续森林资源。印刷油墨使用有机颜料或矿物质，不使用碱性染料或镉、铅、汞或六价铬组中的危险金属。

印刷商 Art & Caractère（法国 81500）实施了废物管理和所有副产品的回收计划。

接收本手册（以下简称“手册”），即表示贵公司接受以下准则：

除阅读权外，本手册的交付不授予任何其他知识产权，仅供信息之用。

未经空中客车事先书面同意，不得修改本手册及其内容，不得复制其插图和照片。

不得将本手册及其包含的材料全部或部分出售、出租或许可给任何付费的第三方。

本手册包含的信息在付印时是正确的。这些信息涉及许多可能随时间变化的因素，影响真实的公开陈述。空中客车不承担更新本文件所含信息或此处描述信息的任何义务。

空中客车公司对使用本手册及其包含的材料造成的任何损害不承担责任，即使空中客车公司已被告知此类损害的可能性。

Safety first

空中客车杂志，通过增进安全相关主题的知识和交流，为提高飞机运营安全做出贡献。

Safety first 由产品安全部门出版。它是飞行和地面机组人员（驾驶和维护空中客车飞机） restricted use 的专业安全信息来源，也分发给其他 selected organisations。

出版材料来源于多个渠道，包括来自空中客车飞行安全保密报告系统的 selected information、事件和事故调查报告、系统测试和飞行测试。材料 also obtained from 航空公司行业内部、 government agencies 的 studies and reports 以及其他 aviation sources。

Safety first 中的所有文章仅供 information purposes，不旨在取代 ICAO guidelines、standards 或 recommended practices、运营商强制要求或技术指令。内容不 supersede 飞机注册国监管机构强制要求的任何要求，也不 supersede 或 amend 任何空中客车特定类型的 AFM、AMM、FCOM、MMEL documentation 或任何其他 approved documentation。

除标明版权来源的文章外，文章可以 reprinted without permission，但需注明空中客车。若空中客车非作者，文章内容不一定反映空中客车的观点，也不表示公司 policy。

欢迎投稿、comment 和 feedback。由于技术原因，编辑可能需要对稿件进行 editorial changes，但将尽一切努力 preserve intended meaning of original。与本出版物相关的 enquiries 应发送至：

空中客车产品安全部门（GS） 1, rond point Maurice Bellonte 31707 法国布拉尼亚克 Cedex safetycommunication@airbus.com 传真：+33(0)5 61 93 44 29

过去的经验表明，像”正常”商业航班一样执行功能检查飞行会产生重大安全问题。

事实上，尽管功能检查飞行可能在具备商业航班安全管理经验的航空公司环境中进行，但它们与常规航班在许多方面存在显著差异：非收入航班的性质、对飞行员资质的要求、特定的运行环境、航空 guidance documentation，甚至整个 regulatory framework。

YANNICK MALINGE

功能检查飞行是特殊的飞行，需要特别的安全关注。因此，以特殊形式对其进行阐述是必要的。本期《Safety First》安全杂志将带您了解功能检查飞行的特殊准备流程。

高级副总裁兼首席产品安全官

这一流程从实际飞行之前很早就已开始，涉及其更广泛、更深远的组织层面。它包括多个时间维度的多个层面，所有这些都有助于为这类飞行做好准备。

为了将这些方面作为一个整体来处理，本期特刊也需要特殊的结构。不是一组文章，而是一篇按照不同组织层面和时间维度组织的单一文本，展示安全功能检查飞行所需的准备条件。

祝您阅读愉快！

功能检查飞行

需要哪些准备？

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，涉及功能检查的飞行具有额外的特殊风险，需要更多的安全关注。

事实上，这类飞行在航空公司环境中进行时，在许多方面与“正常”的例行航班有显著差异。它们有时被称为技术检查飞行、维护后检查飞行、租约终止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，FCF）这一缩写。

确保 FCF 的安全涉及多个层面和多个阶段的不同方面和参与者。本期特刊将向您概述安全 FCF 所需的条件。它将沿着时间/组织单位的脉络，阐述每个层面为使 FCF 安全飞行所做的贡献。因此，本文分为以下几个部分：

特殊飞行 航空公司准备 规划执行 和准备 功能检查飞行 功能检查飞行

功能检查飞行 005

特殊飞行 需要特殊处理

006 功能检查飞行 - 特殊飞行

功能检查飞行 - 特殊飞行 007

什么是功能检查飞行？

EASA 关于维护检查飞行的法规概览

图1：功能检查飞行法规摘要

非收入性

技术检查

维护后检查

租约终止

功能检查飞行是在维护操作或维修后进行的非收入性飞行，这些操作可能影响飞机的固有空气动力学和/或系统特性以及运营性能，或在飞机归还出租人之前。建议由三名航空公司机组人员执行，包括两名飞行员和一名工程师。

因此，在航空公司环境中，FCF 在许多方面与常规活动不同。

首先，FCF 是“非收入性飞行”。由于这项活动不是航空公司的核心业务，它在一定程度上也会扰乱飞机和机组人员的调度安排，需要调配飞机、机组人员以及其他所需运营人员。

此外，考虑到 FCF 的目标是接近限制、检查系统和飞机响应，对于航空公司机组人员来说，这是非同寻常的飞行。

特定框架

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

确保此类飞行安全的前提条件是承认其独特地位，并在各个层面给予这些飞行特殊处理。从监管角度看，FCF 的特殊性已得到认可，并体现在 2012 年 EASA 发布的维护检查飞行专项法规中：参考 EASA，NPA 2012-08。维护检查飞行（MCF）。

监管要求涉及 FCF 安全的多个方面，即：

飞行机组要求
额外机组人员
培训课程
维护检查飞行手册

为了完善并超越监管材料，以下各节将提供有关 FCF 安全飞行关键方面的详细定性见解。

航空公司准备 执行功能检查飞行

功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备 011

精选与培训的机组

一旦承认功能检查飞行（FCF）需要特殊对待，在航空公司层面建立执行此类飞行所需的一切准备就涵盖了多个方面，下文将逐一审视。

检查飞行工作与其它任务相比，对个人素质有某些特定要求。航空公司中，大多数年轻飞行员的选拔标准有着不同的目标。然而，检查飞行是所有航空公司都无法回避的现实，而这通常落到了首席飞行员或其它资深人员（如机队队长或机队技术飞行员）的头上，他们可能将此视为一次“走出办公室”的机会。并非所有这些人员——尽管他们都很重要——都一定最适合承担此任务，他们也不一定有足够的时间按照应有的方式做好准备，而他们自己或许也希望能如此。那么，对于将加入“检查团队”的飞行员或工程师，应该考察哪些方面呢？

检查组成员要建立成功的职业生涯，需要四大支柱，即知识、技能、天赋和经验。有人可能会说“这与我所在的世界没什么不同”，但让我们以“检查”的视角更仔细地审视其中一些特质。

