B757_Symposium_(2000)

民航发表于 2010-4-5 20:44:27

B757_Symposium_(2000)
 
**** Hidden Message *****

民航发表于 2010-4-5 20:44:54

Boeing Flight Operations Symposium October 24 – October 26, 2000 Seattle, Washington 757 Caucus Summary Report 1 February 21, 2001 DISPATCH AND MEL 1. ETOPS Dispatch. Our regulators in Germany require us to be more stringent with the MEL for ETOPS dispatch. We need all four AC generators (two IDGs, APU and HMG) operative for dispatch from the home country or home base. We may dispatch according to the MMEL only for return flights. Have other (JAA/FAA) operators the same or other restrictions? <ANSWER> We are not aware of regulators with more stringent ETOPS requirements other than those specified in the appropriate advisory material. Boeing is aware that operators who do apply stricter requirements typically apply those requirements for the 'outbound flight' and not for the inbound (homecoming) flights. 2. Are you still legal to enter an ETOPS segment if you lose a MEL required (at dispatch) system like an air conditioning pack or APU fire loop? <ANSWER> In general, yes. The pilot uses the non-normal checklist as the guide. Boeing does not advocate different procedures for ETOPS and non-ETOPS. The pilot is required at the ETOPS entry point to 'ensure the weather at the designated ETOPS enroute alternates are still above landing (not ETOPS dispatch) minima'. 3. What is the airline experience concerning ETOPS dispatch with an IDG, APU or HMG inoperative? <ANSWER> Boeing is not aware of the operating experience or policies of all Boeing transport airplane (ETOPS or non- ETOPS) operators. Some operators report ETOPS statistics to Boeing and other information is reported through the Boeing Field Service organization. Reports are compiled and published for all operators through the ETOPS Statistics web site. In addition, most regulators require their operators to report ETOPS significant events. Failure of an AC power source when dispatched with one AC source inoperative is a significant event. Regulators monitor the event history and if safety related anomalies are discovered, corrective action is taken. Boeing is not aware that the experience of any operators indicates a change in regulations is required. 4. (767) Fuel Pumps. When will a modification be made to the 767 center tank fuel pumps to eliminate the need to carry 1,000 pounds of fuel in the center tank? <ANSWER> Service bulletin 767-28-0062 was approved in late December 2000. This service bulletin allows retrofit of the center wing tank override/jettison pump with the new cast-in diffuser and new two-window shutoff sleeve design. Installation of the cast-in diffusers and new shutoff sleeves are considered terminating action to the Airworthiness Directive which requires the center tank pumps to be shut-off with 1000 lbs. of fuel remaining in the tank. Boeing and Hamilton Sundstrand expect retrofit of the 767 fleet to the new pumps and sleeves to require approximately five years. Installation of the cast-in diffuser and two window sleeves will also result in a restriction against usage of JP-4 and Jet-B fuels in the center tank. Service bulletin 767-28-0063 was also released in December, 2000 to install placards advising of the fuel restriction. BULLETINS 5. TCAS. Are the Boeing recommendations still required with the TCAS software updates 6.1 or 7.0? <ANSWER> The “TCAS Display Anomaly” Ops Manual Bulletin concerns the relative bearing of traffic beyond 40 NM range. This Bulletin is in effect for airplanes with Honeywell TCAS MOPS 7 software installed. Boeing Flight Operations Symposium October 24 – October 26, 2000 Seattle, Washington 757 Caucus Summary Report 2 February 21, 2001 6. With different airplanes leased from different companies, pilots need to fly with a list of bulletins which were performed on a particular airplane. Is there a way to simplify this? <ANSWER> If we receive information about service bulletin incorporation, the manual will be updated to reflect that information. Another way is to get a customized manual, which just covers the airplanes in your fleet. 