airbus magazine - fast32 (july 2003)

8/19/2019 Airbus magazine - FAST32 (july 2003)

1/32

A

I

R

B

U

S

T

E

C

H

N

I

C

A

L

D

I

G

E

S

T

F

A

S

T

3

2

32J U L Y 2 0 0 3

F L I G H T

A I R W O R T H I N E S S

S U P P O R T

T E C H N O L O G Y


2/32

This issue of FAST has been printed on paper

produced without using chlorine, to reduce

waste and help conserve natural resources.

Every little helps!

Editor: Denis Dempster

Art Director: Agnès Massol-Lacombe

in association with

Chandler Gooding

London • Leeds • Toulouse

Customer Services Marketing

Tel: +33 (0)5 61 93 39 29

Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93 27 67

E-mail: [email protected]

Printer Escourbiac

FAST may be read on Internet http://www.airbus.com

under Customer Services/Publications

ISSN 1293-5476

J U L Y 2 0 0 3

A

I

R

B

U

S

T

E

C

H

N

I

C

A

L

D

I

G

E

S

T

2

3

9

17

25

31

32

Just happened… Coming soon…

Advanced materials and technologies

for A380 structure

Technology platform for future development

Jérôme Pora

Airbus Flight Operational Commonality

in action

Régine VadrotChristian Aubry

Gerrit van Dijk

Revision of rules for Extended and

Long Range Operations

ETOPS & LROPS

André Quet

Lithium thickened grease

Higher performance General Purpose grease

for Airbus aircraft

Céline Normand

From the archives...

Extended Range Operations – The Beginning

Customer Services

Around the clock … Around the world

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

1

Airbus Customer Services

© AIRBUS 2003. All rights reserved

The articles herein may be reprinted without permission except where

copyright source is indicated, but with acknowledgement to Airbus.

Articles which may be subject to ongoing review must have their accuracy verified

prior to reprint. The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They are

based on the assumptions shown and are expressed in good faith. Where the

supporting grounds for these statements are not shown,

the Company will be pleased to explain the basis thereof.

F L I G H T

A I R W O R T H I N E S S

S U P P O R T

T E C H N O L O G Y

Cover photo:

Lay-up of carbon fibre side panel for A380 vertical tail plane

Computer graphics by I3M Photographs (cover/pages 3-8/pages 25-30) by Philippe Masclet & Hervé Bérenger

32


3/32

Airbus took its common design

philosophy

JUST HAPPENED… COMING SOON…

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

2

1

2

5JAN 03 FEB 03 MAR 03 APR 03 MAY 03 JUN 03 JULY 03

3 542

12TH PERFORMANCE &

OPERATIONS CONFERENCE

7-11 April 2003

Rome, Italy

The 12th Performance andOperations Conference was attended by 229representatives from 92 airlines and 21 repre-sentatives from vendors, authorities and otherorganisations.

Customers appreciated demonstrations atAirbus stands showing Less Paper Cockpit(LPC), Performance Engineering Programmes(PEP), Load & Trim Sheet software (LTS),Line Operations & Monitoring Systems(LOMS), Line Operations Assessment System(LOAS) and Airbus on-line system (AOLS).

During the conference, which has been heldevery two years since 1980, some 85 presenta-tions were made in nine sessions covering top-ics such as LPC Administration, Operations,Performance, PEP, Cost Index, New Cockpitand Operations Information Management. Itwas concluded by presentations from differentairlines allowing operational experiences to beshared.

A318/A319/A320/A321

SYMPOSIUM

11-16 May 2003

Cancun, Mexico

This year’s Single-aisleSymposium gathered 135 representativesfrom 51 airlines and 67 vendor represen-tatives.

The programme included actual in-service issues covering structure, engineand systems for purely technical mattersand general topic discussions on mainte-nance economics, reliability enhancementand others.

Awards for excellence in reliability weregiven to All Nippon Airways, Jet Blueand TAM.

17TH AIRBUS HUMAN FACTORS SYMPOSIUM

1-3 July 2003 Helsinki, Finland

The 17th Human Factors Symposium gatheredtogether approximately 100 human factors andsafety specialists from more than 20 Airbusoperators. The symposium was organised inco-operation with Finnair, which is celebratingits 80th anniversary.

3

4

AIRBUS LEASING

CONFERENCE

10-12 June 2003

Madrid, Spain

The fact that one-thirdof the Airbus in-service fleet (and 40% of ordered aircraft) are leased, underlines theimportance of such a conference. About 65representatives of leasing companies, finan-cial institutions and Airbus experts attended.

Key points covered included increasedtransparency for pricing of standard options,retrofit modification offers, reduced lead-time for service bulletins and kits, and air-craft configuration tracking.

The increasing awareness that leasingcompanies play a full part in the Airbus cus-tomer community with their own specificrequirements was a major benefit of theconference.

I

SECOND AIRBUS SPARES LOGISTICS CONFERENCE 2003

17-18 June 2003 Hamburg, Germany

The second Airbus Spares Logistics Conference in Hamburg was attended by more than80 participants – including 26 from 17 customers.

On-time delivery of spare parts requires integration and management of flexible supplychains between supplier activities and customers’ requirements. Physical distributionqualified communication and IT-based monitoring systems are key to harmonising allspares related processes.

Airbus Spares Support and Services presented the new Customised Spares Logistics(CSL) concept that transfers the transport responsibility from the customer to Airbus.Airbus Spares Support has a clear mandate to continue improving the Spares Logistics.Also the vendors are being encouraged to offer similar support to the Airbus customers.

Just happened…

Coming soon… AUG 03 SEPT 03 OCT 03 NOV 03 DEC 031 2 3

3

A300/A300-600/A310

TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM

Seville, SpainNovember 2003

Preparation for this technical symposiumis already in progress. Operators are being invitedto give their feedback and input before the pro-gramme covering their needs is finalised. Therewill be presentations on actual in-service issuesaffecting the A300/A310 programme as well as

subjects of more general interest.

For information, contact your local resident cus-tomer support manager. Agenda and participationform will be sent out in September.

2

18TH AIRBUS HUMAN

FACTORS SYMPOSIUM

New York City, USAOctober 2003

In association with Jet Blue,Airbus is organising its nextHuman Factors Symposiumin New York.

In it, Airbus will continue

the dialogue with its opera-tors at a proven forum, dis-cussing human factorsaspects with practical andoperational perspectives.

1

2ND AIRBUS FLIGHT OPERATIONS MONITORING &

SAFETY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE

September 2003Rome, Italy

As part of our commitment to increase safetyperformance, Airbus plans to continue itsconstructive dialogue with all parties at thisRome conference. This gathering follows onfrom the first very successful conference held inHong Kong.

The programme will cover the integrated Airbussafety plan with tailored solutions, the evolutionof Flight Operation Monitoring (FOM) packageand regulatory aspects.


4/32

ADVANCED MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGIES FOR A380 STRUCTURE

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

3

Advanced materialsand technologies for

A380 structureTECHNOLOGY PLATFORM FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

A competitive new aircraft programme with a life spanof 40 to 50 years requires the introduction of advancedand new materials – combined with new manufacturingtechnologies – which allow for further optimisation asthe aircraft family evolves. Thus, the A380-800, thelaunch version of the A380 family, establishes a“technology platform” for future developments.

An “Initial Set of Structural Design Drivers” wasestablished in early 1997, giving guidance for apreliminary selection of possible materials fordifferent sub-components of the airframe. Thematerials choice results from a down-selectionprocess, which reviewed material performance,manufacture of components and associated costsat the same time.

Results from manufacture and structural testing of full-scale demonstrators supported the decision-making process for selection of structural designconcepts, materials and manufacturing technologiesin order to ensure that only mature technologies andproven concepts were taken on board.

Design solutions and material applications envisagedwere also reviewed with structure and maintenanceexperts from airlines to get approval with respect toinspections and repairs. Workshops with airlines areregarded as a key element of the “technologydown-selection process”.

Jérôme PoraDeputy Director Structure

A380 Programme


5/32

Structural design criteria of theA380 (overview given in Figures 1& 2) highlight the “drivers” forstructural design and material selec-tion. Repeated tension load, withvarying load level, would lead tosmall fatigue cracks in metallicstructure. Crack growth rate as wellas residual strength (when the crackhas developed) would guide theselection of an appropriate alterna-tive material candidate.


P A G E

F A S T

3 2

5


EIn cases where the structure isprone to damage (e.g. foreignobject damage), the design mayrequire in addition damage-tolerantmaterial characteristics.

Compression loading requires yieldstrength and also stiffness, by virtueof its contribution to stability.

Corrosion prevention is anotherimportant criterion to beconsideredfor the selection of materials &processes, especially in thebilgeareaof the fuselage, which may beexposed to aggressiveagents comingfrom different sources. Part of thegoal is to select themost appropriatematerial for thespecif ic application,which would lead to thel ightest pos-sible structure. For this purpose,composite materials aregood com-petitors, but an understanding of design drivers and maintenancerequirements is needed.

