briefing for flight test safety workshop may 2008 john siemens, p.e. sr. mgr. flt operations chief...

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


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


61 8 Test Points


•Upset Maneuvers

7 19 Test Points


6 3 Test Points


7 3 Test Points



8 18 Test Points


•Upset Maneuvers

9 19 Test Points


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)

briefing for flight test safety workshop may 2008 john siemens, p.e. sr. mgr. flt operations chief...

Documents

test test category

flight test program

flight test safety workshop

flight test policies

safety decisions

pic pic enginee

level of experience

barriers holes