JOINT AVIATION AUTHORITIES JOINT OPERATIONAL EVALUATION BOARD REPORT

Transcription

1 JOINT AVIATION AUTHORITIES JOINT OPERATIONAL EVALUATION BOARD REPORT Bombardier BD-700-1A10 & -1A11 Global Express & Global th September

2 Contents Page No. Contents 2 Signature Sheet 3 Preamble 4 Glossary 5 Executive Summary 6 Operational Evaluation Report Purpose and Applicability 7 Pilot Type Rating Definition 7 Master Common Requirements MCR 7 Master Difference Requirements - MDR 8 Operator Difference Requirements ODR 8 Line Flying Under Supervision 8 Initial Training Course 8-10 Differences Training 10 Recurrent Training 10 Recent Experience 10 Cabin Crew Requirements 10 JAR OPS Sub Parts K & L Compliance Appendix 1 Global 5000, Primary Changes from the Global Express 12 Appendix 2 Assessment Profile 13 Appendix 3 Global Express Type Rating Curriculum Appendix 4 Operator Difference Requirements Appendix 5 Enhanced Vision System

3 Joint Operations Evaluation Board Capt. G G Reid Chairman (JAA Consultant) Capt. Willem van Zyl Member (JAA Consultant) Evan Nielsen (EASA JOEB Co-ordinator) Jean Baril (CJAA JOEB Co-ordinator) Report Prepared and Submitted By: Capt. G G Reid Chairman Capt. W van Zyl - Member Report agreed by: Fergus Woods George Rebender Licensing Director Operations Director 3

4 Preamble CENTRAL JOINT AVIATION AUTHORITIES Bombardier requested a Joint Operational Evaluation Board for the BD-700-1A11 (Global 5000) aircraft, a variant of the BD-700-1A10 (Global Express). No JOEB evaluation had been performed for the BD-700-1A10 and therefore a Catch Up JOEB process, in accordance with JAA Administrative and Guidance Material, Section One, Part Two, Chapter 5, paragraph 4, was carried out, based on the Lead Authority (Transport Canada) Operational Evaluation Report (OER) and this was completed during March and April A Global 5000 evaluation then took place in early September 2004 at the Bombardier Flight Test Centre in Wichita, Kansas and was carried out simultaneously with TC and FAA. This report and its conclusions have been largely agreed by all three teams; remaining differences result from regulatory detail. The Terms of Reference for the Board were to: Assess and recommend for approval the manufacturer s proposed type rating Assess and recommend for approval the manufacturer s pilot qualification plan and specifically, the proposed type rating differences course. Assess and recommend for approval the Manufacturer s Minimum Equipment List (MMEL). Assess JAR OPS Subpart K & L conformity. The scope of the recommendations is limited to Category II operations, the aircraft s current certification clearance limitation. If Category III approval is sought in future, JOEB involvement would be necessary. The following documentation was used for this evaluation: JAA Administrative and Guidance Material, dated 1 st February 2004 JOEB Handbook, dated December JAR-OPS 1 Amendment 6 JAR-FCL 1 Amendment 3 JAR MMEL dated 1 st May 2000 For administrative convenience, the Global family name(s) will be used throughout this report but the formal JAA License Endorsement nomenclature for the Global Express & Global 5000 will be BD-700. Whilst this report was written for use by AOC holders, the Global Express and Global 5000 aircraft are complex and very capable aeroplane types with large flight envelopes and thus the JOEB recommend that non-aoc holders also follow the report requirements and recommendations. 4