7. When will you incorporate some of the older AOM bulletins in the manuals? <ANSWER> Bulletins are not incorporated into the manual if there is or will be a pending fix. FLIGHT CREW TRAINING 8. Tailstrike. Is there an updated, new version of the Tailstrike Training video? <ANSWER> There are two tailstrike videos. One was released several years ago, aimed at the 757, but the principals cover all models. This is the video with which most airlines are familiar. This video can be ordered through the current 2000 Data and Services Catalog on page 29. The Data and Services Catalog has replaced the familiar Customer Services and Material Catalog (CSMS catalog). If the new catalog is desired, contact the Data Service Management Office by fax at 206-544-9077 or phone 206-544-5000. More recently, a second tailstrike video was produced by our Long Beach division. The title is Tailstrike (production #5396) and is 25 minutes long. A digital CD copy of this tailstrike video can be acquired by contacting Captain David C. Carbaugh, Chief Pilot Flight Operations Safety. This CD would be free of charge. His email address is <A href="mailto:david.c.carbaugh@boeing.com">david.c.carbaugh@boeing.com</A> and his fax number is 206-655-3524. Tailstrike prevention posters are also available through Bob McArthur's Customer Services office (206-662- 7801). Other resources include a Powerpoint presentation given at the 1999 Flight Operations Symposium and several Airliner and AERO articles. 9. Takeoff rotation rates in the just released Flight Crew Training Manual (FCTM) have been reduced with no bulletin to the operators. Has Boeing evaluated the effect on obstacle clearance? <ANSWER> The 757/767 Flight Crew Training Manual (FCTM), on pages 2.16-2.19, discusses the subject of rotation and liftoff. The diagrams on page 2.19 show the effect of rotation rate on runway distance and screen height. These pages can be found in the takeoff portion of the FCTM and not in the section on tailstrike. The apparent reduction of rotation rates in the Flight Crew Training Manual (FCTM) is not intended to be a reduction, but a clarification. The rates shown in the previous FCTM displayed a range of all-engine pitch rotation rates that encompassed all models. The intent of the change was to be more model specific to reflect the actual average rotation rates flown during the certification flight testing of the Airplane Flight Manual performance. The FAA requires that certification performance testing be flown using the same rotation rates and techniques as will be used in service. Use of the new FCTM (more model specific) rotation rates better reflect the rotation rates used to determine the AFM performance for each model. As a result, there is no effect on obstacle clearance with the FCTM rotation rates. Related information on the subject of tailstrikes can be found in the 1999 Flight Operations Symposium book behind the March 31 presentation tab on page 10.1. This information is a revision to the Boeing AERO #4 magazine, September 1998, “Tailstrike Avoidance” article. Also, there was a question on the topic during the 757/767 breakout session of the symposium. It was question #47 of the packet of questions/answers and is on the subject of pitch control on landing. (see also the Tailstrike question in this document) Boeing Flight Operations Symposium October 24 – October 26, 2000 Seattle, Washington 757 Caucus Summary Report 3 February 21, 2001 10. Reduced Power Takeoffs. Why does Boeing recommend not to reduce power with EEC's inoperative on takeoff (757/767 FCTM, Dec 99, Section 2, Assumed Temperature Method)? <ANSWER> This statement was included in the FCTM in error. The note "Do not use reduced thrust procedures with antiskid or EEC inoperative." will be deleted from the next revision and the correct information will be included in the MMEL and DDG documents if applicable. The reason for this restriction is that when the EEC's are inoperative thrust must be advanced to maximum thrust manually. With the EEC's on the pilot simply advances thrust levers to the stop. With EEC's off, the thrust levers must be carefully advanced to TO/GA thrust if required. Boeing believes this could divert the pilot’s attention during takeoff, a critical phase of flight (i.e.. windshear, engine out at V1, etc.). 11. Engine Out Missed Approach. Does Boeing have any recommendation on go-around operations with one engine out; perform engine failure procedure at the Missed Approach Point? If there is no acceleration height contemplated in the procedure, what do you recommend? <ANSWER> Guidance for one engine inoperative ILS missed approach is found in the 757/767 Flight Crew Training Manual (December 1999) in the section titled "Missed Approach (ILS) - One Engine Inoperative". If no noise abatement or obstacle clearance acceleration height (flap retraction altitude) is specified in the missed approach, the acceleration height is at the discretion of the flight crew but no lower than 400 feet AGL. 12. Autothrottle. Where in the manuals does it state “When you disconnect the autopilot it is recommended to disconnect the autothrottles?” What is the reason / logic behind this concept? <ANSWER> See the 757/767 Flight Crew Training Manual (December 1999, page 2.11) in the section titled "Thrust Management". The primary purpose of having manual thrust control during manual flight is to avoid unanticipated pitch trim changes due to the autothrottle changing thrust setting. 