Kevin J. Renze, Ph.D. Airplane Performance
Kevin J. Renze, Ph.D. Airplane Performance. Elevator Control Authority Investigation FDR data from 84 previous flights operated with the accident airplane.
Dec 16, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Kevin J. Renze, Ph.D.Kevin J. Renze, Ph.D.
Airplane PerformanceAirplane Performance
Elevator Control Authority Investigation
Elevator Control Authority Investigation
• FDR data from 84 previous flights operated with the accident airplane
• Beechcraft 1900D simulation
• FDR data from 84 previous flights operated with the accident airplane
• Beechcraft 1900D simulation
Elevator Travel RangeElevator Travel Range
-22-20-18-16-14-12-10
-8-6-4-202468
10121416182022
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
ANU ACTUAL ELEVATOR (DEG.) AND
AND
FD
R EL
EVAT
OR (D
EG.)
ANU
BEFORE MAINTENANCECONTROL CHECK
FLIGHT
Elevator Travel RangeElevator Travel Range
-22-20-18-16-14-12-10
-8-6-4-202468
10121416182022
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
ANU ACTUAL ELEVATOR (DEG.) AND
AND
FD
R EL
EVAT
OR (D
EG.)
ANU
BEFORE MAINTENANCE
FLIGHT TEST
14.7º (AND)
21º (ANU)
Elevator Travel RangeElevator Travel Range
-22-20-18-16-14-12-10
-8-6-4-202468
10121416182022
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
ANU ACTUAL ELEVATOR (DEG.) AND
AND
FD
R EL
EVAT
OR (D
EG.)
ANU
BEFORE MAINTENANCE
AFTER MAINTENANCE
7º (AND)
SHIFT
FLIGHT TEST
14.7º (AND)
21º (ANU)
21º (ANU)
Elevator Travel RangeElevator Travel Range
-22-20-18-16-14-12-10
-8-6-4-202468
10121416182022
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
ANU ACTUAL ELEVATOR (DEG.) AND
AND
FD
R EL
EVAT
OR (D
EG.)
ANU
BEFORE MAINTENANCE
AFTER MAINTENANCE
7º (AND)
SHIFT
FLIGHT TEST
14.7º (AND)
21º (ANU)
21º (ANU)
ELEVATOR TRAVEL LOSS
Beechcraft 1900D SimulationBeechcraft 1900D Simulation
• Engineering models provided by RAC
• Implemented in NTSB simulation tools
• Validated against Beechcraft 1900D flight test data
• Engineering models provided by RAC
• Implemented in NTSB simulation tools
• Validated against Beechcraft 1900D flight test data
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
FLIGHT AFTER MAINTENANCE
AIRPLANE NOSE UP
Ele
vato
r (D
egre
es)
Time (Seconds)
FDR ELEVATOR
FLIGHT BEFORE MAINTENANCE
SIMULATION ELEVATOR
AIRPLANE NOSE UP
Ele
vato
r (D
egre
es)
Time (Seconds)
FDR ELEVATOR
SIMULATION ELEVATOR
Beechcraft 1900D Simulation ResultsBeechcraft 1900D Simulation Results
Takeoff Roll
Rotation Climb
Takeoff Roll
Rotation
Climb
SHIFT
Flight 5481 Simulation ResultsFlight 5481 Simulation Results
• The elevator was restricted to 8º downward
• 9.5º downward elevator was needed
• 7º downward elevator needed if CG within limits
• Balance is critical pitch control factor, not weight
• The elevator was restricted to 8º downward
• 9.5º downward elevator was needed
• 7º downward elevator needed if CG within limits
• Balance is critical pitch control factor, not weight
ConclusionsConclusions
• Maintenance changed the pitch control system
• Elevator was restricted to about half its downward travel• FDR data analysis (7º downward)• NTSB simulation (8º downward)
• 9.5º downward elevator needed• 7º downward elevator needed if CG within
limits
• Maintenance changed the pitch control system
• Elevator was restricted to about half its downward travel• FDR data analysis (7º downward)• NTSB simulation (8º downward)
• 9.5º downward elevator needed• 7º downward elevator needed if CG within
limits
Kevin J. Renze, Ph.D.Kevin J. Renze, Ph.D.