知识

显然，需要对飞机、任务背后的理论以及自身角色有深入的了解。坚定的求知精神对于在检查飞行领域立足至关重要，而且可以预期，所有检查空勤人员都会不断提问，一个问题接一个问题，直到得到一个既“正确”又合理的答案。来自新人的问题尤其受欢迎，因为它们能使整个组织保持真实和敏锐。虚假信息通常容易被识别，在检查领域没有容身之地，因此答案必须站得住脚。

5年前正确的答案在今天可能不再正确。情况在变化，而这些变化有时需要重新思考。同样，在这方面保持自主能力也很重要。不要等待信息来找你，主动去寻求信息，建立良好的联系和高质量信息来源渠道。

坚定的求知精神至关重要。不要等待信息来找你，主动去寻求它。

技能

重要的技能包括观察、解读、分析，以及绝非最不重要的——沟通。飞行员所谓的“运动功能”飞行技能也需要相当出色，但有些人可能会惊讶地发现，纯粹的飞行协调和技术并非首要优先事项，只要这方面的水平对于任务而言达到可接受的程度即可。然而，飞行能力确实会影响飞行员处理高工作负荷情况的能力，因此这将在后文关于失控（Upsets）的部分中再次提及。

其中一些技能并非所有人都与生俱来。有必要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这些参数，然后在何时记录它们。对于这种情况下作为第三名成员的飞行员来说，记录任务始终是次要的，首要的是充当安全“观察员”——这个人能够立即监督每个检查点的执行方式，因此能够及时发出警告。

功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备状态

功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备状态 013

012

适航能力

合适类型的飞行员或工程师应天生擅长机组资源管理，尤其要善于倾听……诀窍在于确保在检查飞行中，所有掌握知识和有价值信息的人都能被真正倾听，无论他们的级别、制服上的条纹数量、国籍、性别或薪资等级如何。

适航能力更为复杂。在此语境下，它指的是某人是否”以正确的方式思考”并展现出正确的判断力。

首先，检查受训人员需要能够处理多个看似矛盾的情况。举几个例子。以检查组成员何时需要坚持立场、何时可以灵活变通为例。如果我们面对这样一种情况：飞机可能需要在检查飞行前后进行返工，但当天晚些时候项目仍在计划中，你可以立即看到这种相当常见的情况下必须应对的压力，知道何时可以灵活变通、何时必须采取更强硬的态度，这是工作的一部分。

再举一个例子，在典型的小组讨论中——例如关于某个特定系统的检查——某些人不可避免地会比其他人掌握更多知识，因此何时基于自身知识发言、何时倾听，就成为一项技能和挑战。通过适当的敏感度和彼此间的意识，团队动态必须导向正确的答案。

也许最著名的是信心问题。检查组成员必须具备足够的自信心，在必要时做出决策并介入正在发展的情况，但不能过于自信以至于导致检查点在超出安全限制的条件下飞行。在检查飞行的世界中，有许多这样的矛盾情境需要面对和正确解决。优秀的团队成员在这类情况中做对的次数比做错的多。

因此，合适类型的飞行员或工程师应天生擅长机组资源管理，尤其要善于倾听。但检查飞行的机组资源管理与正常航空公司航线情况大不相同。担任功能检查飞行工程师的地面工程师很可能恰恰是对某个特定系统最为了解的人。同样，副驾驶也可能在某一领域是专家，因此经典的驾驶舱领导权平衡可能在检查飞行过程中发生变化，而且只有在且仅在必须做出最终安全决策时，才能确定地将天平倾斜向机长。显然，在正常的航空公司环境中，权级梯度是明确界定的。但每家航空公司都需要决定如何在其所在地区和国家文化背景下处理权级梯度问题。诀窍在于确保在检查飞行中，所有掌握知识和有价值信息的人都能被真正倾听，无论他们的级别、制服上的条纹数量、国籍、性别或薪资等级如何。

尤其是检查飞行员，还需要能够在活动中取得良好平衡，并保持必要的自信心，但不能过度自我。寻找那些不是在试图证明自己有多优秀的人，而是致力于证明飞机状态好（或差）的人。有趣的是，这一特质在飞行表演领域也至关重要。

寻找那些不是在试图证明自己有多优秀的人，而是致力于证明飞机状态好（或差）的人。

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。年轻的飞行员在成长阶段的职业生涯中不断提高自己的飞行技能，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”一定是我的问题”。“我今天状态不好”。换句话说，他们会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所驾驶的飞机。接受检验的是飞机，而不是飞行员。他们必须向外看。如果昨天飞的是同一型号的飞机，通过某个特定机动时的响应是”正常”的，但今天不正常或感觉不同了，那么什么发生了变化？有什么东西改变了吗？重量和重心(CG)是否相同，或者可能是更严重的问题，比如由于配平损伤等原因导致的飞控系统性能下降？

接受检验的是飞机，而不是飞行员。

最后，也是最值得期待的品质清单之首，是个人诚信，其价值高于一切。检查飞行专业人员需要是心理足够强大的人，能够为自己的决策（无论好坏）承担责任，然后能够与自己的错误共处，从中学习，并将其传达给他人。在排除假故障或飞行特性时可能浪费大量时间，而实际上罪魁祸首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。在研发测试世界中，没有藏身之地，因为所做的每件事都被拍摄、仪器记录、遥测传输，并由专家团队检查，但在航空公司检查飞行的情况下并非如此，良好的传统诚信至关重要。在这项活动中，没有比这更重要的特质了。

最值得期待的品质清单之首，是个人诚信。

功能检查飞行——航空公司战备状态

014

经验

不要只看飞行小时数……

正确的经验对于提升判断力、任务优先级排列和风险评估极为有价值，但经验也可能是最大的欺骗者。在世界某些地区，有许多飞行时间达到35000小时的航空公司飞行员，他们完全不适合执行检查飞行任务。这些人拥有的是大量重复性相似任务的丰富经验，而不是能够做出良好知情检查飞行判断的多种不同经验。因此，不要只看飞行小时数，而要了解飞行记录本中有什么相关的检查经验，以及个人成功完成了多少次非例行操作。

专业培训

在面试中识别这些主要特征并为这类工作选择”合适”的人选，将在检查飞行场景中带来诸多收益。确实，如果人选不对，无论流程多么完善，检查飞行仍会处于风险之中。然而，进一步培训这些人员以发展其执行检查飞行的知识、技能和态度，则是额外的优势。

当航空公司内部具备适当的专业知识，并且管理层充分支持、认识到让员工在检查飞行方面”跟上进度”的必要性时，在公司内部培养检查飞行飞行员是完全可行的。一些拥有大型机队的航空公司设有专门的专业部门，其职责是对其所有机队飞机执行检查。

同样，空客开发的最低设备清单功能检查飞行课程也取得了非常积极的效果。该课程并非旨在培养完全合格的试飞机组，而是为了提供对正确思维方式的初步入门，并帮助航空公司检查人员爬上学习阶梯的相当一段距离，从而避免一些基本错误。该课程使用空客的一种机型作为载体来承载”通用”教学要素，空客还用该机型来展示安全执行FCF所需的知识和技能水平。