5 Glossary AC ACO AEG AFCS AFM AP APU ATP BA CAR CFR CJAA EFIS EGPWS EICAS EMS FAA FDA FCOM FGP FMS FSB FTD IEM JAA JAR FCL 1 JAR OPS 1 JAR STD JOEB LHS LIFUS LOFT MCR MDR MMEL NAA NSEP ODR OER PFD PITPM POI PPC OEB OER OET PTS QRH RHS SIC TCAS TRTO Vat ZFW Advisory Circular Aircraft Certification Office Aircraft Evaluation Group Automatic Flight Control System Aircraft Flight Manual Autopilot Auxiliary Power Unit Airline Transport Pilot Bombardier Aerospace Canadian Aviation Regulations Code of Federal Regulations Central JAA Electronic Flight Instrument System Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System Electrical Management System Federal Aviation Administration Flight Director Annunciator Flight Crew Operating Manual Flight Guidance Panel Flight Management System Flight Standardization Board Flight Training Device Interpretative and Explanatory Material Joint Aviation Authorities JAA Flight Crew Licensing (Aeroplanes) JAA Commercial Air Transportation (Aeroplanes) JAR Synthetic Training Devices (Aeroplanes) Joint Operational Evaluation Board Left Hand Seat Line Flying Under Supervision Line Oriented Flying Training Master Common Requirements Master Difference Requirements Manufacturers Minimum Equipment List National Aviation Authority National Simulator Evaluation Program Operator Difference Requirements Operational Evaluation Report Primary Flight Display Pilot Initial Training Program Manual Principal Operations Inspector Pilot Proficiency Check Operational Approval Board Operational Evaluation Report Operational Evaluation Team Practical Test Standards Quick Reference Handbook Right Hand Seat Second in Command Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System Type Rating Training Organisation Indicated Speed at Threshold Zero Fuel Weight 5

6 Executive Summary A JOEB catch up process for the BD-700 1A10 (Global Express) aircraft was performed during March and April Following on from that, a full JOEB Evaluation of a derivative type, the Bombardier BD-700-1A11 (Global 5000) aircraft, was carried out during September 2004 and in conjunction with TC and the FAA. The catch up process was based on the Lead Authority (Transport Canada) OER and with some reference to the FAA Flight Standardisation Board Report; no physical inspections of the aeroplane or the company s facilities were made. The Global 5000 evaluation took place at the Bombardier Flight Test Centre in Wichita. Each Authority made T1 evaluation flights under identical circumstances in both the Global Express and the Global Further Operational Suitability flying was required by FAA and was made with the participation of TC: JAA was not invited to participate in this flying. The teams were unanimous that the BD-700 type rating should include both the -1A10 and -1A11 variants of the aeroplane and that the Difference Levels should be A/A/A for Training, Checking and Currency respectively and irrespective of which version was the baseline. The formal JAA License Endorsement for the Global Express and the Global 5000 will be BD-700 6

7 Operational Evaluation Report CENTRAL JOINT AVIATION AUTHORITIES 1. Purpose and Applicability Overview The Global Express and 5000 are swept wing executive aircraft designed for a maximum of 19 passengers and two cockpit crew. They are capable of cruise speeds up to Mach 0.89 and a maximum altitude of 51,000 ft. The flight controls are conventional in layout, are hydraulically powered; spoilers provide roll assistance as well as drag for use in flight and on the ground. Power is supplied by two aft mounted BMW/RR BR A2-20 engines which are FADEC controlled and rated at 14,750 lbs of thrust at Sea Level in ISA Conditions. Details of the primary differences between the Global Express and Global 5000 are shown at Appendix 1. Both aircraft were certificated by TC to the Canadian CAR 525 and validated by JAA under JAR 25. Captain Willem van Zyl, the JOEB assessment pilot was fully current in the Global Express and it was agreed with Bombardier that, following his successful LPC/OPC in April 2004, no dedicated preparatory flight or simulator training was required prior to commencement of the Global 5000 evaluation. The following flights were made by the JOEB team: 14Sep04 Global Express N700GB 01:51 hrs block time 14Sep04 Global 5000 C-GLRM 01:34 hrs block time The flights were carried out as a T1 test in accordance with the JOEB Handbook and were intended to evaluate the manufacturer s claim of Functional Equivalence for the two models. Both followed the profile shown in Appendix 2 which is representative of the Type Rating Test required by Appendix 2 to JAR-FCL Capt van Zyl occupied the left hand seat for both flights, the Bombardier safety pilot (Bruce Robinson) occupied the RHS and the flights were observed by the JOEB Chairman from the jump seat. 2. Pilot Type Rating Definition In reference to JAR FCL1 Subpart F JAR-FCL (b) (1) and to the JOEB Evaluation process, the type rating nomenclature GEX is used by Transport Canada for the Global Express and BBD-700 by the FAA. The JAA nomenclature is BD-700. In discussions between the teams, there was agreement that a common designator would be desirable but the FAA stated that they would be unable to use BD since that was in use for another manufacturer. Whilst the adoption by all nations of the BBD designator would seem desirable, JAA stated that they wished to wait for the outcome of the task force which is currently working on the type rating definition issue. Therefore, the JOEB recommend that the JAR FCL Type Rating Table for the BD700 be amended as follows: 1 Manufacturer 2 Aeroplanes 3 4 Licence Endorsement Bombardier Global Express Global 5000 BD700 Note that the BD-700-1A10 designation includes the XRS variant of the aircraft. With the acceptance of this report, no previous experience or type ratings other than those set out in JAR-FCL 1 are recommended by the JOEB for a pilot starting the Global Express or Global 5000 Type Rating Course. 3. Master Common Requirements (MCR) - JAA Not used for this assessment. 4. Master Difference Requirements (MDR) - JAA 7