In parallel, production cost investi-gations and purchasing activitiesare also necessary.

Thus, material selection is not onlydriven by design criteria.

NEW AND ADVANCEDMETALLIC MATERIALS

The distribution of materials forthe A380 shows that aluminiummakes up the largest proportionwith 61% share of airframe struc-ture weight (Figure 3).

Performance improvement initiat-ives must first address this largeproportion of airframe weight andsearch for improved materials. Thespecific direction in which to go isgiven by the “drivers for structuraldesign”, e.g. high strength and/or

damage tolerance, stability andcorrosion resistance. So there wasastrong demand for further improve-ments of primary aluminiumstruc-ture on the A380, in particular onthe wing, of which more than 80%of its structural weight is stil l com-posed of aluminium; size limita-tions were also challenged.

The major achievements in alu-minium alloys for the A380-800are listed below:

• The introduction of very widesheet material on fuselagepanels has made possible thereduction of joints, and resultedin weight reduction.

• The application of aluminium-lithiumextrusions on main deckcross beams due to the availabil -ity of a new generation of alloysmade it possible for aluminium-lithiumto compete with CarbonFibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP)on this type of application.

• The selection of the brandnew 7085 alloy for wing sparsand ribs, which surpassesconventional high strengthalloys for very thick plates andvery large forgings.

Titaniumalloys have been selectedin numerous applications due totheir high strength, low density,damage tolerance and corrosionresistance to replace Steels.However the high price of thesealloys is a limiting factor in somecases.

Theuniquechallenges of theA380raised the titanium applicationsfrom 5-7 % in weight on previousAirbus aircraft to about 10%. Pylonsand landing gears alone increasedthetitaniumcontent by 2%.

• The primary structure of theA380 pylon is the first all-titaniumdesign at Airbus.On A380, the commonly used

Ti-6Al-4V alloy will beimplemented also in a beta-annealed condition to maximisefracture toughness and minimisecrack growth rate.

• The A380 will also be the firstAi rbus using the new titaniumalloy VST55531 developedthrough a cooperationprogramme with the Russianproducer thus providingdesigners with an exceptionalcombination of fracturetoughness and high strength.

This alloy has been selected forthe fitting between wing andpylons. Further applications areunder study.

THE A380 GENERAL STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA

Figure 1

General structural design criteria for A380 fuselage & empennage

Strength & fatigue(ground load cases)

Static strength & fatigue(internal pressure)

Upper fuselage- Crack growth

- Residual strength

Lower fuselage- Static strength- Buckling/stability

- Corrosion resistance

Horizontal stabiliser box- Static strength- Compression

Fin box

- Static strength- Compression

Rudders- Static strength

- Shear

Bird strike

impact

Strength for

jacking loads

Bird strike

impact

General structural design criteria for A380 wing

wer wing coversmage tolerance

Wing leading edge- Bird strike impact

Upper wing covers

(mid wing and partially inner wing) - Fatigue

Upper wing covers (outer wing) - Compression yield strength- Stability

Figure 2

Materials distribution (weight breakdown) on A380 structure

2% miscellaneous2% surface protections

61% aluminium

10% titanium& steel

3% GLARE

22% composite materials

Figure 3


6/32


E

A380 COMPOSITE MATERIAL

APPLICATIONS

Themajor compositematerial appli-cations on structure are shown infigure4. For theA380, Airbus bene-fits from earlier programmesbecauseit was thef irst manufactur-er to makeextensiveuseof compos-ites on large transport commercialaircraft; theA310 was thef irst pro-duction aircraft to havea compositefin box; theA 320 was thef irst air-craft to go into production with anall-composite tail; about 13% byweight of thewing on theA340 is

composed of composite materialsand theA340/500-600 has CarbonFibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP)keel beams.

The A380 will be the first largecommercial aircraft with a CFRPcomposite centre wing box, repre-senting a weight saving of up to oneand a half tonnes compared to themost advanced aluminium alloys.On theA380 the centre wing boxwill weigh around 8.8 tonnes, of which 5.3 tonnes is composite mate-

rials. The main challenges are thewing root joint and thecomponentthickness. Thesecomposite compo-nents could beup to 45mm thick.For this specific application, Airbushas reaped a largebenefit from theA340-600 CFRP keel beams, 16metres long and 23mmthick, eachof which carries a force of 450tonnes.

A monolithic CFRP design has alsobeen adopted for the fin box andrudder, as well as thehorizontal sta-biliser and elevators as on A340-600. Herethemain challengeis the

size of thecomponents. Thearea of the CFRP horizontal tail plane isclose to that of theA310 cantileverwing. As for thecentrewing box, thesizeof thecomponents justifies theintensive use of Automated TapeLaying (ATL ) technology.

Furthermore, the upper deck floorbeams and the rear pressure bulk-head will be made of CFRP. Thefirst of these is produced with aPultrusion process where continu-ous fibre reinforced plastic is pulled

through a tool. For the second one,different technologies were testedsuch as Resin Film Infusion (RFI)and Automated Fibre Placement(AFP), due to the shape. RFI hasbeen selected.

In the un-pressurised parts of therear fuselageAFP has been selectedto produce panel skins, due to thedouble curvature of these panels.

The highly loaded frames remainmachined in high strength alumini-um alloys, however Resin TransferMoulding (RTM) is used to manu-facturethosethat carry less load.

The A380 wing fixed leading edge(wing-J -nose) in thermoplasticsaims at weight and cost savings.

This technology has been devel-oped for the A340-600, demonstrat-ing weight saving, ease of manufac-ture, improved damage tolerance,and improved inspectability whencompared to the A340 metall iccomponent. Further applications of thermoplastics are under investiga-tion, such as secondary bracketry inthe fuselage.

The choice of CFRP for movablesurfaces on the wing trailing edgeis regarded to be state-of-the-art.

The use of RTM is agreed for mov-able-surface hinges and ribs, whenthe shape of the components is dif -fi cult to obtain using conventionaltechnologies.

Inner flaps and leading edge high-li ft devices are exposed to foreignobject damage and a standard metaldesign weighs no more than a com-posite design. For weight reduc-tion, a hybrid design has beenadopted on the A380 flap track

beams in which CFRP replaces alu-minium on lateral panels and sec-ondary ribs.

The introduction of CFRP ribs hasalso been accepted on the can-tilever wing box in replacement foraluminiumalloys, for the first timeat Airbus.

Finally, mid and outer flap, flaptrack fairing as well as spoilers andailerons, follow the evolution of CFRP application at Airbus.

For sandwich structures, the maininnovation is the introduction of light honeycomb to replace con-ventional aramid paper honey-comb. This is the case on largestructures such as the belly fairing(more than 300 sq.m), and floorpanels. The trend to apply a mono-lithic design to replace sandwichwhen possible is followed on theA380 on which body landing gearand wing landing gear doors haveadopted the monolithic concept.

But composite materials and tech-nologies must contribute to com-petitive aircraft performance ataffordable costs. On the A380,advanced manufacturing technolo-gies such as Automated FibrePlacement, A utomated TapeLaying, Resin Film Infusion andResin Transfer Moulding have con-tributed to cost reductions in com-posite manufacture. Finally, thesize of A380 components generatesthe possibility to design very largecomposite parts, reducing the

assembly costs and increasing thevolume of materials to be pro-duced, moving the A380 one stepfurther in the development byAirbus of composite applicationson airframes.

GLARE TECHNOLOGY

GLARE skins are implemented onthe upper fuselage panels. GL AREis a hybrid material, built up fromalternating layers of aluminiumfoils and unidirectional glassfibres, impregnated with an epoxyadhesive (Figure 5). The alternating

layers are built up in a mould,which forms the single or doublecurved GLARE skin. The so-called“splicing concept” arranges twoaluminium foils with a slight over-lap forming a single aluminiumlayer. The spli ces are staggeredwith respect to each other, whilethe pre-fabricated adhesive layersare continuous (Figure 6).

Local reinforcements are achievedwith additional layers in betweenthe surface layers forming“integraldoublers”. Thus, thickness varia-tions are included in a “one-shot-curing” cycle. The completedGLARE lay-up, in its mould, isbagged and vacuumapplied beforecuring in an autoclave at 120°C.

The manufacturing approachallows for increased fuselage panelwidth, compared to panels madefrom aluminium sheet material,thus reducing the number of longi-tudinal panel joints on the aircraft.

The motivation to review GLAREfor fuselage panel application start-ed in the field of f racture mechan-ics because of the outstandingresistance to crack growth. On theother hand, glass fibres have alower elastic modulus compared toaluminium: depending on the fibreorientations, GLA RE would beabout 15% less stiff, for the samethickness, compared to standardalloy Al2024. This is why GLAREis not an appropriate candidate forstructural parts to be designed forstabili ty, e.g. buckling.