13. Airspeed Bug. If you plan to disconnect the autopilot and autothrottles at 200 feet, what would your salmon airspeed bug be set to during the approach? <ANSWER> The "salmon airspeed bug" should be set to the approach speed as described in the 757/767 Flight Crew Training Manual (December 1999, starting on page 1.19) in the section titled "Command Airspeed Bug, Landing" repeated below. When using autothrottles, position the command airspeed bug to VREF +5 knots. Approach speed corrections for wind are not required. Sufficient gust protection is available with autothrottles engaged. If the autothrottles are disengaged, or are planned to be disengaged prior to landing, the recommended method for approach speed correction is to add one half of the tower reported steady headwind component plus the full gust increment above the steady wind to the reference speed. One half of the reported headwind component can be estimated by using 50% for a direct headwind, 35% for a 45-degree crosswind, zero for a direct crosswind and interpolation in between. The following table shows examples of wind additives with a runway heading of 360 degrees. The total wind additive should not exceed twenty knots. <ANSWER> Tower Report Wind Additive APPROACH SPEED 360 at 16 8 VREF + 8 knots Calm 0 VREF + 5 knots 360 at 16 Gust 24 8 + 8 VREF + 16 knots 060 at 24 6 VREF + 6 knots 090 at 15 0 VREF + 5 knots Boeing Flight Operations Symposium October 24 – October 26, 2000 Seattle, Washington 757 Caucus Summary Report 4 February 21, 2001 090 at 15 Gust 25 0 + 10 VREF + 10 knots <ANSWER> The minimum command airspeed bug setting with autothrottles disconnected is VREF + 5 knots. The gust correction should be maintained to touchdown while the steady headwind correction may be bled off as the airplane approaches touchdown. Note: Do not apply wind corrections for tailwinds. When approach VREF is adjusted by a non-normal checklist, the wind correction must be applied when not using the autothrottles. For example, if the checklist states “use flaps 20 and VREF 30 + 20 for landing”, the command airspeed bug should be positioned to VREF 30 + 20 + wind correction (5 knots minimum, 20 knots maximum). SYSTEM OPERATION 14. FMC. We use the P/N –127 and –945 (Pegasus) Flight Management Computers (FMC) on our 757 fleet. Do these FMC installations reflect the effects of the higher minimum idle thrust associated with the Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin installation? <ANSWER> Due to reports of RB211-535E4 series engine rundown during descent, a modification to the engine fuel flow governor (FFG) was developed to increase the engine idle speed (see related item). Airplane FMC installations which lack a revised performance data table may experience an OVERSPEED condition during VNAV descent. An update to the FMC software has been developed to incorporate the revised minimum idle thrust data for the Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 series engine. The idle thrust revision and several other features were included in the FMC part number PS4052970-956 software upgrade. Production installation of this software upgrade began at airplane line position 748 and the first production airplane was delivered in March, 1997. Retrofit installation, of the –956 software is covered by Service Bulletin 757-34-0156. 