Post on 16-Dec-2015
transcript
Briefingfor
Flight Test Safety Workshop
May 2008
John Siemens, P.E.Sr. Mgr. Flt Operations
Chief Test Pilot
The SJ30-2 Airplane• Certified Part 23 Commuter Category with Special Conditions equivalent to Part 25
• Aluminum Construction with some non-structural composites
• Full span LE Slats
• Max Operating Altitude – FL490
• Range – 2500 nm
• VMO / MMO – 320 KIAS/0.83
• Pressurization – 12 psi
• Single Pilot Qualified
Overall Test Program• SN002 – Lost in Accident• SN003 – Systems (Hydraulics,
Electrical, Engines, Fuel, Autopilot, Anti-ice
• SN004 – Aerodynamics, S&C, Flutter, Performance, Continued Safe Flight after Failures, Ice Shapes
• SN005 – Avionics, Interior, F&R, Flight Standards Board
The Reason ModelDeveloped by Prof. James Reason
Defenses or Barriers (Processes)
Weaknesses in Defenses or Barriers (Holes in Processes)
Accident Trajectory (Chain of Events)
Blocked (Chain Broken)
The holes did not line up Scene of the Incident / Accident
The Greater the Number of Defenses or Barriers (Processes) the Less Likely the Holes Will Line Up
Defenses and Barriers(Adding Barriers)
Sequence of Test Program• Roadmap to Success
Experience Level of Personnel• What level of experience is required to fly the test?
• Experience level of Test Plan author?
Safety Program (FAA Order 4040.26A)• TRB / SRB / FRR• Who participates• Test Hazard Analysis• At what level of the Company are Safety Decisions Made?• Routine Safety Meetings and Reviews
“Knock-It-Off” Criteria Established Where will the tests be accomplished? Flight Test Policies and Procedures
• Crew Rest Requirements• Health and Fitness Requirements
Experimental Aircraft Configuration Control
• Pilots briefed on configuration before every flight
• Temporary Test Aircraft Limitations (TTAL)
Defenses and Barriers(Misaligning the Holes)
High Risk = High Level Decisions• Acceptance of high risk is a Company decision
• Design Technical Reviews• Safety Reviews• System Safety Analysis• Weather• Test Location• Knock-it-off Criteria• Ground Safety Equipment• Road map• Checklists• Experience• Training• Personal Safety Equipment• Instrumentation• Pilot Display Information• Number of crewmembers• Telemetry• Communications• Chase Aircraft
Egress System• Design • System Test• Location of Controls• Checklist Items• Emergency Procedures• Practice
Emergency Recovery System• Design • System Test• Location of Controls• Checklist Items• Emergency Procedures • Practice
Safety Reviews(Finding the Holes in the Plan)
Technical Review Board (TRB)• Review of applicable technical design details• Independent assessment of technical soundness of the test plan• Initial identification of flight test associated risks
Safety Review Board (SRB)• Chaired by the Flight Safety Officer (FSO)• Review of the flight test program planning• Final approval of the Test Plan and Test Hazard Analysis Worksheets• Critique of the teams planning effort
Flight Readiness Review (FRR)• Final Management Review• Answers the question, ”Are we ready to test?”• Ensures “action items” from TRB and SRB have been completed
Test Hazard Analysis
Defines Pilot Experience Required to Fly the Test
Severity
Probability
Severity
Probability
Low Med High
High A A A A High
Med B B A B Medium
Low C C B C Low
High
Aircraft Damage RiskTest Category Matrix
Personal Injury Risk
Test Category Test Type Risk Factor
Critical Characteristics
Demanding / Precise
Routine Flight Characteristics
Remote Occasional Probable
References: FOP-001 FOP-009
Medium Medium
Remote Occasional Probable High
Personal Injury Risk Assessment
Fatal Loss of Life Medium HighExtreme (Avoid)
Extreme (Avoid)
