EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY · PDF filejoeb bombardier cl-604/cl-605 issue 0, 22 october...

EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY

Bombardier Challenger 604 Bombardier Challenger 605

Revision 0

Dated, 22 October 2006

European Aviation Safety Agency Postfach 10 12 53

D-50452 Köln, Germany

www.jaa.nl

JOEB Bombardier CL-604/CL-605

Issue 0, 22 October 2006

1

EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY/ JOINT AVIATION AUTHORITIES

JOINT OPERATIONAL EVALUATION BOARD

REPORT

Bombardier Challenger 604 Bombardier Challenger 605

Jaap Meijer Chairman JOEB CL-605



2

1. CONTENTS Paragraph Page 1. CONTENTS 2 2. REVISION RECORD 3 3. GLOSSARY 5 4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 5. OPERATIONAL EVALUATION 8

5.1 History 5.2 Overview 5.3 Process 5.4 Results 6. MASTER DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS 10 7. OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS 11 8. INITIAL TYPE RATING TRAINING COURSE 12 9. DIFFERENCES TRAINING COURSE 13 10. SPECIAL EMPHASIS TRAINING 14 10.1 CL-604 10.2 CL-604 11. CURRENCY 16 12. CABIN CREW REQUIREMENTS 17 13. MISCELLANEOUS 18 APPENDIX 1. EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS 19 APPENDIX 2. MASTER DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS (MDR) 20 APPENDIX 3. OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS (ODR) 21 3.0 Definitions of ODR training levels 3.1 ODR Tables – Challenger 604 to Challenger 605 3.2 ODR Tables – Challenger 605 to Challenger 604



3

2. REVISION RECORD

Issue Nr. Date Pages Published Revision 0 22 October 2006 All 14/12/06



4

3. GLOSSARY

AC Advisory Circular ADF Automatic Direction Finder ADG Air Driven Generator ADS Air Data System AEG Aircraft Evaluation Group AFCS Automatic Flight Control System AFM Airplane Flight Manual AGL Above Ground Level AMC Acceptable Means of Compliance AOC Air Operator Certificate AOM Airplane Operations Manual AP Autopilot APU Auxiliary Power Unit APR Automatic Performance Reserve ARP Air Data Reference Panel AT Auto Throttle ATC Air Traffic Control ATPL Airline Transport Pilot License AWO All Weather Operations CCP Cursor Control Panel CDU Control Display Unit CPD Common Procedures Document CPL Commercial Pilot License CPT Cockpit Procedure Trainer CVR Cockpit Voice Recorder DA Decision Altitude DCP Display Control Panel DH Decision Height DRP Display Reversionary Panel EASA European Aviation Safety Agency ECS Environmental Control System EFB Electronic Flight Bag EFIS Electronic Flight Instrument System EGPWS Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System EICAS Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCL Flight Crew Licensing FCOM Flight Crew Operating Manual FCP Flight Control Panel FDR Flight Data recorder FGS Flight Guidance System FMA Flight Mode Annunciator FMS Flight Management System FSB Flight Standardization Board FTD Flight Training Device GPS Global Positioning System GPWS Ground Proximity Warning System HAA Height Above Aerodrome IEM Interpretative and Explanatory Material IFR Instrument Flight Rules ILS Instrument Landing System



5

IRS Inertial Reference System ISA International Standard Atmosphere JAA Joint Aviation Authorities JOEB Joint Operational Evaluation Board JSET Joint Simulator Evaluation Team LH Left Hand LIFUS Line Flying Under Supervision LOFT Line Oriented Flight Training MCR Master Common Requirements MCDU Multifunction Control Display Unit MDA Minimum Descent Altitude MDR Master Difference requirements MFD Multi-Function Display MMEL Master Minimum Equipment List MSL Mean Sea Level MTOW Maximum Take-Off Weight MLAW Maximum Landing Weight MZFW Maximum Zero Fuel Weight NAA National Aviation Authority ODR Operator Difference Requirements PFD Primary Flight Display PIC Pilot In Command QRH Quick Reference Handbook RH Right Hand RTU Radio Tuning Unit RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minima SOP Standard Operating Procedure STD Synthetic Training Device TAWS Terrain Awareness and Warning System TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System TCCA Transport Canada Civil Aviation TRTO Type Rating Training Organization VA Design maneuvering speed VFE Maximum flaps extended speed VFR Visual Flight Rules VLE Maximum landing gear extended speed VLO Maximum landing gear operating speed VMO Maximum operating speed VMCA Minimum control speed air VMCG Minimum control speed ground TSO Technical Standard Order VNAV Vertical Navigation VS Stall speed WOW Weight on Wheels