8 MDRs for the Global Express/Global 5000 aircraft are shown in the table below: To Aircraft From Aircraft Global Express (-1A10) Global 5000 (-1A11) Global Express (-1A10) --- A/A/A Global 5000 (-1A11) A/A/A --- Definitions of the various levels of Training/Checking/Currency are those contained in the JOEB Handbook (paragraph 4). 5. Operator Difference Requirements (ODR) - JAA Bombardier s ODR Lists are shown at Appendix 4. These ODR tables represent an acceptable means of compliance with MDR provisions for the aircraft evaluated, based on the differences and compliance methods shown. These tables do not necessarily represent the only means of compliance for operators. Operators flying variants with differences not shown on, or addressed by, the acceptable ODR tables attached in Appendix 1, or operators seeking a different means of compliance, must prepare and seek JOEB approval of specific ODR tables applicable to their fleet. New ODR tables proposed by operators should be coordinated with the JOEB Chairman to ensure consistent treatment of variants between various operators ODR tables and compatibility of the MDR table with MDR provisions. 6. Line Flying Under Supervision (LIFUS) JAA requires Line Flying Under Supervision, in accordance with JAR OPS (IEM OPS 1.945) as part of: Conversion to a new aircraft type Introduction of new systems Introduction of new operations e.g. oceanic operations Experience in a new crew position e.g. PIC & SIC Post qualification skill refinement e.g. refining ways of operating efficiency, flexibility and/or convenience Special characteristics e.g. high altitude airport operations, air traffic control procedures and non standard airfield operations In the case of an initial type rating on a Global family aircraft, a minimum of 20 sectors plus a line check is recommended for line flying under supervision. Following conversion from the Global Express to the Global 5000 or vice-versa, the Board recommend that no LIFUS be required. 7. Initial Training Course Type Rating Course The JAA noted that with immediate effect, all trainees undergoing a Bombardier BD-700 training course would receive training for both variants of the type and would be qualified on both at the conclusion of the training. The Bombardier Type Rating Training Course comprises the following phases: Ground School (10 days, (56 hours) A Written Test of theoretical knowledge FTD or Fixed Base Simulator Training (4 sessions for a total of 12 hours per crew, run on ground-school days 3, 4, 5 and 8 as a follow-up to classroom instruction) Flight Simulator Training (7 Details, (2 of 2 hours and 5 of 4 hours) for a total of 24 hours per crew) 8