AFP Automated Fibre PlacementATL Automated Tape LayingCFRP Carbon Fibre Reinforced PlasticRFI Resin Film InfusionRTM Resin Transfer Moulding

Major monolithic CFRP and thermoplastics application

Upper deckfloor beamsCFRP, pultrusion

Flap track panelsCFRP, RTM

Centre wing boxCFRP, ATL

Landing gear doorsSolid laminated CFRP

Rear pressure bulkheadCFRP, RFInon-crimped fabrics

Horizontal tail planeCFRP, ATL for torsionbox and elevators

Vertical tail planeCFRP, ATLfor torsionbox and rudders

Tail coneSolid laminated CFRPAFP

Un-pressurised fuselageSolid laminated CFRP, AFP

Outer flaps

CFRP, ATL

Wing ribsCFRP, ATL

EnginecowlingsCFRP, AFP

WingGlassthermoplasticJ-nose


Figure 4

Figure 5

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

7

The GLARE concept

Glass fibre /Adhesive layer

Aluminium layer

Overlap splice usingthe 'Self forming technique'

Aluminium layer Glass fibre layer

Adhesive

Fuselage outside

Fuselage inside

Figure 6


7/32


A large proportion of the A380

structure and components will be

manufactured from the latestgeneration of Carbon Fibre

Reinforced Plastic composites and

advanced metallic materials, which,

besides being lighter than traditional

materials, offer significant advantages

in terms of operational reliability,

maintainability and ease of repair.

The major innovations are:

• Fibre laminated skins (GLARE)

implemented on the upper

fuselage panels.

• Application of laser beam welding

technology in combination with

6000-series aluminium alloys on

lower fuselage panels.

• A centre wing box in Carbon Fibre

Reinforced Plastic.

• Introduction of advancedaluminium alloys developed for the

wing box addressing the identified

design criteria.

• Introduction of aluminium-lithium

alloys.

• Introduction of new titanium alloys,

and increased proportion of

titanium in lieu of Steels.

Last but not least, the A380 led to

the increase of thickness, size and

volume in general of aerospace

materials, and the development of

associated manufacturing facilities.

ConclusionCONTACT DETAILS

Jérôme Pora

Deputy Director StructureA380 ProgrammeTel: +33 (0)5 61 93 35 68Fax: +33 (0)5 62 11 03 07

[email protected]

minium sheet have been developedand agreed by airline specialists.

A GLARE fuselage panel has been

flying on an A310 multi-role air-craft of the German Airforce sinceOctober 1999. The design wentthrough a certification process anda structural repair manual wasissued.

About 500 sq.m of GLARE skin isapplied on an A380-800. FurtherGLARE applications are understudy such as the replacement of aluminium by GLARE on the

empennage leading edge to takeadvantage of the excellent behav-iour of GLARE for bird impact.

LASER BEAM WELDING

The technology was developed forlower fuselage panels and imple-mented on A318. For A380 the ini-tial application of Laser BeamWelding (LBW) will replace theriveting process for stringers of

lower fuselage panels. The panelstructural concept changes from a“fabricated structure” to an “inte-gral structure”. From a mechanicalpoint of view the main difference isseen in reduced crack growth fol-lowing damage to the skin.

Preparation of LBW technologyhas pushed the development of weldable Al6056 and of Al6013.

As a result of manufacturing trials,combined with material develop-ment, it was proven that the select-ed welding process parameters donot affect performance. The excel-lent material characteristics of thewelded panels produced have beenshown with compression tests.Failure modes have not changedcompared to current state-of-the-artfuselage structures.

The process is validated for singlecurved and double curved panels.

Added value is provided throughmanufacturing cost reduction, cor-rosion resistance improvement andweight saving.

In consultation with the airlines,concepts for riveted repairs havebeen developed using standardmaterials and parts.

Further potential applications couldbe the skin-to-clip attachment andpressure bulkheads in the area of landing gear bays.

Another important advantage forGLARE is the improvement withregard to corrosion and fire resis-tance when compared to aluminiumalloys. The preparation for the

A380 includes extensive coupontests, and partial and full-scaletests of components in order to val-idate structural design concepts aswell as new materials.

In parallel, riveted repairs using alu-

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

8


8/32

AIRBUS FLIGHT OPERATIONAL COMMONALITY IN ACTION

AirbusFlight Operational

Commonality in

actionFollowing the entry into service of two A319s to complement its fleet of five A340-300s, Air Mauritius hasbecome the 20th airline to benefitfrom Mixed Fleet Flying (MFF)between Airbus aircraft, underliningAirbus’ leadership in the domain of Flight Operational Commonality.

All Airbus aircraft after the A300 and

A310 – from the 107-seat short- tomedium-range A318 to the 550-seatlong-range A380 – share FlightOperational Commonality, allowingoperators to integrate furthertraditionally fragmented flightoperations and training groups.

This is an account of the backgroundand some of the achievements sincethe previous article on this topic in FAST magazine no. 17, issued inDecember 1994.

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

9

Christian AubryManager Flight Training Policy

Airbus Training & Flight Operations Support & Services

Régine VadrotDirector International Regulatory Affairs

Airbus Training & Flight Operations Support & Services

Gerrit van Dijk Technical Marketing Director

Airbus Marketing Division


9/32


FLIGHT OPERATIONALCOMMONALITYIMPORTANCE AND HISTORY

Flight crew related costs represent asignificant portion of overalloperating expense, which explainsairline interest in any possiblereduction. Flight OperationalCommonality between aircrafthelps to reduce the cost of trainingpilots, and increases pilotproductivity through shortertraining times and greater crewscheduling flexibility.

Initially, commonality credit waslimited to Single Licence Endorse-ments (JAA – Joint AviationAuthorities– terminology) or Sameand Common Type Ratings (FAA –Federal Aviation Administration –designations) awarded to crewsflying aircraft of comparableconfiguration and mission capability,such as the A300/A310 or 757/767.Similar flight handling was key.

In 1983, Airbus decided to launchthe A320 knowing that severalyears later it would be followed bythe A330 and the A340. The

concept of a true aircraft familywith a very high level of commonality emerged at the sametime and resulted in a strategicindustrial choice having hugeconsequences on the aircraft designand operation.

OBJECTIVES AND

CONSEQUENCES

This strategic industrial choice had

three objectives:

• Raise the overall safety of theflight by a high level ofcommonality. The behaviourof the crew on any aircraft ofthe family is similar in terms ofaircraft and system handling;thus the skills and flightexperience gained on the formeraircraft apply to the new one.

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

10

One flight deck standard... ...one integrated family

10 aircraft 3 aircraft types

Medium- to long-rangecapability in 2 sizes

Long- to very long-range

capability in 4 sizes

Common• flight deck• systems• procedures

Fly-by-wireelectricallysignalled• flight controls• thrust control

Short- to medium-rangecapability in 4 sizes


10/32

TITLE OF THE ARTICLE

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

11


• A high level of commonality

to optimise the training. A pilottrained on one of the aircraft of the family can safely control theflight path and handle the systemsof any other aircraft of the familywithout the need for specialadditional skills or lengthytraining. Thus the transitiontraining needs to address theessential differences.Furthermore, in the case of MixedFleet Flying, recurrent trainingcan be shared between two

aircraft types, and credit given fortake-off and landings done on oneaircraft to allow a pilot to remaincurrent on the other one.

• A high level of commonality toallow safe Mixed Fleet Flying.

This strategic option has hadtremendous repercussion on theaircraft and cockpit design. It hasdictated the implementation of:

• The fly-by-wire system,providing similar handlingcharacteristics within andoutside the normal envelope of all the aircraft of the family.

• The cockpit layout, similar

throughout the family.• The integrated automatedsystems– Automatic FlightSystem(AFS) – and displayunits, with similar data andparameters, providing the sameoperational philosophy andprocedures.

As a consequence, for example:

• A pilot trained to handlea system failure using the

ECAM “Read and Do checklist”on one type does not needany additional training on useof ECAM on the other typesof the family.

• A pilot proficient in flyingNon Precision Approaches onone type will not need additionaltraining on the other types to flyNon Precision Approaches.

Therefore, Airbus operators may

take advantage of shortened pilottraining between types – CrossCrew Qualification, (CCQ) – andMixed Fleet Flying (MFF)opportunities.


11/32


P A G E

12

F a

m i l i a

r i s a t i o n

F amiliarisat i o n

F a m i l i

a r i s

a t i

o

n

SameType

Rating

SameType

Rating

SameType

Rating

CCQ

1 day

3 days

A321

A319

A340-600

A340-500

A340-200

A318

Cross Crew Qualification

A330-300

8 d a y s

8 d a y s

8 d a y s 8 d a y s

A340-300

Base Aircraft

A330-200

Base Aircraft

A320

Base Aircraft

CURRENT STATUS OFAIRBUS CCQ

A total of 38 airlines currently fly

more than one Airbus fly-by-wiretype, operating at least one member of the A320 Family (A318, A319, A320or A321) with an A330 and/or anA340, or both A330 and A340. Allhave benefited from Airbus’ uniqueFlight Operational Commonality toreduce pilot training cost by up to 90%when transferring between aircrafttypes. This makes crew training andconversion shorter through optimisedtraining courses known as CCQ.