7

5. OPERATIONAL EVALUATION 5.1 History

Bombardier Aerospace will introduce a modified configuration of the CL-600-2B16 as the new production aircraft. Beginning with aircraft serial number 5701, model CL-600-2B16 aircraft will be referred to by the manufacturer as Bombardier Challenger 605, the older Challenger 604 configuration will be discontinued. The Challenger 605 is merely a product upgrade to a certified aircraft, which has already been in service for a long time. Both aircraft share the same TCCA Type Certificate Data Sheet (A21EA). It should be noted, that, at this time, an EASA TCDS does not exist for the CL-600-2B16 (604) although a draft document is currently under development. When the TCDS is available, the 605 will appear as a notation or amendment. Until now, there has been no operational evaluation of the CL 604 by EASA/JAA. Both aircraft are not considered to be variants of Regional Jet or earlier Challenger series (CL-600/601) airplanes. No comparison was conducted between CL-604/605 and these aircraft and no credit may be given for training, checking and currency.

The 605 configuration features a new passenger cabin interior, enlarged and repositioned passenger windows, a new tail cone and introduces the Rockwell Collins Pro-Line 21 avionics suite to the CL-600-2B16 aircraft. The 604 and 605 share identical handling characteristics and in-flight operational procedures. Bombardier has requested that an operational evaluation be conducted to define the training, currency and checking differences that exists between the two configurations and that the benefits associated with single license endorsement be granted.

5.2 Overview The Bombardier Challenger 605 is a swept wing executive aircraft, designed for up to 19 passengers and 2 cockpit crew. The MTOW of the CL-605 is 21,863 kg (48,200 lb). It is capable of cruise speeds up to Mach 0.83 in RVSM airspace (Mmo = 0.85) at a maximum altitude of 41,000 ft MSL. The aircraft is equipped with two general Electric CF 34-3B high by-pass ratio turbofan engines. The engines are flat-rated to ISA + 15 degrees C. Normal thrust rating is 8729 pounds per engine. An APR system, when armed for take-off, increases the thrust on the operating engine in case of an engine failure. An Auto Throttle System is installed to maintain reference airspeed or engine fan speed. The primary flight controls, elevators, rudders and ailerons, are hydraulically operated. Artificial control loading is provided at the individual control columns, control wheels and rudder pedals. The Automatic Flight Control System, a subsystem of the Collins ProLine 21 avionics system, is a fully integrated flight control system. It includes a dual channel two-axis autopilot. Hydraulically operated spoilers provide drag for use in flight as well as on the ground. The trailing edge flaps are electrically operated and can be selected to 4 positions: 0 – 20 – 30 – 45 degrees. Trim systems are installed for rudder, aileron and elevator and operated electrically. A flight management system, controlled by MCDU’s on each, side is fully integrated in the operation of the aircraft. It calculates take-off and landing performance parameters, it builds an operational flight plan from take-off until landing and calculates a vertical path.