9 LOFT (Brief LOFT scenarios are assumed in the simulator training) For a pilot undertaking the training on his/her own, the totals are revised to 8 hrs of STD and 16 hours simulator training. The number of training details and the ground school hours are unchanged. Aeroplane Training As required, & for JAA, not less than 4/6 landings per pilot in accordance with JAR FCL 261(c)(2) and associated AMC. The Bombardier course, reflecting JAA requirements, is shown in detail in Appendix 3. The JOEB believe that the course elements above should be regarded as the minimum for all pilots, regardless of previous experience. In cases where only one pilot is to be trained, it is essential that the FTD/simulator details be completed with a representative crew. This provides the necessary and appropriate training in aspects of crew co-operation. Following the ground, simulator and flight training: LIFUS in accordance with paragraph 6 of this report. Areas of Special Emphasis The JOEB has identified a number of aircraft systems and/or procedures that should receive particular emphasis in a Global family Training Program: Ground Training: 1) High altitude physiology 2) Fatigue, sleep loss, and circadian disruption 3) International operating procedures for special use airspace such as: MNPS, RVSM, RNP -10, and RNP-5 operations. 4) Flight Management System (FMS) 5) Fuel characteristics and fuel temperature management at high altitudes and cold temperatures 6) Wing leading edge contamination and its effect on clean (slats IN/flaps UP) stall speed 7) DC power failure modes with emphasis on loss of all DC electrical power, including the relationship and significance of thermal circuit breakers in the Cockpit Circuit Breaker Panel 8) Inconsistent terminology 9) Aircraft differences due to the JAA Certification Standard Systems Integration Training (Flight Training Device - Level 5): 1) Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) 2) Primary Flight Display (PFD) Flight Director Annunciator (FDA) 3) Flight Management System (FMS) 4) Electrical Management System (EMS) 5) Guidance Panel Indications/Selections for autopilot, yaw damper, and coupling. Flight Training (Full Flight Simulator - Level C or D and/or aircraft): 1) Aileron/elevator disconnect (jammed controls in each axis). 2) Primary Flight Display (PFD), Multifunction Display (MFD), and EICAS reversionary modes. 3) Integrated use of EICAS messages, switch positions and synoptic pages to determine aircraft system status. 4) Delayed engine response to full power applications at high altitudes. (especially high altitude stalls) 5) Low energy rejected landing from idle thrust. 6) High altitude (above 45,000 ft.) handling characteristics with the autopilot and yaw damper inoperative. 7) AFCS pitch (PIT) mode characteristics (flight path vs. pitch angle). 8) Enhanced GPWS (including the loss of terrain mode when making MFD selections). 9) Traffic Collision and Avoidance System (TCAS) 10) Loss of all DC Power 11) Checking in SLATS OUT/ FLAPS 0 approaches and landings. 12) Stall warning advance and operation of Stall Identification System 9

10 The JOEB agree with the TC OEB that early exposure to the AFCS, auto-throttles, and FMS is important, especially for pilots with no previous experience of such systems. Establishing early confidence in manually flying the aircraft, converting from manual to automatic (FMS controlled) flight mode and back is equally important due to heavy reliance on the AFCS. In the event of a flight path deviation due to input error or system malfunction, the flight crew must be able to comfortably transition from automatic to manual mode and back in an orderly fashion. Flight crew must be made aware of a potential CFIT issue during a go-around from an LNAV/VNAV approach. The danger is related to the requirement to set the altitude selector to TDZE. Until such time as modifications are made such that the altitude selector setting procedures are similar to procedures used during an ILS approach, RNAV LNAV/VNAV approaches to a go-around must stress: FDA awareness and the requirement to reset the altitude selector after the go-around to the go-around altitude. LANDING MINIMA - In accordance with the appropriate Aircraft Flight Manuals (AFM), the scheduled Vat for both types at maximum landing weight is between 121 and 140 knots. Therefore, in accordance with JAR-OPS 1, Appendix 2 to (c), both are category C aircraft for all approaches. 8. Differences Training Course The Differences Training Courses are designed to provide the BD-700 qualified pilot with the theoretical and practical skills necessary to safely and competently transition between the various models in the Global range. Th e training modules offered by the manufacturer are held by CJAA in MS PowerPoint format and are currently the only JOEBendorsed syllabi. It should be noted that since the initial JOEB evaluation of the Global Express was restricted to a catch up process, no assessment of the Initial Type Rating Course was conducted. 9. Recurrent Training The JOEB recommends that recurrent training be conducted as follows: Licence Proficiency Check (LPC) Operator Proficiency Check (OPC) Line Checks LPCs may be conducted on either variant. OPCs may be conducted on either variant. Line checks may be conducted on either variant. 10. Recent Experience There are no specific issues for recent experience on the Global Express and compliance with JAR-OPS Recent experience or JAR-FCL Recent experience for pilots not operating in accordance with JAR-OPS 1 is appropriate. 11. Cabin Crew Requirements The JOEB noted that notwithstanding the different cabin lengths of the two models, their evacuation procedures were identical and since the AFM limits the maximum occupancy for both variants to not more than 19 passengers, there is, in accordance with JAR-OPS (a), no requirement for the carriage of a cabin crew member in the BD-700-1A10 or the 1A JAR OPS Sub-Parts K and L Compliance In their initial Global Express assessment, TC noted that A review of the compliance checklist for FAR 91/135 shows that a majority of items are left for the operator to show compliance since the manufacturer s choice is to market green aircraft leaving the options and interior completion to the purchaser. The JOEB note this comment and agree that it is an acceptable procedure. The wide range of options which is available and which affect both flight deck and 10

