曝光臺 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

Time (sec)
Altitude (kft)
ho= entry altitude
ho- 40’
ho- 68’
ho+ 172’
to Dt = 3.4 D t = 5.7
Source: Airbus Flight Test Data
Pitch rates: FBS 5.5o/sec 3.2o/sec
Revision 14.0 11
Data
Plots
Manevuer Q
(°/Sec)
Nz (G) Vc (Kts) D T
(Sec)
Alt Loss
(Ft)
D Zp
Vs (Ft)
4 F/Dn 3.2 1.38 146 7.8 82 -
3 F/Dn (Fbs) 6.0 1.44 145 5.3 52 115 (4)
9 Clean 3.2 1.76 250 5.7 68 -
10 Clean
(Fbs)
5.5 1.83 250 3.4 40 172 (9)
A330-200 AIRCRAFT
The benefit of the FBS recovery for the A330-200 in the approach configuration was quite
apparent. The use of the full back stick resulted in only a 35 foot altitude loss below the
maneuver entry altitude. Whereas, the 3 degree/second rotation rate recovery resulted in a 75
foot altitude loss. More significantly however, the aircraft using the Full Back Stick (FBS)
recovery technique was only below the entry altitude for 5.3 seconds, whereas the 3 deg/sec
aircraft was below the entry altitude for 7.8 seconds. But most significant was that at the
point where the 3 deg/sec aircraft was just getting back to the entry altitude, the FBS aircraft
was 115 feet above the entry altitude.
In the clean descent configuration, altitude loss for the FBS recovery was 40 feet, as opposed
to 68 feet. The time below the entry altitude was 3.4 seconds as opposed to 5.7 seconds. And
finally, the FBS aircraft was 172 feet above the 3 degree/sec aircraft as it was just getting
back to the entry altitude.
Pilot Comments
SIMULATOR - Since the iron bird simulator cab is a non-moving cab, it was difficult to
make several repeatable runs at a specific pitch rate, notably 3.0 deg/sec. But what was
learned from the CFIT maneuvers was that better, more consistent recoveries were achieved
by using the Airbus recommended full aft stick technique. They provided the minimum
altitude loss, and the maximum climb rate, while minimizing pilot workload. At the
completion of the maneuver flown with full aft stick, there was always the feeling of precise
pitch control, even though the airplane was recovering from a maximum performance
maneuver. The runs flown using the airline AFM recommended Ònormal pull up to 17.5
degÓ, and climbs to SRS (speed reference system) commands, gave more altitude loss and a
slower climb. Additionally, the pilot comments indicate that workload actually increases
while trying to precisely hold pitch attitude, and several bobbles and pitch overshoots were
noted trying to get there. The time spent trying to precisely maintain a pitch attitude could
better be used building situational awareness of position and clearance with terrain.
AIRCRAFT - This extensive series of CFIT avoidance maneuvers indicated to us, even
without reducing the data, that in the dark absence of situational awareness, the best possible
performance is obtained by using a full back stick technique.
Revision 14.0 12
Conclusion
The A320/330 full aft stick CFIT recovery vs 3 deg/sec pull gave better and more consistent
performance without any increase in risk of exceeding envelope parameters. No additional or
specific pilot training was necessary to perform the full aft stick recovery technique since the
FBW design provides excellent pitch rate and g control as well as excellent envelope
protection for stall, overstress, or overspeed.
Recommendations
A320/A330/A340 operators should use the manufacturers recommended full aft stick CFIT
recovery procedure.
B. Boeing B-777-300
SIMULATOR TEST CARD
Following briefings on the B777-300 flight control system, and CFIT avoidance procedures, 2
hours was spent in the simulator cab. This was done mainly for familiarization with switches
and controls, to get a basic feel for dynamics and handling characteristics, and to practice
CFIT maneuvers that were to be flown in the airplane the following day.
Several CFIT avoidance maneuvers were flown in the simulator cab. There are no hard limits
on angle of attack, load factor, pitch rate, and pitch angle in the B777. The evaluation pilots
were able to use both the visual display of terrain, and the EGPWS system to set up the
maneuvers, and to execute the avoidance maneuvers. Four entries were flown:
1. clean, 300 kts, idle, 1500 fpm descent, smooth pull up
2. clean, 300 kts, idle, 1500 fpm descent, aggressive pull up
3. Vref+5, flaps 30, 1500 fpm descent, smooth pull up
4. Vref+5, flaps 30, 1500 fpm descent, aggressive pull up
The maneuvers were flown toward the simulation terrain, and recovery initiated when the
ÒPull-up, Pull-upÓ aural warning was heard. The smooth pull up was flown several times to
　
中國航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料16(40)