Figure E2 - Example of manual recordings
Flight Operations & Line Assistance Getting to Grips with Aircraft Performance Monitoring

RESULTS APPRAISAL

Figure E3 - Example of APM output
Flight Operations & Line Assistance Getting to Grips with Aircraft Performance Monitoring
RESULTS APPRAISAL

4. REMARKS
A few remarks are given below, based on the feedback Airbus has had from the operators. Any suggestion or comment on this part is welcome. These remarks apply to both manual and automatic readings.
These remarks have been classified depending on their theme.

4.1. Correlating measured deviations to the aircraft
1.
Up to now, engine modular analysis has been barely capable of supporting aircraft performance monitoring with respect to distinguishing airframe and engine contributors to performance deviations. Yet, this type of analysis should be quite consistent with the APM analysis (DFFB parameter) in terms of trending. Indeed, the APM / IFP (global aircraft performance) of Airbus and in the Engine Condition Monitoring (engine performance) provided by the engine manufacturer use consistent engine models. As a consequence, the trends observed with both tools should be consistent with each other.

2.
A suspected airframe deterioration resulting from an observed .N1 or .EPR should be confirmed by verified (visible) aerodynamic drag / airflow disturbance sources such as misrigging, dents, missing seals, steps, gaps, etc.

3.
Therefore, conduct a visual inspection (extended walk around) of the aircraft noting any possible aerodynamic discrepancies and possibly confirming these by photographs. Also do this in flight, should a visual observation of the (upper) wing surfaces be performed (slats, spoilers, flap, ailerons) and pictures be taken (zoom photographs).

4.
For A300/A310 Aircraft asymmetry drag diagnosis can be performed using the Zero Control Wheel technique (FCOM 2.02.09 for A310 / A300-600).

4.2. Practical aspects
1.
The Specific Range (SR) method is the most effective procedure to be used in airline practice, but crew additional considerations may pre-empt its use. Indeed, the statistical approach in the specific range method makes the measured delta specific range fluctuates. This analysis could be cross-checked via other means (like periodic flight crew reporting) in order to assess the measured fuel factor. More details on this subject is given in Chapter G-Policy for updating the Fuel Factor.

2.
When performing manual reading, parallel AIDS or ACMS analysis may be performed for back-to-back comparisons, if the event marker is activated every minute or if the printer can be used in conjunction with manual recordings.

3.
Data trends should be tracked when assessing APM outputs, as illustrated in Chapter G-Policy for updating the Fuel Factor.

Flight Operations & Line Assistance Getting to Grips with Aircraft Performance Monitoring
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：getting to grips with aircraft performance monitoring(54)