11 cabin standards means that following completion, each aircraft standard will have to be assessed for compliance by the operator s NAA. The Global Express was not subject to a JOEB assessment prior to entry to service and thus no formal, JAA, assessment of sub-parts K and L compliance was made. However, Bombardier retrospectively submitted their Compliance Checklist to the JOEB and it was recommended that it be agreed and held on record by CJAA. The manufacturer has subsequently completed a Global 5000 JAR-OPS Compliance Checklist. This checklist has also been agreed by the JOEB and is held on record at CJAA. 11

12 Enhanced Vision System Assessment Appendix 5 Note: Appendices 1 4 of this JOEB Report are available on Request to the National Aviation Authority.

13 Introduction. Following the Joint Operational Evaluation Board for the BD-700-1A11 (Global 5000) aircraft, a variant of the BD-700-1A10 (Global Express), Bombardier requested a JOEB evaluation of the Enhanced Vision System as may be fitted to the Global family of aircraft as a Customer Option. There are no JAA/EASA regulations specifically pertaining to this system and thus it was agreed that the initial investigation by both the airworthiness and the operational elements could lead only to a no hazard, no credit approval. However, work towards development of a JAA Operational Regulation for the use of EVS proceeded in parallel with the JOEB investigation and in the spring of 2005, an initial draft of a possible rule was put to a meeting of the JAA All Weather Operations Steering Group; this was agreed by the Group and passed to the OST who, similarly approved the submitted draft; it is planned that a draft for comment will be available in It was considered by the JOEB Chairman and Central JAA that this exercise could and should be carried out as a single man team. However, in order to assist and expedite the rule making process, it was agreed by CJAA and Bombardier that Mr Alex Hartland of CAA UK and who had flown a similar system in the Gulfstream 450 & 550 aircraft, should participate in the flight assessment. This provided a good opportunity to standardise the findings and assist Mr Hartland, a member of the JAA AWOSG, to expedite the JAR OPS rule making process for EVS. The investigation took place in 3 phases: 1. Completion of a TC-mandated HUD training course; this was necessary to gain approval for individuals to continue below DH when using the EVS. This phase was carried out by G G Reid and took place in Montreal during February 2005; it was conducted with Mr TP Newman, the UK half of the EASA Certification team. (The CEV France half of the EASA certification team carried out their investigation one week later). 2. The second phase consisted of a series of flight tests conducted on a Global 5000 aircraft based at Wichita, Kansas. In order to find acceptable weather and terrain conditions, the tests were carried out at a number of airfields as listed in paragraph 2 below. This phase was carried out in March 2005 by G G Reid and Mr A Hartland of CAA (UK). Again, this exercise was conducted simultaneously with the UK CAA half of the certification team with the CEV France team completing their assessment one week later. 3. Assessment of the training package proposed by Bombardier for pilots converting to use of EVS. This phase was carried out in Montreal during May 2005 and was done simultaneously with TC and FAA. The following documentation was used for this evaluation: JAA Administrative and Guidance Material, dated 1 st February 2004 JOEB Procedures Document JAR-FCL 1 Amendment 3 JAR OPS 1 Amendment 8 24

14 Glossary AWOSG BFTC CEV EVS FLIR HFDC HFDS HUD IRW ISU LHS OST RHS TDZE All Weather Operations Steering Group Bombardier Flight Test Centre Centre d Essais en Vol Enhanced Vision System Forward Looking Infra-Red Head-Up Flight Display Computer Head-Up Flight Display System Head Up Display Infrared window Infrared sensor unit Left Hand Seat Operations Sectorial Team Right hand Seat Touch Down Zone Elevation 25