CCQ is the Airbus term for applyingthe concept of FAA AdvisoryCircular 120-53 to related aircrafttypes such as the A320, A330 andA340. This thorough methodologyfrom the FAA Advisory Circularhas been recognised by the JAA in JAR OPS 1 as well as by theCanadian Authorities. CCQ pro-grammes are based upon an in-depth analysis presented in

Operator Difference Requirement(ODR) tables. Airbus has selectedbase aircraft, and developed ODR

tables and CCQ programs from thebase aircraft to all other aircraftfrom the fly-by-wire family.

Those basic Airbus ODR tables aremade available for use by all Airbusoperators upon request. Theoperator may have to customise theAirbus basic ODR to suit itsspecific fleet and routes, beforesubmission to its national authority.

The Airbus CCQ courses areapproved under the Airbus TypeRating Training Organisation(TRTO) and operators may wish to

customise the recommended CCQcourse to match with their trainingmedia, if conducted in their owncompany.

What is key to the CCQ course, isthat all items which have beenidentif ied as the result of thecommonality analysis in the ODRtables, must be included in the CCQtraining course. Consequently,depending upon the training media

used by operators and duration of the simulator session (three hoursversus four hours for example), the

F A S T

3 2

Significant reduction intraining time and costs


12/32


P A G E

F A S T

3 2

13


structure and length of the operatorCCQ course may differ from theone proposed by Airbus.

MFFREGULATIONS & PRACTICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

Airbus defines MFF as an airlineoperation with multiple aircrafttypes, requiring different licenceendorsements, by one pool of pilots. Flight Operational Commo-nality is not a prerequisite for MFF.In other words: the same pilot canfly an ATR turboprop on one day

and a 747 the day after, provided heor she complies with the rulesregarding initial qualification,recency of experience, recurrenttraining, proficiency and linechecks for each of the aircrafttypes. The JAA allow MFF to beconducted with two typesmaximum, whereas the FAA doesnot impose a limitation.

MFF increases crew scheduling

flexibility, resulting in a moreefficient flying roster and reducedreserve requirements. Until the mid1990s, however, large-scale MFFby ordinary line pilots was notcustomary for two reasons:

• Airline concern about the safeoperation of more than oneaircraft type by a single pilotpool.

• The prohibitive cost and lossof productivity associated with

at least doubling the initialqualifications, quarterly recencyrequirements and (bi-) annualtraining and checking events.

Deemed very innovative at itsinception in the early 1990s, MFFwith Airbus aircraft was initiallyapproved by the European AviationAuthorities and the American FAA.

Many of the world’s regulatory

authorities have since rewarded theprofound Airbus Flight OperationalCommonality by allowing operatorsunder their responsibility toconduct MFF of any Airbus fly-by-

wire combination with the follow-ing credits:

• Pilots qualified on one aircrafttype may obtain additionalratings through CCQ (a savingof 65-90% relative to the fulltype rating course).

• Take-offs and landings in one

type may count towards recencyin other types as well.

• Recurrent training, proficiencyand line checks may alternatebetween types.

Recurrent cycles - MFF A330-A340The Airbus way: Recurrent cycles alternate bi-annually

Regulatory requirement as for a single rating

1 Year

1 Year

A330

A340 A340

A330

Currency / Recency - MFF A330-A340The Airbus way: Every 90 days

3 take offs and 3 landings on either aircaft

at least 1 on each aircraft

Note: Landings in an approved simulator are aceptable


Line checks - MFF A330-A340The Airbus way: Line checks alternate annually valid for both


1 Year

1 Year

A330

A330

A340


13/32


P A G E

F A S T

3 2

14

In order to assist its operators insetting up their MFF application totheir national authorities, Airbus hasdeveloped a specific briefing aswell as a set of recommendationsfor the content of alternate recurrenttraining and checking programmes. Those documents are madeavailable upon request; in addition,if the need arises, a team of experts

will assist the customer for an intro-ductory briefing on this concept totheir national authorities.

Current MFF operators includesome 20 airlines. These represent allareas of airline operations, from flagcarriers with worldwide networks tospecialised charter airlines, fromthose with over 100 Airbus aircraftto those with less than 10 and fromrecent start-ups to long establishedairlines.

Pilots are the first to recognise thatMFF enhances both their profess-ional activities and personal livesthrough a more varied range of flying and destinations. This ishighlighted by the operation of apool of Air Mauritius pilots thatoperate A319s to Indian Oceandestinations and A340s to Europeand other long haul destinations.

RECENT ACHIEVEMENTSAND NEXT STEPS

In 2001, Airbus applied for theoperational evaluation of theA340-500/-600 by JAA in Europe,the FAA in the US and TransportCanada, and requested that thisevaluation be conducted jointly, asharmonisation of the procedurebetween JAA, FAA and TransportCanada was on the way.

1998

1995

1998

1999

2000

2000

2002

2002

2002

2003

2000

20032002

2002

2002

2001 1999

1998

1999

A320/A340 A330/A340A320/A330

1998

1999

1999

Undisclosed


14/32

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

15


The ultimate goal was todemonstrate that pilots flying theA340-500 and -600 could begranted the Same Type Rating asthat of the A340-200/-300.

The JAA set up a Joint OperationsEvaluation Board (JOEB), theFAA had already a FlightStandardisation Board (FSB) in

place, and Transport Canadanominated an Operational Expert(OE).

The joint process was successfuland the Same Type Rating wasgranted. Recommendations fromthe three authorities are detailed ina JOEB report for the JAA team,in the FSB report for the FAA,and in the OE report for Trans-port Canada. The structure andcontent of the reports is

harmonised, but references torespective regulations of coursediffer. This is the only barrier for a joint report.

Nevertheless, it is a big achieve-ment, allowing our operators touse “recommendations” fromthese reports when developingtheir training programmes andoperations. FAA and TransportCanada had already such a process

in place. With the JOEB process,the JAA equivalent, all operatorsin JAA member states will haveaccess to the report when finalisedand released by Central JAA.

Capt. Mike FergusonChief Training Captain AirbusMyTravel AirwaysMFF A320/A330

“Our recurrent training is the samefor both mixed fleet and for nonmixed fleet flyers. The Mixed FleetFlying pilots alternate checks inthe simulator every six monthsbetween the A330 and the A320Family.”

Gerhard UlverFirst Officer A320/A340Austrian AirlinesMFF A320/A340

“In May this year, I had six flightson the A340 and 10 flights on theA320. I really do enjoy this MixedFleet Flying because I am very fondof having a variety in my job, sowith Mixed Fleet Flying you have agood variety – you get a widerhorizon, not only in your flyingstandards but even in your privatelife.”

SOME QUOTES FROM THE OPERATORS

Capt. Richard J. HallChief Pilot AirbusCathay PacificMFF A330/A340

“One of the attractions of going forMixed Fleet Flying was theadvantages that it would bring interms of mixing long and shorthaul flying and this has been verypopular with our pilots in terms ofmaintaining recency and currencyand competency – we can mixmaybe two long hauls with two orthree short haul flights in order toachieve the target hours for amonth.”

In April 2003, the same process wasapplied to the A318, with the samesuccess, and Airbus is confidentthat this joint evaluation willcontinue for the coming A380. Thefact that transition from JAA to theEASA (European Aviation SafetyAgency) occurs in the same period,will certainly not hinder the process.

Joint approval exerciseA340-200/-300 andA340-500/-600 STR

endorsement


15/32

Airbus' unique Flight OperationalCommonality allows airlines to further

optimise flight crew training

programmes and to practise Mixed

Fleet Flying in a practical and

economical way. Judging by the large

number of operators which currently

take advantage of this, it has met with

worldwide acceptance from regulatory

authorities and airline pilots alike.

Airbus aims to continue to provide the

highest possible levels of FlightOperational Commonality in current and

future aircraft programmes to help

airlines achieve better efficiency overall.

CONTACT DETAILS

Régine VadrotDirector International Regulatory Affairs Airbus Training & Flight Operations Support & ServicesTel: +33 (0)5 61 93 20 63Fax: +33 (0)5 62 11 07 40

[email protected]

Christian AubryManager Flight Training Policy

Airbus Training & Flight Operations Support & ServicesTel: +33 (0)5 61 93 22 45Fax: +33 (0)5 62 11 07 40

[email protected]

Gerrit van Dijk Technical Marketing Director Airbus Marketing DivisionTel: +33 (0)5 61 93 33 20Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93 27 67

gerrit.van–[email protected]


P A G E

F A S T

3 2

16

A380BUILDING ON FAMILYSTRENGTHS

The A380, entering into service in2006, extends the Airbus traditionof innovation and commonality. Theaircraft will benefit from enhancedtechnology levels. However, itspilot-aircraft interface will not besignif icantly different from that of existing Airbus new generationairliners, making it a full member of the integrated aircraft family.