其他航空培训机构也提供类似的课程，但方式更为通用。选择权在航空公司手中。

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进行分析，使我们能够突出影响此类飞行安全的一些关键方面：

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

飞机检查思维模式
适当的机组期望
执行与航线运营不同操作的特定技能
- 技术飞行或功能检查飞行（即维护后、喷漆后等）
- 接收飞行（即运营商之间的交接）
认识到机组人员不同目标带来的威胁，特别是在租赁末期情况下
避免”打勾”的方式

该课程专为3人机组设计（2名飞行员和1名工程师），由2名教员（1名试飞飞行员和1名试飞工程师）授课。

了解与不熟悉的飞机重量和CG相关的性能和操纵特性差异

它结合了理论阶段（2天）、全动飞行模拟机阶段（2天）和飞行训练，以涵盖上述所有方面，使FCF尽可能安全。

新机组人员技能组合和新知识
积极的ATC接口

想了解更多关于空客技术飞行熟悉课程的信息？请联系或访问网站

功能检查飞行 - 航空公司准备状态

016

017

指导文件

除了拥有合适的人员之外，为执行功能检查飞行做好准备还依赖于对这些检查的性质、目的和执行方式的理解。

多年来，关于航空公司如果打算自行进行维修后的功能检查飞行（FCF）应使用哪份文件，一直存在一定的混淆。

执行功能检查飞行唯一使用的手册是 ISATFM。请勿使用 CAM。

将一份手册误认为另一份可能导致隐藏的风险，这在功能检查飞行领域是不可接受的。那么应该使用哪一份呢？

不同情况使用不同手册

空客开发了多份用于执行“检查”飞行的手册。具体包括：ISATFM（In-Service Aircraft Technical Flight Manual，服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，客户接收手册）。多年来，关于航空公司如果打算自行进行维修后的飞行检查应使用哪份文件，一直存在一定的混淆。

虽然所有这三份手册涉及的飞行都是执行检查，但每份手册在以下方面都有特定的范围：

飞机状态（从刚下生产线到已在役）
飞行员背景及其所属组织的性质

简而言之，这些文件可以概括如下：

功能检查飞行——航空公司准备状态

功能检查飞行——航空公司准备状态 019

018

ISATFM（In-Service Aircraft Technical Flight Manual，服役飞机技术飞行手册）

如前所述，这是用于在役飞机的唯一手册。每一系列空客飞机都有对应的 ISATFM：宽体机对应 A300 系列，单通道对应 A320 系列远程对应 A330/A340 系列，双层客舱对应 A380。

这些手册的飞行检查阶段尤其复杂，对于缺乏飞行检查经验的飞行员来说难度很大。因此，手册进行了划分：“第 2 部分”成为正常包线范围内的基本功能检查，“第 3 部分”则是进阶检查，由经过适当培训的飞行员执行，从而允许对飞机及其系统进行更深层次的技术检查。

每份手册分为 3 个部分：

第 1 部分是地面检查阶段，第 2 部分是基础飞行阶段，第 3 部分是附加检查的飞行阶段，供经过培训的机组人员执行。

这些阶段应按逻辑顺序编号执行。

实际上，第 2 部分适用于已在役、飞行前无重大维修作业的飞机，便于运营商之间的交接，可由常规航线飞行员执行。

这些是第 2 部分不应被航空公司用作技术飞行手册的主要原因。

本文仅讨论飞行阶段（第 2 和第 3 部分）。

2014 年，在飞机租赁行业提出要求后，ISATFM 飞行阶段被划分为两个部分。当时认识到，旧一代 ISATFM 手册对于缺乏飞行检查经验的飞行员来说操作起来相当复杂。

第 3 部分飞行剖面与生产首飞非常相似，但不包括性能检查或降级模式检查。飞行结束时，机组对飞机的技术状态有非常清晰的了解。

为了执行“第 3 部分”飞行剖面，建议机组人员应接受适当的培训。

如何获取 ISATFM 手册并使用它？

空客开发的 ISATFM 文件使用理念是支持航空公司开发自己的 FCF 手册，并根据自身的运营环境（机场、检查项目、飞行员概况……）进行改编和定制。换言之，ISATFM 被设计成一份“按需选择”的菜单，是空客基于其专业知识推荐的指南。但为了支持 FCF 的安全性，每家航空公司都需要经历自己的思考过程，并基于此参考文件设计自己的手册。这一思考过程可能导致航空公司删除一些自己没有把握执行的检查项目，或根据自身环境添加一些特定信息……

为确保所有航空公司都了解和认可这一必要步骤，空客在收到申请后，在签署并收到法律免责声明后提供 ISATFM。该法律免责声明说明了如何使用此文件。免责声明声明航空公司应使用提供的 ISATFM 的指南来掌控自己的文件，并且应删除该文件为空客文件的引用，并应用航空公司标题。从逻辑上讲，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版本。

要收到免责声明，航空公司需要致信 EVRT 秘书处（evrt.control-room@airbus.com）。

反过来，航空公司将收到法律免责声明，必须签署并寄回，才能收到其机型的手册。航空公司随后将收到 PDF 格式的文件。

功能检查飞行——航空公司准备状态

功能检查飞行——航空公司准备状态 021

020

ISATFM 的风味……或飞行中需执行的检查

飞机在空中需执行的首要重大动作是飞行控制检查。在确认所有松散物品已固定好、气象雷达已关闭后，飞行员将使飞机在不超过其保护限制的范围内进行俯仰和横滚——即俯仰角度 +30° 至 -15°，拉起不超过 +2.0g，推杆不低于 +0.5g，左、右横滚略超过 45°。目标是确保飞机响应和“手感”“正常”，包线保护按设计要求工作。

随后将检查自动飞行系统，包括正常的和操纵杆超控断开的情况，然后检查全球速度保护，以监控控制律的恢复情况。

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。飞行员则忙于执行无线电和导航的定性检查。到达 FL310 后，机组执行一系列发动机检查、横向配平检查（验证飞机保持机翼水平）以及气压高度表和迎角传感器的空速仪表检查。确认无误后，机组将继续进行压力检查。第一项检查是将客舱加压至最大压力限制，以检查客舱压力安全活门是否正常工作。此项检查至关重要，机组必须仔细监控活门在正确范围内打开。接下来的泄漏率和释压检查可能使客舱高度达到 14000 英尺，在此期间需检查客舱泄漏率（由旅客和货舱门封严造成）、组件活门密封性、客舱高度警告以及氧气面罩的释放。后一项检查需要与机上任何客舱工程师进行良好的沟通与协调。如果“客舱内有非机组人员”工作，建议将释压至较低的客舱高度——在这种情况下，在高高度警告（客舱高度 9550 或 11300 英尺）处停止释压，然后使用 Mask Man On（面罩人员开启），是更为谨慎的选择。

此后，机组将飞向飞机的运营升限，执行更多空速仪表检查以完成 RVSM 检查。在升限处启动 APU，待其稳定后，依次将每台 IDG（整体驱动发电机）选择关闭再打开，以检查向 APU 发电机的正确电力转换。