Airplane PerformanceAirplane Performance
Airplane Weight and BalanceAirplane Weight and Balance
• Air Midwest program
• Component load buildup
• Takeoff ground roll analysis
• Air Midwest program
• Component load buildup
• Takeoff ground roll analysis
Flight 5481 Weight and Balance Flight 5481 Weight and Balance
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
CENTER OF GRAVITY (%MAC)
AIR
PL
AN
E W
EIG
HT
(L
BS
)
CALCULATED
ACTUAL
APPROVED ENVELOPE
Average Weight ComparisonAverage Weight Comparison
Air Midwest1 FAA Guidance
Component Old (lb) New (lb) Old (lb) Interim (lb)
Passenger and
carry-on bags/ personal items
175 200 185 195
Checked bag 25 30 25 30
Carry-on bag checked planeside
25 20 - -
1 Limited carry-on program1 Limited carry-on program
Average Weight ComparisonAverage Weight Comparison
Air Midwest1 FAA Guidance
Component Old (lb) New (lb) Old (lb) Interim (lb)
Passenger and
carry-on bags/ personal items
175 200 185 195
Checked bag 25 30 25 30
Carry-on bag checked planeside
25 20 - -
1 Limited carry-on program1 Limited carry-on program
Improved Weight and Balance Improved Weight and Balance
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
CENTER OF GRAVITY (%MAC)
AIR
PL
AN
E W
EIG
HT
(L
BS
)NEW PROGRAM
ACTUAL
APPROVED ENVELOPE
Weight and Balance ConcernsWeight and Balance Concerns
• Average Weight Error Sources – Understated average weights– Heavy bags– Variance in actual weight and weight distribution
• Average weight programs need improvement
• Actual weight and location data could eliminate these errors
• Average Weight Error Sources – Understated average weights– Heavy bags– Variance in actual weight and weight distribution
• Average weight programs need improvement
• Actual weight and location data could eliminate these errors
Pitch Control Assessment Pitch Control AssessmentCenter of Gravity
Elevator Travel
Pitch Control
Pre D6 Flights In Limits Normal Adequate
Pitch Control Assessment Pitch Control AssessmentCenter of Gravity
Elevator Travel
Pitch Control
Pre D6 Flights In Limits Normal Adequate
9 Post D6 Flights In Limits Restricted Critical
Pitch Control Assessment Pitch Control AssessmentCenter of Gravity
Elevator Travel
Pitch Control
Pre D6 Flights In Limits Normal Adequate
9 Post D6 Flights In Limits Restricted Critical
Accident Loading, Normal Elevator
Significantly Aft
Normal Marginal
Pitch Control Assessment Pitch Control AssessmentCenter of Gravity
Elevator Travel
Pitch Control
Pre D6 Flights In Limits Normal Adequate
9 Post D6 Flights In Limits Restricted Critical
Accident Loading, Normal Elevator
Significantly Aft
Normal Marginal
Beech 1900C Homer, AK 1987
Extremely Aft
Normal Accident
Pitch Control Assessment Pitch Control AssessmentCenter of Gravity
Elevator Travel
Pitch Control
Pre D6 Flights In Limits Normal Adequate
9 Post D6 Flights In Limits Restricted Critical
Accident Loading, Normal Elevator
Significantly Aft
Normal Marginal
Beech 1900C Homer, AK 1987
Extremely Aft
Normal Accident
Flight 5481Significantly
AftRestricted Accident
ConclusionsConclusions• Air Midwest’s program did not detect the
significantly aft CG
• Unacceptable errors still exist in average weight programs and require improvements
• Actual weight and location data could eliminate these errors
• The significantly aft CG and restricted elevator resulted in a loss of pitch control
• Air Midwest’s program did not detect the significantly aft CG
• Unacceptable errors still exist in average weight programs and require improvements
• Actual weight and location data could eliminate these errors
• The significantly aft CG and restricted elevator resulted in a loss of pitch control
Kevin J. Renze, Ph.D.Kevin J. Renze, Ph.D.
Airplane PerformanceAirplane Performance
Related Documents