15 Executive Summary A JOEB investigation of the Bombardier Global EVS system took place in early As there were no JAA/EASA regulations pertaining specifically to EVS, it was agreed that any clearance for use of the system would be restricted to a no hazard, no credit basis. The investigation took place in 3 phases, initial HUD Training, a flight assessment of the system and an assessment of the Bombardier training programme for the system. The flight assessment included a significant number of approaches in a Global 5000 aircraft by two JAA pilots. It was agreed that the system was suitable for use on the above basis while work on a JAA regulation continues. 1. Purpose and Applicability The EVS is intended to increase the level of safety by improving situational awareness by presenting a forward looking FLIR image in the HUD, thus providing the pilot with visual cues to maintain a stabilized approach, and minimising missed approach situations. Additionally, EVS is intended to allow the pilot to observe an obstruction on the runway, such as an aircraft or vehicle earlier in the approach, and to observe and thus avoid potential runway incursions during ground operations in reduced visibility conditions. It is Bombardier s intention that the HUD/EVS combinations should be used to deliver the aircraft to Decision Altitude on either an ILS or a LNAV/VNAV approach and if the necessary reference cues can be discerned on EVS, for the approach to continue using EVS to 100 ft above TDZE at which point, provided the necessary real world visual cues have been identified, the aircraft may continue to a landing. The EVS consists of cockpit controls, a Head-Up Flight Display System (HFDS), FMS CDU and a forward-looking Infrared sensor unit (ISU). The infrared sensor system is located on the topside of the nose of the aircraft, installed below a nose fairing that is equipped with a heater mat and controlled by the EVS Ice Protection System controller. The infrared sensor senses the infrared image through a sapphire window referred to as the Infrared window (IRW). The IRW incorporates a heater grid and is controlled by the EVS Ice Protection System controller. The Head-Up Flight Display Computer (HFDC) interfaces with the ISU and other aircraft systems. The EVS controls are located on the aircraft glareshield panel. The ISU provides a monochrome video image in RS170 standard to the HFDC and FMS CDU, the latter giving the Right Hand Seat pilot some ability to monitor the EVS image which the LHS pilot is seeing in the HUD. An EVS image clear switch is incorporated into the Left Pilot handwheel outboard of the horizontal stabilizer trim switches. The EVS image clear switch can be activated at any time to remove the EVS IR image from the combiner while maintaining the aircraft flight symbology. 2. Scope of Tests At the beginning of the investigation, Transport Canada mandated that all pilots intending to use the HUD/EVS below DH/DA had to carry out a period of training in the HUD; this was to be done at the Bombardier training centre in Montreal. JAA participation in this phase was limited to the JOEB Chairman although the training was carried out as a team with Mr TP Newman, the UK CAA certification test pilot. The flight investigation took place at the Bombardier Flight Test Centre (BFTC) in Wichita, Kansas and two pilots took part, the JOEB Chairman and Mr Alex Hartland. The following simulator and flight tests took place: 1. Simulator Date Location Purpose JAA Pilot Duration 17/02/05 Montreal TC-mandated HUD training for use of the HUD Reid 3:30 below DA(H) 12/05/05 Montreal Assessment of the Bombardier EVS training package Reid 1:45 26