下降相对较快，在 MMO 和 VMO 处进行超速检查，并放减速板以检查是否有任何异常的横侧行为。下降过程中还会检查机翼和发动机防冰，以及在较低飞行高度时的 APU 引气。

下降进入名为“block”的空域。这是与空中交通管制商定的“高度块”，通常为 FL100 至 FL140——但很大程度上取决于飞机飞行地区的地形。如果地形较高，则需要更高的块高度！在此进行低速检查，前提是飞机在下降过程中未结冰。在开始任何低速检查前，需确认绿点速度和攻角值。如果在此阶段发现问题，则可能放弃剩余的低速检查。当相关值经过评估并达成一致后，飞机将在光洁形态下减速，直至在“最大迎角”状态下稳定。此状态为使用“正常法则”时全拉杆的稳定最小速度。第三名机组人员记录数值后，飞行员将执行低速改出程序，随即设置迎角锁定测试。此检查旨在确认在低速/高迎角情况下，如果缝翼从 1 收至 0，它们不会收回。

随后飞机将设置为着陆形态，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！虽然这两项检查在减速速率和柔和的操控方面需要谨慎和适当的注意，但只要飞机系统正常工作，它们是相对容易飞行的检查点。

低速块中的最后检查是确保各种系统正常工作——自动复飞、扰流板的液压锁定（当液压系统降级时）、应急电气和冲压空气涡轮，以及不同速度和襟翼形态下的襟翼缓解和音响警告。

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

停机坪工作人员非常出色且彻底，但仍有一些方面航空公司管理层认为无法在地面上充分检查。航空公司的决定将是——“我们是否需要进行专门的技术飞行？”

此类决定必须基于当地工程和运行判断，包括：所进行维护的整体水平和深度、被干扰的系统数量、所应用的改装、特定故障的维护“历史”，以及所有这些问题对飞机飞行控制系统、发动机、气动力和传感器的重要程度。飞机维护手册内容如下：

重要的是，上述测试顺序经过仔细考虑，是重要的，应予以遵守。

为什么建议飞行此剖面？答案是，虽然维护人员执行的地面检查非常彻底，但仍有一些方面航空公司管理层认为无法在地面上充分检查。航空公司决定——“我们是否需要进行专门的飞行检查？”

此类决定必须基于当地工程和运行判断，包括：所进行维护的整体水平和深度、被干扰的系统数量、所应用的改装、故障维护的“历史”，以及所有这些问题对飞行控制系统、发动机、气动性和传感器的重要程度。飞机维护手册如下：

重要的是，上述测试顺序经过仔细考虑，是重要的，应予以遵守。

为什么要飞行这样的剖面？答案是，虽然维护人员执行的地面检查非常彻底，但仍有航空公司管理层认为无法在地面上充分检查的方面。航空公司的决定将是——“我们是否需要进行专门的飞行检查？”

此类决定必须基于当地工程和运行判断，包括：所进行维护的整体水平和深度、被干扰的系统数量、所应用的改装、故障维护的“历史”，以及所有这些问题对飞机飞行控制系统、发动机、气动性和传感器的重要程度。飞机维护手册如下：

重要的是，上述测试顺序经过仔细考虑，是重要的，应予以遵守。

为什么建议飞行此剖面？答案是，虽然维护人员执行的地面检查非常彻底，但仍有一些航空公司管理层认为无法在地面上充分检查的方面。航空公司的决定将是——“我们是否需要进行专门的飞行检查？”

重要的是，上述测试顺序经过仔细考虑，是重要的，应予以遵守。

功能检查飞行 023

计划和准备一次功能检查飞行

功能检查飞行 - 计划和准备 025

现在让我们转向计划和准备方面。在检查飞行起飞前，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？该目标能在地面上完成吗？飞机处于什么状态？谁来执行？什么时候必须完成？在什么地方进行？最后，有了所有这些信息，风险是什么？如果出了问题我们该怎么办？有些事情似乎对大多数任务是通用的。让我们尝试捕捉最常出现的内容。

只有那些无法在地面上执行的检查才应在空中执行。

第一条规则是要能够证明为什么首先要进行飞行检查。许多检查可以在试验台上成功执行。尽管飞行员热爱飞行，但只有那些无法在地面上执行的检查才应在空中执行。 GPWS 就是一个很好的例子。这个“盒子”的所有逻辑都已固定，可以进行台架测试。软件已经过正确测试和认证。那么可能的飞行检查需要什么？实际上，只需要验证“飞机接口”——襟翼信号、起落架信号和无线电高度表。这种检查不需要飞完所有模式。

飞机

先从飞机说起。检查飞行机组需要确切了解已执行了哪些勤务工作，哪些系统受到过干扰。他们还需要了解是否进行了修理、改装和升级，如有，需要知道这些工作可能对计划飞行产生何种影响。因此该飞行需要一定的提前通知，因为需要到机库实地查看才能弄清大多数飞机相关问题。对于“今天下午能否过来做个快速检查飞行”这类请求要谨慎对待。很多时候，实际干扰或维修的工作比最初呈现的要多。

从长远来看，与机库机械师建立信任的工作关系。当你建立起这种信任后，他们会告诉你许多令人惊喜的信息。彼此熟悉的同事之间的幽默感在这里很有帮助。如果由于使用外站或偏远设施等情况而无法建立这种关系，

应用这一原则：凡是可能发生的事，就一定会发生。

尽量评估机库人员（及其管理层）的质量水平，以及他们一直承受的工作压力。

如果飞机进行了清洗或喷漆，要格外注意，因为这些活动可能引发许多“连锁”技术问题，例如皮托管或迎角传感器（AOA）损坏。在此类检查飞行前务必进行详细的绕机检查，并花时间仔细进行。已有许多案例：顶升垫留在飞机上、升降舵铰链和弹簧片被遮盖带覆盖，更不用说深度维护或喷漆后静压孔上的油漆以及被外来物堵塞的通风口了。

还要记住，所有那些可能需要置于地面测试位置以完成某些地面检查的系统，在飞行许可前需要了解它们的具体情况，并确保它们

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

还需要仔细考虑检查飞行的重量和重心（CG）。在航空公司中装载压舱物并不像制造商测试阶段那样简单，而非常规重心对于装载专业人员来说也不太常见。尽管如此，询问任何在测试领域工作较久的人，他们一生中都会有几次装载错误的经历。一个建议是：尽量将飞机置于你感到舒适的重量和装载状态下，并将其作为所有后续类似飞行的标准。

如有可能设定中间重心，避免处于限制边界，并考虑重量和重心对预期操纵“手感”的影响。飞机不可避免地会比航线飞机轻很多。这不是大问题，但要考虑到这一点，并根据失速速度和最小控制速度考虑将要使用的速度。可能是这样：虽然你通常受失速速度限制，但现在可能处于或接近空中最小可控速度（Vmca）限制。此外，为了全面测试燃油系统，可能需要特定的燃油装载量，这可能会决定重心位置。