A consistent pilot-aircraft interface......whilst enhancing technology levels

Conclusion

Fly-by-wire

Expanding thefamily with a fourth type


16/32

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

17With very long-range airplanes such as the A340-500, an

increasing number of flights will be conducted far away from regulardiversion airports. Alternate airports along new routes like the Polarand Arctic route systems are subject to the most extreme weatherconditions and would require special precautions.

Many Aviation Authorities and the International Civil AviationOrganisation (ICAO) consider that on such new routes, existingregulations would be insuff icient to maintain the high level of safetyachieved on other international operations.

The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) were first to undertakea review of the European regulations, soon followed by othercountries and the ICAO.

JAA draft rules are available. They were published for publiccomments and declared technically mature on 25 June 2003. They comprise ETOPS provisions for two-engine airplanes andLROPS provisions for three- and four-engine airplanes with certainspecific provisions for business jets. These are the first rulesto be published by an Authority.

EXTENDED TWIN-ENGINED AND

LONG RANGE THREE- AND FOUR- ENGINED OPERATIONS

Two views of the airport at

Longyearbyen, Spitzberg

REVISION OF RULES FOR ETOPS AND LROPS

ETOPS & LROPS

André Quet Vice President

Airbus Product Integrity Division

Revision of rules for


17/32


P A G E

F A S T

3 2

18

For two-engine airplanes, theemphasis is on engine reliability andmeans to protect diversions underextreme conditions. For three- andfour-engine airplanes, the emphasisis on avoidance of diversions.

For business jets operated ascommercial transport, specificregulatory provisions take intoaccount the size of the aircraft andthe nature of the operations, inparticular the fact that mostconcerned flights are not scheduled.

On the occasion of the regulatory

review, lessons learned from

ETOPS and other long-rangeoperations were taken into account.Many service events potentiallyaffecting safety have occurredduring ETOPS flights. ETOPSoverall safety record is excellent,but these flights have proven to bevulnerable to human errors bymaintenance, dispatch and flightcrew. Design precautions requiredby the new rules will address someof the factors involved in theseservice events. However operatorsmust absolutely adopt or retain themost stringent ETOPS safetypolicies to maintain the excellent

safety record of ETOPS flights.

Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Singapore havealready announced their intent to review their ETOPS and long-rangeregulations.

The ICAO Air Navigation Commission asked the ICAO OperationsPanel and Airworthiness Panel to propose revisions to Annex 6 and 8. They jointly tasked a group of experts to draft the necessary material.A State Letter is expected to be ready for review by the AirNavigation Commission in September 2003. ICAO Standards will beeffectively modified once the consultation of Member States hasshown sufficient support for proposed changes. Once the changes toICAO Annexes are in place, individual States may decide to deviatefrom the new Standards and declare a difference or adopt nationalstandards consistent with revised ICAO Annexes.

The JAA ETOPS / LROPS Regulatory Working Group has nearlycompleted its task. A finalised Notice of Proposed Amendment(NPA), submitted to the JAA Regulations Director end May 2003 willbe published later in 2003. The NPA will modify JAR 21, JAR 25, JAR E and JAR OPS1.

ARAC (Aviation Rule-making and Advisory Committee) has beentasked by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to proposematerial in view of drafting rules and guidelines for future ETOPSand for other operations with very long diversion time or dependingon alternate airports with severe climate and limited infrastructures.All ARAC draft criteria are tentatively grouped under the single nameETOPS, although they deal with two, three and four-engine aircraftincluding business jets. ARAC draft is now available for use by theFAA to prepare a formal regulatory proposal (NPRM).

JAA RULEMAKING PROCESS

ARAC PROCESS

ICAO RULEMAKING PROCESS

MORE COUNTRIES ARE

PREPARING NEW RULES


18/32

BASIC REGULATORY PRINCIPLES

All draft rules in preparation willaddress existing routes as well asnew routes. The new routes arelonger than most current flights. Onsuch routes, the distance to divert toan airport will be far greater and theavailable airports, if any, may belocated in areas with very severeclimate and limited infrastructuressuch as the Polar areas.

Most two-engine airplanes, eventhose approved for ETOPS, will notbe capable of operating the new

routes due to insufficient enginereliability and systems redundancy.Only the most recent engines arereliable enough to conduct suchflights with two-engine airplanes.Furthermore the fuel reservesnecessary to ensure a safe diversionat low altitude in case of enginefailure may make such routesuneconomical for two-engineairplanes.

Three- and four-engine airplanes aremuch less affected by this problem. Three and four-engine airplaneshave been safely flown on routeswith very severe conditions,although not as extreme as what iscontemplated now.

Even airplanes with an old designhave an excellent safety record onthese routes. Higher systemredundancy and operationalcapability (such as the capability to

fly safely with two engines failed)are essential on the extreme routes.

OPERATIONAL SAFETY ON

THE NEW EXTREME ROUTES

To maintain the intended level of safety when operating the newroutes one may either design toavoid diversions or adoptoperational precautions to protectthe safe conduct of diversions.

Protecting the safe conduct of diversions will typically be thesolution for operators of two-engineairplanes who have to divert to the

nearest airport in case of enginefailure. They will have to implementand validate a Passengers’ RecoveryPlan to ensure the safety of alloccupants in case of diversionfollowed by an evacuation atairports in severe climate areas. TheRecovery Plan may need survivalequipment carried onboard theairplane for use at airports in thePolar areas. It may also requireinvestments in airport facilities –Search and Rescue (SAR) services,medical services, snow removal,shelters, ground transports, etc – forthe protection of evacuees.

Operators of three and four-engineairplanes do not need to divert to thenearest airport in case of enginefailure. Other causes of diversionmay be designed-out or minimisedwith appropriate technology. In the

rare cases when a diversion isneeded, its effect may be minimisedby design that allows the crew to flyto a more welcoming, althouth moredistant airport.

Airbus LROPS design will precludediversions through specific designfeatures and technology so that theA340 and A380 operators flyingthe new routes are not penalised bythe implementation of costly

Passengers’ Recovery Plans. TheAirbus LROPS package will bemade available to A340 and A380operators when the rules are inplace.

Minimum

50% probability

85% probability

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

19

A survival suit in action


Polar winter temperatures


19/32


P A G E

F A S T

3 2

20

Thule and Yakutsk areneeded for twin-engineaircraft to stay within

3 hours (at least) froman airport

YYQ - ChurchillFAI - FairbanksLYR - Svalbard (Spitzberg)RVN - RovaniemiCTS - Sapporo-New ChitoseOVB - Novosibirsk/Tolmachevo

oort

N

YYQ

UL I

KUTS

YR

V

OVB

CTS

G KONG

A newextremeoperating

arena

PLANNING MINIMA

Conservative planning minima foren-route alternate airports remain inplace for ETOPS. Two-engine

airplanes do not retain precisionapproach capability in some of thedegraded system configurations thatmay exist during a diversion (e.g. incase of electrical emergency). Forthis reason, their planning minimamay not benefit from a reduction.

Three and four-engine airplanesoperated over LROPS routesshould also apply a system of planning minima at diversion

airports. However three and four-engine airplanes normally retainCategory II Autoland capability inall the degraded system config-uration cases that may lead to adiversion. Their planning minimawill therefore be much lower thanthose of two-engine airplanes. Thiswill be the case of Airbus A340 andA380.

RECOVERY PLAN

Implementing a Recovery Plan atdesignated alternate airports inPolar areas (and other areas withsevere weather) is a completelynew requirement with far reachingimplications. Under the new rules,concerned operators will have toensure the safety of all occupantsuntil they are eventually flown to acommercial airport. This concernsall aspects of the occupants’wellbeing during the diversion andon the ground, including the worst-

case scenario of an evacuationunder Polar weather conditions.Recovery Plans will requirespecific training for flight crew andcabin crew to cope with very coldtemperature and wind chillingeffect issues during an evacuation.Individual survival kits may beneeded. Airport safety services(SAR and RFFS) are a key part of the Recovery Plan.

Operators are normally required toperform a demonstration of theirRecovery Plan at alternate airportsselected by the Authority. However,airplanes certified with thecapability to operate safely for very

KEY FEATURES OF FUTURE

ETOPS AND LROPS RULES

FUEL RESERVESFor two-engine airplanes, theETOPS fuel reserves (critical fuelscenario) should no longer becalculated with current conserv-ative margins covering the worstpossible combination of adverseoperational contingencies. Newlower ETOPS fuel reserves willdecrease the economic burden onETOPS operators but require closercrew monitoring of the fuelsituation during the flight. New

sophisticated fuel alerts (only onnew aircraft) should compensatefor this change.

Fuel reserves of three and four-engine airplanes are not affected bythe failure of one or even twoengines. However conducting adiversion with a depressurisedcabin may require more fuel thanthe normal route reserves if thediversion time from the critical

point of the route is very long. Thepossibility for airplanes fitted withnew technology oxygen systems toperform a depressurised diversionat a higher altitude will overcomethis economic penalty.