15. Left Recirculation Fan and Cabin Altitude. If the crew switches off the left recirculation fan, the overboard exhaust valve will remain open until landing. If this happened at FL350 is it normal for cabin altitude to climb requiring descent of the airplane to FL250. <ANSWER> Given the conditions specified in the question, it would not be normal for the cabin altitude to climb and require a descent to FL250. Under normal conditions, with both A/C Packs operating, when the L-RECIRC Fan is turned OFF, the L-PACK goes to "hi flow", the R-PACK remains in "normal flow", and the overboard exhaust valve opens. The airplane will remain under normal pressure control. The right recirculation fan can be turned off for several minutes to provide a more rapid exchange of air. The left recirculation however, should not be turned off as this causes the overboard exhaust valve to latch open. While maintenance action is normally required to reset this valve, it can be closed in the air by cycling the Alternate Equipment Cooling Switch. A slight increase in fuel consumption occurs for each fan that is off. Note that the MEL restricts dispatch to flight levels at or below FL 350 with the left recirculation fan inoperative (OFF) to observe the requirements of FAR 25.841(a). With both air conditioning packs operating normally and the left recirculation fan OFF, cabin pressure altitude will be maintained at normal levels. 16. Vortex Generators. Boeing has issued a voluntary bulletin on adding vortex generators to the flaps? Are any operators doing this? <ANSWER> Boeing Service Bulletin 757-0058 is available and provides a retrofit method for those 757 airplanes lacking the additional outboard flap vortex generators (757 Airplanes from line position 1 through 911). This Service Bulletin installs 11 additional vortex generators along the leading edge of each outboard main flap. We have no operator-reported history relative to incorporation of this Service Bulletin. 17. Is there any data available to support retrofit of vortex generators to "older" 757s? Have not noticed any significant improvement in roll control during landing with new delivery aircraft (vortex generators installed) and those without. Boeing Flight Operations Symposium October 24 – October 26, 2000 Seattle, Washington 757 Caucus Summary Report 5 February 21, 2001 <ANSWER> Boeing believes that installing these vortex generators will help mitigate one of the factors that could potentially lead to an unwanted roll oscillation in some circumstances and therefore recommends that they be installed. There are four spoilers located forward of the outboard trailing edge flap that are used to increase drag and reduce lift, both in-flight and on the ground. These spoiler panels also supplement roll control in response to control wheel commands. Flight-testing has established that these spoilers can cause the airflow to prematurely separate over the outboard trailing edge flaps. This aerodynamic anomaly occurs only at flaps 30 when the wheel position is at or near 40 degrees of deflection. This aerodynamic anomaly causes the lateral control effectiveness of the wheel at flaps 30 to be non-linear in the region of 40 degrees wheel deflection. This nonlinear relationship between wheel deflection and lateral control power could be a trigger for an unwanted roll oscillation during a demanding landing situation requiring significant lateral control inputs. The installation of vortex generators on the leading edge of the outboard main flap will create vortices that add energy to the local airflow, which prevents this premature separation of the outboard flaps when the spoilers are deflected while in the flaps 30 configuration. UNKNOWN SMOKE AND FIRE 18. Flying across an ocean two or three hours away from an airport for landing. A crew experiences unknown smoke and fire. Downloading to the HMG seems to be a prudent procedure. Will Boeing support this procedure? <ANSWER> Boeing recommends using the published QRH checklists for smoke and fire events and not “downloading to the HMG”. Boeing engineering investigation has found that the FWD and AFT cargo smoke detection system will be disabled if both engine and APU generators are turned off. When selecting generator switches off, including the right generator, the airplane will loose the vacuum source for smoke detection system as the Cargo Smoke Detection System Fans are on the 115V AC Ground Service bus. 19. If we are two or three hours away from an airport for landing, after we experience electrical failure and end up on the HMG, do we have cargo smoke protection? <ANSWER> No. The smoke detector and AFOLTS card operation will still be operational in this situation because the Hot Battery bus powers the smoke detectors and AFOLTS card. Boeing tests however, indicate that no smoke will reach the detectors with the system fans inoperative. 