仔细考虑重量和重心（CG）。

功能检查飞行 - 规划与准备

026

机组配置

管理层在检查飞行人员方面的主要职责是选择合适的人员，然后让他们履行职责，最后在安全方面支持他们有时做出的困难决定。

如前所述，航空公司的飞行运营管理人员往往将功能检查飞行视为”一次飞行机会”。虽然这可以理解且颇具吸引力，但在以下方面他们可能是能力最弱的：能够投入时间研究和理解问题、保持其飞行技能在适当水平，以及能够在处理让飞机恢复运营的”压力”时完全专注于任务并做出正确的技术判断。显然，有一些管理飞行员是”适合”这项任务的，但在他们自我推荐之前，需要对其工作量、经验和机型技术知识进行全面诚实的评估。管理层在检查飞行人员方面的主要职责是选择合适的人员，然后让他们履行职责，最后在安全方面支持他们有时做出的困难决定。检查员需要知道他们的运营主管会在这方面支持他们，而且，是的，他们有时也会犯错。

采用经过精选的、充分准备的小型机组团队比试图”公平”地轮流分配检查飞行以让每个人都有经验的做法更有效。需要定义一个最小团队，包括足够的后勤或检查工程师和飞行员来管理航空公司的检查工作负荷。团队应有一名指定负责人，通过与团队定期开会来审查将要使用的计划，并确保从每次飞行中获得的经验教训得到落实。他/她还可以向高级管理层建议应如何提交待检的飞机。这样的人也可以作为与飞机制造商的联络人，汲取他们的专业知识，并确保航空公司从制造商的测试专家那里获得最佳建议。

我们建议尽可能采用三人机组，因此许多航空公司的主要挑战之一可能是将地面运行工程师、持照质量工程师或专业检查工程师纳入”测试”机组环境，使其声音被”听到”，其意见与飞行员一样被重视和权衡。在某些文化中这不是一件容易的事。一些航空公司让第三名飞行员担任此角色，但必须明确的是，这名第三机组人员的主要角色不是充当第三飞行员，而是记录数据、保持对待执行检查项目的整体了解，最重要的是充当安全后盾。

采用经过精选的、充分准备的小型机组团队比试图”公平”地轮流分配检查飞行以让每个人都有经验的做法更有效。

待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日益复杂，制造商在测试中会使用多名客舱工程师。基本驾驶舱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。如有需要，也可以包括专业客舱工程师。在使用如此小规模团队进行释压检查时要小心，因为存在一名机组人员被隔离在客舱中的风险。客舱的大小及其系统检查的复杂性通常将决定飞机后部团队的总体规模。

机场

要使用的机场通常不是可以自由选择的，但明智的做法是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、高地与障碍物、可用的导航设施以及现行的航行通告（NOTAM），连同总体运行情况，都需要加以考虑。例如，在进行中断起飞（RTO）或刹车检查之前，先问自己一个问题：“正在运行的跑道是否是唯一使用的跑道？”并考虑相对于计划航班而言，中断起飞将在一天中的什么时间进行。在繁忙时段爆胎，你肯定不会受欢迎。在较大且繁忙的中心枢纽，答案可能是短途飞往另一个较为清净的机场。

功能检查飞行 - 计划与准备 029

飞行前的空管（ATC）简报——直接在飞行员与将为其提供服务的管制员之间进行——非常有益，往往能在飞行员与管制员之间建立起积极的“纽带”。只要可能，安静的空管环境是有益的。

空中交通与空域

从检查飞行的角度来看，空管（ATC）可以是您最好的朋友，也可以是您最大的敌人。检查组必须确保空管成为他们的朋友。飞行前的空管简报——直接在飞行员与将为其提供服务的管制员之间进行——非常有益，往往能在飞行员与管制员之间建立起积极的“纽带”。这样，管制员会更倾向于调配其他航空器，而不是检查飞机。没有简报则相反。管制员可能会因为持续不断的、看似不合理的转弯和异常高度要求而感到恼怒，从而使检查组的工作负荷增加许多倍。

在飞行计划的第18栏中标注“此航班为检查飞行”也很有用。这对已收到简报的空管管制员的暗示是：因此该航班可能会有许多高度、航向和构型的变化，机组工作负荷在某些时候可能会很高。

只要可能，安静的空管环境是有益的，如果空管部门有这样的安静频率频道，应当使用。在纯粹的制造商测试环境中，我们有专职管制员来确保高效的飞行间隔和冲突规避，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天气状况，通常可以找到一个适合检查飞行的好位置——一个安静、不受干扰的空域角落，如一个不活跃的危险区，这将很好地满足检查飞机的飞行剖面。如果有疑问，向管制员寻求建议，通过这些建议，他再次默认地承担起任务成功的责任。

建议白天飞行更好。如果存在严重的天气问题，仅白天飞行是合理的选择。

白天/夜间问题

每个组织都需要决定是仅在白天进行功能检查飞行，还是在白天和夜间都进行。原则上，只要气象条件满足目视飞行规则（VFR），夜间进行常规检查没有重大问题。然而，有些夜晚你能看得很远，而有些夜晚则是漆黑一片，没有月光相助。夜间与仪表飞行规则（IFR）的组合应该开始敲响警钟，肯定会大幅增加机组的工作负荷。因此，建议白天飞行更好，特别是对于规模较小的航空公司，这些类型的飞行执行频率较低，机组资质可能较低。此外，在重大深度维护之后，如果可能的话，飞行应在白天开始。在空客生产测试中，首次飞行的最晚起飞时间与有用日光时间相关，以便至少第一阶段的低速操纵检查能够在白天和目视飞行规则（VFR）条件下进行。如果存在任何严重的天气问题，仅白天飞行是合理的选择。

向管制员寻求建议，通过这些建议，他再次默认地承担起任务成功的责任。

气象

在型号审定飞行试验过程中，气象条件往往是能否完成特定试验项目的决定性因素。然而，在功能检查飞行领域，等待完美天气的机会寥寥无几。尽管如此，了解所执行检查项目的底线标准是明智之举。例如，在 30 节侧风条件下进行刹车检查可能并非明智之举。

在空客，新制造飞机首次飞行的最低气象标准有明确规定。如果需要执行全权限飞行控制检查或包线保护检查，则需要在云层之间有一定的垂直空间。自动着陆系统在 CAT I 条件下完成验证后方可投入实际使用，并且在下降低速操控试验时需特别注意避开结冰层。即使少量的积冰也会显著改变抖振速度的起始点以及警告触发计划速度。

因此，作为飞行准备的一部分，在办公室的清凉环境中从气象角度制定游戏规则是最佳做法。制定的规则应尽可能少，以给予检查机组最大的灵活性。但规则只需制定确保安全所需的最低数量。而且这些规则必须被遵守——始终如一。