20/32

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

21

long diversion time may designateother more distant alternateairports and achieve excellentoperational results while avoiding

costly Recovery Plans, providedcrew procedures do not requirediversion to the nearest airport. This is the certification objectivefor Airbus A340 and A380 LROPStechnology package.

DIVERSION TIME LIMITED

BY THE CAPACITY OF TIME-

DEPENDENT SYSTEMS

The maximum diversion time of allairplanes approved for LROPS and

for ETOPS beyond 180-minutediversion time should be limited bythe certified capacity of any time-dependent function. The cargo firesuppression time, or any other timelimit in a critical system willappear as certified limitations inthe Flight Manual resulting indiversion time limits afterapplication of appropriate operat-ional margins.

These limitations will normallyapply at the one engine inoperativespeed. However in the case of cargofire suppression, the limit will beapplied to the all-engine operatingspeed. Diversion time limits above180 minutes will not be applied asfixed distance limits in still air andISA conditions as in currentETOPS criteria, but as real timelimits under the day’s forecast windand temperature conditions.

DESIGN CRITERIA ORIGINATINGFROM LESSONS LEARNED

Service experience has showngreater vulnerability of ETOPS toparticular human error scenarios. The most serious events haveresulted in both engines shuttingdown (either temporarily orpermanently). They involved line-maintenance errors, servicing errors,errors during the application of thepre-departure ETOPS service

check, errors in fuel planning or fuelmanagement, etc. A number of system-related events were alsoobserved, including a total electricalfailure, multiple hydraulic failuresand multiple air bleed failures.

Future rules will impose designsolutions that have proven morerobust against known human errorscenarios:

• Demonstration of engineoperation without flameout insuction feed configuration.

• “Smart” fuel alerts detectingpotential fuel shortage situations

before they can affect flightcompletion or a safe diversion.• More comprehensive list of

electrical services available inback-up electrical configurationand higher integrity of theelectrical generating systems.

• Higher integrity of the air-bleedsources including the APU.

Although these requirements aredriven by ETOPS service experi-ence, some of them may become

useful improvements for three andfour-engine airplanes and havebeen retained as LROPSrequirements by the JAA.

Emergency landing

Survival suits – ready to wear



21/32


P A G E

F A S T

3 2

22

APPLICABILITY OF NEW RULES

– GRAND FATHER CLAUSES

The conditions of application of new rules to existing airplanes mayhave a significant economic impact

on operators flying the Siberianroutes and other long routes overthe Pacific. Compliance with theoperational criteria in the case of airplanes not designed to the newrules may lead to increased cost.Discussions are continuing regard-ing the cost of applying proposedrules to existing airplanes. Threeand four-engine airplanes of anolder design might be unable tocomply with proposed rules at an

acceptable cost, requiring someform of dispensation. The design of Airbus A340 is essentiallycompliant with proposed rules andshould not need signif icant retrofitaction.

Two-engine airplanes wouldinevitably have to comply with thenew rules in case of flight beyond180-minute diversion time, butretroactive application to other

ETOPS flights is still a matter of discussion between the AviationAuthorities.

TWO-ENGINE AIRPLANES

Existing two-engine airplanes up to

180 minute diversion time

Existing two-engine airplanes beyond

180 minute diversion time

Future two-engine airplanes

THREE- AND FOUR-ENGINE AIRPLANES

Already certified three- and four-engine

airplanes

Voluntary compliance with three- and

four-engine airplanes

Three- and four-engine airplanes on

routes over high terrain

Future three- and four-engine airplanes

BUSINESS JETS ENGAGED INCOMMERCIAL OPERATIONS

R

AKL

SOUTH POLE

AEZ

EL

NB

8 hours diversion time

1200nm

1 nm

Unlimited extended range

Landing strip in foothills of the Himalayas


22/32


P A G E

F A S T

3 2

23


CONDITIONS OF APPLICABILITY OF THE NEW RULES

Two-engine airplanes currently approved for ETOPS up to 180 minute diversion time should not be subject to new design

requirements and should therefore require no retrofit action as long as they continue to be operated below their currently

approved maximum diversion time. However the legal means to transform current Operational Approvals into

“Certifications” have yet to be defined by concerned Aviation Authorities. Concerned operators may benefit from some or

all of the changes of the operational requirements resulting in some improvement of their ETOPS operating cost, in

particular from a reduction of the ETOPS fuel reserves.

Once the new rules are finalised and adopted, two-engine airplanes with highly reliable engines may become eligible for

ETOPS flights beyond 180 minute diversion time if they are modified to achieve compliance with all the necessary

design and operational provisions. The main hardware changes will concern time-limited systems such as cargo fire

suppression, fuel alerts, electrical generating systems, pressurisation, fuel-feed to the engines and of course engine

reliability. The main operational changes will concern retention of engine reliability and the implementation of a

Passengers’ Recovery Plan.

Future airplane types will have to comply with all aspects of the new rules.

On most existing routes, the proposed rules should not affect three- and four-engine airplanes because of the 180 minute

rule threshold. For routes with more than 180 minutes diversion time (North and South Pacific ocean, South Atlantic,

South Indian Ocean and South Pole routes), the impact of proposed rules will be different for A340 and for other three-

and four-engine airplanes of an older design.

The only design provision clearly considered as retroactively applicable by all involved Aviation Authorities concerns

cargo fire suppression systems. A340 operators who will need more than four hours of protection time (basic A340

protection complement) may need to install larger capacity cargo fire extinguishing bottles.

JAA operational rules should affect the calculation of the fuel reserves. Current ICAO rules (Annex 6) reflected by allcountries in their national operational rules require that any airplane carry enough fuel to complete a depressurised

diversion. Proposed rules should impose a check of the weather at the alternates used in this calculation, but only if the

diversion time exceeds 180 minutes. The planning minima applicable to the en-route alternates should be lower than those

of two-engine airplanes as four-engine airplanes normally retain full Category II Autoland capability in all degraded

system configurations leading to a diversion. Proposed rules should also require consideration of forecast icing conditions

in the fuel calculation. Conversely, the proposal should allow calculating the fuel reserves at a diversion altitude higher

than 10,000ft if there is enough oxygen available. Airbus LROPS design will take full advantage of this possibility.

Three- and four-engine airplanes operated on routes with very long diversion time and/or over areas with airports subject

to severe weather may benefit from voluntary compliance with the new rules if LROPS technology is available from the

manufacturer to draw maximum advantage from the new rules. Airbus will make LROPS technology available for retrofit

on all A340 to achieve economic gains via optimised fuel reserves and a drastic decrease of the number of diversions

made possible by this technology.

Under current rules, routes over high terrain (higher than the two-engines-out net ceiling of the airplane) are only

permitted where alternate airports are available within 90 minute flying time. This limitation has constrained the opening

of direct routes over high terrain areas such as the Himalayas and Tibet plateau or the Antarctic. Outstanding engine

reliability of modern four-engine airplanes opens the way for a revision of this rule so that quads are treated the same as

twins, letting them operate based on the extremely low probability of a double engine failure. This possibility already

exists in ICAO Annex 6, but has never been used, as engine reliability was not sufficient. Work is in progress with JAA

on this subject.

Future airplane types will have to comply with all aspects of the new rules.

All future rules should contain specific provisions applicable only to business jets. These provisions will be governed bythe size of the airplane (with an upper limit of 19 passengers) and by the type of operation (on-demand flights only). JAA

proposes an intermediate step of approval at 120 minutes diversion time for two-engine business jets and a more complete

set of criteria beyond 180 minutes. Two-engine business jets are treated separately from three- and four-engine business

jets for the same reasons as larger aircraft.


23/32


P A G E

F A

S T

3 2

24

Airbus is committed to theimplementation of technology that will

avoid diversions and optimise fuel

reserves. Airbus considers this

approach as most effective to maintain

and further improve operational safety

over the new very long routes.

A340 airplanes already in service

essentially comply with the draft rules.

Further product improvements will be

made available to operators to

maximise safety, operational flexibility

and economics under the newregulatory environment.

Airbus LROPS design is optimised

to draw maximum benefits from JAA

LROPS criteria when they become

effective. However, A340 and A380

will be also certified to other ETOPS/

LROPS rules as necessary. The Type

Design criteria prepared by JAA and

ICAO as well as those drafted by

ARAC are technically similar and the

final rules should be no obstacle to the

validation of Certificates betweenconcerned countries. Draft Operational

Criteria differ on many key aspects.

Depending on the operators’ fleet,

operating policies and route network,

the economic impact of the newrules may be substantially different.

The revision of ETOPS rules and the

implementation of LROPS rules will

have a significant impact on the safety

and economics of very long flights;

especially those conducted in areas

with severe operating environment.

Operators interested in such flights

should imperatively seek participation

in the rulemaking process of their

country. Airbus recommends that they

follow any formal regulatory

consultations and adopt a proactiveattitude towards the national

rulemaking process of their country

with attention to the elements that

have the more economic impact.