8

The main difference between the two variants is the recently developed Collins ProLine 21 EFIS and avionics package. It’s main features are one primary flight display and one multi-function display and the associated controls on each side of the cockpit. 5.3 Process During the Operational Evaluation of the CL-605 four distinct steps could be recognized in the process:

• Kick-off meeting April 2006 • Pre-audit July 2006 • Actual evaluation Aug. – Sep. 2006 • Feedback and report Sep. – Oct. 2006

During the kick-off meeting with the manufacturer, in which all three chairmen participated, agreement was reached about a number of essential parts of the evaluation. Where the manufacturer, at first, was not convinced of the necessity to conduct operational suitability flights for an improved version of an airplane type, which has been in service already for a long time, the OEB team members maintained, that flying the actual aircraft in it’s actual environment was the ultimate proof. Finally agreement was established to make available to each board member one flight in the airplane during which he would perform pilot flying duties, while he would also have a chance to act as observer on one other flight. The schedule for the actual evaluation was discussed at length as well. Four board members were to follow a type-rating course for the CL-605, followed by a difference course for the CL-604, while four other members, already type-rated on the CL-604, would follow type-recurrent training for this variant, followed by a difference course for the CL-605 (see Appendix 1). Especially for those, who were scheduled to complete a full initial course, followed by a difference training, the initially proposed schedule was very tight and a new schedule, leaving some time to study and for personal purposes was agreed upon. Once the schedule was established, logistic arrangements could be made. It turned out to be very useful to have made these arrangements and commitments beforehand and not have to deal with these issues again, once the actual evaluation had started. The pre-audit was performed in July to confirm, that the manufacturer was indeed ready for the evaluation. This audit was performed by the OEB and FSB chairmen, while the JOEB chairman provided input to the questionnaire, which was used during the audit. Ground school facilities/training material were all prepared and ready, while in June the CL605 flight simulator had been evaluated and approved to level C by a team of experts from UK-CAA. Using the outcome of the kick-off meeting and the audit, the actual evaluation could be run in an efficient way by all parties involved. One group of 4 previously qualified CL-604 pilots received CL-604 refresher training. Another group of 4 pilots received CL-605 initial training. The CL-604 pilots then received difference training in the CL-605 and underwent proficiency checks in a CL-605 simulator. The newly qualified CL-605 pilots received difference training in the CL-604 and underwent proficiency checks in the CL-604 simulator. All 8 pilots participated in CL-605 Operational Suitability flights to validate the proposed AFM normal, abnormal and emergency procedures in the actual operational environment. A comment-response document was used to communicate between the team leader and the manufacturer. Some forty comments were raised and will be replied to by Bombardier. Most of those comments were about the abnormal/emergency procedures and the QRH.



9

At the end of the evaluation period, feedback was provided to Bombardier during the out-briefing. One specific issue led to further discussions. The evaluation team requires practical enhancement during difference training, specifically for the control and display functions of the avionics systems, which are quite different between the 2 airplane variants. There was agreement between the manufacturer and the evaluation team about the basic issue, but a discussions evolved about the extent of this extra practice and about the training aids to be used. The text in this report (Appendix 2) reflects the harmonized position of the 3 evaluation teams. Reports will be written by the 3 chairmen and offered to their respective authorities for approval. The generally accepted time for this report is within 1 month.

The JOEB, OEB and FSB are responsible for conducting future evaluations of the CL-604 and CL-605 aircraft, its derivatives and of all changes to the aircraft, such as software modifications and/or the addition of new systems, such as HUD. The Boards will then determine the associated impact on training, checking and currency and will amend this report accordingly. 5.4 Results

1. In accordance with the provisions in JAR-FCL Single License Endorsement is assigned to CL-604 and CL-605. It is designated CL-604/605.

2. The basic Type Rating training course as described in Chapter 8 is recommended for

approval.

3. The Differences Training course as described in Chapter 9 is recommended for approval. Additional practical enhancement as described in Appendix 2 is considered essential.

4. The Operational Suitability flights confirmed, that procedures and checklists are adequate and that training had been appropriate. No additional issues surfaced during these flights. 5. A compliance check against JAR-OPS K and L was not performed. The only available aircraft is still in an experimental configuration, while most items in a compliance checklist are responsibility of a JAR-OPS 1 operator and need to be checked during an AOC application for an airplane in an operator specific configuration.



10

6. MASTER DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS MDR provisions apply when differences between variants exist which affect crew knowledge, skills, or abilities related to flight safety (e.g. Level A or greater differences). Master Difference Requirements (MDR’s) for the CL-604 and CL-605 are presented in Appendix 2.