16 2. Flight CENTRAL JOINT AVIATION AUTHORITIES Date Location Purpose JAA Pilot Duration 9/03/05 Wichita Introduction to EVS; 3 approaches. Reid 0:50 9/03/05 Wichita 1 EVS approach. Reid 0:30 9/03/05 Grand Junction & Night visual approaches. Reid 1:15 Vail, (Eagle) CO 10/03/05 Milwaukee, WI Transit Wichita-Milwaukee for day approaches in Reid 1:45 snow. 10/05/05 Wichita Night approach followed by side step correction to Reid 0:30 LOC 8/03/05 Wichita Introduction to EVS; 3 approaches Hartland 0:40 9/03/05 Wichita 1 EVS approach with view limiter Hartland 0:10 9/03/05 Grand Junction, Transit and 1 day approach Hartland 1:25 CO 9/03/05 Eagle, CO 1 Night visual approach Hartland 0:15 10/03/05 Milwaukee, WI 1 Day approach in snow showers Hartland 0:10 10/03/05 Southbend, IN 2 day IMC approach Hartland 0:50 10/03/05 Wichita Transit Wichita: non-evs Hartland 0:55 All the above flights were made in Global 5000 aircraft Serial No 9127 but the EVS installation is identical in all Global aircraft so the results are valid for the whole family. The JAA pilot occupied the LHS and the Bombardier safety pilot was in the RHS for all flights. Bombardier made strenuous and commendable efforts to find appropriate weather conditions for the assessment, i.e., cloud and RVR below the applicable minima but no approaches were made without acquisition of the real runway environment by DH/DA. It was felt that this had not inhibited the JOEB s ability to assess the system and that the investigation, as completed, was sufficient and unless there are any new and unexpected developments in the rule-making process, no further JAA flying should be necessary for approval of the HUD/EVS. The UK CAA half of the EASA certification flight test team participated in their tests at the same time as the JAA investigation with the French CEV part of the EASA team completing their investigation the following week. The ability to work together with the certification team was felt to greatly enhance the investigative process, both to JAA, in that there was a much greater exchange & harmonisation of views, but also to Bombardier in that it minimised duplication of investigative effort so producing cost and time savings. 3. Requirements There are currently no applicable JAR-OPS rules for approval of this system. Early in the process, an attempt was made to produce a JAA ORI but CJAA felt it more beneficial to subscribe to the TC Issue Papers instead. An early draft of a possible JAR-OPS Rule for EVS has been reviewed and accepted by the JAA All Weather Operations Steering Group and the JAA Operations Sectorial Team; it is hoped that a draft will be available for consultation in Until such time as a JAR-OPS rule is available, the conclusions and recommendations in this report are Preliminary and are subject to review when the rule making process is complete. 4. Results of Investigation The initial simulator training associated with clearance to descend below DH/DA was largely redundant since it concentrated solely on use of the HUD and with no reference to EVS. The JOEB and CAA/EASA pilots were both fully conversant with the HUD and it was felt that this training would have been of much greater benefit had it introduced the EVS. However, the JOEB acknowledge the value of HUD training for those unfamiliar with the system and, recommend that formal training and qualification on the HUD is essential to the success of EVS training. Accordingly, the JOEB recommend that formal HUD training be required either prior to, or concurrent with, EVS training. The flying assessment from BFTC Wichita showed that when the EVS picture was selected on the HUD, the display changed from stroke written to raster; when this occurred there was a noticeable degradation in picture quality but this was accepted since it was still to an acceptable standard. Indeed, operational use of the EVS showed that it offered a useful degree of extra situational awareness particularly for night VMC approaches in mountainous terrain. However, it was considered to be of more limited value in the poor weather, precision approaches seen (rain, low 27

17 cloud and snow) since EVS acquisition of the runway lights/environment under these conditions was typically less than 100 ft before acquisition by natural vision. Nevertheless, the JOEB recommend that Bombardier Global (BD-700-1A10 and 1A11) operators be permitted to use this system on a no hazard, no credit basis until such time as the JAA Rule making process has been completed. This recommendation is subject to: (i) The EVS image being displayed on the HUD (ii) EVS only being used for ILS, MLS, GLS, and PAR approaches with a DH no lower than 200 feet or an approach flown using certified vertical flight path guidance to a MDH/DH no lower than 250 feet. (iii) (iv) (v) EASA certification of the system having been obtained Both pilots having received approved HUD and EVS training Appropriate LIFUS completed The pre-flight training as well as the flight assessment at the BFTC was done solely as a JAA exercise. However, the assessment of the Bombardier EVS training programme was undertaken together with TC and FAA; this offered the chance to review all the teams experiences of the system and to pool thoughts on EVS in general and was highly productive. NOTE: For the no hazard, no credit approval, there is no requirement for the RHS pilot to be provided with EVS monitoring facilities. However, when suitable JAR OPS material is produced to enable operations below the published minima, the JOEB recommend that the RHS pilot be provided with suitable means to monitor the EVS picture being provided to the handling pilot; the FMS CDU presentation seen during the Wichita evaluation was regarded as being suitable for this purpose. 5. Line Flying Under Supervision (LIFUS) JAA requires Line Flying Under Supervision, in accordance with JAR OPS (IEM OPS 1.945) as part of: Conversion to a new aircraft type Introduction of new systems Introduction of new operations e.g. oceanic operations Experience in a new crew position e.g. PIC & SIC Post qualification skill refinement e.g. refining ways of operating efficiency, flexibility and/or convenience Special characteristics e.g. high altitude airport operations, air traffic control procedures and non standard airfield operations In the case of conversion to use of the EVS on a Global family aircraft, a minimum of 4 approaches is recommended for line flying under supervision and this must include a minimum of 2 sectors during daytime and 2 at night. Approaches carried out as part of any dedicated EVS flight training may count towards this total. 6. Initial EVS Training Course The Bombardier Training Course for EVS comprised the following elements: Ground School. 2 hours plus a 1 hour briefing session for the simulator detail. Flight Simulator Training 1 Detail of 2 hours per pilot. This training includes a minimum of 4 approaches, one of which was in VMC, the others in IMC. Aeroplane Training. No aircraft training is recommended beyond the LIFUS recommended in Paragraph 5 but if any EVS training flying is carried out, the approaches made may count towards the recommended LIFUS total. The JOEB recommend that EVS training utilise a level C (or higher) Global aircraft full flight simulator equipped with HUD/EVS with day and night visual displays and able to display a suitable IR image. The JOEB recommend that the course elements above should be regarded as the minimum for all pilots, regardless of previous experience. 28