关于气象，只需制定确保安全所需的最低数量规则。但这些规则必须被遵守——始终如一。

功能检查飞行 - 计划与准备 031

检查单仍应使用，但应作为指导参考，而非奉为圭臬。没有任何检查单能够涵盖所有检查情况。

检查单

考虑到更为常见的航空公司“标准驱动”运行状况，检查机组需要能够在标准检查单“之外”进行思考和工作（同时理解并认识到其重要性），并能从容应对。检查单仍应使用，但应作为指导参考，而非视为金科玉律。没有任何检查单能够涵盖所有检查情况。

试验大纲

在航空公司的世界里，功能检查飞行常被认为要么完全不必要的，要么至多是一种对飞机调配和计划流程造成干扰的麻烦。这意味着功能检查飞行往往在运营和技术管理部门的巨大压力下进行——他们当然希望看到这一昂贵的资产尽快恢复运营，为航空公司创造收益。虽然这完全可以理解，尤其是在规模较小的航空公司，但管理层在检查飞行过程中扮演着至关重要的角色，即为选定的检查人员遮挡这些无益的压力，而检查人员则必须尽其所能安全、专业地完成工作。

因此，成功计划意味着确保时间因素得到充分考虑。理想情况下，功能检查飞行应在白天进行，且没有“恢复运营”时间的直接压力。在规模较小的航空公司，有时这根本无法实现。然而，计划必须留出足够时间用于飞行前的完整简令和对技术人员的完整讲评。

同样，功能检查飞行不应搭载任何形式的乘客或“顺便搭乘”的人员，或仅为“体验”而搭载人员。虽然出于各种原因这看似诱人，但在检查状态下搭载乘客往往会增加复杂性、引发健康问题并给本就复杂的任务施加额外压力。如果需要从 A 地运送人员到 B 地，应先执行功能检查飞行，着陆后再接载乘客执行后续转场航段。

功能检查飞行不应搭载任何形式的乘客或“顺便搭乘”的人员，或仅为“体验”而搭载人员。

功能检查飞行大纲有多种不同方法。可为每种功能检查飞行类型制定专门的检查大纲，也可创建一份主参考检查大纲，将不适用的检查项目划掉。该文件不仅应包含待检查项目，还应在检查前书写所有相关的安全警告，以及成功标准和允许的最大容差。当某项检查需要接近硬极限（如 VFE 限制）时，需清晰标注“不可超越”数值，因为这将成为后续执行阶段分项简令的一部分。尽可能避免将检查项目跨两页书写，且绝对要避免将安全警告与待执行检查分离。宁可页面留有空白。另外，由于功能检查飞行很少完全按计划进行，应将大纲格式设计为便于以不同顺序使用，但仍需谨慎处理——某些检查应在其他检查之前执行，例如低速操控检查应在进近之前进行。

空客在役飞机飞行试验手册（ISAFTM）可作为客户航空公司的参考，用以制定自己的检查大纲。除提供的数据外，上述其他因素均应在航空公司最终版本中予以考虑。编制自己的检查大纲这一过程强制形成对所有上述因素的思考规范，并确保更完善的飞行前准备工作。

功能检查飞行 033

执行功能检查飞行

功能检查飞行 - 执行

034

035

好的，既然合适的人员已经选定，而且尽可能多地做了准备工作。现在是时候飞行了，但在本文中无意逐一检查测试大纲的每一项。这在空客技术飞行熟悉课程中已有详细介绍。重点已刻意放在准备工作上。然而，一些好的做法和一些应遵循的良好通用惯例将被提及。

让我们从简令开始。无论预先准备程度如何，某些事项在飞行前肯定会发生变化，需要在飞行前简令中予以涵盖。

简令

关于简令的一些指导原则在此很有用。

1. 所有相关方都需要在场并认真聆听。请记住，这是飞行前简令，而不是冗长的维修辩论，逐项讨论对飞机做了哪些工作。这些数据应该已经过审查，而且坦率地说，任何人一次只能记住一定量的详细信息。简令由机长或检查工程师主持，需要保持与飞行相关。完全可以让后台技术人员在场以回答可能出现的任何问题。

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

3. 天气需要特别进行简令，说明其对上述任务各方面可能产生的影响。

4. 同样，必须审查机场、ATC和空域情况。

5. 应进行简短的飞行风险评估。这解决的是“如果发生这种情况或那种情况我们将怎么做？”这一实际问题。这不是深入的工程风险评估，而是对检查顺序的审查，假设事情可能并不总是完全按计划进行。它应包括最可能导致问题的因素，以及一旦发生这些问题时的备用计划。

始终保持一人飞行。

飞行的各个部分中，那些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，而那些本质上与系统相关的部分（如释压检查）也是如此，并将决定谁负责飞行、谁负责监控。始终保持一人飞行。一种被观察到的趋势是全体机组人员在检查顺序的细节上变得“参与”过多。让一名机组人员安静地倾听但专注于基本飞行是完全没有问题的。

这一飞行前简令将在稍后得到某些检查飞行阶段前的简短“飞行中简令”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需要由谁采取什么行动。

起飞

飞行前准备应考虑FMS编程方面关于燃油传输的任何需求，以及在计划早期飞行的机动动作擦除航点时的备用飞行计划。此外，电气检查有时会在现代飞机上引起一些有趣的计算机响应。

座椅。他的角色是记录数据，并以非侵入式方式监控飞行员的工作，但如果发生他不明白或认为可能不正确的事情，他有“干预权”。

无论检查单使用得多好，与大多数试飞同行一样，在起飞前和着陆前都进行一次安静的最后构型检查似乎是一个有用的安全习惯。

如前所述，预计大多数航空公司在准备起飞的整个过程中会按正常方式使用标准检查单。不同的是，可能会有第三名机组人员在跳

功能检查飞行 - 执行 037

在整个检查飞行过程中需要非常好的机组通讯。关键词有时很有用。这些可以包括STOP或GO AROUND等指令，但也有一些不成文但绝对明确的规则，用于某些情况，如某位机组人员对测试进展感到不适。

应避免“转换”混淆，一次只执行一项检查。

在整个检查飞行过程中需要非常好的机组通讯。

起飞

如果任何测试/检查机组成员说”我不舒服”，执行飞行员应立即复飞，然后全体机组重新评估情况。同样，如果有人因工作负荷或其他原因声称自己”状态不佳”，也应执行复飞，然后进行重新简令，以确保所有机组成员在心理上处于同一测试节点，对计划有相同程度的理解。即使是沉默也需要被”倾听”，因为这可能表明另一名机组成员可能对某事感到担忧。经过一段时间后，可能形成一种”嗅觉”，能够感知何时计划执行不顺利——这正是需要放慢速度、思考正在发生什么、以及计划是否仍然合理的时刻。

在制造商的测试领域，一些专业飞行测试工程师会被纳入起飞简令，以便赋予他们喊出”STOP”作为关键指令的权利。他们行使这一权利的具体情境需要经过充分讨论和谨慎考量，如有疑问则保持沉默。在航空公司环境中，这种协议可能不太适用（取决于经验和培训水平），我们建议尽可能遵循当地的标准操作规范。总体而言，驾驶舱应保持安静，避免不必要的闲聊，尤其是在 FL100 以下高度时更是如此。随意的话语可能被误解，有时会引发危险的反应。