11

7. OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS Operator Difference Requirements (ODR) tables are used to show an operator’s compliance method in mixed fleet operations. ODR tables for operators conducting mixed fleet operations, using CL-604 and CL-605 are shown in Appendix 3. The tables represent an acceptable means to comply with MDR provisions. The tables do not necessarily represent the only acceptable means of compliance. An operator seeking different means of compliance must request and obtain approval from it’s authority of it’s specific ODR tables.



12

8. INITIAL TYPE RATING TRAINING COURSE Bombardier is an approved Type Rating Training Organization under JAR-FCL (Approval Certificate number UK/TRTO-75). Courses are conducted under the direction of the Head of Training. The Bombardier CL 604 and CL 605 Type Rating training courses consist of the following elements:

• Ground school: 9 days. Four full days and 5 days, which also include 5 FTD sessions of 2 hours to become familiar with the checklist and procedures and prepare for the full simulator sessions.

• A written ground school exam (120 questions, multiple choice), covering the aircraft’s systems, including performance and weight and balance.

• One extra 2 hour FTD session to cover JAA requirements. • Flight simulator training, 5 sessions of 4 hours per crew. • Flight simulator skill test. • A simulator LOFT session (not required for JAA). • Aircraft training (landings).

During the JOEB evaluation, training was received as follows:

• Ground school instruction: 53 hours. • FTD training: 12 hours per crew of 2. • Flight Simulator training, including skill test: 25 hours per crew of 2. • Aircraft training 0hr35min. (4 landings).

The JOEB recommends, that the course elements and number of hours above be regarded as the minimum training required. Less experienced pilots would benefit from an extra course covering EFIS and FMS operations, before entering the Type Rating training course. Areas of special emphasis are covered in a separate Chapter (10).



13

9. DIFFERENCES TRAINING COURSE Difference training from CL-605 to CL-604 and from CL-604 to CL-605, as proposed by Bombardier, consists of a one day briefing, supported by desk top interactive computer based instruction (level C). The JOEB concluded that further enhancement of this instruction is required, as described in the note to the table in Annex 2 Master Differences Requirements.



14

10. SPECIAL EMPHASIS TRAINING 10.1 CL-604 The JOEB has identified several aircraft systems and/or procedures (listed below) that should receive special emphasis in an approved CL-604 Training Program: Systems Integration Training:

• Flight Control Panel (FCP) • Flight Mode Annunciator (FMA) • Flight Management System (FMS)

Flight Training (Full Flight Simulator - Level C or D and/or aircraft):

• Dual hydraulic system malfunctions (system 1 or 2, and system 3) • Air Driven Generator (ADG) deployment • Instrument flying on standby instruments • Primary Flight Display (PFD), Multifunction Display (MFD), EICAS status page reversionary

modes • Flight Control System Jam procedures. • Fuel leaks. • Smoke procedures, including smoke removal • Integrated use of EICAS messages, switch positions and synoptic pages to determine aircraft

system status. Some switches (i.e. L/R to aux fuel transfer, fuel crossflow, and AC essential bus transfer) are not represented by EICAS messages.

The JOEB also found that early exposure to the FCP, FMA and FMS is important, especially for pilots with no previous EFIS or FMS experience. 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 Automatic Flight Control System (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. Special Flight Characteristics:

• The JOEB recommends, that all CL604 pilots be given exposure to the Dutch Roll characteristics of the airplane following a yaw damper failure and be instructed in the specific technique (rudder inputs) to maintain control.

• Special emphasis during training should be placed in the area of roll control during multiple hydraulic system failure, crosswind landing and rollout, and zero-flap landing.