Major Injury Full Recovery Not Guaranteed Medium Medium
Negligible Injury Does Not Impact Ability to Work Low
Extreme (Avoid)
Extreme (Avoid)
HighMinor Injury Hospitalization
<1 Week Low Medium Medium
Low
Risk Mitigation Procedures:
Emergency Procedures:
Aircraft Damage Risk: Personal Injury Risk: Test Category: Test Risk Factor:
Risk Acceptance (SSAC) :
SRB Chairman _______________________________________
Chief Test Pilot ______________________________________
Flight Safety Officer ________________________________________
Project Test Pilot __________________________________________
Low Low Low Low
Low Medium Medium Medium
Hazard:
Probable Causes:
Effects:
Aircraft Damage Risk Assessment
Catastrophic Damage Beyond Repair
Major Damage Greater Than 2 Weeks to Repair
Minor Damage Less Than 2
Weeks to Repair
Negligible Damage Less Than 3 Days to Repair
Medium High
Test Plan Number:
Test Title:
Aircraft / System:
Test Hazard Analysis Worksheet
HighExtreme (Avoid)
Low Medium High High
FAA/ACO Acceptance (if required) :
Program Manager ____________________________________ Project Test Pilot __________________________________________
Project FTE ______________________________________________
Test Category A B C
Pilot Experience
Sr. Eng Specialist TP PIC PIC PIC
Eng Specialist TP PIC PIC PIC
Sr. Engineer TP SIC PIC PIC
Engineering TP SIC SIC PIC
Jr. Engineering TP N/A SIC SIC
Policies and Procedures
Engineering Procedures• EP-005 “Experimental Aircraft Release Procedures”• EP-006 “Flight Test Work Order (FTWO) Procedures”• EP-007 “Release and Acceptance of Aircraft for Test”• EP-008 “Temporary Test Aircraft Limitations Procedures”• EP-051 “Exp Aircraft Config Mgmt and Conformity”
Flight Operations Policies and Procedures• FOP-001 “Flight Operations Policies and Procedures”• FOP-002 “Production Flight Test Policies and Procedures”• FOP-003 “Pilot Training Policies and Procedures”• FOP-004 “Engine Run and Taxi Qualification Training”• FOP-005 “Ground Test Safety Procedures”• FOP-006 “Approval of Airplane Flight Manuals, Checklists and Supplements”• FOP-007 “Approval of AFM Temporary Change Notices”• FOP-008 “SSAC Minimum Pilot Requirements”• FOP-009 “Engineering Flight Test Safety Program”• FOP-010 “Operations in RVSM Airspace”• FOP-011 “Engineering Flight Test Experimental Aircraft Scheduling”
Design Improvements• New prototype (no asymmetric wing
twist)
• High Speed Wind Tunnel tests
• Added 5 VG’s to upper wing surface• Energized airflow over wing
• Moved speed brakes outboard• +1.5 G’s when deployed at MMO
• Aileron Thick TE reduces hinge moment
Pushing the Envelope(How Many Envelopes are Being Pushed?)
SJ30-2 Airspeed Envelope
Airspeed
Alti
tude
49,000 Ft
Mmo = Mach 0.83
Vm
o =
32
0 K
CA
S
Vd
f =
37
2 K
CA
S
Mdf = Mach 0.90
28,300 Ft
Know Which Envelopes are Being Pushed
Airspeed
Alti
tud
e
Center of Gravity
We
igh
t
Velocity
No
rma
l Acc
ele
ratio
n
-G’s
+G’s
V-N Diagram
Burt Rutan’s White Knight
Stability & Control
SJ30-2 Flight Flutter Program Airspeed Calibration Complete To VMO/MMO
CG Envelope Defined Aerodynamic Configuration Defined Aircraft Conformed to Type Design Stall Tests Complete Stability and Control Tests Complete FAA Approved Test Plan Accelerometers Installed & Calibrated Telemetry System Egress System Installed & Tested High Speed Chute Installation Chase Aircraft Unusual Attitude Training Completed Egress Training Completed Technical Review Board Safety Review Board Flight Readiness Review
Mojave, CA June – July 2004
Acceptance Requirements
• Flutter free to VDF and MDF
• Statically stable in all three axes
• No mach buffet at speeds up to MMO
• At speeds above MMO buffeting not severe
