airbus a380 wake test

7/26/2019 Airbus A380 Wake Test

1/31

1

Presented by

Claude LELAIE

Experimental test pilot

Senior Vice President Product Safety

A380 wake encounters flight tests28th June 2010


2/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.

Confidentialandproprietarydocu

ment.

2

Airbus follow-on methodology : actual wake encounter flight-testing

Encounter test consists of physically flying an aircraft through the wake of

another to measure specific parameters, thus determining the actualseparation to apply.

The follower aircraft flies encounters alternatively behind A380 and a

suitable reference aircraft, with both wake generators flying side by side.

Encounter test principle (1)

Generator

Follower


3/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


ment.

3

Many parameters recorded with focus on the following flight

parameters:

Encounter test principle (2)

Altitude loss

Vertical acceleration

Roll rate

Roll acceleration

Flight mechanic equations show that the roll acceleration isrepresentative of the effect of the encounter on the aircraft.


4/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


ment.

4

Defining encounter technique: how to visualize the wake

In cruise, wake can be visualized within

the contrail.

At lower altitude, visualization requiressmoke generation.

Two solutions envisaged

Generator pods under both wings(tested on A340-300)

Acceptable smoke but limited smoke time

Ranges from 4 to 7 nm

Oil spray system (used on A340-600 andA380, preferred solution)

Excellent smoke visualization

Sufficient production time

Ranges from 4 to 8 nm (representative

distance for 75t Medium follower)

A343 with generator pods

A380 with oil spray system

Cruise test w ith cont rails


5/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


ment.

5

Cruise test techniques (1)

Numerous preparation flights were necessary to tune the flight testtechniques.

First question: normal law or direct law?

Initial tests showed no difference as the motions on all axis were ratherabrupt. Therefore normal law was used.

The question came whether an encounter in normal law with the A318could be compared to the same situation with a B737. The answer is yes

due to the fact that in the worst cases, the roll rate is well above what iscommanded by the A318 flight controls computers.

Few tests with autopilot.

Stick free or not?

No obvious answer to qualify the strength of the vortex. An equalnumber of each have been performed.

For stick free tests, stick was released just prior entering the wake andtaken back when roll motion decreased.

For piloted tests, the pilot tried to minimize the effect of the encounter. Itis NOT a realistic technique for Airline Pilots, but it is a mean to compare2 aircraft.


6/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


ment.

6

Cruise test techniques (2)

Observation of the rate of descent of vortex of both aircraft was an

important issue due to RVSM.

Tests were performed from 5 NM, standard separation for the B747

up to 15 NM, distance approved for the A380 at the time of the tests.

All results were confirmed by Lidar observations.


7/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


ment.

7

Flight test procedure

Comparison flight tests in cruise

Figure referenced to wake generating aircraft


8/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


ment.

8

Cruise: Overview of flight tests performed

Flight tests to develop the flight test techniques:

C1: 11 JAN 2006: A380, A318 for wake encounters

C2: 23 FEB 2006: A380 and A346 side-by-side,A318 for wake encounters

C3: 07 MAR 2006: A380 and A346 side-by-side,

DLR Lidar on-board Falcon,

A346 encounters in trail of A380C4: 09 MAR 2007: A346, DLR Lidar on-board Falcon

Comparison evaluation f light tests:

C5: 23 JUN 2006: A380 and A346, A318 for encounters,

simultaneously DLR Lidar

on-board Falcon

C6: 25 JUN 2006: A380 and B744, A318 for encounters,

simultaneously DLR Lidar

on-board Falcon

Follower aircraft

Generator aircraft


9/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.

Confidentialandproprietarydocument.

9

Example:

A318 11.4 NM behind A380

(FT C5)

Example results (cruise)

Video recording

A318msn1599fl783leg3vtp_082700b.mpg

Video
http://../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/4PHEEK6H/A318msn1599fl783leg3vtp_082700b.mpghttp://../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/4PHEEK6H/A318msn1599fl783leg3vtp_082700b.mpg


10/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


10

Example results (cruise)

A318 stick-free encounters

Example FT C6 (A318 behind A380 side-by-side with B744)

Vertical load factor

Altitude deviation

Roll acceleration

Roll rate

B747-400

A380


11/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


11

Cruise test results

Rate of descent of vortex of both aircraft is identical. It reach 1000 ft

at a distance between 12 and 15 NM.

In some cases, rough encounters were obtained.

For some parameters, the decrease with distance is rather slow.

Looking at all the parameters, it was found that the A380 and the

B747 are similar.The pilots impression was that no difference could be felt.

All that was confirmed by the results of the on-board Lidar of the

Falcon 20.

In cruise, same separation for the A380 than for the

other Heavies has been approved.