Examples of potential regulatory

concern are applicability of new rules

to existing operations and existing

airplanes, criteria for the calculation of

fuel reserves, criteria for the choice of

alternate airports and implementation

of a recovery plan, diversion time

limitations not driven by airplanecertified capability or any other criteria

that may penalise current or future

operation.

ConclusionCONTACT DETAILS

André Quet Vice President Airbus Product IntegrityDivisionTel: +33 (0)5 61 93 30 49Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93 42 71

[email protected]

Routes over the Himalayas

Existing SITA tracksULN

HRB

KTM AL

PBH DAC HAN KCAN

BKKSGN

KUL

SI

W

MNL

NRT

EastboundOptimised routes (winter/summer)

Westbound

E

CTU

LROPS TECHNOLOGY

Airbus LROPS technology is aimed at:

• Reducing the number of cruisediversions.

• Protecting the possibility toconduct safe diversions to distantairports with better weather andinfrastructures, and therefore notsubject to a Passenger RecoveryPlan.

• Improving the economics ofLROPS by optimised fuel reserves.

Airbus LROPS technology concerns all

systems that may present failures lead-ing to a diversion or affecting the safe-ty of diversions. Although some ele-ments of LROPS technology may alsobe successfully implemented on two-engine airplanes, most featuresrequire the superior redundancy andsystem capability of four-engine air-planes.


24/32

LITHIUM THICKENED GREASE

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

25

LITHIUM THICKENED GENERAL PURPOSE GREASE

Céline Normand

Senior Engineer, Structures Airbus Engineering Department

The General Purpose (GP) greases are used onmany components of Airbus aircraft systems such aslanding gears, flight controls and door mechanisms toensure, by lubrication, the correct performance of thesystem and to avoid excessive wear, which leads tocomponent damage. Two types of GP greases arecurrently used on Airbus aircraft, clay thickenedgreases and lithium thickened greases.

With the introduction a few years ago of greases withlithium complex chemistry that improved the greaseperformance, the aviation industry pushed for the useof one single type of grease, the lithium thickenedGP greases. In order to progress towards

harmonisation in the field of lubrication and toqualify lithium thickened greases approved by theaviation industry, an Aerospace MaterialSpecification is currently being prepared by theSociety of Automotive Engineers in conjunction withAirbus and Boeing. This specification will includecompatibility test requirements to ensure that allqualified greases will be compatible with each other.

Once the new products are qualified, the specificationwill be recommended for use for Airbus and Boeingsystems maintenance. Airbus also intends tointroduce these lithium thickened greases in theproduction of its aircraft.

Lithium

thickened greaseHIGHER PERFORMANCE GENERAL PURPOSE GREASE FOR AIRBUS AIRCRAFT


25/32


P A G E

F A S T

3 2

26


USING GREASE AS A LUBRICANT

Many mechanisms used in aircraftneed lubrication to ensure the cor-rect performance of the system andto avoid excessive wear, whichleads to component damage.Instead of fluids, grease is requiredwhen the lubricant has to stay in themechanism during its operation.

Grease is a mixture of base oil (70-95%), thickening agents (5-15%)and additives (0-15%). It is used toreduce friction and wear betweenmoving surfaces. It also provides

protection against corrosion andprevents ingress of contaminantsand other fluids such as de-icingfluid, fuel, paint strippers and water,into the moving joint.

Grease is frequently sealed into balland roller bearings so it has to becompatible with different sealingmaterials. Due to its solid nature,grease does not perform the coolingand cleaning function that is

expected from liquid lubricants.

A thickener is the solid constituentof grease that retains the liquid con-stituent in the product. The oil con-stituent saturates the thickener andwhen load is applied the base oil isreleased thereby providing lubrica-tion to contacting surfaces. Thethickening agents used are lithiumsoap/lithium complex, calciumsoap/calcium complex, bentoniteclay.

The oils used are either mineral orsynthetic. Mineral oils are deriveddirectly from crude oil by refiningwhereas synthetic oils are manu-factured by a chemical process. Typical synthetic base oils are poly-alphaolefins (POA), ester/di-estersand silicones.

The additives are used to improvethe properties of the grease. They

are corrosion and oxidationinhibitors, anti-wear agents andextreme pressure additives. Dyesare also added to differentiate onegrease from another.

As a consequence, making grease isa choice of:

• Proportion of base oil. This has an impact onlubrication properties.

• Type and proportion of thickener. This has an impact on greaseproperties; its resistance totemperature, environment andloads.

• Type and proportion of additivesthat can be:•corrosion inhibitors tominimise corrosion,

•oxidation inhibitors to min

imise oxidation of the oil,•extreme pressure additives toimprove load-carryingcapability,

•anti-wear additives to minimisewear.

SPECIFICATIONS OF GP

GREASE IN CURRENT USE

The commercial aviation industryhas utilised material specifications

for greases generated by the militaryauthorities for the majority of air-craft applications requiring the useof grease products (for instance, butnot limited to landing gear and flightcontrol systems). These specifica-tions have emanated from countrieswithin the NATO alliance. Examplesof such specifications are :• MIL specifications from USA,• DEF-STAN specifications

from UK,• AIR specif ications from France.

By reviewing these military specific-ations the NATO countries, plusAustralia and New Zealand, haveidentified the degree of interchange-ability of the qualified products, i.e.the level of operational use. Threelevels of interchangeability exist:

1. Standardised product

A product that conforms tospecifications resulting from the

same or equivalent technicalrequirements. The standardisedfuels, lubricants and associatedproducts are identified by aNATO code.

Lithium is asoft silver-white elementof the alkalimetal group thatis the lightest metal known andthat is used in chemicalsynthesis and storage batteries.


26/32

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

27

NATO Code G395 G354 none

General properties

Equivalentgreasespecifications

USAUKF

MIL-PRF-81322FDef Stan 91-52/1AIR-4222

MIL-PRF-23827 Type IDef Stan 91-53/2AIR-4210(Note 1)

AIMS 09-06-001(Note 2)

Qualified greaseproduct(non exhaustive list)

Aeroshell 22Mobil Grease 28Nyco Grease 22Royco 22CF

Aeroshell 33Shell aviation 7Nyco Grease 10Royco 27

Aeroshell 7Castrolease Ai

Armna G4789Nyco Grease 144Nimbus K75 Grease

Temperature range -54 °C to +177°C -73°C to +121°C -60°C to +120°C

Dropping point (°Cmin)(Temp. at which grease becomes liquid)

ASTM D2265232°C

ASTM D2265165°C

ASTM D566170°C

Water washout –resistance(%loss, max)

ASTM D1264, 41°C20%

ASTM D1264, 38°C20%

none

Worked penetration –60000 strokesASTM D 217265-295

ASTM D 217270-310

ASTM D 217290-320

Low T° torque without water

Starting Torque(Nm)Running Torque(Nm)

ASTM D1478-54°C

0,98 max0.098 max

ASTM D1478-73°C

1,0 max0.1 max

IP 186-50°C

0.2 max0,075 max

GP GreaseThickener type

Clay Lithium Clay Lithium

MIL-PRF-23827 Type IIDef Stan 91-53/1AIR-4210(Note 1)


2. Acceptable product

One that may be used in placeof another product for extendedperiods without technical advice.

3. Emergency substitute

A product that may only be usedin an emergency on the adviceof technically qualified personnelof the sponsor Service, who willspecify the limitations.

The following specifications forGP grease are the most commonlyused for Airbus applications:

Airbus has qualified one or severalgrease specifications across the air-craft applications. The AircraftMaintenance Manual (AMM)

refers to these specificationsthrough the Consumable MaterialList (CML) numbers for eachgreasing/regreasing task. The spec-ification options indicated for anAMM lubricating task are intendedto provide flexibility to the mainte-nance organisations in selectingproducts and not to encourage theoperator to change from greasebrand or specification from oneservicing (*) to another.

(*) Servicing or purging is defined asthe process of injectinggrease into the greasefitting until the oldgrease has been visiblyexhausted from themechanism and only thenew grease is coming out.

Note 1: The specification MIL-PRF-23827 has been recently revised to divide greases into Type I and Type II for lithium

and clay thickened greases respectively. The specification Def Stan 91-53/1 has also been revised to Def Stan 91-53/2 to

restrict the qualified GP greases to lithium thickened greases into the issue 2.

Note 2: The Airbus specification AIMS 09-06-001 has been developed in 1989 to qualify a new grease Armna G4789. This

lithium soap-thickened grease was introduced to replace a clay-thickened grease Aeroshell 7 on flight control systems to improvethe behaviour of the flap and slat mechanisms in the presence of water. The lithium grease had been shown in laboratory tests to

be capable of retaining more water within the grease than the clay-thickened grease. Finally the in-flight trial carried out on ten

A310 aircraft from five operators, demonstrated that the lithium-based grease prevented lockouts on flap and slat mechanisms.