实际上，在制造商的领域，这一原则被进一步深化，三人检查组中通常保持两名成员始终”处于闭环”中。正常情况下，飞行飞行员可以专注于飞行任务，而副驾驶和”工程师”则专注于系统转换安全。一个人很容易陷入”埋没”状态，例如在进行无线电检查时（通常是副驾驶），但在这种情况下，必须确保不飞行的第三名成员与操控飞机的人保持闭环状态，并对整体的飞行状况保持警觉。应该一次只进行一项检查，以避免”转换”混淆。

节奏必须由最慢的机组成员来掌控，但在某些情况下，ATC 别无选择只能规定检查节奏，比如在起落航线或进近时。通常此时飞机可能已携带一两个故障，必须持续重新评估其对”待完成”检查的影响。这正是优秀检查组协作的地方，不断制定新的安全行动方案。

至于外部通信，如果存在重大的无线电问题，安全地继续检查飞行会迅速变得非常困难，也许更明智的做法是先专注于安全着陆并修复无线电设备，然后再继续其他检查。

如果存在重大的无线电问题，安全地继续检查飞行会迅速变得非常困难。

功能检查飞行——执行

038

039

工作负荷

进入等待或请求偏离机场的引导，以获得思考时间。

工作负荷还需要在个人和团队层面持续评估。单个成员可能暂时超负荷，但如果三人中有两人达到这种状态，情况会迅速变得非常危急。绝不能允许整个机组陷入这种状态，因此如果测试组仅有两人，增加的威胁显而易见。因此强烈建议为此类任务配备第三名具备检查资质的机组成员。

工作负荷的一个问题在于它可能迅速上升，而且当事人虽然意识到自己工作过度，却无法做出能够降低这种潜在危险境地的决定。当事人甚至可能无法”看到”问题，更不用说解决方案了。

随着工作负荷的增加，机组必须对任务进行优先排序。首要优先级始终是确保飞机安全。说起来容易，但这往往需要做出一些艰难的决定，有时甚至是当地管理层不太乐见的决定。必须有人——通常是机长——明确表示，在技术系统问题得到解决或其影响被完全理解之前，不再执行任何检查点。

进入等待或请求偏离机场的引导以获得思考时间，是有效降低工作负荷的技巧。如果机组遇到他们不理解的问题，应该将飞机着陆后再进行思考。当情况不被理解且可能具有潜在危险甚至更糟——是灾难性的时，没有”继续推进”的余地。

第二个目标是获取高质量的检查或测试数据。仅仅收集工程师无法使用的低质量数据毫无意义。最后，整个过程应尽可能高效地进行。这不是一次观光飞行，虽然做得好时会非常令人享受。目标是重新批准飞机恢复适航，使其能够尽快重返蓝天并重新开始载客运营创造收入。

首要优先级始终是确保飞机安全……其次，目标是获取高质量的检查或测试数据……

故障排除

功能检查飞行的全部目的是能够证明飞机处于适航状态，因此，当发现故障时，期望尽可能多地了解该故障以帮助维修人员也就不足为奇了。尽管这听起来值得称赞，但这很快就会导致一些非常不利的局面。在“追踪故障”时需要格外小心。一个故障的影响需要从所有受影响的系统角度来理解，同时也要理解将某些相关系统切换至降级模式以“隔离”故障的影响。还要记住，系统可能已经存在另一个潜伏但未报告的故障，当它与原始故障和机组操作结合时，可能会使飞机处于严重风险区域。在现代飞机上，我们倾向于认为一切都由 BITE 系统捕获，或通过飞行警告计算机呈现给我们，但事实并非如此。这使我们回到完整性的问题——如果机组人员不了解复杂和多重切换操作的所有后果，那么他们根本不应该这样做。将飞机落地，仔细检查情况，如有疑问请致电制造商，只有在尝试修复问题后才能继续。

飞机上没有任何异常指示是无缘无故出现的。有些很小，有些几乎没有操作意义，有些是间歇性的（最糟糕的一种），但总是有原因的。仅仅希望故障已经“消失”是没有用的。可能确实不容易复现症状，或者可能仅限于某些非常精确的飞行或气象条件，但它仍然存在，如果置之不理，这类故障往往会在最糟糕的时刻再次出现。有时最微小的问题也可能引发后果非常严重的后果。要特别注意与“启用”功能相关的故障，如空重传感器和电门。其影响可能波及多个系统。压力控制器是另一个故障可能迅速从相对良性演变为非常严重的领域。

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

No anomalous indication on an aircraft appears for no reason.

注意：如果机组还需要进行适航证更新，其中也包括检查，机组必须在心理上区分这两项要求，如果可能，应在完成适航证更新检查点之前先排除飞机故障。如果不可能做到（有时确实如此），那么机组人员的警觉性和良好沟通至关重要。

Functional Check Flights - Executing 041

棘手的测试点

在地面上仔细考虑棘手的测试点，并决定如何进行这些测试以及“中止”点是什么。

有些检查确实比其他检查更难执行，或者有些检查如果出错可能会产生更直接的影响。发电机未能重新接入电网不会产生与速度过度超过 Vmo 相同的直接损害后果。因此，谨慎对待“棘手的测试点”是明智的，不要急于完成。在地面上仔细考虑它们，决定如何进行测试以及“中止”点是什么。这些棘手的测试可能包括速度限制检查、包线边界检查、释压测试、初始操纵检查、低速检查，当然还有一些发动机检查。

同样重要的是，不要被诱惑去“查看”一些认证测试点。这类测试中有许多“有趣”的经验，本可能演变成悲剧。以 Vmca 定义为例，在某些机型上进行此测试时（这在非常低的高度进行）过去曾发生过燃油断供，导致剩余发动机停车。检查员的工作不是试图重新定义飞机的基础认证标准。这些标准已由专家在严格的天气条件下飞行和检验，并在严格受控的条件下进行。检查员的工作是检查“这架”飞机是否符合预先定义并批准的适航标准，或清除报告的故障或缺陷。

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

不同的飞行计划

在现代飞机检查飞行中，会同时进行多个“计划”。你有理想的检查计划安排。有已批准的空中交通飞行计划，其中可能包含一些“航路”飞行内容，并且通常以某种程序起飞开始。飞行管理系统（FMS）可能需要设置为略微不同的计划，以确保某些功能（如燃油传输逻辑）正常工作。还有飞行警告计算机的飞行阶段计划，它可能在预设的时间点触发“存储”的故障信息，同时你还有一个空中交通管制交接计划，驱动通讯环境并在一定程度上影响工作负荷。最后，记住你无法控制最重要的那个“计划”，那就是“天气”。

机组的任务是安全地执行检查点，同时还要协调这一“交响乐”般的不同计划——它们并非全部按顺序进行，也并非都能方便地对齐。在检查点已设置完毕、准备就绪后，被要求更换频率、应答机代码，然后直接飞向积雨云（Cb）的情况并不罕见！或者你可能需要某个高度或一段高度来执行下一个检查点，却发现理想的空域已经不够用。这需要耐心，而这正是预先规划、良好的天气研判以及与空中交通管制部门预先协调最能发挥作用的地方。在某些日子里，情况可能会变得完全不可能，此时明智的结论是保持安全、结束飞行。这类判断并不容易，因为往往涉及相当大的成本影响。