20. Why are the Wheel Well Fire and the Cargo Fire checklists not recall checklists? <ANSWER> During the development of the flight crew procedures on the 757/767, Boeing established criteria to determine the requirement or appropriateness of making specific non-normal procedural steps recall. The criteria are as follows: 1. Whether delay caused by use of a checklist would likely result in an undesirable outcome (i.e. hazard, significant airplane damage, etc.) or 2. Whether, considering other probable demands on the crew, use of the checklist would cause an inappropriate distraction on the flight deck. If either of these criteria were true, we considered recall steps to be appropriate. It is our determination that neither of these criteria is true for a wheel well fire and, as such, this procedure consists only of reference items. The 737 group at Boeing is investigating changing the 737 Wheel Well Fire checklist to a non-recall checklist. OPERATIONS MANUAL 21. We use the Boeing books as a sole source for our pilots. We feel that you have done a good thing with the new AOM, QRH but we still have requests for improvement. What other 757 operators are using the Boeing books? <ANSWER> From the number of books shipped to each customer it appears that 25% use the book as printed. Many customers get digital data and print the book themselves. Boeing Flight Operations Symposium October 24 – October 26, 2000 Seattle, Washington 757 Caucus Summary Report 6 February 21, 2001 22. Why does Boeing mix terminology such as “throttles” versus “thrust levers” and “Spoilers” versus “speedbrakes” in various procedures? <ANSWER> Boeing acknowledges the inconsistency in the above terminology such as "thrust lever" and autothrottle. "Throttle" for instance has historically been associated with regulating the amount of fuel vapor entering an internal-combustion engine and this is not correct for jet engines. However, the 757/767 training programs and Operations Manuals were standardized at the time of certification for the terminology in use. "Spoilers" are individual panels located on the upper wing surface of each wing and are symmetrically paired to increase drag and reduce lift. They also supplement roll control in response to control wheel commands. Use of the term "Speedbrakes" indicates operation of the spoiler panels as a system controlled by the speedbrake lever as labeled on the airplane. Although desirable to be consistent, Boeing does not plan to change the associated airplane placards, EICAS message text, and numerous documents on the existing fleet in order to standardize the above terminology. 23. The concept of the new AOM is very good! You state the EICAS message at the end of each chapter (GREAT). The new systems schematics (electric and hydraulic) are too “lean” - most of our pilots want to know more! There is no “big picture” available (a schematic which shows it all together). How many customers have to ask you before you have a change? <ANSWER> We are constantly reviewing the depth of coverage and will be doing a comprehensive review in 2001 to determine if and where information needs enhanced. QRH 24. The new quick reference handbook is not designed for rough day-to-day operations. Is there something in the planning to address this? <ANSWER> Not at this time. 25. The 757 trailing Edge non-normal procedure requires Vref 30+30 between flaps 5 and 20. The non-normal configuration landing distance table, QRH Performance In-flight section, refers to Vref 30+20 landing distance. Which is correct? <ANSWER> The 757 TE Flap Asymmetry non-normal procedure was revised in 1998 to reflect a speed of Vref 30+30 knots. This change was incorporated to provide a common non-normal procedure for the 757-200 and 757-300 series airplanes. The increase in speed, from +20 to +30 knots, improves the fuselage to runway landing clearance margin during the landing flair. This reduces the potential exposure to a landing tail strike (or tailskid contact) when the airplane is in an abnormal landing flap configuration. The 757 QRH, Performance In-flight section, which shows Non-Normal Configuration Landing Distance information, will be revised to reflect a speed of Vref 30+30. The revised information is expected to be available beginning in March 2001. 