enough to cause control problems
• Able to generate 1.5G’s normal
acceleration on recovery
Aircraft Instrumentation
Pedal forcesForce wheel
On-board computers
Observers data station
Roll, Pitch, Yaw AnglesRoll, Pitch, Yaw RatesRoll, Pitch, Yaw ForcesControl Surface DeflectionsBoom Altitude & AirspeedShips Altitude & AirspeedAccelerometersStrain GagesCo-pilot Video Screen
Telemetry Data Station
Eric KinneyCo-Pilot
Mario AsselinAerodynamics
David WellsTelemetry Instrumentation
Monitors
Data Strip Charts
Tracking Antenna
High Speed Recovery Chute SystemControl on Aft End of Center Pedestal
Chute Arming
Chute Deployment
Chute Jettison
Chute Design: 4000 lbs drag at 400 kts @ 10,000 ft
Structural Design: 4000 lbs limit load 6000 lbs ultimate load
Chute Design
CHUTE CANISTERACCESS PANEL
DEPLOY ROCKET
STINGER BOOM
STEEL WELDMENT
LATCH ACTUATOR
LWR RISER FERRULE
KEVLAR “LOAD LINE”
JETTISON CUTTERS
MICROSWITCH
Dive AnglesDive & Recovery ND Angle
-100.0
-90.0
-80.0
-70.0
-60.0
-50.0
-40.0
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
Altitude - ft
Pit
ch A
ng
le (
-) =
ND
deg
Max Chute Angle
Dive Angle
ND angle for 4000 lbs drag
Pitch angle to achieve Vd / Md at MCT
Pitch angle at w hich aerodynamic drag + chute drag = gravitational thrust at FI at Md/Vd + 25 KCAS
Pitch angle at w hich the chute achieves 4000 lbs drag
12.5 deg ND
Drag Chute Deployment Test
• “Jerk” feel on deployment
• Roll , Pitch and Yaw during deployment
• Deceleration Rate
• Ability to maintain level flight with chute deployed
• Chute Oscillation After Deployment
• Controllability
• Jettison
• Roll, Pitch and Yaw on Release
Egress System
Cabin Pressure Dump (6psi)
Door Jettison
Egress Training
Both pilots belted in and connected to aircraft Seats positioned for flightDoor installed and rigged Practice until: Evacuation of aircraft could be accomplished in 20 seconds Each pilot knew his sequence steps so as to not interfere with the other
15k-21k ftAR Weight, Mid CG•Long Stab. Assess.•Lat. Dir. Stab. Assess.•Flutter•Chase above 340 KCAS•368 KCAS & 372 KCAS are individual flights
A/S = 320 KCAS 340 KCAS 350KCAS 360 KCAS 368 KCAS 372 KCAS
1 41k-47k ftAR Weight, Mid CG•Long Stab. Assess.•Lat. Dir. Stab. Assess.•Flutter•Chase above 0.85M•0.86M, 0.87M & 0.88Mare individual flights
A/S = 0.83 M 0.84M 0.85M 0.86M 0.87M 0.88M
2 17 Test Points 17 Test Points
25k - 33k ftAR Weight, Mid CG•Long Stab. Assess.•Lat. Dir. Stab. Assess.•Flutter•Chase above 0.85M•0.86M, 0.87M & 0.88M are individual flights
A/S = 0.78M, 0.80 M 0.82M, 0.83M 0.84M, 0.85M 0.86M, 0.87M
0.88M
3 24 Test Points
Technical Review Boards•Chute & Egress Systems•Aero Conformities•Aerodynamic Review•Systems
High Speed Envelope Program Safety Review Board•Egress System Validation•Chute Deployment & Jettison Validation
Flight Readiness Review Start of High
Speed Envelope Testing
Return to Service • Telemetry Check Flight• Vibration & Buffet testing
(≤Mmo/Vmo)
DATA ANALYSIS & SRB for Considerations of
Further Envelope Expansion
CONTINUE EXPANDING HIGH SPEED
ENVELOPE PAST 0.88??
NO YES
AR ALTAR Weight, Aft CG•Long Stab. Assess.•Lat. Dir. Stab. Assess.•Flutter•Light Fuel Points (2)•YD OFF Points (3)
4 18 Test Points
AR ALTLgt. Weight, Aft CG
•Upset Maneuvers
5 19 Test Points
41k - 47k ftAR Weight, Mid CG•Long Stab. Assess. (0.89)•Lat. Dir. Stab. Assess. (0.88)•Flutter (0.88)
4 3 Test Points
25k - 33k ftAR Weight, Mid CG•Long Stab. Assess. (0.89)•Lat. Dir. Stab. Assess. (0.88)•Flutter (0.88)
5 3 Test Points
DATA ANALYSIS & SRB for Considerations of
Further Envelope Expansion
End ofEnvelope Definition
CONTINUE EXPANDING HIGH SPEED
ENVELOPE PAST 0.89??