机组的任务是安全地执行检查点，同时还要协调这一不同计划的“交响乐”，它们并非全部按顺序进行，也并非都能方便地对齐。

042 功能检查飞行 - 执行

功能检查飞行

043

座舱系统

正如前文所述，座舱测试领域正变得越来越重要。复杂的座椅系统和娱乐系统比比皆是，值得去了解它们的基本工作原理。在新型大型飞机上，座舱系统与驾驶舱之间的集成度更高，因此座舱系统不再是“后方某处”的东西。它们是“对乘客重要的”检查区域，需要认真思考。

本文件可以专门讨论测试过程中出现的增压问题，但为了简洁起见，值得考虑的是：如果计划进行释压，应急氧气该如何处理。需要计划机组将使用哪些氧气设备。典型的治疗用氧气瓶对于在飞机后部工作的人来说可能“遥不可及”。尝试在20秒内将其从储物箱中取出并投入使用，同时记住，如果在座舱内检查某些东西，可能需要走一段距离才能到达氧气瓶。更好的方案是，在发生完全释压的情况下，选择性地放下几个位置合适的氧气面罩，这样座舱检查员就能立即就座，然后使用最近的乘客氧气系统进行呼吸。

还要考虑与后舱人员的通信，确保能够告知他们正在发生的事情以及何时需要系好安全带。同样，有许多他们可以协助的任务，比如机翼检查，他们需要能够与驾驶舱进行通信。

结论

成功的功能检查飞行（FCF）的关键在于在地面前进行充分的准备，确保最佳的信息和知识能够被精心挑选并正确培训的机组所掌握。一旦在空中，整个检查“系统”（飞机和机组）中可能存在的最常见缺陷很可能是起作用的飞行员，因为他最有可能在工作负荷方面过载。因此，来自其他检查机组成员良好的沟通和及时的支持，对于确保检查任务的顺利完成至关重要。机长的职责是鼓励这种沟通。所有检查飞行机组成员都有义务在沟通方面积极主动。机组面临的挑战是通过出色的准备工作、定期的简报以及对意外情况的准备来避免关键的工作负荷高峰。扎实的飞行技能会有所帮助，因为它们能让飞行员将更多的注意力集中在整个操作的沟通方面。

始终记住：精心挑选机组、正确培训、仔细简报（包括与空中交通管制和空域管理部门的协调）、仔细规划飞行，然后“防御性”地执行计划，心中始终有“逃生路线”，保持故障意识。永远不要假设“它”会完美运作。最后，良好沟通，无论压力有多大，始终选择最安全的决定。

祝您检查飞行顺利安全，记住：准备永远是关键。

044 功能检查飞行

往期《Safety First》已刊发文章

第 20 期

2015 年 7 月

在爬升阶段控制你的速度…
着陆时的侧向跑道偏出
A320 系列飞机燃油监控
高空手动飞行

第 19 期

2015 年 1 月

整洁驾驶舱，安全飞行
在污染跑道上着陆
理解重量与平衡
风切变：飞行员的隐形敌人？

第 18 期

2014 年 7 月

在起飞时控制你的速度…
复合材料飞机安全运营
从证据中学习
A320 系列飞机集装箱/托盘移动
部件脱落 (PDA)

第 17 期

2014 年 1 月

空客制动测试
硬着陆：机组与维修人员的案例研究
清洗和喷漆期间的飞机保护
飞行数据分析 (FDA)：安全管理系统的预测工具
执行复飞，管理能量

第 16 期

2013 年 7 月

· 基于性能导航

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

· 飞行机组与除冰人员——临时协作共筑安全天空

发动机失效时的低速中断起飞
起飞前的最后变更

第 15 期

2013 年 1 月

从 PNF 到 PM：飞行员的黄金法则
空客侧风研发与认证
烟雾/烟气/航空电子烟雾程序
维修后外来物损伤 (FOD) 预防
腐蚀： 潜在安全隐患

第 14 期

2012 年 7 月

反推选择意味着全停
A320 和 A330/A340 系列按下通话按钮卡阻导致的短暂通信中断
A380： 飞行控制发展——第二部分
防止风扇舱门脱落
不要忘记维修不是你一个人的事

第 13 期

2012 年 1 月

A320 系列/A330 双引气丧失的预防与处置
燃油惩罚因子
空客 TCAS 告警预防 (TCAP)
· A380： 飞行控制发展——第一部分
面对日常维修运营的现实

第 12 期

2011 年 7 月

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

第 11 期

2011 年 1 月

什么是失速？
飞行员面对失速应如何反应
A380 最小控制速度测试
无线电高度表错误值
复飞时自动导航接通

第 10 期

2010 年 8 月

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

第 9 期

2010 年 2 月

A320 系列： 地面扰流板逻辑演进
A320： 跑道冲出
地面 EFCS 复位后的飞行控制检查
起飞时不正确的俯仰配平设置
A320： VMO/MMO 超出的可能后果
· A320： 防止尾触
技术飞行熟悉训练
氧气安全
低油量态势感知

第 8 期

2009 年 7 月

方向舵踏板卡阻
为什么某些 AMM 任务需要设备复位？
滑梯/救生筏改进
跑道冲出预防系统
机组人员通过驾驶舱航空电子设备舱通道盖板跌落
起飞保护功能
计算机兼容性： 一项重要功能

第 7 期

2009 年 2 月

非精密进近期间的新 CFIT 事件
A320： 起飞时尾触？
不可靠空速
空客 AP/FD TCAS 模式： 操作程序合规性提升的新一步
未来航空导航系统 (FANS) B
操作程序合规性
制动系统跨系统连接

第 6 期

2008 年 7 月

加油期间的燃油溢漏

第 5 期

2007 年 12 月

失速改出训练辅助工具，修订版 2
燃油泵留在关闭位置
A320： 避免双引气丧失
运营工程公告提醒功能
避免因 EGT 限制超出导致的高速中断起飞
你了解你的 ATC/TCAS 面板吗？
处理冰雹
引入维修简报说明
A320： 双液压失效
基于 GPS 数据的地形意识与警告系统运营

第 4 期

2007 年 6 月

双侧杆输入
可配平水平安定面损伤
地面皮托管堵塞
A340： 反推未锁
残余客舱压力
客舱运营简报说明
缺氧： 隐形敌人

第 3 期

2006 年 12 月

尾喷管或发动机失火
处理严重颠簸
空客飞行员转机型 (ATP)
起飞时的跑道偏出

第 2 期

2005 年 9 月

亚的斯亚贝巴因 VOR 接收问题导致的复飞
起飞前飞行控制检查的重要性
· A320： 空中反推展开
空客飞行安全经理手册
飞行运营简报说明
态势感知与决策