18 Following the ground and simulator training: LIFUS in accordance with paragraph 5 of this report. Areas of Special Emphasis Special emphasis should be placed in the following areas: a. Crew briefings, callouts (in particular, annunciation of published and EVS minima) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP s); b. Duties of PF and PNF including use of the EVS repeater for the RHS pilot; c. Crew coordination and Crew Resource Management (CRM); d. EICAS messages and use of QRH and Checklists applicable to EVS; e. Transition from EVS imagery to non-evs, in visual conditions. (Maximum use should be made of videotapes of actual EVS approaches. The relative luminosity between IR imagery and that of approach lighting systems should be identified); f. Characteristics of Raster vs. Stroke displays, and effects of lighting conditions and crosswinds on EVS symbology and Flight Path Vector (FPV); g. Visual anomalies such as noise and blooming ; h. Appropriate use of Clear Switch; i. Importance of the design eye position in acquiring the proper EVS image; j. Where PF should look to acquire required visual references for descent below published Decision Altitude (DA); k. Importance of cross checking the EVS instrumentation presentations against the EVS visual scene presentation to enable the pilot to recognize malfunctions of the EVS, navigational guidance information, and improper presentation of elements in the visual scene during an approach; l. The significance and execution of calibration checks m. Identification of 100 ft Height Above Threshold (if applicable) using Barometric Altitude and monitoring of Radio Altitude and response to altitude callouts and alerts and need for FMS temperature compensation for cold temperatures; n. AFM Performance & Obstacle Clearance on Go Around; Pilots should be made aware they may not have obstacle protection when initiating a missed approach from 100 ft HAT; o. Use of AP & AT coupled approaches & awareness of Autopilot Minimum Engage Height (MEH) for LNAV/VNAV approaches. p. Limitations and failure modes; q. Conduct of precision and non-precision approaches; 7. Differences Training Course Not applicable. 29

19 8. Recurrent Training The JOEB recommends that operators ensure that, in conjunction with the normal recurrent training and proficiency checks, pilots knowledge and ability to perform the tasks associated with EVS are checked. Pending the development of appropriate JAR OPS rules for EVS, the JOEB recommend that pilots complete a minimum of 3 EVS take offs and landings within the validity period of the OPC, at least one of which may be in an aeroplane using approved EVS procedures. Other take offs and landings may be in a flight simulator qualified as specified in paragraph 6 above. The EVS recurrent training should include the following as a minimum: An instrument approach and landing with acquisition of EVS image before published minima and acquisition of image without aid of EVS by published minima, to provide required visual references to permit a landing. An instrument approach with acquisition of EVS image before published minima and failure of EVS (or loss of adequate EVS cues) requiring a missed approach by published minima. One take off at the lowest applicable minima 9 Operations Manual requirements Section B : The operator when developing procedures /limitations in this section should ensure consistency with the Aircraft Flight Manual EVS Supplement. The applicable minima shall not be less than the ones published in JAR OPS 1 section E. Section D : The Training manual should incorporate all recommendations (Initial/Recurrent Training) issued in this report. 30