26. Some Non-normal checklists contain ending statements “Do not accomplish the following checklist: xxxx”. Why are some related checklists listed and others not? <ANSWER> The 757 does not automatically inhibit “consequential” EICAS messages. To be consistent with the newer checklist formats, it is our intent to use the “Do not accomplish…” statement if the subsequent alert is caused by the checklist or procedure just accomplished. If there could be subsequent unrelated failures, we did not add them to the "Do not accomplish" items. Boeing Flight Operations Symposium October 24 – October 26, 2000 Seattle, Washington 757 Caucus Summary Report 7 February 21, 2001 27. When will you modify the AC Bus Off checklist? This checklist is difficult to work with because it has too many IF statements (you get lost in the checklist) and does not tell which systems are lost / available, e.g., transponder, VHF, etc. Also, put this information back in the AOM electrical chapter! <ANSWER> Boeing may separate the AC BUS OFF checklist into three checklists (L only, R only, and L+R) for simplification. This format may be included in the 757 airplanes later this year along with a significant amount of additional system information. We are studying what information should be added back into the electrical system chapter for later revision. 28. Have you considered listing flowbars instead of IF statements in the NNC? <ANSWER> Boeing has considered several types of checklist formats in the past. We are currently standardizing all models on the 777 QRH format as the least impact on the majority of our customers. QRH PERFORMANCE INFLIGHT (PI) 29. Why isn’t the in-flight performance behind the non-normal checklists? <ANSWER> It was inserted where the previous performance section was located. 30. The QRH, P.I. section contains a lot of dispatch deviation information, which should be in a separate chapter like the 777. Some information is no longer available (Vol 3), e.g., Vmbe tables for one brake inoperative. The tables are too small and numbers hard to read in dark cockpit (experience and feedback from simulator use). We use KG and METERS data and like to see the same units in the P.I. section tables (landing distance, etc). <ANSWER> The content of the QRH Performance-Inflight Chapter is primarily intended for use after departure from the gate. Some adjustments to takeoff weight and speeds are provided for convenience and are intended as simplified corrections to information provided by the dispatch office. Next Generation models (i.e. 777, 737NG, 757-300, 767-400) have added a condensed Performance-Dispatch Chapter in Volume 1 of the Ops Manual as an added convenience in situations where the flight crew must selfdispatch an airplane without information from the dispatch office. This chapter does not include a comprehensive set of performance data and is generally provided for one thrust rating and one takeoff flap setting. Flight Crews that frequently perform self-dispatch should carry a more inclusive performance document called the Flight Planning and Performance Manual (FPPM). The FPPM contains all of the information previously contained in the Volume 3 (including Vmbe, etc) of the old-formatted Ops Manual. Airlines that prefer to have a Performance Dispatch chapter for pre-Next Generation models can purchase one under a special services agreement. Unit conversions to the manual can also be purchased under a special services agreement. 31. We use different engine thrust data and like to see a tab and/or separate page for the other engine on the P.I. Table Of Contents page so it is easier to find. <ANSWER> Additional tabs to the QRH are available under a Plan 2 Revision Service agreement. 32. Table versus graph. On the takeoff speed page, you use a graph to determine the V-speed correction but a table for the 767 PW 4062. We find that confusing for the pilots. Please make it look the same. <ANSWER> The new tabular format is a more accurate method for providing V-speed corrections although it is slightly more complicated as it requires the pilot to add or subtract increments for V1, VR and V2. We have been using the new format for several years now on all new certifications. Corrections to V-speeds will continue to be produced in the tabular format as it provides a higher level of accuracy. In some cases, airlines with mixed fleets will have both tabular and graphical formats in their manuals. If a consistent format is desired, a customized format can be developed under our Plan 2 revision service. Boeing Flight Operations Symposium October 24 – October 26, 2000 Seattle, Washington 757 Caucus Summary Report 8 February 21, 2001 33. You give instructions of what to do with brake cooling in the P.I. chapter like “After takeoff extend gear for eight minutes….” Why is there not a checklist in the NNC chapter? <ANSWER> Some 757/767 airplanes are configured with an “optional” Brake Temperature Monitoring System (BTMS). The BTMS is designed to provide the crew with EICAS Status Page indications of brake temperature and a slightly easier method of determining the