• The JOEB has determined that zero-flap approaches and landings to a full stop are required to be demonstrated by applicants seeking type certification in this aircraft. The aircraft’s trailing edge flap is powered by the electrical system and there is no alternate means of flap operation in the case of electrical system failure. The aircraft has a relatively high approach and landing speed and has a tendency to “float” if normal landing flare technique is used. Thrust reverser deployment during a zero flap landing tends to cause the nose to pitch-up, requiring significant pilot input to maintain nose wheel contact with the runway



15

10.2 CL-605 In addition to the items delineated in 10.1, the CL-605 JOEB has identified additional items (listed below) that should receive special emphasis in an approved CL-605 Training Program: Systems Integration Training:

• Display Control Panel (DCP) • Cursor Control Panel (CCP) • Integrated Flight Information System (IFIS, which is optional equipment not evaluated by

JOEB)

Flight Training (Full Flight Simulator - Level C or D and/or aircraft): • Operations with inoperative Auto Throttle

Special Flight Charactistics: The CL-605 JOEB found no additional special flight characteristics other than that described in 10.1. The Special Flight Characteristics defined in 10.1 also pertain to training in the CL-605.



16

11. CURRENCY

There are no specific currency requirements applicable to either the CL 604 or the CL 605, beyond those of JAR-OPS 1.965 and 1.970 for AOC holders or JAR-FCL 1.026 and 1.245 for private operators. When operating on both variants, currency is considered to be common for the CL-604 and CL-605 (JAR-OPS 1.980 - JAR-FCL 1.245). However, JAR-FCL 1.235 applies and a new difference course is required if no flight has been flown in the new variant within 2 years of completing the difference course.



17

12. CABIN CREW REQUIREMENTS There is no requirement for a cabin crew member on this aircraft. The aircraft has a Type I Main Door on the LH side of the cabin and a Type 3 over wing Emergency Exit on the RH side. In case of installation of a partition screen, which renders the cabin invisible from the cockpit, airworthiness regulations may require a cabin crew member to be present in the cabin.



18

13. MISCELLANEOUS 13.1 Landing Minimum Category

According to JAR - OPS 1.430 (C), Appendix 2, the CL-604 and CL-605 are operated as a category C aircraft during all approaches. VAT is 137 knots at the maximum gross landing weight of 38,000 pounds (landing flap setting 45 degrees).

13.2 All Weather Operations Take-off capability at the lowest JAA minima (JAR-OPS, subpart E) was evaluated during the flight simulator part of the training and was found to be acceptable. The CL-604 is certified for Cat II minima by the FAA. However, approach capabilities other than Cat. I ILS, non-precision and FMS overlay instrument approaches were not evaluated during this evaluation. For approval of approach limitations below Cat I, a specific evaluation of the aircraft’s capabilities will need to be performed.



19

APPENDIX 1. MEMBERS OF EVALUATION TEAM. TRANSPORT CANADA CIVIL AVIATION John MacNamara OEB Chairman, Team Leader, CL-604 rated/CL-605 difference Peter Vetere CL-604 rated/CL-605 difference Creg McConnell CL-605 initial/CL-604 difference

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Steve Ford FSB Chairman CL-604 rated/CL-605 difference Rod Huette CL-604 rated/CL-605 difference Ray Stinchcomb CL-605 initial/CL-604 difference Ron Frank CL-605 initial/CL-604 difference EASA/JAA Jaap Meijer JOEB Chairman CL-605 initial/CL-604 difference



20

APPENDIX 2. MASTER DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS (MDR)

AIRPLANE TYPE RATING: CL600-2B16

FROM AIRPLANE

604

605

604

--------- C*/B/A

TO A

IRPLA

NE

605 C*/B/A ---------

* The CL-604 and CL-605 are functionally equivalent and Level C differences training is the highest

level required. In the case of pilots moving from one variant to the other, operators and training providers must provide pilots with training permitting them to become fully cognizant of the differences in flight deck layout and avionics controls. Interactive computer based training is suitable to impart the necessary knowledge. However, the operator is responsible to ensure the training is consolidated through the use of a device which provides for tactile manipulation of system related controls and switches, and emulates panel and instrument indications. An acceptable "device" as described in this paragraph is one that replicates the functionality, operation and installation of the Collins Proline Avionic system in the Challenger 604 or 605, as appropriate, and may include, but is not limited to, an FTD, aircraft simulator, or aircraft.

EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY · PDF filejoeb bombardier cl-604/cl-605 issue 0, 22 october...

Documents

Transcript of EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY · PDF filejoeb bombardier cl-604/cl-605 issue 0, 22 october...