12/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


12

Cruise: applicable separations for all aircraft

Any aircraft

following a

Heavy

747: 5 nm

1,000 ft

1,000 ft

Separation apply to all categories aircraft

ICAO Stateletter Nov 05

A380: 15 nm

+ 10 nm 1,000 ft with precautions

1,000 ft with precautions

ICAO State

letter Oct 061,000 ft

1,000 ft

A380: 5 nm

A h li bl i f H i f


13/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


13

Approach: applicable separations for Heavy aircraft,

based on Lidar tests

Heavy following a

Heavy 747: 4 nm

ICAO State letter

Nov 05A380: 10 nm

+ 6 nm

ICAO State letter

Oct 06A380: 6 nm

+ 2 nm

Potential reduction pending current Work Groupanalysis of the Airbus wake encounter flight test data

ICAO State Letter

July 08A380: 6 nm

+ 2 nm

Future

A h li bl ti f M di i ft


14/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


14

Approach: applicable separations for Medium aircraft,

based on Lidar tests

Medium following

a Heavy 747: 5 nm

ICAO State letter

Nov 05A380: 10 nm

+ 5 nm

ICAO State letter

Oct 06A380: 8 nm

+ 3 nm

A380: 7 nmICAO State letter

July 08

+ 2 nm

Potential reduction pending current Work Groupanalysis of the Airbus wake encounter flight test data

Future


15/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


15

A380 Wake Encounter Safety Assessment

When analyzed with a Lidar, wake encounter hazard can be described

by the measured circulation 5-15.

It is an accepted methodology, but it still rely on a model.The measurement area does not include the important core part of the

vortex.

Li it ti h i Lid d t f ti


16/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


16

Limitations when using Lidar data for separation

standards

Vortex circulation obtained with Lidar was used to provide an

indication of the severity of a wake encounter.

But, what are the effects of the vortices considering:

Wake velocity profileAircraft weight

Roll inertia, wingspan of the follower?

=> This can only be determined by actual encounter

testing


17/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


17

Overview of encounter tests during approach

Flight tests to develop the flight test techniques:

L1: 20 NOV 2006: A320 behind A343

L2: 20 DEC 2006: A320 behind A343L3: 21 DEC 2006: A380 behind A343

L4: 18 APR 2007: A320 behind A380

L5: 6 JUN 2007: A300B2 behind A380

L6: 8 JUN 2007: A300B2 behind A380

L7: 11 JUN 2007: A320 behind A346

L8: 13 JUN 2007: A380 behind A380

Comparison evaluation flight tests:

L9: 18 JUL 2007: A320 behind A380 side-to-side with A346

L10: 16 OCT 2007: A300B2 behind A380 side-to-side with A346

L11: 12 DEC 2007: A320 behind A380 side-to-side with A346

Followeraircraft

Generatoraircraft


18/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.

Confidentialandproprietarydoc

ument.

18

Flight test procedure

Comparison flight tests

Figure referenced to wake generating aircraft


19/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrights

reserved.


ument.

19

Approach: encounter flight test techniques (1)

Altitude: between 5000 and 12 000 ft (for safety reasons)

Numerous parameters to be consideredWhich flight control law?

It appeared that the encounters were so smooth that the normal law

was hiding most of the attitude variations.

Deviations in pitch (altitude and acceleration) are rather small and are

not a basis for comparison.

Roll direct provides a good assessment of the strength of the vortex

(roll acceleration).

For the A320 the final choice has been alternate law with yaw damper

(normal law in pitch, roll direct plus yaw damper).

Few encounters in normal law and with autopilot.


20/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrightsreserved.


ument.

20


Which flying technique?

As for cruise, tests have been performed partly stick free, partly piloted.

Best angle to enter in the wake

Computation and models have shown that the worst case is a 10

convergence. It is what has been targeted in average.

If lower, it might be impossible to penetrate the wake.If higher, the upset is too short.

Descent or level flight?

Level flight has been preferred, as it avoid changing the atmospheric

conditions with altitude.

Some tests performed on a 3 descent slope, but no difference identified.


21/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrightsreserved.


ument.

21


Which follower aircraft?

For the Heavy category, the choice was to get the smallest possible twin (less

inertia in roll) in this category. We choose theA300B2, around 130 t MTOW.

For the Medium, we took a fully instrumentedA320. It is not the worst

aircraft in this category because it is not the smallest, but it must be

considered that the purpose was only to make back to back tests and not to

have an absolute judgement on safety.

Data acquisition:

Time histories of all flight mechanical parameters.

Videos.Pilots assessments.

E t t t lt


22/31AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrightsreserved.


ument.