recommended brake cooling time. It uses the Brake Cooling chart located in the Performance Inflight section of the QRH, relocated from previous Operations Manual Volume 3. (The BTMS is not intended to be used as a substitute for the brake cooling schedule.) The optional BTMS provides a white status indicator light on the forward panel in the landing gear lever quadrant. This white "BRAKE TEMP" status indicator light is intended to provide the flight crew with an indication that one or more brakes are sensing the upper range of temperature. When the white light illuminates, the EICAS Status Page can be consulted to determine the numeral corresponding to the affected brake(s). Using the Brake Cooling Schedule located in the Performance Inflight section of the QRH, the recommended cooling time can be determined and the corresponding advisory information can be obtained. AFM 34. The RB211-535E4 engine rundown during descent performance data, in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) is still not revised. <ANSWER> In early 1996 Boeing and Rolls-Royce received seven reports of engine rundown during descent. The events occurred during descent in icing conditions or adverse weather, at altitudes between 25, 000 and 30,000 feet. Most of the reported events occurred during selection of approach idle, which is commanded upon selection of engine anti-ice. Review of flight recorder data suggested that the adverse weather conditions caused deterioration in engine handling. Because all of the events occurred in adverse weather it was concluded that inlet icing or engine ingestion of shed ice caused a reduction in the engine stall margin. The FAA issued AD 96- 04-11 to address this condition. This AD required a change to the Limitations Section of the AFM, which would require the crew to activate the engine cowl thermal anti-ice system for both engines prior to idle descents above FL200. To address this condition, Boeing also inserted copies of the AD into the AFM for airplanes delivered after the effective date of the AD. Boeing also issued an Operations Manual Bulletin which directed flight crews to turn on engine anti-ice prior to retarding the thrust lever, at the beginning of descent. FAA AD 96-04-11 required use of this procedure until a fix was identified and effected engines were modified. This AD was subsequently complied with by modification to the RB211-535E4 Fuel Flow Governor (FFG) that increased engine minimum idle speed. The FAA granted an Alternate Method of Compliance for installation of the modified FFG. The increased idle speed due to the new FFG was applicable to in-flight and ground operations. Consequently, the required landing distance at higher elevation airports increased. In some cases, depending upon temperature and altitude, the allowable Maximum Quick Turn Around Weight was reduced. These performance effects were also documented in the February 19, 1996 Operations Manual Bulletin, for use until such time as the AFM could be revised. The revised 757 Airplane Flight Manual pages were incorporated into Section 4.13 and were distributed to all operators beginning in November 1996. OTHER 35. For manuals available on the Web site, how can an airline receive notice of a revision? <ANSWER> When a new revision is posted, the airline will receive a notice by email, fax or telex. Boeing Flight Operations Symposium October 24 – October 26, 2000 Seattle, Washington 757 Caucus Summary Report 9 February 21, 2001 36. Aero Magazine 12, “AOA” article mentioned that “zero” flap Pitch Limit Indicator would be available as a retrofit on 757 older models. When? <ANSWER> The 757-200 stall warning card design has been revised to allow PLI to be displayed with flaps retracted up to Mach 0.5 or Mach 0.6. The PLI will not be displayed at higher Mach numbers because the stall warning schedule has not been revised and significant differences between PLI indication and the margin to onset of mach buffet would occur above these Mach numbers. The new Advanced Stall Warning Computer (ASWC) card design P/N -22 is installed and certified starting line number 947 (NT438) by PRR 54918 for 757-200/300. It is incorporated in the ASWC P/N 285T1104-22 for the following: - For 757-300, available for Mach numbers below 0.6. - For 757-200, available for Mach numbers below 0.5. For retrofit, a Component Service Bulletin to update earlier ASWC P/N to -22 will be available 2/22/01.

robbertmd 发表于 2010-6-1 18:15:53

我回复我回复

页: [1]

航空论坛_航空翻译_民航英语翻译_飞行翻译's Archiver

B757_Symposium_(2000)