27/32

LITHIUM THICKENED GREASELITHIUM THICKENED GENERAL PURPOSE GREASE

FLEXIBILITY

Over the years, airlines have

enjoyed the flexibility of usinggreases from different suppliers forthe same maintenance task. Suchconvenience although not necessar-ily systematic or frequent, is glob-ally appreciated due to airlinemergers, fleet expansion, thirdparty work, and nature of the air-craft business.

It is acknowledged that airlineshave advantages in limiting the

number of GP greases on theirstocks and therefore are interestedin grease products that have largeapplicability across a given aircrafttype as well as across several air-craft types (ideally a unique greasebrand that is valid across all the air-craft). Airlines are also constantly

seeking higher performance fromgrease products.

Airbus policy is to give the airlinesthe choice to select either a limitednumber of GP greases or to be asflexible as maintenance providersrequire.

COMPATIBILITY ASPECTS

Until January 2000, there was anunderstanding in the industryworld-wide that crossing betweenGP grease brands and possibly

even crossing between specifica-tions of GP greases would have nosignificant chemical effect. Thispractice was largely benign at atime when mainly clay thickenerswere used to manufacture GPgreases (provided they are usedunder same thermal applicationrange).

In the last few years, new greaseswith lithium thickeners and more

recently lithium-complex thicken-ers have been made available on themarket offering an alternative toclay thickened greases across mostof the aircraft applications.

Grease manufacturers agree that amix between clay and lithiumthickened greases would not nec-essarily result in a significantreduction in the chemical compat-ibility of the greases. There areseveral clay greases that have been

successfully tested for functionalinterchangeability with lithiumthickened greases. However it isappreciated that the biggest chem-ical alteration in lubrication perfor-mance (although still consideredpotentially ‘minor’ in terms of air-craft functional interchangeabili-ty), could come from the potentialmix between ‘clay’ and ‘lithium-complex’ grease thickeners.

Following an accident in January2000, suspicion was put on thepotential lack of compatibilitybetween clay and lithium thickenedgreases. The Federal Airworthiness

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

28


28/32


Authorities (FAA) requested the Air Transport Association (ATA) toreview the industrial standardsconcerning lubrication of aircraftmechanisms. Several meetingsinvolving many parties, ATA,

Airlines, FAA, Airbus, Boeing,grease manufacturers, NTSB andothers, were hosted during 2002 toclarify the situation around thepotential lack of compatibilitybetween clay and lithium thickenedgreases.

Finally, in March 2002, the FAAdispatched the first issue of a dedi-cated FSAW 02-02 (Flight StandardInformation bulletin for Airworthi-ness) as guidance for Aviation

Safety Inspectors (ASI) in the eventan operator requests to change to agrease type or brand not specifiedon the Qualified Products List(QPL) of the MIL-SPEC for thespecific aircraft application. ThisFAA document was revised toFSAW 02-02C on May 22nd 2002.

Airbus issued a Service Inform-ation Letter (SIL 12-008) to informairlines on best maintenance prac-

tices to avoid detrimental effects onmechanisms which need frequentlubrication as defined in theMaintenance Planning Document(MPD).

Airbus advises that an operatorselects one of the grease specifica-tions available in the AMM for agiven aircraft application and stayswith that grease specification. Forthose operators who would wish to

change from one specification toanother, Airbus advice is to tem-porarily reduce, for instance by

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

29


29/32


P A G E

F A S T

3 2

30

It is a design objective of Airbus

that the A380 project should use,

whenever possible, lithium thickened

greases thereby reducing the risk of

mixing greases of different chemistry and

properties.

On introducing lithium-complex

chemistry greases to applications

currently employing clay-thickened

greases, advantages are to be gainedfrom the increased performance of the

lithium complex greases, apart from

global rationalisation and harmonisation.

For in-service aircraft, Airbus will also

recommend operators to use lithium

thickened greases wherever possible

provided that Airbus recommendations

(SIL12-008) regarding the mixing of different

types of grease are fully respected.

Following operators’ requests, Airbus will

nevertheless maintain a certain flexibility at

specification level, which means that

operators still have the choice betweenthe two GP grease types, and different

suppliers, to maintain the Airbus aircraft

systems.

ConclusionCONTACT DETAILSCéline NormandSenior Engineer, Structures Airbus Engineering DepartmentTel: +33 (0)5 62 11 80 87Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93 48 19

[email protected]

François MuseuxGroup ManagerStructures EngineeringMaterial & Technologies

Customer ServicesTel: +33 (0)5 62 11 80 63Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93 36 14

[email protected]

half, their MPD servicing intervalsfor around 3-4 services (i.e. tem-porarily double the number of lubrications). Furthermore, Airbus

advises operator about possiblealteration of lubrication propertieswhen mixing GP clay thickenedgreases and lithium thickenedgreases. In the event this particularmix appears, Airbus advises opera-tors to conform with the above pre-cautionary principle.

NEW SPECIFICATION

Currently Airbus and Boeing in

conjunction with lubricant manu-facturers are compiling a specifica-tion for a GP grease operating at–73°C to +120°C which will berestricted to lithium chemistry.

The objective of this specifica-tion is the qualification

of lithium complexgreases that will pre-sent increased per-formance due totheir water wash-

out capability, im-proved penetrationand their dropping

point which is typically>180°C.

This specification will be issued asan Aerospace Material Standard)(AMS) specification through theSociety of Automotive Engineers

(SAE). This specification beingrestricted to lithium chemistry willrequire that all greases qualifiedare compatible with each other.Compatibility tests are given in thespecification. The SAE specif ic-ation currently known as M-99ADwill act as a core specification forAirbus and Boeing who will raisetheir own in-house materialspecifications based on the SAEspecification and produce docu-

mentation giving the productsqualified by each company.

This combined approach of Boeing and Airbus will enableboth companies to produce a sin-gle specification with respect togrease harmonisation and ratio-nalisation requested by the opera-tors.



30/32

P A G E

F A S T

3 2

31

On 7 September 1918 Mr Pierre Latécoère a Frenchaircraft manufacturer whose descendants still makeparts of Airbus aircraft, proposed to the Frenchgovernment a plan to open air routes to South America.In 1921 he formed an airline and by 1925 had regularservices from Toulouse via Casablanca to Dakar.

At 05:10 on the morning of 11 May 1930 the mail left Toulouse. It arrived in Natal, Brazil on the 13th at08:10 and in Buenos Aires on the 14th at 19:35, finallyarriving in Santiago, Chile at 13:30 on the 15th.

During this flight they performed a single enginedflight of 3170 km over water, greatly exceeding the

207-minute diversion times allowed today.

However not all flights were as trouble free as that one.Diversions and emergency landings in hostile territorywere frequent occurrences. The lucky crews escapedwith an engine repair. Some were held hostage for upto four months.

FROM THE ARCHIVES: EXTENDED RANGE OPERATIONS - THE BEGINNING

Saharan diversion airfield complete

with spares store! Five Breguet-14s

Latécoère-28 over Rio de Janeiro

Unscheduled engine removal in the Western Sahara


31/32

ARTICLECUSTOMER SUPPORT AROUND THE CLOCK... AROUND THE WORLD

RCSM LOCATION COUNTRY

Indianapolis United States of AmericaIstanbul Turkey

Jakarta Indonesia Jinan China Johannesburg South AfricaKarachi PakistanKingston JamaicaKuala Lumpur MalaysiaKuwait city Kuwait Lanzhou ChinaLarnaca CyprusLisbon Portugal London United KingdomLouisvi lle United States of AmericaLos Angeles United States of AmericaLuton United KingdomMacau S.A.R. ChinaMadrid SpainManchester Uni ted KingdomManila PhilippinesMauritius MauritiusMedelin ColumbiaMemph is Uni ted States of AmericaMe xic o Ci ty Me xi coMilan Italy Minneapolis United States of AmericaMonastir TunisiaMontreal CanadaMoscow RussiaMumbai IndiaNanchang ChinaNanjing ChinaNew York United States of America

RCSM LOCATION COUNTRY

Ningbo ChinaNoumea New CaledoniaPalma de Mallorca SpainParis FrancePhiladelphia United States of AmericaPhoen ix Uni ted States of AmericaPittsburgh United States of AmericaPort of Spain Trinidad and TobagoQingdao ChinaRome Italy San Francisco United States of AmericaSan Salvador El Salvador Santiago ChileSao Paulo Brazil Seoul South KoreaShanghai ChinaShenzhen ChinaShenyang ChinaSi ngapo re Si ng apo reSydney AustraliaTaipei TaiwanTashkent UzbekistanTehran IranTokyo JapanToronto CanadaTu lsa Unit ed St ate s of Ame ri caTunis TunisiaVancouver CanadaVerona Italy Vienna Austria

Xi'an China Zurich Switzerland

P A G E

F A S T

3 3

33

ARTICLE

E

Customer support

E

AROUND THE CLOCK...AROUND THE WORLD

WORLDWIDE

Jean-Daniel Leroy

Vice President Cus

airbus magazine - fast32 (july 2003)

Documents