22

Stick-free encounters:

A300B2 4.3 NM behind A380 (#67)

A320 4.6 NM behind A380 (#49)

Encounter test results

Video recordings and Vimosac3Danimations

67.mp2

A320_SBS2_Enc49_sf_380.avi

Video

sf_380_300_V1238_no67_track.avi

A320_SBS2_ap_sf_49_vimo_2.avi

Vimosac3D
http://../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/4PHEEK6H/67.mp2http://../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/4PHEEK6H/A320_SBS2_Enc49_sf_380.avihttp://../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/4PHEEK6H/sf_380_300_V1238_no67_track.avihttp://../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/4PHEEK6H/A320_SBS2_ap_sf_49_vimo_2.avihttp://../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/4PHEEK6H/A320_SBS2_ap_sf_49_vimo_2.avihttp://../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/4PHEEK6H/sf_380_300_V1238_no67_track.avihttp://../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/4PHEEK6H/A320_SBS2_Enc49_sf_380.avihttp://../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/4PHEEK6H/67.mp2


23/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrightsreserved.


ument.

23

Comments on the videos

The videos are coming from tests behind A340-600 or A380,

and it is not possible to make the differences between those

aircraft.

As the A320 is flown in roll direct, in order to facilitate themeasurements, the roll motion is amplified. When in normal

law, flight by wire is fully active and the roll angle becomes

very small.

E t t t lt


24/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrightsreserved.


ument.

24


A300B2 stick-free encounters

Example FT L10 (A300B2 behind A380 side-by-side with A346)

Vertical load factor

Altitude deviation

Roll acceleration

Roll rate

A340-600

A380

E t t t lt


25/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrightsreserved.


ument.

25


A320 stick-free encounters

Example FTs L9 and L11 (A320 behind A380 side-by-side with A346)

Altitude deviation

Roll accelerationVertical load factor

Roll rate

A340-600

A380


26/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrightsreserved.


ument.

26

Approach: A380 as follower

The large roll inertia and roll control capability of the A380implies a very low sensitivity to wake induced effects.

This has been demonstrated by Airbus flight tests, with theA380 performing encounters in the wake of another A380 at

a distance in trail below 1 nm whilst being fully controllable.

The Working Group and Steering Group have

recommended to apply Minimum Radar Separations toA380 as follower (ICAO State Letter from July 2008 forapproach and take-off).


27/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrightsreserved.


ument.

27

Conclusions for approach

The Working Group is presently assessing all these results with various

methodologies, including a new one proposed by Airbus. It is the DWIM:

Direct Wake Impact Methodology.

Some more flight tests are planned by the end of the year with Authoritieson board. The analysis on these flights and the preparation of a Safety

Assessment Report will probably not allow to conclude before Autumn 2011.

For the time being, all separations are based on Lidar validations.

Comparison: circulation (Lidar) / roll accelerations


28/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allrightsreserved.


ument.

28

Comparison: circulation (Lidar) / roll accelerations

(encounters) in approach

LIDAR is NOT the right tool to measure the effect of a

wake vortex on a follower aircraft

Lidar measured circulation of A380

wake is stronger

The rol l acceleration which represents the effect on the

fol lower aircraft is identical behind A380 and A340-600

A340-600

A380


29/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allright

sreserved.


ument.

29

Lidar / encounters: conservative or not ?

If we use Lidar to compute the A380 separation in comparison with the

B747, it is obviously conservative versus encounters and therefore safe.

If we imagine that the A380 is the old aircraft and the B747 the new

one, using the Lidar data would lead to a decrease of B747 separationcompared to A380. Therefore, we could have stronger encounters

behind a B747 than behind the A380.

Lidar is not conservative. In some cases it could lead

to a reduction of safety margins.


30/31

AIRBUSS.A.S.

Allright

sreserved.


30

RECAT Consequences for the A380

RECAT is necessary to optimize the traffic flow and safety.

If RECAT is using Lidar and models to validate separations, there is astrong disadvantage for the A380 as shown on the Lidar curves.

However, we have demonstrated, thanks to the encounters, that the

Lidar is NOT the right tool for the assessment of the consequences of an

encounter.

Based on the results of our tests, the A380 and the B747 has to be put in

the same category.


31/31

BUSS.A.S.

Allrightsreserved.


Conclusions

More than 300 flight hours have been performed to study the effect of

wake wortex.

More than 1000 encounters have been done, in cruise and in approach.

This experience is unique.

It has allowed to show that A380 and B747 vortex have the same effect onfollower aircraft in cruise and in approach.

All these tests have also demonstrated that the circulation obtained by

Lidar measurements is not always the optimum tool to qualify the effect ofa vortex. Validation of separations must also take into account results of

encounter campaigns.

airbus a380 wake test

Documents