NO YES
AR ALTAR Weight, Aft CG•Long Stab. Assess.•Lat. Dir. Stab. Assess.•Flutter•Light Fuel Points (2)•YD OFF Points (3)
61 8 Test Points
AR ALTLgt. Weight, Aft CG
•Upset Maneuvers
7 19 Test Points
41k - 47k ftAR Weight, Mid CG•Long Stab. Assess. (0.90)•Lat. Dir. Stab. Assess. (0.89)•Flutter (0.89)
6 3 Test Points
25k - 33k ftAR Weight, Mid CG•Long Stab. Assess. (0.90)•Lat. Dir. Stab. Assess. (0.89)•Flutter (0.89)
7 3 Test Points
End ofEnvelope Definition
AR ALTAR Weight, Aft CG•Long Stab. Assess.•Lat. Dir. Stab. Assess.•Flutter•Light Fuel Points (2)•YD OFF Points (3)
8 18 Test Points
AR ALTLgt. Weight, Aft CG
•Upset Maneuvers
9 19 Test Points
End ofEnvelope Definition
Test Point Sequence Altitude sequence was:
• Low – dynamic pressure effects only• High – mach effects only• Critical (@ VMO/MMO knee) – combined Q and Mach effects
Three dives were made to clear each speed increment during the speed envelope expansion 1. Airspeed verification with chase and general controllability2. Static Lateral, Directional and Longitudinal stability3. Control Raps for flutter (elevator, aileron, rudder) in both directions
Abort (Knock-it-Off) CriteriaWithin Planned Flight Region
1. Lateral control authority (50 lb wheel force) capable of handling FAR lateral gust criteria
2. Lateral control authority (50 lb wheel force) capable of handling 160 lb pedal force
3. Minimum 20 deg/sec roll rate capability (with 50 lb wheel force)
Excursion Exceeding Planned Flight Region
1. Account for at least Mach 0.03 over-speed from planned test conditions
2. Lateral control authority (75 lb wheel force) capable of handling FAR lateral gust criteria
3. Lateral control authority (75 lb wheel force) capable of handling 160 lb pedal force
4. Minimum 20 deg/sec roll rate capability (with 75 lb wheel force)
Conditions Require Termination of Flight for Data Analysis and Review
1. Lateral stability at neutral or unstable
2. Extrapolated flight test roll control authority was not met
3. Unable to trim aircraft hands-off laterally and directionally
4. Airspeed and Mach calibration deviate from extrapolation
Test Protocol• Flight crew calls “On Condition”• Chase calls “In Position”• Ground verifies ground station is ready and calls “Go for condition”• Flying FTE reads speeds during the dive (instrumentation has a hot audio link)• Ground test director monitors airspeed and altitude readout and verifies speeds
to flight crew during descent. Ground calls “Stop Test” when test aircraft is within 1000 ft of minimum test altitude.
• Anyone can call abort for the test condition by calling “Abort, Abort, Abort”• Test aircraft will immediately abort the condition by pulling throttles to idle,
extending speed brakes and inducing a positive 1.5 G pull• If the test needs to be discontinued for any reason other than a safety reason
(such as loss of TM or a strip chart malfunction) the Ground Station will call “Stop Test”
• Test aircraft will stop the test by pulling to a positive 1.5 G’s and reducing power and using speed brakes as needed.
• Flight crew will call “Test Complete, Under Control” when the test aircraft is recovered to a safe flight condition.
Loss of Control Protocol• Flight crew will immediately deploy the
high speed recovery chute.
• Chase will call “Chute Deployed”
• If the test aircraft fails to respond to the recovery chute by 18,000 feet for Md tests or 10,000 ft for Vd tests, chase will call “Bailout, Bailout, Bailout”
• Chase will follow the aircraft and verify to the Ground Station when the door has been jettisoned and the crew are out of the aircraft.
• Chase will loiter in the area and guide ground rescue to the site.
• Test crew will have personal ELT’s and com radio’s for communication to rescue crews.
Phase I Summary of Testing• 9-27 June 2004 (19 Days)
• 32 Flights in 16 Flight Days
• 50.7 Flight Hrs
• Averaged 2.00 flights/day
• Averaged 1.58 hrs/flight
• Tests Accomplished– Vibration and Buffet Margins– Static Lateral / Directional Stability– Static Longitudinal Stability– Longitudinal Maneuvering Stability– Flight Loads
• 305 Test Conditions
Phase II Summary of Testing• 7 July – 1 August 2004 (26 Days)
• 40 Flights in 18 Flight Days
• 62.0 Flight Hrs
• Averaged 2.22 flights/day
• Averaged 1.55 hrs/flight
• Tests Accomplished– Dynamic Lateral / Directional
Stability– Dynamic Longitudinal Stability– Longitudinal Control – Lateral / Directional Control– HS Envelope Expansion– Aeroelastic Stability (Flutter)– HS Upset Maneuvers– HS Stability and Control
• 366 Test Conditions
Data Strips
Mach No.
Altitude
Pitch
G’s
12 deg ND
36,000 ft
27,000 ft
M 0.90
1.9 G’s
10,500 fpm
It Takes Teamwork!
Celebrating Success!
Wing Anti-Ice Failure Ice Shape Stall Tests
26 January 2005, Roswell, NM
Aft CG, Heavy Weight
Wing Failure Ice as Installed vs Design
• The as installed shape, with the misfit due to the double sided tape and extra thickness of the oil dry, is approximately 25% bigger than the minimum requirements.
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Inches
Inc
he
s
Wing Anti-iceFailure
45 min radome
9 min shape
45 min wing tip
45 min H-tail tip45 min V-tail
2 min delayed activation
45 min pylon LE
At aileron/flap wing span location
As installed (red)Design (blue)